Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Purva-Mimamsa in its Sources c40: Appendix: Critical Bibliography

Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā in its Sources c40

Language
English

Contents

Appendix: Critical Bibliography

c40.2

the *Gesta Romanorum*, the *Legenda Aurea* of Jacobus de Voragine, and the *Speculum Historiale* of Vincent of Beauvais. These were the books that fed the imagination of the Middle Ages, and they were the books that the Church, in its wisdom, provided for the instruction and edification of the faithful.

c40.3

But the Church did not merely provide books; it also provided the means of their dissemination. The monastic scriptoria, where monks labored in silence to copy the sacred texts, were the precursors of the printing press. And when the press finally arrived, it was the Church that first harnessed its power, using it to spread the word of God to the corners of the earth. The Gutenberg Bible, the first major book printed in Europe, was a testament to the Church's commitment to the written word.

c40.4

Yet, even as the Church championed the spread of knowledge, it also sought to control it. The *Index Librorum Prohibitorum*, or List of Prohibited Books, was a tool used by the Church to suppress ideas it deemed dangerous or heretical. This tension between the desire to educate and the need to control would define the Church's relationship with literature for centuries to come.

c40.5

It is a complex history, one that is marked by both enlightenment and suppression. But it is a history that cannot be ignored, for it is the history of the very foundation of Western civilization. The Church, in its role as the guardian of knowledge, has shaped the way we think, the way we write, and the way we understand the world around us.

Preamble

c40.s1.1

As directed by the author of the *Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā in its Sources*—the Reverend Mahāmahopādhyāya Dr. Sir Gaṅgānātha Jhā, when I handed over the Index of his book to Professor R. D. Ranade of the Allahabad University, I was asked by the latter to write a short critical bibliography on Mīmāṃsā containing texts published and unpublished and explanations and criticisms as well as articles in Reviews and Journals which have hitherto appeared on Mīmāṃsā, as an Appendix to this work. Prof. Ranade wrote to Dr. Jhā who gladly expressed his agreement and wrote to me, "If you and Prof. Ranade agree on any point, you need not ask me about it. It is a stupendous task that Prof. Ranade has set you. I hope you will make it as complete as you can." This was no longer a mere request of a colleague but an *Ājñā* of the Great Master, and I began the work in right earnest. The notes were finished in due course and, when Dr. Jhā returned to Allahabad in serious ill-health, I had the good luck of discussing with him some of the more important points of my notes. After this I began to fair out my notes hoping to finish the work and present it to him while he was alive. But unfortunately, before I could complete my work, he left us. However, his immortal *Ātman* which is ever with us, will now see that his *Ājñā* has been obeyed; but to what extent, it is for others to judge. It was not possible to make the work as exhaustive as I wanted it to be, but as far as I think no important author has escaped my notice.

c40.s1.2

As this is the last work which I had the fortune to do at his instance, and which he did not live to see, I dedicate this humble offering—an *Añjali* of respectful love—to the divine memory of the Great Master.

c40.s1.3

THE UNIVERSITY, ALLAHABAD, *December 3, 1941.*

c40.s1.4

} UMESHA MISHRA

c40.s1.5

the *Gesta Romanorum*, the *Legenda Aurea* of Jacobus de Voragine, and the *Speculum Historiale* of Vincent of Beauvais. These were the books that fed the imagination of the Middle Ages, and they were the books that the Church, in its wisdom, provided for the instruction and edification of the faithful.

c40.s1.6

But the Church did not merely provide books; it also provided the means of their dissemination. The monastic scriptoria, where monks labored in silence to copy the sacred texts, were the precursors of the printing press. And when the press finally arrived, it was the Church that first harnessed its power, using it to spread the word of God to the corners of the earth. The Gutenberg Bible, the first major book printed in Europe, was a testament to the Church's commitment to the written word.

c40.s1.7

Yet, even as the Church championed the spread of knowledge, it also sought to control it. The *Index Librorum Prohibitorum*, or List of Prohibited Books, was a tool used by the Church to suppress ideas it deemed dangerous or heretical. This tension between the desire to educate and the need to control would define the Church's relationship with literature for centuries to come.

c40.s1.8

It is a complex history, one that is marked by both enlightenment and suppression. But it is a history that cannot be ignored, for it is the history of the very foundation of Western civilization. The Church, in its role as the guardian of knowledge, has shaped the way we think, the way we write, and the way we understand the world around us.

कुसुमाञ्जलिः

c40.s2.1

शाके त्र्यङ्कसमुद्रचन्द्रलसिते (१७९३) मासे नभस्येऽधिके पक्षे शौक्ल्ययुते जगद्धितकरे पूर्णेन्दुसंज्ञे तिथौ । गायत्रीसमुपासनेन सकलं देशं समुद्दीयपयन् गङ्गानाथसुतं वरं समजनिच्छ्रीतीर्थनाथो द्विजः ॥१॥

c40.s2.2

लब्ध्वा जन्म सुगन्धवारिनगरे देशे विदेहप्रभो- र्गङ्गानाथमहाशयः सुकृतिनां सच्छ्रोत्रियाणां कुले । काशीं प्राप्य दिगन्तविश्रुतगुरोरभ्यस्य शास्त्राणि यः पाण्डित्येन मनोहरेण बहुलामादाय कीर्त्तिं पराम् ॥२॥

c40.s2.3

शाके वह्निरसाष्टभूमिसहिते (१८६३) मार्गे दले श्या मले षष्ठ्यां सूर्यदिने निशीथसमये पद्मासने संस्थितः । लीलां तीर्थपतौ प्रयागनगरे संहृत्य तां लौकिकीं यातोऽस्मान् स्वजनान् विहाय रुदतो देवान् पुनः सेवितुम् ॥३॥

c40.s2.4

पुत्रास्तस्य विपश्चितो विलयने शोकं परं प्राप्नुवन् प्राप्ता दीनतमां दशां परिजनश्छात्रास्तथा पण्डिताः । विद्या सा गतभर्तृकेव विकला याता शुचा सर्वतो हंहो तीर्थपते ध्रुवं कथय नस्त्वं कामवस्थां गतः ॥४॥

c40.s2.5

आसीद्यो नववर्मलालसगुणां पाश्चात्यशिक्षावतां पूर्वेषामपि सत्क्रियादिकरणे विद्यावतां सर्वथा । आदर्शो नु पुनः सदैव शरणं प्राचीनसत्पद्धतेः प्रज्ञानामुपकारकश्च सततं योऽभूदनौपम्यभाक् ॥५॥

c40.s2.6

शास्त्रे यः प्रतियातना सुरगुरोरासीच्च नीतौ पुनः लौकिक्यां विदुरोपमः सहृदयश्छात्रे सगोत्रे तथा । मीमांसातरुसञ्चितैः सुकुसुमैः सम्यक् कृतां श्रद्धयो- मेशः श्रीगुरवे समर्पयति सन्मालामुमाम् इमाम् ॥६॥ the *Gesta Romanorum*, the *Legenda Aurea* of Jacobus de Voragine, and the *Speculum Historiale* of Vincent of Beauvais. These were the books that fed the imagination of the Middle Ages, and they were the books that the Church, in its wisdom, provided for the instruction and edification of the faithful.

