A NEW STAR IN THE ADVAITIC GALAXY
Bellamkonda Ramaraya (Rama Rao) Kavi
DR.
K. S. R. DATTA, M. A., Ph. D.
The
philosophy of Advaita, which is the true purport of
the Upanishads, is the life of Indian culture. It has been taught by great
preceptors from time immemorial as the culmination and goal of all systems of
philosophy and religious beliefs. The Advaita
tradition traces its inspiration to God Himself. Based on the Upanishads, this
system was expounded fairly and consistently by Gaudapada.
Later, Sankara, believed to be an incarnation of Lord
Siva and the greatest consolidator of Advaita,
systematically worked it out in his commentaries on the prasthanatraya. After him, his followers, through all
centuries, took upon themselves the task of interpreting, elucidating and
supplementing his teachings. Some others, taking cudgels against his opponents,
defended Sankara by not only interpreting,
elucidating and supplementing his doctrines but also refuting every argument of
Sankara’s opponents. One such great genius and an
original thinker in the recent past, who vehemently championed the cause of Sankara’s Advaita, by his
classical and immortal works, was Bellamkonda Ramaraya (Rama Rao) Kavi,
a bitter critic of Visishtadvaita. He was not
only protector but also a powerful interpreter of the Advaita
of Sankara. Like the authors of the Bhamati and the Vivarana, the two post-Sankara schools of Advaita, he worked out the Vedanta in its details. He
thoroughly investigated the Vedas, the Agamas and the Puranas
and brought together authoritative statements for establishing the truth of Advaita and the hollowness of tenets and arguments of the
opponents of Advaita. He made Advaita
a comprehensive philosophy with every stone properly set in and well-carved in
the edifice of Vedanta raised on Sankara’s
foundational concepts.
A born poet-philosopher, a great devotee of Lord Hayagriva and author of 143 works in Sanskrit, Bellamkonda Ramaraya (Rama Rao)
Kavi, believed to be Aparasankara, lived from 1875 to 1914 in Pamidipadu
in Guntur District of Andhra Pradesh. His parents
were Mohan Rao and Hanumamba. He was a Niyogi-Brahmin of Bharadvaja-gotra
and belonged to the Asvalayana-sutra. He lost his
father in his sixth year and was put to school by his uncle Kesava
Rao. But owing to constant ill-health he discontinued English studies and began
to study Sanskrit under his distant relative Sitaramayya. He evinced keen
interest in his Sanskrit studies and improved his health, too. Thus he switched
over to Sanskrit from English.
Even
as a small boy, Ramaraya was very pious and was a
devotee of Lord Vishnu. He used to offer worship daily with great devotion at
the
One
day, the Lord Hayagriva appeared in his vision and
initiated him into the Hayagriva Mantra. His constant
Japa of the Mantra enabled him to start writing
poetry in his early age. By that time he had read only a few cantos in the Raghuvamsa and Kumarasambhava under the teacher. He stopped reading
the Kavyas under the teacher as the grace of Lord Hayagriva had given him sufficient knowledge.
He
married Adilakshmamma, the second daughter of Singaraju Venkataramanayya of
As
he was born in a Niyogi-Brahmin family following the
traditions and customs of Visishtadvaitins, he used
to read the Sribhashya and Gitabhashya of Ramanuja. But after reading the Vedantapanchadasi of Vidyaranya,
he began to find many contradictions and inconsistencies in the philosophy of
Ramanuja. He found the Bhashyas of Sankara to
be more logical and meaningful than Ramanuja’s.
In
the meanwhile he fell out with his religious teacher Prativadibhayankaram
Rangacharyulu of Tirupati
over the issue of Taptachakrankanam (branding the body with hot metallic
disc and conch). Thus Ramaraya, who had been
faithfully following the Vaishnava religion and Visishtadvaita philosophy, discarded it and began to attack
the same. He became a staunch supporter of Advaita
and a great devotee of Sankara. He firmly believed
that Advaita is the message of Upanishads and
dedicated his whole life for the defence of Advaita from onslaughts of Ramanuja and Vedantadesika.
He produced the monumental works like the Sankarasankara-bhashjavimarsha, Bhagavadgita-bhashyarkaprakasika,
siddhantasindhuh, Krishnoddhavasamvada
vyakhya and some other works defending Sankara and criticising Ramanuja.
Thus by a turn of event, he turned into a great champion of Advaita
and a bitter critic of Visishtadvaita.
Apart
from the philosophical works, he wrote a number of Kavyas,
like the “Samudramathana-champu”, “Rukminiparinayachampu”, Kandarpadarpavilasa-bhana, Krishnalilatarangini
and others; works on ethics like the Dharmaprasamsa, etc.
His
Stotras which are about 70 in number are addressed to
several deities. But his favourite deity is Lord Hayagriva. His Stotras include
the Hakaradihayagrivasahasranaamaavali and Vakaradivishnusahasranaamaavali. They reveal his gushing devotion for God. He was not only an original writer but also a commentator,
par excellence. His writings are marked by easy style, clarity of expression
and vigour.
In
his undaunted task of attacking Visishtadvaita and
re-establishing the soundness of Advaita, Ramaraya must have been inspired by similar writings of his
predecessors. There are several works which refute Visishtadvaita.
They are the Tatvachandrika of Umamaheswara,
Virodhavarudhini of Umamaheswara,
the Visishtadvaita- dushanasarasangraha
of Brahmadevapandita, the Visishtadvaitabhanjanam, etc. However, all these works are
either incomplete or partially sufficient or not noteworthy to meet the
requirements, i. e., refuting Visishtadvaita
in detail and re-establishing the soundness of Advaita.
The only Advaitin who could come a little nearer to Ramaraya in this regard in the recent times was the late Mahamabopadhyaya N. S. Anantakrishna
Sastry (a junior contemporary of Ramaraya)
who devoted his whole life to the defence of Advaita, particularly from the onslaughts of the Visishtadvaitins, by producing several valuable works,
refuting the latter. Paradoxically, Ramaraya, who
wrote earlier more powerfully and exhaustively than his junior, has not been
duly recognised or his contribution to Advaita not realised. It was
perhaps due to lack of publicity to his works or want sincere disciples and
followers to fulfil the aim of Ramaraya.
Ramaraya’s aim being to
prove that only Sankara’s Advaitic
interpretation of the Upanishads, the Brahmasutras and
the Bhagavadgita is correct, he does not strictly follow
any school of post-Sankara Advaita,
i.e., either the Bhamati or the Vivarana,
though he seems to lean more on the latter. However, he has no apathy or hatred
for the Bhamati and, at times, he makes use of both the
schools since his sole aim is to strengthen Sankara’s
position and establish Advaita after countering the
attacks of Ramanuja and others.
Still,
as he is not a blind follower of the earlier Advaitins
however great they might be, he is so bold that he does not hesitate to
criticize, indirectly, even the great Vachaspati whom
he styles tan aham
anujjhitatarkapishachan manye.
This alludes to Vachaspati’s remarks that anyathakhyati too is embedded in the anirvachaniyakhyati. While he holds Vidyaranya
in high respect referring to him as Vidyaranyasricharanah,
he does not hesitate to criticise him saying that the
later’s verse, dehadipanjaram yantram, etc.,
does not sufficiently explain the content of the Bhagavadgita XVIII, 61. It is not understandable why he does not like Anandagiri, the great Advaitic
commentator. He criticises him for having adopted the
reading samanadhikaranena na nilotaladivat, etc., when Sankara
says samanadhikaranyena nilotpalavat,
etc., on the Gita, II, 16. On some other occasion he
questions Anandagiri’s exclusive versatility. (Kim lasyaiva mukhe suryodayassamjatah, Sarirakacatussutrivicarah p. 53) While commenting on
the verse idam to natapaskaya na bhaktaya, etc., (Gita, XVIII 67), he calls Anandagiri a Mandamati.
The
contribution of Ramaraya to Advaita
Vendanta is two-fold, firstly in the nature of
general elucidation or elaboration of the central doctrine in a very easy
language) and secondly in the form of defence of Advaita from the attacks of Ramanuja and his followers. The
following works come under the first category.
1.
Vedantasangrahah, 2. Vedantaniscayah,
3. Advaitavijayah, 4. Siddhantasindhuh,
5. Vedantamuktavali, 6. Debadehibhavanirmulanam,
7. Advaitamrutam, 8. Vedantatattvamrutam,
9. Sarirakacatussutrivicarah.
Some
of them are original works and some commentaries. In these works he states all
the views of Advaita clearly and exhaustively.
His
substantial and original contribution to Advaita
Vedanta lies not merely in elucidating the Advaitic
theories but also in his gigantic effort to defend Advaita
from the onslaughts of Visishtadvaita and establish
it on a sound and high pedestal. During this process, he adopts two methods.
First, he examines the opponents’ (Ramanuja and his followers’) views and
criticism and shows fallacies and contradictions in their statements, arguments
and proofs. Next, he supplies additional proofs or arguments, not advanced by
earlier Advaitins, for establishing the central
doctrine of Advaita from the very same sources or
authorities on which the Visishtadvaitins
rely for establishing their views. The following are the works of Ramaraya wherein he criticises
the views, arguments, proofs and interpretations of the Visishtadvaitim
and advances his own arguments and proofs for defending the central doctrine of
Advaita:
1.
Sankarasankarabhashyavimarsah, 2. Bhagavadgitabhashyarkaprakasika,
3. Sarirakachatussutri vicharah,
4. Siddhantasindhuh, 5. Krishnoddhavasamvada-vyakhya.
Each
of these works is a contribution by itself to Advaita
Vedanta since it replies to the charges levelled against
Sankara by the Visishtadvaitins.
Ramaraya’s chief objective in producing the Bhagavadgitabhashyarkaprakasika is to provide a sound and logical basis
to the Advaitic doctrines. He defines several
important terms silently passed over by Sankara or
adduces further proofs for establishing the Advaitic
points of view or interprets them better. The first two of the above works
remain his most important contribution to the development of Advaitic literature.
Let
us examine briefly his main and substantial contribution to Advaita.
His first contribution lies in establishing the attributelessness
(Nirviseshatva)
of the Brahman with the help of Srutis and Smritis after refuting the arguments and views of Ramanuja.
He examines (Sankara
sankarabhashyavimarsah. pp. 140-207) in detail
the meaning of each Sruti quoted (Sribhashya I. 1.1) by Ramanuja to prove
the Visishtadvaitic theory of the qualified Brahman,
refutes the interpretation of Ramanuja, finally gives his own interpretation
and proves that these Srutis establish only the Advaitic concept of attributeless
Brahman. Later, he questions the claim of Ramanuja that the Vishnupurana upholds the qualified nature of the Brahman. He rejects the
interpretation of verses of the Vishnupurana cited
by Ramanuja as incorrect and proves at great length, quoting several hundreds
of verses from the same Vishnupurana (which Ramanuja holds as the supreme
authority for the concept of Saviseshabrahma), the
attributelessness of the Brahman. Similarly he quotes
profusely from the Sutasamhita and the Bhagavatapurana. Thus Ramaraya
has enriched the Advaitic literature by supplying a
host of additional proofs, not cited by earlier writers, from various Smritis and Puranas; in this way
he has elevated the Puranas and the allied literature
to the rank of Srutis and unearthed the Advaitic secrets hitherto unnoticed.
His
next contribution to Advaita is establishing the
concept of the attributeless Brahman by the aid of
various Pramanas. In order to meet the objection (nirviseshavastuvadibhir
nirviseshe vastunidam pramanam iti nasakyate vaktum; saviseshavastusahayatvat sarvapramananam.
Sribhashya, 1. 1. 1.) of Ramanuja that no Pramanas support the attributeless
Brahman, Ramaraya defends and establishes the Nirviseshatva of Brahman not only by the aid of the
means of knowledge as Pratyaksha and Sabda but also by coining an Anumana
as follows:
brahma nirvisesham, sushuptyadishu, brahmani kasyapi
viseshanasyadarsanat, vyatirekena ghatadivat.
Apart
from showing that there are several hundreds of Srutis
in support of the Advaitic theory, he not only
rejects Ramanuja’s interpretation of several Srutis but also points out fourteen serious contradictions
in the interpretation of Srutis as given by Ramanuja;
and these contradictions can be rightly called the Chaturdasadushani of
Ramanuja’s philosophy. Hence, these charges act as a
counter to Vedanta Desika’s Satadushani.
Ramaraya’s third
contribution lies in providing (indirect) replies to Vedanta Desika’s Satadushani which
purports to point out one hundred fallacies or contradictions in the system of Advaita of Sankara. From the time
of Vedanta Desika there has been no dedicated attempt
on the part of any Advaitin to provide replies to the
charges of Vedanta Desika against Sankara’s
Advaita. Even the great Appayya
Dikshita did not take up the job. Barring a few
casual (direct or indirect) references as replies to the Satadushani provided in the Advaitasiddhi and
its commentary, the Laghuchandrika, the two post-Desika
dialectical works, practically there have been no noteworthy works exclusively
dedicated to refuting or providing replies to Vedanta Desika’s
charges till the emergence of Ramaraya’s works.
