ABSTRACT
Building on the discussions from the preceding two chapters, wherein Chapter 3 discusses the mode of desire of the Mīmāmsā subject as the medium through which the invisible telos of dharma is pursued, and which was then followed by a discussion in Chapter 4 on the infallibility of the Veda as the only means of accessing dharma which necessitated (calls forth) responsible enactment, this chapter presents Jaimini’s development of the realization of dharma in light of the discussion on the question of praxis and the articulation of ritual, primarily by looking at his elaboration of the nature of Vedic practice and its intrinsic relationship with dharma. It begins with a brief genealogical sketch of the larger action-theory dichotomy that pervades the enquiry into ritual to highlight that the articulation of ritual through the lens of this dichotomy is problematic because the answerability of an embodied inhabitation or ‘the life of practice’ is not accorded consideration. Jaimini’s elaboration of the nature of Vedic practice (yajñakarma) primarily by looking at the event of yajña through the lens of the ‘enjoinment’ and ‘answerability’ of the yajamāna (sacrificial agent) allows the reconceptualization of ritual as a narratively structured traditionary practice that is both answerable and repeatable. This reconceptualization of ritual showcases both the textuality of Vedic practice and the agency of the enjoined subject and, in turn, discloses the uniqueness of Jaimini’s ritualistic conception of dharma. It is this conception of traditionary practice that will contribute to the question of the articulation of ritual which, in its contemporary study, is reduced to an empty action that is primarily characterized by its imitation-governed formality and non-intentionality. Jaimini’s notion of practice is able to contribute an understanding of ritual that is not entangled in the theory-action dichotomy, but one that is historically situated and answerably appropriated.
