Mimansa (मीमांसा) is a Sanskrit word that means “reflection” or “critical investigation” and thus refers to a tradition of contemplation that reflected on the meanings of certain Vedic texts. This tradition is also known as Purva-Mimansa because of its focus on the earlier (Purva) Vedic texts dealing with ritual actions, and similarly as Karma-Mimansa due to its focus on ritual action (Karma). It is one of six Vedic “affirming” (Astika) schools of Hinduism. This particular school is known for its philosophical theories on the nature of dharma, based on the hermeneutics of the Vedas, especially the Brāḥmanas and Saṃhitas. An Mīmānsā school is a form of philosophical realism. A key text of the Mimansa school is the Mimansa Sutra of Jaimini.

What does Mimansa mean?

Mimamsa is a Sanskrit word meaning “reflection” or “revered thought.” It is one of the six darshans, or ways of viewing the world, according to Hindu philosophy. The other five darshans are Yoga, Samkhya, Vaisheshika, Nyaya, and Vedanta. Mimamsa is generally believed to be the oldest of the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy and has had a significant influence on Hindu law. Mimamsa provides rules for interpreting the early Hindu scriptures known as the Vedas and offers a philosophical rationale for observing Vedic rituals.

Mimansa Terminology

Karmakaṇḍa

Mimaṃsa, also romanized Mimansa or Mimamsa, means “reflection, consideration, profound thought, investigation, examination, discussion” in Sanskrit. This division is based on the classification of the Vedic texts into Karmakāṇḍa, the early sections of the Veda treating mantras and rituals (Samhitas and Brahmanas), and the jñānakāṇḍa dealing with meditation, reflection, and knowledge of Self, Oneness, Brahman (the Upaniṣads). Between the Samhitas and Brahmanas, the Mimansa school places greater emphasis on the Brahmanas – the part of Vedas that is a commentary on Vedic rituals.

Interpretation of the Vedas

Donald Davis translates Mimansa as the “desire to think”, and in colloquial historical context as “how to think and interpret things”. In the last centuries of the first millennium BCE, the word Mimansa began to denote the thoughts on and interpretation of the Vedas, first as Pūrva-Mīmānsā for rituals portions in the earlier layers of texts in the Vedas, and as Uttara-Mīmānsā for the philosophical portions in the last layers. Over time, Pūrva-Mīmānsā was just known as the Mīmānsā school and the Uttara-Mīmānsā as the Vedanta school. Mīmānsā scholars are referred to as Mīmānsākas.

Mimansa Darsana (Philosophy)

Classical Indian philosophies

Mīmānsā is one of the six classical Hindu darśanas. It is among the earliest schools of Hindu philosophies. It has attracted relatively less scholarly study, although its theories and particularly its questions on exegesis and theology have been highly influential on all classical Indian philosophies. Its analysis of language has been of central importance to the legal literature of India.

Central importance

Ancient Mīmānsā’s central concern was epistemology (pramana), which is what are the reliable means to knowledge. It debated not only “how does man ever learn or know, whatever he knows”, but also whether the nature of all knowledge is inherently circular, whether those such as foundationalists who critique the validity of any “justified beliefs” and knowledge system make flawed presumptions of the very premises they critique, and how to correctly interpret and avoid incorrectly interpreting dharma texts such as the Vedas. 

Asking questions

It asked questions such as “what is devata (God)?”, “are rituals dedicated to devatas efficacious?”, “what makes anything efficacious?”, and “can it be proved that the Vedas, or any canonical text in any system of thought, fallible or infallible (svatah pramanya, intrinsically valid) if so, how?” and others.

To Mīmānsā scholars, the nature of non-empirical knowledge and human means to it is such that one can never demonstrate certainty, one can only falsify knowledge claims, in some cases. According to Francis Clooney, a professor at Harvard Divinity School specializing in Hinduism, the Mīmānsā school is “one of the most distinctively Hindu forms of thinking; it is without real parallel elsewhere in the world”.

Jamini’s Mimansa Sutras

The central text of the Mīmānsā school is Jamini’s Mīmānsā Sutras, along with the historically influential commentaries on this sutra by Sabara and by Kumarila Bhatta. Together, these texts develop and apply the rules of language analysis (such as the rules of contradiction), asserting that one must not only examine injunctive propositions in any scripture but also examine the alternate related or reverse propositions for better understanding.

