|
:''For the Anglo-Indian military term, see Batta'' (fl. roughly 700) was a Brahmin philosopher and Mīmāṃsā scholar from Assam.〔(Scholar's origin caught in the web ) Times of India – 7 July 2011〕 He is famous for many of his seminal 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.〔Sharma, p. 5-6.〕 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.〔Bhatt, p. 6.〕 Scholars differ as regards Kumārila Bhaṭṭa's views on a personal God. For example, Manikka Vachakar believed that Bhaṭṭa promoted a personal God〔''A History of Indian Philosophy'' By Surendranath Dasgupta. p. 156.〕 (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〔Bales, p. 198.〕 and held that the actions enjoined in the Veda had definite results without an external interference. 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 decline of Buddhism in India〔Sheridan, p. 198-201〕 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.〔Arnold, p. 4.〕 His work strongly influenced other schools of Indian philosophy.〔Bhatt, p. 3.〕 with the exception that while Mimamsa considers the Upanishads to be subservient to the Vedas, the Vedanta school does not think so. ==Linguistics views== Kumārila Bhaṭṭa and his followers in the Mīmāṃsā tradition known as ' 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 followers of 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 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,〔Matilal, p. 108.〕 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. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Kumārila Bhaṭṭa」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|