November 5, 2012 by Indian Schools of Thought
The most bewildering: religious orthodox and defender of scriptures, priesthood were one of the foremost and sophisticated Atheist of India. The great contribution to the arsenal of the atheist literature is a great treasure of philosophy and unique.t
Jaimini was the founder of Mimamsa philosophy. The Vedic rituals produced the desired results, just as in ordinary life actions ploughing and the like brought about their own results directly or indirectly. The rituals were imagined to produce results in the future, i.e. sometime after the act was over. The mimaska’s theory of APURVA i.e. of an unseen force produced by the effect of the ritual acts which continued to operate even after the act was over and up to the time of the accomplishment of the actual result. With this theory of APURVA mimaska elaborated fabulous imaginary details. This is the defense of the primitive magic and rituals, traditions belonging to pre-spiritualistic society.
Mimamsa is based on the defence of Vedas and the performance of Yajna and its efficacy. Thus the basis of the mimamsa philosophy is to achieve results by the performance of Vedic rituals i.e. Yajna, being orthodox defender of vedas they refuted any attempt by the spiritualistic school to bring the role of God or any extraneous power to interfere or have an effect on the rituals or its results. The refutation of spiritualism was fundamental to the argument of the Mimamsa, for if everything was unreal (according to the spiritualists) then Yajna would have any meaning or if the world was a dream then instead of strenuous undertaking in the form of ritual performance , people would prefer to sleep and enjoy pleasures in their dreams.
Mimasma associated with the ritualistic Vedic traditions and practices. A great deal of ingenuity of the principles of textual interpretations had naturally to be shown by the Mimamska to prove their favourite thesis that the entire Vedic literature contained a single and self consistent view, it was the direct outcome of the ritual portions of Vedic literature, traditionally called KARMA KANDA of Vedas. It thrives on Vedas and in its major part, intends to be nothing more than the effort to settle the principles of the textual interpretations for the right understanding of the Vedas. In short, the Mimamsa is the rationalization of Vedas. It acquired such a prestige even in the ancient period. The Vedic orthodoxy of the Mimamsa was absolute, equally absolute ws its atheism. It formed an integral part of the its philosophy. They argued energetically that any concession to the idea of God amounted to surrender the fundamental of Mimamsa. It become practically a part of the philosophical common sense of the traditional India to view atheism as n inseparable feature of the Mimamsa. To many it is most puzzling that an India philosophical view , with an almost fanatical zeal for Vedic orthodoxy at the same time be so aggressively atheistic. Mimamsa has the most determined declarations against the possible existence of God, and also bold logical considerations if defence of this declaration. The observed evils in this world were decisive evidence for the non existence of God, no ingenuity of the theist could undermine the importance of these evidences.
Kumarila Bhatt one of the greatest representatives of the Mimamsa, far from showing any anxiety of saving the almighty God of the charge of creating a world full of evils and inequalities, simply laughed at the folly of those could afford the extravagance to imagine that such a world full of palpable evils and inequities could at all be created by an all-powerful and all-merciful God.
Kumarilla refutes the view that God was the exclusive or sole sufficient cause of everything or the creator of everything.n The refutation argument was if God existed before the creation of everything,i.e. he must admit that before the act of creation God and God alone existed. However, if nothing else existed at that time, no place, no universe, nothing,-wherein could the creator himself conceivably stay and how can we at all know that he did exist at such a time? In other words, the theist cannot in anyway prove the existence of creator before the act of creation, nor has he any satisfactory answer of the question concerning the position of God before the creation of the universe, because on his own admission nothing whatsoever existed before creation.
Further, the theist will have to admit that this created either possesses a body or that does not. Both these alternatives, however, are untenable. If God is viewed as being without a body, He cannot have any desire whatsoever -not even desire for creation-and He cannot create without any desire to create.
In what manner do you believe the world to have had a beginning in time? Since the creator is without material body etc how could He at all have any desire towards creation? And, if He has a body, assuredly this body would not have been created by Himself. Thus, then, we would have to postulate another creator (for His body; and so on ad infinitum). If the creator body is held to be eternal (we ask)-so long earth has not been created, of what material would that body be composed.