![]()
1 Introduction
RÄmÄnuja (1077ā1157), one of the foremost proponents of systematic theistic VedÄnta1 was not only a VedÄnta philosopher but also an initiate of the ÅrÄ«vaiį¹£į¹ava sectarian tradition in Tamilnadu.2 As devotees of the God Viį¹£į¹u and his consort ÅrÄ«, the ÅrÄ«vaiį¹£į¹avas established themselves through various processes of legitimation as a powerful sectarian tradition in South India. One of the ways by which the authority of the ÅrÄ«vaiį¹£į¹avas was consolidated was RÄmÄnujaās synthesis of popular Hindu devotionalism with the philosophy of VedÄnta.3 This theology, that came to be known as ViÅiį¹£į¹Ädvaita (unity-of-the-differenced), wielded tremendous influence over the expansion of Viį¹£į¹u devotionalism in South India and beyond. By incorporating more popular religious texts such as the Viį¹£į¹u PurÄį¹a (VP) into his reading of the VedÄnta texts, which were the standard of orthodoxy for VedÄnta philosophy, RÄmÄnuja legitimized identification of the absolute principle, Brahman, in the upaniį¹£ads, with the supreme deity Viį¹£į¹u. While he was certainly not the first Brahmin thinker to be influenced by the devotional purÄį¹as, he was the first to incorporate such traditions into VedÄnta philosophy.
Broadly speaking this study investigates RÄmÄnujaās use of the VP to accommodate, within VedÄnta, the doctrinal claims of the ÅrÄ«vaiį¹£į¹ava sectarian tradition. Though it has been noted by many scholars that he is one of the first VedÄnta commentators to identify the supreme reality of the upaniį¹£ads, Brahman, with the deity Viį¹£į¹u, there are not many sources that investigate how RÄmÄnuja manages this. I suggest that the use of the Viį¹£į¹u PurÄį¹a as a valid means of knowledge (ÅabdapramÄį¹a) of Brahman is one such strategy.
In VedÄnta philosophy, the application of the authority of scripture as a valid means of knowledge in the domain of extra-sensory matters is a common convention. Known as verbal testimony (ÅabdapramÄį¹a), scriptures are the basis of authentication of specific ontological frameworks and are important in constructing the legitimacy of various systems of thought. In this scheme, philosophical and theological concepts are substantiated with evidence first from Åruti and then from smį¹ti.4 In the VedÄnta system it is primarily the upaniį¹£ads, the later portions of the Vedic texts, and to a certain extent the earlier sections of the Veda that qualify as Åruti. Though smį¹ti was acknowledged as of secondary importance, its use in VedÄnta philosophy was negligible, except for the BhagavadgÄ«tÄ.5 As a smį¹ti text, the importance of the VP in RÄmÄnujaās writings is considerable and unique.
Lott (1980: 47) notes that āRÄmÄnujaās polemic takes two forms: some arguments are aimed at the logical structure of the absolute position, while others are based more on theological affirmation or scriptural interpretation.ā Though, these two aspects cannot be entirely divorced, this study will only be concerned with the latter in that it only takes into account arguments relevant to scripture as a valid means of knowledge. As such it is not solely devoted to the VedÄnta of RÄmÄnuja, but does address philosophical contexts in which scriptural citations, specifically those of the VP are embedded. This book evaluates VedÄnta as both a philosophical and a commentarial enterprise, but does not attempt a comprehensive treatment of RÄmÄnujaās vast exegetical project (Clooney 1992: 47ā68). I only examine distinct sections utilizing the use of the VP to demarcate the limits of my exegetical analysis.
Each of the core chapters (2ā4) on RÄmÄnujaās three key writings evaluates the role of the Viį¹£į¹u PurÄį¹a as valid means of knowledge (ÅabdapramÄį¹a). In so doing, I draw out structures in the purÄį¹a conducive to RÄmÄnujaās argument, underscore its function in interpretive maneuvers that counter rival doctrines such as Advaita, and evaluate some of these strategies. The Viį¹£į¹u PurÄį¹a cannot be said to espouse ViÅiį¹£į¹Ädvaita VedÄnta systematically. RÄmÄnuja, however, taking citations from diverse sections of this purÄį¹a arranges them thematically and in a coherent fashion and in so doing incorporates the Viį¹£į¹u PurÄį¹a into his sectarian theological vision.
