SANATANA DHARMA Part 24 Mimamsa contd KR IRS 14524 15524
Sankhya
According to Sankhya, the Atman is Purusa and is the basis of all, though,
at the same time detached from everything. In its view Maya which keeps
everything going is Prakriti. The cosmos is contained in 24 "tattvas"
["thatnesses" or principles or categories] of which Prakrti is one- Prakrti
is indeed the first of these and it has the name of"pradhana". From it
arises the second tattva of "mahat" which is the intellect of Prakrti (like
the intellect of man). From mahat(the great) is derived the third tattva of
"ahamkara", the ego, self-consciousness, the feeling that there is a
separate entity called "I".
Ahamkara divides itself into two: first as the sentient and knowing life of
a man, his mind, his five jnanendriyas and five karmendriyas. The second is
constituted by the five "tanmatras" and the five "mahabhutas " of the
insentient cosmos. The jnanendriyas are faculties with which a man gets to
know outside objects: the eyes that see objects, the nose that smells, the
mouth that tastes, the ear that hears and the skin that feels by touch.
With his karmendriyas he performs various actions. The mouth serves as a
karmendriya also since it performs the function of speech. The hand, the
leg, the anus and the genitals are all karmendriyas. The "asrayas" for
jnanendriyas are sound (ear), feeling, sparsa (skin), form (eye), flavour
or taste (mouth), smell (nose). These five are tanmatras. The tattvas in
their expanded insentient forms are space (sound), air (feeling or touch),
water (flavour), earth (smell), fire (form)- these are mahabhutas. Thus
Prakrti, mahat, ahamkara, mind, the five jnanendriyas, the five
karmendriyas, the five tanmatras, the five mahabhutas- all these make up
the 24 tattvas.
These tattvas are accepted by non-dualistic Vedanta also. According to it,
it is Isvara (the Brahman with attributes) who unites Purusa (or the Atman
without attributes) with Prakrti or Maya. Sankhya, however, is silent on
Isvara.
The three qualities of sattva, rajas and tamas, according to the Sankhya
philosophy, are accepted by all Vedantic systems including non-dualism.
Sattva denotes a high state of goodness, clarity and serenity; rajas is all
speed and action and passion; and tamas denotes sleep, inertia, sloth. The
Gita has much to say on the subject in its "Gunatraya-vibhaga yoga". The
Lord says: "Nistraigunyo Bhava" (Go beyond all three gunas and dwell in the
Atman). Sankhya also believes that all undesirable developments are due to
an imbalance of the gunas and that they must be maintained evenly. But,
unlike the Gita, Sankhya does not tell us the means to achieve this- like
worship of Isvara, surrender to him, Atmic inquiry and so on.
Purusa alone has life, Prakrti is inert. By itself Prakrti is incapable of
performing any function. It manifests itself as the 24 tattvas only in the
presence of Purusa. But Sankhya also speaks contradictorily that Purusa is
"kevala-gnana-swarupin" unrelated to Prakrti. "Kevala" means what is by
itself, isolated, without the admixture of anything else. "Kaivalya" is the
name Sankhya gives to liberation. The state in which an individual, after
discarding the 24 tattvas and being released from inertia, remains in the
vital Purusa by himself is "kaivalya". (In Tamil "kevalam" has somehow come
to mean "inferior" or "unworthy". )
Advaita also has the goal of one being absorbed in Purusa, that is the
Atman, and discarding all else as Maya. To attain this state, the Acarya
has cut out a path for us, the path that takes us to final release through
works, devotion and philosophic inquiry. Sankhya does no such thing. Most
of its teaching relates to forsaking the 24 tattvas.
Another unsatisfactory aspect of Sankhya is this. Purusa (the Atman) is
jnana by itself and has no function. Prakrti has a function but is
insentient and without jnana. How does this insentient Prakriti unfold
itself as the 24 tattvas? According to Sankhya, this phenomenon occurs in
the presence of Purusa. This is not a convincing explanation. How does
Prakrti perform its function under Purusa that has no function? Supporters
of Sankhya answer: "Are not iron filings brought into motion by the
presence of a magnet? Does the magnet consciously want to keep them in
motion? The magnet is by itself and the iron filings are in motion.
Similarly, though Purusa is by himself, Prakrti is activated as a
consequence of its vitality. "
Purusa and Prkrti work together like a cripple carried by a blind man. The
cripple cannot walk and the blind man cannot see. So the cripple perched on
the shoulders of the blind man shows the way and the latter follows his
directions. Similarly, Prakrti which has no jnana carries Purusa who is
full of jnana, but Prkrti without jnana is behind all affairs of the world.
This may sound good as a story or a metaphor but it does not make sense
unlike the explanation provided by the Advaita concept- that the
Nirguna-Brahman becomes Saguna-Brahman (Isvara) to conduct the world.
Another important difference between Advaita and Sankhya is this. Although
Sankhya believes in a Purusa made up of jnana it does not state
unequivocally like Advaita that all souls are the same as Purusa. All
individual souls, according to Sankhya, exist by themselves. Though the
ideas of Sankhya are confusing sometimes, it is regarded as one of our
basic systems of philosophy. ("Sankhya " means enumerating, numbers: from
it comes Sankhya. )
The author of Sankhya Sutra is Kapila Maharishi. Notable works of this
system are Isvarakrsna's Sankhya karika and Vijnanabhiksu's commentary on
the Sankhya-sutra.
The Gita too deals with Sankhya. When Bhagavan Krsna speaks of the two
paths, Sankhya and Yoga, He means jnana by the former and karmayoga by the
latter (not Rajayoga. )
Sankhya does not go beyond asking us to have an awareness of Purusa
separate from Prakrti. Rajayoga, however, goes further from this point and
tells us the practical means, the "sadhana", to be followed to become aware
of Purusa dissociated from Prakrti. The concept of Isvara and devotion to
him is part of yoga and it has lessons to bring the mind under control.
What generally goes under the name of yoga is Patanjali's Rajayoga,
according to which yoga is the stopping the mental process (or the
oscillating vitality of consciousness). It is this yoga that has become
popular in Western countries.
Sankhya and yoga are not included in caturdasa-vidya but, all the same,
they are important among our sastras.
Though devotion to Isvara is not part of Mimamsa, it accepts the authority
of the Vedas. Likewise Sankhya too respects the authority of the Vedas and
does not support belief in Isvara.
Buddhism on the one hand, Nyaya and Mimamsa on the other which were opposed
to it, and Sankhya, which does not accept Isvara but respects the pramanas
of the Vedas: of these our Acarya accepts elements that are to be accepted
and rejects elements that are to be rejected. He establishes the Vedantic
system which harbours all these and which is their source. Sankara's view
is not at variance with the ultimate message of Buddhism, that is the
exalted state of jnana. He accepts some of the basic concepts of Sankhya
like Purusa that is jnana by itself and equivalent to the Nirguna-Brahman
and Prakrti which is the same as Maya. At the same time, he accepts the
Vedic rituals of Mimamsa and the Isvara of Nyaya. But he sees each of them
as an aspect of the one Truth, not as the final goal which it is to the
various individual systems mentioned. He integrates these different aspects
into a harmonious whole in his own system of thought.
Mimamsa and Adi Sankara
As we have already seen, Udayana and other supporters of the Nyaya system
criticised Buddhism on the score that it was silent on the question of God,
while Mimamsaka like Kumarilabhatta attacked the same because it did not
favour Vedic rituals. The Acarya was in sympathy with these views and
believed that Vedic sacraments, considered all-important by the mimamsakas
were essential to the cleansing of the mind and to the proper conduct of
the affairs of the community. However, he was opposed to the mimamsakas not
only because they did not accept an entity like Isvara as the dispenser of
the fruits of our actions but also because they did not believe that, after
being rendered pure by works, there is any need for one to go further and
take the path of jnana. He also did not agree with their view that to
become a sanyasin giving up all karma is not right.
