YajiiavaIkya~brahmavas and the Early Mimarpsa (Walter Slaje, Weimar

)

I Comparative investigations into the Purva- and Uttara-Mrmamsa tend in most cases to focus predominantly on differences of mainly a doctrinal nature by sharply contrasting them. The present paper, however, will- in its introductory part - rather be concerned with some features that have received lesser attention. They belong to the sphere of social and ideological aspects and are in a sense more related to everyday life than to philosophical doctrines. After briefly outlining some of such features in their intra-and inter-systemic contexts they will form the background for the argwnent to be made in the subsequent part, dealing with the so-called Yajfiavalkya-brahma1.las and their relationship to the early development of the Purva-Mimamsa ..Although my observations are of a more general nature, it is hoped that they will contribute to a future conspectus of connecting and dissociating peculiarities, as the case may be, of both the Mtmamsas, 1. 1.1.

Introduction: The Vedic dharma in its bifurcation and the purposes of the Karma- and
[fianakandas

Sankara

According to Sankara's (Vll2 centuryi'): Bhagavadgttabhasya the Vedic dharma, characterised by (ritual) activity (pravrtti) as well as by its opposite, ritual inactivity or renunciation (nivrtti), also supports the world in exactly such a twofold way. Sankara and
VElTER (1969: 15) opts for the second half of the 7th century. In like manner also THRASHER (1993: 127), who accords with VETTER and demonstrates in detail (pp. 112-121) that Sankara must indeed have been referred to by Mandana in his Brahmasiddhi. Mandana's literary activity has been fixed by THRASHER (Icc. cit.) as between 660 and 720 by the following reasons: Mandana knew Dharmaklrti (600-660) and the latter's older contemporaries Kumarila [5TErNKELLNER 1997: 6421 and Prabhakara, Prabhakara displays knowledge of the doctrine adhered to by Kumarila and should therefore be dated in the VIIl century IYosHIMIZU 1997: 49]. Sankara, too, knew Dharmaklrti and Kumarila [MESQUITA 1994.: 458, n. 33]. Mandana, who refers to Salik.ara rVETIER 1979: 11, fn. 2], is quoted himself by Suresvara, Sar\kara's direct disciple. So he seems to have been a contemporary of Sankara, Umbeka, who demonstrably was active between 760 and 790, wrote a commentary on Mandana's Bhavanaviveka, reporting already a number of variant readings which must be accorded some time (at least half a century) for their gradual development. THRASHER consequently arrives at ca. 720 for a later limit of Mandana, This is in accordance with the fact that Mandana is also quoted by Karnakagomin (750-810) [VETTER1979: ll£]. Therefore Sankara, who, as trustworthy [THRASHER1993: 113f] traditional belief has it, died comparatively young, could indeed have ended his life around or before 700 A.D. Suresvara quotes Mandana, So also does Bhaskara, active perhaps immediately after Sankara [ROPING 1977: 18; cpo also STEPHAN 2002: 19£], who was himself refuted by Vimuktatman, whom 5CHlvfQCKER assigns to approximately the first half of the tenth century (2001: 21£, n ..4). It is in the sense of merely a working hypothesis that I adapt the established relative chronology to an absolute dating as follows: Sankara (670-700) <--- Mandana (660-72:0) <--Suresvara (680-740) <--- Bhaskara (between 720 and X century) <--- Vimuktatman (between 740 and Xl century).
1

1

some of his followers? provide a mythical account for this claim: Visnu Narayana created Marter,' the first of the Prajapatis, and Sanaka, for making the world continue. To Martel and the other Prajapatis he taught the Vedic dharma of (sacrificial and social) activity. Through procreation they became the first householders. The dharma of inactivity or renunciation, characterised by knowledge and dispassion, was taught to Sanaka and his three brothers, who thereupon became the first celibates." We may consider both of them true archetypes of the lifelong householder (grhastha) and the lifelpng renouncer (sa1f/.nyilsin) respectively. Marfci, who as a Prajapati begot offspring and never became a renouncer, archetypically represents the sacrificing householder. The renouncer-type on the other hand as represented by Sanaka, is the lifelong celibate. He never became a householder and never procreated offspring." It is clear that Sankara's bifurcation of the Vedic dharma mirrors the Karma- and [fianakandas, In his opinion, the dharma of the Karmakanda causes bondage" and can at best bring about abhyudaya (a divine position in heaven)," The [fianakanda alone was capable of effecting final release from transmigration (nibsreyasa}.8 Although the karmamarga of a householder is thus assigned limited importance in terms of final release, it nevertheless contributes to the purification of the organ (I capacity) of discrimination (sattvasuddhi)9 and by way of this prepares for eventually entering the state of a knowledge-based renouncer." The celibate renouncer would thus take advantage of the primacy of liberation over the householder. 1.2. Kumarila

Kumarila (VIP century) on his part, whose Slokavarttika was referred to by Sankara," held a slightly different opinion on the respective purposes of the Karma- and the [fianakanda, and on the way in which they would exercise a beneficial effect on final reSee e.g. Atmasukha, VC p. 2, 7 if. For mythological details of his domestic life cpo MANr (l998}:487. See BhGBh (Introd.), p. 1,7-10: .... marreyadin agre smvt! prajapatIn, pravrtfilak$ar;taT/1dharmam grahayam asa

2 3 4

vedoktam. taio 'nyfi.1]13 sanakasanandanadtn utpadya, nivrttilak~arzaTf1.dharmam jiifinavairagyalak$al;ta111 griiea haylim lisa. dvividJw hi vedakto dharmalJ- praoritilaksano nivrttiiak!?a1Jas ca jagatal;: sthitikaranam. 5 For details cp. MAN! (1998): 682. 6 Cp. BhGBh (p. 270, 2f) ad BhG 18.30: pravrtti~ .... bandhahetu"tt karmamargal;: sastravihitavi$ayaJ:r, ... niurttir mok$ahetu~ Sa'f!myiisamarga~. 7 BhGBh (Introd.), p. 2, 12f: abhyudaytirtho 'pi ya"ttpravrftilak$al;to dharmo ... sa deviidisthtinapriiptihetur ... 8 BhGBh (Introd.), p. 2, 4ff: ... param niJ;:sreyas41!tsahetukasya sa1!1siirasyatljanloparamalak$a1JO.m. tac cOl saruakarmasa1]1.nyasapurvakad litmajfiiinani/ithitruptid dharmad bhauaii. It is interesting to com pare Parthasarathi's similar opinion on the difference between abhyudaya and niJ;:sreyasa: adr!?t.al]'1a phala1]1.... doioidham abhye udayOlriipOlrrl iJ;:.srerj4Sarupa.trt a, 'saroan kaman tlpnoti' (ChU 7.10.2) 'so 'snute sarvan .kIlmtin' (TaittU 2.1.1) n e ityady abhyudayaphalam. 'M sa punar ifvartate ' (- Ch U 8.15.1) ityddi nil;:sreyasaphalam iti viveka~ (SO 131,
9

15ff). Cp. also MESQUITA 1994: 452, n. 7; 460ff. BhGBh (Introd.), p. 2, 12ff: ... 1)al;: raorttilaksan» p

dharma ... sa ,.. iSvartlrpatIabuddhyanu~thiya'l11ltrlaJ;: satioan.

suddhaye bhavati ...

10 BhGBh (Introd.), p. 2, 12~16; ... yal;:pravrttilak$a~1O dharmc ... sa ... sattvasuddhaye bhavati I suddltasattvasya en ifitinanil?thityogyafiipraptidvfirel.la jtIanotpattihetutvena ca ni(lsreyasahetlltvam api pratipadyate. Cp, also

1l

STEPHAN 2002: 54£{; 94. MESQUITA 1994: 458, n ..33.

2

lease (mok~a).12 To his mind as laid down in the Slokavarttika, the study of the Upanisads (vedanta) would have rendered the natural certainty about the existence of a self, as tacitly presupposed by Vedic injunctions," a firm conviction (dr4ha niscaya) but nothing more:" drdhaioam etadvi~ayal; prabodhal;15prayati oedanianiseoanena (SV, iitmav. 148 cd) Therefore, in Kumarila and Sankara we meet with opposite opinions clearly distinguishlng between the two Kandas and claiming a different purpose for each of them. For Kumarila the Jfianakal;l.<;lawas auxiliary to the Karmakanda in that it reinforces the given certainty of the existence of one's own sell. Sankara on the other hand belittled the Karmakanda by assigning it a mere preparatory value for, and thus subordinating it to, the [fianakanda, All this is, however, not really new and would in no way come as a surprise to an Indologist. 2.

Social aspects

2.1. The two Mfma1f/.sas in the context of Crhastha- and Samnyasa-Asramas It is perhaps worthwhile to dwell on the probable impact the respective Kandas must have exercised on the chosen order of life (asrama) of their dedicated followers, since we may assume an intrinsic relationship between these two Kandas and two particular iisramas. For one thing, there is indeed good reason to assign the PurvaMimamsakas to the householder's order (grhastha-iisrama), since as followers of the Karmakanda they were sacrificing (karmins). The Uttara-Mtmamsakas in contrast belonged to the order of renouncers (sarrmyasa-asrama). As followers of the JnanakklDc;la their emphasis was on gnosis alone (jfianins), and they rejected performing sacrifices. From such a background an aged 16 Mimamsaka could hardly have felt compelled to eventually take to an entirely opposite, the renouncer's mode of life. It would have rendered all their arguments in favour of life-long extended sacrificial duties a relative value, and their KaDQ.aa preparatory position only, exactly as claimed by Sanka-

12 For details regarding the development of Kumarila 's ideas about moksa and related topics, from a purely ritual path (karmamarga) as expounded in the Slokavarttika, to the karmajfUinasamueeaya-path in the Tantravarttika (pp. 459; 463) and the Brhattlka (pp. 465 ff), cpo MEsQUITA 1994 and the articles of JOHN TABER and KrYOTAKA YOSHIl\IlJZU in the present volume. 13 So already Sabara, cpo MESQUITA 1994: 453, n. 13. Kumarila: "An injunction depends on a self, because otherwise [the use of the injunction would be) improper. This [dependance] being the case (loc. abs.), the existence [of a self] is made manliest. Therefore the [brahmalJa-quotations under consideration] here justify [what] is referred to by these [injunctions) as a subject matter." (5V, atrnav. 141: anyathiinupapatteS ea vidhinatmany apeksite I astitvadyotanad etair arthaksipiasamarihanam. II). See also NR (p. 513, 4f) on SV 141:

na keoalam upan~advacanad evatmastitvam, agnihotrtidividhayo 'pi hi nityarf! bhokiaram aniarenanupapadyamanas tam arthad dyotayanty eva. 14 Cp, MESQUITA 1994: 453; NR (p. 515, 6£) on 5V 148: difr~hyarthibhis tu uedantaoihiteso eva sraoanamanananididhyasanadi$u yatitavyam iii. Cp. Parthasarathi elsewhere: ... dr4havivekapratipadakilnam uponisadoak» ydnam ,.. (SD p. 131, 7) 15 -vi$aya/:tprabodha/:t with SO (p. 131, 9) against -vi$ayas en bodha/:tof the edition.
16 See

OUVELLE1993: 131 ff.

