Ramanuja attributed this philosophy to the tradition of the Kalamukha(s), the sect of "Black Faces" to which Lakulisha belonged.

What was the reason for referring to it as KAlamukha?

What were RAmanuja's views on the KApAlika and Pasupata sects and their doctrines?

  • 5
    @Keshav You are making useless edits to highlight your post (answer here). – Rickross Dec 10 '17 at 15:14
  • 3
    @Rickross Not useless, I was just correcting a typo. – Keshav Srinivasan Dec 10 '17 at 16:58

Ramanujacharya does not call Pashupatas as Kalamukhas. In fact, he explicitly states that they are different Shaivite sects, in this section of his Sri Bhashya:


As far as how Ramanujacharya feels about Pashupatas, Kapalikas, and others, in this section of the Sri Bhashya he discusses how their beliefs and practices are criticized in the Brahma Sutras:


In subsequent sections of the Sri Bhashya he discusses how the Brahma Sutras refute the belief of these Shaivite sects that Ishwara is the efficient cause but not the material cause of the Universe.

| improve this answer | |


Ramanuja, a Vaishnavite acharya, may have confused the Kalamukha with the Kapalikas in his Sri Bhasya work, in which he noted them as eating from a skull and keeping wine. Such practices were common for the Kapalikas but are atypical for the Kalamukhas. His writings may have been coloured by his experienced of being a member of a different school and being forced by the Kalamukhas and other Shavites to leave his native Tamil Nadu. There was also possibly a desire to discredit because of an element of fear or jealousy driven by the then rising popularity of the Kalamukhas.[9][10] Nandi notes that:

the Kalamukhas were a saivite sect of social and religious reformers with a strong social basis, whereas the Kapalikas were a sect of selfish self-seekers practising queer and gruesome rites at the cremation ground, away from human localities.[11]

Nonetheless, for many years scholars such as R. G. Bhandarkar believed the Kalamukhas to be a more extreme sect than the Kapalikas, despite acknowledging that Ramanuja's written accounta were confused. David Lorenzen believes this error lay in placing emphasis on Ramanuja's skewed written record above that placed on such epigraphical evidence from inscriptions as had been collated by the time Bhandarkar and others analysed the situation.[12]"

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    Ramanujacharya didn't confuse Kapalikas with Kalaukhas. They are referred as different sects. You should not blindly copy paste from wikipedia articles. It is plagiarism. Plagiarised answers will be deleted. You should check the correctness of the answers which you are posting. – Sarvabhouma Mar 2 '18 at 6:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .