Abstract
This paper is devoted to the philosopher Rāmānuja, who lived in South India in the eleventh/twelfth centuries CE. While several of his scholastic writings have survived, the only sources about his life are hagiographies and a temple chronicle written at least a century after his lifetime. We do not know how closely they correspond to historical facts. However, they do allow us to determine the nature of the charisma attributed to Rāmānuja by the authors of these works, and to understand their ideas about what signs of charisma were necessary to be a religious leader of Rāmānuja’s stature. The paper will examine two episodes in Rāmānuja’s life that describe how his predecessor Yāmuna and his followers realised that Rāmānuja would be the ideal successor to advance their religious system; and consider the institutional-administrative achievements attributed to Rāmānuja; and analyse the applicability of Max Weber’s model of charismatic authority to Rāmānuja.
1 Introduction
The renowned philosopher and theologian Rāmānuja lived in the Tamil- speaking area of South India in the eleventh/twelfth centuries CE. He was a significant teacher of the Hindu tradition of the Śrīvaiṣṇavas and a major propounder of the philosophical system of Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta.
Historically, Śrīvaiṣṇavism – a Vaiṣṇava tradition prevalent mainly in South India – arose as a fusion of several traditions, above all the tradition that follows the Tamil saint-poets called Āḻvārs, the philosophical school of Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta, and the ritual-oriented traditions of Pāñcarātra.1
Rāmānuja is considered by the Śrīvaiṣṇavas to have been a partial manifestation of one of God’s most intimate servants, the serpent Śeṣa, who serves as God’s bed in heaven. Rāmānuja is reported to have been responsible for the administrative management (śrīkāryam) and reorganisation of the most important temple of the Śrīvaiṣṇava community, the Raṅganāthasvāmī Temple in Śrīraṅgam, located on an island in the Kāvērī River and belonging to the present-day city of Tiruchirappali in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. Today in India Rāmānuja is considered a social reformer, although there is no evidence of this in his own writings.2
How can we understand the charisma of this illustrious personality? The only available reports about Rāmānuja’s life are found in Śrīvaiṣṇava hagiographies and in the Śrīraṅgam temple chronicle that were composed at least a century after his lifetime. We do not know how closely they correspond to historical facts. They do, however, enable us to determine the nature of the charisma ascribed by the Śrīvaiṣṇavas to Rāmānuja, and to understand that tradition’s ideas about what signs of charisma were thought necessary to be a religious leader of Rāmānuja’s stature.
Following a brief overview of those sources concerning Rāmānuja, this paper will examine two episodes from his life that are particularly revealing with regard to the Śrīvaiṣṇava tradition’s notion of charisma on the basis of two select hagiographic texts. These episodes describe how Rāmānuja’s predecessor Yāmuna (tenth/eleventh centuries CE)3 and his followers realised that Rāmānuja would be the ideal person to advance their religious system into the future. Then we will deal with the institutional-administrative achievements attributed to Rāmānuja in the hagiographies and the Śrīraṅgam temple chronicle. The paper will conclude by analysing the applicability of Max Weber’s model of charismatic authority to Rāmānuja.
2 Rāmānuja in History and Hagiography
Nine works attributed to Rāmānuja have survived. The authenticity of three of these is unquestioned, including Rāmānuja’s magnum opus, the Śrībhāṣya. Whether the other six works were actually composed by Rāmānuja is a matter of debate among scholars, although the Śrīvaiṣṇavas have long considered them to be authentic.4 These works – depending on which are considered authentic – are our only sources for information about the historical figure Rāmānuja. They are scholastic or religious works that provide insight into Rāmānuja’s views on philosophical and theological subjects, but offer no information regarding his personal life or character.
Rāmānuja’s life story is told in hagiographies.5 These are difficult to date, but it is likely that they were composed no earlier than the thirteenth century CE, that is, quite some time after Rāmānuja’s life ended. There may be some truth to the stories presented in the hagiographies, but it is difficult to determine what is historical fact and what is not, in part because there are different versions of some of the stories. The hagiographies may reveal more about the concerns of their composers than about the personalities they describe, and as such they are a valuable source of information about the history of the tradition and the notions prevalent within it.
The sources used in this paper are the two earliest extant Śrīvaiṣṇava hagiographies, as they probably contain the most original versions of the available works of this genre. These two works are Garuḍavāhana Paṇḍita’s Divyasūricarita (DCS, “The Lives of the Celestial Sages”), composed in Sanskrit, and Piṉpaḻakiya Perumāḷ Jīyar’s Āṟāyirapaṭi Guruparamparāprabhāvam (ĀGPP, “The Glory of the Succession of Teachers in 6000 paṭis”),6 written in Maṇipravāḷam, a language that blends Sanskrit and Tamil.7
Additionally, the Kōyil Oḻuku (KO, “Record of the [Śrīraṅgam] Temple”) is used, which is the chronicle of the Raṅganāthasvāmī Temple in Śrīraṅgam. In its present form, the Kōyil Oḻuku is probably much later than the hagiographies, on which it is partly based. It might even date from the eighteenth century.8 Although this chronicle is much later than the hagiographies, has different purposes9 and therefore a different perspective, it is an important piece of evidence that demonstrates the role of Rāmānuja’s charisma and consequent suitability as Yāmuna’s successor and temple administrator in legitimising the organisational structure of the temple.
Both hagiographies deal not only with Rāmānuja’s life, but with the lives of all of the major teachers of the Śrīvaiṣṇava tradition up to Rāmānuja, and (in the case of the ĀGPP) beyond. They begin with a description of a divine plan in which God sent members of His celestial entourage to earth in order to be born as the Śrīvaiṣṇava teachers for the benefit of mankind.10 Thus, each teacher of the tradition is considered a partial manifestation of a particular member of God’s personal retinue. Rāmānuja is presented as the embodiment of the serpent Śeṣa, who serves as God’s bed in heaven.11 Too, as the hagiographies tell us that all Śrīvaiṣṇava teachers were sent by God Himself and are not ordinary human beings, Rāmānuja is already clearly made out to be a charismatic person according to Max Weber’s definition.12 Further analysis of two significant moments in his life will reveal additional charismatic qualities, as will be discussed in the following two sections.
