|Born||est. 700 AD|
Kum?rila Bhaa (fl. roughly 700) was a Hindu or brahminical philosopher and M?ms? scholar from present-day India. He is famous for many of his various theses on Mimamsa, such as Mimamsaslokavarttika. Bhaa was a staunch believer in the supreme validity of Vedic injunction, a great champion of P?rva-M?ms? and a confirmed ritualist. 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.
Scholars differ as regards Kum?rila Bhaa's views on a personal God. For example, Manikka Vachakar believed that Bhaa promoted a personal God (saguna brahman), which conflicts with the M?ms? school. In his Varttika, Kum?rila Bhaa 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 external interference.
Kum?rila is also credited with the logical formulation of the Mimamsic belief that the Vedas are unauthored (apauru?ey?). In particular, his defence against medieval Buddhist positions on Vedic rituals is noteworthy. Some believe that this contributed to the decline of 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 Kum?rila 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.
The birthplace of Kum?rila Bhatta is uncertain. According to the 16th-century Buddhist scholar Taranatha, Kum?rila was a native of South India. However, Anandagiri's Shankara-Vijaya states that Kumarila came from "the North" (udagdet), and persecuted the Buddhists and the Jains in the South.
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.
Kum?rila Bhaa and his followers in the M?ms? tradition known as Bhas argued for a strongly Compositional view of semantics called abhihit?nvaya 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 Tantrav?rttika.
The above mentioned view of sentence meaning was debated over some seven or eight centuries by the followers of Prabh?kara school within M?ms?, who argued that words do not directly designate meaning. Rather, word meanings are understood as already connected with other words (anvit?bhidh?na, anvita = connected; abhidh?na = denotation). This view was influenced by the holistic arguments of Bhart?hari's spho?a theory. Essentially the Pr?bh?karas 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.
With the aim to prove the superiority of Vedic scripture, Kum?rila Bhaa 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 absolute.
This argument of Kum?rila 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, Kum?rila 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 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). Kum?rila 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. Kum?rila 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, Bhaa argued that the Buddhist was claiming that the universe was non-existent.
4. The Determination of perception (pratyaksha pariccheda).
Some scholars believe that Kum?rila's understanding of Buddhist philosophy was far greater than that of any other non-Buddhist philosopher of his time. However, see Taber 2010 for an alternate view.
According to Buton Rinchen Drub, Kum?rila spoke abusively towards his nephew, Dharmak?rti, as he was taking his brahminical garments. This drove Dharmak?rti away, and resolving to vanquish all non-Buddhist heretics he took the robes of the Buddhist order instead.
According to legend, Kum?rila 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.)
Kumarila Bhatta is an avatar of Kumaraswamy, the son Parvati and Shiva. The main purpose of this avatar was to protect the Vedas (karma marham poojaa, abhishekam, yagynam, yahan, homam) which were dwindling away from the then India (Bharatha desam). Vedas are and continue to remain to define Bharatha desam from which the present day India has taken its shape, co-existing along with many other religious beliefs.
This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Kum?rila Bhaa left Nalanda after that and settled down in Prayag (modern day Allahabad). Kum?rila 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, Kum?rila Bhaa 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 Bhaa in debates, challenged him to a stunt. They said, "If your Vedas are the Truth, you should survive even when you fall from the top of a mountain." Kum?rila Bhaa had utter conviction and faith in the Vedas and Shrutis and readily accepted this challenge. He proclaimed, "If the Vedas are the Ultimate Truth, I should survive" and was pushed from the top of a building. In doing so, he survived but there was a scratch above his right eye. He questioned mother of the Vedas, Gayatri mata, who replied in the form of a voice from the sky, "You had a small doubt about the truthfulness of the Vedas, which was clear by the usage of the word 'If'. That is the reason you got a small hurt, but I spared your life, which is what you have asked for". Even though he survived, he felt bad about cheating the Buddhist pundits to learn about Buddhism.
He decided to take samadhi by burning himself on a pile of peanut shells, which is said to be the most torturous death, to free himself from the sin of cheating. This character study can be found in the works of Pandurang Shastri Athavale.
One medieval work on the life of Sankara (considered most accurate) claims that Sankara challenged Bhaa to a debate on his deathbed. Kum?rila Bhaa could not debate Sankara and instead directed him to argue with his student Mandana Misra in Mahi?mati. He said:
Another work on Sankara's life, however, claims that Sankara implored Kum?rila not to commit suicide. Another contradictory legend, however, says that Kum?rila continued to live on with two wives several students, one of whom was Prabh?kara. According to this legend, Kum?rila died in Varanasi at the age of 80.
|publisher=at position 11 (help)