Explain and Evaluate Ramanuja’s Objections Against Shankar’s Advaita Vedanta
Introduction
Ramanuja and Shankar are two of the most significant philosophers in Indian tradition. While both are rooted in Vedantic thought, their views are fundamentally different. Shankar’s Advaita Vedanta teaches non-dualism — that Brahman alone is real, and the world is illusion (maya). Ramanuja, on the other hand, proposed Vishishtadvaita or qualified non-dualism, which accepts the reality of the world and individuality of souls while affirming the oneness of Brahman. Ramanuja strongly objected to many of Shankar’s ideas. This essay explores and evaluates his criticisms.
1. Reality of the World
One major objection Ramanuja had against Shankar was his view that the world is an illusion (maya). According to Shankar, only Brahman is real, and the world is a false appearance. Ramanuja rejected this by saying that the world cannot be an illusion because it functions in a logical and ordered way. The regularity of natural laws and moral laws suggests the world is real. He argued that Brahman manifests through the world and therefore, the world is a part of Brahman’s reality.
2. Nature of Brahman
Shankar described Brahman as nirguna, meaning without attributes. Ramanuja disagreed and said that Brahman is saguna, or full of attributes. For Ramanuja, Brahman is personal, loving, and possesses qualities such as knowledge, bliss, and power. He equated Brahman with Vishnu or Narayana. He felt that denying Brahman’s qualities makes the divine distant and inaccessible to human devotion. In his view, a personal God with qualities is essential for religious worship and spiritual connection.
3. Concept of Jiva (Soul)
Shankar believed that the individual self (jiva) is not different from Brahman; they are one and the same. The feeling of individuality is due to ignorance (avidya). Ramanuja disagreed. He maintained that jivas are real and individual, though they are dependent on Brahman. He compared it to the relationship between the body and soul — many parts but one unified being. The jiva is not Brahman itself, but a part of Brahman’s body, having a real and eternal identity.
4. Liberation (Moksha)
Shankar taught that liberation comes from knowledge (jnana) — realizing one’s unity with Brahman. Ramanuja, however, emphasized devotion (bhakti) as the path to liberation. For him, true knowledge comes from loving surrender to God. Moksha is not merging into Brahman but enjoying eternal service and closeness to God. He found Shankar’s impersonal liberation as unattractive and impractical for most people.
5. Authority of Scriptures
Ramanuja accused Shankar of misinterpreting the scriptures. He argued that the Vedas and Upanishads should be understood in their full context and not selectively interpreted to support the idea of non-duality. Ramanuja insisted on a balance between the literal and spiritual meaning, always aligned with devotional and theistic interpretation.
Conclusion
Ramanuja’s objections highlight a fundamental disagreement in understanding God, self, and the world. He brought a more personal, emotional, and devotional perspective to Vedanta, making it accessible and appealing to many. His critique of Shankar’s Advaita was not just philosophical, but also religious and practical. By insisting on the reality of the world, individuality of souls, and a loving personal God, Ramanuja reshaped Indian philosophy and laid the foundation for devotional movements like Vaishnavism.