Kumarilabhatta and Mandanamisra are particularly important among the
mimamsakas. The Acarya had a debate with Kumarilabhatta during the last
days of that mimamsaka and won him over to his viewpoint. Similarly,
Mandanamisra also became a convert to Advaita Vedanta and came to be one of
the Acarya's chief disciples assuming the title of Suresvaracarya.
If the Acarya opposed Mimamsa, which is one of the fourteen branches of
Vedic lore, it was not because he thought it to be wholly unacceptable. He
was in agreement with the sacraments dealt with in that system, but he
differed from it on the question of devotion to the Lord. He further
believed that the fruits yielded by the rites, rewards like paradise, must
be dedicated to Isvara and that in this very act of renunciation the mind
is purified. Sankara's teaching is this: it is only if we realise that
Isvara is the Phala-data, the one who awards the fruits of our actions,
that we will not be tempted by petty rewards like paradise. Only then will
we be inspired to go beyond to attain the higher reward of inner purity.
The Vedic works were wholly acceptable to our Acarya. But for the
mimamsakas they were an end in themselves; they did not transcend them to
become devoted to the Supreme Godhead and to acquire jnana, the final
realisation that Isvara and we are one and the same. Sankara criticised
mimamsakas for their failure to understand this truth. That he did not
oppose Vedic karma is proved again by the fact that in his upadesa
(teaching) -it is called Sopana-Panchaka- before giving up his body he made
the admonishment that the Vedas must be chanted every day and that the
rites mentioned in them must be performed.
Vedo nityam adhiyatam
Taduditam karma svanushtiyatham
The Acarya, however, taught us not to stop with karma (performed for the
sake of karma), but to go beyond it. The rites that we conduct must be made
an offering to Isvara. This is a means of obtaining inner purity and also
that of receiving instruction in jnana. That is the time when we must give
up all karma to meditate upon the teaching we have received, indeed
meditate on it with intensity and make it our inner experiential reality.
Sankara takes us, step by step, in this way to final release. He opposed
the mimamsakas because they failed to understand the purpose of Vedic karma
and refused to go beyond it.
We must accept the Mimamsa system's interpretation of the Vedas, especially
because it surrenders wholly to the "Sabda-pramana", the sound of the
Vedas, its authority, and it is in this spirit that it has understood the
meaning of the scripture. An interesting thought occurs to me. Mimamsa does
not surrender to a perceptible God nor seek to understand his form. Does
that matter? The Vedas themselves constitute a great deity. The sound of
the Vedas does not take the form of a deity that can be seen with our eyes
but one that can be perceived with our ears. Let us perform the works that
that sound bids us to do without asking questions. Such an act implies an
attitude of surrender and it is in this spirit that the mimamsakas have
determined the meaning of the Vedas. So whether or not they believed in a
tangible God, they knew the God that could be grasped by the ears. (that is
they had a good understanding of the meaning of the Vedas).
Mimamsa Beliefs
Let us not worry about whether or not there is a God. Let there be a God or
let there be none. Our duty is to perform the rites prescribed by the Vedas
and they will yield fruits on their own. Any work we do produces its own
results, doesn't it? Why do we need God in between? The work generates
results on its own. Do we pay the greengrocer if he fetches plantain leaves
from our own garden? It is the same to give credit to Isvara for the fruits
we reap by performing karma. We till the land and rice grows on it. It is
the same with performing karma. If we do what we do not know, as told by
the Vedas, we will derive certain benefits. Why should we think that the
cosmos was created by God? It has always existed as it exists today: why
should we believe that it came into being all of a sudden? "Na kadacit
anidrsam jagat. " This universe has always existed as it exists today. Do
works; they will yield fruits on their own. When the engine is wound the
car starts. It is all like that.
The Vedas speak about things not comprehended by the human mind. If we
perform rites imposed on us by them, the fruits thereof will naturally
follow. Sound has always existed: it has indeed no beginning and the Vedas
are this sound. Like time and space they are ever-present.
If you do evil, the consequence shall be evil; if you do good the result
shall be correspondingly good. The rites keep yielding fruits, and we keep
enjoying them - and thus we go on and on. No God is required for all this.
