Chapter XXVIII. Mīmāmsā and Dharmashastra

Volume V: Part II pp. 1152–1201

Chapter XXVIII. Mīmāmsā and Dharmashastra

MĪMĀṂSĀ AND dharmaśāstra

The Yājñavalkya-smṛti provides that there are fourteen sources of vidyās (knowledge) and of Dharma, ¹⁸⁶⁸ viz. Purāṇa, Nyāya, Mīmāṃsā, dharmaśāstra, Aṅgas (six) and the Vedas (four). A similar verse is quoted by some as Manu's, but it is not found in the extant Manusmṛti. It is therefore necessary to consider the origin and meaning of the word Mīmāṃsā, to set out the principal doctrines of that Śāstra, to mention the important rules of interpretation and the maxims of the Mīmāṃsā in their application to topics of dharmaśāstra and to refer to some of the important works of that Śāstra together with their approximate dateṣ

The word mīmāṃsā has a great antiquity behind it. The Tai. S. VII. 5. 7. 1 ¹⁸⁶⁹ says 'the expounders of Brahma (Veda) discuss (the question) whether a day should be omitted or not'. Here the verbal form 'mimāmsante' is employed in the sense of discussing or investigating a doubtful point and arriving at a decision thereoṇ In another passage of the Tai. S. the same form and another ‘mīmāmseran’ are used in the same sense. In several other places the Tai. S. raises points for discussion with the words ‘the brahmavādins discuss’ but without employing the word mīmāṃsante or a cognate worḍ Vide Tai. S. II. 5. 3. 7 (about the deity of sān̄nāyya), V. 5. 3. 2, VI. 1. 4. 5., VI. 1. 5. 3–5. The Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā ¹ puts forward a doubtful point for investigation without the words ‘Brahmavādins say’, but with the word ‘mīmāṃsante’. The Atharvaveda ² states ‘men separately discussing many times noted on the earth her actions’. In another place it employs the words mīmāṃsita and mīmāṃsamāna. The Śān̄khāyana ³ Br. has ‘they discuss the question whether one should offer homa after the sun rises or before the sun rises’. The Tai. Br. employs the word mīmāṃsā and the Śatapatha also in the Kāṇva recension does so (vide S. B. E. vol. 26 note 1). In the Chāndogyopaniṣad ⁴ it is stated that five scholars very learned in the Veda and possessed of large houses (wealth) named Prācīnaśāla Aupamanyava and others got together and entered upon the consideration of the question ‘what is (the nature of) our self and what is Brahma?’. In the Tai. Up. occur the words ‘this is the investigation into (the nature of) Bliss (Brahma)’. In both these passages the word mīmāṃsā is used in the sense of ‘consideration’ (vicāraṇā) of high philosophical topicṣ’

Pāṇini provides ⁵ for the formation of seven roots with san affix (Desiderative), one of which is ‘mīmāṃsate’ from ‘mān’ and the Kāśikā adds that it means ‘desire to know i. e. investigation and final conclusion’, having in view probably the sūtras ‘Athāto dharma-jijñāsā’ and ‘Athāto brahma-jijñāsā’.

The foregoing brief discussion shows that long before the Upaniṣads the word ‘mīmāṁsā’ had come to mean ‘investigation into a topic of discussion and coming to a conclusion thereon’. The same word acquired a restricted sense (as in the verse of Yāj. quoted above) viz. investigation into Dharma and arriving at conclusions on doubtful matters by interpretation and reasoning.

Some of the Dharmasūtras disclose familiarity with purely Mīmāṁsā terms and principleṣ For example, Gaut. states⁶ that an option is allowed only when there is a conflict between two texts of equal authority. The Āpastamba Dharmasūtra is the only Dharmasūtra that contains numerous Mīmāṁsā terms and doctrineṣ It says ‘a positive Vedic text has more force than an usage which merely leads to an inference (of its being based on a Vedic text now lost)’.⁷ This is similar to Jaimini I. 3. 3 (‘If there is a conflict (between an express Vedic text and a smṛti text) the latter is to be discarded but if there be no conflict an inference may be drawn (that the smṛti text is based on some Śruti)’. Āp. says ‘the rules about anadhyāya (stopping Veda study on parvan &c.) are applicable only to learning the Vedic mantras and not to their application in sacrifices’. In another place Āp. provides ‘where activity takes place because of finding pleasure therefrom (i. e. from a worldly motive), there is no (inference of its being based on) śāstra’, which is similar to Jaimini’s rule. For reasons of space other examples of close agreement between Āp. Dh. S.⁸ and Jaimini are simply referred to in the note below and not explained at length. These examples show that in Āpastamba's day Mīmāṁsā doctrines had been far advanced and since he employs the words 'Nyāyavit-samaya' (the siddhānta or doctrine of those who know Nyāya) and 'Nyāyavidaḥ', it follows that he is referring to some work on Mīmāṁsā or some author who composed a mīmāṁsā-sūtra. The correspondence in ideas and words between Āp. and the Pūrvamīmāṁsāsūtra is so close that one is tempted to argue that Āp. knew either the extant mīmāṁsāsūtra or at least an earlier version of it containing almost the same expressionṣ It will not do to say that all the above passages are later interpolationṣ They have all been commented upon by Haradatta.

Some Śrautasūtras such as that of Kātyāyana contain rules of the interpretation of Vedic texts that are similar to Jaimini's sūtras and sometimes are stated almost in the same wordṣ¹⁸⁷⁸ Only a few examples may be cited here; compare Kāt. I. 9–10 (about rathakāra) with Jai. VI. 1. 44; Kāt. I. 12–14 with Jai. VI. 1. 51 and VI. 8. 20–22; Kāt. I. 18–20 with Jai. XII. 2. 1–4; Kāt. I. 3. 2–7 (about nīlya-karma yielding full reward, even though some aṅga could not be performed), also Kāt. I. 3. 1–3 with Jai. I. 1. 35–40; Kāt. I. 3. 28–30 with Jai. VI. 6. 3. Sometimes, the Kāt. Ś. takes a view opposite to that of the Pūrvamīmāṁsā but the words are often almost the same.

The Vārtikas of Kātyāyana on Pāṇini and the Mahābhāṣya show that Mīmāṁsā technical terms and doctrines had been elaborated long before theṃ For example, the Vārtikas employ the technical Mīmāṁsā terms ‘prasajyapratiṣedha’ (Vārtika 7 on Pāṇini I. 1. 44, Vārtika 5 on I. 2. 1, Vārtika 2. on VII. 3. 85), paryudāsa (Vārtika 3 on I. 1. 27), the word ‘Śāstrātideśa’ (in Vārtika on VII. 1. 96), the distinction between ‘niyama’ and ‘vidhi’ (in Vārtika 1 and 2 on III. 3. 163), the word ‘prakaraṇa’ (Vārtika 4 on VI. 2. 143). Patañjali’s Mahābhāṣya is full of Pūrvamīmāṁsā matterṣ The word ‘Mīmāṁsaka’ occurs in bhāṣya on Pāṇini II. 2. 29. The Mahābhāṣya cites the well-known passage ‘the five five-nailed animals may be eaten’ and remarks that the sentence conveys that others than those five were not to be eateṇ¹² But Patañjali does not employ the word Parisankhyā of which the above (five) is an example, according to mīmāṁsā workṣ Jaimini employs the worḍ Parisankhya in VII. 3. 22. The Mahābhāṣya on IV. 1. 14 (vāṛtika 5) and on IV. 1. 93 (vāṛtika 9) gives valuable information viz. a brāhmaṇa woman is called 'Kāśakṛtsnā' if she studies the Mimāṁsā expounded by Kāśakṛtsni.¹³ This establishes that in Patañjali's time a mimāṁsā work composed by Kāśakṛtsni was in existence and women were found studying it. It is not certain what the Kāśakṛtsni-mīmāṁsā contained i. e. whether it was like the Pūrvamīmāṁsā of Jaimini or it was like the Uttaramīmāṁsā (Vedāntasūtra) or dealt with both mimāṁsā and vedānta, which latter is not unlikely. The V. S. mentions the opinion of a teacher Kāśakṛtsna (in I. 4. 22), which Śaṅkarācārya regards as the final conclusion supported by the real import of Śruti. The son of Kāśakṛtsna might have been called Kāśakṛtsni (Pāṇini IV. 1. 95). The Vāṛtikas and Patañjali are full of the discussion of important matters on which the Mimāṁsā has its own doctrineṣ In the Vāṛtikas 35 to 59 on Pāṇini I. 2. 64 (Sarūpāṇām-ekāśeṣa ekavibhaktau) there is a lengthy discussion on the question of the import of words, viz. whether it is ākṛti or vyakti. It is said in Vāṛtika 35 that, according to Vājapyāyana, ākṛti is the import of a word, while, according to Vyāḍi (in Vāṛtika 45 ‘dravyyābhidhānam Vyāḍiḥ), dravya (or vyakti) is the import of a word (pada). The Mahābhāṣya notes that Pāṇini wrote some sūtras (such as I. 2. 58 ‘Jātyākhyāyām’ &c) in which he accepted jāti as the import of words, while in other sūtras (such as I. 3. 64 ‘sarūpāṇām’ &c) he accepted ‘dravya’ as the import of wordṣ¹⁴ It is to be noted that, according to Jaimini (I. 3. 33 ‘ākṛtistu kriyārthatvāt’), ākṛti is the import of wordṣ On Vārtika 3 on Pāṇ. IV. 1. 92 (Sāmānyacodanaśtu viśeṣeṣu) Patañjali says that the vidhis really apply to individuals and he gives purely mīmāṁsā examples in this connection as set out in the note. The Vārtikakāra and Patañjali both use the word ‘codanā’¹⁵ in the Pūrvamīmāṁsā sense and give examples which are familiar to us from Śabaraśbhāṣya. Among the purposes served by a study of grammar, ūha (which is the subject of the 9th chapter of PMS) is one. On Pāṇini I. 4. 3 Patañjali uses the language of Mīmāṁsā ‘apūrva eva vidhirbhaviṣyati na niyamah.’

It appears that the Saṅkarṣakāṇḍa was very much neglected from early timeṣ There is a conflict of views about its authorship. The Nyāyapariśuddhi of Veṅkaṭanātha (I. H. Q. vol. IX. at p. 299) states that Kṛṣakṛtsna was the author of the Saṅkarṣakāṇḍa. It appears from Śabara's bhāṣya that¹⁶ that Kāṇḍa existed in his day and was looked upon by him as Jaimini's work. Śaṅkarācārya in his bhāṣya on V. S. III. 3. 43 (pradānavad-eva tad-uktam) mentions the Saṅkarṣa, quotes a sūtra therefrom, holds that it was known to the Vedāntasūtra and appears to convey that it it was a work of Jaimini. Rāmānuja also appears to hold that Jaimini was the author of 16 chapters (comprising The twelve called Pūrvamīmāṁsā and the four forming the Sānkarsa). The Kalpataruparimaḷa of Appayyadikṣita on V. S. III. 3. 43, while conceding that the Sānkarsakāṇḍa was undertaken for discussion about devatās, insists that it is a parisiṣṭa (supplement) of the P. M. S. of twelve chapters consisting as it does of discussions on several topics treated in the P. M. S. and does of a miscellaneous nature, that it does not begin with nor conclude with the discussion about devatās and that its first sūtra is ‘anuyajati anuvaṣaṭkārāś-codyate’. Since the Sānkarṣakāṇḍa has had hardly any influence on Dharmaśāstra works no further reference need be made to it in this work.¹⁸⁸⁴

Later medieval writers look upon the mimāṁsāśāstra as the most important of vidyāsthānas (other than the Vedas), since it removes the ignorance, doubts and mistaken notions about the sense of several (Vedic) passages, and since all vidyāsthānas require its aid for the determination of the nature of their real meaning.¹⁸⁸⁵

