Compassion in Hinduism

Compassion in Hinduism is a key defining virtue of the dharmic and realized human being and a primary attribute of ultimate reality or brahman , particularly when that reality is conceived of as a loving divine being. At the heart of the Hindu understanding of the nature of existence is the conviction that all beings participate in this unitive divine reality. Yet due to ignorance and the obstructions of karman , humans are unaware of this, selfishly acting on behalf of an illusory individual independent self. The goal of the spiritual pursuit is the liberating realization of this truth. Some are drawn to seek it out, and Hindu teachings suggest that the one divine reality, whether conceived of as the supreme spirit of all, ātman , or as God, is the ultimate source and author of all action and therefore initiates this process and reveals itself to these individuals, bestowing favor or grace in an outflow of realization and bliss, compassion, and love. Yet if this is so, how and why are some selected and not others, and to what degree is human action required in salvation or liberation? Distinctive theologies have developed, particularly within the devotional strands of Hinduism, wrestling with the relationship between human initiative and this divine self-revelatory grace and between karmic justice and divine mercy, detailing the compassionate responsiveness of brahman and of realized humans to the hunger for unitive realization or intimacy with God and to the helplessness of the one who seeks refuge and assistance from them.

The concepts of “grace” and “compassion” are encompassed by a number of related and overlapping terms in Sanskrit writings and vernacular compositions of philosophers, theologians, and devotional saints. Karuṇā, anukampā, anukrośa, dayā, and kṛpā can each be translated as “compassion,” that is, feeling the suffering or distress of other beings and reaching out in care, tenderness, and pity to alleviate that suffering. This pathos is included as one of the eight principal emotional capacities or rasas , recognized and cultivated through Indian aesthetic experience. Karuṇā denotes not only compassion but also tenderness and pity; anukampā conjoins compassion, sympathy, and kindness; and anukrośa (from anu + root kruś-, “to cry out,” “to lament”) joins tenderness and compassion. Day-, the root of dayā, means “to divide, allot,” “to partake, possess,” “to take part in, to sympathize with, have pity on,” and dayā carries this participatory sense of mercy, compassion, sympathy, and pity. Kṛpā denotes kindness, compassion, tenderness, and pity, its root kṛp- carrying the meanings “to mourn, long for,” “to lament, implore,” “to grieve,” “to pity.” All imply a responsiveness that is both gracious and without condition, reaching out to those in need or pain (Malkovsky, 2001, 163–164).

Two other Sanskrit terms used to speak specifically of “grace” are prasāda and anugraha. Prasāda carries a complex set of meanings, which include not only a freely given gift, favor, blessing, boon, aid, or mediation but also clarity, purity, brightness, serenity, and tranquility – qualities arising with a state of grace or realization. The term is further used to refer to food and other substances first offered to God, or the remains of food eaten by a spiritually advanced individual, returned to the worshippers as touched by and filled with the presence of the real, making the divine presence or realization directly accessible to the recipient. The term anugraha emphasizes divine initiative, coming from the root grah-, “to take, seize,” and translated not only “to treat with kindness, favor, oblige” but also “to support, uphold, receive, welcome.” In Tamil literature, the term that encompasses this broad set of meanings is aruḷ (Malkovsky, 2001, 161–163).

Compassion is part of the warp and woof of the manifest world, of the structuring principle of dharma that shapes and regulates nature, society, and morality. The dharmic law books (dharmaśāstra ) and the great epic traditions (Mahābhārata , Rāmāyaṇa ) reinforce this conviction. In the Gautamadharmasūtra, compassion for all creatures is given as one of the universal virtues, incumbent on human beings and a necessary quality of anyone who would pursue spiritual liberation (GautDhS. 8.22–24; trans. Olivelle, 1999, 90–91). Teachings on compassion are also woven through dharmic discussions in the Mahābhārata, where Sāvitrī lauds the virtuous as those “who show compassion even to their enemies when they meet them” (Smith, 2009, 225, 624, 695), and Bhīṣma speaks to Yudhiṣṭhira of the purifying power and superiority of acting compassionately toward all creatures. A parrot who, though his own life was withering away, would not abandon a dying tree because it had given him shelter throughout his life, and Yudhiṣṭhira, when he declined Indra’s offer to transport him directly to heaven if his loyal canine companion could not accompany him, embody this virtue (Smith, 2009, 669–670, 775–777). Only the adharmic Duryodhana condemns compassion, viewing it as weakness and claiming that those who are guided by it never attain anything great in the world (Smith, 2009, 125). Similar references appear in the Rāmāyaṇa, affirming that compassion is a fundamental element of the moral and dharmic life, a virtue that has the added power to purify and transform the actor and also to elicit the favor or grace of the divine.

