A few good modern studies on Ramanuja have been for some time available. But where as Sankar's doctrine very legitimately attracted the earnest attention of Eastern and Western philosophers during the 19th and 20th centuries and raised an abundant exegetical literature: the visistadvaitha school seems to have failed in striking an interest equal to its merits. I do not wish to exasperate the age long opposition between these two great vedanthic acharyas, nor to lessen the grandeur of the prince of advaita. But one should be prepared to welcome any new endeavour to do full justice to the metaphysical and religious genius of Sri-bhasyakara, provided the work is carried on with an objective and rigorous method. thus wrote Professor of comparative philosophy Oliver Lacombe. U of Paris sorbonne. in appreciation of the work put forth by Dr. AnimaSen gupta.
Dr ASG emphasises very aptly the organic, nay organicist character of Ramanuj's thought and shows that the keystone of the system is to be found in the body-to-soul relation: the whole world of sentient beings is assumed in the unity of the godhead in the same way as the individual body is assumed in the unity of the individual soul.
Dr ASG hits the right path when she enables us to see how Ramanuja understands his duty as a vedanthic acharya and how he endeavours to remain true to all the pronouncements, of the Upanishads, however contrasting they may be or appear, without favouring these that advocate unity or those that vindicate plurality. She describes quiet correctly Ramanuj's procedure as an improvement on the synthetic method previously worked out by the Bhagwad gita.
The essence of Bhakti, according to Ramanuja is interpreted not as a mere emotional outflowing of the soul but as exalted form of jnana, and the relation between Karma and jnana is upheld.
According to Vedartha Sangraha, Bhakti has been described as a knowledge which consists in excessive adoration and attachment to the ultimate reality as a result of which the devotee becomes absolutely disinterested in all other objects of the world. Meditation on God or a full knowledge of the nature of god generates love and transforms dhyna itself into a form of love and affection. Bhakti according to Ramanuja, is not merely an emotion of love and respect devoid of knowledge: It is a special form of Knowledge that fills the heart of the individual with a deep feeling of attachment for the supreme divinity. Bhakti has been equalled to dhyana and upasana. God being the most beloved object, His thoughts also are very dear and pleasing to the devotee and naturally therefore, these pleasant thoughts keep his mind continuously occupied. This is Bhakti. Sri Ramanuja has recognised a very close connection between Bhakti and Jnana i.e. devotion and knowledge. Knowledge may be regarded as the cause of bhakti. Knowledge is the very foundation of Bhakti and it is jnana that produces bhakti, it also nourishes and enriches it. knowledge is necessary for the emergence of bhakti /devotion in the heart of a worshipper.
Not only jnana yoga but karmayoga also is necessary actually jnana yoga springs from Karma yoga. Ramanuja says in his commentary on gita chapter 3 sloka 1, "Jnananisthaeva atmavalokana sadhanam karmanista tu tasya nispadhika" knowledge therefore is indeed the important part of disinterested action. the disinterested action has therefore been described as action illumined by the light of self knowledge.
"Evamantargatajnanam yat karmantatte prabaksyami yat jnatva anusthaya asubhat samsarabandhatmoksayase...... Gitabhasya 4-16.
Akarma in the sense of atmajnana action illumined by self-knowledge assumes the form of knowledge and knowledge purified by disinterested performance of action assumes the form of action.
Knowledge therefore is not alien to bhakti and karma.
the seven fold limbs of Bhakti.
1. Viveka
2. Vimoka
3. Abhyasa
4. Kriya
5. Kalyana (satya, arjaba,daya,dana and ahimsa)
6. Anavasada
7. anudharsa.
this seven fold sadanas of bhakti leads one to that state of anubhava which possesses, fullness, vividness and liveliness of perception which leads him to paramabhakti.
Ramanuja on Bhedabheda theory.
Ramanuj's theory differs from both Bhaskara and Yadavaprakasha who are regarded as staunch supporters of bhedabheda theory, which posits the existence of both identity and difference between Brahman and the individual soul. for ramanuja identity simply refers to the inseparable relation between Brahman and individual soul. The being of a finite self cannot dissolve wholly in the absolute in any state of its existence. In the opinion of Bhaskara, difference is inherently abheda-dharmi. The waves are different from the sea but are also identical with it. Identity for Bhaskara means absolute identity or total oneness. In the opinion of ramanuja on the other hand identity does not mean oneness, it simply refers to inseperableness. the self can never be dissolved into God. One substance cannot be totally merged in another substance. an individual may rise very high in purity and knowledge, but still there will be a God superior to him. The individual is only a Visesana (adjective) of god. and as such, he can never become one with God. an adjective can never get merged in the noun it qualifies.
The Bhedabheda theory of Bhaskara on the other hand, has a tendency to suggest that identity means essential identity which has been emphatically denied by Ramanuja. Thus while for Bhaskara, identity is essential and difference is practical, for Ramanuja difference is essential and identity is practical.
