The influence of Purva Mīmāṃsā on Vedanta – a Visitadvaita Perspective

• Prof. A. S. Aravamudan
  Professor in Mimamsa
  Sri Lal Bahadur Shastry National Sanskrit University,
  New Delhi

The term मीमांसा mīmāṃsā fundamentally signifies – a “desire to enquire”. It is derived from the root “मान विचारे” (māna vicāre¹) where ‘māna’ means ‘to enquire’. It has also been defined as विचारपूर्वकतत्त्वनिर्णयः² vicārapūrvaka-tattva-nirṇayaḥ — a determination of truth preceded by systematic inquiry.

In simple terms, mīmāṃsā is the desire to investigate the meaning of the Veda. Because the Veda itself is divided into two principal sections, the discipline of mīmāṃsā can also be divided into two branches:

• यज्ञादिनिरूपिक कर्मकाण्ड yajñādinirūpika karmakāṇḍa³; the section of the Veda dealing with the nature of ‘rites’. The enquiry into this section of the Veda becomes called as — पूर्वमीमांसा pūrvamīmāṃsā
• ब्रह्मनिरूपिक ब्रह्मकाण्ड brahmanirūpika brahmakāṇḍa³ – the section of the Veda dealing with the nature of Supreme Brahman; also called asज्ञानकाण्ड jñānakāṇḍa — the section of (ultimate) knowledge. The enquiry into this section of the Veda becomes called as उत्तरमीमांसा uttaramīmāṃsā. This portion of the Veda and its study are also synonymously referred to as वेदान्त vēdānta.

In common parlance now-a-days, the term mīmāṃsāis taken to solely refer to pūrvamīmāṃsā; while the enquiry into the brahmakāṇḍa has become called as vēdānta. For purposes of this article, to void confusion, we will follow this same nomenclature.

The Centrality of Vedic Rites :

The Bhagavad Gītā strongly emphasizes the necessity of performing Veda-enjoined actions (Veda-vihita karmas):

कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन। (2-47) You have a right on action alone and never on the fruits
योगस्थः कुरु कर्माणि सङ्गं त्यक्त्वा धनञ्जय। (2.48) O Dhananjaya ! Being established in the path of ‘Yoga’, do perform actions          
योगः कर्मसु कौशलम्। (2-50) Yoga is proficiency in action
नियतं कुरु कर्म त्वं कर्म ज्यायो ह्यकर्मणः। (3-8) You must perform your obligatory action which has been enjoined

It simultaneously cautions against inaction:

मा ते सङ्गोऽस्त्वकर्मणि। (2-47) Do not be attached to inaction.
न कर्मणामनारम्भान्नैष्कर्म्यं पुरुषोऽश्नुते। न च संन्यसनादेव सिद्धिं समधिगच्छति॥ (3-4) By abstaining from actions, a person cannot attain success; and just by renunciation, one does not attain emancipation.

At the same time the Gītā also points toward a higher state of realization involving knowledge of the Atma:

प्रजहाति यदा कामान् सर्वान्पार्थ मनोगतान्। आत्मन्येवात्मना तुष्टः स्थितप्रज्ञस्तदोच्यते॥ (2-55)  O son of Partha ! When a man casts off all desires existing in his mind and remains content in the Self by the self (mind), then he is called a man-of-stabilized-intellect.

This seems to indicate that success is attained by realization of the self and not by engaging in works. This seemingly mixed message triggers, immediately, a clarification sought by Arjuna –

• अर्जुन उवाच –

ज्यायसी चेत्कर्मणस्ते मता बुद्धिर्जनार्दन। तत्किं कर्मणि घोरे मां नियोजयसि केशव॥

व्यामिश्रेणेव वाक्येन बुद्धिं मोहयसीव मे। तदेकं वद निश्चित्य येन श्रेयोऽहमाप्नुयाम्॥ (3-1,2)

Arjuna said – If, O Krsna, you consider that Buddhi (knowledge) is superior to works, why do you engage me in this terrible deed? You confuse my mind with statements that seem to contradict each other; tell me for certain that one way by which I could reach the highest good.

For this relevant question, the answer provided by Bhagavan is as follows –

• श्री भगवानुवाच –

लोकेऽस्मिन्द्विविधा निष्ठा पुरा प्रोक्ता मयानघ। ज्ञानयोगेन सांख्यानां कर्मयोगेन योगिनाम्॥ (3-3)

In this world a two-fold way was of yore laid down by Me, O sinless one; by Jnana Yoga for the Sankhyas and by Karma Yoga for the Yogins.

In the interpretation of this answer given by Bhagavan, there exists the key doctrinal viewpoint in the system of Sri Ramanuja.

Ramanuja says that the path of action remains always relevant, even for the knower of the self:

कर्मणो ज्ञाननिष्ठाया ज्यायस्त्ववचनं (कर्म ज्यायो ह्यकर्मणः 3-8) ज्ञाननिष्ठायाम् अधिकारे सति एव उपपद्यते। यदि सर्वं कर्म परित्यज्य केवलं ज्ञाननिष्ठायाम् अधिकरोषि तर्हि अकर्मणः ते ज्ञाननिष्ठस्य ज्ञाननिष्ठोपकारिणी शरीरयात्रा अपि न सेत्स्यति। ………….अतो ज्ञाननिष्ठस्य अपि कर्म अकुर्वतो देहयात्रा न सेत्स्यति।

यतो ज्ञाननिष्ठस्य अपि ध्रियमाणशरीरस्य यावत्साधनसमाप्ति महायज्ञादिनित्यनैमित्तिकं कर्म अवश्यं कार्यम्।

Action is superior to non-action, i.e., even to the devotee of Jnana. This statement on the superiority of activity (Karma Yoga) over Jnana Yoga is valid even when there is competency for one to adopt Jnana Yoga. For, if you abandon all activities to qualify yourself for Jnana Yoga, then, for you, who is thus inactive while following Jnana Yoga, even the nourishment of the body, which is necessary even for Jnana-nistha, will not be achieved. The body has to be necessarily sustained until the means are executed to the full. Performing ‘great sacrifices’ with the help of honestly earned wealth, the body should be sustained by consuming the remainders left after such sacrifices. 

In other ways also Karma Yoga is superior to Jnana Yoga even in respect of one who is not qualified for Jnana-nistha; for, obligatory and occasional rites like the ‘great sacrifices’ must be carried out by one who follows Jnana Yoga too, as he has to sustain the body until he attains perfection⁴.

By establishing this stand, Sri Ramanuja affirms the importance of ‘action’ for all kinds of seekers and thereby also maintains the relevance of Mīmāṃsā across all seekers, irrespective of their eligibility for the path of Jnana Yoga.

In fact, Sri Ramanuja goes further to show that the most effective way of attaining the vision of the self is by engaging in actions enjoined by the Veda, in accordance with one’s own station and position in life.

Ritual is the cause of Self-Realization :

त्रैविद्या मां सोमपाः पूतपापा यज्ञैरिष्ट्वा स्वर्गतिं प्रार्थयन्ते।
ते पुण्यमासाद्य सुरेन्द्रलोकमश्नन्ति दिव्यान्दिवि देवभोगान्॥ (9-20)

Those who are versed in the three Vedas, being purified from sin by drinking the

Soma juice, pray for the passage to heaven and worship Me by sacrifices. Reaching the

holy realm of the chief of the gods, they enjoy in heaven celestial pleasures of the gods.

Sri Ramanuja states as follows –

ऋग्यजुः सामरूपाः तिस्रो विद्याः त्रिविद्यम्; केवलं त्रिविद्यनिष्ठाः त्रैविद्याः। न तु त्रय्यन्तं निष्ठाः; त्रय्यन्तनिष्ठा हि महात्मानः पूर्वोक्तप्रकारेण अखिलवेदवेद्यं माम् एव ज्ञात्वा अतिमात्रमद्भक्तिकारितकीर्तनादिभिः ज्ञानयज्ञेन च मदेकप्राप्या माम् एव उपासते। (9-20)

The three Vedas consist of the Rk, Yajus and Saman. The followers of the three Vedas are called ‘Trai-vidyah’, but they are not devoted to Vedanta (or Trayyanta). The great souls, who rely on Vedanta, know Me, as mentioned before, to be the only object to be known from all the Vedas. Considering Me as the highest object of attainment, they worship Me through singing My names etc., caused by deep devotion to Me, and also through the sacrifice of knowledge.

