| |
|
|
|
Written by Sri Swami Chandrashekarendra
Saraswati |
|
|
|
Let me now speak a little more on the doctrines of Mimamsa.
Let us not worry about whether or not there is a God. Let there be a God
or let there be none. Our duty is to perform the rites prescribed by the
Vedas and they will yield fruits on their own. Any work we do produces
its
own results, doesn't it? Why do we need God in between? The work
generates results on its own. Do we pay the greengrocer if he fetches
plantain leaves from our own garden? It is the same to give credit to
Isvara for the fruits we reap by performing karma. We till the land and
rice grows on it. It is the same with performing karma. If we do what we
do not know, as told by the Vedas, we will derive certain benefits. Why
should we think that the cosmos was created by God? It has always
existed as it exists today: why should we believe that it came into
being
all of a sudden? "Na kadacit anidrsam jagat.” This universe has always
existed as it exists today. Do works; they will yield fruits on their
own.
When the engine is wound the car starts. It is all like that.
The Vedas speak about things not comprehended by the human mind. If
we perform rites imposed on us by them, the fruits thereof will
naturally
follow. Sound has always existed: it has indeed no beginning and the
Vedas are this sound. Like time and space they are ever-present.
If you do evil, the consequence shall be evil; if you do good the result
shall be correspondingly good. The rites keep yielding fruits, and we
keep
enjoying them - and thus we go on and on. No God is required for all
this.
We should never cease to do work because not to work is sinful. It will
take us to hell.
There are three types of karma: "nitya", "naimittika", and "kamya".
"Nitya-karma" as the name suggests includes sacraments that must be
performed every day. "Naimittika" rites are conducted for a specific
purpose or reason or on a specific occasion. For instance, when there is
an eclipse we must bathe and offer libations to our fathers. When a
great
man visits our home he has to be honoured ceremonially - this is also
naimittaka. Nitya and naimittaka rites are to be performed by all. A
kamya-karma is a ritual that has a special purpose. When there is a
drought we conduct Varuna-japa to invoke the god and seek his blessings
in the form of rain. When we are desirous of a son we perform the
"putrakamesti"(sacrifice to beget a son). These belong to the kamya
category.
The sacraments to be performed everyday are defined in Mimamsa.
"Akarane pratyavaya janakam, karane'bhyudayam"-this statement refers
to two types. The non-performance of certain rites brings us ills,
troublesthese
form one type. On the other hand some rites bring us happinessthese
form the second type. A good house, wealth, sons, fame,
knowledge are part of “abhyudaya". Vedanta speaks of "nihsreyas", the
supreme bliss of liberation. “Abhyudaya” is different; it is happiness
on
the lower plane. Mimamsa is concerned with the latter, and does not
speak of the ultimate blessedness of release from worldly existence.
If rites belong to the category of "nitya" are not performed, we will
have
to face trouble. Suppose you ask a man to perform sandyavandana and
he replies: " I won't do it. I don't care whether or not it does me good
".
Mimamsa has an answer to it: Sandyavandana is not a kamya or optional
rite and its nonperformance
will bring you unhappiness.
It stands to reason to say the performance of certain rites will bring
you
happiness. But how do you justify the statement that the nonperformance
of certain other rites will have ill-effects? Not performing
sandyavandana is sinful, but its performance is not claimed to bring any
good. It is because this rite belongs to the category referred to in
this
statement, "akarane pratyavaya janakam. . "
Worshipping the deity in the temple, feeding the poor, such acts are
said
to be beneficial and belong to the second category referred to in the
statement, ". . . . karane abhyudayam ". This makes sense. But how is it
sensible to say “akarane pratyavaya janakam"? Are there examples to
illustrate this dictum? Yes, there are.
We give alms to beggars, or make a donation to some organisation or
other in the belief that there is merit to be earned thereby. Sometimes
we do not practice such charity because we may not feel the urge to earn
any special merit. We have, of course, to do our duty, but not helping
people with money or material cannot be said to be sinful.
Suppose we have borrowed Rs. 500 from a friend or an acquaintance.
How far are we justified in refusing repayment of the loan, saying: " I
don't wish to earn any merit by returning your money? ". Is it possible
to
escape the obligation to the lender in this manner? He will naturally
tell
us: " I came to ask you for my money. I don't care about whether you or
I
earn any merit ". If we refuse to repay a loan we will be taken to court
and eventually we will have to repay it along with the penalty. This
illustrates the statement: “Akarane pratyavayajanakam. . . "
Not performing sandyavandana is like not repaying a debt. In Tamil the
sandyavandana performed at dawn and dusk are aptly called “kalai-kkadan”
and " malai-k-kadan " [" morning debt " and " evening debt " ].
