Ancient Indian Education (Brahmanical and Buddhist) c16.50

c16.50

This position is now met by the Siddhāntin. The study of Mīmāṁsā is no doubt not enjoined as a *Vidhi* but necessary as a *Niyama*. The injunction "the Veda is to be read" shows that it is regarded as a means to some end and that end is the knowledge of the meaning as obtained by carrying out the sense of the words of the injunction. Now the knowledge of the meaning cannot be obtained by reading the simple text of the Veda even under an authorized teacher. It may, however, be said that he who reads the Veda along with its *Aṅgas*, grammar, etc., may attain to this knowledge and that the study of *Mīmāṁsā* is uncalled for. The reply is that he may thus attain to a mere simple knowledge of the literal meaning, while for all deeper investigation he must depend upon the Mīmāṁsā discussions, which thus constitute a means towards the highest end of Vedic study, viz. the proper performance of its commands. As regards the violation of the Smṛiti rule that "having read the Veda, let him bathe", the words do not necessarily imply that the return to the paternal roof is to follow immediately on his having read the Veda; but only that it is to follow it at some time, and that both actions are to be done by the same person. Hence the Smṛiti injunction does not rule out the study of the Mīmāṁsā.