SANATANA DHARMA PART 23 MIMAMSA AND KARMA MARGA KR IRS 13524 14524
Mimamasa – Karmamarga
Kalpa is left out to be dealt later under the
samskaras. Explication
of Vedic Laws
Of the fourteen branches of learning(caturdasa-vidya), after the four Vedas
and the Sadanga, we have the four Upangas of the vedas remaining.
"Upa+anga"="Upanga. "The prefix "upa" is added to suggest what is auxiliary
to a subject. "Sabhanayaka" means speaker; "upa-sabhanayaka" means deputy
speaker. In the same way we have, after the six Angas(Sadanga), the four
Upangas. These are Mimamsa, Nyaya, the Puranas and Dharmasastra.
"Mam" is the root of the word "Mimamsa"; "san" is the pratyaya. "Mimamsa"
means "esteemed or sacred inquiry", an exposition. What is esteemed or
worthy of worship? The Vedas. Mimamsa is an exegesis of the Vedas. Nirukta
explains the meaning of the words of the Vedas, also their etymology in the
fashion of the dictionary. Mimamsa goes further, to find out the
significance of the mantras, their intent. It also gives its decisions on
these points.
Karma Kanda is called the purva-bhaga, the first or early part of each
Vedic recension, and the second or concluding part is the Uttara Bhaga.
Mimamsa too is divided in this way into Purva Mimamsa and Uttara Mimamsa.
The first holds that sacrifices and other rites of the karma Kanda form the
most important part of the Vedas, while the second maintains that the
realisation of the self-taught in the jnana Kanda is their true goal.
Uttara Mimamsa encompasses the Upanishads and the
Brahmasutra.Uttaramimamsa, that is the Brahmasutra as well as the
Upanishads, constitutes"Brahmavidya" or vedanta here. It is the foundation
of the three important philosophic systems - Advaita (non-dualism or
monism), Visistadvaita (qualified non-dualism or qualified monism) and
Dvaita (dualism).
Every system has, as we have seen its sutras, bhasya, and vartika. The
Purvamimamsa-sutra is by Jamini Maharsi, its bhasya by Sabarasvamin and its
vartika by Kumarilabhatta. Kumarilabhatta's Bhattadipika remains the most
important Purvamimamsa work. Kumarila was an incarnation of Kumarasvamin or
Subrahmanya. Prabhakara has written a commentary or Purvamimamsa in which
he expresses views which, on some points, are divergent from
Kumarlibhatta's. So two different schools are identified in
Mimamsa-"Bhatta-mata" and "Prabhakara-mata". Let us consider Mimamsa in
general terms, ignoring the difference between the two schools.
"Bhattamata", it is obvious, gets its name from the fact that it represents
the views of Kumarilabhatta. Jaimini's Purvamimamsa-sutra is a voluminous
work and has twelve chapters,each having a number of "padas" and each pada
having a number of "adhikaranas". In all, there are 1000 adhikaranas.
The Vedas constitute the law of Isvara. Since they are eternal and
endless the law is also eternal. All of us are the subject of the monarch
called Isvara. He has engaged many officials, authorities, like Indra,
Vayu, Varuna, Agni, Yama, Isana, Kubera, Nirrti and so onto take care of
this world. They need a law to protect the creatures of all the fourteen
worlds. How should we, the subjects of Isvara, conduct ourselves according
to this law, how are the officials appointed by Isvara to rule over his
domain? We may find out the answer to these by examining the Vedas. There
are judges who deliberate on the laws of this world and resolve doubts
concerning them with the help of lawyers. If the Vedas are the law that
determines how dharma is to be practised, it is jaimini who interprets the
meaning of this law. His interpretation is Mimamsa.
