|
|
|
Written by Sri Swami Chandrashekarendra
Saraswati |
|
|
|
As we have already seen, Udayana and other supporters of the Nyaya
system criticised Buddhism on the score that it was silent on the
question
of God, while mimamsakas like Kumarilabhatta attacked the same
because it did not favour Vedic rituals. The acarya was in sympathy with
these views and believed that Vedic sacraments, considered all-important
by the mimamsakas were essential to the cleansing of the mind and to
the proper conduct of the affairs of the community. However, he was
opposed to the mimamsakas not only because they did not accept an
entity like Isvara as the dispenser of the fruits of our actions but
also
because they did not believe that, after being rendered pure by works,
there is any need for one to go further and take the path of jnana. He
also
did not agree with their view that to become a sanyasin giving up all
karma is not right.
Kumarilabhatta and Mandanamisra are particularly important among the
mimamsakas. The Acarya had a debate with Kumarilabhatta during the
last days of that mimamsaka and won him over to his viewpoint.
Similarly, Mandanamisra also became a convert to Advaita Vedanta and
came to be one of the Acarya's chief disciples assuming the title of
Suresvaracarya.
If the Acarya opposed Mimamsa, which is one of the fourteen branches
of Vedic lore, it was not because he thought it to be wholly
unacceptable.
He was in agreement with the sacraments dealt with in that system, but
he differed from it on the question of devotion to the Lord. He further
believed that the fruits yielded by the rites, rewards like paradise,
must
be dedicated to Isvara and that in this very act of renunciation the
mind is
purified. Sankara's teaching is this: it is only if we realise that
Isvara is the
Phala-data, the one who awards the fruits of our actions, that we will
not
be tempted by petty rewards like paradise. Only then will we be inspired
to go beyond to attain the higher reward of inner purity. The Vedic
works
were wholly acceptable to our Acarya. But for the mimamsakas they were
an end in themselves; they did not transcend them to become devoted to
the Supreme Godhead and to acquire jnana, the final realisation that
Isvara and we are one and the same. Sankara criticised mimamsakas for
their failure to understand this truth. That he did not oppose Vedic
karma
is proved again by the fact that in his upadesa (teaching) -it is called
Sopana-Panchaka- before giving up his
body he made the admonishment that the Vedas must be chanted every
day and that the rites mentioned in them must be performed.
Vedo nityam adhiyatam
Taduditam karma svanushtiyatham
The Acarya, however, taught us not to stop with karma (performed for
the sake of karma), but to go beyond it. The rites that we conduct must
be made an offering to Isvara. This is a means of obtaining inner purity
and also that of receiving instruction in jnana. That is the time when
we
must give up all karma to meditate upon the teaching we have received,
indeed meditate on it with intensity and make it our inner experiential
reality. Sankara takes us, step by step, in this way to final release.
He
opposed the mimamsakas because they failed to understand the purpose
of Vedic karma and refused to go beyond it.
We must accept the Mimamsa system's interpretation of the Vedas,
especially because it surrenders wholly to the "Sabda-pramana", the
sound of the Vedas, its authority, and it is in this spirit that it has
understood the meaning of the scripture. An interesting thought occurs
to me. Mimamsa does not surrender to a perceptible God nor seek to
understand his form. Does that matter? The Vedas themselves constitute
a great deity. The sound of the Vedas does not take the form of a deity
that can be seen with our eyes but one that can be perceived with our
ears. Let us perform the works that that sound bids us to do without
asking questions. Such an act implies an attitude of surrender and it is
in
this spirit that the mimamsakas have determined the meaning of the
Vedas. So whether or not they believed in a tangible God, they knew the
God that could be grasped by the ears. (that is they had a good
understanding of the meaning of the Vedas). |
|
|
