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

Let's now explore Vishishtadvaita Vedanta (qualified non-dualism), developed by Ramanujacharya (1017–1137 CE), and compare it to both Advaita and Madhvacharya's Dvaita — especially in relation to hell, soul nature, and liberation.

Core Philosophy:
Brahman = Vishnu/Narayana, who is personal, omnibenevolent, and the supreme reality.

The world and souls are real, but they exist as modes (prakāra) of Brahman — "qualified non-dualism".

The jīva (soul) is distinct but inseparable from God, like a body is to a soul.

Liberation is the soul’s loving union and eternal service to God in Vaikuntha (God’s abode).

Nature of Souls:
All souls are created by God and have potential for moksha.

Differences among souls are acknowledged due to karma, but not due to inherent damnation.

No soul is eternally evil by nature. Even sinners can attain moksha through grace and bhakti.

Hell in Vishishtadvaita:
Naraka is real and karmically deserved, based on scriptural authority (e.g., Vedas, Puranas).

However, it is temporary, intended for purification of sin.

God’s grace (through devotion and surrender) can overcome karma, even for severe sinners.

 

[a-TB]

Feature	Advaita Vedanta<br>(Shankaracharya)	Vishishtadvaita Vedanta<br>(Ramanujacharya)	Dvaita Vedanta<br>(Madhvacharya)
Ultimate Reality	Non-dual Brahman (formless)	Brahman = Vishnu with attributes	Vishnu as supreme, dualistic
Soul’s Relation to God	Soul is Brahman (illusion of separation)	Soul is part of God (inseparable)	Soul is eternally distinct from God
Liberation (moksha)	Realizing self as Brahman	Eternal loving service to Vishnu	Attained only by select souls
Eligibility for Moksha	All souls are Brahman, potential for all	All souls can attain moksha with bhakti	Only mukti-yogya souls attain moksha
Hell (Naraka)	Illusory, provisional	Real but temporary	Real and eternal for some
Damned Souls?	No such category	No eternal damnation	Yes — tamo-yogya souls go to eternal hell
Role of Grace	Understanding , not knowledge leads to liberation	God's grace essential, gained through devotion	Grace given only to inherently worthy souls

---

Theological Balance in Vishishtadvaita :

• Acknowledges real distinctions (like Madhva) but denies eternal damnation.
• Emphasizes divine grace and love, which even great sinners can receive through surrender (prapatti).
• Unlike Madhva, he does not assert predestination — all souls have a chance to be saved.

---

Summary of All Four Systems on Hell & Salvation

School	View of Hell	Eternal Damnation?	All Souls Liberable?	Key to Moksha
Advaita	Illusory	No	Yes	Understanding (jnāna)
Vishishtadvaita	Real, temporary	No	Yes	Devotion (bhakti), surrender (prapatti)
Dvaita	Real, eternal for some	Yes (tamo-yogya)	No	Devotion + inherent soul-worthiness
Puranic Hinduism	Real, temporary	No	Yes	Good karma, ritual, dharma

 

[a-TB]

A visitor once inquired of Ramana Maharishi regarding the existence of Hell and Heaven. Maharishi responded by asking the visitor if they believed that this world is real and exists. The visitor affirmed this belief. In turn, Maharishi stated that, if that is the case, then Hell and Heaven are also real and exist for the visitor.

It is inappropriate to equate Advaita with theological frameworks such as the Puranas or other theology-based schools of thought. Advaita is not an entity in itself; it is referred to as such because the human mind is ensnared in dualism and multiplicity. As a metaphor, it is akin to comparing a location like Rishikesh with various dreamlike places where humans are subjugated by crawling beings and animals. Such comparisons can only occur within the realm of dreams.

Advaita does not represent a school of thought. Humans are confined within a prison characterized by three walls: space, time, and causality, as articulated by Swami Vivekananda. For those within this confinement, any discussion may appear as a glorification of Advaita. For individuals in prison, there exists no viable response. Outside of this prison, such inquiries lose their significance.

Ramana Maharishi imparted what may be regarded as the highest truth, which is only alluded to in the scriptures for the most advanced sadhakas

 

[a-TB]

Ramana Maharshi was often asked questions about metaphysical topics like heaven and hell. His responses were typically grounded in his core teaching of self-inquiry ("Who am I?") and non-duality (Advaita Vedanta). Rather than confirming or denying the literal existence of heaven and hell, he would often point the questioner inward, toward the source of all experience — the Self.

Here's a summary of how Ramana Maharshi typically responded to such questions:
1. Heaven and hell are states of mind:
He explained that heaven and hell are not places existing independently "out there," but are mental states experienced by the individual mind — just like happiness and suffering are experienced in this life.

“Heaven and hell are only mental states. You are already in them, depending on the state of your mind.”

2. They are part of relative illusory world:
Ramana sometimes acknowledged that concepts like heaven and hell have value within the realm of duality — for those who believe in the body and ego as real. But from the higher perspective of the Self (paramarthika), these distinctions are ultimately unreal.

3. Self-inquiry dissolves such questions:
He often advised that questions about afterlife realms are distractions from the more urgent and practical inquiry: Who is the one who wants to know about heaven and hell? Find the source of that “I” — and everything else becomes clear or irrelevant.

 

[a-TB]

Ramana Maharshi addressed the question of the existence of heaven and hell on some occasions by relating it to the perceived reality of the world. He taught that as long as one considers this world to be real, concepts like heaven and hell also hold reality. However, upon realizing the illusory nature of the world, such distinctions lose their significance.