These are beautiful terms.
You may wonder how sandyavandana can be described as something
“borrowed ". The Taittiriya Samhita (6. 3) of the Vedas says: “A Brahmin
is
born with three debts. These are “rsi-rna",”deva-rna " and " pitr-rna
(that
is a Brahmin is indebted to the sages, the devas and to his fathers) ".
The
first debt is repaid by chanting the Vedas; by conducting sacrifices and
other rites the second is repaid; and by offering libations and
performing
the sraddha ceremony the third is repaid. The Vedas enlighten us on
matters of which we are ignorant. From the pronouncements made in
them, those who have faith will find reasons to perform the rites.
Others
who perverse in their reasoning will find an excuse for not performing
the
same.
There are two brothers. One is a magistrate and the other a Vedic
scholar. The first cannot refuse to attend the court saying, “My brother
does not go to any law court. Why should I? ". The authorities will tell
him: "You applied for the job of a magistrate. We issued orders
appointing you to the office and you accepted the job. So there is no
choice for you but to attend the court ". Similarly, we have applied for
liberation, for moksa, and have received orders that we have to perform
certain rites. The one who issued orders is not seen by us but he sees
all
and is witness to all. Such is the view of the Vedanta.
Mimamsa believes that the karma that we “applied for " gives its own
reward. According to it, the fruit of Vedic works come to us
“automatically ".
Our birth in this world is according to our past karma and we have to
perform the rites that are proper to it. If we do not, we will suffer.
The
customs and rites must be adhered to properly. The duty of a Brahmin is
to know the truth contained in the Vedas, to bring solace to those who
are sorrowing and to give instruction to people in their respective
vocations. Similarly, each man must perform the duties allotted to him
by
virtue of his birth. The oil-monger must produce oil; the cobbler must
make footwear; and so on. The Brahmin must keep his body, mind and
Self pure and he must be careful about what he eats. The reason for this
is that not only has he to remain meditating on the Paramatman, he has
also the duty of bringing others to the path of dhyana. It was for the
proper discharge of such duties that in the old days he was given gifts
of
rent-free lands. Then every worker was allotted land. If he stopped
doing
the work assigned to him society would suffer. So he forfeited his land
an
and it was allotted to another worker.
According to the sastras, not to do the work assigned to us is not only
sinful but also disadvantageous in a worldly sense. In the past one
earned
respect only because one did one's karma, the duties expected of one.
Our nation is in a lamentable state today only because of the failure on
the part of the people to follow their respective callings, callings
inherited
from their forefathers. If everybody does his allotted job, performs the
duties expected of him by birth, there should be happiness for all even
in
a mundane case. If there is so much poverty in the country today it is
because of our failure to maintain the social order in which everybody
is
expected to do his allotted work, contributing to the social prosperity
and
harmony.
Sandyavandana and the like are everyday rites. The nonperformance
of
nitya-karma is a sin; performance means we will not incur any demerit.
That apart, there will be general well-being. If we repay a loan in
instalments it means that we shall no longer remain indebted to the
lender (here we see a gain); additionally we earn a name for being
honest
and trust-worthy. By performing nitya-karma no sin will attach to us
and,
besides, it should mean some good to us. Thus there are two types of
gains.
Vedanta too accepts the idea implicit in the statement "Akarane
pratavaya janakam, karane' bhyudayam". We must never fail to perform
nitya-karma; for instance, Srauta rites like agnihotra and Smarta rites
like
aupasana.
It is the view of mimamsakas that agnihotra must be performed so long
as one is alive. So they do not favour the sannyasasrama (the last stage
of
life, that of the ascetic). In this asrama there are no rites like
agnihotra.
Giving up works, according to the mimamsakas, is extremely sinful. To do
so consciously and become an ascetic is like embracing another religion.
The Isavasyopanishad (second mantra) says that a man must live a
hundred years performing works. The Taittiriya Brahmana has it
that to extinguish the agnihotra fire is to earn the demerit of killing
a
hero.
According to Mimamsa, to give up nitya-karma is tantamount to doing
evil karma. "The sannyasin deprives himself of karma ('karma-
bhrashta').
To look at him is sinful and you must atone for it. To look at the
sinner, to
talk to him, to dine with him, “say Mandanamisra and mimamsakas like,
"is to earn sin. To look at a sanyasin is equally sinful. "
The jnanakanda of the Vedas, speaks of sannyasa, the Parabrahman,
liberation, jnana and so on. Why should concepts be attacked? What is
answer of the mimamsakas to this?
It is true, they say, that the Upanisads speak of jnana and Parabrahman.
