The Mysticism of Ramanuja, Cyril Veliath S.J., Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1993
Reviewed by Dayanand Bharati.
Mysticism, like advaita is a subject which is to be experienced and not expressed. At the same time a mystic cannot keep his experience within himself and hence he has to use human language to express ‘himself’ through his experience. But trying to identify a person as a mystic based on his ‘reasoning’–particularly that of his faith–and superimposing it as his experience (that too based on assumption), in order to make him fit the title, as Veliath has done in this book, will create a wrong picture about him.
Generally the philosophers of India are really theologians in true sense rather than mystics. All their works, including some of their devotional poems like that of Saranagatigaya of Ramanuja (and Bhajagovidam of Sankara1) reveal more of their theology than of their mysticism. Though, a theologian like Ramanuja can be a mystic (in our modern sense) yet all his theology and doctrine does not necessarily prove his mysticism—if it is understood in a true sense. Because, in the case of Ramanuja (like other Indian aacaaryas) he forms his arguments to clearly refute his opponents’ views in order to establish his doctrinal position. 2 Whereas a mystic only will express his experience in human terms; though he may use religious language of his faith, yet he won’t do it either by refuting or comparing and contrasting with others’ experience. Whereas theologians like Ramanuja, Sankara and others vehemently opposed their opponents’ views as systematic theologians and didn’t share their experiences as mystics.3 Even the case of jeevanmukti4 (pp. 162-68 & 181-82) —a concept which the author feels it necessary to deal with in the mysticism of Ramanuja, what that aacaarya presents is more a doctrinal position refuting his opponents’ stand rather sharing any of his personal mysticism. Because these Indian theologians always followed the traditional system of ‘nyaaya’ (nyaaya = “textured” reasoning… 5 see also notes no. 2) to some extent carefully while formulating their particular theology. (Sharla:What are nyaaya and textured reasoning? Do they appear like sharing from personal experience?) What Cloony says in the context of Sankara’s Advaita is equally applicable to Ramanuja, who like Sankara is more a theologian than a philosopher or a mystic:
…Advaita is at its core an exegetical system, and therefore is heir to the ritual exegesis of the older Miimaamsaa school of ritual exegesis. I will show that Advaita is fundamentally a practice rather different from the philosophy it has generally been conceived to be, that it is closer to ‘theology’ than ‘philosophy,’ and closer to ‘scriptural theology’ than ‘philosophical theology.… 6
We have to keep this important point in mind while reading this book. Like any other book, to remain true to the topic it has [The Mysticism of Ramanuja], the author also in the first chapter ‘Understanding of Mysticism’, prepares us to ‘Understand’ Ramanuja as a mystic rather than a theologian by explaining what is meant by ‘Mysticism’. Above all considering what the author says about mysticism in the first chapter, it is doubtful whether the scholarly arrangement of Ramanuja’s Theology in the following chapters would tell anything about his mysticism7 But the mystery is that in the following chapters of the book he skillfully analyses the theology of Ramanuja comparing the comments of various scholars and expounds the ‘doctrinal’ position of Ramanuja very clearly. In this respect he has done a remarkable job. And in chapter * ‘The Core Vision of Ramanuja’, in order to have a ‘better grasp of the Brahman experience of Ramanuja’, the author says, ‘however necessitates that we review his entire experience, in the light of the Sariira-saririn, Seesa-sesin, and Visista-visesya group of ideas that dominate his entire philosophical scheme.’ He further continues, ‘The essential obstacles that Ramanuja had to grapple with in developing his doctrine of Visistaadvaita, can briefly be summarized in the following questions:’. (pp.183) What follows is again an analysis of Ramanuja’s theology based on his doctrine.
Thus in order to dig a mystic out of Ramanuja the author has to go back again and again to the doctrinal position of Ramanuja (as we have see just about ‘in the light of the Sariira-saririn, Seesa-sesin, and Visista-visesya group of ideas that dominate his entire philosophical scheme.’ Also see notes no. 7) We need not go in detail about what Veliath says further in his analysis, because he has already established that ‘Mystical experience by nature as stated earlier, is trans-notional, meta-logical, and super-rational. The mystic himself faces insurmountable problems when attempting to describe his experience in words on account of its ineffable nature, and it is this that results in the many paradoxical statements that mystical literature reveals. This being the case, the mere attempt on our part to discover the Brahman-experience of Ramanuja purely on the analysis of his writings, could at the very outset be declared to be a futile venture.’. (pp. 199-200). However giving the reason for making such a futile attempt in this book he further says, “However I have considered such an attempt worthwhile owning to the fact, that even though we may not be able to comprehend the total experience of Ramanuja, yet, even a partial understanding of the same is well worth the attempt…” (200) Therefore he concludes:
A mystical understanding of the philosophy of Ramanuja moreover, would enable us to attain a better grasp of the many problems that confronted him, though not necessarily to discover or offer a solution to them. Hence, though the above paragraphs [chapter 8] may not have succeeded in supplying answers to the may questions posed by critics concerning the teachings of Ramanuja, it has nevertheless succeeded in providing us with a glimpse of his Mystical experience of the Supreme Brahman, which incidentally the primary purpose of this book. (200)
(Sharla—in case of publication, ought to check proofread all these quotes, checking with the original book)
Before further proceeding it is important to note that though ‘The mystic himself faces insurmountable problems when attempting to describe his experience in words on account of its ineffable nature, and it is this that results in the many paradoxical statements that mystical literature reveals’ yet in almost all the authentic writings of Ramanuja what scholars find is not mere ‘paradoxical statements’ of Ramanuja but his clear ‘textured reasoning’ (nyaaya) to establish his theology. Maybe that is why Veliath tries to find out the ‘paradoxical statements’ of Ramanuja’s mystical experience more in the questionable Saranaagatigadya than in other doctrinal treatises.
To present an oversimplified generalization: every Indian is a mystic whatever may be his metaphysical stand. And again as a generalization we can say that mystic all over the world may have several similarities when it comes to their core experience about Reality/God. But when it comes to the philosophy (theology) of the most of the Indian aacaaryas, they are systematic theologians both defining and defending their faith. All the contradiction which they themselves are aware of in their theology, while criticised by their opponents are easily explained by his followers based on faith in their aacaaryas. 8 But what Veliath says as a scholar is bit disappointing because his conclusion is more based on his personal opinion and assumption/interpretation (some time agreeing [regarding Saranaagatigadya , see below] and other time disagreeing [regarding Jiivanmukti, see notes no 4] with the tradition of this sampradaaya) than authentic textual facts. Because he himself says: ‘Also, from our study of his philosophy so far, one notices that there do exist certain serious lapses in the system of Visistaadvaia as propounded by Raamaanuja, when viewed from a purely metaphysical perspective. On the other hand however, a study of gadyas and the nityagrantha, reveal to us an individual who can genuinely be described as a man of great sanctity, one who has truly set aside all in his desire to attain the Brahman.’ (200).
But while analysing Ramanuja’s doctrine based on his philosophical writings (Sriibaasya, Gitaabhaasya, Vedaarthasamgraha, Vedaatasaara, Vedaantadiipa, Nityagrantha, p. 32.) Veliath himself says that ‘Ramanuja’s personal experience of the Brahman is most clearly presented in the Gadyatraya, and particularly in the Saranaagatigadya.’ (170) And he further points out the different of opinion among scholars about the authorship of Ramanuja regarding Saranaagatigadya, 9 he accepts the view of the tradition and says, ‘Since both schools of Visistaadvaita have always accepted these gadyas as genuine, I see no reason to dispute their claim to authenticity.’ (170) (see note no 4 for his disagreement with the same tradition regarding jiivanmukti). And once he has come to such a conclusion, then he quotes elaborately from Saranaagatigadya (pp. 170-72) and says, ‘A study of the above details [from Saranaagatigadya] will serve to reveal to the reader the following points’, (172) and gives eleven points and concludes: ‘This in brief is an experience of Brahman as described by Ramanuja.’ (173).
