[Advaita-l] Mimamsa Question: karmabheda in SAkAs (Jaimini Sutra 2.4.8 )
sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
Wed Jan 7 18:58:33 CST 2009
Is it not so that in the Brahmasutra importance was given to the views of Jaimini if not more than to the views of Badarayana himself.
Sunil K. Bhattacharjya
--- On Wed, 1/7/09, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com> wrote:
From: Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Mimamsa Question: karmabheda in SAkAs (Jaimini Sutra 2.4.8 )
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 4:21 PM
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009, Murali Karamchedu wrote:
> 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?
My understanding is that there is one ideal form of agnihotra and the
different shakhas give partial (but complete enough for performance of the
act) and overlapping descriptions of it. The overlap is sufficient to
recognize that it is the same act that is being described. Conversely the
differences are minor enough to dismissed as merely choices of emphasis of
different shakhas and their Rshis. It is like if you asked person A to
describe me and he said "Jaldhar is a Gujarati Brahmana who is interested
in Sanskrit and lives in New Jersey. etc." And if you asked person B they
said "Jaldhars family is from Gujarat. He wears Yajnopavit, studies
Mimamsa and has a mustache. etc." Both A and B have enough facts to
uniquely identify Jaldhar. Both A and B emphasize a fact the other
didn't. Yet both A and B know enough facts in common (even if not phrased
identically) for us to infer that they are talking about the same Jaldhar.
> 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?
smrti (especially the kalpasutras) and tradition. Also it should be
stressed that the common features of descriptions of e.g. agnihotra across
the shakhas far outweigh the differences. So if some borrowing occured
from here to there it was not a big deal.
Interestingly there is a parallel discussion in the Brahmasutras (3.3)
on whether the various upasanas mentioned in Shruti are seperate or
equivalent and this section of the purvamimamsa is explicitly referred to.
For instance Shankaracharya in his bhashya on 3.3.1 says that e.g. the
upasanas on prana though mentioned seperately in Shuklayajurveda
(brhadaranyakopanisad) and Samaveda (chandogyopanishad) are to be
considered the same because of the argument that the agnihotra is one
despite being described differently in different shakhas.
Shankaracharyas bhashya on brahmasutra 3.3.8 makes an explicit reference
to the argument put forth in mimamsasutra 2.4.11-12 about the names
attached to shruti portions.
This demonstrates the two close relationship between the two darshanas.
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list