The Bhikṣuṇī Maṇimēkhalai

126 - Other Views on the Philosophical Systems
But the point to which the professor takes exception is whether
ṭ
exposition. The commentators quote largely a commentary as the
clearly states that it was Bodhāyana that wrote the commentary
ṭi, and that Upavarṣa’s work was no more than an abridgement.
So where it is quoted as distinct from Upavarṣa, sometimes in
juxtaposition, the possibility seems to be that Bodhāyana is quoted
ṣya of Rāmānuja refers to
an authoritative work ‘following the [88] text of
which closely he writes his own commentary on the Brahma Sūtras’
or Uttara Mīmāṁsa.
the commentary on the whole of the Mīmāṁsa, Pūrva and Uttara, and
Upavarṣa’s abridgment similarly takes into in both the sections of the
Mīmāṁsa. But Professor Jacobi’s point of objection is that the
pramāṇas according to the Maṇimēkhalai.
ṭ
ikāra, the eight pramāṇas
are nowhere mentioned in Vēdānta works as formulated by him. He
takes the six pramāṇas clearly stated in the commentary on Sūtra I.I.5
of the Pūrva Mīmāṁsa in Sahara’s commentary to be a quotation
nst this is that the position seems to
be supported indirectly by what Professor Keith has to say of the
pramāṇas accepted by the commentator as the pramāṇas of the
Sūtrakāra, that is Jaimini. As against this, the Professor points out in a
later letter dated the 12 th July, 1927.