It is therefore also known as karma (action) mīmāṃsā.

Which actions in particular? Sacrifices wrapped in rituals (e.g. yajña, yāgaḥ, kratu, homa). With what result? By leading a good (dharmic) and healthy (think of e.g. ayurveda) life, I end up in heaven (svarga). Is that lasting freedom? No, heavenly conditions also come to an end. Is it real freedom? On the contrary, the Upaniṣads state.

The Īśa Upaniṣad is very clear about this. The desire for material glory is like entering darkness (andhena tamasāvṛtāḥ, verse 3, covered with darkness by blindness). It is spiritual suicide (ye ke cātmahano janāḥ, verse 3, that which makes a man kill himself). Those who are stuck in performing rituals or those who are stuck in worshipping god(s) enter darkness, verse 9. But then paradoxically in verse 11: Going both ways leads to freedom and infinity. One path leads to the other.

This means that right, sincere action with the right devotional attitude will ultimately lead to knowledge, which will immediately lead to freedom. From karma kāṇḍa to jñāna kāṇḍa, from action to knowledge. And so from pūrva mīmāṁsā to uttara (highest, ultimate) mīmāṃsā (analysis). Uttura mīmāṃsā is synonymous with vedānta. Vedānta means the end of knowledge, or the knowledge that ultimately makes knowledge redundant. So first (pūrva) the relative knowledge (mīmāṃsā) that leads to preparatory action, then the highest (uttara) knowledge.

Again: Are rituals, devotion and wholesome action then of no use? Vedānta states the opposite. The Upaniṣads reveal that the Vedas are constructed in such a way that all rituals and the attitude of karma yoga (the dedication of action to the divine) and thus pūrva mīmāṁsā, lead to a pure mind, which will lead to the knowledge that I am freedom itself. This knowledge is revealed in vedānta or uttura mīmāṃsā.

However, the founders and followers of pūrva mīmāṁsā seem to approach reality differently. They assume an infinite self, but state that this is individual. An infinite individual is not possible. All infinity, whatever it may be, is infinite. That this self is a doer (kartṛ) an enjoyer (bhoktṛ), seeking heavenly spheres.

Vedānta agrees with them that the Vedas are eternal and not human (apauruṣeya). But Vedānta gently points out to Pūrva Mīmāṁsā that she ignores the apotheosis of the Vedas. Namely, the knowledge that absorbs all other schools of thought into undeniable truth.

We can say that īśvara includes everything and uses it to arrive at truth. A philosophy arises that is relative, but leads to the true vision. This cannot be otherwise, the truth must reveal itself in relative reality. This is the nuance of the history of vedānta.

Pūrva mīmāṁsā states that if I adhere to the dharma I will end up in a higher loka (heaven). This is in line with the vision of many religions.

Furthermore, some followers of karma mīmāṃsā also wrongly say that the veda instructs you to take action in combination with jñānam for mokṣa, and that mokṣa only comes from a combination of the two (jñāna karma samuccaya vāda).

In the canon of Indian philosophy, pūrva mīmāṁsā is one of the six philosophical schools, darśanas, with which vedānta debates. The tradition as such began with the Purva Mīmāṃsā Sutras (ca. 300–200 BCE), written by Jaimini.

The concept of vipaṇam (barter, reciprocity) can be used to explain ṛtam (relative truth). Simply put: I perform rituals and sacrifices and receive the blessing of the lord in return, in the form of (finite!) blissful experiences. It is spiritual sales (vipaṇa). Here it is stated that material existence is endless and that I had better acquire the best possible place in it (in heaven, among the devas).

This is reminiscent of the Catholic indulgence trade in the European Middle Ages. I go buy a ritual, and get the favorable karma in return, that I am in good standing with God. It seems that this also happened a lot in the Brahmin culture, something that someone like Buddha rejected. But unfortunately he threw the baby out with the bathwater. Why? We say: Surrender the individual (give it away) with karma yoga and knowledge yoga. What you get in return is god and freedom and fullness (pūrṇatva). I hear vaguely that Buddhist practitioners struggle with the concept of emptiness. How I look at myself like this is essential. As something to which nothing can be added, completely satisfied. Or as the Buddhist emptiness (śūnya). Both concepts express being free from objects, but they work differently on ignorance.

Pūrva Mīmāṁsā expresses that the cycle of karma is eternal, and the best thing one can strive for is a higher birth. Vedānta does not deny this cycle of saṁsāra, but states that it is only apparent (vivarta), not real (mithyā).

Purva Mīmāṃsā claims that the primary purpose of the Vedas is to engage people in rituals to create good karma, and that therefore it is the primary responsibility of the mature soul to know and carry out the exact meaning of the sacrificial injunctions of the Vedas.

An interesting figure in this arena of views is Maṇḍana Miśra. He wrote both non-dual texts (brahmasiddhi, brahman realization) and Mīmāṃsā texts. He was reportedly defeated by Śaṅkarācārya in a debate on the question of whether liberation occurs directly through hearing/seeing knowledge (śravaṇa) or whether it can be ‘attained’ in time (the bhāmatī view) through contemplation (nididhyāsana).

Either on the question of whether it is pure knowledge that liberates, or also the combination of action knowledge (jñāna karma samuccaya). Śaṅkara won the debate on the basis of the following argument: Even though meditation and contemplation (both actions) have a function to remove deep-rooted obstacles, only the direct, immediate action of knowledge can remove ignorance when a qualified mind comes to śravaṇa (the vivaraṇa view). Simply put: If knowledge does not yet work, we must first return to right action to qualify ourselves, and then turn to knowledge again. Today we follow the vivaraṇa view. As long as there is a doer who is doing something, even if it is contemplation of his true nature, mokṣa is impossible. In fact, it is always īśvara who presents knowledge to the doer-free self. So it is an apparent god-seership ‘relationship’.

Tradition says that after his defeat, Maṇḍana Miśra became the well-known follower Sureśvara, author of Naiṣkarmya-siddhi among others. This name change is doubted by science.

The historical facts do not matter. For us it is important to understand the nuances of the discussion and to see that someone can go through provisional insights in one life as a preparation for irreversible insight.