In some works like the bhāṣya of Rāmānuja on V. S. and the Prapañcahṛdaya¹⁸⁸⁶ the Mīmāṁsāśāstra is stated to be as one whole containing twenty adhyāyas (chapters) and we are told that there was a (bhāṣya) commentary called Kṛtakoṭi on the whole of it by Bodhāyana, that later on a concise commentary was composed by Upavarṣa, that Devasvāmin wrote a commentary on 16 chapters and Bhavadāsa also composed a commentary on Jaimini, but that Śabara wrote a bhāṣya only on the first 12 chap- ters and did not comment on Śaṅkarṣa. In I.H.Q. (vol. 15 pp. 262- 263) reference is made to an inscription of Rājarāja (999 A. D.) which records the gift of certain lands to a learned brāhmaṇa who was to provide to four pupils board and teaching in several subjects, one of which is specified as the mīmāṁsā of twenty adhyāyaṣ These 20 chapters are made up as follows :—12 chapters (each divided into four pādas, except chapters III, VI and X, each of which has eight pādas, in all sixty pādas) ascribed to Jaimini, 4 chapters called Śaṅkarṣakāṇḍa and 4 chapters constituting the Vedāntasūtra. The twelve chapters often called Pūrvamīmāṁsā make an extensive work containing 915 or about one thousand adhikaraṇas (according to different writers) and about 2700 sūtras, dealing with numerous topics and laying down important rules of vedic interpretatioṇ Yāj. (in I. 3) means by Mīmāṁsā probably the work of Jaimini in 12 chapterṣ Many writers such as Mādhavācārya ¹⁷ speak of two Mīmāṁsās, Pūrva and Uttara, respectively comprising the 12 chapters ascribed to Jaimini and the four chapters forming the Vedāntasūtra. Śaṅkarācārya refers to the extant Pūrvamīmāṁsā as Dvādaśa- lakṣaṇī in his bhāṣya on Vedāntasūtra III. 3. 26, as ‘Prathama- tantra’ in bhāṣya on V. S. III. 3. 25, III. 3. 53 and III. 4. 27, as Prathama-kāṇḍa in bhāṣya on V. S. III. 3. 1, III. 3. 33, III. 3. 44, III. 3. 50, as Pramāṇalakṣaṇa in bhāṣya on V. S. III. 4. 42. On V. S. III. 3. 53 he speaks of the first pāda of the P. M. S. as ‘Śāstrapramukha eva prathame pāde’ and thereby conveys that he regards that the PMS and VS form one entire śāstra.

From here onwards up to note 1890 the discussion is also comprised (though a little more briefly) in the present author's paper on ‘Pūrvamīmāṁsā, Brahmasūtra &c’ contributed to the Prof. De Felicitation volume (pp. 119–139).

There are very difficult and controversial questions about the authorship of the extant Pūrvamīmāṁsāsūtra and of the extant Vedāntasūtra (or Brahmasūtra) and their relation to each other. All of them cannot be gone into here. The first matter to be noted is that, though the number of the Vedāntasūtras is only about 1/5th of the number of the P. M. S., the V. S. contains more personal references (i. e. 32) than the P. M. S. (i. e. 27). In the 2nd place, we find that the Vedāntasūtras mention Jaimini eleven times and Bādarāyaṇa nine times, while the P. M. S. names Bādarāyaṇa and Jaimini only five times each. The question arises whether Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa were contemporaries and, if not, what the relation between the two waṣ Scholars are generally agreed that they were not contemporarieṣ There is a tradition of some antiquity contained in the Sāmavidhānabrāhmaņa¹⁶ according to which Jaimini was a pupil of Pārāśarya Vyāsa. It has been shown above (p. 857, note 1390) how the Purāṇas declare that Vyāsa Pārāśarya, also called Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana arranged the one Veda into four and imparted the Ṛgveda, Yajurveda, Sāmaveda and Atharvaveda respectively to Paila, Vaiśampāyana, Jaimini and Sumantu. In the Mahābhārata Sumantu, Jaimini, Vaiśampāyana, Paila are stated along with Śuka (the son of Vyāsa) to be the pupils of Vyāsa; vide Sabhā 4. 11 and Śāntiparva 328, 26–27 (cr. eḍ 314, 23–24, 29) and 350. 11–12 (cr. eḍ 337. 11–12). In the tarpaṇa provided for in the Āśvalāyanagṛhyasūtra (III. 4. 4) occurs the very interesting passage ‘Sumantu-Jaimini-Vaiśam- pāyana-Paila-Sūtra-bhāṣya-Bhārata—Mahābhārata—Dharma- cāryāḥ.’ The above passages make it clear that several centuries before the Christian era Jaimini’s was an honoured name and connected with the Sāmadeva. Scholars have examined the references to Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa in the P. M. S. and the V. S. Prof. K. A. Nīlakaṇṭa Sastri in I. A. Vol. 50 pp. 167–174 on Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa arrives at the somewhat startling conclusion that there were three Jaiminiṣ T. R. Chintamani on p. 14 of the supplement to J. O. R. Madras, Vol. XI agrees with Prof. Nīlakaṇṭa Sastri. Jaimini is named five times in the extant P. M. S. viz. at III. 1. 4, VI. 3. 4, VIII. 3. 7, IX. 2. 39, XII. 1. 7. Commonsense requires us to hold that these five references about Jaimini must have been made to the same persoṇ If two different Jaiminis were intended by the P. M. S. (other than its own author) in the five sūtras a clear warning would have been given by the author. As shown below a sūtra should leave no ambiguity. Prof. Sastry holds that Jaimini mentioned in VI. 3. 4 is different from the Jaimini in the other four passages, because Śabara does not employ the word ācārya for qualifying Jaimini on VI. 3. 4 as he does in the four other cases and because the view put forward in VI. 3. 4 appears to be Pūrvapakṣa, while in the four other cases Jaimini's view is the siddhānta view of the Mīmāṁsā-sūtra. The number of sūtras in which Jaimini is named is very small (only 5), out of which the word ācārya is applied to Jaimini by Śabara in four places and not so applied in one. This is a very slender and inadequate ground for holding that the Jaimini in P. M. S. VI. 3. 4 is different from the Jaimini named in four other placeṣ The usages of ācāryas as to employment of qualifying words like 'ācārya' or 'bhagavat' to authors mentioned by them differ. Kumārila applies no epithet like 'ācārya' or 'bhagavān' to Jaimini and in one place¹⁷ charges Jaimini with composing sūtras containing not much substance. In the sūtras in which Jaimini is named in the VS (viz. in 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, IV. 4. 11) Śaṅkarācārya adds the qualification 'ācārya' in all except on III. 4. 40, although Jaimini propounds many propositions not acceptable to Bādarāyaṇa the author of V. S. or to Śaṅkara. In III. 4. 40, however,²⁰ he omits the qualification 'ācārya' as regards both Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa. No one has argued that because the word ācārya does not qualify Bādarāyaṇa in III. 4. 40, the Bādarāyaṇa in that sūtra is different from the Bādarāyaṇa named in other sūtraṣ In another place (on V. S. IV. 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 Śankara, Jaimini had treated of how brahma-vidyā ariseṣ 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 sūtra ²¹ 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 theṃ 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 performeḍ Then comes the 4th sūtra in which the name of Jaimini occurṣ Śabara's bhāṣya on this sūtra is extremely meagre (2½ lines in print) and not clear. The Tūp-ṭīkā does not comment separately on each of the sūtras of VI. 3. 1-7, ²² 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. 4 were a pūrva- pakṣa sūtra, it is expected that sūtra 5 should contain the word 'tu' or 'api vā' in order to indicate that it refutes the view expressed in sūtra 4. What that sūtra means is that the dropping of some aṅga in the nitya rite does not make that rite a different one from the same nitya rite when performed with all aṅgas, since the text about its performance (with all aṅgas or with some aṅgas) is one and the same and the vedic instruction is that all aṅgas have to be done ( if possible ). Interpreted thus, the sūtra is not a pūrvapakṣa at all, but only emphasizes the siddhānta with additional reasonṣ The upshot would be that Jaimini mentioned five times in PMS is only one person and that he is a different person (who had written on P. M.) from the reputed author of the extant PMS.

A parallel may be citeḍ Śaṅkarācārya makes one adhikaraṇa of sūtras 26–33 of V. S. I. 3 (devatādhikaraṇa) which establishes that not only men but gods are qualified to study the Vedāntaśāstra and names Bādarāyaṇa twice in the same adhikaraṇa (in I. 3. 26 and 33) and in I. 3. 33 he employs the word 'tu' because that sūtra is a reply to Jaimini's view contained in I. 3. 31–32. Similarly, the PMS puts forward the siddhānta view in VI. 3. 2 and names Jaimini in VI. 3. 4 for the same purpose.

Even Prof. Sastry admits that in four out of the five references where Jaimini is expressly named, his views are the siddhānta viewṣ The cases of PMS IX. 2, 3 and XII. 1. 59 are somewhat remarkable. The adhikaraṇa in both cases consists of only one sūtra, which is the siddhānta view and Jaimini is expressly named thereiṇ In PMS III. 1. 4 Jaimini differs from Bādari (III. 1. 3) and two more sūtras are added to complete the adhikaraṇa. In PMS VIII. 3. 7 Jaimini's view is opposed to that of Bādari (VIII. 3. 6), is the siddhānta view and there is no separate sūtra setting forth the view of the author of the PMS.

From the remarks of Śaṅkarācārya on V. S. III. 4. 40 (quoted in note 1890) it follows that he regarded Bādarāyaṇa as the author of the Vedāntasūtra. In V.S. III. 2. 38-39 the Siddhānta is stated that the rewards of actions are given by Īśvara (God), while Jaimini’s view is that it is Dharma that gives the rewards of actions (III. 2. 40) and in the next sūtra (III. 2. 41) it is stated that Bādarāyaṇa holds the former view (or that the former of the two, Īśvara and Dharma, gives the reward is the view of Bādarāyaṇa). Here Bādarāyaṇa is expressly mentioned as holding the same view as that in the Siddhāntasūtra III. 2. 38. The observations of Śaṅkarācārya in introducing²³ the last sūtra of the VS make it perfectly clear that he regarded Bādarāyaṇa as the author of the entire Vedāntasūtra. No satisfactory explanation is offered why it was necessary to mention Bādarāyaṇa nine times in the VS when all the 555 sūtras thereof are deemed to have been composed by Bādarāyaṇa, or why it was necessary to mention in a work containing about 2700 sūtras all deemed to be composed by Jaimini, the views of Jaimini five times when in all cases or at least in four out of the five cases the views are identical with the reputed author of the PMS. Only two theories are possible viz. to hold that there is no explanation or to hold that there were two Jaiminis and two Bādarāyaṇaṣ The problem of the author of the VS is rather complicateḍ Bhāskara (like Śaṅkara) holds that Bādarāyaṇa is the author of VS, since he begins his commentary on VS with an obeisance to Bādarāyaṇa who sent forth (into the world) the Brahmasūtra that brings about the cessation of the bondage of birth. The Pāñcapādikā of Padmapāda (a disciple of Śaṅkarācārya) performs (in the 2nd Introductory verse) an obeisance to Bādara-yaṇa.²⁴ Rāmānuja, on the other hand, makes confusing statementṣ In the 2nd verse of his introduction to the Śrībhāṣya²⁵ on VS he calls upon all good men to drink the nectar-like words of Parāśarya, but in his bhāṣya on VS II. 2. 42 he holds that Bādarāyaṇa was the author of the Mahābhārata, wherein the Pāñcarātra-śāstra is expounded at great length (in Śāntiparva chap. 334-339 = cr. eḍ 321 ff.) as also of the VS²⁶. But Yamunācārya, the preceptor of the teacher of Rāmānuja, ascribes the VS to Bādarāyaṇa. In spite of Śankarācārya, Vācaspati-miśra, author of the famous Bhāmatī on ²⁷ Śankarācārya’s bhāṣya on VS, makes an obeisance to Vedavyāsa, the author of Brahmasūtra. The Parāśara-mādhavīya is in two minds; in vol I part I pp. 52, 97, vol. II part 2 pp. 3 and 275 Bādarāyaṇa is said to be the author of the VS, but in a few other places VS is spoken of as Vyāsasūtra (vol. I part 1, pp. 56, 113). The above conflict of testimony gives rise to the important question whether Bādarāyaṇa, the supposed author of the Vedāntasūtras, is identical with Vedavyāsa or is different from hiṃ Śankarācārya’s bhāṣya points to the conclusion that in his opinion at least they are different.²⁸ For example, on V. S. I. 3. 29 he quotes a verse of Vedavyāsa in support of the proposition of the VS that the Veda is eternal. On VS II. 3. 47, in support of the proposition that, though the individual soul is an aṁśa of the Supreme Self, the latter is not at all affected by the suffering of the individual soul, Śankara quotes two verses as smṛti from the Mahābhārata. This makes it clear that, if the author of the VS was identical with Vedavyāsa, the author of the Mahābhārata, Śankarācārya would not have cited the latter as an independent smṛti source supporting the former or would at least have used some such language as ‘this very author has said elsewhere that’ &c. The same reasoning would apply to Śankarācārya’s commentṣ If that great ācārya was of the opinion that the author of the VS was the same as that of the Mahābhārata and the Gītā he would not have cited passages from the Epic and the Gītā as Smṛtis supporting the reasoning of the VS.