अहो महद् इदं वैचित्र्यं – यद् एकस्मिन् एव कर्मणि वर्तमानाः संकल्पमात्रभेदेन केचिद् अत्यल्पफलभागिनः च्यवनस्वभावाः च भवन्ति; केचन अनवधिकातिशयानन्दपरमपुरुषप्राप्तिरूपफलभागिनः अपुनरावर्त्तिनः च भवन्ति। (9-24)

How peculiar is this, that though devoting themselves to the same kind of action, on account of the difference in intention some partake of a very small reward with the likelihood of fall, while some others partake of a reward in the form of attainment of the Supreme Person which is unalloyed, limitless, and incomparable!

This is what the Veda teaches as well⁶ –

तमेतं वेदानुवचनेन ब्राह्मणा विविदिषन्ति यज्ञेन दानेन तपसाऽनाशकेन..

The Brāhmaṇas seek to know It through the study of the Vedas, sacrifices, charity, and austerity consisting in a dispassionate enjoyment of sense-objects.

In accordance with this same opinion, the word अथ of the first sutra अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा ॥ १ ॥

is interpreted as follows by Sri Ramanuja⁶.

अत्रायमथशब्द: आनन्तर्ये भवति। अतश्शब्दो वृत्तस्य हेतुभावे।

अधीतसाङ्गसशिरस्कवेदस्याधिगताल्पास्थिरफलकेवलकर्मज्ञानतयासंजात- मोक्षाभिलाषस्यानन्तस्थिरफल ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा ह्यनन्तरभाविनी ॥

In this Sûtra the word ‘then’ expresses immediate sequence; the word ‘therefore’ indicates that what has taken place (viz. the study of the karmakânda of the Veda) constitutes the reason (of the enquiry into Brahman).

For the fact is that ‘the desire to know’ Brahman–the fruit of which enquiry is infinite in nature and permanent–follows immediately in the case of him who, having read the Veda together with its auxiliary disciplines, has reached the knowledge that the fruit of mere works is limited and non-permanent, and hence has conceived the desire of final release.

In support of this opinion, Sri Ramanuja also quotes ancient commentators –

तदाह वृत्तिकार: – वृत्तात्कर्माधिगमादनन्तरं ब्रह्मविविदिषा इति । वक्ष्यति च कर्मब्रह्ममीमांसयोरैकशास्त्र्यं –  संहितमेतच्छारीरकं जैमिनीयेन षोडशलक्षणेनेति शास्त्रैकत्वसिद्धि: इति।

अत: प्रतिपिपादयिषतार्थभेदेन षट्कभेदवदध्यायभेदवच्च पूर्वोत्तरमीमांसयोर्भेद:।

मीमांसाशास्त्रम् – अथातो धर्मजिज्ञासा (पूर्व.मी.१.१.१) इत्यारभ्य अनावृत्तिश्शब्दादनावृत्तिश्शब्दात् (ब्र.सू.४.४.२२.) इत्येवमन्तं सङ्गतिविशेषेण विशिष्टक्रमम् ।

The same meaning is expressed by the Vrittikâra when saying – ‘after the comprehension of works has taken place there follows the enquiry into Brahman.’ And that the enquiry into works and that into Brahman constitute one body of doctrine. The Vrittikâra will declare later on – ‘this Sârîraka-doctrine is connected with Jaimini’s doctrine as contained in sixteen adhyâyas; and this proves that the two constitute one body of doctrine.’ Hence the Purva and Uttara Mîmâmsâ are separate only in so far as there is a difference of the subject matter taught by each; in the same way as the two halves of the Pûrva Mîmâmsâ-sûtras, consisting of six adhyâyas each, are separate; and even as each adhyâya is separate. The entire Mîmâmsâ-sâtra–which begins with the Sûtra ‘Now therefore the enquiry into dharma’ and concludes with the Sûtra ‘(From there is) no return on account of scriptural statement’–has, owing to the special character of the contents, a definite order of internal connectivity. ⁶

Thus, the ‘oneness’ or ‘unity’ of the śāstra (Karma and Brahma Mīmāṃsā or Purva and Uttara Mīmāṃsā) becomes established in the system of Sri Ramanuja.

