________________
MAY, 1921)
JAIMINI AND BADARAYANA
167
JAIMINI AND BADARAYANA. BY K. A. NILAKANTA SASTRY, M. A. ; CHIDAMBARAM. ONE of the earliest things that struck me when I began my study of the Mimans system, after having acquired some knowledge of the Vedanta, was that the Jaiminiyadarsana must be an earlier production than the Satras of Badara yaņa, seeing that it represents an andoubtedly earlier phase of the religious and philosophical development of India. The chief difficulties in the way of accepting such a conclusion have so far been : (1) the presence of a traditional belief in India that makes Jaimini and Badarayaņa contemporaries and one that has been recorded in some late productions; and (2) the occurrence of the names of both Badar Ayana and Jaimini in both the Mimosâ and Vedanta Darsanas, a fact that prima facie can be explained only by following the traditional belief of India. Having bestowed somo time and thought on this question, I think it is just possible that the tradition itself had its origin in a superficial attempt to explain the relation between the two systems of philosophy, in the light of the fact that the authors are apparently quoting each other. At any rate, whatever the origin of the tradition may be, it is the object of this paper to show that the assumption that the two authors lived in the same period is not the only or perhaps even the correct explanation of the facts of the case, and that the date arrived at for Jaimini on this assumed basis, namely 200 to 450 A.D., by H. Jacobi, will accordingly have to be revised. For the present I shall have to leave the task of fixing the absolute date of Jaimini to more competent hands than mine, while I confine myself to proving that Jaimini was not the contemporary of Bâdarayaņa, so far as the matter is susceptible of proof just now.
A few words may be said on the traditional belief of Indian writers before entering on the more vital part of the discussion. In the Bhagavata, in the course of an account of Vyasa's labours on the Vedas and the steps he took to ensure their subsequent study, we read 1 :
पराशरासस्ववस्वां भंशांशकलबा विभुः । भवती! महाभाग वैदपक चतर्विधम् ।।
तासां स चतुरः शिष्यानुपाडूब महामतिः । एकैकां संहितां अमने केकस्मै बसे विभुः ॥
साबां जैमिनवे प्राह तथा छन्दोगसंहिताम । This account is undoubtedly based on much oldor Puranic accounts as given in the Vayu, Vishnu and other Puranas. But before Bri-Vedanta Desika's time, the tradition has been carried much further than in the Purâņas, and we find that he uses it as a canon of criticism in determining the relations between the Mimarosa and Vedanta, and says in his MimAzhoê påduka :
शिष्याचा विरुन तमतमधुना साधवन्ती प्रसिद्धी । And from this statement he arrives at the conclusion that the two systems could never be bold to conflict with each other. He says this with special reference to the atheistio tondency in the Mimams, and his Seśvara-Mimask is an attempt to make good his statement quoted above. Further, Vallabhacharya in his Anubhashya often montions that Badariyana was the teacher of Jaimini. It appears, however, from the foregoing that the
1 See Bhag., XII, Chap 6, verpes 49-56. 1'8o. Jaimini in Wilso's Vishnu Pura Index, HAIP. Edn. Verge .
11.g., ia III, 41 W att To Inc.
