Examining the Myths about the Vedas

 Does the Vedas contain profound philosophy?

“Do you expect to find profound philosophy in the Rigveda? Do you wish to have a cut and dry system of thought providing answers to such questions as,- “who am I”? “what is the relation between the individual soul and the highest soul”? “what becomes of me after death”?. In Rigveda you cannot meet with the solutions of such and other problems of life. These were the words of Dr.V.S.Ghate, a leading Sanskritists of that day, in his address to the students of post-graduate studies at the Bombay University in 1914.¹ The philosophy of the Veda is rather a loose term, in-as much as there is no philosophy proper in the Veda, was the view of Ghate.²

According to Mimamsa, any utterance which is not a pure injunction, that is either a command or a prohibition is not to be considered as Veda. Hence according to this view, the Veda have no philosophical content whatsoever. Being pure injunctions, they have nothing to do with epistemological or metaphysical speculations or even with ethical reflection.³

Is the Veda a revealed scripture?

The Veda is considered as a revealed scripture, self-evident and self authoritative not composed by any human authors.⁴ According to Jaimini, the Veda consists of the Mantras (or Samhitas) and the Brahmanas.⁵ According to Daya Krishna, if the Brahmanas are accepted as essential parts of the Vedas or as identical with them, it would be difficult to argue for the so called apaurusheyatva of the Vedas, for none would seriously maintain that all the ritualistic instructions along with the stories that are meant to emphasize their importance are not of human origin.⁶

Also for the sacrificial ritual, it is not even the Brahmanas which alone is sufficient, one needs the Kalpasutras also and not just them but the whole of what is usually called the Vedanga literature with them. Thus along with the Brahmanas and the Kalpasutras we have to have the knowledge that is embodied in the texts known as the Shiksa, Vyakarna, Nirukta, Chandas and Jyotishya in order to perform the sacrificial rituals as they are supposed to be ordained by the Samhitas and the Brahmanas. But no one has ever maintained that the Vedangas are not of human origin. In fact they have always been treated as smrti and not sruti. But if this is so and if it is also true that without their knowledge on cannot perform the prescribed sacrifices correctly and if the injunction for performing these sacrifices is the essence of the Vedas, it follows necessarily that the Vedas cannot in principle be apaurusheya in character.⁷

The hymns of the Rigveda were composed by different generations of sages and the composition extended over several centuries.⁸ Does it not appear strange that while prophets of other religions had a one time revelation or revelations during their life time, here we have God revealing Mantras to different sages for several centuries?

A logical explanation of how this view gained ground is given by Ghate. According to him, oral tradition was the only means in early days of communicating learning. A teacher who learnt his lessons from his preceptor, taught the same orally to his pupil and this practice continued from time immemorial, naturally led to the belief that the Vedas were handed down in the same manner; it was difficult to believe how they could have been composed by some particular persons.⁹

Does the Veda convey any meaning?

Two stanzas quoted in the Nirukta composed by Yaksa censures those persons who have learnt Vedic texts by rote without understanding their meaning. It shows that by the time of Yaska (7^th century B.C.), the Vedic texts had become so obscure that it entailed special training and efforts on part of learners to understand their meaning. This is why Yaska declares that it is not possible to understand the sense of Vedic mantras without a study of the Nirukta.¹⁰

The very fact of the existence of the original Nigantu on which the Nirukta is a commentary points to the conclusion that the sense of many of the Vedic words had been commonly forgotten. For what occasion was there for compiling vocabularies of Vedic words if the sense of these words was well known, asks Ghate.¹¹

Not less than eight or nine schools of older expounders of Veda, such as the Yajnikas, the Vyakarnas, the Naidanas, the Parivrajakas, the Nairuktas, and so on are mentioned by Yaska besides more than one and a half dozen of teachers holding different views with regard to particular points in the Vedic texts. There is no reason to think that the interpretations offered by them are always without authority. “Are all of them true explanations, simply because they are traditional, questions Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya and opines that the true explanation that intended by the author or the rishi himself can only be one.¹² According to P.V.Kane, since very ancient times the Veda was only committed to memory and most men learned in the Veda never cared to know its meaning. Further there was always an undercurrent of the belief that the mere memorizing of the Vedic texts conferred great sanctity on the memorizer and removed all sins. As times went on these ideas became supreme and the neglect of the meaning of the Veda has gone so far that among most modern orthodox Brahmanas there is a belief that the meaning of the Veda cannot be known and it is futile to try to find its meaning.¹³

Was there any logic behind Vedic sacrifices?

