From: narayana@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Kuram T Narayana)
Subject: Re: Kuram Narayana on Ramanuja
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 02:41:14 GMT

In article <MANI.93Jan6162528@aix.Berkeley.EDU> mani@sprite.Berkeley.EDU writes:
>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.
>
The paragraph is verbatim extracted fromthe chapter "The   theism
of Ramanuja" " b y Radha Krishnan. I have two other books of Radha
krishann with me. This commentary is offered independent of the 
position of Ramanuja on the Brahma suutras concerning who is eligible
for Brahma vidya. Infact from the commentary of  Thibaut  on Sankara
Bhasyam, from Sankara Bhasyam itself, and from Radha Krishanan's notes 
on Brahma suutras, it is clear that both Sankara and Ramanuja share
an identical position. They differ considerably however on the 
interpretations offered  on the vedanta suutras concerning the
Pancharatra doctrine.

Coming to your interpretation:  The paragraph above has some text
which precedes. This text describes the notion of Bhakthi (intelligent devotion)
and prapatti (self-surrender) and alludes to precisely that for god's
love every one is eligible. Subsequently, and only then, does Radhakrishnan
cast the above doubt.  The issue is not whether Bhagavatism  with all 
its devotional trappings specifically excluded certain sections.
It actually did  not. But the statement speaks of "accepted tradition",
which implies the religion as practiced that day.
>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

Note that Rmy observation also says that Ramanuja admitted
Mlecchas to temples. Radhakrishna's statement is pointed
to the effect that it was an exception than  a rule.
Let me quote "...concedes that freedom is open only to the
three upper classes".


I have no objectionsto the Thengalai view on prapatti.

>``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!


The word Suudra in the south  has a connotation that is different from
the vedic one. That is what I read from the encyclopedia of religions
and ethics.
>
>   >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

The Bhagavata movements are always recorded by many historians and 
philosophers as protest movements against the caste system. To that
extent I agree with you. But where I disagree with these movements 
is that the whole notion is a white-wash. It denies suudras  the   right 
to become Brahmins. This right and  an approach to it has been given
by Manu in Mahabharata Santhi Parva. (See Brahma suutras of Radhakrishnana).



Sorry for all the typos. 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil