Mimamsaka issues

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

I have been enjoying the exchange of ideas over a very wide

range of subjects between Mr. Bannur and Mr, Balaji. The

bewildering rapidity with which the issues raised have been

changing, the very wide compass of the points debated and

conviction and earnestness of the protagonists, who are also

sincere Madhvas has impressed me a great deal - reminding me of

the Mahabharatha War, of the Asthra Battles between Arjuna and

Karna. Being essentially slow on the uptake and being some what

peace loving, I thought that there would be real progress, from

the philosophical angle, if we try to look at the main issues,

rather than have what is essentially a debate on personal

opinions/prejudices of a third person like Mr. Yajna Murthy

etc. I hope that I will not be misunderstood, if I suggest that

the issues be debated, one by one, rather than on persons and

personal opinions. Dr. B N K Sharma's opinions also come into

the same category, as they are clearly not Acharya Madhva's

opinions, stated by the latter, but are conjectures about his

thoughts when he " proposed " Vishnu Sarvotthamathva as the

central theme of Thathvavada. Our understanding is that it

happens to be the truth.

The basic issues to be debated are :

1. Are smrithies given unjustifiable weightage over shruthies by

Vedanthists as compared to the Mimamsakas. This is alleged by

the great Y M. I have not read his original writings but the

quotes given seem to say that he advocates throwing overboard

the entire Smrithi compositions and going back to the good old

practices of Shruthi only as Parama Pramana, which according to

him leads to the practice of sacrifices etc (karma kanda of the

Vedas)

2. As both have accepted Apaurusheyathva of the Vedas as their

cardinal doctrine, how could a concept of God as a person be

justified by the Vedantists. Embedded in this question is the

idea that Vedas when interpreted by themselves do not need any

such concept.

3. The Mimamsaka concept of Mukthi as Sath only is the final

goal of all souls. There is some difference of opinion between

the two schools of Mimasakas, as explained by Mr. Balaji.

a) sanmAtram (pure existence only, devoid of consciousness

and bliss) = PrabhAkara MImAmsA

b) potential saccidAnanda (existence, consciousness and

bliss are all there but only in a potential manner) =

KumArila MimAmsA

Do the Vedas really say so ?

In addition to these are some poorly based arguments for the

superiority of worshipping Agni by homas and not offering

worship to Saligramas etc. They are incidental arguments and

are in the nature of opinions rather than statements based on

Pramanas - unless it is argued that the Vedas say so. We can

deal with these later, if necessary.

To keep this short, I propose to give our answers to these

basic points now and elaborate any points of detail raised

later.

Answer 1. It is an axiom that a Smrithi text derives its

authority from Shruthi. Unfortunately, when Shruthi

interpretations are attempted by ill qualified persons, they end

up with many inconsistent and even mutually antagonistic

meanings of the Shruthies themselves. Interpretation of

shruthies is not easy at best of times - more so, when there is

a welter of them given by different schools, each justifying its

own position. Smrithi helps in such interpretation. Even if one

accepts purely for the sake of argument that specially gifted

persons (at least those who claim to be so) can attempt such

interpretation, they should also be ready for discussion on the

Thathparya Lingas , by which they have come to their conclusion.

We are very clear that the Vedas say in Thathparya, the nine

gems of Thathvavada. It is also pointless to argue that as

Panini Maharshi came later than the shruthies, his grammar does

not apply to them. In fact, though there are Vedic Prayogas,

which differ from his grammar, there are a very large number of

compliance cases, which would show that he has made his rules

taking into account the Shruthies usages also. In any case, the

Vedas must have had some grammar, which though not written down

as a composition, would at least be well known by convention.

Our case is that the Mimamsaka interpretation of the Vedas,

while true to the extent of extolling the dieties and Karma

kanda, is not the whole picture. An instance is the Vedic

passage - " Agnirvai devanaam avamah " - Agni is the lowest in

classification of gods as he acts like a messenger to carry

Havis to the superior deities. Mr. Y M seems to believe that

sacrifices are meant for pleasing Agni himself, which is not

true. The real purport of the Shruthies is extolling of the

infinite names and qualities of God, which is again derivable

from Shruthies themselves.

2. God can never be postulated by any thing other than the

Apaurusheya Shruthies. He is not obviously a sensory entity to

be cognised by the Prathyaksha, he can not be derived by logic

as Naiyyayikas attempt to do, as it can be shown that their

logic is flawed. He has to be known only by Agama, and when the

last is a Paurusheya, we have numerous problems in accepting its

validity. Even Buddha considered by us as an Avathara of the

Lord can not be accepted as telling us the truth, when he

preached Buddhism. The manner in which Mimamsakas dispense with

God Himself, while accepting such entities like Karma,

transmigration of souls etc, is severely flawed. When the case

is examined in depth, it will be seen that they are guilty of

partial vision of Vedic truths. We have absolutely no

inconsistency between an Apaurusheya Agama and the Supreme

Being. If questions need to be answered on this subject, we can

do, provided they are not just opinions of some persons being

quoted to us, but are based on Pramanas.

3.The definition of Mukthi according to the Mimasakas is also

against the Vedas themselves. We have the Vedic pramanas on

which our concepts are based, which will have to be interpreted

by them to show that they mean differently. It is really a case

of total partiality for the karma kanda of the Vedas, which have

led them to make such disastrous mistakes.

In conclusion, I would like to suggest that we can debate the

issues dispassionately one by one along with any others that

could be suggested. Our concepts of fairness and trying to

understand the other point of view should not degenerate into

passive acceptance of mere opinions without valid Pramanas and

with mutual inconsistencies. It would be well to remember that

Vedantha destroyed Mimamsakas in the field millenia back - not

by just the so called preference for a personal God head.

NAPSRao