Bhartrmitra III.1

[Guest guest]

III. Philosophy of Bhartrmitra

 

1. Similarity with the Lokaayata Doctrine -

As stated above, in his Slokavarttika 1.1.1.10, Kumarila states that

he has attempted to wrest the Mimamsa Sastra from the followers of

Lokaayata sect, and has tried to bring it back to the aastika fold.

Commenting on this verse, Parthasarathi Misra states that Kumarila has

alluded to Bhartrmitra and other scholars here. Umbeka Bhatta makes

the same identification also in his commentary 'Slokavarttikavyakhya

Tatparyatika' [Raja et al 1971:3]. It is clear that Bhartrmitra was a

prominent, but not the only proponent of a particular school of

Mimamsa, whose doctrines were similar in many ways to the tenets of

Lokaayata School. I will refrain from going into a general discussion

on the school of Charvaka/Lokaayata[4], focusing on what the followers

of Purva Mimamsa have to say with regard to it, and the possible

similarities between the views of Bhartrmitra and Lokaayatikas.

 

To start with Kumarila, let us consider what his own views were on the

followers of the Lokaayata system. Kumarila puts the following bitter

invective against the followers of the Lokaayata doctrine in the mouth

of a Purvapakshin [Jha 1983:128-129, modified slightly] while

commenting on PMS 1.3.3 -

 

" If the mere fact of perceptible worldly motives being found for the

actions laid down in the Smritis were to make them un-authoritative,

then, inasmuch, as there is always a likelihood of some such motive

being found, in connection with all that is laid down in the Veda, all

the scriptures would have to be considered equally authoritative. For

instance, such grounds of the alleged unauthoritativeness of the

Smritis, as the presence of the motives of affection, aversion,

vanity, recklessness, delusion, laziness, avarice, and the like, are

capable of being attributed to all actions (Vedic as well as

non-Vedic). So long as our own minds are pure and devoid of all

wickedness, we can always admit the Smritis to have a sound basis (in

the Veda); and it is only when our own minds become tainted that we

begin to suspect their authoritative character.

 

What performance of Dharma is there, in which some sort of a

perceptible selfish motive cannot be found, and which cannot be found

to be contradictory to some other direct Vedic assertions? (The

chances of contradiction are equally present in all injunctions,

whether the action laid down be found to have a perceptible motive or

not). And then again, the terribly ignorant atheists have no other

business except finding some sort of a worldly motive for all actions,

- even those that are not due to any apparent perceptible worldly

motive. Even the actions laid down in the Veda are made by them to be

due to certain worldly motives; and on the slightest pretext they

explain one Vedic injunction to be contradictory to other Vedic texts.

And under the circumstances, if the Mimamsakas once give an

opportunity to the atheists, thus encouraged, the atheists would not

leave the authority of any oath of Dharma safe. Their conduct is that

of monkeys and Pisaachas, because these atheists do not trouble their

objective until the Mimamsakas themselves give them an opportunity of

attack. And when they have once been given an opportunity, by such

persons as borrow their imaginary attacks upon the authority of the

scriptures, who (i.e., which scripture) can hope to escape alive, if

once fallen in the way of their (argumentative) path? For these

reasons, it is not right for the Mimamsakas to help the accomplishment

of the purposes of the atheists, who are bent upon the destruction of

all Dharma."

 

In this passage, the Purvapaksin is instigating the follower of

Mimamsa Sastra to take up the gauntlet thrown by the follower of

Lokaayata school, and defeat his contention that the Smritis and

virtuous conduct established by tradition cannot be taken as

authoritative sources of Dharma.

 

Can this description of Lokaayata sect be applied to the views of

Bhartrmitra? Commenting on Slokavarttika 1.1.1.10, Parthasarathi Misra

says [sastri 1978:5] that Bhartrmitra had introduced false doctrines

(apasiddhaanta) like "there are no good and the bad fruits of the

obligatory daily duties (nitya) and prohibited acts (nishiddha)" into

the Mimamsa Sastra and had made it akin to the Lokaayata Sastra.[5]

 

Umbeka Bhatta clarifies even further [Raja 1971:3, translation mine] -

 