We should never cease to do work because not to work is sinful. It will
take us to hell.
There are three types of karma: "nitya", "naimittika", and "kamya".
"Nitya-karma" as the name suggests includes sacraments that must be
performed every day. "Naimittika" rites are conducted for a specific
purpose or reason or on a specific occasion. For instance, when there is an
eclipse we must bathe and offer libations to our fathers. When a great man
visits our home he has to be honoured ceremonially - this is also
naimittaka. Nitya and naimittaka rites are to be performed by all. A
kamya-karma is a ritual that has a special purpose. When there is a drought
we conduct Varuna-japa to invoke the god and seek his blessings in the form
of rain. When we are desirous of a son we perform the
"putrakamesti"(sacrifice to beget a son). These belong to the kamya
category.
The sacraments to be performed everyday are defined in Mimamsa. "Akarane
pratyavaya janakam, karane'bhyudayam"- this statement refers to two types.
The non-performance of certain rites brings us ills, troubles- these form
one type. On the other hand some rites bring us happiness- these form the
second type. A good house, wealth, sons, fame, knowledge are part of "
abhyudaya". Vedanta speaks of "nihsreyas", the supreme bliss of liberation.
" Abhyudaya " is different; it is happiness on the lower plane. Mimamsa is
concerned with the latter, and does not speak of the ultimate blessedness
of release from worldly existence.
If rites belong to the category of "nitya" are not performed, we will have
to face trouble. Suppose you ask a man to perform sandyavandana and he
replies: " I won't do it. I don't care whether or not it does me good ".
Mimamsa has an answer to it: Sandyavandana is not a kamya or optional rite
and its non-performance will bring you unhappiness.
It stands to reason to say the performance of certain rites will bring you
happiness. But how do you justify the statement that the non-performance of
certain other rites will have ill-effects? Not performing sandyavandana is
sinful, but its performance is not claimed to bring any good. It is because
this rite belongs to the category referred to in this statement, "akarane
pratyavaya janakam. . "
Worshipping the deity in the temple, feeding the poor, such acts are said
to be beneficial and belong to the second category referred to in the
statement, ". . . . karane abhyudayam ". This makes sense. But how is it
sensible to say " akarane pratyavaya janakam "? Are there examples to
illustrate this dictum? Yes, there are.
We give alms to beggars, or make a donation to some organisation or other
in the belief that there is merit to be earned thereby. Sometimes we do not
practice such charity because we may not feel the urge to earn any special
merit. We have, of course, to do our duty, but not helping people with
money or material cannot be said to be sinful.
Suppose we have borrowed Rs. 500 from a friend or an acquaintance. How far
are we justified in refusing repayment of the loan, saying: " I don't wish
to earn any merit by returning your money? ". Is it possible to escape the
obligation to the lender in this manner? He will naturally tell us: " I
came to ask you for my money. I don't care about whether you or I earn any
merit ". If we refuse to repay a loan we will be taken to court and
eventually we will have to repay it along with the penalty. This
illustrates the statement: " Akarane pratyavayajanakam. . . "
Not performing sandyavandana is like not repaying a debt. In Tamil the
sandyavandana performed at dawn and dusk are aptly called " kalai-k-kadan "
and " malai-k-kadan " [" morning debt " and " evening debt " ]. These are
beautiful terms.
You may wonder how sandyavandana can be described as something " borrowed
". The Taittiriya Samhita(6. 3) of the Vedas says: " A Brahmin is born with
three debts. These are " rsi-rna ", " deva-rna " and " pitr-rna (that is a
Brahmin is indebted to the sages, the devas and to his fathers) ". The
first debt is repaid by chanting the Vedas; by conducting sacrifices and
other rites the second is repaid; and by offering libations and performing
the sraddha ceremony the third is repaid. The Vedas enlighten us on matters
of which we are ignorant. From the pronouncements made in them, those who
have faith will find reasons to perform the rites. Others who perverse in
their reasoning will find an excuse for not performing the same.
Mimamsa believes that the karma that we " applied for " gives its own
reward. According to it, the fruit of Vedic works come to us "
automatically ".
