Astika Darshanas
(Vedanta) Part
- 1
Astika Darshanas (Sankhya) Part
- 2
Astika Darshanas
(Yoga) Part
- 3
Poorva Mimamsa
The poorva
Mimamsa School was supposed to be pioneered by Jaimini.
The word “Poorva” means “Pre”, because this school mainly
concerns in itself with the ritualistic portions of the
Veda a.k.a Karma kanda.
This is an
anti-monsatic school whose core principle lie’s in the proper interpretation of
the Veda to perform Vedic rites and enjoy the fruits there-on. One important
accomplishment by this school in a practical sense is the establishment of a
rigorous frame work by this darshana to interpret and understand the Veda.
This frame work was used for formulating laws by our countries early law makers
like Dr Ambedkar
and so on. One more practical ramification is pioneering of a linguistic theory
and philology. More details to follow later. Please note here I am not going to
give any dates in AD or BC. Al that is mere speculation and it does not serve
any purpose.
The word Mimamsa
is derived from the Sanskrit verb root
“Maan- To cogitate”.
The word “San” is
added to it, to indicate that mental cogitation is extended to argumentation or
debate and thus establishment of principles of
interpretation or study of a topic.
The prefix “Mi” indicates rigorousness or thoroughness. The word occurs frequently in the Veda. For
Example the Taittriyopanishad uses it in its study of Bliss or the “Ananda
Mimamsa”.
Though Jaimini
was the originator of this school, there are many schools within it like the Prabakhara School, the Bhatta
schools and so on. More details on various schools to follow. The
central aim of the school is to elucidate dharma which was understood to be a
set of obligational rules and rites and the proper performance of them. They consider the testimony of the Veda to be infallible and they
establish this with linguistic theories.
The original
school is atheistic and they do not discuss about topics like liberation or
Moksha. But they are not against it and have not condemned it. This can be seen
in the Badarayana sutras (BS) were Badarayana quotes Jaimini and Jaimini in his
Poorva mimamsa sootras (PMS) quotes Badarayana. An example is given below.
In BS 4.4.5-7 it
is stated
" ब्राह्मेण जैमिनिरूपन्यासादिभ्य”
" ब्राह्मेण जैमिनिरूपन्यासादिभ्य”
“The soul attaining mukti is united with
brahman, is the upanyasa of Jaimini”
Before going
into the tenets of the school a small discursion on how the Mimamsakas consider
Sound to be eternal and also on the philosophy of
language. How does a person infer the
meaning of a sentence formed of individual words? How real or unreal or logical or
mathematical statements? There are 2 schools at present that answer this
question
- One school called Formalism states that
any equation or logical statement exists only in the mind of the person
who thinks about it. They have no reality in the outside world.
- The other school called Platonism says
there is a real existence of logical and mathematical statements outside
the person who conceives them. Mimamsa belongs to this school of thought,
whereas Buddhism belongs to the first one.
So if we somehow
can prove that words are eternal and exist independent of the mind, then we can
prove that the Veda is eternal and the only source for dharma. At the same time
we need to be sure that this does not apply to other loukika texts.
Now with this
background we come to the most important sutra of Poorva Mimamsa which is the
pivotal one that establishes the core doctrine of PM. This is sutra no 1.1.5,
whose extract I give from “The sacred books of the East Vol 27-Edited by Major
Basu”
The translation
is “The word and its meaning are eternal
and is called upadesha. In super-sensuous matters it never errs. Badarayana
says it is authoritative and it does not depend on anything else”
Following this
sutra the Poorva Mimamsa Sootras (PMS) quote a series of sutras that are
possible objections to this theory that words are eternal and start to refute
them one by one and establish are eternal. I will quote the series of sutras
that object to this view that words are eternal.
“There is an effort needed to produce that and the
effort is transient and thus the word is transient”
“The word vanishes when it is pronounced”
“Since some effort is needed and something is made as
indicated by the word karoti, anything made is not eternal.”
These are the
objections raised to the theory that the word is eternal. Now Jaimini’s
refutations follow.
