________________
244
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(Avaust, 1921
its reward.63 Jaimini's position is that the sacrifice is performed for the sake of heaven, whatever that may be ; and that, in the language of Mimářsa, Karma is šesha (secondary) with reference to the fruit of the game. B&dari holds that the Karma is its own end, and, when it has been done, there is nothing else to do. This gives an idea of the fervid faith in ritualism that underlies the Mimârsâ. And Badari's positions help us to understand how little gods had to do with the Mimâńså ideal of the attainment of bliss by WORKS. When the WORKS are their own end there is no question as to who or what gives the fruits of the deed and all talk about god and supernatural beings is cut at the root. Jaimini's position is that the deed gives its own reward, and as for the gods, we have no proof that they exist.
The discussion of the place of Jaimini and Sabara in the history of Indian thought is considerably hampered by the absence of any reliable results regarding the dates of these writers and by the unsettled nature of the literary chronology of ancient India. It has been usually assumed that Jaimini and the author of the Vedânta Sutras must have been contem. poraries, and the suggestion has been made that the two sets of Sutras must have been com posed somewhere between 200 and 450 A.D.63 The assumption that Jaimini and Bådare. yaşa were contemporaries rests on the occurrence of Jaimini's name in the Vedanta Satras and of BAdarayana's in the Mimámek Satras and perhaps also on an ancient tradition current among the learned divines of India that Jaimini was a pupil of Bådarayai a. But this seems to be very doubtful. It is not however possible to undertake to settle the point here. But still more doubtful is the view that the Mîmânsâ system has "close connection with the VedAnta doctrine" 63. Far more correct is the opinion expressed by Barth that the early " antagonism between the men of the ritual and the men of speculation" developed in later times into an antagonism between their successors of the Vedanta and Mimamså schools.65 As the same writer very aptly suggests, the only thing in common between the two lines of development is that both of them, each in its own way, agreed to put the Vedic gods somewhere on the back shelf. In all other respects, the two systems are diametrically opposed. This in truth is the rationale of Saokara's refusal to consider the so-called Purva and Uttara Mimêmsås as one Sastram.66 A few points of opposition may be touched on here in order to bring out more fully the ultimate bearings of the Mimârbs DOCTRINE OF WORKS.
Some idea has been given above as to how the Mimamsist interprets the Veda. On this question there is a vital difference between the Mimârsâ and the Vedanta. To the former the ritualistio portions of the eda are the most important ones, and the others are to be explained or explained away as the case may be, in the light of those texts that enjoin the duty of Karma on every man. To the Vedantist, the portions literally at the end of the Veda, Constitute the end of Veda, its highest aim, all the other portions being subsidiary to this highest knowledge that comes at the end. The Vedantist has not to take so much trouble to explain away the other texts that appear to go against him by their ritualism and other features. He is an idealist, and his is the unique privilege of letting the wolf and the lamb lie together in the same fold. To the Mimamsist the thing is more vital. Hence to him what constitutes the highest end of the Veda for the Vedantist is only a means to WORKS.
03 Jaimini, III, 1, 3 and Sabarastramin thereon.
See R. Garbe on Mimarned in Hast. Cycl., Vol VIII, where H. Jacobi is referred to on the question of dates.
See my paper on Jaimini and Badardyana, I. A., 1921, pp. 167-74. # Barth, op. cit., 84, 5. 66 Sne Sankara on the word ATHA in Ved. Sat. I, 1, 1.
