69

The Vedic texts were used as mantras (incantations) for sacrifices, and people often disputed as to the relation of words in a sentence or their mutual relative importance with reference to the general drift of the sentence.  There were also differences of view with regard to the meaning of a sentence, the use to which it may be applied as a mantra, its relative importance or the exact nature of its connection with other similar sentences in a complex Vedic context.  The Mima@msa formulated some principles according to which one could arrive at rational and uniform solutions for all these difficulties.  Preliminary to these its main objects, it indulges in speculations with regard to the external world, soul, perception, inference, the validity of the Vedas, or the like, for in order that a man might perform sacrifices with mantras, a definite order of the universe and its relation to man or the position and nature of the mantras of the Veda must be demonstrated and established.  Though its interest in such abstract speculations is but secondary yet it briefly discusses these in order to prepare a rational ground for its doctrine of the mantras and their practical utility for man.  It is only so far as there are these preliminary discussions in the Mima@msa that it may be called a system of philosophy.  Its principles and maxims for the interpretation of the import of words and sentences have a legal value even to this day.  The sutras of Mima@msa are attributed to Jaimini, and S’abara wrote a bha@sya upon it.  The two great names in the history of Mima@msa literature after Jaimini and S’abara are Kumarila Bha@t@ta and his pupil Prabhakara, who criticized the opinions of his master so much, that the master used to call him guru (master) in sarcasm, and to this day his opinions pass as guru-mata, whereas the views of Kumarila Bha@t@ta pass as bha@t@ta-mata [Footnote ref 1].  It may not be out of place to mention here that Hindu Law (sm@rti) accepts without any reservation the maxims and principles settled and formulated by the Mima@msa.

_______________________________________________________

___________

[Footnote 1:  There is a story that Kumarila could not understand the meaning of a Sanskrit sentence “Atra tunoktam tatrapinoktam iti paunaraktam” (hence spoken twice). Tunoktam phonetically admits of two combinations, tu noktam (but not said) and tunauktam (said by the particle tu) and tatrapi noktam as tatra api na uktam (not said also there) and tatra apina uktam (said there by the particle api).  Under the first interpretation the sentence would mean, “Not spoken here, not spoken there, it is thus spoken twice.”  This puzzled Kumarila, when Prabhakara taking the second meaning pointed out to him that the meaning was “here it is indicated by tu and there by api, and so it is indicated twice.”  Kumarila was so pleased that he called his pupil “Guru” (master) at this.]