Dear Dr. Ganesan,

You raise a very good point.

My statement in the post below was made based on my understanding of what John Carman and Vasudha Narayanan had written in The Tamil Veda (University of Chicago Press: 1989). 

According to Carman and Narayanan, it is true that Rāmānuja (R) has not explicitly acknowledged Nammāḷvār (N) in any of his works. But, the following indirectly point to R's reverence for N. (Page numbers refer to pages in The Tamil Veda.)

1. R's disciple, Amutaṉār (A), the author of Irāmānuca Nūṟṟantāti, refers to R's reverence for N (p.43).  
2. R acknowledged Yamuna (Y) to be his master and Y had adored N (p.54). (Y died before R reached him according to hagiography.)
3. R's disciples considered themselves part of a lineage that included R (p.54) and they adored N.
4. R wrote to convince a non-Śrīvaiṣṇava Brahmin audience and so only cited Sanskrit sources (p. 54). (If I understand Carman and Narayanan correctly, they seem to feel that even though R really revered N, considering the audience he was targeting, R did not cite N.)
5. The influence of N on R is seen in his discussions. For instance on p. 155, Carman and Narayanan
 write, "...Nammaḻvār's own words express a theme that is equally prominent in the Sanskrit writings of Rāmānuja and is perhaps clearest where Rāmānuja is not simply commenting on a particular text but developing the meaning of the whole." 

However, I look forward to any updated information you may have regarding the historical accuracy of any of the points.  For instance, Irāmānuca Nūṟṟantāti is a work praising R. Was its author A and was he indeed a direct disciple of R known from historical evidences other than hagiography? What would be the motivation for A to say R adored N, if A was indeed R's disciple? I would appreciate any new insights into these questions.

Thanks

Regards,
Palaniappan


-----Original Message-----
From: Dr. T. Ganesan <ganesan@ifpindia.org>
To: indology <indology@list.indology.info>
Sent: Tue, Nov 26, 2013 11:07 pm
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] molten lead in ears



On 22-11-2013 05:35, palaniappa@aol.com wrote:
For Śaṅkara's views on this issue, see

Rāmānuja also essentially had the same opinion in his commentary. See

On the other hand, what is interesting is that for Śrīvaiṣṇavas like Rāmānuja, the Śūdra saint Nammāḷvār was/is the foremost saint.

Where is such a reference by Ramanuja to Nammāḷvār in his works ? Nowhere  does he make any such reference.
It seems only much long after Ramanuja such ideas were incorporated in the propagation of SriVaishnavism.

Ganesan

Regards,
Palaniappan