Difference between revisions of "Mimamsa" - New World Encyclopedia
MaedaMartha (talk | contribs) |
Rosie Tanabe (talk | contribs) |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{ | + | {{Approved}}{{Images OK}}{{Submitted}}{{Paid}}{{copyedited}} |
{{Hindu philosophy}} | {{Hindu philosophy}} | ||
| − | '''{{IAST|Mīmāṃsā}}''' | + | '''{{IAST|Mīmāṃsā}},''' a [[Sanskrit]] word meaning "revered thought," is the name of one of the six ''[[astika]]'' ("orthodox") schools of [[Hindu philosophy]], whose primary inquiry is into the nature of [[dharma]] (duty) based on close [[hermeneutics]] of the ''[[Vedas]].'' Its core tenets are [[ritual]]ism ([[orthopraxy]]), anti-asceticism and anti-mysticism. The central aim of the school is elucidation of the nature of ''dharma,'' understood as a set of ritual obligations and prerogatives to be performed properly, in order to maintain the harmony of the universe and further the personal well-being of the person who performs them. |
| − | + | {{toc}} | |
| − | Mimamsa is more accurately known as '''Pūrva Mīmāmsā,''' "prior inquiry," since it investigates the "earlier" | + | Mimamsa is more accurately known as '''Pūrva Mīmāmsā,''' "prior inquiry," since it investigates the "earlier" ''(pūrva)'' portions of the Vedas, the [[Samhitas]] and Brāhmanas. Its earliest commentator was [[Jaimini]] during the third to first centuries B.C.E.; later commentators include [[Śābara]] (fifth century), [[Kumarila Bhatta]], and [[Prabhākara]] (c. 700 C.E.). Mimamsa made important contributions to Hindu thought in the fields of logic and [[epistemology]], and its literature is closely allied to the Hindu legal system. Mimamsa’s arguments against [[Buddhism]] may have contributed in some part to the [[decline of Buddhism in India]]. |
==Meaning of Mimamsa== | ==Meaning of Mimamsa== | ||
| − | Mimamsa is the name of one of the six [[astika]] ("orthodox") schools of [[Hindu philosophy]], whose primary | + | Mimamsa is the name of one of the six [[astika]] ("orthodox") schools of [[Hindu philosophy]], whose primary inquiry is into the nature of [[dharma]] (duty) based on close [[hermeneutics]] of the [[Vedas]]. Its core tenets are [[ritual]]ism ([[orthopraxy]]), anti-asceticism, and anti-mysticism. |
| − | The [[Sanskrit]] word “mimamsa” literally means “revered thought” and was originally applied to the interpretation of the Vedic rituals which commanded the highest reverence. | + | The [[Sanskrit]] word “mimamsa” literally means “revered thought” and was originally applied to the interpretation of the Vedic rituals which commanded the highest reverence. The word is now used to signify any critical investigation.<ref>Chandrahar Sharma, ''A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy'' (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2003). ISBN 8120803647.</ref> |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | Mimamsa gives both rules according to which the commandments of the Veda are to be interpreted, and a philosophical justification for Vedic ritualism.<ref>Ibid., p. 211.</ref> | ||
==Purva Mimamsa== | ==Purva Mimamsa== | ||
| − | Mimamsa and [[Vedanta]] are treated as allied systems of thought. | + | Mimamsa and [[Vedanta]] are treated as allied systems of thought. Both are based on the ''[[Vedas]],'' and both are attempts to interpret the ''Vedas''. The earlier portion of the Vedic texts, the ''[[Samhitas]]'' and ''Brāhmanas,'' is called ''Karmakānda'' and deals with rituals and sacrifices. The latter part, the ''[[Upanishads]],'' is called the ''Jnānakānda'' and deals with the knowledge of reality. Mimamsa is more accurately known as '''Pūrva Mīmāmsā,''' "prior inquiry," since it investigates the "earlier" ''(pūrva)'' portions of the ''Vedas,'' while ''Uttara Mīmāmsā'' ("posterior or higher inquiry") is the opposing school of Vedanta. ''Pūrva Mīmāmsā'' deals with Dharma, and ''Uttara Mīmāmsā'' deals with Brahma, so Mimamsa is sometimes referred to as ''Dharma-Mimamsa,'' and Vedanta as ''Brahma-Mimamsa''. A number of teachers of Vedanta have regarded the two schools as part of the same system, considering the study of ''Purva Mimamsa'' as a good means of purification of the soul, or even a necessary prerequisite for the study of Vedanta.<ref>Ibid. p. 211-212.</ref> |
| + | == History=== | ||
| + | Mimamsa is a priestly scholastic science, which defines the inherited patterns of Brahmanic liturgical life.<ref>Heingrich Zimmer and Jospeh Campbell, eds., ''Philosophies of India'' (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974). ISBN 0691017584. </ref> These liturgical patterns were not always clearly elucidated in the ''Vedas'' themselves; in the later ''Brahmanas,'' the term “mimamsa” is associated with elaborations on points of ritualistic practice. Over the centuries, as priestly interpretations proliferated, there was an increasing demand for this type of definitive elaboration. The foundational text for the Mimamsa school is the ''[[Purva Mimamsa Sutras]]'' (written third to first century B.C.E.) of [[Jaimini]], a student of [[Badarayana]], containing about 3,000 sutras. The text, commenting on the early ''[[Upanishad]]s,'' aimed at an exegesis of the ''[[Vedas]]'' with regard to ritual practice ([[karma]]) and religious duty ([[dharma]]), and summarized discussions that had been ongoing for centuries. | ||
