Prabhakara (IAST: PrabhÃÂkara) active c. 6th century was an Indian philosopher-grammarian in the MëmÃÂá¹Âsàtradition of Kerala.
Hariswamin's commentary on Shatapatha Brahmana which dates to 638 CE discusses the doctrine of PrabhÃÂkara's followers. PrabhÃÂkara in his commentary Bá¹Âhatë on the à Âabara BhÃÂá¹£ya quotes only Bhartá¹Âhari (4-5 CE) and Bharavi (5-6 CE). Thus his probable time can be assigned to the latter half of the 6th century.
His views on à ÂabaraâÂÂs BhÃÂá¹£ya, a commentary on JaiminiâÂÂs Pà «rvamëmÃÂmsàSà «tras led to rise of PrÃÂbhÃÂkara school within MëmÃÂá¹Âsàand further developed as competent philosophical system along with the rival school of KumÃÂrila Bhaá¹Âá¹Âa.
The PrÃÂbhÃÂkara school is alleged to be nastika (atheistic) or Charvaka|LokÃÂyata school. <blockquote>KumÃÂrila said: For in practice the Mimamsa has been for the most part converted into a Lokayata system; But I have made this effort to bring it into a theistic path.</blockquote> Here KumÃÂrila refers to Bhartriprapancha, held by somebody as the forerunner of the PrÃÂbhÃÂkara system. It is generally believed that the MëmÃÂmsakas and specially the PrÃÂbhÃÂkaras are atheists. But the source books of the PrÃÂbhÃÂkara School state in unequivocal terms that the inferential existence of God which is propounded by Naiyayikas and the like is denied by the PrÃÂbhÃÂkaras and that God is not denied: âÂÂëà Âvaràparà ÂktmanumÃÂnaá¹ nirastam, nÃÂà Âvarà  nirastaḥâÂÂ
à ÂÃÂlikanÃÂtha wrote á¹ÂjuvimalÃÂpañcikàand Dëpaà ÂikhÃÂpañcikàcommentaries on PrabhÃÂkara in the 8th century.
One of the views of the PrÃÂbhÃÂkaras posits that words do not directly designate meaning; any meaning that arises is because it is connected with other words (referred to as anvita-abhidhÃÂna, where 'anvita' signifies connection and 'abhidhÃÂna' denotes denotation). The comprehension of a word's meaning occurs only through the examination of its sentential context. In this paradigm, the understanding of word meanings involves an understanding of their possible semantic connections with other words. Notably, sentence meanings are directly grasped through perceptual and contextual cues, bypassing the stage of isolated individual word meanings (Matilal 1990:108).
This is very similar to the modern view of linguistic underspecification, and relates to the dynamic turn in semantics, which opposes the purely compositional view of arriving at sentence meaning.
The PrÃÂbhÃÂkarakas were opposed by the BhÃÂá¹Âá¹Âas, who argued for a compositional view of semantics (called abhihitÃÂnvaya). 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.
Of the two principal schools of the Pà «rvamëmÃÂmsàthe Bhatta school has all along attracted greater attention than the Prabhakara school. The study of the works of the Prabhakara school has been neglected for a long time past. All the knowledge that our old Sanskrit scholars had of the tenets of this school was derived solely from the stray references found in the works of the other systems. At the wake of 20th century, Dr. Ganganath Jha has written a very learned thesis in which he has presented in a lucid form the main principles of the Prabhakara school as they have been dealt with in the Prakaraá¹Âapancika of à ÂÃÂlikanÃÂtha. He has also given for the first time, much valuable information regarding the Bá¹Âhatë of PrabhÃÂkara which is a commentary on à ÂabaraâÂÂs BhÃÂá¹£ya.
Tradition makes PrabhÃÂkara a pupil of KumÃÂrila who nicknamed him as Guru on account of his great intellectual powers. But some scholars like Dr. Ganganatha Jha believe that the PrÃÂbhÃÂkara School is older and seems to be nearer to the spirit of the original MëmÃÂmsÃÂ. Dr. Keith (Karmamimamsa, 1921), who likewise rejects the current view in regard to the synchronism of the two authors and their mutual relation, assigns PrabhÃÂkara to 600-650 A.D. (Gopinath Kaviraj in Jha's Tantravarttika, 1924) According to the view of Dr. Ganganath Jha, the PrabhÃÂkara is more faithful to the BhÃÂá¹£ya of à Âabara than KumÃÂrila. Also, according to Professor M. Hiriyanna, the original teaching of the MëmÃÂmsa is better preserved in the writings of PrabhÃÂkara than in those of KumÃÂrila. As rightly observed by Dr. G. P. Bhatt, PrabhÃÂkara, however, was a more original thinker than KumÃÂrila and he will always be remembered as the author of a peculiar theory of knowledge known as Theory of Triple perception Triputëpratyaká¹£avÃÂda) and a theory of error called the AkhyÃÂtivÃÂda or the VivekÃÂkhyÃÂtivÃÂda. In order to understand the system of MëmÃÂmsa fully and precisely, one must go through the works of the Prabhakara system. Pt. S. Subrahmanya SÃÂstri maintains the view that though many theories of this system are criticized in other systems particularly in the Nyaya the PrÃÂbhÃÂkara school commands respect from and is actually made use of by reputed scholars. The Vià Âiá¹£á¹ÂÃÂdvaita School of philosophy follows the PrÃÂbhÃÂkara School in matters regarding the categories of the world. It may be said that the study of the PrÃÂbhÃÂkara MëmÃÂmsa is necessary for acquiring a clear knowledge of the Dharma à ÂÃÂstras and the SÃÂyaá¹ÂabhÃÂá¹£ya of the Vedas as well.
Translating Prabhakara's philosophical arguments into mathematical formula has revealed that his logic is error-free. One logical argument Prabhakara utilized was to reconcile a seeming contradiction in the Vedas between performing a sacrifice to kill one's enemies and following the rule of not harming any living beings. Translating his argument into math led to the settlement of an old philosophical dispute.