Reference: This perspective is encapsulated in verse 178 of the Garland of Guru's Sayings (Guru Vachaka Kovai)

"Please don’t debate, good folk, whether Heaven and hell exist. As long, as much, as this our world exists, So long, so much, they too exist."


In this teaching, Maharshi emphasizes that the reality of heaven and hell is contingent upon the perceived reality of the world. He encourages seekers to transcend such dualities by realizing the Self, the only true reality.

This approach aligns with his core teaching of self-inquiry (ātma-vichāra), where he would often redirect questions about metaphysical concepts back to the questioner, prompting introspection into the nature of the self. By understanding the Self, one transcends all dualities, including notions of heaven and hell.

 

[a-TB]

When I first ventured to post in this forum I was supported by a few members who themselves did not seem to agree on much of anything. One is Mr tks and he supplied lots of references, youtube videos and swamis to listen to . The other was (he is no more) Mr Sangom (their names are different these being their user names in the forum). He told me to study Ramana's teachings. Anyway I have shared here some notes collected over some time

 

[renuka]

What about these 2 verses from the Gita.
It does talk about a worsening hopeless state.
Could these verses be the basis of the concept of eternal hell of Madhavacharya( I could be wrong)

Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 16, Verse 19-20​

तानहं द्विषत: क्रूरान्संसारेषु नराधमान् |
क्षिपाम्यजस्रमशुभानासुरीष्वेव योनिषु || 19||
आसुरीं योनिमापन्ना मूढा जन्मनि जन्मनि |
मामप्राप्यैव कौन्तेय ततो यान्त्यधमां गतिम् || 20||
tān ahaṁ dviṣhataḥ krūrān sansāreṣhu narādhamān
kṣhipāmy ajasram aśhubhān āsurīṣhv eva yoniṣhu
āsurīṁ yonim āpannā mūḍhā janmani janmani
mām aprāpyaiva kaunteya tato yānty adhamāṁ gatim

Translation​

BG 16.19-20: These cruel and hateful persons, the vile and vicious of humankind, I constantly hurl into the wombs of those with similar demoniac natures in the cycle of rebirth in the material world. These ignorant souls take birth again and again in demoniac wombs. Failing to reach Me, O Arjun, they gradually sink to the most abominable type of existence.

 

[renuka]

When I first ventured to post in this forum I was supported by a few members who themselves did not seem to agree on much of anything. One is Mr tks and he supplied lots of references, youtube videos and swamis to listen to . The other was (he is no more) Mr Sangom (their names are different these being their user names in the forum). He told me to study Ramana's teachings. Anyway I have shared here some notes collected over some time

May be you could read this.
Got this from a friend who follows Madhavacharya.
Apparently the reason for eternal hell is given here.

VISHNU TATVA NIRNAYA Madhv Acharya Transl By Professor K T Panduranagi Dvaita Vedanta 1991 : Makarand Joshi : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Books on Indology, 'VISHNU-TATVA-NIRNAYA-MadhvAcharya-transl-by-professor-K-T-Panduranagi-Dvaita-Vedanta-1991'

archive.org

 

[a-TB]

What about these 2 verses from the Gita.
It does talk about a worsening hopeless state.
Could these verses be the basis of the concept of eternal hell of Madhavacharya( I could be wrong)

Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 16, Verse 19-20​

तानहं द्विषत: क्रूरान्संसारेषु नराधमान् |
क्षिपाम्यजस्रमशुभानासुरीष्वेव योनिषु || 19||
आसुरीं योनिमापन्ना मूढा जन्मनि जन्मनि |
मामप्राप्यैव कौन्तेय ततो यान्त्यधमां गतिम् || 20||
tān ahaṁ dviṣhataḥ krūrān sansāreṣhu narādhamān
kṣhipāmy ajasram aśhubhān āsurīṣhv eva yoniṣhu
āsurīṁ yonim āpannā mūḍhā janmani janmani
mām aprāpyaiva kaunteya tato yānty adhamāṁ gatim

Translation​

BG 16.19-20: These cruel and hateful persons, the vile and vicious of humankind, I constantly hurl into the wombs of those with similar demoniac natures in the cycle of rebirth in the material world. These ignorant souls take birth again and again in demoniac wombs. Failing to reach Me, O Arjun, they gradually sink to the most abominable type of existence.

Not sure if it is a general comment or a question to this poster.

Short answer:
The *Bhagavad Gita* presents a unified vision, and this verse should be examined in the context of verse 2.14. Numerous examples support this perspective, and I am happy to share them upon request. Fundamentally, all that is known, cognized, imagined, and experienced by the mind is transient. Thus, the *Gita* does not address anything eternal—an idea that exists purely within the realm of imagination. This concept lacks support from contemporary scientific logic, as elaborated in a previous post.

Madhvacharya had a distinctive approach in aligning the *Upanishads* with his theological framework ( a set of beliefs). A discussion thread in this section by Mr tks provides interpretation of the *mahāvākya* "Tat Tvam Asi” by various schools of thought. Upon verification of the contents of that thread, I found that Madhvacharya asserted the phrase should be "Atat Tvam Asi" in the *Upanishads*. There is no way to justify such an assertion in the context of the Upanishad where it occurs. Eternal anything like heaven and hell is found only in biblical religions and not in logic or in scriptures of India prior to Madhvacharya. He went one step further that such souls are condemned here on earth with no possibility of salvation.

