[Advaita-l] ETHICS OF MIMAMSA

[KAMESWARARAO MULA]

Dear Members,
                       Difference between Mimamsakas and the Vedantins can be understood when
we see that the passages on which they lay emphasis are different. For the former it is the Brahmanas which constitute the most important passages of the Veda, while for the latter, it is the Upanishads. The difference also effects their views as to what texts constitute Arthavada. For
Mimamsakas, all descriptive passages are subsidiary to the injunctive passages and thus constitute Arthavada. The descriptive passages of Upanisads, for them are Arthavada and thus directly or indirectly connected with sacrifices. On the contrary, for the Vedantins, while the descriptive passages of Upanisads directly deal with the reality as Brahman, the injunctive passages are supposed to be Arthavada which indirectly purport the existence of supreme spirit. This difference constitutes the connection with the reality of the material world. They come out with mutually untenable metaphysical views concerning the  status of the physical world. The injunctions are divided into  the Apurvavidhi /original injunctions known — e.g. 'the grains should be washed', the Niyamavidhi / Restrictive Injunction enjoins one method of doing something among various possible modes of doing the same thing — e.g. 'the corn should be thumped' while it is also possible to remove the chaff pealing off with hands, the Parisankhyavidhi precludes  among other possible alternatives — e.g. precluding the use of a particular mantra in a particular act. While both Niyamavidhi and Parisankhyavidhi are restrictive in a sense, the former  a positive restriction i.e., prescribes for a particular method, the latter is a negative restriction in the sense that it prescribes a method which should not be adopted.

Dharma,   is an act of  the result or the unseen potency that corresponds to Duty?   Dharma must be corresponding to the Apurva, however, Dharma as belonging to the sacrificial act itself. Performance of Duty brings sreyas or bliss.  'Duty' must arise from these aspects only. Dharma as an object cannot be identified with  Apurva. Mimamsa definition of Duty is comprehensive and includes social conduct. For the Mimamsakas, all that is prescribed by the Veda is Dharma. The Vedic prescription is not limited to ritual injunctions but includes  norms of social conduct.  Mimamsa seeks to establish the authority of the Veda for both ritual practices and other social, legal and political implications supported by the scriptures. Hence, as far as social organization is concerned, Mimamsa surpasses the Varnasrama.  The social codes derive their authority from the Veda and Mimamsa, by theoretically establishing the Veda, endorces the codes as
authoritative. It is important to see that the Mimamsa view of Dharma is comprehensive. 'Dharma’ does not stand only for the rituals but all those actions, both spiritual and moral, prescribed by the Veda’s.

Learned Members , please contribute your views

Sri Guru Padaravindarpana Mastu

Kameswara

_______________________________________________