________________
JULY, 1921 ]
THE MIMANSA DOCTRINE OF WORKS
THE MÍMANSA DOCTRINE OF WORKS.
By K. A. NILAKANTA SASTRY, M. A. Of the so-called six systems of Indian Philosophy, Vedanta has been the most popular among modern scholars. The MIMAMS.A system has attracted comparatively little attention. The latter has always been viewed with suspicion as a store-house of soul killing ritualism, and the question has often seen asked as to why it ever came to be looked on as philosophy. Undoubtedly, it gives great trouble to the modern student to understand the technique of Antique Ritualism, at least to such an extent as to enable him to follow the endless speculations on the minute details of rituals ; but anybody, who takes the that trouble, can see that the Mimâmsa Darśana embodies much of philosophy, and what is perhaps of greater importance, more of common sense. It has next to no answer to the great problems of metaphysics. It simply does not concern itself with them. It is part of a religion of Works. It has for its main object the determination of doubtful points in the elaborate rituals enjoined by the Vedas by discussion and interpretation. It raises and answers incidentally some questions of great interest. One of these is the question of the existence or non-existence of a personal god or gods. The object of this paper is to present in translation some of the chief texts, especially those from the great commentary of Sabara Svâmin on Jaimini's Sätras, and to indicate the place of the Mimamsist answer to this question in the development of Indian religious thought.
It is necessary to state briefly the Mimamsist position regarding the Vedas at the outset. They are accepted as Eternal and Infallible. This belief the Mimâmsê system shares with all the other orthodox systems. But it looks upon them also as exclusively Karmic or ritualistic in character, and it undertakes to interpret the whole scripture on this basis. This attitude towards scripture, strange as it may seem at first sight, is not altogether without a parallel. The Romanist position regarding the Bible is very similar to this. The Bible was looked upon as "a store-house ... of doctrinal truths and rules for moral conduct--and nothing more".1 The position in either case is not without difficulty. The Vedas, as well as the Bible, contain much more than the Mimamsist and Romanist positions allege. How the Romanists got over their difficulty need not be pursued here. The Mimâńså holds that the whole Veda falls under two main heads, Mantra and Brâhmana, the first comprising chiefly verses to be chanted in rituals in the manner laid down in the Brâhmanas and priestly manuals, and the latter made up of Ritualistic Injunctions (Vidhi) and Arthavadas, a term which according to the Mimamsist, applies to all portions of the Veda that are neither Mantra nor Vidhi. The Arthavâdas may contain and very often do contain separate ideas of their own. And the modern historian has to rely for most of his information on these portions of the Veda. But the Mimamsist's position regarding them is that all these texts of the Veda are somehow or other connected with Vidhis, intended to extol them in various ways and therefore subordinate to them in importance, and should be understood as parts or adjuncts of the Vidhis themselves. It is not possible here to discuss whether and how far this is a correct position. The matter will come up again in connection with the relative standpoints of Mimârsâ and Vedanta. But some emphasis must be laid on the fact that the Mimamsist understands by the Veda the whole
1 Lindsay, History of the Reformation, vol. I, p. 455.
3 Seo Jaimini II, 1, 32-33. Also A pasthamba Sraula Sutra, XXIV, 1, 30-4 (Bibl. Ind.) for a chear and brief summary of the whole position. Haug-Introd. to Aitareya Br., Part I, towards the end, is also instructive.
8 See Jamini 1, 2, 1-18, and Sabara thereon.
