________________
MAY, 1921)
JAIMINI AND BADARAYANA
169
(23)
(24)
(Group C): Referenees to Bådarayaņa in the Mimarsa Satras : I, 1, 5 caftr o rear TETEU Fratarsza
कश्चार्थे ऽनुपलब्धेतरप्रमाणं बादरायणस्थानपेक्षत्वात् । V, 2, 19 years N ETT!
(22) VI, 1, 8 fagaratterisferi r tota
SICURATERTE X, 8, 44 for Tat:
XI, 1, 63 PATTERN eri 14:1 (Group D): References to Jaimini in the Mimânsa Satras III, 1, 4 foar frarat: aree
(26) VI, 3, 4 ** * :
erg सर्वेषामुपदेशस्वामिति ।
(27) VIII, 3, 7 rugsaftigteWFE!
(28) IX, 2, 39 T ferro #rafa: RitTTTTE !
(29) XII, 1, 8 a: 19:14 :
g e ra! (30) Of these four groups, the first, concerning references to Badarâ yana in the Vedanta Sätras calls, for the least comment. They are all cases in which the author is undoubtedly referring to himself in the third person and have been set out principally for the sake of completeness of the argument. But all the other groups require careful discussion, for, as will be Been presently, thoy cause a number of difficulties, without a correct appreciation of which it is not possible to settle the question of the relation between the authors of the two sets of Satras ander discussion. Each case will be treated separately, the results of the discussion summed up when each group has been traversed, and the general conclusion on the question stated at the end of this pretty tedious but necessary examination of all the individual cases to be discussed.
(10) and (11) Both these Sätras, in which Jaimini is referred to, form part of a rather lengthy discussion of a text from the Chhandogya Upanishad. The discussion is whether the word Vaisvanara in the context denotes the Vedantic Absolute or not. And Jaimini is quoted as agreeing with Bådarayaņa. There is, and in fact can be, no such discussion in the Mimams& Darsana.
(2) Here Jaimini is said to rule out the prerogative of the gods in Madhu Vidyd and other Upasanas. It is however doubtful if the discussion here is purely on Upanishad texts or not. Sankara makes it a discussion of a general Mimosa position, especially in his comment on the next Sätra atafa YT which is interpreted differently from him by both Srikanta and Råmânuja. It would appear that the latter is the more natural interpretation of the Satra of Bådarayana, especially as an earlier Satra for : * -etc. in the same section may be taken to have disposed of the general Mimase position on the whole matter. However that may he, we have only to notice that if Srikanta and Ramanuja are correct, the discussion is purely Upanishadio and has nothing corresponding to it in the Mimâchna Darśana. If, on the other hand, we follow Sankara's lead, even then, the Mimamsist position that is stated by him is only inferred from the system as a whole and does not correspond to any particular section or Satra of the Mimâmsa Darsana. And in either case Jaimini is holding a position against Badarayara.
(13) Jaimini is in this place in agreement with Baclarayana on a discussion of a Vedantia character having no place in the Mimâ med system.
