Kumārila Bhaṭṭa: Difference between revisions

What links here Related changes Page information Get shortened URL
Created by JJMC89 bot III
Last edited March 4, 2026
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
m Removed empty portal template using script
Article updated with improved flow
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Hindu philosopher and scholar}}
{{short description|Hindu 8th century philosopher and scholar}}
{{EngvarB|date=August 2014}}
{{Use British English|date=August 2014}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=August 2014}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=August 2014}}
{{Infobox philosopher
{{Infobox philosopher
|name       = Kumārila Bhaṭṭa  
|name           = Kumārila Bhaṭṭa
|image =  
|image         =  
|caption =
|caption       =  
|birth_date =est. 700 AD
|birth_date     = est. 700 AD
|known       =  
|known         =  
|philosophy = [[Mimansa]]
|main_interests = [[Mimamsa]]
|honors    =
|era            = [[Hindu]] [[Indian philosophy]]
|quote      =
|footnotes  = [[Hindu]] [[Indian philosophy|philosopher]]  
}}
}}
{{Hindu philosophy}}
{{Hindu philosophy}}
'''{{IAST|Kumārila Bhaṭṭa}}''' ([[floruit|fl.]] roughly 700) was a [[Hindu]] philosopher and a scholar of [[Mimamsa]] school of philosophy from early [[medieval India]]. He is famous for many of his various theses on Mimamsa, such as ''Mimamsaslokavarttika''. Bhaṭṭa was a staunch believer in the supreme validity of Vedic injunction, a great champion of Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā and a confirmed ritualist.<ref name="sharma56">Sharma, pp. 5–6.</ref> The ''Varttika'' is mainly written as a subcommentary of Sabara's commentary on Jaimini's [[Purva Mimamsa Sutras]]. His philosophy is classified by some scholars as existential realism.<ref>Bhatt, p. 6.</ref>
'''Kumarila Bhatta''' ([[International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration|IAST]]: Kumārila Bhaṭṭa; [[floruit|fl.]] roughly 7th century CE) was a [[Hindus|Hindu]] philosopher and a scholar of [[Mimamsa]] school of philosophy from early [[medieval India]]. He is famous for many of his various theses on Mimamsa, such as ''Mimamsaslokavarttika''. Bhaṭṭa was a staunch believer in the supreme validity of Vedic injunction, a champion of Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā and a confirmed ritualist.{{sfn|Sharma|1980|p=3–6}} The ''Varttika'' is mainly written as a subcommentary of Sabara's commentary on Jaimini's [[Purva Mimamsa Sutras]]. His philosophy is classified by some scholars as existential realism.<ref>Bhatt, p. 6.</ref>


Scholars differ as regards Kumārila Bhaṭṭa's views on a [[personal God]]. For example, Manikka Vachakar believed that Bhaṭṭa promoted a personal God<ref>''A History of Indian Philosophy'' By Surendranath Dasgupta. p. 156.</ref> ([[saguna brahman]]), which conflicts with the Mīmāṃsā school. In his ''Varttika'', Kumārila Bhaṭṭa goes to great lengths to argue against the theory of a creator God<ref>Bales, p. 198.</ref> and held that the actions enjoined in the Veda had definite results without an external interference of Deity.
Kumārila is also credited with the logical formulation of the Mimamsic belief that the Vedas are unauthored ([[apauruṣeyā]]). In particular, he is known for his defense of Vedic ritualism against medieval [[Buddhism|Buddhist]] idealism.{{sfn|Sheridan|1995|p=200}} His work strongly influenced other schools of Indian philosophy,<ref>Bhatt, p. 3.</ref> with the exception that while Mimamsa considers the Upanishads to be subservient to the Vedas, the Vedanta school does not think so.
 
Kumārila is also credited with the logical formulation of the Mimamsic belief that the Vedas are unauthored ([[apauruṣeyā]]). In particular, his defence against medieval [[Buddhism|Buddhist]] positions on Vedic rituals is noteworthy. This contributed to the [[decline of Buddhism in India]],<ref>Sheridan, p. 198-201</ref> because his lifetime coincides with the period in which Buddhism began to decline.<ref name="sharma56"/> Indeed, his dialectical success against Buddhists is confirmed by Buddhist historian [[Taranatha]], who reports that Kumārila defeated disciples of [[Buddhapālita]], [[Bhāviveka]], Dharmadasa, [[Dignāga]] and others.<ref>Arnold, p. 4.</ref> His work strongly influenced other schools of Indian philosophy,<ref>Bhatt, p. 3.</ref> with the exception that while Mimamsa considers the Upanishads to be subservient to the Vedas, the Vedanta school does not think so.


== Early life ==
== Early life ==


The birthplace of Kumārila Bhatta is uncertain. According to the 16th-century Buddhist scholar [[Taranatha]], Kumārila was a native of [[South India]]. However, Anandagiri's ''[[Shankara Vijayam|Shankara-Vijaya]]'' states that Kumarila came from "the North" (''udagdeśāt''), and persecuted the Buddhists and the Jains in the South.<ref>{{cite book |author1=Kumārila Bhaṭṭa |author2=Peri Sarveswara Sharma |title=Anthology of Kumārilabhaṭṭa's Works |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xW5weaXy2jUC&pg=PA11 |year=1980 |publisher=Motilal Banarsidass |isbn=978-81-208-2084-5 |page=11 }}</ref>
The birthplace of Kumārila Bhatta is uncertain. According to the 16th-century Buddhist scholar [[Taranatha]], Kumārila was a native of [[South India]]. However, Anandagiri's ''Shankara-Vijaya'' states that Kumarila came from "the North" (''udagdeśāt''), and debated the Buddhists and the Jains in the South.<ref>{{cite book |author1=Kumārila Bhaṭṭa |author2=Peri Sarveswara Sharma |title=Anthology of Kumārilabhaṭṭa's Works |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xW5weaXy2jUC&pg=PA11 |year=1980 |publisher=Motilal Banarsidass |isbn=978-81-208-2084-5 |page=11 }}</ref>


