The Historical Position of Ramananda

BY J. N. FARQUHAR, M.A., D.LITT. (OXON) T AM glad my paper in the Journal for April, 1920, on the above subject has drawn from Sir George Grierson and Mr. Sita Earn their interesting articles in the October and April numbers. I had already given up the theory that Ramananda himself came from South India before the appearance of Sir George Grierson's paper; and the evidence which he has been able to lay before us has strengthened me in my changed position. I still believe, however, that the source of the teaching of Ramananda is to be found, not in the Sri-Vaishnava sect, but in the Adhyatma Rdmdyana. I am extremely sorry if any word of mine has caused Mr. Sita, Ram or any other Hindu the slightest pain. I have sought to write with the deepest respect, not to say reverence, for all the beliefs and feelings of the Hindu people. But I hardly think that any Hindu scholar will say that I am wrong in using the word " harem" in connexion with Sita's captivity in Lanka, since Antahpura is the word used in the text of Valmiki's Rdmdyana.1 I should also like to assure Mr. Sita, Ram that I have considered very carefully all the similarities between the Sri-Vaishnava sect and Ramananda's position. The difference between us lies not in any want of consideration, but in a different judgment as to the conclusion which ought to be drawn from all the evidence that lies before us. A. The question at issue, then, is the source of the Ramanandl system. All Ramanandls believe to-day that Ramananda belonged to the 6rI-Vaishnava sect, of which Ramanuja is the chief ornament, but that, in consequence

1 Aranya-kanda, canto 54, vv. 13 ff.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University Library Frankfurt, on 23 Nov 2017 at 16:04:26, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00053569 374 THE HISTORICAL POSITION OF KAMANANDA

of a dispute arising from the extreme rigour of Srl- Vaishnava social rules, he left it and founded a sect of his own. Yet, in spite of the breach, it is believed that he taught the Visishtadvaita system of Ramanuja to his disciples, and that that has been the doctrine of his church from that day to this. The tradition is as old as Nabhaji, the author of the Bhakta-mdla. The exact date of this work is not known,1 but the general date of the author is quite clear ; and we may make the bearing of his evidence on the problem intelligible by saying that he wrote about 150 years after the death of Ramananda.2 The tradition has not been traced farther back : no allusion to it has been found in Tulsi Das, whose Rdmdyana was begun about a century after the Master's death.3 But if the tradition is universal to-day, and if it goes back as far as Nabhaji, why should we suggest that it is untrue ? The settlement of all questions about Ramananda is beset with very grave difficulties, because the Master wrote no book himself; and none of his immediate disciples left a piece of literature fit to serve as a picture of the teaching of the great leader. The earliest book which gives any detailed and trust- worthy evidence as to the Ramanandi faith is Tulsi Das's great work, and the next is the Bhakta-mdla. It is quite true that the greatest of Ramananda's immediate disciples, Kabir, left a body of very valuable and original verses ; but as his religious position is in several features very different from his Master's, we cannot take his utterances as direct evidence of Ramananda's beliefs, although they may possibly be used to throw light on the question indirectly. Nor do the poems of Pipajl, Rai Das, and Senaji give us much help. On the other hand, scholars of every type regard it as certain

1 Sir George Grierson tells us that the year A.D. 1639 is implied in the text, JRA8-, 1901, p. 607. 2 My own dates for Ramananda's life are A.D. 1400-70 ; and at this point they are significant for this reason, that no scholar will be found to propose later dates. 3 The date is A.D. 1574 ; Grierson I.A., xxii, 93.

that Tulsi Das represents Ramananda's main teaching so faithfully that we need not hesitate to turn to him for evidence. But before we study Tulsi Das, we had better realize what Ramanuja's system is. In contrast to Sankara's absolute monism, Ramanuja taught a modified monism. Both say " Brahman is all that is " ; but, while Sahkara attributes our vision of the world and all plurality to mdyd, illusion, Ramanuja regards the world and human souls as forming the body of God. Each soul is an amsa of the body of Brahman, and is a personal being, possessing a measure of freedom. The world and souls are real: there is no mdyd. Thus, both these thinkers repudiate entirely the Samkhyan doctrine of prakriti, primordial matter ; and Ramanuja repudiates mdyd as well. The Brahman of Ramanuja is Narayana, also called Vishnu, the god of the sect. Release is won by knowledge of Narayana-Vishnu, and knowledge is gained by meditative bhakti. To Sankara Brahman is undifferenced intelligence; it is impersonal and nirguna. To Ramanuja Brahman is personal and " endowed with all imaginable auspicious qualities ", and thus can never be regarded as nirguna. To Sankara Brahman has no consort, but Ramanuja calls Narayana " the Lord of Lakshmi, the abode of Lakshml". The goddess, however, is not woven into his theology at all. The Sri-Vaishnava sect adores Narayana-Vishnu with his consorts, and all the Vyuhas and their consorts, and all the Avataras with their consorts and followers. Rama is but one of many Avataras. They refuse to worship Siva or any other god; but they recognize every divinity of the Vaishnava group. The system is called the Sri-Vaishnava Sampradaya ; and, since the Supreme is Narayana, the mantra of the sect is Orii namo Ndrdyandya. Brahman ascetics belonging to the sect are Tridandi Sannyasis. The teaching of Tulsi Das is singularly different from all this. Rama is the Supreme, and all the phrases of the

