Advanced Institute for Research on Religion and Culture (ARRC)

M.Th. 1st Year (Hinduism) Sub: Detailed study of Hinduism

The philosophy of two Mimamsas (Purva and Uttara) is an attempt to show that the
revelations of sruti (Vedas) are in harmony with the conclusions of philosophy. The Purva
Mimamsa being earlier of the two is ritualistic, whereas the Uttara Mimamsa or Vedanta
represents knowledge of the truth of things. In Vedanta the emphasis is on the Lord, and not
on the Lordship. Purva Mimamsa is generally called the Mimamsa (meaning inquiry or
interpretation), and in interpreting the Vedic text discusses the doctrine of the eternity of
sound identified with Brahman. The entire Veda, excluding the Upanishads, is said to deal
with dharma or acts of duty, of which the chief are sacrifices. Thus Purva Mimamsa is
inquiry into or interpretation of the first or the Mantra portion of the Veda, and the Vedanta is
the inquiry into the later or the Upanishad portion.

1. Mīmāṁsā:
The Mīmāṁsā (or Purva Mīmāṁsā) school was founded by Jamini. 1 Its primary object is to
defend and justify Vedic ritualism. In course of this attempt, it had to find a philosophy
supporting the world-view on which ritualism depends. The authority of the Vedas is the
basis of ritualism, and the Mīmāṁsā formulates the theory that the vedas are nit the works of
any person and are, therefore free from errors that human authors commit. The vedas are
eternal and self-existing; the written or pronounced Vedas are only their temporary
manifestation through particular seers. For establishing the validity of the Vedas, the
Mīmāṁsā discusses very elaborately the theory of knowledge, the chief object of which is to
show that the validity of every knowledge is self-evident.2

1.1. Etymology of Mīmāṁsā:

1
Jaimini was an ancient Indian scholar who founded the Mimansa school of Hindu philosophy. He was
a disciple of sage Veda Vyasa, the son of Parashara. Traditionally attributed to be the author of the Mimamsa
Sutras and Jaimini Sutras, he is estimated to have lived around the 4th-century BCE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Jaimini, (2.2.2019).
2
Satischandra Chateerjee & Dhirendramohan Datta, An Introduction to Indian Philosophy (New Delhi:
Rupa Publications) 43-44.
3
Yogi Ramacharaka, The Philosophy and Religion of India (Delhi: Bharatiya Kala Prakashan), 123.

1
1.2. Philosophical systems and teaching:
Mīmāṁsā is naturally the philosophical system favoured by the more conservative of the
orthodox priesthood of India, for it is settled and not calculated to disturb the minds of the
people with argument and investigation and ‘thought’ for it is a philosophy of ritualism, form,
ceremonies, creeds, dogmas, rites, and all that goes with that form of thought, or absence of
thought, and which finds complete satisfaction in the contemplation of the observance of
centuries old ceremonies and ritual, in accordance with centuries-old formalized and
crystallized creeds.4

The central theme of Mimamsa is stated in the opening verse: “Now is the enquiry of duty
(dharma). This is the basis for the interpretation of the entire Veda. The term Dharma is
derived from the root dhar, “to hold, maintain, preserve.” It has reference therefore, to
anything that holds, supports or preserves. When used in metaphysical sense, it means those
universal laws of Nature that sustain the operation of the universe and the manifestation of all
things, that without which nothing could be. Mimamsa interprets veda on the basis that
eternal happiness is attained by the correct performance of rituals founded on dharma,
thereby storing up seeds of virtue to fructify in the next life.5
The philosophy of the Mīmāṁsā School may be conveniently discussed under three heads,
namely, Theory of Knowledge, Metaphysics and Ethics.6
1.2.1. Theory of Knowledge:
The Mīmāṁsā philosophical school believes there are six sources of knowledge: Perception,
inference, comparison, verbal testimony, postulation and non-cognition. Knowledge (buddhi)
belongs to the ātman and is obtained when mind (manas) comes in contact with it. The atman
by itself does not have any knowledge without contact with mind and it is not even conscious
of itself.7
1.2.1.1. Pratyakṣa (Perception): perceptual knowledge is the knowledge obtained through
senses. It has two stages: indeterminate (nirvikalpa) knowledge and determinate (savikalpa)
knowledge. Supposing there is an orange in front of me, when my senses come in contact
with it, I have a vague knowledge of the form, ‘there is some object’. That is indeterminate
knowledge. Then my mind brings together the different qualities like colour, smell, and taste,
and I say: ‘that is an orange.’ Here my perception is complete with regard to that object, and
the object is not vague, but definite or determinate.8
1.2.1.2. Anumana (Inference): gives us the knowledge of a thing indirectly, when we see
some linga or sign invariably connected with the original. For instance, by seeing smoke on a
yonder hill, we can infer that there is fire there (even though we do not see it directly) since it
4
Satischandra Chateerjee & Dhirendramohan Datta, An Introduction to Indian Philosophy…, 291.
5
Theos Bernard, Hindu Philosophy (Delhi: Motilal Bansaridass, 1985). 104
6
Satischandra Chateerjee & Dhirendramohan Datta, An Introduction to Indian Philosophy…, 291.
7
P.T. Raju, The Philosophical Traditions of India (New Delhi: Motilal Bansaridass Publishers, 1992),
68.
8
P.T. Raju, The Philosophical Traditions of India …, 69.