When there is legal dispute, a verdict is given, say, according to the
decision of the Allahabad or Bombay high court based on similar cases. The
decision given by one court with regard to one case may be applied to a
similar case that comes up before another court. In Jamini's Mimamsa a
thousand issues (or points) are examined, taking into account the views
opposed to those of the author of the sutras, and the meaning of the Vedic
passage determined with cogent reasoning. To explain: first, a Vedic
statement is taken up; second, questions are raised about its meaning
("samasya"); third, the opposing school's point of view is presented
("purvpaksa"); fourth, that point of view is refuted ("uttarpaksa"); and,
fifth, a conclusion is arrived at ("nirnaya"). The process of arriving at
the meaning of each issue or point constitutes an adhikarana. The sutras of
Jaimini are very terse. Sabara's commentary on them is called Sabaram. The
word "sabari" usually means a hunter. "Sabari" of the Ramayana, they say,
was originally a huntress. Sabara, the Mimamsa commentator, had an aspect
of Isvara in him. It is believed that Isvara composed the commentary
(Sabaram) when we appeared as a hunter to grant the Pasupata weapon to
Arjuna. Since it has one thousand adhikaranas, Purvamimamsa is called
"Sahasradhikarani". One must add here that in this work the meaning of the
Vedic texts are determined by countering many a captious argument
("kuyukti").
While Purvamimamsa concerns itself with the meaning of the karmakanda
of the Vedas, Uttaramimamsa deals with the meaning of the jnanakanda, that
is the Upanisads. The Upanisads speak primarily of the Paramatman and our
inseparable union with him. Vyasa, in his Brahmasutra, determines the
meaning of the divine law constituted by the Upanisads. Ironically enough,
the sage who composed the sutras for Uttaramimamsa, Vyasa, was the guru of
Jaimini who composed the sutras of Purvamimamsa.
Suresvaracarya wrote a commentary on the Taittiriya and
Brhadaranyaka Upanisads from the non-dualistic point of view. It is not
worthy that he had earlier been and adherent of Purvamimamsa. He made the
transition from the path of works to the path of jnana, on becoming a
disciple of Sankara and wrote a commentary on his guru's bhasya. Before
becoming a disciple of our Acarya and a sannyasin he was called
Mandanamisra. The story goes that Sankara approached Mandanamisra for a
philosophical disputation during a sraddha performed by the latter. Vyasa
and Jaimini were the two Brahmins to take part in the ceremony.
No Concept of God in Mimamsa
Why should the Acarya have sought a debate with
Mandanamisra, the mimamsaka? ( A mimamsaka is an adherent of Purvamimamsa.
We Uttaramimamsakas are called "Vedantins". ) The Acarya it was who
revivified the Vedic religion and re-established it on a firm footing. Why,
then, should such a preceptor have been critical of Mimamsa which is an
Upanga of the very Vedas we prompted? Before answering this question, we
must consider the goal of any sastra or system, whether it be Mimamsa or
anything else. Any discipline, to repeat what I said before, must have the
ultimate purpose of leading us towards Isvara. I further observed that even
subjects like grammar, lexicography, prosody had such an end in view and
that was the reason why they were included among the fourteen branches of
Vedic learning. Now what is the concept of God like in Purva Mimamsa? What
does this text have to say about Isvara? The Brahmasutra declares : "Karta
sastrarthavattvat. " It means Isvara is the creator of the cosmos. Even
adherents of other religions call God " Karta ". But Isvara is more than a
Karta and has one more function. We do good and bad - good actions and bad
actions. It is Isvara who vouchsafes us the fruits of such actions: "Phalam
ata upapatteh". Isvara is the "phaladata" (giver of the fruits of our
actions) of our karma. We do good and evil with our mind, speech and body.
The lord is witness to all this and he dispenses the fruits of our actions.
These are the two characteristics (laksanas) of Isvara according to Uttara
Mimamsa.
What does Purva Mimamsa say about Isvara?