"(A doubt is raised-) 'In order to comprehend the purport of the Vedas

and to memorize the same, Bhartrmitra and others have written several

tracts and texts like Tattvasuddhi etc., pertaining to each different

topics. Hence, the composition of this text (Slokavarttika) is

redundant.' (To this, Umbeka replies) - 'To counter such a possible

objection, the author of the Varttika has composed the verse 'praayena

etc.'' (1.1.1.10). Mimamsa is the foremost of the all the aastika

sastras, because it discusses the means of attaining all the goals of

human existence. Such a true aastika system has been given a

predominantly Lokaayata form. The true Smritis and true/virtuous

conduct established by tradition is a source of Dharma, (but in this

modified version of Mimamsa Sastra) the authority of these has been

negated without any cogent reason. So also the good and bad results of

the injunctions and prohibitions (by the Vedas) respectively are not

considered/are rejected in this system. The sole difference admitted

between such a school of Mimamsa and Lokaayata is that the former

teaches the acts that are enjoined by the Vedas (while the latter does

not). Otherwise, there is no difference (between Lokaayata and this

version of Mimamsa Sastra). By such untruthful commentators, the

progress of the Mimamsa Sastra on the path of truth has been hindered,

and it has been set forth on the path of falsehood. To extricate the

Mimamsa Sastra from this quagmire and to establish it back on the

aastika path, an attempt has been made by me (Kumarila) through the

composition of this Varttika text."

 

Note that there is a slight difference in the views attributed to

Bhartrmitra by the Umbeka and Parthasarathi Misra. According to the

former, Bhartrmitra did not admit any fruit of the 'vidhi' whereas

according to the latter, Bhartrmitra did not admit any fruit of the

'nitya' rites like the agnihotra. Desisting from doing prohibited

actions (nishiddha-karma) and performance of one's daily religious

obligations (nityakarma) are discussed in or enjoined strongly by the

Dharmashastras (sat-smrtis) and traditions established by the virtuous

(sad-aacaara) and are often not discussed by the Sruti. Hence, a

rejection of the nityakarma and pratishiddha-karmas automatically also

implies a rejection of smritis and sadaacaara, on which these karmas

are primarily founded. An understanding of this fact enables one to

comprehend Umbeka's description of Bhartrmitra's views more

completely.[6]

 

A related view of Bhartrmitra is found referred to in Parthasarathi

Misra's commentary on the Citraaksepa-parihaara section of Kumarila's

Slokavarttika. The Citraa-yaaga is a sacrifice, which grants cattle to

the performer according to Vedic texts. Since cattle do not appear

immediately after the sacrifice is over, heretic revilers of the Vedas

question the very efficacy of the sacrifice. The Mimamsakas argue, in

defense of the Veda, that the fruit of the sacrifice viz., the cattle,

need not appear immediately after the sacrifice because the Vedic text

enjoining this rite does not promise an immediate result. The fruit

therefore, could result in a future life, or anytime in future as

such. In the Mimamsa school of thought, the chronological disconnect

between the performance of a sacrifice and its promised fruit is

bridged with the help of an 'unseen force' called the 'apuurva' which

ensures that the fruit accrues to the sacrificer in future, whenever

the time is ripe [7]. In verses 14-15 of this section however,

Kumarila refers to certain people who do not deny the efficacy of the

Citraa sacrifice in bestowing the fruit on the sacrificer, but insist

that the fruit accrues in this very life, and not in some future life.

Kumarila says [Jha 1983:378-379]-

 

"And those, who hold that the results of the Citra etc., must appear

in this very life, will not be able to show any cause for the

appearance of their results (cattle etc.) in favor of those who have

never performed those sacrifices during their present lives. Verse 14

Because (according to these theorists) the affects of the Citra etc.

(performed during some previous life) must have been exhausted in the

course of that life; and portions of the (previous) enjoyment of

Heaven cannot follow one to a new life." Verse 15

 

Introducing verse 14, Parthasarathi Misra adds that Bhartrmitra etc.

hold that the citraa-yaaga bears fruit in this very life [sastri

1978:483]. Udayavira Shastri informs that according to some

traditional scholars of Mimamsa like Chinnasvami Shastri, Bhartrmitra

did not accept 'apuurva'. Perhaps, indications such as the one by

Parthasarathi Misra here might have resulted in such a view about

Bhartrmitra in the larger community of Mimamsakas. Apuurva is one of

the fundamental tenets of the schools of Prabhakara and Kumarila

(which derive from the commentary of Sabara) and its possible

rejection by Bhartrmitra would not have endeared him to the followers

of Mimamsa, all of whom owed allegiance to Sabara indirectly or

directly.