| − | + | A major commentary on the ''Purva Mimamsa Sutras'' was composed by [[Śābara]] around the fifth or sixth century. The school reached its height with [[Kumarila Bhatta]] and [[Prabhākara]] (fl. c. 700 C.E.). Bhatta produced several seminal theses on Mimamsa, such as ''Mimamsaslokavarttika,'' and his arguments against [[Buddhism]], and in particular against its attack on the Vedic sacrificial system, may have contributed in some part, to the [[decline of Buddhism in India]].<ref>Daniel P. Sheridan, "Kumarila Bhatta," in ''Great Thinkers of the Eastern World,'' ed. Ian McGready (New York: Harper Collins, 1995), p. 198-201. ISBN 0062700855.</ref> For some time in the Early Middle Ages, the Mimamsa school exerted near-dominant influence on learned Hindu thought, but it fell into decline during the High Middle Ages and today is all but eclipsed by Vedanta.<ref>Göhler (1995), p. 5f.</ref> | |
| − | |||
| − | Mimamsa is still the only one of the six orthodox darshanas besides Vedanta to survive into contemporary [[Hinduism]]. There are two surviving traditions, the ''Bhattas'' and the ''Prabhakaras'' | + | Mimamsa is still the only one of the six orthodox darshanas besides Vedanta to survive into contemporary [[Hinduism]]. There are two surviving traditions, the ''Bhattas'' and the ''Prabhakaras,'' following Bhatta and Prabhakara, respectively. |
==Veda== | ==Veda== | ||
| − | Mimamsa considers the Vedas to be eternal, authorless | + | Mimamsa considers the Vedas to be eternal, authorless ''([[apaurusheyatva]])'', and absolutely infallible. They are uncreated; sages and seers apprehend them and transmit them to the rest of humankind. <ref>Heingrich Zimmer and Joseph Campbell, eds., ''Philosophies of India'' (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974). ISBN 0691017584.</ref> Dharma can be known only from revelation in the ''Veda,'' which is its source, and not through either perception or reasoning. |
==Dharma== | ==Dharma== | ||
| − | [[Dharma]] as understood by Mimamsa can be loosely translated into English as "virtue" | + | [[Dharma]] as understood by Mimamsa can be loosely translated into English as "virtue," "morality," or "duty," the set of ritual obligations and prerogatives that, if properly performed, maintains the harmony of the world and furthers the personal well-being of the person who performs them. |
| − | Jaimini defines "dharma" as a command or injunction which compels | + | Jaimini defines "dharma" as a command or injunction which compels people to action. It is the supreme duty, the “ought,” the categorical imperative.<ref>Chandrahar Sharma, ''A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy'' (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2003). ISBN 8120803647.</ref> “''Artha''” (wealth, worldly status) and “''Kama''” (aesthetic enjoyment), which deal with ordinary common morality, can be learned through worldly intercourse. Dharma and Moksa (liberation), which deal with true spirituality, are revealed only by the ''Veda''. Dharma consists in the commands of the ''Veda,'' and action is the final import. Dharma is not something which exists by itself; it can only be produced by acting according to the injunctions of the Vedas.<ref>Surendranath Dasgupta, ''A History of Indian Philosophy'' (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1973). ISBN 8120804120.</ref> By necessity, an action is associated with its effect or consequence. An action performed during earthly life produces an unseen potency, ''apurva,'' in the soul of the agent, which, when obstructions are removed and the time becomes ripe, yields fruit.<ref>Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Charles A. Moore, eds., ''A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy'' (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973). ISBN 0691019584.</ref> |
| − | There are three kinds of actions: | + | There are three kinds of actions: Obligatory (non-performance results in sin, but performance does not result in any merit), optional (performance leads to merit, but non-performance is not sin), and prohibited (performance leads to sin). Obligatory actions are of two kinds, those which must be performed daily ''(nitya)'', such as daily prayers; and those which must be performed on special occasions ''(naimittika)''.<ref>Chandrahar Sharma, ''A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy'' (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2003). ISBN 8120803647.</ref> |
Dharma and adharma (merit and demerit) are associated with happiness and pain which will be enjoyed or suffered in the life beyond. Later Mimamsakas, following the thought of some of the other Hindu schools, substituted the ideal of heaven with that of liberation. | Dharma and adharma (merit and demerit) are associated with happiness and pain which will be enjoyed or suffered in the life beyond. Later Mimamsakas, following the thought of some of the other Hindu schools, substituted the ideal of heaven with that of liberation. | ||
| − | The Mimamsa school held dharma to be equivalent to following the prescriptions of the ''[[Samhitas]]'' and their ''[[Brahmana]]'' commentaries relating the correct performance of [[yajna|Vedic ritual]]s. In this sense, | + | The Mimamsa school held dharma to be equivalent to following the prescriptions of the ''[[Samhitas]]'' and their ''[[Brahmana]]'' commentaries relating the correct performance of [[yajna|Vedic ritual]]s. In this sense, Mimamsa is essentially ritualist ([[orthopraxy]]), placing great weight on the performance of [[Karma]] or action as enjoined by the Vedas, and a counter-movement to the mysticism of [[Vedanta]]. |
==Metaphysics== | ==Metaphysics== | ||
| − | Mimamsakas are pluralistic realists, believing in the reality of the external world and of individual souls. Mimamsa does not admit the existence of any God as the creator and destroyer of the universe. There is no reason to suppose that the universe ever had any beginning in time, or that any God created it. God has no body with which to fashion the world. | + | Mimamsakas are pluralistic realists, believing in the reality of the external world and of individual souls. Mimamsa does not admit the existence of any God as the creator and destroyer of the universe. There is no reason to suppose that the universe ever had any beginning in time, or that any God created it. God has no body with which to fashion the world. The school has a mechanistic view of creation; everything comes into existence through natural processes, as children are born from parents. Mimamsa emphasizes the operative Law of Karma, Unseen Power ''(apurva)'', and God is ruled out as unnecessary hypothesis. Mimamsa does not deem it necessary, as [[Nyaya]] does, that the process of ''dharma'' and ''adharma'' should have God as a supervisor. ''Dharma'' and ''adharma'' (merit and demerit) pertain to the agent performing them, and no one can have any knowledge of them. |
| − | Mimamsa’s rejection of belief in a God is related to that of the ''[[nastika]]'' [[Carvaka]] school. It places importance on proper practice rather than belief, rejecting a creator God as well as any scriptures on dharma outside of the Vedic tradition, yet accepting that ''[[svarga]],'' or [[heaven]], awaits the person who has acted righteously in his or her life. | + | Mimamsa’s rejection of belief in a God is related to that of the ''[[nastika]]'' [[Carvaka]] school. It places importance on proper practice rather than belief, rejecting a creator God as well as any scriptures on dharma outside of the Vedic tradition, yet accepting that ''[[svarga]],'' or [[heaven]], awaits the person who has acted righteously in his or her life. |
| − | “Jainini admits the reality of the Vedic deities, to whom sacrifices are offered, but does not argue for the existence of a supreme God. Some later Mimamsakas, such as Kumarila admit the reality of God. Others argue extensively against the existence and necessity of God.” <ref> | + | “Jainini admits the reality of the Vedic deities, to whom sacrifices are offered, but does not argue for the existence of a supreme God. Some later Mimamsakas, such as Kumarila admit the reality of God. Others argue extensively against the existence and necessity of God.”<ref>Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Charles A. Moore, eds., ''A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy'' (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973). ISBN 0691019584. </ref> |
| − | Unlike [[Nyaya]] and [[Vaisesika]], Mimamsa rejects the idea of the periodic creation and dissolution of this world. | + | Unlike [[Nyaya]] and [[Vaisesika]], Mimamsa rejects the idea of the periodic creation and dissolution of this world. The world was never created, has never been destroyed, and has been eternally as it is now. |
| − | |||
| − | ==The | + | ==The self== |
| − | + | The Vedic injunctions promising rewards to be enjoyed in another world assume the reality of individual selves. The self is distinct from the body, the senses and the understanding. [[Prabhakara]] and [[Kumarila]] both admit plurality of individual souls, and regard the self as an eternal ''(nitya)'', omnipresent ''(sarvagata)'', ubiquitous ''(vibh)'', infinite ''(vyapaka)'' substance ''(dravya)'' which is the substratum ''(ashraya)'' of consciousness, and which is a real knower ''(jnata)'', enjoyer ''(bhokta)'', and agent ''(karta)''. Consciousness is not regarded as the essence of the self. The self is characterized by the potency to know. Self is always the subject of any kind of knowledge, is a necessary element of every knowledge experience, and therefore can never become an object of knowledge or cognition.<ref>Chandrahar Sharma, ''A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy'' (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2003). ISBN 8120803647.</ref> | |
| − | The Vedic injunctions promising rewards to be enjoyed in another world assume the reality of individual selves. The self is distinct from the body, the senses and the understanding. | ||
| − | Mimamsa views liberation as the enjoyment of life in heaven, and not the state of ultimate release found in most other systems of Indian thought. | + | Mimamsa views liberation as the enjoyment of life in heaven, and not the state of ultimate release found in most other systems of Indian thought. Later Mimamsa thinkers were influenced by other systems of thought; Prabhakara (seventh century C.E.) defines liberation as “the absolute cessation of the body caused by the disappearance of all dharma and adharma (merit and demerit).” [[Kumarila Bhatta]] considers it to be the state of the self free from pain. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | ==Verbal cognition and semantics== | ||