Both Sankhyas and mimamsakas belong to the Vedic system. But the
Sankhyas believe that Isvara is not the Karta or author of the jagat
(universe). "Isvara is pure knowledge, jnana, " they say. "This cosmos is
insentient, made of earth and stone. What constitutes jnana cannot be the
cause of insentient matter. To believe that Isvara is the author of the
universe is not right. "Such is the Sankhya view. (Kapila Rishi Purusha and
Prakrithi; Kapila made the brahmam at ease and brought out as HIS
representations Purusha and the Prakrithi Maya) Supporters of Sankhya
describe Isvara, who unattached to the universe and is pure jnana, as
"Purusa". It is this Purusa that our Acarya calls the ultimate
"Nirguna-Brahman" (the Brahman without attributes). However, he criticises
the Sankhya concept maintaining that the Nirguna-Brahman itself becomes the
Saguna-Brahman of Isvara to create the world and to engage itself in other
activities. To mimamsakas only such rites matter as are enjoined on us by
the Vedas. They are silent on the question of Isvara and of who created the
world. However they are emphatic on one point - that Isvara is not the one
who dispenses the fruits of our actions. They don't quarrel on the point of
whether or not Isvara is the Karta of the universe. They declare : "It is
wrong to claim that Isvara gives us the fruits of our actions according to
whether they are good or evil. He is not the one who metes out the fruits
of our actions. It is the Vedic works performed by us that decide the
fruits to be earned by us. "
So adherents of both Sankhya and Mimamsa, in their different ways, reject
the view of the Vedas and the Brahmasutra that Isvara possesses the two
lakshanas mentioned earlier. The Mimamsaka believe that Isvara doesn't
dispense the fruits of our actions because, according to them, the Vedic
works we perform give rewards on their own. We earn merit or demerit
according to how the Vedas and sastras view our actions. So it is our karma
that brings its rewards or retribution, as the case may be, not Isvara.(
Thus later Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhwa rewrote the meaning differently
holding Krishna or Vishnu as the be all and end all) Among the religious
systems that accept the Vedas, Sankhyas and Mimamsa alone hold the view
that Isvara is not the creator of the world, that he does not award the
fruits of our actions.
Nyaya and Mimamsa :They brought about the Decline of Buddhism
Many believe that Buddhism ceased to have a large following in
India because it came under the attack of Sankara. This is not true. There
are very few passages in the Acarya's commentaries critical of that
religion, a religion that was opposed to the Vedas. Far more forcefully has
he criticised the doctrines of Sankhya and Mimamsa that respect the Vedic
tradition. He demolishes their view that Isvara is not the creator of the
world and that it is not he who dispenses the fruits of our actions. He
also maintains that Isvara possesses the laksanas or characteristics
attributed to him by the Vedas and the Brahmasutra and argues that there
can be no world without Isvara and that it is wrong to maintain that our
works yield fruits on their own. It is Isvara, his resolve, that has
created this world, and it is he who awards us the fruits of our actions.
We cannot find support in his commentaries for the view that he was
responsible for the decline of Buddhism in India.
Then how did Buddhism cease to have a considerable following in out
country? Somebody must have subjected it to such rigorous attack as to have
brought about its decline in this land. Who performed this task? The answer
is the mimamsakas and the tarkikas. Those who are adept in the
Tarka-sastra(logic) are called tarkikas. The Tarka is the part of Nyaya
which is one of the fourteen branches of Vedic learning and which comes
next to Mimamsa. People proficient in Nyaya are naiyayikas; those well
versed in grammar are "vaiyakaranis"; and those proficient in the Puranas
are "pauranikas".
Udayanacarya, the tarkika, and Kumarilabhatta, the mimamsaka, opposed
Buddhism for different reasons. The former severely criticised that
religion for its denial of Isvara. To mimamsakas, as I have said earlier,
Vedic rituals are of the utmost importance. Even though they don't believe
that it is Isvara who awards us the fruit of our actions, they believe that
the rituals we perform yield their own fruits and that the injunctions of
the dharmasastras must be carried out faithfully. They attacked Buddhism
for its refusal to accept Vedic rituals. Kumarilabhatta has written
profusely in criticism of that religion. He and Udayanacarya were chiefly
responsible for the failure of Buddhism to acquire a large following in
this country. Our Acarya came later and there was no need for him to make a
special assault on that religion on his own. On the contrary, his chief
task was to expose the flaws in the systems upheld by the very opponents of
Buddhism, Kumarilabhatta and Udayanacarya. He established that Isvara is
the creator of the universe and that it is he who awards the fruits of our
actions. This fact so as to disabuse you of the wrong notions you must have
formed with regard to Sankara's role in the decline of Buddhism. There is a
special chapter in one of Kumarilabhatta's works called "Tarkapadam" in
which he has made an extensive refutation of Buddhism. So too has
Udayanacarya in his Bauddhadhikaram. These two acaryas were mainly
responsible for the decline of Buddhism in our land and not Sankara
Bhagavatpada. What we are taught on the subject in our textbooks of history
is not true.
