319 IX. ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HINDUS. PART III.1 [From the Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society, INTRODUCTION. [295] Or the six systems of philosophy received among learned Hindus, four have been noticed in the preceding parts of this essay, viz. the theistical and atheistical Sánkhyas, the dialectic Nyáya, and the atomical Vaiseshika. The prior or practical Mimúnsá will be now considered; reserving the later or theological Mimánsá, usually named Vedánta, for a future disquisition, should it appear requisite to pursue the subject, much concerning it being already before the public. 2 The object of the Mimánsá is the interpretation of the Vedas. "Its purpose," says a commentator, "is to determine "the sense of revelation." Its whole scope is the ascertainment of duty. Here duty intends sacrifices and other acts of religion ordained by the Vedas. The same term (dharma) likewise signifies virtue, or moral merit; and grammarians have distinguished its import according to the gender of the In one (the masculine), it implies virtue; in the other noun. I Read at a public meeting of the Royal Asiatic Society, March 4th, 1826. 2 Somanátha in the Mayúkha, 2. 1. 17. (neuter), it means an act of devotion. It is in the last-mentioned sense that the term is here employed; and its meaning is by commentators explained to be "the scope of an injunction; "the object of a command; a purpose ordained by reve-[296] "lation with a view to a motive, such as sacrifice commanded by "the Vedas, for the attainment of bliss; "3 and such indeed is the main scope of every disquisition. The prior (púrva) Mimánsȧ then is practical, as relating to works (karma) or religious observances to be undertaken for specific ends; and it is accordingly termed Karma-mímánsá, in contradistinction to the theological, which is named Brahmamímánsá. It is not directly a system of philosophy; nor chiefly so. But, in course of delivering canons of scriptural interpretation, it incidently touches upon philosophical topics; and scholastic disputants have elicited from its dogmas, principles of reasoning applicable to the prevailing points of controversy agitated by the Hindu schools of philosophy. WRITERS ON THE MÍMÁNSÁ. The acknowledged founder of this school of scriptural interpretation is Jaimini. He is repeatedly named as an authority in the sutras which are ascribed to him. Other ancient writers on the same subject, who are occasionally quoted in those aphorisms, as Atreya, Bádari, Bádarayana, Lábukáyana, Aitiśáyana, etc., are sometimes adduced there for authority, but oftener for correction and confutation. It is no doubt possible, that the true author of a work may speak in it of himself by name, and in the third person. Nor, 1 Medini-kosha. [This is not found in S'abara, but the quotation from the Medini-kosha is given in the commentary, from which Ballantyne published extracts in his Aphorisms of the Mimánsá Philosophy.] 2 Pártha 1. 1. 2. Didh. ibid. Author of the Brahma-sútras. 3 Apadeva; Nyáya-prakása. indeed, is that very unusual. A Hindu commentator will, however, say, as the scholiasts of Manu's and of Yájnavalkya's institutes of law do, that the oral instructions of the teacher were put in writing by some disciple; and, for this reason, the mention of him as of a third person is strictly proper. [297] The sútras, or aphorisms, thus attributed to Jaimini, are arranged in twelve lectures, each subdivided into four chapters, except the third, sixth, and tenth lectures, which contain twice as many; making the entire number sixty chapters. These again are divided into sections, cases, or topics (adhikaraṇas), ordinarily comprising several sútras, but not uncommonly restricted to one; and instances may be noted where a single sentence is split into several adhikaranas; or, on the contrary, a single phrase variously interpreted becomes applicable to distinct cases; and sútras, united under the same head by one interpreter, are by another explained as constituting separate topics. The total number of sútras is 2652, and of adhikaranas 915, as numbered by Mádhava-áchárya. Like the aphorisms of other Indian sciences, those sútras are extremely obscure; or without a gloss utterly unintelligible. They must have been from the first accompanied by an oral or written exposition; and an ancient scholiast (Vṛittikára) is quoted by the herd of commentators for subsidiary aphorisms, supplying the defect of the text, as well as for explanatory comments on it. Besides the work of the old scholiast, which probably is not extant in a complete form, the sútras have, as usual, been elucidated by a perpetual commentary, and by corrective annotations on it. 1 The author of the extant commentary is Sabara-swámíbhaṭṭa, from whom it takes the name of Sábara-bháshya. He quotes occasionally the ancient scholiast, sometimes concurring with, sometimes dissenting from him." 1 [This has been edited in the Bibliotheca Indica by Pandit Mahesa-chandranyáyaratna.] 2 [Thus in his Comm. on i. 1. 