रामानुजीये विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Data

tanjamma story

tanjamma story (denying sheSha - not uchChiShTa- of his non-v1 teacher to R) and such are reliable (though it’s been boosted to the point of making it about some “social reform” thing). The recorders are near-contemporaries. As far as rAmAnuja was concerned he was acting within the confines of varNAshrama-dharma, as was his wife (albeit overly influenced by shiShTAchAra and less by actual shAstra study). Ditto with mantra-broadcast story.

The yajnopavIta granting story (“8 yo R did so to perform antya-karma to a v4”), quoted as “family record” by K shrIkRShNa, is utterly insane - not from any reliable record. As a matter of fact, it is well known that R questioned his teacher about him performing final rites (without violating shAstra but violating common practice) to a v4 student and receiving a satisfactory answer citing final rite to jaTAyuSh by rAma.

Hype

“Statue of equality” hype and quotes in its website are not reliable. All orthodox shrIvaiShNava-s - definitely all belonging to the vaDakalai sect detest such lies, even if it is good propaganda to bring wokes into dharma.

Instructions of Agamas

The following injuctions about adherence to varNAshrama-dharma are heavily quoted by R, VD etc..

“अविप्लवाय धर्माणां पालनाय कुलस्य च ।
संग्रहाय च लोकस्य मर्यादास्थापनाय च ॥
प्रियाय मम विष्णोश्च देवदेवस्य शार्ङ्गिणः ।
मनीषी वैदिकाचारं मनसापि न लङ्घयेत्” (लक्ष्मीतन्त्रम् 17-93,-94.)

“श्रुतिस्स्मृतिर्ममैवाज्ञा
यस्तामुल्लङ्घ्य वर्तते ।
आज्ञाच्छेदी मम द्रोही
मद्भक्तोऽपि न वैष्णवः”
(विष्णुधर्मम् 6-31.)

However, special allowance is made for bhAgavata-s -

यः शूद्रं भगवद्-भक्तं
निषादं श्वपचं तथा ।
वीक्षते जाति-सामान्यात्
स याति नरकं नरः ॥

“A devotee of the Lord, who may be a ‘sudra’ or a forester or a low caste man should not be treated on counts of caste. If one does so, he will fall into hell”

चण्डालम् अपि वृत्त-स्थं
तं देवा ब्राह्मणं विदुः ।
चण्डालाः प्रत्यवसिताः
परिव्राजक-तापसाः ॥

न शूद्रा भगवद्भक्ता
विप्रा भागवताः स्मृताः ।
सर्व-वर्णेषु ते शूद्रा
ये ह्य् अभक्ता जनार्दने ॥

Of course, this does not mean there was “yajnopavIta distribution” for them - that would violate “श्रुतिस्स्मृतिर्ममैवाज्ञा”.

Conclusion

shrI rAmAnuja was NOT a social reformer in the sense of violating express statements of the shAstra. Yet, he, like is predecessors, were all for extending full courtesy to shrIvaiShNavas - exactly as the Agamas enjoined.