Ramanuja

← Encyclopedia

The grammar a tradition uses to read its scripture decides, in advance, what its God can be. For the lineage that gathered at the island temple of Srirangam on the Kaveri, the deciding word was a small one — sarira, “body.” When the Upanishads say that all this is Brahman, the sentence can be heard two ways. One hearing dissolves the “all this” into appearance and leaves only the bare One. The other lets “all this” stand, real and many, as the body of the One. Ramanuja built an entire metaphysics out of insisting on the second hearing, and in doing so he gave the love-poetry of the Tamil saints a spine of philosophy hard enough to carry it for a thousand years.

A representation of Ramanuja, founder-systematizer of the Vishishtadvaita school of Vedanta — via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0)

The lineage he inherited

He did not begin the tradition; he received it nearly finished and gave it its argument. Behind him stood the Tamil Vaiṣṇava bhakti of the Alvars — twelve poet-saints whose roughly four thousand Tamil hymns, gathered as the Nalayira Divya Prabandham, were honored as a “Tamil Veda,” scripture set beside the Sanskrit revelation. The foremost of them, Nammalvar, sang of a Lord who is at once utterly transcendent and intimately near, a God who comes when called and stoops to be possessed by his devotees. That double note — sovereignty and accessibility, paratva and saulabhya — is the affective seed of everything Ramanuja would systematize.

Between the saints and Ramanuja stand two figures the tradition counts as its first acharyas. Nathamuni recovered and codified the lost hymns and set their recitation into the temple liturgy. His grandson Yamuna (Yamunacharya) wrote the first compact theological defenses of a personal Brahman against the impersonal absolute of the Advaita school, and presided at Srirangam. The story the tradition tells of the succession is exact in its pathos: Ramanuja, summoned, arrived only after Yamuna had died, and found the body laid out with three fingers of one hand curled shut. He read the gesture as three unfinished tasks — to write a full commentary on the Brahma-Sutras in the school’s own voice, to honor the sages Vyasa and Parasara by naming disciples after them, and to honor Nammalvar by commenting on the Tiruvaymoli. He vowed the three; the fingers, it is said, straightened one by one. Whether one takes the hands as history or as the tradition narrating its own program, the vow names precisely the work of his life: to fuse the Sanskrit Vedanta and the Tamil devotion into a single discipline, the “dual Vedanta” — Ubhaya Vedanta — that Sri Vaishnavism would call its own.

Tradition assigns him the years 1017-1137, a lifespan of one hundred and twenty — a number that reads as devotional, the full measure of a sanctified life, rather than as a registry entry. Working from eleventh- and twelfth-century temple inscriptions and from non-sectarian regional sources, John Carman and others have proposed a shifted span, roughly 1077-1157; a late Tamil biography even dates the completion of the Sribhasya to 1155-56. The estimates are careful and remain, as one historian concedes, ultimately unverifiable. What the inscriptions do confirm is the shape of the career: a Brahmin born at Sriperumbudur near Kanchipuram; a falling-out with his first teacher Yadava Prakasha, an Advaitin under whom he studied and from whom he broke over the reading of the Upanishadic sentences; renunciation and ascent to the leadership at Srirangam; and a long exile westward into Hoysala country, to Melukote (Tirunarayanapuram) in present Karnataka, during a persecution under a Shaiva Chola king, before his return to the Kaveri temple where he died.

The Adikesava Perumal temple at Sriperumbudur near Kanchipuram, traditionally honored as Ramanuja’s birthplace — via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Brahman with a body

The school’s name is its thesis. Vishishta-advaita is non-dualism — advaita — but non-dualism of a qualified reality, Brahman as a whole distinguished (vishishta) by its inseparable modes. There is one and only one independent reality, and it is personal: Brahman is Vishnu-Narayana, possessed of infinite auspicious qualities (kalyana-gunas) — knowledge, power, love, beauty — and never the attributeless nirguna absolute of the rival reading. But this One is not alone in being real. Sentient souls (cit) and insentient matter (acit) are equally real, eternal, and never illusory; what they are not is independent. They stand to Brahman as a body stands to the self that animates it.

This is the sarira-sariri-bhava, the body-soul relation, and it is the hinge of the entire system. A body, in Ramanuja’s precise definition, is whatever a conscious self can wholly support, wholly direct, and wholly own for its own ends. By that definition the universe of souls and matter is the body of God: he sustains it, governs it from within as its inner controller (antaryamin), and possesses it as his own. The relation is one of aprthak-siddhi — “inseparable existence,” the impossibility of either term being established apart from the other, the way a substance and its qualities, or a subject and its attributes, cannot be prised into separate things. The soul is thus a real, individual, conscious agent that nonetheless has no being and no purpose outside its dependence on God; in the school’s idiom it is sesha, the subordinate term, to God as seshin, the principal — the servant whose very selfhood is constituted by belonging.