2
is known from previous observations and experience that smoke is invariably associated with
fire.
1.2.1.3. Upamāna (Comparison): is another source of knowledge. On seeing a rat, one
recollects that it is like the mouse he had seen earlier. He then comes to know that the
remembered mouse is like the perceived rat. This type of knowledge comes through
upamāna.
1.2.1.4. Śabda (verbal testimony): It is the next source of knowledge. The Mīmāṁsā pays
the greatest attention to this since it has to justify the undisputed authority of the Vedas. The
words of a reliable person are believed to be true. This is called āptavākya.
Verbal testimony, however, is of two types: pauruṣeya (personal same as āptavākya) and
apauruṣeya (impersonal). The second denotes the Vedas since they were not created by any
human agency. The Vedas are supremely authoritative since they are the `Book of
Commandments' and also give us authentic knowledge of the unseen and the unknown truths.
Again, their main purport and purpose lies in propagating sacrificial rites. The Vedas are
eternal, not as the printed Book nor as the orally transmitted mantras but as the eternal
teachings contained in them. These teachings are conveyed through the ṛṣis or sages in every
age.9
1.2.1.5. Arthāpatti (postulation or presumption): It is the necessary supposition of an
unperceived fact which alone can explain an anomaly satisfactorily. For instance, if a person
is noticed to be getting fat even though he does not eat during the day, it can safely be
presumed that he is secretly eating at night! Knowledge obtained by arthāpatti is distinctive
since it cannot be got by any other means.
1.2.1.6. Anupalabdhi (non-perception): has also been accepted as a source of knowledge
since it gives the immediate cognition of the non-existence of an object. If it is found that a
jar which had been kept on a table earlier, is not perceived now, its nonexistence is cognized.
Since the validity of knowledge that we get is an important aspect of our life giving rise to
necessary activities, this has been discussed in detail by the writers of Mīmāṁsā works.
Incidentally, they also discuss how errors creep in, giving their own explanations and
theories. This has led to two different views. When a snake is perceived in a rope in dim
light, though the rope seen now and the snake seen in the past are both real, a mixing up takes
place due to a lapse of memory giving rise to a reaction of fear. This is called akhyātivāda
(denial of illusory perception).10
1.2.2. Metaphysics:
1.2.2.1. The Âtma or self:
The Âtma is entirely different from the body, the senseorgans, and the intellect. It is the
‘kartâ’ (agent) and the (bhoktâ), the one who experiences or the enjoyer. In order to

9
Swami Harshananda, The Six Systems of Hindu Philosophy, 29, http://rkmathbangalore.org/Books/Th
eSixSystemsofHinduPhilosophy.pdf (2.2.2019)..
10
Swami Harshananda, The Six Systems of Hindu Philosophy, 30, http://rkmathbangalore.org/Books/Th
eSixSystemsofHinduPhilosophy.pdf (2.2.2019).