Ramanuja has not accepted the theory of Yadava Praksha either as he has refused to admit that both identity and difference are natural and essential. It is because of such difference existing between the theory of Ramanuja and the theory of bhedabheda of Bhaskara or of Yadava -Prakasha in respect of the relation between the individual soul and Brahman, that ramanuja has not given the name of bhedabheda to his own theory lest it might get confused with the theories of his predecessors.
The vedic judgment "That Thou Art" does not convey essential oneness (svarupaikya ) of Brahman and the individual soul. It simply implies oneness of a substance having two different attributes. The non dualistic claim that this proposition establishes bare identity between the individual soul and Brahman by eliminating the attributes is false. There is eternal difference between spirit matter and God. Matter is the object of experience, Spirit is the subject of experience and God is the ultimate sustaining principle of both spirit and matter. Hence God can never be totally identified with the spirit or matter. Thus for Shankara the difference between the soul and Brahman is false, for Ramanuja it is true and real. Again Bhaskara says that the difference is non eternal but Yadava prakasha holds that there is no contradiction in supposing that both identity and difference exists between brahman and the individual soul at the root and also in the final state.
a careful reflection on the two interpretations of "That Thou Art" given by Shankara and Ramanuja will reveal that these interpretations are not in reality so wide apart as not to allow any compromise between them. No doubt there are important differences but there is some subtle affinity as well.
The difference that strikes one at a first glance is that while shankara has negated individuality totally in the state of liberation by completely identifying thou with that, Ramanuja has retained it till the last. According to Ramanuja the soul is one with God in a manner in which the body of a man is treated as one with his soul in worldly dealings and wordly affairs. It is this identity from the practical point of view that has been refered to by the upanisadic judgement "That thou art" Other wise there is natural and essential distiction between the soul and Brahman.
Thus according to shankara there is singleness in emancipation and not a oneness of a whole whereas for Ramanuja emancipation is not a state of singleness but a state of oneness of an organic whole.
In spite of such metaphysical differences we shall be able to find affinity between these two conceptions of liberation from the psycological point of view. The qualified Monism of Ramanuja advocates a total identity between the soul and God from the psychological point of view. the liberated soul through intense devotion feels that it has become one with God or that its existence is lost in the existence of God just as a lover experiences a feeling of oneness with the beloved in true love. The state of liberation is a state of non duality from both the point of view of Shankara and Ramanuja.
The motive of Shankara is to preach the identity of Brahman and the individual soul while the aim of Ramanuja is to advocate the existence of an all embracing God with whom the individual remains inseperably related as his body. It is the duty of every soul to discover this divinity in his own soul and for that reason one is asked to look into one's own soul to find out the soul of all souls.
Dr ASG emphasises very aptly the organic, nay organicist character of Ramanuj's thought and shows that the keystone of the system is to be found in the body-to-soul relation: the whole world of sentient beings is assumed in the unity of the godhead in the same way as the individual body is assumed in the unity of the individual soul.
Dr ASG hits the right path when she enables us to see how Ramanuja understands his duty as a vedanthic acharya and how he endeavours to remain true to all the pronouncements, of the Upanishads, however contrasting they may be or appear, without favouring these that advocate unity or those that vindicate plurality. She describes quiet correctly Ramanuj's procedure as an improvement on the synthetic method previously worked out by the Bhagwad gita.
The essence of Bhakti, according to Ramanuja is interpreted not as a mere emotional outflowing of the soul but as exalted form of jnana, and the relation between Karma and jnana is upheld.
According to Vedartha Sangraha, Bhakti has been described as a knowledge which consists in excessive adoration and attachment to the ultimate reality as a result of which the devotee becomes absolutely disinterested in all other objects of the world. Meditation on God or a full knowledge of the nature of god generates love and transforms dhyna itself into a form of love and affection. Bhakti according to Ramanuja, is not merely an emotion of love and respect devoid of knowledge: It is a special form of Knowledge that fills the heart of the individual with a deep feeling of attachment for the supreme divinity. Bhakti has been equalled to dhyana and upasana. God being the most beloved object, His thoughts also are very dear and pleasing to the devotee and naturally therefore, these pleasant thoughts keep his mind continuously occupied. This is Bhakti. Sri Ramanuja has recognised a very close connection between Bhakti and Jnana i.e. devotion and knowledge. Knowledge may be regarded as the cause of bhakti. Knowledge is the very foundation of Bhakti and it is jnana that produces bhakti, it also nourishes and enriches it. knowledge is necessary for the emergence of bhakti /devotion in the heart of a worshipper.
