________________
170
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
MAY, 1021
(14) and (15) go respectively with (3) and (4), and in either case Jaimini is the opponent against whom Badaråyana argues. It must be noticed that these are the vital points of difference between Vedanta and Mimânsâ, the former accepting the existence of a Deity who grades rewards and punishments according to merit and the attainments of bliss by knowledge (moksha) as the highest end of human endeavour, the latter denying both. No. (14) finds a parallel in Jaimini X, 1, 6 ff. while No. (15) is a natural inference from the general position of Jaimini as I have shown in my paper on "THE MIMAMSA DOCTRINE OF WORKS" (about to be published in the I. A.).
(16) This again seems to be a natural inference from the general position of the MimamBist, in whose eyes Vidhis are more important than Arthavadas. The text regarding the fourth Asrama must be considered an Arthavada by the Mimamsist, as it directly contradicts the Vidhi regarding Agnihotra which is ar h ift i.e., enjoined by the Veda for all life-time. See Jaimini, II, 4, I ff.
(17) This is an instance to which rather great interest attaches on account of the api in the Sätra. In No. (16) Jaimini is shown to be of a different view regarding the fourth Asrama, i.e., Jaimini holds that it is not enjoined as part of duty while Bådaråyana holds that it is. Now the question is whether one who has chosen the fourth Asrama may revert to an earlier one for any reason. Bådara yana holds that this could not be done and takes care to add that, even according to Jaimini, this is so. That is to say, Jaimini does not, as it is, recognise the fourth Asrama, but if he did, he would not permit a reversion to an earlier one. And Sajkara's comment makes it clear that what we have here is an inference from the general Mimâmsa position regarding Dharma.
(18) and (19) are instances of Jaimini being of an opposite view to that of Bâdarayana on points of Vedantic interest and consequently have no parallels direct or remote in the Mim&sê Darsana.
(20) is another such Vedantic point on which Badarayana allows that Jaimini as well w another writer may both be accepted as correct.
To sum up, (10), (11), (13), (18), (19) and (20) are cases in which Jaimini and Badaraya a agree or differ on points of undoubtedly Vedantic character. No. (12) is doubtful, as the commentators on the Sútra differ. (14), (15). (16) and (17) are undoubtedly points of opposition between the Mimamsist and Vedantist positions-(14) and (15) on questions of Theism and Moksha, (16) on Vedic exegesis, and great interest attaches to (17), as Jaimini is referred to there in a manner that shows clearly that Badarayana had great respect for Jaimini and cared a good deal for any support his views might derive from the Mimamsist. It is thus clear that the author of the Mimâmsa Darsana--and no other-is referred to in our instances (14), (15), (16) and (17). It may also be pointed out that Vedanta Sutra forint fra etc. (1, 3, 27) furnishes another instance where Badaråyana takes special care to show that his positions do not militate against the general position of the Mimångå system. This and No. (17) above go, at least so it seems to me, to show that the founder of the Mimâmså system commands such respect in the eyes of the author of the Vedanta Satras as only an old teacher whose system had become an accepted creed for a long time could do, and that the former could not have been the contemporary, much less the pupil, of the latter. It will be shown in the sequel that the Badarayana referred to in the Mimimaa Sätras could not possibly be the author of the Vedanta Satras. It may be stated here that nowhere in the Satras of the Mimansâ system do we see any anxiety on the part of its author to make * compromise with the Vedanta ; it has been shown that, on the other hand, the Vedants Sátrakára is anxious not to contradict the general Mimamsiat position, except so far as is
