Chapter 5: Bhakti Yoga

In this chapter, Rāmānuja’s understanding of bhakti and śraddhā attributed to Bhagavad-gītā has critically been discussed. Bhakti, in Hinduism, refers to devotion and the love of God as a person by a devotee. The Saṃskṛt word bhakti is derived from the root bhaj, which means ‘share, participate, devotion to, fondness for, homage, faith or love, worship i.e. a spiritual, religious principle or means of salvation.’^[1] The term bhakti, in Vedic saṃskṛt literature, has a general meaning of ‘mutual attachment, fondness for, devotion to’ such as in human relationships, most often between beloved-lover, friend-friend, king-subject, and parent-child. It may refer to devotion towards a spiritual teacher (Gurū) as gurū-bhakti, or to one’s own personal god, or for spirituality without form (nirguṇa.)

For Rāmānuja, the terms cognition (Vedanā), worship (Upāsanā), meditation (Dhyāna) etc. are synonyms for bhakti^[2] which constitute the means for realizing the Supreme Person who is the Supreme Brahman and who is described in the Vedānta as the goal of all aspirants.^[3] The fundamental teaching of Rāmānuja’s Gītā Bhāṣya is the attainment of God through bhakti only.^[4] But, Bhagavad-gītā teaches that all the yogas in the Bhagavad-gītā such as Karma yoga, Jñāna yoga Dhyāna yoga, the yoga of Renunciation, the yoga of Devotion, etc. are equally significant for salvation or mokṣa. ^[5] Therefore, the question emerges; why Rāmānuja has attributed bhakti yoga to be the main path to salvation in his Gītā Bhāṣya? In this chapter (Ch hereafter), an attempt is made to investigate whether he is faithful to the text in interpreting the text of the Bhagavad-gītā.

Bhakti in Bhagavad-gītā has an internal relation with śraddhā. Śraddhā in Bhagavad-gītā can be translated as ‘faith.’ Śraddhā comes first and then comes bhakti. Performing action guided by true knowledge increases śraddhā of the particular action. Bhakti also must be based on śraddhā. Unless one has śraddha, one cannot have bhakti. Even while performing an action one must have śraddhā which leads to bhakti. So, it can be said that bhakti is supported by śraddhā. Śraddhā and bhakti are not separated but they are distinct. Bhakti in the Bhagavad-gītā is said to be the culmination of Śraddhā. Śraddhā can be defined as the initial stage of bhakti.

Śraddhā in Bhagavad-gītā is of three kinds. In Bhagavad-gītā, Chapter XVII.2 Kṛṣṇa says to Arjuna:

trividhā bhavati śraddhā dehinām sā svabhāvajā–sāttvikī rajasī caiva tamasī ceti tām śṛṇū.

The meaning of the verse is that ‘śraddhā is of three kinds such as sattvika, rajasika and tamasika according to the innate or inborn nature’. In the verse svabhāva means ‘own nature or inborn nature of a person, but svabhāva is not such that which is constituted of the three guṇas. It is beyond guṇas.’ Śraddhā can also be beyond guṇas i.e. guṇātita.

Commenting on Chapter XVII.3 Rāmānuja writes,

“The attainment of the fruits is principally dependent on faith because if one is associated with the faith of a virtuous action, he becomes united with the fruits of (such) virtuous action.”

What is meant by this is one has to perform the action of particular śraddhā/ faith [for example, svāttika or rajasika or tamasika] to attain the result of that śraddhā/ faith of that action. But what it means is that, whatever faith/ śraddhā a person acquires, he is of the person of that faith, and having that faith he can perform of that action faithfully. But that does not mean that one has to perform the action of that faith to attain the fruits of that faith; one has to have that faith of action not to attain the fruits, but to perform it. Faith is acquired and it is needed for anything, but should be guided by reason and intellect. For example, what has been taught to Arjuna by Kṛṣṇa is, every person’s faith is of that quality or guṇa and performs action rightly being associated with that faith.

Bhakti and śraddhā both should not be dependent on guṇas. Rāmānuja’s contention in Chapter XVII.3 is contradicted with the interpretation of Chapter XVII.4.

In Chapter XVII.3 he says, one has to perform the action of that śraddhā/ faith to attain the result of that śraddhā/ faith of that action only, but now in Chapter XVII.4 he says that:

“Those who are full of sattva guṇa and are associated with faith characterised by the sattva guṇa, worship gods (without the desire for fruits and with the conviction that the Lord is Internal controller of the gods.)”

In this comments he means to say that one has to perform action of that faith without the desire of its fruits. So, it seems that Rāmānuja is not faithful to the interpretation of the verses.

Since bhakti is also internally related to śraddhā, bhakti in absence of śraddhā is like a body without a soul. To have bhakti in something is to have śraddhā first. That is, bhakti should be founded on śraddhā. For example, to attain the Supreme Person through bhakti, jñāna or karma, he has to have śraddhā in both the Supreme and the means. Unless we have śraddhā, we cannot reach the goal.

In Chapter VII.21 Kṛṣṇa says to Arjuna that:

yaḥ yaḥ yām yām tanuṃ bhaktaḥ śraddhyā architum ischhati/
tasya tasyāchalaṃ śraddhām tāmeva vidaddhāmi ahaṃ//

“those devotees who worship the gods with firm faith, I [Kṛṣṇa] in relation to such devotees bestow the same faith.”

Again in the next verse (VII.22), He says:

saḥ tayā śraddhayā yuktaḥ tasya ārādhanam īhate/
labhate ca tataḥ kāmānmayāiva vihitānhi tān//

“These gods such as sun god etc. are My [Kṛṣṇa] manifestation only. So, whoever devotees worship such gods with faith, they attain their desired result.”

The meaning is that if a devotee serves or worships the sun god [which is the manifestation of the Supreme], He will serve him through the sun god; since sun god is the manifestation of the Supreme. Whatever worship a bhakta performs, everything goes to Me i.e. Supreme Person and the Supreme grants their worship.

But at the same time, Kṛṣṇa in Chapter VII.23 says:

antavattu phalam teṣām tat bhavati alpamedhasām/
devān devayajaḥ yānti madbhaktāḥ yānti mām api//

The meaning is that:

“But for those who are ajñānī i.e. alpamedhasām, for them the fruits bestowed by Me [Kṛṣṇa] while worshipping the sun god etc. are the perishable i.e. nāśāvān, because they obtain only those whom they worship.”

But if the madbhaktāḥ i.e. My [Kṛsna] devotees worship Me [Kṛṣṇa] in any form, they reach Me or obtain Me [Kṛṣṇa]. In this verse, Rāmānuja’s interpretation is consistent with the text of the Bhagavad-gītā, but seems to be more theological.

Rāmānuja while commenting on the verses of Chapter VII although consistent in some cases, he, still is not faithful to some of the verses of Chapter VII. He also errs in commenting on Chapter VII.29-30: In verse 29, he brings again his ‘theory of the law of karma’, which is extraneous to the meaning of the verse.

In Chapter VII.30 Kṛṣṇa says:

sādhibhūtādhidaivaṃ māṃ sādhiyajñaṃ ca ye viduḥ/
prayāṇakāle’pi ca māṃ te viduryuktacetam//

While commenting on it Rāmānuja commits error. For Rāmānuja, ‘prayāna kāle’ means ‘at the time of death’ while originally the meaning of the word is ‘departure to the samaṣti Purūṣa’ or ‘the time of entering into Samaṣti Purūṣa.’ But the word ‘prayāna kāle’ is used to mean ‘movement or departure from the one ordinary existence to the Samaṣti Purūṣa’, so that he may belong to the Samaṣti Purūṣa. When a devotee in ordinary existence does not know Him he does not belong to Him. But when one seeks him, he departs or enters or moves towards Him, and then he belongs to Him. Therefore, prayāna kāle is not ‘at the time of death’, but ‘at the time of departure/movement or entering into Him.’

On the other hand, Chapter VII.29 Kṛṣṇa says:

jarāmaraṇamokṣāya māmāśritya yatanti ye/
te brahma tatviduḥ kṛtsanamadhyātmaṃ karma cākhilam//

But here Rāmānuja commenting on the verse has unnecessarily brought in the idea of karmavāda. Because the moment karma or rebirth is brought in, the theory of karmavāda comes into picture. But the theory of karmavāda has no justified place in Bhagavad-gītā. It seems that he cannot interpret the verse without relating to karmavāda. This is a problem in Rāmānuja. Because karma in the ordinary sense is understandable, but karma in the sense of rebirth, store of merits, or samsita karma etc. are problematic.

Since, it has been mentioned earlier that bhakti has to be grounded on śraddhā, Kṛṣṇa in Chapter IX says that bhakti has to be carried out by śraddhā. While teaching Arjuna in Chapter IX, bhakti which is to be associated with jñāna has to be grounded on śraddhā according to Kṛṣṇa.

In Chapter IX.3 Kṛṣṇa says:

aśraddhadhānāḥ purūṣāḥ dharmasya asya parantapa/
aprāpya mām nivartante mṛtyusaṃsāravatarmani//

“The devotees or persons who are devoid of śraddhā or faith in worshipping live in cycle of death and birth without attaining Me.”

The meaning is that bhakti or worship of God has to be grounded on śraddhā, because without it one fails to attain Him.

Kṛṣṇa teaches Arjuna in the first two verses of Chapter IX the most secret knowledge with which one attains freedom from the miseries of saṃsāra. This vidyā or knowledge is called rājavidyā which is most secret, purifying etc. that gives an easy way to attain the Supreme. But in this vidyā or knowledge, a devotee or a person has to depend on śraddhā. Without śraddha this knowledge is in vain. But Rāmānuja makes the sense of bhakti and jñāna equal in Chapter IX.1.

Commenting on this verse he writes that:

“Most secret knowledge which is known as worship and which is in the form of loving devotion and together with its practical application that is, along with knowledge of the particulars connected with worship.”

But the knowledge which is called jñāna in the Bhagavad-gītā and devotion or worship which is called bhakti is not the same and cannot be equated. Bhakti and jñāna are distinct, but although these are distinct, yet these are interrelated and interconnected. Both bhakti and jñāna have to be grounded on each other. In the Bhagavad-gītā, it has been taught that, by any means of yoga, it is possible to attain the Supreme Brahman, which is called emancipation or mokṣa. Bhakti, which is yukta with yoga, is called bhakti yoga. Bhagavad-gītā says that the devotee who with full faith and the inner self-abiding in God, worship Him, is completely united with Him. (VI.47)

Kṛṣṇa says that “it is easier to perform all actions for God and dedicate them to Him, make Him the Supreme Goal of life and meditate on Him and pray to Him with an undivided mind”^[6] because He is the refuge of all and redeemer of all obstacles that devotees face. Devotion does not require hard penance, austerities, renunciation^[7] , abstract knowledge and complete isolation of the soul from the body. It requires only unconditional love and thinking of Him. Disinterested action purifies the desire, right knowledge purifies the intellect and true devotion or bhakti with śraddhā purifies the emotions. Therefore, all works become the worship of God and are being dedicated to Him.^[8]

Therefore, in Chapter IX.27 Kṛṣṇa says:

yatkaroṣi yadaśnāsi yajjuhoṣi dadāsi yat/
yattapasyasi kauteya tatkurūṣvya madarpaṇam//

“O Arjuna, whatever action you perform, whatever you eat, breathe, whatever you donate and perform penance, has to be offered to Me (Kṛṣṇa) as all worship come to Me (Kṛṣṇa) alone.”

The meaning is that any action such as eating, sleeping, breathing, drinking, donating, penance, helping, sitting, thinking or performing occasional and obligatory rites, religious actions etc. are performed in such a way that it goes to the Supreme only. But while interpreting in the verse, Rāmānuja is creating a problem. For him, God or Brahman is the object of worship.

Commenting on this he writes that,

“Gods and similar beings, who are known as objects of worship in sacrifice, gifts and similar observances belong to Me (Kṛṣṇa) alone.”

But Brahman or God cannot be the object of worship, because God in the Bhagavad-gītā is not personal. For, God in the form of Brahman and vice-versa cannot be worshipped as personal God. Brahman is not personal in the sense that Brahman is everywhere.^[9] Everything comes from Brahman and goes to Brahman only. Even if one worships any deity his bhakti goes to Brahman only.

Rāmānuja in his Gītā Bhāṣya writes that the real knowledge of the Lord, vision of the Lord and also the attainment of Lord can be obtained by the one-pointed and uninterrupted devotion.^[10] He also writes that, the worship of the Lord in the form of devotion is accomplished and how the superiority of the worship of the Lord constitutes the means of the goal of realization. According to Rāmānuja this has been taught to Arjuna by Kṛṣṇa in Chapter VI.47.

In the verse Kṛṣṇa says:

yogināmpi sarveṣāṃ madgatenāntarātmanā śraddhāvanvajate yo māṃ sa me yuktatmo mataḥ//

“He, who worships Me (Kṛṣṇa) with inner self, having faith and ardour, he is regarded as the best compared with yogins.”

Rāmānuja tries to show that Bhakti is superior both in speed as well as in the facility of practice.^[11] Being confused with all these, Arjuna seeks Kṛṣṇa’ s explanation in Chapter XII.1.

Arjuna says:

evaṃ sat atayuktāḥ ye bhaktāṣtvāṃ payurpāsate/
ye cāpyakṣaramvyaktam teṣām ke yogavittamāḥ//

“Those devotees, who, (desirous being) ever united (with You) worship You [Kṛṣṇa] in this manner, and those who meditate on the indestructible and unmanifest (Self), of these who are the best knowers of the way to realization?”^[12]

The meaning is that among the devotees who worship God with his glories and those who worship the indestructible and unmanifest, who is the best?

Kṛṣṇa replies to Arjuna’s question in Chapter XII.2-7:

mayāveśya mano ye māṃ nityayuktā upāsate/
śraddhayā parayopetāste me yuktatmā matāḥ//
ye tvakṣaramanirdeśyavyaktaṃ payurpāsate
sarvatagamachintyaṃ ca kūtasthamachalaṃ dhruvaṃ//
sanniyamyeindriyagrāṃ sarvatra samabuddhayaḥ/
te prāpnuvanti māmeva sarvabhūtahite ratāḥ//
kleśo’ dhikatarasteṣāmavyaktāsaktacetasām/
avyaktā hi gatidurḥkhaṃ dehavadbhirvāpyate//
ye tu sarvāṇi karmāṇi mayi sannyasya matparāṃ/
ananyenaiva yogena māṃ dhyāyanta upās at e//
teṣāhaṃ samuddhartā mṛ tyusansārasāgarāt/
bhavāmi nasirātpārtha mayyāveśitacetasām//

‘Those who worships Me [Kṛṣṇa] i.e. My glories with one-pointed mind, he is most dear to Me [Kṛṣṇa], because he worships with śraddhā/ faith’ (XII.2) On the other hand, ‘those who worship the Imperishable, Unmanifest and Indestructible with mind and intellect controlling the senses, they attain Me [Kṛṣṇa]’ (XII.3-4) But it is a very difficult task of worshipping the avyaktaḥ i.e. unamifested (XII.5) according to Kṛṣṇa. But, still, those who are ever follower of My path, worship Me with single-minded devotion, giving up the fruits of all action (XII.6) and I [Kṛṣṇa] is the saviour of these devotees of Mine from the ocean of sin (XII.7)

While examining Rāmānuja’s interpretation of Chapter XII.1-7, we have found that he is not at many times faithful to the meaning of the text. He over interprets and sometimes overlooks in his interpretation the actual meaning of the verses. Rāmānuja in the Chapter XII.2 has given only the literal meaning of the verse. He commits another problem in it.

He writes,

“Those who worship Me fixing on Me a mind having for the subject of its thought the supreme goal to be attained–they attain Me easily and long before.”

The problem is that he has introduced and extraneous idea i.e. “easily and long before” and which is not mentioned in the verse. But Rāmānuja is bringing here which has to be mentioned later on. What is mentioned in this verse is that it is just the nature of the devotees who wish to attain Him only. Rāmānuja in Chapter XII.5 also has difficulty in his interpretation.

He writes,

“It is attained with difficulty by embodied beings, who have the erroneous view that the body is the self.”

But the idea ‘body is the self’ is not involved in this verse. It is merely the difficulties that a devotee faces for attaining Him whose mind is attached to indestructibility only. And also ‘having the body does not mean having an erroneous idea about the body to be the self i.e. thinking the body to be self.’ Because in the body only one makes distinction between the body and the self. Rāmānuja also says “for embodied beings look upon the body alone as the self” is also a wrong interpretation and extraneous. For, this is not only the difficulty of them conceiving the body to be the self, but there are other difficulties also. So long as the body is there, it is destructive and if the body is destructive it is difficult i.e. it is constantly destructive.

Rāmānuja in Chapter XII.7 also commits an error while commenting on this verse. He is taking the word ‘mṛtyusaṃsārasāgarāt’ as ‘the fatal ocean of death and birth.’ The use of the word ‘fatal’ is problematic. In the verse, ‘mṛtyusaṃsārasāgarāt’ means ‘the ocean of causing death.’ That is, it is sāgar or ocean where there is both mṛtyu and janma or death and birth. Hence, it is called ‘saṃsārasāgarāt.’ Hence, Kṛṣṇa is the redeemer i.e. samuddhartā of those devotees who are worshipping Him with exclusive devotion.

In Bhagavad-gītā Chapter XII.8-11it has been taught how by the meditation i.e. dhyāna, repeated actions i.e. abhyās, bhagavadartha i.e. for the sake of Lord and by the sarvakarmaphalatyaga i.e. giving up of the fruits of all actions a devotee attains bhagavadprāpti.

Kṛṣṇa says:

mayeva manaḥ ādhatsva mayi buddhim niveśaya/
nivasiśyasi mayeva ataḥ ūrdham na saṃsayaḥ//
athaḥ chintam saṃadhātum na śaknoṣi mayi sthiram/
abhyāsayogena tataḥ mām ichsya āptum dhananjaya//
abhyāse api asamarthaḥ asi matkarmaparamaḥ bhava/
madarthampi karmāṇi kurvansiddhimvāpsyasi//
athaḥ etat api aśaktaḥ asi kartummaddhogamāśrit/
sarvakarmaphalatyāgam tataḥ kurū yatātmavān//

The meaning of the firat verse is ‘fix the mind and the intellect in Him, by doing so one attains Him, there is no doubt about this.’ In Chapter XII.8 Rāmānuja creates problem while commenting on the verse. Rāmānuja while commenting on the verse takes ‘buddhi’ as ‘mind.’ But it is obvious that ‘buddhi’ is not ‘mind’ but intellect. The mind is manaḥ i.e. manaḥ means mind, which is different from buddhi. In the verse it is already said ‘mayi manaḥ ādhatsva’ which means ‘fix the mind in Me [Kṛṣṇa. ]’ and ‘mayi eva buddhim niveśaya’ which means ‘fix your buddhi or intellect in Me [Kṛṣṇa. ]’ Therefore, it is clear that there is no point of writing buddhi to be mind’ since the mind is already specified as ‘manaḥ’ and buddhi is ‘intellect.’

Besides, it seems that Rāmānuja is equating both ‘buddhi’ and ‘manaḥ’ as attention and ‘manaḥ and buddhi’ as mind. That is a problem in Rāmānuja because each word in the Bhagavad-gītā is having a particular meaning. Therefore, according to the verse both the manaḥ and buddhi i.e. ‘mind and intellect’ has to be fixed in Him to be located in Him and there is no doubt about it.

In Chapter XII.9 it has been expounded that if a person is unable to do fix the mind and intellect as mentioned in Chapter XII.8, then one has to perform repeated actions such as chanting and listening to the glories of Lord [Kṛṣṇa], study the śāstras etc. Even if this is also difficult then another easy way is mentioned in Chapter XII.10 where it is said that if ‘even the repeated actions is difficult to perform by a devotee then action has to be performed for His sake.’ This is by remembering Him in whatever works are to be done, do it for the sake of Him only, by doing so a person attains Him. While going through Rāmānuja’s interpretation it has been observed that he has commited an error while commenting on the verse. First, he is taking the word ‘asamarthaḥ’ as ‘unequal.’ ‘asamarthaḥ’ does not mean ‘unequal’ rather it is ‘unable.’ The meaning of ‘asamatā’ is ‘unequal’ but ‘asamarthaḥ’ is ‘unable.’ He is confusing himself asamarthaḥ with asamatā as same. Therefore, for him, asamarthaḥ is inequality

Secondly, Rāmānuja while commenting on the verse is going in the wrong direction. It is said in the verse that whatever action or karma one performs such as eating etc. It should be done for His sake i.e. depositing actions in Him. A person is not supposed to perform action for own sake, but for His sake. But Rāmānuja is taking in his interpretation the works such as building a temple, making garlands, placing lights, sprinkling water, plastering the floor, gathering flowers etc. to be the means for locating oneself in Him i.e. attaining Him. By this Rāmānuja tries to say that one should do all these activities for Him as a means to attain Him, but not as the works are done for Him. Even doing so a person’s actions should be done for Him only not as only means by one for himself but as works for Him. If all the actions mentioned above are done not as a means to attain Him but performed without any desire, bhakti will automatically arise in him. This idea is very clear in Chapter XII.11.

In the verse, it says:

‘Conquering over the mind and intellect perform works for Him giving up the fruits of all works.’

This statement of Kṛṣṇa does not contradict the idea of performing action not for attaining Him as means, but works are to be performed for Him only by giving up the fruits of all works without any desire. So, whatever works are to be done, it should be done for Him as depositing in Him giving up all the fruits i.e. sarvakarmaphalatyāga. But it should not be done merely as the means of attaining Him only as Rāmānuja commented in Chapter XII.10. In doing so one is not bound by action and bhakti will automatically arise in him.

Chapter XII.12 mentions sarvakarmaphlatyāga as the glory of performing action which is the quickest means of attaining liberation.

Kṛṣṇa says:

śreyaḥ hi jñānāmabhyāsātjñānātdhyānām viśiṣyate/
dhyānāt karmaphalatyāgaḥ tyāgāt śāntiḥ anantaram//

“Better is the knowledge (jñāna) than repeated action (abhyāsa);better is the meditation (dhyāna) than knowledge; better is the renunciation of fruits of action than meditation; for, peace is attained easily through renunciation of fruits of action”.

In the verse it is said, jñāna is better than abhyāsa i.e. repeated action, dhyāna is better than jñāna, and karmaphalatyāga is better than dhyāna. It is also said that giving up of the fruits of action is the quickest means of attaining Supreme Bliss or liberation. That is jñāna or dhyāna on Him is not the easiest means of attaining Him, but what is emphasizing is the performance of action by giving up the fruits without any desire on the fruits which is the easiest way of attainment according to Kṛṣṇa in the Bhagavad-gītā.

Chapter VII of Bhagavad-gītā also teaches bhakti in the form of worship and four kinds of devotees.

In Chapter VII.16 Kṛṣṇa says:

catūrvidhā bhajante mām janāḥ sukṛtinaḥarjuna/
ārtaḥ jijñāsūḥ arthārthī jñānī ca bharatarṣabha//

“Four kinds of devotee worship Me O best of bhārata Arjuna–the distressed (ārta), the seeker of worldly fulfilment (arthārthī), the curious or inquisitive (jijñāsū), and the knower (jñānī).”

Ārta means the one who seeks relief from miseries; arthārthī means the one who seeks some fulfilment of worldly objects like wealth. Jijñāsū means who wish to acquire the knowledge of the Supreme Person and jñānī means the man of wisdom or the knowing person. The word ‘bhajate’ here means sharing, partaking. So, the bhakta or devotee means a sharer and they share in the collectivity i.e. the Samaṣti Purūṣa. But Rāmānuja takes the word ‘bhaj’ as devotion, since his idea of bhakti is Bhagavata Purāṇa’ s bhakti, and is interpreting bhajate as ‘devoted to Me.’ Therefore, he is not taking bhakti in the sense of sharing, partaking, or participation etc. But Bhagavad-gītā’s concept of bhakti i.e. ‘bhaj’ is from the Vedas and the meaning is not devotion. But it is sharing, partaking, or participation etc. Therefore, bhakta always shares his bhakti in the collectivity i.e. Samaṣti Purūṣa who is a Collective Person. So, the word bhajate or bhaj should be taken in the sense of Vedas, but not in the sense of the Bhagavata Purāṇa.

Besides, Rāmānuja is bringing the idea of his very theory of the law of karma or karmavāda.

Commenting on the verse he writes,

“Men of good karma that is who has a store of meritorious karma, after taking refuge in Me (to overcome the prakṛti) worship Me alone.”

For Rāmānuja what it means is, if a person in the earlier birth had performed good karma because of which he has a store of a meritorious deed, then he will attain the Supreme Person. Therefore, for him, these four kinds of bhaktas are in accordance with the previous karma which they have performed good karmas.

Regarding the concept of these four bhaktas Rāmānuja appears to have wrong understanding in his interpretation. First, for Rāmānuja ‘ārta’ means ‘who has no honourable position, dispossessed of wealth, and desire to attain it again.’ But this idea is problematic. Rāmānuja is interpreting ‘ārta’ as ‘dispossessed of wealth’ as if someone had possessed of wealth earlier and now he is dispossessed because it is taken away. Hence, he is dispossessed. But this is not a correct explanation of ‘ārta.’ Ārta means ‘he is afflicted person seeking relief from miseries from the very beginning.’ He may be born in a poor family. So, the question of dispossessed does not arise, because he might not have the possession. Therefore, ārta does not mean merely ‘dispossessed of wealth’ who desires to attain it again. For Rāmānuja, it means someone has taken away his wealth but now he wants it back.

Again ‘arthārthī’ means ‘he who is desirous of acquiring wealth, he who is one who longs for wealth, not having attained it before.’ From Rāmānuja’s explanation of ‘ārta’ and ‘arthārthī’ he seems to make a distinction between ārta and arthārthi, but by using the word ‘wealth’ he seems to make no distinction between them. They are the same for those who is seeking wealth only. If we compare the explanation of ‘arthārthī’ as someone ‘who is desirous of acquiring wealth’ and ‘ārta’ as someone ‘who is dispossessed of wealth but wants it back’, then we find that these two are same in an important sense. Because ‘desirous of acquiring wealth’ means ‘he might have had it earlier and wants it back again’ and ‘dispossessed of wealth and wants it back’ means he had earlier which means the same meanings. From this, it seems that he makes no distinction between ārta and arthārthī. But actually, these two are completely different concepts and has different meanings in the Bhagavad-gītā. Because ārta means sufferings, i.e. who suffers and wants to get relief from suffering and suffering may be anything, and arthārthī means who may not have been suffering, but only desirous of acquiring wealth.

Another problem of Rāmānuja is that he reduces these ‘four bhaktas’ into three. For him ārta and arthārthī can be classed together into one, as some worldly objective is common to both of them. But this classification is not faithful to the text of the Bhagavad-gītā since the text clearly makes exposition of the four kinds of bhaktas. The other two are separated from them–the jījñāṣu who is in the quest for the Ātmān and Jñānī who has no quest but in its stead feels supreme satisfaction in the realization of his servant ship to God. Such devotee is dear to God as a calf is to mother. This conception of jñānī emphasizes his inseparable closeness to the Lord and not the oneness of the jīva with the Lord as in Advaita. That is why Rāmānuja in Chapter VII.17 says that ‘the bhakta or devotee among the bhaktas who are jñānī or the man of wisdom, he is the best bhakta or yogin,’ because, he is attached to the Supreme Person and is the man of single-minded in devotion i.e. sharing bhakti. For him, Supreme Person is dear to him and he is also dear to the Supreme Person. But those devotees who are attached to only the attainment of desired objects they are not dear to Him. Because they take Him as the sole means of attaining desired objects. Therefore, a bhakta who is jñānī is preferred in the Bhagavad-gītā.

In Bhagavad-gītā Chapter VII.18-19 Kṛṣṇa says: udārāḥ sarva eva ete tu ātma eva me matam/ āṣthitaḥ saḥ hi yuktātma māṃ eva anuttmām gatim// bahunām janmanām ante jñānavān mām prapadyate/ vāsudevaḥ sarvaṃiti saḥ mahātma sudurlabhaḥ// Here it says ‘every bhakta is noble, but among those who are jñānī, he is ‘My self’ [Kṛṣṇa] according to My [Kṛṣṇa] conviction. Because with his dedicated self, he is exclusively devoted to Me [Kṛṣṇa] as the Highest way to Me [Kṛṣṇa]. But Kṛṣṇa also says that it is very difficult to obtain a jñānī bhakta i.e. jñānavān. At the end of many births, he is the only one, who knows that everything is Vāsudeva only and devout Him.’ Rāmānuja while commenting on Chapter VII.18 commits an error. In the verse, the word ‘gatim’ is referred to as the ‘goal’ by Rāmānuja as if the Supreme Brahman is the only ‘goal’ to be attained by the bhaktas. But Supreme Brahman cannot just be a goal that a bhakta attains. It is the bhakta who belongs to Him. And He also belongs to a bhakta. To be a bhakta who is jñānī among the bhaktas, and shares bhakti in the Supreme Person, Supreme Person gets belonged to him.

Another problem in this verse is that Rāmānuja interpreting the verse writes that, ‘I regard Myself as depending on him for support and sustenance, and ‘a bhakta for the Supreme Person finds himself impossible to support himself without Me i.e. Supreme Person’ and ‘therefore it is not possible for Me i.e. Supreme Person also to maintain Myself without him i.e. bhakta.’ Here in this interpretation the first half of the sentence is problematic. Since the Supreme Person is the omnipotent how can it be impossible for Him to maintain without him i.e. devotee or bhakta? Since bhakta holds Him to be Highest so how can it be impossible?

Kṛṣṇa teaches Arjuna in Chapter XII.13-18 the nature or characteristics of bhaktas who are very dear to Him. The bhakta is such that who worships Him through karma yoga is very dear to Him.