This sutra is
the refutation to the first sutra in the series. It says “There is reason of
equal force”. This means to say, yes sound production needed an
effort. But the word had to exist before to bring it. Thus the first objection
is refuted by an equally valid reason.
Continuing with the refutation for the 2nd
objection, that the word vanishes after pronunciation, the below sutra refutes
it
“The sound was produced in ether and vanished
into it and persists there. The senses are not attuned to hearing it”
As for the 3rd objection that the sound
was “made” thus anything created is transient.
“The sound existed eternally in ether.
But pronunciation just made it audible”.
There are still many objections raised and refuted
but that will form a separate topic of its own.
History and Acharyas of
Mimamsa and their texts
The PM school is based on the Poorva Mimamsa sutras (PMS)
of Jaimini considered to be Badarayana’s
shishya. He was handed over a Sama Veda Shaka by Vyaasa and today that Shaaka
goes by the name Jaiminya Shaaka. The PMS is
divided into 12 chapters. It is believed that any ancient commentaries on PMS were
available to us but were lost to us in time. The most ancient surviving
commentary on the PMS is Shabara's Bhashya.
The next greatest exponent of Mimamsa was Kumarila Bhatta who was supposed to have come from Assam. He
had a school of Mimamsa in his name called.
He had famous followers/disciples like Mandana
Mishra, Prabhakara. Mandana Mishra later on losing a debate with Adi
Shankara became Sureshvaracharya the first
peetadhipati of Shringeri Mutt.
Prabhakara though a
disciple of Bhatta differed significantly with Bhatta on how to interpret the
meaning of a sentence. Thus there are 2 major schools in Mimamsa in
their respective names. The 2 of them wrote separate Vaartikas on the Shabara
Bhashya. A detailed comparison of both schools follows later.
The earlier acharyas where atheists and did not care
for questions whether god created the word or not. They also did not consider
the Devatas mentioned in the Veda to be realities, but only manifestations of
the powers of a mantra. Later Mimamsakas
like Bhatta Bhaskara, Krishna Yajvaan etc, were theistic Mimamsakas. The latter one wrote a book called “Mimamsa Paribhasha” a text that gives an introduction
to the terms and concepts. One more famous atheistic Mimamsaka was Saayana, who wrote commentaries on the 4 Vedas from a
Mimamsa point of view. He is also considered to be a minister of Krishna Deva
Raya.
Tenets of Mimamsa
1.
Mimamsa is a school that concerns itself
with the karma kanda of
the Veda. Its chief aim is the correct understanding of
dharma as enjoined in the Veda and correct performance of Vedic rites.
2. It
accepts all the 6 pramanas mentioned at
the beginning of the article.
3. It is
the Kumarila Bhatta School from now on KBS that contributed the anupalabdhi pramana. In that way the PM has
significantly contributed to epistemology.
4.
The Poorva Mimamsa School considers the soul to be eternal, omnipresent and spiritually active.
5. It
considers plural realities. The world of matter and the individual
souls
6. Consciousness is considered an accidental attribute
of the soul.
7. The
self is considered distinct from the body and the senses.
8. PM never interests itself with the examination of god or talks about Moksha or
final release. Though later schools incorporated them, the original Jaimini sutras never discussed
it. But it did not oppose or say anything against it as shown in the beginning.
9.
But both Kumarila and Prabhakara discuss
liberation or Moksha.
10. They
consider it to be negative in character as compared to the
positive happiness of heaven or higher worlds.
11. PM
considers the Vedas to be eternal and the commands in them as sources of
dharma. Since the Veda's are considered to be eternal, it did not care for a
god.
12. PM ignores the Upanishads and considers it subsidary.
13. It
considers only those statements in the Veda that originate an act in consonance
with Dharma. Thus Brahmanas and Samhitas are
the important to them.
14. The gods in the Vedas are not considered to exist physically. They
are not anyway involved in conferring of the desired results of a rite to the
sacrificer. They exist only during the mantra kaala or the period of chanting
the mantra. Thus Mimamsakas believe in the power of the Mantra directly.
15. The
performance of a Vedic rite like the Agnishtoma generates an unseen agency
called “Apurva” that generates the fruits of an act.
16. The
principle of “Apurva” does a away with the necessity of an Ishvara to
bestow the results of Karma.
17. The
core of the Mimamsa philosophy is based on Nyaya
and Vaisheshika, with some differences.
These are the core traits of the school. Now we will
go into some details over the view's held by both Prabhakara and Bhatta school
of Mimamsa on various concepts.
Views of Prabhakara and Bhatta mimamsa schools on various tenets
We
will take up only some common tenets and compare the views of both the schools.
Epistemology: Anupalabdhi
pramana or non-apprehension
Prabhakara: Does not accept this pramana as according to him there
is no involvement of the interaction of sense organs with an object. He also
does not recognize non-existence as a separate ontological reality.
Kumarila: He
accepts this pramana because other 5 pramanas
fail to give knowledge in this case. He considers non-existence to be a
separate ontological reality. According him non-existence is apprehended by
non-apprehension.
Nature of the self
Prabhakara:
1.
Considers
self as distinct from the body and eternal, ubiquitous. There are multiple
selfs.
2.
It
is unconscious since consciousness is considered as an attribute not the nature
of the self.
3.
The
self has nine special qualities, viz., cognition, pleasure, pain, desire,
aversion, volition, merit, demerit, and impression, which are produced by its
conjunction with manas, the internal organ.
4.
The
soul is neither produced, nor destroyed, devoid of origin, immortal and
eternal.
5.
The
self can never be an object but is always the subject in cognition.
Kumarila:
1.
It
is the substrate of cognition, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, volition,
impression, merit and demerit, which are its modes. It undergoes modifications,
and is yet eternal. Its modal change does not compromise its eternal nature.
2.
Most
important this school holds the self as the object
3.
Rests
of the views are almost the same.
Liberation (Moksa) And Its Means
This
is one of the few points that both schools agree with each other. The nature of
liberation is as follows
1.
Release is the absolute cessation of merits and demerits and thus the body,
mind and the senses. Since consciousness is considered as an accidental
attribute of the self through contact with mind and senses. Thus when all of
them vanish there is no cognition of pleasure or pain. Thus release is thus a
negative phenomenon characterized by the extreme absence of pain, not a
positive state of bliss.
2.
Both schools considers the need of knowledge and action as necessary for
liberation
3.
Abstention from all prescribed acts for the avoidance of sins,
and the performance of obligatory duties together with rigid moral discipline
are the means to release.
4.
But action alone is not
sufficient for the attainment of release. It must be supplemented by the knowledge of the self, which stops further
accumulation of merits and demerits, and completely destroys the body
Belief in a god
Here
again both schools are in agreement each other. The following are the views of
both schools on the presence of god.
1.
The deities involved in sacrifices are not considered gods, but like only like officials
to whom offerings are offered.
2.
These deities do not give the fruits of the sacrifice.
3.
In a way this is like
polytheism as Mimamsa recognizes multiple deities but it is ineffective
polytheism because the deities do not have a real existence apart from the mantra kala.
4.
The performance of sacrifices generates an unseen potency (apurva) in the
self, which generates their fruits without the intervention of gods.
5.
It does not believe in the existence of God as creator, preserver, and destroyer
of the world, or as the apportioner of rewards and punishment or the author or
the Vedas.
6.
Both schools believe that
the world is composed of atoms.
7.
Both schools recognize multiple realities, matter and the selves.
8.
Their arguments against god are similar to the Sankhya view.
9.
It is in the destruction of the world where the 2 schools differ.
Prabhakara holds creation and destruction never happened in one moment,
Prabhakara believes that some part of the world is destroyed by conjunction or
disjunction of atoms and recreated by the same way. Kumarila accepts that the
world gets destroyed like a pralaya and gets created again.
The
original Mimamsa School is atheistic but later Bhatta Bhaskara and Vedanta
Deshika, have written theistic versions too. But again as in Samkhya forcing a
god into the original school results in loss of some pioneering ideas that
characterize mimamsa uniquely.
