Nature of Consciousness

[Anand V. Hudli]

On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:54:15 -0400, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian
<ramakris at EROLS.COM> wrote:

>Anand V. Hudli <anandhudli at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
>>   I think it is not entirely accurate to call any mImAMsakas
>"atheist"
>>   in the sense that the term "atheist" is used today. The anIshvara
>>   mImAMsakas are not so much interested to deny God as the atheists
>of
>>   today are. For such mImAMsakas, it does not matter whether God
>exists
>>   or not. They hold that the fruits of actions are automatically
>granted
>>   by some unseen potency called "adR^ishhTa". Shankara has dealt
>with this
>>   position of the anIshvara mImAMsakas in his sUtra bhAShya.
>
>Anand, I assumed from my reading of Hiriyanna that apUrva is the same
>as adR^ishhTa. Is there a major difference between the two?

 You are right. The apUrva is almost the same as adR^ishhTa. It appears
 that adR^ishhTa is used for just about _any_ effect that cannot be
 seen. For example, in the injunction "vrIhIn.h proxati", "one should
 sprinkle water over the rice", the effect on such sprinkling on rice
 is not visible and so is called adR^ishhTa. But apUrva is specifically
 used to indicate the unseen result or fruit of an action. So in this
 sense adR^ishhTa is a broader term than apUrva, the apUrva being
 independent of any material or object  in the sacrifice. In other words,
 every apUrva is an adR^ishhTa but not every adR^ishhTa is an apUrva.

 Anand