Handout 3

Are Mimamsa Sastras Atheistic?

About Pramāṇa Śāstras used by Gosvamis

Nyāya and Mīmāṁsā-śāstras are the texts technically known as pramāṇa-śāstras. These texts establishes rules of understanding texts, specifically related to scriptures, truth, and duties.  Many of our ācāryas have used these standard rules to establish truth related to various issues. There are three famous mīmāṁsās: Jaimini’s Pūrva-mīmāṁsā, Daivi-mīmāṁsā (a lost scripture), and Uttara-mīmāṁsā (also known as Vedānta). All these texts use the standard rules of mīmāṁsā, in fact we find the rules of mīmāṁsā stated and demonstrated by these texts.

The rules of mīmāṁsā are neutral to any philosophy. When we hear of pūrva-mīmāṁsā we immediately remember the nasty philosophy which keeps God below karma, and considers karma as Supreme. However, although our ācāryas condemned the philosophy of pūrva-mīmāṁsā, they did not condemn the rules of mīmāṁsā that are demonstrated or used by pūrva-mīmāṁsā.

For instance, in Kṛṣṇa-sandarbha, 28, Jīva-gosvāmī quotes from pūrva-mīmāṁsā (6.5.54) to prove that Kṛṣṇa is the source of all incarnations and not an incarnation Himself.

na cāvatāra-prakaraṇe’pi paṭhita iti saṁśayaḥ | paurvāparye pūrva-daurbalyaṁ prakṛtivad iti nyāyāt [Mi Su 6.5.54]| yathāgniṣṭome yady udgātā vicchidyād adakṣiṇena yajeta yadi pratihartā sarvasva-dakṣiṇeneti śruteḥ | tayoś ca kadācid dvayor api vicchede prāpte viruddhayoḥ prāyaścittayoḥ samuccayāsambhave ca param eva prāyaścittaṁ siddhāntitaṁ tadvad ihāpi iti |

One should not doubt this conclusion on the plea that Kṛṣṇa is also listed among the avatāras. [Such an allegation is dispelled] by the hermeneutical principle: “Among prior and succeeding [injunctions], the former is weaker, like prakṛti [the fundamental part of a yajña, or ritual, which is overridden by the atonement process (vikṛti)]” (Jaimini-sūtra 6.5.54).

For example, in the description of the agniṣṭoma-yajña in the Śruti, it is stated, “If the udgātā priest falters, then perform the yajña without offering a gift (dakṣiṇā) to the priest. However, if the pratihartā priest falters, then perform the yajña by offering everything [in dakṣiṇā].” If it should so happen that both of them [the udgātā as well as the pratihartā] falter, [then what is to be done?] The two opposing atonements [not offering dakṣiṇā and offering everything in dakṣiṇā] cannot be executed simultaneously. So [on the basis of the above hermeneutical principle], it is the latter atonement alone that is concluded to be the right course of action. The same principle is to be applied here. [Kṛṣṇa is first counted among the avatāras, and later He is identified as Svayaṁ Bhagavān. Of the two, the latter statement takes precedence.]

Similarly he extensively uses mīmāṁsā rules in Kṛṣṇa-sandarbha, Anucchedas 28, 106, 177; Bhagavat-sandarbha, Anucchedas 64, 75, 85, 114; and so on.

Vedānta Deśika, a famous ācārya of Śrī Rāmānuja Sampradāya, has written a full book called Seśvara-mīmāṁsā, which demonstrates that mīmāṁsā rules actually establishes the existence of the Surpreme Lord. Thus, it is like a tool or material knowledge—if used in service of Kṛṣṇa then helpful otherwise not.

Thus, in a similar spirit, we have taken guidance from mīmāṁsā rules to harmonize guru-sādhu-śāstra following the instruction of Śrīla Prabhupāda in Cc 2.20.352, Purport.

We have used the following rules from Jaimini’s Pūrva-mīmāṁsā in answering the objection on adjustments according to time, place, and circumstance.

api vāpy ekadeśe syāt pradhāne hy arthanirvṛttir guṇamātram itarat tadarthatvāt | Mī. Sū. 6,3.2 |

tadakarmaṇi ca doṣas tasmāt tato viśeṣaḥ syāt pradhānenābhisambandhāt | Mī. Sū. 6,3.3 |

[Siddhanta]—In realiy, there should be performance even if only a part of the auxillary detilas is performed, because the fulfilment of the purpose proceeds from the principal act; all the rest is only an embellishment, because it subserves the purposes of that act. (6.3.2)

From the non-performance of the principal act there follows evil. This is what distinguishes it from the auxillaries; because the said evil has been spoken in connection with the principal act only.

Śabara-bhāṣya (6.3.1):

In the Bahvṛca-brāhmaṇa we read — yāvaj-jivam-agnihotram juhoti, yāvaj-jīvam daśapaurṇmāsaṁ juhoti—One should perform agnihotra as long as one lives, one should perform daśapaurṇamāsa sacrifice as long as one lives; which means that the Agnihotra is a compulsory act, and that the Darśa and Pauraṇamāsa are compulsory sacrifices or nitya-karmas.

In regard to this second declaration regarding the sacrifices, which is quite different from the first declaration where they are spoken of as to be performed with a view to a definite result (kāmya-karma), there arises a question — Is it only one who is capable of performing all the auxillary details of these sacrifices that is entitled to undertake their performance? Or is it permissible to perform the sacrifice even without some details?

kāmyeṣu caivam arthitvāt | Mī. Sū. 6,3.8 |

asaṃyogāt tu naivaṃ syād vidheḥ śabdapramāṇatvāt | Mī. Sū. 6,3.9 |

akarmaṇi cāpratyavāyāt | Mī. Sū. 6,3.10 |

[Pūrva-pakṣa:] Then the same is true for the kāmya-karma or sacrifices for fulfilling desires.

[Siddhānta:] On the other hand there being no connection, the same principle does not apply here; the command being based on the text of the Veda. Also because there is no sin incurred if one is not engaged kāmya-karma.