3

2. In a way. To OLIVELLE the central aim of the Mimamsakas was "to deny Vedic authority to celibate modes of life. Sahara and Kumarila as also pointed out by OLIVELLE. and other ritually incompetent people". 19 OLIVELLE 1993: 239. 17 18 4 .?" Sabara even went so far as to insinuate to long-time celibates that they "lived as Vedic students for forty-eight years in order to hide their impotence. came to the conclusion that "at least some Mimamsists totally rejected the legitimacy of celibate iisramas for ordinary people. See WITZEL2003: §2. However. this has not happened. if they had any validity at all. LVII.. would hardly stand to reason. remained a householder and also refused to become a renouncer. Why? state". Mandana. and right from the outset of their religious career at that.31. Suspending the same by a turn to a renouncer's life in the search for nothing but pure self-knowledge would in Mandana's opinion have in• Cp. 2. XLIX." Fulfilling the three obligations (ma) of studying the Vedas. celibate studentship and procreating householder. quite on the contrary. which knew of two stages in life only. Nevertheless. LXXIV. reserving them for the blind. nCp.. Sabara and Kumarila clearly took such a stance.) pp. 20 OUVELLE 1993: 238. are directed not at normal people who are capable of marrying but at the handicapped [. 242." And the Mlmamsakas. after having demonstrated that [aimini. the increase to be observed is somehow in line with Sankara's presentation of the mythic archetypes of lifelong householders and lifelong celibates. a third stage after the householder developed only later on. 105." a lifelong duty. P. XXXV. for instance. Piirua. p. the impotent.ra. It is difficult not to think of Sankara and of the majority of Samnyasins following his path as of lifelong celibates either.'?" Thus. to him no less than to Sabara. procreating offspring and of sacrificing was.and Uttara-Mtmiif(lsakas as life-long sacrificere or renouncers The mere prospect of turning away one day from the regular fulfilment of Karmakanda obligations they as grhasthas had previously been affiliated to would certainly have eased tensions and rather caused a decrease in the zeal with which Mimamsakas continuously and explicitly defended their lifelong ritual obligations against the opposite claims as made by Vedantins. however. held all the Samnyasins up to ridicule for precisely this reason. below sub 2. too.3 on the possibility of a ritually active life as a Pravrajaka.. SBh ad MSu 6.. who always emphatically contested the legitimacy of celibate life orders. [.] whom these texts provide with an alternative mode of life. 21 BS (Introd. the lame. 9.] The injunctions dealing with celibate asramas. LI. n." on which OUVELLE remarked that this must "surely have been intended as a jab below the belt at ascetic celibates of his time. the celibate renouncers became the scorn of many a staunch Mlmamsaka personality such as Jaimini. This may reflect the bipartite Asrama-structure of the early Vedic period. OLIVELLE.2. in particular with regard to offering. The early Vedic period knew only of two stages in life (studentship and householder). For in this case they all would have ended their lives in a Samnyasin's This.

4/12) was only briefly treated by KUPPUSWAMI SASTRIn i his introd uction to BS (LI f) and later reedi ted and translated by OLIVELLE986: 92~ 1 117.adalJ4in. On account of one unambiguous passage. and of having insinuated they were composed by some charlatan (NRD 316.. And this is what Sankara has to say about the 'urdhvaretas' (BSuBh 788.6 The passage under consideration (NRD 317. the triple-staff tradition) "considered some form of ritual life. The significant character is in their case rather of an emblematic. The triple-staffed (trida~4in) Brahmins.iii.praty anMrtasya. ekn. Z4 Similarly also Bhaskara and the Vi§i. Features of such a kind were the carrying of the single or the triple staff (trida~4in)24 as well as the habit of adding some peculiar appellations to their names. most interestingly. the Visistadvaitins or. vihitakaralJllnimittasya pap· mana vjdyodayapratibandhrtvar!~ darsayati .21-37. however.7 5 . probably a direct reference to Sankara (BSuBh789.17).and other Samnyasa Upanisads their Vedic authenticity and authoritativeness. ki1J1.3f on BSa 3.V€1JupillJi)"entailed the total withdrawal from all ritual activities. the Brahmavaivartapurana makes also a clear distinction between respectable layman Brahmins (Matta) and religious mendicants: bhattaJTLS ca bhik$ukaJr<5 caioa .35a. 1 25 Cp. Adhikarana VI: Iaimiruyas.3. cpoalso TRD 284.i tefji1l?tsanti. At any rate it should be recorded that Jaimini. 2. The other" (scil. pratipannagarlwsthyasyatmavidyayaiva krtakrtyatarfl manvanasya.. Bhaskara. In continuation of his argument with Bhaskara he states that one should not reject texts accepted by venerable and reliable per- • 23 Cp. 9ff. by the Mlmamsakas. BS 36.31] . It was used as a criterion to clearly distinguish between their respective representatives. Advaita-Vedantins who followed Sankara were bearers of the single staff (ekada~4in).4. They were assigned a minor state of renunciation only.r!1vinapi tair [scil. in keeping with the dharma of one's asrama. (BVP IV 105.casrami1Jli.1: urdhvaretasa1J1.2.16 on BSu 3.hibited the attairunent of such a goal through causing a considerable delay. such as kuitcaka or bahudaka2S• Anandanubhava's Nyayaratnadipavali (13th century) can be taken as a testimony to this assessment.armalJY ape~yante vidyiiyam abhyasa/abhyayam api . thus demonstrating their state of renouncer of the highest order (paramaha1!Isa).17): na hy agniJwtradini oaidikani karmalJ. The following is the context of this remarkable passage: Anandanubhava reproaches Bhaskara for having denied to the Kathasruti. Sabara. belonged to factions connected with karmajfUinasamuccaya-and related doctrines. symbolic nature..70). Kumarila and Mandana explicitly defended the ideal of the practice of life-long sacrificing. OLIVELLE986: 52 fi." it becomes clear that at the time certain additions to names were indeed sufficiently 'telling' for his contemporaries to identify" the respective order of life (grhastha or sarrznyttsin) the author of a particular text was belonging to. an essential feature even of renunciation." See OLIVELLE986: 52 f.The single-staff tradition (ek. as represented by e. 6f£).tu kala/crto visefjab· ... cpo MSa 6. 2-15 ad ~DS.. rtJ.: yajfiildibhibl visuddhavidyodaya ifYate..4." It is in terms of acceleration that he recommended a combined procedure of continuing one's obligations and of searching for self-knowledge without.~advaitins. '}. taking to renunciation. Symbolic elements: Triple staff and appellations There are some more features keeping a Purva-Mimamsaka apart from an Uttara-Mimamsaka. however.. k..apakaralJaTfl. 1 "1./?:lanitrilJY apiikrtya [ManuS 6. Strikingly enough.g. BS 36.

viracite ca viSvarupagranthe .iti. as was perhaps inferred from the appellation 'Guru'. by the honorific 'Bhatta' prefixed to his name in the colophon. when of old age. 32 See SPRQCKHQFP 1981: 84--87.paviracite . By means of this Anandanubhava identifies Visvarupa as Suresvara.. and this is made explicit. Prabhakara-Guru.1-dana-Misra. had the choice to emigrate voluntarily from his village or urban environment. This does not necessarily mean they thereby would actually have changed their Asrarna. This can be substantiated by a revealing passage in Bhaskara's Brahmasutrabhasya. in that they were considered bearers of the single-staff (ekadar:ujin). Their state may rather have resembled either the Vanaprastha or the late Vedic Pravrajaka type. 2-6: grhasthavasthilyiirp. 30 It is further substantiated by pointing out particular appellations that permit discerning between authors of the householder and the renouncer type. 5-58 it is Visverupa's Balakrtda commentary on the Yajfiavalkya Dharmasastra which Anandanubhava has in mind here. 30 See OUVELLE 1986: 52£.Z8 in particular when they belong to the foremost of learned men (si{ltagra1J. Anandanubhave might therefore have agreed with the opponent who held that Prabhakara was indeed an ekadandin. (NRD 317. 33 See OUVELLE 1986: 26 ff. where it has been stated that performing the rituals would very well go together with carrying the tridanda and that the meaning • the variant -bhtlva* (apparatus) to text: -vak1jail.) LI f. topknot and other emblems such as the triple staff. Although a precursor of what later developed into renunciation (sarrmyasa. their relationship with the Crhasthasrama was seen in accordance with their carrying aj:triple-staff (trida1J.. Visvarapa and Prabhakara-Curu are both assigned to the faction of Anandanubhava himself.iSvarii. Interestingly.r). According to BS (Introd. a former householder roaming about in his old age continued sacrificing by keeping also his sacrificial cord. likhital?l tu bhatta-v. taking Visvarupa as his earlier name before he became an ekadandin under the name of Suresvara. sar." who. no similarly revealing remarks are made with reference to Prabhakara . the pra-uraja mode of life nevertheless survived as a householder's (grhastha) alternative to becoming an extreme renouncer (san.sons (tiptabJmva). a case of Pra-vrajaka or the Vanaprastha Asrama. without abandoning his sacrificial duties. it was certainly not the Pari-vrajaka mode a Mimamsaka aspired or eventually took to. tathil hi . The Dvandva compound °maIJ4an~-vacaspati-sucarita-misra* should be taken as an Ekasesa with the final member referring to each of the three preceding ones.parivriijakiiclirya-suresvaraviracite . Vacaspati-Misra and Sucarita-Misra. Therefore. MaI. He enwnerates them by their names of Visvarupa." Whatever this may have been. na casau granthal.mytlsin). While the latter had to break away totally from tradition. The three 'Misras?" on the other hand were in no way suspected of having been ekadandins. he would have identified himself by putting Parivrajakacarya before his Samnyasin-narne of Suresvara" Unfortunately. Had a Samnyasin written it. but in doing so they continued sacrificing and carrying their symbolic triple-staff.4a).nn1jasinii viracitaf:r. 28 Preferring 211 6 . pari-vraja) in the strict sense of an Asrama..iii granthe nama likhet. we may come to the conclusion that aged Mimamsakas possibly might have left their home. That Visvarupa wrote his Balakrtda commentary as a householder (grhastha) can be recognized. he asserts. Quite on the contrary. n. note 152 and OUVELLE 1986: 105. 31 NRD 318. 10).

Paritosa-Misra." Householders were naturally bound to carry out activities (karman). see MESQUITA1994: 459 ff and 465-469.58. It may be recalled from paragraph 2.of the word 'pravrajita' has nothing in common with 'renouncement' (tytiga).o grh. Given such a background it is worthy of note that in perfect accordance with Anandanubhava's information and Bhaskara's remarks we do indeed find specific appellations appended to the proper name of almost every Purva-Mtmamsaka recorded in literature.1 trisandltyopl'fsa/(p. 35 For traditional names and titles such as 'Misra' ." Prabhakara-Misra. which is also known as Karma-inana-eamuccaya..al. BhavanathaMisra. rtibhtikartis en p t.34 No less revealing is Gunaratna's characterisation of Purvamlmamsakas as typical householders: tatra purvamimarrr. MESQlTITA convincingly shown that already has before Mandana also Kumarila (in his Tantravarttika and Brhatttka) had supported a combined mode of life (samuccaya) in like manner. was basically open for See Bhaskara (SMBh 208.f Sabara-Svamin. 59. ~ Tantravarttika and Brhattfka. Mandana-Misra.. Cp. XLVII.iinarn. 24f). Parthasarathi-Misra..37 In his investigation of 1994. 3.o brahmasiari- r. na hi pravrajitasabdas tyfigartho . fn.. THRASHER1993: 32.106. No Advaita-Vedanta renouncer is known to bear a similar addition to his name. . Ideologies Activity (karrnan) and knowledge (jfiana) 3. Salikanatha-Misra. quite contrary to the path concentrating on seeking only knowledge (jfi.aprarupir.. the ancient commentator on the BAU.. Thus they must have conceived of themselves as being fundamentally related to the 'path of activities' (karmamarga. respectable Brahmins of the 'laity'. 8).7-10 ad SDS. 1." 30 MESQUITA1994: 474.2 above that Mandana had favoured the ideal of a combination of ritual activity and knowledge. R.'Bha tta' and'Svamin' as characteristic of Brahmins cpo WITZEL 1994: 265.7. and so on.s caioa vipras caioa purohitah' II.sthitilf. as can be judged from the example of Bhartrpraparica." Yet. Bhatta-Umbeka.t. the precise nature of which depended largely on their respective (sva-) dharma. KumarilaBhatta or Kumara-Svamin. but never to rencuncers... karmatyago nasii. 39 For Bhartrprapaika in the present context see ROPING 1977 and MFSQUITA1994: 463. in his Lokaprakasa (LPr p. (TRD 283. Ksemendra. nivrtti).. Kumarila was certainly not the first to think along such lines and probably also not the first to lead his life accordingly. 43. tridandapakse . v.7. who was criticised by Sankara for his bhedabheda views. also below.t.asthilsrama.arga.. n . 37 BS (Introd. This cannot be merely accidental. kukarmaoioarjino yajantidi$atkarmakarir. from ritual to the fulfihnent of various social obligations. te ea duedha bhtitttil. sudrtinnadivarjakli bhavanti. Murari-Misra. which. 479 f. relates the title of a Bhatta to ritually active Brahmins: rtvijo ylljifiko yajvlt samanio bhatta ucvate . tuttaramtmameatadtnat: .1. 'Bhatta' or 'Svamiri' point to learned. These additions such as 'Misra'. pravrtti).atpancapramti1').) pp. n. Adhikaye rana VI: [aiminlyas).>4 • '7 .silvadinaf. Sucarita-Misra. VIDYABHUSANA (1915: 88) fails to supply a reason supporting his statement that °svamin was related to people hailing from the southern regions: "The title Svami appended to Paksila in the name Paksilasvami also points to his birth-place having been in Dravida.

See MEsQUITA 1994: 466. Jabalopani:. 480.4. vanad viii .1£: tasmad yavad idam me sariram iii kannanibandhanavrttir anuoariate. e. in ) particular 220. grhf bhutvn vani bhavet. Karmajnanasamuccaya and the jtvanmukti From the Brhattika fragments preserved in Srtdhara's Nyayakandali and analysed by R.refused to ever become a renouncer.f On account of this. however. Parthasarathi is equally explicit with regard to lifelong offering combined with lltmajflt'tnaas the means to neutralize accumulated karman (SD 130.ad 4: .an expansion into a combined karma. cpo 5MBh passim. 58.. XXXVI ff." Bhaskara. also held a Karmajnanasamuccaya position" and . namely that of a renouncer.17-134. 224. he naturally incurred the hatred of ascetic and purely knowledge-orientated Advaita-Vedantins.and jfiiina-marga. 41 5MBh 207. tathasramakarma1Jrti nantarnle parityilgaf:r. For Bhaskara. For Mandana.7. From Parthasarathi' s presentation of the matter it would... Apart from an explicitly formulated jfvanmukti-doctrine he shared with Mandana. 132. 46 Cp. the karma-inana-eamuccava as well as the state of jfuanmukii connected with it share in a closer relationship than discernible from perhaps only a superficial point of view.from whatever the actual order of his life may be.iva samndayo [cp. As another example for a close relationship between jfU'inakarmasamuccaya and jrvanmukti one may draw upon Sridhara.ifpra--vvraj bore atall the very connotation of 'renunciation' in the sense as claimed by later traditions (see fn. Such an ideology is merely based on the Smrti. besides his bhedabheda orientation." Indeed. 89.6].. BS (Introd. 26 ff). 44 MEsQUITA 1994: 470 ff.." views of such a kind tend to trace back the idea of jfvanmukti exclusively to the Advaita-Vedanta movement. As is well known.) XXXVIff. too. n. taoad asramakarmanuvrttir asakyi'Jniviirayitum . brahmacanjal11 samapya grhf bhavet. in particular See below. leaves it to the decision of the person concerned to directly 'renounce' ..26~208. No wonder then that in exactly this regard Sankara's Vedantic adversary Bhaskara has much more in common with Mandana than with Sankara. Kumarila. From a presupposed authoritativeness of the Sruti in favour of a turn to an ascetic order of life..27] yavajjlVam anuvartante vidu~ilm apavargaprap~ taye.4and Bhaskara's harsh criticism of Samnyasa on pages 208-211. appear. In this connection it should be recalled jhat Bhaskara explicitly rejected also opinions according to which the Sruti would indeed prescribe to refrain from a householder's duties at a certain stage and to enter another state.18[132. 24ff: tasmad yatha. 151. See also notes 34. n. 42 5MBh 210. MESQUITA it appears that Kumarila seems to have accepted a particular liberation concept. see BS (Introd . 43 SeeSMBh 207. the author of the Nyayakandalt. 34. 3. 45 See. On Bhaskara and his relationship with Sankara see ROP[NG 1977: 65ff.6.. SSG 3. Despite this.2. Bhaskara clarifies. 40 I 8 .13. not infrequently quoted in such contexts.58) . SLAjE2000a: 32St. too.= quotation of Yogasntrabhasya ad Yogasutra IV 30). 28 f).quite befittingly . Bhartrprapafica..g. 151.." the notion and term ('fivanmukti') of which is elaborately discussed first in Mandana's Brahmasiddhi. van! bhutva pravrajetl yadi vetaratha brahmacaryad eva pravrajet. Mandana and Bhaskara were some outstanding personalities to support a Karma-jnana-samuccaya doctrine. was in accordance with the Sruti (srauta}. grhad va.130.20. that moksa realises itself only after death: asati sarlrarambhe purvasarfranipiite casariro 'oasihito mukio bhavati (SO 130. 73.1J3 Briefly. the Jabaiasruti.7 (. 469.. it would necessarily follow that the mendicant life of Buddhists and [ainas.

and jfitina-path. 51 SLAlE ZOOOa: 325 ff. but explicitly in Mandana (660-720). and very reluctantly at that. See also MESQUITA1994: 470. Apart from the two Mtmarnsas. idea and term of'jfvanmukti' were already there in Mlmamsa circles in the 7th century. 5. The earlier jivanmukti notions appear as intrinsically related to a karma.on the basis of the Bhagavadgtta. . Anandanubhava. cit. The latter in particular. thesis of CARMEN-UNDINEHOFFMANN. the fivanmukti can terminologically and doctrinally be traced back to the Bhasyas on the Yoga." The first systematic representation of an Advaita. 13.as Sankara has it . 4. and also Sankara (BSuBh p.. 688) for a summary of the idea of jivanmukti in Vimuktatman and other Advaitins.to Sankara. Rama in the Moksopaya. Cp. in particular to grhasthas and the k?titra dharma of the ruling class (k$atriya).27.referred to even by [aimini with a view "to demonstrate that householders engaged in procreation and ritual activities can indeed attain the knowledge revealed in the Vedas. 239f]. n. 3·851. 52 See SLAJE 2000. for this chapter the forthcoming Halle M.Vedantic jivanmukti doctrine becomes visible as late as in the 13th century through Anandanubhava who dedicated the fourth chapter of his Nyayaratnadipavali to this concept. BhGBh ad BhG 6.S2 Let it be noted that famous exponents of the nobility figure always prominently in such contexts: Arjuna in the Bhagavadgita. implicitly perhaps in Kumarila (VIII). For this problem in Vimuktatmari's doctrine cpo SCHMOCKER2001: 158·171. who as a commentator on the Istasiddhi was well acquainted with Vimuktatman's ideas. 129.18 [OLNELLE 9 . n. but was . 47 • Cp. too.54has not only become the model of a jfVanmukta in later tradition. 480. But only scarcely did the latter touch on it. 8££ ad BSu. took the latter as a point of reference for his own jfVnnmukti exposition.3).4. 2000a. 1993: 241. Forthis lac. 78 for references. the historical truth turns out rather as follows: the Vedanta tradition initially felt compelled to react to an idea gradually gaining predominance over their own claim of a primacy of renunciation.':" Tradition has it that under the influence of YajfiaCp. 106ff. 50 See SLAlE 2000a: 343. 2001.and on the Nyayasutras respectively. and Uddyotakara.. who must be assigned a time between Mandana and Vimuktatman..demonstrably closely related to the grhastha order of life. 850.25. the Mahabharata and the Moksopaya . 53 On his identity cpo WITZEL 2003: §2. and so also in the Bhedabheda-Vedantin Bhaskara. n. On the other hand. 3A. pp. BSuBh pp. 54 55 OLIVELLE view as ascribed to Jaimini cpoSankara's Bhasya on BSu 3. 48 49 SLATE 2000a: 338-342. Earlier on only Vimuktatman (VIII2/ Xl) pronounced himself more prominently in favour of a jfvanmukti doctrine as this pad become unavoidable for safeguarding his ekajfva-vtida.. also MESQUITA (2000: 181£. The development and the early history of the jfvanmukti-idea was .A.or a karma.49 Moreover. 520f£. king [anaka" in the Mahabharata.f This idea did not regard liberation as being necessarily inhibited by ritual or social activities . n. n. who remained SOciallyactive throughout his life. 97." So contrary to the 'Vedanticized' mainstream opinion maintained uncritically by too many Indologists. 783. is very explicit with regard to that idea. n. with an emphasis on their active participation in SOciety (karmin).quite on the contrary. SLATE 2000a:326.6 on BhG VI 47]: grhasthasyarjunasya . Cp.3.375." This was about one hundred years before Vidyaranya firmly established the jfvanmukti idea in Advaita-Vedanta circles by writing his famous JIvanmuktiviveka treatise. Bhaskara [BhGBh(Bh) 165. n.

so to speak. and also in the Yoga.the archetypical fivanmukta as it were. if we take R.and Nyaya-commentaries. This is not the case.56 Thus. MESQUITA's pioneering investigation into passages pointing to Mimamsa jrvanmukti ideas into consideration. As an interim result it may therefore be maintained that the bifurcation of the two Mtmamsas fairly extended also to social.a.Vedanta-renunciation the jrvanmukti must be taken as an anticipation of final liberation in the sense of an attainment of a positive experience (bliss. 20 ff and 130. This would result in a lasting dispassionate attitude. MESQUITA 1994: 458f. conceived of the jrvanmukti as of liberation from attachment to the fruits of actions and from passionate involvement in worldly things and matters. our distorted picture of the history ofjrvanmukti is largely due to a preconceived notion according to which the term would necessarily bear an Advaita-Vedanta coinage. There is also a subhtifjita on the Grhasthasrama that ties in nicely with some of the features just pointed out: nytiytitjitadhanas tattvajfitinanistho 'tithipriya/:ll stistravit satyavtidf ca grhastho 'pi vimucyate 11. considered to be the same in all traditions. It is true that in the broader context of Advaita. 26ft] and by a particular view-point according to which moksa means liberation from any relationship with the (material) world: so 'yal7'1prapancasal1'lbandho bandhae.valkya's thought. the doctrines as preserved in the epic. in the Moksopaya. v.57 we may not be wrong in assuming that a similar conception may have prevailed among the Mimamsaka householders.). tad-vimo~as en mok~aZl (SD 125. etc. advice and example he remained a house-holding king and did not renounce although he had already become a jftanin . 479. 32 f). SRBh p. through fully experiencing (bhoga) its effects already brought into action (priirabdha) [cp. symbolic. which alone would be neutral in terms of karmic retribution. ideological and soteriological aspects. This is also supported by the emphasis put on the neutralisation of karman. In contrast to this. Crhastasramaprasamsa. as they were related to a continuation of ritual activities. the basis for non-intentional activities and participation in the world. 93.30). 8f (= 2ndprakaraI). 1). nihsambandho niranandas ea mok$a/:l (SD 128. 56 57 10 . cpo also SD 129. In short.