Though he does not actually mention by name the Satadushani, he bears in mind the objections of Vedanta Desika
and criticises them mostly in the sankarabhashyavimarsah, the Bhagavadgitabashyarkaprakasika, the Sarirakachatussutrivicharah,
etc. Hence Ramaraya is the first Advaitin who has systematically answered almost all the
charges of the Satadushani. However, he is relegated to the
background owing to the negligence of scholars and lack of due publicity to his
works and he is not known as a powerful critic of Vedanta Desika.
As the Sankara sankarabhashyavimarsah
is a detailed direct reply to Ramanuja’s Sribhashya (up to the Jijnasadhikarana), on which the Satadushani is mainly based, it can be safely said that the charges of the Satadushani were answered by Ramaraya
earlier (i. e., in 1913 A. D.) than by N. S. Anantakrishna Sastry who produced
the Satabhushani in 1956 A. D.
Another
valuable contribution of Ramaraya is his elaboration
of Sankara’s view that the Purvamimamsa
and the Uttaramimamsa are two different systems. He
elaborates this idea by giving 102 meanings (Sarirakachatussutrivicharah, pp. 1-53) to the word atah in athato brahmajijnasa.
His
fifth contribution lies in his emphatic defence of Sankara who says that the Bhagavadgita commences and concludes with the Jnanayoga. While Sankara holds that the Bhagavadgita actually commences with asochyananvasocha.stvam, etc. (II-11), Ramanuja rejects Sankara’s view and observes that na tvevaham jatu nasam, etc. (II-12), is the Gitasastraprarambha as it undoubtedly supports his theory
of plurality and reality of souls, reality of the universe, etc. This view of
Ramanuja on the Gitasastraprarambha almost demolishes the whole of the Advaitic theory, as it amounts to proving the denial of the
authority of the Bhagavadgita and sastraprarambha to the Advaitins.
None of the earlier commentators has attempted to disprove Ramanuja’s
stand and this unique privilege fell to the lot of Ramaraya
who refutes this in detail in unequivocal terms and proves that II .11 is the
beginning of the Bhagavadgita.
Another
noteworthy contribution of Ramaraya is his emphatic
restatement of the Advaitic view that Ajnana is a positive entity. He states that it is proved by
the Smritis also. He examines in detail (Sankara sankarabhashyavimarsah.
pp. 292-300) the Srutis and Smritis
quoted by Ramanuja’s interpretation and concludes
that Srutis and Smritis
prove the existence of Ajnana as a positive entity.
He remarks that Ramanuja’s failure to recognise it is either due to his hatred for Advaita or dullness of his intellect. In his own verses,
about 120 in number, he gives a summary of proofs from the Vishnupurana for establishing the positive nature of
Ajnana. Though the Advaitasiddhi also establishes the positive character of nescience by quoting
the Srutis, it does not quote from the Smritis. Hence here lies Ramaraya’s
contribution.
The
seventh and very important contribution is collecting evidences from several
authorities to prove that Sankara’s interpretation of
Tattvamasi is not fanciful and mischievous and
that it is upheld by the Smritis also. Using the Srutis, Smritis and logic he
explains, on the lines of Sankara, the meaning of Tattvamasi in detail and rejects Ramanuja’s interpretation of Tattvamasi and shows it lacks authority. He remarks that the revered sage Badarayana, knowing with his divine sight that Tattvamasi would have mischievous interpretation
at the hands of some wicked persons, has (himself) described or elaborated its
meaning in his Skandapurana, taking recourse to Bhagalakshana. Even in the Sutasamhita the
sage explains its meaning clearly. The Adhyatmaramayana too
concurs with the Advatic interpretation of Tattvamasi. Thus, by citing evidences from the
most authentic works, Ramaraya has upheld Sankara’s interpretation of Tattvamasi and incidentally stressed the importance of these works in
substantiating the Advaitic tenets. This rare
contribution brings sanctity to Sankara’s
interpretation.
As
seen from the above evidences it is clear that the contribution of Ramaraya to Advaita is great. It
is my earnest hope that among the post-Sankara Advaitins he will be recognised
by the scholars as the most powerful critic of Visishtadvaita
and a great champion of Advaita.