Rāmānuja accepts the triad of separate substances:
īśvara-jīvas-prakṛti
(God-souls-matter). One problem is the clarification of the exact relationship between
Nyāya
and
jīva
. Rāmānuja also takes over the Pāñcarātra doctrine of three different categories of
jīvas
with regard to salvation. The original nature of
jīva
is purity and bliss, but due to certain limitations it becomes entangled in
saṃsāra
and unhappy. The Lord resides as the
antaryamlm
the soul to guide it – the
jīva
, however, is free to follow or to go his own way. “The Lord then, recognizing one who performs good actions as one who obeys his commands, blesses that person with piety, riches, worldly pleasures and final release: while one who trangresses His commands He causes to experience the opposite of all these.”
85
There remains, of course, the crucial problem of the relationship of
karman
and
krpa
, justice and grace. The “actor” in the principal sense is
īśvara:
“The inwardly ruling highest Self promotes action insofar as it regards in the case of any action the volitional effect made by the individual soul, and then aids that effort by granting its favour or permission. Action is not possible without permission on the part of the highest Self.”
86
Mukti
is ultimately “given” by the grace of
īśvara –
to Rāmānuja this follows from the
śruti
. Yet the need for some kind of cooperation is evident – after Rāmānuja, ŚrīVaiṣṇavism split exactly over this point into two schools, one school insisting on active cooperation and the other on passive acceptance.
Since Viṣṇu is
mukti-dātā
, giver of liberation, the role of a
sādhana
(spiritual practice) is only to prepare the way, to dispose the
jīva
for receiving grace. Rāmānuja’s
sādhana
follows closely the
Bhagavadgītā: prapatti
, self-surrender, is its essence and it includes
karma, jñāna
, and
bhakti
. Rāmānuja always emphasizes that
bhakti
in his understanding includes
karma
and
jñāna – bhakti
is a particular kind of knowledge; it “eliminates the desire for everything else,” and it makes a person fit “to be chosen by the supreme Self.”
bhakti
is non-attachment to sense-objects and attachment to the highest; it is a “realization,” a vivid perception. The reason why
bhakti
brings bliss is that the nature of
Brahman
is blissful – and knowing
Brahman
means participating in his bliss. The
śruti
says “Brahman is bliss.” Brahman itself is joy eternal. “Brahman is
rasa
, attaining his
rasa
the knower becomes blissful.”
87
mokṣa
(liberation) is “given” – it is not an autonomous “self-finding” but requires positive action from the side of God. It is the highest degree of
bhakti: īśvara
and
jīva
remain distinct entities – between them the relationship of
bhakti
is maintained. There is also an interpenetration of
īśvara
and
jīva
. The
mukta
enjoys the omniscience and omnipresence of God; the only difference is that the liberated person is not creator.
Mukti
means freedom from egotism, not from individuality. It is desirelessness with regard to everything that is not God, but highest desire for him.
Rāmānuja accepts the traditional purāṇic and Pāñcarātra ideas with regard to the form and body of Viṣṇu, with regard to Vaikuṇṭha as paradise, and so forth. In some places, however, he offers a spiritual interpretation of these. Especially in the
Gadyatraya
, his last poetic works, he develops a spiritualistic concept of
mokṣa:
he specifies
bhakti
as
sāranagati
– taking refuge to the Lord – and explains
mokṣa
as being
kaimkarya prapti
, eternal service. The
Vaikuṇṭha Gadya
expresses his desire to be with God in his highest heaven: “When will I see with these eyes my Lord who is my sole treasure, my father, my mother and my all? When will I touch with these hands those tender, beautiful, lotus-like feet of the Lord, when will I enter into them with all my entire being? When will I enter into that ocean of immortality.”
88
As the name Śrī-Vaiṣṇavism suggests, the consort of Viṣṇu plays an important role also in its soteriology. Following the lead of the
Viṣṇu Purāṇa
, Rāmānuja says: “This Śrī, the Mother of the universe, is eternal and knows no separation from Viṣṇu. Even as Viṣṇu is all-pervading, she is all-pervading. When he becomes a
deva
, she assumes a dew-form. When he becomes a man, she too becomes a human being. She makes her form conform to the form of Viṣṇu.”