If it were contended that there is only one Jaimini (and not two, much less three) a serious difficulty ariseṣ Why should the author of PMS (containing about 2700 sūtras) refer to him- self by name in five places only. The usual explanation offered by some commentators when Pāṇini names ²⁹ his predecessors, viz. that they are named for showing his reverence for them, would be of no avail as to Jaimini, since it cannot be said that the author of PMS Jaimini shows respect to himself. When Jaimini mentions Bādarāyaṇa in I. 1. 5 and XI. 1. 65 Śabara ³⁰ explains this is done for showing respect to Bādarāyaṇa or for spreading his fame. Another explanation that ancient authors often refer to themselves in the 3rd person will not do. Why should the author of about 2700 sūtras choose five places only for referring to himself. Therefore, one is compelled to hold that, if Jaimini is the author of the extant PMS and mentions the views of Jaimini five times only, there was a predecessor and namesake of his called Jamini who had expressed his views in a different work.

There are eleven sūtras in the VS in which the views of Jaimini are referred to. They are (as stated above) VS I. 2. 28 and 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, IV. 4. 11. Out of these eleven there are six references to Jaimini (viz. I. 2. 28, I. 2. 31, I. 4. 18, IV. 3. 12, IV. 4. 5, IV. 4. 11) for which no corresponding adhikaraṇa or sūtra in the PMS can be pointed out, while sūtras III. 2. 40, III. 4. 2, III. 4. 18 attribute views to Jaimini, which are well-known doctrines of the PMS. VS I. 3. 31 corresponds to PMS VI. 1. 5 and on III. 4. 40 (quoted in note 1890 above) Jaimini and VS agree. Therefore, it appears that the Jaimini who expresses views on purely Vedāntic topics and whose views are not found in PMS composed a work on Vedānta.

There are in VS nine sūtras in which Bādarāyaṇa is named viz. in VS I. 3. 26 and 33 (Bādarāyaṇa being twice named in the same adhikaraṇa as opposed to Jaimini), III. 2. 41, III. 4. 1, III. 4. 8, III. 4. 19, IV. 3. 15, IV. 4. 7, IV. 4. 12. It may be noted that in all these cases (except in IV. 3. 15) the views ascribed to Bādarāyaṇa are opposed to those of Jaimini or are slightly different (only VS IV. 4. 7 and IV. 4. 12). Prof. Nīlakaṇṭa Śastrī thinks that all the views mentioned as Bādarāyaṇa's are the views of the author of the VS who employs the third person for himself as ancient authors do (I. A. vol. 50 at p. 169). This does not afford a satisfactory explanation of the question why it was necessary to invoke Bādarāyaṇa's name in nine cases only for buttressing up the position of the author of the VS (that has 555 sūtras). If the author of the VS and Bādarāyaṇa named nine times are identical, the name of Bādarāyaṇa should ordinarily appear towards the end of the adhikaraṇa and not in the middle. Two examples may be cited here to illustrate how VS deals with references to Bādarāyaṇa. In III. 2 38-41 (which is one adhikaraṇa) the siddhānta view is first stated with reasons in III. 2. 38-39, then Jaimini's view is cited (III. 4. 40) and then Bādarāyaṇa is mentioned as agreeing with the view first put forth ‘pūrvam tu Bādarāyaṇo hetuvyapadeśāt), the difference being that the siddhānta is based upon ‘upapatti’ while Bādarāyaṇa relies upon ‘hetuvyapadeśa’ (in śruti and smṛti). This shows that different reasons were assigned by the author of VS and by Bādarāyaṇa for the same propositioṇ VS. III. 4. 18-20 form one adhikaraṇa about sannyāsa. Jaimini starts the pūrvapakṣa that the Chāṇ Up. (II. 23. 1 ‘trayo dharmaskandhāḥ’) only makes a passing reference to the āśramas, there is no vidhi (injunction) in that text and there is no exposition also. Then Bādarāyaṇa's view is cited ‘anuṣṭheyam Bādarāyaṇaḥ sāmyāśruteḥ’ i. e. sannyāsa should be resorted to just as one resorts to the householder's stage. Then comes the view of the author of the VS that there is a vidhi of sannyāsa in that text. If Bādarāyaṇa and the author of VS be held identical, why was it necessary to add the sūtra ‘vidhirvā dhāraṇavat’ (VS III. 4. 20) after stating Bādarāyaṇa's view? It would be also noticed that the reasons given in the two sūtras differ. In VS IV. 4. 10-14 first the views of Bādari and Jaimini on Chāṇ Up. VIII. 2. 1, 5 are set out, then Bādarāyaṇa's view is set forth (in IV. 4. 12) and then two more sūtras are added by the author of VS. Therefore, these illustrations show that, though the final conclusion of Bādarāyaṇa and the author of VS is the same, the language and the reasons are different, and that Bādarāyaṇa named in the VS was a predecessor of the author of the extant VS that had composed a work on Vedānta, whom the author of the VS strengthens with reasons of his owṇ

In Pāṇini’s time there were mendicant ascetics (bhikṣus) who studied the ‘Bhikṣusūtra of Pārāśarya’ or ‘the Bhikṣusūtra of Karmanda’ and were designated ‘Pārāśarinah’ and 'Karmandinaḥ'³¹ A bhikṣu represents the order of Sannyāsa. Therefore, a Bhikṣusūtra must have had as its subject sannyāsa, the time for it, the rules of the order, the final goal to be attained and so oṇ The Br. Up. (III. 5. 1 and IV. 4. 22) emphasizes that those who realize brahma give up all desires and practise begging. The Gautama-dharmasūtra³² says the same thing. No trace is found of the Bhikṣusūtra of Karmanda. But it is possible to say that the Bhikṣusūtra propounded by Parāśarya must have been somewhat like the extant Brahmasūtra or one of its predecessorṣ This would be the earliest reference to a sūtra by Parāśarya on the sannyāsāśrama. The date of Pāṇini is not beyond dispute. But no modern scholar would place him after 300 B. C. The present writer would place him as early as at least 500 or 600 B. C. The result would be that the Bhikṣusūtra of Parāśarya named by Pāṇini would have to be placed at some time between 400 B. C. to 700 B. C. Further light is shed by Vārtika³³ (1) on Pāṇini IV. 1. 97, from which it follows that Vyāsa’s ‘apatya’ (son) was called Vaiyāsaki, that is Śuka (according to the Mahābhāṣya). Bādarāyaṇa is formed from Badara which is a word in the Naḍādi-gaṇa (consisting of about 76 words), according to Pāṇini IV. 1. 99 (Naḍādibhyaḥ phak), Bādari being the son of Badara, Bādarāyaṇa being the grandson (or a remoter male descendant) of Badara. At some period Vyāsa and Bādarāyaṇa came to be confounded and Śuka, who was the son of Vyāsa according to the Vārtika and the Mahābhāṣya, came to be called Bādarāyaṇi (son of Bādarāyaṇa) as shown by the Bhāgavatapurāṇa (XII. 5. 8 where Śuka is said to be ‘Bhagavān Bādarāyaṇiḥ’). It appears that from the 9th century A. D. Bādarāyaṇa came to be confounded with Vyāsa Parāśarya. A brief examination of the citation of the views of Bādarā- yaṇa and Jaimini in the PMS and the Brahmasūtra ¹⁹⁰⁴ is necessary. Bādarāyaṇa 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 Bādarāyaṇa are agreed on the eternity and infalli- bility of the Veda; (2) In P. M. S. V. 2. 17-20, there is a discussion on Nakṣatreṣṭi. In the model sacrifice there are certain homas called Nāriṣṭha; the question is whether in the modifications of the model wherein certain subordinate homas called upahomas are prescribed, the Nāriṣṭha homas precede or follow the Upahomaṣ The siddhānta view is that Nāriṣṭhahomas precede, Ātreya being of the opposite view and Bādarāyaṇa supporting the siddhānta. (3) In P. M. S. VI. 1. 8 Bādarāyaṇa'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 adhikaraṇa in which the question is whether the texts prescribing Āgneya and Aindrāgna puroḍāśas in Darśapūrṇamāsa for a sacrificer who has not performed soma sacrifice constitute a vidhi (of the two) or only an anuvāda, Bādarāyaṇa'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 adhikaraṇa and the discussion concerns the question whether āghāra and other aṅgas are to be repeated with each of the principal matters (Āgneya and others) in Darśapūrṇamāsa or are to be performed only once.

With regard to these five cases where Bādarāyaṇa is cited in the P. M. S. three points emerge, viz. the author of the P. M. S. agrees with Bādarāyaṇa's view in all except in X. 8. 44 (where the two differ), that the view attributed to Bādarāyaṇa in P. M. S. I. 1. 5 has correspondence with the views of the V. S. (1. 3. 28-29) and that four views out of five refer to purely sacrificial matters to which nothing corresponds in the V. S. It follows that the author of the extant P. M. S. had some work of Bādarāyaṇa dealing with Pūrvamīmāṁsā matters before him and that, if Bādarāyaṇa be the author of the extant V. S., the latter had composed a work on Pūrvamīmāṁsā matters also or that there was another Bādarāyaṇa who wrote only on Pūrva- mimāṁsā. The five references to Jaimini in P. M. S. have been noted above and the sūtra VI. 3. 4, which led Prof. Sastry to postulate three Jaiminis, has been already explained as not necessarily leading to any such conclusioṇ

Another alternative might be put forward viz. that works by Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa did not exist before the extant V. S. and P. M. S., but that the references to Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa concern views current in the schools of Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa. But this is not a likely hypothesiṣ The extant V. S. and P. M. S. are meant for all throughout Āryāvarta and it is not likely that the oral traditions of two schools were supposed to be known to all and sundry in the whole of the country.

In several cases where Bādarāyaṇa is mentioned, the extant V. S. makes certain additions and explanationṣ It has been shown above that Śaṅkarācārya, Bhāskara and Yāmuna ascribe the V. S. to Bādarāyaṇa and that Vācaspati and others hold that Vyāsa Parāśarya is the author of V. S. It is difficult to explain how Vedavyāsa came to be identified with Bādarāyaṇa after the 9th century A. D. Some other relevant matters have also to be considereḍ A verse about kṣetra and kṣetrajña in the Bhagavadgītā raises a probleṃ In Gītā ³⁵ 13. 4 it is said ‘this real nature of kṣetra and kṣetrajña has been separately sung (i. e. propounded) in many ways by the sages in different vedic hymns (or metres) and by the words of the Brahmasūtra that are full of reasoning and that arrive at definite conclusions'. Here the Gītā expressly mentions Brahmasūtra. If one turns to the extant Brahmasūtra (or Vedāntasūtra), it is found that in many sūtras reliance is placed on smṛti, which is taken to mean the Gītā by all ācāryaṣ For example, on ‘Smṛtiśca’ (V. S. I. 2. 6) the only Smṛti passages cited by Śaṅkarācārya are Gītā 18. 61 and 13. 2. Similarly, on ‘api ca smaryate’ (V. S. I. 3. 23) Śaṅkara cites only Gītā 15. 6 and 12; on ‘api ca smaryate’ (V. S. II. 3. 45) the only Smṛti passage quoted by Śaṅkara is Gītā 15. 7; on ‘Smaraṇti ca’ (V. S. IV. I. 10) only Gītā 6. 11 is quoted; on ‘Yoginaḥ prati ca smaryate smārte caite’ (V. S. IV. 2. 21) Gītā 8. 24-25 alone are set forth as the passages meant to be explaineḍ Therefore, though the Bhagavadgītā is not expressly named in the Brahmasūtra, the ācāryas are agreed that the Bhagavadgītā alone is relied upon and referred to in all the above-mentioned sūtraṣ We have, therefore reached this position that the Gītā mentions the Brahmasūtra which must be held to be earlier than the Gītā, but as Gītā passages are declared to be at the basis of some of the Vedāntasūtras, the Gītā must be earlier than the V. S. This is contradictory; Śaṅkarācārya³⁷ who saw the contradiction, therefore explained ‘Brahmasūtrapadaiḥ’ as passages (of Upaniṣads) that suggest (i. e. propound) doctrines about brahma (i. e. he interprets ‘sūtra’ as meaning ‘sūcaka’). But this explanation is far-fetched and has not been accepted by other commentatorṣ Therefore, other theories have to be put forward viz. that the author of both is the same or that the Mahābhārata and Gītā were receiving accretions from time to time and that when the final redaction of the Mahābhārata (including the Gītā) was made the verse about Brahmasūtra was inserted in the Gītā or that in the times of the Gītā there were several works called Brahmasūtra other than the extant one.

