Mimamsa interpretation of Vedic Injunctions (Vidhi)
by Shreebas Debnath | 2018 | 68,763 words
This page relates ‘Niyamavidhi in Shravana by the Fourth Manner’ of the study on the Mimamsa theory of interpretation of Vedic Injunctions (vidhi). The Mimamsakas (such as Jaimini, Shabara, etc.) and the Mimamsa philosophy emphasizes on the Karmakanda (the ritualistic aspect of the Veda). Accordingly to Mimamsa, a careful study of the Veda is necessary in order to properly understand dharma (religious and spiritual achievement—the ideal of human life).
Chapter 9.3f - Niyamavidhi in Śravaṇa by the Fourth Manner
Some philosophers think that the niyamavidhi is accepted in vedāntaśravaṇa because the śravaṇa of the composition composed in mother tongue for acquiring knowledge of Brahman, also becomes an alternative. By regulation this is refuted.
Objection: The great grammarian Pantañjali said in his ‘Mahābhāṣya’,
“...brāhmaṇena na mlecchitavai nāpabhāsitavai”[1]
(A brāhmaṇa should not use a corrupted or ungrammatical word).
The composition written in any language other than Sanskrit may have corrupted or ungrammatical words. So, the reading of this composition of brahmajñāna is refuted by the very instruction of Patañjali. So, what is the necessity of accepting an extra niyamavidhi ?
Reply: The argument of the opponent does not stand. A person who has a little knowledge on the sacred books (śāstras) may think that vedāntaśravaṇa is beyond his reach. He may violate the prohibition of Patañjali. So, he may wish to acquire the knowledge on non-dualism with the help of the books written in vernacular language (bhāṣāprabandhas) and he may march on that way. In that case, śravaṇa becomes unobtained. So, an extra niyamavidhi bears significance. Repetition of an injunction does not lead to any fault.
There is a prohibition in the smṛti-text—
“nānṛtaṃ vadet”
(One should not lie).
This prohibitive sentence is beneficial to the four principal objects of a human being. It is a general statement. It is always to be followed by any person in any state. Yet a person desiring the complete result of a sacrifice, may, any how, violate that prohibition in Darśapūrṇamāsayāga. He may lie at the time of sacrifice. So, the prohibition “nānṛtaṃ vadet”[2] is again found in the context of the Darśapūrṇamāsa. In the smṛti-text this prohibition is meant for a person (puruṣārtha). But in the context of the Darśapūrṇamāsa it is meant for the sacrifice. This is the only distinction.
From this discussion, it is proved that as the prohibition of Patañjali is useful, so also the extra niyamavidhi in śravaṇa yields the fruitful result.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
Mahābhāṣya—1.1.1
[2]:
Taittirīyasaṃhitā——6.1.1