Our birth in this world is according to our past karma and we have to
perform the rites that are proper to it. If we do not, we will suffer. The
customs and rites must be adhered to properly. The duty of a Brahmin is to
know the truth contained in the Vedas, to bring solace to those who are
sorrowing and to give instruction to people in their respective vocations.
Similarly, each man must perform the duties allotted to him by virtue of
his birth. The oil-monger must produce oil; the cobbler must make footwear;
and so on. The Brahmin must keep his body, mind and Self pure and he must
be careful about what he eats. The reason for this is that not only has he
to remain meditating on the Paramatman, he has also the duty of bringing
others to the path of dhyana. It was for the proper discharge of such
duties that in the old days he was given gifts of rent-free lands. Then
every worker was allotted land. If he stopped doing the work assigned to
him society would suffer. So he forfeited his land an and it was allotted
to another worker.
According to the sastras, not to do the work assigned to us is not only
sinful but also disadvantageous in a worldly sense. In the past one earned
respect only because one did one's karma, the duties expected of one. Our
nation is in a lamentable state today only because of the failure on the
part of the people to follow their respective callings, callings inherited
from their forefathers. If everybody does his allotted job, performs the
duties expected of him by birth, there should be happiness for all even in
a mundane case. If there is so much poverty in the country today it is
because of our failure to maintain the social order in which everybody is
expected to do his allotted work, contributing to the social prosperity and
harmony.
Sandyavandana and the like are everyday rites. The non-performance of
nitya-karma is a sin; performance means we will not incur any demerit. That
apart, there will be general well-being. If we repay a loan in instalments
it means that we shall no longer remain indebted to the lender (here we see
a gain); additionally we earn a name for being honest and trust-worthy. By
performing nitya-karma no sin will attach to us and, besides, it should
mean some good to us. Thus there are two types of gains.
Vedanta too accepts the idea implicit in the statement "Akarane pratavaya
janakam, karane' bhyudayam". We must never fail to perform nitya-karma; for
instance, Srauta rites like agnihotra and Smarta rites like aupasana.
It is the view of mimamsakas that agnihotra must be performed so long as
one is alive. So they do not favour the sannyasasrama(the last stage of
life, that of the ascetic). In this asrama there are no rites like
agnihotra. Giving up works, according to the mimamsakas, is extremely
sinful. To do so consciously and become an ascetic is like embracing
another religion. The Isavasyopanishad (second mantra) says that a man must
live a hundred years performing works. The Taittiriya Brahmana has it that
to extinguish the agnihotra fire is to earn the demerit of killing a hero.
According to Mimamsa, to give up nitya-karma is tantamount to doing evil
karma. "The sannyasin deprives himself of karma ('karma- bhrashta'). To
look at him is sinful and you must atone for it. To look at the sinner, to
talk to him, to dine with him, " say Mandanamisra and mimamsakas like, "is
to earn sin. To look at a sanyasin is equally sinful. "
The jnanakanda of the Vedas, speaks of sannyasa, the Parabrahman,
liberation, jnana and so on. Why should concepts be attacked? What is
answer of the mimamsakas to this?
It is true, they say, that the Upanisads speak of jnana and Parabrahman.
But what are the Vedas? The Vedas are sound, they are made up of words. Why
did they come into existence? To tell us about things that we do not know.
The Vedas constitute the Sabda-pramana which speaks about things that
cannot be perceived by the eyes and are beyond conjecture. Their purpose is
not to tell us about matters that are of no use. All words serve a two-fold
purpose. They bid you "Do this" or "Do not this. "
Pravrttirva nivrttirva nityena krtakyena va
Pumsam yenopadisyete tacchastram abhidhiyate
Words that speak of things that serve no purpose belong to the category of
useless, idle talk. Suppose a man says, "The crow flies." How does the
statement help you? "The crow is black." Do these words also help you in
any way? Take this sentence for example: "Tomorrow night a discourse will
be held here." This has some purpose. It gives a bit of information and
implicit in it is an invitation to people to come and listen to the
discourse. Such usefulness is "pravrtti". If someone says that there will
be a discourse at Kumbhakonam tomorrow, it is as good as gossip. You are in
Madras and how will you go to Kumbhakonam in such a short time to listen to
the discourse? Any word, any sabda, must have some objective or other. It
must either involve you in work, "pravrtti" or keep you out of it,
"nivrtti". If the Vedas mention all the five terrible sins
(panca-maha-patakas) and bid us not to commit them, it is nivrtti, because
they warn us against committing those dreadful crimes.
