Skip to main content



MĪMĀSĀ . The word mīmāsā means "investigation" in ordinary Sanskrit. Since the term is applied to an important South Asian philosophical school, it must originally have meant "the investigation of the proper interpretation of the Vedic texts." The Mīmāsā school is thus better known as the Purva-mīmāsā school, which is sometimes called the Dharma-mīmāsā (inquiry into the nature of dharma as laid down by the Vedas, the supreme authority). Uttara-mīmāsā is the descriptive name for the Vedānta school, which deals with the nature of brahman as laid down in the latter part (uttara ) of the Vedas, and in the Upaniads, hence also called Brahma-mīmāsā (inquiry into the nature of brahman ). The word dharma is of prime importance in this context. It stands here for one's "duty" (codanā ) enjoined by the Vedas, which includes both the religious or sacred duties or actions and the moral duties as well. Dharma also denotes the "virtue" attainable by performing such duties or following such courses of actions. Thus dharma is the main topic for discussion in the Mīmāsā school.

The Vedic scriptures were seriously attacked by the Śramaas (mendicant Brahmanic philosophers) about 500 bce, and as a result its authority was apparently being devastated by criticisms. Hence the Mīmāsā school originated among the Vedic priests who wanted to reestablish this authority by resolving the apparent contradictions and other textual problems found in the Vedic scriptures. The Mīmāsā school in this way developed the science of exegesis. A Mīmāsā Sūtra was compiled as early as the first century bce, and it was ascribed to an ancient sage, Jaimini. It is regarded as the key text of the school.

Regarding dharma, Mīmāsā maintains a form of fundamentalism. It claims that the scriptures are the only means of knowing what is dharma and what is not. Only by following the injunctions of the scriptures can we attain dharma, or the "good," that cannot be attained by any other means. Other means of knowledge (perception, inference, reasoning, etc.) are of no help in the realm of dharma, for concerns of dharma are with transcendental matters, the imperceptibles and the unverifiables, such as the afterlife, heaven, and the moral order. Hence the Mīmāsā school defines the essence of the Vedas (vedatā ) as that which informs us about such a transcendental realm. And the authority of the Vedas in such matters is self-evident. The truth of the scriptural statements is self-validating. The Vedas are to be regarded as eternal and uncreated. The scriptures are revealed texts, there being no author of them. In short, the truths of the Vedas are transempirical, hence no empirical evidence can conceivably bear on them.

The problem of interpretation has led the Mīmāsā school to the study and discussion of topics which are of great philosophical interest. The Mīmāsā developed itself into a kind of philosophical discipline, incorporating into it a theory of knowledge, epistemology, logic, a theory of meaning and language, and a realistic metaphysic. With its emphasis on the philosophy of language and linguistics, the Mīmāsā has sometimes been called the vākya-śãstra ("theory of speech"). It also formulated various rules of interpretation in order to resolve and eliminate the apparent inconsistencies of the scriptural texts.

Later on, the Mīmāsā school was divided into two subschools (c. 600700 ce), following the two important exponents of the school, Kumārila Bhaa and Prābhākara. They are called the Bhāa school and the Prābhākara school. Of the many minor differences between the two subschools, only a few of the more notable ones have been noted here.

Kumārila speaks of six pramāa s ("legitimate ways of knowing")perception (pratyaka ), inference (anumāna ), verbal testimony (śabda or aptāvacana ), comparison (upamāna ), presumption (arthāpatti ), and nonapprehension (anupalabdhi ). Prabhākara accepts the first five only. Since he rejects "absence" (abhāva ) as a separate reality, as a "knowable" entity (prameya ), he does not need "nonapprehension" to establish such entities. For the Bhāas, a cognition is not a perceptible property, but it is inferred from the "cognizedness" (jñātatā ) of the object cognized: since this pot is cognized by me, a cognition of it must have occurred in me. For the Prābhākaras, a cognition is self-cognizedit perceives itself. But both regard knowledge to be self-validating. Kumārila admits both Vedic and non-Vedic śabda (sentences, speech) to be pramāa. Prabhākara holds that real śabda-pramāa is the Vedic śabda. Both try to establish the Vedic authority not on God but on such transcendental reality as dharma and moka. The Bhāas explicitly hold the jñāna-karma-samuccaya-vāda, that both knowledge and action lead to liberation. The Prābhākara view does not seem to be very different.

The two subschools differ in their views about the correct incentive for man's action (which includes both moral and religious acts). The Prābhākaras say that it is only the sense of duty while the Bhāas argue that both sense of duty and the desire for benefit constitute the correct incentive for action. On another rather technical matter, the two disagree. The Bhāas believe that the sentences get their meanings from their atomistic constituents, the individual word-meanings, while the Prābhākaras believe that the words directly constitute the sentence-meaning as a whole only insofar as they are syntactically connected (anvita ) with other words in the sentence.

See Also



Jha, Ganganath. Prābhākara School of Pūrva-mīmāsā. Allahabad, 1911.

Rāmānujācārya. Tantra-rahasya (1923). 2d ed. Edited by Rudrapatha Shamasastry and K. S. Ramaswami Sastri. Gaekwad's Oriental Series, no. 24. Baroda, 1956. Contains an introduction by the editors.

Shastri, Pashupatinath. Introduction to Pūrva Mīmāsā (1923). 2d ed. Edited and revised by Gaurinath Sastri. Varanasi, 1980.

New Sources

Bhatta, V. P. Epistemology, Logic, and Grammer in the Analysis of Sentence-Meaning. Delhi, 1992.

Sarma, Rajendra Nath. Mimamsa Theory of Meaning: Based on the Vakyarthamatrika. Delhi, 1988.

Studies in Mimamsa: Dr. Mandan Mishra Felicitation Volume. Edited by R.C. Dwivedi. Delhi, 1994.

Bimal Krishna Matilal (1987)

Revised Bibliography

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA

"Mīmāṃsā." Encyclopedia of Religion. . 15 Aug. 2018 <>.

"Mīmāṃsā." Encyclopedia of Religion. . (August 15, 2018).

"Mīmāṃsā." Encyclopedia of Religion. . Retrieved August 15, 2018 from

Learn more about citation styles

Citation styles gives you the ability to cite reference entries and articles according to common styles from the Modern Language Association (MLA), The Chicago Manual of Style, and the American Psychological Association (APA).

Within the “Cite this article” tool, pick a style to see how all available information looks when formatted according to that style. Then, copy and paste the text into your bibliography or works cited list.

Because each style has its own formatting nuances that evolve over time and not all information is available for every reference entry or article, cannot guarantee each citation it generates. Therefore, it’s best to use citations as a starting point before checking the style against your school or publication’s requirements and the most-recent information available at these sites:

Modern Language Association

The Chicago Manual of Style

American Psychological Association

  • Most online reference entries and articles do not have page numbers. Therefore, that information is unavailable for most content. However, the date of retrieval is often important. Refer to each style’s convention regarding the best way to format page numbers and retrieval dates.
  • In addition to the MLA, Chicago, and APA styles, your school, university, publication, or institution may have its own requirements for citations. Therefore, be sure to refer to those guidelines when editing your bibliography or works cited list.