9

Good question! Let's distinguish between a bunch of different issues: How the Purva Mimamsa school viewed human names in the Vedas: The Purva Mimamsa school believed that the Vedas never refer to the name of a specific human being, because that would contradict the eternality of the Vedas. They thought that that seeming references to human names should be ...


8

Technically speaking Purava Mimasma was not an nastika (atheistic) system as per definition of nastika in our scriptures. Only those which didn't accept the authority of the Vedas are called as nastika irrespective of whether they believe in afterlife, God, etc. But yes, like the general meaning of atheism, Mimamsa School didn't believe in the existence of ...


7

The Purva Mimamsa school was divided on the existence of Brahman. But one thing they all agreed on was tha Brahman (if Brahman even existed) was neither the creator of the Universe, nor the author of the Vedas, nor even omniscient. In fact, they didn't even believe the Universe is ever created or destroyed! Here is what the Purva Mimamsa philosopher Kumarila ...


6

Kumarila Bhatta believes that Karma Yoga is the only path to Moksha. Contrary to what I thought, Kumarila Bhatta did not believe that Atmajnana directly granted Moksha. Unlike Adi Shankaracharya, who believed that you can destroy your stock of Sanchita Karma through the fire of Jnana, or Ramanujacharya, who believed that you could destroy your Sanchita ...


5

The opinions of Kumarila Bhatta on Puranas are precisely mentioned by Ganganath Jha in his book Purva Mimamsa in it's sources - The opinions of Kumarila Bhatta on Puranas are very straight forward and bold. Kumarila says that all these puranas are the literature purely of a descriptive nature. According to him the puranas are not but merely "Arthavada"...


5

Purva Mimamsa was a school of philosophy founded by the sage Jaimini whose central dogma was that the Vedas were Apaurusheya or authorless. Other schools also believed that the Vedas were Apaurusheya in the sense that they had no human author, but Purva Mimamsa went one step further in saying that they had no connection to any divine source either: they ...


5

I found the answer in this excerpt from Adinatha's Khechari Vidya, an early Hatha Yoga text dated to the 15th century: [The yogin] should use equal amounts of the pollen of nirgundi, amala and mundi, anointed with sugar, ghee and honey; after a year he destroys grey hair and wrinkles. Nirgundi is the Chinese chastetree, Amala is the Indian gooseberry, ...


5

At least argument 2 has been refuted. Vyasa discusses the size of the Jivatma in Adhyaya 2 Pada 3 of the Brahma Sutras (which you can read here) Topic-13: Soul’s Dimensions (The individual soul must be atomic in dimension owing to the mention in the Vedas) of its departure from the body, going (to the next world by following a course) and coming back (from ...


4

Swami Vivekananda has said in his various discussion of the Vedas that the spiritual laws mentioned in the Vedas are eternal. There was a time when the Vedas themselves were considered eternal in the sense in which the divine truths contained therein were changeless and permanent and were only revealed to man. At a subsequent time, it appears that ...


4

It's speaking of different forms of Indra. I found the answer in S. Shastri's summary of the Adhikaranas (sub-sections) of the discovered Sankarsha Kanda text. Here are the relevant Adhikaranas in Adhyaya 2 Pada 2: In the Ishti where there are three purodasha cakes to be offered to three deities, the cutting of slices from them is simultaneous. But ...


4

Yes , Vedanta Sutras or Brahma Sutras is stating that Vedas are eternal. It's mentioned in Adhyaya 1 -Pada 3-Sutra 29 & 30 - So Badrayana the author of Brahma Sutras agrees that Vedas are eternal. अत एव च नित्यत्वम् ॥ 1.3.29 ॥ ata eva ca nityatvam || 29 || From this very reason also (results) the eternity (of the Vedas). Since the ...


4

what does "mantra" mean and what does "brahmana" mean? Has it been defined anywhere? The Purva Mimamsa Sutras of Jaimini, commented upon by Shabara, have defined the words "mantra" and "brahmana" as follows: Adhyaya 2, Pada 1, Adhikarana 7: "Definition of 'Mantra'" Sutra 32 - The name 'mantra' is applied to those texts that are expressive of the said (...


3

As you have stated in question, no need to provide answer for Mimansa (Pura Mimansa by Jaimini and Uttara Mimansa by Vyasa) which obviously declares Vedas Apaurusheya. Now, regarding other schools, Yes, Samkhya and Yoga also believes Vedas to be Apaurusheya. Rickross's answer already cited how those school accepted Vedas as valid proof (Shabda Pramana). ...


3

A translation is 'revered thought'. In Chapter 13 of A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy, Chandradhar Sharma writes (https://archive.org/stream/IndianPhilosophyACriticalSurvey/Indian-Philosophy-A-Critical-Survey_djvu.txt): Chapter Thirteen PORVA-MlMAMSA I INTRODUCTION The word 'Mimamsa' literally means 'revered thought’ and was ...


