CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Indian Philosophy is broadly divided into the Astika (Orthodox) and Nastika (Heterodox) schools. To the first division, belong the six chief philosophical systems (popularly known as Sad-darsana). They are Mimariisa, Vedanta, Sarikhya, Yoga, Nyaya and Vaisesika, These are regarded as Astika, not because they believe in God, but because they accept the authority of the Vedas. The Mimarhsa and the Sarhkhya do not believe in God as the creator of the world, yet they are called Astika, because they believe in the authoritativeness of the Vedas. The six systems mentioned here are not only Orthodox systems. The Nastika schools are classified into three namely the Carvaka, Bauddha and Jaina. They are known as Nastika (Heterodox) because they do not believe in the authority of the Vedas, The most striking and fundamental point of agreement is that all the systems regard philosophy as a practical necessity and cultivate it in order to understand how life can be best led. The aim of philosophical wisdom is not merely the satisfaction of intellectual curiosity, but mainly an enlightened life led with far-sight, foresight and insight. It became a custom, therefore, with an Indian writer to explain, at the beginning of his work, how it serves human ends (purusartha). Purusdrthas are four in number. They are dharma, artha, kama and moksa, Moksa (liberation) is the highest goal of human life.” 1, nastiko vedanindakab. Manu, TI. K.11 2. iha khalu dharmarthakamamoksakhyesu caturvidhesu purusarthesu moksa eva paramapurusarthab. VP, P.1All Indian systems, except the Carvaka, accept the idea of liberation as the highest end of life. The conception of liberation received, of course, slightly different meanings. All negatively agreed that the state of liberation is a total destruction of sufferings which life in this world brings about. A few went a little beyond this to hold that liberation or the state of perfection is not simply negation of pain, but is a state of positive bliss. ‘The Vedanta and Jaina thinkers belong to this latter group and even some Bauddhas, later Naiyayikas and Mimarisakas, [Al A NOTE ON THE MIMAMSA SYSTEM : Mimarhsd is one of the six Vedic or Orthodox (Astika) systems of Indian philosophy. This system is called Pitrvamimamsd as it is concerned with the earlier two types of the Veda, namely mantra or samhita and brahmana. It is also called Karma-Mimarisd as it deals with the Karma- Kanda of the Vedas. The word *Mimérhsa’ is formed from the root \Ma which means to measure, to examine. The system of Mimiarhsa is concerned with a clarification of the liturgical aspect of the Vedas. Indeed, the term *Mimarisa’ literally means deep thought, reflection, consideration and exposition and when applied to philosophy, it means reflection on or exposition of the Vedas. The Piirva-Mimarhsd, Karma-Mimamsd or simply ‘Mimarhsa is a kind of scholastic, priestly science. It is known as Mimarhsa because it investigates the doubtful meaning of the Vedic sentences.’ As it deals with the sentences, the system of Mimarhsa is called Vakyasastra. The system of Pirvamimamsa or Karmamimarsd stands in close relationship to Indian Law since its main object is to determine injunctions 3, Sandigdhavedavakyartha-viedratmakarh Sastrath mimatnsd. Introduction to PK, P.2which are distinct from those of Civil Law mainly in the fact that they deal with the sacrificial rather than civil obligations. Dr. C. K. Rajat tells: “It is in the Mimarhsd that I find a full and balanced philosophy. The fact is that in all the systems, in the Samhkhya-Yoga, in the Nydya-Vaisesika and in the ‘Vedanta, the appeal is essentially to those who are dissatisfied with their but in the Mimathsa is to those who desire experience in this world to know man and his life, according to the moral law of the world.” This comment of Dr. Raja seems to be a logical and correct one. The Piirvamimarnsa or Karmamimarisa system is ascribed to the great sage Jaimini who composed the Mimarhs4-Sitras. Sabarasvamt is the commentator of the Sutras called Sabarabhasya. The primary object of this system is to defend and justify vedic ritualism. In course of this attempt it had to find a philosophy supporting the world-view on which ritualism depends. The authority of the Vedas is the basis of ritualism, and the Mimarisa formulates the theory that the Vedas are not the works of any person and are, therefore, free from errors that human authors commit. The ‘Vedas are eternal and self-existing; the written or