M[i.bar]m[a.bar]ms[a.bar]ny[a.bar]yasamgraha; A Compendium of the Principles of M[i.bar]m[a.bar]ins[a.bar].

• Author: Clooney, Francis X.
• Position: Book review

M[i.bar]m[a.bar]ms[a.bar]ny[a.bar]yasamgraha; A Compendium of the Principles of M[i.bar]m[a.bar]ins[a.bar]. By MAH[A.bar]DEVA VED[A.bar]NTIN. Edited and translated by JAMES BENSON. Wiesbaden: HARRASSOWITZ VERLAG, 2010. Pp. 905.

M[i.bar]m[a.bar]ms[a.bar] is the primary exegetical tradition of Brahminical Hinduism. It evolved for the sake of the interpretation of Vedic ritual texts and practices, to resolve specific uncertainties with respect to meaning of Vedic texts and their ritual implementation, by ordered rules that served a practical purpose but were also, it turned out, generalizable and useful in other fields (ranging from interpretation of the Upanisads in Ved[a.bar]nta, to legal reasoning in Dharmas[a.bar]stra). Though presumably hearkening back to very old interpretive practices, well into the first millennium B.C.E., M[i.bar]m[a.bar]ms[a.bar]'s foundational text is the M[i.bar]m[a.bar]ms[a.bar] S[u.bar]tras of Jaimini (c. 2nd century B.C.E. or later, in its familiar form). This is a text of some 2,700 s[u.bar]tras, some as brief as a word or two, and some much longer, by way of individual or compounded words. Several centuries after Jaimini, Sabarasvamin composed a voluminous and normative Bh[a.bar]sya that explained the s[u.bar]tras, adduced the relevant texts and ritual examples, and, in many cases, either made explicit or found a philosophical grounding for Jaimini's views. Commenting on Sabara with distinct concerns, Kum[a.bar]rila Bhatta and Prabh[a.bar]kara Mira instigated the development of M[i.bar]m[a.bar]ms[a.bar]'s two main schools of thought, which flourished over a millennium. Kum[a.bar]rila's Slokav[a.bar]rtika (on S[u.bar]tras I.1) and Tantrav[a.bar]rtika (on I.2-III.8) were particularly influential. P[a.bar]rthas[a.bar]rathi Migra's S[a.bar]strad[i.bar]pik[a.bar] and Khandadeva's Bh[a.bar]ttad[i.bar]pik[a.bar], among others, expand on both the S[u.bar]tras and Kum[a.bar]rila's reading of the Bh[a.bar]sya. Prabh[a.bar]kara's less philosophically loquacious school of M[i.bar]m[a.bar]ms[a.bar] resisted generalizations such as would draw it onto the terrain of other schools of thought. His Brhat[i.bar] with S[a.bar]likan[a.bar]tha Migra's subcommentary was less influential, but may indeed have remained closer to the core ritual imperatives that characterized the Veda according to Jaimini's reading. In his Prakaranapaticik[a.bar] S[a.bar]likan[a.bar]tha aims for a distillation of principles for Prabh[a.bar]kara Migra's...