While I have studied Madhvacharya’s commentaries on several *Upanishads*, I have not yet reviewed them all. But I have an idea of his interpretations. To say something positive of this Acharya it is this

In the early stages of experiencing dualism in life, both Madhvacharya and Ramanujacharya demonstrate exceptional insight in their articulation of *gauṇa* bhakti, surpassing other dualistic theological traditions with which I am familiar.

 

[a-TB]

May be you could read this.
Got this from a friend who follows Madhavacharya.
Apparently the reason for eternal hell is given here.

VISHNU TATVA NIRNAYA Madhv Acharya Transl By Professor K T Panduranagi Dvaita Vedanta 1991 : Makarand Joshi : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Books on Indology, 'VISHNU-TATVA-NIRNAYA-MadhvAcharya-transl-by-professor-K-T-Panduranagi-Dvaita-Vedanta-1991'

archive.org

Thank you. Will look into it. If I see something unique and reasonable I will share

 

[a-TB]

Ok I browsed through the above text and as expected, is in alignment with Madhvacharya’s commentaries I have read earlier.

Here is a brief set of notes of reasons for eternal hell. It has to do with his own beliefs and assumptions about differences in souls.

Madhvacharya proposes this controversial doctrine of eternal hell (Andhatamas) for certain souls. This stands in stark contrast to the common Hindu belief ( and it is but a belief) in reincarnation and eventual liberation for all souls. His work, including the Vishnu Tatva Nirnaya, lays out the foundation for this thesis.

Here are the main points of how Madhvacharya supports the concept of eternal hell for some souls:

* Fundamental Difference in the Nature of Souls (Taratamya): Madhvacharya posits that souls are not all inherently the same or ultimately destined for the same spiritual fate. Instead, he introduces a concept called Taratamya, a fundamental qualitative difference and hierarchy among souls from their very essence. This intrinsic nature of a soul determines its ultimate destiny. He classifies souls into three categories:
( this was laid out earlier)

* Mukti-yogyas (Liberation-worthy): These souls are inherently predisposed towards devotion and knowledge of God (Vishnu) and are destined for liberation (moksha) and eternal bliss in His presence.


* Nitya-samsarins (Eternally Transmigrating): These souls are caught in the endless cycle of birth and death (samsara). They experience both good and bad karma, leading to temporary periods in heaven or hell, but they do not possess the inherent qualities to achieve final liberation.


* Tamo-yogyas (Damnable/Fit for Darkness): This is the crucial category for eternal hell. These souls are inherently evil, characterized by eternal hatred, malice, and opposition to God, Dvaita gurus, and the Vedas. They are irredeemably wicked and their nature dictates their final destination. In Madhvacharya thinking wicked could include not believing in Vishnu


* Predetermination and Divine Will: Madhvacharya's philosophy suggests a degree of divine predetermination in the ultimate fate of souls. While individual actions (karma) play a role, the inherent nature of the soul, which is co-eternal with God, is ultimately what dictates its final destiny. The Tamo-yogyas, due to their innate malevolence, are thus eternally condemned by divine will to a state of perpetual suffering. ( A question that comes to this mind as to how these souls got created this way?)


* Nature of Naraka (Hell): For ordinary sinners (e.g., thieves, drunkards), their stay in hell is temporary, serving as a period of purification for their misdeeds, after which they are reborn. However, for the Tamo-yogyas, the hell of Andhatamas is not a temporary purgatory but an eternal state of blinding darkness and suffering from which there is no escape or salvation. This punishment is fitting for their eternal hatred and opposition to God. (Again this mind has this question - is this God this cruel?)


* Rejection of Universal Salvation: Unlike many other Hindu schools of thought that believe all souls will eventually attain moksha, Madhvacharya explicitly rejects this notion. He argues that the inherent differences in the nature of souls prevent a universal path to liberation. Some souls are simply not capable of achieving salvation due to their intrinsic nature.

* God's Absolute Independence and Justice: Madhvacharya emphasizes God's (Vishnu's) absolute independence (Svatantra) and His role as the supreme controller and dispenser of justice. The existence of eternal hell for the Tamo-yogyas is seen as a manifestation of God's just nature, punishing those who inherently and perpetually oppose Him. ( again a question in this mind - if they have no free will then they are created to suffer in hell like breeding of factory farm animals by cruel humans)

In essence, Madhvacharya's argument for eternal hell for certain souls in works like Vishnu Tatva Nirnaya is rooted in his metaphysical classification of souls based on their inherent nature, asserting that some souls are intrinsically and eternally predisposed to evil, warranting an eternal state of suffering as a just consequence of their being.

My views are in comments in the above. It needs no consensus. It seems to me this God is like Gods-father.

I will research a bit and share how Madhvacharya interprets values of samtvam namely equanimity found in Gita and other texts in the next post

 

[renuka]

Ok I browsed through the above text and as expected, is in alignment with Madhvacharya’s commentaries I have read earlier.

Here is a brief set of notes of reasons for eternal hell. It has to do with his own beliefs and assumptions about differences in souls.

Madhvacharya proposes this controversial doctrine of eternal hell (Andhatamas) for certain souls. This stands in stark contrast to the common Hindu belief ( and it is but a belief) in reincarnation and eventual liberation for all souls. His work, including the Vishnu Tatva Nirnaya, lays out the foundation for this thesis.