After the inclusion of certain Rigvedic verses in the Yajurveda, the Brahmana texts which were concerned exclusively with the exposition of Vedic sacrifices made further advance in the ritual application of Vedic mantras and attempted ritualistic interpretation of such mantras which had originally nothing to do with the ritual. The tendency to employ Vedic mantras at the performance of all sorts of rituals unconnected with them reached its culmination in the times of Kalpasutra. The authors of these ritualistic treatises invariably prescribe the recitation of a mantra at the performance of each ritual described in their works irrespective of the fact whether the mantra in question is actually concerned with that ritual or not. It is hardly necessary to point out that a large number of rituals described in the Kalpasutras are a later development and have no connection whatsoever with the Vedic mantras.¹⁴

It is a well known fact that all the sacrifices and rituals described in the later Vedic texts did not exist at the time of the composition of the Rigveda. With the gradual development of sacrifices several new rituals were evolved in later times. It was therefore a difficult task to find appropriate mantras which could be recited at the performance of such later rituals. In order to meet this exigency the ritualists arbitrarily employed the Vedic mantras with caring for their sense or context. As a consequence of the indiscriminate employment of the mantras at the performance of rituals one and the same mantra was sometimes prescribed for various opposite rituals. For instance the Rigvedic verse x.53.8 is on the one hand prescribed for the performance of a funeral rite and on the other hand the recitation of the same mantra is enjoined at the performance of a rite connected with wedding.¹⁵

Does the Veda offer a universal message?

The Veda as we know consists of the Mantras and the Brahmanas.

The word mantra may be regarded as equivalent to a ‘hymn’ or ‘religious song’. These hymns or prayers were addressed to defied powers of nature, regarded as responsible for the governance of the world.¹⁶ The purpose of invoking the gods of nature was at first mostly to gain their favour for success in life here as well as hereafter. The prayers were then naturally accompanied by simple gifts like grain and ghee.¹⁷ In the words of Ghate, ‘Give and take’ is the law applicable to the dealings between men and god in the Vedic religion.¹⁸

Later this childlike worship gave way to an organized sacrificial cult and rituals became highly elaborate.¹⁹ The Brahmana texts (which according to Ghate are the most disappointing literary productions containing pedantry and sometimes downright absurdity)²⁰ in which this elaborate ritualism is taught altogether subordinate the early mantras to it. They do indeed utilize them, but often sundering them from their original context and sometimes even severing them from their original significance. More noteworthy than this elaboration was the change that came over the spirit with which offerings were made to the gods in this period. What prompted the performance of sacrifices was no longer the thought of prevailing upon the gods to bestow some favour or to ward off some danger; it was rather to compel or coerce them to do what the sacrificer wanted to be done.²¹

Thus the early Vedic religion based on ‘Give and take’ principle and ‘childlike worship’ over a period of time became highly ritualistic and was essentially a religion of priests and well to classes and hence the commoners had no role in this religion.

The study of Vedas was not allowed for the Shudras and many smrtikaras and writers of digests quote several Vedic passages on this point. Not only was the Shudra not to study the Veda, but Veda study was not to be carried on in his presence and he was not allowed to perform Vedic sacrifices.²²

If the Shudras forming 85% of the Hindu population were denied the right to study, hear and perform Vedic sacrifices, what sort of message can the Vedas convey to humanity at large is the question one has to ponder.

Even in the 19^th century A.D. the notion of exclusiveness followed by the followers of Vedic sect went to ridiculous extent as the below incident shows- A German scholar, Dr. Buehler (1832-1898) wanted to see a copy of the Paippalada recension of the Atharva Veda in the library of Jammu and Kashmir State. He was denied the permission as he was a mleccha and his touch would pollute the holy book. The scholar approached the Viceroy and under political pressure his wish was granted. Later the Kashmir durbar and its religious advisers, the pundits came to the conclusion that as the book had been touched by impure hands it had become impure and lost its sanctity. Therefor it was sent to another scholar, Dr.Roth in Germany who later got it published.²³

State of affairs of Vedic Studies

Aditya Darshana, an ancient commentator alludes to such a lamentable state of Vedic studies and to the ritualist total apathy towards the meaning of the Vedas. He says that the priests learn the Veda, but never understand a word of it. Being contented with mere cramming of the Vedas, the priests thunder at home in vain like an autumnal cloud. They talk among themselves – what do we gain by those meanings of the Vedas and deride those scholars who are devoted to the pursuit of knowing the meaning of the Veda. Having somehow acquired a smattering of a Brahmana text, give themselves the airs of a scholar and engage themselves in performance of sacrifice.²⁴ Paraskara takes a note of a practice prevalent in his times, according to which a student who intended to adopt the profession of a priest could be allowed to discontinue his studies after studying only the ritual texts without completing the study of the Vedas along with its six auxiliary treatises. It clearly shows that in the times of the Sutras also the ritualists knowledge of the Vedas was as shallow as in later times.²⁵ Writing in The Viswa Bharati Quarterly in 1930, Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya regretted the condition of Vedic studies in India when compared to that of Europe. He writes – Vedic Sanskrit is taught to some extent in our universities, but real interest in it among students is rare. In most cases it is due to the fact that the teachers themselves are not serious or have no love for the subject. In regard to Sanskrit Patashalas, the condition is no better and even a really profound Pandit is often unable to understand a passage in Vedic Sanskrit. Nor does he possess the least information about Vedic literature. Thought in some Patashalas there are arrangements for the study of the Veda, they are mainly for chanting purposes, the interpretations being not properly made.²⁶

Are Upanishads related to Vedas?

The Upanishads primarily represent a spirit different from and even hostile to ritual and embody a theory of the universe quite distinct from the one that underlies the sacrificial teachings of the Brahmanas. All the earlier Upanishads in some form of other indicate this antagonism while in a few it becomes quite explicit.²⁷

When all the ancient lore of the Hindus was brought together and arranged, the Upanishads were appended to the Brahmanas.²⁸ Probably this arrangement gave an impression that Upanishads were a continuation of the Brahmanas. Also as the Vedic age was followed by the Upanishads, it was given the name Vedanta, i.e., the end of the Vedas. If Upanishads were a continuation of the principles and spirit embodied in the Vedas, why would the Upanishads criticize the rituals as useless and term the Veda as lower knowledge.

As we know yajnas were the most important religious practice in the early Vedic period, but the Mundaka Upanishad (I.2.7) condemns yajnas as leaky boats. Similarly Mundaka Upanishad (I.1, 4-5) refer to the four Vedas as inferior knowledge (apara vidya) and the knowledge of the immutable Brahman as the higher vidya. In the Chandhogya Upanishad (VII.1,1-5), the four Vedas and several other branches of knowledge are called by Sanat Kumar, whom Narada approached for instructions, as mere name (nama).²⁹

Foot Notes:

1. V.S.Sukthankar – Ghate’s Lectures on Rigveda, 2^nd edition, Oriental Book Agency, Poona, 1926, p.4

2. V.S.Ghate – The Vedanta, Edited by V.G.Paranjpe, The Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1926, p.4

3. Daya Krishna – Indian Philosophy - A Counter Perspective, Oxford University Press, 1991, p.9

4. V.S.Sukthankar – Op.Cit, p.23

5. Ibid, p.22

6. Daya Krishna – Op.Cit, pp:90,91

7. Ibid

8. V.S.Sukthankar – Op.Cit, p.65

9. Ibid, p.23

10. Ram Gopal – The History and Principles of Vedic Interpretation, Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, 1983, pp:11,12

11. V.S.Sukthankar – Op.Cit, p.87

12. Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya – Vedic Interpretation and Tradition in The Visva Bharati Quarterly, vol -8, 1930-31, part III, 1931, pp: 251,252

13. P.V.Kane – History of Dharmashastra, vol-2, part I, The Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1941, p.358

14. Ram Gopal, Op.Cit, p.24

15. Ibid, p.26

16. M.Hiriyanna – The Essentials of Indian Philosophy, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1949, pp:10,11

17. Ibid, pp:16,17

18. V.S.Ghate, Op.Cit, p.4

19. M.Hiriyanna – Outlines of Indian Philosophy, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1949, p.35

20. V.S.Sukthankar – Op.Cit, pp:36,37

21. M.Hiriyanna – The Essentials of Indian Philosophy, pp:16,17

22. P.V.Kane – Op.Cit, pp: 154,156

23. Sampurnanand – An Introduction to Vedic Studies, (Lectures), Academy of Comparative Philosophy and Religion, Belgaum, 1969, pp:60,61