3

Are there any refutations to this argument put forth by the Buddhist philosophers? Particularly, the one against the authorlessness of Vedas because no one remembers who their authors are? No need to refute that argument, because it's a strawman argument. The argument is not merely, "We don't remember the author, therefore there is no author." The ...


3

I think Kumarila Bhatta did not actually believe that souls are always reborn into the same species. Because in this excerpt from his Tantra Vartika, in the course of refuting the Jain theory that the soul is the same size as the body, Kumarila Bhatta says this: How too, is it possible for the particles of the same Soul to expand or contract within the ...


3

Most Vedantic philosophies other than Advaita agree on the number of Pramanas. As I suspected, Advaita accepts the same six Pramanas as Kumarila Bhatta; here's what the 17th century Advaita philosopher Dharmaraja Adhavindra says in this excerpt from his Vedanta Paribhasha: Those means of knowledge are six in number, their divisions being perception, ...


3

First, your question at the end is not correct. You state "But how do those who believe that the Vedic mantras are unauthored, like the followers of Vedanta and Mimamsa do, interpret these verses?" The followers of Vedanta is another way of saying the followers of the Uttara Mimamsa (or another way of saying it is the followers of Vyasa). I think ...


2

The Purva Mimamsa school seems to have had varied views regarding the nature of Gotras. In this excerpt from his commentary on the Purva Mimamsa Sutras, the Purva Mimamsa philosopher Shabara Swami apparently recognizes the notion that Gotra indicates the Rishi from whom you’re descended: Nor are sages entitled to perform of sacrifices, because they have ...


2

The Vedas is for all. Yajur Veda 26.2 states: The way I gave this knowledge of Vedas for benefit of all humans, similarly you all also propagate the same for benefit of Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Shudras, Vaishyas, Women and even most downtrodden. The scholars and the wealthy people should ensure that they not deviate from this message of mine. Also, ...


2

In the apa-sudradhikaranam bhasya of Shankaracharya He says that persons who did not have upanayana samskara, are not eligible to study Vedas and hence Upanishads which are part of the vedas. However, this does not mean that they are not eligible to jnaan, they are eligible to jnana through puranas, smritis and itihasas on which no such restriction is there. ...


2

Shabara's opponent's quotation in sanskrit is - vanaspatayaḥ sattram āsata, sarpāḥ satram āsata iti According to Johannes Bronkhorst in his paper "What Did Indian Philosophers Believe?", these statements are untracable in the extant Veda. See footnote 27 (reproduced below). Sayana cites these in the introduction to the Rgveda Bhasya. I looked to ...


2

Mostly Yes. This can be validated with 2 proofs, already present in your question. [1] Some followers of Kumarila Bhatta believed that Moksha can be obtained through Nishkama Karma When a Guru believes in certain philosophy, it's passed on to his students. If Kumarila believed in NiskAma Karma, then it's likely that his students will also believe in the ...


2

What are the arguments of Purva Mimansa that says Brahmanas are Apaurusheya? Their argument is that the entire Vedas, aranyakas and upanishads included, do not have an author because there is no recollection of authorship. Here is where the relevant argument starts. They say (paraphrased by me): Our answer to this view is as follows: What we have asserted ...


2

The SAmkhya KArikA ( as per the most ancient MAthor Vritti) is Niriswara VAdi. That means it does not accept the existence of a sole creator Iswara. It actually neither accepts nor rejects. But, according some others, SAmkhya is Saiswara VAdi too. So, I think this depends on the interpretations which may vary. But the philosophy does talk about a creation. ...


2

Do the Devata Kanda sutras declare that Narayana is Brahman? Yes. The last three sutras are: Ante Harau Taddarshanat - Ultimately Hari is to be meditated upon Sa Vishnuraha Hi - He is called Vishnu Tam Brahmetyachakshate, Tam Brahmetyachakshate - He is announced as Brahman, he is announced as Brahman These sutras are authentic because they are cited by ...


1

What you are really looking for is the translation of Ṭupṭīkā which has not been translated to English yet. From the Introduction to English translation of Ślokavārtika by Ganganath Jha: On the Bhāṣya [of Śabara], we have the commentary of Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, generally spoken of as "Bhatta." This work is divided into three parts, known under ...


1

अपौरुषेय, apauruṣeya, means "not of a man". I think there is a basic misconception about the word used. The Veda was called अपौरुषेय, apauruṣeya- not because no one remembers who their authors are, but because the author was, is and will be the Almighty God. Here, the usage of the word "author" requires clarification. The ancient seers, unlike later ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible