[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Issues in mImAmSA, advaita, dvaita.
Vidyasankar writes:
> Advaita is
> arrived at after as elaborate a criticism of BhATTa mImAmSA as of, say,
> vijnAnavAda. I do not know if either Ramanuja or Madhva or any of the
> other later Bhashyakaras have addressed pUrva mImAmSA at all.
Ramanuja examines in detail the PrabhAkara and BhATTa
conceptions of Sruti, particularly the question of whether
the Vedanta establish the nature of reality or are mere
stories that subserve ritual. Primary consideration here
is given to the pUrva-mImAmsA idea that Vedic words can only
convey actions and not have independent meaning. Certainly,
immense credit must go to Sankara and post-Sankara Advaita
for reestablishing the jnAna-kANDa in its own right, but
Ramanuja would aver that he went beyond BAdarAyaNa's intent
in rejecting all of the Vedic karmas as being of no value.
In the Visistadvaita framework, the karma-kANda and jnAna-kANDa
are two parts of one whole. The latter definitely has prominence,
since it directly leads to the highest goal of existence, but
neglecting the former would deny the aspirant for mukti the
necessary prerequisites for Brahma-vidya. With this conception
in mind, Ramanuja sought to reestablish the unity of the two
kANDas and reconcile Jaimini's ritualism into BAdarAyaNa's
philosophy. In doing so, however, he drastically reinterpreted
the former so that it properly subserved the goal of brahma-
jijnAsA. In his view, the karma-kANDa is useful in two
ways. First, only by actually learning about Vedic rituals
and their limited fruits will the aspirant understand how short-
sighted those goals are, and develop a desire for something
permament, i.e., Brahma-jnAna. Secondly, since the Vedas can
never teach untruths, the rituals must be useful in some
way. Ramanuja concludes that when performed as a worship
of Brahman the sarvAtmA, the rituals purify the aspirant's
mind and consist of yet another means of understanding the
connected nature of existence. The Vedic ritual, then, is
reinterpreted in the light of the Gita's conception of
abandoning the fruits of action without giving up the action
itself.
To establish this twofold interpretation of the karma-kANDa,
Ramanuja is forced to tear down both the PUrva-mImAmsA and Advaitic
understanding of Jaimini's Sutras. This is done most forcefully
at the end of his VedArthasangraha and in his commentary on the
first sutra of the Brahma-sutras.
> Within the mImAmSa sUtras itself, Badarayana
> disagrees with Jaimini about who is entitled to perform Vedic rituals.
> Jaimini thinks only dvijas are so entitled, which is the traditional
> position, whereas Badarayana thinks all men and women, the whole genus, is
> entitled - a fairly revolutionary position.
Can you specify where this difference of opinion occurs? Though
I have not studied the Karma-mImAmsa Sutras, I find it hard to
believe that BAdarAyaNa would hold that all men and women are
entitled to perform the Vedic ritual, especially since the
apaSudrAdhikaraNa of the Brahma-sutras (I.iii.33) quite clearly
says that sudras are denied the chance for Brahma-vidya due to
their lack of samskaaras. Since these very same samskaaras
(such as yajnopavitam) entitle one to perform Vedic rituals,
I do not see how BAdarAyaNa can come this conclusion. Or perhaps
this lends credence to the belief that the apaSudrAdhikaraNa
is a wholesale interpolation?
Yours,
Mani