3
experience the joys and sorrows of the body, it is but a temporary resident therein. The sense-
organs are only instruments which enable this experience. Yoked to the intellect, the Âtmas
acquire knowledge. The Âtma experiences both internal as well as external joys and sorrows.
The body is the creation of Prakruti. The Âtma runs the body. Nevertheless, the Âtma is
distinctly different from the body. It is the ‘drushtâ’ (seer) and the enjoyer. It is omnipresent.
It is eternal. It is indestructible. It is countless in number. With the destruction of the body, it
does not get destroyed.11
The Mimamsa thinkers regard the self as distinct from the body, the senses and the
understanding. The self is present even when buddhi is absent, as in sleep. The self is not the
senses, since it persists even when the sense organs are injured or destroyed. There is some
entity which synthesises the different sense-data. The body is material, and in all cognitions
we are aware of the cognisor as distinct from the body. The facts of memory prove the reality
of self. It is admitted that the soul suffers change but through all the changes the soul endures.
Cognition, which is an activity (Kriya), belongs to the substance called the soul. It is no
argument against the eternal character of the soul that it undergoes modifications.
The Mimamsa adopt the theory of the plurality of selves to account for the varieties of
experiences. We infer the presence of the soul from the activities of the body which are
inexplicable without such a hypothesis. As my actions are due to my soul, other activities are
traced to other souls. The differences of dharma and adharma, which are qualities of souls,
require the existence of different souls. Self is eternal, ubiquitous and manifold. There is a
distinct self in each body. It is manifested in all cognitions of objects. Prabhakara regards the
self as a substance, which is not of the nature of consciousness, but a substrate of
consciousness. Cognition is not a modification (Parinama) of the self, as Kumarila maintains,
but its quality, as the Nyaya Vaiśeṣika think. The self is manifested as the knower of all
cognitions of objects.12
1.2.2.2. Moksha:
The Mimamsa Treatise is a proponent of the philosophy of karma (action). The fruits of
karma must necessarily be suffered or liquidated by experiencing. Karmas in accordance with
Vedic injunctions yield happiness while those against, cause sorrow. That in itself is termed
‘Punya’ (merit) and Pâp’ (sin or demerit). The place for experiencing the fruits of merits is
“Svarga’ (Heaven) and that for sin is “Narka’ (Hell). Hence, in the Mimamsa belief, apart
from this World, there is acceptance of other worlds like Heaven and Hell. The concept of
Moksha as given in the Mimamsa is not accepted here. Nevertheless, Rishi Jaimini considers
the attainment of Svarga as moksha. Svarga alone is the goal of worldly existence. Dharma
alone is the means of attaining Svarga. And the Vedic Karmas such as ‘Yagnya’ (sacrificial
rites) etc. alone constitute Dharma. The Âtmas of those who have performed all ordained
Vedic Karmas alone ascend to Svarga. By means of karmas performed in the form of
sacrificial and other rituals as per Vedic injunctions, moksha in the form of Svarga is
obtained. But this moksha is not everlasting. This is because, no sooner the fruits of the

11
Swami Satya prasad dasji, Indian Philosophy (Bhuj: Narayan Dev Priniting Press, 2010), 108.
12
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/159912/7/07_chapter%204.pdf, (2.2.2019).

4
karmas get exhausted, one has to return to the ‘mrutyu lok’ (the world where there is death or
the perishable world). This contention of Rishi Jaimini is a noteworthy line of thought.13
1.2.2.3. God:
The Mimamsa posits a number of (Vedic) deities, representing Brahman, in order that
prescribed offerings may be made to them according to different needs and sacrificers
(devotees). Though these deities are seen as possessing some sort of reality, the sacrificer is
urged also to pay attention to the mantras and look beyond the person of the deity. Thus it is
insisted that making offerings to the deities, while also concentrating on the accompanying
mantras (addressed to them) -- which may elaborate the ultimate truth -- is rewarding. Note
also that the glorification (adulation, worship) of any person (human) in the presence of the
deity is not recommended. God or Brahman is basically the creator as well as the apportioner
of the fruits. Thus apurva in this regard simply appears to be the principle of karma which is
taken into account by God in the creation of the world.
In the Mimamsa the emphasis is on the ethical side. The ultimate reality of the world is
looked upon as the constant principle of karma. God is righteousness or dharma. The contents
of dharma are embodied in the Vedas, and the Vedas reveal the mind of God. While the
sacrificial works may be considered as the special causes of bliss, God is the general cause.14
1.2.3. Ethics:
Dharma is the scheme of right living. Jamini defines dharma as an ordinance or command.
Codana, or injunction, is the laksana or sign of dharma. Happiness is the goal recognised by
the Mimamsa. For the sake of happiness, practicing self-denial is important. Activities which
results in loss or pain are nit dharma. Dharma is what is enjoined, and it leads to happiness. If
we do not observe the commands, we not only miss our happiness but become subject to
suffering. The ethics of Mimamsa is founded on revelation. The Vedic injunctions lay down
the details of dharma. Good action according to Mimamsa is what prescribed by the Veda.
The smrti texts (documents on traditions or customs) are supposed to have corresponding
sruti texts (Vedas). If certain smrti is known to have no matching sruti, it indicates that either
the corresponding sruti was lost over time or the particular smrti is not authentic. Moreover,
if the smrtis are in conflict with the sruti, the formers are to be disregarded. When it is found
out that the smrtis are laid down with a selfish interest, they must be thrown out. Next to the
smrtis is the practice of good men or customs. The duties which have no scriptural sanction
are explained on principles of utility. If any act is performed in response to one's response to
natural instincts, there is no virtue in it. These and other rules (aspects) of Mimamsa are used
for the interpretation of the Hindu law, which is based on the rules of the Vedas or sruti (open
equally to all, irrespective of the varna, caste or vocation). 15
To gain salvation, the observing of nitya karmas (regular or daily duties) like sandhya, etc.,
and naimittika karmas (duties on a special occasion) are recommended. These are
unconditional obligations, not fulfilling of which incurs sin (pratyavaya). To gain special
13
Swami Satya prasad dasji, Indian Philosophy…, 108-109.
14
S. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy Vol. 2. (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1940), 424-429.
15
S. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy Vol. 2…, 417-418.

