NydiaSilverman2: adjust page as per guidelines and updated info based on references

2025-12-17T16:58:12Z

adjust page as per guidelines and updated info based on references

UpdateBot: robot: Update article (please report if you notice any mistake or error in this edit)

2022-06-23T11:15:02Z

robot: Update article (please report if you notice any mistake or error in this edit)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:45, 23 June 2022
Line 6:		Line 6:
	{{Hindu philosophy}}		{{Hindu philosophy}}

	'''''Mīmāṁsā''''' ([[Sanskrit]]: '''मीमांसा'''<ref>{{Cite web\|url=http://spokensanskrit.org/index.php?tran_input=mImAMsA&direct=se&script=hk&link=yes&mode=3\|title=Mimamsa in Sanskrit}}</ref>) is a [[Sanskrit]] word that means "reflection" or "critical investigation" and thus refers to a tradition of contemplation which reflected on the meanings of certain [[Vedic]] texts.<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mimamsa Mimamsa] Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2011)</ref><ref name=britenc>[~~http~~://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/383181/Mimamsa Mimamsa] Encyclopædia Britannica (2014)</ref> This tradition is also known as '''Pūrva-Mīmāṁsā''' because of its focus on the earlier (''pūrva'') Vedic texts dealing with ritual actions, and similarly as '''Karma-Mīmāṁsā''' due to its focus on ritual action (''karma'').<ref name=olil2>Chris Bartley (2013), Purva Mimamsa, in ''Encyclopaedia of Asian Philosophy'' (Editor: Oliver Leaman), Routledge, 978-0415862530, page 443-445</ref> It is one of six Vedic "affirming" ([[Āstika and nāstika\|āstika]]) schools of [[Hinduism]]. This particular school is known for its philosophical theories on the nature of [[dharma]], based on [[hermeneutics]] of the [[Vedas]], especially the [[Brahmana\|Brāḥmanas]] and [[Saṃhita]]s.<ref name=olil>Oliver Leaman (2006), Shruti, in ''Encyclopaedia of Asian Philosophy'', Routledge, {{ISBN\|978-0415862530}}, page 503</ref> The Mīmāṃsā school was foundational and influential for the [[Vedanta\|vedāntic]] schools, which were also known as Uttara-Mīmāṁsā for their focus on the "later" (''uttara'') portions of the Vedas, the [[Upaniṣads]]. While both "earlier" and "later" Mīmāṃsā investigate the aim of human action, they do so with different attitudes towards the necessity of ritual praxis.<ref>{{cite journal \|last1=Ram-Prasad \|first1=Chakravarti \|title=Knowledge and Action 1: Means to the Human End in Bhāṭṭa Mīmāṃsā and Advaita Vedānta \|journal=Journal of Indian Philosophy \|date=2000 \|volume=1 \|issue=28 \|pages=1–24\|doi=10.1023/A:1004744313963 \|s2cid=170635199 }}</ref>		'''''Mīmāṁsā''''' ([[Sanskrit]]: '''मीमांसा'''<ref>{{Cite web\|url=http://spokensanskrit.org/index.php?tran_input=mImAMsA&direct=se&script=hk&link=yes&mode=3\|title=Mimamsa in Sanskrit}}</ref>) is a [[Sanskrit]] word that means "reflection" or "critical investigation" and thus refers to a tradition of contemplation which reflected on the meanings of certain [[Vedic]] texts.<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mimamsa Mimamsa] Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2011)</ref><ref name=britenc>[https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/383181/Mimamsa Mimamsa] Encyclopædia Britannica (2014)</ref> This tradition is also known as '''Pūrva-Mīmāṁsā''' because of its focus on the earlier (''pūrva'') Vedic texts dealing with ritual actions, and similarly as '''Karma-Mīmāṁsā''' due to its focus on ritual action (''karma'').<ref name=olil2>Chris Bartley (2013), Purva Mimamsa, in ''Encyclopaedia of Asian Philosophy'' (Editor: Oliver Leaman), Routledge, 978-0415862530, page 443-445</ref> It is one of six Vedic "affirming" ([[Āstika and nāstika\|āstika]]) schools of [[Hinduism]]. This particular school is known for its philosophical theories on the nature of [[dharma]], based on [[hermeneutics]] of the [[Vedas]], especially the [[Brahmana\|Brāḥmanas]] and [[Saṃhita]]s.<ref name=olil>Oliver Leaman (2006), Shruti, in ''Encyclopaedia of Asian Philosophy'', Routledge, {{ISBN\|978-0415862530}}, page 503</ref> The Mīmāṃsā school was foundational and influential for the [[Vedanta\|vedāntic]] schools, which were also known as Uttara-Mīmāṁsā for their focus on the "later" (''uttara'') portions of the Vedas, the [[Upaniṣads]]. While both "earlier" and "later" Mīmāṃsā investigate the aim of human action, they do so with different attitudes towards the necessity of ritual praxis.<ref>{{cite journal \|last1=Ram-Prasad \|first1=Chakravarti \|title=Knowledge and Action 1: Means to the Human End in Bhāṭṭa Mīmāṃsā and Advaita Vedānta \|journal=Journal of Indian Philosophy \|date=2000 \|volume=1 \|issue=28 \|pages=1–24\|doi=10.1023/A:1004744313963 \|s2cid=170635199 }}</ref>