Another theory is that he came from eastern India, specifically [[Kamarupa]] (present-day [[Assam]]). Sesa's ''Sarvasiddhanta-rahasya'' uses the eastern title [[Bhattacharya (surname)|Bhattacharya]] for him. His writings indicate that he was familiar with the production of [[Assam silk|silk]], which was common in present-day Assam.<ref>{{cite book |author=Biswanarayan Shastri |title=Mīmāṁsā philosophy & Kumārila Bhaṭṭa |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=K6TWAAAAMAAJ |year=1995 |publisher=Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan |page=76 }}</ref> Yet another theory is that he comes from [[Mithila (region)|Mithila]], which has similar culture to Bengal and Assam, and produced another scholar on the subject [[Mandana Misra]].
Another theory is that he came from eastern India, specifically [[Kamarupa]] (present-day [[Assam]]). Sesa's ''Sarvasiddhanta-rahasya'' uses the eastern title [[Bhattacharya (surname)|Bhattacharya]] for him. His writings indicate that he was familiar with the production of [[Assam silk|silk]], which was common in present-day Assam.<ref>{{cite book |author=Biswanarayan Shastri |title=Mīmāṁsā philosophy & Kumārila Bhaṭṭa |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=K6TWAAAAMAAJ |year=1995 |publisher=Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan |page=76 }}</ref> Yet another theory is that he comes from [[Mithila (region)|Mithila]], which has similar culture to  Assam, and produced another scholar on the subject [[Mandana Misra]]. According to legend in Mithila, the [[Kumarila Bhatta Dih]] at ''Bhatsimar'' or ''Bhatpura'' in the [[Mithila (region)|Mithila region]] is believed to be the birthplace of Kumarila Bhatta.<ref>{{Cite web |title=कुमारिल भट्ट डीह को मिलेगा पर्यटन केंद्र का दर्जा - Kumaril Bhatt Dih will get tourism center status - Bihar Madhubani General News |url=https://www.jagran.com/bihar/madhubani-kumaril-bhatt-dih-will-get-tourism-center-status-19846807.html |access-date=2024-07-12 |website=Jagran |language=hi}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=दर्शन शास्त्र की जननी है मिथिला - |url=https://www.jagran.com/bihar/darbhanga-12917529.html |access-date=2024-07-12 |website=Jagran |language=hi}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-07-03 |title=सनातन धर्म के सच्चे सिपाही थे दार्शनिक कुमारिल भट्ट, तीन ग्रंथों के थे रचयिता |url=https://hindi.news18.com/news/dharm/philosopher-kumaril-bhatt-was-a-true-soldier-of-sanatan-dharma-due-to-a-mistake-he-set-himself-on-fire-8461003.html |access-date=2024-07-12 |website=News18 हिंदी |language=hi}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |title=कुमारिल भट्ट भटपुरा से महिषी तक निकलेगी रथ यात्रा |url=https://www.bhaskar.com/bihar/darbhanga/news/rath-yatra-will-come-from-kumaril-bhatt-bhatpura-to-mahishi-215504-5294563.html |work=[[Dainik Bhaskar]]}}</ref>


==Linguistics views==
==Philosophy of Language==
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa and his followers in the Mīmāṃsā tradition known as ''{{IAST|Bhāṭṭas}}'' argued for a strongly [[Principle of compositionality|Compositional]] view of semantics called ''abhihitānvaya'' or "designation of what has been denoted." In this view, the meaning of a sentence was understood only after understanding first the meanings of individual words.  Word referents were independent, complete objects, a view that is close to the [[Jerry Fodor|Fodor]]ian view of language, according to philosopher Daniel Arnold.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Arnold |first1=Daniel |title=Buddhists, Brahmins, and Belief: Epistemology in South Asian Philosophy of Religion |date=2005 |publisher=Columbia University Press |location=New York}}</ref> He also used several [[Tamil language|Tamil]] words in his works, including one of the earliest mention of the name ''Dravida'' in North Indian sources, found in his ''Tantravārttika''.<ref>[http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam041/2003282070.pdf]</ref>
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa and his followers in the Mīmāṃsā tradition known as ''{{IAST|Bhāṭṭas}}'' argued for a strongly [[Principle of compositionality|Compositional]] view of semantics called ''abhihitānvaya'' or "designation of what has been denoted." In this view, the meaning of a sentence was understood only after understanding first the meanings of individual words.  Word referents were independent, complete objects, a view that is close to the [[Jerry Fodor|Fodor]]ian view of language, according to philosopher Daniel Arnold.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Arnold |first1=Daniel |title=Buddhists, Brahmins, and Belief: Epistemology in South Asian Philosophy of Religion |date=2005 |publisher=Columbia University Press |location=New York}}</ref> He also used several [[Tamil language|Tamil]] words in his works, including one of the earliest mention of the name ''Dravida'' in North Indian sources, found in his ''Tantravārttika''.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Krishnamurti |first=Bhadriraju |url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/ocm50525804 |title=The Dravidian languages |date=2003 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-77111-5 |series=Cambridge language surveys |location=Cambridge; New York |pages=1 |oclc=ocm50525804}}</ref>


The above-mentioned view of sentence meaning was debated over some seven or eight centuries by the followers of [[Prabhākara]] school within Mīmāṃsā, who argued that words do not directly designate meaning. Rather, word meanings are understood as already connected with other words (''anvitābhidhāna'', anvita = connected; abhidhāna = denotation).  This view was influenced by the [[holism|holistic]] arguments of [[Bhartṛhari]]'s {{IAST|[[sphoṭa]]}} theory.{{Citation needed|reason=this is not common knowledge and needs support|date=November 2018}} Essentially the Prābhākaras argued that sentence meanings are grasped directly, from perceptual and contextual cues, skipping the stage of grasping singly the individual word meanings,<ref name=Matilal>Matilal, p. 108.</ref> similar to the modern view of linguistic [[underspecification]], which relates to the [[Semantics#Dynamic turn in semantics|Dynamic Turn in Semantics]], that also opposes purely compositional approaches to sentence meaning.
The above-mentioned view of sentence meaning was debated over some seven or eight centuries by the followers of the [[Prabhākara]] school within Mīmāṃsā, who argued that words do not directly designate meaning. Rather, word meanings are understood as already connected with other words (''anvitābhidhāna'', anvita = connected; abhidhāna = denotation).  This view was influenced by the [[holism|holistic]] arguments of [[Bhartṛhari]]'s {{IAST|[[sphoṭa]]}} theory.<ref name=":0" /> Essentially the Prābhākaras argued that sentence meanings are grasped directly, from perceptual and contextual cues, skipping the stage of grasping singly the individual word meanings,<ref name=Matilal>Matilal, p. 108.</ref> similar to the modern view of linguistic [[underspecification]], which relates to the dynamic turn in semantics, that also opposes purely compositional approaches to sentence meaning.