They suggested that to reach correct and valid knowledge it is not only sufficient to demand proof of a proposition, but it is also important to give proof of a proposition’s negative as well as declare and prove one’s own preferred propositions. 

No heaven

For example, Mīmānsākas welcome not only the demand for proof of an injunctive proposition such as “agnihotra ritual leads one to heaven”, but suggest that one must examine and prove alternate propositions such as “ritual does not lead one to heaven”, “something else leads one to heaven”, “there is heaven”, “there is no heaven” and so on. Mīmānsā literature states that if satisfactory, verifiable proof for all of such propositions cannot be found by its proponents and its opponents, then the proposition needs to be accepted as a part of a “belief system”.

Beliefs, such as those in the scriptures (Vedas), must be accepted to be true unless their opponents can demonstrate the proof of the validity of their own texts or teacher(s) these opponents presume to be prima facie justified, and until these opponents can demonstrate that the scriptures they challenge are false. If they do not try to do so, it is hypocrisy; if they try to do so, it can only lead to an infinite regress, according to Mīmānsākas. 

Niratisaya Priti

Mīmānsākas were predominantly concerned with the central motivation of human beings, the highest good, and actions that make this possible. They stated that human beings seek Niratisaya Priti (unending ecstatic pleasure, joy, happiness) in this life and the next.

They argued that this highest good is the result of one’s own ethical actions (dharma), that such actions are what the Vedic sentences contain and communicate, and therefore it is important to properly interpret and understand Vedic sentences, words, and meaning. 

Karma-Kanda

Mīmānsā scholarship was centrally concerned with the philosophy of language, how human beings learn and communicate with each other and across generations with language in order to act in a manner that enables them to achieve that which motivates them. 

Focus on Dharma

The Mīmānsā school focussed on dharma, deriving ethics and activity from the karma-Kanda (rituals) part of the Vedas, with the argument that ethics for this life and efficacious action for svarga (heaven) cannot be derived from sense-perception, and can only be derived from experience, reflection and understanding of past teachings.

In every human activity, the motivating force to perform an action is his innate longing for priti (pleasure, happiness), whether at the lowest level or the highest level. At the highest level, it is nothing but an unsurpassed state of priti, which is ensured only by performing ethical actions. – Sabara, 2nd century Mīmānsā scholar

According to Daniel Arnold, Mīmānsā scholarship has “striking affinities” with that of William Alston, the 20th-century Western philosopher, along with some notable differences. The Mīmānsākas were subjected to a radical critique, more than two thousand years ago, states Francis Clooney, the notions such as “God,” the “sacred text,” the “author” and the “anthropocentric ordering of reality”.

Mimansa Epistemology

In the field of epistemology, later Mīmānsākas made some notable contributions. Unlike the Nyaya or the Vaisheshika systems, the Prābhākara sub-school of Mīmānsā recognizes five means of valid knowledge (Skt. pramāṇa).

The Bhāṭṭa sub-school of Mīmāṃsā recognizes one additional sixth, namely anuapalabdhi, just like the Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism. These six epistemically reliable means of gaining knowledge are:

Pratyaksa in Mimansa

Pratyakṣa (प्रत्यक्ष) means perception. It is of two types in Mīmānsā and other schools of Hinduism: external and internal. External perception is described as that arising from the interaction of the five senses and worldly objects, while internal perception is described by this school as that of the inner sense, the mind. 

Some ancient scholars proposed “unusual perception” as pramana and called it internal perception, a proposal contested by other Indian scholars. The internal perception concepts included Pratibha (intuition), samanyalaksanapratyaksa (a form of induction from perceived specifics to a universal), and jnanalaksanapratyaksa (a form of perception of prior processes and previous states of a ‘topic of study by observing its current state). Further, some schools of Hinduism considered and refined rules of accepting uncertain knowledge from Pratyakṣa-pramana, so as to contrast nirnaya (definite judgment, conclusion) with anadhyavasaya (indefinite judgment).

Anumana in Mimansa

Anumāṇa (अनुमान) means inference. It is described as reaching a new conclusion and truth from one or more observations and previous truths by applying reason. Observing smoke and inferring fire is an example of Anumana. In all except one Hindu philosophy, this is a valid and useful means of knowledge. The method of inference is explained by Indian texts as consisting of three parts: pratijna (hypothesis), hetu (a reason), and drshtanta (examples).