3 How Does Yāmuna Realize That Rāmānuja Is a Special Person?
The hagiographies describe Rāmānuja’s predecessor, Yāmuna, as an eminent scholar and brilliant teacher of several disciples, who was nevertheless very anxious about finding a suitable successor.13 The hagiographies present two slightly different versions of the episode in which he finds a person he deems suitable to succeed him and maintain his religious tradition.
The ĀGPP reports that two travelers arrive at Śrīraṅgam, where Yāmuna is responsible for the administrative affairs of the Raṅganāthasvāmī Temple. They bring news from Kāñcipuram – a town about 270 kilometres north-east of Śrīraṅgam – and tell Yāmuna about a smart young man called Rāmānuja, who has become a disciple of Yādavaprakāśa. Yādavaprakāśa is described as a follower of the philosophical system of Advaita Vedānta and thus an opponent of Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta, the philosophical system to which Yāmuna belongs.14 The travelers report that Rāmānuja had been suffering from great grief because his teacher was not only misinterpreting the holy scriptures, but was also making ridiculous and even blasphemous interpretations.15 Yāmuna reacts as follows:
When Yāmuna16 heard this, he was very pleased and said: “A very dignified man has been born in this world. It is as if a lotus has bloomed in an incense burner, as it is said: ‘In this [world], bad people indeed arise like fire in a portable fire vessel. [But] when good people appear here, [it is like] finding lotuses in a [portable fire vessel].’” Then, intensely desiring to see [Rāmānuja], he and [his] followers set out. They humbly informed Our Lord [of Śrīraṅgam of their departure], and left with His approval.17
The story that Yāmuna hears about Rāmānuja shows him that Rāmānuja is not only intelligent, but also profoundly touched when the scriptures are not correctly interpreted. Apparently, Rāmānuja recognizes this intuitively, as he has not yet received a proper education. This is why Yāmuna calls him “a very dignified man”, a person that is as rare as a lotus springing up from a fire vessel.
When Yāmuna and his followers arrive at the temple in Kāñcipuram, Yādavaprakāśa and his disciples are worshipping God. The text continues:
Yāmuna asked [his disciple Tirukacci] Nampi: “Who among them is Rāmānuja?” He respectfully informed him: “That is the one in the middle, the bright, tall, strong man with arms down to his knees, just as [the heroes Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa are] described: ‘The arms are long and well formed’.”
With deep sweet eyes marked with red lines – [eyes] gracious because of [his] delight – Yāmuna looked at him again and again and gave him a special, gracious side-glance, thinking: “He will become the chief”. (…) He respectfully informed [God]: “It is incumbent upon me, Your servant, to give [him] a special, gracious side-glance so that the very dignified man Rāmānuja will become the one who advances our system. Therefore have I taken refuge with You.”18
Giving a side-glance is a way of showing grace. In Hindu religions, God, or a teacher (who is often considered divine), can perform this act. It is significant that Yāmuna requests God’s consent and assistance to perform this, as it underscores the idea that it is ultimately God who chooses Rāmānuja and not a human being. (Although Yāmuna is no ordinary being either: he is a partial manifestation of God’s attendant Siṃhamukha.)19
The Divyasūricarita’s description is much more concise. Yāmuna hears the story about Rāmānuja and goes to Kāñcipuram to see him. He sees Yādavaprakāśa surrounded by his disciples,20 and then:
When [Yāmuna’s] own disciples pointed out [Rāmānuja] by raising [their] hands, [Yāmuna] saw him, a treasure of majesty [and] shining on both sides, in the midst of [Yādavaprakāśa]’s disciples. [Yāmuna] looked at him with compassion [and thought:] “When will he become [my disciple and] live in my house?”21
Let us consider how Yāmuna recognises Rāmānuja’s special powers, which lead him to want him to become his successor. He first learns of Rāmānuja’s extraordinary intelligence and intuitive understanding of the true meaning of the scriptures, but it is notable that Yāmuna does not immediately recognise him when he sees Rāmānuja among Yādavaprakāśa’s disciples. Both works emphasize that Yāmuna’s disciples must show him which person in the group is Rāmānuja.
In describing what Yāmuna then sees, the two works differ. The ĀGPP describes Rāmānuja as a bright, tall man with strong arms, emphasizing his physical strength, which is characteristic of a hero. The DSC, in contrast, describes Rāmānuja as radiant “on both sides.”
These two descriptions are not contradictory, however, as both are typical of descriptions of kings. In Sanskrit literature, it is common for kings to be described as strong with “arms down to one’s knees”, emphasizing their ability to protect the world.22 Radiance is also characteristic of kings. Heinrich von Stietencron regards this radiance as charisma:
In the Indian literary tradition, the notion of charisma is first and primarily linked to the king. It is a kind of radiating power and unfailing fortune that distinguishes its bearer from other persons or entities. It can be directly experienced in the encounter with a charismatic person. Both in ancient Iranian and Indian tradition, charisma was conceived of as a kind of subtle, luminous substance that could be conferred on a deserving person by a God or by ritual action.23
Yāmuna sees this “subtle, luminous substance” in Rāmānuja’s “shining on both sides”. This “substance” is referred to as tejas in Sanskrit, meaning “luster” or “brilliance”. Von Stietencron’s interpretation of tejas as charisma – a gift of grace from God – is even more justified by the fact that tejas is often closely related to the Gods Kṛṣṇa and Viṣṇu. In the Bhagavadgītā, Kṛṣṇa says:
This verse suggests that all-powerful, splendid, and vigorous beings possess these attributes as a result of Kṛṣṇa’s tejas. Distinguished beings such as Viṣṇu’s Avatāras also possess a particularly large amount of tejas.25 Viṣṇu, in turn, is closely associated with kings and kingship, as expressed, for example, in the Vāyupurāṇa: “Emperors are born on earth as a partial manifestation of Viṣṇu.”26 According to Jan Gonda, tejas “entitles” a king to respect and “enables him to perform great exploits”, but Gods and “illustrious religious men” also possess tejas,27 as we see in Rāmānuja.
