A review of our 2013 book on the evolution of the semantics of tantra and prasaṅga by Émilie Aussant can be read on the Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics (link here).

Many thanks are due to Dr. Aussant for her ability to explain in a few sentences the broad context (the Sanskrit śāstra tradition and its ability to encode as many aspects of life as possible), the narrow one (metarules for the interpretation of sūtras) and the specific topic of tantra and prasaṅga.

You can read more on tantra and prasaṅga in my previous blog, here and here. A short version of the book is available on Academia.edu, here.

• At first sight, the sum of prescriptions seems to amount to a recipe (You ought to do x, You ought to do y, You ought to do z…), with just a linear sequence of successive orders
• Almost all actions are accompanied by mantras

The latter characteristic, historically, means that the Śrautasūtras have been composed around pre-existing mantras, in order to supply the actions which the sacrificers knew were to be performed together with the mantras. Another interesting feature of the presence of mantras is that this does not amount to

O p & m
(with O meaning “Ought to”, p being the action prescribed and m the mantra)

because the choice of the mantras also often depends on what one has already performed. In other words, the whole sacrifice as prescribed rather resembles a flowchart, in which one might need to go back and forth:

In No. 1, the disjunction is determined by one’s history previous to the sacrifice. If one is entitled to perform a certain sacrifice, one will have to perform a certain offering, otherwise another one. The ŚrSū explain this by saying “If one is a certain type of sacrificer, then…”.

Purva Mimamsa authors are generally not interested in the topic, whereas several Uttara Mimamsa (i.e. Vedanta) ones deal at length with the status of the Mimamsasastra (I am tempted to say that, similarly, Christians alone are concerned with the unity of the two testaments within the Bible).
A particularly puzzling element, in this connection, is the status of an “intermediate part” of the Mimamsasastra, variously called madhyamakanda (as opposed to the karma– and brahmakandas or to the purva– and uttara– ones, i.e., the Purva Mimamsa Sutras, henceforth PMS and the Vedanta Sutras, henceforth UMS), or Sankarsa(na)kanda, but also devatakanda or upasanakanda. Neither of these names is found together with any other one, so that it seems clear that the basic assumption for the Mimamsa (both of Purva and Uttara Mimamsa) authors interested in the topics was that there were (at most) three basic texts of the Mimamsa Sastra.
Now, the problem is that the extant Sankarsa Kanda (henceforth SK), preserved in a few manuscripts and edited together with a commentary by Devasvamin or with a later one by Bhaskararaya, is a rather boring text, dealing with technicalities of the ritual. I would locate it in the Srauta-Sutra–Purva Mimamsa milieu, in the sense that it deals with technical details and does not seem to me to aim at more general problems. Thus, it makes good sense that Sabara twice refers to it (see this post) or that Somesvara does it once, but that no more Purva Mimamsa energies are dedicated to it. I might be wrong, but I am reminded of the complements to Panini’s Astadhyayi, such as the Dhatupatha, in the sense that Sabara seems to refer to the SK as to an appendix of the PMS, which does not need a specific exegetical attention (and, in fact, he did not comment on it).

A further significant detail is that the content of this SK does not correspond neither to the appellation devatakanda, nor to the function ascribed to it by Venkatanatha/Vedanta Desika and by other Vedantins, i.e., the discussions of deities, later to be subsumed within the brahman in the UMS.

By contrast, the SK–Devatakanda referred to by such Vedantins as Vedanta Desika in his Sesvara Mimamsa fits nicely in a progressive scheme: the PMS deals in this interpretation with karman, the SK with deities and the UMS with brahman.
Which sutras are attributed to the one or the other? Sabara (two sutras), Somesvara and Sankara (one sutra, see below) mention sutras also found in the extant SK, whereas later Vedantins either do not quote anything at all or quote a) the sutra quoted by Sankara (so Ramanuja, SriBhasya ad 3.3.43), b) the same three (or four) theistic sutras referring to Visnu and not found in the extant SK (so Venkatanatha in his Satadusani and in the Tattvatika, and Madhva in the Anuvyakhyana).
I counted three to four sutras because Madhva’s Anuvyakhyana mentions three (athato daivi (scil. jijnasa?), ya visnur aha iti and tam brahmety acaksate), which should occur, respectively, at the very beginning and at the very end of the SK. Venkatanatha does not mention the first one, but has the last two preceded by ante harau taddarsanat. tam brahmety acaksate makes indeed a smooth transition to the UMS. Jayatirtha’s commentary to Madhva attributes them to a Devasastra, an appellation which could refer to the SK-devatakanda previous to its confusion with the SK (see below).
Further four slokas from some sankarsanasutresu and not present in the extant SK are found within Utpala Vaisnava’s commentary on the Spandapradipika.

A further significant element is the connection with the Pancaratra. Already Sankara mentions the SK in his UMS-Bhasya in the context of a sutra (3.3.43) which is interpreted as discussing the validity of the vyuha doctrine of the Pancaratra. Further, Kanazawa mentions a very interesting passage by Mukunda Jha Bkashi, the editor of Raghavabhatta’s Padarthadarsa (15th c.), who writes that the PMS refer to the Brahmanas, the SK to the Pancaratras and the UMS to the Upanisads, thus distinguishing them on the basis of their referring to a different part of the Veda. In the passage the editor comments upon, Raghavabhatta attributes the upasanakanda to Narada and the UMS to Vyasa (who is regularly identified with Badarayana, see, e.g., Venkatanatha’s Satadusani 3). Who is this Narada? In any case, the name is connected with the Vaisnava milieu and it figures together with Sankarsana in the guruparampara leading to Vyasa in the (Vaisava) Hayagrivopanisad (Kanazawa, p. 41).
And the connection with the Vaisnava (and perhaps Kasmirian) milieu and, thus, with the Pancaratra is reinforced by Utpala Vaisnava’s quote.

To sum up, the extant SK does not seem to properly fulfill the role assigned to it by Vedantin authors.
A possible explanation could be that Vedantin authors used the name of a text which was assumed as part of the unitary Mimamsa Sastra but was either lost or little known (remind the lack of quotations of the extant SK in Vedanta Desika) and confused it with a different text which fulfilled a role which they needed to see fulfilled, i.e., that of introducing God in the Mimamsa system. Perhaps Kanazawa is right in pointing out that the very name SK might have helped, due to the importance of Sankarsana in the Pancaratra vyuha doctrine (Kanazawa, p. 40).

It is still difficult to tell how and when exactly did this superimposition of the one text on the other take place, but, as already hinted at, it seems to have taken place in Vedanta-Pancaratra milieus and Sankara may have played a major role in it, since he quotes from the extant SK, but in the context of a theological-Pancaratrika discussion. It might, thus, have been Sankara (or his Pancaratra opponent) who made the SK’s role shift from sheer technical discussions to theological ones. In other words, previous to Sankara there might have been a technical SK and a theistic text (perhaps only a few sentences). If we accept Jayatirtha’s authority, the latter had already a Vedantic flavour and we might speculate that it had been used by Vaisnavas (perhaps: Pancaratrins) who wanted to vindicate the Vedanta status of their system. Sankara’s quote of the former SK in a context where one could have expected the latter may have created the confusion between the two, a confusion which was very much welcomed for non-Advaita Vedantins and which harmonises nicely with further tripartitions (e.g., the one between karman, jnana and bhakti).

A further scenario would require one to assume that no SK-devatakanda ever existed and that some Vedantins artfully manipulated the evidences regarding the SK, but since attestations regarding it range well beyond the borders of an interconnected group of people, this scenario is at the moment less likely.

Last, it is possible that there existed a tradition of interpreting the extant SK in a theistic way and that it was in this connection that some further theistic sUtras have been attributed to it. Although this hypothesis clashes with the fact that no sutras of the extant SK have been transmitted together with the SK-devatakanda ones, it is probably right in pointing out that the confusion was quite ancient. Anandagiri’s explanation of the name sankarsa, for instance, refers to the technical contents of the extant SK, but then calls it devatakanda (sankarsyate karmakandastham evavasistam karma samksipyocyate iti sankarso devatakandam).

The Purva Mimamsa milieus seemingly remained unaffected by this move (remind Somesvara’s quote from the extant SK as late as in the 12th c. and the general lack of interest for the SK).

Which scenario seems to you more plausible?

On the SK, see this post and this one

Why do Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedāntin authors care for a Mīmāṃsā-related text which Mīmāṃsākas ignore, and which only seems to deal with minor ritual topics?

The Saṅkarṣakāṇḍa (henceforth SK) is a set of 465 sūtras divided into four books (adhyāya), within which are 16 pādas and 386 adhikaraṇas (Verpoorten 1987, p. 6). As for its content, Verpoorten writes that “The SK deals with sundry ritual problems, such as a subsidiary of the agniṣṭoma called anuvaṣaṭkārayāga, the sacrificial post (yūpa), the avadāna or cutting of the oblations for each deity, the varaṇa or appointment of the priests, and lastly, various kinds of mantra” (Verpoorten 1987, p. 6).

Verpoorten notes as indirect support of the date and Mīmāṃsā-status of the SK an inscription of “Anur (Chingleput district, Tamil Nadu) of 999 A.D.” where the single śāstra made of Pūrva and Uttara Mīmāṃsā is said to consist of 20 books, i.e., presumably, the 12 of the Pūrva Mīmāṃsā Sūtra (henceforth PMS), the 4 of the Brahma Sūtra (henceforth BS) and the 4 of the SK. As for manuscript evidence, “manuscripts have been discovered only lately”. A note specifies that manuscript evidence seems also to point to South India, since manuscripts are “[m]ainly from South India: Malabar, Trivandrum, Madras; all of them seem to proceed from the same origin” (Verpoorten 1987, pp. 6–7). Among contemporary scholars, opinions diverge, regarding the authorship of the SK (in favour of its attribution to the same author of the PMS, see Ramasvami Sastri 1933) and its antiquity (see Sandal who claims that it is “spurious” and late, whereas the above-mentioned passages by Verpoorten seem to be more open towards its possible antiquity).

As for secondary testimonies, Śabara seemingly refers to it in his commentary ad PMS 10.4.32, where he adds that a certain topic will be said in the Saṅkaṛṣa (saṅkarṣe vakṣyate). The Ṭīppaṇī (a gloss to the PMS  in the form of footnotes added by Ganeśaśāstrī Jośī) explains: “The meaning is that it is will be said in the Saṅkarṣakāṇḍa 14.4.21” (a° 14 pā° 4, sū° 21 ity atra saṃkarṣakāṇḍe vakṣyata ity arthaḥ). A similar passage is found in Śābarabhāṣya (henceforth ŚBh) ad PMS 12.2.11, where Śabara says that “it will be said in the Saṃkarṣa” (saṅkarṣe vakṣyate). Nothing is added in the Ṭīppaṇī. The usage of a future tense seems to suggest the sequence PMS-SK, although it is by no means clear that saṅkarṣe refers to the title of a work. I did not find any other case of iti+title of a work+vakṣyate in the ŚBh, although vakṣyate is frequently used to refer to later passages of the PMS and/or of the corresponding ŚBh. Kumārila does not comment upon these references, nor could I find any other reference to the SK in authors prior to the 9th c. apart from an interesting passage by Śabara, in his commentary on BS 3.3.43, where he says: “Therefore it has been said in the Saṅkarṣa: ‘Verily the deities are many, because they are distinctly known’ ” (tad uktaṃ saṃkarṣe nānā vā devatā pṛthagjñānāt iti). Here the sūtra referred to seems to be clear, namely SK 2.2.36, nānā vā devatā, pṛthaktvāt. This is a key element, as we will see.

Departing from the 9th c., Veṅkaṭanātha (alias Vedānta Deśika) and other authors and evidences  (as far as I know, all from South India) situate the SK after the PMS and before the BS and hold different views re. its authorship.
The first commentary we possess upon the SK is that of Devasvāmin (11th c.), who could be the same author who commented upon the Āśvalāyana Śrauta Sūtra. This hypothesis could be reinforced by the fact that, as acknowledged also by the ones who support its authenticity (see a few lines below), the SK “is more in the nature of the Kalpasūtras”, since, unlike the PMS, it “has not got any separate principle to enunciate and, therefore, is a miscellaneous supplement” (Ramasvami Sastri 1933, p. 297). A further commentary, the Bhāṭṭacandrikā by Bhāskara or Bhāskararāya explicitly states that the text lacks the connection (saṅgati) among adhikaraṇas. Appayya Dīkṣita describes the SK as follows: “After having composed the PMS for the sake of investigating on dharma, since there he had not defined in sūtras some rules, for the sake of collecting them, Jaimini, the best of the great ṛṣis, composed the SK, which is a supplement to the PMS”. Thus, all same to agree on the less systematic nature of the SK, which might have been an appendix of the PMS composed to account for further minor issues. Why did it become so central for the Vṛttikāra, Rāmānuja and Veṅkaṭanātha? Why did they decide to explicitly focus on it?

The answer probably lies in the way they refer to it: as we have seen, the SK is mainly a sort of Kalpasūtra discussing trivial ritual matters. This cannot have been of particular interest for the Vṛttikāra, Rāmānuja and Veṅkaṭanātha (whose Seśvaramīmāṃsā never enters into ritual details). By contrast, they present the SK as introducing the topic of the deity (devatā). This is also the context in which Śaṅkara inserts his reference to the SK, so that its connection with the topic appears to predate Rāmānuja and Veṅkaṭanātha. In this way, the SK becomes a way to make theism be present in the unitary śāstra since its very beginning.

However, this leaves still many questions open, such as: In which milieu has the specific connection of SK and theism been crafted? In which context and when has the SK been composed? What was the Pūrva Mīmāṃsā stance on it?
On Veṅkaṭanātha, follow the links from this post. On the Vṛttikāra, Veṅkaṭanātha’s agenda and the SK in it, see also this presentation of mine.

