[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Polity, law and society](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity) › [History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India)](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930) › v7.c93.629 # History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.629 History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.629 - **Language:** English ### [v7.c93.629](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v7.c93.629) The Mīmāṁsā rules have been of considerable help to Dharmaśāstra writers. But it should not be supposed that application of the Mīmāṁsā rules is easy or that the rules always enable scholars to arrive at agreed or certain and definite conclusions. Apart from the schism between the Prābhākara and Bhāṭṭa schools already referred to above (on p. 1189) there are many circumstances which militate against the certainty and usefulness of mīmāṁsā conclusions. There are variant readings in the sūtras themselves (e. g. on I. 2. 9 there are three readings according to Tantravārtika p. 123, on I. 2. 14 two readings acc. to Tantrav pp. 128-129). Śabara omitted the sutra II. 4. 17 (vākyāsamavāyāt) and the Tantravārtika notes (pp. 895-897) that Śabara omits six sūtras after III. 4. 9. Śabara frequently mentions a predecessor called Vṛttikāra with great respect but differs from him in some cases (e. g. on I. 1. 3-5), does not like his way of dealing with sūtras like II. 1. 32, 33 and VIII. 1. 2. Śabara gives alternative explanations of the same sūtra (e. g. of I. 3. 4, VII. 4. 13, VIII. 1. 39). Sometimes he treats two or more sūtras as forming one \*adhikaraṇa\* and alternatively treats one of them as forming a separate adhikaraṇa (as in I. 3. 3-4, II. 2. 23-24). He proposes more than two explanations of the same sūtra viz. IV. 1. 2. He puts forward two or more explanations of the same \*adhikaraṇa\* (as in IV. 3. 27-28, VIII. 3. 14-15 of two sūtras out of four), IX. 1. 1, IX. 1. 2–3, IX. 1. 34–35, IX. 2. 1–2, IX. 2. 21–24, IX. 2. 25–28 four explanations, X. 2. 30–31 three explanations, X. 1. 1–2 three explanations, X. 4. 1–2 three explanations. On ‘Viśaye prāyadarśanāt’ II. 3. 16 Śabara himself is at a loss as to what the doubt intended by the sūtrakāra is or what the sūtrakāra wants to establish and relies upon what the vṛttikāra says about the passage to be discussed and about the doubt that arises. Besides, Śabara and Kumārila differ about the subject matters of certain \*adhikaraṇas\* as in 1. 3. 3–4 (where Kumārila gives on pp. 194–195 a different interpretation altogether after first accepting Śabara’s view), I. 3. 5–7, I. 3. 8–9, I. 3. 11–14. Kumārila shows scant respect for Jaimini by naming him without the honorific title ‘bhagavān’ or ‘ācārya’ on pp 495, 650, 655, 895, charges Jaimini with composing sūtras not containing much substance (p. 895) and remarks that Jaimini’s sūtra is improper or wrong (e. g. vide p. 1241 about IV. 2. 27). - [Previous: v7.c93.628](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v7.c93.628) - [Next: v7.c93.630](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v7.c93.630) - [Up: v7.c93](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v7.c93) ## Linked texts (1) - [Mīmāṃsāsūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.mimamsa.mimamsasutra.1.1.3) — Jaimini, Sanskrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v7.c93.629](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v7.c93.629) · Pramāṇa