1

The ‘Vishnu’ of Shankara is fundamentally different from the ‘Vishnu’ of Ramanuja

In the Vishnu Sahasra Nama (VSN) Bhashya, Shankara has cited this Vishnu Purana verse
(see the second verse below):

The second verse cited by Shankara above says: Janardana, the one and only Lord, assumes
the names of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva in order to perform the cosmic functions of creation,
sustenance and destruction.

This is in perfect tune with Sureshwaracharya’s vaartika to the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

Bhashya where he has said that ‘One Ishwara alone is known by names ‘Hari, Brahma and
Pinaaki.’

The gist of the other verses above is: The Vedantic aspirant, realizing that everything in
creation is within oneself and oneself is abiding in/as the entire creation, attains to the
supreme state of liberation.
 2

Vijnana, Pure Consciousness alone is appearing in the form of the variegated universe.
Apart from this Pure Consciousness there is naught in the universe. This also shows that for
Shankara, the Vishnu of the Vishnu Puranam is not a ‘person’ who is different from another
/ all other persons.

‘Vasudeva’ is none other than such Pure Consciousness which is the Supreme Being.

When this Supreme Purusha is abiding in all the bodies without exception, the question of,
distinction between, ‘You’ and ‘I’ is totally meaningless.

Along with the above, Shankara has cited numerous verses that bring out the absolute
identity across the Trimurtis, Brahman-jiva and Brahman-jagat. The cases of Shankara citing
the Shiva Puranam verse for the name ‘Rudra’ that brings out the Supreme-Cause hood of
Shiva, Brahman, in the VSN and his remark ‘abhedopadeshaat’ after citing the Kaivalya
Upanishad ‘ sa brahma, sa shivah…’ for the name ‘Shivah’ in the VSN are noteworthy.
Even at the very outset of the VSN Bhashyam, Shankara has stated in very clear terms that
the ‘Vishu’ of this text is the Advaitic Brahman. Shankara also holds the ‘vibhuti-s’,
excellent manifestations of Brahman in creation, as absolutely non-different from Brahman.
He has mentioned this in the VSN bhashya itself at the beginning.

The Brahman of Shankara is ‘desha-kaala-vastu pariccheda shunyam’, free of limitations

caused by space, time and object. The last one is very important for Advaita that makes its
Brahman unique compared to the Brahman admitted by non-advaitic sectarian, theistic,
schools. For Shankara, Brahman is not anantam, infinite, if it is different from anything and
everything else. Consequently, for Shankara the Brahman is non-different from all entities
such as deva-s, manushya-s, etc., and all inert objects in creation. In order to stress this he
has cited numerous verses from the Puranas, passages from the Shruti and Smriti. For non-
advaitic schools, if Brahman is non-different from gods, objects, etc. their doctrine will not
stand as for them Brahman is ‘Vishnu’. Hence they have admitted an absolute difference and
only a conditional non-difference.

Here are some verses that Shankara has cited in the introductory section of the VSN:

Bhaviṣyottara purāṇa :

Maheśvara (Śiva) says:

विष्णोरन्यं त ु पश्यवि ये मां ब्रह्माणमेि िा ।

 3

कुतकक मतयो मूढााः पच्यिे नरके ष्वधाः ॥

[Those fools who, devoid of proper thinking, consider Me and Brahmā as different from
Viṣṇu, will be baked in the lowly hells.]

ये च मूढा दुरात्मानो विन्नं पश्यवि मां हरेाः ।

्
ब्रह्माणं च ततस्तस्माद ् ब्रह्महत्यासमं त्वघम ॥

[Those fools, wicked ones, by seeing Me and Brahmā as different from Hari are committing
the heinous sin of brahmahatyā.]

One can recall a similar verse in the Śrīmadbhāgavatam (Dakṣayajña section) as said by
Viṣṇu: such jiva-s will not attain liberation.

Harivamṣa 3.88. 60, 61, 62 which are addressed by Maheśwara during the Kailāsa yātra
episode:

नामानन तव गोनवन्द यानन लोके महानि च ।

तान्येि मम नामावन नात्र कायाक विचारणा ॥

[O Govinda, your esteemed names alone are mine as well; no doubt need to be had in this
regard]

There Veda Vyasa, through Shiva, conveys that all the names of Viṣṇu are that of Śiva. Thus
the thousand names of Viṣṇu are also those of Śiva since there is no difference in name and
sense between the pair Hari and Hara.

त्वदुपासा जगन्नाथ स ैिास्त ु मम गोपते ।

यश्च त्वां द्वेवि िो देि स मां द्वेवि न संशयाः ॥

[The worship/meditation of You, O Gopati, let that be meditation on me too. He who hates
you O Deva, hates me too, undoubtedly.]

Harivamśa verses, spoken by Maheśvara (Śiva) to Vishnu:

अहं त्वं सिकग देि त्वमेिाहं जनादकन ।

आियोरिरं नावस्त शब्दैरथैजगक त्त्रये ॥ (3.88.60)

[O, the all-pervading one, I am Thee, and Thou are me alone. There is no difference between
the two of us either by word or meaning in all the three worlds.]
 4

Here is Shankara’s statement in the VSN bhashyam introduction:

In the above statement Shankara makes it clear that the entity that is eulogized by a
thousand names in the VSN is the Brahman of the Vedanta, Purushottama, distinct from and
also superior to, the effect (kShara) and the cause (akshara). Here, the superior-inferior idea
is not real as the kshara and akshara both belong to the unreal creation. The Turiya alone is
real and transcends the unreal. This is based on the Mandukya Upanishad. Thus, for
Shankara this entity is not a ‘person’, a vyakti. It is a ‘Tattva’ distinct from a person.

Here is just a sample of Shankara’s ‘advaita-friendly’ citations in the VSN bhashya:

Commentary for the above, in part:

Here is another sample from Shankara’s VSN Bhashya that brings out the Advaitic nature of
Brahman:
 5

Citing the Bh.Gita along with the Nirguna Brahman mantras of the Upanishads shows that
for Shankara the Gita verses about ‘maam’, ‘mayi’, etc. are not about a vastu-paricchinna
devata who is different from others as per non-advaitic schools.

Again, says Shankara in the VSN Bhashya:

 6

That this Hari is non-different from Rudra, etc. is going to be established by Shankara in the
citations from this very Harivamsha, in the sequel in the VSN Bhashya. These verses are
already cited in the foregoing. One must notice the emphasis on ‘ekam’ by Shankara in all
these citations above.

After citing several such verses from the scriptural lore apart from the one from the Vishnu
Puranam that is a depiction of Janardana assuming the names of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva,
Shankara concludes that section of citations by saying: ‘इत्यादीनन वाक्यानन एकत्वप्रनतपादकानन’ | [such
passages are there to establish the one-ness, unity, Advaita. ] Thus, for Shankara the Vishnu
Puranam verse is teaching ‘ekatva’, absolute non-duality. And the VSN itself is a document
of Advaita. Hence alone he cites copious seminal Upanishadic, Puranic and other verses that
bring out the Advaitic Truth.

Against this backdrop depicting the idea of ‘Vishnu’ according to Shankara, in the sequel is
highlighted the difference of view between that of Shankara and Ramanuja with respect to
just that one particular verse from the Vishnupuranam, as a sample. For this the text with
Sudrashana Suri’s commentary to the Vedartha Sangraha of Ramanuja is cited from:

Pdf p.350: Ramanuja says:

 7

The verse of the Vishnu Purana says:

Janardana, the one and only Lord, assumes the names of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva in order
to perform the functions of creation, sustenance and destruction.

For Ramanuja this is not a case of absolute identity, non-difference, across the Trimurti-s. On
the other hand, it is a case of a ‘taadaatmyam’, oneness based on different criteria.

Sudarshana Suri says:

Pdf p.352: Here the commentary specifically states that Ramanuja is disagreeing with the
idea of ‘svarupaikyam’, absolute identity, across the Trimurtis. He clearly says the
‘sAmAnAdhikaraNyam’ idea of Ramanuja does not mean svarupaikyam (of Advaita):

One may note that the idea of ‘svarupaikyam’ is present only in Advaita and evidently,
Ramanuja is refuting this idea of Shankara.

p.353: Sudarshana Suri clarifies: The ‘sAmAnAdhikaraNyam’ idea of Ramanuja is

conditioned by the ‘sharIra-sharIri-bhAva’ that Ramanuja bases his doctrine upon:

Thus, the verse has a completely different connotation that is fundamentally opposed to the
idea of Shankara about that verse.

From the above short study one can conclude that:

 8

1. The ‘Vishnu’ of Shankara, wherever he has mentioned this name, cited verses from
the Mahabharata, etc. in the Brahmasutra bhashya, Bhagavadgita bhashya,
Brihadaranyaka Bhashya, etc. with the names ‘Narayana’, ‘Vasudeva’, ‘Keshava’,
‘Hari’, etc. mentioning this entity as jagatkaaranam, Ishwara, Brahman,
Parameshvara, etc., is an entity that is not a ‘person’, ‘vyakti’, that is different from
other entities such as ‘Rudra’.
2. For Ramanuja, on the other hand, ‘Vishnu’, etc. is never non-different from Rudra,
etc.
3. While the idea of Svarupaikyam is of Shankara, whether it is jiva-Brahma or across
the Trimurtis, it is a ‘taadaatmyam’ for Ramanuja that is based on ‘sharira-shariri’
bhava, ‘antaryami’ etc.
4. For Shankara an entity that is absolutely different from any object or person, cannot
be the Brahman of the Vedanta. From Shankara’s perspective the ‘Brahman’ /
‘Vishnu’ of the other schools is a ‘paricchinna’, finite, limited, entity.
5. For Ramanuja, the Brahman of the Vedanta is Vishnu/Narayana who is absolutely
different from Rudra, etc. The idea of svarupaikyam is untenable in the system of
Ramanuja.
6. It should also be clearly understood that for Shankara the svarupaikyam is not
something that obtains only in the absolute, paramarthika, state. The identity is a
natural, inalienable, one that obtains even in the state of ignorance. Shankara has
refuted a ‘bheda-abheda’ doctrine in the Brahma sutra bhashya 2.1.14 by
paraphrasing it as ‘that which holds difference, bheda, in samsara to be absolute and
non-difference, abheda, in moksha too to be absolute.’
7. It is also very clear that in Advaita the ‘saguna’ Brahman is also something that is not
a finite entity. Only that entity can be the jagatkaaranam that is non-different from
everything else in creation. The Advaitic Ishwara, the saguna Brahman, is all-
pervading and is ‘everything’ in the creation. Thus, this entity too is absolutely non-
different from Rudra, etc.
8. A saguna Brahman that is finite in the sense of vastu paricchinna cannot be the jagat-
kaaraNam, the Ishwara that manages bandha and moksha vyavastha. One cannot
worship and pray to that entity which the devotee knows very well is different from
other deities and therefore paricchinna. Only that worship, devotion, to the infinite
Ishwara can result in the aspirant getting the complete blessing to realize the
Supreme Brahman.
 9

Shankara, in the HarisharaNaaShTakam, says in the very opening verse:

https://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_vishhnu/harisharaNAShTakam.html?lang=sa

ध्येय ं िदवि वशिमेि वह के वचदन्ये

शवतं गणेशमपरे त ु वदिाकरं िै ।

रूप ैस्त ु तैरवप वििावस यतस्त्वमेकस-्

तस्मात्त्वमेव शरणं मम शङ्खपाणे ॥ १॥

//Some say only Shiva is to be meditated upon, others hold Shakti and yet others Ganesha
and still others Divakara. But since the One, You, Shankha PaaNin (Vishnu) are appearing
in all these forms of deities, my refuge is Thee alone.//
For Shankara the concept of ‘One appearing as many’ is well admitted. He has even
cited this and similar mantra-s to this effect in the VSN Bhashya too, as already
shown in the foregoing. Just as one would see no absolute difference across the forms
such as Rama, Krishna, Narasimha, Vamana and so on since these are all forms of
Vishnu, so too, for Shankara all forms of deities are but those of one Brahman, by
whatever name that Brahman is called.
9. Thus, whenever Shankara says ‘saaligrame vishnu buddhih’, ‘praNavaaveshita
brahmabuddhih’, etc. it is undoubtedly meant that that Vishnu or Pranava-Brahman
is the Ishwara/Brahman that is non-different from everything else in creation.
10. Thus, the argument that ‘Shankara’s citation of verses denying difference or
proclaiming non-difference in the VSN bhashya are applicable only in the
paramarthika and not in vyavahara’, is another gross misunderstanding of Shankara
and Advaita by non-advaitins.

To sum up, the verse:

सृनिनित्यिकरणीं ब्रह्मनवष्णनु शवानिकाम ।्

् एव जनाददनः ||
स संज्ां यानत भगवान एक नव. प.ु १-२-६६

of the Vishnu Puranam has been viewed by Shankara and Ramanuja completely differently
so as to form the basis for the difference in the very doctrine of these two Acharyas. While
Shankara avers that this verse proclaims ‘ekatva’, non-duality, Ramanuja explicitly refutes
this idea and establishes difference. An Upanishadic analogy would be to consider the way
in which the two Acharyas / schools have viewed the passages such as ‘Tat Tvam Asi’,
 10

‘Aham Brahma asmi’, etc. Even the Bh.Gita passage ‘…वासदेु वः सवदनमनत स महािा सदुलद
ु भः ॥ १९ ॥
7.19 b, has been commented upon by Shankara and Ramanuja completely differently.

Shankara:

बहूनां जन्मनां ज्ानार्दसस्क ्

ं ाराश्रयाणाम अिे ्
समाप्तौ ज्ानवान प्राप्तपनरपाकज्ानः मां वासदेु व ं प्रत्यगािानं प्रत्यक्षतः प्रपद्यते ।
कर्म?् वासदेु वः सवदम इनत
् । यः एवं सवादिानं मां नारायणं प्रनतपद्यते, सः महािा ; न तत्समः अन्यः अनि, अनिको वा ।
ु
ु भः, ‘मनष्याणां
अतः सदुलद ् १९ ॥
सहस्रेष’ु (भ. गी. ७ । ३)इनत नह उक्तम ॥
Translation by Swami Gambhirananda:
7.19 Ante, at the end, after the completion; bahunam, of many; janmanam, births, which
become the repository for accumulating [Ast. omits this word.-Tr.] the tendencies leading to
Knowledge; jnanavan, the man of Knowledge, who has got hiis Knowledge matured;
directly prapadyate, attains; maam, Me, Vasudeva, who am the inmost Self; (realizing)- in
what way?-iti, that; Vasudeva is sarvam, all. Sah, such a one, who realizes Me [Here Ast.
adds the word Narayana.-Tr.] thus as the Self of all; is mahatma, a high-souled one. There is
none else who can equal or excel him.

The relevant portion of Ramanuja’s commentary is:

ु
बहूनां जन्मनां पण्यजन्मनाम ्
अिे अवसान े वासदेु वशेषतैकरसः अहं तदायत्तस्वरूपनिनतप्रवृनत्तः च स च असंख्यये ैः
कल्याणगण ् त्वा वासदेु व एव मम परमप्राप्यं प्रापकं च अन्यदनप यन्मनोरर्वर्तत स एव मम तत सवद
ु ःै परतरः इनत ज्ानवान भू ् म इनत
्
्
मां यो प्रपद्यते माम उपािे ्
ु भः दुलदभतरः लोके । वासदेु वः सवदम इत्यस्य
स महािा महामनाः सदुलद ् अर्दः।
अयम एव

English Translation of Ramanuja's Sanskrit Commentary By Swami Adidevananda

7.19 Further after passing through innumerable auspicious births, one gets the knowledge: 'I
find my sole joy as a Sesa of Vasudeva. I find my essence, existence and activities to be
dependent on Him. He is superior over all others on account of His innumerable auspicious
attributes.' Consequent to this knowledge he resorts to Me, i.e., meditates on Me, realising,
'Vasudeva alone is my highest end and also the means for attaining it, and whatever other
desire remains in the mind, He alone is all that too for me'. Such a great-souled person, i.e.,
great-minded man is hard to find. It is very hard to find such persons in this world. This is
the only meaning of the statement that 'Vasudeva is all,'..

From the above too we can see the difference between Shankara’s ‘Vasudeva’ and
Ramanuja’s ‘Vasudeva’. While for the former it is a case of absolute identity, of the seeker
and Brahman and also of the world and Brahman, for the latter, it is a case of absolute
difference between the jiva and Brahman. Shankara has cited this verse of the Vishnu
Puranam in the VSN Bhashya:
 11

Yama instructs his deputies:

सकलनमदमहं च वासदेु वः परमपमान्परमे

ु श्वरः स एकः ।
इनत मनतर(च)मला भवत्यनिे हृदयगते व्रज तानिहाय दूरात ् || 3.7.32

[‘All this, and I, are verily Vasudeva who is the Supreme Brahman, the Supreme Lord, who
is One.’ Whoever has such an unshakable conviction with regard to the Infinite Brahman, O
Deputies, leave him alone. He is not someone who is subject to die and be born again.]

Thus, the names such as ‘Vishnu, Narayana, Vasudeva, Keshava and Hari’ that occur in
Shankara’s Bhashya-s have no equal correspondence whatsoever with the meaning of those
names/entities according to Ramanuja. Consequently, to compare the two entities with
names ‘Vishnu,..’ will be akin to attempting to equating apples and oranges. This also
brings us to the use of the term ‘vaishnava’ by Shankara in his Bhagavadgita Bhashya on a
couple of occasions. This term too is not to be equated to the one used by the other schools.
The reason is that for Shankara the term means a person who has absolutely no difference as
to Hari and Hara and the Trimurtis. This is again because the term ‘Vishnu’ means that
entity which is non-different from Rudra, etc. In other words, the ‘vastu-pariccheda
raahityam’ is seminal for Shankara’s Vishnu/Brahman. Even for Ramanuja, Vishnu,
Brahman, is not a limited, finite, entity. But the arriving at the infinite nature is
fundamentally different from the way adopted by Shankara.

Based on the above study we can see that those who have, for example, the author of the
Tamil booklet ‘Sankararum Vainavamum’ and his followers, tried to portray Shankara as a
‘Vaishnava’ who upheld the supremacy of the deity ‘Vishnu’ over other deities, are
fundamentally mistaken as they have failed to notice the idea of Vishnu that is unique to
Shankara, which does not bear any commonality whatsoever with the Vishnu of non-
Shankaran schools.

Om Tat Sat