As I discuss in this question, by far the most popular school of Hindu philosophy is the Vedanta school, which bases its tenets on the doctrines laid out in the Brahma Sutras, a work by the sage Vyasa that summarizes and systematizes the philosophical teachings of the Upanishads. But before the time of Adi Shankaracharya the dominant school of Hindu philosophy was the Purva Mimamsa school, which I discuss here. In contrast to the Vedanta school which is devoted to analyzing the Jnana Kanda of the Vedas, i.e. the Upanishads, Purva Mimamsa focuses on analyzing the Karma Kanda of the Vedas, i.e. the Samhitas and Brahmanas.
Now almost all members of the Vedanta school other than Advaitins believe that the Jivas or individual souls are atomic in size, in contrast to Brahman who is omnipresent; see Adhyaya 2 Pada 3 of the Brahma Sutras. But as I discuss in this answer, the Purva Mimamsa school believed in a theory of multiple omnipresent souls. In this excerpt from his Tantra Vartika, the Purva Mimamsa philosopher Kumarila Bhatta presents three main arguments for the multiple omnipresent souls theory and against the Vedanta school's atomic-sized souls theory:
He argues that there's no way for the soul to move along with the body, because the soul is immaterial and the body is material, so they can't interact with each other:
The Soul being itself immaterial, it can never be mixed up with material elements, and being untouched by these elements, it cannot be taken from one place to another. That is to say, even in the case of extremely subtle particles of matter, - such as the light emanating from the Sun or the Moon, - we find that they ale not milxed up with grosser materials, like lumps of Earth, etc., or are carried about along with these, how then can such mixture ol movement be postulated with regard to the Soul, which is in its very nature purely immaterial, or a mere series of Ideas (as held by the Bauddha)? ... Thus then, the Soul being something different from the Body, and not in material contact with it, - it cannot, on account of this absence of contact, be carried along with it, and hence when the Body would be moving from one place to another, the Soul (if an entity limited In space) would be left behind, exactly like the portion of space vacated by the moving Body, specially as the Soul cannot be wafted along eithel by Air or by Earth, etc., and as such it is absolutely incapable of being carried about, either by itself or by anything else.
He argues that if the soul were atomic in size, then it could not experience pleasures and pains at other parts of the body except for the part of the body it happens to be located in:
And the Soul being eternal, and located within the Body, if it were extremely small, then it could not extend over the whole Body, and in that case, it would be absolutely impossible for us to have any experiences of pleasure or pain, throughout the Body. That is to say, if the Soul is extremely small, then it would be possible to have experiences of pleasure and pain of only that part of the Body, where the Soul would be located, and hence it would not be possible, at one and the same tıme, to have an experience of pain in the head and in the foot. If it be urged that, “being extremely mobile, the Soul would swiftly move from one part of the Body to the other, and would thereby make such varied experiences possible,"- then, all that we can say is that there are no grounds for believing in such mobility of the Soul, specially as we are not cognisant of any difference in the point of time of the pain. In the head and that in the foot, and further, if the Soul would be constantly moving, there would be no point of time at which we could afford to have any sensation, and hence there would be no sensation an any part of the Body. Consequently we cannot but reject the offered explanation.
He argues that it's the soul that strengthens the limbs of the body, and that if the soul was atomic in size then all the parts of the body where the soul is not located would wither away:
And again, the various limbs of the Body are strengthened, and do not wither away, simply because of their being pervaded over by the Soul, because at death we find that they wither away quickly. Hence, if the Soul were something very small, that poınt of the Body, wherefrom it would be absent, would be liable to instant decay.
He also presents arguments against the Jain theory that the soul is the same size as the body, but they need not concern us here as the Vedanta school anyway rejects this Jain theory (as you can see in my answer here). My question is, what refutations has the Vedanta school given of Kumarila Bhatta's arguments for the Purva Mimamsa school theory of multiple omnipresent souls?