The present writer thinks it highly probable that the Gītā had before it several works called Brahmasūtras and in I3. 4 refers to them and not to the extant Brahmasūtra of Bādarāyaṇa. A brief examination of the authors mentioned in the PMS and VS is necessary. Both these works mention by name several individual authors (besides Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa). Both PMS and VS mention the following:— Atreya – PMS IV. 3. 18, V. 2. 18, VI. 1. 26 and VS III. 4. 44 ; Āśmarathya – PMS VI. 5. 16 and VS I. 2. 29, I. 4. 20; Kārṣṇājini – PMS IV. 3. 17, VI. 7. 35 and VS III. 1. 9. Bādari – PMS III. 1. 3, VI. 1. 27, VIII. 3. 6, IX. 2. 33 and VS. I. 2. 30, III. 1. 11, IV. 3. 7, IV. 4. 10;

PMS also names Ālekhana (VI. 5. 17), Aitiśāyana (III. 2. 44, III. 4. 24, VI. 1. 6), Kāmukāyana (XI. 1. 58 and 63) and Lāvukāyana (VI. 7. 37), these being not mentioned at all in the VS. On the other hand VS mentions Auḍulomi (I. 4. 21, III. 4. 45, IV. 4. 6) and Kāśakṛtsna (I. 4. 22), both being absent from PMS. The PMS very rarely refers to some ācāryas as ‘eke’ in I. 1. 27 and IX. 3. 4; V. S. has ‘eke’ in I. 4. 9 and 18, II. 3. 43, III. 2. 2, and 13, III. 4. 15, IV. 2. 13 and ‘ekeśām’ in I. 4. 13, IV. 1. 17, IV. 2. 13 and ‘anye’ in III. 3. 27, in all of which the reference in V. S. is to other recensions of the Veda or Upaniṣads, while in III. 4. 42 ‘eke’ refers to ācāryāḥ and in III. 3. 53 ‘eke’ refers to Lokāyatīkaṣ Vyāsa or Pārāśarya is not mentioned by name in PMS or VS. The case of Bādari requires careful consideratioṇ The PMS mentions both Bādarāyaṇa and Jaimini only five times each, while PMS and VS mention (each) Bādari four timeṣ Bādari differs from Jaimini on two important points viz. the denotation of the word ‘śeṣa’ and the remarkable view that even śūdras are entitled to perform agnihotra and other Vedic riteṣ In VS. Bādari is mentioned as differing from Jaimini on the upāsanā of Vaiśvānara in Chāṇ Up. V. 18. 1–2 and on the words ‘sa enān brahma gamayati’ (Chāṇ Up. IV. 15. 5) and in VS IV. 4. 10 Bādari is opposed to Jaimini about a released soul. It follows from this brief analysis and the mention of Bādari four times in PMS and also in VS that both the latter had before them a work of Bādari dealing with Pūrva- mīmāmsā matters and also with Vedānta. Ālekhana and Āśmarathya are both quoted at least 16 times in Āp. Śr. Sūtra, their views are the only two individual authors quoted in Āp. Śr. S. It is likely that Ātreya, Āśmarathya and Kārṣṇājini composed a work or works dealing with both systems and Auḍulomi (quoted thrice by VS) and Kāśakṛtsna composed works on the Vedānta. Vide Tantravārtika on I. 3. 2 p. 169 note 2010 for the view that the present PMS was preceded by several efforts in the same directioṇ

From the above discussion it may very plausibly be held that the word ‘Brahmasūtrapadaiḥ’ in Gītā 13. 4 refers to some sūtra works such as those of Bādari, Auḍulomi, Āśmarathya and one or two others and not to the extant Brahmasūtra. No one can say that Bādari and Ātreya are not ‘ṛṣis’. Śabara refers to Ātreya as ‘Muni’ on PMS VI. I. 26.

It should be remembered that Jaimini, Bādari and Bādarāyaṇa are gotra nameṣ But Vyāsa is not a gotra name and Pārāśarya is one of the three pravaras of the group of Parāśaraṣ³⁸

The Āp. Śr. Sūtra 24. 8. 10 (eḍ by Garbe) and the Pravara-mañjarī (eḍ by Chentsalrav, Mysore, 1900) p. 61 mention Bādarāyaṇa as a sub-section of Viṣṇuvṛddhagotra, while p. 38 of the latter work mentions Jaimini along with Yāska, Vādhūla, Mauna and others as having the pravara ‘Bhārgava-vaitahavya-śāvataseti’ and pp. 108 and 178 cite Bādari (or Vādari) as a sub-division of Parāśaraṣ Therefore, it was possible that several individuals separated by a century or more could bear the name of Jaimini or Bādarāyaṇa.

We have also to answer the observations of the Naiṣkarmya-siddhi of Sureśvarācārya (the most famous of the disciples of Śaṅkarācārya himself) that Jaimini does not mean that all passages of the Veda relate to sacrificial rites and that if he really meant that, he would not have composed ‘Śārīrakasūtra’ beginning with ‘athāto brahma-jijñāsā’ and ‘janmādyasya yataḥ’, containing an investigation of the purport of all Vedānta passages, laying bare the nature of brahma and supporting his words with profound reasoning; but that as a matter of fact he did compose such a śārirakasāstra. This passage means that Jaimini composed a sūtra work called Śārirakasūtra on the investigation and knowledge of brahma, which began with two sūtras that were the same as the first two sūtras of the extant Vedāntasūtra.³⁹ Col. Jacob in his Introduction (p. 3) to the first edition of the Naiṣkarmyasiddhi thought that the Naiṣkar- myasiddhi made Jaimini the author of the Vedāntadarśana. He is inaccurate, since all that Sureśvara says is that Jaimini composed not only a sūtra work on the Karmamīmāṁsā but he also composed a work called Śārirakasūtra on the doctrines of brahmamīmāṁsā, but he does not convey that the whole of the extant Vedāntasūtra is the work of Jaimini. Dr. Belvalkar⁴⁰ postulates two propositions, viz. that there were brahmasūtras written separately for the Chāndogya Upaniṣad and the Bṛhad- āraṇyaka-Upaniṣad and other Upaniṣads for each Śākhā and secondly, that the Śārirakasūtra of Jaimini was bodily incorporated within and forms the main part of the contents of the present text of the Brahmasūtra. The present author takes strong objections to both these propositionṣ He cannot go into this question at length here but has to remark that these propositions are based on little evidence. If ‘janmādyasya yataḥ’ was also a sūtra of Jaimini who was specially connected with the Sāma- veda by the Mahābhārata and Purāṇas, why is it that that sūtra is supposed by the bhāṣyakāras as based on a passage of the Taittirīya-upaniṣad? The Chāndogya and Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upa- niṣads are each nearly thrice as long as all the other eight Upa- niṣads (out of the principal ten Upaniṣads) and six times longer than the Taittirīya Upaniṣaḍ Therefore, these two Upaniṣads figure largely in the discussions in the extant Brahmasūtra. The 2nd proposition is hardly more than a pure guesṣ There is no evidence to establish that the main part of the extant Vedānta- sūtra is bodily taken from Jaimini’s Śārirakasūtra, when the latter has not come down to us and when no sūtras therefrom (other than the two noted above) are quoted anywhere as from Jaimini's Śārīrakasūtra.

Then some sūtras of VS in which the words 'tad-uktam' ⁴¹ occur have to be considereḍ There are eight sūtras that contain those wordṣ Śaṅkarācārya holds that in VS I. 3. 21, II. 1. 31, III. 3. 18 (where 'tad uktam' occur) the reference is to the preceding sūtras of the VS itself. On V. S. III. 3. 26, III. 3. 33, III. 3. 50 and III. 4. 42 Śaṅkarācārya holds that these respectively refer to PMS X. 8. 15, III. 3. 8, XI. 4. 10 and I. 3. 8-9 and that VS III. 3. 43 refers to a sūtra of the Saṅkarṣakāṇḍa. The other ācāryas differ from Śaṅkarācārya in several places and among themselveṣ Vallabhācārya, who had come to regard the Bhāgavata as of equal authority with the Veda and as even superseding the latter, holds that the words 'tad-uktam' in VS III. 3. 33, III. 3. 50 and III. 4. 42. refer to passages of the Bhāgavatapurāṇa. The VS III. 3. 44 appears to echo the words and principles of PMS III. 3. 14. ⁴² The words 'tad-uktam' should ordinarily mean the same thing throughout i. e. they should everywhere be taken as referring to the PMS or to VS. But no ācārya is prepared to accept entirely one of these two alternativeṣ It may further be noted that the extant P. M. S. very rarely employs the words 'tad-uktam' as in V. 3. 9 where it refers to PMS V. 1. 19. ⁴³ The P. M. S., though it mentions Bādarāyaṇa five times, nowhere appears to be influenced by the V. S. On the other hand, not only are some of the sūtras of V. S. contain-ing the words 'Tad-uktam' deemed to be references to the P. M. Sūtras, but the V. S frequently employs peculiar Pūrvamīmāṁsā words such as arthavāda, prakaraṇa, liṅga, vidhi, śeṣa and purely P. M. matters such as in III. 3. 26 (kuśāchandanastutyupagānavat), III. 3. 33 (anpasadavat), III. 4. 20 (dhāraṇavat), IV. 4. 12 (Dvādaśāhavat). Therefore, the extant VS very much presupposes the P. M. S., while the latter cannot be said to have been influenced by VS to any noticeable extent.

The present author now wishes to draw together the separate threads that have been spun so far about Vyāsa, Jaimini, Bādarāyaṇa, the PMS and the VS and tries to present a tentative pattern of conclusions as follows:—

##1. The Mahābhārata and some Purāṇas state that Jaimini was a pupil of Pārāśarya Vyāsa. But this is said in relation to the transmission of the Sāmaveda to Jaimini and therefore must be confined to that matter alone ( and not extended to other matters) in accordance with the mīmāṁsā maxim ‘yāvad vacanam vācanīkaṃ’ We have got a Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa, a Jaiminīya Śrauta-sūtra and Gṛhya-sūtra. The tradition about the imparting of Sāmaveda to Jaimini may be true and at present there is no evidence to show that it is wrong. There is, however, no warrant for extending this tradition to the reputed authors of the PMS and the VS. Late medieval writers like Vallabhācārya, whose weakest points were lack of correct knowledge of history and chronology and the obsession to glorify to the skies their favourite authors and works, extended the above tradition about the Sāmaveda to the authors of the two sūtra works,⁴⁴ viz. PMS and VS. From the above discussion it follows that the extant PMS is earlier than the extant VS and that the author of the extant PMS could not have been a disciple of the author of the extant VS. The medieval writers failed to pay proper attention to the fact that Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa are also gotra names and not merely individual nameṣ

##2. From Pāṇini we know that there were two bhikṣu-sūtras composed by Pārāśarya and Karmaṇḍa before his time. Patañjali mentions a mīmāṁsā work composed by Kāśakṛtsna. There is, therefore, no doubt that sūtra works on ‘bhikṣus’ and mīmāṁsā had come to be composed several centuries before the Christian era.