He says:

adveṣtā sarvabhūtānāṃ maitraḥ karoṇa eva ca/
nirmamaḥ nirahaṃkāraḥ samaduḥkhasukhaḥ kṣami//
santuṣtaḥ sat atam yogī yatātma dṛdaniśchayaḥ/
mayi arpitamanobuddhiḥ yaḥ madbhaktaḥ saḥ me priyaḥ//
yasmāt na udvijate lokaḥ lokāt na udvijate ca yaḥ/
harṣāmarṣābhayodvegaiḥ muktaḥ yaḥ saḥ ca me priyaḥ//
anapekṣaḥ śuchirdakṣkaḥ udāsīnaḥ gatavyathaḥ/
sarvārambhaparityāgī yoḥ madbhaktaḥ saḥ me priyaḥ//
yaḥ na hṛṣyati ma dveṣti na śauchati na kāngs at i/
śubhāśubhaparityāgī Bhaktimānyaḥ saḥ me priyaḥ//
samaḥ śatroḥ ca mitrye ca tathā mānāpamānoḥ/
śītoṣṇasukhaduḥkheṣū samaḥ sangavivarjitaḥ//

“He, who has no hatred in relation to all being and who is friend of and merciful to all beings, who is free from egotism and sense of possession, who is equal to pleasure and pain and is patient”, “who is always satisfied/contended, who has the firm conviction and control over the self”, “from whom the beings are not afflicted, who is not afflicted by himself, who is free from joy, jealousy, fear etc”, “he who is free from desire, is pure, efficient, free from bias, distress and who gives up undertaking etc” “he, who is neither rejoiced nor aversed, nor grieves nor desires, who gives up what is good and evil to him”, “who is equal to regards and disregards, friends and foes, heat and cold, pleasure and pain etc. he is very dear to Kṛṣṇa.”

In Chapter XIII.10 Kṛṣṇa says:

mayi cānanyayogena bhaktiḥ avyabhichāriṇī/
vivittakdeśasevitvam aratiḥ janasaṃsadi//

In the verse Kṛṣṇa teaches Arjuna the anannya, ekāntika and avyābhichāri bhakti in accordance with jñāna and says the bhakti which is anannya and avyābhichārini and ekānta or exclusive should resort in a pure or solitary place i.e. ‘viviktvadeśasevitvam’. Here avyabhichāriṇī bhakti means unobstructed and continuous thinking of the Supreme to be one only as the Lord [Kṛṣṇa]. In thinking in such a way one has to give up ahaṃkāra and selfish motive, having faith in Him and devoted to Him. Rāmānuja takes anannyayoga as ekāntika bhakti. This is faithful to the text. But it is seen that Rāmānuja has commited an error in interpreting the verse in taking ‘viviktvadeśasevitvam’ as ‘lonely place.’ The meaning of ‘viviktvadeśasevitvam’ is not a lonely place. The meaning in the verse is that one should resort to Him in the solitary place so that there is nothing to deviate from the attention. Again from his interpretation, it is seen that for Rāmānuja, the place should be devoid of men or crowd (aratiḥ janasaṃsadi) that is, aratiḥ janasaṃsadi for him is a lonely place. But solitary does not mean isolation. Because it is ekānta i.e. ‘one end’ and what is this ekānta is one who is merely concerned with the self. So it is ‘viviktvadeśasevitvam’. One should not be moved (aratiḥ) to the crowded because of those, who are attached. But for Rāmānuja aratiḥ janasaṃsadi means completely devoid of crowds. But that is not the meaning because even being in the crowd one can be alone or isolated from the crowd. Hence aratiḥ janasaṃsadi has to be taken in that sense.

This avyabhichāriṇī bhakti has been taught to Arjuna by Kṛṣṇa in Chapter XIV.26^[13] also. In the verse, it has been explained that the person or the devotee who worship Me [Kṛṣṇa] continuously, he transcending the three guṇas becomes fit for attaining the Sacchidānanda Brahman i.e. the Brahman who is ‘sat cit ānanda.’ This verse tries to convey that by transcending the three guṇas, a devotee has to attain liberation, worshipping Him with avyabhichāri bhakti, which is called in the verse as avyabhichāri bhakti- yoga. Rāmānuja in this verse also brought the idea of karmavāda unnecessarily in his interpretation. Since Bhagavad-gītā never introduces such an unnecessary idea, he always tries to bring this idea to make his philosophy consistent with the text of the Bhagavad-gītā. Because he is purely a religious philosopher, and that is why he interprets from a religious point of view.

Anannya bhakti is also mentioned in Chapter VIII.22, Chapter IX.14-22, and 54-55 of Bhagavad-gītā. In Chapter VIII.22^[14] Kṛṣṇa says Arjuna the ‘anannya bhakti’, which is called ‘one-pointed’ or ‘one bhakti’ only by which one attains the Purūṣa. Rāmānuja’s interpretation of this verse is theological. He in his interpretation takes the word ‘anannya bhakti’ as ‘anya anya bhakti’ which means ‘another bhakti’ i.e. one after another by which one attains the purūṣa. But ‘anannya bhakti’ is ‘eka bhakti’ or one bhakti i.e. exclusive bhakti. In this verse, the relationship of purūṣa with all these bhūtas is like the circular relationship. Like everything is in Him and He is in everything. And therefore, He is obtained by this ‘eka bhakti’ i.e. ‘anannya bhakti’ and because of this bhakti every bhūtas belongs to Him and He belongs to them. Although bhakti means ‘sharing’ it also means ‘belongingness.’ Rāmānuja in commenting on this verse commits an error. For him ‘yena sarvam idam tatam’ means ‘by whom the whole of the universe is pervaded.’ But if we go by the actual meaning of the text then it should be ‘by whom all these i.e. all the bhūtas are pervaded in the universe’ instead of ‘by whom the whole of the universe is pervaded.’ For, ‘sarvam idam’ means ‘all these’ i.e. the bhūtas, which are in Him and so He is pervading all the bhūtas. Because when it is said ‘whole’ it makes a wrong interpretation. Since the meaning is ‘all’ i.e. ‘sarvam’ but not ‘whole.’

In Chapter IX.14^[15] Kṛṣṇa says to Arjuna that ‘bhaktayā’ means anannya or exclusive bhakti. In this verse what Kṛṣṇa tries to say is that ‘the firm devotee always/continuously worships to attain Me [Kṛṣṇa] with exclusive devotion i.e. anannya bhakti by chanting My [Kṛṣṇa] names and glories and also meditating on and bowing down to Me [Kṛṣṇa]. ‘Bhakti’ is also taught in Chapter IX.22 as anannya bhakti, and an anannaya bhakta who worship Him with anannya bhakti. In the verse, ‘anannya bhakta’ means the one who does not think of anything else except the Supreme Person. He worships (upāsate) Him well. Rāmānuja while commenting this verse seems to be faithful to the meaning of the verse. But he brings the idea of saṃsāra that makes inconsistent with the meaning of the verse. The inconsistency is there because the verse does not bring any idea of saṃsāra. But Rāmānuja is bringing it because he interprets from the point of view of karmavāda. It seems that for Rāmānuja, people suffer in the saṃsāra and they want to get released from the miseries which they suffer in the saṃsāra and they want to attain liberation after death. But what the verse says, is that any person who is devoted to only ‘one-pointed bhakti’ and if he is a ‘eka bhakta’ i.e. ‘anannya bhakta’, he too is capable of attaining Me [Kṛṣṇa] since he focuses his mind continuously towards Me without any selfish desire. So even a person who is anannya bhakta or one-pointed bhakta towards the Supreme and if he meditates on Him with continuous thinking of Him he too attains Him quickly.

Although Bhagavad-gītā teaches anannya bhakti but the actual significance of ‘anannya bhakti’ is carried out in Chapter XI.54-55 of Bhagavad-gītā. The ‘anannya bhakti’ is to be of such nature according to the Bhagavad-gītā. In these two verses focus is on the nature of the anannya bhakti and how by this bhakti it is possible to attain the real knowledge of, perception of and attainment of Him.

