|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
the achievement of knowledge. Two Mimamsa distinctions are crucial here. First, in PMS II.1.9-12, Jaimini distinguishes two kinds of subordinate actions, the primary (pradhana) and the secondary (guna). The secondary contribute to a rite by the change they effect in one of the materials used in a ritee.g., cleaning, cutting, cooking some rice, a cake, etc. The primary contribute directly to the rite, in the sense that they do not effect any change in a material; thus, for example, circling the sacrificial arena is important to a rite, but not to any particular part or material of it. Knowledge is primary in this sense. Second, though in PMS 11.1.9-12 Sabara does not use terms "near" (sannipatya) and "far" (arad), later texts such as the Mimamsa Nyaya Prakasa (e.g., 1929, paragraph 121) use them as correlative to the guna and pradhana as used in PMS II.1.9-12. Secondary (guna) actions are "near", because they are instrumental in directly changing an element used in the sacrifice. Thus, one beats rice grains in order to husk them, and by this direct"near"transformation of a sacrificial material one contributes to the rite. By contrast, primary (pradhana) subsidiary actions contribute from "afar;'' they contribute from a distance, simply by their performance as pre- or post-rites, for example, and not through the transformation of anything used in the sacrifice. Their contribution through action is indirect, from a distance. This line of thinking is important since those rites which contribute from afar are the primary subordinate actions, more important than acts which contribute from nearby, because they are directly contributory, precisely as actions and not by way of the preparation of things. These primary subsidiary actions are done before or after the major action, and are clearly distinct from it; yet they are necessary for the completion of what is primary. Thus, to call ritual action a "distant" help toward knowledge is not merely to concede it a minimal, remote helping role, but to specify that as activity, it helps toward the activity of knowledge, and does so more importantly than would activity conceived of as a proximate transformation of the Advaitin. On all of this, see Clooney 1989b. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57. Brhadaranyaka Upanisad 4.4.23. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58. I.e., the hearing (sravana) and understanding (manana), mentioned in Brhadaranyaka Upanisad 2.4.5, which initiate the process toward that salvific knowledge which must be achieved through the upanisads. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59. Skt. 899. The concluding citation is Chandogya Upanisad 6.8.7. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60. UMS III.4.28-31 deals with the topic of whether any of the orthodox restrictions on food still apply to the renunciant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61. Intention is explored in PMS IV.3-4, as part of the general calculation of the relationship between the purusa-artha and kratu-artha. |
|
|
|
|
|