==Criticism of Buddhism==
== Epistemology ==
With the aim to prove the superiority of Vedic scripture, Kumārila Bhaṭṭa presented several novel arguments:
Kumārila's advocates for the doctrine of intrinsic validity, also known as ''svatah pramanya.''<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last=Taber |first=John |date=1992 |title=What Did Kumārila Bhaṭṭa Mean by Svataḥ Prāmāṇya? |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/603701 |journal=Journal of the American Oriental Society |volume=112 |issue=2 |pages=204–221 |doi=10.2307/603701 |issn=0003-0279|url-access=subscription }}</ref> In this view, all cognitions are valid at the moment of apprehension unless and until proved otherwise. John Taber argues that this is distinct from [[Coherence theory of truth|coherence theories of truth]].<ref name=":1" />


1. ''"Buddhist (or Jain) scripture could not be correct because it had several grammatical lapses."'' He specifically takes the Buddhist verse: ''''ime samkhada dhamma sambhavanti sakarana akarana vinassanti'''' (These phenomena arise when the cause is present and perish when the cause is absent). Thus he presents his argument:<ref name=Pollock>Pollock, p. 55.</ref>
In his text Slokavarttika, Kumārila Bhatta argues that cognitions are intrinsically valid (''svatah pramanya''):<ref name=":0">{{Citation |last=Arnold |first=Daniel |title=Kumārila |date=2020 |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/kumaarila/ |access-date=2024-02-07 |edition=Spring 2020 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University}}</ref>
<blockquote>
{{Blockquote|text=It should be understood that all pramanas' have the property of being pramanas intrinsically; for a capacity not already existing by itself (svatah) cannot be produced by anything else.}}Kumārila argues against the need for second-order justification before accepting cognitions as valid.<ref name=":0" />
The scriptures of Buddhists and Jains are composed in overwhelmingly incorrect (asadhu) language, words of the Magadha or Dakshinatya languages, or even their dialects (tadopabhramsa). Therefore false compositions (asannibandhana), they cannot possibly be true knowledge (shastra)&nbsp;... By contrast, the very form itself (the well-assembled language) of the Veda proves its authority to be independent and absolute.
</blockquote>2. Every extant school held some scripture to be correct. To show that the Veda was the only correct scripture, Kumārila ingeniously said that ''"the absence of an author would safeguard the Veda against all reproach"'' ([[apaurusheya]]).<ref name=Varttika>Jha, p. 31.</ref> There was ''"no way to prove any of the contents of Buddhist scriptures directly as wrong in spirit..."'', unless one challenges the legitimacy and eternal nature of the scripture itself. It is well known that the [[Pali Canon]] was composed after the [[Buddha]]'s [[parinirvana]]. Further, even if they were the Buddha's words, they were not eternal or unauthored like the Vedas.


3. The [[Sautrantika]] Buddhist school believed that the universe was momentary (kshanika). Kumārila said that this was absurd, given that the universe does not disappear every moment. No matter how small one would define the duration of a moment, one could divide the moment into infinitely further parts. Kumārila argues: ''"if the universe does not exist between moments, then in which of these moments does it exist?"'' Because a moment could be infinitesimally small, Bhaṭṭa argued that the Buddhist was claiming that the universe was non-existent.
== Theism ==
Whilst taking an ''[[Āstika and nāstika|āstika]]'' position, that is, a position in which the supremacy of the [[Vedas|Veda]] is upheld, Kumārila, in line with the [[Mīmāṃsā|Mimamsa]] tradition, rejects the notion of a supreme deity or God.<ref name=":2">Bales, p. 198.</ref> Within his commentaries, Kumārila provides various kinds of arguments to reject the notion of a God. One such argument is his skepticism towards a [[cosmological argument]] in favour of a divine transcendent creator.<ref name=":3">Bilimoria, P. (2001). Hindu Doubts About God: Towards a Mīmāṃsā Deconstruction. In R. W. Perrett (Ed.), ''Philosophy of Religion'' (1st ed., pp. 87–105). Routledge. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315053981-6</nowiki></ref> In his ''Slokavarttika'', Kumārila argues that it is implausible to accept both that the world had a divine creator and that the world had any kind of 'beginning' to begin with.<ref name=":3" /> Following from this Kumārila considers two options, either the deity that created the world has a created body or an uncreated body. If the deity has a created body then there would be an [[infinite regress]], since we would then need to ask, who created the body of the creator? If the deity has an uncreated body, a body that has always existed, why can we not say the same for our own?<ref name=":3" />
==Critical Engagement with Buddhism==
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa is known for his defense of Vedic ritualism against medieval [[Buddhism|Buddhist]] idealism.{{sfn|Sheridan|1995|p=200}} With the aim to prove the superiority of Vedic scripture, Kumārila Bhaṭṭa presented several novel arguments:


4. The Determination of perception (pratyaksha pariccheda).<ref name=Taber>Taber, p??</ref>
1. Buddhist texts were written in vernacular and not Sanskrit. [[Sheldon Pollock]] demonstrates that one of the ways that Kumārila rejects the validity of Buddhist texts is by critiquing the language through which it is transmitted.<ref name="Pollock" /> He specifically takes the Buddhist verse: 'ime samkhada dhamma sambhavanti sakarana akarana vinassanti' (These phenomena arise when the cause is present and perish when the cause is absent). Thus he presents his argument:<ref name=Pollock>Pollock, p. 55.</ref>
{{blockquote|The scriptures of Buddhists and Jains are composed in overwhelmingly incorrect (asadhu) language, words of the Magadha or Dakshinatya languages, or even their dialects (tadopabhramsa). Therefore false compositions (asannibandhana), they cannot possibly be true knowledge (shastra)&nbsp;... By contrast, the very form itself (the well-assembled language) of the Veda proves its authority to be independent and absolute.}}


Some scholars believe that Kumārila's understanding of [[Buddhist philosophy]] was far greater than that of any other non-Buddhist philosopher of his time.<ref name=Rani>Rani, p??</ref> However, see Taber 2010 for an alternate view.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Taber |first1=John |title=Kumārila's Buddhist |journal=Journal of Indian Philosophy |date=2010 |volume=38 |issue=3 |pages=279–296|doi=10.1007/s10781-010-9093-9 }}</ref>
Pollock, however, notes that this argument reveals that Kumārila was ignorant of the Buddhist texts written in Sanskrit that were already available during his time.<ref name="Pollock" />


