________________
PURVA-MIMANSA
301 to about 200.A.D. The system of thought itself, however, is much older, references to it being found in such early works as the Dharma-sūtrast and possibly also in the Mahabhāşya of Patañjali (150 B.C.). The sūtras are considerably over 2,500 in number and are divided into twelve chapters with sixty sub-sections in all. There are nearly a thousand topics discussed so that the work is by far the biggest of the philosophical Sūtras. Like the others of its class the work when read by itself is for the most part unintelligible, and the aid of a commentary which preserves the traditional interpretation is indispensable for understanding it. Such an aid we have in the bhāsya of Sabarasvāmin, who wrote it probably about 400 A.D. Tradition fondly associates Sabara with King Vikramaditya, who is supposed to have lived in the first century B.C., but there seems to be no truth in it. There was at least one earlier commentary on the work by Upavarşa (A.D. 350), but nothing of it is known to us, except a possible extract from it in Sabara's bhāsya 3 The bhāşya has been explained in two ways by Prabhākara (A.D. 650) and Kumārila Bhatta (A.D. 700), who differ from each other in certain essential respects. Prabhākara's 'great commentary' known as the Brhati is yet in manuscript, except for a small fragment which has been published; and the same is the case with the Rju-vimalā, commentary upon it by Sālikanātha, believed to have been a pupil of Prabhākara. The views of the school have therefore to be gathered from the Prakaranapancikā of the latter, which also has unfortunately not been recovered completely. Bhavanātha was another influential writer of the school with his yet unpublished Naya-viveka. As regards the second school, which for a long time has practically superseded the first, we have adequate material for reference. Kumārila's own huge and important work is fully printed and consists of a general or philosophical part called the Sloka-vārtika and two others-Tantra-vārtika and Tup-tīka. The first of these has been commented upon in a most lucid manner by Pārthasārathi Misra in his Nyāyaratnākara. Mandana Miśra, probably a pupil of Kumārila,
I See Prof. Keith: Karma-mimāṁsā, p. 2. 1 Cf. IV. i. 14.
3 I. i. 5.
