India · fl. c. 660
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa
Mīmāṃsā champion of Vedic authority against the Buddhists
He argued that every cognition is valid by itself until defeated, so the authorless Veda deserves trust, and he attacked Buddhist momentariness and the claim that anyone, the Buddha included, could be omniscient.
Life and thought
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, who flourished around 660, was the most influential defender of Mīmāṃsā, the school of Vedic exegesis, at a time when Buddhist logicians were challenging Vedic authority. The later legends about him—that he studied with Buddhists in disguise, or burned himself to death in penance—are hagiography. His Verse Commentary (Ślokavārttika) on the opening of Śabara’s commentary, and his Tantravārttika on hermeneutics, founded the Bhāṭṭa branch of the school.
Kumārila’s central doctrine is that every cognition is valid by itself (svataḥ prāmāṇya) until something defeats it: we trust what we see unless we find a fault. Applied to the Veda, this is decisive. Since the Veda has no author, there is no author whose flaws could undermine it, so its commands about duty stand. He attacked the Buddhist claims that everything is momentary, that words mean by exclusion, and that anyone, the Buddha included, could be omniscient. Śaṅkara’s Advaita borrowed much of his method while rejecting his ritualism.
Works
Shaped by
c. 3rd–2nd c. BCE (traditional)JaiminiTraditional author of the Mīmāṃsā SūtraArgued against
c. 480–540DignāgaKumārila attacked Dignāga’s theory that words mean by exclusion (apoha).Criticised by
c. 600–660 (some scholars: mid-6th century)DharmakīrtiThey fought over an authorless Veda, omniscience and word meaning; which of them answered the other depends on their disputed dates.c. 700–750 (older scholarship: 788–820)ŚaṅkaraŚaṅkara borrowed much Mīmāṃsā method but rejected its claim that ritual action is the path to the highest good.Meanwhile, in other traditions
638–713HuinengSixth Patriarch of Chan, emblem of sudden awakeningOn the record
Dharmakīrti answered Mīmāṃsā arguments for an authorless Veda and against omniscience, Kumārila’s among them.
The Stanford Encyclopedia dates Kumārila’s floruit to around 660, late in the 7th century, while Dharmakīrti’s dates are disputed (mid-6th to mid-7th century). The two certainly argued over the same questions—an authorless Veda, omniscience, word meaning—but who answered whom depends on that unresolved chronology, so the atlas now says so.
Sources: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Kumārila” · Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Dharmakīrti”