Buddhism and Indian Society
At no time in our history did Buddhism in the fullest sense of that
religion have a large following in India. Today a number of Hindus, who are
members of the Theosophical Society, celebrate our festivals like other
Hindus and conduct marriages in the Hindu way. There are many devotees of
Sri Ramakrsna Parmahamsa practising our traditional customs. Sri C.
Ramanujacariyar, "Anna" (Sri N. Subramanya Ayyar) and some others are
intimately associated with the Ramakrsna Mission but they still adhere to
our traditional beliefs.( My headmaster) When great men make their
appearance people are drawn to them for their qualities of compassion and
wisdom. In the organisations established after them our sanatana dharma is
followed with some changes. But a large number of the devotees of these men
still follow the old customs and traditions in their homes. It was in the
same way that the Buddha had earned wide respect for his lofty character
and exemplary personal life. "A prince renounces his wife and child in the
prime of his youth to free the world from sorrow": the story of Siddhartha,
including such accounts, made an impact on people. They were moved by his
compassion, sense of detachment and self-sacrifice. But it did not mean
that they were ready to follow his teachings. They admired the Buddha for
his personal qualities but they continued to subscribe to the varnasrama
system and the ancient way of religious life with its sacrifice and other
rites. Contrary to what he wished, people did not come forward in large
numbers to become monks but continued to remain householders adhering to
Vedic practices.
Emperor Asoka did much to propagate Buddhism; but in society in
general the Vedic dharma did not undergo any change. Besides, the emperor
himself supported the varnasrama dharma as is evident from his famous
edicts. But for the Buddhist bhiksus(monks), all householders followed the
Vedic path. Though they were silent on the question of Isvara and other
deities, some book written by great Buddhist monks open with hymns to
Sarasvati. They also worshipped a number of gods. It is from Tibet that we
have obtained many Tantrik works relating to the worship of various
deities. If you read the works of Sriharsa, Bilhana and so on in Sanskrit,
and Tamil poetical works like that of Ilango Adigal, you will realise that
even during times when Buddhism wielded influence in society, Vedic customs
and varnasrama were followed by the generality of people. Similarly, great
men have been respected in this country for their personal qualities and
blameless life notwithstanding the fact they advocated views that differed
slightly from the Vedic tradition or were radically opposed to it. Our
people any way had long been steeped in the ancient Vedic religion and its
firmly established practices and, until the turn of the century, were
reluctant to discard the religion of their forefathers and the vocations
followed by them. Such was our people's attitude during the time of the
Buddha also. When his doctrines came under attack from Udayanacarya and
Kumarilabhatta even the few who had first accepted them returned to the
Vedic religion.
As it is ,coming to think of it, Siddartha who did study Vedas under
the four Gurus, ,wanted to eradicate the misery of the people; so wanted a
concept of , ordinary people to understand and follow, the important
aspects of life , to lead simply; and come out of the misery. Hence under
the bodhi tree found out, all the troubles and tribulations are only, due
to the desire aspired, by the people. So advocated that concentrate on your
desire and mitigate all of them; so, you become a Buddha; everyone is a
buddha was his concept. In this process, for leading a peaceful life on
this earth, now, why would one, think like Mimasakas, after life, GOD
concept, Punar Janma, Karma Kandam and Gnana Kandam etc. He never denied
anything outrightly in his discourses. He was only stressing to lead a
peaceful life; which when done, would automatically develop one to attain
the Brahmam which he termed as Nirvana, as Brahmam was also excluded.
Bhagavat Gita advocates only that as Action in in action and inaction in
action. Adi Shankara Advaitham also mean that only. Sri Ramanuja changed it
to Bhakthi. Simply Mimamsaka spoke Vedas as a total path; these people
tried to make it simple. {TO BE CONTD) K Rajaram IRS 13524//14524
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoqjJt6h9A4WDiEx__SrVxqhRAOYRHv2KVoJOuqgXxXaQQ%40mail.gmail.com.