c40.s2.7

But the Church did not merely provide books; it also provided the means of their dissemination. The monastic scriptoria, where monks labored in silence to copy the sacred texts, were the precursors of the printing press. And when the press finally arrived, it was the Church that first harnessed its power, using it to spread the word of God to the corners of the earth. The Gutenberg Bible, the first major book printed in Europe, was a testament to the Church's commitment to the written word.

c40.s2.8

Yet, even as the Church championed the spread of knowledge, it also sought to control it. The *Index Librorum Prohibitorum*, or List of Prohibited Books, was a tool used by the Church to suppress ideas it deemed dangerous or heretical. This tension between the desire to educate and the need to control would define the Church's relationship with literature for centuries to come.

c40.s2.9

It is a complex history, one that is marked by both enlightenment and suppression. But it is a history that cannot be ignored, for it is the history of the very foundation of Western civilization. The Church, in its role as the guardian of knowledge, has shaped the way we think, the way we write, and the way we understand the world around us.

Critical Bibliography of Mīmāṁsā

c40.s3.1

It is necessary to say in the very beginning that there exists a very close relation between Pūrva-Mīmāṁsā and Dharmaśāstra. In fact, the Principles of Mīmāṁsā form the very background of our Dharmaśāstra. All the rules of our Dharmaśāstra have to be interpreted with the help of the *Mīmāṁsā-Nyāyas*. So a Dharmaśāstri has necessarily to become a Mīmāṁsaka first. Thus, almost all the writers on Dharmaśāstra, from Manu down to any author of the present day, have been good Mīmāṁsakas also. In this bibliography, however, I have confined myself to those authors mainly whose work has come to my notice in any form. But that there were many more Mīmāṁsakas is quite evident from our studies of the Śāstras.

Pre-Jaimini

c40.s3.t1.1

The earliest available work in the systematised form of the Pūrva-Mīmāṁsā School is the *Sūtra*-work of Jaimini. But that there were several other teachers who taught the Pūrva-Mīmāṁsā Principles before Jaimini is quite evident from the various references made to them and to their views by Jaimini himself in his *Sūtra*-work. A short account of all such references is given below.

Bādarāyaṇa

c40.s3.t2.1

Under Pūrva-Mīmāṁsā-Sūtra, I. i. 5, Jaimini says that according to Bādarāyaṇa “the relation of the word with its denotation is eternal; instruction (in the form of word) is the means of knowing Dharma; (words are) infallible regarding all that is imperceptible; it is a valid means of knowledge, as it is independent.”

c40.s3.t2.2

Again, under V. ii. 19, Jaimini says that according to Bādarāyaṇa “the Ectypal details should come at the end; because, those that come from the Archetype are such as are included in what is expressed by the words laying down the Principal sacrifice.”

c40.s3.t2.3

Again, under VI. i. 8, in answer to the *prima facie* view that men alone are entitled to perform the sacrifice, Jaimini quotes the view of Bādarāyaṇa, which is the *Siddhānta*, that “in reality, it is the whole class (*jāti*), that is, both men and women, that is entitled to perform the sacrifice; because there is no ground for distinction.”

c40.s3.t2.4

Under X. viii. 44, in refutation to the *prima facie* view, Jaimini again quotes Bādarāyaṇa who holds that “the offering of the curd-butter-mixture comes before the Soma sacrifice also.”

c40.s3.t2.5

Again under XI. i. 64, in answer to the *prima facie* view, Jaimini quotes Ācārya Bādarāyaṇa according to whom “there should be a single performance in common of the subsidiaries; because, there is no separation of context. There is one and the same context for all the main sacrifices, as they function jointly.”

c40.s3.t2.6

It is clear from the above that in support of purely Mīmāṃsā topics Jaimini quotes Bādarāyaṇa with great reverence and is in agreement with his views. The name of Bādarāyaṇa is more known to us as the author of the Brahmasūtra. But we cannot, on the basis of the evidence of the views quoted above, have the least doubt that Bādarāyaṇa, quoted in the Jaiminīya-Sūtras, is a Mīmāṃsaka.

c40.s3.t2.7

Now, regarding the identification of these two Bādarāyaṇas, it is very difficult to say anything for or against definitely. Neither any external nor any internal evidence is available. But it may be suggested that as the two systems of Mīmāṃsā and Vedānta, generally known as *Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā* and *Uttara-Mīmāṃsā*, are not quite distinct from each other, rather they represent separately the two aspects of one and the same Goal and which is also supported by the terms, *Pūrva* (preliminary) and *Uttara* (final), used for the Mīmāṃsā proper and the Vedānta respectively, the teacher of the Uttara school also may have been the teacher of the *Pūrva*. In fact, the study of the Uttara school necessitates the study of the *Pūrva*. It is, therefore, that the great Mīmāṃsā teacher Kumārila deliberately has asked the enquirer after the nature of Self to refer to the Vedānta. So it seems quite possible that Bādarāyaṇa must have had his own contributions to the school of Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā also. Hence, it may be said that the two Bādarāyaṇas were identical. There are some critics who are opposed to this identity, but they appear to overlook the fact that one and the same person can hold views on two different schools of thought. Bādarāyaṇa could equally have had authoritative views on Mīmāṃsā as well as Vedānta. We know that there were several authors, Vācaspati Mishra I, etc., for instance, who were equally authoritative as Naiyāyikas, Mīmāṃsakas, Vedāntins, and so on.

c40.s3.t2.8

References : i) Indian Antiquary, Vol. L, pp. 167—174; ii) Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, 1937; iii) Introduction to Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā, Pashupatinatha Shastri, pp. 25—42.

Bādari

c40.s3.t3.1

Bādari is another important teacher whom Jaimini refers to in his Sūtra-work. Under III. i. 3, according to Jaimini, Bādari is of opinion that the auxiliary character (śeṣalakṣaṇam) belongs to substances, properties and preparations. This view, however, is not accepted by Jaimini.

c40.s3.t3.2

Again, under VI. i. 27, Bādari, as a supporter of the prima facie view, says "that the text quoted in support of the statement, that the Śūdra is not entitled to the performance of sacrifices, is only a contingent one; hence, all the castes should be entitled to perform the sacrifices." This view also is not the accepted Siddhānta.

c40.s3.t3.3

Again, in connection with the ṣaṭtriṃśadrātra—sacrifice, regarding the question—are the details to be adopted at it to be those of the Ahan offerings comprising the Dvādaśāha or those of the ṣaḍaha? Bādari, under VIII. iii. 6, says—even though there is repetition of the time, yet inasmuch as the actions are diverse, the details adopted should be those of the Dvādaśāha. This view has also not been accepted by the Siddhāntin.