Thus, what Yāmuna sees in Rāmānuja – though expressed through different features in the two works – are two factors that are essential for a spiritual leader: God’s presence in the form of His tejas, and the ability to be a ruler.
4 How Do Yāmuna’s Followers Realise That Rāmānuja Is a Special Person?
Time passes. The ĀGPP describes how Rāmānuja continues to stay with his teacher Yādavaprakāśa, but it is obvious that he is superior to him. One day, when Rāmānuja corrects his teacher’s interpretation of Vedānta passages, Yādavaprakāśa angrily sends him away. Rāmānuja’s mother sends him to Kāñcīpuram to perform a temple service in the Varadarājasvāmī Temple. Rāmānuja takes on the daily task of fetching water for God. The Varadarājasvāmī Temple belongs to Yāmuna’s religious tradition. So taking on this task in this temple is already a step in Yāmuna’s direction. In the meantime, Yāmuna is longing to include Rāmānuja in his community. Once again two Śrīvaiṣṇavas come by and tell Yāmuna what Rāmānuja has been doing. Yāmuna is very happy and sends his disciple Periya Nampi to bring Rāmānuja. Periya Nampi goes to Kāñcipuram and Rāmānuja is willing to come with him as he is eager to meet Yāmuna. But Yāmuna’s health worsens and he dies. Rāmānuja and Periya Nampi arrive in Śrīraṅgam as the funeral is being held. Rāmānuja is beside himself with grief. Periya Nampi tries to console him:
Taking his hand, [Periya Nampi] went with him to Yāmuna’s stainless last28 body and made obeisance to it. Rāmānuja prostrated himself before [Yāmuna] and wondered: “What an unexpected incident this is!” When he was prostrating himself from head to foot, three [of Yāmuna’s] fingers bent. When [Rāmānuja] saw this, he asked the followers: “Were they like this before [my prostration]?” They said: “No. They were not [like this] before. Only now do we see them like this.” Rāmānuja thought: “There must be some intention in his mind.” He asked the followers: “Are there any persons who have previously heard [him] speak of a wish when [he was giving his] discourses?” All the followers of Yāmuna came together and said: “We know nothing but this: Many times [we] heard him speak of gratitude to Vyāsa and Parāśara, immense love for Nammāḻvār, and the desire for a commentary on Vyāsa’s Sūtras dealing with Viśiṣṭādvaita.”29 And [Rāmānuja] understood the intention of [Yāmuna’s] mind and said: “If my body is strong, if I – his servant – am given the full compassion of this teacher (i.e., Yāmuna), and if the Lord of All supports my – His servant’s – intentions, let me remove these three worries.” Immediately, the three divine fingers loosened. When everyone saw this, they were surprised and said: “You have this teacher’s compassion. His divine power will enter you. Only you will be the one to maintain this philosophical system”, and invoked blessings upon him.30
This episode not only describes the miracle of the deceased Yāmuna passing on his message to Rāmānuja as to how the tradition should be continued, but also the conviction of Yāmuna’s direct followers – a conviction that the work’s audience is intended to share – that Yāmuna wishes Rāmānuja to succeed him and that his divine power will pass on to him.
The DCS is again much more succinct. After describing Rāmānuja’s immense grief – how he cries aloud, how he weeps, how he rolls on the ground in despair, and how he bows down to the deceased Yāmuna with his senses confused by his excitement31 – it says:
The [mudrā] formed by the hand of the moon among the renunciates (i.e., Yāmuna) at [his] last moment as a sign to indicate to whom one should then go in order to attain the true meaning (tattvārtha) [of the scriptures], this mudrā unloosened by itself when Rāmānuja took refuge at Yāmuna’s lotus feet. Anxiously, then, the wise [Rāmānuja] quickly and firmly stamped the [image of the] auspicious body of the distinguished renunciate and the true meaning (tattvārtha) [of the scriptures], which he had received like a treasure, into the lump of sealing lac that was [his] mind, and which had melted in the fire of [his] grief.32
This story differs from that of the ĀGPP, in which Yāmuna’s fingers bend when Rāmānuja bows down. The DSC says that Yāmuna formed a mudrā at his last moment, and when Rāmānuja bows down Yāmuna’s fingers loosen, indicating that Rāmānuja should be Yāmuna’s successor.
The DSC does not mention any wishes on Yāmuna’s part. Instead, the deceased Yāmuna transfers the knowledge of the true meaning of the scriptures to Rāmānuja, who imprints their true meaning as well as the image of Yāmuna’s body on his mind, although – or because – he is beside himself with grief. The DSC’s audience hears nothing about how Yāmuna’s followers react, nor how they recognize Rāmānuja as their teacher’s successor. Immediately after receiving the true meaning of the scriptures, Rāmānuja returns to Kāñcipuram.33 Too, the fact that Rāmānuja has received this true meaning is sufficient for the audience of the DSC to consider him a qualified successor of Yāmuna.
5 Rāmānuja’s Institutional-Administrative Achievements
Following these events, time passes again. Important events take place in Rāmānuja’s life: He finds a teacher; he later leaves his wife and household and becomes a renunciate (samnyāsin).34 However, we shall skip over these events and proceed to the time when Rāmānuja officially assumes the role of Yāmuna’s successor and takes over the temple’s affairs.