Here are the main points of how Madhvacharya supports the concept of eternal hell for some souls:

* Fundamental Difference in the Nature of Souls (Taratamya): Madhvacharya posits that souls are not all inherently the same or ultimately destined for the same spiritual fate. Instead, he introduces a concept called Taratamya, a fundamental qualitative difference and hierarchy among souls from their very essence. This intrinsic nature of a soul determines its ultimate destiny. He classifies souls into three categories:
( this was laid out earlier)

* Mukti-yogyas (Liberation-worthy): These souls are inherently predisposed towards devotion and knowledge of God (Vishnu) and are destined for liberation (moksha) and eternal bliss in His presence.


* Nitya-samsarins (Eternally Transmigrating): These souls are caught in the endless cycle of birth and death (samsara). They experience both good and bad karma, leading to temporary periods in heaven or hell, but they do not possess the inherent qualities to achieve final liberation.


* Tamo-yogyas (Damnable/Fit for Darkness): This is the crucial category for eternal hell. These souls are inherently evil, characterized by eternal hatred, malice, and opposition to God, Dvaita gurus, and the Vedas. They are irredeemably wicked and their nature dictates their final destination. In Madhvacharya thinking wicked could include not believing in Vishnu


* Predetermination and Divine Will: Madhvacharya's philosophy suggests a degree of divine predetermination in the ultimate fate of souls. While individual actions (karma) play a role, the inherent nature of the soul, which is co-eternal with God, is ultimately what dictates its final destiny. The Tamo-yogyas, due to their innate malevolence, are thus eternally condemned by divine will to a state of perpetual suffering. ( A question that comes to this mind as to how these souls got created this way?)


* Nature of Naraka (Hell): For ordinary sinners (e.g., thieves, drunkards), their stay in hell is temporary, serving as a period of purification for their misdeeds, after which they are reborn. However, for the Tamo-yogyas, the hell of Andhatamas is not a temporary purgatory but an eternal state of blinding darkness and suffering from which there is no escape or salvation. This punishment is fitting for their eternal hatred and opposition to God. (Again this mind has this question - is this God this cruel?)


* Rejection of Universal Salvation: Unlike many other Hindu schools of thought that believe all souls will eventually attain moksha, Madhvacharya explicitly rejects this notion. He argues that the inherent differences in the nature of souls prevent a universal path to liberation. Some souls are simply not capable of achieving salvation due to their intrinsic nature.

* God's Absolute Independence and Justice: Madhvacharya emphasizes God's (Vishnu's) absolute independence (Svatantra) and His role as the supreme controller and dispenser of justice. The existence of eternal hell for the Tamo-yogyas is seen as a manifestation of God's just nature, punishing those who inherently and perpetually oppose Him. ( again a question in this mind - if they have no free will then they are created to suffer in hell like breeding of factory farm animals by cruel humans)

In essence, Madhvacharya's argument for eternal hell for certain souls in works like Vishnu Tatva Nirnaya is rooted in his metaphysical classification of souls based on their inherent nature, asserting that some souls are intrinsically and eternally predisposed to evil, warranting an eternal state of suffering as a just consequence of their being.

My views are in comments in the above. It needs no consensus. It seems to me this God is like Gods-father.

I will research a bit and share how Madhvacharya interprets values of samtvam namely equanimity found in Gita and other texts in the next post

Thanks..you summarize better than Chatgpt or Gemini.

I guess Madhavarcharya wasnt influenced by Abrahamic faiths..none of the Abrahamic faiths say there are souls that a damned to start with and no one is hopeless unless they disconnect from God.

Awaiting your next post.

 

[vrajagopalan57]

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

Om namo Narayanaya.
AshirwadaH. Nothing personal sow.Renuka Amma. These days, there are different persons with indifferent attitudes and believes (including different religion too) in discrete Vedic as well as Hindu/Sanatana Groups, who are ill informed or least qualified to say so (as per Vedantasara ) have the habit of writing derogatory remarks that too quoting YouTube (which are invariably biased and political or to get max likes / popularity by neo-west qualified so called sanskrit and Vedic scholars - not from any Mutts in India) messages. This group emphatically says T- Brahmins. So, let us contribute to the sanctity of any clan and culture, and need not refer or compare to the other religions and their practices, which were also equally developed by great divine believing persons only. Let's sail by keeping our both feet in one boat and not to disrespect the great paramacharyas and their preachings. If we cannot follow their preachings properly, let us keep silent and not ridicule the thousands of years old time & space tested dictums and practices. Hinduism is for harmony and practice, and not for discussion and comparison. क्षम्यताम्। Subhamastu. Jai Shri Ram.
SriSriRamanujacharyasya dasa, Adiyen Vasudevan Rajagopalan Iyengar

 

[renuka]

Om namo Narayanaya.
AshirwadaH. Nothing personal sow.Renuka Amma. These days, there are different persons with indifferent attitudes and believes (including different religion too) in discrete Vedic as well as Hindu/Sanatana Groups, who are ill informed or least qualified to say so (as per Vedantasara ) have the habit of writing derogatory remarks that too quoting YouTube (which are invariably biased and political or to get max likes / popularity by neo-west qualified so called sanskrit and Vedic scholars - not from any Mutts in India) messages. This group emphatically says T- Brahmins. So, let us contribute to the sanctity of any clan and culture, and need not refer or compare to the other religions and their practices, which were also equally developed by great divine believing persons only. Let's sail by keeping our both feet in one boat and not to disrespect the great paramacharyas and their preachings. If we cannot follow their preachings properly, let us keep silent and not ridicule the thousands of years old time & space tested dictums and practices. Hinduism is for harmony and practice, and not for discussion and comparison. क्षम्यताम्। Subhamastu. Jai Shri Ram.
SriSriRamanujacharyasya dasa, Adiyen Vasudevan Rajagopalan Iyengar

Thank you Sir,

I started to find out more about Madhavacharya and got Vishnu Tattva Nirnaya and pasted it in this thread so we can have a clearer understanding.