##3. From the examination of the views of Jaimini mentioned in the extant VS it appears that Jaimini composed a work on Vedānta also. Some corroboration is lent to this view by the remarks of the Naiṣkaramyasiddhi quoted on p. 1175 above. There is nothing to show that this Jaimini was a pupil of Bādarāyaṇa or of Pārāśarya. On the contrary, the words ‘Jaiminer-api’ in VS. III. 4. 40 convey great solicitude on the part of the author of the extant VS for Jaimini’s support. The author of the extant VS shows special respect for Jaimini's views, since he quotes Jaimini more times than other ācāryas (including Bādarāyaṇa). It becomes necessary to hold that there were two authors named Jaimini, one dealing with both PM and Vedānta subjects and the other deemed to be the author of the extant PMS. This Jaimini is different from Jaimini deemed to be the author of the extant PMS.

##4. The fact that PMS mentions five times Bādarāyaṇa's views, four of which are concerned with purely sacrificial matters and the fact that the VS mentions Bādarāyaṇa nine times in connection with Vedānta matters, leads to the inference that Bādarāyaṇa must have composed a work dealing with PM and Vedānta topicṣ That work has not come down to uṣ This Bādarāyaṇa is different from the Bādarāyaṇa regarded by Śaṅkarācārya and others as the author of the extant VS. Thus there are two authors named Bādarāyaṇa.

##5. The author of the extant VS was, according to Śaṅkarācārya, Bhāskara and some other early bhāṣyakāras, also Bādarāyaṇa, but from about the 9th century A. D. onwards he came to be confounded with Vedavyāsa.

##6. So far as the PMS and VS are concerned, there are only two Jaiminis (and not three, as Prof. Sastry holds in I. A. vol. 50 p. 172) and two Bādarāyaṇaṣ

The present section is concerned mainly with the influence of Pūrvamīmāṃsā doctrines and methodology on Dharmaśāstra workṣ But it must be mentioned here that Pūrvamīmāṃsā works from that of Jaimini onwards also rely upon smṛtis and Dharmaśāstra. A few examples may be citeḍ The PMS I. 3 deals with the limits of the authoritativeness of smṛtis, PMS VI. 7. 6 mentions the word ‘Dharmaśāstra’. The P. M. S. expressly relies on smṛti in support of its propositions (as in XII. 4. 43). On PMS VI. 1. 12 Śabara quotes a smṛti verse, which is almost the same as Manu VIII. 416 and Ādiparva (82. 23=Cr. Eḍ 77. 22). Śabara frequently quotes Dharmasūtras and metrical smṛtis to elucidate and strengthen his arguments; e. g. Śabara on PMS VI. 1. 10 quotes Āp. Dh. S. II. 6. 13. 11 and states on PMS VI. I. 15 that the sale of a daughter mentioned in the smṛtis is not approved of by śiṣṭaṣ⁴⁵ It is not necessary to cite further examples to support the proposition stated above. Those interested may consult the present author's paper on “Gleanings from Śābara and the Tantravārtika’ JBBRAS vol. 26 (old series, 1924) pp. 83-98 and on ‘Tantravārtika and Dharmaśāstra’ in JBBRAS, New series, vol. 1 and 2 for 1925 (pp. 95-102).

We must now turn to the Pūrvamīmāmsāsūtra itself. In relation to every śāstra there are what are called four anubandhas (indispensable elements) ⁴⁷ viz. Viṣaya (the subject to be treated of), prayojana (the purpose or object), sambandha (the relation of the śāstra to the prayojana) and adhikārin (the person entitled or competent to study the śāstra). The Ślokavārtika ⁴⁸ remarks ‘as long as the purpose of any śāstra or of any undertaking (or act) whatever is not declared, so long no one will take it (i. e. study or do it).' Therefore, the very first sūtra of the PMS puts forward the subject (viṣaya) and the purpose of the śāstra (prayojana).⁷³ That sūtra states ‘next, therefore, (should be undertaken) the investigation and consideration of dharma. The sambandha of this śāstra with the prayojana is that of sādhya (the object to be attained) and sādhana (the means of attaining) i. e. this śāstra is the means of attaining the knowledge of dharma. Therefore, as remarked by the Śāstra- dipikā (on P. M. S. II. 1. 1), the proper subject of this śāstra is Dharma and not the meaning of the Veda (tasmād dharma ityeva śāstraviṣayo na vedārtha iti). The adhikārin is one who has studied the Veda or a part of it from a guru and is treated of at length in the 6th chapter of the P. M. S.

The Mīmāṁsāsūtra does not state how much of the Veda has to be studied before one enters on understanding the mean- ing of it. Here the Smṛtis come to one's help. Gautama II. 51-53 prescribes several options viz. twelve years for one Veda or 12 years for each of the four vedas or so long as he can commit to memory (one Veda). Manu III. 1-2 are similar viz. one should study vedas for 36 years under a guru or for 18 years or nine years or for as many years as would be required for committing Veda to memory and they permit the option of studying the three Vedas or two Vedas or one Veda. Yāj. I. 36 remarks that Vedic studenthood lasts 12 years for each Veda or five (for each Veda) or some sages say for as many years as the student would require to master (one Veda or more). But even these prescriptions must have been rather a tall order for many brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and vaiśyaṣ Further, the Mīmāṁsā requires that not only should a person of the three varṇas (classes) study the Veda but he must also engage in understand- ing its meaning. On PMS I. 1. 1 Śabara states that the vener- able Yājñikas do not ⁷⁴ declare that rewards result from the mere study (memorizing) of the Veda and that where the Vedic texts appear to assign a reward for the mere memorizing of Veda they are merely arthavādas (intended only to praise Veda study), as in Tai. Ār. II. 15 which states⁵¹ 'whatever (vedic texts about a), sacrifice he memorizes the result is that he, as it were actually performs that, and he secures absorption into (or communion with) Agni, Vāyu, Sūrya. The Tai. Up. I. 9 attaches the greatest importance to svādhyāya (memorizing the Veda) and pravacana (teaching it or expounding it) and after stating the views of two sages cites the view of Naka Maudgalya that svādhyāya and pravacana are the most important to be resorted to or striven for, though ṛta, satya, dama, śama, agnihotra, hospitality and others may be combined with them, the reason being that those two constitute tapas. The PMS in III. 8. 18 (jñāte ca vācanam na hy-avidvān vihitoseti) provides that only he who knows the Veda has adhikāra for performing sacrificeṣ Śabara⁵² raises the question how much of the Veda must a man know in order to be entitled to perform a Vedic sacrifice and replies that he must have memorized as much of the Veda as would enable him to carry to its completion the Vedic sacrifice undertaken by hiṃ The Tantravārtika on the same sūtra adds that the whole Veda is to be studied during the period of studenthood, but if anyone is unable to memorize the whole veda, but somehow only the portion on Agnihotra and Darśa- pūrṇamāsa, then it cannot be said that he has no adhikāra for performing those two. To memorize the Veda and also to study its meaning was a formidable task. Many verses of the Veda had a threefold application with reference to sacrifices (adhi- yajña), with reference to the deities (adhidaivata or adhidaiva) and adhyātma (with reference to the spiritual or metaphysical meaning). Vide Nir. III. 12 (where Rg. I. 164. 21 is explained in two ways, adhidaivata and adhyātma), X. 26 (where Rg. X. 82. 2 is explained in two ways, adhidaivata and adhyātma), XI. 4 (where Rg. X. 85. 3 is explained in adhiyajña and adhidaivata ways), XII. 37 (where Vāj. S. 34. 55 is explained in the adhi- daivata and adhyātma ways), XII. 38 (where Atharva X. 8. 9 is explained in adhidaivata and adhyātma ways). Manu (VI. 83) lays down the japa (muttering) of Veda of the adhiyajña, adhidaivika and adhyātmika typeṣ Manu I. 23 and Vedānga- jyotișa say that the mantras of the three vedas were drawn from Agni, Vāyu and Sūrya for the carrying out of yajñaṣ Viśva- rūpa on Yāj. I. 51⁵³ explains the words ‘vedam vratāni vā pāram nitvā’ as memorizing the Veda and completely under- standing its meaning and not merely memorizing it. Dakṣa says that Vedābhyāsa (study of the Veda) comprehends five⁵⁴ matters viz. first memorizing it, reflection over it, constant re- petition of it, japa and imparting it to pupilṣ These were ideals attained by a few persons only, while most brāhmaṇas generally rested content with memoriznig one Veda or a portion of it.

The Pūrvamīmāṁsāsāstra is the most extensive of all the darśmaṣ ¹⁹²³ Śāstra is that which regulates and declares (human) activities and abstentions by means of eternal words (Veda) or by works composed by meṇ ¹⁹²⁴ And it has about 2700 sūtras and over 900 adhikaraṇas (called nyāyas or conclusions on topics for discussion). Some sūtras are often repeated such as 'Liṅgadarśanāc-ca' (which occurs about 30 times) and 'tathā cānyārthadarśanam' (that occurs about 24 times). An adhi- karaṇa is described as having five constituents, viz. (1) the topic for discussion, (2) the doubt about it, (3) the prima facie view, (4) the refutation of the prima facie view, (5) the final conclusioṇ ¹⁹²⁵ A sūtra (aphorism) should be concise ¹⁹²⁶ (contain a few letters), but clear in its meaning, substantial, of wide application (lit. facing all directions), should be without pauses or interjected letters and should be faultlesṣ A bhāṣya is that which sets out the meaning of the sūtra in sentences that follow the words of the sūtra and that makes its own contribu- tion (to the elucidation of the subject of the sūtra), while a vārtika is one that considers what is stated in the sūtra, or what is omitted or what is not well stateḍ¹⁹²⁷ The Kāvya-mīmāmsā of Rajasekhara defines the words sūtra, bhāsya, vrtti, țīkā, kārikā &c. in chap. II.

Having declared in the first sūtra that after a person has studied the Veda and because he has done so, PMS proceeds to say that he should start on the consideration of what dharma¹⁹²⁸ iṣ The 2nd sūtra, therefore, defines 'dharma as an act conducive to a man's highest good, that is characterized by an exhortative (vedic) text.' Śabara explains that 'codanā' means a sentence that urges or exhorts a person to do an act. So this conveys that the means of knowledge (pramāṇa) as regards dharma are vedic sentences and it also means that what is characterized or indicated by codanā is dharma i. e. the nature (svarūpa) of Dharma is made manifest. The word 'artha' is put in to exclude acts (from being designated dharma) that may be mentioned in the veda but the result of doing which is evil, such as the sentence 'one practising black magic (to harm a person) may perform the Śyena sacrifice.' This is not dharma, but adharma, since the practice of black magic is condemned as sinful. This vedic sentence does not say that one should inflict injury, it only says that śyenayāga brings about injury and if one desires to inflict injury, śyena is the meanṣ¹⁹²⁹ The Ślokavārtika remarks that the words, 'codanā', 'upadeśa' and 'vidhi' are synonyms according to Śabara, the bhāṣyakāra. The word 'vidhi' is often translated as injunction (i. e. an authoritative order) but in common parlance 'injunction' means 'restraining a person from doing something.' Therefore, the word, 'codanā' or 'vidhi' has often been translated in these pages as 'exhortatory passage or exhortatioṇ' The result is that dharma means a religious act (a yāga) which confers highest gooḍ In Rg. X. 90. 16 'yajña' is spoken of as the first (or ancient) dharma (yajñena yajñam-ayajanta devās- tāni dharmāņi prathamānyāsan) and Śabara (in the bhāṣya on P. M. S. I. 1. 2) quotes this verse for the proposition that the Veda expressly says that dharma means 'yāga'. That Vedas have been promulgated for yajña is stated by the Vedāṅga- jyotiṣa ⁵⁸ verse 3 (Vedā hi yajñārthamabhipravṛttāḥ). Medi- eval Dharmaśāstra writers like the Mitākṣarā (on Yāj. II. 135), Dāyatattva (p. 172), Vy. M. (p. 157) quote a verse ascribed to Devala or Kātyāyana, which provides that all wealth is created for sacrifices, that, therefore, one should expend it on purposes of dharma and not on women, fools and irreligious people ⁵⁹ (vide H. of Dh. Vol. III. p. 609 ṇ 1155 for further passages of similar import and their application).