According to [[Buton Rinchen Drub]], Kumārila spoke abusively towards his nephew, [[Dharmakīrti]], as he was taking his brahminical garments. This drove Dharmakīrti away, and resolving to vanquish all non-Buddhist heretics he took the robes of the Buddhist order instead.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Buton|first1=Rinchen drub|title=The History of Buddhism in India and Tibet|date=1931|translator=E. Obermiller|publisher=Harrossowitz|location=Heidelberg|page=152}}</ref>
2. Every extant school held some scripture to be correct. To show that the Veda was the only correct scripture, Kumārila said that ''"the absence of an author would safeguard the Veda against all reproach"'' ([[apaurusheya]]).<ref name="Varttika">Jha, p. 31.</ref> There was ''"no way to prove any of the contents of Buddhist scriptures directly as wrong in spirit..."'', unless one challenges the legitimacy and eternal nature of the scripture itself. It is well known that the [[Pali Canon]] was composed after the [[Buddha]]'s [[parinirvana]]. Further, even if they were the Buddha's words, they were not eternal or unauthored like the Vedas.


==Legendary life==
3. The [[Sautrantika]] Buddhist school believed that the universe was momentary (kshanika). Kumārila said that this was absurd, given that the universe does not disappear every moment. No matter how small one would define the duration of a moment, one could divide the moment into infinitely further parts. Kumārila argues: ''"if the universe does not exist between moments, then in which of these moments does it exist?"'' Because a moment could be infinitesimally small, Bhaṭṭa argued that the Buddhist was claiming that the universe was non-existent.
{{More citations needed section|date=May 2012}}
According to legend, Kumārila went to study [[Buddhism]] at [[Nalanda]] (the largest 4th-century university in the world), with the aim of refuting Buddhist doctrine in favour of [[Historical Vedic religion|Vedic religion]]. He was expelled from the university when he protested against his teacher ([[Dharmakirti]]) ridiculing the Vedic rituals. Legend has it that even though he was thrown off of the university's tower, he survived with an eye injury. (Modern Mimamsa scholars and followers of Vedanta believe that this was because he imposed a condition on the infallibility of the Vedas thus encouraging the Hindu belief that one should not even doubt the infallibility of the Vedas.)


{{tone|date=January 2019}}
4. The Determination of perception (pratyaksha pariccheda).<ref name=Taber>Taber, p??</ref>


=== Kumarila and Dharmakirti ===
According to [[Buton Rinchen Drub]], Kumārila spoke abusively towards his nephew, [[Dharmakīrti]], as he was taking his brahminical garments. This drove Dharmakīrti away, and resolving to vanquish all non-Buddhist heretics he took the robes of the Buddhist order instead.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Buton|first1=Rinchen drub|title=The History of Buddhism in India and Tibet|date=1931|translator=E. Obermiller|publisher=Harrossowitz|location=Heidelberg|page=152}}</ref>


One medieval work on the life of [[Adi Sankara|Sankara]] (considered most accurate) claims that Sankara challenged Bhaṭṭa to a debate on his deathbed.<ref>'Madhaviya Sankara Digvijayam' by medieval Vijayanagara biographer Madhava, Sringeri Sharada Press</ref> Kumārila Bhaṭṭa could not debate Sankara and instead directed him to argue with his student [[Mandana Misra]] in [[Mahishmati|Mahiṣmati]]. He said:
John Taber, through an analysis of Kumārila's arguments in the Ślokavārttika, argues that Kumārila could not have been engaging with [[Dharmakirti]] since his portrayal of Buddhist arguments is less sophisticated than what [[Dharmakirti]] argued.<ref name=":4">{{cite journal |last1=Taber |first1=John |title=Kumārila's Buddhist |journal=Journal of Indian Philosophy |date=2010 |volume=38 |issue=3 |pages=279–296|doi=10.1007/s10781-010-9093-9 |s2cid=170490847 }}</ref> Kumārila has in mind a Buddhist opponent whose arguments are more sophisticated than [[Dignāga|Dignaga's]] but less sophisticated than [[Dharmakirti]]. This analysis challenges the idea that Kumārila was acquainted with [[Dharmakirti]] and his works.<ref name=":4" />


:"You will find a home at whose gates there are a number of caged parrots discussing abstract topics like — 'Do the Vedas have self-validity or do they depend on some external authority for their validity? Are karmas capable of yielding their fruits directly, or do they require the intervention of God to do so? Is the world eternal, or is it a mere appearance?' Where you find the caged parrots discussing such abstruse philosophical problems, you will know that you have reached Maṇḍana's place."
==Legendary life==
According to legend, Kumārila went to study [[Buddhism]] at [[Nalanda]] (the largest 4th-century university in the world), with the aim of refuting Buddhist doctrine in favour of [[Historical Vedic religion|Vedic religion]].{{sfn|Long|2011|p=175}} He was expelled from the university when he protested against his teacher ([[Dharmakirti]]) ridiculing the Vedic rituals. Legend has it that even though he was thrown off of the university's tower, he survived with an eye injury by claiming "if the Vedas are the ultimate then I will be spared from Death."


Another work on Sankara's life, however, claims that Sankara implored Kumārila not to commit suicide. Another contradictory legend, however, says that Kumārila continued to live on with two wives and several students, one of whom was [[Prabhākara]]. According to this legend, Kumārila died in Varanasi at the age of 80.
The ''[[Digvijaya (conquest)#Madhva Digvijayam|Madhaviya Sankara Digvijayam]]'', a 14th-century hagiographic work on the life of [[Adi Sankara|Sankara]], claims that Sankara challenged Bhaṭṭa to a debate on his deathbed.<ref>'Madhaviya Sankara Digvijayam' by medieval Vijayanagara biographer Madhava, Sringeri Sharada Press</ref> Kumārila Bhaṭṭa could not debate Sankara  as he was punishing himself to have disrespected his Buddhist teacher by defeating him in a debate using the Vedas by self-immolation at the banks of [[Narmada|Ganga at Prayagraj]]{{citation needed|date=March 2022}} and instead directed him to argue with his student [[Mandana Misra]] in [[Mahishmati|Mahiṣmati]]. He said:
{{blockquote|You will find a home at whose gates there are a number of caged parrots discussing abstract topics like — 'Do the Vedas have self-validity or do they depend on some external authority for their validity? Are karmas capable of yielding their fruits directly, or do they require the intervention of God to do so? Is the world eternal, or is it a mere appearance?' Where you find the caged parrots discussing such abstruse philosophical problems, you will know that you have reached Maṇḍana's place.}}Kumarila's importance in the history of Indian philosophy comes to light in view of how his work has been extensively quoted.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Kataoka |first1=Kei |url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/741557941 |title=Kumārila on truth, omniscience, and killing |last2=Kumārila Bhaṭṭa |date=2011 |publisher=Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften |isbn=978-3-7001-7001-3 |series=Beiträge zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens |location=Wien |pages=xvii |oclc=741557941}}</ref>


==Works==
==Works==
* ''Shlokavartika'' ("Exposition on the Verses", commentary on [[Shabara]]'s ''Commentary on Jaimini's ''Mimamsa Sutras, Bk. 1, Ch. 1) [https://archive.org/details/Shlokavartika.of.Kumaril.Bhatt]
* ''Slokavartika'' ("Exposition on the Verses", commentary on [[Shabara]]'s ''Commentary on Jaimini's ''Mimamsa Sutras, Bk. 1, Ch. 1) [https://archive.org/details/Shlokavartika.of.Kumaril.Bhatt]
** written in the first half of the 7th century<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Taber |first1=John |title=A Hindu critique of Buddhist epistemology: Kumārila on perception; the 'Determination of perception' chapter of Kumārila Bhaṭṭa's Ślokavārttika |last2=Kumārila |date=2005 |publisher=RoutledgeCurzon |isbn=978-0-415-33602-4 |edition=1. publ |series=RoutledgeCurzon Hindu studies series |location=London |pages=1}}</ref>
* ''Tantravartika'' ("Exposition on the Sacred Sciences", commentary on Shabara's ''Commentary on Jaimini's ''Mimamsa Sutras, Bk. 1, Ch. 2–4 and Bks. 2–3) [https://archive.org/details/Tantra.Vartika.of.Kumarila.Bhatta]
* ''Tantravartika'' ("Exposition on the Sacred Sciences", commentary on Shabara's ''Commentary on Jaimini's ''Mimamsa Sutras, Bk. 1, Ch. 2–4 and Bks. 2–3) [https://archive.org/details/Tantra.Vartika.of.Kumarila.Bhatta]
* ''Tuptika'' ("Full Exposition" commentary on Shabara's ''Commentary on Jaimini's ''Mimamsa Sutras, Bks. 4–9) [https://archive.org/details/Tuptika.of.Kumaril.Bhatt]
* ''Tuptika'' ("Full Exposition" commentary on Shabara's ''Commentary on Jaimini's ''Mimamsa Sutras, Bks. 4–9) [https://archive.org/details/Tuptika.of.Kumaril.Bhatt]
* Kataoka, Kei, ''Kumarila on Truth, Omniscience and Killing. Part 1: A Critical Edition of Mimamasa-Slokavarttika ad 1.1.2 (Codanasutra). Part 2: An Annotated Translation of Mimamsa-Slokavarttika ad 1.1.2 (Codanasutra)'' (Wien, 2011) (Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Klasse, 814; Beiträge zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens, 68).


==Notes==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}


==References==
==Sources==
{{refbegin|30em}}
*Arnold, Daniel Anderson. ''Buddhists, Brahmins, and Belief: Epistemology in South Asian Philosophy of Religion''. Columbia University Press, 2005. {{ISBN|978-0-231-13281-7}}.
*Arnold, Daniel Anderson. ''Buddhists, Brahmins, and Belief: Epistemology in South Asian Philosophy of Religion''. Columbia University Press, 2005. {{ISBN|978-0-231-13281-7}}.
*{{cite book|last=Bales|first=Eugene|title=A Ready Reference to Philosophy East and West|year=1987|publisher=University Press of America|url=https://archive.org/details/readyreferenceto0000bale|url-access=registration|page=[https://archive.org/details/readyreferenceto0000bale/page/201 201]|quote=Buddhist philosophy as presented in Mimamsa Sloka Vartika.|isbn=9780819166401}}
*{{cite book|last=Bales|first=Eugene|title=A Ready Reference to Philosophy East and West|year=1987|publisher=University Press of America|url=https://archive.org/details/readyreferenceto0000bale|url-access=registration|page=[https://archive.org/details/readyreferenceto0000bale/page/201 201]|quote=Buddhist philosophy as presented in Mimamsa Sloka Vartika.|isbn=9780819166401}}
*Bhatt, Govardhan P. ''The Basic Ways of Knowing: An In-depth Study of Kumārila's Contribution to Indian Epistemology''. Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass, 1989. {{ISBN|81-208-0580-1}}.
*Bhatt, Govardhan P. ''The Basic Ways of Knowing: An In-depth Study of Kumārila's Contribution to Indian Epistemology''. Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass, 1989. {{ISBN|81-208-0580-1}}.
*{{cite book
*{{cite book | author = Kumarila Bhatta, Translated by Ganganatha Jha | title = Slokavarttika | publisher = The Asiatic Society, Calcutta
| author = Kumarila Bhatta, Translated by Ganganatha Jha
| year = 1985}}
| title = Slokavarttika
*{{cite book | author = Bimal Krishna Matilal | title = The word and the world: India's contribution to the study of language
| publisher = The Asiatic Society, Calcutta
| publisher = Oxford | year = 1990 | author-link = Bimal Krishna Matilal}}
| year = 1985
* {{Citation | last =Long | first =Jeffery D. | year =2011 | title =Historical Dictionary of Hinduism | publisher =Scarecrow Press}}
}}
*{{cite book | author = Vijaya Rani | title = Buddhist Philosophy as Presented in Mimamsa Sloka Varttika. 1st Ed | publisher = Parimal Publications, Delhi ASIN B0006ECAEO | year = 1982}}
*{{cite book  
* {{cite book | author = Sheldon Pollock | title = The Language of the Gods in the World of Men – Sanskrit, Culture and Power in Premodern India | publisher = University of California Press | year = 2006 | author-link = Sheldon Pollock}}
| author = Bimal Krishna Matilal  
* {{cite book |last =Sharma | first =Peri Sarveswara | year =1980 | title =Anthology of Kumārilabhaṭṭa's Works | publisher =Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass}}
| title = The word and the world: India's contribution to the study of language  
* {{Citation | last =Sheridan | first =Daniel P. | year =1995 | chapter =Kumarila Bhatta | title =Great Thinkers of the Eastern World | editor-first =Ian | editor-last =McGready | place =New York | publisher =Harper Collins | isbn =0-06-270085-5}}
| publisher = Oxford
* {{cite book | author = Translated and commentary by John Taber | title = A Hindu Critique of Buddhist Epistemology | publisher = Routledge | isbn = 978-0-415-33602-4 | date = Jan 2005}}
| year = 1990  
{{refend}}
| author-link = Bimal Krishna Matilal  
}}
*{{cite book
| author = Vijaya Rani
| title = Buddhist Philosophy as Presented in Mimamsa Sloka Varttika. 1st Ed
| publisher = Parimal Publications, Delhi ASIN B0006ECAEO
| year = 1982  
}}
*{{cite book
| author = Sheldon Pollock
| title = The Language of the Gods in the World of Men – Sanskrit, Culture and Power in Premodern India
| publisher = University of California Press
| year = 2006
| author-link = Sheldon Pollock
}}
*{{cite book|last= Sharma |first=Peri Sarveswara |year=1980 |title=Anthology of Kumārilabhaṭṭa's Works |publisher=Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass}}
*Sheridan, Daniel P. "Kumarila Bhatta", in ''Great Thinkers of the Eastern World'', ed. Ian McGready, New York: Harper Collins, 1995. {{ISBN|0-06-270085-5}}
*{{cite book
| author = Translated and commentary by John Taber
| title = A Hindu Critique of Buddhist Epistemology
| publisher = Routledge  
| ISBN = 978-0-415-33602-4
| year = Jan 2005
}}