The text is quite vast.
I just hope I can eventually understand the concept of eternal hell and souls which have no chance for liberation.
That seems very different from all other schools of thoughts and religions.
Thats the only question in my mind..its not a comparison but just a sincere question.

 

[a-TB]

Om namo Narayanaya.
AshirwadaH. Nothing personal sow.Renuka Amma. These days, there are different persons with indifferent attitudes and believes (including different religion too) in discrete Vedic as well as Hindu/Sanatana Groups, who are ill informed or least qualified to say so (as per Vedantasara ) have the habit of writing derogatory remarks that too quoting YouTube (which are invariably biased and political or to get max likes / popularity by neo-west qualified so called sanskrit and Vedic scholars - not from any Mutts in India) messages. This group emphatically says T- Brahmins. So, let us contribute to the sanctity of any clan and culture, and need not refer or compare to the other religions and their practices, which were also equally developed by great divine believing persons only. Let's sail by keeping our both feet in one boat and not to disrespect the great paramacharyas and their preachings. If we cannot follow their preachings properly, let us keep silent and not ridicule the thousands of years old time & space tested dictums and practices. Hinduism is for harmony and practice, and not for discussion and comparison. क्षम्यताम्। Subhamastu. Jai Shri Ram.
SriSriRamanujacharyasya dasa, Adiyen Vasudevan Rajagopalan Iyengar

There exists a widespread concern regarding misinformation in the media, which has been exacerbated by the prevalence of social media. These platforms, however, are merely tools that can either benefit or harm, depending on the maturity of the user.

Should you identify any discrepancies in the perspectives of acharyas, you are encouraged to share your insights. The world's religions, including those encompassed within Hinduism, are founded on various beliefs, some of which are rational while others may not be. Nonetheless, as long as these beliefs do not adversely affect others, we respect them. Engaging in reasonable discourse is challenging, given that religions often revolve around prescribed actions and prohibitions. I have explored the etymology of the term 'shastra,' which holds two valid meanings: one pertains to providing guidelines and prohibitions in rituals, while the other signifies illuminating the truth. I prefer to consider my engagement as aligned with the latter.

In biblical traditions, questioning is often deemed blasphemous. I am acquainted with an individual who, raised in the Catholic tradition as an altar boy, posed inquiries regarding the animosity towards Jews. He faced severe repercussions for his questions, even decades ago. Conversely, in Indian tradition, questioning is encouraged, which is why teachings are frequently presented in a question-and-answer format, as exemplified in the Gita and Upanishads. The influence of Islam and Christianity has fostered an atmosphere of fear surrounding God and inquiry, marking a regression from the rich tradition of Indian thought, where science, religion, and philosophy coexisted harmoniously. Various philosophical schools, such as Vaisehikas, Nayyayikas, Sankhyas, Yoga dharshnakaras, Mimasakas, Advaita Vedantins, and Sunyavadis, engaged in constructive debates. Many of these groups would be classified as atheists by contemporary standards. Even Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya contended with philosophical inquiries, and their positions are open to discussion. This reflects the finest aspects of Tamil Brahmin traditions (with 'Brahmin' referring to varna rather than caste). To quote Swami Akhandananda Maharaj, there has been a notable increase in Jnana-shathravah in India recently. I aspire for a return to the best practices of our sampradaya in fostering a learning environment rather than merely preaching.

Such harmony is notably absent in Western religions. I intend to address this topic in a separate discussion.

I encourage questioning any assertions made in this thread and welcome positive contributions.

 

[a-TB]

Thanks..you summarize better than Chatgpt or Gemini.

I guess Madhavarcharya wasnt influenced by Abrahamic faiths..none of the Abrahamic faiths say there are souls that a damned to start with and no one is hopeless unless they disconnect from God.

Awaiting your next post.

Not so fast

In religious traditions that are rooted in the Bible, the concept of a devil is notably absent from Hindu philosophical thought. One must contemplate whether the devil is perceived as a soul eternally devoid of redemption within these beliefs before determining if Madhvacharya's ideas align more closely with biblical religions.

Let us examine the beliefs surrounding the concept of the devil within the three major biblical religions.

This inquiry is profound and significant, as it intersects with theology, cosmology, and moral philosophy across various religious traditions. The notion of a devil—an ultimate embodiment of evil—is indeed a prominent feature within the Abrahamic faiths, although the specifics and interpretations differ considerably.

In the Hebrew Bible, Satan is not initially depicted as a "fallen angel" but rather resembles a prosecuting attorney or adversary. Subsequent Jewish texts began to craft a more personified figure of evil, yet mainstream Judaism does not place emphasis on a powerful, autonomous being akin to the Devil. Instead, evil is often regarded as a consequence of human tendencies rather than a metaphysical force of evil.

