• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

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

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?

There exists a belief that the educators of Hindu philosophy endeavoured to formulate concepts aimed at enticing individuals who had departed from Hinduism back to the fold. Such ideas were proposed by a highly regarded figure in this forum (Mr Sangom, a mentor of me in early days of being member here), yet they are unfounded.

All acharyas genuinely sought to comprehend the truth as influenced by their own conditioning. They provided interpretations that aligned with their perspectives, drawing from the most profound thoughts and sentiments, regardless of their origin. The notion of persuading others to adopt one’s beliefs is foreign to Hindu philosophy. It is primarily those who adhere to an exclusive religious mindset that attempt to convert others, often under the pretext of saving them from eternal damnation or integrating them into their community. When one's thinking is along those lines, it is possible to view the teachings of Acharyas in negative light.

Prominent acharyas, including Sankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva, did not seek to assimilate ideas from other religions merely to reclaim their adherents. Buddha was not a sunyavadi (he was a advita vedantin based on his writings of Dhammapadam), despite the beliefs of his followers. The propagation of Krishna consciousness does not align with the vision presented in the Gita. That is how religions evolve.

Hinduism is not strictly a religion; rather, it represents a way of life and a perspective on existence, as articulated by President Radhakrishnan. The term 'Hindu' was assigned by outsiders to the region. The Mahavakyas are applicable to all beings, thus negating the necessity to convert anyone to their ideology. In the pursuit of truth, individuals engaged in debates in ancient times. This practice has since diminished, giving way to a culture steeped in superstition and ignorance.
 
There exists a belief that the educators of Hindu philosophy endeavoured to formulate concepts aimed at enticing individuals who had departed from Hinduism back to the fold. Such ideas were proposed by a highly regarded figure in this forum (Mr Sangom, a mentor of me in early days of being member here), yet they are unfounded.

All acharyas genuinely sought to comprehend the truth as influenced by their own conditioning. They provided interpretations that aligned with their perspectives, drawing from the most profound thoughts and sentiments, regardless of their origin. The notion of persuading others to adopt one’s beliefs is foreign to Hindu philosophy. It is primarily those who adhere to an exclusive religious mindset that attempt to convert others, often under the pretext of saving them from eternal damnation or integrating them into their community. When one's thinking is along those lines, it is possible to view the teachings of Acharyas in negative light.

Prominent acharyas, including Sankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva, did not seek to assimilate ideas from other religions merely to reclaim their adherents. Buddha was not a sunyavadi (he was a advita vedantin based on his writings of Dhammapadam), despite the beliefs of his followers. The propagation of Krishna consciousness does not align with the vision presented in the Gita. That is how religions evolve.

Hinduism is not strictly a religion; rather, it represents a way of life and a perspective on existence, as articulated by President Radhakrishnan. The term 'Hindu' was assigned by outsiders to the region. The Mahavakyas are applicable to all beings, thus negating the necessity to convert anyone to their ideology. In the pursuit of truth, individuals engaged in debates in ancient times. This practice has since diminished, giving way to a culture steeped in superstition and ignorance.
Not arguing the point. But many Hindu groups have accepted and convent people of other faiths.
Arya Samaj, Hare krishna, RSS and others facilitate and recruit people to convert to Hinduism. Called Ghar Vapasi.
 
As time moves on knowledge evolves. Of course there are Universal and timeless truths but those truths without usage in context do not effectively serve practical purpose.

The same goes for modern ideas. Without grounding in Universal and timeless truths they wither away fast.

Past helps as well as distracts as is the case with too much thinking of future.

My view is divinity is more in energy form than matter form. The concept of avatar has merit. That when divine energies take form to push divinity more effectively.

So eternal hell and heaven have a logical basis though not as physical places but more as the pain and suffering one goes through for their deeply ingrained evil and incorrigibility. It is all divine design and the purpose is a different topic altogether.

The posts are excellent and great summaries. Can gain a lot of knowledge fast by reading them thoroughly. Will try.
 
Last edited:
So while Lord Krishna could be an actually lived divine form, Lord Shiva is energy form with all physical aspects attributed to him to be out of intuitions. The stories surrounding Gods also out of intuition pushed by divinities in energy form.

Different religions and Gods may seem to cause initially discord and disagreement but with the final objective of reconciliation or complementation. This requires cooperation and working towards unity.

Sorry for the digression
 
Not arguing the point. But many Hindu groups have accepted and convent people of other faiths.
Arya Samaj, Hare krishna, RSS and others facilitate and recruit people to convert to Hinduism. Called Ghar Vapasi.
The Gar_Wapsi initiatives are indeed genuine, yet they reflect a relatively recent phenomenon. Exclusivity within religions often results in violence, thus this movement can be viewed positively (this is merely a personal opinion).
 
Everything finally has to sync with ultimate reality. It can he done in a harmonious way as with liberation and becoming one with the ultimate reality or if something is incorrigible and not fit for moksha it may be put into a state of reality where time does not move.

It is the exact opposite of perfect bliss and the suffering is infinite. It is the notion of instantaneously varying energy contrasted with constant energy. As it exists as a theoretical possibility so does the notion of eternal hell.

It is like a vertical line on the xy axis, the x axis being time. The being caught in that and time literally stops for the being
 
In the case of moksha a being gets into complete harmony with the ultimate reality and is assimilated. In the case of latter the being is in complete misalignment with the ultimate reality and in eternal hell. But from the perspective of ultimate reality it is totally annihilated and assimilated.
 
People are happy when their ideas are uncritically accepted. Yes the rigor may be there but tolerance zero. A healthy discussion fosters diverse views and not dismissive of alternate views. If someone wants only toadying of their views a public forum is not the place. Be prepared for a critical rebuttal and response and be open to fresh ideas
 
But does a-tb have the guts to take the bull by its horns. I very much suspect that. It is mainly through innuendos and snide remarks they operate. Trump is atleast open and blunt.
 
Last edited:
But does a-tb have the guts to take the bull by its horns. I very much suspect that. It is mainly through innuendos and snide remarks they operate. Trump is atleast open and blunt.
Sravna,
Honestly none of us really learn from.a debate.
A debate is like a bull..it has 2 horns..each debator pulls a horn to his own side, this only increases the stress levels of the bull...if the bull gets irritated then its hell break lose...only the bull wins finally.
 
Sravna,
Honestly none of us really learn from.a debate.
A debate is like a bull..it has 2 horns..each debator pulls a horn to his own side, this only increases the stress levels of the bull...if the bull gets irritated then its hell break lose...only the bull wins finally.
I was talking of the guts to engage with a bull. You are talking of a different metaphor. The bull you are talking is not the one I am referring. Your bull seems to be pathetically placed. Looks like it needs some external support
 

Latest ads

Back
Top