[Advaita-l] Mimamsa Question: karmabheda in SAkAs (Jaimini Sutra 2.4.8 )

Murali Karamchedu murali_m_k at msn.com
Mon Jan 5 19:14:10 CST 2009

Dear List Members,


Let me start off by apologizing for the ‘technical’ or
potentially abstruse nature of this post. I need help in better understanding a
discussion between the pUrvapakshin and the siddhAntin on Jaimini Sturas 2.4.8
– 2.4.20.


Here is the context. The pUrvapakshin introduces the
argument that if a particular act is mentioned in different SAkAs, they *are*
different, and provides several reasons for this position. The siddAntin responds
that they are the same, and identifies the significant characteristics on which
this sameness is grounded; sameness with respect to samyogA – connection to the
purpose, i.e it serves the sameness purpose, rUpA – form, i.e it is the same
deity and material, codanA – the same authorizing injunction and AkhyA – the
name of the act itself. Differences are acknowledged, but as long as the above
four criteria for sameness are met, they differences do not render the acts as
different acts. The siddhAntin then proceeds to systematically dispose of all
the nine reasons.


First the pUrvapakshin 
says – 


nAma-rUpa-dharmaviSesha punarukti-nindA’Sakti samAptivacana
prAyaScittA’nyArthadarSanAcchAkAntareshu karmabheda: syAt


i.e the differences in the act are characterized by name,
form, particular details, (unacceptable) repetition, deprecation (of
specifics), incapability, conclusion, expiation, indication of distinct
purpose. I will restrict this post to seeking clarification on the first.


Name: The very fact that there are qualifying names such as
'kATaka agnihotra' and 'kAlApaka agnihotra' signifies difference.


While the pUrvapakshin acknowledges that these qualifiers
identify the source texts; he stresses that because they qualify acts, the
qualified act is somehow different.


This position is rejected on the grounds that the SAkA merely
identifies the origin of the act; and does not apply to the injunctive aspect
of the act itself. i.e the prefix kATakA only denotes the text, and does not
extend to the act agnihotra. In fact, by the very fact that it is agnihotra
that is denoted in each of the cases, their identity in each is preserved.
Furthermore, if the prefix kATaka etc were to extend to the acts as well; then
all the acts would coalesce into one; i.e kATaka agnihotra, kATaka
darSapUrNamAsa etc would all be just be one act, which is untenable; hence the
scope of the prefix cannot be extended to the act.


Then, an interesting point is made; that the name kATaka –
signifying the teacher kaTa - came to be from a point in time onwards, and did
not exist a-priori. Now, if the act were considered different because of the
name, then they could be treated as same *before* kaTA; which would be absurd.


Now, my questions:


a)      Is
it the case that there exists an a-priori set of polymorphic forms of agnihotra
(for example), and the specific recension just captures what is sufficient to
it? or

b)      Is
it the case that there exists a-priori form(s) of agnihotra that are sufficient
archetypes where  rishi/acharya initiated
variants in the recessions are acceptable? If so, I assume that apaurusheyatva
automatically also extends to such prayoga as well; then is this case really
different from the previous case? 

c)      Since
the complete set is a collection across the recessions, is there an internal
criterion for sufficiency within any particular recension? i.e what determines
that this particular variant is sufficient in a particular SAkA? 



Murali Manohar

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list