Madhvacharya seem to have introduced eternal hell into Hindu theology - an idea alien to Hindu thinking

[a-TB]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Is eternal hell possible? Or eternal heaven? is eternal anything possible? These notions and beliefs are very much in biblical theologies. Logically, it seems not to be feasible.

While it is may not be possible to prove or disprove theological ideas like hell and heaven, it is possible to see if there is logical consistency in terms of what is known to assert eternity to either of these notions. Vedic scriptures talk of heaven and hell, but they are only for a limited duration.

Let us see logical issues with the eternity of anything first, and then explore what Madhvacharya had introduced into Hindu thinking a few hundred years ago.

 

[a-TB]

Time and Change Are Interlinked

• Time is fundamentally tied to change. The passage of time is observed through transformations—whether in physical systems, biological processes, or cosmic evolution.
• If something were truly eternal, it would exist outside of time, meaning it would not undergo change. However, anything that interacts with the universe must experience change, making true eternity impossible.

2. The Universe Had a Beginning

• The Big Bang Theory suggests that time itself began approximately 13.8 billion years ago. Before this event, there was no known concept of time or space.
• Studies in cosmology, such as those by Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin, argue that models proposing an eternal past are mathematically inconsistent.. Their analysis suggests that even cyclic or inflationary universes must have had a beginning.
• All that has a beginning always ends except in imagination

3. Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

• The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy (disorder) in a closed system always increases over time.
• If the universe were eternal, it would have already reached maximum entropy, meaning no usable energy would remain. Since we still observe energy and order, the universe cannot be infinitely old. It had a beginning and must end. Eternal anything is not possible in the universe or mutiverse that we know today.

4. Quantum Instability

• Some models propose an emergent universe that existed eternally before expanding. However, quantum mechanics suggests that such a state would be unstable and eventually collapse.
• This means that even theoretical constructs of an eternal universe face fundamental instability.

5. Philosophical Implications

• Aristotle argued for the eternity of motion, but modern physics contradicts this by showing that motion depends on forces and interactions that had a beginning
• The Kalam Cosmological Argument states that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Since the universe began to exist, it must have had a cause, implying it is not eternal

Scientific and logical reasoning strongly suggest that eternity, at least in the physical sense, is impossible. Time, entropy, quantum mechanics, and cosmology all point to the fact that everything—including the universe—must have had a beginning and will eventually reach an end.

 

[a-TB]

Madhvacharya (1238–1317 CE), the founder of the Dvaita Vedanta (dualistic school of Hindu philosophy), did articulate the concept of eternal damnation or eternal hell (nitya naraka) for certain souls. This was a distinct departure from the general trends in most Hindu schools of thought, which often upheld cyclical rebirth and eventual liberation (moksha) as possible for all beings.

 

[a-TB]

Did Madhvacharya introduce eternal hell in Hinduism?

He didn’t "introduce" the idea from scratch, but he did make it central and systematic in his theology. In Dvaita Vedanta:

Madhva postulated three kinds of souls (jīvas):

Mukti-yogyas – souls eligible for liberation.

Nitya-samsarins – souls bound to perpetual rebirth.

Tamo-yogyas – souls destined for eternal damnation in hell (andhatamas).

This third category is eternally separate from God and never achieves moksha. This is a radical view in Vedantic discourse, as most other schools (Advaita, Vishishtadvaita, etc.) affirm the ultimate liberation of all souls.

 

[a-TB]

The idea of eternal damnation exists in some form in Hindu and Jain cosmologies (e.g., deep levels of Naraka), but usually with the possibility of eventual release. Madhva’s firm stance on eternal hell is unique in Hindu Vedanta, might reflect his theological rigor in maintaining dualism between God and soul.

Given that Original Christians existed in India long before Christianity reached Europe, it is possible Madhvacharya was influenced by Christian theologies. It can only be a speculation at best.