The verses say—

bhaktayā tvananyayā śkya aham evamvidhaḥ arjuna/
jñātum dṛṣtum ca tattvena praveṣtum ca parantap//
matkarmakṛt matparamaḥ madbhaktaḥ sangavarjitaḥ/
nirvairḥ sarvabhūteṣū yaḥ saḥ mām eti pāṇdava//

In the first verse it is explained that through exclusive devotion only i.e. anannya bhakti, it is possible to see, know and attain Me [Kṛṣṇa], but not by the Vedas, practice of austerities, nor through giving up of gift, not through the performance of sacrifice is possible to know, see and attain Me [Kṛṣṇa] (XI.53). In the second verse i.e. (XI.55) matkarmakṛt means ‘who does work for Me’ is ‘yajña karma’, matparamaḥ means ‘who holds Me to be Supreme’ is actually ‘to be yajña purūṣa’, sangavivarjita means, one has to give up attachment to result which is there in the action and who has no enmity i.e. nirvairḥ. In this verse, Rāmānuja is giving only the literal meaning of the words matkarmakṛt, matparamaḥ. He has not interpreted the verse with the actual meanings.

What is actually said is that by performing yajña karma (matkarmakṛt) for the yajña purūṣa, giving up the attachment to the fruits of yajña karma and being devoid of hatred towards all bhūtas i.e. existent, a anannya bhakta attains Him through the exclusive devotion or anannya bhakti. And this is the only mark of anannya bhakti according to the Bhagavad-gītā although at many times Kṛṣṇa expounds the same idea in other verses because an anannya bhakta or the exclusive devotee has to perform the action in the sense of yajña karma, depositing or vesting all actions in Him only to attain Him. Otherwise, it would not be possible for a devotee to attain Him, who does not give up the agency, result and action while performing. Since in Chapter III.15 it is taught that all actions originate in Brahman and goes to Brahman (III.30), since, Brahman is established in yajña (III.9) therefore, action has to be performed as yajña karma (V.5). But in Rāmānuja’s interpretation, this idea is not seen.

Rāmānuja again writes,

“He who is free from attachment is one who on account of Myself only being dear to him, is unable to endure attachment to any other objects.”

Here Rāmānuja puts himself in a problem. Rāmānuja is trying to say that one is to be free from the fruits of action or attachment of the result of action. But what is said by the word ‘sangavivarjita’ is that one should be free from the attachment of action itself, not from the fruits because actions are themselves attachment since actions produce result and result creates attachment.

Besides bhakti, one of the most discussed topics of Rāmānuja’s Gītā Bhāṣya is prapatti. Prapatti means self surrender, and is also called in saṃskṛt śaraṇāgati. Śaraṇa means ‘abode of protection’, āgata means ‘having come’. So, śaraṇāgati means ‘to reach God’s abode for protection. It is total surrender to God for achieving God grace.^[16] The culmination in devotion is known as prapatti, taking refuge in God. According to the Viśiṣtādvaita philosophy, besides devotion, prapatti, the absolute self-surrender to God is laid down as a means to liberation. Devotion is a rigorous discipline and for those, who are incapable to undertaking it, prapatti is advocated as an alternative easy way to liberation.^[17]

Prapatti, or self-surrender, is regarded by the Vaiṣṇavas as the easier and simpler path leading to the attainment of mokṣa. The followers of prapatti are known as prapanna. Prapanna lives a life of faith, tranquillity with each of his activities consecrated to the service of God. Like the bhakta, the life of the prapanna is to be an expression of his total surrender to the Lord, the one eternal end.^[18] Prapatti has six factors. A follower of prapatti had to commit six factors. These are–goodwill towards all; absence of ill-will; faith in the protection of God; acceptance of God as Saviour; a feeling of helplessness, and self-surrender to God.^[19]

For the readers, Rāmānuja introduced the concept of Prapatti as means of attaining Supreme Self or salvation. Many readers argue and attribute that Rāmānuja introduced prapatti in his Gītā Bhāśya. Our concern is not to find out what is prapatti or whether prapatti is an alternative means or not, but to find out whether Rāmānuja has introduced prapatti as an alternative means to liberation in his Gītā Bhāṣya. Therefore, in this chapter an attempt is made to evaluate whether or not Rāmānuja introduced the concept of prapatti in his Gītā Bhāṣya.

Readers both Western and Indian have claimed that Rāmānuja has introduced the concept of prapatti in his Gītā Bhāṣya.

Rāghavachār, in his work writes that:

“prapatti is the last stage to salvation according to Rāmānuja. It can be used as an alternative to bhakti.”

^[20] But, if prapatti is the last stage to salvation then the importance of bhakti yoga is negated. Because prapatti as an alternative means is nothing but surrendering all actions, fruits and agency of action to Him [Brahman] which is actually depositing everything to Him [Brahman] while performing action by a devotee. This is in real sense called bhakti in Bhagavad-gītā. Therefore, there is no difference of bhakti and prapatti.

Sampatkumaran, translator of Rāmānuja’s Gītā Bhāṣya writes that, the means of salvation as taught in Rāmānuja’s commentaries on the Vedāntasūtras and Gītā is primarily bhakti or loving devotion. Prapatti or self-surrender is also hinted at. What this has meant for the later development of Viśiṣtādvaita^[21] we shall see presently.^[22]

Nancy Nayar, in her work The Concept of Prapatti in Rāmānuja’s Gītā Bhāṣya, writes that an explicit and radical view of prapatti as a direct means to mokṣa is found only in some of his major writings^[23] such as Gītā Bhāṣya.

She also writes that:

“It is surprising that all the studies of prapatti in Rāmānuja’s Gītā Bhāṣya ignore the very significance of chapter IX except the verse 32.”

But she has given importance on chapter IX from the verses 26-34 in which she tries to say that Rāmānuja left scope for creating prapatti in his Gītā Bhāṣya.

She also writes, it appears that no very thorough study of the doctrine of prapatti in Ramanuja’s Gītā Bhāṣya exists. Some scholars who have approached the topic have concentrated their entire analysis on XVIII-66 alone (Carman), while others have provided us with a few quotations only, giving little or no serious textual analysis (Kumarappa.^[24] ) She also writes after examining the works of Shrinivasachāri, Sampatkumaran and J. A. B Van Beutenen, that the resultant findings of this study indicate that the latter section of Chapter IX is in at least one place which has perhaps been used by Rāmānuja to introduce the “mood” and scope of the prapatti doctrine.

Let us examine how Rāmānuja interprets the verses where it is claimed that he introduced prapatti in his Gītā Bhāṣya. Chapter XVIII-66^[25] is one of the most important verses of the Bhagavad-gītā. In the Bhagavad-gītā, verbs like ‘śaraṇam vraja’ or ‘prapad’ undoubtedly have a reference to bhakti, and so, here too, the word must be understood in that sense. When Kṛṣṇa says ‘abandoning every duty come to me alone for refuge’ he is clearly showing preference for bhakti above anything else.^[26] On the other hand, ‘māma ekam’ means ‘to Me alone’ and it has a reference to ananyayoga in bhakti which has been referred to many times in Gītā.’^[27]

So, in the verse it is said,

“While performing all dharmas viz. karma, jñāna and bhakti yoga as propitiation of God and therefore renouncing the result, interest and agency, one should take refuge in Me; realizing that I alone am the agent as well as the means by which you may attain Me. If you do so, I will release you from all sins incompatible with your attainment of Me;do not worry.”^[28]

Rāmānuja also interprets the verse in this way but gives an alternative interpretation which contradicts his other interpretation. Swāmi Tripurāri, in his commentary on Chapter XVIII.66 takes the word ‘parityajya’ as śaraṇāgati. He writes that just as a cow takes shelter of its herder, one should take shelter of Kṛṣṇa as if one has been bought and paid for.