. This.BIARDEAU 1 1968: 113f.vraj does not mean 'renouncement' (tyilga) [see above. the Sabarabhasya. marking at the same time the end of his edition.1]. According to PARPOLA (1994) [aimini is earlier than Katyayana (p. Parthasarathitreats the 'Vrttikara section' in his Sastradipika (SO) from p.14 (SBh[F]). 2 ad BAU IV 5.25.60 as handed down by Sahara. 24.and the Uttara-Mimamsa respectively. ZANGEi'JBERG (1962: 65. aham .vraj usage in the BAu cp. 431~434]. who can be dated between 248-180 B.. WITZEL 2003.vraj (pravraji$Yan I=: I pnrivriljya.C. and inquire into a possible historical relationship with the two Mimamsas. Let it be noted right at the outset. fn. 89.C. ZAN1 GENBHRG 1962: 61ff (62f on the structure). 2). so also in the case of udyasyan: udyasyan I=I urdhoam yasyan I=l piirivriijyCikhyam iisramantaram [BAUBh 299.15. 44. 40). 34. (p. Sankara. ptlrivriijyapratipattir asii (BAUBh ad IV 5. 84 ff. M (IV 5. was conspicuously quick in identifying pra-"'. however. Schr. is anything but certain. in one place. 750ftl) was the first to point to the fact that the oldest extant exegeses ( of the BAU are contained in a Mimamsa work. in particular. 67) had already emphasised the highly speculative nature of such an assumption by using "vielleicht" and "unverkennbare Ahnlichkeit".16 to 48. 58 Yajfiavalkya's outstanding personality and idiosyncratical manner of speech cannot be explained by literary fiction alone.C. On pp. according to whom the Vrttikaragrantha would have covered the text from pp. see FISER1984 and. 1981: 68-76. 303). as he also was in excluding socially active classes from the renouncer's mode of life: na hi ~atriyavaisyayolJ. 1 S9 PARPOLA 1981: 159 ff. For attempts at an exact demarcation of the Vrttikaragrantha from Sabara's own words . as a seeker for self-knowledge and. (ca.II Let us now turn to Yajfiavalkya.16 to 60. (Yajftavalkya's direct speech).)61 in his Bhasya on MSa 11. Yajfiavalkya is represented in the SPB as officiating priest and householder."). SPROC'KHOFF 1979: 396 ff. FRAUWALLNER 1968: 108ff. 426. 1968: 6~ H. IV 5. Whether it was Yajiiavalkya himself or the character depicted as '¥ajfiavalkya' in the Upanisads that may have served as a model for some peculiar developments in both the Purva. FRAUWALLNER 54f. however.vraj with pari-"'. CLOONEY (1990: 53) as~ signs him a time "two or three centuries" after "the second century AD.2 to p. Schr.l) cautiously refrains from any determination of Sabara's fiorui: It was ZANGENBERG (1962: 66) who established the time of the Vrttikara as the I'! half of the 5th century as a "preliminary working hypothesis".2). FRAUWALLNER'S inclination to assign to him the 2nd half of the 5th century was based on the assumption ("augenscheinlich") that the Vrttikara had probably been aware of Vasubandhu's Vadavidhi (1968: 101). 300. is of no relevance for the point to be made here. HANEFELD (1976: 72. 109-111 FRAUWALLNER assigns also the atma-uada section to the Vrttikara. that the BAu had been redacted comparatively late (~ 200-100 J' 58 BAu IV 5.D. 1968: 60 • 11 . a number ofUpanisadic statements are quoted. For subsequent treatments of this passage cpo STRAUSS932:521~524l= KI.5. however.." All of them are authored by Yajfiavalkya and correspond with the received Madhyandina recension of the Brhadaranyaka. cpoSTRAUSS932: 487ff.. YOSHIl\1lZU (1997: 33. 8f ad BAu 11 4. 397ff. VERPOoRTEN (1987: 8) placed the Vjttikara in the 1"! half of the 4thcentury ("between 300 and 350 A. In contrast with STRAUSS.D.").15 [cp.25 (M): pravavrCija (redactional conclusion) for which K (IV 5" 15) reads: vijahara. JACOBI1914: 153ft [= KJ. 4th/5th century A. seemingly also as a Pra-vrajaka. 131]). 516. n.43]. FRAUWALLNER extends the section from 24. n." and to [aimini's Sutras a time for taking their shape "between the fourth and second centuries B. SAWAJ 992: 129. 3]. n.lrt karifYan (BAUBh 661. n. Note that according to Bhaskara pra-"'.59 In the Atmavada section of the 'Vrttikaragrantha'... FN 3) reports the reading udyaSlJan for the direct speech pravraji$yan in.. although by an obviously erroneous reference (note 38) to FRAUWALLNER 113.". On some doctrinal implications of the (historically later) pra-"'. and a redactional process until about 200 B.which has not yet really been settled beyond doubt. n. 61 As to Sabara's dating cpo VBRPooRTEN 1987: 8 ("between 350 and 400 AD.2 (M/K): pravraji$yan . 132. 3 [""KL Schr. [anaka's adviser.

..'jV 165. which had not yet been incorporated with the canon . Patafijali states more precisely: yajfi!lvalktini brahmm..I:tIV 3. 67PARPOLA1994: 298. TS. had not taken notice of EGGELING (1882). 6S Cp... in Patafijali's time..B.." a "key figure in the early history of Mimamsa"? and who. 105. non des chapitres d'Upanisad. 19-132.9 (1. were excluded from the term 'Taittirlyah' as uncanonical .. and translates Patanjali's yajiiavalkani briihmanani accordingly as: "the Brahmans works uttered by Yajnavalkya" (113) [all emphases mine]. Prabhakara and Salikanatha/" and also from what L.a. 135. 127 £f]) investigation on bnihrnan: brahmana (n. 21.avalkya by Katyayana. SV (atmav.tani (MBh II 316.] seem to me to stand somewhat on a par with the "Tittirina proktah slokah'. BRONKHORST. lived slightly before the final redaction of the BAu took place. "In later times a collection or digest of such detached pieces came to be likewise called a Brahmana. REINVANG(2000) referred to the 'brlihma1J. e... 66 Varttika 1 on Pii.].11. as implied by the title of the present paper. 'was Wahrheitsformulierung[en] enthalt'.. Recently.. (~jV 179. 146 (as explained by the NK) and SD pp.. RENOU had independently assumed already in 1948. 26£). A comparable usage has been brought to light by THIEME's (1952: 118 ff l= KI. of an 'instructional formulation'. J... All the quotations there go by the denotation of 'brahma1J.as' of Yajfiavalkya as 'pericopes'.1. however. etc. Schr..) is frequently (e. 15). 176. 186.akalpe$u yajnavalkyttdibhyalJ. Schr. Formulations of such a kind may consist of a single statement ('Ausspruch') only. was entirely unlikely to have referred to the whole Yajnavalkyaka1:1{iaof the BAU: "II est touta-fait improbable [. 403]). 12-15): pura1Japrokte~u brtthma1J.r" In a recent study.64Unless they refer to the smallest divisional units of the BAu or of the Satapathabrahmana. He takes it for granted that by 'brahmana' Katyayana and Patanjali were referring to recently composed 'works'. namely that the reference to brahmanae of Yajfl. 143. already EGGELING1882: "Single discourses of this kind were called brtlhma~a" [. Both kinds of tracts probably belong to the last floating materials of Ad[h]varyu tradition. 13. J que cette expression vise le Yajnavalkya-kZil)<.la de la BAu: le su. concerne 'les traites de Brahmans et de Kalpa'. This observation can claim confirmative support from the matching usage of other Mimamsakas such as Kumarila and Parthasarathi. "The weakness of Goldstucker's argument lies in his identification of the Yajfiavalkani Brahmanani with the Brahmans of the Vajasaneyins.] "or because they were" [.63 and that in the Vrttikaragrantha as such no direct reference is made to the names of either Yajfiavalkya or of the Brhadaranyaka-Upanlsad. IV.. [.] "the authoritative utterances of such as were thoroughly versed in Vedic and sacrificial lore and competent" [. and has not discussed the evidence of the unambiguous Mimamsa usage of 'briihmana' in the given context.28). See.105 (Mbh II 316.] The Yajfiavalkani Brahmanani [. Furthermore.)..C.. auquel se refere I'exception de Katyayana. 69 BRONKHORST 1986 [21993]: 113£.. p. 68 RENOU 1948: 75 [885]. [emphasis mine] "die bezeichnenderweise hier immer Brahmana heillen. RENOU (1948) and THIEME(1952). the late redaction (200-100 Be?) of § 9. which. 7. According to BRONKHORST "BAu 3-4 must be meant by Katyayana" (114).. however. [. SPB) used in the sense of 'Wahrheitsformulierung'.26). Bf 165." (pp. which clearly contradicts his assumption.. which are as well called 'brahmanas'. 12 .]" (1932: 493 l= Kl. XXII f). the particular way the 'brahmana' references under consideration are arranged and used by the Vrttikara and Mimamsa authors rather point to the meaning of 'direct authoritative instruction' or.. 179. 3. M 63 WITZEL2003: . as of the 3cd/2nd century B.g. pratisedhas tu tulyakalatvat. 131. " (EGGELING1882: XXXVIll). BRONKHORST69arrived at the exact opposite ·opinion. 7£ (~jV 186.) 140f.g. As already noted by STRAUSS:"Upanisadssellen".C. AiB.

135. cpo RAu' s (1959/61) revealing "Remarks"." This exclusive BAU 70 71 WITZEL2003: § 9. but entirely overlooked by BIARDEAU in her 1967 study. be said with regard to the readings the ancient Mnnamsakas may have recited." 1." By this fact alone.. Yet. In the absence of a critical edition [cp. quoted in direct speech. 23] nothing definite can.I).. which she based on a comparison with the Kanva recension only (cp. Cp.lftsan yielded among others . older than Sankara (VU2). the quotes in the Sabarabhasyaare almost exclusively. whose meritorious investigations into the prehistory of the Mim. • an 13 .120.u. 1 and p. Recensional bifurcation in the commentaries Quite contrary to Sankara. in die MSS des bhasya versehleppt. i. with the exception of one indeterminate reading.Au [1959/61: 299 (121)]: "kritisch ediert wird [das BrhadaraJ:. as the case may be. I have pointed out elsewhere [WS (II): 301] that there is substantial reason to assume that by the times of the Vrttikara and Sabara the wording and the structure of the BAU might indeed in some passages have differed from our received recensions of today. what we actually meet with here under the designation of brahmanae are single formulations attributed to Yajftavalkya.also the result that Vajasaneyins such as Katyayana would have been involved in the early development of the Purvamimamsasutra. 70 makes the assumption Katyayana to the (Yajftavalkya)~Ka1Jtjas still more unlikely.. carried out only after Katyayana.adbha$ya] denaltesten uns vor der Hand erreichbaren K-Text der BAU enthalten.the BAD. "12 P ARPOLA 1981 and 1994. I do not want to enter here into a discussion of the textual prehistory of the YajftavalkyakaI. may be explained from the point of view of PARPOLA. OnSankara's knowledge (or rather: ignorance) of the BAU in both its recensions as well as for other essentials regarding his Bha:. who commented upon the BAu in its Kanva recension. Irrespective of the exact time that may be assigned to the anonymous Vrttikara and which might range between the 3rd and the 5th century as the latest possible terminus ante quem. 68. n.3. 74 In general this was already observed by STRAUSS 1932: 491 I=: Kl. of a reference by Therefore. however.ias in the SPR The solution of such a problem would above require a critical edition of early commentaries and other works of both the Munamsa and Vedanta traditions explaining or transmitting BAU quotations. n. Schr . R. starting from one Upanisadic formulation launched against the MimaIfls aka by a Buddhist. 73 P ARPOLA 1994: 304£. on p.305.p. taken from the Madhyandina recension alorte. In addition.lyakopani:. however. the present exegeses of the BAD are at any rate considerably.. who is commonly regarded the earliest preserved Vedanta commentator of the BAU (Kanva). namely almost half a millennium." [. 114.. The BAu (M) is the only Upanisad found quoted in the Sabarabhasya. the Samavedic affiliation of [aimini reflects a close connection between the (Madhyandina) Vajasaneyins and the Kauthuma-Samaveda branch at the formative time of the Mimamsa Sutra... This fact. n. as attested to elsewhere. these early hermeneutics. 401].. Das einzige Mittel. dealing with an Upanisad and authored by a Mimamsaka. The so-called 'Vrttikaragrantha' section as transmitted through the Mimamsabhasya displays some exegetical efforts with the aim of reinforcing or defending a Buddhi~t or the Mlmamsaka's position. n. ] "Die Varianten des mulagrantha wurden .e. deserve our close attention. see also notes 84f.ya on the BAU.. also REJNVANG2000: 163. albeit embedded in the Vrttikaragrantha.

