Ramanuja is obviously known to be the proponent of Vishistadvaita philosophy.
Now, I would like to know the other Vishistadvaita philosophers before and after Ramanuja.
Also, their most important works on this Darshan.
Hinduism Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for followers of the Hindu religion and those interested in learning more about Hinduism. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
Ramanujacharya did spread Vishistadvaita philosophy across India. Also, he wrote commentaries to Brahma sutras based on Vishistadvaita. Before Ramanujacharya, acharyas like Nathamuni and Yamunacharya have authored several important works on Vishistadvaita. Some of the works of Yamunacharya are
Post Ramanujacharya, great scholars like Parasara Bhattar, Pillai Lokacharya and Vedanta Desika have authored important works on Vishistadvaita. Works of Pillai Lokacharya can be found here and that of Vedanta Desika can be found here.
Broadly Ramanuja's school of Vedanta identifies two traditions:
The most important pre-Ramanujan Acharyas in the tradition of personal education are Nammazhvar, Nathamuni and Yamunacharya. Thir works are well known:
As to the tradition of Vedantic exegesis, Sri Ramanuja says the following in the beginning of the Sribhashya commentary on the Brahmasutras:
bhagavadbodhāyanakṛtāṃ vistīrṇāṃ brahmasūtravṛttiṃ pūrvācāryās sañcikṣipuḥ। tanmatānusāreṇa sūtrākṣarāṇi vyākhyāsyante।
The venerable Bodhayana has written an elaborate commentary on the Brahmasutras. This was abridged by the earlier acharyas. In accordance to these views, we expound the meaning of the Sutras.
In the Sribhashya, the VedarthaSangraha and other texts (both in the Vishishtadvaita tradition and other traditions), we find references to some of these earlier Acharyas. From the works of Ramanuja we enumerate their names:
The views of the above Acharyas are considered orthodox in the Ramanujan tradition.
Additionally there are references to the following pre-Ramanujan vedantins whose views are at least partially* if not completely accepted in the Ramanujan tradition
* I mention 'partially' because Vedanta Desika in the Tattvatika says that Sri Ramanuja did not consider some of these pUrvAchAryAs to be fully representative of the genuine orthodox tradition which can be inferred from His statement that He follows the teachings of Bodhayana and not the summaries of the other purvAchAryas.