==External links==
==External links==
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20110517222149/http://www.sub.uni-goettingen.de/ebene_1/fiindolo/gretil/1_sanskr/6_sastra/3_phil/mimamsa/mimslovu.htm Text of Mimamsalokavarttika by Kumarila Bhatta] (in transliterated Sanskrit)
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20110517222149/http://www.sub.uni-goettingen.de/ebene_1/fiindolo/gretil/1_sanskr/6_sastra/3_phil/mimamsa/mimslovu.htm Text of Mimamsalokavarttika Chapter 5, by Kumarila Bhatta] (in transliterated Sanskrit)
* https://web.archive.org/web/20070509144740/http://www.crvp.org/book/Series03/IIIB-4/introduction.htm
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20070509144740/http://www.crvp.org/book/Series03/IIIB-4/introduction.htm Shankara]
* http://www.ourkarnataka.com/books/saartha_book_review.htm
 


{{Hindudharma}}
{{Indian Philosophy}}
{{Indian Philosophy}}
{{Portal bar|Hinduism|Religion}}
{{Authority control}}
{{Authority control}}


Line 124: Line 99:
[[Category:Critics of Buddhism]]
[[Category:Critics of Buddhism]]
[[Category:Hindu philosophers and theologians]]
[[Category:Hindu philosophers and theologians]]
[[Category:Indian Medieval linguists]]
[[Category:Indian Sanskrit scholars]]
[[Category:Indian Sanskrit scholars]]
[[Category:Medieval linguists from India]]
[[Category:Medieval Sanskrit grammarians]]
[[Category:Medieval Sanskrit grammarians]]
[[Category:Scholars from Assam]]
[[Category:Scholars from Assam]]

Latest revision as of 02:05, 4 March 2026


Kumārila Bhaṭṭa
Bornest. 700 AD
EraHindu Indian philosophy
Main interests
Mimamsa
Part of a series on
Hindu philosophy
Orthodox
Heterodox
Sub-schools
Smartist
Vaishnavite
Shaivite
Teachers (Acharyas)
Nyaya
Mīmāṃsā
Advaita
Vishishtadvaita
Dvaita
Achintyabhedabhed
Dvaitadvait
Shuddhadvaita
Akshar-Purushottam Darshan
Others
Samkhya
Yoga
Vaisheshika
Major texts
Vedas
Upanishads
Other scriptures
Shastras and Sutras

Kumarila Bhatta (IAST: Kumārila Bhaṭṭa; fl. roughly 7th century CE) was a Hindu philosopher and a scholar of Mimamsa school of philosophy from early medieval India. He is famous for many of his various theses on Mimamsa, such as Mimamsaslokavarttika. Bhaṭṭa was a staunch believer in the supreme validity of Vedic injunction, a champion of Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā and a confirmed ritualist.[1] The Varttika is mainly written as a subcommentary of Sabara's commentary on Jaimini's Purva Mimamsa Sutras. His philosophy is classified by some scholars as existential realism.[2]

Kumārila is also credited with the logical formulation of the Mimamsic belief that the Vedas are unauthored (apauruṣeyā). In particular, he is known for his defense of Vedic ritualism against medieval Buddhist idealism.[3] His work strongly influenced other schools of Indian philosophy,[4] with the exception that while Mimamsa considers the Upanishads to be subservient to the Vedas, the Vedanta school does not think so.

Early life[edit | edit source]

The birthplace of Kumārila Bhatta is uncertain. According to the 16th-century Buddhist scholar Taranatha, Kumārila was a native of South India. However, Anandagiri's Shankara-Vijaya states that Kumarila came from "the North" (udagdeśāt), and debated the Buddhists and the Jains in the South.[5]

Another theory is that he came from eastern India, specifically Kamarupa (present-day Assam). Sesa's Sarvasiddhanta-rahasya uses the eastern title Bhattacharya for him. His writings indicate that he was familiar with the production of silk, which was common in present-day Assam.[6] Yet another theory is that he comes from Mithila, which has similar culture to Assam, and produced another scholar on the subject Mandana Misra. According to legend in Mithila, the Kumarila Bhatta Dih at Bhatsimar or Bhatpura in the Mithila region is believed to be the birthplace of Kumarila Bhatta.[7][8][9][10]

Philosophy of Language[edit | edit source]

Kumārila Bhaṭṭa and his followers in the Mīmāṃsā tradition known as Bhāṭṭas argued for a strongly Compositional view of semantics called abhihitānvaya or "designation of what has been denoted." In this view, the meaning of a sentence was understood only after understanding first the meanings of individual words. Word referents were independent, complete objects, a view that is close to the Fodorian view of language, according to philosopher Daniel Arnold.[11] He also used several Tamil words in his works, including one of the earliest mention of the name Dravida in North Indian sources, found in his Tantravārttika.[12]

The above-mentioned view of sentence meaning was debated over some seven or eight centuries by the followers of the Prabhākara school within Mīmāṃsā, who argued that words do not directly designate meaning. Rather, word meanings are understood as already connected with other words (anvitābhidhāna, anvita = connected; abhidhāna = denotation). This view was influenced by the holistic arguments of Bhartṛhari's sphoṭa theory.[13] Essentially the Prābhākaras argued that sentence meanings are grasped directly, from perceptual and contextual cues, skipping the stage of grasping singly the individual word meanings,[14] similar to the modern view of linguistic underspecification, which relates to the dynamic turn in semantics, that also opposes purely compositional approaches to sentence meaning.