Two corollaries follow, and they are what separate this from every other Vedanta. First, identity-in-difference is built into the ground of things: when scripture says “that thou art,” it does not collapse the soul into Brahman but predicates Brahman of the soul as the body’s soul, the way one says of a person and his body that they are one thing while remaining two. The soul never ceases to be itself, even in liberation. Second, plurality is not a defect to be explained away but a feature of the real: the difference of self from self and of selves from God is permanent, and salvation is not the erasure of the many but the perfected harmony of the many in their Lord. Against this, the contrast with Adi Shankara is total and deliberate, and against Madhva — for whom God and souls are flatly, eternally separate substances — Ramanuja holds the narrower middle: neither one without remainder nor two without union, but the inseparable difference of body and indwelling self. Later Vaishnava theologians such as Nimbarka would map their own positions onto the space his body-soul reading opened between strict identity and strict difference. He is the central term of the threefold Vedanta, the answer that takes the world more seriously than the monist and the unity more seriously than the dualist. The map of the three schools is drawn in the survey of Vedanta’s qualified, non-dual, and dualist branches; his own case is built here from his own texts.

The case against the One without a second

His most concentrated philosophical labor is destructive before it is constructive, and it is aimed at the keystone of Advaita: the doctrine that the world’s multiplicity rests on avidya or maya, a beginningless cosmic nescience superimposed on the one Brahman. If that nescience can be shown to be incoherent, the whole impersonal edifice falls and the field is clear for a real world and a real God.

In the long opening of the Sribhasya — the maha-purva-paksha, the “great prior objection” — Ramanuja mounts the polemic the tradition remembers as the sapta-vidha-anupapatti, the seven untenables, charted in full in John Grimes’s study of that name. The seven press a single relentless question, set out in scholarly form in Shyam Ranganathan’s survey of Ramanuja: where could such a nescience possibly live, and what could it possibly be? It cannot reside in Brahman, who is by the Advaitin’s own account self-luminous knowledge itself, in which ignorance can find no footing; nor in the individual self, which the Advaitin says is only a product of that same nescience, on pain of circular reasoning. It cannot coherently conceal a self-luminous reality, since light does not admit darkness. Its very nature is indefensible: the Advaitin calls it neither real nor unreal but “indescribable,” which Ramanuja takes to be not a third option but a confession that the thing answers to no intelligible category at all. There is, he argues, no valid means of knowing it, no coherent account of its removal, and no way to make it cohere with the texts that are supposed to license it. The cumulative force is meant to be a reductio: a reality that is by definition pure consciousness cannot also be the victim of a beginningless error, and a world that the scriptures everywhere treat as God’s real creation should not be philosophized into a mirage. With the impersonal absolute dismantled, the personal Brahman of the body-soul relation stands as the only reading that saves both the texts and the world.

The works

The vow at Yamuna’s deathbed produced a compact, deliberate corpus — by tradition nine works, each fitted to a task.

The Sribhasya (“the auspicious commentary”) is the central achievement: a full commentary on the Brahma-Sutras of Badarayana that reads the entire aphoristic summary of Vedanta as teaching a personal, qualified Brahman, and that refutes the Advaitin reading of the same sutras line by line. It is the document by which Vishishtadvaita took its place as one of the three great commentarial traditions on the foundational Vedanta text — the rival, on the very same base, to the Vedanta-Sutras as Shankara reads them. George Thibaut’s 1904 English rendering of the Sribhasya, issued as volume 48 of the Sacred Books of the East, made the work available in Thibaut’s translation of Ramanuja’s commentary on the Vedanta-Sutras and remains the standard public-domain version. Alongside it Ramanuja wrote two shorter glosses on the same sutras, the Vedanta-Dipa (“lamp of Vedanta”) and the Vedanta-Sara (“essence of Vedanta”), graded for readers of different reach.

The Vedartha-Sangraha (“summary of the meaning of the Veda”) is the freestanding statement of the system — not a line-commentary but a synthetic essay that gathers the apparently conflicting Upanishadic passages and shows how the body-soul reading reconciles the texts of difference with the texts of unity. It is the best single door into his positive metaphysics, and many readers since have entered there rather than through the polemical Sribhasya.

