Part 2 - The Mīmāṃsā Literature

It is difficult to say how the sacrificial system of worship grew in India in the Brāhmaṇas. This system once set up gradually began to develop into a net-work of elaborate rituals, the details of which were probably taken note of by the priests. As some generations passed and the sacrifices spread over larger tracts of India and grew up into more and more elaborate details, the old rules and regulations began to be collected probably as tradition had it, and this it seems gave rise to the smṛti literature. Discussions and doubts became more common about the many intricacies of the sacrificial rituals, and regular rational enquiries into them were begun in different circles by different scholars and priests. These represent the beginnings of Mīmāṃsā (lit. attempts at rational enquiry), and it is probable that there were different schools of this thought.

That Jaimini’s Mīmāṃsā sūtras (which are with us the foundations of Mīmāṃsā)are only a comprehensive and systematic compilation of one school is evident from the references he gives to the views in different matters of other preceding writers who dealt with the subject. These works are not available now, and we cannot say how much of what Jaimini has written is his original work and how much of it borrowed. But it may be said with some degree of confidence that it was deemed so masterly a work at least of one school that it has survived all other attempts that were made before him.

Jaimini’s Mīmāṃsā sūtras were probably written about 200 B.C. and are now the ground work of the Mīmāṃsā system. Commentaries were written on it by various persons such as Bhartrmitra (alluded to in Nyāyaratnākara verse 10 of S lokavārttika) , Bhavadāsa (Pratijñasūtra 63), Hari and Upavarṣa (mentioned in Sāstradīpikā). It is probable that at least some of these preceded Sabara, the writer of the famous commentary known as the Sabara-bhāṣya. It is difficult to say anything about the time in which he flourished. Dr Gaṅgānātha Jhā would have him about 57 B.C. on the evidence of a current verse which speaks of King Vikramāditya as being the son of Śabarasvāmin by a Kṣattriya wife.

This bhāṣya of Śabara is the basis of the later Mīmāṃsā works. It was commented upon by an unknown person alluded to as Vārttikakāra by Prabhākara and merely referred to as “yathāhuh” (as they say) by Kumārila. Dr Gaṅgānātha Jhā says that Prabhākara’s commentary Bṛhatī on the Sabara-bhāṣya was based upon the work of this Vārttikakāra. This Bṛhatī of Prabhākara had another commentary on it— Rjuvimālā by Śālikanātha Miśra, who also wrote a compendium on the Prabhākara interpretation of Mīmāṃsā called Prakaraiiapañcikā. Tradition says that Prabhākara (often referred to as Nibandhakāra), whose views are often alluded to as “gurumata,” was a pupil of Kumārila.

Kumārila bhaṭṭa, who is traditionally believed to be the senior contemporary of Śaṅkara(788 A.D.), wrote his celebrated independent exposition of Śabara’s bhāṣya in three parts known as Śloka-vārttika (dealing only with the philosophical portion of Śabara’s work as contained in the first chapter of the first book known as Tarkapāda), Tantravārttika (dealing with the remaining three chapters of the first book, the second and the third book) and Tuptīkā (containing brief notes on the remaining nine books)^[1]. Kumārila is referred to by his later followers as bhaṭṭa, bhaṭṭa-pāda, and Vārttikakāra.

The next great Mīmāṃsā scholar and follower of Kumārila was Maṇḍana Miśra, the author of Vidhiviveka , Mīmāṃsānukramanī and the commentator of Tantra-vārttika, who became later on converted by Śaṅkara to Vedantism. Pārthasārathi Miśra (about ninth century A.D.) wrote his Sāstradīpikā , Tantraratna, and Nyāyaratnamālā following the footprints of Kumārila. Amongst the numerous other followers of Kumārila, the names of Sucarita Miśra the author of Kāśikā and Someśvara the author of Nyāyasudhā deserve special notice.

Rāmakrṣṇa bhaṭṭa wrote an excellent commentary on the Tarkapāda of Sāstradīpikā called the Yuktisnehapūraṇī-siddhānta-candrikā and Somanātha wrote his Mayūkhamālikā on the remaining chapters of Sāstradīpikā. Other important current Mīmāṃsā works which deserve notice are such as Nyāyamālāvistara of Mādhava, Subodhinī, Mīmāṃsābālaprakāśa of Śaṅkara bhaṭṭa, Nyāyakanikā of Vācaspati Miśra, Mīmānisāparibhāṣa by Krsṇayajvan, Mīmāṃsānyāyaprakāśa by Anantadeva, Gāgā bhaṭṭa’s bhaṭṭacintāmam, etc.

Most of the books mentioned here have been consulted in the writing of this chapter. The importance of the Mīmāṃsā literature for a Hindu is indeed great. For not only are all Vedic duties to be performed according to its maxims, but even the smṛti literatures which regulate the daily duties, ceremonials and rituals of Hindus even at the present day are all guided and explained by them. The legal side of the smṛtis consisting of inheritance, proprietory rights, adoption, etc. which guide Hindu civil life even under the British administration is explained according to the Mīmāṃsā maxims. Its relations to the Vedānta philosophy will be briefly indicated in the next chapter. Its relations with Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika have also been pointed out in various places of this chapter. The views of the two schools of Mīmāṃsā as propounded by Prabhākara and Kumārila on all the important topics have also been pointed out.

Prabhākara’s views however could not win many followers in later times, but while living it is said that he was regarded by Kumārila as a very strong rival^[2]. Hardly any new contribution has been made to the Mīmāṃsā philosophy after Kumārila and Prabhākara. The Mīmāṃsā sūtras deal mostly with the principles of the interpretation of the Vedic texts in connection with sacrifices, and very little of philosophy can be gleaned out of them. Śabara’s contributions are also slight and vague. Vārttikakāra’s views also can only be gathered from the references to them by Kumārila and Prabhākara. What we know of Mīmāṃsā philosophy consists of their views and theirs alone. It did not develop any further after them. Works written on the subject in later times were but of a purely expository nature. I do not know of any work on Mīmāṃsā written in English except the excellent one by Dr Gaṅgānātha Jhā on the Prabhākara Mīmāṃsā to which I have frequently referred.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Mahāmahopādhyāya Haraprasāda Śāstrī says, in his introduction to Six Buddhist Nyāya Tracts, that “Kumārila preceded Śaṅkara by two generations.”

[2]:

There is a story that Kumārila, not being able to convert Prabhākara, his own pupil, to his views, attempted a trick and pretended that he was dead. His disciples then asked Prabhākara whether his burial rites should be performed according to Kumārila’s views or Prabhākara’s. Prabhākara said that his own views were erroneous, but these were held by him only to rouse up Kumārila’s pointed attacks, whereas Kumārila’s views were the right ones. Kumārila then rose up and said that Prabhākara was defeated, but the latter said he was not defeated so long as he was alive. But this has of course no historic value.