History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.60

v7.c93.60

A brief examination of the citation of the views of Bādarāyana and Jaimini in the PMS and the Brahmasūtra¹⁹⁰⁴ is necessary. Bādarāyana is named only five times by the P. M. sūtra as said above. (1) In P. M. S. I. 1. 5 the author claims that he and Bādarāyana are agreed on the eternity and infallibility of the Veda; (2) In P. M. S. V. 2. 17-20, there is a discussion on Naksatresti. In the model sacrifice there are certain homas called Nāristha; the question is whether in the modifications of the model wherein certain subordinate homas colled upahomas are prescribed, the Nāristha homas precede or follow the Upahomas. The *siddhānta* view is that Nāristhahomas precede, Ātreya being of the opposite view and Bādarāyana supporting the *siddhānta*. (3) In P. M. S. VI. 1. 8 Bādarāyana's view is that not men alone but women also are entitled to take part in *kratus* (Vedic sacrifices) and this is the *siddhānta* of the P. M. S.; (4) P. M. S. X. 8. 35-46 make an extensive *adhikarana* in which the question is whether the texts prescribing Āgneya and Aindrāgna purodāśas in Darśapūrnamāsa for a sacrificer who has not performed soma sacrifice constitute a *vidhi* (of the two) or only an *anuvāda*, Bādarāyana's view in PMS. X. 8. 44 being that its is a *vidhi* and the *siddhānta* being that there is an anuvāda (X. 8. 45). (5) PMS XI. 1. 54-67 constitute a lengthy *adhikarana* and the discussion concerns the question whether āghāra and other angas are to be repeated with each of the principal matters (Āgneya and others) in Darśapūrnamāsa or are to be performed only once.