Epistemology[edit | edit source]

Kumārila's advocates for the doctrine of intrinsic validity, also known as svatah pramanya.[15] In this view, all cognitions are valid at the moment of apprehension unless and until proved otherwise. John Taber argues that this is distinct from coherence theories of truth.[15]

In his text Slokavarttika, Kumārila Bhatta argues that cognitions are intrinsically valid (svatah pramanya):[13]

It should be understood that all pramanas' have the property of being pramanas intrinsically; for a capacity not already existing by itself (svatah) cannot be produced by anything else.

Kumārila argues against the need for second-order justification before accepting cognitions as valid.[13]

Theism[edit | edit source]

Whilst taking an āstika position, that is, a position in which the supremacy of the Veda is upheld, Kumārila, in line with the Mimamsa tradition, rejects the notion of a supreme deity or God.[16] Within his commentaries, Kumārila provides various kinds of arguments to reject the notion of a God. One such argument is his skepticism towards a cosmological argument in favour of a divine transcendent creator.[17] In his Slokavarttika, Kumārila argues that it is implausible to accept both that the world had a divine creator and that the world had any kind of 'beginning' to begin with.[17] Following from this Kumārila considers two options, either the deity that created the world has a created body or an uncreated body. If the deity has a created body then there would be an infinite regress, since we would then need to ask, who created the body of the creator? If the deity has an uncreated body, a body that has always existed, why can we not say the same for our own?[17]

Critical Engagement with Buddhism[edit | edit source]

Kumārila Bhaṭṭa is known for his defense of Vedic ritualism against medieval Buddhist idealism.[3] With the aim to prove the superiority of Vedic scripture, Kumārila Bhaṭṭa presented several novel arguments:

1. Buddhist texts were written in vernacular and not Sanskrit. Sheldon Pollock demonstrates that one of the ways that Kumārila rejects the validity of Buddhist texts is by critiquing the language through which it is transmitted.[18] He specifically takes the Buddhist verse: 'ime samkhada dhamma sambhavanti sakarana akarana vinassanti' (These phenomena arise when the cause is present and perish when the cause is absent). Thus he presents his argument:[18]

The scriptures of Buddhists and Jains are composed in overwhelmingly incorrect (asadhu) language, words of the Magadha or Dakshinatya languages, or even their dialects (tadopabhramsa). Therefore false compositions (asannibandhana), they cannot possibly be true knowledge (shastra) ... By contrast, the very form itself (the well-assembled language) of the Veda proves its authority to be independent and absolute.

Pollock, however, notes that this argument reveals that Kumārila was ignorant of the Buddhist texts written in Sanskrit that were already available during his time.[18]

2. Every extant school held some scripture to be correct. To show that the Veda was the only correct scripture, Kumārila said that "the absence of an author would safeguard the Veda against all reproach" (apaurusheya).[19] There was "no way to prove any of the contents of Buddhist scriptures directly as wrong in spirit...", unless one challenges the legitimacy and eternal nature of the scripture itself. It is well known that the Pali Canon was composed after the Buddha's parinirvana. Further, even if they were the Buddha's words, they were not eternal or unauthored like the Vedas.

3. The Sautrantika Buddhist school believed that the universe was momentary (kshanika). Kumārila said that this was absurd, given that the universe does not disappear every moment. No matter how small one would define the duration of a moment, one could divide the moment into infinitely further parts. Kumārila argues: "if the universe does not exist between moments, then in which of these moments does it exist?" Because a moment could be infinitesimally small, Bhaṭṭa argued that the Buddhist was claiming that the universe was non-existent.

4. The Determination of perception (pratyaksha pariccheda).[20]

Kumarila and Dharmakirti[edit | edit source]

According to Buton Rinchen Drub, Kumārila spoke abusively towards his nephew, Dharmakīrti, as he was taking his brahminical garments. This drove Dharmakīrti away, and resolving to vanquish all non-Buddhist heretics he took the robes of the Buddhist order instead.[21]

John Taber, through an analysis of Kumārila's arguments in the Ślokavārttika, argues that Kumārila could not have been engaging with Dharmakirti since his portrayal of Buddhist arguments is less sophisticated than what Dharmakirti argued.[22] Kumārila has in mind a Buddhist opponent whose arguments are more sophisticated than Dignaga's but less sophisticated than Dharmakirti. This analysis challenges the idea that Kumārila was acquainted with Dharmakirti and his works.[22]

Legendary life[edit | edit source]

According to legend, Kumārila went to study Buddhism at Nalanda (the largest 4th-century university in the world), with the aim of refuting Buddhist doctrine in favour of Vedic religion.[23] He was expelled from the university when he protested against his teacher (Dharmakirti) ridiculing the Vedic rituals. Legend has it that even though he was thrown off of the university's tower, he survived with an eye injury by claiming "if the Vedas are the ultimate then I will be spared from Death."

The Madhaviya Sankara Digvijayam, a 14th-century hagiographic work on the life of Sankara, claims that Sankara challenged Bhaṭṭa to a debate on his deathbed.[24] Kumārila Bhaṭṭa could not debate Sankara as he was punishing himself to have disrespected his Buddhist teacher by defeating him in a debate using the Vedas by self-immolation at the banks of Ganga at Prayagraj[citation needed] and instead directed him to argue with his student Mandana Misra in Mahiṣmati. He said:

You will find a home at whose gates there are a number of caged parrots discussing abstract topics like — 'Do the Vedas have self-validity or do they depend on some external authority for their validity? Are karmas capable of yielding their fruits directly, or do they require the intervention of God to do so? Is the world eternal, or is it a mere appearance?' Where you find the caged parrots discussing such abstruse philosophical problems, you will know that you have reached Maṇḍana's place.