Śabara introduces the 2nd sūtra by saying that what is to be investigated and understood is what dharma is (i.e. what is its nature-svarūpa), what are its characteristics, what are the means of attaining it, what are deceptive (wrong) means of attaining it and what does it lead to (what the fruit or reward of knowing it is) and replies that the second sūtra explains the first two of these (viz. what dharma is and what its characteristics are ⁶⁰). That is, ‘codanās’ (vedic hortatory texts) are the pramāṇa (means of knowledge) about dharma and whatever is laid down by hortatory vedic texts is dharma (i. e. Dharmasvarūpa). The relation of Dharma to the Veda and the Pūrvamīmāṁsā-śāstra is clearly and succinctly brought out in a verse of Kumārila himself as follows: ⁶¹ "When discussion about the correct knowledge of Dharma is being carried on, Veda being the means of such knowledge, mīmāṁsā will supply complete information about the subject of the procedure or methoḍ’ Just as even if a man has good sight he cannot perceive anything unless there is light, so unless a man knows the methods laid down by PMS he cannot correctly judge what Dharma iṣ Jaimini then examines the means of knowledge (pramāṇas) and holds that except śabda (i. e. the Veda) there is no means of knowledge about Dharma. One cannot perceive directly what Dharma is i. e. Dharma is not pratyakṣa. All the other pramāṇas except śabda are based on pratyakṣa and therefore they cannot define or explain what Dharma iṣ According to Kumārila there are six pramāṇas, pratyakṣa (direct perception), anumāna (inference), upamāna (analogy), śabda, arthāpatti and abhāva (non-existence). Prabhākara does not accept the last as a pramāṇa.

The subjects of the twelve chapters of the PMS are stated in the J. N. M. V. to be respectively : (1st chapter) pramāṇa (means of knowledge); (2nd) bheda (six grounds on which religious rites are distinguished from each other and the distinctions of rites as principal and subsidiary); (3) Śeṣa (the meaning of śeṣa being ‘ancillary or what subserves another that is called śeṣin or what is helpful to another’), how it is employed and the relative strength of śruti, liṅga, vākya, prakaraṇa, sthāna and samākhyā; (4) prayukti (what is obligatory and what is addressed to the performer’s conscience i. e. what is kratvartha and what is puruṣārtha); (5) Krama (principles of settling the order or sequence depending on śruti &c.); (6) adhikāra (persons entitled to perform yāga); (7) sāmānyātideśa (extension of items in the model yāga to its modifications); (8) Viśeṣātideśa (extension of items to individual rites); (9) ūha (adaptation of mantras and saṁskāras); (10) bādha (omitting certain items or details in modifications of model yāgas; (11) tantra (one item being useful and enough for several acts or persons); (12) prasaṅga (extension of application). In the four pādas of the first adhyāya four matters are respectively dealt with viz. vidhi (hortatory texts), arthavāda (laudatory or explanatory passages including mantras), smṛtis (including customs and usages) and names (of rites, such as udbhid, citrā). Śābara himself gives a summary ⁶² of the first chapter of PMS as follows; viz. the pramāṇas; principles of the conclusions about vidhi, arthavāda, mantra and smṛtis, examina- tion of guṇavidhi (texts laying down some subsidiary or accessory matter as in 'dadhnā juhoti', where curds are prescribed as offering) and nāmadheya; the determination of doubtful matters by the help of the remainder of a passage or by the sāmarthya (the suitability of things for the actions prescribed). It is unnecessary for the purpose of this section to furnish here a summary of the contents of the other chapters of the PMS. For a tolerably full summary of the contents of the twelve chapters of the PMS the reader is referred to the author's paper 'a brief sketch of the Pūrvamīmāṁsā system' in ABORI, vol. VI. pp. 6–12. At the beginning of each chapter Śābara summarizes what he dealt with in the preceding chapter and sets out the principal topics of that chapter.

The P. M. S. itself is of enormous extent and it has been overlaid with commentaries and with numerous commentaries on commentarieṣ Even before Śābara there was a commentator described as Vṛttikāra, ⁶³ who is mentioned in several places by Śabara (sometimes with great respect) viz. on II. 1. 32 and III. 2. 26, III. 3. 16, III. 1. 6 ('atra bhagavān Vr̥ttikāra'), VIII. 1. 1. ('vr̥ttikāraih' in the plural), X. 4. 23. On P. M. S. I. 1. 3-5, II. 1, 33, VII. 2. 6 Śabara differs from Vr̥ttikāra. The earliest extant commentary on the P. M. S. is the bhāṣya of Śabara. Śabara quotes many verses concerning PMS matters and a few also on other topicṣ Verses quoted on PMS matters are found on II. 1. 32 (one on p. 434 and another on p. 435), II. 1. 33 (p. 436, two verses)¹⁹³⁶ II. 2. 1 (p. 462, two verses on adr̥ṣṭārtha), on IV. 3. 3 (one verse on p. 1247), IV. 4. 21 (p. 1279 a verse on pinḍapitr̥yajña), IV. 4. 24 (p. 1280 an Āryā verse on the girdle of sacrificial post), IV. 4. 28 (p. 1281 about 'svaru'), V. 2. 23 (p. 1319, same verse on XII. 2. 30 p. 2251), VII. 1. 12 (p. 1534 definition of atideśa), X. 4. 20 (p. 1924 one verse), XI. 1. 1 (p. 2096 on tantra and prasaṅga), XII. 3. 20 (p. 2262 on bhāsika-svara). All these verses are apparently quoted by Śabara from some work or commentary on the PMS or on Pūrvamīmāṁsā, one or two probably from some Śrautasūtra and one or two may be his own compositioṇ

Many glosses on PMS composed by writers of the 10th and following centuries are extant, of which 22 are referred to on p. 166 of vol. VI, of the Sarasvatibhavana Studies (Benāres) by M. M. Gopinath Kaviraja in his paper on the 'Mīmāṁsā Msṣ in the Government Sanskrit Library at Benāres' (pp. 165-196). On Śabara's bhāṣya there were numerous commentaries as is

( Continued from next page ) the present author in JBBRAS for 1921 pp. 83-98 at p. 84, hold that Vr̥ttikāra and Upavarṣa are different. M. M. Kuppuswami Sastry (in Pro. of 3rd O. Conference pp. 465-468) holds Bodhāyana and Upavarṣa identical. Śaṅkarācārya twice names Upavarṣa with great respect (as bhagavān) on VS I. 3. 28 and III. 3. 53, but he nowhere mentions Bodhāyana to whose extensive commentary Rāmānuja refers at the beginning of his bhāṣya on VS. Vide J. I. H. Madras, vol. VII. pp. 107-115 on Bodhāyana and Upavarṣa and V. A. Rāmaswami Sastry's Intro. to the Tattvabindu pp. 14-18 (1936). Vide I. H. Q. vol. X, pp. 431-452 on 'Vr̥ttikāras of Pūrvamīmāṁsāsūtra.'

1936. It is remarkable that the two verses about the ten topics dealt with by Brāhmaṇas (on P. M. S. II. 1. 33) occur also in the Brahmāṇḍa purāṇa II. 33. 47-48. In Śabara they are: हेतुनिर्बन्धनं निन्दा प्रशंसा संशयो विधिः। परक्रिया पुराकल्पो व्यवधारणकल्पना॥ उपमानं दशैते तु विषयो ब्राह्मणस्य तु॥ एतस्यात् सर्वधर्मेषु निबन्धनविधारणम्॥ There are a few variants in the Brahmāṇḍa. The verse about विधिप्रत्यक्ष on IV. 3. 3 is introduced with the words एवं हि षड्विधाकार्यं न्यायविदः श्लोकमामनन्ति-कुर्यादिति०. clearly indicated by the Ślokavārtika that says that the very first sentence ⁶⁵ of Śabara’s bhāṣya was interpreted in six different ways before it by commentators and by the Tantravārtika that the bhāṣyakāra did not notice six sūtras after the ‘nivitādhi- karaṇa’ (III. 4. 1-9) and that commentators differed in their reasons for the omission, but all commentators other than Śabara did explain those six sūtraṣ⁶⁶ None of the commentaries composed before Kumārila is now available.

. Kumārila wrote the Ślokavārtika on Śabara’s bhāṣya on P. M. S. I. 1 (in about 4000 verses) and the voluminous Tantra- vārtika on I. 2 to the end of chap. III of PMS and the Tup-ṭīkā on P. M. S. IV-XII (stray notes, not a regular commentary ). Kumārila is credited with having composed two more com- mentaries, ‘Madhyama-ṭīkī’ and ‘Brhat ṭīkā’ on P. M. S.⁶⁷ The latter has been referred to by the Nyāyaratnākara ⁶⁸ and the Nyāyasudhā on Tantravārtika quotes several verses from it (on pp. 201, 329-30, 393) and the Jaiminīya-sūtrārthasangraha of Rsiputra Parameśvara quotes Brhat-ṭīkā several timeṣ On the Ślokavārtika two commentaries have so far been published viz. the Nyāyaratnākara of Pārthasārathi and the Kāśikā of Sucaritamiśra (in T. S. S.). In the Introduction to his English translation of the Tantravārtika, M. M. Dr. Ganganath Jha notices eight commentaries on the Tantravārtika of which the Nyāyasudhā or Rāṅaka of Someśvara (published in Chowkhamba Series) is a very exhaustive one, the others being in Mṣ Tuptika 1941 has some regular commentaries but none is publisheḍ The Tantraratna of Pārthaśārathimiśra deals at some length with the same chapters of P. M. S. (published partly in Prince of Wales, Sarasvatibhavana S.). On Śābara’s bhāṣya Prabhākara wrote a commentary called Bṛhatī, a portion of which on the Tarkapāda (PMS I. 1) with the commentary Rjuvimalāpañcīkā of Śālikanāthamiśra has been edited by Pandit S. K. Ramanatha Sastri and published by the Madras University (1934). The Śāstra-dīpikā of Pārthaśārathi is not a regular commentary on the P. M. S. but it is a classic work on the P. M. S. and follows the views of Kumārila. Another very useful work is the Jaiminīya-nyāya-mālā-vistāra ⁷⁰ of Mādhavācārya (published by Anaṇ Press, Poona) that gives summaries in verse of the adhikaranas of the PMS with brief prose comments and also points out some of the differences of Prabhākara (called ‘guru’ by Śālikanātha and others) from Kumārila (in all about 15 points of difference being noted between the two as regards the first chapter of the PMS and three in the 2nd chapter). Śālikanātha wrote an independent work called Prakaraṇapañcīkā (published in the Chowkhamba S. S.). There is another work of Prabhākara’s school called Nayaviveka of Bhavanātha or Bhāvadeva (eḍ by Pandit S. K. Ramanath Sastri and published by the Madras University in 1937). This Bhavanātha is eulogised in the Madanaratnapradīpa on Vyavahāra (pp. 324-325, published by the Anup S. Library, Bikaner, 1948) as the sun to the lotus of Prabhākara’s doctrine. The Tantrarahasya of Rāmānujācārya (2nd eḍ published in G O. S, 1956) composed about 1750 A. D. is the last noted work of the Prabhākara School and this work furnishes some useful information about the works of Prabhākara and the commentaries thereon by Śālikanātha. A verse in the Prabodhacandrodaya (Act II) after referring to Guru, Kumārila (or Tautāṭita), Śālikanātha and Vācaspati refers to Mahodadhi and Māhāvratī (work of Māhāvrata), the last two being mentioned in the Nayaviveka (pp 271, 273 respectively).

