كوماريلا بهاتا
يُعدّ كل إدراك أو اعتقاد صادقًا إلى أن يثبت خطؤه – ولذلك يمكن الوثوق بالفيدا.
التموضع
من كبار فلاسفة الميمامسا: كل إدراك صحيح بذاته ما لم يُدحَض؛ وبهذا دافع عن سلطة الفيدا في وجه منطقيي البوذية.
الأفكار الرئيسة
- الصحة الذاتية (سواتاه براميانيا)
- فيدا بلا مؤلف
- نقد الأبوها البوذية
التأثير
تأثّر بـ 1
جايميني
تأثّر بـ
Kumarila’s Shlokavarttika comments in verse on Shabara’s commentary on Jaimini’s Mimamsa-sutra and defends its doctrine that the Veda is authorless and valid in itself. Kumarila, Slokavarttika; J. Taber, A Hindu Critique of Buddhist Epistemology (2005)
التوثيق: مسودة بالذكاء الاصطناعي
جايميني › نحو 250–180 ق.م
النقد
انتقده 3
دارماكرتي
انتقده
Dharmakirti attacked the Mimamsa doctrine of an authorless, self-valid Veda that Kumarila defended; whether he answered Kumarila himself is debated. Dharmakīrti, Pramāṇavārttika I with Svavṛtti; V. Eltschinger, Penser l’autorité des Écritures, 2007
التوثيق: مسودة بالذكاء الاصطناعي
دارماكرتي › نحو 600–660
شانتاراكشيتا
انتقده
Shantarakshita’s Tattvasamgraha argued against Kumarila at length, especially his denial that any person can be omniscient and his defence of the eternal Veda. Śāntarakṣita, Tattvasaṃgraha, with Kamalaśīla’s Pañjikā; SEP “Śāntarakṣita”
التوثيق: مسودة بالذكاء الاصطناعي
شانتاراكشيتا › نحو 725–788
أودايانا
انتقده
Udayana argued against Kumarila’s Mimamsa that the Veda needs an author, God, and that its validity derives from its source rather than being intrinsic (Nyayakusumanjali). Udayana, Nyāyakusumāñjali; K. H. Potter (ed.), Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies II, 1977
التوثيق: مسودة بالذكاء الاصطناعي
أودايانا › نحو 950–1020
ينتقد 2
بهارتريهاري
انتقد
Kumarila rejected Bhartrhari’s sphota, a partless word-whole beyond the sounds, holding that the sequence of phonemes itself conveys meaning (Shlokavarttika, Sphotavada). Kumārila, Ślokavārttika, Sphoṭavāda; H. Coward & K. K. Raja (eds.), Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies V, 1990
التوثيق: مسودة بالذكاء الاصطناعي
بهارتريهاري › نحو 450–510
ديجناجا
انتقد
Kumarila rejected Dignaga’s apoha theory, word meaning as exclusion of others, and his account of perception (Shlokavarttika, Apohavada and Pratyaksha chapters). Kumārila, Ślokavārttika; J. Taber, A Hindu Critique of Buddhist Epistemology, 2005
التوثيق: مسودة بالذكاء الاصطناعي
ديجناجا › نحو 480–540
الأعمال
- نحو 640شلوكافارتيكا (Ślokavārttika)
شرح شعري على ميمامسا سوترا يدافع عن الصحة الذاتية للمعرفة وعن سلطة الفيدا ضد البوذيين.
الموقف
Kumarila is usually counted the most influential Mimamsa philosopher. Against the Buddhist logicians he argued that every cognition is valid by itself (svatah pramanya): we may trust it until it is defeated by a contrary cognition or by evidence of a defect in its source. The Veda, having no author, has no source of defects; its injunctions are therefore reliable. He defended direct realism against Buddhist idealism, attacked the apoha theory of meaning and Bhartrhari’s sphota, and denied that anyone, the Buddha included, could be omniscient or that a God composed the Veda. Advaita Vedanta largely adopted his epistemology; Dharmakirti and Shantarakshita were his great Buddhist opponents.
الحياة والسياق
Kumarila Bhatta lived in the 7th century CE; little is reliably known about his life or homeland. Hagiographies tell that he studied secretly with Buddhist teachers in order to refute them and later, in penance, burned himself on a slow fire of rice husks, meeting the young Shankara as he died – a legend of doubtful historicity. Mandana Mishra is said to have been his pupil; whether Prabhakara was, is disputed.
أعمال رئيسة أخرى
- Verse Commentary (Shlokavarttika, 7th century CE)
- Commentary on the Rules (Tantravarttika, 7th century CE)
- Tuptika (7th century CE)
بحسب الوضع في نوفمبر 2026 · المصادر · حسّن هذه الصفحة · كيف صُنع Agora