________________
THE MĪMĀṀSĂ AND HINDU LAW
101
self acquisition of property he tacitly favours the claims of Vedic study. Vijñānesvara, on the other hand, in his treatment of the right of succession accepts the guidance of the importance of maintaining the institution of the family. It is significant that in treating of the fundamental text of Gautama on ownership as derived from inheritance, purchase, partition, seizure, or finding, both Jimütavāhana and Vijñānesvara appeal to the Mimamsa in support of tenets which are essentially at variance. The view of the former accepts the doctrine that in all these modes of acquisition there is more than mere physical acquisition concerned; the attaining possession must be in furtherance of duty in the widest sense. This view he supports by the doctrine that, when the priest becomes possessed of the remnant of the sacrifice, he does so not by the mere act of acceptance, but in virtue of the pious intention of the donor in dedicating the offerings to the deity. Thus for him succession becomes a matter of spiritual benefit, and the property comes to the heir not in virtue of his acquisition of it, but by a species of relinquishment by his ancestor, a principle upon which, it has ingeniously been suggested, the lawyers of Bengal might easily have built a doctrine permitting of the limited settlement of family property. Vijñānesvara,1 on the other hand, following a suggestion of Prabhakara, argues that Jaimini (IV, 1, 3-6) was of opinion that property was essentially a matter of popular recognition, and that the acquisition of property by an action in breach of law did not deprive the sacrifices made by means of it of full efficacy. Hence Vijñānesvara's doctrine of succession rests on blood kinship, and heritage is defined by him as wealth that becomes the property of another solely by reason of relationship to the owner. Similarly the Vyavahāramayukha (p 32), in accepting the purely secular origin of property, nonetheless appeals to the Mimāmsā treatment (VI, 7, 1, 2} of the Viśvajit offering in order to show that one's children are not included in the term " property," for when at that offering the sacrificer is supposed to give away to the priests
On Yajnavalkya, II, 114; he cites Guru (p. 198, ed. Bombay, 1909), and the passage is found in the Bṛhati (Prābhākara School, p 312)
