Playing with the System: Fragmentation and Individualization in Late Pre-colonial Mīmāṃsā

Abstract

Studies of Indian philosophy have generally overemphasized the consistency of philosophical systems over time, and consequently slighted later works as derivative. This paper seeks to reassess the ''system'' as a basic category for analyzing Sanskrit philosophy, in particular by examining the changes that took place in hermeneutics, or Mīmām : sā, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when it became commonplace for Mīmām : sā authors to criticize long established Mīmām : sā positions. At first this criticism is selective and largely directed at more recent authors, but the margins of acceptable criticism are gradually broadened to the point when even the foundational works of the tradition are routinely attacked, and works are produced whose sole purpose appears to be to attack established Mīmām : sā tenets, sometimes without even attempting to replace them with a more workable set of views. It becomes increasingly difficult to see what if anything one must believe to be considered a Mīmām : saka.

Hindu Pluralism

“…29. See McCrea (2016) for the argument that Appayya singlehandedly reinvented Śrīkaṇṭha's Śaiva Advaita. For evidence to the contrary, see Fisher (2017) for the case that nondual Śaiva Vedānta (Śivādvaita) in Tamil Nadu owes its origins to the wholesale import of the Śaktiviśiṣṭādvaita, or Śivādvaita philosophy of the Sanskritic (Ārādhya) Vīraśaivas, whose core lineage was based at Śrīśailam in present-day Andhra Pradesh.…”

Hindu Pluralism: Religion and the Public Sphere in Early Modern South India

“…Although traditionally viewed by doxographers as a discrete school of thought (darśana) in its own right, Pūrva Mīmāṃsā exercised a pervasive influence on the idea of textuality across disciplinary boundaries in India, so that it now seems redundant even to make the observation. For instance, the work of Lawrence McCrea (2009) demonstrates the foundational role played by Mīmāṃsā interpretive techniques in the development of Sanskrit literary theory (Alaṅkāraśāstra) as an academic discipline. Thus, the genuine centrality of Pūrva Mīmāṃsā to Sanskrit hermeneutics often leads to an impasse when the category of philology is applied to Sanskrit intellectual history as an etic theoretical lens.…”

“…See also McCrea (2008) on the extensive discourse, both critical and approbative, generated in response to Appayya's provocative theses.…”

The Reuse of Texts in Indian Philosophy: Introduction

“…Preisendanz (2005), McCrea (2008) and other researchers in the Sanskrit Knowledge Systems group enquiring on pre-colonial Sanskrit texts have, for instance, shown an increasing appreciation of historical depth and distance from the foundational texts of one's school. A similar, significant evidence of a shift of attitude is that of the Madhva-Veṅkaṫanātha polemics (discussed in Mesquita 2000, see also fn.…”