Christianity presents a different interpretation. The Devil, frequently identified with Lucifer, a fallen angel, is generally believed to have rebelled against God and been expelled from heaven. In most Christian theological frameworks, the Devil and his demons are considered irredeemable, with their fate being sealed and eternal. This notion bears resemblance to Madhvacharya's lowest levels of Taratamya.

In Islam, the Devil is referred to as Iblis or Shaytan. You are an expert here and can correct if I have misunderstood. He is created from fire and refused to bow to Adam out of pride. He acts as a tempter, seeking to mislead humanity, yet he is not equal to God—lacking creative power, he can only whisper and suggest. Iblis is deemed irredeemable due to his conscious and persistent rebellion.

The belief that a lack of respect for God leads to eternal condemnation resonates with the core tenets of Madhvacharya's theology.

As previously mentioned, such a perspective finds no place within Hindu thought. There are Puranic narratives that emerged more prominently in recent centuries, which lack grounding in the teachings of the Vedas. For instance, the Bhagavata Purana is an Advaita Vedanta text, and one requires a knowledgeable teacher to elucidate the fundamental teachings embedded within its stories. In one of its cantos (possibly 12), it is suggested that these narratives are fabricated solely to serve as gateways to imparting profound wisdom.

The Garuda Purana consists of two sections. The first part is regarded as conveying a Vedantic message, though it is seldom adhered to. Conversely, the second part, which has instilled fear among Hindus, lacks any foundation in authentic teachings. Numerous issues, such as Pitru shapam, arise from these beliefs. I would conjecture that the second part of the Garuda Purana is a later addition, likely influenced by the definitions of hell found in Islam and bible.

Finally, let is see Hindu perspectives on eternal hell with additional examples in the next post . Initially, Madhvacharya's concept of eternal hell does not find support in earlier Hindu scriptures deemed authentic.

The Upanishads mention Asuras, Rakshasas, and Devathas (as seen in the Kenopanishad and Brehadaranyaka Upanishad). Withcorrect interpretation, aided by Sankara's commentaries, the true meanings of these terms can be revealed, with which we can all relate to, similar to the insights found in Chapter 16 of the Gita.

 

[a-TB]

Hinduism does not possess a singular, personified, irredeemable figure of "Devil." Rather, evil is frequently interpreted as ignorance (avidya), imbalance, karma, or tamas (inertia/darkness).

Asuras and Rakshasas (such as Ravana or Hiranyakashipu) are formidable entities that oppose dharma, yet they are not eternal embodiments of evil. Many of these beings were once devotees, celestial figures, or possess redeemable attributes.

All souls (jivatmas) are fundamentally divine and can achieve redemption through karma, bhakti, or jnana (action, devotion, or knowledge).

Hindu philosophy, particularly in traditions like Advaita Vedanta, does not recognize a dualistic opposition to God. There exists solely Brahman, and evil is viewed as a distortion of perception rather than a distinct metaphysical entity.

The Trimurti in dualistic schools of thought (Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva) oversee creation, preservation, and destruction, rather than a conflict between good and evil. The Sri Rudram even venerates God as a leader of highway robbers.

In biblical religions, the Devil is a created being that has opted for rebellion and is typically considered irredeemable.

Conversely, Hindu philosophy lacks an equivalent eternal embodiment of evil, and even the most malevolent beings can potentially achieve liberation.

Hinduism tends to embrace non-duality and cyclical redemption, while biblical religions frequently illustrate a duality between good and evil, culminating in final judgments.

Later, I will share my understanding as to how Madhavacharya squares away his beliefs and theology with teachings of Samatvam (Equanimity) etc found in Gita and Upanishads,

 

[renuka]

The Devil in the Quran doesnt disrespect God.
He has a high regard for God but he disobeys God because he sees no reason why he should bow down to Adam.

Shaitan in the Quran is made from fire and Adam made from clay( earth)
He thinks fire is superior than earth.
So he rebels and disobeys but the respect for God remains as in the following verses.

38:82) (Iblis) said: “By Your glory, I shall mislead them all (38:83) except those of Your servants, the chosen ones from amongst
them"

Even when he gets kicked out of heaven he still says he will mislead humans by Your glory...but he has limited powers and not be able to delude the chosen ones among humans.

There is some sort of classification of humans in Islam.

1) Chosen ones whom Shaitan would have no power over over and they will be in heaven.

2) Other humans whom he would have some power over but not directly..per other verses in the Quran , it states Shaitan only whispers to lead humans astray but its us humans which falls for it...these humans who go astray do have the choice or ability to get over the tempation and get back into the straight path( siratul mustaqeem).
Some do have a temporary stint in hell but then after getting purified they go to heaven.


3) Those who will be in eternal hell after being mislead by Shaitan and worshipping anything else besides God and not adhering to Monotheism..this group of people have no hope of getting out of eternal hell.
But these humans who are commiting Shirk( ascribing partners to God and polytheism) were not damned to eternal hell from the start..they had the choice to follow Monotheism but did not..so they became damned to be in eternal hell.


Going by these 3 points..I think there is some similarity of Dvaita of Madhavacharya but yet it differs.
Anyway with due respect to both religions this is just a comparison and not to find flaws in any religion.

 

[a-TB]

Christianity arrived in India before it reached the shores of Europe, potentially by as much as 300 years. The Original Christians, as they are referred to, were practicing their faith in regions of Kerala and Karnataka. Madhvacharya was a contemporary of these individuals and their religious practices. The influence of Islam may have been transmitted through the silk route.