c40.s3.t3.4

Next, in the case of such injunctions as—one sings the Rathantara Sāman over the Uttarā verses, the question is raised whether the singing is to be done in accordance with the syllables of the Uttarā verses or with those of the basic verse—Bādari, under IX. ii. 33, is in agreement with the Siddhānta that the singing should be done in accordance with the syllables of the Uttarā verses and not in accordance with the part of the basic verse.

c40.s3.t3.5

Again, Bādari believed that the auxiliary character (śeṣatā) belongs to substance (dravya), quality (guṇa) and disposition (saṃskāra) only and to no other category (vide Bhāvanāviveka, Pt. I, p 41, Saraswatibhavana Text Series edition.)

c40.s3.t3.6

In the Brahmasūtras (I. ii. 30; III i. 11; IV. iii. 7; IV. iv. 10) also certain views are attributed to one Bādari Regarding the identity of these two Bādaris, again, one may differ, but in the absence of any definite proof I do not see any reason why the same Bādari be not allowed to speak authoritatively on both the Mīmāṃsās.

c40.s3.t3.7

Kātyāyana-Shrautasūtra (IV. 96) makes a reference to one Bādari. There is nothing to prevent us to regard him also as identical with the two other Bādaris referred to above. Dr. T. R. Chintamani thinks that “Bādari may have been the son of one Badara and an ancestor of Bādarāyaṇa, and consequently, slightly older than Bādarāyaṇa.” This is merely a suggestion

Aitishāyana

c40.s3.t4.1

Another important Mīmāṃsaka is Aitishāyana. Jaimini refers to him thrice. Thus, under III. ii. 43, while propounding the *Siddhānta* Jaimini holds with him that “one and the same *Mantra* should be used at the eating of the remnants of all offerings.”

c40.s3.t4.2

Again, under III. iv. 24, in answer to the objection of the upholders of the *prima facie* view, Jaimini refers to the opinion of Aitishāyana who says, “In reality, there must be some connection between the acts under consideration and a result, just like the connection of other things with particular results. It must therefore be regarded as an action accomplishing the purpose of man in general.”

c40.s3.t4.3

Lastly, under VI. i. 6, Aitishāyana says, “On account of the use of the particular gender (that is, masculine in the text—*svar-gakāmo yajeta*) only men are entitled to perform the sacrifice.” Jaimini does not agree with this view.

c40.s3.t4.4

Nothing more we know of this Ācārya.

Kārṣṇājini

c40.s3.t5.1

Kārṣṇājini is another important teacher whose views Jaimini has referred to twice. Thus, under IV. iii. 17, regarding the *Rātri* sacrifice text—प्रतितिष्ठन्तीह य एता उपयन्ति । ब्रह्मवर्चस्विनोऽन्नादा भवन्ति य एता उपयन्ति—“those who have recourse to these sacrifices become famous; those who have recourse to these sacrifices become endowed with *Brāhmic* glory and also eaters of food,” Kārṣṇājini, in support of the *prima facie* view says—that the above-quoted sentence is commendatory in regard to the sacrifice, like the sentence speaking of the accessory details.

c40.s3.t5.2

Again, under VI. vii. 36, regarding the thousand-year sacrifice, he, in support of the *prima facie* view, says, “What is laid down should be regarded as a function for generations, as it is impossible for a single man to live for thousand years and complete the sacrifice.”

c40.s3.t5.3

In both the cases, Jaimini respectfully disagrees with Kārṣṇajini. He is, like so many others, referred to both in the Mīmāṃsā and Brahmasūtras, (cf. Brahmasūtra, III. i. 9). This name is also very familiar in our *Dharmashāstra*. In *Kātyāyana-Shrautasūtra*, also, we find his name mentioned in one of the sūtras (I. 144). It is just possible that one and the same Kārṣṇajini might have written on Mīmāṃsā, Vedānta and Dharmashāstra. Nothing more is known about him at present.

Lāvukāyana

c40.s3.t6.1

Lāvukāyana’s view has been only once given by Jaimini under VI. vii. 38, where in support of the *Siddhānta*, Lāvukāyana says that there being mutual inconsistency in the text—पञ्चपञ्चाशतस्त्रिवृतः संवत्सराः—one of the two terms must be taken in the indirect figurative sense. We do not know more about him as yet.

Kāmukāyana

c40.s3.t7.1

Regarding the text—there are fourteen oblations at the *Pūrṇamāsa*-sacrifice and thirteen at the *Darsha*, under XI. i. 57, supporting the *Siddhāntin*, Kāmukāyana says that there should be a single performance, so that there may be no incompatability with the limitation of the number of oblations fixed at fourteen and thirteen. The same argument has been reiterated by Kāmukāyana under XI. i. 62. No more about this author also is known to us as yet.

Ātreya

c40.s3.t8.1

The name of Ātreya is found in several places. *Baudhāyana-Gṛhyasūtra* (III. ix. 6) refers to one Ātreya as a *Padakāra* (Ātreyāya Padakārāya) *Bodhāyana-Shrautasūtra* (XXI. 21) also speaks of one Ātreya. In the *Mahābhārata* (XIII. 137.3) also the name of a sage, called Ātreya, is mentioned as a teacher of *Nirguṇa-Brahmavidyā*. In the Brahmasūtra (III. iv. 44) also there is a reference to one Ātreya. Dr. T. R. Cintamani quotes a few verses from the *Caturvargacintāmaṇi* which are attributed to one Ātreya. Besides, Jaimini refers to the views of one Ātreya thrice in his Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā-Sūtras. It is just possible that all these names may refer to one and the same person. Thus, under IV. iii. 18, in answer to the *prima facie* view advanced by Kārṣṇājini, Ātreya gives us the *Siddhānta* that—What is spoken of should be taken as the actual result; because, it is so mentioned; if no result were mentioned, one would have to be inferred. So, Ātreya holds that the results actually follow from acts like the *Rātri*-sacrifices, and hence, the sentence—प्रतितिष्ठन्ति ह वा एते, य एता उपयन्ति, etc., in connection with the *Rātri*-sacrifice, is not a mere commendatory declaration.

c40.s3.t8.2

Again, under VI. i. 26, regarding the performance of sacrifices by the *Śūdra*, Ātreya gives us the *Siddhānta* that—in reality, the acts in question can be performed by the three higher castes only, as in connection with the *Installation of Fire*, these three alone have been mentioned. The *Śūdra*, therefore, can have no connection with sacrifices. The Veda being applicable to the *Brāhmaṇa* and the other two castes only.

c40.s3.t8.3

Lastly, under V. ii. 18, regarding the performance of the *Nāriṣṭa-Homa*, Ātreya says—"What belongs to the Ectype should be performed immediately after the principal sacrifice; as it is equal to it in being prescribed by a Vedic text: as for those that come from the original Archetype, they may be removed further."

