From: narayana@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Kuram T Narayana)
Subject: On Caste and Vaishnavism Continued...
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 18:27:23 GMT

Continuing further on this thread:

Some nettor has suggested that the AhobiLa mutt jeer has some
time long ago consecretated a non brahmin to be a brahmin.
This news was also read by me in the news papers. Since in 
half a century there is one such reported case, it takes by
that reconing about 50 million centuries to even think of
providing brahmin-hood tothe 100 million or so that are 
currently deprived of brahma vidya. That means the twice-born
approach is more pragmatic for these souls, because by that
method a Suudra living now can hope that in the next Janma
he may be a brahmin (and it is faster than the 50 million centuries)
Considering the fact that this community is the most reproductive (some 
call it rattish), it does speak a lot about the hollowness of Vaisnavism's 
reformist claims.


That is the reason why the Vaisnavite reform aspects of Ramanuja
were called a protest, than a well conceived outfit. Indeed
Sarvepalli RadhaKrishnan was too kind to Ramanuja; as I said
he is overtly supportive. But Ramanuja has theologically agreed
on Vedanta suutras with all of the earlier philosophers including
Sankara. That itself testifies the inherent contradiction between
Ramanuja's theory and Ramanuja's reform. 

Indeed a conservative study of Ramanuja doctrines yields the only
view that Ramanuja brought Bhaagavatism into the mainstream vedenta.
His synthesis of that is unique, and is admirable. His synthesis has
more religious component to it than the logical finesse of Adi Sankara.
The sysnthesis is independent is not founded on the Pancaratra doctrines.
From all the books that I read on the specifics of this, every commentator
makes this remark. However every one notes that Ramanuja's studentship
is in Pancaratra doctrines.

Ramanuja is great not because he was a reformer, but because he was
a philosopher. He was in the same mould as Sankara who is a philosopher.
To make exhorbitant claims (some mythical, real and so on) on Ramanuja
is at best absurd and at worst is just dogma. 

In this respect, my notes "On Seetham's blasphemy or
Cheap Tickets to Vaikuntam" on sci has raised the issue
that after all the idolatory of TN (whether it is the
Ayyappo variety, or Govida variety, or Vinayaga variety with
their associated exhibitionism) is the worst communal form
and sectarinozes people.

When people start thinking, "what different course 
history would have taken, if Ramanuja had not propounded
his Vishistaadvaita?", people find the legitimacy of meditation
and the irrelevance of the external or the cheap worship.
Please connect here the notes that I posted on idol worship
and Hinduism.

Further some extraordinary claims are made about the influence
that Ramanuja had; Ramanuja's philosophy may have strong currents 
across the country just as Sankara's. His followers however were 
confined to TamilNadu and parts of AP and parts of Karnataka. In AP atleast
they are something less than 10% of the overall Brahmin population.
I suspect that it is the same about Karnataka, where the influences
of Madva and of Sankara are more formidable.

Having said that the three philosophers (Sankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva)
are perhaps the doyens of Vedanta. They are respected equally by
all for contributing to the Hindu thought and perhaps embracing
the thought processes of other streams like Buddhism and Jainsism.

That is the reason why SCI readers must be extremely cautious
about misinformation arising from SCT.