History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.34.4

v7.c93.34.4

1 17) it may be noted Śaṅkarācārya remarks that both Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa are in agreement that certain acts of the *kāmya* type are of no help in attaining real knowledge of brahma. This shows that according to Śaṅkara, Jaimini had treated of how brahma-vidyā arises. As regards the second reason, it does not clearly or indisputably appear that VI. 3. 4 is a pūrvapakṣa view. In that *adhikaraṇa* the Pūrvapakṣa is stated in the first sūtra¹⁸⁹¹ viz. as to such *nitya* rites as Agnihotra or Darśapūrṇamāsa a man who can carry out all the details in their entirety is alone entitled to engage in them. The 2nd sūtra states the *siddhānta* view that, as regards *nitya* acts, it is not absolutely necessary that one should be able to perform all details (aṅgas) therein; the third sūtra only states that smṛti declares that it is a fault if the principal rite is not performed and therefore the principal rite being obligatory must be performed. Then comes the 4th sūtra in which the name of Jaimini occurs. Śabara's bhāṣya on this sutra is extremely meagre (2½ lines in print) and not clear. The Tup-tīkā does not comment separately on each of the sūtras of VI. 3. 1–7,¹⁸⁹² it omits the name of Jaimini in its explanation and its concluding words on this adhikaraṇa appear to support the interpretation of the 4th sūtra advanced by the present author. No one doubts that sūtras 5–7 support the siddhānta view. If VI. 3.