|
For the outer
yajňa, the main theoretician is
Jaimini who wrote the famous
sūtrās of
pūrva mimāmsa.
Kumarila and
Shabara wrote very valued commentaries on his work.
Originally when the word Veda was used, it meant only the
collection of mantrās, the
revelations. Jaimini (J) introduced
radical changes in the Hindu thought and convinced others of their
validity. We will mention some of his views which the orthodox in
the Hindu society accept without questioning.
(1) According to J
the only purpose of the mantrās of the
Veda is their use in the performance of rituals. Hence J declared
that the Brāhmaņa books which
gave the ritualist explanations of the
Veda mantrās are as sacred as
mantrās.
(2)
Jaimini (J) did not believe in the
concept of devotion (bhakti)
or in the existence of Gods like Agni,
Indra, etc. He stated that the
“correct performance of the rite'' yields the fruits of
yajňa such as long life, prosperity,
sons, a place in heaven, etc. Who gives the benefits? J's answer
is: it is the power of the words vāk
in all the mantrās in the ritual which
gives the benefits. Shabara in his
commentary on J's work says, “If Agni,
Indra and other Gods are eager to come
to yajňa to accept the paltry
(valueless) offerings of ghee, rice, etc., they themselves cannot
have much power. Such deities do not exist. It is the weak-minded
who imagine these Gods and ascribe powers to them.''
(3) If
yajňa does not yield the fruit such as
sons or prosperity, it is because the yajňa
was not performed according to the strict guidelines. The
Brāhmaņa books and the
Shrauta sūtrās
spell out some details. Whenever there is a doubt about the choice
of an act among several alternatives, one has to use the full
power of nyāya (logic) and
tarka (inference) to find the
correct decision without any doubt. The reason why
Sāyaņa's commentary runs to four
thousand pages of small print is that he clarifies the supposedly
correct decision by quoting several texts.
(4) For the
mīmāmsaka, a mantra has
no other meaning except its use in the ritual. Consider a popular
mantra, “agnim
ide''. J would say that the popular meaning is
irrelevant since Agni as a deity does
not exist and as such "ide' “to
call'' has no meaning. So we should not even ask “what is the
meaning of mantra''.
(5) J declares that
many of the mantrās from Rig Veda
Samhitā which have no use in any rite
are completely irrelevant.
Thus the
mīmāmsaka with their
extraordinary debating skills have convinced most household
brahmins
(or their leaders) about the complete validity of their views.
Even today pūrva
mīmāmsa is an important subject of
study in all Samskŗt
pāţhashālās.
The irony is that
most of the mīmāmsaka pundits belong to the smārta
tradition whose favourite deity is Gaņapati
or Skanda or
Nārāyaņa, etc. They subscribe to the
Vedantic ideas of Shankara who
regards that the rites or Karma are
for the ignorant. At home they very much believe in the existence
of Gods like Gaņapati; they may do the
japa of the
Gaņapati mantra or
Tryambaka mantra as part of
everyday worship. But when they go to the school they teach the
ideas of pūrvamīmāmsa. Our views of inner yajňa are
completely opposed to their views. For details of the
mīmāmsaka view point,
see the collected works of Sri Kapāli
Sāstry or "Unveiling the Light in the
Veda', a compilation from his work on the Veda.
Note however that
Sāyaņa had great reverence for the
Veda and the Gods like Agni,
Indra;
he believed that these Gods grant the desires of the performer of
yajňa.
He believed that
every mantra verse has a meaning related to the ritual. He accepts
that some verses of RV like (1.164) may have a spiritual
interpretation. Most orthodox pundits in India are followers of
Sāyaņa.
The popular rites
performed in India now-a-days like Chandi
homa,
Gāyatri homa,
etc., are relatively simple rites with
tāntric basis and the use of a small number of Vedic
mantrās. They have nothing to do with
the complex Vedic rites mentioned in the
Brāhmaņa books. |
