comprehensive view of the contents of the Vedic writings as a whole, of
systematising what they present in an unsystematical form, of showing
the mutual co-ordination or subordination of single passages and
sections, and of reconciling contradictions--which, according to the
view of the orthodox commentators, can be apparent only--is allotted to
a separate sastra or body of doctrine which is termed Mima/m/sa, i.e.
the investigation or enquiry [Greek: kat ezochaen], viz. the enquiry
into the connected meaning of the sacred texts.

Of this Mima/m/sa two branches have to be distinguished, the so-called
earlier (purva) Mima/m/sa, and the later (uttara) Mima/m/sa. The former
undertakes to systematise the karmaka/nd/a, i.e. that entire portion of
the Veda which is concerned with action, pre-eminently sacrificial
action, and which comprises the Sa/m/hitas and the Brahma/n/as exclusive
of the Ara/n/yaka portions; the latter performs the same service with
regard to the so-called j/n/anaka/nd/a, i.e. that part of the Vedic
writings which includes the Ara/n/yaka portions of the Brahma/n/as, and
a number of detached treatises called Upanishads. Its subject is not
action but knowledge, viz. the knowledge of Brahman.

At what period these two /s/astras first assumed a definite form, we are
unable to ascertain. Discussions of the nature of those which constitute
the subject-matter of the Purva Mima/m/sa must have arisen at a very
early period, and the word Mima/m/sa itself together with its
derivatives is already employed in the Brahma/n/as to denote the doubts
and discussions connected with certain contested points of ritual. The
want of a body of definite rules prescribing how to act, i.e. how to
perform the various sacrifices in full accordance with the teaching of
the Veda, was indeed an urgent one, because it was an altogether
practical want, continually pressing itself on the adhvaryus engaged in
ritualistic duties. And the task of establishing such rules was moreover
a comparatively limited and feasible one; for the members of a certain
Vedic sakha or school had to do no more than to digest thoroughly their
own brahma/n/a and sa/m/hita, without being under any obligation of
reconciling with the teaching of their own books the occasionally
conflicting rules implied in the texts of other sakhas. It was assumed
that action, as being something which depends on the will and choice of
man, admits of alternatives, so that a certain s