Philosophy: Is Ramanuja a Vishnu-tattva?

The Shree sampadayam people say that he is the avatar of Anantashesha (after Lakshman,Balarama). What is Gaudia vashnava view?

Wasn't Krsna-upanisad written just after Ramanujacaryas times?

From the Garga Samhita, Canto 10, chapter 61:

23.
vamanas vidih sesah sanako visnu vakyatah
dharmartha hetave caite bhavisyanti dvijah kalau

Vamana, Brahma, Ananta Sesha and Sanaka Kumara will appear as brahmanas by the order of Visnu, for the preservation of eternal righteousness in kali yuga.

24.
visnuswami vamanangsastatha madhvastu brahmanah
ramanujastu sesangsa nimbaditya sanakasya ca

Visnuswami, Madhvacarya, Ramanuja and Nimbaditya will appear respectively as a portion of Vamana, Brahma, Ananta Sesha and Sanaka Kumara.

25.
These four saviours will be the establishers of the four authorised and empowered spiritual channels of disciplic succession in the period calculated from the reign of King Vikrama in 54 B.C. subsequently through the 432,000 year cycle of kali yuga.

ete kalau yuge bhavyah sampradaya pravartakah
samvatsare vikrama catvarah ksiti pavanah

26.
These four authorised and empowered spiritual channels of disciplic succession are to be fully accepted by all beings; as any word, combination of words or formulation of sound frequencies, invoked or addressed, audible or inaudible, secret or revealed, ancient or contemporary outside their auspices prove to have absolutely no efficacy.

sampradaya vihina ye mantraste nisphalah smritah
tasmacca gamanang hyasti sampradaya narairapi

We do accept Garga Samhita...

narot:The Shree sampadayam people say that he is the avatar of Anantashesha (after Lakshman,Balarama). What is Gaudia vashnava view?

I may be mistaken, but I don't think that Ramanauja is considered vishnu-tattva even in his own sampradaya. Generally he is considered shaktyavesha avatar.

ccd:Sri Vaisanavas do not use the term sakti-avesa.

Do they use the term vishnu-tattva? The question is framed in the Gaudiya conceptualism so the answer has to somehow relate Sri Vaishnava understanding to those concepts.

If you look at works of Jiva Goswami or even at the 20th chapter of Madhya lila of CC you will find that the term visnu-tattva is not used (in original text;-). What Prabhupada refers to here is the general thing about Balarama in different Viasnava traditions, not many accept him to be on the same level as Krishna and in fact only few traditions accept Krishna as the origin of Narayana. I know of no place where Jiva would refer to Ramanuja in this context. (Anyone?) (Don't call it jiva-tattva too, while Krisnadasa kaviraja uses this term even Jiva Goswami does not;-)

Ramanuja did not himself said he was an avatar -- it is based on an interpretation of a sloka about Sesa which explains that during

a)Satya yuga - he is Adi-sesa
b)Treta Yuga - he is Lakshman avatara
c)Dvapara - Balaraman avatara
d)Kali - Bavisyadi avatara

(Bhavisya literary means forthcoming -- one that yet to come)

During Ramanujas period, when his disciples were reciting this sloka, they got doubt about who is that “bavisyadi” which is mentioned in that sloka. Ramanuja called upon some close students and told that “HE is none other than the bavishyadAchAryar which is explained in that slokam” referring to a prediction done by Namalvar. However Namalvar did not specified who it is, he just said it is a murti of a future acarya.

When he met a group of 1000 Jains trying to defeat his philosophy, Ramanuja asked to put a curtain between them, the group of peoples who came for debate and him. So Sri Vaisnavas believe He took his divine avatar as thousand headed Adisesa and answered all questions at the same time. After this event most of the peoples from that group surrendered. That what have happened in Thondanur. I always imagine Prabhupada being like that, with his army of book distributors...