I have been working for years on reconstructing the deontic landscape of Mīmāṃsā, but at this point I realise that “landscape” might be a misleading metaphor.
In fact, Mīmāṃsā authors were not just describing a natural scenario. They engineered a highly sophisticated system, with bridges connecting different actions and sewage systems to get rid of unwanted left-overs.
That’s why even though new Mīmāṃsā authors might change the flag on the top of the hill (as Maṇḍana did) or some particular aspect here and there, they were cautious not to jeopardise such a carefully engineered system.
For instance, when it comes to subordination, the only real options are Kumārila’s viniyoga system and Prabhākara’s upādāna. Other authors substantially follow the one or the other.
Could you expand on the comment about Mandana? Are you referring to Brahma Siddhi, and to the “flag of Brahman” on the top? Can the evolution of (classical traditional) Vedanta itself be viewed as an attempt to bring Purva Mimamsic foundations and their accompanying prestige into a Nagarjuna-type metaphysics?
Hi Sandeep, thanks for asking. No, I was referring to the Vidhiviveka and the move from vidhi to iṣṭasādhanatā.
Thank you. I should have looked up your earlier posts on Mandana Mishra before shooting off.