________________
-IV]
NOTES
4. संभव
वाच०, जय० and माठर include it under अनुमान;
गौर and चन्द्रिका include it under शब्द. 5. ऐतिय
वाच. opines that if it is pronounced by a reliable person, then it is शब्द, otherwise it is no प्रमाण; गोड and चन्द्रिका also include it under शब्दः
माठर includes it under अनुमान. 6. प्रतिभा
arao and arout do not mention it; जय includes it under प्रत्यक्ष and अनुमान, when it is correct, otherwise it is no प्रमाण; माठर includes it
under अनुमान ; and गोड includes it under शब्द. 7. चेटा
Noticed only by चन्द्रिका and माठर, and included
under अनुमान. Wilson is right in remarking that although the मीमांसक do recognise six प्रमाणs, yet गौड०'s remark that they are अर्थापत्ति, संभव, अभाव, प्रतिभा, ऐतिय and उपमान, is not correct; for संभव, ऐतिय and प्रतिभा are nowhere recognised as प्रमाणs by the मीमांसकs; rather, "the author of शाखदीपिका excludes ex. pressly संभव, प्रतिभा and ऐतिय from the character of proofs. " (p. 28 ). जैमिनि nowhere mentions the प्रमाणs, but the six प्रमाणs (vis., प्रत्यक्ष, अनुमान, शब्द, उपमान, अर्थापत्ति and अभाव ) are discussed by शबरस्वामिन् in his भाष्य on मीमांसासूत्र I. 1. 5. प्रभाकर does not recognise अभाव, but कुमारिल does.
The word FATEQT ( in para 23 ) is a technical term of मीमांसा; cf. श्रुतिलिङ्गवाक्यप्रकरणस्थानसमाख्यानां समवाये पारदौर्बल्यमर्थवि. प्रकर्षात् (मी० म०३. ३. १४ ). It means a name, the sense of which depends upon its derivation, unlike other proper names cf. आख्या चैवं तदर्थस्वात् (मी० स० ३. ३. १३), and शाबरभाष्य on itसमाख्या सति सम्बन्धे भवति, यथा पाचको लावक इति । तत्र पाचकशब्द. मुपलभ्य पचतिमा अस्य सम्बन्ध इति गम्यते ॥
