I am having difficulty in understanding the "main thrust" (if any) of your argument:
The following is the argumentation of Kumarila:
All this argumentation is based on the fact that all cognition is valid unless proven otherwise. That is, any cognition can be overturned in one of two ways – one by another cognition that shows matters to be different or a defect can be identified in the circumstance or the sense organ that presented it. Why is this important – Vedas present cognitions that cannot be disproved by either of these two ways – no other cognitions contradict them and circumstance and sense organs do not come into play. This is why the Veda is necessary and sufficient pramana acceptable as a source of Dharma. The best argument in the modern West to this is, "We find this claim incredulous!"
OK, up till this point you are making perfect sense, and display at least a basic understanding of the Vedic philosophy. The above is a good paraphrase of the introduction to Jaimini's mimamsasutra.
KLP Dubey wrote:The main use of Brahman was to make Buddhism disappear, and the purpose has been served.
This is based on what?
This is based upon the timeline and history of Vedanta. The Vedantic impetus to develop and assert the validity of Brahman as the universal substratum was in direct proportion to the rise of Bauddha and other heterodox philosophy. Certainly these speculations were contained in the Upanishads, and the Brahmasutra of Badarayana also deals with this issue. However, unlike Jaimini's Mimamsasutra, the Brahmasutra gives a much larger
leeway for differing interpretations. Add to that the Bhagavadgita, which emerged as a powerful 'religious' force and needed to be contended with. It is a collection of widely disparate philosophical and religious views, meaning that it took some extraordinary acrobatics from "brahmavadis" to reconcile it with their core tenets.
The Purva Mimansa basis of argumentation can be furthered against more modern religions as I have indicated above but not explored yet…. Kumarila himself did his work Slokavarrttika to defeat the Buddhist, but believed in ParaBrahman... But vehemently argued against any creator - please note the distinction.
I am very well aware of the "distinction". However, I'm entirely confused: why should anyone "argue" with "more modern religions" using Purvamimamsa ? Unless I am mistaken, it appears you consider this some sort of a "religious" or "spiritual" tussle.
Vedadharma in essence is concerned with a practical matter of extreme importance
: maintenance of World-Order through Veda. It is not concerned with any religions or "uniting your soul with Gawd".
Brahman (cannot even be tagged by a name) – you are dealing with a singular four fold negation Catuskoti
, the Veda is the substrate for Dharma, but as I have shown logically, no human action or cognition can predict a future prosperity (Artha, Kama or Moksha), therefore, all the knowledge in the Veda is only limited to telling you what is Dharma.
I am having difficulty in understanding what you are after, considering that there are a large number of different types of statements in your posts.
Your statement above (bolded by me) is partially correct. It is certainly true that only Veda can form the correct basis of Dharma. However, who told you that the Veda is "limited only to telling you about dharma". There is no such argument in Mimamsa or any other similar philosophy.
Keep in mind, the distinction between "Veda" in the context of dharma as per Mimamsa (we are talking about the Brahmanas) and "Veda" in the context of Mantra. I am not sure there is a proper understanding of Brahmanas and Upanishads versus Mantra (Rk-Saman-Yajus). There was another poster a while ago - I don't remember who - that had a similar issue. According to Mimamsa, the Mantra does not directly tell us about Dharma, since it has no injunctions. According to them, only the Brahmanas - and even there, only the statements containing injunctive verbs - can be used for direct guidance on Dharma.
As far as mimamsa is concerned, the "practical use" of Mantra is to obtain certain information relevant for correctly executing injunctive verbs. However, Mimamsa strenuously argues for the importance of the Mantras which describe natural processes that remain to be understood and are of vital importance to connect the earthly actions being carried out in the Yajna to the cosmic processes occurring in nature. Delete the Mantra and the Yajna loses all meaning. An "apurva" cannot be generated by a Mantra-less Yajna even if the injunction is correctly executed on the ground.
The great advantage of the Mimamsa over Vedanta in terms of a correct path towards Dharma is that fact that the Mantra plays an important role in the former. There is no Yajna without Mantra and there is no actuation of any beneficial effects without it. Whereas in Vedanta the importance of Mantra is pretty much rejected. It is mainly a "spiritual" exercise, which has also acquired religious overtones over the centuries.
Karma marga is the only path in the first three ashramas, post that if interested please ponder all this... Attaining Brahman is impossible, it requires a different path, but that has to be realized – and no it does not need sansaya, neither does it make you superior being or in any way omniscient as I have shown before, indeed all such claims are exaggerated but more importantly false.
I have seen, read, analyzed and pondered all these arguments before. There are major differences in the views of Advaita proponents on this matter. The "founder" of Advaita is considered to be one Gaudapada (in his karika on the Mandukya Upanishad). Gaudapada does not advocate "sanyasa" as a requirement. He himself was quite possibly a "grhastha". However, read the commentary of later Advaitis on the Brahmasutras. Even today, I am hard-pressed to find any significant Vedanta schools which are run by grhasthas and varnashramis.
Since folks from Mangolia (Batori saab) asked about how to teach all of this to a 10 year old, I will try to put together a list. However, what is needed is for Dharmic scholars to argue Kumarila & Prabhakara against Hobbes, Paine, Augustine, etc. as well as Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina, etc. as well as Blaise Pascal, Ludwig Von Mises, F.A. Hayek, etc. Who is ready for this challenge?
I think this would be a ridiculous and time-wasting argument. Dharma does not have anything to do with religion or religious philosophy. Again, the greater danger is that Veda Dharma is being hijacked by all manner of "religious" proponents and being misused by reducing it to a "religious" activity.
If you want to contrast things like Vedanta, Vaishnava, Shaiva etc scriptural beliefs and philosophy with Messianic religions or Western philosophy, feel free. I agree that is necessary in a different sense.
However, the request from the "Mongolian" is perhaps misunderstood. He asked how to teach Vedadharma to a 10 year old, not how to compare Vedadharma to religious beliefs. Veda Dharma is about Mantra (eternal Words containing information on natural processes) and Yajna (path to correct actions based upon the Mantra, and is currently represented by the Brahmanas). It has nothing to do with any religious/spiritual activities or "Gawd". I don't understand why we are mixing up all these together.
Alas all the smart folks take up Vedas too late in life and perceive it as a path to Moksha!
Who told you that "smart folks" perceive Veda as a "path to Moksha" ?
What one must do is to take correct Actions and preserve the World-Order. This is Dharma. And only Veda can be the basis for that. The requirements for that are (1) the correct articulation of Mantra, and (2) correct performance of Yajna. The rest is all interpretation of human minds. One can have all manner of brilliant theories and philosophical speculations and "intellectual" acrobatics, but they are of no use to humanity on their own if the World-Order is not maintained on earth in the first place.
It is more a guide to human actions – Karma Mimamsa needs to be evolved beyond the ritual.
Again your last few statements appear contradictory. Most people would agree with your statement quoted above. The point is how to "evolve" it beyond what is known already.
For example, what do you think organizations like Arya Samaj have done with "Karma" ? "Evolution" attempts must provide new understanding/hypotheses of the Mantra in order to "evolve" "Karma" further. In a nutshell, Mimamsa confesses a lack of detailed understanding of the Mantra contents, but clearly states that it is absolutely required in Yajnas in order to connect eternal and impersonal cosmic processes (encoded in the Mantra sounds themselves) with earthly actions. If you want to go beyond that, one must explain new understanding of the Mantra. Arya Samaj "evolution" of karma, for example, is based upon Dayanand Saraswati's new interpretation/hypothesis of Mantra and what it means. So that brings me back yet again to my original question
: are we going to talk about understanding Mantra (Rk-Saman-Yajus), or are you talking about other things like Vedanta, Brahman, comparative religion, Moksha, and such ? I am not opposed to any of the latter being discussed on the thread, but when arbitrary statements about Veda (e.g., "no knowledge in Veda") are made then I will have to step in for corrections.