24. Ram Gopal, Op.Cit, p.28

25. Ibid, p.29

26. Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya – Op.Cit, p.265

27. M.Hiriyanna – Outlines of Indian Philosophy, p.48

28. Ibid, p.51

29. P.V.Kane – History of Dharmashastra, vol-5, part II, The Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1962, p.1471

Paramara Bhoja, a warrior, scholar and a philosopher

Upendra alias Krishna was the founder of the Paramara dynasty who began his rule over Malava sometimes between 800-840 A.D. Bhoja, son of Sindhuraja was the ninth ruler in the list of the Paramara kings who ascended the throne in 1008 A.D.

Bhoja’s policy of matrimonial alliances with different ruling dynasties of his time may have contributed to strengthen his position. While Liladevi or Lilavati was his chief queen, Padmavati, the daughter of the Lord of Kuntala, Chandramukhi, the Anga princess and Kamala were his other queens.

Soon after his accession Bhoja had to face an invasion of the Chalukyas of Gujarat led by its ruler Vallabharaja. The reason for this attack it seems was Vallabharaja’s father, Chamundaraja who was on his way to Kashi was humiliated by Bhoja by depriving the umbrella and chowries and other insignia of royalty of Chamundaraja.

Vallabharaja, commanding a large army, marched against Malava but fell victim to a serious type of small-pox and died and his army withdrew to Anahilavada. The next ruler Drulabharaja did not renew the military operations and remained friendly with Bhoja.

His military campaigns

Bhoja started his military career by an invasion of the kingdom of Lata which extended upto Surat. The ruler of Lata at that time was Kirtiraja who was easily defeated by Bhoja and his kingdom annexed. Kirtiraja ruled as a feudatory of Bhoja, but the Paramara-Chalukaya conflict soon offered an opportunity for Kirtiraja to declare his independence.

Bhoja next turned his attention to Konkan and defeated its ruler Keshideva Arikesari who was a feudatory of the Kalyani Chalukyas.

On the north-east of the kingdom of Malava was situated the kingdom of Chandellas also called Jejakabhukti (Bundelkhand). In order to expand his territory, Bhoja launched an offensive against that kingdom but failed miserably as its ruler, Vidyadhara, famous for his valour scored a victory over Bhoja. The only consolation for Bhoja was that Abhimanyu, the ruler of Kachchhapaghata whose territory lay north of Malava kingdom became an ally of Bhoja. (Abhimanyu’s father Arjuna had been a feudatory of Vidhyadhara)

War with the Kalyani Chalukyas

The Chalukyas of Kalyani had been the traditional enemy of the Paramaras and one of the predecessor of Bhoja, Munja had been imprisoned and killed by Tailapa II, the first ruler of the Kalyani Chalukyan dynasty. Before leading an expedition against the Kalyani Chalukyas, Bhoja formed an alliance with the Chola ruler, Rajendra Chola I (the Cholas were also the hereditary enemy of the Chalukyas of Kalyani) and the Kalachuri ruler Gangeya. The combined armies of the three kingdoms attacked the Chalukyan kingdom but had to suffer a defeat at the hands of Jayasimha II, the then ruler of the Kalyani Chalukyan dynasty. As we do not find any inscription after A.D. 1028 of the reign of Jayasimha II, scholars opine that during this period of lull, Bhoja prepared himself for a final assault against the Chalukyans which came shortly before 1043 and Jayasimha II was vanquished and probably lost his life in the battle-field.

Bhoja vanquished and Dhara plundered

Jayasimha II’s son Someshvara I launched an expedition over Malava sometime after 1047 A.D. Almost all the important cities of the kingdom of Malava namely Dhara, Ujjayini and Mandapa (Mandu) were captured, plundered and finally put to flames by the enemies. The battle of Dhara went against Bhoja who had to flee. The entire Paramara administrative machinery was paralysed and brought to a standstill. The defeat also affected Bhoja’s reputation as a military leader and gave an opportunity to the neighbouring ambitious powers to take advantage of the situation. But as soon as Someshvara I left Malava, Bhoja reoccupied it and reestablished his authority.