पूर्वोत्तरमीमांसयोः एकशास्त्रता – A Unified Discipline (oneness or unity of the śāstra Purva and Uttara Mīmāṃsā) :

Classical sources also affirm the essential unity of the twomīmāṃsā. As the Yâjnavalkya Smriti states –

पुराणन्यायमीमांसाधर्मशास्त्राङ्गमिश्रिताः। वेदाः स्थानानि विद्यानां धर्मस्य च चतुर्दश॥

Purāṇa, Nyāya, Mīmāṃsā, Dharmaśāstra, and the four Vedas with its six auxiliary texts – these are the fourteen sources of knowledge.

So does rishi Âpastamba –

अङ्गानि वेदाः चत्वारो मीमांसा न्याय विस्तरः।
पुराणं धर्मशास्त्रं च विद्या ह्येताः चतुर्दश ॥

The four Vedas with its six auxiliary texts, Mīmāṃsā, Nyāya, Purāṇa and Dharmaśāstras -these are the fourteen sources of knowledge.

In both these cases, the Purva and Uttara Mīmāṃsā are considered as one body of text.

Even Smṛti texts recognize the two Mīmāṃsā as one unified discipline; as Sage Parashara states in the Vishnu Purana ⁷–

अंगानि वेदाश्चत्वारो मीमांसा न्याय विस्तरः। पुराणं धर्मशत्रम् च विद्या ह्येताशचतुर्दश:॥

आयुर्वेदो धनुर्वेदो गन्धर्वश्चैव ते त्रयः। अर्थशास्त्रं चतुर्थ तु विद्या ह्यष्टादशैव वाः॥

With its six auxiliary texts, the four Vedas, the Mīmāṃsā, Nyāya, Purāṇa and Dharmaśāstras are the fourteen sources of knowledge. Adding the Ayurveda, Dhanurveda, Gandharvaveda; and the fourth Arthashastra, the eighteen sources of knowledge are thereby enumerated.

Hermeneutical Influence :

There is specific reference to Mîmâmsa in Vêdânta Sûtras; as noted below –

३८०। हानौ तूपायनशब्दशेषत्वात् कुशाच्छन्दस्स्तुत्युपगानवत्तदुक्तम्।

 – तदुक्तं पूर्वस्मिन् काण्डे – अपि तु वाक्यशेषः स्यादन्याय्यत्वाद्विकल्पस्य (P. M. S. 20-8-4) इत्यादिना॥

३९६। प्रदानवदेव तदुक्तम्।

• तदुक्तं सङ्कर्षे – नाना वा देवता पृथक्त्वात् इति ॥

३९७। लिङ्गभूयस्त्वात्तद्धि बलीयस्तदपि।

• तदपि पूर्वस्मिन्काण्डे, श्रुतिलिङ्गवाक्यप्रकरणस्थानसमाख्यानां समवाये पारदौर्बल्यमर्थविप्रकर्षात्, इत्यादिनोक्तम्। 

४०२। अनुबन्धादिभ्य: प्रज्ञान्तरपृथक्त्ववद्दृष्टश्च तदुक्तम्।

In all these sutras of Vedanta, the word त्तदुक्तम् ‘it is thus stated’ – refers to the principles which are already established in the Purva Mīmāṃsā.

Similarly, the Purva Mīmāṃsā also refers to the Vedānta

औत्पत्तिकस्तु शब्दस्यार्थेन सम्बन्धस्तस्य ज्ञानमुपदेशोऽव्यतिरेकश्चार्थेऽनुपलब्धे तत्प्रमाणं बादरायणस्यानपेक्षत्वात्॥ १।१।५ ॥

Here, the reference to बादरायण ‘bādarāyaṇa’ is a direct reference to the Vedanta Sutras. All these cross references existing between the Purva and Uttara Mīmāṃsā indicate, once again, that these were intended to be one body of work.