79 See above. who left us a reference to them. Thus up to a certain point in history the Purvamrmamsa seems to have stood in an unbroken line of Madhyandina recitation. which from a historical viewpoint is not entirely unlikely." 75 PARPOLA1994: 305. Exegetical stratagems in the 5iibarabhiif?ya From the quotations in the Sabarabhasya. his personal language and his involvement in the canonical development of the White Yajurveda corpus see now WITZEL 2003." Given the unconcealed allusions in Gaudapada's Agamasastra (IT2-5) to Yajfiavalkya's dialogue with Janaka [BAD (IV 3)}.C. 71 For a study of Yajfiavalkya. p. fn. advayatii: As II 33. to some key-figures of the early Mimamsa.C. This is in particular true with reference to his statements on self-knowledge (iitmajiIiina) and to the doctrine of non-duality (advaita). which is given a prominent role.35. III 30. there is a direct line from Yajfiavalkya Vajasaneya. leading right back into the formative period of the BAu. the probable redactor and most prominent figure" of the corpus of White Yajurveda texts including the BAu. IV 4. Should the Buddhists really have used to refer to this passage in the way as testified to by the Vrttikara. it becomes clear that Yajfiavalkya's Janakaand Maitreyt-dialogues" were regarded as highly authoritative already in comparatively early times. word-formations and sayings have become extraordinarily influential for subsequent doctrinal developments.17." Thus. In addition. This might be due to the Buddhists' preference to quote from the dialogue in their own favour. 18: vaIoJiinvayiit). 68 . as were [aimini and Katyayana.80. Bhaskara replaces the feminine maitreyi by the masculine maitreya. 78 Strikingly. however.as) of Yajfiavalkya (see above). 80 advaita: AS I 10. In the Mimamsa texts on the other hand. ist die Aufstellung eines Stemm as alIer erreichbaren bh~ya-MSS und eine darauf gegrtindete kritische Edition. 2. 248-180 B. cpo WITZEL 2003: §9. as WITZEL has achieved to demonstrate in his investigation into Yajfiavalkya's language and personality. 14 .17 (ad BSu I 4. it is Yajfiavalkya 's aiman doctrine as imparted to Maitreyi. 77. Note. advaya: AS II 33. and certainly also during Megasthenes' presence at the Maurya court (c. III 18.45. 300 B. their pecudieser Verwirrung ein Ende zu setzen. Yajriavalkya's conceptions. A misprint can safely be ruled out in this case since the masculine stem occurs more than once and is also inflected in the instrumental case (maitreyel.62.16.5. chapter IV).la). 2. The same can hardly be said of the Kanva recension as commented upon by Sankara. The formation and initial coinage of the latter term (advaita) go doubtlessly back to Yajfiavalkya himself.36. that a coherent set of such formulations was cited from the BAu in its Madhyandina recension by the Vrttikara and that the BAu (M) is the only Upanisad incorporated into the Sabarabhasya at all. the frequent occurrence of advaita / advaya80 in this earliest extant Advaita-Vedantasastra may be connected with this fact. n.affiliation of the early (Purva-) Mrmamsa to the Madhyandina branch could indeed reach back to the initial period of its formation. II 18. but not the advaita doctrine. 76 Maduandinoi.85. that in later times Kumarila preferred to draw mainly upon the Chandogyopanisad (see K YOSHlMIZU's paper.). 137. cpo 5MBh 80." The Madhyandinas were very prominent already well before the Vajasaneyin Katyayana (ca. So it will not really corne as a surprise that the Vajasaneyin Katyayana expressly referred to formulations (briihma1J.)..

liar interpretation of this quote quite naturally necessitated a refutation. incidentally. BRONKHORST 1997. Among these. 15 (the MaitreyI dialogue):srutismrtivakyiini satasa upalabhyanta ita retaraviruddhaniI Cp. it not only is directly taken from Yajnavalkya. RAu 1959/61: 297 (119).f Each of the single quotes can exclusively. were demonstrably taken from the Maitreyi dialogue in the fourth Kanda (N 5). but also seems to have been justifiably contextualized. abounding in interpretations of Upanisadic quotes. &2 Cp. to Sankara's way of interpretation. is decidedly different. fn. the sixfold hierarchy (pramlil. I 15 . The majority of the citations.. 14) ." Cp. kurz. from different Sruti and Smrti text-places obviously considered apt to prove the point Sankara was trying to make himself.g. also notes 71.avalkya Vajasaneya as making up a coherent system of thought in its own right. forming as such part of the so-called Yajfiavalkyakanda. however.Ul) as established to determine Vedic sentence meanings when they relate to ritual matters (SBh ad MSu III 3. only one citation (neti neti). the quotes under consideration were interpreted by way of contextualizing the statements by pointing out their meaningful relationship. 125f£) of the V:rttikaragran~ tha (pp. or at least also. however. as convincingly demonstrated by W. It was probably also handed down as such by the exegetical tradition of the Madhyandinas. 85.84 is not likely to have received a traditional Vedic training and could hardly ever have had direct access to an unbroken exegesis of the BAU. The rest was taken from elsewhere.Saitkara on his part knew Madhyandina variants (s1'utyantara) only from Bhartrprapanca's (now lost) com81 Cp. M RAu 1959/61: 295 (117). occurring three times. 146 and NR thereon. daB er die Rezensionen der BA U nach MSS verglich. As such. regarded the statements of Yajft. So. the Moksavada section (p. always from the angle of the narrowest possible context. which were associatively accumulated. RAU. as a theoretically reflected method'Tas well as an exegetically applied strategy. There are roughly 65 quotes I have cursorily counted in his comments on the Maitreyt dialogues (II 4 and N 5). See also below. daB er oielerlei Versionen las. wo das Altertum eine Version auswendig kannte. actually stems from Yajfiavalkya. the respective immediate context is assigned a prominent criterion for a correct understanding of the intention of the whole. See also SD. daB Sankara traditionellen Unterricht im vedischen Sinne nie genossen hat. atmav. die womoglich noch nicht einmal akzentuiert waren. in Adhyayas 2-4 (= Janaka) and 5 (= Maitreyt). The authoritativeness of his interpretation is thus derived from a maximum of matching quotes. and whenever a supporting statement is adduced to reinforce a position. Contrary to Sankara. 83 See 5V.ss Yajnavalkya's formulations were meaningfully interpreted in context by the Mimamsakas without further quotation aid to be supplied from elsewhere. The interpretations comply with the immediate context of the respective quote. 95. did Kumarila and Parthasaratht. This refutation was carried out by way of sentence contextualisation. Not really unexpected for a Mfmamsaka. "FUr mich unterliegt es keinem Zweifel. who. the procedure is indigenous to Mi:mamsa hermeneutics. asThis is mirrored by Sankara's following remark on BAU IV 5.15).2~132. The method in the Sabarabha~ya. be located in the fourth Kanda of the BAD. it is noticeable that he absolutely would have tried to supply as many quotes as possible from as many different Sruti-passages as possible with a view to prove their internal coherence according to his own claims. at least as can be judged from the comparatively short text-piece as retained there." It is possible that some Mimamsakas. 89. Thus. If compared e. as they can historically be somehow attached to the Vajasaneyi branch.

sCHMITHAU- vijillina7]l purvavijfl. According to him. For. the Buddhist counteracted the Mimamsaka with the help of a definition of memory that would not necessarily presuppose any permanent substrate.vijfianaghana evaitebhyo bhutebhya/:l samutthtiya ttinyevanuvinasyati. [subsequent] one. the opponent advocates impermanent 'mind-constituents' (vijfitina-skandha) only. By way of conclusion he makes use of this quote for supporting his arguments put forward against the Mlmamsaka's doctrine of a permanent substrate (atman) of cognition. Since the argument had already been pushed forward to 'memory' (smrti) and to the problem with reference to what memory could arise in the absence of a permanent substrate. no permanent substrate needs to be postulated. which remembers mind." but also shared with many Mlmamsakas their characteristic karma-jfiana-samuccaya orientation. for his vijfiana-ghana quote from the Upanisad by anticipating an understanding of "maira / °ghana in the sense of "mere / only / nothing but". 13 / IT4.12) in his own favour. as it were. however. Cp. but] not [if] it was not caused by this [very] series.arrz bhavati .The Buddhist opponent took up this expression of vijfitinaskandha-maira by [vijfitina ]-skandha-ghana. he carries on to argue: anyasmin skandhaghane 'nyena skandhaghanena yaj jfitinam." Now. A Buddhist opponent" cites a orahmana (BAU IV 5. athasminn arthe briihma1J. The following is the quote of a cognate Sravakabhumi passage from 16 . cit. on this subject 86RAu (lac. 19-23) "[If] one [previous] mere constituent [of mind becomes] known by another mere constituent [of mind. The Vjttiksra's use of iti could indeed point to a reference of such a kind. asMost probably a Sautrantika as might be judged from the SEN (1967)." 3. 89 pitrvavijfltlnasadrsaf!'l 90 (vi)jfltina-sanUina doctrine. Detailed exposition o!Yajfiavalkya-brahmal:tas in the Vrttiktiragrantha In the following. who had argued thus: "Memory with reference to [what is] an impermanent mind-constituent only is therefore implausible" (tasmtlt ksanike vijfiana-skandha-mtitre smstir anupapanneii. it is indeed possible that a constituent of 'mind alone' (vijfitina-skandha-matra/ -ghana) be directed at a previous series (santati) of 'mind alone' and that from such a perspective it would actually be mind alone. SBh (F) 54." Accordingly. natatsantatijena. [only if it was] caused by the series of this [previous mind-constituent. the mere constituents [are] empty [of any permanent substrate]. All this is preceded by a concluding statement of the Mlmamsaka. is. I shall try to briefly analyse the Vrttikara's treatment of some of-Yajfiavalkya's instructional formulations. Therefore. tat tatsantatijentinyenopalabhyate.15£).mentary on the BAu. skandhagharu: iii. Therefore.iinavi~aya7]l va smrUr ity ucyate (SBh (F) 54. 87 See above sub 3. then] this [previous one] is perceived by the other. na pretya sarrzjfitistiti (SBh(F)54. The interesting point. This passage has something in common with the Sravakabhumi. that Bhartrprapanca not only commented upon the Madhyandina recension. 17£).). thus terminologically preparing. tasmnc chunyal. being a Sautrantika.2.

94 We have to assume this in the light of the other quotes. [and. 97 BAu IV 5..[The self] is indestructible. <J7 uinasuaram ca vijiianam. which forms the starting-point for the Upanisadic hermeneutics under consideration. sVii<mbbhutab kascid iitmii . From the narrower context of II 4 a similar procedure would not have been possible. because virtually all of the counter-statements relevant for the Mnnamsaka are entirely lacking there. asfryo na hi sfryata iti. I ~1 The present translation has.94 With a view to disprove the Buddhist's conclusion that nothing but a mind-series exists.------- . the Mimamsaka quotes a series of additional statements. anucchittidharmeti. 82. 17 --_---. by relating it to the same referential statement. this certainly is the self [of yours] here".27. % BAu IV 5.. 20.. as would be the atman. in the attempt of historical faithfulness. cpo FRAUWALLNER's apparatus (1968: 56). they also hand down]: I the text as given by SCHivIlTHAUSEN (1987: 297. n.12-15). all stemming from Yajfiavalkya. The Mtmamsaka quite obviously argues here from the context . However.•a frequently applied exegetical principle. 9Z For the possibility of an alternative translation cp.sa va are 'yam aimeti prak[tyamananty -. In the same way [. all the citations here are based on context and were therefore in all Iikeliness also taken from the Maitreyi dialogue of IV 5.avinasf va are 'yam iitma. tasmad oinasuarad anyab sa ity avagacehamab (SBh (F) 56. 95 See above.Look. n. to adopt the intention of the Buddhist opponent.P utilization of Yajfiavalkya's statement. for it does not perish _" of his] the referential of [this] quote: by [making another formulation ".15 (not in II 4}. and in the majority of cases presumably all taken from BAu IV 5. fn.14 (not in II 4). "Furthermore on this subject matter (j in [exactly) this sense) there is an instructional formulation [of Yajfiavalkya which] they hand down as ". nasty e~u skandhl?$u nityo dhruva~ sasvatai. although from a historical perspective perhaps not entirely implausible.] after [having thus emerged from them].. WS (II) 319.---------.Rfll bhavati . 1 iti hi sunyii ete salrLskiirii~t'ltmavirahita1_t.------ -_- ------. 221): tad eva'f!l sati sksndhamsiram eian..matter (I in [exactly] this sense) there is an instructional formulation [of Yajfiavalkya]: 9l<'IIt is] actually mind alone (-ghana) [which] emerges from these elements. must necessarily be presupposed. 93 Cpo on this WS (I). the Mlmamsaka makes his point by showing that a permanent substrate of cognition. WS (II)..96 tathti . There remains no consciousness [of an individual substrate] after dying (! no [permanent] post mortem awareness persists).. For the probable original Upanisadic meaning cpo WS (III): 214ft.There are more occurrences of this statement in the sAu." and by way of this he tries to demonstrate that Yajnavalkya's intention was totally different from what the Buddhist had attempted to interpret: athapy asminn arthe brahma1J. it [again] disperses along with them [and] only them.92 In the course of refuting the Buddhist's peculiar.