 

[a-TB]

Madhvacharya’s Dvaita Vedanta (Hinduism)​

Nature of Souls:​

• Souls (jīvas) are eternally distinct from God (Vishnu/Narayana).
• They are threefold:
  1. Mukti-yogya: Capable of attaining liberation (moksha).
  2. Nitya-samsarin: Perpetually bound in cycles of rebirth.
  3. Tamo-yogya: Condemned to eternal hell (andhatamas), never capable of liberation.

Eternal Hell:​

• Real, eternal, and deserved for those who are inherently evil.
• God is just, and punishment is based on the intrinsic nature of certain souls, not merely actions.
• Liberation is not universal. God’s grace is not given to all.

---

Christianity (Orthodox/Catholic/Protestant views)​

Nature of Souls:​

• All souls are created equal by God.
• All are capable of salvation, but some freely reject God.

Eternal Hell:​

• Hell is eternal separation from God, often described as fire, torment, and weeping.
• It is a consequence of sin and rejection of God's grace, not predetermined nature.
• Judgment Day is final: some go to eternal life, others to eternal punishment (Matthew 25:46).

Key Differences:​

• Christianity emphasizes free will; hell is chosen by rejecting God.
• There is no inherent category of soul that is irredeemable from the start.

---

Islam​

Nature of Souls:​

• All souls are created by Allah and judged by their deeds and faith.
• Humans are born with fitrah (innate inclination toward good/monotheism).
• Everyone has a chance for guidance.

Eternal Hell:​

• Jahannam (hell) is a place of fire, torment, and despair.
• For some, it is eternal (for disbelievers or extreme wrongdoers).
• For others (believers with sins), hell may be temporary before eventual paradise.

Key Differences:​

• Like Christianity, Islam teaches divine justice and free will, not inherent soul classification.
• Hell is both a warning and a real possibility, not predestined by soul type.

---

Key Comparison Summary​

Feature	Madhvacharya (Dvaita Vedanta)	Christianity	Islam
Soul Nature	Innately categorized into 3 types	Created equal, all redeemable	Created equal, all judged on deeds
Eternal Hell?	Yes, for inherently evil souls (tamo-yogyas)	Yes, for those who reject God	Yes, for disbelievers; may be temporary for sinful believers
Free Will?	Limited; soul's destiny is intrinsic	Strong emphasis on free will	Strong emphasis on free will and divine justice
Basis for Damnation	Inherent nature of soul	Rejection of God’s love/grace	Rejection of faith or sinful life

 

[a-TB]

The above post is a compilation from several web resources. Please let me know mistakes if any.

As previously mentioned, the concepts of eternal heaven and hell are irrational and unreasonable constructs of the human mind. These notions lack support from the Upanishads and the Gita, although Madhvacharya interpreted the teachings in a way that aligned with his views. There are billions of followers of these beliefs around the globe.

Such concepts contribute to significant suffering on multiple levels, including wars. This is my view

 

[renuka]

I am not too sure if you subscribe to the idea of life review of souls after death.
In all religions there is some form of life review.

In Hinduism/ Buddhism its the Karma concept and our next birth or next stage is based on a life review after death.

Abrahamic religions call this Judgment day.

In a life review apparently the soul gets to witness his or her life and every deed commited and gets to experience the emotions related to each deed.

If the deed was a conducive deed, the soul gets to experience happiness from viewing it..very much like how we feel happy watching a good upbeat movie.
How long does this feeling of joy lasts is again hard to determine because time in other lokas function in a different format.

If the person had commited a non conducive deed and caused suffering for another , the soul experiences the agony he caused..this is not a punishment but its for a soul to realize the consequences of its actions and this experience will shape the karmic lessons for the next birth.
How long does the soul experience the suffering of viewing its own deeds?
Well..even on earth if we are experiencing suffering it feels like eternity.
So again..time is relative.

These concepts create the heaven and hell experience one goes through in a life review.

I dont think Madhavacharya was influenced by Christianity.
The life review concepts are very much present in all religions.
Just that the concept of heaven and hell is made to look rigid to induce fear in people to behave..after people start to behave, the mind might start to look within.

Its not easy to instill discipline in people.
I was once travelling in India in a cab from the airport and I was wearing my seat belt in the cab and the cab driver told me " madam, in India there is no need to wear a seat belt while sitting at the back seat..the police wont fine you here"

I told him i am wearing it for my safety and not because of enforcement or fear of law.
Yet the driver went on discouraging me and told me not to wear it.
I ignored him and wore my seat belt.
So there are people who need strict enforcement to do the right thing, if they fear the law and police they abide to rules..no rules they do as they please..some do as they please even if there are rules.

Each Acharya who comes has to take into consideration the mindset of the majority.
Majority of people need some form of fear to behave to follow any school of thought.
Then the " inner engineering" starts.

 

[a-TB]

I am not too sure if you subscribe to the idea of life review of souls after death.
In all religions there is some form of life review.

In Hinduism/ Buddhism its the Karma concept and our next birth or next stage is based on a life review after death.

Abrahamic religions call this Judgment day.

In a life review apparently the soul gets to witness his or her life and every deed commited and gets to experience the emotions related to each deed.

If the deed was a conducive deed, the soul gets to experience happiness from viewing it..very much like how we feel happy watching a good upbeat movie.
How long does this feeling of joy lasts is again hard to determine because time in other lokas function in a different format.

If the person had commited a non conducive deed and caused suffering for another , the soul experiences the agony he caused..this is not a punishment but its for a soul to realize the consequences of its actions and this experience will shape the karmic lessons for the next birth.
How long does the soul experience the suffering of viewing its own deeds?
Well..even on earth if we are experiencing suffering it feels like eternity.
So again..time is relative.

These concepts create the heaven and hell experience one goes through in a life review.

I dont think Madhavacharya was influenced by Christianity.
The life review concepts are very much present in all religions.
Just that the concept of heaven and hell is made to look rigid to induce fear in people to behave..after people start to behave, the mind might start to look within.

Its not easy to instill discipline in people.
I was once travelling in India in a cab from the airport and I was wearing my seat belt in the cab and the cab driver told me " madam, in India there is no need to wear a seat belt while sitting at the back seat..the police wont fine you here"

I told him i am wearing it for my safety and not because of enforcement or fear of law.
Yet the driver went on discouraging me and told me not to wear it.
I ignored him and wore my seat belt.
So there are people who need strict enforcement to do the right thing, if they fear the law and police they abide to rules..no rules they do as they please..some do as they please even if there are rules.

Each Acharya who comes has to take into consideration the mindset of the majority.
Majority of people need some form of fear to behave to follow any school of thought.
Then the " inner engineering" starts.

I think in the several posts made on this topic perhaps the main point made is not clear. I will try again

 

[a-TB]

As previously stated, the ideas of eternal heaven and hell are irrational and unreasonable constructs of the human psyche. These concepts lack support from the Upanishads and the Gita, although Madhvacharya interpreted these teachings in a manner that conformed to his own beliefs. There are billions of adherents to these beliefs worldwide.

Expanding on the aforementioned points, utilizing the terminology of Swami Dayananda Saraswathi, beliefs can be categorized in two ways.

By definition, all beliefs are unprovable, signifying that no independent means of knowledge exists to validate the claims. However, certain beliefs can be demonstrated to contradict what is already established and known. Such beliefs may be classified as unreasonable beliefs.

All religions, influenced by human desires and insecurities, do contain some notions of heaven and hell after death. These concepts are neither provable nor disprovable, and in that context, they are reasonable beliefs. Nevertheless, if one asserts the existence of eternal hell or eternal heaven, then such assertions are deemed unreasonable. Post 2 in this discussion aims to demonstrate that anything eternal is not feasible and that beliefs centered around these ideas are unreasonable.

Consequently, the biblical notions of eternal hell and heaven are therefore unreasonable. In contrast, Hindu hell is temporally limited, regardless of the relative time scales involved.

In nearly 10,000 years, as suggested by many scholars regarding the Rg Veda, Hindu hell has only been of limited duration. Madhvacharya introduced the concept of eternal hell in the last few hundred years, long after the establishment of biblical religions. Thus, it is merely a conjecture, considering that many original Christians resided in this region and influenced his thoughts, which were alien to traditional Hindu thinking.

 

[a-TB]

All religions, including Hinduism, are shaped by human desires and fears. Consequently, it is not unexpected that concepts of heaven and hell are employed as incentives and deterrents to influence the minds of adherents.

The highest truths articulated in texts such as the Mandukya Upanishad have logically dismissed these concepts entirely.

In the Bhagavad Gita, teachings commence in chapter 2 with the assertion that the Atma is eternal, having neither birth nor death. This raises the question of the relevance of heaven, hell, or rebirth. While the Gita does address the concept of rebirth, a comprehensive understanding necessitates an in-depth exploration with a qualified teacher, particularly through the lens of Sankara's commentaries. The essential point is that rebirth is also a form of belief—one that can serve as a reasonable starting point.

As there exists a pathway to comprehend the truth without relying on beliefs, I no longer adhere to these notions.

 

[renuka]

I have a question.
Are we supposed to feel that ONLY the upanishads are the Highest truth?

That way many abrahamics say the highest truth is their Torah Bible and Quran..each of them saying theirs is the truth.

Are we supposed to condone rigidity as in " if something doesnt jive with the Upanishads, its not acceptable"
Since when we became rigid?

 

[vrajagopalan57]

I am not too sure if you subscribe to the idea of life review of souls after death.
In all religions there is some form of life review.

In Hinduism/ Buddhism its the Karma concept and our next birth or next stage is based on a life review after death.

Abrahamic religions call this Judgment day.

In a life review apparently the soul gets to witness his or her life and every deed commited and gets to experience the emotions related to each deed.

If the deed was a conducive deed, the soul gets to experience happiness from viewing it..very much like how we feel happy watching a good upbeat movie.
How long does this feeling of joy lasts is again hard to determine because time in other lokas function in a different format.

If the person had commited a non conducive deed and caused suffering for another , the soul experiences the agony he caused..this is not a punishment but its for a soul to realize the consequences of its actions and this experience will shape the karmic lessons for the next birth.
How long does the soul experience the suffering of viewing its own deeds?
Well..even on earth if we are experiencing suffering it feels like eternity.
So again..time is relative.

These concepts create the heaven and hell experience one goes through in a life review.

I dont think Madhavacharya was influenced by Christianity.
The life review concepts are very much present in all religions.
Just that the concept of heaven and hell is made to look rigid to induce fear in people to behave..after people start to behave, the mind might start to look within.

Its not easy to instill discipline in people.
I was once travelling in India in a cab from the airport and I was wearing my seat belt in the cab and the cab driver told me " madam, in India there is no need to wear a seat belt while sitting at the back seat..the police wont fine you here"

I told him i am wearing it for my safety and not because of enforcement or fear of law.
Yet the driver went on discouraging me and told me not to wear it.
I ignored him and wore my seat belt.
So there are people who need strict enforcement to do the right thing, if they fear the law and police they abide to rules..no rules they do as they please..some do as they please even if there are rules.

Each Acharya who comes has to take into consideration the mindset of the majority.
Majority of people need some form of fear to behave to follow any school of thought.
Then the " inner engineering" starts.

I disagree with the final statements.
Please note: Acharyas need not / do not preach philosophy based on majority nor any Acharya's invite any to follow them Nor, there is any FEAR component in preaching philosophies. All Acharyas command, they do not demand. Our philosophies survived for thousands of years, because they never believed in likings of majority but thought of the welfare of majority, even if their dictums are harsh (but truth). In my opinion, the Google University has spoiled the present generation to accept what many like on Google or those who speak in favour of the mass. Very sorry to say that one should get preached by Gurukulacharyas, Vedacharyas and Sanskrit Vedic scholars who have learned in traditional style then those who claim to be learned because they are having some paper degrees and popularity on YouTubes or social sites. Without practicing the Vedic dictums in own life, the individual do not have the spiritual right to preach. Better to go through the Vedantasara scriptures and think whether they have fulfilled the Adhikara for Vedic learning, practicing and preaching. Jai Shri Ram.

 

[a-TB]

I have a question.
Are we supposed to feel that ONLY the upanishads are the Highest truth?

That way many abrahamics say the highest truth is their Torah Bible and Quran..each of them saying theirs is the truth.

Are we supposed to condone rigidity as in " if something doesnt jive with the Upanishads, its not acceptable"
Since when we became rigid?

The Gita and the Upanishads convey universal truths that can be comprehended in the present moment, though not in the conventional sense of proof that involves the intellect. This comprehension can only occur in silence, as language and thought are inadequate to access the truth. (Yatho vacho nivarthanthe..)

These truths are applicable to all beings, including any potential extraterrestrial life. They are not confined to India, nor do they represent a religion as understood in contemporary terms. Swami Vivekananda introduced the concept of 'True Religion' for those who are genuine seekers of knowledge.

Thus, terms such as rigid cannot be applied, as the truth stands independent of any scriptures or authoritative figures. It is accessible through personal understanding. In fact, nothing in existence can be fully comprehended, as for every scientific understanding we achieve, numerous unknowns are simultaneously revealed.

This truth is predominantly expressed in poetic form and employs paradoxical language, which may lead to misinterpretation. Consequently, an individual approaching these teachings with preconceived religious beliefs may find themselves diverging from the truth and instead aligning with a particular school of thought.

Religions articulate fundamental beliefs as edicts and subsequently apply logic. However, understanding the essence of one's identity cannot solely rely on logic, even though it is paradoxically facilitated by it. This is not a contradiction.

In a way a human's quest to know the truth is often doused by the society and religion. Then one is stuck with whatever one is trained on. Even while rebelling a religion they are bound

I have endeavored to avoid eliciting religiously motivated responses from believers in this discourse, aside from expressing my own perspectives, which do not require consensus. What is essential is the desire to uncover the truth of one's true nature.

 

[renuka]

I disagree with the final statements.
Please note: Acharyas need not / do not preach philosophy based on majority nor any Acharya's invite any to follow them Nor, there is any FEAR component in preaching philosophies. All Acharyas command, they do not demand. Our philosophies survived for thousands of years, because they never believed in likings of majority but thought of the welfare of majority, even if their dictums are harsh (but truth). In my opinion, the Google University has spoiled the present generation to accept what many like on Google or those who speak in favour of the mass. Very sorry to say that one should get preached by Gurukulacharyas, Vedacharyas and Sanskrit Vedic scholars who have learned in traditional style then those who claim to be learned because they are having some paper degrees and popularity on YouTubes or social sites. Without practicing the Vedic dictums in own life, the individual do not have the spiritual right to preach. Better to go through the Vedantasara scriptures and think whether they have fulfilled the Adhikara for Vedic learning, practicing and preaching. Jai Shri Ram.

Thank you sir for your guidance and I apologize for giving an inaccurate opinion.

 

[renuka]

The above post is a compilation from several web resources. Please let me know mistakes if any.

As previously mentioned, the concepts of eternal heaven and hell are irrational and unreasonable constructs of the human mind. These notions lack support from the Upanishads and the Gita, although Madhvacharya interpreted the teachings in a way that aligned with his views. There are billions of followers of these beliefs around the globe.

Such concepts contribute to significant suffering on multiple levels, including wars. This is my view

But so far I dont think any followers of Madhavacharya have caused any external wars anywhere.
So it worked out fine for them.

 

[sravna]

Eternity is the ultimate truth. There can be two types of eternity being timelessness and time stopping. The idea that universe had a beginning only means the reality of time started. There will paradoxes if one relies on the notion that there is no timelessness. It can be equated to what madhvacharya says as eternal heaven. When time totally stops and you are in it, it is an eternity equivalent to eternal hell. Both get assimilated into the respective realities.

I did not have this thought before but Madhvacharya's notion of eternal hell and eternal heaven have logical basis.

 

[renuka]

Eternity is the ultimate truth. There can be two types of eternity being timelessness and time stopping. The idea that universe had a beginning only means the reality of time started. There will paradoxes if one relies on the notion that there is no timelessness. It can be equated to what madhvacharya says as eternal heaven. When time totally stops and you are in it, it is an eternity equivalent to eternal hell. Both get assimilated into the respective realities.

I did not have this thought before but Madhvacharya's notion of eternal hell and eternal heaven have logical basis.

Khaledeena feeha abadan" (خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا أَبَدًا): translates as "they will abide in there forever". This phrase from the Quran is used to describe the permanent nature of Paradise and Hellfire.

There is a difference of opinions about this concept based on the Mazhab( school of thought).
The main stream translate this literally as eternal heaven and eternal hell..but the Sufis talk about it as relatively speaking as time isnt at the same scale in the after life..so its more of perception of eternity and not actual eternity.

Anyway even in the Bhagavad Gita we do find the mention of hell...the question is heaven-hell a location or a perception?

त्रिविधं नरकस्येदं द्वारं नाशनमात्मन: |
काम: क्रोधस्तथा लोभस्तस्मादेतत्त्रयं त्यजेत् || 21||

tri-vidhaṁ narakasyedaṁ dvāraṁ nāśhanam ātmanaḥ
kāmaḥ krodhas tathā lobhas tasmād etat trayaṁ tyajet

tri-vidham—three types of; narakasya—to the hell; idam—this; dvāram—gates; nāśhanam—destruction; ātmanaḥ—self; kāmaḥ—lust; krodhaḥ—anger; tathā—and; lobhaḥ—greed; tasmāt—therefore; etat—these; trayam—three; tyajet—should abandon
tri-vidham narakasyedam dvaram nashanam atmanah
kamah krodhas tatha lobhas tasmad etat trayam tyajet

Translation
BG 16.21: There are three gates leading to the hell of self-destruction for the soul—lust, anger, and greed. Therefore, one should abandon all three.

 

[sravna]

Eternal heaven is slightly tricky. I would stick with the idea of advaita that any self is ultimately brahman. You have rightly pointed out perception is a decider. Those who are engulfed in a stopped time experience equivalent of eternal suffering and those who attain moksha have nevertheless experienced mundane existence even though it the work of maya.

It is only in the fine print the different schools of thoughts differ.

 

[tbs]

hi

ramanujacharya and madhva charya and later hindu saints much bhakthi philosophers.....not like sankaracharya...nirguna upasaka....

 

[a-TB]

hi

ramanujacharya and madhva charya and later hindu saints much bhakthi philosophers.....not like sankaracharya...nirguna upasaka....

see below .. I am unable to fix what was typed here

 

[a-TB]

Upasana necessitates the involvement of multiple entities. Nirguna Brahman is contemplated solely, whereas Saguna Brahman is appropriate for upasana. The opposite holds no significance. The majority of upasana are rooted in dualistic schools of thought, and those who arrogantly assert an understanding of Advaita appear to be primarily familiar with dualistic reasoning, merely employing certain verbal expressions. This observation extends even to university professors who earn a living by teaching Vedanta.

A considerable portion of society worldwide remains ensnared in dualism and multiplicity.

These philosophical schools, steeped in various theological frameworks and beliefs, dominate contemporary thought.

While they function adequately as they are, should one earnestly desire to uncover the truth of the Self, only then might an insight become feasible. Until that point, Advaita Vedanta merely represents another belief system.

As a starting point, the best of Bhakthi tradition amongst Dwitha schools of thought worldwide are exemplified by the words of Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya

 

[a-TB]

Let us explore how Madhvacharya's doctrine of eternal hell compares with:

1. Advaita Vedanta (non-dualism), and
2. Traditional Hindu ideas of hell (Naraka) before his time.
   

Advaita Vedanta (Adi Sankara)​

• Non-dualism: Only Brahman (pure consciousness) is ultimately real.
• The jīva (individual self) is not ultimately separate from Brahman.
• Ignorance (avidyā) causes the illusion of separateness and illusion of rebirth.
• Liberation (moksha) = realization that you are Brahman (i.e., self is not distinct from the Absolute).

View of Hell and Karma:​

• It is not eternal and provisional dismissed fully in the total vision
• Once jnāna (Understanding) is attained this truth is known and there are no questions of hell or heaven
• In Avidya there is no answer

Contrast with Madhvacharya:​

Concept	Advaita Vedanta	Madhvacharya (Dvaita)
Ultimate Reality	One (non-dual Brahman)	Dual: God (Vishnu) and souls eternally distinct
Nature of Soul	Identical with Brahman	Eternally distinct; different types of souls
Hell (Naraka)	Temporary, caused by illusions of karma	Eternal for some souls (tamo-yogyas)
Liberation	Achievable only by understanding and not by the mind and logic	Only for select souls; others are eternally damned
Free Will	Apparent free will experience in avidya wherein world is illusory	Real and meaningful; moral responsibility is real

Summary:
Advaita sees hell as part of the illusory world that disappears with self-realization. Madhva sees eternal distinctions and real hell for inherently evil souls.

 

[a-TB]

Traditional Hindu Hell (Naraka) before Madhvacharya​

Hindu scriptures like the Puranas, Mahabharata, and Smritis describe Naraka in detail — long before Madhva.

Naraka is a temporary realm of punishment after death

• Yama, the god of death, judges souls based on karma.
• There are many types of hells (21 to 84 in number), each for different sins (e.g., lying, theft, violence).
• After experiencing punishment, the soul is reborn, often as a lower being (e.g., animal, insect).

Examples from Puranas:

• Garuda Purana, Bhagavata Purana, and Manusmriti describe elaborate punishments but always as karmic consequences, not eternal damnation.
• Emphasis is on moral purification, not eternal condemnation.

Contrast with Madhvacharya:

Concept	Traditional Naraka	Madhvacharya's Eternal Hell
Duration	Temporary, karma-based	Eternal for some
Purpose	Moral correction, purification	Permanent separation due to inherent evil
Judgment	Yama judges after death	God (Vishnu) judges based on soul type
Liberation possible?	Yes, eventually	No, for tamo-yogyas

---

Why Madhva's View Was Revolutionary to say the least, possibly influenced by Biblical religions?

• Ontological Predestination: Madhva uniquely classified souls as inherently damned, a concept absent in earlier Hinduism.
• No Universal Liberation: Unlike Advaita and traditional views, Madhva denied moksha to all souls—some are permanently cut off from God.
• Literalism: Madhva insisted that scriptural references to hell are real, eternal, and literal, not symbolic or temporary.

 

[a-TB]

Feature	Traditional Hinduism (Puranic)	Advaita Vedanta	Madhvacharya's Dvaita Vedanta
Hell (Naraka)	Temporary punishment for sin	Illusory experience in empirical world	Eternal for inherently evil souls
Soul's Nature	All souls can attain moksha	All are Brahman ; there is no All	Some souls are eternally damned
Liberation	Possible for all eventually	Already attained; avidya is the mask	Limited to worthy souls only
Role of Karma	Determines hell/rebirth	Ignorance sustains illusion and karma	Determines outcomes, but soul nature is fixed