Indian Philosophy

Author(s): Sukhlal Sanghavi
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 97

The Purva-mimamsa View Regarding God
Brahmasutra while the Nyaya-Vaiseṣika tradition in its demonstration of God bases itself on no Brahmasutra or Upanisad. Hence it too can be said that the Madhvite tradition's doctrine of world-creatorship on the part of God, since it is chiefly based on Upanisads, is a scripture-dependent doctrine.
89
Since we are now considering the view as to God upheld by traditions that posit a multiplicity of souls it seems proper here to bestow consideration on such similar traditions as do not posit God. Thus the Pūrva-mīmāmsā, Sankhya, Jaina and Buddhist traditions too posit a multiplicity of indepe. ndent souls, but they do not attribute world-creatorship to an element God existing by the side of souls. All these four traditions, even if they posit rebirth and another world, attribute to God no role whatsoever so far as the destiny of a soul is concerned. An understanding of the secret of this state of affairs will be conducive to a proper appreciation of the difference of opinion that obtains between these traditions on the one hand and those positing a world-creator God on the other.
The Purva-mimāmsā View Regarding God
First of all we take up the Purva-mimāmsa tradition. It does not at all give thought to the topic of emancipation and confines itself to a consideration of just two topics--viz. this world and another world like heaven etc. And in the form of a means for attaining whatever is to be attained in both these worlds it is rituals like yajña etc. that this tradition depends upon. In a Vedic ritual the chief place is occupied by a Vedic hymn, the proper following of a procedure due, the priests like hoty etc. Thus he who performs an act like yajña etc. following the prescribed procedure attains the desired result. So in this position there is room only for the actorship of persons desirous of attaining a fruit, and such an actorship does belong to souls. Hence in this tradition there arises no question of God bestowing kindness or favour on anyone. Hence also here there is no occasion for considering world-creatorship on the part of God. Whatever chief-actorship is considered there in this tradition ultimately pertains to a Vedie injunction. That is to say, an action performed in conformity to a Vedic injunction is possessed of such a capacity that it automatically yields the fruit desired by the person concerned. Hence in this tradition a Vedic hymn, a god, a properly performed act, the capacity inherent in the causal aggregate pertaining to an act these things take the place of creatorship on the part of God.'
9 Sabarabhāṣya 2.1.5 etc. Besides, for other references from Kumārila see Nyāyāvatā. ravārtikavṛtti p. 179 (Singhi Jaina Series) and footnotes on it.
12