The Mimamsa school traces the source of the knowledge of ''dharma'' neither to sense-experience nor inference, but to verbal [[cognition]] (knowledge of words and meanings). In this respect it is related to the [[Nyaya]] school. In order to understand the correct ''dharma'' for specific situations, it is necessary to rely on examples of explicit or implicit commands in the Vedic texts. An implicit command must be understood by studying parallels in other, similar passages. If one text does not provide details for how a priest should proceed with a particular action, the details must be sought in other, related Vedic texts. This preoccupation with precision and accuracy required meticulous examination of the structures of the sentences conveying commands, and led to an extensive exegesis of the Vedas and a detailed analysis of semantics. | The Mimamsa school traces the source of the knowledge of ''dharma'' neither to sense-experience nor inference, but to verbal [[cognition]] (knowledge of words and meanings). In this respect it is related to the [[Nyaya]] school. In order to understand the correct ''dharma'' for specific situations, it is necessary to rely on examples of explicit or implicit commands in the Vedic texts. An implicit command must be understood by studying parallels in other, similar passages. If one text does not provide details for how a priest should proceed with a particular action, the details must be sought in other, related Vedic texts. This preoccupation with precision and accuracy required meticulous examination of the structures of the sentences conveying commands, and led to an extensive exegesis of the Vedas and a detailed analysis of semantics. | ||
| − | Kumarila Bhatta and his followers (known as ''Bhāttas'') argued for a strongly [[Principle of Compositionality| compositional]] view of semantics called ''abhihitAnvaya,'' in which the meaning of a sentence was understood only after first | + | Kumarila Bhatta and his followers (known as ''Bhāttas'') argued for a strongly [[Principle of Compositionality|compositional]] view of semantics called ''abhihitAnvaya,'' in which the meaning of a sentence was understood only after first understanding the meanings of individual words. Words were regarded as independent, complete objects. This view was debated over some seven or eight centuries by the followers of [[Prabhakara]] school within [[Mimamsa]], who argued that words do not directly designate meaning; any meaning that arises is because it is connected with other words (''anvitAbhidhAna'', anvita = connected; abhidhā = denotation). This view was influenced by the [[holism|holistic]] arguments of [[Bhartrihari]]'s ''[[sphota]]'' (flash, insight) theory. Essentially the Prābhākaras argued that sentence meanings are grasped directly, from perceptual and contextual cues, skipping the stage of grasping singly the meanings of individual words.<ref>Bimal Krishna Matilal, ''The Word and the World: India's Contribution to the Study of Language'' (Oxford, 1990).</ref> |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | Sanskrit , the holy language of the Vedas, was regarded, not as a historical tongue based on convention, but as an emanation of being | + | Sanskrit , the holy language of the Vedas, was regarded, not as a historical tongue based on convention, but as an emanation of being ''(sat)'' in sound ''(sabda)'', giving the sacred ''Vedas'' and mantras the power to touch the essence of truth, and work magic. It was this power that made sacrifices effective, rather than divine intervention, for though the offerings were addressed to deities, the deities themselves were supported by the power of the sacrifices.<ref>Zimmer and Campbell, p. 607-608. </ref> |
==Knowledge== | ==Knowledge== | ||
| + | The Mimamsa made notable contributions to Indian thought in the fields of [[logic]] and [[epistemology]]. The Mimamsa doctrine of knowledge affirms that the world is real. Mimamsa posits two additional means of valid knowledge in addition to the four traditional means of perception, inference, comparison and testimony, recognized by other schools of Hinduism. They are ''arthapatti'' (pre-conception or postulation) and ''abhava'' (absence, negation, non-existence). Mimamsa advanced the unique epistemological theory that all cognition is valid. All knowledge is true, until it is superseded by further cognition. What is to be proved is not the truth of a cognition, but its falsity. Mimamsakas drew on this theory of validity to establish the unchallengeable validity of the ''Vedas''.<ref>Radhakrishnan and Moore, p. 487.</ref> | ||
| − | + | ==Mimamsa in Hindu culture== | |
| − | + | The literature of Mimamsa has had an important role in [[Hinduism|Hindu]] culture. Not only are all Vedic duties to be performed according to its maxims, but even the smrti literatures which regulate the daily duties, ceremonials and rituals of Hindus even in the present day are all guided and explained by them. The legal side of the ''smrtis'' regarding matters such as inheritance, proprietary rights, and adoption, which guide Hindi civil life, is explained according to Mimamsa maxims. Dasgupta, Surendranath. | |