89
Consequently, in the same way in which Viṣṇu is saviour, Śrī also is saviour – both in the transcendental
(para)
form and the
avatāras
. Rāmānuja calls Śrī the “Queen of the World” – later forms of Vaiṣṇavism intensify Śrī worship and put Śrī ahead of Viṣṇu, so that Vaiṣṇavism and Śāktism become indistinguishable.
The same holds true of the role of the
guru
in the process of salvation. Rāmānuja insists on the necessity of a
guru
. He recounts the parable of the young prince who in the course of a boyish play leaves his father’s court and loses his way. A good Brahmin brings him up – neither the Brahmin nor the boy being aware of the boy’s princely status. When the boy has reached his sixteenth year, a “fully trustworthy person” tells him who his father is and that he longs to see him. The boy is exceedingly happy and starts on his way to his father, who on his account too takes steps to recover his son.
90
Rāmānuja sees in the “fully trustworthy person” of the parable the true
guru
.
The first among the
gurus
is Śrī,
mediatrix
between God and humans. She is the embodiment of grace and mercy whose endeavors win the forgiveness of God for the
jīva
. The human
guru
should be like her: entirely free from egotism, always desirous of the welfare of others, not swayed by the love of fame or profit.
91
The role of the
guru
becomes exagggerated in some later Vaiṣṇava systems – the
guru
is formally declared to be God incarnate and for all practical purposes even more important than Viṣṇu himself.
In Śrī Vaiṣṇavism the process of salvation is not a process of only shedding wrong notions and un-doing mis-identifications; it is a positive development of the soul’s faculties, and the purpose of earthly life is an education in true
bhakti
. Pillai Lokacarya expresses this aptly: “Even the all-loving Father, the Great
Nyāya
, does not force his presence on the soul not yet ripe to receive him. With infinite patience He waits and watches the struggle of the soul in
samsara
since the struggle is necessary for the full development of the faculties of the soul.”
92
The released soul is still conscious of being different from
Brahman
, though united with him: it sees its true nature. “This true nature consists in the souls having for their inner self the highest self, while they constitute the body of that self and hence are modes of it.”
93
After Rāmānuja the unity of Vaiṣṇavism was disrupted. Two major schools developed: calling themselves the Tengalais (the “Southerners” with their seat in Śrīraṅgam) and the Vadagalais (the “Northerners” with their seat in Kanclpuram). The split was based on linguistic as well as dogmatic grounds. The Tengalais maintained that the Tamil holy books were as important as Sanskrit scriptures as sources of divine revelation and that humans had to cooperate with God in the process of salvation like the young monkey who has to cling to his mother if he is to be carried away from a fire. The Vadagalais gave preference to the Sanskrit scriptures and insisted that a soul has simply to wait for salvation from God like a kitten, which its carried out from a deadly fire by its mother.
94
The major representative of the Tengalais was Lokacarya Pillai (1205–1310 C.E.), author of important works like the
Mumuksupadi
and the
Tattva-trayam
. The leader of the Vadagalais was Vedānta Deśika (1269–1370 C.E.), the most prolific Śrīvaiṣṇava author and next in importance only to Rāmānuja. Besides theological treatises such as the
Rahasya-traya-sāra
, he also wrote plays, including the
Sankalpa Suryodaya
. Both factions of Śrī Vaiṣṇavism are flourishing today – each has important centers and recognized teachers. While in agreement on most issues, the split is both theologically and socially relevant.
95
Some of the major temples in possession of the Śrīvaiṣṇavas, like Tirupati in Andhra Pradesh, and Śrīraṅgam in Tamilnadu, attract many millions of pilgrims every year, regardless of their sectarian affiliation. They have become major tourist attractions as well – the former situated high atop a mountain ridge, the latter occupying an entire island in the Kauverl river, possibly the largest temple complex on earth.