28 (K 26).99 parena nopalabhyata ity atrtipi brahma1J-aJ?l bhavati . kuiah? svayarrzjyoti$tvavacanat. and FRAUWALLNER 1968: 95-98 (Bhavadasa). (M) IV 4. namely] that [one's self] cannot be perceived by another. (M) IV 2. Your Majesty.. Thus spoke [Yajfiavalkya].z santy eva I (SBh (F) 58.sa esa neti nety atmeii hoviiceti102 (SBh (F) 58." On [the meaning of this statement. K IV 5.=.28 (K 26). 4 (K) / IV 2.agrhyo na hi grhyata100 iii. BIARDEAU 1967: 111." In support of this point the Mrmamsaka mulated by Yajriavalkya: quotes again another set of instructions for- aihasminn arihe brdhmanam bhauaii .10/16 (K 9/14). 103 Cp. 6 (M/K).6). "Now there is an instructional formulation on this subject matter (/ in [exactly] this sense): "When the voice is stilled.15 (not in M). 6. 6 (M) ends with iti hooaca yajiiavalkya/:L. For further instances of neti neti formulations cpo BAU II 3.7-14). OUVELLE 1998: 111. for it cannot be perceived. On this [subject matter] also there is an instructional formulation: "Here [in dream] this person is himself the light [of knowledge]. (M) IV 4. 400-402].27 (K 22). [is] impermanent. lllf (Vrttikara). Schr. atmajyot* sarrzra4 iii hovaceti. the Mimamsaka replies j." To the Buddhist.15 (not in M). STRAUSS 1932: 490-492 [= Kl. this [your] self here bears [indeed] the property [it] in this way Mind. parena na grhyata ity etadabhiprayam etat. }02 Only IV 2. (K) IV 5.sttntttyarrz oaci ki1]1jyotir evayarrz purusah. 99 BAD (M) IV 3. airapi brahma1J-aJ?l bhavati .27 (K 22). who challenged the Mimamsaka to point out an agent (! subject) of cognition (vijfittf[) which would be independent of mind.F' what light [of knowledge] exactly has this person here? He has his self as the light [of knowledge]. 101 BAD (M) IV 3. Cp." The intention of this [formulation] is that [one's self] cannot be perceived by another. 100 BAD (M) IV 2.hat one's self can always be experienced only by oneself (svayarrzsarrzvedya) and thus cannot be presented to any other person. Look. On the Vpttikara's dependency on particular doctrines characteristic of early Vaisesika (as is also the assumption of a plurality of eternal souls) cpo JACOBI 1914. actually imperishable. 98 eoenaimanaimanam 18 . Therefore we understand [that] the [self must be] different from what is impermanent. 6 (K 4). Why? Because of [Yajriavalkya's] declaration [that the self] is by itself the light [of knowledge]." • The plural usage shows that the existence of a number of 'selves' was clearly presupposed. saroe svena upalabhamiinal. for this passage SLAJE 1993. 115ff. to be sure. (M) III 9.atrayarrzpurusali svayarrzjyotir bhavatfteOl kena punar upttyenttyam anyasmai kathyata iti? atrapy upaye brahmanam bhavati . (M) ill 9. 6 (K 4). there is yet another instructional formulation: "It is not perceptible. of indestructibility".

completing one's work on the following day [SBh (F) 58. we reply: 104 The present translation adopts the intention of the Mimfu+tsaka which reveals itself by the following set of examples: a-grhya. tatprati?edhas tasyopadesopayaJ:t. etc.106 atrocyate .14 (M) lOB BAU IV 5. by way of exclusion.lOBtasman na vijfliinamiitram (SBh (F) 60. matrasamsargas tv asya bhavatlti.4]. to [the quotation] as put forward [by you]: I "[It is] actually mind alone [which] emerges from these elements. [It is] the body [which] the other sees. There exists [something] different from the body. [It is] through the [body that] the self is indicated: "The body is not the self." The Vrttikara continues his explanation along exactly the same line of negative references to the self. sa etitmeti sarfraprati$edhenatmopadisyate (SBh (F) 58. yae ea para!.12 (M/K) 107 BAu IV 5.15 (M) 19 . tenatmopadisyate.. "It is not possible to present [the self] as: "This is N. it [again] disperses along with them [and] only them.g.'. lOS E. samutthiiya tany eoanuoinasyati. 106 BAu IV 5. are 'yam aimanucchiiiidharma. 17-22). (asau).By what means then [can] this [self] be described structional formulation also on this means: for another? There is an in- "It is this self here [which is referred to] by means of (iii) [all that with reference to what it is] not (na).airaioa ma bhagavan mohaniam apipadad iti107 paricodanoiiarakiile 'pahnutya mohantiibhipriiyam asya vaeanasya oamitaxan na vii are 'ham moham braotmi. avinaSf vii.25-60. vijfltinaghana evaitebhyo bhiitebhya!." The means of pointing it out [to another] consists in the negation of what indeed (ea) the other sees. na) by: "all that with reference to what it is not"." After having supplied some additional reasons to prove the existence of a permanent substratum as would be the self105 the Mimamsaka concludes that an eternal soul must be accepted which is different from its properties. sarfraf!1 niitma .I04 Thus spoke [Yajnavalkya]. of which I shall give one example: as/Iv ayam eoamriipa iti na sakyate nidarsauuum.. na pretya sa1'{Ljfltistrti. Hence my rendering of the double negation (na.e. On the basis of this he rounds off the matter by returning to the initial vijfltinaghana quote with a view to invalidate the Buddhist's interpretation by another set of contextually related quotes from Yajfiavalkya's statements: atha yad uktam. and this is the self.N.] after [having thus emerged from them].asii sarirtid anya!.21-241." [It is] in this way [that] the self is indicated through the negation of the body.13 (M/K) / II 4. of such [and such] an appearance.14-18). a-Sirya. [and.. pasyati. "Now. i. There remains no consciousness [of an individual substrate] after dying (/ no [permanent] post mortem awareness persists)". _. by comparing one's own experiences of oneself to those of others [SBh (F) 58. sartram parah. pasyati.

see BIARDEAU 1967: 110. na ca tat svargarrz Ioka 1'/1 yati. n. 113 Por the probable original meaning of safllsarga in the Upanisadic context ('to rejoin') cp. Let it be noted. 117 An injunction requires the use of the optative mood. sartram vyapadisati. STRAUSS(1932: 507 l= Kl. 7.32f: so 'ya1!l prapancasa1!lbandho bandhas. e. 24. The opponent's objection reads as follows: d[$taviruddham api. indicates the perceptible (pratya~a1!l) body". n. 33.. that the section comprising the dispute under consideration here commenced with the refutation of an opponent attacking the validity of Vedic utterances. 23. 111 Despite the given word order the possibility of construing the two genitives asya vaeanasya with "abhiprayam cannot be ruled out: " ."!" Note that here again the argument derives its validity from the immediate Upanisadic context. . For in front of [our] eyes (pratyak$arrz) it is consumed by fire. which] clearly (pratyak$arrz)116 indicates the body. the [body] does not ascend to the heavenly world.21. 2) the sentence is quoted in ApSS 31. 116 Alternatively: .. denying [that] the instruction had the intention of .113 By reason of this [it can] not [be claimed that] only mind [would exist].Immediately after109 [Maitreyf's] reproach: "With regard to exactly this point (atraiva)110 'Venerable Sir has driven me into utter confusion"'. 109 110 20 . there is indeedl'" a particular Vedic utterance [which must be regarded as authoritative]. Cp. n. the expression [in the indicative mood] 'he (I it) ascends' is no injunction. Look. However. 215f. Cp. Furthermore. 417]." 112 For moh-am as a possible namul gerund cpo WS (III) 215. also the definitions of moksa and bandha in Parthasarathi's SO 125. furnished with [his] sacrificial utensils'. 114 According to PRAUWALLNER (1968: 34. bhauaii kimcid oaidikam vacanam. n.. tadoimoksas ca moksah. After having prescribed the piling up of the receptacles it says: 'This [deceased] institutor of the sacrifice here instantly proceeds to the heavenly world. 320. pratyak$arrz hi tad dahyate..." Thus by contextually pointing out the interrelationship of Yajfiavalkya's instructional formulations the Vrttikara demonstrates the implausibility (vai?amya) of the Buddhist argument and doctrine. WS (ll) 303 f. 6-9). It is only because it is in the indicative that the present statement could be taken to refer to events that will really take place. 115 Note the emphatical position of bhavati.8).. However. patracauanam vidhtlyahn. [a statement. Schr. by denying [any] intention of [causing] utter confusion. yajamano 'fijasa soargam lokam yati" iti114 praiuaksam. na caisa yatlti vidhisabdaJ. "Although contradicting perceived [facts]. WS (III): 207. 1) and."sa esa yajiitlyudhf. I certainly do not speak in order to confuse'" [you].. however.2. this self [of yours] here bears [indeed] the property of indestructibility.. actually imperishable. for the identification of the first part of the quote (= SPB XII 5. it joins with (sarrzsarga) 'material' components (mtltrtl)". with its ultimate source unknown.2. by having said that "no consciousness [of an individual substrate] remains after dying". [carried on to 1 explain this instruction: III "Look. n. [Yajfiavalkya]. (SBh (F) 34. n. I.

it may be no injunction. 14). as they were not accepted and thus also not aimed at by the sacrificing faction. (SBh (F) 60. The same.The refutation starts with a reference to the above-mentioned objection: yat tu pratya~aviruddha1J1 vacanam upanvasiam "sa ega yajfiiiyudhr yajamano 'njasti svargarrzlokarrz yati" iii pratya~arrz sariram vyapadisatIti. may initially have formed a common ground of interest. Such integration may corroborate P ARPOLA's assumption of an originally unified Mimamsa tradition. "The objection made [by you] as . the ascent to heaven] will be conveyed [by this expression] in conformity with the understanding [gained] by another statement. [namely]: . which] is referred to by 'furnished with [his] sacrificial utensils'. FRAUWALLNER 1968: 110£. soargakamo yajeteti vacanantare1J. [it is] the very [self-experience. • 21 . However. [which is an injunction in the optative mood] that "[someone] desirous of heaven should sacrifice". occasionally alluding to the subject under consideration. would quite justifiably apply to the monistic ontology (advaita) as well.. forming in fact part of the Inanakanda. could hardly have fulfilled such a uniting function. and in this wider sense in the exegesis of the Veda as a whole."Furthermore. "We reply to the statement mentioned [by you as one] contradicting direct perception insofar as it clearly indicates the body. The immediately following dispute. 119Cp. [namely the experience of the notion of 'I' as different from properties] being the case. tad ucyate . Clearly." (evaJ11 cet.. However. were so to speak sandwiched'" by a dispute. tasmad asnrodhah. Also STRAuss 1932: 493 I= KI. the expression [in the indicative mood] 'he (/ it) ascends' is no injunction" -. The knowledge of the self (atmajfitlna). pursued by the ritually passive group only. the respective ontological and soterioiogicaI notions of adoaiia and moksa l1S "This. Schr. furnished with [his] sacrificial utensils' . being essential also to the sacrificer occupied with the ritual part of the Veda. the Upanisadic instructions on the self (atman) were used for supporting some of the vital points of Purvamimamsa doctrines. sa eva yajf!i1yudhiti vyapadi§yate. ma bhud vidhisabdaJ:t. I would rather maintain that this supposed 'unity' was confined just to a common interest in the interpretation of the respective Kandas. (SBh (F) 50.[admittedly}.. ideas of rebirth and liberation (mola?a) from samsara. 19£). . As convincingly pointed out by JOHANNES RONKHORST his B in present contribution. 23-25).'This [deceased] institutor of the sacrifice here instantly ascends to the heavenly world. Therefore [there is] no inconsistency [on our part]. incidentally. which concludes the argument: yad ukiam -. SBh (P) 56.I" eventually terminates with the following reference to the same.. which form part of the Karmakanda. 403]. [However. -"." Thus the instructional formulations of Yajfiavalkya. on the contradictoriness of Vedic utterances and injunctions. na caisa ytitfti uidhisabda iii.avagatamanuvadiwate.

more or less independent schools of isolated Purva. 120PARPOLA 121 See QVARNSTROM the Purva- 22 . underlines that their philosophies became mutually exclusive only after Kumarila and Sankara.possibly constituted a subcutaneous point of fracture right from the times of their introduction into the Upanisadic corpus. It is perhaps worthy of note that Gunaratna characterises rrumamsakas as brahmasutrina~ (TRD 283. to fully develop into bipartite.8 ad !. too.F" Moreover. cpo also FRAUWALLNER 1968: 110. MESQUITA 1994: 451.iDSAdhikarana VI: Jaimin1yas). n.and Uttaramtmamsas. They would eventually have caused the tradition. after it had broken up. PARPOLA. 1989 and 2003. If.121 • 1981: 153 ff. it was not earlier than from the sixth century onwards that some Buddhist (Bhavya) and Jain (Siddhasena Divakara) doxographers started treating the 'Vedanta' as a separate tradition in its own right.