Kumarila's importance in the history of Indian philosophy comes to light in view of how his work has been extensively quoted.[25]

Works[edit | edit source]

  • Slokavartika ("Exposition on the Verses", commentary on Shabara's Commentary on Jaimini's Mimamsa Sutras, Bk. 1, Ch. 1) [1]
    • written in the first half of the 7th century[26]
  • Tantravartika ("Exposition on the Sacred Sciences", commentary on Shabara's Commentary on Jaimini's Mimamsa Sutras, Bk. 1, Ch. 2–4 and Bks. 2–3) [2]
  • Tuptika ("Full Exposition" commentary on Shabara's Commentary on Jaimini's Mimamsa Sutras, Bks. 4–9) [3]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. ↑ Sharma 1980, p. 3–6.
  2. ↑ Bhatt, p. 6.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Sheridan 1995, p. 200.
  4. ↑ Bhatt, p. 3.
  5. ↑ Kumārila Bhaṭṭa; Peri Sarveswara Sharma (1980). Anthology of Kumārilabhaṭṭa's Works. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 11. ISBN 978-81-208-2084-5.
  6. ↑ Biswanarayan Shastri (1995). Mīmāṁsā philosophy & Kumārila Bhaṭṭa. Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan. p. 76.
  7. ↑ "कुमारिल भट्ट डीह को मिलेगा पर्यटन केंद्र का दर्जा - Kumaril Bhatt Dih will get tourism center status - Bihar Madhubani General News". Jagran (in हिन्दी). Retrieved 12 July 2024.
  8. ↑ "दर्शन शास्त्र की जननी है मिथिला -". Jagran (in हिन्दी). Retrieved 12 July 2024.
  9. ↑ "सनातन धर्म के सच्चे सिपाही थे दार्शनिक कुमारिल भट्ट, तीन ग्रंथों के थे रचयिता". News18 हिंदी (in हिन्दी). 3 July 2024. Retrieved 12 July 2024.
  10. ↑ "कुमारिल भट्ट भटपुरा से महिषी तक निकलेगी रथ यात्रा". Dainik Bhaskar.
  11. ↑ Arnold, Daniel (2005). Buddhists, Brahmins, and Belief: Epistemology in South Asian Philosophy of Religion. New York: Columbia University Press.
  12. ↑ Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju (2003). The Dravidian languages. Cambridge language surveys. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-521-77111-5. OCLC 50525804.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 Arnold, Daniel (2020), "Kumārila", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 7 February 2024
  14. ↑ Matilal, p. 108.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Taber, John (1992). "What Did Kumārila Bhaṭṭa Mean by Svataḥ Prāmāṇya?". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 112 (2): 204–221. doi:10.2307/603701. ISSN 0003-0279.
  16. ↑ Bales, p. 198.
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 Bilimoria, P. (2001). Hindu Doubts About God: Towards a Mīmāṃsā Deconstruction. In R. W. Perrett (Ed.), Philosophy of Religion (1st ed., pp. 87–105). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315053981-6
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 Pollock, p. 55.
  19. ↑ Jha, p. 31.
  20. ↑ Taber, p??
  21. ↑ Buton, Rinchen drub (1931). The History of Buddhism in India and Tibet. Translated by E. Obermiller. Heidelberg: Harrossowitz. p. 152.
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 Taber, John (2010). "Kumārila's Buddhist". Journal of Indian Philosophy. 38 (3): 279–296. doi:10.1007/s10781-010-9093-9. S2CID 170490847.
  23. ↑ Long 2011, p. 175.
  24. ↑ 'Madhaviya Sankara Digvijayam' by medieval Vijayanagara biographer Madhava, Sringeri Sharada Press
  25. ↑ Kataoka, Kei; Kumārila Bhaṭṭa (2011). Kumārila on truth, omniscience, and killing. Beiträge zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. pp. xvii. ISBN 978-3-7001-7001-3. OCLC 741557941.
  26. ↑ Taber, John; Kumārila (2005). A Hindu critique of Buddhist epistemology: Kumārila on perception; the 'Determination of perception' chapter of Kumārila Bhaṭṭa's Ślokavārttika. RoutledgeCurzon Hindu studies series (1. publ ed.). London: RoutledgeCurzon. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-415-33602-4.

Sources[edit | edit source]

  • Arnold, Daniel Anderson. Buddhists, Brahmins, and Belief: Epistemology in South Asian Philosophy of Religion. Columbia University Press, 2005. ISBN 978-0-231-13281-7.
  • Bales, Eugene (1987). A Ready Reference to Philosophy East and West. University Press of America. p. 201. ISBN 9780819166401. Buddhist philosophy as presented in Mimamsa Sloka Vartika.
  • Bhatt, Govardhan P. The Basic Ways of Knowing: An In-depth Study of Kumārila's Contribution to Indian Epistemology. Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass, 1989. ISBN 81-208-0580-1.
  • Kumarila Bhatta, Translated by Ganganatha Jha (1985). Slokavarttika. The Asiatic Society, Calcutta.
  • Bimal Krishna Matilal (1990). The word and the world: India's contribution to the study of language. Oxford.
  • Long, Jeffery D. (2011), Historical Dictionary of Hinduism, Scarecrow Press
  • Vijaya Rani (1982). Buddhist Philosophy as Presented in Mimamsa Sloka Varttika. 1st Ed. Parimal Publications, Delhi ASIN B0006ECAEO.
  • Sheldon Pollock (2006). The Language of the Gods in the World of Men – Sanskrit, Culture and Power in Premodern India. University of California Press.
  • Sharma, Peri Sarveswara (1980). Anthology of Kumārilabhaṭṭa's Works. Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass.
  • Sheridan, Daniel P. (1995), "Kumarila Bhatta", in McGready, Ian (ed.), Great Thinkers of the Eastern World, New York: Harper Collins, ISBN 0-06-270085-5
  • Translated and commentary by John Taber (January 2005). A Hindu Critique of Buddhist Epistemology. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-33602-4.

External links[edit | edit source]

Retrieved from "https://en.bharatpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kumārila_Bhaṭṭa&oldid=451223"
Discover more