Removing The Sheen From Buddhism

[ramana]

Can you summarize Kumarila Bhatta's critique of Buddhism for us?

Purva mimamsa defines Dharma as -



वेदबोधितेष्टसाधनताको धर्मः यथा यागादिः |

Dharma is that which is described by the Vedas as the means for achieving the desirable; for example, sacrifices etc.



Pasting from a beautifully written Wiki article on Kumaril Bhatta. Here is the abstract. complete book is available here - http://books.google.dk/books/about/A_Hin...edir_esc=y

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:[6]



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 Bhatta 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. In order to show that the Veda was the only correct scripture, Kumarila ingeniously said that "the absence of an author would safeguard the Veda against all reproach" (apaurusheya).[7] 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). Kumarila 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. Kumarila argues: "if the universe is does not exist between moments, then in which of these moments does it exist?" Because a moment could be infinitesimally small, Kumarila argued that the Buddhist was claiming that the universe was non-existent. This, in a lot of ways was consistent with his literal Sanskrit understanding of the word Shunya (literally 'zero'), found in the Pali Canon and well commented by several later Buddhists. It is noteworthy here, that the Pali Canon says that 'samsara' is characterized as 'anicca' (impermanent, not momentary). Further, the Mimamsic (and Vedantic) understanding of Shunya is inconsistent with the meaning as described in the Pali Canon.



4. The Determination of perception (pratyaksha pariccheda).[8] Kant's Critique of Pure Reason has a lot of similarities with this work, although they are not the same or even on the same subject matter.

Something similar to Kumaril Bhatta's second point is used by Islamists to rebutt other religions (abrahmic and non-abrahmic).



Here is one beautiful resource on Purva Mimamsa - http://www.mimamsa.org/articles/brief_introduction.html



One has to understand Mimansa, if one wishes to indulge in debate with abrahmics. This is one good starting point for purva-paksha.