Mīmāṃsā
| Part of a series on | |
| Hindu philosophy | |
|---|---|
| Orthodox | |
|
|
|
| Heterodox | |
|
|
|
| |
Mīmāṁsā (Sanskrit: मीमांसा;[1] IAST: Mīmāṁsā) is a Sanskrit word that means "reflection" or "critical investigation" and thus refers to a tradition of contemplation which reflected on the meanings of certain Vedic texts.[2][3] This tradition is also known as Pūrva-Mīmāṁsā because of its focus on the earlier (pūrva) Vedic texts dealing with ritual actions, and similarly as Karma-Mīmāṁsā due to its focus on ritual action (karma).[4] It is one of six Vedic "affirming" (āstika) schools of Hindu philosophy. This particular school is known for its philosophical theories on the nature of Dharma, based on hermeneutics of the Vedas, especially the Brāḥmanas and samhitas.[5] The Mīmāṃsā school was foundational and influential for the Vedāntic schools, which were also known as Uttara-Mīmāṁsā for their focus on the "later" (uttara) portions of the Vedas, the Upanishads. While both "earlier" and "later" Mīmāṁsā investigate the aim of human action, they do so with different attitudes towards the necessity of ritual praxis.[6]
Mīmāṁsā has several sub-schools, each defined by its pramana. The Prabhākara sub-school, which takes its name from the seventh-century philosopher Prabhākara, described the five epistemically reliable means to gaining knowledge: pratyakṣa or perception; anumāna or inference; upamāṇa, comparison and analogy; arthāpatti, the use of postulation and derivation from circumstances; and shabda, the word or testimony of past or present reliable experts.[7][8] The Bhāṭṭa sub-school, from philosopher Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, added a sixth means to its canon; anupalabdhi meant non-perception, or proof by the absence of cognition (e.g., the lack of gunpowder on a suspect's hand)[7][9]
The school of Mīmāṁsā consists of both non-theistic and theistic doctrines, but the school showed little interest in systematic examination of the existence of Gods. Rather, it held that the soul is an eternal, omnipresent, inherently active spiritual essence, and focused on the epistemology and metaphysics of Dharma.[4][10][11] For the Mīmāṁsā school, Dharma meant rituals and social duties, not Devas, or Gods, because Gods existed only in name.[4] The Mīmāṃsakas also held that Vedas are "eternal, author-less, [and] infallible", that Vedic vidhi, or injunctions and mantras in rituals are prescriptive kārya or actions, and the rituals are of primary importance and merit. They considered the Upaniṣads and other texts related to self-knowledge and spirituality as subsidiary, a philosophical view that Vedānta disagreed with.[4][5][12]
While their deep analysis of language and linguistics influenced other schools of Hinduism,[13] their views were not shared by others. Mīmāṁsakas considered the purpose and power of language was to clearly prescribe the proper, correct and right. In contrast, Vedāntins extended the scope and value of language as a tool to also describe, develop and derive.[4] Mīmāṁsakās considered orderly, law driven, procedural life as central purpose and noblest necessity of Dharma and society, and divine (theistic) sustenance means to that end.
The Mīmāṁsā school is a form of philosophical realism.[14] A key text of the Mīmāṁsā school is the Mīmāṁsā Sūtra of Jaimini.[4][15]
- ^ "Mimamsa in Sanskrit".
- ^ "Definition of MIMAMSA". www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 16 December 2023.
- ^ "Mimamsa | Vedic Rituals, Dharma & Nyaya". Britannica. Retrieved 16 December 2023.
- ^ a b c d e f Chris Bartley (2013), "Purva Mimamsa", in Encyclopaedia of Asian Philosophy (Editor: Oliver Leaman), Routledge, 978-0415862530, pages 443–445.
- ^ a b Oliver Leaman (2006), Shruti, in Encyclopaedia of Asian Philosophy, Routledge, ISBN 978-0415862530, page 503.
- ^ Ram-Prasad, Chakravarti (2000). "Knowledge and Action 1: Means to the Human End in Bhāṭṭa Mīmāṃsā and Advaita Vedānta". Journal of Indian Philosophy. 1 (28): 1–24. doi:10.1023/A:1004744313963. S2CID 170635199.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
dpsbwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
gfloodwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ John A. Grimes, A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy: Sanskrit Terms Defined in English, State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-0791430675, page 238.
- ^ Neville, Robert (2001). Religious Truth. SUNY Press.
- ^ Worthington, Vivian (1982). A History of Yoga. Routledge. p. 66. ISBN 9780710092588.
- ^ Peter M. Scharf, The Denotation of Generic Terms in Ancient Indian Philosophy (1996), Chapter 3
- ^ Annette Wilke and Oliver Moebus (2011), Sound and Communication: An Aesthetic Cultural History of Sanskrit Hinduism, Walter de Gruyter GmbH (Berlin), ISBN 978-3110181593, pages 23–24, 551–663.
- ^ M. Hiriyanna (1993), Outlines of Indian Philosophy, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120810860, pages 323–325.
- ^ M. Hiriyanna (1993), Outlines of Indian Philosophy, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120810860, pages 298-335.