________________
242
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(AUGUST, 1921
And his first verse in the Slokavértika which is, for instance, clearly & salutation to a personal deity is explained on the pure Mimamsist basis by the annotator only by twisting the text in a rather merciless fashion. A later Mimamsist was so saturated with the "popular Indian faith "that he stood aghast at what he had just written, following the lead of Jaimini and other great Mimainsists after him, and exclaimed penitently 50"-T rafanafan: HET TOES Troff yogatra CERTTTTTTE" !It is also not without significance that Vedanta-Desika named one of his many productions Sesvara-Mimârsâ, which is sufficient indication that Mimânsî has generally little to do with Tývara. But this Sesvara version of Mimarnså is that of a divine who was a Vedantist first and Mimamsist only by the way. It may also be stated that Vasudeva Dikshita, an eloquent South Indian annotator of very recent times, seeks to quarrel with Sa barasvåmin for his interpretation of Jaimini's views and undertakes to show that Jaimini never meant what Sabarasvâmin holds and that Kumârila admitted the personal nature of the deity.51
It is thus abundantly clear that the genuine Mimârsâ position on the question appealed less and less to the Indian mind, especially after the great days of Sankars. It is also clear that there is a strong and almost continuous Mimamsist tradition against the acknowledgment of a personal deity or deities. But the voice of the Mimamsist becomes fainter, and even professed Mimamsists like Khanda Deva maintain their position only in theory, and in practice join the herd against whose beliefs Jaimini and Sabara had preached, in their day. The attitude of Vasudeva Dikshita is, like that of Vedânta Desika, strongly coloured by his Vedantic prepossessions. In fact, he quotes the conclusions of the Vedanta Sûtras freely in support of his position in Mîmâńsâ. We can infer from the facts adduced so far and several others of a like nature can be easily pro. duced—that the true Mimansâ position came to be looked upon as something close to the borderland of heterodoxy, if not entirely on the other side of the frontier. At least two large developments may be traced in the later religious history of India, each of them in its own way hostile to the genuine Mimańså view. First came the great impetus given to the Vedanta by the life and teaching of Sankara, probably the finest intellect of India. The Advaita system as developed by Sankara furnished a common platform on which popular religion and metaphysical speculation might meet together and live in peace. At the same time, it set up an influential opposition to the Mîmâm sân view on many important questions of religion by adopting a rival standpoint. The rivalry was to a large extent inherent in the two systems, but it was emphasised and developed by the life-work of Sankara. The other great factor in the situation was the growth of a great longing for a personal god, communion with whom would be the highest form of bliss-a longing that accounts for the development and spread of various Bhakti cults in later-day India. In such an atmosphere the old Mimâmsân view was a perilous one to keep, and even the specialists in the system became afraid of themselveg53. But the Mimânsâ system was at no time much fitted to be a popular one. Its great interest lies in its being an important phase of speculation, and it is easy to underrate the influence exerted by the Mîmånga system on later speculation in our country.
But the allegation of Vasudeva Dikshita that Jaimini did not mean what his Bhâsyahkara holds is hardly one that can be accepted in the face of the unanimous verdict of other and greater writers on the position of Jaimini. The illustrious Saúkara had never any doubt on
60 Khanda Deva's Bhäffa Dipika (Mysore Edn.), Vol. III, page 53.
61 See his remarks in the Kulühala. Vritti, Vol. I, page 47 (Srirangam Edn.). I have not access at present to the portions of his extensive work not yet printed.
59 of. Barth, Religions of India, pages 94-5, for some very suggestive remarks on Neo-Hinduém.