When Yāmuna’s disciples in Śrīraṅgam hear that Rāmānuja has become a renunciate, they are pleased and request Raṅganātha, the Lord abiding in the Raṅganāthasvāmī Temple, to bring Rāmānuja to Śrīraṅgam to make his residence there permanent. Raṅganātha wants to fulfil their wish, but it is not so easy to effect as Varadarāja, the Lord abiding in the Varadarājasvāmī Temple in Kāñcīpuram, does not want to let Rāmānuja go.35 But after a while, Rāmānuja is ready to come to Śrīraṅgam. Raṅganātha is pleased and gives the command to welcome and receive Rāmānuja with many honours. A grand procession is formed and Rāmānuja is led to the inner shrine of the temple, where Raṅganātha Himself gracefully meets and honours him, stating, “We have given sovereignty over both realms (i.e., this world and heaven) to you and your followers. Look after all of the affairs of Our house.”36 Rāmānuja is willing to take on this task and takes care of the temple administration. The ĀGPP, on which this brief summary is based, then lists various tasks that Rāmānuja must fulfill, such as seeing that the temple services are properly performed, that the structures, gardens, and lands are properly attended to, and that the temple staff is properly cared for.37
The DSC’s account of these events is much briefer, containing only thirteen verses,38 but it is more specific about what Rāmānuja later became famous for: his structural reorganisation of the temple personnel at Śrīraṅgam:
[Rāmānuja,] the best of the renunciates, who bore the yoke for the Lord of Śrīraṅgam, gathered the Brahmins who were the servants of the previous assembly that was engaged in the management of the temple, who were devoted to the same faith as he, [and] who came from many countries, and appointed them as servants of ten kinds. Since the Brahmin servants were divided into ten kinds, the distinguished renunciate made the Śūdra servants of the same number and [thus] gave them an observance in order to attain the Great Goals39 in this world and the hereafter, because they are [also] subordinates [of the Lord and] because they are engaged in menial work.40
Rāmānuja’s appointment of ten Brahmin groups and ten Śūdra groups for temple service is described in more detail in the Kōyil Oḻuku, the chronicle of the Raṅganāthasvāmī Temple. This work lists the designations and tasks of each of the twenty groups and several other individuals, such as temple priests, reciters, musicians, water-carriers, watch-men, gardeners, sculptors, tailors, potters, and washermen, all of whom provide specific services to the temple.41
As a chronicle documenting the history of the temple as an institution, the Kōyil Oḻuku recounts the events described above from a slightly different perspective than the hagiographies though both emphasize that every single event happened by God’s command alone.42 It is God Himself who appoints Rāmānuja to his office. It is striking that in the hagiographies, too, Rāmānuja’s administrative tasks and achievements are what are mentioned first, and that his outstanding spiritual and scholastic achievements only follow afterwards. This view, however, fits with the account of what Yāmuna saw first when he met Rāmānuja: his leadership qualities indicated by his long, strong arms and his radiance.
Some of the groups whose establishment is attributed to Rāmānuja are also mentioned in inscriptions at Śrīraṅgam from the thirteenth century. There is, however, no inscriptional evidence that these groups had an important role in Rāmānuja’s time, even less that Rāmānuja introduced them to the temple.43 It is rather that the hagiographies and the chronicle retrospectively assign the introduction of these groups to Rāmānuja in order to give them special status, authority, temple privileges, and, not least, income.44
6 Rāmānuja through the Lens of Max Weber’s Model of Charismatic Authority
Let us now look at the hagiographical accounts through the lens of Max Weber’s model of charismatic authority. As stated in the introduction, the hagiographies cannot serve as historical evidence of Rāmānuja’s charisma. Since they were composed at least a century after his lifetime, they cannot inform us whether the historical Rāmānuja was really a charismatic person. They are, however, an important source of information about the tradition’s ideas at the time the hagiographies were written about what was required of a religious leader of Rāmānuja’s stature. Is charisma in Max Weber’s sense one of these prerequisites?
Weber is concerned with charisma in the context of his treatment of “types of authority” (“Typen der Herrschaft”).45 Legitimate authority based on charisma is one of three pure types of such authority; the validity of the other two is based on rational grounds or on traditional grounds.46 Weber defines charisma as follows:
The term ‘charisma’ will be applied to a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader.47
Some of these characteristics apply to Rāmānuja. He possesses supernatural, superhuman qualities of divine origin. Not only is he a partial manifestation of the divine serpent Śeṣa, but he is also perceived by Yāmuna as possessing exceptional qualities: he intuitively recognises the false teachings of his first teacher; he has the physical appearance of extraordinary persons (his arms); and he shines with God’s brilliance (tejas).
It is striking that these last two characteristic are very closely associated with qualities of leadership in South Asian understanding, as if to already illustrate Max Weber’s notion of charismatic authority. This is no accident. It was my deliberate choice to present episodes that deal with a succession of leaders. It is noteworthy, however, that the legitimacy of Rāmānuja’s leadership is based on God-given, that is, charismatic qualities, and God’s will.
According to Weber,48 it is irrelevant how the “charismatic” quality is to be assessed “objectively”; the only thing that matters is how it is assessed by “those subject to charismatic authority”. He continues:
It is recognition on the part of those subject to authority which is decisive for the validity of charisma. This is freely given and guaranteed by what is held to be a ‘sign’ or proof, originally always a miracle, and consists in devotion to the corresponding revelation, hero worship, or absolute trust in the leader. But where charisma is genuine, it is not this which is the basis of the claim to legitimacy. This basis lies rather in the conception that it is the duty of those who have been called to a charismatic mission to recognize its quality and to act accordingly. Psychologically this ‘recognition’ is a matter of complete personal devotion to the possessor of the quality, arising out of enthusiasm, or of despair and hope.49
The scenes in which Rāmānuja bows before Yāmuna’s corpse and is miraculously instructed by him as what to do next well illustrate what Weber is saying here. It is not only a miracle that the deceased Yāmuna can convey a message to Rāmānuja by bending his fingers, it is also a clear sign to his followers that Rāmānuja is to be their future leader.