The one divine reality itself is also characterized by this quality. The devotional saints sing of the Lord as an ocean or treasury of compassion, and of the Devī as Dayāmayī, the “Compassionate One.” They repeatedly praise the overwhelming compassion shown to past devotees like Draupadī and the elephant king Gajendra, even as they ask that the same be graciously extended to them. The divine responds to those who call out to him/her as their only refuge, and the saint–poets remark with wonder on such unbounded and unmerited care, even to the point of the divine incarnating in the world.

This divine compassion and gracious action are essential in the pursuit of spiritual liberation. The Upaniṣads speak of the indivisibility of the individual from the inner controller, ātman , and from the singular reality of brahman, and they laud that one reality as the source of all that is, including both the longing for liberation and the capacity for it. Willful action is ultimately an assertion of separateness that becomes a block to realization, and so the Kaṭhopaniṣad and Śvetāśvataropaniṣad suggest the following:

One who is without the active will beholds Him, and becomes freed from sorrow.
When through the grace (prasāda) of the Creator he beholds the greatness of the Soul (Ātmān). (KaṭhU. 2.20; trans. Hume, 1996, 349–350; see also ŚvetU. 3.17.21)

Other verses also confirm this understanding that divine favor makes realization possible:

This Soul (Ātman) is not to be obtained by instruction,
nor by intellect, nor by much learning.
He is to be obtained only by the one whom He chooses;
to such a one that Soul (Ātman) reveals His own person. (KaṭhU. 2:23; MuU. 3.2.3; trans. Hume, 1996, 350, 376; see also ŚvetU. 1.6)

The individual self is not the author of realization, nor are intellect and instruction sufficient, but rather ātman reveals itself in a gracious act of dispelling ignorance (avidyā ).

In the Bhagavadgītā , this divine reality appears clearly as a personal Lord and an active agent of mercy and compassion. Kṛṣṇa speaks to Arjuna about discipline of body and mind through meditation, of action through nonattachment to its fruits, and of devotion to God through contemplation, remembrance, service, and the offering up of all as a sacrifice. Their relationship is characterized by awe and fear in Arjuna’s realization of the immensity of God as a whole (something his limited mind can only perceive through Kṛṣṇa’s gift of vision). Overwhelmed, Arjuna asks Kṛṣṇa to return to his four-armed form and then to his form as his charioteer and comrade, though he also begs for his forgiving grace for having treated him as if he were only this (BhG. 11.44). In taking on these more limited forms, the divine becomes accessible, again in an act of compassionate grace.

In the final section of the Bhagavadgītā, Kṛṣṇa speaks more specifically about grace, telling Arjuna,

By love he knows me in truth, who I am and what I am.
And when he knows me in truth, he enters into my Being.
In whatever work he does, he can take refuge in me, and
He attains then by my grace the imperishable home of Eternity. (BhG. 18.55–56; trans. Mascaro, 1962, 120)

In subsequent verses he assures Arjuna that if his thoughts remain on God, God’s grace will shield him from all dangers. By his grace, Arjuna will attain “the peace supreme”; by his grace the bonds of karman will be broken and his ignorance dispelled. And so it is as the Bhagavadgītā ends.

Subsequent philosophers and theologians will draw on the Upaniṣads and the Bhagavadgītā and the songs of the devotional saints in an ongoing debate, exploring more deeply the relationship between the individual and the divine, karman and grace, justice and mercy, even as they wrestle with the place of human action in a liberation that is made possible ultimately by the favor or self-revelation of the divine reality. The great 8th-century philosopher Śaṅkara advocates the advaita path of nondualism (Advaita Vedānta), with its ultimate realization of the true self as ātman and the oneness of ātman and brahman. The realization of that ultimate truth requires not only a discriminating mind, the desire for liberation, and abandonment of the pursuit of worldly pleasures, but also the assistance of a guru who has already attained that liberating knowledge and the grace of the divine reality, which ultimately reveals itself to the seeker, or (perhaps more accurately) as the seeker’s true nature.

