Chapter 10.3 - Modern Definition and Jaimini’s Definition of Law

There is a similarity between the modern jurisprudence and the Mīmāṃsā jurisprudence. Mr. Austin defines law as follows:

“A law is a command which obliges a person or persons, and obliges generally to acts or forbearances of a class.”^[1]

He also says—

“In language more popular but less distinct and precise, a law is a command, which obliges a person or persons to a course of conduct.”

According to Austin the words ‘command’, ‘duty’ and ‘sanction’, convey the same ideas. So, he says—

“It also appears from what has been premised, that command, duty and sanction are inseparably connected terms; that each embraces the same ideas as the others, though each denotes those ideas in a peculiar order or series.”

Jaimini’s definition of duty bears the same characteristic. His definition of duty is:

“What is to be fulfilled as the object of command, is duty (dharma).”^[2]

In this definition, the compound word ‘codanālakṣaṇa’ means ‘that which is charcterised by a command.’ The word ‘artha’ means ‘the object to be fulfilled.’ Here it must be mentioned that the word ‘codanā’ means a revealed command.

According to Austin, the command must carry a sanction with it, that is, there should be an element in it for its enforcement. His opinion is that the sanction must consist of a fear of some evil to be inflicted, in case of non-compliance with the command.

Now, the question is: Is there any sanction to the vedic ‘codanā’ (command)? Jaimini addresses himself to this question—

“tasya nimitta-parīṣṭiḥ”^[3]

(Let us examine the reason why the vedic command is obligatory).

The answer is given by Jaimini in the fifth sūtra which runs as follows:

“autpattikastu śabdasyārthena sambandhas tasya jñānam upadeśo’-vyatirekaś cārthe’nupalabdhe tat pramāṇaṃ bādarāyaṇasyānapekṣatvāt.”^[4]

(The reason consists in the eternal concomitance between the word of the command and the purpose to which it is directed. The means of knowing this eternal connection is revelation which is unfailing in leading to trascendental benefit (heavenly bliss) being independent, as Bādarāyaṇa has it).

From this aphorism it is proved that a sanction exists in the definition of Law given by Jaimini. This sanction is called ‘apūrva’ (unprecedented).

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

As quoted in ‘K.L. Sarkars’ Mimansa Rules of Interpretation’, Edited by Justice Markandey Katju, page-51.

[2]:

‘Codanālakṣaṇo’ortho dharmaḥ”—Mīmāṃsādarśanam 1.1.2.

[3]:

Mīmāṃsādarśanam—1.1.3.

[4]:

Mīmāsādarśanam—1.1.5.