His Gita Bhasya, a commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, turns the system toward practice. Where the monist reads the Gita as finally teaching knowledge that dissolves the agent, Ramanuja reads it as teaching bhakti-yoga, loving devotion to a personal Lord, as the supreme discipline and the direct means to liberation — with the disciplines of works and knowledge ordered as its preparation. The architecture of the devotional path it describes is meaning, not method: a sustained, knowing, loving recollection of God that the Gita, on his reading, identifies with the highest worship — the wider current of devotional bhakti given a doctrinal floor.

Last come the three prose-poems of surrender, the Gadya-traya — the Saranagati-Gadya, the Sriranga-Gadya, and the Vaikuntha-Gadya — together with a short manual of daily worship, the Nitya-Grantha. In them the philosopher becomes a suppliant. They are addressed to the Lord and his consort at Srirangam and they enact, rather than argue, the act of prapatti or saranagati: total self-surrender, the casting of oneself wholly upon divine grace as one’s sole refuge. Their theology is decisive: the soul, helpless of its own resources and infinitely small before its Lord, is saved not by the sufficiency of its effort but by the descent of grace it can only receive. This is where the metaphysics of dependence becomes the spirituality of dependence; the sesha that the soul is becomes the surrender the soul makes.

Sri, and the texture of grace

A God conceived as inexhaustibly gracious needed a theology of mediation, and Ramanuja’s tradition found it in the divine consort. Lakshmi — Sri — is no ornament to Narayana but his inseparable power and presence, eternally united with him, and she functions as purushakara, the one who intercedes, who softens the Lord’s justice into mercy and presents the unworthy soul to him. The very name of the school’s religion, Sri Vaishnavism, carries her at its head. In the consort-theology the asymmetry of the body-soul system finds its warmth: the soul approaches an absolute sovereign, but it approaches through a mother’s mediation, and the surrender it makes is met by a grace that was already disposed to receive it.

The temple and the long aftermath

His was not a private philosophy but a reorganized religion. He set the Sribhasya’s metaphysics into the daily life of the great Vishnu temples — above all Srirangam and Melukote — regularizing their worship and securing the recitation of the Tamil Prabandham beside the Sanskrit Veda inside the sanctum. The “dual Vedanta” became liturgy as well as doctrine. After him the lineage split, generations later, into the Vatakalai (“northern”) and Tenkalai (“southern”) schools, dividing most sharply over the very point his Gadyas had made central — the mechanism of grace in surrender: whether the soul must make some answering effort, as a kitten relaxes but a baby monkey must cling, or whether grace acts wholly on its own. That the deepest later quarrel was about how grace works, never whether the world and the soul are real, measures how completely his frame had won.

The Ranganathaswamy Temple at Srirangam, the island shrine on the Kaveri where Ramanuja led the Sri Vaishnava community and where he died — Rainer Halama, via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)

The Cheluvanarayana Swamy temple at Melukote (Tirunarayanapuram) in present Karnataka, the western center Ramanuja reorganized during his exile from Srirangam — Vedamurthy.j, via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0)

His reach passed beyond his own community. The metaphysical legitimation of a personal God and of loving devotion as the highest path armed the wider bhakti movement with arguments it had lacked; later Vaishnava theologies, including the Gaudiya Vaishnavism of eastern India, built on ground he had cleared. Under the Vijayanagara empire his Sri Vaishnavism flourished as a temple culture with imperial patronage. And in the modern reframings of Neo-Vedanta, when interpreters reached for a theism within Hinduism that could answer the charge that Vedanta was world-denying, it was Ramanuja’s qualified non-dualism — a real world, real souls, a real and loving God — that they most often reached for.

The Statue of Equality, a 216-foot seated likeness of Ramanuja consecrated in 2022 near Hyderabad, marking his continued veneration — via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)

What he finally secured was a way of meaning one sentence. When the devotee at Srirangam, prostrate before the reclining Lord, says that all this is the body of God, the words are not a poet’s exaggeration to be discounted by the philosopher, nor a veil the philosopher must tear away to reach a bare absolute behind it. They are the literal architecture of the real: the self that is the soul of the world, looked at from the side of its body; and the soul that surrenders, looked at from the side of its self. The poetry and the metaphysics say the same thing, and that they could be made to say the same thing was his work.

→ In the library: The Vedânta-Sûtras with Śankara's Commentary (Thibaut, 1890-1896)

→ Related: Vedanta Advaita Visistadvaita Dvaita · Sankara · Madhva · Nimbarka · Vishnu · Lakshmi · Brahman · Bhagavad Gita · Tamil Vaisnava Bhakti · Bhakti Movement · Gaudiya Vaishnavism · Vijayanagara · Hinduism · Neo Vedanta