Then follows a new objection taken from the fact that impossible or even absurd things occur in the Veda; for instance, we read that trees or serpents performed a sacrifice, or that an old ox sang foolish1 songs fit for the Madras. Hence it is argued once more that the Veda must have been made by human beings. But the orthodox Gaimini answers, No; for if it had been made by man, there could be no injunction for the performance of sacrifices like the Gyotishtoma, as a means of attaining Svarga or paradise, because no man could possibly know either the means, or their effect; and yet there is this injunction in the case of the Gyotishtoma, and other sacrifices are not different from it. Such injunctions as 'Let a man who desires paradise, sacrifice with the Gyotishtoma' are not like a speech of a madman; on the contrary, they are most rational in pointing out the object (paradise), in suggesting the means (Soma, &c.), and in mentioning all the necessary subsidiary acts (Dikshaniya, &c.). We see, therefore, that the commands of the Veda are not unintelligible or absurd. And if we meet with such passages as that the trees and serpents performed certain sacrifices, we must recognise in them Arthavâdas or glosses, conveying in our case indirect laudations of certain sacrifices, as if to say, if even trees and serpents perform them, how much more should intelligent beings do the same!'

As, therefore, no flaws that might arise from human workmanship can be detected in the Veda, Gaimini concludes triumphantly that its superhuman origin and its authority cannot be doubted.

1

On Mâdraka, see Muir, Sansk. Texts, II, p. 482.

This must suffice to give a general idea of the character of the Pûrva-Mîmâmsâ. We may wonder why it should ever have been raised to the rank of a philosophical system by the side of the UttaraMîmâmsâ or the Vedanta, but it is its method rather than the matter to which it is applied, that seems to have invested it with a certain importance. This Mîmâmsâ method of discussing questions has been adopted in other branches of learning also, for instance, by the highest legal authorities in trying to settle contested questions of law. We meet with it in other systems of philosophy also as the recognised method of discussing various opinions before arriving at a final conclusion.

There are some curious subjects discussed by Gaimini, such as what authority can be claimed for tradition, as different from revelation, how far the recognised customs of certain countries should be followed or rejected, what words are to be considered as correct or incorrect; or again, how a good or bad act, after it has been performed can, in spite of the lapse of time, produce good or bad results for the performer. All this is certainly of interest to the student of Indian literature, but hardly to the student of philosophy, as such.

Supposed Atheism of Pûrva-Mîmâmsâ.

One more point seems to require our attention, namely, the charge of atheism that has been brought against Gaimini's Mîmâmsâ. This sounds a very strange charge after what we have seen of the character of this philosophy, of its regard for the Veda, and the defence of its revealed character, nay, its insistence on the conscientious observance

of all ceremonial injunctions. Still, it has been brought both in ancient and in modern times. So early a philosopher as Kumârila Bhatta tells us that the Mîmâmsâ had been treated in the world as a Lokayata1, i. e. an atheistic system, but that he was anxious to re-establish it as orthodox. Professor Banerjea" tells us that Prabhâkara also, the other commentator of the Mîmâmsâ, had openly treated this system as atheistic, and we shall meet with a passage from the Padma-Purâna supporting the same view. However, there seems to be a misunderstanding here. Atheistic has always meant a great many things, so much so that even the most pantheistic system that could be imagined, the Vedanta, has, like that of Spinoza, been accused of atheism. The reason is this. The author of the Vedanta-Sutras, Bâdarâyana, after having established the omnipresence of Brahman (III, 2, 36-37) by quoting a number of passages from the Veda, such as Brahman is all this' (Mund. Up. II, 2, 11), 'the Self is all this' (Khând. Up. VII, 25, 2), proceeds to show (III, 2, 38) that the rewards also of all works proceed directly or indirectly from Brahman. There were, however, two opinions on this point, one, that the works themselves produce their fruit without any divine interference, and in cases where the fruit. does not appear at once, that there is a supersensuous principle, called Apûrva, which is the direct result of a deed, and produces fruit at a later time; the other, that all actions are directly or

1

Lokayata is explained by Childers, s.v., as controversy on fabulous or absurd points, but in the Ambattha-Sutta, I, 3, it is mentioned as forming part of the studies proper for a Brâhman. 2 * Muir, III, 95.

indirectly requited by the Lord. The latter opinion, which is adopted by Bâdarâyana, is supported by a quotation from Brih. Up. IV, 4, 24, 'This is indeed the great, unborn Self, the giver of food, the giver of wealth.' Gaimini, however, as we are informed by Bâdarayana in the next Sûtra, accepted the former opinion. The command that he who is desirous of the heavenly world should sacrifice,' implies, as he holds, a reward of the sacrificer by means of the sacrifice itself, and not by any other agent. But how a sacrifice, when it had been performed and was ended, could produce any reward, is difficult to understand. In order to explain this, Gaimini assumes that there was a result, viz. an invisible something, a kind of after-state of a deed or an invisible antecedent state of the result, something Apûrva or miraculous, which represented the reward inherent in good works. And he adds, that if we supposed that the Lord himself caused rewards and punishments for the acts of men, we should often have to accuse him of cruelty and partiality; and that it is better therefore to allow that all works, good or bad, produce their own results, or, in other words, that for the moral government of the world no Lord is wanted.

Here, then, we see the real state of the case as between Gaimini and Bâdarâyana. Gaimini would not make the Lord responsible for the injustice that seems to prevail in the world, and hence reduced everything to cause and effect, and saw in the inequalities of the world the natural result of the continued action of good or evil acts. This surely was not atheism, rather was it an attempt to clear the Lord from those charges of cruelty or undue

partiality which have so often been brought against him. It was but another attempt at justifying the wisdom of God, an ancient Theodicée, that, whatever we may think of it, certainly did not deserve the name of atheism.

Bâdarâyana, however, thought otherwise, and quoting himself, he says, 'Bâdarayana thinks the Lord to be the cause of the fruits of action,' and he adds that he is even the cause of these actions themselves, as we may learn from a well-known Vedic passage (Kaush. Up. III, 8): 'He makes whomsoever he wishes to lead up from these worlds, do good deeds; and makes him whom he wishes to lead down from these worlds, do bad deeds.'

'

Atheism is a charge very freely brought against those who deny certain characteristics predicated of the Deity, but do not mean thereby to deny its existence. If the Mîmâmsakas were called atheists, it meant no more than that they tried to justify the ways of God in their own way. But, once having been called atheists, they were accused of ever so many things. In a passage quoted by Professor Banerjea from a modern work, the Vidvan-modataranginî, we read: They say there is no God, or maker of the world; nor has the world any sustainer or destroyer; for every man obtains a recompense in conformity with his own works. Neither is there any maker of the Veda, for its words are eternal, and their arrangement is eternal. Its authoritativeness is self-demonstrated, for since it has been established from all eternity how can it be dependent upon anything but itself?' This shows how the Mîmâmsakas have been misunderstood by the Vedântists, and how much Samkara is at cross-purposes with