pronounced Vedas are only their temporary manifestations through particular seers. For establishing the validity of the Vedas, the Mimarhsd states very elaborately the theory of knowledge, the chief object of which is to show that the validity of every knowledge is self-evident. When there are sufficient conditions, knowledge arises. When the senses are sound, objects are present to them and other auxiliary conditions also prevail, there is perception. When there are sufficient data, there is inference. When we read a book on Geography, we have knowledge of the lands described, through authority. In each of these cases the knowledge that arises claims to be true and we accept it without further argument. If there is any cause 4, IDM, P.27for doubt, then knowledge does not arise at all, because belief is absent Similarly, by reading the Vedas we have at once knowledge and belief in what they say. The validity of vedic knowledge is self-evident like that of every other knowledge. If any doubts arise, they are removed with the help of Mimarhsd arguments; and the obstacles being removed, the Vedas themselves reveal their contents to the reader. The authority of the Vedas thus becomes unquestionable. The Mimatisd believes in the reality of the physical world on the strength of perception. It is, therefore, realistic, It believes, as we have seen, in the reality of souls, as well. But it does not believe that there is a supreme soul, or God who has created the world. It does not hold like other orthodox systems that there is a cycle of creation and dissolution. The world has always been as it is. It has neither a beginning nor an end. The world’s objects are formed out of matter in accordance with the karmas of the souls. The law of karma is an autonomous natural and moral law that rules the world. Moreover, the Mimarhsa admits that when any man performs any ritual, there arises in his soul a potency (apiirva) which produces in future the fruit of the action at an opportune moment, On account of this potency generated in the soul by rites performed here, one can enjoy their fruits hereafter. Sabarasvamt is followed by a long line of commentators and independent writers of whom Kumiarila Bhatta and Prabhakara Misra deserve special mention. These two philosophers propounded the two chief branches rather sister schools of the Mimarisa known after their names, they are the Bhaita and Prabhakara school. Of the two chief schools of the Parvamimarisd, the Bhaitta School was largely taught and studied all over India and numerous works were written on the system, But the Prabhdkara School which is as important as the Bhaja and whose propounder is held in high esteem even by thefollowers of Bhaffa fell back probably owing to the severe attacks upon it by the Naiyayikas and the followers of the rival school. According to the view of Dr. Ganganath Jha, the Prabhakara is more faithful to the Bhasya of Sabara than Kumirila. Also according to Professor Hiriyanna, the original teaching of the Mimarnsa is better preserved in the writings of Prabhakara than in those of Kumirila.’ As rightly observed by Dr. G. P. Bhatt, Prabhakara, however, was a more original thinker than Kumarila and he will always be remembered as the author of a peculiar theory of knowledge known as Theory of Triple perception (Tripufipratyaksavada) and a theory of error called the Akhyativieda or the Vivekakhyativada.® In order to understand the system of Mimatisa fully and precisely, one must go through the works of the Prabhakara system. Pt. §. Subrahmanya Sistri maintains the view that though many theories of this system are criticized in other systems particularly in the Nydya and although the Advaitins are wedded to the Bhitta School in matters of Phenomenal Reality (Vyavahare Bhattanayah), the Prabhakara school commands respect from and is actually made use of by reputed scholars. The Visisfadvaita School of philosophy follows the Prabhakara School in matters regarding the categories of the world.” It may be said that the study of the Prabhakara Mimamsa is necessary for acquiring a clear knowledge of the Dharmasastras and the Sayanabhasya of the Vedas as well, Prabhakara Misra composed two commentaries viz. Brhati and Laghvi on the Sabarabhasya, The reputation enjoyed by Prabhakara among scholars was mainly due to the subsequent contribution of Salikanatha 5. SDK,P.X 6. EBM, P.1 7. BRP.8Misra, a first rate scholar and a independent writer of the Prabhakara system, Among other writers of this school are Bhavanatha Misra, author of the Nayaviveka, Nandisvara, author of the Prabhdkara-Vijaya, Ramanujacarya, author of the Tantra-rahasya and Varadaraja, author of Dipika, commentary on the Nayaviveka. It has been already mentioned that Salikandtha is the first-rate scholar of the Prabhakara school. His works are the Rjuvimala, Dipasikhd (both being the commentaries on Prabhakara’s Brhati and Laghvi respectively). The author himself makes a reference in his Prakarana-Paficikd, the most celebrated independent treatise, to these commentaries which he calls Paricikadvaya.’ We are tempted here to refer to a popular saying that no dullard person like Salikandtha was born or will be bom, who composed the Dipasikhd only to popularise Prabhakara.” Of the latter scholars writing on this system, the names of Dr. Ganganath Jha, M. Kuppuswami Shastri and Pt. A. Subrahmanya Shastri deserve to be specially mentioned. Kumirila Bhatta, the founder of the Bhdffa school of Mimarhsa is also a great Mimatiisaka and an epistemologist as well. This school has a steady growth from Kumiarila to Cidananda, Kumarila composed the works like the Slokavarttika, Tantravarttika, Brhattil and Tupfika, Also the other notable writers of this system are Parthasarathi Misra, author of the Nydyaratnamala and Sastradipikd, Mandana Misra, author of the Vidhiviveka, Bhavanaviveka and Vibhramaviveka, Umbeka, author of the commentary Tatparyatikd, Vacaspati Misra, author of the commentary Nyayakanikd and Tattvabindu, Sucarita Misra, author of the commentary Kasikd, Cidananda Pandita, author of the Nititattavirbhava, Narayana, author of the Manameyodaya, Laugaksi Bhaskara, author of the Arthasargraha and Apadeva, author of the Mimdrisd-Nydya-Prakasa. 8. etacca paficikidvaye prapaficitam, TR, P. 133 9. Salikanathavanmiidho na jatah na janisyate/ Prabhakaraprakaséya yena dipasikha kyta// NV, P. 1Among the latter scholars writing on this system are Pandit, A. Cinnaswami Sastri, Ananta Shastri, Dr. Pashupatinath Shastri, Pt. S, Subrahmanya Shastri, Pt. Pattabhirama Shastri, K. $. Ramaswami Sastri, Dr. G. P. Bhat, Dr. Mandana Misra and Dr. Vacaspati Upadhyaya. It may be pointed out here that besides the two schools of Mimarhsi already stated, one more school is found to exist, known as the Misramata initiated by one Murari Misra. This school, however, is not known except through some references in other works. Murari appears to have given birth to a new school within the Mimérhsd system, which had led to the saying- murarestrtiyah panthah (the third path i.e., school initiated by Murari). But materials for preparing a full account of this Misramata are not yet available to the scholars."° Dr. Umesh Misra, however, wants to identify the founder of the Murari-mata as Murari Misra Il. He also observes'! that murdrestrtivah panthah has become a proverb in Sanskrit which has got its origin in Murari Misra I, He was one of the greatest Mimarhsakas who held independent views on several topics of Parva-mimarhsa, His views were so distinct and convincing that he was regarded as the founder of the third school of Pirvamimarisa. Both the Bhdfta and Prabhdkara schools of Mimarhsa differ in certain points, Some of the important points of difference between the two systems may be mentioned here. i) The Prabhakara school recognises only five Pramanas namely, perception (Pratyaksa), Inference (Anumdna), Verbal Testimony 10, for the school generally known as the “Third Path’ tiyah panthah associated with the name of Murari Migra and hence called Mishra-mata, material is not yet available for a full account. PIS, P.26 11, Appendix, Ibid., Pp. 45-46iii) vi) vii) (Sastra), Comparison (Upamdna) and postulation (Arthapatti). But the Bhattas admit six Pramanas by adding non-apprehension (Anupalabdhi) to the above five. While the Prabhakaras admit eight Padarthas, viz. substance (Dravya), quality (Guna), action (Karma), generality (Samanya), potency (Sakti), similarity (Sadrsya), inherence (Samavaya) and number (Sarikhyd), the Bhattas recognise only five padarthas by adding non-existence (Abhdva) to the first four of the padarthas. The school of Prabhakara advocates the theory of Anvitabhidhana while that of Kumarila advocates the theory of Abhihitanvaya, While the Bhdtfa School accepts the theory of Anyathakhyati, the Prabhakara advocates the theory of Akhyati The Prabhakaras admit the theory of Niyogavakyartha. The Bhattas, on the other hand, accept the theory of Bhavanavakyartha. While the Bhatfa School admits importation of words (Sabdadhyaharah), the Prabhakara School recognises the importation of ideas (Arthadhyaharah) The Prabhakara School accepts the Vedic sentences as valid. But the school of Kumarila Bhatta accepts both Vedic and non-Vedie sentences as valid These are the most important points of difference between the two sister schools of Parvamimarisd. under The Philosophy of Mimaras@ school may be convencently discussed three heads, namely, Epistemology (theory of knowledge), Metaphysics (ontology), Ethics and Theology.[B] AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRABHAKARA-MIMAMSA : Prabhakara-Mimamsd is one of the two Schools of Parvamimavnsa From 7" century onwards, the ancient system of Parvamimamsa has been divided into two dis inet schools, namely, Bhaija and Prabhakara, The object of the Mimavisa School is to help and support ritualism chiefly in two ways, such as (a) by giving a methodology of interpretation with the help of which the complicated Vedic injunctions regarding rituals may be understood, harmonized and followed without difficulty, and (b) by supplying a philosophical justification of the beliefs on which ritualism depends. We are concemed here with the second or the philosophical aspect of the Mimarisa. The earliest work of this system is the Mimdrs@ Sittra of Jaimini which begins with an enquiry into the nature of Dharma.” It is the biggest of all the philosophical Sitras and discusses about one thousand topics. Sabarasvamin has composed his great commentary on this work and his commentary has been explained by Prabhakara and Kumarila Bhatta who differ from each other in certain important respects and form the two principle schools of Mimarhsa named after them. Prabhakara’s commentary Brhatf has been commented upon by Salikanatha who has also written another treatise Prakarana-Paficikd. Kumirila’s huge work is divided into three parts- Slokavartika, Tantravartika and Tuptika, the first of which has been commented upon by Parthasarathi Misra who has also written his Sastradipikd. Tradition makes Prabhakara a pupil of Kumarila who nicknamed him as Guru on account of his great intellectual powers. But some scholars like Dr. Ganganatha Jha believe that the Prabhakara School is older and seems to be nearer to the spirit of the original Mimarhsa, 12. athato dharmajijfiasa, MS, 1.1.1The excellent Bhdsya of Sabara on the Sitras of Jaimini appears to have surpassed and put into oblivion the earlier Bhasyas on Jaimini’s Satras composed by eminent authors, they are Bodhyana, Upavarsa, Sundarapandya and Bhavadasa.'* According to these earlier writers, therefore, the object of Mimarhsa seems to have been Vedartha Vicara or the investigation into the contents of the Vedas, no matter whether it was dharma, devata or brahman, Sabarasvamin commented upon the twelve chapters of the MS, with a view to making the Parvamimarisd as a separate system from the Uttaramimarhsa. He narrowed down the knowledge of Dharma as the sole objective of the Jaimini’s Sitras as stated in the first Stra, contrary to the views of the early Bhasyakaras and did not favour the view of others who explained the word Dharma in the sense of Vedartha. He has strictly wamed in the very beginning of his Bhdsya against the tendency of some earlier writers to explain the words in the Sitras ina sense different from the sense too well-known in common expressions.'* He has emphasised the point that the Veda is to be leamt for many purposes'® --different sections of the Veda serving different purposes and the knowledge of Dharma is one of them. He has in fact introduced the Vrttikaragrantha under Sidra I, 1, 5 in order to reject the theory that all experiences are valid and to establish invalidity of the experiences under certain circumstances.'” 13, JOTHQ, Pp 431-452 14, commentaries on the SV, 1.11 15, loke yesvarthesu yani padéni prasiddhani tani sati sambhave tadarthinyeva sitresvityavagantavyam, SB, under MS.1.1.1 16 pardrthatvadvedasya, parartho hi vedab. yadyadanena Sakyate karturh tasmai tasmai prayojandyaisa samamnayate. Ibid., V.L.6 17. yasya ca dustari karanath yatra ca mithyeti pratyayah sa evasamicinah pratyayah ninya iti, Ibid, LL. 10The period in which Sabara flourished was such when Buddhistic philosophers came foreward vehemently attacking the six orthodox systems of philosophy with their own tenets and doctrines of Ksanikavada, Siinyavada, Nirdlarnbanavada, Nairdtmya and Vijianavadas. The authority of the Vedas on Dharma was freely called into question and criticized by Buddhists and anti-vedic thinkers with rational arguments in order to destroy the social structure of the community based on the Caturvarnya system accepted in the vedic texts. Such powerful attacks on the vedic religion, Dharma and Philosophy naturally shook the faith of the people in the Vedas and Vedic sacrific The system of Parvamimarasa of Jaimini as interpreted by the ancient Bhasyakaras, Bodhayana and others were not capable to rebut the rational arguments of Buddhists, because these Bhasyakaras considered Vedarthavicara and not Dharma as the object of Mimarhsa. It is also due to the fact that according to them, every one is expected to obey the Vedic junctions explicitly without questioning their supreme authority and without expecting any benefit whatever from the Vedic rites, Jaimini expressed the Vedic injunctions do not prescribe actions alone, but they impose actions as a means to the object to be achieved by mankind.'* He thought that it is due to this conception of desired result, Vedic injunctions are obeyed by people and the injunctions also became valid, Jaimini and Sabarasvamin have established this statement in detail under the Siitra VI. 1.2 and it is held by both of them that Yaga is subordinated to Svarga as an instrument and the man’s action extends up to the achievement of result which is most important.'? 18, karmanyapi jaiminih phaldrthatvat, MS.IIL.L4. sa hi dadarsa na yagah kkartavyatayopadigyate, phalakimasya —_tatsdhanopayatveneti,_evarhy sruto’rthah parigrhito bhavati. arthavarhscopadesah. SB under MS. Ibid. 19, asddhakarh tu tadarthyat. MS. VI.1.2. Also - yo hi prityarthah sa sédhyate nanyah. yadyapi yigah kartavyataya codyate tathapi na kartavyab. sukhadab kartavyo bhavati. SB under Ibid. uPrabhakara sought to establish the theory Karyaparavakya or Niyoga doctrine already propounded by Badari and condemned by Kumarila, He thinks the Codand is Vidhi and Karya is its meaning which is Dharma. He then comes to the conclusion that all Vedic sentences ‘expressed only by Karya or duty as principal import and other sentences, expressing accomplished facts, are invalid in and outside the Vedas.” He explains the word Artha in the Sittra as the meaning expressed by Codana and denied that the word Artha denotes a thing which is desired.”’ Prabhakara holds that the sacrifices Yaga, Homa ete, are not to be taken as Dharma as they are momentary. But the meaning of the Lifi, the injunctive suffix of the root etc. in the word Yajeta is Dharma according to the definition of Jaimini in his second Satra, Codana laksano'rtho dharmah. The meaning of the Li or Vidhi according to Prabhakara is Karya and its knowledge induces persons to undertake the function. This Karya is Dharma and this is most important in a sentence. The other words merely supply their import relegated to this Karya and the Karya ot Dharma has no object to produce. The word Svargakamah also supplies only the functionary required by the Karya and does not indicate the result as it appears to do Jaimini, Sabarasvamin and Kumirila” think that the laws of verbal testimony are same in the case of vedic and non-vedic sentences. As from the non-vedie Vidhi and Nigedhas we understand some good or bad results 20. codaneti kriyayah pravartakari vacanamabuh iti karye’rthe vedasya primanyarh darsayati, tallaksno dharmah iti vadan kéryartpa eva dharma iti darSayati, Br, 1.2; tena karya eva veda pramdnam. karyartipa eva vedarthab. na siddhardpa iti pratijfiatam. RVL, 1.2 21. bhasyaksarayojand tu-ubhayamiha codanayd laksyate” tho” narthaéceti, artho’nisiddhaphalah. anarthasca nisiddhaphalah. Ibid. 22. MS, 1V.3-10-11 12by the way of implication, even so, should the same law be applied to the Vedic sentences also, Prabhakara takes the word Artha in the Siztra to mean only Vedartha or the meaning of Codana. This Bhasya obviously goes against the scheme of Prabhakara. Prabhakara and Salikandtha, therefore, had changed ** the meaning of this Bhdsya passage very skilfully, so as to get support for their views. There are many instances, where the views of Prabhakara and the text of the Bhi isya do not agree. In such places, Salikanatha took great pains to reconstruct the Siéra and Bhdsya passages, in support of his own view-points.” Prabhakara had revived the ancient system of Mimérhsi conceived by Badari and supported by the ancient Vrttikaras, Bodhayana and others, Prabhakara, in fact, wrote two commentaries on the Sabarabhdsya in order to show how Sabarasvamin himself lent support to his own school. The author of the Tantrarahasya is probably the first person, from whom we get to know the names of the two commentaries of Prabhakara.”