Not only jnana yoga but karmayoga also is necessary actually jnana yoga springs from Karma yoga. Ramanuja says in his commentary on gita chapter 3 sloka 1, "Jnananisthaeva atmavalokana sadhanam karmanista tu tasya nispadhika" knowledge therefore is indeed the important part of disinterested action. the disinterested action has therefore been described as action illumined by the light of self knowledge.
"Evamantargatajnanam yat karmantatte prabaksyami yat jnatva anusthaya asubhat samsarabandhatmoksayase...... Gitabhasya 4-16.
Akarma in the sense of atmajnana action illumined by self-knowledge assumes the form of knowledge and knowledge purified by disinterested performance of action assumes the form of action.
Knowledge therefore is not alien to bhakti and karma.
the seven fold limbs of Bhakti.
1. Viveka
2. Vimoka
3. Abhyasa
4. Kriya
5. Kalyana (satya, arjaba,daya,dana and ahimsa)
6. Anavasada
7. anudharsa.
this seven fold sadanas of bhakti leads one to that state of anubhava which possesses, fullness, vividness and liveliness of perception which leads him to paramabhakti.
Ramanuja on Bhedabheda theory.
Ramanuj's theory differs from both Bhaskara and Yadavaprakasha who are regarded as staunch supporters of bhedabheda theory, which posits the existence of both identity and difference between Brahman and the individual soul. for ramanuja identity simply refers to the inseparable relation between Brahman and individual soul. The being of a finite self cannot dissolve wholly in the absolute in any state of its existence. In the opinion of Bhaskara, difference is inherently abheda-dharmi. The waves are different from the sea but are also identical with it. Identity for Bhaskara means absolute identity or total oneness. In the opinion of ramanuja on the other hand identity does not mean oneness, it simply refers to inseperableness. the self can never be dissolved into God. One substance cannot be totally merged in another substance. an individual may rise very high in purity and knowledge, but still there will be a God superior to him. The individual is only a Visesana (adjective) of god. and as such, he can never become one with God. an adjective can never get merged in the noun it qualifies.
The Bhedabheda theory of Bhaskara on the other hand, has a tendency to suggest that identity means essential identity which has been emphatically denied by Ramanuja. Thus while for Bhaskara, identity is essential and difference is practical, for Ramanuja difference is essential and identity is practical.
Ramanuja has not accepted the theory of Yadava Praksha either as he has refused to admit that both identity and difference are natural and essential. It is because of such difference existing between the theory of Ramanuja and the theory of bhedabheda of Bhaskara or of Yadava -Prakasha in respect of the relation between the individual soul and Brahman, that ramanuja has not given the name of bhedabheda to his own theory lest it might get confused with the theories of his predecessors.
The vedic judgment "That Thou Art" does not convey essential oneness (svarupaikya ) of Brahman and the individual soul. It simply implies oneness of a substance having two different attributes. The non dualistic claim that this proposition establishes bare identity between the individual soul and Brahman by eliminating the attributes is false. There is eternal difference between spirit matter and God. Matter is the object of experience, Spirit is the subject of experience and God is the ultimate sustaining principle of both spirit and matter. Hence God can never be totally identified with the spirit or matter. Thus for Shankara the difference between the soul and Brahman is false, for Ramanuja it is true and real. Again Bhaskara says that the difference is non eternal but Yadava prakasha holds that there is no contradiction in supposing that both identity and difference exists between brahman and the individual soul at the root and also in the final state.
a careful reflection on the two interpretations of "That Thou Art" given by Shankara and Ramanuja will reveal that these interpretations are not in reality so wide apart as not to allow any compromise between them. No doubt there are important differences but there is some subtle affinity as well.
The difference that strikes one at a first glance is that while shankara has negated individuality totally in the state of liberation by completely identifying thou with that, Ramanuja has retained it till the last. According to Ramanuja the soul is one with God in a manner in which the body of a man is treated as one with his soul in worldly dealings and wordly affairs. It is this identity from the practical point of view that has been refered to by the upanisadic judgement "That thou art" Other wise there is natural and essential distiction between the soul and Brahman.
Thus according to shankara there is singleness in emancipation and not a oneness of a whole whereas for Ramanuja emancipation is not a state of singleness but a state of oneness of an organic whole.
In spite of such metaphysical differences we shall be able to find affinity between these two conceptions of liberation from the psycological point of view. The qualified Monism of Ramanuja advocates a total identity between the soul and God from the psychological point of view. the liberated soul through intense devotion feels that it has become one with God or that its existence is lost in the existence of God just as a lover experiences a feeling of oneness with the beloved in true love. The state of liberation is a state of non duality from both the point of view of Shankara and Ramanuja.
The motive of Shankara is to preach the identity of Brahman and the individual soul while the aim of Ramanuja is to advocate the existence of an all embracing God with whom the individual remains inseperably related as his body. It is the duty of every soul to discover this divinity in his own soul and for that reason one is asked to look into one's own soul to find out the soul of all souls.