 

Shastri [1970:218-219] has drawn attention to some interesting

passages in the manuscript of commentary of Harisvami on the Satapatha

Brahmana. In these passages, Harisvami[8] has referred to the specific

interpretations of a school of ritualists who were 'taarkikas' or

rationalists. From these interpretations, it appears that they

interpreted Vedic texts literally and rationally, rejecting all

supernatural and metaphorical import. According to them, yajnas were

pure injunctive actions enjoined by the Sruti, and had to be performed

in the due manner and order that was prescribed in the texts, so as to

keep the Vedic tradition alive in memory. Mundane meanings were

ascribed to all the arthavaada (eulogistic) passages, and the promised

fruits of rituals were denied or ignored. Such an attempt at the

rationalization of the import of the Sruti is seen in the PMS 1.1

(tarkapaada) itself, but these taarkikas seemed to have carried the

argument too far, and perilously close to the Lokaayata viewpoint. The

view of these taarkikas seems close to the philosophy of Bhartrmitra,

although the meager data available on him does not permit us to reach

a firm conclusion in this regard.

 

Let us consider some verses attributed to the Lokaayata/Charvaka

school that occur in the first chapter of Madhavacharya's

Sarva-darsana-sangraha [Chattopadhyaya 1990:247-257] and in the second

chapter of the Sarva-siddhanta-sangraha, an apocryphal text attributed

to Shankaracharya [Rangacarya 1983] -

 

"Whatever is arrived at by means of direct perception, that alone

exists. That which is not perceived is non-existent, for the (very)

reason that it is not perceived. And even those, who maintain the

(real existence) adrishta (the unperceivable), do not say that what

has not been perceived has been perceived.

If what is rarely seen here and there is taken to be the

unperceivable, how can they (really) call it as unperceivable? How can

that, which is always unseen, like the (ever unseen) horns of a hare,

and other such things, be what is really existent?

In consequence of (the existence of) pleasure and pain, merit and

demerit should not be here (in this connection) postulated by others.

A man feels pleasure or pain by nature, and there is no other cause

(for it).

A wise man should endeavor to enjoy the pleasures here in this world

always."

 

Several other verses attributed to Brhaspati and other teachers of the

Lokaayatas are found quoted in literature. These revile the Vedas,

reject the efficacy of Vedic rites like offerings to the manes and the

agnihotra, reject the notion of hell and heaven, of rebirth, or the

possibility that the Vedic rites can transport the oblations to the

gods in heaven or to the manes. Bhartrmitra clearly did not go that

far, for he accepted the commands implicit in Vedic statements But, he

rejected the notion that Vedic rites could yield fruit in a future

life and denied that obligatory duties like the agnihotra could bear

any fruit. Nevertheless, this was sufficient to brand him as a

follower of the heretical doctrines of the Lokaayata school.[9]

 

What factors could have lead to such a school of thought within

Mimamsakas? We can only speculate. Perhaps, when Vedic ritualism came

under heavy attack from the atheists in ancient times, the Vedic

ritualists tried to adjust their philosophy to align it slightly with

the tenets of the Lokaayatas and thus shield it from their attacks. As

a result, some Mimamsakas rejected the efficacy of Vedic rituals in

obtaining the desired fruit, and downplayed all those aspects of the

Yajnas that were connected with arthavaada, with devatas, with the

after-life (paraloka) and so on. Rather, they advocated a 'rational'

interpretation of texts to shield them against the attacks of

Lokaayatas, and advocated the performance of Vedic rituals in the

prescribed manner only because they were enjoined by the Sruti, which

was authoritative for them.

 

Notes:

[4] For a discussion on the Charvaka/Lokayata doctrine, refer

Chattopadhyaya [1990] and Dasgupta [1940:512-550]. Refer also the

bibliography available at the URL

http://www.dkagencies.com/Lokayata.htm

 

[5] The notion that nitya-karmas produce no fruit is however not

peculiar to Bhartrmitra alone. An ancient, theistic commentator of

Bhagavad-Gita quoted by Shankaracharya on verse 18.6 is also said to

have d to this notion. Elsewhere, under verse 4.18,

Shankaracharya quotes an ancient commentary according to which, the

nitya-karmas do not bear any fruit provided they are performed for the

sake of Isvara, and therefore they might be considered as inaction

(akarma).

