From: mani@aix.Berkeley.EDU (Mani Varadarajan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.indian.telugu
Subject: Re: Kuram Narayana on Ramanuja
Date: 6 Jan 93 16:25:28
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
	<1993Jan6.235443.13516@news.ysu.edu>
Reply-To: mani@sprite.Berkeley.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: aix.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: ah724@yfn.ysu.edu's message of Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:54:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.235443.13516@news.ysu.edu> ah724@yfn.ysu.edu (Sundara Pandian) writes:
   In a previous article, narayana@oracorp.com (K. T. Narayana) says:

   >There was some crafty disinformation indulged in by a netter
   >on the above topic. Here is what Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan
   >has to say!
   >
   >
   >"Ramanuja preaches equality in worship and proclaims that
   > bhakthi transcends all caste inequalities. He admitted
   >the pariahs to the temple at Melkote. But it is by no means
   >clear that he was prepared for a wholesale defiance of the
   >accepted order. Out of deference to tradition, he concedes
   >that freedom is open only to the three upper classes, and
   >others have to work their way up and wait for the next birth.
   >We cannot therefore say that he was in full sympathy with
   >his teaching."

Not true, at least according to tradition.  While his comment
on a sutra in Brahma-Sutra I.3 would suggest what you have
written above, it is by no means definite. In light of his
other writings, such as his prose poems and his commentary on
the Bhagavad-gita, I myself conclude otherwise, as did the rest
of his followers.  Even an ultra-orthodox Vaishnava like
Vedantadesika writes with praise of the fact that all who
surrender to the Lord, be they humans or animals, will attain
salvation after this very life.

Furthermore, accounts of Ramanuja's life written very soon
after his death clearly indicate that he believed in the
salvation of all castes.  There is no hint in the hagiography
of a doctrine of salvation for only three castes. 
	[As a side note, some his Thengalai followers argue 
	that /prapannas/ (those who have surrendered themselves
	to the Lord) have no caste whatsoever.]

Kuram continues:

   >The second sentence only speaks of
   >entry to the temples by the Suudras; it is not clear whether the
   >word Suudra is intended for a Mleccha. When taken scripturally
   >(that is how Radhakrishnan's book should be read, when in doubt),
   >the pariahs are mlecchas. It is clear that Ramanuja did not 
   >intend the prohibition to go away, and the freedom to enter
   >the temple is admitted only for the three upper classes.

It is undisputed by historians that Ramanuja allowed
untouchables to enter the temple.  He renamed them
``Tirukulattar'', the Tamil analogue of ``Harijan''.  In fact,
as far as I know, those who were considered Shudras were always
admitted to Vaishnava temples, especially since they were the
ones who controlled the money and the land; not letting them in
would be political suicide!

   >I have posted the above to dispell some misinformation being passed
   >around especially from some guys of the SCT which the SCI readership
   >should be aware. We may not like the caste
   >divisions in the society or even hate the notion of prohibition of worship
   >to some select people. The above records what was the society prevalent those
   >days and the days prior to that. This whole concept that the vaisnava tradition
   >somehow broke down caste barriers is a simple white-wash just to
   >feel good, and nothing more than that. 
   >
   >...kt
   >

While some have exaggerated the truth regarding the liberality
of Vaishnavas, it cannot be denied that both bhakti movements,
especially in their nascent stages, were far more accepting
than the prevailing orthodox order.  And to rewrite history by
undoing some of what Ramanuja did is far worse than surmising
that some barriers were broken.

Peace,
Mani