[Advaita-l] Mantra, Brahmana, Mimamsa and Vedanta (was RE: How to read puranas)

[Siva Senani Nori]

Indeed, as far as textual analysis is concerned, the key point where vedAnta parts
company with pUrva mImAMsA, is over the question of a vidhi to renounce all
action. PM says that by definition a vidhi can only impel one to perform a new act
(apUrva vidhi) or tell us how to do it (niyama vidhi) or how not to do it (parisaMkhyA
vidhi). Vedanta, at least in the advaita tradition, says that a vidhi can also impel one
to renounce all action, and indeed the bRhadAraNyaka upanishat 4.4.22 does contain
a vidhi to renounce. The discussion on this point is found in brahmasUtra bhAshya
3.4.27, where SankarAcArya points out that the mAdhyandina pATha has the word
paSyet, conveying an explicit injunction, as compared to the word paSyati in the
kANva pATha. In the bRhadAraNyaka bhAshya 4.4.22, he interprets the word
pravrajanti as pravrajeyuH, and takes it as an injunction to renounce action.

- Well, PurvamImAmsA does allow two exceptions (paryudaasa) to the way nañ combines with the pratyaya portion and not the dhaatu or elements: one is when a topic starts with tasya vrata, as in ne.ksheto.dyantam.aadityam in the snaatakavratam. Here the mImAmsaka is ready to concede that na.iksheta.udyantam.aadityam gives rise to ikshaNaabhaavasankalpa and therefore to renunciation of the action of seeing the rising Sun. The second one is of the type, "yajatishu yeyajAmaham karoti naanuyaajeshu" where connecting the nañ to the pratyaya results in vikalpa. So nañ is taken to mean exclusion, that is yeyajaamaham is to be used in yaagas excluding the anuyaagas. In some cases like 'na.atiratre shoDashinam griNhAti', such an exclusion cannot be worked out, so the mImAmsaka is willing to live with the vikalpa created, which works like this: first one has to assume that shoDashigrahaNam is ordained; and then that it is prohibited. Since both are emanating
 from the same sentence, one has to give equal weightage to both creating a vikalpa. (Source: arthasangrahah, the section dealing with nishedha). This he does as there is no other way of interpreting the sentence but justifies that no sin is incurred by this kind of vikalpa.
 
- The same text (arthasangrahah) treats, as do others like the aapadevi and mImAmsAparibhAshA,  many sentences taken from smritis and one even from Ramayana - panca pancanakhaa bahkshaah (as example of parisankhyaa).