| − | ==Mimamsa in Hindu | ||
| − | |||
| − | The literature of Mimamsa has had an important role in [[Hinduism|Hindu]] culture. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | The auhority of the Veda is supported both by social consciousness and by individual conscience. The Mimamsa ''darsana''(school) stands in close relationship to Indian law, since its chief object is “to determine injunctions which are distinct from civil law mainly in the fact that they deal with sacrificial rather than civic obligations, and are enforced by spiritual rather than temporal penalties.”<ref>Keith, Arthur Berriedale, ''Buddhist Philosophy in India and Ceylon'' (Oxford, 1923).</ref> | ||
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
| − | + | <references/> | |
==References== | ==References== | ||
| + | *Chatterjee, Satischandra and Dhirendramohan Datta. 1984. ''An Introduction to Indian Philosophy''. Calcutta: University of Calcutta. | ||
| + | *Dasgupta, Surendranath. 1973. ''A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. I''. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 8120804120. | ||
| + | *Embree, A.T. 1972. ''The Hindu Tradition''. New York: Modern Library. ISBN 0394717023 | ||
| + | *Göhler, Lars. 1995. ''Wort und Text bei Kumārila Bhatta: Studie zur mittelalterlichen indischen Sprachphilophie und Hermeneutik''. Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe 20, Philosophie ; vol. 468, Lang. ISBN 3-631-48821-1. | ||
| + | *Mittal, Sushil and Gene R. Thursby. 2004. ''The Hindu World''. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415215277. | ||
| + | *Müeller, Max. 1899. ''Six Systems of Indian Philosophy; Samkhya and Yoga, Naya and Vaiseshika''. Calcutta: Susil Gupta (India) Ltd. ISBN 0-7661-4296-5. | ||
| + | *Radhakrishnan, S. and C.A. Moore. 1967. ''A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy''. Princeton. ISBN 0-691-01958-4. | ||
| + | *Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli. 1998. ''Indian Philosophy, Volume I''. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195638190. | ||
| + | *Sharma, Chandrahar. 2003. ''A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy''. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 8120803647. | ||
| + | *Shastri, R.A. Ramaswami . 1936. ''A Short History Of The Purva Mimamsa Shastra''. Annamalai University. | ||
| + | *Smith, Huston. 1994. ''The Illustrated World's Religions: A Guide to Our Wisdom Traditions''. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. | ||
| + | *Zimmer, Heinrich. 1951. ''Philosophies of India''. New York: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01758-1. | ||
| + | ==External links== | ||
| + | All links retrieved November 9, 2022. | ||
| + | *[http://www.mimamsa.org Purva Mimamsa Home Page]. | ||
| − | |||
| − | + | [[category:Philosophy and religion]] | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
{{Indian Philosophy}} | {{Indian Philosophy}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
{{credit|139373991}} | {{credit|139373991}} | ||
Latest revision as of 18:03, 9 November 2022
| Part of a series on Hindu philosophy | |
| |
| Schools | |
|---|---|
| Samkhya · Yoga | |
| Nyaya · Vaisheshika | |
| Purva Mimamsa · Vedanta | |
| Schools of Vedanta | |
| Advaita · Vishishtadvaita | |
| Dvaita · Shuddhadvaita | |
| Dvaitadvaita · Achintya Bheda Abheda | |
| Ancient figures | |
| Kapila · Patañjali | |
| Gotama · Kanada | |
| Jaimini · Vyasa | |
| Medieval figures | |
| Adi Shankara · Ramanuja | |
| Madhva · Madhusudana | |
| Tukaram · Namadeva | |
| Vedanta Desika · Jayatirtha | |
| Vallabha · Nimbarka | |
| Chaitanya | |
| Modern figures | |
| Ramakrishna · Ramana Maharshi | |
| Vivekananda · Narayana Guru | |
| A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada | |
| N.C. Yati · Coomaraswamy | |
| Aurobindo ·Sivananda | |
| Satyananda · Chinmayananda | |
Mīmāṃsā, a Sanskrit word meaning "revered thought," is the name of one of the six astika ("orthodox") schools of Hindu philosophy, whose primary inquiry is into the nature of dharma (duty) based on close hermeneutics of the Vedas. Its core tenets are ritualism (orthopraxy), anti-asceticism and anti-mysticism. The central aim of the school is elucidation of the nature of dharma, understood as a set of ritual obligations and prerogatives to be performed properly, in order to maintain the harmony of the universe and further the personal well-being of the person who performs them.
Mimamsa is more accurately known as Pūrva Mīmāmsā, "prior inquiry," since it investigates the "earlier" (pūrva) portions of the Vedas, the Samhitas and Brāhmanas. Its earliest commentator was Jaimini during the third to first centuries B.C.E.; later commentators include Śābara (fifth century), Kumarila Bhatta, and Prabhākara (c. 700 C.E.). Mimamsa made important contributions to Hindu thought in the fields of logic and epistemology, and its literature is closely allied to the Hindu legal system. Mimamsa’s arguments against Buddhism may have contributed in some part to the decline of Buddhism in India.
