and occasionally to Sa@mkhya.  There is no reason to suppose that the Mima@msa doctrines referred to allude to the Mima@msa sutras of Jaimini.  The manner in which the nature of inference has been treated shows that the Nyaya phraseology of “purvavat” and “s’e@savat” was not known. Vais’e@sika sutras in more than one place refer to time as the ultimate cause [Footnote ref 3].  We know that the S’vetas’vatara Upani@sad refers to those who regard time as the cause of all things, but in none of the

_______________________________________________________

___________

[Footnote 1:  Professor Vanamali Vedantatirtha’s article in J.A.S.B., 1908.]

[Footnote 2:  Caraka (I.i. 33) says that samanya is that which produces unity and vis’e@sa is that which separates.  V.S.  II. ii. 7.  Samanya and vis’e@sa depend upon our mode of thinking (as united or as separate).]

[Footnote 3:  Vais’e@sika sutra (II. ii. 9 and V. ii. 26).]

282

systems that we have can we trace any upholding of this ancient view [Footnote ref 1].  These considerations as well as the general style of the work and the methods of discussion lead me to think that these sutras are probably the oldest that we have and in all probability are pre-Buddhistic.

The Vais’e@sika sutra begins with the statement that its object is to explain virtue, “dharma” This is we know the manifest duty of Mima@msa and we know that unlike any other system Jaimini begins his Mima@msa sutras by defining “dharma”.  This at first seems irrelevant to the main purpose of Vais’e@sika, viz, the description of the nature of padartha [Footnote ref 2].  He then defines dharma as that which gives prosperity and ultimate good (nihsreyasa) and says that the Veda must be regarded as valid, since it can dictate this.  He ends his book with the remarks that those injunctions (of Vedic deeds) which are performed for ordinary human motives bestow prosperity even though their efficacy is not known to us through our ordinary experience, and in this matter the Veda must be regarded as the authority which dictates those acts [Footnote ref 3].  The fact that the Vais’e@sika begins with a promise to describe dharma and after describing the nature of substances, qualities and actions and also the ad@r@s@ta (unknown virtue) due to dharma (merit accruing from the performance of Vedic deeds) by which many of our unexplained experiences may be explained, ends his book by saying that those Vedic works which are not seen to produce any direct effect, will produce prosperity through adrsta, shows that Ka@nada’s method of explaining dharma has been by showing that physical phenomena involving substances, qualities, and actions can only be explained up to a certain extent while a good number cannot be explained at all except on the assumption of ad@r@s@ta (unseen virtue) produced by dharma.  The

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1:  S’vetas’vatara I.i.2]