Achintya Bheda Abheda
Shaiva : Pratyabhijña
TEACHERS (Acharyas )
* Akṣapāda Gotama
* Kumārila Bhaṭṭa
ACHINTYA BHEDA ABHEDA
* Kamalakanta Bhattacharya
* Kanada ,
SHASTRAS AND SUTRAS
* Other Indian philosophies
KUMāRILA BHAṭṭA (fl. roughly 700) was a
Hindu philosopher and
Mīmāṃsā scholar from Kalinga . 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. The
Varttika is mainly written as a subcommentary of Sabara's commentary
Purva Mimamsa Sutras
Purva Mimamsa Sutras . His philosophy is classified by
some scholars as existential realism.
Scholars differ as regards Kumārila Bhaṭṭa's views on a personal
God . For example, Manikka Vachakar believed that Bhaṭṭa promoted
a personal God (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 and held
that the actions enjoined in the Veda had definite results without an
Bhaṭṭa is also credited with the logical formulation of the
Mimamsic belief that the
Vedas are unauthored (apauruṣeyā ). In
particular his defence against medieval Buddhist positions on Vedic
rituals is noteworthy. Some believe that this contributed to the
Buddhism in India because his lifetime coincides with the
period in which
Buddhism began to decline. Indeed, his dialectical
success against Buddhists is confirmed by Buddhist historian Taranatha
, who reports that Bhaṭṭa defeated disciples of Buddhapalkita,
Bhavya, Dharmadasa, Dignaga and others. His work strongly influenced
other schools of Indian philosophy, with the exception that while
Mimamsa considers the
Upanishads to be subservient to the Vedas, the
Vedanta school does not think so.
* 1 Linguistics views
* 2 Criticism of
* 3 Legendary life
* 4 Works
* 5 Notes
* 6 References
* 7 External links
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa and his followers in the
known as Bhāṭṭas argued for a strongly Compositional view of
semantics (called abhihitānvaya). In this view, the meaning of a
sentence was understood only after understanding first the meanings of
individual words. Words were independent, complete objects, a view
that is close to the Fodorian view of language. He also used several
Tamil words in his poems, including one of the earliest mention of the
name Dravida in North Indian sources.
This view was debated over some seven or eight centuries by the
Prabhākara school within Mīmāṃsā, who argued that
words do not directly designate meaning; any meaning that arises is
because it is 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.
CRITICISM OF BUDDHISM
With the aim to prove the superiority of Vedic scripture, Kumārila
Bhaṭṭa presented several novel arguments:
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:
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
This argument of Bhaṭṭa relies heavily on his idea that the
meanings of each individual word should be complete for the sentence
to have a meaning. It may be noted, that the
Pali Canon was
intentionally recorded in local dialects and not in languages germane
only to the scholarly.
2. Every extant school held some scripture to be correct. To show
that the Veda was the only correct scripture, Bhaṭṭa ingeniously
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
Buddha 's parinirvana . Further, even if they were the
Buddha's words, they were not eternal or unauthored like the Vedas.
Sautrantika Buddhist school believed that the universe was
momentary (kshanika). Bhaṭṭa 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. Bhaṭṭa argues: "if the universe is
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
4. The Determination of perception (pratyaksha pariccheda).
Some scholars believe, Bhaṭṭa's understanding of Buddhist
philosophy was far greater than that of any other non-Buddhist
philosopher of his time.
Buton Rinchen Drub , Kumārila spoke abusively towards
Dharmakīrti , as he was taking his brahminical garments.
Dharmakīrti away, and resolving to vanquish all
non-Buddhist heretics he took the robes of the Buddhist order instead.
This section NEEDS ADDITIONAL CITATIONS FOR VERIFICATION . Please
help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources .
Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2012) (Learn
how and when to remove this template message )
According to legend, Bhaṭṭa 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. (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.)
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa left
Nalanda after that and settled down in
Prayag (modern day
Allahabad ). Bhaṭṭa visited many kingdoms and
regionalities to debate with the Buddhist pundits. It was tradition at
that time that whoever wins a debate in the King's court, their
philosophy and ideology would be accepted by the King and by the
subjects. To prevent the further downfall of Vedic Sanskruti,
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa had defeated many Buddhist pundits and saved the
country from Buddhist supremacy. It so happened that the jealous
Buddhist scholars, who were unable to defeat Bhaṭṭa in debates,
challenged him to a stunt. They said, "If your
Vedas are the Truth,
then nothing will happen to you when you fall from the top of a
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa had utter conviction and faith in the
Vedas and Shrutis and readily accepted this challenge. He proclaimed,
Vedas are the Ultimate Truth nothing will happen to me" and
jumped from the mountain. In doing so, there was not a scratch on his
body. However, he did lose an eye. This was because he uttered "IF",
which signifies that a person who believes the
Vedas to be the
ultimate would not utter "If", and instead would say "The
the Ultimate Truth and nothing will happen to me." However, the
Buddhist monks wanted Bhaṭṭa to leave and they proclaimed he had
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa was devastated and could not bear the defeat. It
was not that someone had defeated him, he was more angry that "I have
failed to protect my own Mother Sanskruti". He decided to take samadhi
by burning himself on a pile of peanut shells, which is said to be the
most torturous death. This character study can be found in the works
Pandurang Shastri Athavale .
One medieval work on the life of Sankara (considered most accurate)
claims that Sankara challenged Bhaṭṭa to a debate on his deathbed.
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa could not debate Sankara 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
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."
Another work on Sankara's life however claims that Sankara implored
Bhaṭṭa not to commit suicide. Another contradictory legend however
says that Bhaṭṭa continued to live on with two wives several
students, one of whom was
Prabhākara . According to this legend,
Bhaṭṭa died in Varanasi at the age of 80.
* Shlokavartika ("Exposition on the Verses", commentary on Shabara
's Commentary on Jaimini's
Mimamsa Sutras, Bk. 1, Ch. 1)
* Tantravartika ("Exposition on the Sacred Sciences", commentary on
Shabara's Commentary on Jaimini's
Mimamsa Sutras, Bk. 1, Ch. 2–4 and
* Tuptika ("Full Exposition"commentary on Shabara's Commentary on
Mimamsa Sutras, Bks. 4–9)
* 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).
* ^ Scholar\'s origin caught in the web
Times of India
Times of India – 7 July
* ^ A B Sharma, p. 5-6.
* ^ Bhatt, p. 6.
* ^ A History of Indian Philosophy By Surendranath Dasgupta. p.
* ^ Bales, p. 198.
* ^ Sheridan, p. 198-201
* ^ Arnold, p. 4.
* ^ Bhatt, p. 3.
* ^ Matilal, p. 108.
* ^ Pollock, p. 55.
* ^ Jha, p. 31.
* ^ Taber, p??
* ^ Rani, p??
* ^ Buton, Rinchen drub (1931). The History of
Buddhism in India
and Tibet. Translated by E. Obermiller. Heidelberg: Harrossowitz. p.
* ^ 'Madhaviya Sankara Digvijayam' by medieval Vijayanagara
biographer Madhava, Sringeri Sharada Press
* 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.
* 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.
* 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
* Sharma, Peri Sarveswara (1980). Anthology of Kumārilabhaṭṭa's
Works. Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass.
* Sheridan, Daniel P. "Kumarila Bhatta", in Great Thinkers of the
Eastern World, ed. Ian McGready, New York: Harper Collins, 1995. ISBN
* Translated and commentary by John Taber (Jan 2005). A Hindu
critique of Buddhist Epistemology. Routledge ISBN 978-0-415-33602-4 .
* Text of Mimamsalokavarttika by Kumarila Bhatta (in transliterated