Guest guest Posted July 26, 2006 Report Share Posted July 26, 2006 Namaste, Sorry about a naive question. I have read on the web about purva mimasa and uttara mimasa. I don't know what it means. Is it karma kanda and jnana kanda ? Is uttara mimasa same as Vedanta/Upanishads ? Please clarify. thanks, Om Namah Sivaya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2006 Report Share Posted July 26, 2006 Yes --purva mimasa is Karma kaanda and uttara mimasa is Vedanta. Sarva sri Kumarila Bhatta, Mandana Misra are Meemaasa proponents and Acharyas Sankara,Ramanuja,Madwa etc are Vedaantists-Somayaji Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 Rajagopalan Somayaji <ssrvj > wrote: Yes --purva mimasa is Karma kaanda and uttara mimasa is Vedanta. Sarva sri Kumarila Bhatta, Mandana Misra are Meemaasa proponents and Acharyas Sankara,Ramanuja,Madwa etc are Vedaantists-Somayaji Dear Sirs and Ladies, Excuse me that this is not a philosophical or rather a religious question, but purely an academic one, requiring clarification. Is Mimamsa , apart from the fact that it espouses ceremonial action as a way towards emancipation, a theistic one or atheistic one like Samkhya? What is the distinction between Vaisesika and Mimamsa, and the separate school of Mimasa expounded by Kumarila Batta? From my unscholarly understanding of these philosophies, bereft of the complicated and hair-splitting terminologies of these system-building, the burden of their song that I understand seems to be that these philosophical schools are realistic and essentially materialistic, not containing the pre-eminent position of all cognitions and forms of existence of phenomena being traceable to the impartite consciousness, these philosophies identifying Atman with one of the attributes of the mind, these relative attributes being absent in deep-sleep, which is one of freedom, which can be attained only by the performance of the vedic ceremonies, and not through knowledge ( Self-Knowledge or the Knowledge of the Atman ). What is the concept of action delineated in the mimamsa that can be related to the present day world, apart from the vedic ceremonials, which only a select class of brahmins perform, the regular brahmins following the Anglo-Saxon culture, whatever be their theoretical understanding of the philosophy through translations made by such of those people like George Thibaut and Maxmuller. Can we give a different interpretation to the concept of action from the one taught in Mimamsa in the context of changes in the modern world? Can we say that action is essentially-the term should be rather activity to be more meaningful-born of the identification of the Self with the externals, the body-mind, illusory appendages? It is only on this score can Acharya Sankara have disowned these schools, as all activity, the outcome of our cognitive error, would lead us only to bondage? Of course, as far as the foundational knowledge of the Atman is concerned, it is applicable to all times, being the apriori base of all phenomena. I also feel that next to Vedanta should be classified Samhya and yoga, these two systems being synonymous but for the concept off Iswara included in yoga, and yoga being practical, almost a practical commentary of Samkhya. Would the learned persons of this group elucidate these aspects, as I find it difficult to capture the flamboyant language of Dr S. Radhakrishnan and Dasgupta, the great doyens of Indian philosophy? Sankarraman Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 Dear Sir, >Mimamsa , is theistic >Whether Samkya is theistic or aetheistic is a big controversy and and to my knowledge there are atleast 20 Ph.Ds who have published their Theses, in cluding many Westeners and Japanese.In Internet one can come across these arguments.Acharya Sankara's disagreement with Samkya is -(as I understand)-"When Veda/Upanishad says "Aathman Nityam"=Athma (alone) is eternal why the scholars like Kapila muni,Eeswara Krishna,Vigjnaana Bikshu take the onreous task of explaining "the Aathma -Anaathma Bhedam"=Saankyam-elaborately enumerating the Panca Gjnaanendriyas+Panca karmendriyas+Panca Tanmaatras+ Panca mahabuthas +the 4 Maanasic traits(Chatur Vigumsathi Tatwas=24)+28 asakthis+8 Bhavanas+8 siddhis+9 nidhis etc etc-the 108 components are "Anithyam"-Achetanam-When one should concentrate the whole life time on what is Chetanam(Chaithanyam),-Athma Vicharam-Athma gjnaanam-Athmaanandha Anubhavam(Anubhuthi)-why to waste time in Anatomical/Physiological details whch all are going to be destroyed oneday and Athman alone would remain"-this seems the line of Acharya Sankara's criticism of Samkya School(Nityaa-Anitya Viveka Vichaaram)-but all religions for which Sanaathana Dharmam is Mother religion-like Sanaathana Dharmam,Buddhism,Jainism,Sikhism-including all Acharyas - Aagamas-all have copiously drawn information from Saamkya Philosophy to drive their points of view home . -Somayaji ------------------------- Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 On 