In evaluating the various exegetical uses of the Viį¹£į¹u PurÄį¹a in RÄmÄnujaās VedÄnta this study also contributes to the understanding of inter-textuality in the Indian context. For the purposes of this study, I define inter-textuality as an awareness of other texts, whether this is explicitly mentioned or is alluded to (Rocher 1994; Olivelle 2004). This notion of inter-textuality is built into the VedÄnta commentarial tradition in the form of ÅabdapramÄį¹a (scripture as a valid means of knowledge), which allows for the interplay of various interpretations and contexts. An examination of the Viį¹£į¹u PurÄį¹aās use as scriptural evidence in VedÄnta commentaries reveals the fluidity of this purÄį¹a as a text that exists at the nexus of inter-textual exegesis, in some ways similar to texts such as the BhagavadgÄ«tÄ.
RÄmÄnujaās exegetical method
In his commentaries, RÄmÄnuja does not explicitly describe his method of exegesis as far as the use of scripture as a valid means of knowledge is concerned. Though it is generally noted that RÄmÄnuja accords equal importance to Åruti and authoritative smį¹ti, how this āequalityā manifests in his exegesis of VedÄnta is not a primary concern of most scholarly works on ViÅiį¹£į¹Ädvaita (van Buitenen 1956: 48ff; Lipner 1986; Bartley 2002). On the topic of the authority and function of smį¹ti, RÄmÄnuja has much to say. I have addressed this issue elsewhere and only discuss it briefly here (Adluri 2006).
RÄmÄnuja does use the traditional exegetical principles of corroboration (upabį¹į¹haį¹a), harmonization of scripture (samanvaya), and so on, to validate his use of the Viį¹£į¹u PurÄį¹a. He claims that he follows the PÅ«rvamÄ«mÄį¹sÄ understanding of corroboration as augmentation that is not contrary to the Veda. That is, smį¹ti that does not contradict the Veda is deemed authoritative. The primary function of smį¹ti then is to augment the Veda as stated in his commentary on BhG 16.24:
[t]herefore ÅÄstra alone is your authority to determine what is to be done and what is not to be done, that is, what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. The Vedas augmented (upabį¹į¹hita) by the dharmaÅÄstras, itihÄsas, and purÄį¹as, teach only the highest reality called Puruį¹£ottama, His pleasing form, and the actions that are the means to attain Him.6
The term upabį¹į¹hita used to denote smį¹tiās function is a derivative of the verbal root bį¹h, meaning to āexpandā, āgrowā, āincreaseā, āraiseā and so on; together with the prefix āupaā it denotes āthe act of making strong, invigorating, promoting, nourishingā and so on. According to RÄmÄnuja, only by knowing both the Veda and smį¹ti is one to perform oneās duties, which are not Vedic sacrifices but acts of devotion to Viį¹£į¹u. This inseparability of Åruti from smį¹ti7 and the latterās amplificatory function is also discussed in the ÅrÄ«bhÄį¹£ya 2.1.1. In commenting on Brahma SÅ«tra 1.1.1, RÄmÄnuja explores further, the corroborative function of smį¹ti.
The Veda should be amplified by the itihÄsas and purÄį¹as.
The Veda fears that he of little learning will do me wrong.
(MBh 1.1.264)
This is what is taught by scripture āthe act of amplifyingā, is the meaning of epics (itihÄsa) and purÄį¹a. To amplify means to gain a clear perception of the meaning of Vedic passages known to oneself, by means of the statements of those who know the entire Veda and its meaning and those who have directly perceived the essential nature of the Veda and its meaning, by means of the great power of their yoga. Indeed, amplification of Veda ought to be done, because without it one cannot reach a settled conclusion, since the knowledge of all the branches (of the Veda) is not comprehensible from listening to a small portion.8
The purÄį¹as and itihÄsas are correctives to the misuse of the Veda. But what corroboration can mean is open to interpretation. Scholarshipās unanimous declaration of the function of smį¹ti as strictly corroborative in RÄmÄnujaās commentaries is not entirely helpful. In the context of justifying the use of smį¹ti texts, it has been noted that āRÄmÄnujaās citations of the VP are illustrative and corroborative. His justification of these citations shows clearly that he was anxious not to introduce any evidence that would be unacceptable to his fellow VedÄntinsā (van Buitenen 1956: 35). That RÄmÄnuja occasionally utilizes smį¹ti such as the BhG to interpret Åruti has been noted, but this has not led to closer examinations of the use of scripture as a valid means of knowledge (Lott 1976: 28). Another explanation for RÄmÄnujaās use of smį¹ti is that he took his scripture literally, unlike other VedÄntins (Lott 1976: 28; Lipner 1986: 83). While all these claims are valid, they do not offer enough insight into the exegetical practices that exemplify corroboration.