> He states in the beginning of his work that Prabhakara wrote two commentaries known as Brhati and Laghvi. The reason for composing two commentaries on the same text is also stated by our author, for the first time in the history of the Prabhakara School. It is that the BrhatT is mainly based on the Verbal statements of Vedic passages, while the Laghv7 is wrote with a view 23. katharh kartavyataya’nupadisyamano’rthascodandlaksano bhavati katharh codanalaksanasya sato dharmatvanivrtyarthamarthasabdanvaya upapadyate, kartavyataya nopadisyante codanalaksanasceti sanikatamivopalaksyate. BR, [1.2 24, RVL, Pp. 14-36 25. sa jiyacchabarasvami nanasakhasu visrutah’ sitrartharh visadikarturh_yena bhasyamabhasyata// TR, K. 4 13to including the implied sense of the Vedic statements. These two works are also known by two other names, Nibandhana and Vivarana, Since very long, the works of Prabhakara were not accessible to students of Mimatisa and only some of his doctrines were known to scholars through incomplete references, which the works of other systems of philosophy made for the sake of refutation. This system of Mimarhsa, founded by Badari and developed by Bodhayana, Bhartrmitra and many others against Jaimini’s school scems to have been totally neglected by people without any following. Not even the manuscripts of their contributions were preserved for posterity by earlier scholars. On the other hand, the other system of Mimarisa started by Jaimini enjoyed great popularity and was adopted by people as a part of their daily practice. Eminent writers such as Sabarasvamin, Kumarila, Mandanamisra, Bhattombeka, Vi spatimisra and others have supported this system of Jaimini and their contributions were carefully preserved by ancient scholars, Vivarana or Laghvt seems to be the first work of Prabhakara and only a few references to this work are available in the works of Salikanatha, Bhavanatha, Parthasarathi Misra and others.”® From those references to the work, it may be gathered that Prabhakara had expressed divergent views on the Bhdsya passages, even in these two commentaries. Doctrinal differences, which seem to have existed in these two commentaries of Prabhakara, might have been due to the author holding different views a different periods in his life. 26. vivaranath nama prathamarh gurdna pranita laghvt {iketi tatsarhpradayah. sa tu —_vastubalavaditaya —_-vastusvabhavaparyalocanena—_sarvasyapi karmasyavidheyatvarh manyate. nibandhanarh nima paScat guriinaiba ranita brhati (ika. sa tu Sabdabalavaditaya Sabdasvabhavaparyalocanena etc. PK, Pp. 187-188 4Prabhakara thought that Dharma is not the sacrifice, Yaga and Homa, but instead, it is the sense of duty or Karya which is conveyed by the Codand or Lin, the injunctive suffix of the root. This Karya according to Prabhakara, is important in Vedic passages and persons are asked to perform this Karya. After Prabhakara, the system of Badari got good support from Salikanatha, who was considered to be a disciple of Prabhakara himself. It appears that Salikandtha composed four works on the system of Prabhakara, Rimanujacdrya, is the first man to refer to his two commentaries on the two works of Prabhakara by their names. The Rjuvimala and Dipasikha,” the two works of Salikanitha, are the commentaries on the Brhatt and Laghvi respectively. The third work of Salikandtha is the Prakarana-paficika. It is a primer of the Prabhakara system and deals with very important tenets; they are Pramana, Prameya and allied subjects, which distinguish the system from the Bhdffa and other systems. The fourth work is called the Mimdrisabhasyaparisista, It is a direct commentary on the Bhdsya on certain difficult passages of the Tarkapada only.* This work, Tantrarahasya, by Ramanujacarya is a primer of the Prabhakara system of philosophy and its object is to illustrate mainly the five important topics of the system, such as Praména. Prameya, Sastrartha and Mimarhsa with a special stress on its necessity. The system of Mimanisd, being purely a discussion on the import of Vedic sentences, is not much concemed with the forms and numbers of 27. brhathn tathaiva laghvith tikimadhikrtya Salikandthah/ rjuvimalath dipasikhari visadarthamkrta paficikath kramasahy/TR, K. 6 28, MUSS No. 3, Part II 15Pramanas and Prameyas to the same extent as the Samklya, Nydya, Vaisesika and other systems are. These five subjects are treated by Jaimini in his Tarkapdda and are further elaborated by the Bhasyakira Sabarasvamin. Kumirila Bhatta developed them to