Can Purva Mimamsa be considered as a Philosophical System?

Philosophy is the study of the search of Truth and is classified under several branches like Metaphysics, Logic, Aesthetics, Epistemology, Ethics, Political Science and Axiology. In India we have a number of philosophical systems grouped under various categories like-

Nastika (not owing allegiance to the Vedas) – Buddhism, Jainism and Charavaka systems

Astika (owing allegiance to the Vedas)- Nyaya, Vaishesika, Samkya, Yoga, Purva Mimamsa and Uttara Mimamsa (Vedanta)

Schools of Vedanta -

• Shankara’s Advaita

• Ramanuja’s Visishtadvaita

• Madhva’s Dwaita

• Nimbarka’s Dwaitadvaita

• Vallabha’s Shuddhadvaita

• Bhaskara’s Aupadhika-bheda bheda

• Srikantha’s Visishta Shivadvaita

• Sripati’s Vishesadvaita and

• Baladeva’s Achintya bheda bheda

Schools based on Agamas -

• Trika or Kashmir Shaivism

• Shaiva Siddhanta

• Lingayatism

Though it is generally held that there are six system of darshanas owing allegiance to the Vedas, only two of them Purva Mimamsa and Uttara Mimamsa can be said to be directly based on Vedic scriptures, the former with the Vedic Samhitas and Brahmanas and the latter with the Upanishads; while the remaining four were only indirectly and in many cases in a forced manner connected with the Vedas. Also out of these six systems, only Uttara Mimamsa (Vedanta), Samkya and Vaishesika deal with metaphysics whereas the Purva Mimamsa is mainly a methodology of interpretation of scriptural texts, the Yoga teaches physical, mental and spiritual discipline and the Nyaya is a system of logic and epistemology.¹

The word Mimamsa had from the remotest times to the times of the Upanishads been employed to designate discussions on doubtful points in rituals or philosophy.²

The origin of the Mimamsa doctrine goes back to the Brahmana period. The very word Brahmana stands for the considered opinion of a priest or recognized authority. The result of these discussions were systematized and considerably amplified in later times as shown by the important class of literature known as Kalpa Sutras. But it remained essentially a system of ritual exposition. In still later times, owing obviously to the conspicuous development of other systems of philosophy, the Purva Mimamsa also came to be a fully fledged philosophical doctrine with its own ontology and epistemology in addition to being a systematization of ritual.³

Its primary source is represented by the sutra of Jaimini (300-200 B.C.) consisting of 12 chapters. The earliest extant commentary on it was written by Shabara Svamin (400 A.D.) and it was explained in two somewhat different ways by Kumarila Bhatta and Prabhakara in about 7^th century A.D.⁴

Main content of Purva Mimamsa

For Vedic sacrifices to be performed correctly, their description given in the Brahmana literature has to be correctly comprehended. This required the correct interpretation of the Brahmana literature which was the main goal of Purva Mimamsa.⁵

Hence the purpose of Purva Mimamsa is the inquiry into dharma as opposed to the purpose of the Vedanta which is to investigate the nature of Brahman. The Purva Mimamsa defines dharma to be those duties that are prescribed by injunctive passages which urge men to action. The next question is what is the source of these injunctions. The answer is that it is the eternal, infallible and self-existent Vedas. It is this theory that the Vedas have existed from all eternity, was not created by any person, human or divine which was propounded by Purva Mimamsa system.⁶

Does Purva Mimamsa deal with Metaphysics?

Prof. K.T.Pandurangi opines that it is not clear whether Purva Mimamsa developed its own concepts of metaphysics and ontology in its early stages.⁷ With regards to questions like creation, God, individual soul and liberation; both Prabhakara and Kumarila, the commentators of Purva Mimamsa deny the existence of a personal God who created the world. Their position is that the world is without beginning and not created.⁸

The Purva Mimamsa treats God with scant respect for according to it, the Vedic ritual which is its chief concern operates automatically and autonomously. God is subservient to the ritual performance and is often regarded as even superfluous. It has been well said that according to Purva Mimamsa, gods can be regarded only as hypothetical entities which one has to assume because they are essential for the ritual act. Incidentally the Vedic ritual does not also seem to bother about the ‘moralness’ of the character of the sacrificer and the officiating priests for the purpose of the sacrificial act.⁹

The topic of God and the creation of the world naturally introduce the topic of the existence of the individual self, but Jaimini’s system contains no sutra to establish the existence of a soul.¹⁰

