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

[Murali Karamchedu]

Thank you Jaldhar, Vidyasankar and Ramakrishnan for your clarifications.


Rama Wrote:
> Furthermore, the explanation you quote (from what text is this BTW?)
> does not mean that there was a "point in time" when the kAThaka
> recension came into effect or that there was an "Ur-agnihotra". The
> recension may have been known by a *particular name* starting some
> part of time - but not started to actually exist at some point of
> time. All the vedas are equally anAdi - there is no point of time when
> they sprung into existence.

Indeed, and this is how I understood it as well. 
The text is the bhAshyA under 2.4.12 (krtakam cAbhidAnam).
I am reading two texts together, Jha’s translation of SabarabhAshyA and 
bhATTadIpikA. Jha’s translation reads:

“Further, the name (‘Kathaka, as applied to the act) could only be 
one that has been coined in modern times, - one that did not exist 
before, but was applied to the particular recension only since the 
time of the Teacher[sic] of the name of Katha who proved himself to 
be an expert in the teaching of that particular recension.”

bhATThadIpikA reads:

itaSca kAThakAdisam.gyAbhedo na karmabhedahetuhu yataha abhidhAnam. kAThakAdikam. krtakam. ca vaiSampAyanAntevAsipurushaviSeshavAci kaThaSabdaghaTitatvAttasya ca sAditvAttataha parameva pravrttataya anityamapi |
na khalu anityasam.gyayA nityacodanAvihitakarmabhedo yujyate |

> BTW, in general viniyoga vidhis can vary for the same karma - which is
> indicated by an original karmotpatti vidhi.

This anticipates my next few questions…


Continuing the discussion between the pUrvapakshin and the siddAntin,
the next argument of the pUrvapakshin is that even though the act may
be one, it has diversity of forms. This is the dharmaviSesha argument,
restated in sutra 13 as “ekatvepi param”.

This argument is rejected on the grounds that the particular details,
where they exist, are only with reference to the study of the texts, 
and not to the performance of the act. The bhATTadIpikA here glosses 
this as follows:

yatpunaha bhUmibhojanAdiparam. dharmaSastram. tat kArIrIvAkyAdyadhyayanasAdhyAyAm. vidhyAyAm. vighnanivrttidvArA upayoginamartham. vidhatte na punaha kArIryAdikarmAngam |

[ My Question: Am I right in understanding the thrust of the argument
here to mean that all variation in the particulars of the rite are 
limited to the study of the rite. If so, in what sense can the 
viniyoga vidhi vary for the same act mentioned in different 
recensions? ]

The pUrvapakshin challenges this by saying that in that case there 
will be (unnecessary) repetition. ( Agneyavat punarvacanam.)
The response to this is that there really is no repetition, since it 
is the same subject agnihotra, that is spoken by different people, 
and when different people speak of the same subject it is not 
‘repetition’.

I struggle here.

1.    If the restriction on particular variations being limited to 
study of the texts, somehow allows for the viniyoga vidhis to be 
different; then, I can see how when different people speak of these 
viniyoga vidhis, the resulting difference does not cause repetition. 
So, the repetition challenge is put to rest.

2.    On the other hand; if the argument is that by the mere fact 
that different teachers speak of the same subject, there is no repetition; 
the focus seems to be on the speaker; not on the sameness of what is spoken; 
how is this not repetition? Granted, it is not repetition by the same person; 
but that seems highly anthropocentric in a discussion where the focus is the act.

Regards,
Murali Manohar