establish the system of Mimarhsa as a separate system of philosophy and to refute the principles Buddhism, Jainism and Atheism, which did not accept Vedas as the supreme authority on Dharma, The two Vadas or interpretations, known asthe Niyogavakyarthavada and the Bhavandvakyarthavada arose from these fundamental differences, in the interpretation of the Vedic injunctions, between the two thinkers, Badari and Jaimini, The former Vada is followed by Badari and Prabhakara while the latter is followed by the followers of Jaimini and Kumarila. Literally, the word Niyoga means a duty or Karya imposed on man. It is also called Aparvakarya as this duty has been imposed by Vedic injunctions and not by other agencies. Niyoga is the most important import in an injunctive sentence. Accordingly, the interpretation of Vedic injunctions has to be changed and this method is known as the Bhdvandvakyarthavada Sabarasvamin, Kumarila Bhat{a, Mandana Misra, Vacaspati Misra and many others have followed this interpretation of Vedic injunctions as indicated by Jaimini. According to this Vada, Dharma is neither Apirvakarya as believed by Prabhakara nor is it an imperative command, expressed by Codand as stated in the Sitéra of Jaimini 1.1.2. The ‘Liris’ have a capacity for two-fold expression; one is the capacity to impose an action on doers and the other is the consequent reactive internal energy of the doer. The former is known as Pravartand or Vidhi resting in Vedic ‘Lins’ and the latter is known as Pravrtti of the doer. Both of them are known by a common name, Bhavana 16as both lead to the same result. Pravartand leads to Pravriti in sacrifice and Pravrtti in sacrifice leads to the desired result from the Yaga. It is inferred from the Vedic Vidhi or Pravartand, when Yaga and Pravrtti for it are connected with Pravartand or Vidhi, that such Pravrtti for Yaga must result in some benefit because it is indicated by Vedic Injunction or Pravartand. This knowledge, of Vidhi or Bhdvand and Pravytti or Bhavana coupled with a sense of benefit connected with Pravrtti or Bhdvand makes a person to undertake an action.’ In the case of Vedic injunctions, the result of Yaga, based on Vidhi, is Svarga itself, as indicated by the words Svargakdma etc. Sacrifices therefore, are only the means to produce such results. Apirva as a link between the sacrifice and its result, because Vedic injunctions stipulate the existence of causal relation between sacrifice and its result. Apiirva of the Bhatia school, which accepts sacrifice as Dharma and presumes Apiirva as its mediator with Svarga or result, must be discriminated from the Apirva of the Prabhakara school, which identifies it with the import of the Liis and calls it Niyoga, Karya and Dharma. As the Pravrtti or Bhavana is connected with three things namely a result-- Svarga, an instrument to it the sacrifice, and the method of performance of the sacrifices-the Vedie formula, this Bhdvand is import and all Vedic and non-Vedic sentences. This is known as the Bhavanavakyarthavada of the Bhattas. 29. svargasaijfiakamartharh prati karanatvena yago vidhiyate. manu yagab kartavyataya Srutya vidhiyate. satyamevam, anarthakyarh tu tatha (da) bhavati_svargarh pratyavihite age. _svargakamastasminnisphale vidhiyamano’pi _nisprayojanah_—syt.__tatrasyopadeSavaiyarthyam. tasmatsvargah pradhdnatah karma gunt iti api ca yasya svarga istah syatsa yagarh nirvartayedityasarhbaddhamiva.anyadicchati anyatkaroti. SB, under MS, 6.1.3 7[c] A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE PRABHAKARA-VIJAYA : Prabhakara-Vijaya is a popular work of the Prabhakara school of Parvamimamsd. The meaning of the title Prabhakara-Vijaya is the Valour of Prabhakara. The Prabhakara-Vijaya is a good compendium of the Prabhikara school of Pirvamimérisa. This work is composed by Nandigvara. He is supposed to have flourished in the thirteenth century. It is edited by Vedanta-Vigarada Ananta Kyshna Sastrit, Lecturer, Calcutta University and Ramanath Sastr7, Veda-Vigarada, Professor of Mimarhsa, Sanskrit College, Kobur. The book is published by the Sanskrit Sahitya Parishad. Shyambazar, Calcutta in 1926, This is the first and last edition of the Prabhatkara-Vijaya. The Prabhakara-Vijaya is based on the two earlier works, such as the Prakarana-Pancika of Salikanatha Misra and the Nayaviveka of Bhavanatha Misra to whom Nandisvara refers at the beginning of his Prabhikara-Vijaya.” The title of the work Prabhakara-Vijaya indicates that it belongs to the Prabhakara school of Mimathsa. There are twenty one chapters