One more point will highlight such inconsistency in the analysis of Veliath about Ramanuja’s metaphysics and mysticism. He says, ‘An understanding of the Brahman of Ramanuja would be incomplete without including a few paragraphs on this Consort [Laksmi], particularly since she plays a major role in his Saranaagatigadya.’ (p.78) And he further says, ‘Although Ramanuja himself appears not to have paid much attention to Srii, she featured very prominently in the works of both his predecessors and his successors’ (p.79). To support this he himself says that Narashimachari ‘insists that the later ideas of Laksmi as developed by Srii Vaisnavism can ultimately be traced back to’ (p.80) the hymn of Yaamuna’s Sriistutui (p.79) and ‘Carman points out that the disciples of Ramanuja gave relatively more importance to Srii than did Ramanuja himself’. (p.80)
Similarly ‘Apart from his commentary on the verses of chapter eleven of the Gita, Ramanuja makes a few scattered references to the experience of the Brahman in his Sriibhaasya, but these references do not give us an adequate description concerning the nature of this experience. In his other works such as the Vedaantasaara, the Vedaantadiipa, and the Vedaarthasamgraha too he does not appear to make any such reference, but the Gadyas, and the Saranaagatigadya in particular, describe what to all appearances is undoubtedly a deeply personal experience of the Brahman.’ (168)
Now, the difference between a scholar and a layman is based on the fact that while the latter can hold his tradition without any doubt to keep his/her faith alive, a scholar cannot present his theory based on the value a particular tradition gives to its aacaaryas because: ‘The modern investigator, unbound by the authority of a name howsoever great, not inclined to be satisfied by pure speculation to be found in a system, always prefers critical investigation’. 10
But in attempting to present Ramanuja in a new perspective, i.e., as a mystic, we feel that he is not remain loyal to the spirit of Ramanuja with which he wrote his treatises to establish his Visistaadvaita theology. We may claim that Ramanuja ‘has truly set aside all in his desire to attain the Brahman.’ (200). But neither Ramanuja nor his followers would set aside his theology in particular in order to dig a mystic out of him. To a mystic all the inconsistencies on the rational level are not important, because his experience is ‘trans-notional, meta-logical, and super-rational’. (p.199) To the faithful all the contradictions in their theology and doctrines do not exist, because of their faith in their tradition and aacaarya. Ramanuja is called Ramanujaacaarya. An aacaarya is first a Teacher, giving a minimum systematic theological teaching, however all his followers may not understand all his systematic work. He is not simply a guru to initiate a novice by giving deeksha to bringing him within the fold of his faith system or his mystical experience. Because, again to quote Cloony,:
…Theology, to characterize it in a non-technical fashion, is distinct from the study of religion (with which it overlaps in many of its procedures) because theology is an inquiry carried on by believers who allow their belief to remain an explicit and influential factor in their research, analysis and writing. Believing theologians are (usually) members of believing communities, and have those communities as their primary audiences whether or not the bulk of their writing is addressed to them. With their communities, they believe in some transcendent (perhaps supernatural) reality, the possibility of and (usually fact of) a normative revelation, and in the need to make practical decisions and life choices which have a bearing on salvation. Theologians do their work with an awareness of and concern for these beliefs, and with a desire to defend and preserve them, even if at one or another moment they may have to question, recontextualize and finally reformulate them in modes of discourse quite different from those already familiar to the community. 11
In India, if the word mysticism has any meaning, that we can find in the devotional songs of Thukaram, Meerabai and like others, and it is very difficult to dig out such a subject from the doctrinal writings of great aacaaaryas—however mystic they may be in their personal life.
Though this is a good book in which one can precisely and clearly (but not easily as it is a difficult subject) understand the ‘mind’ of Ramanuja as a Theologian, yet it is very difficult to ‘feel’ the ‘heart’ of Ramanuja as a mystic by the interpretation which the author imposes on the writings of Ramanuja, particularly based on that of doubtful authorship of that great aacaarya on Saranaagatigadya. A right book with a wrong title. The final chapter ‘Ramanuja and Christianity’, is included in this book with a spirit for ‘mutual dialogue and understanding’, between these two faiths, yet it not only fit with the spirit of the book but also ends abruptly without proper comparison. (Sharla: Does it fit with the spirit of the book?)
