The eldest of these systems, as we have already had occasion to state, is the dualistic S[=a]nkhya. It was still highly esteemed in the ninth century, the time of the great Vedantist, Çankara.[60] A theistic form of this atheistic philosophy is called the Puranic S[=a]nkhya, and Pata[.n]jali's Yoga is thoroughly theistic. Radically opposed to the dualistic S[=a]nkhya stands the Ved[=a]nta,[61] based on the Upanishads that teach the identity of spirit and matter.
As representative of the metaphysics of the S[=a]nkhya and Ved[=a]nta systems respectively stand in general the two great religions of India. The former, as we have shown, is still potent in the great Song of the epic, and its principles are essentially those of early Çivaism. The latter, especially in its sectarian interpretation, with which we have now to deal, has become the great religion o£ India. But there are two sectarian interpretations of Vishnu, and two philosophical interpretations of the All-spirit in its relation to the individual soul or spirit.[62] Again the individual spirit of man either enjoys after death immortal happiness, as a being distinct from the All-spirit; or the jiva, individual spirit, is absorbed into the All-spirit (losing all individuality, but still conscious of happiness); or the individual spirit is absorbed into an All-spirit that has no happiness or affection of any kind.
Now the strict philosophy of the Ved[=a]nta adopts the last view in toto. The individual spirit (soul, self) becomes one with the universal Spirit, losing individuality and consciousness, for the universal Spirit itself is not affected by any quality or condition. A creative force without attributes, this is the All-spirit of Çankara and of the strict Vedantist. To Çankara the Creator was but a phase of the All-spirit, and the former's immortality ended with his creation; in other words, there is no immortal Creator, only an immortal creative power.
In the twelfth century arose another great leader of thought, R[=a]m[=a]nuja. He disputed the correctness of Çankara's interpretation of Vedantic principles. It is maintained by some that Çankara's interpretation is really correct, but for our purpose that is neither here nor there.[63] Çankara's brahma is the one and only being, pure being, or pure thought. Thought is not an attribute of brahma, it is brahma. Opposed to this pure being (thought) stands m[=a]y[=a], illusion, the material cause of the seen world. It is neither being nor not-being; it is the cause of the appearance of things, in that it is associated with brahma, and in so far only is brahma rightly the Lord. The infinite part of each individual is brahma; the finite part is m[=a]y[=a]. Thus B[=a]dar[=a]yana (author of the Ved[=a]nta S[=u]tras) says that the individual is only illusion.
R[=a]m[=a]nuja[64], on the other hand, teaches a brahma that is not only universal, but is the universal personal Lord, a supreme conscious and willing God. Far from being devoid of attributes, like Çankara's brahma, the brahma of R[=a]m[=a]nuja has all attributes, chief of which is thought or intelligence. The Lord contains in himself the elements of that plurality which Çankara regards as illusion. As contrasted with the dualistic S[=a]nkhya phiiosophy both of these systems inculcate monism. But according to Çankara all difference is illusion; while according to R[=a]m[=a]nuja brahma is not homogeneous, but in the diversity of the world about us he is truly manifested. Çankara's m[=a]y[=a] is R[=a]m[=a]nuja's body of (brahma) the Lord. Çankara's personal god exists only by collusion with illusion, and hence is illusory. The brahma of R[=a]m[=a]nuja is a personal god, the omnipotent, omniscient, Lord of a real world. Moreover, from an eschatological point of view, Çankara explains salvation, the release from re-birth, sams[=a]ra, as complete union with this unqualified brahma, consequently as loss of individuality as well as loss of happiness. But R[=a]m[=a]nuja defines salvation as the departure from earth forever of the individual spirit, which enters a heaven where it will enjoy perennial bliss[65].
R[=a]m[=a]nuja's doctrine inspires the sectarian pantheism of the present time. In this there is a metaphysical basis of conduct, a personal god to be loved or feared, the hope of bliss hereafter. In its essential features it is a very old belief, far older than the philosophy which formulates it[66]. Thus, after the hard saying "fools desire heaven," this desire reasserted itself, and under R[=a]m[=a]nuja's genial interpretation of the Ved[=a]nta S[=u]tras the pious man was enabled to build up his cheerful hope again, withal on the basis of a logic as difficult to controvert as was that of Çankara himself[67].
Thus far the product of Vedantism is deism. But now with two steps one arrives at the inner portal of sectarianism. First, if brahma is a personal god, which of the gods is he, this personal All-spirit? As a general thing the Vedantist answers, 'he is Vishnu'; and adds, 'Vishnu, who embraces as their superior those other gods, Çiva, and Brahm[=a].' But the sectary is not content with making the All-god one with Vishnu. Vishnu was manifested in the flesh, some say as Krishna, some say as R[=a]ma[68]. The relation of sectary to Vishnuite, and to the All-spirit deist, may be illustrated most clearly by comparison with Occidental religions. One may not acknowledge any personal god as the absolute Supreme Power; again, one may say that this Supreme Power is a personal god, Jehovah; again, Jehovah may or may not be regarded as one with Christ. The minuter ramifications of the Christian church then correspond to the sub-sects of Krishnaism or Ramaism.[69]
The Occidental and Oriental conceptions of the trinity are, however, not identical. For in India the trinity, from the Vishnuite point of view, is an amalgamation of Çiva and Brahm[=a] with Vishnu, irrespective of the question whether Vishnu be manifest in Krishna or not; while the Christian trinity amalgamates the form that corresponds to Vishnu with the one that corresponds to Krishna.[70] To the orthodox Brahman, on the other hand, as Williams has very well put it, Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu, who is himself only an incarnation, that is, a form, of God.
Having now explained the two principal divisions of the modern sects, we can lead the reader into the church of Vishnu. It is a church of two great parties, each being variously subdivided. Of these two parties the Krishnaites are intellectually the weaker, and hence numerically the stronger. All Krishnaites, of course, identify the man-god Krishna with Vishnu, and their sub-sects revert to various teachers, of whom the larger number are of comparatively recent date, although as a body the Krishnaites may claim an antiquity as great, if not greater, than that of the Ramaites.
But the latter party, in their various sub-sects, all claim as their founder either R[=a]m[=a]nuja himself or one of his followers; and since, if the claim be granted, the R[=a]ma sects do but continue his work, we shall begin by following out the result of his teaching as it was interpreted by his disciples; especially since the Krishnaites have left to the Ramaites most of the philosophizing of the church, and devoted themselves more exclusively to the moralities and immoralities of their more practical religion. As a matter of fact, the Ramaites to-day are less religious than philosophical, while in the case of the Krishnaites, with some reservations, the contrary may be said to be the case.