This thread examines theologies and their effects on humanity. By their very nature, all religions tend to be divisive. The only universal religion for all humanity is what Swami Vivekananda termed the True Religion. The divisiveness among religions has predominantly had a negative impact on human society to varying extents. Two sects claiming to be established by Adi Sankara are unable to coexist peacefully.

Conflicts arise when individuals believe they are uniquely chosen and others are condemned to perdition. Wars have been instigated due to an excessive preoccupation with avoiding eternal damnation and securing a place in Heaven.

Most Hindu religions, along with Jewish religions, Jainism, Sikhism, and many others, are not exclusive; even if they assert they are the chosen ones, they often do not recognize it as their divine obligation to condemn others.

The challenge for any religion claiming to be a Hindu religion lies in demonstrating adherence to the Vedas. How does one explain Sri Rudram, which is found in the Yajur Veda? Or how does one address the value of equanimity? Or the assertion that God resides in every heart?

I would like to share several insights based on my understanding of how Madhvacharya approached these matters.

 

[a-TB]

Somehow this part took a lot more time. I will take a break from all this for some time
Part of the issue is my internal resistance to the ideas of Madhvacharya though I wanted to examine the ideas with an open mind. It is all inherently divisive. In nature there are opposites but they arise from higher unified root.

-----
Madhvacharya's Dvaita philosophy, which posits the existence of eternal hell for certain souls, represents a notable divergence from interpretations of the Bhagavad Gita that highlight universal samatvam (equanimity) and the notion that Isvara (God) is equally reflected in all jivas (individual souls). To comprehend how Madhvacharya reconciles this, it is essential to explore his specific understanding of these concepts.

The following outlines how Madhvacharya and Dvaita philosophy typically address this apparent contradiction:

Samatvam as God's Impartiality in Dispensing Justice, Not Equality of Souls.

For Madhvacharya, God's "equanimity" (samatvam) or impartiality does not imply that all souls possess equal intrinsic nature or that they will all attain the same ultimate outcome. Rather, it signifies that God administers justice consistently and fairly, based on the inherent nature and karma of each soul.

God as the Just Ruler: Similar to an impartial king who treats his subjects according to their actions (rewarding the virtuous and punishing the wicked), God operates in a comparable manner. His equanimity is evident in the absence of arbitrary favoritism or bias. He does not exhibit partiality by unjustly favoring one soul over another, regardless of their intrinsic nature and actions.

Karma and Inherent Nature: The Gita underscores the principle of karma. Madhvacharya interprets this through the lens of inherent nature (Taratamya). Souls that are Tamo-yogyas (inherently evil) will inevitably accumulate negative karma due to their malevolent disposition. Consequently, God's justice dictates that such souls receive appropriate consequences for their eternal animosity and opposition to Him and dharma, which manifests as eternal hell. This is not arbitrary; it reflects their true nature.

"Ishvara is similarly reflected in all Jivas" - Interpretation of Reflection: When the Gita states that Ishvara is reflected in all jivas, Madhvacharya interprets this not as an Advaitic non-difference (where the jiva is Brahman), but rather as God's presence and authority over all souls.

God as the Inner Controller (Antaryami): Madhvacharya emphasizes God as the Antaryami (inner controller) who resides within every living being, sustaining them and orchestrating the universe. This presence does not suggest identity or ultimate equality. Instead, it indicates that God is the ultimate enabler and observer of all actions, even among the Tamo-yogyas.

Reflection of Power, Not Nature: The reflection pertains to God's power and existence, not a representation of His pure, blissful nature within every soul. While all souls depend on God for their existence and functioning, their inherent qualities and ultimate destinies remain distinct. A mirror reflects an image, yet the mirror itself is not the image. Similarly, souls reflect God's presence and power, but they are not God.

Guna Theory and Innate Dispositions: The Bhagavad Gita extensively discusses the three gunas (Sattva, Rajas, Tamas) and their influence on beings. While most Hindu schools perceive gunas as acquired qualities that can be transcended, Madhvacharya connects them more fundamentally to the inherent nature of the soul.

The Tamo-yogyas are essentially souls whose very essence is irrevocably permeated by tamas. This transcends temporary actions influenced by tamas. Their inherent disposition leans towards ignorance, negativity, and opposition to the divine.

For Madhvacharya, the concept of Swa-bhava (one's own inherent nature) is crucial. The ultimate fate of a soul is largely determined by this inherent nature. The Gita itself discusses "divine" and "demoniac" natures (Chapter 16). While other schools may view even "demoniac" individuals as having a chance for redemption, Madhvacharya takes this distinction to its logical conclusion, asserting that for some, the demonic nature is fundamental and unchangeable.

In summary, Madhvacharya's reconciliation relies on a precise and distinct interpretation of key Gita concepts:

Samatvam is divine justice administered impartially based on the inherent nature and actions of souls, not a declaration of inherent equality among all souls.
The "reflection" of Ishvara in all jivas signifies God's presence as the controller and sustainer of all, rather than an ultimate non-difference or shared intrinsic nature.
The emphasis on Taratamya (qualitative hierarchy of souls) and Swa-bhava (inherent nature) provides the framework for understanding why some souls are eternally destined for liberation, some for eternal transmigration, and others for eternal hell.
This interpretation enables Madhvacharya to uphold God's absolute sovereignty and justice, even if it necessitates acknowledging inherent differences in the ultimate destinies of souls, a concept that continues to be a subject of debate and discussion within Hindu thought.

I have repeated same ideas a few times. Let me stop here for now. Peace!

 

[tbs]

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

hi

i agreed...nice explanation...

 

[runga2332]

Swargam and Naragam , exist between two ears of humanity.

 

[prasad1]

Was Madhvacharya influenced by Islam or another Abrahamic religion?


Madhvacharya is the proponent of the Dvaita school of Vedanta philosophy.

This school, unlike the other schools of Vedanta, believes:

God, souls, and the universe are all eternally distinct and separate.
Souls can be trapped in hell for eternity.
Souls have their own nature. There are "good souls", "ok souls", and "bad souls" that God creates. These souls are destined to heaven, eternal transmigration, or eternal hell, respectively.
These beliefs are almost identical to the Abrahamic religions, with a slight Vedantic twist.

Madhvacharya lived from 1238 to 1317, when Islam started making its way into south India and started converting people. Is it possible that he tweaked Vedantic teachings to cater towards converts to Islam, in the hopes that they return to Vedanta?

This is similar to the commonly held belief by most previous Acharyas (Ramanujacharya, etc) that Shankaracharya of the Advaita Vedanta school, who lived when Buddhism was very popular, was preaching Vedanta that was very similar to Buddhism, leading people of later times to think that he was doing so in order to bring followers of Buddhism back to Vedanta.

This is also similar to a much more recent claim, that Swami Vivekananda was preaching a form of Vedanta that was highly politicized and fitting for its time (early 1900s India), with claims like "all religions are the same", "castes are discriminatory so abolish it", "Hinduism is pro women", "Yugas and kalpas aren't true" (because it conflicted with Darwinism).

So, is it possible that Madhvacharya was influenced by Islam, or at least took into consideration?

https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/22017/was-madhvacharya-influenced-by-islam-or-another-abrahamic-religion

 

[prasad1]

Madhvacharya was a critic of Adi Shankara's Advaita Vedanta and Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita Vedanta teachings. He toured India several times, visiting places such as Badrinath, Bengal, Varanasi, Dwaraka, Goa and Kanyakumari, engaging in philosophical debates and visiting Hindu centres of learning. Madhva established the Krishna Mutt at Udupi with a murti secured from Dwarka Gujarat in 1285 CE.

Madhvacharya's teachings are built on the premise that there is a fundamental difference between Atman (individual soul, self) and the Brahman (ultimate reality, God Vishnu), these are two different unchanging realities, with individual soul dependent on Brahman, never identical.[6] His school's theistic dualism teachings disagreed with the monist teachings of the other two most influential schools of Vedanta based on Advaita's nondualism and Vishishtadvaita's qualified nondualism. Liberation, asserted Madhva, is achievable only through the grace of God. The Dvaita school founded by Madhva influenced Vaishnavism, the Bhakti movement in medieval India, and has been one of the three influential Vedānta philosophies, along with Advaita Vedanta and Vishishtadvaita Vedanta. Madhva's historical influence in Hinduism, state Kulandran and Kraemer: "has been salutary, but not extensive. “

Madhvacharya - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[prasad1]

Having lived my entire life in the Advaita philosophy my views may be biased. I always felt that Bhakti Movement (as opposed to Bhakti Marg of GITA) was a cult.
Madhvacharya (1238–1317 CE)
Philosophy: Dvaita Vedanta (Dualism)

Madhvacharya, also known as Ananda Tirtha, was a seminal figure in Vedantic philosophy and the founder of the Dvaita school, one of the three main sub-schools of Vedanta (alongside Advaita and Vishishtadvaita).

Core Teachings:
Madhvacharya's philosophy is grounded in absolute dualism between:

Ishvara (God) – Supreme, independent, eternal, and unchanging. Identified specifically as Vishnu/Krishna.

Jiva (Soul) – Numerous individual souls that are eternally distinct from God and each other.

Prakriti (Matter/Nature) – The physical world, also distinct from both God and soul.

God alone is Svatantra (independent); all else is Paratantra (dependent).

Key Concept: Panchabheda (Five Eternal Differences)
Madhvacharya emphasized that difference (bheda) is real and eternal. The fivefold distinctions are:

God and Soul (Ishvara–Jiva Bheda)

God and Matter (Ishvara–Jada Bheda)

Soul and Matter (Jiva–Jada Bheda)

One Soul and Another Soul (Jiva–Jiva Bheda)

One Material Object and Another (Jada–Jada Bheda)

These differences are not illusions (as in Advaita), but ontologically real and unchangeable.

Epistemology and Authority:
Madhvacharya accepted Pratyaksha (perception), Anumana (inference), and Shabda (scriptural testimony) as valid means of knowledge (Pramanas), but gave special authority to the Vedas and Upanishads interpreted through the lens of dualism.

Bhakti and Moksha (Devotion and Liberation):
Bhakti (Devotion) is the primary path to liberation.

Grace of Vishnu is essential and must be earned through sincere devotion and righteous conduct.

Liberation (moksha) is eternal bliss in the presence of Vishnu, not merging with God, as in Advaita.

Souls differ not only in essence but also in destiny – some are eligible for moksha, others are not (a concept called Taratamya or gradation among souls).

Distinctive Features of Dvaita Vedanta:
Strong theism, centered around Vishnu as the supreme deity.

Rejection of the non-dualistic idea of Brahman = Atman.

Emphasis on individuality and plurality.

Opposition to Maya-vada (illusionism) of Shankara’s Advaita.