Questions on Indian Philosophy

[Satya Upadhya]

First of all, just for the purpose of clarification, would you agree that
the central thesis in Mimansa is to rationalise and defend the Vedic
rituals, the performance of which leads to pleasure or happiness  ("sukh").
Further, the Mimansakas identify this pleasure with "svarga", (heaven), i.e.
svarga is not something that brings pleasure, it is something that is
identical with pleasure. Hope you agree with this.

>Ahem, the Mimasakas recognize that the central ritual to be
>performed to obtain a child is sexual intercourse. The sexual
>act is described in terms of the sacrifice and the sacrifice
>is described using sexual metaphors. A putrakAmeshTi sacrifice
>was described only for cases where no children were born after
>a long period of trying normally. Dasaratha tried with three
>queens before resorting to the ritual.

--> I believe its the "Putresti" Yajna that one is supposed to perform if
one desires to have a son. (I realize that the Mimansakas recognize the
importance of sexual intercourse in having a child. Didn't express myself
properly last time round.) I disagree with you in that it was/is prescribed
only for cases where no children are born. The emphasis is on *sons*, not
children.

>
>You can't separate Indian philosophy from Indian religion,

--> I will disagree with you here. A distinction ought to be made between
logic based philosophy and religious based philosophy, according to Kautilya
(in his "Arthasastra"), and i agree with him here. (Kautilya himself places
the Sankhya, Yoga, and Charvaka philosophies in the category of "logic based
philosophy". It has since been demonstrated, fairly conclusively, that by
"Yoga" Kautilya actually meant the Nyaya-Vaisesik, since "Yoga" is an older
term for the Nyaya-Vaisesik.)


and
>ultimately, you can't purge any religion of magic. Even today,
>in this supposedly scientific and rational age, childless
>couples pray at a Hindu temple or at the grave of a Muslim
>pir or a Christian saint, believing that a miracle will provide
>a child. Why, the Roman Catholic church even has an involved
>procedure for authenticating such miracles before canonizing
>a dead person into a saint. I think one can't have any religion
>without being a little irrational and without recourse to some
>amount of magic.

--> I agree with you here in that no religion can be completely purged of
magic.

--> To further prove my claim that the Mimansa contains irrational elements,
however, i will make another claim to show the inherent irrationality in the
Mimansa: In order to justify the importance and validity of the Vedic
rituals, Mimansakas claim that the Vedas are absolutely valid. So absolutely
valid, indeed, that the Vedas have no author, human or divine, according to
the Mimansakas. I wonder whether you will seek to explain this away as well.

--> My claim, in short, is that the Mimansa is on the one hand
reactionary(with its strong emphasis on rituals), and on the other hand
revolutionary (with its emphasis on realism).




>
>Kumarila refutes various notions of an ISvara, but has a place
>for the devas in the sacrifice.

--> Ah, but the devas are mere names sounds which are connected to the Vedic
ritual, according to the Mimansakas. Consider a deva who has a hundred
synonymns used to refer to him. Now, the Mimansakas claim that those hundred
different synonyms are actually hundred different sounds to be used while
performing some Vedic ritual.

And you must also distinguish
>among the ISvara of nyAya, the ISvara of yoga and the ISvara
>of vedAnta. If "atheism" means that one is not monotheistic,
>then yes, the Mimamsa is atheistic. But if you were to think
>about it, the Mimamsakas are quite in tune with what some have
>called the "henotheism" or the "kathenotheism" of the Vedas.

--> There is also a differnce between the Isvara of Advaita Vedanta, and
that of Dvaita Vedanta and Visistadvaita, as you might know.

--> Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "henotheism" and
"kathenotheism"? Is this some sort of monism?

>
>Other Mimamsakas admit ISvara, but what does not seem to be
>realized is that this is in response to the criticisms that
>were raised against the Mimamsa concept of apUrva.

--> When some of the later Mimansakas admit Isvara into their philosophy,
they violate one of the fundamental principles of the Mimansa.

Instead of
>this apUrva mediating the fruits of the action, it was acceptable
>to say that ISvara oversees the fruits of the karma.

--> But, by claiming that Isvara oversees the fruits of karma, you are
violating a fundamental tenet of the Mimansa: the fact that the rituals, by
themselves, when performed correctly, lead to pleasure or 'sukh', and this
pleasure is itself identified with heaven ('svarga')


The ritual
>act still remains central, and the categories of "theistic" and
>"atheistic" do not say anything much at all.
>

--> I will disagree with this. Atheism remains a prominent feature of early
Mimansa, and Mimansa becomes inconsistent if you do away with it, in my
opinion.

-Satya



_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.