Some Problems of Indian Philosophy

Summary

This article tackles several difficult questions that confront students of early Indian philosophy, focusing on the Mīmāṃsā Sūtra attributed to Jaimini and its relation to the grammar and logic of Pāṇini and Patañjali. The author reviews chronological arguments advanced by western and Indian scholars to date the composition of the Sūtra between the second and third centuries B.C. and challenges attempts to place it as late as the Christian era. Comparing doctrines preserved in the Sūtra with the grammatical theories of the Vyākaraṇa school, he argues that the Mīmāṃsā theory of an eternal connection between words and meanings is older than doctrines attributed to Patañjali. Among topics surveyed are the nature of the relation between words and their objects, how injunctions create obligations, and the origin of the classification of verbal actions. The article highlights differences between grammarians, who hold that meanings arise from convention or usage, and the Mīmāṃsakas, who defend a natural and permanent relation between words and meanings. It also discusses the historical setting of these doctrines, drawing on evidence from the Mahābhārata, early Dharmasūtras and later commentaries to show that ideas associated with Mīmāṃsā pre‑date the reforms of Buddhism. The author surveys controversies about whether Jaimini preceded or followed Pāṇini and notes that the Sūtra’s concern with ritual performance and scriptural authority reflects an intellectual milieu that must have developed over centuries rather than being the product of a single teacher. By situating the text within the wider evolution of Indian philosophy, the article emphasises that Mīmāṃsā should be read in conjunction with the Vedānta and Nyāya traditions and not treated as an isolated school.