5
ends, kamya (optional) karmas are performed. Thus by keeping clear of kamya karmas, one
frees himself from selfish ends, and if he keeps up the unconditional (nitya and naimittika)
duties he attains salvation.16
2. Vedanta:
The term “Vedanta” means literally “the end of the Veda” or the doctrines set forth in the
closing chapter of the vedas, which are Upanishads. The views of the Upanishad also
constitute “the final aim of the Veda,” or the essence of the vedas. The Vedanta is also called
as Brahma sutra, because it is an exposition of the doctrine of Brahman and also sariraka
sutra, because it deals with the embodiment of the unconditioned self. While the Mimamsa
investigates the duties (dharma) enjoined by the Veda, together with the rewards attached
thereto, the Vedanta describes the philosophical-theological views of the Upanishads.
Together the two form a systematic investigation of the contents of the whole Veda.17
Tradition from samkara downwards attributes the sutra to Badarayana. Indian scholars are of
the opinion that the sutra was composed in the period of 500 to 200 B.C.E.18
The Vedanta Sutras (also called Brahma Sutras) that form the foundation of the philosophy
systematize the teachings of the Upanishads. The 555 sutras are often terse and consequently,
over the centuries, many scholars and philosophers have written commentaries based on this
work. In commenting upon the work, it can be said that the commentators founded new
schools of philosophy. Most notable among these were Shankara (788 - 820 A.D.) and his
school of non-dualism (advaita), Ramanuja (11th century) and qualified non-dualism (visista
advaita) and Madhva (1197-1276) with his school of dualism (dvaita). All three schools come
under the heading of Vedanta.19
a) Non-dualism (Advaita): Shankara explains the eternal Self is the atman and the universal
Self is Brahman. “The world is bound up by the categories of space, time and cause. These
are not self-contained or self-consistent. They point to something unalterable and absolute.
Brahman is different from the space-time-cause world. The empirical world cannot exist by
itself. It is wholly dependent on Brahman, but Brahman depends on nothing. Ignorance
affects our whole empirical being. It is another name for finitude. To remove ignorance is to
realise the truth. ... While absolute truth is Brahman, empirical truth is not false.” Shankara
concludes that the highest representation of Brahman through logical categories is Isvara or
Saguna Brahman (qualified Brahman) as described in Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras. The Nirguna
Brahman (or Brahman without qualities) transcends this and is the basis of the phenomenal
world. Shankara’s advaita has often been misunderstood and dismissed as the theory of maya
or illusion. The statement “this world is an illusion” is an oversimplification of Shankara’s
view.20

16
S. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy Vol. 2…, 418.
17
S. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy Vol. 2…, 430.
18
S. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy Vol. 2…, 432& 433.
19
S. Radhakrishnan and C. Moore, A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton university
press, 1957), 506.
20
S. Radhakrishnan and C. Moore, A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy…, 507 &523.

6
b) Qualified non-dualism (Visista Advaita): Ramanuja derived a form of “qualified”
advaita known as visishtadvaita. It can be thought of as a combination of Sāṃkhya, Yoga and
advaita. Ramanuja correctly emphasises that saguna Brahman, or Brahman with qualities, is
the highest reading of Brahman we can aspire for. “A reality of oneness manifesting itself in
a reality of numberless forms and powers of its being is what we confront everywhere,”
writes Aurobindo.21 Since plurality is what we experience, Ramanuja’s objection to Shankara
is that we should not posit anything we cannot experience. The mind perceives through
images and symbols. To ascribe qualities and to make definitions is the very nature of the
mental process. Thus, the way to realize Brahman is through symbology combined with
devotion. Since Brahman manifests through numberless forms, this is not our own invention.
Thus, he writes,22 “Joining the mind with devotion to that which is not Brahman, taking it to
be Brahman,” the mind reaches Brahman. In this connection, he stresses devotion as the
means echoing Patanjali’s devotion to Isvara. Hence, bhakti or devotion is a dominant theme
in Ramanuja’s philosophy. At the time of Ramanuja, Shankara’s advaita was viewed as a
philosophy asserting Brahman as a “quality-less substance.” Its subtle observations about
‘knowing’ and ‘knowledge’ were forgotten and the followers of Shankara’s school may have
claimed that they had proved the existence of Brahman. Shankara never claimed that. Thus,
from a historical perspective, Ramanuja’s objection, which is quite valid, is that there is no
proof of a non-differentiated substance. Shankara would not have argued with that.
According to Ramanuja, differentiation is the only thing perceived. Consciousness and
Brahman are not identical, but rather consciousness is an attribute of Brahman. Since the
mind can only understand symbols and images, there is no point in discussing the abstract.
Therefore, Ramanuja gave his “qualified” view of Brahman of the Upanishads. In his
writings and life, we see that he felt for the poor and downtrodden. It is clear that by the time
of Ramanuja, the Vedantic knowledge may have become the prerogative of the elite. Thus,
Ramanuja appears as one who simplifies the teachings and gives the multitude concrete
examples for a more transparent understanding.23
c) Dualism (Dvaita): The dvaita philosophy of Madhva of the 13th century builds upon
Ramanuja. For Madhva, there is no interdependence between these three ideas: Brahman,
atman and jagat. They are simply independent and eternal. Thus, it is quite natural that a
dualistic philosophy of “God and the world” emerges from such a view. From such a dualistic
view, Madhva derives his philosophy and develops an elaborate theory of devotion. Indulging
in abstract speculations concerning the Infinite, is not the way to reach the Infinite, according
to Madhva. The whole emotional component of our psycho-physical being must become
focussed on that one idea and this is the fundamental premise of bhakti. It can be said that all
of the world’s religious traditions have this basic structure and view.24

21
S. Radhakrishnan and C. Moore, A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy…, 595.
22
S. Vivekananda, Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol 3 (California: Vedanta Press &
Bookshop, 1947), 59.
23
S. Vivekananda, Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol 3…, 266.
24
S. Vivekananda, Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol 3…, 32-33.

7
2.1. Brahman:
As the source of all these principles Vedanta recognizes one Supreme Being, one law, one
essence, whom sages call Satchidanandam, “Existence-Absolute, Knowledge-Absolute, and
Bliss-Absolute.” Out of that one substance comes the manifestation of these manifold
phenomena. “He is the thread on which the different pearls of various colours and shapes are
strung together.” God the Absolute is this thread or essence. He dwells in the heart of every
being as consciousness; from the minutest atom to the greatest of mortals, He is present
everywhere. In Him we live and move and have our being. Without Him there cannot be
anything. He is one without a second. There cannot be more than one infinite being, since
infinity means limitless, boundless, and secondless. Such is the Vedic conception of God, and
the realization of this God is the ultimate goal of its teaching.25
2.2. The World:
In the beginning of the Brahma-sutra it is clearly declared that Brahman is that from which
the origin, subsistence and dissolution of this world proceed. All the world comes into
existence out of Brahman at the beginning of an immensely long cosmical period called
kalpa, and thereafter it subsists, being controlled by Brahman; at the end of the cosmical
period it is reabsorbed into Brahman again, and everything is brought to annihilation.
It is certainly noteworthy that at the beginning of the Brahma-sutras this theory is declared in
defining Brahman. In the philosophy of Sankara, Brahman as the world cause is clearly
distinguished from Brahman in itself, i.e. the highest Brahman, whereas the composer of the
sutras thought that to be the world cause as essential characteristic of Brahman in itself.
Therefore the composer of the Sutras did not distinguish between the two Brahmans, i.e. the
highest Brahman and the lower Brahman. It is a basic proposition presupposed throughout
the Brahma-sutras that Brahman in itself is the world cause. This Brahman, being the only
cause for the origination of the world is compared to the womb, and is called the ‘womb’
(yoni) of the universe.26
2.3. The individual Self:
The immortality of the soul is another fundamental principle of the Vedanta philosophy. The
Self of man is not subject to change, nay, it is birthless and deathless. Birth, death and all that
lies between have to do only with the physical body, which has beginning and must
necessarily come to an end. They do not touch the soul. "The Self is not born, neither does it
die, nor having been does It cease to exist. Unborn, eternal, unchangeable, ever-existent, it is
not destroyed when the body is destroyed.
Body decays, but not the soul, which only dwells within the body and permeates it with life
and consciousness, but which is not tainted by any bodily action or condition any more than
the sun is affected by the dust-covered window through which it shines. For a true Seer the
body is only a dwelling-house or an instrument which he uses for the attainment of his
25
Swami Paramananda, Principles and Purpose of Vedanta (Washington, D. C.: The Carnahan Press,
1910), 9-10.
26
Hajime Nakamura, A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy (new Delhi: Motilal Banaridass
publishers, 1990), 486-487

8
original state of God consciousness. Death is nothing but going from one house to another,
until the soul has freed itself from attachment to ephemeral things and gained its re- lease
from the bonds of Karma. Karma has no power over the real Self. It binds only the apparent
or external man, who identifies himself with nature and thus comes under the law of action
and reaction or cause and effect. Through wisdom alone the individual can transcend this law
and rise above the dualities of heat and cold, pleasure and pain, and realize his immortal
nature. The idea of immortality necessarily presupposes our pre-existence, since eternity
cannot extend in one direction alone. It is evident that that which has no end can have no
beginning. As this present life will be a pre-existence for our future life, so in the same way,
the present must have been preceded by other lives. The Self is always the same in past,
present and future; but only when our heart unfolds, do we perceive its everlasting glory and
thus conquer our last enemy, death27
Conclusion:
Mimamsa and Vedanta are both philosophical traditions that attempt to establish the truth of
the Vedas and Upanishads. They attempt to do this not by relying on the authority of the
Vedas themselves but by means of philosophical arguments based on reason and experience.
Mimamsa takes the early portions of the Vedas, the injunctions to perform rituals and to fulfil
duties, as authoritative and argues for the truth of these injunctions. Vedanta takes the later
portions of the Vedas, the Upanishads, to be authoritative and argues for the truth of their
knowledge claims, particularly the claims that Atman/Brahman is the ultimate reality and that
by coming to know this ultimate reality one can experience final liberation (moksha).
Bibliography:
Bernard, Theos. Hindu Philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Bansaridass, 1985.

Chateerjee, Satischandra & Dhirendramohan Datta. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy.

Dasji, Swami Satya prasad Indian Philosophy. Bhuj: Narayan Dev Priniting Press, 2010.

Nakamura, Hajime. A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy. new Delhi: Motilal Banaridass
publishers, 1990.

Paramananda, Swami. Principles and Purpose of Vedanta. Washington, D. C.: The Carnahan
Press, 1910.

Radhakrishnan, S. and C. Moore. A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton

Radhakrishnan, S. Indian Philosophy Vol. 2. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1940.

Raju, P.T. The Philosophical Traditions of India. New Delhi: Motilal Bansaridass Publishers,
1992.

27
Swami Paramananda, Principles and Purpose of Vedanta…., 21-23.

9
Ramacharaka, Yogi. The Philosophy and Religion of India. Delhi: Bharatiya Kala Prakashan.

Vivekananda, S. Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol 3. California: Vedanta Press &
Bookshop, 1947.

Bibliography:
____, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Jaimini, (2.2.2019).
____, http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/159912/7/07_chapter%204.pdf, (2.2.
2019).

Harshananda, Swami The Six Systems of Hindu Philosophy. http://rkmathbangalore.org/Bo

10