Kumārila Bhaṭṭa

Philosophy of Language

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. 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.

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. 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, 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

Kumārila's advocates for the doctrine of intrinsic validity, also known as svatah pramanya. 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.

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

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.

Theism

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. 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. 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. 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?

Critical Engagement with Buddhism

Kumārila Bhaṭṭa is known for his defense of Vedic ritualism against medieval Buddhist idealism. 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. 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:

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.

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). 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).

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.

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. 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.

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 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 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. 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 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.