Part 8.5-6 - Introduction to Mimamsa and Vedanta Philosophy

[Full title: A Comparative Study of different Indian Philosophies (d) Darsanas system of Indian Philosophies (5-6): Mimamsa Philosophy]

Sage Jaimini prescribed Mimamsa in the form of sutras . Purva Mimamsa (pre) and Uttara mimamsa (post), both philosophies have taken Veda as base to establish their principles. Purva mimamsa is known as karmamimamsa and Uttara mimamsa is also called as jnanamimamsa or Vedanta (end of Vedas). It follows principles of (epistemology) of pramana-vicara, tattva-vicara and dharma-vicara.

(A) Purva mimamsa:

[Karma-kanda + Brahman = Mimamsa]

World and all its objects (jagat) are truth here as against Advaita darsana’s mayavada and also sunyavada of Budhhism. This philosophy has specific approach towards soul (atman), heaven, hell and Vedic yajna. Atman (paramanu) is eternal and controlled by karmas and not by God unlike Nyaya - Vaisesika. Though, Isvara is not important to them (polytheist), but later they accepted him as a controller of karmas.

In Purva Mimamsa, God doesn”t exist and Vedic karmakanda (rituals) is true religion. They are under control of law of karma. Various kinds of karmakandas are as under:

1. nitya karma (daily rituals: Morning bath, prayer, meditation, sandhya-puja);
2. naimittika karma: birth, death, marriage, eclipse;
3. kamya karma: optional;
4. nisiddha karma: all prohibited acts;
5. prayascitta karma: to wash out and repent for all misdeeds;
6. niskama karma: It belongs to our true religion.

This philosophy of Purva Mimamsa was criticized later due to incompleteness regarding world, soul and also because, there is no place for God.

(B) Uttara Mimamsa (Upanisadic era):

In this philosophy, the teachers of Advaita Vedanta philosophy have gone into this aspect of process of knowledge into great detail and have enumerated six pramanas. These pramanas are pratyaksa (direct perception), anumana (inference), upamana (comparison), sabda (reliable, verbal testimony), arthapatti (postulation or implication), anupalabdhi (non-perception, non-apprehension, non-existence). The other pramanas of Mimamsa philosophy are drstarthapatti, srutarthapatti. Knowledge itself is pramana in Mimamsa as against Nyayayikas.^[1]

1. Pratyaksa:

There are two kinds of direct perception or pratyaksa, external and internal. The external perception implies cognition of sense objects, namely sound, touch, form, taste and smell by all five sense organs when the contact is made. The internal perception means the direct and immediate cognition of pain, pleasure, love, hate, anger, knowledge or ignorance of any object in and by our mind.

2. Anumana or inferential knowledge:

In anumana, there are definite steps to be followed. The teachers of Advaita Vedanta have suggested following three steps:

a. Perceptual evidence: e.g. We see smoke on the hill

b. Invariable concommitence: Wherever there is smoke, there is fire as seen in the kitchen

c. Conclusion: Therefore, the hill has fire (logical deduction)

3. Upamana:

Upamana is a process by which the knowledge of “A” in similarity to “B” is gained from the perception of B’s similarity to A, which has been seen elsewhere. It is a distinct means of knowledge that can”t be compared with anumana. Such knowledge can”t be gained without the observation of two similar things together.

E.g. A person who has seen his cow at home goes to forest and sees a gavaya (a wild cow), and sees the similarity “this cow is like my cow” and on this basis concludes the opposite to be equally true that “my cow is like this gavaya”

4. Arthapatti:

This means postulation, supposition or presumption of a fact. It is a method of assumption of unknown fact in order to account for a known fact that otherwise is inexplicable. For example, a fat person says that he never eats in the day, then we can easily postulates that he eats in the night, else his fatness is inexplicable.

5. Anupalabdhi:

The Advaitins and the Mimamsaka school of Kumarila Bhatta believe anupalabdhi, which means non-apprehension, to be a separate independent pramana. Non-existence of a thing is apprehended by its non-perception. By not seeing a jar in a place, one knows that it is not there.

We use this method of knowledge also very often, and this is explained by examples like:

“There is no teacher in the class-room.”

“There is no sound here.”

“This flower has no fragrance.”

It may seem paradoxical that non-apprehension of a thing is a means to the apprehension of its non-existence (abhava). But in fact, both non-perception as well as perception serves as a means to get various types of knowledge, for the simple reason that the knower is conscious of both. They lead to positive and negative experiences. Knowledge of non-existence of a thing can be on the basis of direct or indirect knowledge. It could either be on the basis of our immediate non-perception of a thing or even on the basis of inference or verbal testimony. In the former the knowledge is immediate while in the latter case, which is applicable in suprasensual objects, the knowledge of abhava of a thing is mediate.

6. Sabda (Verbal knowledge):

Sabda pramana is verbal testimony. It is also called aptavakya (statement of a trust-worthy person) and agama (authentic word). A verbal statement, uttered or written, is man’s most potent instrument for transmitting knowledge. We learn mostly by means of words. An oral or written message is a universal mode of communication.

We constantly get various information, direction and knowledge through words. Right from childhood to this moment we use words as a valid & effective means of bringing about awareness of things, ideas or emotions. Books, magazines, lectures, newspapers, letters, conversations, chats, radio, Television, movies, songs and many other media, in all these, words are used, or each one depends on words. We cannot do without verbal testimony.