 

[6] According to Sabara's commentary on PMS 1.1.2 however, certain

black magic and sorcery rites like the Syena-yaaga that are prescribed

by Vedic texts (eg. Shadavinsa Brahmana) fall within the realm of

adharma and must be avoided. For Sabara therefore, these acts would

also fall within the realm of 'nishiddha-karma'. However, there is a

fundamental difference between Bhartrmitra's and Sabara's attitude

towards the 'nishiddha-karma'. Sabara holds that these adhaarmic acts

can back-fire on the performer. In other words, these do bear fruit.

On the other hand, Bhartrmitra states that these do not bear any

fruit. Kumarila criticizes Sabara's opinion very strongly and argues

that rites such as the Syena-yaaga are also within the realm of Dharma

since they are enjoined by the Vedic texts.

 

[7] The concept of apuurva is intimately related to another concept

called 'adrshta'. The terms are used almost interchangeably in the

system of Kumarila Bhatta. Readers interested in the differences in

the interpretation of these two words in the Sutras of Jaimini, in

Sabara's bhashya, in the Varttikas of Kumarila and in the Brhati of

Prabhakara should refer Clooney [1990:221-253].

 

[8] The date of Harisvami is a subject of considerable controversy.

According to available indications, Harisvami was a contemporary of

Vikramaditya who ruled Ujjain in the first century BCE. This would

rule out Bhartrmitra as a taarkika in all probability.

 

[9] Mimamsaka [1977:30-32] and Shastri [1970:213-222] opine that the

charge of atheism has been laid unfairly at the door of Bhartrmitra by

the followers of Kumarila Bhatta. They suggest that Bhartrmitra had

merely intended to oppose certain contemporary practices like animal

sacrifice in Vedic rituals which, were justified with the help of

Smrti texts and tradition. Shastri even suggests that Bhartrmitra

might have belonged to the Pancharatra Vaishnava sect. In my opinion,

this suggestion is informed more by the two scholars' allegiance to

the Arya Samaj sect of Hinduism and is not warranted by the meager

information available on Bhartrmitra. In fact, as I have shown later,

Bhartrmitra even rejected the utility of the Upanishads per se, and

therefore can justly be called a follower of the Lokayata sect.

 

 

References:

 

Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad; 1990; Carvaka/Lokayata; Indian Council of

Philosophical Research; New Delhi

 

Clooney, Francis X.; 1990; Thinking Ritually, Re-discovering the

Purva-Mimamsa of Jaimini; Publications of the De Nobili Research

Library, No. 17; Vienna

 

Dasgupta, Surendranath; 1940; A History of Indian Philosophy, vol IV;

The University Press, Cambridge

 

______.;1949; A History of Indian Philosophy, vol IV; The University

Press, Cambridge

 

Jha, Ganganath; 1983; Slokavartika; Sri Satguru Publications; Delhi

 

Guha, Abhaykumar; 1921; Jivatman in the Brahmasutras; University of

Calcutta; Calcutta

 

Mimamsaka, Yuddhishthhira; 1977; Mimamsa-sabarabhashyam, vol. I;

Ramlal Kapoor Trust, Bahalgarh, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana

 

______.; 1984; Sanskrit Vyakarana Sastra ka Itihasa, vol. I, 4th ed.;

Ramalal Kapoor Trust Press; Sonepat (Haryana)

 

Pandey, Sangam Lal; 1974; Pre Samkara Advaita Philosophy; Darshan

Peeth; Allahabad

 

Raja, K. Kunjunni and Thangaswamy, R; 1971; Slokavarttikavyakhya

Tatparyatika of Umveka Bhatta; University of Madras. Revised edition

of the text as published by S. K. Ramanatha Sastri in 1940.

 

Rangacarya, M; 1983; The Sarva-siddhanta-sangraha of Sankaracarya;

Ajay; New Delhi

 

Sastri, Swami Dvarikadasa; 1978; Slokavarttika of Sri Kumarila Bhatta

with the Commentary Nyayaratnakara of Sri Parthasarathi Misra; Tara

Publications; Varanasi

 

Shastri, Udayavira; 1970; Vedanta Darsana ka Itihasa; Virajananda

Vaidika Sodha Samsthana; Ghaziabad (Uttar Pradesh)