5, he cites a different explanation by the VOL. II. [ESSAYS I.] 21 The annotations (várttika) are by Bhatta-kumárila-swámí, who is the great authority of the Mimánsaka school, in which he is emphatically designated by his title, Bhatta, equivalent to Doctor. He frequently expounds and corrects Sabara's gloss, often delivers a different [298] interpretation, but in many instances passes entire sections without notice, as seeing no occasion for emendation or explanation of the commentary, which he must be considered therefore as tacitly ratifying. The ancient scholiast is sometimes cited by him, adopting or amending the scholia; and he criticises the text itself, and arrangement of Jaimini. 2 Next to him in celebrity is a writer usually cited under the title of Guru; more rarely under the designation of Prabhákara. His work I have had no opportunity of examining with a view to the present essay, and he is known to me chiefly from references and quotations; as in Mádhava's summary, where his opinions are perpetually contrasted with Kumárila's; and in the text and commentary of the Sástra-dipiká, where his positions are canvassed and compared with those of numerous other writers.3 'ancient scholiast' (vrittikára) on i. 1, 3, and he gives the substance of a long discussion by the same author. In p. 13, 1. 8, this Vṛittikára is named Bhagaván Upavarsha, and this very discussion is referred to, with the mention of the same author, in S'ankara's Commentary on the Vedanta, iii. 3, 53 (cf. S'abara, pp. 11, 18). For a further account of Upavarsha, see p. [332] infra.] 1 Madh. 1. 1. 3. 2 [Dr. Hall saw a few scattered leaves of this work entitled Brihatí in the possession of a Brahman at Saugor, see Bibl. Index, p. 180. He informs me in a letter August 14, 1871, "the owner is since dead and his MSS. are dispersed."] · [In the Sarva-darśana-sangraha, pp. 123–7, we have the first sútra (“now the desire to know duty is to be entertained") explained according to each school, in its bearing on the study of the Mimánsá. The followers of Kumárila maintain that the study of Mimánsá is enjoined,' as it helps the understanding of the Veda, and therefore comes under the general rule, the Veda is to be read.' Just as the absolute fruit produced by the great fortnightly sacrifices establishes the minor fruit of such ancillary rites as the shelling of the rice, etc., which are indispensable preliminaries thereto, so the absolute fruit arising from the performance of all the sacrifices similarly establishes the minor fruit of the rule for reading the Veda which is the only means of knowing how to perform them. The rule which enjoins it is not a direct vidhi, but a niyama,—the one enjoins what without it Kumárila-bhaṭṭa figures greatly in the traditionary religious history of India. He was predecessor of Sankara-áchárya, and equally rigid in maintaining the orthodox faith against heretics, who reject the authority of the Vedas. He is considered to have been the chief antagonist of the sect of Buddha, and to have instigated an exterminating persecution of that heresy. He does, indeed, take every occasion of controverting the authority and doctrine of Śákya or Buddha, as well as Arhat or Jina, together with obscurer heretics, Bodháyana and Masaka; and he denies them any consideration, even when they do concur upon any point with the Vedas.3 The age of Kumárila, anterior to Sankara,1 and corresponding with the period [299] of the persecution of the Bauddhas, goes back to an antiquity of much more than a thousand years. He is reputed to have been contemporary with Sudhanwá, but the chronology of that prince's reign is not accurately determined.5 Next in eminence among the commentators of the Mimánsá is Pártha-sárathi-miśra, who has professedly followed the guidance of Kumárila-bhaṭṭa. His commentary, entitled never would have been performed, the other what without it would have been optional, and so might or might not have been performed. The followers of Prabhákara maintain that the words 'the Veda is to be read' are not a vidhi, as they only enjoin what had been enjoined by other and prior rules, as those relating to the duty of a spiritual teacher to teach the Veda to his pupils. They would thus be an anuváda or 'supplementary repetition,' rather than a vidhi or 'authoritative injunction.' But Prabhakara also allows that from another point of view the study of the Mimánsá may be considered as 'enjoined,' since it resolves the doubts of the student as he practises that Veda-reading which is a necessary result of the Veda-teaching enjoined on the preceptor. Cf. Nyáyamálá-vistara, i. 1. 1.] 1 Preface to Wilson's Dictionary, p. xix. 2 [Baudhayana and Masaka are the authors of two Kalpa-sútras belonging to the Black Yajur and Sáma Veda respectively. Cf. Müller's Anc. Sansk. Lit. pp. 97, 209.] 3 Mim. 1. 3. 4. S'abara-swámí-áchárya is expressly named by S'ankara in his commentary on the latter Mimánsá (see Brahma-sútra, 3. 3. 53); and there are allusions to Kumarila-bhaṭṭa, if no direct mention of him. • Preface to Wilson's Dictionary, p. xviii. |