uttara-mImAMsA???

[n.rao at rz.uni-sb.de]

>I don't have the desired direct citation of an Advaitin text using the term
>"Uttara-Mimamsa" self-referentially.  But I do have three comments that may
>be relevant.
>
>1. My understanding is that the term "Uttara-Mimamsa" refers to Vedanta,
>not Advaita.  In other words, there is nothing specifically Advaitin about
>it and Visistadvaitins and Dvaitins, for instance, have just as good a
>claim to being Uttara-Mimamsakas (much as Bhattas and Prabhakaras have
>equal claims to being Purva-Mimamsakas).
>
>2. I can't verify this because I don't presently have access to the text,
>but I suspect the term might appear in the Sarvasiddhantasamgraha.
Perhaps you are refering to 'Sarvadarsanasamgraha' traditionally ascribed  
to Vidyaranya?

  If this
>is correct and we were also to accept the traditional (but, alas, probably
>spurious) ascription of this text to Samkara, then we would have a direct
>reference by an early Advaitin.
>
>3. I don't think Samkara uses the term in the Brahmasutrabhasya. However he
>does call the words of the Mimamsasutra the "former section" (purva-kanda)
>(III.3.1), the "first section" (prathama-kanda) (III.3.1,33,50) and the
>"first instructions" (prathama-tantra) (III.3.25;4.27).  Hajime Nakamura
>argues that this probably implies an already established practice of
>distinguishing between a "prior-Mimamsa" (Purva-Mimamsa) or
>"former-Mimamsa" (Praci-Mimamsa) and a "later Mimamsa" (Uttara-Mimamsa):
>see his A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,
>1989), Ch.9.  Ganganatha Jha makes not too dissimilar comments about the
>significance of BSBh III.3.33 in his Purva-Mimamsa in its Sources
>(Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University, 1942), pp.5-6.
>
>email: R.W.Perrett at massey.ac.nz
>
> 
>
Dr. B. Narahari Rao
F.R. 5.1. Philosophie
Unversitaet des Saarlandes,
Postfach 15 11 50,
D-66041 Saarbrücken