Mīmāṁsā Lit., “respectful investigation;” is one of the six schools of Indian philosophy.

This system deals mainly with the nature of dharma, or the duties to be followed by human beings, based on the hermeneutics of the Vedas. It is also called Pūrva-mīmāṁsā, or the prior investigation, in contrast to Uttara-mīmāṁsā, the posterior investigation, also popularly known as Vedānta.

This distinction is based on the fact that the Vedas have two divisions: that of karma-khaṇḍa, which deals with the execution of yajñas, and jñāna-khaṇḍa, which discloses the knowledge of Absolute Reality, Brahman.

Because Uttara-mīmāṁsā is popularly called Vedānta, the term mīmāṁsā, used for Pūrva-mīmāṁsā, is also sometimes called Karma-mīmāṁsā.

In Vedāntic logic, an object is considered nondual if it is free of three kinds of difference — that among objects of the same class, that among objects of different classes, and that between an object and its parts.

A difference between objects of the same class is called sajātīya-bheda. Even though two chairs may look the same, have the same function, and belong to the class called “chair,” they still differ as individual chairs. A change in one will not directly affect the other.

A difference between objects of different classes is called vijātīya-bheda. For example, a chair is different from a table in its appearance and function. Finally, a difference between an object and its parts is called svagata-bheda.

If all the parts of a chair are scattered, the chair no longer exists. For example, the various parts of a chair can be removed and replaced without changing the chair’s identity. Thus, the parts are independent from each other and from the object, the chair. In this way, it is evident that the chair is not self-existent.

These three kinds of difference give rise to the duality we observe throughout material nature.

Sage Kaṇāda, in his system of Vaiśeṣika philosophy, recognizes seven ontological categories:

• dravya (substance)
• guṇa (attribute)
• karma (motion or action)
• sāmānya (generality)
• viśeṣa (particularity)
• samavāya (inherence)
• abhāva (non-existence)

dharma-viśeṣa-prasūtād dravya-guṇa-karma-sāmānya-viśeṣa-samavāyānāṁ
padārthānāṁ sādharmya-vaidharmābhyāṁ tattva-jñānān niḥśreyasam
(Vaiśeṣika-sūtra 1.1.4)

The Vaiśeṣikas attempt to explain all of reality in terms of these seven categories. But although the scientific study embodied in philosophies like Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika may lead to realization of the underlying principles of phenomenal existence, this is far different from realization of the Absolute Reality that Śrīmad Bhāgavatam makes available.

One who is perfectly established in the state of utter non-attachment and has no material desires is nivṛtti-nirata.

The doctrine of the Buddhists, the Kṣaṇika-vijñāna-vādīs, states that there is only one reality, consciousness, which is changing at every moment, and that there is no difference between knowledge and the object of knowledge. External objects have no existence outside of cognitions. Consciousness is like a river whose water is always flowing, or it is like the flame of a candle that is changing at every moment. A new flame succeeds the previous one as the old wick and wax are consumed. There is nothing in this world that is not transitory. An object, like a flame, appears unchanging only because of the similarity between our prior and successive cognitions of it.

Just as the objects we see in our dreams do not exist outside our consciousness, so the distinctions between knowledge and the object of knowledge in our waking life do not exist. When we see a blue object, our consciousness is blue. If we next see a yellow object, the blue consciousness is dissolved and replaced by yellow consciousness. Consciousness, therefore, cannot be called eternal.

The Vijñāna-vādīs reason that an eternal object cannot be the cause of anything since a cause generally transforms into its effect. For example, since milk transforms into yogurt, it cannot be eternal. Similarly, nondual consciousness, being the cause of everything, must undergo transformation and, therefore, cannot be eternal. Further, they say, everything is changing at every moment, although we may not notice the moment-by-moment change, just as we do not notice the moment-by-moment growth of plants or of our bodies.

In the technical philosophical sense, Kṛṣṇa, is not the immediate cause of creation, which would imply His entanglement in cause-effect conditionality. Rather, His śakti is the source condition that makes possible the actualization of everything in the cosmos out of the field of infinite possibility. This is the actual significance of Him being often referred to as sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam (lit., “the ultimate cause of all causes”).

In this respect, He can accomplish everything simply by His will and without any actual involvement.

An āpta-puruṣa, is a trustworthy person, who is an authority on the matter in question.

In the Bhāgavata verse beginning with vadanti tat tattva-vidaḥ (SB 1.2.11), the word jñāna, which ordinarily means “knowledge,” refers to “consciousness.” Here, however, consciousness does not imply devoid of content, i.e., without the divisions of subject and object. Its significance here is that Nondual Reality is purely of the nature of consciousness and is also conscious, just as the sun is entirely of the nature of light and is also luminous. Because the word jñāna refers to Absolute Reality, this nondual consciousness must have perpetual existence (sat) as a characteristic.

And because the word tattva indicates the supreme objective of life, it follows that this Nondual Reality must also be characterized by bliss (ānanda), since all living beings seek pleasure, whether they know it or not.

Statements in the Vedic scriptures describing the oneness of Brahman and the jīvas serve one or more of the following purposes:

1. To distinguish both Brahman and the jīvas from inert matter by pointing to consciousness as their common quality.
2. To show that the jīvas are integrated parts of Paramātmā.
3. To teach that the jīvas are dependent on Paramātmā.
4. To indicate that by becoming an unalloyed devotee, a jīva actualizes his ultimate potential, becoming in a sense as powerful as the Supreme Lord.
5. To show that conditional life in the material world under the influence of a separatist view and ego is not the natural, healthy condition of the jīva.
6. To show that the jīva, whether in conditioned life or in liberation, has no independence from Paramātmā.
7. To establish that Brahman is the only self-existent Reality.

No statements in the Vedic scriptures about the oneness of Brahman and the jīvas assert absolute oneness between them.

mukta-pragraha-nyāya is the principle of relieving all constraints to disclose the fullest meaning.