On the other hand, in the Bhagavad-gītā Chapter IX.30-32^[29] should be read together to get inherent meanings, but not independently. In Chapter IX.30 Kṛṣṇa says that ‘even a man of good wicked or sudurāchāri or sudurāchāra becomes fit to attain Me, if he worships Me being an ananya bhakta or exclusive devotee i.e. worship with ananya Bhakti, and he is deemed to be a sādhu or righteous. He soon becomes dharmātmā and attains the eternal peace (IX.31). Therefore, ‘O Arjuna, vaiśyas, śūdras, women and even saṇdāl (pāpayoṇaḥ) attains Me with exclusively being devoted to Me, worshipping Me with their exclusive devotion in association with jñāna and karma’ (IX.32) In this verse ‘vyapāśritya’ means ‘taking refuge a devotee has to perform his devotion in accordance with jñāna and karma.’

If we study Rāmānuja’s interpretation in Chapter XVIII.66 and in Chapter IX.32, Rāmānuja has not used the word prapatti. In Chapter XVIII.66, Rāmānuja has given two different interpretations at the same time. First, he comments that ‘renouncing all dharmas in association with karma, jñāna and bhakti which are performed as worship to Him, giving up of the fruits and agency as He is the only object of worship thinking of Him.’ Another way of his interpretation of the verse is that, ‘for Rāmānuja, Arjuna thought that bhakti- yoga can be practised successfully by a person to whom the Lord is inexpressively dear to him and who is free from all sins, and hence he (Arjuna) was unfit for bhakti, should resort to Him.’ But it is seen that Rāmānuja by giving two different interpretations at same time, he himself is not faithful to the verse. Because in the first interpretation he says–renouncing all dharmas i.e. ‘sarva dharma parityājya’ means giving up of the agency of action, result and possessiveness in regard to karma, jñāna and bhakti, and in another interpretation he says, renouncing all dharmas means all the religious works which are varied in kinds and correlated with innumerable sins which are difficult to be carried out–that is why all these works are to be renounced according to Rāmānuja.

Saying that prapatti is the last stage to salvation is wrong thinking which is clearly indicated in Rāmānuja’s interpretation of Chapter XVIII.66. He writes, ‘in order to succeed in starting bhakti yoga, surrender finding refuge in Me alone, who am supremely merciful, who am the refuge of all persons without taking into consideration the differences among them.’ From this interpretation it is clearly seen that prapatti is not final stage and it is also cleared that prapatti is not another independent means of liberation and cannot be carried out without bhakti in the Bhagavad-gītā. Surrendering to Him (prapatti for the Vaiśṇavite) is one of the aspects of bhakti.

The Bhagavad-gītā does not advocate prapatti as an alternative means to salvation. Bhagavad-gītā’s point is that everyone is fit to attain mokṣa without any distinction of caste, creed or sex. In Chapter IX.32, Chapter XVIII.62 and 66 where it is mentioned that the word ‘śaraṇam’ does not mean what prapatti is in Rāmānuja’s philosophy. In the verses śaraṇam means ‘being devoid of shame, fear and attachment to Him i.e. by giving up of attachment, egoness from the body thinking that Lord is the only refuge and all in all. Thinking so one has to worship Him with śraddhā, bhakti with exclusive mind continuously and should perform chanting and listening to His names and glories. And one has to perform his actions which are to be performed for Him i.e. by giving up of the attachment to the fruits, agency and depositing everything to Him is called taking refuge in Him i.e. śaraṇam. So, śaraṇam is to be taken in this sense in Bhagavad-gītā. Taking śaraṇam in this sense, then there is no need of differentiating between bhakti and prapatti. Prapatti itself is performance of bhakti; so there cannot be an independent means of liberation apart from bhakti in the Bhagavad-gītā.

Moreover, the word prapatti is used nowhere in the Bhagavad-gītā. Although ‘surrender’ may mean śaraṇāgati or prapatti which Rāmānuja applies in his religious philosophy and his works Gadyatraya^[30] which are three in numbers, yet we cannot say that Rāmānuja tries to attribute prapatti in his Gītā Bhāṣya. Even if we say that Rāmānuja introduced prapatti then this idea contradicts with his interpretation of Chapter XVIII.44. It is just the point that readers used Rāmānuja’s Gītā Bhāṣya as an alternative means of fulfilling and satisfying the intellectual desire and nothing else.

According to Rāmānuja, the fundamental teaching of the Bhagavad-gītā is to attain God by the way of karma, jñāna and bhakti yoga which are not separate roads but successive stages of the same.^[31] J.A.B Van Beutenen, in his work, writes that, this view of Rāmānuja is missing. He says that the mystic doctrine (the doctrine of prapatti) which has grown so important in later Viśiṣtādvaita has been indeed divided by the Vaisṇavas into two schools^[32] which still exist today. The doctrine of prapatti, as a second, and indeed a preferable, way to the attainment of God beside bhakti is completely absent in Rāmānuja’s Gītā Bhāṣya. ^[33] He also writes that, the general meaning in which Rāmānuja takes ‘prapad’ (synonymous with śaraṇam) “is to take refuge in”, that may be in God in His human form by following His command (4.11)^[34] , in God by considering Him to be the supreme end of all worship (7.19)–so it can be also applied to man’s taking refuge in divinities as the principal objects of worship (7.20). Besides, it is called an activity which leads to bhakti (7.15) and by taking refuge in God one may attain immediate presentation of the ātmam (15.4-5.) Rāmānuja explains these stanzas in this sense that, only if God is served through bhakti yoga a man will be able to conquer the guṇas and qualify himself to become brahman. Therefore, Rāmānuja in Chapter VII.14 has established that prapatti to God is the only way to conquer the guṇas, and to attain aiśvarya, kaivalya and God, it follows that the conquest of the guṇas and the attainment of the ātman which pre-supposes the former can only be possible through that exclusive prapatti to God. From this passage we must conclude that, here at least, Rāmānuja considered prapatti equivalent with bhakti^[35], but not as independent and ultimate way to attain Brahman as the later western claimed.

Hence, Rāmanuja applies bhakti and prapatti as different from each other in his philosophical system. Unlike the karmavāda and bhakti interpretation in Gītā Bhāṣya, Rāmānuja has not introduced the concept of prapatti in his Gītā Bhāṣya to make consistent his commentary adhering to the text.

In concluding the chapter it can be said that, Bhagavad-gītā was written around 250 BCE which is the most accepted date by most scholars. By that time the meaning of bhakti as love and devotion had not come. But it came around 6^th to 7^th century which was introduced by the Ālvārs. Rāmānuja was influenced by the bhakti movement of the Ālvārs. Being influenced by them he was the first to propagate bhakti systematically and was the first who introduced it in the Bhagavad-gītā. The idea of love, devotion was there in the movement, but the meaning of the word ‘bhakti’ is not love, devotion etc. in the Bhagavad-gītā. Bhakti means bhajana, sharing, dividing, participating, belonging etc. But Rāmānuja under influence of the Ālvārs interpreted as mentioned above. So this is later development. And that is how Rāmānuja interpretes in Chapter IV.3 of the Bhagavad-gītā.

In the verse Kṛṣṇa says:

‘bhakto’si me sakhā ceti rahasyam hotaduttamam.’

But Rāmānuja writes ‘bhakta asi me’ as ‘Arjuna is devoted to Me’ [Kṛṣṇa] which is the problematic part of his interpretation. But what ‘bhakta asi me’ means is ‘you [Arjuna] are my participant.’ Because Kṛṣṇa is a Samaṣti Pūruṣa and a bhakta is belonged to Him; since, Kṛṣṇa and bhakta are identical. This idea of bhakta is in which there is a duality, one should be devoted to another. If they are two how can Dhanaṇjaya be identical with Krsṇa which is said by Kṛṣṇa Himself in Chapter X that ‘I am Dhanaṇjaya’ which actually is Arjuna? So, bhakta cannot be in the sense of devotion where there is duality. But Rāmānuja is taking it from the perspective of Viśiṣṭādvaita. So, the sentence ‘you are devoted to me’ is problematic. Since, a bhakta is a sharer, so Arjuna being a sharer he is sharing his bhakti in Kṛṣṇa or he is a participant in Kṛṣṇa.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/bhakti.