28/07/06, Rajagopalan Somayaji <ssrvj > wrote: > > Dear Sir, > >Mimamsa , is theistic I would think that Mimamsa is atheistic. Anyway, it depends on what you mean by theism. The Mimamsaka-s argued vigorously against the notion of a creator god and strongly denied the existence of any omniscient beings. Even the various Vedic deities were merely considered to be exalted beings who nevertheless died out at pralaya. Ramesh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 Dear Ramesh This is the dictionary meaning in Theism "Theism is the belief in a god or gods. Classical Theism affirms the existence of one god ..." Meemaamsa beleivesin the existence of God.Meeemaasa also beleives in the Veda vaakyam Ekaiva Brahmam satyam-Vipraa bahudha vadhanthi" But Meemamsa insists the Veda Karma(like Yagjna and Yaaga) is even superior to the Diety on whose propitiation the Karma is performed.-like in India "Constitution" is superior to the Parliament,President,Prime minister etc. and I don't hink they argued the way you have interpreted.-Somayaji Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy > wrote: On 28/07/06, Rajagopalan Somayaji <ssrvj > wrote: > > Dear Sir, > >Mimamsa , is theistic I would think that Mimamsa is atheistic. Anyway, it depends on what you mean by theism. The Mimamsaka-s argued vigorously against the notion of a creator god and strongly denied the existence of any omniscient beings. Even the various Vedic deities were merely considered to be exalted beings who nevertheless died out at pralaya. Ramesh Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Mail Beta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2006 Report Share Posted July 29, 2006 The Meemamsa concept can be better understood from a Vaakyam in Rudraadhyaayee--Ayam -Hasthaha- Bhagavaha=those hands are God----Bhagavaha-Utharaha=Nay they are even SUPERIOR than the God!!Veda says like that -so there can not be a better pramaanam(proof)--Kanchi Paramaachaarya swami(Periavaal) gives an excellent explanation for this Mantr.Because these hands bathes the Siva Lingam ,beautifies it with silk clothes and ornaments-these hands are luckier-so they are Superior-so the Meemamsikas hold the view that Veda karmas can even bind the Devathas whose power is invoked,--sothe veda Karmas are even superior than the Devathas-it can not be Atheism-because they the existence of God-Somayaji Rajagopalan Somayaji ssrvj ------------------------ Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Mail Beta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2006 Report Share Posted July 29, 2006 because they the existence of God-Somayaji This should read as "because they beleive in the existsenceof god-Somayaji Rajagopalan Somayaji <ssrvj > wrote: The Meemamsa concept can be better understood from a Vaakyam in Rudraadhyaayee--Ayam -Hasthaha- Bhagavaha=those hands are God----Bhagavaha-Utharaha=Nay they are even SUPERIOR than the God!!Veda says like that -so there can not be a better pramaanam(proof)--Kanchi Paramaachaarya swami(Periavaal) gives an excellent explanation for this Mantr.Because these hands bathes the Siva Lingam ,beautifies it with silk clothes and ornaments-these hands are luckier-so they are Superior-so the Meemamsikas hold the view that Veda karmas can even bind the Devathas whose power is invoked,--sothe veda Karmas are even superior than the Devathas-it can not be Atheism-because they the existence of God-Somayaji Rajagopalan Somayaji ssrvj ------------------------ Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Mail Beta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 ---------------- On 29/07/06, Rajagopalan Somayaji <ssrvj > wrote: > Dear Ramesh This is the dictionary meaning in Theism > > "Theism is the belief in a god or gods. Classical Theism affirms the existence of one god ..." > > Meemaamsa beleivesin the existence of God.Meeemaasa also beleives in the Veda vaakyam Ekaiva Brahmam satyam-Vipraa bahudha vadhanthi" ---------------- Well, what is meant by "god" or "gods"? The common sense understanding of the word "God" is that of an all-powerful all-knowing being who created the world. The mImAMsaka-s clearly dont accept such a God. In fact they dont accept that there can be any omniscient beings. They accept the vedic devatA-s but these are NOT omnipotent omniscient beings. Their forms/attributes are as defined by the vedic mantra-s (maybe they could be called "natural powers" as Sri Ananda Wood mentioned in a recent post). They also undergo birth & death along with each kalpa. Even advaita-vedAnta rejects the concept of an all-knowing all-powerful God except as a concession to the sAdhaka who is enmeshed in vyavahAra. ISvara is permitted as a part of the teaching process, only to be sublated at the end. The brahman of advaita is not a God. sarvam khalvidam brahma does not mean "brahman is *in* everything". It does not mean that there is divinity *in* everything. It means "everything IS brahman". Ramesh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.