Meaning of Mimamsa
Mimamsa is the name of one of the six astika ("orthodox") schools of Hindu philosophy, whose primary inquiry is into the nature of dharma (duty) based on close hermeneutics of the Vedas. Its core tenets are ritualism (orthopraxy), anti-asceticism, and anti-mysticism.
The Sanskrit word “mimamsa” literally means “revered thought” and was originally applied to the interpretation of the Vedic rituals which commanded the highest reverence. The word is now used to signify any critical investigation.[1]
Mimamsa gives both rules according to which the commandments of the Veda are to be interpreted, and a philosophical justification for Vedic ritualism.[2]
Purva Mimamsa
Mimamsa and Vedanta are treated as allied systems of thought. Both are based on the Vedas, and both are attempts to interpret the Vedas. The earlier portion of the Vedic texts, the Samhitas and Brāhmanas, is called Karmakānda and deals with rituals and sacrifices. The latter part, the Upanishads, is called the Jnānakānda and deals with the knowledge of reality. Mimamsa is more accurately known as Pūrva Mīmāmsā, "prior inquiry," since it investigates the "earlier" (pūrva) portions of the Vedas, while Uttara Mīmāmsā ("posterior or higher inquiry") is the opposing school of Vedanta. Pūrva Mīmāmsā deals with Dharma, and Uttara Mīmāmsā deals with Brahma, so Mimamsa is sometimes referred to as Dharma-Mimamsa, and Vedanta as Brahma-Mimamsa. A number of teachers of Vedanta have regarded the two schools as part of the same system, considering the study of Purva Mimamsa as a good means of purification of the soul, or even a necessary prerequisite for the study of Vedanta.[3]
History=
Mimamsa is a priestly scholastic science, which defines the inherited patterns of Brahmanic liturgical life.[4] These liturgical patterns were not always clearly elucidated in the Vedas themselves; in the later Brahmanas, the term “mimamsa” is associated with elaborations on points of ritualistic practice. Over the centuries, as priestly interpretations proliferated, there was an increasing demand for this type of definitive elaboration. The foundational text for the Mimamsa school is the Purva Mimamsa Sutras (written third to first century B.C.E.) of Jaimini, a student of Badarayana, containing about 3,000 sutras. The text, commenting on the early Upanishads, aimed at an exegesis of the Vedas with regard to ritual practice (karma) and religious duty (dharma), and summarized discussions that had been ongoing for centuries.
A major commentary on the Purva Mimamsa Sutras was composed by Śābara around the fifth or sixth century. The school reached its height with Kumarila Bhatta and Prabhākara (fl. c. 700 C.E.). Bhatta produced several seminal theses on Mimamsa, such as Mimamsaslokavarttika, and his arguments against Buddhism, and in particular against its attack on the Vedic sacrificial system, may have contributed in some part, to the decline of Buddhism in India.[5] For some time in the Early Middle Ages, the Mimamsa school exerted near-dominant influence on learned Hindu thought, but it fell into decline during the High Middle Ages and today is all but eclipsed by Vedanta.[6]
Mimamsa is still the only one of the six orthodox darshanas besides Vedanta to survive into contemporary Hinduism. There are two surviving traditions, the Bhattas and the Prabhakaras, following Bhatta and Prabhakara, respectively.
Veda
Mimamsa considers the Vedas to be eternal, authorless (apaurusheyatva), and absolutely infallible. They are uncreated; sages and seers apprehend them and transmit them to the rest of humankind. [7] Dharma can be known only from revelation in the Veda, which is its source, and not through either perception or reasoning.
Dharma
Dharma as understood by Mimamsa can be loosely translated into English as "virtue," "morality," or "duty," the set of ritual obligations and prerogatives that, if properly performed, maintains the harmony of the world and furthers the personal well-being of the person who performs them.
Jaimini defines "dharma" as a command or injunction which compels people to action. It is the supreme duty, the “ought,” the categorical imperative.[8] “Artha” (wealth, worldly status) and “Kama” (aesthetic enjoyment), which deal with ordinary common morality, can be learned through worldly intercourse. Dharma and Moksa (liberation), which deal with true spirituality, are revealed only by the Veda. Dharma consists in the commands of the Veda, and action is the final import. Dharma is not something which exists by itself; it can only be produced by acting according to the injunctions of the Vedas.[9] By necessity, an action is associated with its effect or consequence. An action performed during earthly life produces an unseen potency, apurva, in the soul of the agent, which, when obstructions are removed and the time becomes ripe, yields fruit.[10]
There are three kinds of actions: Obligatory (non-performance results in sin, but performance does not result in any merit), optional (performance leads to merit, but non-performance is not sin), and prohibited (performance leads to sin). Obligatory actions are of two kinds, those which must be performed daily (nitya), such as daily prayers; and those which must be performed on special occasions (naimittika).[11]
Dharma and adharma (merit and demerit) are associated with happiness and pain which will be enjoyed or suffered in the life beyond. Later Mimamsakas, following the thought of some of the other Hindu schools, substituted the ideal of heaven with that of liberation.