Prabhākara differed from Kumārila on numerous pointṣ⁴⁴ The divergence starts from the very first sūtra of the P. M. S. (as the note below will show ⁴⁵). Prabhākara is called guru' by Śālikanātha in many places in the Prakaraṇapañcikā (vide first Intro. verse and pp. 17, 32 &c.). There is a very great divergence of views about the relative chronological position of Kumārila and Prabhākara. Vide 'the Prabhākara School' (1911) by M. M. Ganganath Jha, A. B. Keith's 'Karmamīmāṁsā' (1921) pp 9-11, Pro. of 2nd All India O. Conf. pp. 408-412 and Pro. of 3rd All I. O. Conference pp. 474-481 (both by Prof. Kuppuswami Sastri), J. O. R. Madras, vol. I pp. 131-144 and 203-210. The fundamental question is whether Śālikanātha was a direct pupil of Prabhākara or only a later follower. From several considera-tions the present writer holds that Śālikanātha was a direct pupil of Prabhākara. Śālikanātha not only speaks of Prabhākaraguru,

1943. Vide Journal of the Benares Hindu University, vol. II, pp. 309–335 for collection in Sanskrit of the points of difference between Prabhākara and Kumārila (called Bhaṭṭa), particularly pp. 331–335 for a table of the points of difference. Vide also Intro. to Tattvabindu by Pandit V. A. Rama-svami Sastri, 1936, pp. 37–40 for a few important points on which the two differ.

1944. According to the Bhāṭṭa school, the 'viṣayavākya' of PMS I. 1. 1 is स्वाध्याययोऽध्येतव्यः in शतपथ XI. 5. 6 and तै. आ. II. 15. 1 (एतस्मात्स्वाध्याययो-ध्येतव्यो यं श्रुतमधीते तेन तेनार्चयेद् भवतीति). According to the प्राभाकर school the viṣayavākya is अट्ठब्रह्म ब्राह्मणमुपनयीत समध्यापयीत, the idea in this latter case being that study of Veda (Vedādhyayana) is only an aṅga (a subsidiary matter) of the vidhi to teach a student the Veda after his upanayana. The objections of the Prabhākara school against the viṣayavākya 'svādhyāyogdhyetavyah' are that it has a seen fruit or reward and that when a seen fruit can be found it is improper to suppose that there is an unseen rewarḍ Vide H. of Dh. vol. III. p, 837 ṇ 1628 where several passages from Śabara and others are cited about this maxiṃ The एकादशीतत्त्व (pp. 88-89 on मन्त्र) after quoting P. M. S. III. 2. 1 winds up 'इति ह्यर्थसम्पत्तो नाहमिह कल्पयते इति'. I have not been able to find from what Vedic work the sentence 'अट्ठब्रह्म... पयीत' is takeṇ It seems that the view that this passage contains a vidhi about teaching the Veda is only an inference from passages like Manu II. 140, III. 2, and Gauta-ma I. 10–11. The प्रकरणपञ्चिका (on p. 6) admits this: कः पुनराचार्यकरणविधिः, 'उपनीय ... मचक्षेत । (मदृ.2.140) इति स्मरणादनुमितः. According to this उपनयन is only an aṅga of the अध्यापनविधि. On p. 225 of the पञ्चपादिका of पद्मपाद (published with two commentaries in the Govt. Oriental Series, Madras, 1958) there is a scathing criticism of this विषयवाक्य (अट्ठब्रह्म ... पयीत). but in one place states ‘our teacher does not tolerate this’.⁷¹ Śālikaṇātha in his Prakaraṇapañcikā quotes several verses of the Ślokavārtika (e. g. on p. 5 he quotes and criticizes verse 11 of Ślokavārtika quoted in ṇ 1916 above, on p. 122 quotes Ślokavārtika v. 28 of abhāva-pariccheda and on p. 114 verse 21 of arthāpatti-pariccheda). Maṇḍanamiśra wrote several works on PM viz. Vidhiviveka (published at Benares with Nyāyakaṇikā of Vācaspati), Bhāvanāviveka (with coṃ of Umbeka, edited in S. B. series), Vibhramaviveka and Mīmāṁsānukramaṇī (Chow. S. S.). The Śāstradīpikā (on PMS II. 1. 1) cites Maṇḍana's explanation of Kumārila’s verse ⁷². Therefore, Maṇḍana is later than Kumārila or was a younger contemporary of Kumārila and flourished about 690 to 710 A. D. Śālikaṇātha quotes Vidhiviveka of Maṇḍana (pp. 243, 302) in Prakaraṇapañcikā p. 178 and Brahmasiddhi in Ṛjuvimalā (p. 20). Moreover, Śāntarakṣita in his Tattvasaṅgraha (GOS) frequently criticizes the kārikās of Kumārila (without naming him) and his pupil Kamalāśila names Kumārila many timeṣ Śāntarakṣita does not name or quote Prabhākara. He flourished between 705–762 A. D. (vide Foreword to Tattvasaṅgraha p XVI, GOS). Therefore, Kumārila must be placed about 650–700 A. D. As Śālikaṇātha quotes the Ślokavārtika and Maṇḍana's works he would have to be placed between 750–800 A. D. If Śālikaṇātha was a direct pupil of Prabhākara it follows that the latter (who appears to be unknown to Śāntarakṣita, should have been a contemporary (i. e. should be held to have flourished nearly between 700–760 A. D. or a little later) and was later than Kumārila. There is a tradition that Prabhākara was a pupil of Kumārila. Traditions (such as of The nine gems at the court of Vikramāditya) often arise without much evidence to support them; they should not, however, be summarily rejected but should be tested by other available evidence.

At one time Prabhākara appears to have occupied a very prominent positioṇ The Gadag inscription of Vikramāditya VI (in 1098 A. D.) refers to the founding of a school for teaching Prabhākara's system at Lakkiguṇḍī (vide E. I. vol. XV p. 348). This and the reference in the Mitākṣarā (on Yāj. II. 114) to the views of Guru on ⁷³ the Lipsūsūtra (PMS. IV. 1. 2.) in the third alternative interpretation put on that sūtra, holding that the rules about the acquisition of wealth (in Gautama and other smṛtis) are puruṣārtha (addressed to the conscience of the performer of sacrifices) and not kratvartha, show the outstanding position that the Prabhākara school occupied in the 11th century A. D. in the Carnatic and Maratha countrieṣ The Madanapārijāta, a north Indian work (1360-1390 A. D.), quotes a half verse of Guru ⁷⁴ (on p. 89). The Smṛticandrikā (on Vyavahāra p. 257), the Viramitrodaya (on Vyavahāra p. 523) and the V. M. (p. 89) refer to the Nayaviveka of Bhavanātha, almost the last outstanding work of the Prabhākara school. Gradually, the Prabhākara School lost ground and the Bhāṭṭa school of Kumārila has been most predominant for several centurieṣ The present writer holds that Prabhākara is later then Kumārila but he is not in a position to say from whom he borrowed his peculiar views or whether they were started by him for the first time (though this appears more plausible). Paṇḍit K. S. Rāmaswamī Sāstrī (in Intro. to Tantrarahasya, G. O. S., 2nd edition of 1956) holds that Prabhākara took his views from Bādari (p. XXV). The learned Paṇḍit offers hardly any tangible evidence for his remark (on p. XIX of the Intro.) that Bādari held views similar to those of Bhartṛmitra who so interpreted the PMS as to make it atheistic. Bādari’s views on Mīmāṁsā matters are quoted only four times in PMS viz, in III. 1. 3 (on what matters are śeṣa), VI. 1. 27 (that vedic sacrifices can be performed even by śūdras), VIII. 3. 6. (purely sacrificial matter about application of Şaḍaha procedure), IX. 3. 33. (about method of singing sāman, Bādari’s view being accepted by Jaimini). In none of these does one find the slightest touch of Bhartṛmitra’s atheistic tendencies or of Prabhākara’s special propositionṣ

From Kumārila onwards there are numerous commentaries, commentaries on commentaries and manuals on some aspects of mīmāṁsā doctrines or of the contents of the PMS. Several difficult questions of identity and relationship among some of the early writers whose works are wholly or partially extant have also arisen during the last fifty years and many papers have been writteṇ The present writer has read most of them, but if the whole evidence is to be set out and discussed a bulky volume of several hundred pages would have to be writteṇ That cannot be done here. The several questions of identity and relationship are set out below and the present author’s replies to all of them will be given with a little discussion on a few out of them :

(1) Whether Prabhākara was a pupil of Kumārila; the reply is that there is no substantial or compelling evidence for this except tradition, but Prabhākara is certainly later than Kumārila;

(2) Whether Śālikanātha is a direct disciple of Prabhākara — yes;

(3) Whether Maṇḍana was a disciple of Kumārila; there is no substantial evidence for an affirmative reply, but Maṇḍana certainly explains in his Bhāvanāviveka a verse of Kumārila and quotes another verse from Tantravārtika. Vide note 1946 above. In the Vidhiviveka also (Benares eḍ 1907), which Maṇḍana wrote after Bhāvanāviveka he quotes (on p. 15 ‘abhidhābhāvanā...liṅādayaḥ) from Tantravārtika (p. 378) and on p. 315 of the Vidhiviveka quotes (yathoktam-śreyaḥsādhanatā... ...pratīyate’) from Ślokavārtika(codanāsūtra, verse 14). Maṇḍana also quotes a passage from the Bṛhatī (p. 38) of Prabhākara in Vidhiviveka ⁷⁵ (p. 109). So Maṇḍana, if not a disciple, was certainly later than or a younger contemporary of Kumārila. (4) Are Maṇḍana and Umbeka identical—no; Umbeka wrote a commentary on the Bhāvanāviveka of Maṇḍana in which on pp. 17 and 76 he discusses various readings in it; it is not possible to hold that a writer would discuss variant readings in his own work (as would follow if the two were identical). (5) Are Maṇḍana and Viśvarūpa identical—No; (6) Are Viśvarūpa and Sureśvara identical—yes; the latter name being assumed after Viśvarūpa became a saṃnyāsin. (7) Is Umbeka identical with Bhavabhūti—the evidence is not enough to give a definite affirmative reply; but it is likely that they may be identical. (8) Is Umbeka a disciple of Kumārila—yes; as shown in note below.⁷⁶ (9) Is Sureśvara, a pupil of Śaṅkarācārya?—Yeṣ The result of the above replies is that the most probable chronological order of Pūrvamīmāṁsā writers mentioned in questions 1 to 9 viz. Kumārila, Prabhākara, Maṇḍana, Umbeka, Śālikanātha. They flourished between 650 A. D. to 750 A. D., Kumārila being the earliest of the five, Prabhākara (who quotes Kirātārjunīya II. 30 twice on pp. 242, 343) and Maṇḍana being contemporaries or Maṇḍana being younger than Prabhākara. The opening and ending verses in Sureśvara's Vārtika on the bhāṣya of Śaṅkara on the Br. Up. and the Tai. Up. leave no room for doubt that he was a disciple of Śaṅkara. From the present author's paper in JBBRA for 1928, pp. 289-293 and Prof. Kuppuswami's paper on 'Maṇḍana, Sureśvara equation in the History of Vedānta' in ABORI vol. 18 pp. 121-157 it follows that Maṇḍana and Sureśvara are not identical. Some remarks in the learned Introduction of Prof. Kunhan Raja to the edition of Umbeka's Coṃ on the Ślokavārtika invite criticisṃ Prof. Raja (on p. XLIX) states that his attempt has been only to raise doubts and to attempt at weighing the evidence for and against various theorieṣ The present writer has no serious objection to thiṣ But he thinks that Prof. Raja has gone wrong in his interpretation of words like 'anupāsitagurūpa-vaś-codayanti' (p. 33) and 'anupāsitaguruprajñā-vilasitam-iti'⁷⁸ grantha-jñāna-mānino manyante' (p. 30). He starts (XLII) by saying "whether it meant (i. e. 'anupāsitaguru' meant) one by whom the teacher was not respected or a teacher who was not respected (by his disciples)' and then proceeds 'but the expres- sion 'upāsitagurutām' (appearing in the commentary on the 2nd verse of the Ślokavārtika) settles the point. It must mean 'one by whom the teacher was not respected'. 'Upāsita-guru' literally means 'one who waited on the guru i. e. listened to the explanations of his teacher and made them his own'. 'Honoured' is at most a secondary meaning of 'upāsita'. Upa-ās literally means 'sit near, wait upon'. I fail to see how it settles the point. The word 'upāsita-gurutām' (when introducing the 2nd intro. verse of the Ślokavārtika) is applied by Umbeka to Kumārila himself in relation to the Ślokavārtika verse ‘ābhi- vandya gurūṇāḍau'. It means ‘the characteristic or quality of one who has served his teacher i. e. who has carefully listened to what the guru expounded and understood it.' The expression 'anupāsitaguru' (which, according to Prof. Raja, always refers to Prabhākara) frequently (vide also pp. 14, 52, 75, 291, 441) used by Umbeka means 'he or those who have not waited upon the guru and listened to his words carefully and therefore have failed to grasp the correct meaning of the passages'. The infer- ence suggested by these words of derision is that the objector (either Prabhākara or some one else) has not understood the doctrine taught by Kumārila to him and the present author is disposed to hold that the frequent emphasis on the word 'guru' in 'anupāsitaguru' is a veiled reference to Prabhākara-guru (as Śalikanātha puts his name in his Prakaraṇa pañcikā 'Prabhā- kara-guror-dṛṣṭyā), who was Kumārila's pupil but deviated from his guru's doctrines and wrote against them and Umbeka attacks and derides him for thiṣ Supposing that Prabhākara had once been a pupil of Kumārila and later on propounded views that very much diverged from Kumārila’s, it is natural if Umbeka took up the cudgels on behalf of Kumārila and attacked Prabhā- kara as one who had forsaken his Guru's views, had not digested them properly and had written a work (not now available but well-known to Umbeka) severely attacking Kumārila. Prof. Raja (Intro. pp. XLIII and XLIV) throws out the suggestion that on p. 14 and p. 291 Umbeka possibly suggests that Prabhā- kara preceded Kumārila. There is nothing of the kinḍ Umbeka holds that Prabhākara had not grasped his master's doctrines and tries to show what the real doctrine misunderstood by Prabhākara waṣ

It appears desirable to set out a tentative chronological table of the outstanding works and writers of the Pūrvamīmāṁsā, with a few remarks here and there. Most of the dates are approximate and tentative.