Ālekhana

c40.s3.t9.1

Ālekhana is another Mīmāṃsaka who is referred to by Jaimini. Under VI. v. 17, in connection with the performance of the *Abhyudayeṣṭi* on the Moon rising, before the material has been prepared, Ālekhana propounds the *Siddhānta* that the material should be prepared and consecrated for those deities who partake of the subsequent offerings.

c40.s3.t9.2

Besides, it is said that there is also a reference to him in the *Saṅkarṣakāṇḍa* under XVI. ii. 1. This Ālekhana is very often quoted in the *Śrautasūtra* attributed to one Bharadvāja or Bhāradvāja. This Bharadvāja may be identical with that Bharadvāja whose views are found in the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya, who, again, perhaps is the same as the teacher of the *Rājaśāstra* mentioned in the Mahābhārata (Śāntiparva, 58.3). If all these identifications be correct, then as the date of the *Arthaśāstra*, according to Dr. A. B. Keith, cannot be placed earlier than 100 B. C. but not later than second century A.D., Bharadvāja should have flourished earlier than Kauṭilya; and Ālekhana, in that case, must have lived long before Bharadvāja, that is, earlier than 100 B. C. Nothing more about Ālekhana is known as yet.

Jaimini

c40.s3.t10.1

The name of Jaimini in the Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā-Sūtra occurs in five places (III. i. 4; VI. iii. 4; VIII, iii. 7; IX. ii 39; and XII. i. 8). Of these references, except one (VI. iii. 4), all the rest refer to the *Siddhāntas* and can easily be attributed to Jaimini, the author of the Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā-Sūtras But the reference to Jaimini in the Sūtra VI. iii. 4, as it represents the *prima facie* view, is doubted whether it refers to the same Jaimini or to some other Jaimini Had he been identical how could have it been possible for him to hold simultaneously both the *prima facie* view and the *Siddhānta* view regarding the same topic? Moreover, while commenting upon the rest of the Sūtras, Shabara adds the word ‘*Ācārya*’ to the name of Jaimini, while in the present case, he simply says इति जैमिनिः मन्यते स्म and omits the usual term of respect. Similarly, although the name of Jaimini is not mentioned in the Sūtra VI. iii. 1, yet Shabara attributes the view expressed therein, which is the *prima facie* one, to Jaimini, and there also Shabara omits the use of the usual term showing respect.

c40.s3.t10.2

It is concluded from all these that there were two Jaiminis—one, the author of the existing Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā-Sūtras and the other, who was also a Mīmāṃsaka but not identical with the author of the present Sūtras. The other Jaimini is certainly earlier than the present Sūtrakāra There was also an astrologer of the same name who wrote a Sūtra-work on Astrology.

c40.s3.t10.3

Regarding the view that as it is impossible to name one's own self in his own work he two cannot be identical, it may be said that there is no incongruity in it; for there are innumerable instances in Indian literature where such references are found. Perhaps this is an Indian characteristic of expression.

c40.s3.t10.4

Almost all these *Pre-Jaimini Mīmāṃsakas*, whether they had written any work on Mīmāṃsā or not, were, undoubtedly, great teachers of Mīmāṃsā, who had their independent views on the school. It is also just possible that he who was a Mīmāṃsaka might have been a Vedāntin too. It is corroborated by the respectful references of the various *Ācāryas* in both the systems.

Kāśakṛtsna and Āpiśali

c40.s3.t11.1

Besides these, there were many more Mīmāṃsakas who lived and taught before the beginning of the Christian Era and who have been mentioned in our earlier works, although Jaimini does not make any reference to them For instance, the names of Kāśakṛtsna and Āpiśali, as teachers and perhaps founders of independent schools of Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā, are found in the Vyākaraṇa Mahābhāṣya and the Pāṇini's Sūtra (*vide* Mahābhāṣya, IV. i. 3, 14, and Pā. Sū. VI. i 92) In fact, these two teachers must have been very old. Āpiśali is, undoubtedly, older than Pāṇini himself. Both of these two Mīmāṃsakas were great Grammarians and perhaps, were authors of some work also.

c40.s3.t11.2

On the basis of these references it may be said that the Principles of Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā were systematised long before Jaimini; for, the various views of the various Ācāryas would not have been so very clear and distinct without it. Besides, the expressions, like—*Āpiśali Mīmāṃsā, Kāśakṛtsna Mīmāṃsā,*¹ etc. from the mouth of Patañjali, would have never been, otherwise, possible. This is further supported by the fact that in the *Āpastambadharmasūtra* we find several Sūtras similar in substance to the Jaiminīyasūtras. A few instances are given below to illustrate the above :

c40.s3.t11.3

¹ Patañjali tells us that a Brāhmaṇī studied 'काशकृत्स्नी', that is, काशकृत्स्ना प्रोक्ता मीमांसा-- *vide* Mahābhāṣya IV. i. 3; IV. iii. 2. pp. 111, 311, Benares Edition.

c40.s3.t11.4

| ĀPASTAMBADHARMASŪTRAS | JAIMINĪYASŪTRAS |
| 1. श्रुतिर्हि बलीयस्यानुमानिकादाचारात् —I. 1. 4. 8. | विरोधे त्वनपेक्ष्यं स्यादसति ह्यनुमानम् —I. iii. 3. |
| 2. विप्रतिषेधे श्रुतिर्लक्षणं बलीयः —I. 11. 30. 90 | |
| 3. यत्र तु प्रीत्युपलब्धतः प्रवृत्तिर्न तत्र शास्त्रमस्ति —I. 4. 12. 11 | यस्मिन् प्रीतिः पुरुषस्य तस्य लिप्सार्थ-लक्षणविभक्तत्वात् —IV. i. 2 |
| 4. Sūtra—I. 1. 4. 9-10. | दृश्यते चापि प्रवृत्तिकारणम् । प्रीतिर्युप-लभ्यते—हेतुदर्शनाच्च—I. iii. 4 |
| 5. अज्ञानां तु प्रधानैरव्यपदेश इति न्यायवित्तमयः —II. 4. 8. 13. | प्रयोगशास्त्रमिति चेत्—I. iii. 11 नासन्नियमात्—I. iii. 12 श्रवाक्यशेषाच्च—I. iii. 13 सर्वत्र च प्रयोगात्सन्निधानशास्त्राच्च --I. iii. 14. |

c40.s3.t11.5

APASTAMBADHARMASŪTRAS JAIMINĪYASŪTRAS

c40.s3.t11.6

6. अथापि नित्यानुवादमविधिमाहुन्याय- विदः—II. 6. 14. 13

c40.s3.t11.7

अर्थवादो वा विधिशेषत्वात् तस्मान्नित्या- नुवादः—VI. vii. 30.

c40.s3.t11.8

7. तस्यां क्रयशब्देः संस्तुतिमात्रम् । धर्माद्धि सम्बन्धः—II. 6. 13 11-12

c40.s3.t11.9

क्रयस्य धर्ममात्रत्वम्—VI. i. 15

c40.s3.t11.10

8. विद्यां प्रत्यनध्यायः श्रूयते, न कर्मयोगे मन्त्राणाम्—I. 4. 12. 9.

c40.s3.t11.11

विद्यां प्रति विधानाद्वा सर्वकालं प्रयोगः स्यात् कर्मार्थत्वात् प्रयोगस्य —XII. iii. 19.

