....Previous

What I gather from all such arguments is that the Purva Mimamsa system is primarily concerned with the question of determining the proper nature of dharma. What is dharma has been thoroughly discussed in the Sruti and in other Dharmasastras. The determination of dharma per se and determining it from the proper understanding of the sacred scriptures is partly theoretical and partly practical, for these theoretical principles become meaningful and efficacious by their implementation in different realms. This is in accordance with its prevalent description as Karma mimamsa i.e., mimamsa or determination of karma or action. The terms dharma and vyavahara are not synonymous yet they are not opposed to each other either. Dharma directs to the theoretical aspects of what we ought to do whereas vyavahara refers to what is actually being done. This reminds me of the famous Western ethical maxim ‘ought implies can’. Thus dharma as a sastra or discourse implies that it can beimplemented. Each case or vyavahara is examined and determined by certain general rules or maxims, which again have been collected and formulated from these cases. This supports, as we have already discussed, that in Hindu jurisprudence vyavahara or civil law is closely interwined with dharma. As a clue to resolve this controversy another point may be considered. We know that the Mimamsa rules of interpretation have been designated by the Mimamsakas as nyayas. By Nyaya we generally refer to a philosophical system that is known as Indian logic, giving emphasis on rational and syllogistic arguments. But the word nyaya also means a standard, rule (especially), a general or universal principle, axiom and the like. From Monier Monier-Williams’ Sanskrit – English Dictionary it becomes clear that the Sanskrit word ‘nyaya’ often refers to a lawsuit, legal proceedings, judicial sentence, judgement, etc. The opposite of such nyaya is anyaya, which refers to unjust or unlawful action. From these etymological implications, it appears that when the Mimamsakas designated their rules of interpretation as nyayas, they plausibly chose the terms consciously, which had such wide connotation, including legal principles. Hence, it seems that the word nyaya refers, on the one hand, to the method, general principles, axioms, while on the other hand, it implies the legal processes and procedures. Hence, it would not be improper to extend the scope of those rules from interpreting Sruti and Smrti texts to the interpretation of vyavahara or civil law. Here I may refer to Pandit Pashupatinath Sastri who holes that this word ‘nyaya’ does not mean ordinary rules of practice or equitable principles merely. “Had ‘Nyaya’ meant ordinary rules of practice or equitable principles, it would not have been necessary to use the two words ‘Nyaya’ and ‘Vyavahara’ having the same meaning in the same sentence. …The maxims of the Mimamsa are not strange things, but they been arrived at by applying the general principles of logic to various knotty cases of Vedic law. It is for this reason that in the Mitaksara the word ‘Nyaya’ has been interpreted as being of the form of general rules and exceptions. Just at the rulings laid down by the higher Courts of law are accepted as authorities for settling points of modern law, so the ‘Nyayas’ of Mimamsa which have been actually adopted in practice are invoked for sttling points of Smrti law.”¹⁶

Surendranath Dasgupta in his A History of Indian Philosophy holds a similar view regarding Mimamsa as “its principles and maxims for the interpretation of the import of words and sentences have a legal value even to this day. …It may not be out of place to mention here that Hindu law (Smrti) accepts without reservation the maxims and principles settled and formulated by the Mimamsa.”¹⁷

 P.V. Kane in his History of Dharmasastras points out the difference between the interpretation of statutes and the Mimamsa rules of interpretation. He holds that the statutes are man-made and “express the will of the enacting authority, have mostly secular purpose, may be amended or even repealed and have to be expounded according to the intent of those that made them. But the Mimamsa is concerned with the Veda that is deemed eternal and self-existent (and not man-made), that deals with religious matters, cannot be amended or repealed and is to be expounded according to the intent of the Vedic words.”¹⁸ Consequently
he thinks that “the Mimamsa is not concerned with legislation by king or sovereign popular assembly. It promises to convey correct knowledge of Dharma.”¹⁹  Kane’s view, on this issue, raises a few queries in my mind. The queries are the following:

(a)   If we accept that the Vedic principles are final, ‘eternal’ and ‘cannot be amended’, then what would’ be the necessity of applying the Mimamsa principles of interpretation to them? In that case, the Mimamsakas cannot and should not attempt to alter, clarify or even to interpret the Vedic injunctions, which it is generally held, they are meant for.                            

(b)   Even if we accept that the statutes are man-made, should we also subscribe to the view that the vyavaharas also are man or king made or are they sanctioned by some anonymous authority as they have been generally held? We have discussed this point in the earlier part of this paper.

(c)   Would it thoroughly go against the spirit of the Mimamsa to hold that the Mimamsa rules of interpretation are applicable to both to the Vedic messages as well as to the man (or king) made statutes? We have already mentioned that, since the Vedic messages are cryptic, pregnant with various implications and often ambiguous, the Mimamsa principles are necessary as Kane says “to arrive at the proper knowledge of the Veda itself”²⁰

Considering these points, I hold that the Mimamsa rules of interpretation are applicable both to the Vedic instructions as well as to the legal disputes and have efficacy both in the realms of theory and practice. In order to substantiate this view I would now like to mention some of those Mimamsa principles which are relevant in the case of vyavahara or civil law.

Next..