Upanishads are applied to him and to no other. In Rama alone is there mukti in this evil Kali age. His consort is Slid, and she is prakriti, the source of the material world, and also mdyd. Rama, the Supreme, wields the mighty power of maya. There is no Visishtadvaita teaching to be found in the book. Ramanandls call their system the Sri-Sampradaya; and the mantra of the sect is Om Ramdya namah. Ramanandi ascetics are not sannyasls, but sadhus, and are called Vairagls. How are we to explain these facts ? The Tulsikrit Ramayana is universally held to represent the teaching of Ramananda; and it is the Bible of all Ramanandls to-day. Yet it contains no single doctrine which is characteristic of Ramanuja. Further, it is clear as noonday that Tulsi Das's system is older than Ramananda. It is found in the Adhydtma Ramayana; and while there are slight differences, the points of agreement are so numerous that the only natural solution of the problem seems to be to conclude that Ramananda and his guru Raghavananda were ascetics belonging to a Ramaite order and used the Adhydtma Ramayana as their scripture. Tulsi Das wrote not in order to displace the Adhydtma Ramayana, but to give its teaching to the people in the vernacular. The following facts seem to justify these conclusions :— 1. The Adhydtma Ramayana and the Rdma-charit-mdnas teach the same theological system. Rama is the Brahman of the Upanishads, beyond the reach of human minds, without qualities, nirguna, aguna; and yet he became incarnate for the sake of the gods and his own beloved followers : and thus, living under maya, he has many qualities, is saguna. In this evil Kali age there is Release in Rama alone. He is therefore the Lord of Brahma and Siva. Through bhakti Release is won. Those who take refuge in his name find Release. Rama wields mdyd. By it he created the whole world. He is the great actor. By mdyd he deceives men. By it he seemed

to be deceived himself when incarnate, but he is always the Lord, the Controller of mdyd. Rama is the Lord of Slta, who is both praJcriti and mdyd.1 What Rama wills is done, and none can alter it; determinism is taught. Thus the system taught in these two works is a theological conglomerate, formed from the Samkhya, the Advaita Vedanta and a theistic incarnation theory. 2. The Adhydtma Ramayana is written as a sort of repro- duction of the original Ramayana, with the same number of books, each bearing the old title, although the theology is completely new. Tulsi Das follows the same plan. 3. In the Adhydtma Ramayana we are told that Siva originally told the whole story to ParvatI; and Tulsi Das faithfully repeats this account. 4. In the original epic, the real Slta is carried away by Ravana ; but in the Adhydtma Ramayana Rama makes the real Slta enter the fire before the appearance of Ravana. It is thus an illusory Slta that is carried away to Larika ; and the real Slta does not reappear until the fire-ordeal is held after the death of Ravana. Tulsi Das has adopted this also. 5. The baby Rama, in the Adhydtma Ramayana shows himself as the eternal One to his mother, and then takes again the form of a baby and begins to cry. The episode reappears in Tulsi Das. 6. The Adhydtma Ramayana is used by all Ramanandis to-day, and they possess a Hindi commentary on it. 7. In the Adhydtma Ramayana there is a reference to the Agastya Sariihitd.2 It was clearly used as the authoritative work for worship by those who used the Adhydtma Ramayana.

1 Slta is identified with prakriti and mdyd in the much earlier Rdma- purva-tdpanlya Up., 17, 24-6, 61, 89, and in the Rdma-uttara-tdpaniya Up. (Deussen, Sechzig Upanishad's des Veda, pp. 807, 808, 813, 817, 821). Indeed, the same essential theology can be traced in these Upanishads, in the Adhydtma Ramayana and in the Rdma-charit- mdna8. a IV, iv. 31.