[2]:

Achary, R.R U Ve (2013): Srimād Bhagavad Gītā with Gītā Bhāsya of Bhagavad Rāmānujachārya, ed. Srimatham.Com, page - 36.

[3]:

Adidevananda, S: Sri Ramanuja Gita Bhasya, Sri Ramakrishna Math, Mylapore, Chennai-600004, page -115.

[4]:

ibid, page-24.

[5]:

N.K, Srinivas (2006): Essence of Srimad Bhagavad Gita, Pushtak Mahal, J-3/16, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002, page-27.

[6]:

Sribhasyam, T.K, Sheshadri, A (2012): From Devotion to Total Surrender–Śaraṇāgati Yoga–In Light of the Indian Philosophy, page-70-71.

[7]:

Renunciation is not in the sense of giving up of action i.e. not doing anything, but doing action by giving up of attachment, agency and depositing actions and fruits of action i.e. sannyāsam in Brahman.

[8]:

Sribhasyam, T.K., Sheshadri, A (2012): From Devotion to Total Surrender–Śaraṇāgati Yoga–In Light of the Indian Philosophy, page-71

[9]:

Bhagavadgītā, Chapter II.30, V.7, VI.29, VII.7, X.20

[10]:

M.R. Sampatkumaran (2002): The Gita Bhasya of Ramanuja, Prof. M. Rangcharya Memorial Trust, page-338.

[11]:

Ibid.

[12]:

Rāmānuja Gītā Bhāṣya, pp- 338-339

[13]:

māṃ ca yo’vyabhicāreṇa Bhaktiyogena sevate/
saḥ gūṇānsamatityetānbrahmabhūyā kalpate//

[14]:

purūśaḥ saḥ paraḥ pārtha bhaktayā labhyaḥ tu ananyayā/
yasyāntaḥ sthāni bhūtāni yena sarvam idam tatam//

[15]:

satatam kṛtayante mām yatantaḥ dṛdhavratāḥ/
namasyantaḥ ca mām bhaktayā nityayuktāḥ upāsate//

[16]:

T.K. Sribhasyam, A. Sheshadri (2012): ‘From Devotion to Total Surrender –Śaraṇāgati Yoga–In the Light of Indian Philosophy’, D.K. Printworld (P)Ltd., Sudarshan Park, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi-15, page-107.

[17]:

ibid.

[18]:

N. Nayar (1988): ‘The Concept of Prapatti in Rāmānuja’s Gītā Bhāṣya’, Journal of South Asian Literature, Vol.23, No.2, Asian Study Centre, Machigan State University, page-112.

[19]:

T.K. Sribhasyam, A. Sheshadri (2012): ‘From Devotion to Total Surrender –Śaraṇāgati Yoga–In the Light of Indian Philosophy’, D.K. Printworld (P)Ltd., Sudarshan Park, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi-15, pp-109-110.

[20]:

Raghavachar, S.S (2014): Ramanuja on the Bhagavad Gita, Advaita Ashrama, Kolkata-700014.

[21]:

Sampatkumaran’s view is unfortunately rejected by J A B Van Beutenen. He writes that there is no certainly trace of that importance given to prapatti by later Viśiṣtādvaitin. God’s grace may crown the aspirant’s efforts, but he first has to deserve it. only when a man has devoted his life to exclusive bhakti towards God He will elect him to his beatitude.page-28.

[22]:

Sampatkumaran, M.R (2002): The Gita Bhashya of Ramanuja, introduction, pages-xi.

[23]:

Rāmānuja’s writings are divided into two groups–major and minor. Major writings are Srī Bhāṣya or Vedānta–Sutra, and Gītā Bhāṣya, the commentary on the Bhagavadgītā.

[24]:

Nayar, N: The Concept of Prapatti in Ramanuja’s “GītāBhāsya”, Journal of South Asian Literature, Vol. 23, No. 2, Asian Studies Center, Michigan State University: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40873969, accessed: 27-09-2018 12:23 UTC.

[25]:

sarvadharmān parityajya māmekaṃ śaraṇam vraja/
ahaṃ tvā sarvapāpevyaḥ mokṣayisyāmi mā śūchaḥ//

[26]:

Mayankar, T.G (1969): Comparative Study of the Commentaries on the Bhagavadgītā, page-15.

[27]:

ibid.

[28]:

J.A.B, Van Beutenen, (1974): ‘Rāmānuja On The Bhagavadgītā–A Condensed Rendering of His Gītā Bhāṣya with Copious Notes and An Introduction’, Matilal Banarsidass, Bunglow Roads, Jawaharnagar, Delhi-7, page-27

[29]:

api cetasudurāchāraḥ bhajate mām ananyabhāk/
sādhureva saḥ mantavyaḥ samyak vyavasitḥ hi saḥ//
kṣipram bhavati dharmātmā śaśvataḥ śāṇtim nigachhati/
kauteya prati jānīhi na me bhaktaḥ praṇaśyati//
mām hi pārtha vyapāśritya ye api syuḥ pāpayunayaḥ/
striyaḥ vaiśyaḥ tathā śudrāḥ tea pi yānti parām gatim//

[30]:

Śaraṇāgatigadya, Śrīrangagadya and Śrīvaikuṇthagadya.

[31]:

J.A.B, Van Beutenen, (1974): ‘Rāmānuja On The Bhagavadgītā–A Condensed Rendering of His Gītā Bhāṣya with Copious Notes and An Introduction’, Matilal Banarsidass, Bunglow Roads, Jawaharnagar, Delhi-7, page-24.

[32]:

These schools are called Southern and Northern School. Southern school is known as tengalai and Northern school is known as vadgalai.

[33]:

J.A.B, Van Beutenen, (1974): ‘Rāmānuja On The Bhagavadgītā–A Condensed Rendering of His Gītā Bhāṣya with Copious Notes and An Introduction’, Matilal Banarsidass, Bunglow Roads, Jawaharnagar, Delhi-7, page-24.

[34]:

4.11 says: ‘ye yathā mām prapadnate taṃstathoiva bhajāmyaham–mam vartamānuvartante manuṣyāḥ pārtha sarvsyaḥ.’

The meaning is that he the bhakta who shares his bhakti i.e. bhaj in Me i.e. Kṛṣṇa following all his path I i.e. Kṛṣṇa too do favour in return. Now in this Rāmānuja is interpreting the word ‘prapadante’ as ‘refuge’ in the sense of ‘prāpatti’; ‘vartam’ as forms of all ways and ‘anuvartante’ as ‘experience.’ He writes, “not merely I i.e. Kṛṣṇa do bestow protection on those who wish to seek refuge in Me by incarnating in the forms of gods, men etc. But also whoever desirous of taking refuge in Me however in what manner conceiving of Me in accordance with their own desires take refuge in Me i.e. resort to Me, I render favour even the way they desire.” But this is problematic because ‘prapadante’ means to ‘bhaj’ or ‘to share’, not ‘taking refuge’ and ‘vartam’ means ‘path’ or ‘mārga’ but not ‘forms of all ways’ and ‘anuvartante’ means ‘to follow’ but not ‘experience.’ ‘Vartamānuvartante’ does not mean experience of Kṛṣṇa in all ways or forms but it should be ‘his path is to be followed.’

[35]:

ibid, page- 25