Questions on Indian Philosophy

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Satya Upadhya <satya_upadhya at HOTMAIL.COM> writes:

>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
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And later,

>--> To further prove my claim that the Mimansa contains irrational
>elements,
>however, i will make another claim to show the inherent
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>irrationality in the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I can see where this is going, so I'll try to be brief,
and let someone else discuss the philosophical issues,
if interested. Is mImAMsA an irrational rationalization
or a rational irrationality?

You are attributing the mImAMsA with two qualities that
contradict each other. Do ask yourself if a contradiction
is central to it, or if it is only a feature of how you
understand that school.

>--> 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).

Indian culture has always had a fascination for the rituals
and Indians can also be the most hard-nosed realists. I don't
think the mImAMsA was particularly reactionary on one count
or revolutionary on the other. But that is my opinion, and
you are welcome to yours. Unfortunately, your claims and my
claims do not prove anything. It would be far more preferable
to base these arguments on specific points from jaimini's
sUtras, zabara's bhAshya and their derivative texts.

>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.

1. Whether a child is going to be a boy or a girl has a
50% probability, doesn't it? Maybe people didn't quantify
it thus, but they always knew it was up to chance. Faced
with uncertainty, people resort to faith. So what?

2. The said ritual is what is called a kAmya karma. There
is an element of choice involved. A man may believe in the
ritual and yet opt not to do it. Another may be unsure about
it and still do it, for a number of reasons. A third may
believe in it and do it. The Mimamsa honors these choices.

>--> I will disagree with you here. A distinction ought to be made between
>logic based philosophy and religious based philosophy, according to

Look around at the various schools of thought and ask
yourself if this distinction is all that rigid. The
so-called logic based school of Samkhya is geared towards
a religious ideal of moksha/kaivalya. In its mature form,
it has some place for scripture, and its authors quote the
Vedas once in a while.

>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.

I don't see why *I* have to explain "away" anything. My
attitude towards the old schools of Indian thought is to
try to understand them "in themselves", as much as possible.
I frown upon modern efforts to judge them (favorably or
adversely) according to social and individual values that
were not part of the culture in which they developed.

As for the Mimamsaka theory of validity, it is a general
theory of knowledge, not just of the Vedas. ALL knowledge
is self-valid, till invalidated by another contradictory
knowledge. Except for the confirmed skeptic, this theory
is as good as any other theory of knowledge. Indeed, it
has certain advantages.


>--> Ah, but the devas are mere names sounds which are connected to the
>Vedic

*You* consider these to be "mere sounds". The Mimamsaka, on
the other hand, regarded sound as eternal, sacred and powerful.
I can only say that you have to pay attention to the theories
of zabda in Mimamsa and in Nyaya, to get a full picture of how
the Mimamsaka viewed the deities in the ritual. One particularly
perceptive contemporary author I can recommend in this regard
is Francis Clooney.

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

Read Max Mueller, the man many people love to hate. It is too
involved a discussion for me to get into right now.

>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

Not necessarily. So long as a self-consistent interpretation
can be made out of the sUtras, it would be fine. As I said
earlier, any understanding of Mimamsa would be incomplete
without taking into account the notion of apUrva. All schools
of vedAnta (uttara mimAMsA), including advaita, think that
invoking Izvara here is better than talking about apUrva,
and none of the vedAntin authors thinks that this violates
the mImAMsA sUtras. The fundamental tenet of pUrva mImAMsA
is that dharma is codanA-lakshaNa. How and why the ritual
and its fruits operate (or whether they operate at all) is
up to debate and interpretation.

Best regards,
Vidyasankar
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com