The Mimamsa school held dharma to be equivalent to following the prescriptions of the Samhitas and their Brahmana commentaries relating the correct performance of Vedic rituals. In this sense, Mimamsa is essentially ritualist (orthopraxy), placing great weight on the performance of Karma or action as enjoined by the Vedas, and a counter-movement to the mysticism of Vedanta.
Metaphysics
Mimamsakas are pluralistic realists, believing in the reality of the external world and of individual souls. Mimamsa does not admit the existence of any God as the creator and destroyer of the universe. There is no reason to suppose that the universe ever had any beginning in time, or that any God created it. God has no body with which to fashion the world. The school has a mechanistic view of creation; everything comes into existence through natural processes, as children are born from parents. Mimamsa emphasizes the operative Law of Karma, Unseen Power (apurva), and God is ruled out as unnecessary hypothesis. Mimamsa does not deem it necessary, as Nyaya does, that the process of dharma and adharma should have God as a supervisor. Dharma and adharma (merit and demerit) pertain to the agent performing them, and no one can have any knowledge of them.
Mimamsa’s rejection of belief in a God is related to that of the nastika Carvaka school. It places importance on proper practice rather than belief, rejecting a creator God as well as any scriptures on dharma outside of the Vedic tradition, yet accepting that svarga, or heaven, awaits the person who has acted righteously in his or her life.
“Jainini admits the reality of the Vedic deities, to whom sacrifices are offered, but does not argue for the existence of a supreme God. Some later Mimamsakas, such as Kumarila admit the reality of God. Others argue extensively against the existence and necessity of God.”[12]
Unlike Nyaya and Vaisesika, Mimamsa rejects the idea of the periodic creation and dissolution of this world. The world was never created, has never been destroyed, and has been eternally as it is now.
The self
The Vedic injunctions promising rewards to be enjoyed in another world assume the reality of individual selves. The self is distinct from the body, the senses and the understanding. Prabhakara and Kumarila both admit plurality of individual souls, and regard the self as an eternal (nitya), omnipresent (sarvagata), ubiquitous (vibh), infinite (vyapaka) substance (dravya) which is the substratum (ashraya) of consciousness, and which is a real knower (jnata), enjoyer (bhokta), and agent (karta). Consciousness is not regarded as the essence of the self. The self is characterized by the potency to know. Self is always the subject of any kind of knowledge, is a necessary element of every knowledge experience, and therefore can never become an object of knowledge or cognition.[13]
Mimamsa views liberation as the enjoyment of life in heaven, and not the state of ultimate release found in most other systems of Indian thought. Later Mimamsa thinkers were influenced by other systems of thought; Prabhakara (seventh century C.E.) defines liberation as “the absolute cessation of the body caused by the disappearance of all dharma and adharma (merit and demerit).” Kumarila Bhatta considers it to be the state of the self free from pain.
Verbal cognition and semantics
The Mimamsa school traces the source of the knowledge of dharma neither to sense-experience nor inference, but to verbal cognition (knowledge of words and meanings). In this respect it is related to the Nyaya school. In order to understand the correct dharma for specific situations, it is necessary to rely on examples of explicit or implicit commands in the Vedic texts. An implicit command must be understood by studying parallels in other, similar passages. If one text does not provide details for how a priest should proceed with a particular action, the details must be sought in other, related Vedic texts. This preoccupation with precision and accuracy required meticulous examination of the structures of the sentences conveying commands, and led to an extensive exegesis of the Vedas and a detailed analysis of semantics.
Kumarila Bhatta and his followers (known as Bhāttas) argued for a strongly compositional view of semantics called abhihitAnvaya, in which the meaning of a sentence was understood only after first understanding the meanings of individual words. Words were regarded as independent, complete objects. This view was debated over some seven or eight centuries by the followers of Prabhakara school within Mimamsa, who argued that words do not directly designate meaning; any meaning that arises is because it is connected with other words (anvitAbhidhAna, anvita = connected; abhidhā = denotation). This view was influenced by the holistic arguments of Bhartrihari's sphota (flash, insight) theory. Essentially the Prābhākaras argued that sentence meanings are grasped directly, from perceptual and contextual cues, skipping the stage of grasping singly the meanings of individual words.[14]
Sanskrit , the holy language of the Vedas, was regarded, not as a historical tongue based on convention, but as an emanation of being (sat) in sound (sabda), giving the sacred Vedas and mantras the power to touch the essence of truth, and work magic. It was this power that made sacrifices effective, rather than divine intervention, for though the offerings were addressed to deities, the deities themselves were supported by the power of the sacrifices.[15]
Knowledge
The Mimamsa made notable contributions to Indian thought in the fields of logic and epistemology. The Mimamsa doctrine of knowledge affirms that the world is real. Mimamsa posits two additional means of valid knowledge in addition to the four traditional means of perception, inference, comparison and testimony, recognized by other schools of Hinduism. They are arthapatti (pre-conception or postulation) and abhava (absence, negation, non-existence). Mimamsa advanced the unique epistemological theory that all cognition is valid. All knowledge is true, until it is superseded by further cognition. What is to be proved is not the truth of a cognition, but its falsity. Mimamsakas drew on this theory of validity to establish the unchallengeable validity of the Vedas.[16]
Mimamsa in Hindu culture
The literature of Mimamsa has had an important role in Hindu culture. Not only are all Vedic duties to be performed according to its maxims, but even the smrti literatures which regulate the daily duties, ceremonials and rituals of Hindus even in the present day are all guided and explained by them. The legal side of the smrtis regarding matters such as inheritance, proprietary rights, and adoption, which guide Hindi civil life, is explained according to Mimamsa maxims. Dasgupta, Surendranath.