called Prakaranas in it. The chapters of the work of Nandisvara are Prayukti- Nirnaya- Prakaranam, Vaktrji@ndnuménata- Prakaranam, Akhyati- Samarthana-Prakaranam, — Pramdnalaksana-Prakaranam, — Pratyaksa- Laksana-Prakaranam Saravitsva- Prak@satd- Prakaranam, Manah Sadbhavatadgunatva- Prakaranam, Jii@ndnanumeyatd- Prakaranam, Atindriyasaktisamarthana-Prakaranam, Paramanu-Samarthana- Prakaranam, Karyavyutpatti- — Samarthana-- ~——Prakaranam, Arthdpatyanumanavaisamya-Prakaranam, Abhdvapramana-Nirdsa- Prakaranam, Sattasdmanyanirakaranam, Apauruseyatva- Prakaranam, 30, nathadvayattasare’smishechastre mama parisramah, PV, 1. K. 3 18Svaripabheda-Samarthana-Prakaranam, sardnumanikatanirasa-pr- akaranam, Atmanah-Sariradibheda-Samarthanam, Vyapti- Samarthana- Prakaranam and Bhedabhedanirasa- Prakaranam etc. All these topics are discussed by the author in simple and short prose. Moreover, he refers to the verses of the Prakarana-Paricika as reference to his treatment of the topics. The Prabhakara-Vijaya is a very important work of the Prabhakara-Mimarisa. But no commentary nor any translation in any language of the Prabhakara-Vijaya comes to our notice till date. The Prabhakara-Vijaya belongs to Piirva-mimarasd. There are two schools of Piirva-mimarnsd namely, the school of Kumarila Bhatta and the school of Prabhakara-Miéra also called Guru. There is a tradition current in our country that Prabhakara was a pupil of Kumarila, and that, as the former evinced extra-ordinary independence of thought, the title ‘Guru’ ‘was conferred upon him by his teacher Kumarila. In the second session of the Oriental Conference, Prof. Kuppuswmt Shastrigal, read a paper in which he tried to support the tradition mentioned above. But MM Dr. Ganganath Jha and Dr. Pashupatinath Shastri hold a contrary view. All of them, however, agree that the school of Prabhakara was propounded by Bhartrmitra. The Prabhakara School is rather unfortunate in this respect. The Prakarana-pancika of Salikanatha is the first gloss on Prabhakara- Mimanisa which was published from Benaras in 1961. The Prabhdkara- Vijaya work will go to form the second on the list. There are clear references in the book to the Prakaranapaficika, Nvayaratnakara etc. The expositions of NandiSvara in this treatise are very lucid, and it is sure that preceptors will remove many a doubt regarding the Prabhdkara doctrines. It is generally believed that the Mimarnsakas and specially the Prabhakaras are atheists. In Siddhantabindu, Madhusiidana Sarasvati has 19stated that according to the Mimarnsakas, there is no God possessing omniscience, etc. The Prabhakaras do also hold the same view. In the Sambandhaksepaparihara chapter of Brhati Prabhakara Guru does not deny God, but Salikanatha has denied God in the corresponding chapter of Prakaranapaficikd. Dr. Pashupatinath Sastri in his Introduction to Parva- Mimarisa, has dealt with this point at great length and has come to just the same conclusion, Now, in this book, it is stated in unequivocal terms that the inferential existence of God which is propounded by other s denied by the Prabhakaras and that God is not denied. "! The second point which it makes clear is that the Prabhakaras are not opposed to the Advaitins. The Mimarhsakas apparently condemn some views of the Advaitins, but really they are not opposed to them. All that they want to impress is that the Advaita doctrines are not suitable to those people who have not been able to subdue their senses. It is very gratifying to find that in Prabhakara-Vijaya the very same line of reconciliation is indicated. The third mistake that is removed by this work is that the Atomic Theory of Causation comes from the Naiydyikas, and is not compatible with Vedic doctrines. It goes further to elucidate that drambhavada should not form the basis of Vivartavada. The fourth error which is despelled is that Indrivatmavada belongs to the Carvakas alone. It is shown that the doctrine is held by the Paurdnikas also. The book serves to correct many such errors. Its discussions on the requisition of the Injunction for Leaning, coroboration of Akhyativada, Paramanuvada and existence of a Supersensible power, acceptance of Arthdpatti as a separate means of valid knowledge, distinction of body 31. iévare paroktamanumanarh nirastam, nesvaro nirastah. PV, P. 82. 20from soul, defence of Vyapti, refutation of Bhedavada etc. are very significant, It is not a mere reproduction of Prakaranapancika, and in many places its expositions are more lucid and impressive than those of the latter. au