c40.s3.t11.12

Besides these, there are several other similarities between these two Sūtra-works. Shabara, Kumārila and other later writers have very often referred to the Sūtras of Āpastamba. It is very difficult to say whether Āpastamba was influenced by Jaimini or he flourished earlier than Jaimini and had some other Sūtra-work of Pūrva-Mīmāmsā before him. However, it is certain that Jaimini was not the first systematiser of the Principles of Pūrva-Mīmāmsā. The *Guru-Paramparā* tradition found in several later works also supports the antiquity of the system. Pārthasārathi Mishra in his commentary on the Shloka-vārttika, called *Nyāyaratnākara* (p. 8), says that Brahmā, Prajāpati, Indra, Āditya, Vasiṣṭha, Parāshara, Kṛṣṇadvaipāyana and Jaimini were the teachers of Mīmāmsā one after another. Rāmakṛṣṇa, in his commentary, called *Siddhānta-candrikā*, on the *Shāstradīpikā*, reads Agni in place of Āditya, and says that according to others Maheshvara should be substituted in place of Brahmā. The third view is that the first teacher of Mīmāmsā was either Brahmā or Maheshvara who taught to Prajāpati The latter had four pupils—Indra, Āditya, Bṛhaspati, and Manu. Manu taught to Vasiṣṭha who, in his turn, taught to Parāshara who taught to Kṛṣṇadvaipāyana and he, in his turn, taught to Jaimini (vide *Mīmāmsāsūtrārthasangraha* by Parameshvara).

c40.s3.t11.13

About the personal history of Jaimini we know from the Pañcatantra that he was crushed to death by an elephant (*vide* II. 36). From the Bhāgavata Purāṇa (XII. vi. 55) we learn that he was taught Sāmavedasaṃhitā by his teacher Vyāsa. He, in his turn, taught the same to Sumantu.

c40.s3.t11.14

Regarding the date of Jaimini, Prof. Jacobi thinks that he cannot be earlier than the second century A.D; for he, being a contemporary of Bādarāyaṇa, was quite conversant with the theory of *Śūnya* advocated by Nāgārjuna in the second century A.D. Dr. Keith holds that he cannot be later than 200 A.D., but not much earlier. But Prof. Jacobi’s argument is not quite correct. The reason is that though Nāgārjuna was a great advocate of *Śūnya-vāda*, yet it is quite wrong to hold that he was the originator of the theory. One can easily trace the theories of *Śūnya* and *Vijñāna*, which came to be associated with the Buddhist thought later, even to some of the oldest Upaniṣads and also to the works of Aśvaghoṣa and other ancient Pāli works (*vide* Introduction to the Hindi Translation of *Ratnaprabhā*, by Mm. Gopinatha Kaviraja, p 3). So the fact is that these Buddhist thoughts in some form or other did exist long before Nāgārjuna could record them in his *Kārikās*. Hence, the above view is untenable. Again, it is believed that the earliest commentator of the Pūrva-Mīmāṁsā-Sūtras is perhaps the *Vṛttikāra-Upavarṣa*; and as he, according to the critics, is placed long before Patañjali, we may easily push back the date of Jaimini to a period earlier than 200 B.C. at least.

c40.s3.t11.15

*References*—i) Jacobi—Date of Indian Philosophical systems—Journal of American Oriental Society, XXXIII; ii) Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, Vol. III; iii) M Hiriyanna’s Introduction to Naiṣkarmyasiddhi, Second Ed.; iv) Indian Antiquary, Vol. L—Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa; v) Dr. Keith’s Karma-Mīmāṁsā.

c40.s3.t11.16

The Pūrva-Mīmāṁsā-Sūtra is divided into 12 chapters, each chapter devoted to one particular topic, due to which it is also called *Dvādaśalakṣaṇī*. There is also a belief that there are four more chapters of the Jaiminīya-sūtra known as the *Saṅkarṣa-Kāṇḍa* but this portion has not yet been verified* (*vide*—Text, pp. 11-13). Like other Sūtra-works, each chapter is divided into certain *Pādas*. Now, there are certain peculiarities regarding this Sūtra-work :—

c40.s3.t11.17

(1) Unlike other Sūtra-works, the number of *Pādas* in each chapter is not fixed at four, which might have had some special convention about it. Here, we have four *Pādas* in Chapters I, II, IV, V, VII, VIII, IX, XI, and XII; while Chapters III, VI and X have each 8 *Pādas* (2) In no other Sūtra-work there is so much repetition of any Sūtra, either in full or in parts, as here. For instance, the Sūtra ‘लिङ्गदर्शनाच्च’ occurs 30 times; again, the Sūtra ‘तथा चान्यार्थदर्शनम्’ occurs 24 times, of course, in each case of repetition, the meaning changes according to the context; while the Sūtras लिङ्गदर्शनात्, पूर्वे च लिङ्गदर्शनात्, लिङ्गाच्च, धर्मानुग्रहाच्च, तथा च लिङ्गदर्शनम्, अन्ते वा कालकृतत्वात्, विकारे तु तदर्थं स्यात्, etc., etc., have also been repeated several times.

c40.s3.t11.18

∗ The work, bearing the title—*Saṅkarṣa-Kāṇḍa* along with the commentary called *Bhaṭṭa-candrikā* published from Benares, is not the authentic work. Devaswāmī’s Commentary on the *Saṅkarṣa-Kāṇḍa* may throw more light on the problem.

c40.s3.t11.19

(3) In order to illustrate Mīmāṃsā topics even the Sūtrakāra takes help of instances from phenomenal life (vide IV.i.6).

c40.s3.t11.20

He is also said to be the author of a work called—Chāndogyānuvāda (pada?) cf. एतज्जैमिनिनैव छान्दोग्यानुवादे—Tantravārttika, I.iii.2 (5)). Some also attribute the authorship of a Śrautasūtra and a Gṛhyasūtra to him (cf. Keith, pp. 4—5).

c40.s3.t11.21

The special field covered by Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā is an enquiry into the nature of Dharma, duty of man, and topics directly or indirectly connected with it. The twelve topics are—1) Means of knowing Dharma, 2) Differentiation among Action (Karmabheda), 3) Auxiliaries (Śeṣatra); 4) Mutual subserviency among Actions (Prayojya-Prayojakabhāra); 5) Order of Sequence (Krama); 6) Qualification of a sacrificer etc. (Adhikāra); 7) Sāmānyātidesha, meaning that there are details in connection with other sacrifices; 8) Viśeṣātidesha, meaning that such and such details appertain to such and such a sacrifice; 9) Modification of details (Ūha); 10) Exclusion and Inclusion (Bādha and Abhyuccaya); 11) Common, Centralisation (Tantra); and 12) Uncommon, Decentralisation (Āvāpa).