The hypothesis must further be broken down into two parts, starting with the ancient Indian scholars: sadhya (that idea that needs to be proven or disproven) and paksha (the object on which the sadhya is predicated). The inference is conditionally true if sapaksha (positive examples as evidence) are present, and if vipaksha (negative examples as counter-evidence) are absent. For rigor, the Indian philosophies also state further epistemic steps. 

Upamana in Mimansa

Upamāṇa (उपमन) means comparison and analogy. Some Hindu schools consider it a proper means of knowledge. Upamana, states Lochtefeld, may be explained with the example of a traveler who has never visited lands or islands with an endemic population of wildlife. Such use of analogy and comparison is, state the Indian epistemologists, a valid means of conditional knowledge, as it helps the traveler identify the new animal later. 

Thus, explains Monier Monier-Williams, if a boy says “her face is like the moon in charmingness”, “her face” is upameyam, the moon is upamanam, and charmingness is samanya. 

Arthapatti in Mimansa

Arthāpatti (अर्थापत्ति) means postulation, derivation from circumstances. In contemporary logic, this pramāṇa is similar to circumstantial implication. As an example, if a person is left in a boat on a river earlier, and the time is now past the expected time of arrival, then the circumstances support the truth postulate that the person has arrived. 

Anupalabdhi as per Mimansa

Anupalabdi (अनुपलब्धि), accepted only by Kumarila Bhatta sub-school of Mīmāṃsā, means non-perception, negative/cognitive proof. Anupalabdhi pramana suggests that knowing a negative, such as “there is no jug in this room” is a form of valid knowledge. 

In the two schools of Hinduism that consider Anupalabdhi as epistemically valuable, a valid conclusion is either sadrupa (positive) or asadrupa (negative) relation – both correct and valuable.

Like other pramana, Indian scholars refined Anupalabdi into four types non-perception of:

• Cause,
• Effect,
• Object, and
• Contradiction.

Only two schools of Hinduism accepted and developed the concept of “non-perception” as a pramana. The schools that endorsed Anupalabdi affirmed that it is valid and useful when the other five pramanas fail in one’s pursuit of knowledge and truth.

Abhava as per Mimansa

Abhava (अभाव) means non-existence. Some scholars consider Anupalabdi to be the same as Abhava, while others consider Anupalabdi and Abhava as different. Abhava-pramana has been discussed in ancient Hindu texts in the context of Padārtha (पदार्थ, referent of a term). A Padartha is defined as that which is simultaneous:

• Astitva (existent), 
• Jneyatva (knowable), and
• Abhidheyatva (nameable). 

Specific examples of padartha, state:

• Bartley, include dravya (substance), 
• Guna (quality), 
• Karma (activity/motion), 
• Samanya/jati (universal/class property), 
• Samavaya (inherence), and 
• Vishesha (individuality). 

Abhava is then explained as “referents of negative expression” in contrast to “referents of positive expression” in Padartha. 

Sabda importance in Mimansa

Śabda (शब्द) means relying on words, and testimony of past or present reliable experts. Hiriyanna explains Sabda-pramana as a concept that means reliable expert testimony. The schools of Hinduism which consider it epistemically valid suggest that a human being needs to know numerous facts. With the limited time and energy available, he can learn only a fraction of those facts and truths directly.

He must rely on others, his parent, family, friends, teachers, ancestors, and kindred members of society to rapidly acquire and share knowledge and thereby enrich each other’s lives. The reliability of the source is important, and legitimate knowledge can only come from the Sabda of reliable sources. 

Mimansa relation to Vedanta school

An interesting feature of the Mīmāṃsā school of philosophy is its unique epistemological theory of the intrinsic validity of all cognition as such. 

The Mīmāṃsākas advocate the self-validity of knowledge both in respect of its origin (utpatti) and ascertainment (jñapti). Not only did the Mīmāṃsākas make very great use of this theory to establish the unchallengeable validity of the Vedas, but later Vedantists also drew freely upon this particular Mīmāṃsā contribution.

Mimansa Metaphysics and Beliefs

The core tenets of Pūrva Mīmāṃsā are ritualism (orthopraxy) and anti-asceticism. 