Words that do not serve the purpose of either pravrtti or nivrtti are
useless. One part of the Vedas asks you to do this or that and another part
asks you not to do this or that (ordinances regarding what you must do and
what you must not). But there is another part which is like story-telling.
The stories are meaningful only if they are connected with the injunctions
and interdictions of pravrtti and nivrtti.
Suppose there is an advertisement of a tonic that claims to give you vigour
and strength. It carries an illustration showing a man wrestling with a
lion. What is the purpose of this drawing? It is a kind of deception, the
idea behind it being to induce you to buy the tonic, and make money. Such
"stories" in the Vedas become purposeful only because of the injunctions
associated with them and they belong to the category of "arthavada". Why
does a doctor print his certificate in advertising his medicine? To
persuade people to buy it (the medicine). In this way in arthavada untruth
is mixed with truth. The untrue part is called "gunavada". There is another
term called "anuvada". It means stating what is already known. For
instance, the statement that "fire burns".
Mentioning the ingredients of a medicine is an example of "bhutarthavada".
"Gunarthavada" is to tell a story, even though untrue, to make it useful
for the observance of a rule. "Do not drink liquor" is an injunction (or
interdiction). To tell the "story" that a man who got drunk was ruined is
arthavada. The purpose- or moral- is that one must not drink. To say that
if a man drinks he will be intoxicated is anuvada. All told, the stories or
statements belonging to arthavada must make us conform to the commandments
of the Vedas.
In dealing with a sacrifice, the Vedas ask us to pay the daksina in gold,
not in silver. According to the Taittiriya Samhita silver should not be
given as daksina in sacrifices. In this connection a long story is told to
illustrate the "nisedha" or the prohibitory rule regarding silver. ("Do
this" is a "vidhi"; "do not do this" is a "nisedha". ) But the words by
themselves in such arthavada do not serve any purpose.
It is in this manner that the mimamsakas try to counter the objections
raised against their system by adherents of the jnanakanda of the Vedas.
When the Upanisads speak about the Brahman there is no mention of any work
to be performed. The Upanisads themselves show that the realisation of the
Brahmans is a state in which there is no action. When do the Vedas become
an authority? When they speak about the performance of a karma. So the
Upanisads belong to the arthavada category because they deal with existing
things. What is it that we must know? Existing things or the karma we ought
to perform?
"The Brahman exists. The Atman is the Brahman" In such pronouncements there
is no mention of any rites to be performed. It is obligatory for us to
conduct sacrifices and we need the Vedas only for that purpose, to tell us
about such works, not to speak about the things that exist. What exists
will be known at one time or another, even if we do not know it now. That
part of the Vedas which speaks of existing things belongs to arthavada. So
the Upanisads are not to be regarded as an authority. Then what is their
purpose? They are meant to elevate the sacrificer. By extolling him he
would be made to perform more and more works. It is not right to forsake
karma to become a sannyasin. The Upanisadic declaration that the individual
self is the same as the Brahman is meant only to glorify one who leads a
life of works. The man who takes the tonic (in the story mentioned earlier)
will never be able to wrestle with the lion. Similarly, the individual self
will never attain the Brahman. The Upanisads are in the nature of a story
and we do not need any talk of the Brahman, jnana, moksa, Isvara, and so
on. Karma is all for us. So goes the argument of the mimamsakas.
K Rajaram IRS 14524 15524 to be contd
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoqe%2BxhqkC%3Dyzy%2BmdcNg8s3sa%2B%3DmNbg%3D4vzvW-f-7y9z7A%40mail.gmail.com.