c40.s3.t11.22

The first three chapters were translated into English by Sir Ganganatha Jha which was published in the Sacred Books of the Hindu Series from Allahabad in 1916. The whole of the Jaiminīya-sūtra (I—XII Adhyāyas) was translated into English by Pt. Mohanlal Sandal, and was published from Allahabad. Dr. Ballantyne also translated the first Pāda along with the Śabarabhāṣya, as early as 1851.

c40.s3.t11.23

After Jaimini it appears that no other independent work was written on the system. There have been, undoubtedly, great scholars, but they have all based their contributions upon the Jaiminīya-sūtras though they have given ample evidence of their originality in their commentaries. We have not as yet been able to unearth any work on the Sūtras between Jaimini and Shabara, but from the various references found here and there we think that there were at least two commentaries called *Vṛttis* by Upavarṣa and Bodhāyana. Shabara himself makes references to Upavarṣa with great reverence in his Bhāṣya and it is believed that the reference to the *Vṛtti-grantha* is a reference to Upavarṣa’s *Vṛtti*.

c40.s3.t11.24

Regarding the personality of these two writers there have been different opinions amongst the critics. Mm. S. Kuppuswāmī Shāstrī holds that they are identical personages, but it appears from the reference to them in the *Prapañcahṛdaya* that they were not identical. Both of these two authors wrote separately on Jaiminīya-sūtras (vide *Prapañcahṛdaya*, p. 39, Trivandrum Sanskrit Series Ed). This Bodhāyana is perhaps the same as that on whose *Vṛtti* Rāmānujācārya has based his *Śrībhāṣya*.

c40.s3.t11.25

The date of these two is as much in dark as their life-history. Nothing can be said with any certainty except that Upavarṣa lived before Shabara. Dr. Ganganatha Jha places him before the Christian Era (*vide* Text, p. 14). The same date may be fixed for Bodhāyana also, as most likely, they were contemporaries

Bhavadāsa

c40.s3.t12.1

After these two Vṛttikāras, we come to Bhavadāsa who also wrote a *Vṛtti* on the Sūtras. This assumption of ours is based on the single evidence of the *Prapañcahṛdaya*, which definitely says that Bhavadāsa preceded Shabara. That Bhavadāsa was a great Mīmāṁsaka, who wrote a commentary called *Vṛtti* on the Sūtras, is also quite evident from the *Shlokavārttika* and its commentary by Pārthasārathi Mishra. While commenting on the Kārika—वृत्त्यन्तरेषु केषाञ्चित् लौकिकार्थव्यतिक्रमः (verse 33), Pārthasārathi says—‘केषाञ्चित्—भवदासादीनां वृत्त्यन्तरेषु’. Even Kumārila himself refers to him in the *Shlokavārttika*—प्रदर्शनार्थमित्येके केचिन्नानार्थवाचिनः। समुदायादवच्छिद्य भवदासेन कल्पितात्’’ (pp. 21-22).

c40.s3.t12.2

Regarding Bhavadāsa’s view we can only glean from Kumārila that he thought that the terms अथ and अतः in the first Sūtra should be read together, so that both together may give us the meaning of आनन्तर्य (after). Again, we are told by Kumārila that Bhavadāsa split up the fourth Sūtra into two parts—i) सत्संप्रयोगे पुरुषस्येन्द्रियाणां बुद्धिजन्म तत् प्रत्यक्षम् and ii) अनिमित्तं विद्यमानोपलम्भनत्वात्—the first half gives us the definition of *Pratyakṣa*, while the second half speaks of the unauthoritativeness (अप्रामाण्य) of it regarding *Dharma*. So says Pārthasārathi—भवदासेनतत्सूत्रं द्विधा कृत्वा ‘सत्संप्रयोगे’ इत्येवमादि ‘तत्प्रत्यक्ष’ मित्येवमन्तं प्रत्यक्षलक्षणपरम् । ‘अनिमित्त’ मित्यादि च तस्य धर्मे प्रत्यनिमित्तपरं व्याख्यातम् (pp. 133—34), Shabara, Kumārila and their followers all rejected these views of Bhavadāsa.

c40.s3.t12.3

We now come to the great Bhāṣyakāra of the Jaiminīya-sūtras. His *Bhāṣya* is the first complete work that we have got on the Jaiminīya-sūtras before us. As for the personal history and date of Shabara we are still in dark. The tradition current amongst the Paṇḍitas is that he had six sons—one from his Brāhmaṇa-wife, named Varāhamihira, the great Indian astronomer; from the Kṣattriya-wife he had two sons, Rāja Bhartṛhari and the King Vikrama; from his Vaishya-wife he had the great Vaidya—Haricanda and Śaṅku, and lastly, from the Śūdra-wife he had Amaru. Nothing can be based on this tradition with any certainty. He has referred to, in his Bhāṣya, the names of Katyāyana, Vārttikakāra (X. viii. 4), Manu (I. i. 2), Pāṇini, Piṅgala (I. i. 5); *Sphota*vādino Vaiyākaraṇāḥ (I. i. 5) and many more. But none of these helps us much to fix his date. So Dr. Ganganatha Jha thinks that if his relation with Varāhamihira be believed in, we may say that he lived before 400 A.D. which is the probable date of the great astronomer.

c40.s3.t12.4

It is said that his original name was Ādityadeva which he changed to Shabara when he disguised himself as a forester for fear of Jain persecution. Dr. Jha, on the basis of certain facts from his Bhāṣya, suggests his being a Northerner. Dr. Jha even goes so far as to say that he perhaps lived in Kashmir or Takṣashila (*vide* Introduction to his English Trans., p. 1). No more about him we know. A few facts gleaned from his Bhāṣya are given below which are quite interesting and also may help us to come nearer the truth regarding his native place:

c40.s3.t12.5

(1) The text ‘तस्माद्बराहं गावोऽनुधावन्ति (I iii. 9) meaning—Cows run after the *Barāha* (Shata. Brā. 4.4.3.19)—quoted by Shabara refers to a custom, regarded as a religious duty, which falls on the day following the *Dīpāvalī*. This is even now prevalent in Mithilā where it is called *Hurāhurī*.

c40.s3.t12.6

(2) Shabara says—" In the case of pegs in the wall. we find each of them severally serving the purpose of supporting the hanging noose" (II. ii. 1).

c40.s3.t12.7

(3) The text—‘पयसा प्राष्टिकं भुञ्जीत, यदि शालिं भुञ्जीत तत्र दधि उपसिञ्चेत्’ meaning—one should eat *Ṣaṣṭika* (a kind of grain having black husk, called *Gamharī*, in Mithilā) with milk; if he eats *Shāli* (paddy grains), he should mix curd with it (II. iii. 1). This indeed refers to the practice prevalent even now in Mithilā that people eat *Ṣaṣṭika* with milk and *shāli* with curd (*Dahi-Cūṛā*).

c40.s3.t12.8

(4) The text—‘गर्भदासः कर्मार्थ एव स्वामिना क्रियते’ (III. i. 2), meaning—Born slave is purchased for the sole purpose of working for the master—refers to the custom of slavery existing in North-East India for a very long time.