But later Purva Mimamsa had to accept the existence of soul for without it who could perform the Vedic commandments and what would be the meaning of these Vedic texts which speak of men as performing sacrifices and going to heaven thereby? The soul according to them was something entirely distinct from the body, sense organs and buddhi and it was eternal and many.¹¹

The Purva Mimamsa was also not interested in liberation. Performing karmas faithfully is a way of life as well as a goal of life for Mimamsakaras. A man should find fulfillment of his life in discharging these duties. However due to the impact of other systems of Indian philosophy and a general trend for the concept of liberation in Indian culture, they formulated the concept of liberation.¹² According to Purva Mimamsa liberation or Kaivalya (a state of the absence of both bliss and sorrow) could be achieved by withdrawal from kamya sacrificial activities and prohibited activities. But nitya and naimittika karmas had to be performed.¹³

Purva Mimamsa contains philosophy of little value

According to S.N.Dasgupta, the Mimamsa Sutra deals 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.¹⁴ Even in the field of epistemology, the svatah pramanaya (self-validity) of knowledge which was the cornerstone of the Purva Mimamsa’s philosophy was later modified and the Mimamsakaras accepted the Nyaya view of perception (sense contact) with slight modification.¹⁵

Similar is the view of P.V.Kane who says that the Purva Mimamsa has not much to teach and does not rise through high level on the burning questions of philosophy such as the creation of the world, a personal God, the moral government of the world, on the soul, etc. But still it has considerable claims to be regarded as a system as it has elaborated rules for the interpretation of (Vedic) texts, he adds.¹⁶

Is the study of Purva Mimamsa obligatory for studying Vedanta?

Most of the commentators of Brahma Sutra except Shankaracharya agree that a previous study of Purva Mimamsa is necessary before the Uttara Mimamsa (Vedanta) can be taken up on the ground that when a person realizes that the fruits of following the karma kanda is limited and transitory, he develops inquisitiveness about acquiring the knowledge of Brahman.¹⁷

It is like asking a patient to first get examined by a quack and after realizing that he would not cure you, later to visit a qualified doctor. When all the acharyas had formulated their philosophies based on prasthanatraya (Upanishads, Brahma Sutra and Bhagavad Gita) and had realized the inadequacy of karma kanda in realizing Brahman what was the need of every individual to go through the contents of karma kanda? Was it not a waste of time especially with the uncertain and limited life span of human beings? The acharyas (except Shankara) also wanted men to continue with rituals with a condition that it should be done without the desire of acquiring fruits and this would purify their mind and prepare them for acquiring Brahmajnana, that is reality of Brahman. All Vedic sacrifices were carried out with the aim of fulfilling a specific goal. But doing a task without a goal is like making a chair or shoe without any intention of using it. Moreover, how can one get their mind purified by performing sacrifices which involve killing animals? Also how can an individual involve himself in karma (activity) in a sacrifice, where the Ritviks are actually doing the job, while being the sponsor the individual is a mute spectator.

Purva Mimamsa clearly says that the duties mentioned in the Vedas for an individual have to be carried out from birth to death. If an individual spends time in these activities when will he have time to reflect, contemplate or introspect on large issues like salvation? Another question is what about the path to be chosen by the masses for salvation as the Vedic sampradaya denies them to study Vedas or perform sacrifices?

Conditions for acquiring Brahmajnana

According to Shankara a person is entitled to inquire into Brahman when he has passed through the four fold discipline of viveka (discrimination), vairagya (renunciation), satasampat (virtues like tranquility, sense control, faith in the path of jnana marga, perseverance, focus of mind and withdrawal from the world) and mumukshatva (intense desire for enlightenment).¹⁸

Shankaracharya’s view on studying Purva Mimamsa

In his commentary on Isavasyopanishad Sri Shankaracharya now and again touches on the following point which is of much importance in understanding his view on the relevance of studying Purva Mimamsa. The Veda inculcates he says two independent lines of conduct- one of karma or activity and the other of jnana or withdrawal from the world. The first forms the subject matter of the liturgical portion of the karma kanda and the second of the Upanishad or the jnana kanda of the Vedas. The teaching of the jnana kanda is whole in itself and should not be considered as subsidiary in any way to the teachings of the karma kanda. Nor should it be imagined that both these teachings can be concurrently followed by anybody for there is a fundamental antithesis between them. The karma kanda presupposes a belief in variety as ordinary experienced, while the jnana kanda denying all this variety insists on the truth of only the unity underlying it. Thus the two paths of karma and jnana are opposed to each other.¹⁹

Shankaracharya suggests that Purva Mimamsa might or might not be studied as its inadequacy for obtaining final release makes it previous study unnecessary. In spite of Shankara’s clear explanation attempts have been made to reconcile these two apparently irreconcilable systems of Philosophy by Shankara’s own disciple, Sureshvaracharya in his Sambandha Vartika.²⁰

Mimamsakaras opposed Sannyasa doctrines

It was the inadequacy of the Vedas to satisfy the spiritual aspirations that led to the emergence of Sannyasa doctrines with its emphasis on contemplation and meditation.