Word versus sentence meaning
Prabhakara:
- Words
do not directly designate any meanings in a sentence in isolation.
- Any
meaning that arises is because it is connected with other words. This is
called anvitābhidhāna, anvita = connected;
abhidhā = denotation
- To
understand the meanings of a sentence one does not need to grapple with
individual words but based on the context to
understand its meaning.
Bhatta:
- Words
are considered independent objects.
- To
arrive at the meaning of a sentence one must know the meaning of each
word.
- This is called abhihitānvaya
We will stop with these tenets alone as a discussion
on all of them is a highly complex endeavor.
Practical applications of Mimamsa
We
will see two areas of applications
- Vedic interpretation
- Legal
Before
that certain concepts from the PMS and an overview of the theories of mimamsaic interpretation is in order. There are 6 axioms of
interpretation as per mimamsa
Sartakyata axiom
No
word in a sentence can be useless or redundant. If such a sentence is
constructed a way has to be found to reconcile the redundancy or the useless
word. This is used to interpret many sentences from the shruti. More examples
will be given later.
The Laghava axiom
The
meaning of a sentence which is simplest and shortest is preferred. This is a
restatement of the principle of Occam's razor, which states, “The theory with
the least number of assumptions is most likely to be correct”
The Artaikatva axiom
A
double meaning should not be attached to a word or sentence re-occurring in one
and the same place or context.
Gunapradhana axiom
If
a word or a sentence or a subordinate clause expresses an idea that clashes
with the main idea of a sentence, then these must be adjusted or reconciled to
the main idea, or if not possible, dropped.
Samanjasya axiom
All
attempts should be made at reconciling conflicting sentences on the same idea.
This can be used to reconcile conflicting rules in various smriti's on the same
topic. An example will be given later.
Vikalpa axiom
If
there is an irreconcilable clash between two rules of equal force on a given
issue, the law which is more in agreement with equity and social usage or if
one rule is higher in legal status than the other then the other is used. For
example in a sacrifice, if on a point, the shrauta sutra and the Shruti differ.
The rule in the shruti will override the shrauta sutra. This rule is the last
resort if all the mentioned rules above fail to yield any worthwhile
reconciliation.
There
are an additional 4 rules of interpretation.
- The Shruti Principle, or the literal rule
- The Linga principle or Lakshana artha or context based
meaning.
- The
Vakya principle or syntactic re-arrangement of sentences. This includes sub rules like
Anushanga(supplying of missing sentences or expressions), upa and
apakarsha(Transferring of clauses across a sentence).
- Prakarana rule, making a reference to some other
text for comparsion.
Applications to
legal situations
With
this we will go into examples on legal applications. I take the examples from
the smriti since I am more familiar with it than current legal texts. These
examples are found at http://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/93v1a4.htm
As
an illustration, using the Vakya principle of which the Anushanga or extension,
it is interesting to see how Jimutavahana interpreted the text of Manu which
states
"Of
a woman married according to the Brahma, Daiva, Arsha, Gandharvaand Prajapatya
form, the property shall go to her husband, if she dies without issue. But her
wealth, given to her on her marriage in the form called Asura, Rakshas and
Paisacha, on her death without issue shall become the property of her parents".
Jimutavahana employing the anusanga principle
interpreted this text to the effect that the words "wealth given to her
on her marriage" should also be
inserted in the first sentence after the words "the property".
i.e. "Of a woman married according to the Brahma, Daiva, Arsha, Gandharva and
Prajapatya form, (wealth given to her on her marriage) the property shall
go to her husband, if she dies without issue……”
As an illustration of the Samanjasya
principle which is found the PMS 1.II.19.
This
principle is illustrated in the Dayabhaga by Jimutavahana.
In
the context of rule relating to succession on which there are inconsistent
texts regarding the right of a son born after partition, Manu says
"A son, born after division, shall alone
take the paternal wealth",
and this is also the view of Narada and
Gautam.
However, Vishnu says
"Sons, with whom the
father has made a partition, should give a share to the son born after the
distribution".