c40.s3.t12.9

(5) The text—‘दशापवित्रेण ग्रहं समाष्टि’ (III. i. 13), meaning—Cleanses the *Soma*-vessel with ‘the hem of the garment—refers to the practice prevalent amongst the ladies in the North-East of India.

c40.s3.t12.10

(6) The text—‘अग्नचिता पक्षिणो न अशितव्या’ (V. iii. 26), meaning that birds should not be eaten by one who is *अग्नचित्*—shows that birds were regularly eaten in those days and which was known to Shabara.

c40.s3.t12.11

(7) Again, the text—‘शालिसूपमांसापूपैर्देवदत्तो भोजयितव्यः’ (VII. i. 12), meaning that Devadatta should be fed on rice, pulse, meat, and sweet-cakes (*apūpa*)—shows that he lived in that part of the country where the above-mentioned things were eaten during meals.

c40.s3.t12.12

(8) Not only meat as an ingredient of food was known to him but he knew the details of fish-eating too. For instance, the text—‘ये एकस्मिन् कार्ये विकल्पेन साधकाः श्रूयन्ते ते परस्परेण विरोधिनो भवन्ति । विरोधिनश्च न सह प्रवृत्तिः । लोकवत्—यथा मत्स्यान् न पयसा समश्नीयादिति । यद्यपि सगुणा मत्स्या भवन्ति तथापि पयसा सह न समश्यन्ते’ (X. VII. 66), meaning—‘When several things are spoken of as accomplishing the same purpose, they are always regarded as mutually incompatible; and things that are mutually incompatible cannot function jointly; as in the ordinary world; for instance, when it is said “one should not eat fish with milk” the meaning is that “even though the fish be possessed of excellent qualities, yet it is not eaten with milk”, clearly shows that he was very familiar with the process of fish-eating.

c40.s3.t12.13

(9) The sentence—‘वाससि रागः श्रूयते—वासो रञ्जयतीति, वाससि च क्रियते । (असौ) स्त्र्यर्थः पुरुषार्थो वा’ (VII. i. 7), meaning—‘Though the colour is spoken of in connection with the cloth,—in such sentences as’—‘one colours the cloth’,—and it is also done or produced in the cloth,—yet it does not subserve the purposes of the cloth; it subserves the purposes of man or woman (who wears the cloth), indicates that he knew that both man and woman put on coloured cloth. I do not think that man puts on coloured cloth either in Kashmir or in the North-Western side.

c40.s3.t12.14

(10) Again, the statement—‘बाहीकोऽतिथिरागतः यवाञ्जस्मै प्रक्रियताम्’ (VII.i.8), meaning that ‘when it is said, that a Punjab (Bāhīka) has come as guest, prepare for him barley-meal’ shows that though he was aware of the manner of showing hospitality to the guests of the Punjab, yet we think that he would have given this information to non-Punjabis who did not know the above-mentioned custom. Had he been an inhabitant of the Punjab, perhaps he would not have found any opportunity to convey this information to others.

c40.s3.t12.15

(11) The instance—“the cooking of rice is of one kind, while that of molasses is of a totally different kind; so that the man who has learnt the cooking of rice cannot know how to cook molasses” (VII-ii-20), shows that he must have lived in that part of the country where cooking of both the rice and the molasses were known and he also knew the difference between the two methods.

c40.s3.t12.16

(12) The statement—‘ओदने दधि दत्त्वाऽभ्यवहर्तव्यम्’, (IX. iv. 32), that is, one should put curd into cooked rice and then eat it’—refers to the custom of eating cooked rice and curd together (Dahi-bhāta of Mithilā). This very idea is repeated again when he says that—‘Devadatta should be fed with curds, clarified butter and rice’ (X. vi. 22).

c40.s3.t12.17

(13) Lastly, we find that the eating of oil like clarified butter, has been repeatedly referred to by Shabara. For instance, he says “Just as when oil or clarified butter is drunk,—though this drinking is ephemeral, yet it brings about strength, improvement of intelligence, memory and so forth” (VII. i. 5); again, he says—“Yajñadatta should be fed with oil; the purpose that is served in the food by the clarified butter is in the latter case understood to be served by oil; hence, even though it is not asserted in so many words that the food should be lubricated with oil, yet the oil serves to exclude the clarified butter (and no other substance)” (X. ii. 66); again, he says— “for a month Devadatta is to be fed on clarified butter and oil” (X. vi 5.); again, he says—“the oil is used for the purpose of lubricating the food”, “Yajñadatta should be fed like Devadatta with oil” (X. vi 22); again, he says—“feed Yajñadatta with oil,” “oil is mentioned as of use in the feeding”—“It is to be used in the place of clarified butter, the purpose of which alone can be served by oil, etc.” (X. iii. 16). In those days when there was no scarcity of pure clarified butter, even then that he repeatedly mentioned the custom of using oil for food shows that he must have lived in that part where oil was much in use. It is but natural that ingredients of food like rice, fish and oil should go together. Even now we find it so in Bengal and Mithila.

c40.s3.t12.18

(14) In one place he says—‘there are certain illnesses which appear at fixed intervals, namely, the Terian and the Quartian ague (Tṛtīyakāścāturthakāśca)—(VI. i. 5). Undoubtedly, he must have lived where malerial diseases were quite known.

c40.s3.t12.19

(15) He refers to a Vedic custom of cooking coarser rice in curds and the finer rice in boiled milk (IX. iv. 41). Now, this is what is exactly the custom in Mithilā where the former preparation is called ‘ghoracāura’, while the latter is known as ‘khīra.’

c40.s3.t12.20

These are some of the facts referred to by Shabara in his Bhāṣya which may suggest a nearer approach to his place of residence.

c40.s3.t12.21

Besides this Bhāṣya, he also wrote a commentary on the Saṅkarṣa which is clear from his own words (vide his Bhāṣya X. iv. 32; XII. ii. 11).

c40.s3.t12.22

One more characteristic of his Bhāṣya is that in many places he refers to the worldly customs in order to explain the Vedic injunctions, which shows the importance of the worldly instances even in Pūrva-Mīmāṁsā.

c40.s3.t12.23

The Shabara-bhāṣya has been edited in full thrice—1) from the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta; 2) from Vidyavilasa Press, Benares; and 3) from Poona, in the Anandashrama Sanskrit Series. All the editions are more or less of the same nature. This Bhāṣya has just been for the first time translated into English by Dr. Jha and published in 3 volumes in the Gaekwad’s Sanskrit Series. The first Pada of the first Adhyāya has been also printed from Madras and Chowkhamba, Benares. These are well edited along with the *Bṛhatī* and the *Ṛjurimalā*. Reference: Jacobi-Journal, American Oriental Society, Vol. XXI.

Bhartṛmitra

c40.s3.t13.1

Before coming to the great *Vārttikakāra* Kumārila we should know something about Bhartṛmitra whose views have been referred to and refuted by Kumārila himself. As interpreted by Pārthasārathi Mishra, Bhartṛmitra introduced many *apasiddhāntas* (wrong theories) into the system and thus made it a *Nāstika* system. Pārthasārathi says that Bhartṛmitra taught that there is no fruit—good or bad—accruing from the performance of *nitya* and prohibited acts—which is a wrong view. He wrote a commentary on Mīmāṃsā according to Pārthasārathi (*vide* मीमांसाश्चिरन्तनानि भर्तृमित्रादिरचितानि व्याख्यानानि विद्यन्ते etc., Nyāyaratnākara, pages 3-4). Again, while discussing the nature of ‘*shrotra*’ (the auditory sense-organ), Kumārila says that ‘it is this *Saṃskāra* (modification) of the auditory sense as the means of apprehending sound, that some ‘*Paṇḍitammanyāḥ*’ (thinking themselves to be learned) hold to be the auditory sense’ which, according to Pārthasārathi, Kumārila attributes to Bhartṛmitra and others (*vide* Shloka, p. 763). On this very question, Jayanta Bhaṭṭa quotes Bhartṛmitra in his Nyāyamañjarī (p. 213, Vizia. Ed.). Again, he too, like Kumārila, retorts Bhartṛmitra’s view in the following words ‘यत्तु भर्तृमित्रस्तमेव संस्कारं श्रोत्रेन्द्रियमभ्युपैति तदिदमपूर्व्वकं किमपि पाण्डित्यम्’ (p. 226). Yāmunācārya in his *Siddhitraya* also refers to one Bhartṛmitra (p. 6). Mukula Bhaṭṭa also refers to one Bhartṛmitra in his *Abhidhāvṛttimātṛkā* (p. 17); and most probably, they refer to one and the same person.

c40.s3.t13.2

On the basis of these references, we may say that Bhartṛmitra flourished earlier than Kumārila.

c40.s3.t13.3

One more point we learn about Bhartṛmitra from the *Shloka-vārttika* (*vide Citrākṣepaparihāra*, verse 14), as explained by Pārthasārathi, regarding the result accruing from the performance of the *Citrā* sacrifice, that according to him the result accrues in the very life-time of the sacrificer, which, of course, Kumārila does not believe in.

Kumārila Bhaṭṭa

c40.s3.t14.1

Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, variously known as Kumārila Svāmin or Mishra, Tūṭāta Bhaṭṭa, is one of the greatest scholars that India has produced. As a Mīmāṁsaka, perhaps, his position is unchallenged. At that time, Buddhism, which has been, since its very inception, a great enemy of the Vedic ritualistic culture, had spread its influence far and wide in the country. The Buddhist University of Nalanda was then in a flourishing condition and there were a large number of Buddhist thinkers all over the country. They were attacking Hindu religion, philosophy and culture vehemently; and it was but necessary to refute their views for bringing about the downfall of Buddhism. It was also a fact that instead of all the Royal patronage, due to the various corruptions, Buddhism was on the point of declining. Thus, it was a very opportune moment for Kumārila to take his cudgle against Buddhism and criticise its viewpoints, and which he did so well in his masterly works—*Shlokavārttika* and *Tantravārttika*. Such was the condition of the country when Kumārila flourished

c40.s3.t14.2

There are many stories recorded in the *Shaṅkaradigvijaya* and the Tibetan works regarding the nature of controversies which were carried on between Kumārila and the Buddhist Philosopher, Dharmakīrti. In one place we are told that Dharmakīrti, desirous of knowing the secrets of Hinduism, lived with Kumārila in disguise and having learnt all the secrets from him challenged the Hindu orthodox Philosophers in open debates, defeated them and converted them to Buddhism. Kumārila also was likewise defeated. Then the tradition says that Kumārila, also in disguise, learnt all the secrets of Buddhism from Buddhist monks and then defeated them in open challenge. Thereby Kumārila committed a great sin against his own *guru* also whom he defeated in debate; and for the expiation of which he came over to Prayāga where he burnt himself alive on the banks of the *Triveṇī*, the only method of expiation for such a sin. It was here that the great Shaṅkarācārya met him when Kumārila was half-burnt and expressed his desire to bring him (Kumārila) back to life which Kumārila did not like (*vide* शङ्करदिग्विजय, VII).

c40.s3.t14.3

This was perhaps the reason why Kumārila’s knowledge of Buddhist Philosophy was much more profound and accurate than that of the Great Shaṅkarācārya even, which is quite evident from the study of their individual works. Anyhow, the place of Kumārila is unique in Indian thought.

c40.s3.t14.4

About his native place it is very difficult to say anything definitely. Some hold that he was a native of Southern India. But it is much more probable, so says the tradition, that he was a Brāhmaṇa living in North Bihar—Mithilā, in Northern India; and from here he went to the South also. It was, therefore, so very easy for him to fight against the Buddhist crusaders who lived on the borders of Mithilā. Ānandagiri in his *Śaṅkaravijaya* also says that he came from the North. He uses the word ‘*Udakadeśa*’ for the North. In fact, the term which means “Place of Water” is very vague and cannot give the exact information. Mithilā, which is also known as *Tairabhukti* (meaning those who lived or that *deśa* which was situated on the banks of the rivers, so says the *Bṛhadviṣṇu Purāṇa*, Mithilākhaṇḍa, ‘सदा भुवनसम्पन्नो नदीतीरेषु संस्थितः । तीरेषु भुक्तियोगेन तैरभुक्तिरिति स्मृतः’ || ‘गंगाहिमवतोर्मध्ये नदीपञ्चदशान्तरे । तैरभुक्तिरिति ख्यातो देशः परमपावनः’), may also be called rightly ‘*udakadeśa*,’ and this being the place of hundreds of Mīmāṃsakas in later centuries and also being quite close to the home of Buddhism, seems to me to be the native place of Kumārila Bhaṭṭa also. This will also be in keeping with his relations with Maṇḍana Miśra who, as both Ānandagiri and Mādhavācārya hold, also most probably came from Mithilā.

c40.s3.t14.5

We learn from the Tibetan sources that Kumārila was a family man and had a large number of rice fields and five hundred male and five hundred female slaves. No more about his personal history is known to us. He had perhaps a son named Jaya Miśra.

c40.s3.t14.6

Regarding his date, Tārānātha, the Tibetan Lama, in his History of Indian Buddhism, says that Kumārila was a contemporary of the Tibetan king *Sroṅ-tsan-Gampo* who ruled over Tibet in the 7th century. Again, that he had controversy with Dharmakīrti, whose date is about 635 A. D. and after, also lends support to his being in the 7th century. Next, Bhavabhūti, who calls himself Kumārila’s pupil, lived in the court of Yaśovarman of Kanauj who ruled about 730 A. D. which also suggests that Kumārila lived towards the end of the 7th or the beginning of the 8th century. His reference to the lines of *Vākyapadīya* of Bhartṛhari who died about 650 A. D. shows that he lived sometime after him. From all these it appears that Kumārila, who was a senior contemporary of the Great Śaṅkara, lived sometime towards the end of the 7th century.

First 113 of 447 passages. Read on

Cites (76)