Criticisms

Kumarila Bhatta of Mimāmsā and Jayanta Bhatta of Naiyāyikas expressed that how can we claim a composite fact has no relation with its elements? If we say so, then it cuts the logical ground of sphotavāda which explains sphota of a word is an entity that is distinct from its letters. Further, Kumarila Bhattrepudiated Bhartŗhari's sphotavāda on the ground that Bhartŗhari spoke about two assumptions, these are necessarily involved in sphotavāda; first, the indivisible sphota, and the second, its power to convey meaning. But if we examine his theory, we will find that he is invariably claiming about an event, i.e. the intellect mind of the hearer which is able to generate a single cognition, as a result, the hearer understands the meaning of the words and/or expressions uttered by the speaker. Hence, the theory sphotavāda contradicts itself.