Though later commentators and scholars argue whether Śaṅkara truly espouses a doctrine of grace, he does directly address the topic repeatedly (though not systematically) in his commentaries on the Upaniṣads and the Bhagavadgītā as well as the earlier philosophical work attributed to Bādarāyaṇa, the Brahmasūtra or Vedāntasūtra (Malkovsky, 2001; Sūtras). He identifies the one reality alternately as brahman and Īśvara or Lord and balances divine impartiality with grace, allowing for human freedom and karmic justice within the wider horizon of the unbounded freedom of brahman and suggesting that human preparation and longing facilitate but do not alone merit or bring liberation. The dawning of the light of illuminating knowledge comes through the self-revelatory grace of brahman and not, in the end, through the willful action of the human intellect. It is in some ways difficult to speak of grace within a nondual conception of reality, as the bestowing of grace implies a distinction between bestower and recipient. Later Advaita commentators will argue for a radical monism, making a hard and fast distinction between brahman in itself and the personal, relational Īśvara, with grace attached to the latter and sharing its lesser and ultimately illusory character. However, Śaṅkara does not make such a sharp distinction in his own writings (Malkovsky, 2001, 377–402).

Śaṅkara also affirms the enlightened teacher and the revealed scriptures (Śruti) as channels for this necessary grace, even awakening the disciple to set out on the path to realization. The guru, in guiding the disciple, embodies the compassion of brahman extended toward the human bound by ignorance. It may further be argued that compassionate action is a definitive expression of the realized life, necessarily emerging out of a joint realization of the truth that all is indeed brahman and of the incredible depths of ignorance and the resultant suffering (Rambachan, 2006, 111).

For others, the human–divine relationship comes to be understood as profoundly personal and experienced as mirroring human forms of loving intimacy, particularly between parents and children and between lovers. Such an understanding develops in the 6th to 9th centuries in South India with the rise of the Tamil bhakti saints, the Āḻvārs and Nāyaṉārs, devoted to Viṣṇu and Śiva, respectively. They are followed by a host of other saints in different regions, who serve as the founders of a number of other lineages, primarily devoted to Śiva, Viṣṇu/Kṛṣṇa, Mahādevī/Śakti, or the nirguṇa Lord beyond form, as this devotional form of Hindu religiosity swept across the subcontinent over the next millennium.

The ācāryas  of the Tamil Śrīvaiṣṇavas seek to explain this path, particularly in contrast to Śaṅkara’s Advaita. Nāthmuni first collected the works of the saint Nammāḻvār in the 10th century, but it is the fifth ācārya, Rāmānuja, who becomes the foundational theologian, not only for the Śrīvaiṣṇavas but also for much of later bhakti. He advocates a qualified nondualism (viśiṣṭādvaita), in which the relationship of devotee to Lord is that between a subsidiary and the principal entity, an “identity-in-difference” in which the one is manifest in the many and fundamentally relational in nature (Hopkins, 2002, 28–29). The spiritual goal is not a dissolution of difference, but realization of the true nature of the relationship between the one and the manifest and the “continuous remembrance” of the Lord (Narayanan, 1987, 80). This meditative intuition or seeing is achieved through following the highly disciplined path of bhaktiyoga, incorporating karmayoga and jñānayoga; the cultivation of purity, equanimity, freedom from desire and attachment; the performance of ritual action; and virtuous conduct, but also intense, loving, and joyous worship and service of God (Narayanan, 1987, 80–81). In his Vedārthasaṃgraha, Rāmānuja writes,

"Thus the supreme Brahman is the ocean of infinite and unsurpassed excellences of attributes. He transcends all evil. The expanse of his glory is boundless. He abounds in surpassing condescension, maternal compassion and supreme beauty. ... If the seeker meditates on the Supreme with full consciousness of this relationship (between the Lord and himself) as the principal entity and subsidiary entity, and if the supreme Brahman so meditated upon becomes an object of supreme love to the devotee, then he himself effectuates the devotee’s god-realization" (trans. Narayanan, 1987, 81).

Α person’s inclination to take refuge in God and to surrender is shaped by past karman, but in that turning, God finds the devotee irresistible and showers the devotee with grace. “Out of compassion (anugraha) alone, he dispels the ignorance that is born out of the devotee’s old karma” (Narayanan, 1987, 86). Knowledge of God’s overwhelming power coupled with God’s accessibility in turn makes it possible for human beings to respond with “humility, love, service and faith” and to take refuge in him, surrendering completely to him (prapatti). A tension remains in Rāmānuja’s writings. The doctrine of karman suggests both a resposibility for but also limitation based on past action, yet it necessitates the ability to act freely. Furthermore, the sovereignty of God as the originator and cause of all action and divine grace suggests that a kind of predestination may be operative but also that God’s compassion and power are not circumscribed by the justice of karman. Rather, his grace is showered on those who follow the bhakti path (Narayanan, 1987, 87).

Deeply personal devotional poetry is also attributed to Rāmānuja, and here he speaks of being unable even to follow the discipline of bhaktiyoga, with his only hope being the unmerited grace of God. His complete unworthiness, rather than any strength or virtue on his part, and his complete surrender and seeking refuge in the Lord elicit the Lord’s compassion and grace. His desire is only to engage in loving service of the Lord, but he is unable to do this without the Lord’s grace. Rāmānuja’s scribe and disciple Kūrattāḻvāṉ too writes poetry that emphasizes his lowliness, the Lord’s compassion (dayā) as his only strength, and God’s grace (prasāda) as the source even of his ability to surrender himself. He speaks of God’s maternal love as being such that even a pause in sinning evokes the Lord’s mercy. Kūrattāḻvāṉ’s desire is not only for the Lord’s compassion but also for that love (Narayanan, 1987, 95–112).

Rāmānuja’s contemporary and cousin Tirukkurukaippirāṉ Piḷḷāṉ also recognizes this total dependence on God in his commentary on Nammāḻvār’s verses. He expresses his wonder that the perfect Lord, out of extreme compassion, has made a vile person like himself have such devotion; he feels himself “caught up in the overwhelming flood of compassion that protects the unfortunate ones and those who are devoid of any means of salvation” (Carmen & Narayanan, 1989, 94). Indeed, the gulf between God and humans, made immense through the devotee’s awareness of both God’s infinite greatness and human impurity, can only be bridged by the sheer grace of God, who makes himself an equal to the human, thus opening the possibility of true love (Carmen & Narayanan, 1989, 97).

The themes of surrender (prapatti), grace, and compassion run through the later writings of Śrīvaiṣṇavas. The 14th-century theologian Piḷḷai Lokācārya points to the key role played by Śrī or Lakṣmī, consort of Viṣṇu, as a mediator between Viṣṇu and the self and the embodiment of divine grace and compassion. Śrī’s mediation is vital to the overcoming of past karman, in both removing the consequences for the individual and overcoming the demands of justice to which Viṣṇu, without Śrī, would in some sense be bound. She embodies the maternal love of the divine for the human, a love that even takes pleasure in the faults of the child. Taking a step beyond Kūrattāḻvāṉ, Piḷḷai claims that Viṣṇu does not simply ignore but actually enjoys human sins, extending his grace precisely because of these faults. Therefore, humans should not seek to remove those faults, nor should they even take the initiative to surrender. The initiative is God’s – salvation is wholly a matter of grace. Yet why does God choose some and not others? Piḷḷai argues that it is because of unintentional good deeds done in this or previous lives. God longs to restore the relationship between the divine and human and so is hidden in the world, allowing human beings to choose to act and watching. God also motivates unintentional good actions, thus providing a pretext to draw souls to himself in a salvific outpouring of grace (Narayanan, 1992b, 76–83).

Piḷḷai’s contemporary Vedāntadeśika will distinguish between two types of divine grace. The first is designated as kṛpā, referring to the universal grace available to all human beings, which allows them to turn to God in devotion. A second type of grace, designated as prasāda, he defines as the salvific grace, which brings release from karmic consequences and the liberating experience of God. Some human turning or action of even the smallest nature is required by Viṣṇu to initiate the outflow of the second, as he is the upholder of order and justice, epitomized by the law of karman. Because of this, although he may ignore human faults, he cannot be said to enjoy them (Narayanan, 1992b, 83–90; Hopkins, 2002, 175–180). His consort Śrī makes no such distinction, as a mother would not for her child, and forgives without any reason. Therefore, the devotee should seek refuge in her, “[f]or she is the aspect of the Godhead that forgives as a matter of course, whose essence is unqualified grace” (Narayanan, 1996, 93).

