A lineage is found which begins from Sita Ji.
Sita Ji gives a mantra to Hanuman Ji.
Hanuman Ji gives the instruction of that mantra to Brahma Ji.
In this way, this lineage continues up to Shukadeva Ji.
Beyond this, it does not continue further.
This lineage is described in Chapter 8 of the *Agastya Samhita* and in other scriptures.
This lineage has also been accepted by acharyas such as Swami Raghavacharya.
---
Some Ramanandis, by misinterpreting scriptures or through other arguments, attempt to prove the Ramananda Sampradaya as an independent Sampradaya, which is incorrect.
The Yogendra Math of Barrackpore, which is a monastery of the Ramananda Sampradaya, traces its lineage from Ramanuja Acharya.
---
In *Sri Vaishnava Matabhaj Bhaskar*, which is composed by Jagadguru Swami Ramanandacharya, in the mangalacharana verse 5, Ramanuja Acharya Ji has been saluted as a previous acharya—
“Having respectfully bowed to the ancient acharyas along with Yatipati, this is composed with proper adherence to the scriptures—listen to that.”
---
The words *Yatipati* or *Yatiraja* are used for Ramanuja Acharya Ji.
---
Historians, scholars of Hindi literature, and gazette records have also described the Ramananda Sampradaya as originating from the Ramanuja Sampradaya.
---
In Kabir’s *Panchmatra*, while answering the questions of Gorakhnath, Kabir said:
“Our origin is Adi Narayana; we are a branch of Ramanuja.
The yogi absorbed in the sound ‘Ram’—so speaks Shri Guru Ramananda Ji.”
---
Similarly, in *Bodh Sagar*, by saying “First describe the Shri Sampradaya; follow the conduct of Ramanuja Acharya,” Sant Kabir Ji has given his guru lineage, in which he has placed Narayana, Lakshmi, Vishvaksena, Pundarikaksha, Rama Mishra, Yamunacharya, Purnacharya, Ramanuja, Devacharya, Hariyananda, Raghavananda, Ramananda, etc., in the order of guru and disciple.
---
Agradās, in his self-collected *Anandatattva Dipika*, has written Ramanuja as the original guru.
---
Nabhadas, *Bhaktamal*, edition and commentator Rupkala, Chappay 662:
In *Bhaktamal*, the guru lineage given by Nabhadas includes Lakshmi, Vishvaksena, Shathakopa, Bopadeva, Srinath, Pundarikaksha, Rama Mishra, Yamuna, Devacharya, Hariyananda, Raghavananda, Ramananda, and while mentioning them, he has described Ramananda as a propagator of the “method of Ramanuja.”
Similarly, Rewa ruler Raghuraj Singh has also accepted the above view.
In the Sanskrit *Bhaktamal* also, the disciples of Ramananda have been called “born in the lineage of Ramanuja.”
Other commentators of *Bhaktamal*—Rupkala Ji, Baijnath Prasad, Shri Rasrangamani, etc.—have also described Ramananda as “born in the lineage of Ramanuja.”
## * Additional Historical and Textual Evidence**
Many Ramanandi scholars have praised Ramanuja Swami in their own works. Similarly, many scholars of the Nimbarka Sampradaya have also established the connection of Ramananda Swami with Ramanuja Swami.
Ancient guru lineages of seats such as Galta, Rewasa, the place of Shri Balanand Ji, Bhindara, Pindori, Paldi (of Khoji Ji), and Tila Ji’s seat all connect Ramananda with the Ramanuja Sampradaya. Likewise, elder saints of the Ramanuja Sampradaya have regarded Totadri as the original seat (Mool Gadi) and *Sri Bhashya* as the authoritative doctrinal commentary.
Whenever Ramanuja acharyas faced difficulties, Ramanandi akharas assisted them militarily. They helped them win debates. When Nathpanthis attacked the scholar Prativadi Bhayankara of Kanchi, Dhiramdas, along with Naga ascetics, protected and supported him. Many times Ramanandi sadhus even carried the palanquin of Ramprapanna Swami, a disciple of Rangacharya.
---
In *Shri Ramarchana Paddhati* (edited by Pt. Ramtahal Das, pp. 34–35; and Pt. Ramnarayan Das, pp. 2–3), Ramananda Acharya himself traces his lineage to Ramanuja Acharya.
While commenting on Tulsidas in *Indian Antiquary*, the lineage of Ramananda obtained by Baba Mohandas is given, which connects him to the Ramanuja Sampradaya.
---
Ramanandi Paramhans Janakivallabhadas Ji writes in the first edition of his work **"Gativodh Uttarardh,"** on page 201, line 15:
> "By refuting Ramanujacharya’s *Shri Bhashya*, the *Ramananda Bhashya* and *Janaki Bhashya* were falsely composed and published on the Brahma Sutras. Both these commentaries are currently in circulation, and at this time, the *Ramananda Bhashya* has also been refuted due to internal disputes."
This very *Ramananda Bhashya* is known as the **Ananda Bhashya**.
The editor, Swami Shri Bhagavadacharya, writes in the **"Tatvadarshi Visheshank"** (Year 8, Issue 8-9, page 54, second column, point number 3):
> "I have a letter from the Mahant of Shingra in my possession, in which it is written: 'I am the author of the aforementioned Ananda Bhashya'."
From the two pieces of evidence cited above, it is evident that the *Ananda Bhashya* was written by Raghuvar Das, the Mahant of Shingra, by piecing it together from here and there. Consequently, how can anyone place their trust in those who manufacture such fake traditions?
—
**Section 1 (Page 72, Line 5):**
> "In *Bharat Nirmata*, author Krishnavallabh Dwivedi, editor of *Hindi Vishwa Bharat*, writes on page 72, line five, that Ramanuja's liberal ideology later flourished and thrived particularly in Northern India under the leadership of Swami Ramananda, a renowned saint in his lineage of disciples. Ramanuja was born in 1017 AD and passed away in 1137 AD."
**Section 2 (Page 79):**
> "It is written on page 79 that Ramananda separated from the *Shri Sampradaya* and established his own independent sect, which came to be known as the **'Ramavat'** Sampradaya.”
---
Shri Krishnananda Baghambari Ji of Prayag has also written in the book titled **"Shri Vaishnavachar Pradip"** that the Ramanandis originated from the Shri Ramanuja Sampradaya itself.
—
The head of the Jaipur Royal Assembly, Pandit Shri Durgaprasad Ji, and Pandit Shri Kalyanvallabh Shastri Ji have written in the 'Bhikshu-shiksha' section of **"Chaturvarnya Shiksha"**: *"Ath Shri Ramanujaya iva Shri Ramanandayo’pi,"* which means that Shri Ramananda Ji exists within the disciple lineage of Shri Ramanuja Swami. On this matter, there is also the signed consent of 243 scholars from the Mithila region and other provinces, including Mahant Sitaramdas of the Sadhu Pathshala, Durgakund, Kashi.
In the following books:
1. Shri Sitaram Stotra, 2. Shri Bhagavat Pujan, 3. Chaturdash-Rahasya, 4. Gyan Rasikavali, 5. **"Guru-Parampara"** written by Shri Ramananda Swami, 6. Shri Vaishnava Dharma Nirnay, 7. Dwarka Mahatmya, 8. Shri Vaishnava Matabjabhaskar, 9. Laghu Gyan Prakash, 10. Shri Vaishnava Siddhanta Sar, 11. Pakhand Dalan, 12. Shri Ramstavaraj Tika, 13. Shri Sitaramanuja Chaturdash Niketan, 14. Divya Tattva Kaumudi, 15. Shri Vaishnava Dharma Sandarbh, 16. Bharatiya Charitambunidhi, 17. Karya Vivaran, 18. Nirnay Panchak Sangrah, 19. Tulsi Granthavali, 20. Satyarth Prakash (Chapter 11), 21. Shri Bharat Charit Chandrika, 22. Bharatvarshiya Upasak Sampradaya, 23. Bhakt Ur-vasi, 24. Bhaktamal, 25. Shri Bhagavata Charitamrit Sar, 26. Shri Hari-bhakta Sahasranam.
In all these twenty-six books, it is stated that Shri Ramananda Swami belongs to the lineage of Shri Ramanuja Swami. If one wishes to know more, they should refer to the **"Vaishnavamataabjabhaskar"** (and its appendix) edited by Pandit Shri Ramtahaldas Ji, as well as **"Vaishnavamataabjabhaskar"** and **"Prastut Prasangsiddhi"** edited by Pandit Shri Balbhadradas Ji.
---
Similarly, in the third chapter of the book titled **"Nijaguru,"** composed by the honorable Shri Raghunath Prasad Ji of 'Bari Jagah' in Shri Awadh (Ayodhya), it is written:
> *Shrunu vatsa pravakshyamai guruvarya paramparam |*
> *Ramanujanvaye jato Ramanandah pratpavan ||*
Advertisement/Public Notice, Vikrami Samvat 1977, Phalguna Krishna 8.
"We all belong to the Guru-lineage of Shri Ramananda Swami, which comes under the Shri Ramanuja [Sampradaya]."
**Signatories:**
1. Mahant Rama Manohar Prasad, Ayodhya
2. Mahant Ramdas, Rajgopal
3. Mahant Sarayu Das
4. Mahant Kamaldas, Khud Garhi, Hardwaripatti Hanumangarhi
5. Mahant Raghavdas, Patti Ujjainiya
6. Mahant Girdharidas Ji, Garhi
7. Mahant Ramkishor Das, Raghoji Temple, Ramghat
8. Mahant Narayandas, Ratan Sinhasan, Janmabhoomi
9. Adhikari Mohandas, Nirmohi, Janmabhoomi
10. Adhikari Kunjbiharidas, Amardas Sthan
11. Adhikari Hitnarayandas, Narhan Temple, Ramkot
12. Adhikari Rampadarthdas, Sidhipur Temple
13. Pandit Ram Narayan Das, Shringar Bhavan, Ramkot
**Petitioner:** Pandit Ram Narayan Das, Teacher at Rajgopal Pathshala.
*Harisingh Press, Faizabad.*
—
The book titled **"Shri Sampradaya Dikpradarshan"** was published in Vikrami Samvat 1979 (1923 AD). Edited by the honorable Mahant Shri Ram Manohar Prasad (titled 'Vaishnavabhushan'), the head of the Brihat Sthan in Shri Ayodhya, for the benefit of inquisitive Vaishnavas.
**Introduction/Statement:**
Our Shri Ramananda Swami’s compositions, **"Shri Vaishnavamataabjabhaskar"** and **"Shri Ramarchan Paddhati,"** are approximately six hundred years old and are available to this day. Because these texts begin with an invocation (*Mangalacharan*) to Shri Ramanuja Swami, all of us Ramanandi Vaishnavas are within the Shri Ramanuja Sampradaya. Since "Shri Sampradaya" is another name for the Shri Ramanuja Sampradaya, we all belong to the Shri Sampradaya as well.
—
Ramanand digvijay, introduction pg. 14
It is sometimes said that Ramananda established a new Vairagi Sampradaya due to disagreement with the caste rigidity of the Ramanuja Sampradaya. However, there is **no solid evidence** for this claim.
---
## **Refutation of Opposing Views**
### **Objection:1**
*Bhaktamal* was interpolated by followers of the Ramanuja Sampradaya.
### **Refutation:**
This is not possible. What benefit would Ramanujis gain by altering *Bhaktamal*? If such interpolation had occurred, where were the Ramanandis at that time? Why did they not object? Were they asleep? No Ramanandi acharya claims that *Bhaktamal* is adulterated.
---
### **Objection:2**
In *Sri Vaishnava Matabhaj Bhaskar*, the term *Yatipati* refers to Raghavanandacharya.
### **Refutation:**
Show any text where Ramananda Acharya himself uses *Yatipati* for Raghavananda. If not, how can this claim be made? If disciples of Ramananda said so, provide proof.
---
## **On Baudhayana**
### **Objection:3**
Baudhayana and Purushottamacharya are the same, and in *Shri Ramayana Rahasya*, Baudhayana states Shukadeva as his guru.
### **Refutation:**
Baudhayana and Purushottamacharya are not the same. Baudhayana was an ancient sage (around 6th century), whereas Purushottamacharya belonged to the 13th–14th century, appearing after Garvadacharya.
Even if Purushottamacharya were called Baudhayana, the ancient sage Baudhayana and Purushottamacharya would still remain distinct individuals.
In the Rewasa lineage, which traces back to Ramanuja, Purushottamacharya’s name does not even appear.
There is no authentic source stating that Baudhayana’s guru was Shukadeva. Some Ramanandis cite a text called *Shri Ramayana Rahasya*, but no such text is available, nor is its authorship known.
Shri Kaliprasad Shastri, the editor of the journal "Sanskritam" from Shri Ayodhya Dham, has written in the first and second volumes of the text "Vidvadvrittam" (Volume 1, page 181; Volume 2, pages 17, 46, 139, and 190) regarding five individuals named Purushottamacharya. The details are as follows:
The Five Purushottamacharyas
No. 1 (Volume 1, Page 181):
dyayan khristasya dvadashyam shatavdyamutpannah | asya grantho vedantamanjusha prapyate | arya dvaitasampradaya uktah |
(He was born in the 12th century AD. His text Vedanta Manjusha is available. He is said to belong to the Dvaita school.)
No. 2 (Volume 2, Page 17):
He was born in the 12th century AD. He was a scholar in the court of King Lakshman Sen of Nadia and wrote a commentary (Vritti) on the Sutras of Panini’s Ashtadhyayi.
No. 3 (Volume 2, Page 46):
He was a Kshatriya King of the Kalinga region, with his capital at Cuttack. He authored the text titled Vishnu-bhakti-kalpalata.
No. 4 (Volume 2, Page 139):
A follower of the Vallabha school, this Purushottamacharya was born in the 18th century AD, four generations after Balkrishna (the son of Vitthalnath Dixit). He composed Bhashya-Prakash (a commentary on the Anubhashya), Suvarna-Sutra (a commentary on Vitthalnath’s Vidvan-Mandana), and the text Prasthan Ratnakar.
No. 5 (Volume 2, Page 190):
This Purushottamacharya lived in the year 1982 Vikram Samvat.
Now, we present an evidence-based overview regarding the Sage "Bodhayana." Please read carefully.
No. 6 "Vidvadvrittam" Volume 1, Pages 34-35:
shruyate brahma-sutrananupari vrittirasidasya yasya uddharo ramanujacharyena kritah, vedantashankarabhashyanuvadabhumikayan, da0 thivo mahashayasyapyam vicharah | iyan bodhayanavrittih, kritakotinamnyasidinti prapathva hridaye |
It is heard that there was a commentary (Vritti) on the Brahma-Sutras authored by him (Bodhayana), which was utilized (retrieved/excerpted) by Ramanujacharya. In the introduction to the translation of the Shankara Bhashya of the Vedanta, Dr. Thibaut also holds this same view. In the Prapancha Hridaya, it is mentioned that this Bodhayana-Vritti was known by the name 'Kritakoti'.
The year 976 of the Ramanuja Era (Ramanujabda) is currently passing, corresponding to "Samvat 2000".
Some Ramanand Acharyas have also certified Baudhayana as their Guru in their Mangalanushasana because Baudhayana is the former Acharya of our Sri Vaishnava sect.
Lord Bodhayana is considered a primary ancestral teacher (*Purvacharya*) of the Ramanuja school of thought (Sampradaya).
In the *Vedanta* special issue of the magazine *Kalyan*, it is written that there are three prominent Acharyas of the Ramanuja Sampradaya: **1. Vyasa, 2. Jaimini, and 3. Bodhayana.** Among them, the commentary (*Vritti*) by Sage Bodhayana is very famous.
In the text **"Vedartha Sangraha"** composed by Shri Ramanuja Swami, it is written:
*Shriyainamah Shripatayenamah Purvacharyebhyonamah Namovedanta Vishadikaranadikshaya Paramagurave Bodhayanamaharchaye.*
(Salutations to Lakshmi, salutations to the Lord of Lakshmi, salutations to the ancestral teachers. Salutations to the supreme teacher, the great sage Bodhayana, who was consecrated in the mission of clarifying the Vedanta.)
In the *Shariraka Mimamsa Bhashya* (Sri Bhashya), at the beginning of Chapter 1, Quarter 1, under the aphorism *athāto brahmajijñāsā*, Shri Ramanuja Swami writes:
*bhagavad-bodhāyana kṛtāṃ vistīrṇāṃ brahmasūtravṛttiṃ pūrvācāryāssaccikṣipuḥ tanmatānusāreṇa sūtrākṣarāṇi vyākhyāsyante -*
(The previous teachers abbreviated the extensive commentary on the *Brahma-Sutras* composed by the venerable Bodhayana. Following their views, the words of the aphorisms shall now be explained.)
The author of the *Hindi Vishwakosh* (Encyclopedia) in Volume 20, Section 19, has accepted Lord Bodhayana as an ancestral teacher (*Purvacharya*) of the Ramanuja Sampradaya.
Since Baudhayana is the predecessor of the Ramanuja sect and the Ramanand sect itself originated from the Ramanuja sect, Baudhayana has also been certified as the predecessor by Ramanandi.
---
### **Objection:**
We follow Vaikhanasa scriptures.
### **Refutation:**
This is incorrect. Ramanandi worship is primarily based on the Pancharatra system. No Vaikhanasa texts are practically used. *Agastya Samhita* also belongs to Pancharatra and is listed among the 108 Pancharatra texts in *Padma Samhita* and *Kapinjala Samhita*. *Shri Ramarchana Paddhati* also prescribes Pancharatra worship.
---
### **Objection:**
We use bow-and-arrow symbols, not conch-disc.
### **Refutation:**
In the verse 62 of Shri Vaishnav Matabja Bhaskar, there is a provision for wearing Shankha Chakra. In the published book available today, this verse has been adulterated and bow and arrow have been inserted by removing Shankha Chakra.
The conch-disc tradition exists. Rajendra Das Ji Maharaj himself stated he received it. However, it is given only to selected qualified disciples. Bow-arrow symbols are also used.
---
### **Objection:**
Are Vishnu, Krishna, or Rama parts (amsha) of something?
### **Refutation:**
The term *amsha* applies to dependent beings (jivas), not to God. If God had parts, He would be divisible and thus not eternal. Therefore, there is no difference between the avatar and the Supreme.
Tulsidas describes marks like Bhrigu’s footprint on Rama’s chest and depicts him as four-armed at birth. If Tulsidas himself makes no distinction, who are we to do so?
*Agastya Samhita* (Chapter 3) clearly states Rama is an incarnation of Narayana. Hence, making distinctions is inappropriate.
Shri vaishnav matabaj bhaskar shlook 80-82
On the ninth day of the bright fortnight of Chaitra month (Madhu month), when there is Punarvasu Nakshatra and Cancer ascendant, Lord Vishnu himself appeared in the form of Shri Ram.
### **Objection:**
In *Ananda Bhashya*, the lineage of Ramananda Acharya is described as independent from Ramanuja Acharya.
### **Refutation:**
First of all, *Ananda Bhashya* is not a work written by Ramananda Acharya. The person who wrote this text was Bhagavadacharya. He composed it together with Raghuvaracharya. He himself has written this in his book *Bhagavadacharya Biography*.
He considered the Ramananda Sampradaya to be independent, and he wrote this text in order to prove that independence, and then propagated it as if it were written by Ramananda Acharya.
This text has been compiled by cutting and modifying *Janaki Bhashya*—this has also been admitted by him.
And *Janaki Bhashya* itself is not a work of Ramananda Acharya; rather, it was written by Ramprasad Ji.
In his autobiography, at the end, he explains the reason for accepting all this and says:
“I accept my untruths based on the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi, while others continue to support untruths—this is the difference between them and me.”
---
### **Objection:**
There are differences in worship methods and mantras between the Ramananda Sampradaya and the Ramanuja Sampradaya; therefore, Ramananda is independent.
### **Refutation:**
There are indeed some fundamental differences between the Ramananda Sampradaya and the Ramanuja Sampradaya in terms of mantra, method of worship, etc.
However, from the standpoint of philosophical doctrine, both traditions follow the Vishishtadvaita system.
Then is it not possible that Ramananda adapted the Ramanuja Sampradaya according to the needs of his time—making the mantra, the object of worship, and the method of worship more accessible and liberal—while keeping the original philosophical doctrine unchanged?
---
Objection:**
In the guru lineage attributed to Agradās, the Ramananda Sampradaya is considered independent.
Refutation
If Agradās had actually established a guru lineage, then certainly Nabhadas would have followed it.
But the lineage propagated in the name of Agradās—its original ancient manuscript is neither available anywhere, nor has it been mentioned by any earlier acharya.
Nabhadas himself, being a disciple of Agradās, composed *Bhaktamal* on his guru’s instruction—could he have forgotten his own earlier acharyas? This would be astonishing.
From the time the question of separating the Ramananda Sampradaya from the Ramanuja Sampradaya arose, only from that time onward this lineage began to be propagated.
Along with this, many newly fabricated texts began to be circulated in the name of Ramananda Swami.
Ramchandra Shukla, in his *History of Hindi Literature*, rightly stated that one must remain cautious regarding such texts.
Making arbitrary alterations in ancient texts (for example, replacing “Ramanuja” with “Ramanuk”) cannot be considered an impartial or scientific method.
---
Conclusion (implicit from the arguments)
Thus, on the basis of lineage, scriptures, historical testimony, and philosophical consistency, the Ramananda Sampradaya is shown to be connected with the Ramanuja Sampradaya, and claims of complete independence are refuted.
Comments