Works of scholars

What you'll learn

• How Shankara and Ramanuja fit into the wider Vedanta tradition.
• Their key beliefs about atman, Brahman, samsara, moksha and dharma.
• Why their disagreement about bhakti and the Bhagavad Gita is so important.
• How to use P. Bowes and J. Hopkins in evaluative essay answers.

The big picture: one tradition, two powerful readings

This topic is about two major Hindu thinkers: Shankara and Ramanuja. Both interpret the same core Vedanta texts, but they reach very different conclusions about God, the self, the world and liberation.

Edexcel wants you to compare their contexts, sources, key beliefs, influence, and the strengths and weaknesses of their ideas for understanding Hinduism. You should also connect this comparison to the modern scholars P. Bowes and J. Hopkins, whose work helps frame the debate philosophically and historically.

Their contexts in Vedanta

Shankara: Advaita Vedanta

Shankara is usually dated to the eighth century CE. He is associated with Advaita Vedanta, the “not-two” school of Vedanta.

Shankara wrote commentaries on the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras. His context included debates with Buddhist thinkers, ritualist schools and other Hindu philosophical systems. He presents Hinduism as a rigorous philosophical tradition centred on liberating knowledge.

Ramanuja: Vishishtadvaita Vedanta

Ramanuja lived in the eleventh to twelfth centuries CE and is linked with Sri Vaishnavism, a devotional tradition focused on Vishnu or Narayana.

Ramanuja also wrote major commentaries, including the Sri Bhashya on the Brahma Sutras and a commentary on the Bhagavad Gita. His context was strongly shaped by temple worship, devotional poetry and the bhakti tradition.

Sources that influenced them

The main shared source-base is the prasthana-trayi, the “threefold foundation” of Vedanta:

• Upanishads — philosophical texts exploring Brahman, atman and ultimate reality.
• Bhagavad Gita — a dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna about duty, devotion and liberation.
• Brahma Sutras — short aphorisms systematising Vedanta teaching.

Shankara is especially influenced by Upanishadic statements such as “tat tvam asi” — “That you are” — which he reads as teaching the identity of the self with Brahman.

Ramanuja accepts the same texts but reads them through a Vaishnava devotional lens. He is also influenced by the Alvars, Tamil poet-saints devoted to Vishnu, and by earlier Sri Vaishnava teachers such as Yamuna.

Key beliefs compared

Atman and Brahman

For Shankara, the deepest truth is that atman is Brahman. The individual self only appears separate because of avidya, meaning ignorance. Liberation comes when this ignorance is removed.

For Ramanuja, the individual self is real and distinct, but totally dependent on Brahman. The self is not identical with God. It belongs to God, lives through God and finds fulfilment in loving service to God.

Brahman: with or without attributes?

Shankara distinguishes between:

• Nirguna Brahman — Brahman “without qualities” or beyond all attributes.
• Saguna Brahman — Brahman “with qualities”, experienced as a personal God.

For Shankara, saguna Brahman is valid at the ordinary religious level, but nirguna Brahman is the highest truth.

Ramanuja rejects this hierarchy. For him, Brahman really is personal, full of perfect qualities, and identified with Narayana or Vishnu. God’s attributes are not lower-level appearances; they are eternally real.

Samsara, moksha and dharma

For Shankara, samsara continues because people mistake the temporary self and world for ultimate reality. Moksha is the realisation that the true self is not separate from Brahman. This is achieved through jnana, meaning liberating knowledge.

For Ramanuja, samsara is real bondage affecting real individual souls. Moksha is not absorption into an impersonal absolute. It is release into the presence of God, where the soul enjoys eternal service and bliss.

Dharma is also treated differently. Shankara sees dharma and ritual action as useful for purifying the mind, but not as the direct cause of moksha. Ramanuja gives dharma a more positive devotional role: right action can become service to God.

Bhakti: the radical difference

For Shankara, bhakti has value, but it is ultimately inferior to knowledge of absolute unity. Devotion belongs to the level where worshipper and God still seem separate. Once the truth of non-duality is realised, that separation is overcome.

This shows Shankara’s clear commitment to monism, the belief that there is ultimately one reality.

For Ramanuja, bhakti is not a lower stage to be left behind. It is central to the path of liberation. The soul becomes God-like in freedom and bliss, but it does not become God. It remains personally related to God.

Ramanuja also emphasises prapatti, meaning surrender to God’s grace. This makes liberation depend not only on human effort but on divine compassion.

The Bhagavad Gita: both claim support

Both thinkers claim the Bhagavad Gita supports their own system.

Shankara reads the Gita as ultimately teaching renunciation, knowledge and freedom from ignorance. Karma and devotion prepare the seeker, but knowledge is the direct route to moksha.

Ramanuja reads the Gita as teaching devotion to Krishna as the Supreme Lord. For him, verses about surrender, worship and divine grace strongly support bhakti and prapatti.

Influence

Shankara’s influence

Shankara gave Advaita Vedanta its classic philosophical form. His influence includes:

• strengthening Hindu non-dualism;
• giving a sophisticated account of ignorance and liberation;
• shaping monastic and philosophical traditions;
• allowing personal devotion, while placing it below ultimate knowledge.

P. Bowes is useful here because she highlights the philosophical sharpness of the Shankara-Ramanuja contrast: both are interpreting the same tradition, but Shankara pushes the unity of reality to its most radical conclusion.

Ramanuja’s influence

Ramanuja gave a powerful philosophical foundation to devotion to a personal God. His influence includes:

• strengthening Sri Vaishnava theology;
• defending the reality of the world and individual souls;
• making bhakti central to liberation;
• influencing later devotional Hinduism, including traditions associated with Chaitanya.

Chaitanya’s later Krishna-centred bhakti is not identical to Ramanuja’s system, but it shares the conviction that loving devotion to a personal God is spiritually central.

Strengths and weaknesses for understanding Hinduism

Strengths

Shankara helps explain the importance of the Upanishadic search for ultimate reality. His system shows Hinduism as intellectually rigorous, metaphysical and concerned with liberation through insight.

Ramanuja helps explain the lived devotional side of Hinduism. His system makes sense of worship, grace, temple practice and emotional devotion to a personal deity.

Together, they show that Hinduism is not one simple belief system. It contains both highly abstract philosophy and intensely personal devotion.

Weaknesses

However, focusing on Shankara and Ramanuja can make Hinduism look too elite and philosophical. Many Hindus practise through ritual, festivals, family traditions, pilgrimage and local forms of worship rather than through Vedanta argument.

Shankara’s view can be criticised for making the world, ethics and devotion seem less ultimately important. If the highest truth is beyond all distinction, critics may ask whether ordinary religious life is devalued.

Ramanuja’s view can be criticised from an Advaita perspective for not taking non-dual Upanishadic claims seriously enough. If atman and Brahman are ultimately distinct, Shankara would argue that ignorance has not been fully overcome.

A balanced judgement might be that Shankara gives a stronger account of Hindu metaphysical unity, while Ramanuja gives a stronger account of Hindu devotion and lived religion.