Why nitya lost to sanātana? – the significant absence of dharma sanātana in Mīmāṃsā

Abstract

Although the career of sanātanadharma is quite new, in the dharmaśāstra literature it is mentioned for the first time in the Manusmṛti (MS; most importantly 4.168d: eṣa dharmaḥ sanātanaḥ) (Olivelle 2005). The context is of telling the truth and avoiding lying, with some caveats. The sister tradition to the dharmaśāstra, Mīmāṃsā, while discussing extensively the injunction to tell the truth, seemingly referring to the MS verse, at least by one of Mīmāṃsā representatives, Kumārila (6-7^th CE), never picked up the idea od sanātanadharma. We know of its exceptional high presence in the Mahābhārata (Vaishali Jayaraman, thesis 2019), yet, though Mīmāṃsā accepted the epic as one of the sources of dharma, it did not pay any attention to the idea of sanātana. Kumārila can be considered as one of the earliest, although indirect, commentators of the MS, he was followed in many of his discussions by Medhātithi (ca. 1000 CE). Yet, the latter also did not find the phrase dharmaḥ sanātanaḥ of interest. Even as late a Mīmāṃsā author as Khaṇḍadeva (mid-17^th CE), while commenting on the prohibition of lying, and quoting the whole MSverse, did not linger on the term sanātana, apart from glossing it. In short, one of the most “orthodox” Brahmanical traditions, specialising in dharma, did not consider the notion of sanātanadharma attractive conceptually. In this paper I follow the discussion around the MS verse and explain why sanātanadharma did not fit the concept of dharma by Mīmāṃsā.