But orthodox Brahmanas did not take kindly to the institution of ascetics. Paramount importance was attached to the householder’s life. Living on alms or charity was condemned and an exception was made only for the student community. Besides, acceptance of gifts was forbidden for all castes except the Brahmins. Whatever might be the attitude of the orthodox Brahmanas towards asceticism, they could not prevent the emergence of ascetic orders. It was however recognized as the last stage of life and a person who adopted ascetic life without fulfilling his obligations to family and society was looked upon as a offender. As a result indiscriminate ordination to ascetic life was restrained.²¹

In course of time, ascetic life came to command spontaneous respect and honour and homeless ascetics were classed in a position of privilege beyond the jurisdiction of royal authority and social law. Gradually the liberty to adopt the ascetic life from any stage became so prevalent that the Brahmanas could not withhold recognition from this custom and convention. Centuries later Sri Shankaracharya had to defend this custom and justify the freedom from the observance of the three fold antecedent stages as a necessary condition of ascetic life and he relied on a text of the Jabalopanishad in support of his contention. He had to wage a war against the Mimamsakaras who continued to denounce the ascetic order of life.²²

Karma Kanda dominates in schools of Vedanta

As we know Sureshvaracharya was previously a Mimamsaka with a name Mandana Misra who being defeated by Shankaracharya in a debate became the disciple of Shankaracharya who renamed and appointed him as the head of Sringeri Matha. Probably Sureshvaracharya who had not completely lost faith in ritualism tried to reconcile karma with jnana. Also other Vedanta Acharyas who sympathized with the priestly class allowed their adherents to continue with karma (rituals) so much so, that in the schools set up by them they teach contents of karma kanda more than Vedanta.

Footnotes

1. R.N.Dandekar - Insights into Hinduism, Ajanta Publications, Delhi, 1979, p.386

2. P.V.Kane – A Brief Sketch of the Purva Mimamsa system, ABORI, vol- 6, No.1, July 1924, p.3

3. M.Hiriyanna – Essentials of Indian Philosophy, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1949, pp:129,130

4. Ibid, p.130

5. K.T.Pandurangi – Critical Essays on Purva Mimamsa, Vidyadhisha Post-Graduate Sanskrit Research Centre, Bangalore, 2013, 238

6. P.V.Kane – Op.cit, p.20

7. K.T.Pandurangi – Op.cit, p.238

8. P.V.Kane – Op.cit, p.22

9. R.N.Dandekar – Op.cit, pp: 121,122

10. P.V.Kane – Op.cit, p. 22

11. Surendranath Dasgupta – The History of Indian Philosophy, vol-1, Cambridge University Press, 1922, p.399

12. K.T.Pandurangi - Op.cit, p 531

13. Ibid, p.521

14. Surendranath Dasgupta Op.cit, p. 405

15. Ibid, pp:372,376

16. P.V.Kane Op.cit, p. 27

17. C.Hayavadana Rao, Edited – The Srikara Bhashya by Sripati, vol- 1, Bangalore, 1936, pp: 107,108

18. Ibid, 106

19. Isavasyopanishad with commentary of Sri Shankaracharya, Edited and translated into English by M.Hiriyanna, p.iv

20. C.Hayavadana Rao, Op.cit, pp:108,109

21. Satkari Mookerjee – Buddhism in Indian Life and Thoughts in Cultural Heritage of India, vol-1, The Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture, Calcutta, 1958, pp: 586,587

22. Ibid, 587

Was Vallabhacharya’s sect, a continuation of the Vishnusvami’s sect?

In about 1500 A.D. the theory of the four Vaishnava Sampradayas (traditions) took shape in north India and these Sampradayas were- the Sri Sampradaya founded by Sri Ramanujacharya, Brahma Sampradaya founded by Madhvacharya, Rudra Sampradaya founded by Vishnusvami and Sanakadi Sampradaya founded by Nimbarkacharya.