Now turning to other problems in this book, proof reading is not done properly. Is it ‘ascesis’ or ‘assess’ on p. 9. In several places ‘the’ becomes ‘he’ (p. 18, 107,222) and like that (p. 9 line nine ‘o’ is missing for ‘of’, ‘s’ is missing in Consciouness in p. 13. ‘i’ is missing in ‘kid’’ in p. 18, ‘t’ is missing in Unpredictabiliy’ in p. 22, ‘e’ is missing for ‘one’ on p. 36, ‘i’ is missing for ‘him’ on p. 59, ‘n’ or ‘r’ is missing for ‘eve.’ On page 64, tt should be ‘bondage’ and not ‘bandage’ on p. 98, and it should be ‘bring’ and not ‘being’ on p. 101. In reference no. 34, on page 123 ‘0’ is missing for ‘1051’. In reference no. 71, on p. 125 ‘p.’ is missing for p.1010, In reference no. 8, on page no. 137 pp. numbers are not given. It should be ‘rain’ and not ‘fain’ on p. 143, It should be ‘Bhakti’ and not ‘Shakti’ on p. 155, It should be ‘Giitaa’ and not ‘Giitaabhaashya’ on p. 169, it should be ‘the’ and not ‘thee’ on p. 188, it should be ‘Sri’s’ fundamental role’ and not ‘Sri fundamental role’ on p. 189, ‘e’ is missing in ‘purly’ on p. 195, it should be ‘he would not save’ and not ‘the would not save’ on p. 220, ‘i’ is missing in ‘ether’ on p. 222, ‘i’ is missing in ‘ssued’ on p. 27.
What is the second stage of Religious Understanding as he mentions only first and third in pp. 13 & 14. Is it ‘Certainty’ instead of ‘Certainly’ in point (b) on p. 21? Aandal is called ‘Koodai’ and not as ‘Godaa’ (p.31), because Godaa is the anglicized name of Koodai, which is not in practice in Tamilnadu. ‘Prasthaana Traya’, what is it? Some explanation of such technical words (“…When Gita along with Upanisads and Vedaanta-suutras become the Cannon called ‘Prasthaanatrayii ‘ (the Trinity of Systems)…B.G. Tilak, B.G.Tilak, (Tr. by A.S.Sukthankar: Srimad Bhagavadgita-Rahasya; Tilak Brothers; Poona; Seventh Edition, 1986, p. 17) alone will help common people to understand it. Tilak calls it ‘Prasthaanatrayii and not as Traya’. Which is right? ‘threefold pain’, what are they? (adyaatmika, adideivika and adibowtika? Refer Dr. Chandradar Sharma about this) It is in Gita chapter and not in Gitaabhaasya krsna tells Arjuna that he should submit himself…. (p. 119). On page 122, in notes no. 7, the Journal of A.U., is mentioned as ‘XVIII’ where as in the bibliography on p. 237 it is mentioned as ‘XVII’. Which is correct? on p. 149 one single sentence runs almost 17 lines. ‘who are “the other two aacaaryas as ‘philosophers of life’” in p. 200?
These are some of the mistakes that I noticed and a careful proof reading will bring many more.
Notes
1. Originally Sankara’s Bhajagovindam contained only 12 songs but was later added to his disciples. But now the whole Bhajagovindam is assigned to Sankara. However Olivelle does not include Bhajagovindam in Sankara’s work. See notes no.9
2. ‘He [Ramanuja] traveled extensively in the south, encountered the opposition of Saivite Kings, and propagated his doctrine of Visistadvaita…’ (p.32) ‘Ramanuja and even his predecessors such as Naathamuni and Yaamuna had in their day to contend with rival schools, both orthodox and non-orthodox…. Ramanuja’s foremost purpose therefore was to combat the Advaitic stand of Sankara, and he does this by having recourse to the sacred texts of scripture, to the rules and regulations of the Miimaamsic doctrine, and to the experiences of everyday life, both spiritual and mundane, and he seeks by this means to provide a foothold for his own doctrine by attempting to refute ideas such as the doctrine of the two brahmans, … besides other fundamental points.’ (PP. 38-39)
3. A mystic who attempts to communicate his experience to others, may continue to use the religious language of his own respective tradition, but all his efforts to communicate are doomed to failure. It is for this reason, that the mystic if at all he attempts to express himself, often does so too in unusual or paradoxical language, and more often than not he prefers to keep silent.—p. 11
4. ‘Traditional Srii Vaisnavism has generally considered Ramanuja as having rejected Jiivanmukti’ (p.163) says Veliath and continues ‘We have textual evidence for rejecting, Jiivanmukti, and sufficient evidence also for accepting it. In such a situation, it appears to me to be rather unwise to take a definite stand concerning this matter.’ (p.167) Further, ‘…a statement [in Sriibhaasya, 3.4.51] that could be constructed to mean, that the knowledge of Brahman does not bring about a total destruction of Karman. One recognizes here a clear confusion on the part of Ramanuja concerning the question of Jiivanmukti, and it was possibly this that motivated him to attempt as far as possible to avoid mention of the subject directly’. (p. 168) But the author comes to a clear conclusion by saying ‘These different individuals have all been described as endowed with a variety of positive characteristics and qualities, though it is by no means certain whether or not they posses different degrees of sanctity as well. This being the case, the possibility cannot be overlooked that even though Ramanuja might have rejected Jiivanmukti, what he has rejected is only the name and not the content. In other words, even if he has rejected the name Jiivanmukti, he has possibly accepted everything that the name implies…’ (p.182)
Olivelle says, ‘…VisistÁõãdvaita and other devotional sects did not recognize the possibility of a person attaining liberation while still alive in this world.— Patrick Olivelle, The ¡ôÞsrama system The History and Hermeneutics of a Religious Institution New York, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 231
5. Francis X. Clooney, S.J., Theology after Vedanta, An Experiment in Comparative Theology, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1993, p.59,
6. Ibid. pp.14-15. And, ‘There are at least three important reasons why scholars have favored the philosophical approach to Advaita, according to which the textual-exegetical commentarial side of the tradition is downplayed in proportion to the doctrines of self and non-dualism
…the first reason is of course that such a focus is not entirely inimical to Sankara’s estimate of his project, which is much less apparently theological in the ordinary sense than would be Raamaanuja’s Vedaanta, for example.’—ibid. p. 27
7. ‘…one cannot fully grasp Ramanuja’s mysticism without having at least a basic knowledge of his metaphysics.’—Preface, p.xi
8. But to the modern student of the Vedanta texts with Samkara’s commentary, another question suggests itself at once, viz. whether or not Samkara’s explanations faithfully render the intended meaning of the text. To the Indian scholar of Samkara’s school this question is an indifferent one, or to state the case more accurately, he objects to it being raised at all, as he looks on Samkara’s authority as standing above doubt and dispute, and if pressed to offer a defence, without entering into any detailed comparison of Samkara’s comments and the Text, he seeks to show on speculative grounds that Samkara’s philosophical view is the only true one and hence it represents the meaning of the text which necessarily ought to teach the true doctrine. The modern investigator, unbound by the authority of a name howsoever great, not inclined to be satisfied by pure speculation to be found in a system, always prefers critical investigation.–by T.G. Mainkar, A Comparative Study of The Commentaries On The Bhagavadgita, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi,(2nd Edi),1969,Introduction. p.1
9. This is not a problem limited only with Srii Vaisnavism. While scholarly consensus assign only six works to Sankara, tradition believes that he authored around 400 works. ‘I will limit myself to the six works regarding whose authenticity there appears to be a scholarly consensus. They are ³½Þamkara’s commentaries on the VedÁõãntasÕõãtras, the Bhagavad Gita, and three Upanisads—BrhadÁõãranyaka, ChÁõãndogya, and TatÉô tirtÉôçya—and his independent treatise UpadesasÁõãharÉôç,. See Paul Hacker’s (1978) contributions on ³½Þamkara: Nakamura 1983’, says Olivelle, op. cit. p. 224
10. Mainkar, op. cit. p.1
11. Cloony, op. cit. pp.4-5
(Sharla—is it Cloony or Clooney (see note no 5 “Clooney” and the text which refers to this note “Cloony”)
Leave a Reply