The most significant contribution of Pūrva Mīmāṃsā to Vedānta, however, is the utility of its interpretive methodology. Vedānta does not borrow Mīmāṃsā’s conclusions, but it heavily relies on its methodology. The Vedānta adopts well known Mīmāṃsā principles to reconcile seemingly diverse Upanishad statements about Brahman and other truths; and to arrive at logical conclusions. In fact, the Mīmāṃsā principles are considered such solid interpretive methodologies that they often become resorted to, uniformly, by all Acharyas who accept the traditional school of interpretation, irrespective of their school of thought.

For example, one of the core Mīmāṃsā principles is the concept of Ṣaḍ-liṅga – or Six indicators of textual meaning. The Vedanta frequently employs this core Mīmāṃsā interpretative tool to determine the central teaching of a text. These six indicators being – 

• Upakrama–Upasaṃhāra (Correlation between beginning and conclusion)
• Abhyāsa (repetition)
• Apūrvatā (novelty)
• Phala (result)
• Arthavāda (explanatory passages)
• Upapatti (reasoning)

Without Mīmāṃsā methods, interpreting the Upaniṣads would be difficult because:

• Texts are poetic, symbolic, and seemingly contradictory
• No single systematic doctrine is explicitly stated

Mīmāṃsā provides:

• A structured hermeneutical framework
• Rules for resolving such contradictions
• Tools for identifying the main teaching (tātparya)

For example, let us consider the Upanishadic statement – “Tat Tvam Asi” (That You Are) from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad. The word ‘That’ signifies the Brahman. The word ‘You’ is directed towards the individual self. And the concluding word in the text indicates oneness between the two entities that are considered.

Now, the question arises as to how to arrive at a logical conclusion from this statement of the Upanishad. This is where the rules of Mīmāṃsā become very helpful.

In the Advaita school of Shankara, using the tool of Abhyāsa (repetition) and indicating that this phrase has been repeated several times, its philosophical importance is highlighted. Based on the importance of this statement, they arrive at the conclusion that non-duality is the consistent theme of the Upanishad.

In the Visistadvaita school of Ramanuja, using the tool of Upakrama–Upasaṃhāra (Correlation between beginning and conclusion), and pointing to the fact that what has been already established elsewhere cannot be negated, the conclusion that is arrived at is that interpretation of oneness is by unity of two parts and not by absolute identity.

This goes to show that the traditional schools have all based their conclusions on the strong basis of foundational rules of the Mīmāṃsā. By follow logical interpretative rules established in the Purva Mīmāṃsā, the Upanishad statements about Brahman and other truths are thereby reconciled. The key point to note is that all traditional schools agree on the rules of interpretation—but they disagree on how to apply them. Regardless, the importance of Mīmāṃsā cannot be therefore understated.

Mīmāṃsā gives Vedanta it the toolkit that makes interpretation possible at all. Without it, the Upaniṣads would read like a collection of profound but scattered and incoherent insights. With it, Vedānta turns them into a coherent philosophical system. Mīmāṃsā upholds the validity of the Veda, it helps resolve the apparent contradictions, it establishes the hierarchy among the texts thereby providing a framework for scriptural authority; further it provides a technical discipline of interpretation to determine textual intention (tātparya).

In short – Mīmāṃsā is the ‘principle’ that helps with the understanding of ritualistic Vedic acts; and Vedānta is the ‘metaphysics’ that is built using those very same principles. The two are inseparably related.

References:

1. The ‘Mugdhabodha’ Vyakarana text of  Śri Vopadeva corroborates this understanding (मान विचारे । मीमांसते)
   1. सर्वलक्षणसङ्ग्रहः – मीमांसा- विचारपूर्वकतत्त्वनिर्णयः *१ वेदर्थ (वाक्यविचार:२)कर्मनिर्णायको ग्रन्थः २ कर्मब्रह्मविषयकसंशयनिवारकवाक्यम्।
   1. Nyaya Kosha
   1. English Translation of Ramanuja’s Sanskrit Commentary by Swami Adidevananda
   1. Brhadâranyaka Upanishad 4.4.22
   1. Shree Bhashya of Sri Ramanuja
   1. विष्णुपुराण ३ अंशे; ६ अध्याये; २८,२९ श्लोकद्वये