	Mīmāṁsā has several sub-schools, each defined by its [[epistemology]]. The Prābhākara sub-school, which takes its name from the seventh-century philosopher [[Prabhākara]], described the five epistemically reliable means to gaining knowledge: ''[[pratyaksha\|pratyakṣa]]'' or perception; ''anumāna'' or inference; ''[[upamāṇa]]'', by comparison and analogy; ''arthāpatti'', the use of postulation and derivation from circumstances; and ''[[śabda]]'', the word or testimony of past or present reliable experts.<ref name=dpsb/><ref name=gflood/> The Bhāṭṭa sub-school, from philosopher [[Kumārila Bhaṭṭa]], added a sixth means to its canon; ''[[anupalabdhi]]'' meant non-perception, or proof by the absence of cognition (e.g., the ''lack'' of gunpowder on a suspect's hand)<ref name=dpsb/><ref name=jag>John A. Grimes, A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy: Sanskrit Terms Defined in English, State University of New York Press, {{ISBN\|978-0791430675}}, page 238</ref>		Mīmāṁsā has several sub-schools, each defined by its [[epistemology]]. The Prābhākara sub-school, which takes its name from the seventh-century philosopher [[Prabhākara]], described the five epistemically reliable means to gaining knowledge: ''[[pratyaksha\|pratyakṣa]]'' or perception; ''anumāna'' or inference; ''[[upamāṇa]]'', by comparison and analogy; ''arthāpatti'', the use of postulation and derivation from circumstances; and ''[[śabda]]'', the word or testimony of past or present reliable experts.<ref name=dpsb/><ref name=gflood/> The Bhāṭṭa sub-school, from philosopher [[Kumārila Bhaṭṭa]], added a sixth means to its canon; ''[[anupalabdhi]]'' meant non-perception, or proof by the absence of cognition (e.g., the ''lack'' of gunpowder on a suspect's hand)<ref name=dpsb/><ref name=jag>John A. Grimes, A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy: Sanskrit Terms Defined in English, State University of New York Press, {{ISBN\|978-0791430675}}, page 238</ref>
Line 69:		Line 69:
	{{Main\|Arthāpatti}}		{{Main\|Arthāpatti}}

	''[[Arthāpatti]]'' (अर्थापत्ति) means postulation, derivation from circumstances.<ref name=dpsb/><ref name=gflood/> In contemporary logic, this ''pramāṇa'' is similar to circumstantial [[Modus ponens\|implication]].<ref>[~~http~~://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/36920/arthapatti Arthapatti] Encyclopædia Britannica (2012)</ref> As example, if a person left in a boat on a river earlier, and the time is now past the expected time of arrival, then the circumstances support the truth postulate that the person has arrived. Many Indian scholars considered this ''pramāṇa'' as invalid or at best weak, because the boat may have gotten delayed or diverted.<ref>James Lochtefeld, "Arthapatti" in The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Vol. 1: A-M, Rosen Publishing. {{ISBN\|0-8239-2287-1}}, page 55</ref> However, in cases such as deriving the time of a future sunrise or sunset, this method was asserted by the proponents to be reliable. Another common example for ''arthāpatti'' found in the texts of Mīmāṃsā and other schools of Hinduism is, that if "Devadatta is fat" and "Devadatta does not eat in the day", then the following must be true: "Devadatta eats in the night". This form of postulation and deriving from circumstances is, claim the Indian scholars, a means to discovery, proper insight and knowledge.<ref>Stephen Phillips (1996), Classical Indian Metaphysics, Motilal Banarsidass, {{ISBN\|978-8120814899}}, pages 41-63</ref> The Hindu schools that accept this means of knowledge state that this method is a valid means to conditional knowledge and truths about a subject and object in original premises or different premises. The schools that do not accept this method, state that postulation, extrapolation and circumstantial implication is either derivable from other ''pramāṇas'' or flawed means to correct knowledge, instead one must rely on direct perception or proper inference.<ref>DM Datta (1932), The Six Ways of Knowing: A Critical study of the Advaita theory of knowledge, University of Calcutta, Reprinted in 1992 as {{ISBN\|978-8120835269}}, pages 221-253</ref>		''[[Arthāpatti]]'' (अर्थापत्ति) means postulation, derivation from circumstances.<ref name=dpsb/><ref name=gflood/> In contemporary logic, this ''pramāṇa'' is similar to circumstantial [[Modus ponens\|implication]].<ref>[https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/36920/arthapatti Arthapatti] Encyclopædia Britannica (2012)</ref> As example, if a person left in a boat on a river earlier, and the time is now past the expected time of arrival, then the circumstances support the truth postulate that the person has arrived. Many Indian scholars considered this ''pramāṇa'' as invalid or at best weak, because the boat may have gotten delayed or diverted.<ref>James Lochtefeld, "Arthapatti" in The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Vol. 1: A-M, Rosen Publishing. {{ISBN\|0-8239-2287-1}}, page 55</ref> However, in cases such as deriving the time of a future sunrise or sunset, this method was asserted by the proponents to be reliable. Another common example for ''arthāpatti'' found in the texts of Mīmāṃsā and other schools of Hinduism is, that if "Devadatta is fat" and "Devadatta does not eat in the day", then the following must be true: "Devadatta eats in the night". This form of postulation and deriving from circumstances is, claim the Indian scholars, a means to discovery, proper insight and knowledge.<ref>Stephen Phillips (1996), Classical Indian Metaphysics, Motilal Banarsidass, {{ISBN\|978-8120814899}}, pages 41-63</ref> The Hindu schools that accept this means of knowledge state that this method is a valid means to conditional knowledge and truths about a subject and object in original premises or different premises. The schools that do not accept this method, state that postulation, extrapolation and circumstantial implication is either derivable from other ''pramāṇas'' or flawed means to correct knowledge, instead one must rely on direct perception or proper inference.<ref>DM Datta (1932), The Six Ways of Knowing: A Critical study of the Advaita theory of knowledge, University of Calcutta, Reprinted in 1992 as {{ISBN\|978-8120835269}}, pages 221-253</ref>

	===Anupalabdhi===		===Anupalabdhi===

ImportMaster: robot: Add missing article in Category:Mahabharata

2022-01-24T10:40:20Z

robot: Add missing article in Category:Mahabharata

Show changes

Mīmāṃsā - Revision history

NydiaSilverman2: adjust page as per guidelines and updated info based on references

UpdateBot: robot: Update article (please report if you notice any mistake or error in this edit)

ImportMaster: robot: Add missing article in Category:Mahabharata