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