-2

The Chaaturvarnya caste system of Aryaavarta has been reduced to just two castes in Tamil Nadu _ Brahmins and Sudras (polite Brahmins call them "Non Brahmins", since there cannot be confusion with Kshatriyas and Vaishyas, at least in Tamil Nadu.)

Srivaishnavites cite the fact that the semi-divine Alvars included many non Brahmins as evidence of the egalitarianism of Sri-Vaishnavism.

Ramanuja is said to have advocated equality of all Hindus, in fact, a statue of equality has been raised for him.

In fact, some people claim the Vadakalai-Tenkalai division arose because Brahmin Srivaishnavites were not happy with so many Sudras being converted to Sri Vaishnavism by Ramanuja.

At any rate, Present day Srivaishnavites are as caste conscious as Smartas, Madhwites et al.

Have prominent Srivaishnavite Acharyas like Vedanta Desika, Pillai Lokacharya et al expressed opinions on caste different from Ramanuja's ?

S K
  • 1
  • 4
  • 22
  • 79
  • I ain't from South India, but throughout Eastern India & South India, there are only 2 castes - brahmins & shudras. The kshatriya & vaishya identity of various groups in North India aren't above doubt. Secondly, whatever sources available state that the Vadalalai-Tengalai divide isn't about caste, but about doctrine & liturgy. Secondly, opposition to caste-system within a Hindu framework is not same as the Marxist-Ambedkarite concept of a casteless society. See this https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/2831/what-is-the-difference-between-thenkalai-and-vadakalai-sects-of-sri-vaishnavism – অনু Aug 17 '23 at 14:10
  • many educated present day Tambrahms totally reject caste. But there is also a strong reactionary movement called TAMBRAS that wants to protect "Brahmin blood and soil" My question is - is there a doctrinaire position on caste as laid out by their acharyas among Srivaishnavites. @অনু – S K Aug 17 '23 at 14:34
  • @S K Here is an extract from Vedanta Desika's explanation of a verse from the Maghamasamahatmya of Padma Purana https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/31938/22857 – অনু Aug 17 '23 at 17:19
  • @অনু - hard to understand the formatting. could you summarize? to my understanding, he is not throwing out traditional caste, – S K Aug 18 '23 at 18:38
  • Do we really need someone's opinion on how to behave with other human beings? – Sethu Srivatsa Koduru Aug 22 '23 at 17:14

1 Answers1

2

Ramanuja is said to have advocated equality of all Hindus,

This needs to be qualified for it is easily misinterpreted/misrepresented (including by some popular maThas on their websites).

Equal in what way?

The position of Ramanuja (and his followers) is that all living beings (jIvas) are equal from the point of view that they are all eligible for mokSha and they need to resort to the Lord for it.

See Ramanuja Gita Bhashya on 9.29. Van Buitenen renders -

Being a refuge for all, God is the same toward all atmans of devas, men, animals and immovables, which, according to their class, configuration, nature and knowledge, exist in an infinite plurality of forms, from the highest to the lowest.

No one who has resorted to God will be abandoned by God because his humble class, configuration, nature and knowledge is odious to Him;

and no one who has resorted to God together with a humbler votary is more beloved of God because of his more exalted class etc.

All beings who worship God by bhakti whether they be of an exalted or a humble class will at their desire foregather in God as if they share his virtues, and God himself will dwell in them as if they are more exalted than He.

Have prominent Srivaishnavite Acharyas like Vedanta Desika, 
Pillai Lokacharya et al expressed opinions on caste 
different from Ramanuja's ?

Again you have to clarify what you mean by 'opinions on caste'. As far as eligibility for mokSha is concerned, there is no deviation from Ramanuja's view.

If you're referring to varNAshrama-dharma, then both Vedanta Desika (of the Kanchi school later termed Vadakalai) and Periyavachan Pillai (of the Srirangam school later termed Tenkalai) have explicitly said that just because someone may be a Srivaishnava doesn't mean that violations of other rules of varNAshrama-dharma like intermarriage among Srivaishnavas of different varNas are permitted.

hashable
  • 3,645
  • 18
  • 33
  • Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. – TheLittleNaruto Aug 23 '23 at 04:24