This
is also the view of Yajnavalkya. Jimutvahana reconciles (i.e. does a Samanjasa)
these texts by applying samanjasya principle holding that the former text
applies to the self-acquired property of the father, while the latter applies
to property which is descended from the grand-father.
For
more examples relating to present day cases please read the examples given in
the following link http://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/93v1a4.htm.
There are a lot of great examples
But I do not understand the law at all so whoever is
interested please refer to the link.
Application to Vedic interpretation.
1.
We
will see an illustration to the sartakya axiom. This states that all words in a
sentence should have meanings, or such words should be tried to be reconciled
with the sentence or dropped. In the case of the shruti we do not have the
option of dropping it as it is apaurusheya. I give 2 cases here of how the
shruti ingeniously uses some techniques that intrinsically preserve this
principle.
a. Word
repetitions
In
many cases we have words in the shruti repeating like
“Ma(udatta)dhu(Anudatta)-Ma(udatta)dhu(Anudatta)
Ma(udatta)dhu(Swarita)”
and so on.
Now apparently those 3 words are repitions and seems apparently useless. This
occurs in the pravargya bhaga in the Taittriya Aranyaka 8 prashna in the
Vaishnava paata and 6th prashna in the Andhra paata. Based on the
context it can be reconcilled that the pravargya rite is supposed to spread sweetness
everywhere, one madhu for adhibuta, one for adhidaivika and one for
aadhyatmika. Think of Om Shantishantishantihi as another example.
b. Word
modifications making original words seemingly corrupt and meaningless
Certain
words in the shruti are modified due to the chandas, which forces certain
aksharas or syllables to elongate or one akshara is added extra or one can be
dropped. Apparently this makes the word corrupt and may sound like gibberish.
For example consider the mantra
“Grinissuriya
aadityaf prabhavatyaksharam”
This
is used in the saavitra rite discussed by the Kaataka(1st chapter) portion of the Taittriya. I have
underlined the “I” in the mantra. The actual word is surya and not suriya. The addition of a vowel “ri” is for meeting the
requirements of the chandas. Thus the shruti ensures that the Sartakya
principle is maintained.
2.
The shruti rule
The shruti principle is used
when a apparently multiple meanings can be resolved directly from the shruti’s
specification. For example consider
“Aindra
Garhapatyam upathishtate”
One performs upasthana of
the grahaptya agni with a verse related to Indra. Now the possible meanings are
1.
One
worships the garhapatya fire (Household fire) with a verse to Indra.
2.
One
should worship both.
3.
Or
one worship’s Indra in front of the Garhapatya.
Since this occurs in the
Agnihotra part in the shruti. Thus (1) is right.
3.
The vakya rule
Certain Vedic statements
will have certain words re-arranged due to chandas considerations. The meaning
can be found only if the words are re-arranged. For example
“Aasatyana
rajasa vartamaano niveshayan amritam martyam cha”
“From
satya loka to the heavens, you repeatedly appear and sustain both the gods and
men”.
There is no word
“Aasatyana”. “Aa” is a guru akshara and the trishtup chandas, to which this
mantra is set, enforces such a combination. Only the word satyana (Because of
truth) exists. Usually prefixes like Aa, Abhi, prati, ava
etc are used before verbs to indicate certain qualities of the action. For
example Samgachadvam means may we go unitedly. Also prefixes like “Aa” is used indicate
boundaries or time frames. For example “Aajanmat” (From birth), Aasamudrat (From
the ocean) and so on. Applying the rule
here there is only one verb “vartamanaha”. Thus “Aa” should be “Vartamanaha”. Thus “Aavartamanah” means “always appearing unfailingly”. But this is a
very difficult rule to apply with no knowledge of Sanskrit, especially with no
knowledge of Vedic grammar.
I am going to stop here as
further examples are very complicated and unless one has had some basic Veda
adyayanam and some knowledge of sacrificial details, it would be difficult to
understand them. My aim is not to be exhaustive but to introduce readers who
have not been exposed to the complete set of Vedic tools and methodologies used
and the science behind it, to an extent I know.
This brings us to the end of Mimamsa.
(To be continued)