Pūrvamīmāṃsāsūtra of Jaimini—400 B. C. to 200 B. C. Vṛttikāra—There is great conflict of views about the person who the Vṛttikāra quoted several times by Śabara waṣ Pārthasārathi in Śāstradipikā p. 48 (first line) holds that he is Upavarṣa. Vṛttikāra is cited with great respect by Śabara, but he also differs from him frequently. The Prapañcahṛdaya (p. 39) attributes to Bodhāyana an extensive commentary called Kṛtakoṭi on both mīmāṃsāṣ It is remarkable that Bodhāyana is not mentioned by name by any early work on P. M. S. nor does Śaṅkara mention him though he twice mentions Upavarṣa. Rāmānujācārya in the opening words of his bhāṣya on Brahma- sūtra refers to the extensive commentary of Bodhāyana on the Brahmasūtra. But he does not say that Bodhāyana commented on P. M. S. The present author is not even now prepared to hold that Vṛttikāra mentioned by Śabara so often is identical with Upavarṣa. Śabara cites at some length the different inter- pretation of PMS I. 1. 3–5 by Vṛttikāra and in the midst of it mentions (on p. 45) by name the view of Upavarṣa on ‘what is śabda’. He appears to regard the two as different. The fact that the Tantravārtika (pp. 602–3 on II. 3. 16) appears to identify Upavarṣa with Vṛttikāra is not conclusive. From Kumārila himself we know that several Vṛttis were written on PMS before as well as after Śabara. So even Upavarṣa may have been deemed to be Vṛttikāra by Kumārila (on II. 3. 16) and his views quoted, though the Vṛttikāra in other places in Śabara’s bhāṣya may be different.

Upavarṣa—between 100 B. C. to 100 A. D.

Bhavadāsa—The Ślokavārtika (Pratijñāsūtra, v. 63) mentions him by name and verse 33 of the same as explained by the Nyāyaratnākara shows that Bhavadāsa was deemed to be earlier than Śabara by the Ślokavārtika; between 100–200 A. D.

Śabara—between 200–400 A. D. (nearer the former date). From the Tantravārtika on II. 3. 23 p. 612, on II. 3. 27 p. 620 and III. 4. 31 p. 967 it appears that there was another person called Bhāsyakārāntara, who was earlier than Śabara From Tantravārtika on III. 4. 12 (p. 909) and Ṭup-ṭīkā on VI. 5. 10 (p. 1462) it seems that Kumārila sometimes applies the word vṛttikāra to Śabara also. Bhartṛmitra—On verse 10 of the Ślokavārtika, the N. R. says that the former refers to Bhartṛmitra who so interpreted the Mīmāṁsā as to make it atheistic. According to Umbeka (in Tātparyatīkā p. 3) his work was called Tattvasuddhi; between 400-600 A. D. Kumārilabhaṭṭa—About 650-700 A. D.⁷⁹ Prabhākara—author of Bṛhatī on Śabara's bhāṣya—between 675-725 A. D. Maṇḍana—Disciple of Kumārila or a younger contemporary, wrote on both P. M. and Vedānta; in Vidhiviveka p. 109 he quotes the Bṛhatī (vide Pro. of 3rd O. Conf. p 479); his other works are Bhāvanāviveka, Vibhramaviveka and Mīmāṁsā- nukramaṇikā; between 680-720 A. D. Vide ABORI vol. 18 pp. 121-157 (by Prof. Kuppuswami Sastri), J. I. H. vol. XV pp. 320-329. Umbeka—pupil of Kumārila and commentator of Śloka- vārtika and of Maṇḍana's Bhāvanāviveka; generally identified with dramatist Bhavabhūti between 700-750 A. D. Śālikanātha—pupil of Prabhākara and author of the com- mentary Ṛjuvimalā on Prabhākara's Bṛhatī and of an independ- ent work ‘Prakaraṇa-pañcikā’. It is noteworthy that in Ṛjuvimalā on Bṛhatī (p. 91) he quotes a verse from Ślokavārtika (Vākyādhikaraṇa verses 43-44) and refers to Kumārila with great respect as ‘Yadāhur-Vārtikakāra-miśrāḥ’; 710-770 A. D. Sureśvara—(called Viśvarūpa before he became a sannyāsin) disciple of Śaṅkarācārya. Between 800-840 A. D. Vācaspati-miśra— wrote famous works on all śāstras; author of Nyāyakaṇikā on Maṇḍana’s Vidhiviveka and Bhāmatī on Śaṅkarabhāṣya; between 820–900 A. D.

Pārthasārathimiśra—author of Śāstradīpikā (pub. by Nirṇ Press 1915), Nyāyaratnākara (coṃ on Ślokavārtika), Tantraratna (coṃ on Tuptikā) and Nyāyaratnamālā (pub. in G. O. S. with coṃ Nāyākaratna of Rāmānujācārya); between 900–1100 A. D. Authors later than Pārthasārathi are placed below in one paragraph.

Sucaritamisra— author of coṃ called Kāśikā on the Ślokavārtika (a part published in the T. S. S.); Bhavanātha (or Bhavadeva), author of the Nayaviveka, pub. in Madras Uni. Sanskrit series, with the coṃ Vivekatattva of Ravideva (on Tarkapāda, 1937), between 1050–1150 A. D; Someśvara—son of Mādhava, author of the Nyāyasudhā or Rāṇaka (a voluminous commentary on the Tantravārtika), pub. in Chowkhamba S. S. at Benares, 1909, about 1200 A. D; Murārimiśra—who is supposed to have founded a third school of Mīmāṁsā (Murāres trtiyah panthāh), author of Tripādinītinayana (part pub. in J. O. R. Madras, vol. II pp. 270–273 and vol. V. pp. 1–5) and Aṅgatvanirukti, Anaṇ eḍ pp. 1141–1190), between 1150–1220 (acc. to Intro. to Tattvabindu); Mādhavācārya, author of Jaiminīya-nyāyamālāvistāra (pub. by Anaṇ Press); vide H. of Dh. Vol. I. pp. 374–381), between 1297–1386; Appayyadikṣita, author of Vidhirasāyana (pub. at Benares), is deemed to have written 100 or 108 works on different śāstras, said to have flourished between 1520–1593 A.D., another view being that he flourished between 1554–1626 A. D.; Laugākṣibhāskara, author of Arthaśaṅgraha (text with translation, pub. by Dr. Thibaut in 1882 and by several others), Śaṅkarabhaṭṭa, author of Mīmāṁsā-bālaprakāśa (Benares), between 1550–1620 A. D.; Apadeva, son of Anantadeva, author of Mīmāṁsā-nyāyaprakāśa (pub. by B. O. R. I. Poona, with a lucid commentary by M. M. Vasudevasastri Abhyankar, 1937); there are several other editions of this work, one of which edited by Prof. Edgerton with transliterated text, translation and notes in Harvard O. Series is very useful; between 1610–1680 A. D.

Khaṇḍadeva, author of Bhāṭṭakaustubha with Bhāṭṭadīpikā (published in Mysore Govt. Oriental series), and Bhāṭṭarahasya. About 1600–1665 A. D. Gāgabhatta or Viśvesvarabhaṭṭa, son of Dinakarabhaṭṭa, author of Bhaṭṭacintāmaṇi (part published at Benares); between 1620-1690 A. D.

Rāmānujācārya, author of Tantrarahasya (G. O. S.), belonging to the Prābhākara school and of Nāyakaratna (coṃ on Nyāyaratnamālā of Pārthasārathi, G. O. S., 1956); about 1500-1575 A. D.

Mīmāṁsākośa (in Sanskrit)—An encyclopaedic and most learned work on Pūrvamīmāṁsā—prepared by Swami Kevalā- nanda Sarasvati, published by the Prājñapāṭhaśālāmaṇḍala at Wai in the Satara District, Bombay State; four parts have been published so far, covering over 2400 pages and four more are to be publisheḍ The press copy of the whole is, it is understood, ready. Unfortunately the great Swami entered Brāhmī state five years ago.

Some of the works written in English on the P. M. S., apart from short papers and the translation of the Śābarabhāṣya (3 vol. in G. O. S.), the Tantravārtika and the Ślokavārtika of Kumārila (Bibliotheca Indica, Calcutta, 1900) by M. M. Dr. Ganganath Jha, may be noted here for those who desire to make further studies in P. M. S. The following works and papers are also useful.

Max Müller's 'Six systems of Indian Philosophy' in collected works (eḍ of 1899), pp. 197–214; The Prābhākara school of Pūrvamīmāṁsā by M. M. Ganganath Jha (1911); Karmamīmāṁsā by A. B. Keith (1921); 'Indian Philosophy' by Prof. Das-Gupta, vol. I. pp 367–405 (Cambridge, 1922); 'A Brief Sketch of the Pūrvamīmāṁsā system' by the present author in A. B. O. R. I. vol. VI pp. 1–40 (1925); 'Outlines of Indian Philosophy' by Prof. M. Hiriyanna, pp. 298–325 (Allen and Unwin, London, 1932); Introduction on 'a short History of the Pūrva-mīmāṁsā-śāstra' to the edition of the Tattvabindu of Vācaspatimiśra by Pandit V. A. Rāmaswamī Sastri (Annamalai University S. Series, 1936); 'Indian Philo- sophy' by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, vol. II. pp 374–429 (1941); Introduction (pp. III–LI) to the edition of the Tātparyatīkā of Umbeka on Ślokavārtika by Prof. C. Kunhan Raja (Madras Uṇ 1940); 'Pūrvamīmāṁsā in its sources' by M. M. Ganganath Jha (Benares Hindu University, 1949) with a critical Biblio- graphy (pp. 5–81) by Dr. Umesha Mishra; 'Citations in Śabara- bhāṣya' by Dr. D. V. Garge (Poona, 1952), a painstaking work in which the learned writer has been able to identify many of the quotations in Śabara's bhāṣya that had eluded such a deep scholar as M. M. Ganganath Jha, though even Dr. Garge has not been able to identify a large number; Introduction to the Tantrarahasya of Rāmānujācārya by Pandit K. S. Rāmaswami Sastri (G. O. S. 1956); Mīmāṁsā—the Vākyāśāstra of Ancient India, by Prof. G. V. Devasthali (Book-sellers' Publishing Com- many, Girgaon Back Road, 1959); Mīmāṁsā Jurisprudence by Shri Nataraja Aiyyar, Allahabad (Jha Research Institute).