10/16 (= K 9/14)]: atriiya1fl purusah. 6J:.anaghana evaitebhyo bhutebhyal. viz. na hi sfryate (SBh 56. 12f) substrate must be a referential statement for the brahmatzas to follow [.1. a permanent presupposed.1. tuma- 1.22f).1.1 Mtmamsaka: Mind constituents are impermanent.2 Buddhist objection: A permanent substrate must be pointed out.1 [M IV 2.2 [M IV 5. viji1.6 (= K 4)]: agrhyo. Quote [M IV 3. na hi grhyate (SBh 58.1.2.1.2. 6 (= K4)}: sa esa neti nety iItmti iii hcoaca (SBh 58.1 Therefore one's own substrate cannot be exposed directly to other subjects of cognition.13f) 1.14) 23 .4.K IV 5.1.1 The correctness of the above follows from another Yajfiavalkya- • brahmana: Quote [M IV 3. 15 (= K 14)] avintl.1. 12 I IV 5.1.1. sarrzrtifj iii hooaca (SBh 58. by way of negating what is not the substrate: Quote [M IV 2.2. 13 thayatttny evanuvinasyati.1. The assumption of the existence of mind alone (vijfiiinaghana) is sufficient.2. 6 (= K 4)] asfryo. Quote [M IV 2.1 MImi:i. (= K)]: 1.9f) 1.11£) 1. samuina pretya sa1J1jnasti (SBh 54.1.sf vti are 'yam mmanucchiuidharma (SBh 56.1. Yajfiavalkya in context: rough structure of the argument 1 Buddhist (Sautrantika): No need for a Mimarnsaka to postulate a permanent substrate (atman) of cognition for explaining memory. stinttiyti1fl uaci ki1fljyotir jyotil.1 Establishing sa va are 'yam titma (SBh 56. 13]: Contextualising the referential statement: 1.2 The means of pointing out the substrate of cognition is an indirect one. Even a Yajfiavalkya-brahmatza corroborates this: l' Starting quote [M IT 4. svayarrzjyotir bhavati (SBh 58. (!agent) of cognition being different from its cognition 1.13) 1.qlsa refutation: A substrate of cognition (titman) can be experienced only by itself (svasarrtvedya).8f) evtiya1fl purusah.1. It is the latter what the brahmana intends to express: 1. For recollection.1.

3.1. samutthaya tany evanuvinasyati. The Vajasaneyin Katyayana was a key-figure in the early history of Mimamsa.3 On the basis of this the Sautrantika indestructibility: Quote [M IV 5.1.1.and knowledge of Vedic lore.jnasti (SBh 60.1. but only mind constituents would exist. Yajnavalkya may even have been the first Pra-vrajaka from the householder state in Indian tradition and may as such have served as a model for aged Mtmamsakas. 2If) III Summary Mfmii1flsa prehistory I .1.2 Still the formulation was not intended to cause confusion: Quote [M IV 5.2 It joins with material components in the state of bondage: Quote [M IV 5.1 Repetition of the brahmar.18f) 1.za-quote [M II 4. 151: mtltrasarrzsargas tv asya bhavati (SBh 60.20f) can no longer hold on to interpreting the instruction in the light of the doctrine that no permanent substrate of cognition.3.1.21) 1. 14]: airaioa ms bhagaoan mohnniam apfpadat (SBh 60.Yajnavalkya Vajasaneya was involved in the formation of the Sukla Yajurveda corpus of which the BAu forms part.1 The meaning of the formulation is far from being self-evident: Quote [M IV 5.1.As a sacrificing householder (karmin) with a deep concern also for self-knowledge (jiUinin) Yajfiavalkya may be seen as a representative of keen interest in ritual.2.1.2. 1. 24 .I7f) 1. long before two one-sided traditions with differently shaped emphases gradually began to emerge in later times only.1.1.1 The Buddhist opponent quoted the formulation out of context and interpreted its meaning against the background of his own presuppositions as quite self-evident: 1. na pretya sa1f1. 15 (= K 14)]: avinasl vii are 'yam atmanucchiitidharma (SBh 60.2 Mtmamsaka: Conclusion: Clarification of the true meaning of the vijfUinaghana formulation from the context of Yajriavalkya's statements as immediately connected to it.2.1 There is a permanent substrate of cognition bearing the property of 1. 1.2.1.1. . 12 / IV 5. 15]: na va are 'ham moham braoimi (SBh 60.2.2.2. 13 (= K)]: vijnanaghana evaitebhyo bhUtebhyaJ.

also the idea of jfvanmukti . Yajfiavalkya's influence on Sankara's thought is recognisable first .Advaita-Vedantins were exclusively attached to the study of the [nanakanda by according the Kriyakanda a subordinate.The learned exponents of the Purvamfmamsa remained first and foremost attached to the Kriyakanda.g. This may indeed account for the Upanisadic references made by them to Yajnavalkya's words on self-knowledge tatmajflilna) as quoted from the Madhyandina recension of the BAu. etc.The positive approach to a karma-puina-samuccaua. 69ff. adopted by him as a word-formation of Yajfiavalkya.4in) and were clearly identifiable (in literature) by specific additions to their names such as bhana etc.through Gaudapada .The early development of the Pnrva-Mimamsa was in its initial phase closely related to the Madhyandina branch of the Vajasaneyins.{jin)and were clearly identifiable (in literature) by specific additions to their names such as parivrajalaIcarya. 122 it was possibly he who was instrumental in disintegrating with a lasting effect an originally unified 'tradition of exegetics' occupied with the Karma. ideally lifelong renouncers (salflnyasins and jiMnins). His adaptation of the BAU to a radical. preparatory value at the most.on account of the ontological concept of adoaiia. . . which would be quite natural for lifelong sacrificing householders. 25 . Although Sankara must indeed have had predecessors in the field of illusionistic monism. 122 Quoted by Bhartrprapanca.lflsas (1) Canonical affiliation . (4) Ideologies I . On account of that.Pttrvamimamsakas referred to themselves as lifelong sacrificing householders (grhasthas and karmins). though nevertheless actively participating in (jfvanO) the world of ritual and social duties' . natural certainty about one's self.The period of established systemic traditions of the two Mzmii. They carried the triple staff (trida1J. (2) Recensional bifurcation .Uttaramtmamsakas or Advaita-Vedantins in the tradition of Sankara were selfknowledge seeking. see ROPING 1977: 2. Sankara' s. . MImrunsa interpretations therefore deserve attention. accepting the JftanakaI)ga as auxiliary to enhancing a given. (3) Social aspects . makes the Purvamlmamsa continuing YajfiavaIkya's engagement in sacrificing activities and in the search for self-knowledge.and the Jnana-KilI)ga.'liberation from (Omukti) attachment to the fruits of activities.ties in remarkably with the karma-jtuma-samuccaua ideology. 5). No direct lineage connecting Sankara with the formative period of the BAu has so far become discernible. as they supposedly could be more faithful to Yajfiavalkya ' s original thought in historic terms than e. who carried the single staff (ekada1J. idealistic advaita monism was achieved by a particular mode of interpretation (below.Sankara and the subsequent Advaita-Vedanta tradition were basing themselves on the Kanva recension of the BAll.

Purvamimamsakas applied the exegetical principle of 'context' (prakaranai for interpreting Yajnavalkya's formulations. who besides the Madhyandina recitation also shared the karma-jnana-samuccava and jfvanmukti ideals with the Purva-Mtmamsakas became superseded by Sankara and the subsequent Advaita-Vedanta tradition and could not gain wide acceptance. Bhedabheda-Vedantins ma-jfUina-samuccaya plus (Bhaskara) the ideal of a jfvanmukta . who considered their way of life alone as privileged for liberation. The jioanmukii idea became an integrative part of their doctrinal system comparatively late.The correctness claimed by Advaita-Vedantins for their interpretation of BAU passages was based on a maximum of matching quotes associatively accumulated from as many different Sruti and Smrti text-places as possible.such as Bhartrprapafica and Bhaskara similarly favoured a karstate. The above-mentioned Bhedabheda-Vedantins. • 26 . . (5) Hermeneutics . as an unavoidable reaction to the ideology of socially active jfvanmuktas.On the other hand. Another conunon feature consists in Bhartrprapanca's recitation of the BAu according to the Madhyandina recension. a negative approach to the karma-jnana-eamuccava would be quite natural for advocates of ritual and social inactivity (sa7]!nyasin) as were the extreme Advaita-Vedantins.

Pasco I-Ill. Samata rev. [Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series. (Brhadiira1Jyaka-Upani$ad). by S.] Amsterdam 1997: 359-371. BRONKHORST 1997 id. Petersburg 1889.1 Reprint [of the edition Poona 1929]. ed. In: Beyond Orientalism. Ala memoire de Louis Renou. Brahmasiddhi by Acharya Marrdanamisra. Delhi 1981. BRONKHORST 1986 JOHANNESBRONKHORST.. In: Eighteen Principal Upanisads. 391. by Eu FRANCO and KARIN PREISENDANZ[Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities.VoL2. R. LIMAYE. Ed. By Prabhakara Misra. With comm. P. Two Traditions of Meditation in AnThe cient India. The Rjuvimala of Salikanatha Misra.) Brahmasutra-Sankarabhasyam.] Delhi 1984.entary on Sabarabhashya). Ed.. Vol. Philosophy and Vedic Exegesis in the Mimarpsa.Reprint..30. Shri SureshBAUBhV varacharya's BrihadaraI. SUBRAHMANYA SHASTRl.. 2.. 59. u. (Sankara: Bhagavadgitabhasya). Ed . 2.. KupPUSWAMISASTRI. BOEHTLINGK 1889 BOEHTUNGK. 10.OTTO: Brhadaranjakopanishad in der MadhjamdinaRecension.. D.. (Sankara.) Brhadaranyakopanisadbhasya vartika.. Bhagavadgfta Bhasya by Bhaskaracarya. V BAU(M) .) Brhadaranyakopanisadbhasya. .L' Atman dans le comm. ol.]' Varanasi 1965. fibers...lyakopanishad-Bhashyavartikam. BhGBh(Bh) (Bhaskara: Bhagavadgrtabhasya). ed. Bhagavadgita with Sankarabha$BhGBh ya. Shastraprakashika of Acharya Shri Anandagiri .406. I2nd edition}. Delhi 1989. [Advaita Grantha Ratna Manjusha Ratna. With the comm. Foreword by CHRISTIAN LINDTNER. MADELEINEBIARDEAU. transl. Ed. VADEKAR. Hrsg. (Prabhakara: Brhafi). Ed. Brhatt (A comm. Paris 1968:109-125.entaire de SabaraBIARDEAU 1968 svamm. 94.AUBh Sri Sankaracharya in the original Sanskrit.Literature (Apastam oaimutasatra) The Agamasastra of Caudapada. St.. With the comm. Madras 1983. in: OUYELLE1998.] Benares 1929-1933.414. 16. (Suresvara. [Sri Carib Das Oriental Ser. [SarasvaU Bhavana Cranthamala. BS (Mandana: Brahmasiddhi).(Madhyandina Recension) see BOEHTLINGK 1889.L Poona 1958. Bhamatt of 27 ApSS AS • . BSft (Brahmasutra) BSftBh (Sankara: Brahmasutrabhasya. [Works of Sankaracarya in original Sanskrit. by Sankhapani. In: Complete Works of B. by BAU V. With the comm. In: Melanges dIndianisrne. by S.. By A CHII\INASWAMI SASTRl.: Bhasyaratnaprabha of Govindananda. and annotated by VIDHUSHEKHARA BHATTACHARYA. Ed . The Work of Wilhelm Halbfass and its Impact on Indian and Cross-Cultural Studies.] Varariasi 1990. Delhi 21993 [Reprint Delhi 2000].

