Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts Asiatic Society Vol 11

SR No.: 020279
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Hariprasad Shastri, Narendrachandra Vedanttirtha, Chintaharan Chakravarti
Publisher: Asiatic Society
Publication Year: 1957
Total Pages: 1052
Language: English, Sanskrit
Classification: Catalogue
File Size: 21 MB

Page 32

V. The Pūrvamimāṁsā
Performers of Vedic rights found themselves in need of rules of interpretation, Nyāyas, to guide them through the maze of texts,
and the Apastambiya Dharmasülra already refers to Prefatory remarks. the The Mimamsă.
those who know Nyāyas. The Sūtra of the Pūrvamimärsā school ascribed to Jaimini, essentially
aims at laying down principles regarding interpretation of texts in their connection with carrying out the sacrificial ritual; man's duty is the performance of sacrifice in due manner, and the Veda is the only authority. The relation of the sound and meaning is thus a relevant problem, as is that of the personal existence of gods, but deeper philophic issues were introduced only by the commentators who developed true systems of philosophy. The Sūtra, however, develops a method which is common to Indian science generally, and which was adopted by the writers on law; the subject is posed, the doubt is raised; the prima facie view is set out; then the correct decision is developed, and the matter brought into connection with other relevant doctrines. From Medhātithi onwards use is made of Mimārsā principles in deciding legal difficulties, such as arose from the recognition in the law schools of many conflicting texts as all having authority, just as the Vedic texts before the compilers of the Mimāṁsā presented innumerable incongruities.
The twelve books of Sūtras give often the impression of not very cffective compilation. They were commented on by Upavarsa and
later by Sabarasvāmin both of whom wrote also on Sabarasvāmin's
the Brahmasūtra of the Vedānta. Jacobi holds that Bhāşya on the Sutra.
from the first the Pūrvamīmārsā and the
Vedānta, or Uttaramimāṁsā were one school, and that it was only later through Kumārila and Sankara that they were differentiated. This, of course, would give the Pūrvamimāṁsā a very different aspect, as merely a part of a philosophy, not the whole, but the contention seems dubious, and the syncretism of the systems seems rather to be due to the commentators. Sabarasvāmin seems to have known the nihilistic school of Buddhism, perhaps also the idealistic, and he has a definite theory of the soul which seems to regard it as produced from the absolute Brahman, but as thereafter existing independently for ever, a view which recurs in Rämānuja; that this is really the doctrine of the Byhadārānyaka Upanişad ascribed to Yājñavalkya must be emphatically denied.