It is difficult to say how the sacrificial system of worship grew in India in the Brahma@nas. This system once set up gradually began to develop into a net-work of elaborate rituals, the details of which were probably taken note of by the priests. As some generations passed and the sacrifices spread over larger tracts of India and grew up into more and more elaborate details, the old rules and regulations began to be collected probably as tradition had it, and this it seems gave rise to the sm@rti literature. Discussions and doubts became more common about the many intricacies of the sacrificial rituals, and regular rational enquiries into them were begun in different circles by different scholars and priests. These represent the beginnings of Mima@msa (lit. attempts at rational enquiry), and it is probable that there were different schools of this thought. That Jaimini's _Mima@msa sutras_ (which are with us the foundations of Mima@msa) are only a comprehensive and systematic compilation of one school is evident from the references he gives to the views in different matters of other preceding writers who dealt with the subject. These works are not available now, and we cannot say how much of what Jaimini has written is his original work and how much of it borrowed. But it may be said with some degree of confidence that it was deemed so masterly a work at least of one school that it has survived all other attempts that were made before him. Jaimini's _Mima@msa sutras_ were probably written about 200 B.C. and are now the ground work of the Mima@msa system. Commentaries were written on it by various persons such as Bhart@rmitra (alluded to in _Nyayaratnakara_ verse 10 of _S'lokavarttika_), Bhavadasa {_Pratijnasutra_ 63}, Hari and Upavar@sa (mentioned in _S'astradipika_). It is probable that at least some of these preceded S'abara, the writer of the famous commentary known as the _S'abara-bha@sya_. It is difficult to say anything about the time in which he flourished. Dr Ga@nganatha Jha would have him about 57 B.C. on the evidence of a current verse which speaks of King Vikramaditya as being the son of S'abarasvamin by a K@sattriya wife. This bha@sya of S'abara is the basis of the later Mima@msa works. It was commented upon by an unknown person alluded to as Varttikakara by Prabhakara and merely referred to as "yathahu@h" (as they say) by Kumarila. Dr Ga@nganatha Jha says that Prabhakara's commentary _B@rhati_ on the _S'abara-bha@sya_ was based upon the work of this Varttikakara. This _B@rhati_ of Prabhakara had another commentary on it--_@Rjuvimala_ by S'alikanatha Mis'ra, who also wrote a compendium on the Prabhakara interpretation of Mima@msa called _Prakara@napancika_. Tradition says that Prabhakara (often referred to as Nibandhakara), whose views are often alluded to as "gurumata," was a pupil of Kumarila. Kumarila Bha@t@ta, who is traditionally believed to be the senior contemporary of S'a@nkara (788 A.D.), wrote his celebrated independent exposition of S'abara's bha@sya in three parts known as _S'lokavarttika_ (dealing only with the philosophical portion of S'abara's work as contained in the first chapter of the first book known as Tarkapada), _Tantravarttika_ (dealing with the remaining three chapters of the first book, the second and the third book) and _@Tup@tika_ (containing brief notes on the remaining nine books) [Footnote ref 532]. Kumarila is referred to by his later followers as Bha@t@ta, Bha@t@tapada, and Varttikakara. The next great Mima@msa scholar and follower of Kumarila was Ma@n@dana Mis'ra, the author of _Vidhiviveka, Mima@msanukrama@ni_ and the commentator of _Tantravarttika,_ who became later on converted by S'a@nkara to Vedantism. Parthasarathi Mis'ra (about ninth century A.D.) wrote his _S'astradipika, Tantraratna,_ and _Nyayaratnamala_ following the footprints of Kumarila. Amongst the numerous other followers of Kumarila, the names of Sucarita Mis'ra the author of _Kas'ika_ and Somes'vara the author of _Nyayasudha_ deserve special notice. Ramak@r@s@na Bha@t@ta wrote an excellent commentary on the _Tarkapada_ of _S'astradipika_ called the _Yuktisnehapura@ni-siddhanta-candrika_ and Somanatha wrote his _Mayukhamalika_ on the remaining chapters of _S'astradipika_. Other important current Mima@msa works which deserve notice are such as _Nyayamalavistara_ of Madhava, _Subodhini, Mima@msabalaprakas'a_ of S'a@nkara Bha@t@ta, _Nyayaka@nika_ of Vacaspati Mis'ra, _Mima@msaparibha@sa_ by K@r@s@nayajvan, _Mima@msanyayaprakas'a_ by Anantadeva, Gaga Bha@t@ta's _Bha@t@tacintama@ni,_ etc. Most of the books mentioned here have been consulted in the writing of this chapter. The importance of the Mima@msa literature for a Hindu is indeed great. For not only are all Vedic duties to be performed according to its maxims, but even the sm@rti literatures which regulate the daily duties, ceremonials and rituals of Hindus even at the present day are all guided and explained by them. The legal side of the sm@rtis consisting of inheritance, proprietory rights, adoption, etc. which guide Hindu civil life even under the British administration is explained according to the Mima@msa maxims. Its relations to the Vedanta philosophy will be briefly indicated in the next chapter. Its relations with Nyaya-Vais'e@sika have also been pointed out in various places of this chapter. The views of the two schools of Mima@msa as propounded by Prabhakara and Kumarila on all the important topics havealso been pointed out. Prabhakara's views however could not win many followers in later times, but while living it is said that he was regarded by Kumarila as a very strong rival [Footnote ref 533]. Hardly any new contribution has been made to the Mima@msa philosophy after Kumarila and Prabhakara. The _Mima@msa sutras_ deal mostly with the principles of the interpretation of the Vedic texts in connection with sacrifices, and very little of philosophy can be gleaned out of them. S'abara's contributions are also slight and vague. Varttikakara's views also can only be gathered from the references to them by Kumarila and Prabhakara. What we know of Mima@msa philosophy consists of their views and theirs alone. It did not develop any further after them. Works written on the subject in later times were but of a purely expository nature. I do not know of any work on Mima@msa written in English except the excellent one by Dr Ga@nganatha Jha on the Prabhakara Mima@msa to which I have frequently referred.