________________
MAY, 1921]
JAIMINI AND BADARAYANA
173
author of the Mahabharata and the Puranas, according to tradition; and Srikantha actually refers to the Vedanta Sûtrakâra as Vyâsa, while Anandatirtha in the opening of his commentary identifies Veda Vyasa with his author and quotes the Skandapurâna in support. Sankara however observes a distinction between Bâdarayana and Veda Vyasa, as he calls the author of the Mahabharata. Undoubtedly the oldest evidence that I have been able to lay my hands on reverses the order of the Vidyavamsa, and while it agrees with and perhaps furnishes the basis of the Bhagavate text quoted in the beginning of this paper, and similar, though earlier, Puranic accounts making Jaimini the pupil of Vyasa, the son of Parasara and Satyavatî, it makes a Bâdarayana the pupil of Jaimini in the third generation. This evidence is in the text of the Sâma Vidhana Brahmana at its close. It runs thus:
"सोऽयं प्राजापत्यो विधिस्तमिमं प्रजापतिर्ब्रहस्पतये प्रोवाच बृहस्पतिर्नाराय] नारी विश्वनाथ ि
व्यासाय पाराशर्याय व्यासः पाराशर्यो जैनिनये
affar difequsura aurasiaona
araracipit anger" etc.
Burnell was inclined to fix the date of this Brahmana with the greatest latitude some where between the 5th century B. C. and the 7th century A. D. But for various reasons it is probable that the real date of the work is nearer the first than the second of these dates, At any rate, this is the oldest text on the question, and it is clear that while it makes Jaimini the pupil of Vyâse, the son of Parâsara, it makes him (Vyasa) different from Bâdarayana and places Badarayana in the third generation from Jaimini. And the matter must rest there for the present.
In conclusion, I must point out that I have argued the whole question on the assump tion that the Mîmâmsâ and. Vedanta Sûtras are the productions of single authors and not reductions of the teachings of the schools concerned, and I have attemped to show that on this assumption there is nothing to prove that Jaimini and Badarayana were contemporaries but that the evidence goes to show that Jaimini must have preceded Bidarayana, though it is not possible for me to say by what length of time. If the evidence of the Sama Vidhana Brahmana means anything, it must be about a century, not more. In any case, the absolute date of Jaimini requires much further investigation. It may however be noticed that there is a Jaimini of well-known fame in the late Vedic period, in whose name we have a Jaiminiya recension of the Sâina Veda and a Jaiminiya Brahmaṇa, while the earliest reference to Badarayana seems to, be that in the Sama Vidhana Brahmana text quoted above". It is just a possibility-for it cannot be stated as anything more at presentthat this famous Jaimini was the Sûtrakâra of the Mimamsa system and the pupil of Vyasa, and the tradition of his being the disciple of the Vedanta Satrakara which gained currency in the middle ages was surely due to a confusion between the latter and the great Vedavyks 10,
8. Bee for example his commentary on I 3, 29 - वेदव्यासश्च एवमेव स्मरति ।
See Macdonnel's Vedic Index under "Jaimini "and "Badarayana."
10 Wilson in one place (see his Vishnu Purana Index, "Badariyapa") identifies Bâdarayara and Vyasa, the son of Parasara, but mentions no authority.