A verbal statement conveying valid knowledge must have an authentic source which must be free from defects. Only a competent and reliable person possessed of know-ledge can impart accurate knowledge, which does not need any verification. If all that we know from verbal testimony were to await confirmation, then the bulk of human knowledge would have to be regarded as baseless. Among the Western philo-sophers only a few recognize verbal testimony as a valid and independent means of knowledge, but a majority of Indian philosophers do. Those who do not accept it as an independent method of knowledge simply club it along with other means like inference. Actually, the process of verbal knowledge cannot be clubbed with inference because it does not involve any knowledge of invariable concommitance as is the case in inference. So it is a category by itself. It is interesting and also worthwhile to go into the exact process of derivation of meaning from a sentence. At times there is substantive-adjective relationship between the subject and predicate of the sentence and at times there may not be such a relationship, but a non-relational entity could form their locus. Such understanding becomes important when it comes to derivation of meaning form sentences like tat tvam asi (That thou art). Lot of work has been done in regards to derivation of meaning of a sentence, especially by the mimamsakas. Only that combination of words is called a sentence when four factors are taken care of. They are expectancy (akanksa), consistency (yogyata), contiguity (asatti), and knowledge of the purport (tatparya-jnanam). Understanding of all this facilitates us to understand why verbal testimony is an independent means of knowledge very different from inference and others.

Having known these pramanas, when a qualified pramata (knower) takes resort of these and turns his focus to prameya (object of knowledge) then prama or valid knowledge is instantaneously brought about. The knowledge brought about by any valid means of knowledge is alone valid knowledge, it does not and cannot depend on verification by other means, because the other means have no reach to that. The right knowledge does have some definite indications and thus validity of a means is confirmed by the perception of those indications in the pramata. So instead of wasting ones time trying to see a form by our nose we should rather open our eyes and fulfill our aspiration. This alone is the objective of understanding the various means and methods of knowledge at our disposal.

There are various schools of Vedanta philosophy and related theories as under^[2] :

1. Non-dualism: (advaitvada) Advaita Vedanta of Sankara (era -788 to 820^A.C.) is Upanisadic and based on Brahmsutra of Badarayana.

2. Qualified Monism: (visistadvaitavada) of Ramanuja (1056 to 1137^A.C.)

3. Dualism: (dvaitavada) by Madhvacarya (1199 to 1278^A.C.)

4. Suddhadvaitavada of Vallabhacarya (1481 to 1533^A.C.)

5. Dualism cum Non-dualism (bhedabheda or dvaitadvaitavada) by Nimbarkacarya (13^th century)

Sankara's monism being the most popular is briefly discussed below:

In case of non-dualism, atman is one as against Nyaya, Vaisesika, Samkhya, Mimamsa and it gets merged with Brahman. When it gets liberated, it becomes one with Brahman. Brahman is self illuminating, nirguna, indiscriminative, beyond time (eternal) and space limits. It is only truth, ultimate goal of realization, highest knowledge and free from any distinction. Brahman is sat-cit-ananda, i.e. real existence, consciousness and bliss.

The world is illusion and ever changing, bound by time, period, cause and rules, i.e.

“brahmasatyam jaganmithya………”

Existence of any object is apparent, practical and supreme. World is known by apara-vidya, so illusion. Brahman is known by para-vidya, so the truth. World is believed as truth because it depends on the truth i.e. brahman.

Maya is different from avidya. Maya and prakrti, both are tri-gunatmaka, materialistic and acetana; both are hurdles on the path of liberation. Hence by destroying avidya, one can achieve liberation. Functions of maya are concealment of truth and projection of falsity.

Isvara here is savisesa, having its form and is an object of sadhana. Sankara's theory on God is nimittopadanesvaravada (Panentheism). There are three states of Isvara and the fourth one is Brahman. They are Isvara, Hiranyagarbha, Vaisvanara and Brahman. There are three states of consciousness giving us experiences as waking, dreaming and dreamless sleep.

Atman or Brahman when bound in body, senses and mind, it becomes jiva, individual self.

In Mimamsa, liberation is by karma, whereas here it is by knowledge through sadhamcatustaya^[3]. Four-fold sadhana is prescribed in Advaita Vedanta as under:

1. Nityanitya: It is vastu-viveka, i.e. to acquire discrimination power, to know what is permanent and what is not.

2. Iha-bhutartha: bhoga-viraga or vairagya, i.e. to develop detachment towards that which is transitory.

3. Samadamadisadhanasampada: Practice of sama (calmness), dama (restraint), sradhha (faith), samadhana (self contentedness), uparati (self-withdrawal), titiksa (forbearance).

4. Mumuksuttva: Intense desire to get liberated

With this sadhanacatustaya, guidance from a Guru makes one practice sravana, manana and nididhyasana. Thus, the spiritual journey starts from “tattvamasi’ progressing towards “aham brahmasmi’. According to Sankara, he becomes Brahman with his own efforts, whereas according to Ramanuja, he reaches to the level of Brahman with grace of God.

Sankara's vivartavada, where there is no differentiation between cause and effect, is different from Samkhya’s parinamavada. Principle of pancikarana includes combination of five gross elements namely akasa (space), vayu (air), agni (fire), apa (water) and prthvi (earth) and further it says that each element is made up of five subtle elements.^[4]

Theory of karma says that jiva is as per previous karmas (acts), good or bad. Isvara of Ramanuja is concrete as against Sankara's God, which is abstract. Jiva here, born out of avidya and is active as against Samkhya philosophy. Devotional sadhana leads to parama bhakti, total surrendering of karmas to Isvara. Knowledge and devotion are closely related.

A brief understanding of the Nastika darsanas is given below:

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

H.P.Sinha, Indian Philosophy, Vol. II, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 2010, pp.158-163

[2]:

Ibid, p.295

[3]:

L.Namjoshi & etal, Indian Philosophical Terms, Somaiya Publications, 2004, p.407

[4]:

G.Feuerstein, The Yoga Traditions, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 2002, p.187.