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

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

Late-reply - sorry I have been incredibly busy of late.

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Murali Karamchedu <murali_m_k at msn.com> wrote:
>
> 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:

Sorry, I misunderstood your question  "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".

>> 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:

Let me first admit that my understanding comes from reading texts like
mImA.msA paribhASha, mImA.msA nyAya prakAsa and explanations of
concepts by Shankara and Sureshvara in their pUrvapakSha arguments.
One particular example is the case of sandhyAvandanam. The karmotpatti
vidhi can be found in the 2nd prashna of the taittirIya AraNyaka among
other places, but the actual procedure can vary quite a bit. The
regional variances are significant. Even a simple karma like the
puNyAhavAcanam have some regional differences in the mantras employed.

It's possible that the text is talking about agnihotra in particular -
perhaps there is no variation between these various texts? I am aware
of the texts in the taittirIya shakha and the general procedure for
the agnihotra (though I don't do it), but have no knowledge of the
texts from the other shAkhas. I may also have some quotes from
Shankara on this topic of karma - but I need to verify and hunt them
down.

> 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? ]

I am more than a little puzzled here - how does the kArIrI iShTi
figure in the agnihotra discussion?

> 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.

The argument is understood easily by noting the acceptance of the
apauruSheyatva of all the shAkhas. If a text by a human author
repeated the same thing in two or more places, that is repetitious.
When there is a set of texts, all of them aparuSheya, the only
repetition can be if two aparuSheya texts talking about the same
subject are used by the same person - which is not the case - since
different shAkhas use different texts. A set of aparuSheya texts
cannot be restricted in subject matter or scope, beyond the fact that
they need to inform us what is not known by the other means of
knowing. Other than that, they are what they are.

Rama