________________
AUGUST, 1921)
THE MĪMĀMSA DOCTRINE OF WORKS
243
the correct Mimamsa position, which he sums up with great force and characteristic terseness in his discussion on Vedânta Sûtra, 1, 3, 32. Again, Sâyanacharya in one place records side by side the opposite views taken by the Vedânta and Mimâîsê, where he mentions Jaimini by name.63 But the best authority on Jaimini's position is Jaimini himself, and his Sûtras do not leave us in the slightest doubt as to the intentions of the Satrakâra. He says that the deity is secondary (guna).54 And again, he directly comes to the conclusion that the havis is more important than the deity in the elements that make up a sacrifice.55 Further in discussing whether the prerogative (adhikara) of sacrificing is confined to men or extends to others outside the human sphere, his Satras 66 are very significant and form a striking contrast to the corresponding portion of the Vedânta Sätras.57 In one Satra, Jaimini states that whoever desires the fruit can perform the sacrifice enjoined; in the next he says only they have the prerogative of doing it who can do it exactly as enjoined by the Veda. And this is supposed to be possible only by men. But in some texts of the Satras, two other Sâtras are ascribed to Jaimini in this place, one excluding gods and another excluding Rishis from the prerogative of performing sacrifices. It is to say the least very doubtful if these are genuine Sätras of Jaimini. For one thing, we find the sentences in the text of Sabara's Bhashya on VI, 1, 5, and they do not have the look of Sätras, 58 though they are quite good enough to be the sentences of the great commentator. And it would be somewhat strange on Jaimini's part if, after having discussed the question of Sarvadhikara (the prerogative of all) and restricted it to men, he added two more Satras regarding Devatås and Rishis. On the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that in discussing the question of Saruddhi kdra in the light of the two Satrae laid down by Jaimini the expoun. der of his system adopted a division into men, and non-men59 and sub-divided the latter group into three sections-Devatas, Rishis, and animals and trees, for facility of discussion in the light of the Vedic texts quoted by him in the commentary on the pärva-paksha Satra. It may also be pointed out that the manner in which Sankara quotego the two sentences under discussion, gives no indication as to whether he understood them to be the words of Jaimini or Sa barasvâmin. Personally I have no doubt that these two sentences do not form part of the Jaiminiyadarsana.
As a matter of fact, Jaimini adopts that course which may most naturally be expected of a ritualist. To ignore a personal deity may appear rank heresy in an orthodox Hindu of, gay, the seventh or eighth oentury A.D., but not of an earlier time. From the beginning there had been a vein of scepticism in the Vedas and Brahmanas, and the ritualist most naturally developed it further as his primary concern was with a religion of self-contained ritualism * well-nigh independent of the gods whom it served" 61. The old scholiast, Yaska, bad summed up the results of previous speculation on the form (akara) of the Devatas and indicated several lines of advance for his successors. It would appear that, even before Jaimini's day, this ritualism had run riot sand had led to somewhat strange results. A certain Bådari is somewhat frequently referred to by Jaimini in his Satras, who may be described as an extremist in ritualism. According to this Acharya, there is no relation even between the sacrifice and . 68 See his Com. on Taitt. Brdh. III, 8, 8 Text cited above (Note 8). 54 Ibid., IX, 1, 10.
65. Ibid., VIII, 1, 32-4. 56 Ibid., VI, I, 4-5.
. 57. Vedanta Satra, I, 3, 26-33. 58 They are nu are her e I .69 The term amanushya is actually used by SabarasvAmin here.
0 In his Bhashya on Vedanta Sa., I, 3, 26. Anandagiri in his comment on sankars treats them as Sabras.
61 Barth, op. cit., page 84.