Corroboration by smį¹ti of an argument already established by Åruti meant that, exegetically speaking, the Åruti passages would be cited followed by smį¹ti. However, this is not always RÄmÄnujaās method, as we see in the following chapters. Some of the patterns of usage of the VP he employs are the following. First, there is the more traditional usage of citing Åruti and then the VP. Second, the VP sometimes is used to interpret Åruti. Third, a valid smį¹ti is used to validate another smį¹ti whose authority may be in question. Fourth, only smį¹ti (VP) is used as valid means of proof. Each of these categories is represented in the discussion of RÄmÄnujaās commentaries in the subsequent chapters.
Though in a traditional sense, RÄmÄnuja maintains the canonical status of the Vedic texts, he also expands their boundaries without, however, admitting to such a change (Smith 1982: 48ā49). He constructs a VedÄnta canon of religiously meaningful texts that includes not only the canonical Vedas, but also a purÄį¹a, the Viį¹£į¹u PurÄį¹a, in order to maximize legitimation for his philosophy without altering the VedÄnta canon in the process. As a VedÄnta exegete, RÄmÄnuja actively participated in the making and remaking of the world in which these texts were embedded and recovers the ātrueā meaning of the upaniį¹£ads relevant for 12th century South India, by manipulating the scriptural categories of Åruti and smį¹ti (Inden, Ali and Waters 2000). The rest of this chapter considers the sources for this study, followed by an introduction to the provenance and content of the VP and concludes with an outline of chapters.
The primary sources for this study are RÄmÄnujaās expositions on the three foundational texts of VedÄnta, the upaniį¹£ads, the BrahmasÅ«tras (Br SÅ«), and the BhagavadgÄ«tÄ (BhG) called the VedÄrthasaį¹graha (VS), the ÅrÄ«bhÄį¹£ya (ÅBh), and the BhagavadgÄ«tÄbhÄį¹£ya (RBhGBh) respectively.9 I also utilize commentaries on the VS and ÅBh titled the TÄtparyadÄ«pikÄ (TD) and the ÅrutaprakÄÅikÄ (ÅP) by SudarÅanasÅ«ri (thirteenth century CE), as well as the TÄtparyacandrikÄ (TC), the commentary on RBhGBh by VedÄnta DeÅika (fourteenth century CE). In addition to these ÅrÄ«vaiį¹£į¹ava sources, I also consider the Advaita commentaries of Åaį¹
kara (seventh century CE), the BrahmasÅ«trabhÄį¹£ya (ÅBrSuBh) and BhagavadgÄ«tÄbhÄį¹£ya (ÅBhGBh) on the Brahma SÅ«tras (Br SÅ«) and the BhagavadgÄ«tÄ (BhG) respectively. I juxtapose these rival interpretations with those of RÄmÄnuja to clarify the importance of the VP in his interpretation of VedÄnta texts and this is especially evident in the RBhGBh.
Viį¹£į¹u PurÄį¹a
As one of the most important purÄį¹as, the Viį¹£į¹u PurÄį¹a comes closest to the paƱcalakį¹£aį¹a characteristic that is thought to be the hallmark of purÄį¹ic literature (Rocher 1986: 29). Wilsonās theory that the VP contains the five components characteristic of the purÄį¹a genreādetails regarding cosmogony, dissolution and the recreation of the universe, genealogical lists of gods and patriarchs, different periods of Manu, and dynastic historyāis said to be one of the reasons he chose to translate this particular purÄį¹a (Rocher 1986: 26, 29). Although the significance of this theory of paƱcalakį¹£aį¹a as regards the study of purÄį¹as is debated, it is still considered one of the defining characteristics of purÄį¹ic literature (Rocher 1986: 24ā30).
The provenance of the VP is between the first and the fourth century CE and it is considered a PÄƱcarÄtra10 document by some scholars (Farquhar 1920: 145; Rocher 1986: 248; Pathak 1997: 20). Its geographic area of composition is not known, however, a theory as to its origins in Andhra has been advanced (Vaidya 1921ā26: 1. 352). The VP is one of the shorter purÄį¹as comprising six books with 22, 16, 18, 24, 38, and 8 chapters respectively. All of RÄmÄnujaās citations from the VP are to be found in the critical edition of this purÄį¹a (Pathak 1997).11
Several commentaries on the VP are extant as printed editions or manuscripts: Viį¹£į¹ucittaās VyÄkhyÄ/Viį¹£į¹ucittÄ«ya (twelfth century CE), ÅrÄ«dharaās ÄtmaprakÄÅa/SvaprakÄÅa (1276 CE), GangÄdharaās Saį¹
keta (1383 CE), Ratnagarbhaās Vaiį¹£į¹avÄkÅ«tacandrikÄ (1811 CE) and others such as the commentaries of Nį¹hari, and KumÄra Yoginās Viį¹£į¹u VallabhÄ (Pathak 1997: 16; Rocher 1986: 249). Wilson, in his translation of the VP not...
