________________
August, 1921)
THE MIMAMSA DOCTRINE OF WORKS
245
The metaphysical texts are secondary, calculated only to tell a man that there is a soul apart from the body and another existence after death, in order that he might look about himself and prepare for it by WORKS while there is yet time. In fact, the Mimâmsa, in so far as it can be said to be a philosophy, is a philosophy of ACTION. This is distinctly recognised by Sankara, who spends as much powder and shot in fighting out the notion that the Vedas tell a man to be up and doing87 As Sabara does to combat the view that the deities have form. Jaimini is an unflinching exponent of Amndyasya kriyarthattva (the actional end of Vedas, so to say)-a notion which Sankara starts by refuting at the very outset. Again, Jaimini simply does not recognise the highest end of Vedantic endeavour, viz., Mokeha. It does not exist for him. In truth, it is very doubtful what he would have said if the whole of the Vedantic position as Sankara expounds it-and Jaimini comes in for a good deal of adverse criticism at Saúkara's hands-were placed before him. As it is, he has nothing to say on it directly. But we may certainly infer with Badarayana 68 that he would decline to consider that the knowledge of self led to any separate fruit, as the whole of it was for him only a means to an end, that end being the attainment of Svarga by WORKS. The result of Jaimini's position is that the highest thought of the Upanishads has to be treated as a handmaid of ritualism-a position intrinsically very hard to maintain. On the other hand, the Vedantist has simply to ignore the bulk of the Vedas that consists of chants and rituals, or somehow attempt a weak reconciliation between the two portions of the Veda, as for instance, by saying that the performance of WORKS produces a Right frame of Mind (chittasuddhi), and thus indirectly contributes to induce a desire for the knowledge of Brahma. In one place, Váchaspati Miśra has attempted to prove & more direct connection between Ritualism and Soul-Knowledge89, and the performance cannot be held convincing. The point is that both the systems have agreed to accept the entire Veda as Revealed Scripture. But historically the Veda embodies different strata of religious thought and practice coming down from different ages. As is generally held at present, the Ritualistic portions of the Veda are anterior to the metaphysical Upanishads in their date of composi. tion. The result is the Ritualist has been forced to subordinate the later religion of knowledge, while the Vedantist has to subordinate the earlier religion of Ritualism. The Mimamsigt has been described as tradition-incarnate. He does really embody in his system a more ancient phase of India's religion than the Vedanta. The splendid, elaborate and costly Ritualism of the more antique period was tertainly developed at a time when the inaterial conditions of human existence were such that religion could be made costly. This is the element of truth that underlies the brilliant suggestion of Mr. A. K. Coomaragwamy that the pessimistio vein in the philosophical thought of India is the result neither of climate nor of disgust with life born of a morbid mentality, but the result of drinking life to the leesto. If there is any truth in what has been said so far, the Mimasa system may be said to em body the philosophy of a fairly Prosperous and somewhat material. istic age. But the spirit with which these people went to do their religious duties-gods or no gods-8 a spirit that is remarkable in many ways. And the Ritualist, down to our own days in India, has held a place worthy of honour and of respect. ! Says Barthi_“No sectarian movement has on the whole produced anything of such solidity as the old Smritis, anything so independent and so purely intellectual as certain philosophical Satras. The
07 Soa his elaborate and close discussion on J, 1, 4 of the Vedanta Sutra. 68 Ibid., III, 6, 2.
60 Bhaimati on III, 2, 40. 70 80e his Buddha and the Gospel of Buddhism. 71 Religions of India, pa
99.
