Drsandeepjhaliver at 20:35, 3 March 2026

2026-03-03T20:35:34Z

New page

{{short description|Hindu 8th century philosopher and scholar}}
{{Use British English|date=August 2014}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=August 2014}}
{{Infobox philosopher
|name = Kumārila Bhaṭṭa
|image =
|caption =
|birth_date = est. 700 AD
|known =
|main_interests = [[Mimamsa]]
|era = [[Hindu]] [[Indian philosophy]]
}}
{{Hindu philosophy}}
'''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>

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.

== 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-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 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>

==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>{{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 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.

== Epistemology ==
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" />

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|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" />

== 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:

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) ... 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.<ref name="Pollock" />

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.

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).<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>

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" />

==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."

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==
* ''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]
* ''Tuptika'' ("Full Exposition" commentary on Shabara's ''Commentary on Jaimini's ''Mimamsa Sutras, Bks. 4–9) [https://archive.org/details/Tuptika.of.Kumaril.Bhatt]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==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}}.
*{{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}}.
*{{cite book | author = Kumarila Bhatta, Translated by Ganganatha Jha | title = Slokavarttika | publisher = The Asiatic Society, Calcutta
| year = 1985}}
*{{cite book | author = Bimal Krishna Matilal | title = The word and the world: India's contribution to the study of language
| publisher = Oxford | year = 1990 | author-link = Bimal Krishna Matilal}}
* {{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 | 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}}
* {{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}}
* {{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}}
{{refend}}

==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 Chapter 5, by Kumarila Bhatta] (in transliterated Sanskrit)
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20070509144740/http://www.crvp.org/book/Series03/IIIB-4/introduction.htm Shankara]

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Kumarila Bhatta}}
[[Category:8th-century Indian philosophers]]
[[Category:Atheist philosophers]]
[[Category:Critics of Buddhism]]
[[Category:Hindu philosophers and theologians]]
[[Category:Indian Sanskrit scholars]]
[[Category:Medieval linguists from India]]
[[Category:Medieval Sanskrit grammarians]]
[[Category:Scholars from Assam]]

Kumārila Bhaṭṭa - Revision history

Drsandeepjhaliver at 20:35, 3 March 2026