2. (Parthasarathimisra: Nyttyaratnakara). by K.Vacaspatimisra. Pt 1. Leipzig 1914: 153-157 I= KI. san 1937.750-754]. JAGADISVARA SASTRlGALand KALYANASUNDARA SASTRIGAL.{Madras Government Oriental Ser. 166.Thinking Ritually. id. 2.Index and Introduction by SATKARlMUKHOPADHYAYA. The Vyakarana-Mahabhasya I MESQUITA1994 MESQUITA2000 MSii NR NRD (M'imartlsttsutra) 28 . Brahmaoaioariapuriina of KrS.. Madhva: Visnutattvanirnaya. 2.6.] Madras 1961. CLOONEY.) Srinagar 1947. Poona 1965. V. 1. Delhi 1984-1985.] DeIhl 1966. Adhyaya III. 28. Zum Vrttikaragranthah.(The Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies. Vasisthacandrika vyakhyasahitah . by J. Schr. ISB OAW. FISER1984 Iva FISER. by J. Nand V.. (Anandanubhava:) Nyayaratnadtpavalih. V.I. with introd. (Laghuyogavasistha.3. see SV. BVP SHASTRl. KIELHORN. [Publications of the De Nobili Research Library. Crit. Mbh Delhi. ed . Transl. JACOBI1914 HERMANNJACOBI. A Comprehensive Work with special reference to the Epic and Puranic literature.l8sarmatanujanusa Vasudevasarmana samsodhitah. SHASTRl.] Wien. VoL II. VETTAM ivlANI. WZKS 38 (1994): 451-484. by F. WZKS 16 (1972): 165-167. FRAUWALLNER968 BRlCHFRAUWALLNER. 1. LPr LYV MAN! 1998 Ksemendra. Rediscovering the Purva Mtmamsa of [aimini. Book I and II.nandagiri. [Publications of the De Nobill Research Library.. Ed.. ed. Pt.. CLOONEY1990 FRANCISX. Vedantaviveka by A. Festschrift Ernst Windisch.) Srimattarkavagisvarasahityacaryabhinandapandi tasam uddhrtah Laghuyoga vasisthah.l8 Dvaipayana Vyasa. EGGELING 1882 JULIUSEGGELING. 1 Materialien zur altesten Erkenntnislehre der Karmamtrnamsa. ABHYANKAR.taslkaropahvavidvadvaraLab..maI. According to the text of the Madhyandina School. Lokaprakasha of Kshemendra. of Patafijali.2.} Wien. Puranic Encyclopaedia. Reprint. Mumbayyam sakah 1859. Ed.. L. Annotierte Obersetzung mit Studie.] Vienna. XVlI. Acta Orienialia 10 (1984): 55-87. ROQUE MESQUITA. = VKSKS. [Reprint. Ed... ed.The Satapatha-Brahmana.. 75. Avrttih Pat.Ober die altere Auffassung der Upanisad-Lehreno In. Ed. Delhi 1980.Yajnavalkya in the Sruti Tradition of the Veda. by JAGADDHAR YADOOSHASTRI. Die Idee der Erlosung bei Kumarilabhatta.. With the conun. 259. FRAUWALLNER 1972 id. Nyaya-Nimaya of Anandagiri. (Mahabhi1$ya).

Annotated Text and Translation. Vol. A Study of the Sankaran Tradition of Srngeri. Ed. 1-6. al. QVARNSTROM 1999 id. XIIL]. RENOU1948 LoUIS RENOU.] New York. In: Br. SBh(F) Sabarabha~ya.5. Ed. (Part II) WZKS 38 (1994): 293-308. A Medieval Debate. 19.. 29 OLIVELtE1986 • . A SHYANKAR . Lund. [ANISt. Acta Orienialia 61 (2000): 145-202.1 Wiesbaden.. Rituals and Symbols. Vol. J' PARPOtA 1981 ASKO PARPOLA. K WAGLE and OLLE QVARNSTROM. Paris 1977: 885-899].. WZKS 25 (1981): 145-177.3 (1948): 75-89 I= Choix d 'Etudes Indiennes. [South Asia Research.PATRICKOLIVEttE. by OtL£ QVARNSTROM.On the Formation of the Mlmamsa and the Problems Concerning [aimini.. REINV ANG2000 RASMUSREINV ANG. Ed. The Vedantaviniscaya Chapter of Bhavya's Madhyamakahrdayakarika. Fremont. reunis par N. OLIVEttE 1993 id. Studien zur Friihgeschichte der Vedanta-Philosophie. SAWAI1992 YOSHITSUGUSAWAI. Oxford. partial edition.: 575-593. . 1. QVARNSTROM 1989 OtLE QVARNSTROM. V. [Publications of the De Nobili Research Library. ROV (SaJikanatha: J!. Philologische Untersuchungen zu den BrahmasutraKommentaren des Sankara und des Bhaskara. 17. New York. [ASS 79]. BALBlR et GEORGES-JEAN PINAULT. RAu 1959/61 WILHELMRAu. Bemerkungen zu Sankaras Brhadaranyakopanisadbhasya. Early Vedanta Philosophy Preserved by the Jain Tradition: The Vedavadadvatrimsika of Siddhasena Divakara.Tome II..1 Vienna.1 Toronto 1999: 169-210. On the Formation of the Mimfupsa and the Problems Concerning [aimini. Teil I. The History and Hermeneutics of a Religious Institution. the Beginnings of Doxography in India. QVARNSTROM 2003 id. With particular reference to the teacher quotations and the Vedic schools. The Asrama System. 11. Vienna. The Early Upanisads.J ROPING1977 KLAUSROPING. JOSiet. Renunciation in Hinduism. Paideuma 7 (1959/61): 293-299. [aini.juvimala).Hindu Philosophy in Buddhist Perspective. Calif. In: Approaches to [aina Studies: Philosophy. G. OLIVEttE 1998 id. The Faith of Ascetics and Lay Smartas. Haribhadra and. Indian Culture 14. by N. SBh (Sabarasvamin: Mlmamsastrtrabhasya). With particular reference to the teacher quotations and the Vedic schools. Oxford. Poona 1976-1984. PARPOLA1994 id. In: [ainisrn and Early Buddhism: Essays in honour of Padmanabh S. by K.4 and 4. [Publications of the De Nobili Research Library. Les relations du Satapathabrahmana avec Ia Brhadaranyakoparusad et la personnalite de Yajriavalkya. Logic. See FRAUWALLNER 1968. South Asian [ Studies Papers. A critical survey of the dialogue between YajfiavaIkya and MaitreyI in Brhadarar:zyaka Upanisad 2.

Bombay 1915.4 (1979): 374433.1 Wien.. Towards a history of the jfvanmukti concept: The Moksadharma SLAJE2000a in the Mahabharata..1 Varanasi 1991. [Publications of the De Nobill Research Library. Liberation from Intentionality and Involvement: On the conSLAIB2000 cept of jfvanmukti in. Calcutta 1905.In: QVARNSTROM 1999. Alayavijft.] Swisttal-Odendorf 1997: 625-646. Dialogue. Rajavidya. 29. StII 22 (1999) [publ. WZKS 11 (1967): 109-136. by Bhaskaracharya.rJ-tigara or Gems of Sanskrit Poetry. Studies in Honour of Heinz Bechert on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. 1.Realitat" der Welt. 30. Isvarasena. Ed.. SRBh Subha$ita~Ratna-Bhti1J. id.LAMBERTSCHMITHAUSEN. the Moksopaya. Rev. Eine Studie zuSankaras Exegese der Bhagavadgita. A New Interpretation of Pramanavarttika 133. 3. [Chowkhamba Sanskrit Ser.Erlosung im Spannungsfeld von aktivem Leben und Entsagung. Ed. . In: Haranandalahart. In: Bauddhavidyasudhakarah.. STEINKELLNER997 ERNST STEINK 1 ELLNER Kurnarila. 2 (2000): 171-194. Em Versuch nach brahmanischen Quellen. by LUIGISUAU..6th ed. [Indica et Tibetica.) The Shastradlpika .Die Alten im alten Indien. (Haribhadra:) Saddarianasamuccaqa.BAD 4. Shaddarsana-Samuchchaya by SDS Haribhadra. [Studia Philologica Buddhica. MARCUSSCHMUCKER. Ed.2.] Aachen. Brahmasutra with a comm. SLATE 2001 5MBh (Bhaskara:Sarirakamlmamsabhii$ya). StU 18 (1993): 223-250. P. Aranyaka und Vanaprastha in der vedischen Literatur.ana. 20. Saecuium 30. Weder als seiend noch als nichtseiend be" SCHMUCKER 2001 stimmbar". SPB (Sa tapa iha brahmat:ta) SPROCKHOFF 1979 JOACHIMFRIEDRICHSPROCKHOFP. lIP 28. STEPHAN2002 PETER STEPHAN. Texte und Studien. Vimuktatmans Lehre von der . WALTERSLAJE. With Cunaratna's commentary Tarkarahasya-Dipika. SPROCKHOFP 1981 id. by PETRA KIEFFER-POLzand JENS-DwE HARTMANN. id. 2.Bombay 1929. [Geisteskultur Indiens.3. 2001]: 131-166.Voraussetzungen in Vimsatika und Trimsika. ed. Volume in Honour of Professor 1v1INORU HARA on his Seventieth Birthday.14 (M 16) und die Entwicklung des subjekSLAJE1993 tiven Illusionismus im alteren Vedanta.. Selected and arranged by KASHINA THA PANDURANGPARAB. by VINDHYESVARI PRASADADVNEDIN. Ed. and Dharmakirti in . WZKS 25 (1981): 19-90. by RYuTAROTSUCHIDAand ALBRECHT WEZLER... by SrI DHARMASD DATIASOR'i'.Reinbek 2000: 325-348. (Parthasarathimisra. id. by WASUDEV LAXMAN.] Tokyo. SCHJvfITHAUSEN 1987 4ab.Sautrantika. id. SCHMITHAUSEN 1967 • 30 .SASTRI PANsIKAR. ed.

1. Schr. by YASUKEIKARI. VI. ZANGENBERG 1962 FRITZ ZANGENBERG. ZDMG 102 (1952): 91-129 l= Kl. Casta Mesa. Brahrnakandah. UNO 1999 TOMOYUKI NO..yakopani$ad 2.Die alteste Philo sophie der Karma-Munamsa. STRAUSS 1932 • 31 . in: ~D5.1. 205-220. VC (Atmasukha: Vasisthacandrika). With the comm. Mandanamisra's Brahmasiddhih.12). WZKS 6 (1962): 60-77. VETTER1979 id . (ed. A Debate between Materialists and [ainas on the InterU pretation of BrhadarmJ. Ed. II] 44. Varanasi 1978.1 Wien. Prakaratta . IIJ 45. In: S. SB 262. Water and Salt (IT): 'Material' Causality and Hylozoic Thought in the Yajftavalkya-. Rituals and Symbols.4. WITZEL2003 id. Kl.r"JSTRoM. YOSHI11IZU 1997 KIYOTAKA YOSHI11IZU. Anm. 25. 379-4421 (Kumarila.) Slokavarttika of SrI Kumarila Bhatta. VIDYABHUSANA 1915 S.] Wiesbaden. In: Approaches to [aina Studies: Philosophy. WS (I) WALTERSLAJE. CA. and his Personal Language. C. ADHAMI. T Delhi.1 (2001): 25-57.] Wien. [OAW Phil. Einl. Schr. [Publications of the De Nobill Research Library. WITZEL1994 MICHAEL WITZEL.3 (2002)..2. Indo-European.The Brahmins of Kashmir.] Wien. WAGLE and OLLE QVAR. Aspects of Hinduism in Ancient Kashmir. Ed. 11. Essays in Iranian. he Advaita Vedanta of Brahma-Siddhi. by SWAMI DVARIKADASA SASTRl.Mimamsa Literature. VETTER1969 TILMANN VETTER. \00D-IIEME 1952 137. Yajfiavalkya as Ritualist and Philosopher.. Studien zur Lehre und Entwicklung Sankaras. Author of the Nyayabhasya. Sitzungsberichte der PreuBischen Akademie der Wiss ens chaf ten 1932: 469-532 l= Kl. by N. Indian Antiquary 44 (1915): 82-88.4 (2001): 299-327. [HIL 6. 5V Nyayaratnakara of SrI Parthasarathi Misra. K..): Paitimana.12. u.OTTO STRAUSS. er . In: A Study of the Nilamata. in: LYV.-hist. and rev. Ed.] Toronto 1999: 238-249.. Logic.IRS.) Tarkarahasyadfpikti. PAUL THIEME. Brahman . WS (IT) id. WS (Ill) id. Nobill Research Library. Kyoto 1994: 237-294.5.. [South Asian Papers.Organismus' D des urheberlosen Veda.Maitreyi Dialogue? IIJ 44.I-III VERPOORTEN 1987 JEAN-MARIEVERPOO~TEN. VIDYABHUSANA.Sabarah und seine philosophischen Quellen. and Indian Studies in Honor of Harms-Peter Schmidt. Vatsyayana. TRD (Gunaratna. [Publications of the De . Ubers. 2003: 103-143.Water and Salt (I): Yajfiavalkvas Saindhava Dr?tanta (BAD IT 4. Water and Salt (ill): An Analysis and New Translation of the Yajnavalkya-Maitreyr Dialogue. THRASHER 1993 ALLENWRIGHTTHRASHER.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful