History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.34.3

v7.c93.34.3

4 appears to be Pūrvapakṣa, while in the four other cases Jaimini's view is the siddhānta view of the Mīmāṁsā-sūtra. The number of sūtras in which Jaimini is named is very small (only 5), out of which the word ācārya is applied to Jaimini by Śabara in four places and not so applied in one. This is a very slender and inadequate ground for holding that the Jaimini in P. M. S. VI. 3. 4 is different from the Jaimini named in four other places. The usages of ācāryas as to employment of qualifying words like 'ācārya' or 'bhagavat' to authors mentioned by them differ. Kumārila applies no epithet like 'ācārya' or 'bhagavān' to Jamini and in one place¹⁸⁸⁹ charges Jaimini with composing sūtras containing not much substance. In the sūtras in which Jaimini is named in the VS (viz. in I. 2. 28, I. 2. 31, I. 3. 31, I. 4 18, III. 2. 40, III. 4. 2, III. 4 18, III. 4. 40, IV. 3 12, IV. 4. 5, IV. 4. 11) Śaṅkarācārya adds the qualification 'ācārya' in all except on III. 4. 40, although Jaimini propounds many propositions not acceptable to Bādarāyaṇa the author of V. S. or to Śaṅkara. In III. 4. 40, however,¹⁸⁹⁰ he omits the qualification 'ācārya' as regards both Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa. No one has argued that because the word ācārya does not qualify Bādarāyaṇa in III. 4. 40, the Bādarāyaṇa in that sūtra is different from the Bādarāyaṇa named in other sūtras. In another place (on V. S IV.