Erich Frauwallner suggested 630–640 as the date of the Bṛhaṭṭīkā of Kumārila in his ‘Kumārila’s Bṛhaṭṭīkā’ (WZKSO 6, 1962), in connection of his supposition of the date of Dharmakīrti as c.600–660. That is, in the Bṛhaṭṭīkā Kumārila criticized the causal logic of Dharmakīrti, but he did not criticize it in his Ślokavārttika. Frauwallner thus supposed Kumārila’s composition of the Bṛhaṭṭīkā to be later than that of the Ślokavārttika. I argue here that Kumārila in fact criticized the apoha theory of the Pramāṇavārttika in his Ślokavārttika. Furthermore, Dharmkīrti criticized the revelation theory of the Vedas, which Kumārila called ‘apauruṣeyatvam’ in the scripture section of his Ślokavārttika. For Dharmakīrti, the Vedas were composed of human words, that is, ‘pauruṣeyatvam.’ As for the authenticity of Buddha’s teaching and the lack of authenticity of the Brahmanical scriptures argued by Dharmakīrti, this is discussed between sections 3 and 3e of the Svārthānumāna chapter of the Pramāṇavārttika. They are thus contemporary and the composition of the Bṛhaṭṭīkā may be c. 600 according to my supposition of the date of Dharmakīrti as c.550–620. See my papers in this Journal 63.1 (2011) and 64.1 (2012).
Kumārila criticized the apoha sentence of k.139 of Dharmakīri’s Svārthānumāna chapter in k.1 and 3 of the Apohavāda section of his Ślokavārttika. In this way the two scholars criticized each other, and they seem to be of the same generation.
In the appendix added to this paper, I report that the southern text of the Pramāṇavārttika cited in the second chapter of the Sarvadarśanasaṅgraha by Mādhava is better than the northern texts used by scholars until now, by which I mean to include the Tibetan translations as well. That is, ‘ca vyakter’ (thus an individual) in k.247 of the Pratyakṣa chapter of the Pramāṇavārttika cited by Mādhava is better than the ‘yuktijnāḥ’ (men of wisdom) adopted heretofore. ‘Vyaktiḥ’ (individual) is a keyword of the Sautrāntika Dharmakīrti.