Weber50 examines in detail the characteristics of the administrative staff of a charismatic leader, and how leadership based on charisma – by its supernatural nature, foreign to everyday routine – is routinized and thus radically changes its character in that its validity is either traditionalized or rationalized (or both). The principal motives for this transformation are:
(a) The ideal and also the material interests of the followers in the continuation and the continual reactivation of the community, (b) the still stronger ideal and also stronger material interests of the members of the administrative staff, the disciples or other followers of the charismatic leader in continuing their relationship. Not only this, but they have an interest in continuing it in such a way that both from an ideal and a material point of view, their own status is put on a stable everyday basis.51
According to Weber, these interests typically come to the fore when a charismatic leader disappears and the question of succession needs to be resolved.
As described above, the chronicle of the Śrīraṅgam temple reports in great detail on Rāmānuja’s reorganisation of the temple staff, the groups into which he structured the temple administration, and their duties and responsibilities. When comparing Weber’s analysis with the chronicle report, a fundamental difference becomes apparent.
Weber describes a certain development: He begins with the recognition of the charisma by those subject to authority; describes the formation of a community of followers and an administrative staff; and finally comes to the question of succession when the charismatic leader disappears and the interests of the administrative staff and other followers come to the fore in regards to resolving this question.
The temple chronicle has a different perspective. At the time of its composition, the Śrīraṅgam temple was probably structured as described in the chronicle. The aim of the chronicle is to present the historical origin of this structure in order to legitimise it. By attributing the establishment of this structure to Rāmānuja – who was appointed by God Himself as proven by his charisma – legitimacy is provided to the communities forming the structure and the rights and privileges associated with their position in it. In this retrospective view Weber’s question of succession does not arise. That question had long been settled by the time the chronicle was written. Presenting these communities as legitimate is now the main concern, and Rāmānuja’s charisma serves as a means to achieve this goal.
Weber describes this phenomenon as “hereditary charisma”.52 He considers India as the “classical case of the development of hereditary charisma” and writes: “The foundation of a sect always meant the development of a hereditary hierarchy”.53 The temple groups that trace their rights back to Rāmānuja are certainly a case of hereditary charisma, even if there is no reliable historical evidence that the very fact of their existence can actually be traced back to Rāmānuja.
7 Conclusion
As stated earlier, the two hagiographies provide no information concerning the personality of the historical Rāmānuja. However, they do offer us insights into what the tradition understood as the charisma necessary for a religious leader and how it is expressed. Rāmānuja’s charisma is to be perceived in his intelligence and intuitive understanding of religious truths. It can be seen in
his physical appearance as a strong man with a radiance deriving from his God-given tejas. It is indicated by the miracle of the deceased Yāmuna communicating his will and Rāmānuja understanding it. And finally, it is recognized in his having been sent to earth by God residing in heaven, and being appointed to his office in Śrīraṅgam by God residing there. The hagiographical descriptions of Rāmānuja thus provide a compelling illustration of many of Max Weber’s key characteristics of charismatic authority.
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank Arturo Silva for suggesting various stylistic corrections of the English manuscript.
Biography
Marion Rastelli is a Senior Research Associate and Deputy Director at the Institute for the Cultural and Intellectual History of Asia of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, and also teaches at the Institute for South Asian, Tibetan and Buddhist Studies of the University of Vienna. Her main field of research is the Vaiṣṇava tradition of Pāñcarātra in all its aspects, including teachings, rituals, and historical development. She is co-editor of the renowned Tāntrikābhidhānakośa, a dictionary of technical terms from Hindu Tantric literature.
Bibliography
Primary Literature
Āṟāyirappaṭi Kuruparamparāprapāvam (ĀGPP) – Ayyaṅkār, Kiruṣṇasvāmi (ed.): Āṟāyirappaṭi Kuruparamparāprapāvam. Chennai: Sri Bhashyakara Publications 2006.
Bhagavadgītā – Shripad Krishna Belvalkar (ed.): The Bhagavadgītā. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 1968.
Divyasūricarita (DSC) – Sampath Kumaracharya, T. A./Venkatachari K. K. A. (eds.): Divyasūri Caritam By Garuḍa Vāhana Paṇḍita with Hindi Rendering by Paṇḍita Mādhavācharya. Bombay: Ananthacharya Research Institute 1978.
Kōyil Oḻuku (KO) – Kōyiloḻuku. Śrīraṅka Kṣettirattiṉ Naṭavaṭikkaikalḷaik Kuṟittatu. Chennai: Āṉanta Muttirākṣara Cālai 1909.
Muvvāyīrappaṭi Kuruparamparāprapāvam (MGPP) – Kīḻāttūr Śrīnivāsāccāriyar (ed.): Brahmatantrasvatantrasvāmi aruḷicceyta Muvvāyirappaṭi kuruparamparāprapāvam. Ceṉṉai: Ti liṭṭil pḷavar kampeṉi 1968.
Rāmāyaṇa – Bhatt, G. H. et al. (eds.): The Vālmīki-Rāmāyaṇa (7 vols). Baroda: Oriental Institute 1960–1975.
Tiruvāymoḻi – Rājam, Es. (ed.): Tivyap Pirapantam Tiruvāymoḻi. Chennai 1956.
Vāyupurāṇa – Āpaṭe, Nārāyaṇa Hari (ed.): Mahāmuniśrīmadvyāsapraṇītaṃ Vāyupurāṇam. Poona: Ānandāśramamudraṇālaya 1905.
Secondary Literature
Anandakichenin, Suganya: My Sapphire-hued Lord, my Beloved! A Complete, Annotated Translation of Kulacēkara Āḻvār’s Perumāḷ Tirumoḻi and of its Medieval Maṇipravāḷa Commentary by Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai with an Introduction. Pondichéry: École française d’Extrême-Orient 2018.
Carman, John Braisted: The Theology of Rāmānuja. An Essay in Interreligious Understanding. New Haven, London: Yale University Press 1974 (Bombay: Ananthacharya Indological Research Institute 1981 repr.).
Dasgupta, Surendranath: A History of Indian Philosophy (Vol. 3). London: Cambridge University Press 1940.
Dutta, Ranjeeta: From Hagiographies to Biographies. Rāmānuja in Tradition and History. New Delhi: Oxford University Press 2014.
Gawde, Shakuntala: “Vedānta, Overview”, in: Jeffery D. Long, Rita D. Sherma, Pankaj Jain, Madhu Khanna (eds.): Hinduism and Tribal Religions. Dordrecht: Springer 2022, pp. 1722–1732.
Gonda, Jan: “Ancient Indian Kingship From the Religious Point of View”, in: Numen (3.1/1956), pp. 36–71.
Gonda, Jan: Aspects of Early Viṣṇuism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers 1993 (repr.).
Hardy, Friedhelm: “The Tamil Veda of a Śūdra Saint (The Śrīvaiṣṇava Interpretation of Nammāḻvār)”, in: Gopal Krishna (ed.): Contributions to South Asian Studies 1. Delhi: Oxford University Press 1979, pp. 29–87.
Hari Rao, V. N.: Kōil Oḻugu. The Chronicle of the Srirangam Temple with Historical Notes. Madras: Rouchouse & Sons, 1961.
Lester, Robert C.: The Sāttāda Śrīvaiṣṇavas, in: Journal of the American Oriental Society (114/1994), pp. 39–53.
Magnone, Paolo: “Paraśurāma’s Rise to Avatārahood. A Glimpse of Early Avatāra-Theology”, in: Rendiconti, Classe di Lettere e Scienze Morali e Storiche, Istituto Lombardo Accademia die Scienze e Lettere (136/2002), pp. 195–210.
Malinar, Angelika: The Bhagavadgītā. Doctrines and Contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2007.
Mesquita, Roque: “Yāmunamuni: Leben, Datierung und Werke”, in: Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens (17/1973), pp. 177–193.
Oberhammer, Gerhard: Yādavaprakāśa, der vergessene Lehrer Rāmānujas. Materialien zur Geschichte der Rāmānuja-Schule III. Wien: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1997.
Patton, Laurie L. (transl.): The Bhagavad Gita. London: Penguin Classics 2008.
Orr, Leslie C.: “The Vaiṣṇava Community at Śrīraṅgam: The Testimony of the Early Medieval Inscriptions”, in: Journal of Vaiṣṇava Studies (3/1995), pp. 109–136.
Raman, Srilata: Self-surrender (prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism. Tamil cats and sanskrit monkeys. Oxon/New York: Routledge 2007.
Ramanujam, B. V.: History of Vaishnavism in South India up to Ramanuja. Annamalainagar: Annamalai University 1973.
Sapkota, Devaki: The hagiography of Bhaktisāra as Contained in the Second and Third Chapters of the Divyasūricaritam: A Critical Edition and Annotated Translation. Unpublished ma thesis, Universität Hamburg, 2019.
Srinivasa Chari, S. M.: Vaiṣṇavism. Its Philosophy, Theology and Religious Discipline. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers 1994.
Von Stietencron, Heinrich: “Charisma and Canon. The Dynamics of Legitimization and Innovation in Indian Religions”, in: Vasudha Dalmia/Angelika Malinar/Martin Christof (eds.): Charisma and Canon. Essays on the Religious History of the Indian Subcontinent. New Delhi: Oxford University Press 2003, pp. 14–38.
Weber, Max: The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Translated by A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons. New York: The Free Press 1947.
Weber, Max: Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) 5 1985.
Exactly when this fusion began is not yet known. The earliest use of the term śrīvaiṣṇava may date back to the 10th c. CE. (Raman, Self-surrender, p. 180, n. 3, quoting Vasudha Narayanan), but in these early times the term śrīvaiṣṇava did not have the same connotations as in modern times (Orr, Vaiṣṇava Community, p. 110 et seq.). Around the 13th century CE or a little later, we see efforts to form a “Śrīvaiṣṇava” tradition and identity by integrating these historically independent traditions, for example, by the philosopher and theologian Vedānta Deśika (Veṅkaṭanātha; 1269–1370). A characteristic Śrīvaiṣṇava theological concept is that of self-surrender (prapatti) to God as a means of attaining liberation (Raman, Self-surrender). The Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta is one of the philosophical schools that developed around the interpretation of the so-called Vedāntic scriptures, the most important of which are the Upaniṣads. For an overview of the main characteristics of Śrīvaiṣṇavism and Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta, see Srinivasa Chari, Vaiṣṇavism.
See Dutta, Hagiographies, pp. 167–208.
Mesquita, Yāmunamuni, pp. 179–183.
Carman, Theology, pp. 18–22, 44–46, 49–64.
For a summary of Rāmānuja’s life based on these sources see Carman, Theology, pp. 26–48.
A paṭi is a unit of text used to indicate the length of a text; see Anandakichenin, My Sapphire-hued Lord, p. 49, n. 119.
The dates of these works are disputed by scholars. The DSC is dated between the 11th and the 16th c. CE, the ĀGPP is dated to the 13th c. CE (Anandakichenin, My Sapphire-hued Lord, p. 49 et seq.). Garuḍavāhana Paṇḍita was a resident of Śrīraṅgam (Sapkota, Hagiography, p. 9 et seq.). Piṉpaḻakiya Perumāḷ Jīyar probably also lived in the Tamil-speaking region, since he wrote in Maṇipravāḷam. He “is said to be the disciple of Nampiḷḷai the fourth in apostolic succession from Rāmānuja” (Ramanujam, History, p. 48).
Lester, Sāttāda Śrīvaiṣṇavas, p. 48. According to Lester, there are two versions of the Kōyil Oḻuku, a briefer and earlier one and a more elaborate and later one (see also Hari Rao, Kōil Oḻugu, p. xv). I only have access to the latter version, which is more elaborate on the various groups of temple servants that will be dealt with below.
Cf. Hari Rao, Kōil Oḻugu, p. vii.
ĀGPP 5,7–7,29, DSC 1.72–93. See also Hardy, Tamil Veda, pp. 42–47.
ĀGPP 140,3–8.
Compare the beginning of his section on charismatic authority: “superhuman … of divine origin” (Weber, Theory, p. 358 et seq., quoted below); in the original German version the latter reads: “gottgesandt” (sent by God) (Weber, Wirtschaft, p. 140).
ĀGPP 128,13–139,19, DSC 16.44–95.
Advaita Vedānta is another of the philosophical schools that developed around the interpretation of the Vedāntic scriptures. It teaches (absolute) monism (advaita) in contrast to Rāmānuja’s school, which teaches “qualified monism” (viśiṣṭādvaita; for an overview of the main tenets of these two schools see Gawde, Vedānta). Advaita Vedānta and its main proponent Śaṅkara was one of the main opponents dealt with in the works of the historical Rāmānuja (Dasgupta, A History, p. 165 et seq.). The historical Yādavaprakāśa was not a follower of Advaita Vedānta at all (Oberhammer, Yādavaprakāśa, p. 40, 57 et seq., 98), but the hagiographies make the story juicier by describing Rāmānuja’s first teacher as follower of his later main opponent.
ĀGPP 147,25–148, 16.
The Śrīvaiṣṇava teachers have both a Sanskrit and a Tamil name. For example, Yāmuna’s Tamil name is Āḷavantār. The Maṇipravāḷam texts often use the Tamil names. In addition, it is common to use epithets of these names. However, the translations in this paper always use the most common name of a person so as not to confuse the reader with too many names. Interested specialists will be able to see in the footnotes which name is used in the original texts.
ĀGPP 148,16–25: āḷavantārum kēṭṭ’aruḷi‚ ‘“asanta evātra hi sambhavanti hasantikāyām iva havyavāhaḥ | atraiva santo yadi sambhavanti tatraiva lābhas sarasīruhāṇām ||” eṉkiṟapaṭiyē intaḷattilē tāmarai pūttāṟ pōlē ivvibhūtiyilē ippaṭiyum oru mahānubhāvaṉ uṇṭ’ākap peṟṟatē!’ eṉṟu pōra prītar āy appōḻutē avaraik kāṇa vēṇum eṉṉum pērācaiyōṭē mutalikaḷum tāmum ākap puṟappaṭṭu namperumāḷukku viṇṇappañ ceytu avaranumati koṇṭu eḻunt’aruḷi.
ĀGPP 149,26–150,12: āḷavantārum ‘ivarkaḷilē iḷaiyāḻvār ār?’ eṉṟu nampiyaik kēṭṭ’aruḷa, avarum ‘civantu neṭuki valiyar āy “āyatāś ca suvṛttāś ca bāhavaḥ” (Rāmāyaṇa 4.3, 12.2) eṉkiṟapaṭiyē ājānubāhuv āy naṭuvē varukiṟavar’ eṉṟu viṇṇappam ceyya, aḷavantārum santoṣattālē prasannamadhuragambhīranayanaṅkaḷālē bhūyo bhūyaḥ cevvariyōṭē ava- raip pārtt’aruḷi “ām mutalvaṉ ivaṉ” (Tiruvāymoḻi 7.9.3) eṉṟu viśeṣakaṭākṣam paṇṇiy aruḷi, (…) “aṭiyēṉukkum iḷaiyāḻvār ākiṟa mahānubhāvār namdarśanapravarttakar āmpaṭi viśeṣakaṭākṣañ ceyt’aruḷa vēṇum eṉṟu tēvarīraic caraṇam pukuntēṉ’ eṉṟu viṇṇappañ ceytu.
DSC 16.44.
DSC 17.12–13.
DSC 17.14: taṃ pārśvasphuritam amuṣya śiṣyamadhye nirdiṣṭaṃ karasamudañcanāt svaśiṣyaiḥ | dr̥ṣṭvāsau mahimanidhiṃ kadā mamāntevāsī syād iti sa dayālur ālulōke ||.
See Gonda, Kingship, p. 40.
Von Stietencron, Charisma, p. 18 et seq.
Bhagavadgītā 10.41: yad yad vibhūtimat sattvaṃ śrīmad ūrjitam eva vā | tat tad evāvagaccha tvaṃ mama tejoṃśasaṃbhavam ||, transl. Patton, Bhagavad Gita. This passage was probably composed in the second or first century BCE (Malinar, Bhagavadgītā, p. 268).
Magnone, Paraśurāma’s Rise, pp. 207–210.
Vāyupurāṇa 57.72ab: viṣṇor aṃśena jāyante pṛthivyāṃ cakravartinaḥ |. For further references see Gonda, Aspects, pp. 164–167.
Gonda, Kingship, p. 71. For text references for the connection between kings and tejas see Gonda, Kingship, pp. 49, 60 et seq., 70 et seq.
That is, his last body before reaching liberation.
There are varying opinions on the content of these three wishes. In my view, they mean that three bodies of text and thus three traditions, which come together in the Śrīvaiṣṇava tradition, should be honored. Vyāsa and Parāśara are the authors of the Mahābhārata and the Viṣṇupurāṇa. Nammāḻvār is the author of the Tiruvāymoḻi, one of the major works of the Tamil saint-poets known as the Āḻvars, and Vyāsa’s Sūtras are the Brahmasūtras on which Rāmānuja wrote a commentary, the above-mentioned Śrībhāṣya. According to a later hagiography, the Muvvāyīrappaṭi Guruparamparāprabhāvam, Yāmuna’s first two wishes were to name two boys Parāśara and Nammāḻvār (MGPP 84,3–12). For yet another interpretation see Dutta, Hagiographies, pp. 145–147.
ĀGPP 164,10–165,3: avaraik kaiyaip piṭittuk koṇṭu pōy āḷavantāruṭaiya vimalaca-ramavigrahattai sēvikkap paṇṇa, iḷaiyāḻvārum avarait taṇṭaṉiṭṭu ‘itu oru alabhyalābham iruntapaṭiy eṉ!” eṉṟu vismitar āy āpādacūḍam āka sēvikkum aḷavil mūṉṟu tiruviralkaḷ muṭaṅkiy irukka, ivarum atu kaṇṭu ‘muṉṉum ivarkku ippaṭiy uṇṭō?’ eṉṟu mutalikaḷaik kēṭka, avarkaḷum ‘muṉpu illai; ippōtu kaṇṭat’ittaṉai’ eṉṉa, iḷaiyāḻvārum ‘ivartiruvuḷḷattil ētēṉum oru karuttu uṇṭ’āka vēṇum’› eṉṟu vicāritt’aruḷi, mutalikaḷaip pārttu ‘muṉpu vyākhyānasamayaṅkaḷilē abhimatasallāpaṅkaḷaik kēṭṭ‘iruntavarkaḷ uṇṭō?’ eṉṉa, śrīpādattu mutalikaḷ ellāruṅ kūṭi ‘vēṟ’eṉṟum aṟiyōm; vyāsaparāśarariṭattilē upakārasmṛtiyum, nammāḻvārpakkal premātiśayamum, vyāsasūtrattiṟku viśiṣṭādvaitaparam āka vyākhyāna-vāñchaiyum palakālum aruḷicceyyak kēṭṭ’irukkaiy āyirukkum’ eṉṉa, ivarum akavāyileṇṇam aṟintu ‘iśśarīram dṛḍham āy, ivvācāryakṛpaiyum aṭiyēṉiṭattil paripūrṇam āy, sarveśvaraṉ aṭiyēṉ niṉaittapaṭi kūṭṭuvāṉ ākil, immūṉṟ’iḻavukaḷaiyum tīrkkak kaṭavēṉ’ eṉṉa, uṭaṉē tiruviralkaḷ nimira, ittai akhilarum kaṇṭu āścaryappaṭṭu ‘ivvācāryakṛpaiyum ummiṭattilēy uṇṭu; ivaruṭaiya divyaśaktiyum ummiṭattilē kūṭum; nīrē iddarśanattukku nirvāhakar āvīr’ eṉṟu sarvarum ivarai maṅgaḷāśāsanam paṇṇa.
DSC 17.41–42.
DSC 17.43–44: tattvārthaṃ vitaritum eṣyate’tha yasmai vyākhyāṅkā samabadhi yā kare’ntyakāle | pādābjaṃ śritavati tasya lakṣmaṇārye sā mudrā parimumuce svayaṃ yatīndoḥ || 43 śokāgniprasaravilīnacittalākṣāpiṇḍe’sau yatitilakasya puṇyam aṅgam | tattvārthaṃ nidhim iva labdham āśu tasmāt tat trāsāt sudṛḍham amudrayan manīṣī || 44.
DSC 17.45.
On the importance of Rāmānuja’s renunciation in the hagiographies, see Dutta, Hagiographies, p. 116 et seq.
Although both Raṅganātha and Varadarāja are manifestations of Viṣṇu, they are considered to be individual beings.
ĀGPP 183,19–22: ubhayavibhūtyaiśvaryattaiyum umakkum ummuṭaiyārkkum tantōm; nammuṭaiya vīṭṭiṉ kāryattaiy ellām ārāyntu naṭattum.
ĀGPP 178,14–184,24.
DSC 17.76–88.
This expression refers to the four goals of a human being in Hindu traditions: righteousness (dharma), wealth (artha), pleasure (kāma), and liberation (mokṣa).
DSC 17.84–85: śrīraṅgādhipatidhurandharo yatīndraḥ śrīkāryapratisarapūrvaraṃga- bhṛtyān | saṃbhṛtya svamataparān anekadeśyān sa nyāsyad daśavidhakiṃkarān dvijendrān || 84 bhṛtyānāṃ daśavidhavargaṇād dvijānāṃ śūdrāṇāṃ yatitilakas sa tāvatāṃ ca | śeṣatvād akṛta nikṛṣṭakarmayogāt atrāmutra ca niyamaṃ mahārthasiddheḥ || 85. The ĀGPP mentions temple personnel only in a brief, general way: “… enquiring into imbalances of those belonging to the families related to the Temple” (ĀGPP 184,11f.: … kōyil aṉaittuk kottil avarkaḷuṭaiyavum ēṟṟattāḻvukaḷum ārāyntu).
KO 41,20–99,8, translated in Hari Rao, Kōil Oḻugu, pp. 44–100.
KO 40,18–41,13, translated in Hari Rao, Kōil Oḻugu, pp. 41–43.
Orr, Vaiṣṇava Community, p. 121 et seq.
In other South Indian temples, too, Rāmānuja was the “source of legitimacy and credibility for the temple organization”, as described by Dutta (Hagiographies, p. 108 et seq.) for Mēlkōṭe.
Weber, Theory, p. 324; Weber, Wirtschaft, p. 122.
Weber, Theory, p. 328.
Weber, Theory, p. 358 et seq.
Weber, Theory, p. 359.
Weber, Theory, p. 359.
Weber, Theory, pp. 360–364.
Weber, Theory, p. 364.
Weber, Theory, p. 365 et seq.
Weber, Theory, p. 372. Note that the English translation of this passage mentions caste, which is not present in the original German version (Weber, Wirtschaft, p. 147).