But what are the Vedas? The Vedas are sound, they are made up of
words. Why did they come into existence? To tell us about things that we
do not know. The Vedas constitute the Sabda-pramana which speaks
about things that cannot be perceived by the eyes and are beyond
conjecture. Their purpose is not to tell us about matters that are of no
use. All words serve a two-fold purpose. They bid you "Do this" or "Do
not this. "
Pravrttirva nivrttirva nityena krtakyena va
Pumsam yenopadisyete tacchastram abhidhiyate
Words that speak of things that serve no purpose belong to the category
of useless, idle talk. Suppose a man says, "The crow flies." How does
the
statement help you? "The crow is black." Do these words also help you in
any way? Take this sentence for example: "Tomorrow night a discourse
will be held here." This has some purpose. It gives a bit of information
and implicit in it is an invitation to people to come and listen to the
discourse. Such usefulness is "pravrtti". If someone says that there
will be
a discourse at Kumbhakonam tomorrow, it is as good as gossip. You are in
Madras and how will you go to Kumbhakonam in such a short time to
listen to the discourse? Any word, any sabda, must have some objective
or other. It must either involve you in work, "pravrtti" or keep you out
of
it, "nivrtti". If the Vedas mention all the five terrible sins
(panca-mahapatakas)
and bid us not to commit them, it is nivrtti, because they warn
us against committing those dreadful crimes.
Words that do not serve the purpose of either pravrtti or nivrtti are
useless. One part of the Vedas asks you to do this or that and another
part asks you not to do this or that (ordinances regarding what you must
do and what you must not). But there is another part which is like
storytelling.
The stories are meaningful only if they are connected with the
injunctions and interdictions of pravrtti and nivrtti.
Suppose there is an advertisement of a tonic that claims to give you
vigour and strength. It carries an illustration showing a man wrestling
with a lion. What is the purpose of this drawing? It is a kind of
deception,
the idea behind it being to induce you to buy the tonic, and make money.
Such "stories" in the Vedas become purposeful only because of the
injunctions associated with them and they belong to the category of
"arthavada". Why does a doctor print his certificate in advertising his
medicine? To persuade people to buy it (the medicine). In this way in
arthavada untruth is mixed with truth. The untrue part is called
"gunavada". There is another term called "anuvada". It means stating
what is already known. For instance, the statement that "fire burns".
Mentioning the ingredients of a medicine is an example of
"bhutarthavada". "Gunarthavada" is to tell a story, even though untrue,
to make it useful for the observance of a rule. "Do not drink liquor" is
an
injunction (or interdiction). To tell the "story" that a man who got
drunk
was ruined is arthavada. The purpose- or moral- is that one must not
drink. To say that if a man drinks he will be intoxicated is anuvada.
All
told, the stories or statements belonging to arthavada must make us
conform to the commandments of the Vedas.
In dealing with a sacrifice, the Vedas ask us to pay the daksina in
gold, not
in silver. According to the Taittiriya Samhita silver should not be
given as
daksina in sacrifices. In this connection a long story is told to
illustrate the
"nisedha" or the prohibitory rule regarding silver. ("Do this" is a
"vidhi";
"do not do this" is a "nisedha".) But the words by themselves in such
arthavada do not serve any purpose.
It is in this manner that the mimamsakas try to counter the objections
raised against their system by adherents of the jnanakanda of the Vedas.
When the Upanisads speak about the Brahman there is no mention of
any work to be performed. The Upanisads themselves show that the
realisation of the Brahmans is a state in which there is no action. When
do the Vedas become an authority? When they speak about the
performance of a karma. So the Upanisads belong to the arthavada
category because they deal with existing things. What is it that we must
know? Existing things or the karma we ought to perform?
"The Brahman exists. The Atman is the Brahman" In such
pronouncements there is no mention of any rites to be performed. It is
obligatory for us to conduct sacrifices and we need the Vedas only for
that purpose, to tell us about such works, not to speak about the things
that exist. What exists will be known at one time or another, even if we
do not know it now. That part of the Vedas which speaks of existing
things belongs to arthavada. So the Upanisads are not to be regarded as
an authority. Then what is their purpose? They are meant to elevate the
sacrificer. By extolling him he would be made to perform more and more
works. It is not right to forsake karma to become a sannyasin. The
Upanisadic declaration that the individual self is the same as the
Brahman
is meant only to glorify one who leads a life of works. The man who
takes
the tonic (in the story mentioned earlier) will never be able to wrestle
with the lion. Similarly, the individual self will never attain the
Brahman.
The Upanisads are in the nature of a story and we do not need any talk
of
the Brahman, jnana, moksa, Isvara, and so on. Karma is all for us. So
goes
the argument of the mimamsakas. |
|
|
|
|