Vishnusvami, the founder of the Rudra Sampradaya was an acharya of the bhakti marga who belonged to south India. He is said to have written commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavata Purana and the Vedanta Sutras though none are available today. What we know of Vishnusvami's system is not from his own works but from those of others. Vishnusvami like Madhvacharya is a dualist and his system is precisely like the Madhva system with one exception. While the Madhvas do not worship Radha, Vishnusvami was the first Vaishnava acharya to recognize Radha as an object of worship along with Krishna. In Maadhavacharya’s (or Vidhyaranya who lived in 14^th century A.D.) Sarvadharshanasangraha, there is a reference to Vishnusvami’s devoted adherent, Srikanta Misra and to a work by him named Sakara Siddhi, the teachings of which are clearly dualist.

Probable date of Vishnusvami

Bhakta Mala, a work by Nabhaji records that Vishnusvami’s successors were Jnanadeva, Namadeva, Trilochana and Vallabha. Jnanadeva is the author of a commentary on the Bhagavad Gita and his work is dated 1290 A.D. On the basis of this information, J.N.Farquhar says that Vishnusvami was probably Jnanadeva’s senior by some 30 to 40 years. But according to C.Hayavadana Rao assigning this date seems too early for this would make Vishnusvami practically a junior contemporary of Madhvacharya, whereas the system of Vishnusvami apart from its philosophical aspects had nothing to distinguish it from Madhva’s. Hence the date of Vishnusvami would have to be fixed after Madhvacharya (1238-1317 A.D.) and may be assigned to about the close of 13^th century A.D., says C. Hayavadana Rao.

The sect of Vishnusvami was widespread and popular for centuries. The sectarian mantra of the Vishnusvamis are said to be Om Rama-Krishnaya Namah and Om Rama-Krishna Hari. With the rise of Vallabha sect in the beginning of 16^th century A.D., the sect of Vishnusvami was almost completely absorbed by the Vallabhas.

Vallabhacharya’s sect associated with Rudra Sampradaya of Vishnusvami

Though there is no connection in doctrines between the Vishnusvami sect and the Vallabha sect, tradition however identifies the Vallabha sect as a successor of the Vishnusvami sect. But no evidence for this, however is found in Vallabha’s own writings. Nowhere in his writings Vallabhacharya mentions Vishnusvami as his spiritual father. In fact Vallabha acknowledged no human teacher and says that he learnt his system directly from Lord Krishna. In one or two places Vallabha actually criticized the teachings of Vishnusvami as defective. Also Vishnusvami’s philosophy is dualistic and he regards Radha as a woman and Krishna’s mistress at Brindavan, while Vallabha’s philosophy is monistic and he holds Radha to be the eternal spouse of Krishna. Though it is generally held that the Rudra Sampradaya covers the Vallabha sect, the Vallabhacharis themselves altogether repudiate the title.

Reason behind this association

Some of the reason for connecting these two sects may be- 

• The traditional belief in the existence of only four recognized Vaishnava Sampradayas in the age of Kali made it obligatory for every new faith to have a link with one of them even if one wanted to start a Sampradaya of his own. For instance Madhvacharya who was initiated into the Advaita Sampradaya of Shankara later promulgated the Dvaita doctrine which was directly opposed to Advaitism. Hence it is very likely the tradition of connecting the Vishnusvami Sampradaya with Vallabha’s sect sprang up among the followers of Vallabhacharya in order to meet the criticism of its opponents that it was without a succession (Sampradaya) of any kind.
• It is possible that Vallabha’s own family belonged to the Vishnusvami’s Sampradaya or that Vallabha was influenced to some extent in his early life by the teachings of Vishnusvami.
• Another reason for this connection between these two sects may be due to the fact that a large number of followers of Vishnusvami sect joined the sect of Vallabhacharya, which perhaps meant its absorption almost into the sect of Vallabhacharya. 
• According to J.N.Farquhar, the idea that the two sects are one can be traced back to the middle of the 17^th century and was probably one of many means employed by the Vallabhas in the process of absorbing the followers of the Vishnusvami sect.

References

• Bhai Manilal C Parekh – Sri Vallabhacharya, Life, Teachings and Movement, Sri Bhagavata Dharma Mission, Rajkot, 1943

• J.N.Farquhar – An outline of the Religious Literature of India, Oxford University Press, 1920

• C. Hayavadana Rao, Edited – The Srikara Bhashya by Sripati, vol- 1, Bangalore, 1936

• O.B.L.Kapoor – The Philosophy and Religion of Sri Caitanya, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishing Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, 1994