Atheism

Mīmānsā theorists decided that the evidence allegedly proving the existence of God was insufficient. They argue that there was no need to postulate a maker for the world, just as there was no need for an author to compose the Vedas or a God to validate the rituals. Mīmānsā argues that the Gods named in the Vedas have no existence apart from the mantras that speak their names. In that regard, the power of the mantras is what is seen as the power of Gods.

Dharma

The Pūrva Mīmānsā school traces the source of the knowledge of dharma neither to sense-experience nor inference, but to verbal cognition (i.e. knowledge of words and meanings) according to Vedas. In this respect it is related to the Nyāya school, the latter, however, accepts only four sources of knowledge (pramāṇa) as valid.

The Pūrva Mīmānsā school held dharma to be equivalent to following the prescriptions of the Saṃhitās and their Brāhmaṇa commentaries relating the correct performance of Vedic rituals. Seen in this light, Pūrva Mīmānsā is essentially ritualist (orthopraxy), placing great weight on the performance of karma or action as enjoined by the Vedas.

Mimansa relation to Vedānta

Pūrva Mīmānsā does not discuss topics related to Jñānakāṇḍa, such as salvation (mokṣa), but it never speaks against mokṣa. Vedānta quotes Jaimini’s belief in Brahman as well as in mokṣa:

• Uttara-Mīmānsā or Vedānta (4.4.5-7), Bāḍarāyaṇa cites Jaimini as saying (ब्राह्मेण जैमिनिरूपन्यासादिभ्यः) “(The mukta Puruṣa is united with the Brahman) as if it were like the Brahman, because descriptions (in Śruti etc) prove so“.
• Vedānta (1.2.28), Bāḍarāyaṇa cites Jaimini as saying that “There is no contradiction in taking Vaishvānara as the supreme Brahman”.
• 1.2.31, Jaimini is again quoted by Bāḍarāyana as saying that the nirguna (attribute-less) Brahman can manifest itself as having a form.
• 4.3.12, Bādarāyana again cites Jaimini as saying that the Mukta Purusha attains Brahman.
• Pūrva Mīmāṃsā too, Jaimini emphasizes the importance of faith in and attachment to the Omnipotent Supreme Being Whom Jaimini calls “The Omnipotent Pradhaana” (The Main).

Karma-Mīmānsā supports the Vedas, and Rgveda says that one Truth is variously named by the sages. It is irrelevant whether we call Him Pradhāna or Brahman or Vaishvānara or Shiva or God.

Mimansa texts

The foundational text for the Mīmāṃsā school is the Purva Mīmānsā Sutras of Jaimini (ca. 5th to 4th century BCE). The school reaches its height with Kumārila Bhaṭṭa and Prabhākara (fl. ca. 700 CE). Both Kumarila Bhatta and Prabhākara (along with Murāri, whose work is no more extant) have written extensive commentaries on Śābara’s Mīmānsāsūtrabhāṣyam. Some of the Mīmānsā scholars include:

• Kumārila Bhaṭṭa,
• Mandana Miśra,
• Pārthasārathi Miśra,
• Sucarita Miśra,
• Ramakrishna Bhatta,
• Madhava Subhodini,
• Sankara Bhatta,
• Krsnayajvan, Anantadeva,
• Gaga Bhatta,
• Raghavendra Tirtha,
• VijayIndhra Tirtha,
• Appayya Dikshitar,
• Paruthiyur Krishna Sastri,
• Mahomahapadyaya Sri Ramsubba Sastri,
• Sri Venkatsubba Sastri,
• Sri A. Chinnaswami Sastri, and
• Sengalipuram Vaidhyanatha Dikshitar.

Āpadeva (17th century) wrote an elementary work on the Mīmānsā, known as Mīmānsānyāyaprakaśa or Āpadevī. Arthasaṁgraha of Laugākṣi Bhāskara is based on the Āpadevī. Vedānta Deśika’s Śeśvara Mīmānsā was an attempt to combine the views of the Mīmānsā and the Vedānta schools.

Conclusion

Because of the above, I am confident that you have learned in-depth about Manusmriti, meaning, nomenclature, background, chronology, structure, contents, significance, etc. Now, that you have become self-sufficient to practice and achieve the goal, hence it’s the right time to use your acquired knowledge for gaining numerous benefits for well-being.

After reading this article, how would you rate it? Would you please let me know your precious thoughts? 

Frequently asked questions

Before posting your query, kindly go through them:

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%ABm%C4%81%E1%B9%83s%C4%81