The auhority of the Veda is supported both by social consciousness and by individual conscience. The Mimamsa darsana(school) stands in close relationship to Indian law, since its chief object is “to determine injunctions which are distinct from civil law mainly in the fact that they deal with sacrificial rather than civic obligations, and are enforced by spiritual rather than temporal penalties.”[17]
Notes
- ↑ Chandrahar Sharma, A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2003). ISBN 8120803647.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 211.
- ↑ Ibid. p. 211-212.
- ↑ Heingrich Zimmer and Jospeh Campbell, eds., Philosophies of India (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974). ISBN 0691017584.
- ↑ Daniel P. Sheridan, "Kumarila Bhatta," in Great Thinkers of the Eastern World, ed. Ian McGready (New York: Harper Collins, 1995), p. 198-201. ISBN 0062700855.
- ↑ Göhler (1995), p. 5f.
- ↑ Heingrich Zimmer and Joseph Campbell, eds., Philosophies of India (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974). ISBN 0691017584.
- ↑ Chandrahar Sharma, A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2003). ISBN 8120803647.
- ↑ Surendranath Dasgupta, A History of Indian Philosophy (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1973). ISBN 8120804120.
- ↑ Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Charles A. Moore, eds., A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973). ISBN 0691019584.
- ↑ Chandrahar Sharma, A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2003). ISBN 8120803647.
- ↑ Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Charles A. Moore, eds., A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973). ISBN 0691019584.
- ↑ Chandrahar Sharma, A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2003). ISBN 8120803647.
- ↑ Bimal Krishna Matilal, The Word and the World: India's Contribution to the Study of Language (Oxford, 1990).
- ↑ Zimmer and Campbell, p. 607-608.
- ↑ Radhakrishnan and Moore, p. 487.
- ↑ Keith, Arthur Berriedale, Buddhist Philosophy in India and Ceylon (Oxford, 1923).
ReferencesISBN links support NWE through referral fees
- Chatterjee, Satischandra and Dhirendramohan Datta. 1984. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy. Calcutta: University of Calcutta.
- Dasgupta, Surendranath. 1973. A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. I. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 8120804120.
- Embree, A.T. 1972. The Hindu Tradition. New York: Modern Library. ISBN 0394717023
- Göhler, Lars. 1995. Wort und Text bei Kumārila Bhatta: Studie zur mittelalterlichen indischen Sprachphilophie und Hermeneutik. Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe 20, Philosophie ; vol. 468, Lang. ISBN 3-631-48821-1.
- Mittal, Sushil and Gene R. Thursby. 2004. The Hindu World. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415215277.
- Müeller, Max. 1899. Six Systems of Indian Philosophy; Samkhya and Yoga, Naya and Vaiseshika. Calcutta: Susil Gupta (India) Ltd. ISBN 0-7661-4296-5.
- Radhakrishnan, S. and C.A. Moore. 1967. A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy. Princeton. ISBN 0-691-01958-4.
- Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli. 1998. Indian Philosophy, Volume I. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195638190.
- Sharma, Chandrahar. 2003. A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 8120803647.
- Shastri, R.A. Ramaswami . 1936. A Short History Of The Purva Mimamsa Shastra. Annamalai University.
- Smith, Huston. 1994. The Illustrated World's Religions: A Guide to Our Wisdom Traditions. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.
- Zimmer, Heinrich. 1951. Philosophies of India. New York: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01758-1.
External links
All links retrieved November 9, 2022.
| Indian philosophy | |
|---|---|
| Topics | Logic · Idealism · Monotheism · Atheism · Problem of evil |
| Āstika | Samkhya · Nyaya · Vaisheshika · Yoga · Mimamsa · Vedanta (Advaita · Vishishtadvaita · Dvaita) |
| Nāstika | Carvaka · Jaina (Anekantavada) · Bauddha (Shunyata · Madhyamaka · Yogacara · Sautrantika · Svatantrika) |
Credits
New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:
The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:
Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.