In later centuries, the Śrīvaiṣṇavas will divide into two distinct branches over their different understandings of grace and their implications, with the “southern” Teṉkalai comparing the operation of God’s grace to the way a mother cat moves her kittens to a new location. The kitten has no responsibility except to surrender utterly to the mother cat as she picks it up by the scruff of the neck. The “northern” Vaṭakalai, in contrast, sees the disciple’s surrender as the action to which the Lord responds with grace, even as a baby monkey must jump to its mother’s back and hold on tightly though she is the originator and source of movement to a new location. Human cooperation with grace, however minute, is in this sense necessary (Narayanan 1987, 190–191; Hopkins, 2002, 31–33). In northern India a variety of Vaiṣṇava lineages also emerged, with their own nuanced understandings of grace and of the nature of the divine, the world and human beings. Among them were the Puṣṭimārg of Vallabhācārya, whose Śuddhādvaita teachings affirm absolute reliance on divine grace (anugraha) for liberation from ignorance and impurity, a grace that is given without relation to the devotee’s actions, knowledge, or worthiness and by the will of Kṛṣṇa alone, as the only existent reality (Barz, 1992, 56–79).

Theologians of the Śaiva traditions also wrestled with these issues. Śaiva Siddhānta theology, which originates in 10th-century Kashmir but is further developed in the south, is dualistic (dvaita) in nature (as is the Vaiṣṇava tradition expounded by the 13th-century theologian Madhva). Here a sharp distinction is drawn among Śiva, the self, and a third category of the cosmos or saṃsāra, to which the self is bound by impurity, karman, and māyā or materiality. Śiva’s activities are fivefold, including not only creation, maintenance, and destruction of the world, but also obscuration and grace (anugraha), concealing himself and revealing himself to the human being. The individual pursuing liberation takes initiation from a guru in whom Śiva had come to reside and engages in disciplined practice, through which obscurations are gradually removed, culminating in final liberation at death, through the descent of Śiva’s grace. The self does not merge with Śiva at this point but remains individuated, becoming instead “a Śiva” with all the powers and attributes of the divine but ontologically distinct. Throughout this process it is Śiva’s grace that is the essential moving force, experienced through the guru and directly from Śiva at death (Flood, 2003, 210–211).

Yet why is such obscuration necessary in the first place? Śaiva Siddhānta teachers will suggest that it is necessary so that the self will remain engaged in the world, attracted to it, and experiencing the full range of experiences that will direct it not to mere renunciation or avoidance, but to the pursuit of spiritual development and enlightenment (Devasenapathi, 1975, 18). Karman functions similarly, serving to train humans in taking the right action, while spiritual advancement leads to compassionate action without regard to laws, duties, justice, and so on in loving service. Grace erases past karman and facilitates spiritual realization, which in turn leads to compassionate action without concern for laws or attachment to consequences, thus generating no further bonds (Devasenapathi, 1975, 19).

The Śaiva devotional poets, including the Tamil Nāyaṉārs and the 10th- to 12th-century Vīraśaiva saints of the Kannara-speaking region, sang extensively of Śiva’s grace. The Nāyaṉārs Appar, Campantar, and Cuntarar make clear that release comes in the act of taking refuge in Śiva’s feet itself (Peterson, 1989, 219, 239–40). For the Vīraśaiva saints,

"[a]ll true experience of God is kṛpā, grace that cannot be called, recalled or commanded ... The grace of the Lord is nothing [the devotee] can invoke or wheedle by prayer, rule, ritual, magical word or sacrificial offering" (Ramanujan, 1973, 31–32).

It is by Śiva’s grace alone that humans experience God. Even in the more monistic Śaiva tradition that flourished in Kashmir, we find discussions of grace going back to the 10th-century writings of Utpaladeva, who speaks of human devotion and Śiva’s grace as two sides of the same coin, drawing devotee and divine back into their unitive source in the body of Śiva. Yet devotion itself arises only at God’s will, a mystery that only Śiva truly understands (Bailly, 1987, 14–18). Nirguṇa devotees (like Ravidās and Nānak) also speak of grace, particularly as an attribute of the one God flowing through the guru and guiding the devotee. Bengali Kālī devotee Rāmprāsad Sen describes her grace as paradoxically akin to a fiery conflagration that rages through the heart, purifying, emptying, and breaking it open, and to a mother’s gentle and freely given protection and care (Hawley & Juergensmeyer, 1988, 26; Sen, 1999).

Grace, though variously understood, is thus an essential concept within Hinduism, for it describes a dimension of the experience of those who pursue spiritual liberation, whether their goal is realization of or intimacy with the unitive divine reality, reflecting the recognition of human fallibility and helplessness, the identity of the human true self with the divine (even if a distinction remains), and the experience of being swept away by boundless divine compassion and radically transformed by divine self-revelation. A conception of grace is made logically necessary by the understanding that this reality, brahman, whether characterized as impersonal or as a loving Lord, is the source of all being and initiator of all action in a manifest world, marked by ignorance, karmic justice, and human freedom, however limited.