Indian Philosophy v2.c25.s1.9

v2.c25.s1.9

¹ If we accept Kumārila's view that the M.S. criticises many of the Buddhist views (see S.V., i. 1. 3, 5 and 6), it may belong to the period immediately after the rise of Buddhism. From the absence of any reference to Jaimini's work in the M.B., nothing definite can be gathered. Jaimini's work, which mentions the name of Bādarāyaṇa in five places (i. 1. 5; ii. 2. 19; vi. 1. 8; x. 8. 44; xi. 1. 64), belongs to the same period as the B.S. The latter refers to Jaimini as an authority on the Vedānta in ten different sūtras (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). Since nine of them cannot be traced to the M.S., it is sometimes urged that the Jaimini referred to in the B.S. is different from the author of the M.S. Others hold that some of Jaimini's works are lost. Jaimini in places assumes a knowledge of B.S. He adopts Bādarāyaṇa's view of ātman as non-corporeal, though he does not set forth any arguments in defence of it. The commentators suggest that he accepts Bādarāyaṇa's arguments (xi. 1. 64, and B.S., iii. 3. 53; see also M.S., ix. 1., and B.S., iii. 2. 40) and so does not re-state them.