THE BRAHMA OR MADHVA
SAṂPRADĀYA
Madhva, also called Ānandatlrtha or Purnaprajñā (1238–1317),
96
began monastic life as a disciple of an Advaita guru. In spite of disagreements the teacher offered him the succession to the headship of his
matha
. Madhva declined and became the most radical exponent of Dvaita-Vedānta. He insists that God as well as the soul and world are real, and fights Advaita, which he dubs
Mayavada
, a system that is fixed on illusion, because of its insistence that only
Brahman
is true/real and the world is false/unreal. Madhva’s system is characterized by the “five differences”: an irreducible difference between
Brahman
and the individual souls
(jīvas);
between
Brahman
and inanimate objects
(jada);
between the
jīvas
amongst each other; between the
jīvas
and
jada;
and between inanimate objects amongst each other. The application of external marks expressing surrender to Viṣṇu was considered indispensable when seeking salvation. Stigmatization, which consists of branding the body with the
cakra
(discus) mark of Viṣṇu, is a means to salvation in itself; those who bear the sign are free from sin and go to Vaikuṇṭha. Accepting one of the names of the Lord as one’s own name is also prescribed. So is the “tenfold worship.”
In Madhva, Vaiṣṇava sectarianism reaches it apex: “Brahmā, Śiva, and the greatest of the gods decay with the decay of their bodies; greater than these is Hari,
97
undecaying, because his body is for the sustentation of Lakṣmī.” Viṣṇu is the only
Nyāya
, the source of everything, from whom all knowledge comes, the source of bondage and of liberation.
Madhva considered himself the third
avatāra
of Vāyu, the mediator between God and humankind. The first was Hanuman, the second, Bhīma.
As regards the situation of the
jīva
, Madhva accepts the threefold Pāñcarātra division and subdivides the third category – the
baddhas
or souls in bondage – again into souls destined for liberation, souls destined for eternal
samsara
, and souls destined for eternal hell. The essential characteristic of the
jīva
is its being a “reflection” of God. The
God-Jīva
relationship is expressed as
biṃba-pratibiṃba
, image and reflection.
98
In many essential points regarding the nature of, and way to,
mokṣa
, he agrees with Rāmānuja. Bondage is explained as “of the nature of ignorance” and is due ultimately to the will of God and not merely to
Karma
. Bondage, however, is a reality and not a mere illusion. As bondage is caused by God’s will, so it can be removed only through God’s grace: “Release from bondage is possible only through God’s grace. It is bestowed on those who have had a direct vision of God. Such vision is vouchsafed to those who have constantly meditated on him in loving devotion after going through the discipline of sincere study of
sastras
and cogitation, termed
jijnasa
which sets one’s doubts at rest and clears the ground for meditation.”
99
God takes away the veil which he himself had thrown over the
jīva
, but from the side of the
Jīva, bhakti
is required: “The firm and unshakable love of God which rises above all other ties of love and affection based upon an adequate knowledge and conviction of his great majesty is called
bhakti
. That alone is the means to
mokṣa.”
100
Bhakti
has stages, according to Madhva, and so has
mokṣa. Aparoksa jñāna
, unmediated highest knowledge, “is a flash-like revelation of the Supreme at the fruition of a long and arduous process of
sravana
(listening),
manana
(reflecting), and
nididhyasana
(contemplating), in the fullness of absolute self-surrendering devotion to the Lord, as our
bimba
. Ultimately it is He that must choose to reveal himself, pleased by the hungering love of the soul. The
pratibimba
must turn in and see his
bimba
in himself. That is
aparoksa.”
101
Madhva knows a final
mokṣa
which is achieved only after the dissolution of the subtle body.
102
mokṣa
itself is a state of individual bliss:
“mokṣa
would not be worth having, if the
ātman
does not survive as a self-luminous entity therein. For the
ātman
is the ultimate goal and target of all desires.”
103
Madhva refers to several places in the
Vedas
and
Upaniṣads
to prove that
mokṣa
is a blissful, conscious, individual state. We may rightly doubt whether he correctly interprets some of the
Upaniṣads
which seem to speak clearly about a purely transcendent state devoid of pain and pleasure. Like other Pāñcarātrins he assumes that the
ātman
becomes endowed with a celestial body, for the sake of eternal enjoyment.