1

Taittiriya Upanishad

Ananda Valli of Taittiriya Upanishad shows that Brahman is creator of all:

He wished, may I be many, may I grow forth. He brooded over himself. After he had thus brooded, he created all, whatever there is. Having created all, he entered into them. Having entered them, he became sat the existent and the non-existent, defined and undefined, supported and not supported, with knowledge and without knowledge, real and unreal. The Sattya became all this whatsoever, and therefore the wise call him Sat-tya.

So this verse clearly say that the word is created by God(Brahman) so how do mimamsa interpret this verse.

Because this verse clearly say that Brahman is the creator of the world, but mimamsa believe that the world is self evolved and no one created it.

3
  • 1
    Mimasarkas dont consider Upanishads as authentic as Ritualistic portion of Vedas – Sethu Srivatsa Koduru Mar 27 at 6:36
  • @SethuSrivatsaKoduru but upanishad are the part of the Vedas. – Dark Knight Mar 27 at 13:12
  • 2
    Not all accept them. I think Mimasarkas that time also used to mock Shankaracharya and never felt Moksha as told in Upanishads is worth persuing. – Sethu Srivatsa Koduru Mar 27 at 14:15
3

kumArila bhaTTa talks about such passages in his shlokavartika 5.15.63:

The idea common among ordinary people (that the Veda mentions of creation as proceeding from Prajapati) is a mistaken one, caused by certain valedictory passages (praising up certain injunctions). Because when a passage is not duly considered and interpreted together with the passages that proceed and follow it, it is bound to give rise to a misconception.

In short, mImAMsA believes that the creation stories are metaphorical praises of the Vedic injunctions, and should be understood only in the context of these injunctions. This book also talks about how mImAMsA interprets passages that talk about a creation of the universe.

The Mimamsaka, again, dismisses such claims with more than a touch of cynicism, for he considers the passages to be unreliable. Rather, these are to be interpreted metaphorically because they fall under the category of arthavadas or auxiliary statements, whose explicit purport is to eulogize and praise the central theme of the primary ritual text (vidhis). But there is another reason why they might be thought to be unreliable—as we shall mention shortly. But it seems odd that a Mimamsaka would declare the Veda to be unreliable. If the Veda is untrustworthy, one might then ask, how could the Mim4msa sustain the claim that the Veda is infallible? The following response, which by any standard would seem to be pretentious, is made: ‘*. . . because even though He may not have created the world, He might speak of having done so, in order to show off His great power." [shlokavartika 5.15.60]

-Bilimoria, P. (2013). Hindu Doubts About God: Towards a Mimamsa Deconstruction. Philosophy of Religion: Indian Philosophy, 493

5
  • Mimansa don’t believe god created the world? – Archit Mar 27 at 9:15
  • The majority of them were atheists yes, kumArila bhaTTa definitely did not believe in a god who created the world – user23131 Mar 27 at 9:19
  • But then how can they be considered one of the darshanas if they’re atheists? Also here there’s one answer where Purva Mimansa is this and the ones which believe in Upanishads is Uttara Mimansa. – Archit Mar 27 at 9:24
  • 2
    "Mimamsa" is sometimes used to refer to just Purva Mimamsa: this is the one I'm talking about here. Uttara Mimamsa is also called "Vedanta" and is theistic. I don't know if the Mimamsa sutras actually discuss the existence of God, and I've heard that there were some theistic Mimamsins later on, although atheism dominates. It seems like although some Mimamsins (like Kumarila Bhatta) were nastikas, the sect as defined by its Sutras was not. – user23131 Mar 27 at 9:30
  • 1
    excellent thank you – Archit Mar 27 at 9:32

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .