The common background of all Mīmāṃsā authors is based mainly on Jaimini’s Mīmāṃsā Sūtra (henceforth PMS) and Śabara’s Bhāṣya `commentary’ thereon (henceforth ŚBh). I refer to this phase in the history of Mīmāṃsā as ”common Mīmāṃsā”, since the authority of these texts was accepted by all later Mīmāṃsā authors.
Various later Mīmāṃsā authors rethought this inherited background, in particular, on two connected issues:
- How later Mīmāṃsā authors reconsidered the classification of obligations implemented in the early Mīmāṃsā
- What later Mīmāṃsā authors considered to be the real trigger for obligations
They will implement in both cases reductionistic strategies which, however, were based on very different presuppositions. They introduced to the background Mīmāṃsā new assumptions, although these were —according to the ancient Indian étiquette— concealed as (re)interpretations of the ancient lore.
As for No. 1, the Mīmāṃsā school operates presupposing that prescriptions could enjoin:
- nitya-karman `fixed sacrifices’, to be performed throughout one’s life, such as the Agnihotra, which one needs to perform each single day
- naimittika-karman `occasional sacrifices’, to be performed only on given occasions, e.g., on the birth of a son
- kāmya-karman `elective sacrifices’, to be performed if one wishes to obtain their result, e.g., the citrā sacrifice if one desires cattle
Here one can see already how the scheme offers the chance for different interpretations, precisely according to one’s interpretation of No. 2, namely of the understanding of what is the real motivator of one’s action, as below:
| elective | specific desire |
| occasional | occasion, generic desire |
| fixed | generic occasion (being alive), generic desire |
Elisa, you use “sacrifice” to translate “karman”. Many indologists do the same, and it’s not wrong. However, is that the best translation? In the most common understandings of English, “sacrifice” means either to kill and burn an animal as an offering to God, or else to relinquish something for a greater good. Neither of these is “karman” in the usual mīmāṃsā sense.
Would “ritual” be an adequate and more appropriate translation?
Hi Dominik and apologies for the delay in answering.
I use both “sacrifice” and “ritual” unterchangeably and in opposition to “rite”. I don’t want to go only for “ritual” because I don’t want to indirectly suggest that the “making of the sacred” cannot occur in India. You may also remember Heesterman’s words about the use of “sacrifice” over “ritual”. Last, the term “sacrifice” covers a broad range of meanings (from animal sacrifices to “I am doing a big sacrifice by not eating that cake”) and I don’t think the Mīmāṃsā understanding of yāga does not fit in it.
In fact, Mīmāṃsā authors connect yāga with homa (pouring something in the fire, oblation) and tyāga (renouncing one’s property over something). There needs to be a substance being offered (an animal, a vegetable or a combination of milk, cereals and so on) and the mention of a deity. Why do you think that this is not close enough to your definition (“In the most common understandings of English, “sacrifice” means either to kill and burn an animal as an offering to God, or else to relinquish something”)?
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I agree with you when translating yāga, homa, etc. I have some residual hesitation when it’s just the word karman. But obviously you have thought about this much more than I. 🙂
Hi Elisa, your articale “DESIDERO ERGO SUM: THE SUBJECT AS THE DESIROUS ONE IN MIMAMSA ” p.58, the english translation of Pārthasārathimiśra, you have mistaken ‘nityanaimittike’ to ‘ whereas fixed and optional [rituals] are to be …’
Hope you have already notice it.
Hi Wei, many thanks for engaging with my article. Thanks for pointing out the typo (“optional” should be “occasional”)!
Elisa. You are welcome. When I am reading your articles, I could learn lots of information which help me.