Hostility with the Chalukyas of Gujarat

As mentioned earlier, the ruler of Gujarat, Durlabharaja maintained friendly relations with Bhoja and after him, the next ruler, Bhima I also maintained cordial relationship with Bhoja. But due to Bhoja’s policy of self-aggrandizement, conflict broke out between Malava and Gujarat. When Bhima I was busy in the conquest of Sindh, Bhoja sent an expedition to Gujarat and his army sacked its capital. This attack inaugurated a period of hostilities between the two kingdoms and finally proved to be disastrous for the fortunes of the Paramaras as Bhima I joined hands with the Kalachuri king, Karna and jointly attacked Dhara after the demise of Bhoja which probably took place in 1053 A.D.

Bhoja had titles like Dhareshvara, Paramabhattaraka, Malavachakravartin, Sarvabhauma, etc.

Philosophic bent of mind

Bhoja had the outlook of a philosopher. To him virtuous deeds were the only justification for life. As he got up everyday he asked himself- “ what good can I do today”. One of his quotes indicates the spirit of a karmayogin. “As men are always between the teeth of death, what they give and what they enjoy may alone be said to be their own. About the rest there is doubt. The sun will set in the western sky and take away with him part of life”. In another quote he says- “If men but saw the hand of death impending over their heads; even food would give no joy, much less the deeds that are not a right.” Filled with these thoughts, Bhoja would go daily to the pavilion for distribution and bestow gold on petitioners waiting at his gate and summoned one after another by his attendants. Bhoja was accessible to the poorest of his subjects and he used to wander in disguise for the purpose of acquainting himself with the condition of his subjects and about their opinion on his administration.

Saraswathi Putra

Bhoja was a great votary of the goddess of learning and in reality the very pivot of the literary movement of the day. He himself was a polymath and as many as 38 works are attributed to his pen. Merutunga tells us that Bhoja composed 104 poems. He took great interest in literary activities, patronized men of letters and had a galaxy of erudite scholars in his court. Bhoja is glorified with the title of ‘Kaviraja’ (king of poets). His mastery over Sanskrit and Prakrit was unchallenged. He wrote on different subjects like architecture, astronomy, polity, dharmasastra, grammar, medicine, music, philosophy, poetry, etc. While scholars like K.M.Munshi and D.C.Ganguly opine that some of the works attributed to Bhoja might have been written by a group of literary men under his guidance, Prof. P.T.Srinivasa Iyengar surmises that Bhoja himself had written all these works.

Among the literary men attached to Bhoja’s court was Dhanapala who wrote Paiyalachhi, a Sanskrit Kosha and Tilakamanjari. Other scholars were Shobhana, Damodara, Dhanika and Seetha (poetess).

A builder of temples

Bhoja was a great devotee of Lord Shiva, and according to D.C.Ganguly he founded the city named Bhojapura and built a large number of temples in honour of Shiva like Kedareshvara, Rameshvara, Somanatha and Kalanala Rudra. The most famous of Bhoja’s temples was the one built at Dhara dedicated to Goddess Saraswathi and named Saraswathi Sadana or Bharati Bhavana. The temple is believed to be 200 feet long and 117 feet broad. Later on when the Muslim invaders occupied Malava, they converted it into the Kamalmoli mosque in 1457 A.D. The invaders also destroyed all the temples of Dhara and used the material for building mosques.

Dhara, a centre of intellectual and cultural activities

Bhoja transfered his capital from Ujjain to Dhara. He made Dhara a metropolitan town of beautiful palaces and pleasure gardens which were set in natural surroundings on hills around it. According to V.A.Smith the Bhojapur lake to the south-east of Bhopal formed by massive embankments, closing the outlet in a circle of hills was the most noblest monument and continued to testify to the skills of Bhoja’s engineers. In 15^th century A.D. under the orders of a Muslim king, Shah Hussain, the water from this lake was drained off.

Dhara during Bhoja’s time was the centre of political, intellectual and cultural activities. It was known for its skillful musicians and learned scholars. Poets and scholars from different parts of India used to come to attend the court of Dhara with a hope to receive reward for their works.

Synonym of learning and generosity

Even while he lived, Bhoja’s name passed into history as an ideal king. Of all the great kings who flourished in India, it is only his name that remains from one end to the other as a synonym of learning and generosity.

Reference

K.N.Seth – The Growth of the Paramara Power in Malwa, Progress Publishers, Bhopal, 1978

P.T.Srinivasa Ayyangar – Bhoja Raja, Methodist Publishing House, Madras, 1931

Mahesh Singh – Bhoja Paramara and his times, Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan, Delhi, 1984

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