________________
172
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ MAY, 1921
the contrary, we should find Sankara attempting somehow # reconciliation between the contrary of Badara yana, the one mentioned by Jaimini and the other stated in the Vedanta Sætra. To my mind, this fact, taken along with the other, that in the remaining four instances where Bådarayana is referred to by Jaimini there is nothing to suggest an identity with the author of the Vedanta Satras, is conclusive proof that the Bådarayaņa referred to by Jaimini is anterior to him, and is a Mimamsist different from the author of the Vedanta Satras.
Passing on to GROUP Dr (26) to (30) consisting of references to Jaimini in the Mimämsä Sätras, we have only to notice that all of them, except No. (27), undoubtedly refer to the author of the Mimars& Sätras, while No. (27) must be taken to be a less known predecessor of the same name as the Satrakâra, because he happens to hold the Purvapaksha view against which the Siddhanta is propounded. It is clear that Sabarasvâmi understood the matter like this. This lesser Jaimini is named only once in the Sätra, while Sabara names him twice in his commentary, on VI, 3, 1 and on VI, 3, 4, and on both occasions he refers to him simply as Jaimini, omitting the honorific Acharya which he generally uses when he mentions by name either the Satrakára or his predecessors like Bådari. The discreet omission of the title Acharya could only mean that Sabara distinguished the two Jaiminis, reserving the 'Acharya' title only for his Satrakara.
The conclusions emerging from the foregoing discussion may now be stated to be the following:
(1) Badarayaņa refers to Jaimini, the author of the Mimams& Darsana, in a manner that leads us to infer that the latter was an old Acharya of established repute and that he was not a pupil of Bådarayana, as Indian tradition of a late origin would have us believe;
(2) Bådarayaņa also refers to a Jaimini who seems to be have been a Vedantist different from the Mimamsist Jaimini;
(3) Jaimini refers to a Badarāyaṇa, but he is not the author of the Vedânta Sätras;
(4) Jaimini refers to another Jaimini, besides himself, who appears to have been a Mimamsist; and lastly,
(5) There were probably at least two Bådarayanas and three Jaiminis.
It must be observed that the last conclusion does not contain such a hopeless case as might at first sight appear. We know that there were at least more than one Vasishtha 6 and more than one Vysa-if Vyasa himself is not altogether fabulous. It has been suggested above that in all these cases we are perhaps dealing with Gotra-names that were berne by men of different generations in the same gens. The explanation of the late Indian tradition now becomes an easy affair. It is simply the result of a chaos due to this recurrence of the same names in different connections. It may be noted here that the Kurmapurana, probably a later production than the Bhagavatam, mentions (Ch. 52) no less than 25 incarpations of VyAsa in the current Manvantars and repeats the story of Jaimini receiving the Sama Veda from the last of these Vyasas. Again, there has always been some confusion between Badarîyana the author of the Vedånta Sätras, and Vyåsa, arranger of the Vedas and
Soo Pargitor on Vifodmitra, Varishtha, eto, in the JRAS., January, 1917.
Vide Note 2. A Jaimini was also a Ritvik at Janamejaya's Snake Sacrifice. Again, a Jaimini is a Yogin, Raghuvamaa, XVIII-33, cf. Vinh, P., 4. 4. and Wilson thereon, also Bhag. IX, 18. & Barely we are dealing with more Jaiminie than one in the Jaimipi cycle of legends.