The same Agastya Sarhhitd is in use in Sanskrit1 among Ramanandis to-day ; and a Hindi version 2 of several chapters has been published with a life of Ramananda included. On the other hand, there is a Ramanandl work in Sanskrit, which I have not yet seen, and which probably does contain Visishtadvaita doctrine. It is called Vaishnava Matdbja Bhdskara, i.e. " Light on the Lotus of Vaishnava Opinions." (Readers will at once think of the famous Mahayana Buddhist work, the Saddharma Pundarika.) As to its date, author, or contents, I have no information ; but it is probably a fairly recent work. B. But if Ramananda and Tulsi Das after him taught a Rama gospel so distinct from the Ramanujlya system, how did the tradition originate and find credence ? It is probable that it arose from the concurrence of two distinct causes. First, the 8ri-bhdshya of Ramanuja is such a noble theistic document that it is much used in many schools besides his own; and it would be strange indeed if there" were not a number of scholarly Ramanandl Vairagis in the sixteenth century accustomed to read it for themselves and to teach it to disciples. Since Ramananda had left no bhashya, Ramanuja's work was clearly the best Vedanta treatise for them to use. The differences between it and their own Rama-faith would not trouble them, since there was no Ramanandl bltdshya to make them stand out in prominence. Secondly, there were considerable groups of Ramanujiyas in North India in close proximity to the Ramanandis in those days, just as there are to-day. What, then, could be more natural than to make friends with this Vaishnava group,

1 Published by Seth Chhotelal Lakshmichand, Fyzabad. Siva and Parvati appear at the beginning, but the work is a dialogue between Agastya and Sutlkshna, and deals almost exclusively with ritual. A small handbook for Ramanandl pujarls is published both in Sanskrit and Hindi, the Srlrdmarchana Paddhati, The publisher is Seth Chhotelal. 2 Published at the Gokuldasji Banahar Pushtakalay, Dakar, near Anand, Gujarat, and also at the Jnanabhaskar Press, Barabanki.

whose Sri-bhdshya they revered and loved ? They might even receive instruction in the Visishtadvaita system, if there were some notable guru in the neighbourhood. From this friendship a feeling of unity would arise, and some Ramanujiya would one day suggest that, after all, they were really one, and that there was no material difference in their teaching. Once the belief in the unity of the two groups was established, the rise of the tradition about the Master would only be a question of time. There is another point. In the tradition itself there is clear proof that the intercourse from which it sprang took place in the north, not in the south. Ramanujiyas in the south universally speak of their sect as the Sri-Vaishnava Sampraddya, while in the north the phrase they use is the Sri-Sampraddya; and it is the latter phrase that is used by Ramanandis. It is clear that the theory of the four Sampradayas {Sri, Brahma, Rudra, and Sanakddi, i.e. the northern Ramanujiyas, the Madhvas, the Vishnusvamls, and the Nimbarkas) arose among Ramanujiyas in the north, before the rise of the Ramanandl, Vallabhacharya, and Chaitanya movements, which changed so radically the balance of the sects. The Ramanandis would then take over the theory from their friends. Thus the evidence suggests that Raghavananda, who came from the south, was a Ramaite Vairagi, and used as his scriptures the Vdlmiki and the Adhyatma Ramayanas and the Agastya Samhitd, and that he won over Ramananda to his faith early in the fifteenth century, and thus started the new movement. At some date in the sixteenth century there came friendly intercourse with the Ramanujiyas of the north, and the belief in their identity ; and then there followed the legend about Ramananda. The whole had taken firm root before Nabhajl wrote, and has continued to be believed until to-day. A most interesting parallel, from north India also, may be cited to show how easily such a mistaken theory arises.

The Vishnusvami form of the Vedanta is dualist, dvaita, while the Vallabhacharya form is monistic; indeed, it is called suddhadvaita. To Vishnusvami Radha was a woman, while to Vallabhacharya she was the eternal consort of Krishna the supreme Brahman. Yet the Vallabhas have almost completely absorbed the Vishnusvamis; and in the process they started the theory that the two are one ; and that mis- statement is almost universally believed in North India to-day. I do not suggest that I have proved my case; but I do suggest that it is clear, on the face of the evidence, that there is a serious problem to be solved ; and that my reconstruction of the history may possibly prove right. Further study of all the relevant literature may reveal decisive facts.