What is an apūrva? The term is attested already in the Śrautasūtras and it refers to the element of novelty introduced by each sacrifice. However, Prābhākaras tend to identify this novelty with dharma itself, i.e., with the fact of being “to be done” (kārya), which is what distinguishes a sacrifice from a sum of actions, substances, etc. Thus, the apūrva lies at the center of the Prābhākara system and it is identified with the real meaning of the Vedas and of the Vedic codanās ‘injunctions’. It is in fact called apūrva because it was “not [known] before [hearing the Vedic injunction prescribing it”. This fits well with the general idea that Prābhākaras focus on the sacrifice itself more than on its result.

By contrast, for Bhāṭṭas the apūrva is the energy arisen through a sacrifice and lasting until the arousal of the sacrifice’s result. It is, thus, postulated through śrutārthāpatti ‘cogent evidence’ in order to justify the apparent inconsistence of the fact that most sacrifices end well before the arousal of the result and that, thus, it is hard to imagine how they could be the cause of such future results.

Now, what is Śabara’s position, given that Śabara is the author preceding both Prabhākara and Kumārila and given that both claim to be just subcommenting his commentary on the Pūrva Mīmāṃsā Sūtras? Authors, both in Classical India (see Yoshimizu 2000, fn. 27) and today tend to know Kumārila better than Prabhākara and, consequently, to read Śabara through Kumārila’s lenses. However, Kiyotaka Yoshimizu has started his career as a Mīmāṃsā-scholar with a focus on Prabhākara (see Yoshimizu 1997) and has always tried to show unexpected sides of Mīmāṃsā (see Yoshimizu 2007 and 2008 —and my discussion of them on this blog, here and here— for his surprising reading of Kumārila as upholding a paramātman in the Veda).

In his 2000 article he reconsiders the issue of apūrva in Śabara and notes that —against expectations— his concept of apūrva is not at all identical with Kumārila’s one. The crucial passage, in this sense, is Śabara’s commentary on PMS 2.1.5, which is where the theory of apūrva originates (the punctuation is significant and it is Yoshimizu’s, p. 153):

katham punar idam avagamyate “asti tad apūrvam” iti. ucyate: codanā punar ārambhaḥ. codanety apūrvam brūmaḥ. apūrvam punar asti, yata ārambhaḥ śiṣyate ‘svargakāmo yajeta’ iti. itarathā hi vidhānam anarthakaṃ syāt. bhaṅgitvād yāgasya. yady anyad anutpādya yāgo vinaśyet, phalam asati nimitte na syāt.

After the first lines of his commentary, Yoshimizu agrees that Śabara goes on explaining apūrva in a way similar to Kumārila’s one. However, here, according to Yoshimizu, he is doing something else. More in detail, ārambha (in yata ārambhaḥ śiṣyate) does not mean the same as vidhāna (in itarathā hi vidhānam anarthakaṃ syāt), where the additional explanation (the one resembling Kumārila’s one) begins. ārambhaḥ, as Yoshimizu demonstrates, refers “to undertaking the whole procedure of a sacrifice beginning from the first preparatory rite prescribed by a subsidiary injunction”, whereas vidhāna refers to the injunction to sacrifice common to many rituals. In order to justify this understanding of ārambha, Yoshimizu points out its use in the context of optional (kāmya) sacrifices. These sacrifices are undertaken by people who desire a certain result, i.e., a son or rain or cattle and are thus prompted by such desire. In their case, accordingly, the prescription does not prompt the performance of the sacrifice (which one has already undertaken because of one’s desire), but rather “to complete the sacrifice which he [the sacrificer] has already undertaken by his own choice” (fn. 22). And in this context, ārambha is used, which thus seems to refer to the whole sacrifice.

Long story short, “the term apūrva is not used here [in ŚBh ad 2.1.5] to mean a kind of potency left by the sacrifice” (p. 150).

Yoshimizu’s article then goes on describing how Kumārila refutes the idea of a substantial apūrva: apūrva (understood as the bridge between the sacrifice and its result) is only a śakti, or perhaps a saṃskāra inhering in the sacrificer. Interestingly, Yoshimizu shows that Śabara had refuted a theory comparing the apūrva to a progressive action, like ingesting ghee (and ending up with the result of being fatter only at a later time) (p. 151).

Is Yoshimizu right? Does Pūrva Mīmāṃsā turn to an ontology (with substances, etiologies presupposing that dharma and ātman are “things” and a soteriology akin to the Vedāntic one) only with Kumārila?

Kiyotaka Yoshimizu, Change of View on Apūrva from Śabarasvāmin to Kumārila. In: Sengaku Mayeda (ed.). The Way to Liberation. Manohar 2000, pp. 149–165.
For further posts on Yoshimizu’s articles, see , here and here.