The Mimaasaka perspective

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Jonathan Bricklin wrote:

[..]

> My understanding is that the Buddhists that Kumarila had to contend with
> (like many practicing Buddhists today)  based their arguments on perception
> and reason only, without recourse to scriptural authority.  Insofar as the
> Vedas supported their perceptions and their reasonings they would be
> considered valid.    If that is true, then the fact that they saw the Vedas
> as products of human beings would not, in itself, render it invalid.  Just
> the opposite in fact.

This is precisely the statement which is rejected in traditional mImAmsaka
thinking. The vedas are held to be self-valid, and not in need of
validation by recourse to other means of obtaining knowledge. Other
orthodox schools like the nyAya and sAmkhya would not have much objection
to your line of argument, but not so with the mImAmsakas and vedAntins.

The main mImAmsA reason for rejecting it is this. The vedas direct the
performance of certain ritual actions, in order to obtain certain rewards.
Everything, from cooking a meal and getting children, to obtaining a place
in heaven, is regulated by vedic injunctions. There is no perception or
inference that can validate such directions. As far as advaita vedAntins
are concerned, the ritual actions are de-emphasized, but the vedas are
still held to be the only source by which Atman = brahman is known. No
kind of perceptual or inferential knowledge will ever reveal this.
Therefore, they agree with the mImAmsakas in holding the vedas to be
self-valid, and not in need of justification by perception and reasoning.
However, reasoning does have a role, in that the vedas need to be
logically interpreted, and apparent contradictions/paradoxes explained
properly.

Vidyasankar