Madhva and Eternal Hell - Split from "Hindu Encounters..."

Let's go one better, why would anybody want to belong to any sampradaaya at all?

People have different temperaments and some or the other sampradaaya will fit their attitude (or not, as in my and many others' case). For the Maadhvas, eternal hell is a perfect retribution for such sinners. Sinners who can't to anything about their attitude, in the first place. (Doesn't it sound something like - can't do anything about being in maya and loads of karma on one's head because there's no beginning.) Not that I believe in this eternal hell. I am not even a literalist. Otherwise I would have accepted the literal meaning of the quote from Vishnu Yamal about turning into an animal if you don't take diilkshaa. That I think is an affront to my dignity. There are a lot of things which do not make sense to me and I prefer to reject them altogether (rather than interpret). All this mercy begging thing does not make my God. My God is a thoughtful, philosophical, considerate, noble, "humane", most important benign and loving (of course, fun loving also). This is the kind of person with whom I feel comfortable. For me this "mercy begging" thing comes with realization and love, is completely voluntary. It is not something that my God shoves down one's gullet.

Coming back to literalism, the Maadhvas may really be at a loss as to why one would like to love God as a woman married to someone else? I would not be surprised, if they come up with an argument that the whole rasa dance chapter is interpolated. Similarly with the Gaudiyas. For them, God's opulence has no meaning, so whether 30 trillion guards or 3 guards is meaningless. ["no meaning" implying "less importance". How much less, everybody knows!] They wouldn't think twice about removing it. And given the background some (most) here come from, they would rather have it removed. However, if anyone were to even touch the gopi geet and say it has nothing to with God realization, they would simply pounce on that person. So you see, more and more deep specific feelings regarding transcendence are not really that universal that people tend to think. Non-realization of this has caused a lot of heart burns.

By the way, what I appreciate about Maadhvas is their consistency of methodology with sufficient reasons to back up their claims and their tenacity. They don't run away when challenged and will keep you engaged ad-infinitum (or ad-nauseum, if you like). I have seen the Maadhvas, even agreeing to rejecting their own preceptor's quotations to justify their position. Long ago, when I asked Satyanaaraayana Daasa about the Maadhvas, he warned me not to meddle with them. I did not heed the warning, so I had to learn the hard way. BTW, just because I personally think they over do it and that their philosophy is a bit idiosyncratic in some parts, does not mean that they are not devotees of Krishna or that they cannot be thoughtful. Such quirks are present in other philosophies also. Like the Gaudiyas have this "lowering of rasa due to aparaadha". Jesus Christ! I ask you Keshava ji, why would anybody like to belong to the Gaudiya sampradaaya?

Unfortunately, some have tried to ape this kind of a "shaastra, logic and argumentation" approach, but simply fallen on their face. Good for them. I ask these guys, why not be truthful and simply accept, you can't do it. You have to finally fall back on something which you cannot justify. There's nothing wrong with this. Why be a hypocrite? But then, you will also have to allow room for those who do not really agree with you because they have had some different realization which they may not be able to justify.

I thought this forum had started applying the moderation policy of Audarya

Thanks Kishalaya for your reply. I appreciated your points very much. In fact don't get me wrong here, some of my best friends are Madhvas. And I have a very healthy respect for a lot of their interpretation, philosophy and methodology. I used to agrue (as you say ad infinitum, not ad nauseum) with my friend Banannje Govindacharya every time I visit Udipi. BNK Sharma I found to be much more accomodating of Gaudiya ideas and indeed very favorable to ISKCON. And one thing that you have to admire about the Madhvas is that there sampradaya is very united on even the smallest philosophical points unlike other sampradayas out there.

I can see the point. It saves you from reinventing the wheel, but at the same time there is a tendency to just accept the party line and not think critically about certain issues. I take the view for myself that I look for the sampradaya that I feel is closest to my convictions however that doesn't mean that I swallow their dogmas without critical examination of each and every one.

Sure I understand this. I was sort of hoping I would get some members here to give me their interpretations of the Gita quotes that I gave. These slokas have always bothered me since they clearly speak of a type of eternal damnation.

Just because there is no beginning to karma does not mean there cannot be an end to it. But must there necessarily be an end to it? That is the question.

Yes, I agree with you. Almost certainly this is a quote meant to scare one into taking diksha. This does not have a lot of meaning in the Madhva context as they don't really have a diksha per se but only mantra upadesha with less of a significance. In the Sri Vaisnava context though diksha is synonymous with prapatti or sarangati which seems to be the most important step towards moksha. Without moksha who can say that one won't eventually take birth in a lower species sometime in eternity. Then again the Lord says that one does not loose one's spritual advancement if one is unsucessful on the path to moksha in this life (see the Gita). The one major stumbling block most systems put in the way of the practitioner is antima smrti or deathbed remembrance which clearly in the Gita is required. This means that they often require lots and lots of sadhanas all culminating in antima smrti. Ramanuja has side stepped this issue by incorporating that answer to this question that he asked Lord Varadaraja in Kanchipuram. The Lord there assured him that antima smrti was NOT a requirement for His devotees/refugees to attain moksha. This I feel is a very important concession. It takes the pressure off the practitioner and allowed for the development of the idea of Satvika Tyaga where Sri Vaisnavas actually reject the phala or fruits of their sadhanas, even to the extent of deeming them to be performed not by themselves but by the Lord Himself. One may say that since the goal is already achieved would this not act as a corrupting idea and lead to the abandonment of dharma? As far as I can see this has not been the case any more than in other sampradayas.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with one acceptng one's position and begging or praying for the Lord's mercy. However in the Gaudiya and Sri sampradayas this appeal is made not only through the acarya but also through the Lord's consort. This important role for the Lord's consort seems to be somewhat lacking in the Madhva sampradaya. Certainly I agree with you that my God also has the qualities enough to be approachable directly. It might make another good topic to discuss the role of the mediator or mediatrix in different forms of Vaisnavism.

Yes, I don't know off hand of any expression of nayaki bhava by any Madhva acaryas. (But there was one reference in a book to a story that the Asta Matha Sannyasins were considered reincarnated Gopikas. But I have never heard this first hand from any Madhvas or read it anywhere else. (I can look up the quote if you like, I was surprised by it because Madhva's in general accept the Gopikas as Apsara Strii (heavenly ladies). And they do not figure very high on the list of the Lord's devotees, Hanuman (Mukhya Prana) being Jivottama (the greatest jiva/devotee).

Of course I agree, each sampradaya does have it's own strange little quirks. As for why would anyone want to be in any one of the sampradayas. I think that all of them offer slightly different approaches to the issues, the sadhanas, the goal, etc. So I don't find it surprising that different folks like different sampradayas (or even no sampradaya). Different slok's for different folks, as they say.

Yes, most of my discussions with Madhvas end like this. We just agree to disagree. I still have a healthy respect for them (and I hope they have for me). This goes the same for the other sampradayas. It's hard to prove the unprovable to people. So no matter how strongly your belief is, you have to admit that lots of questions cannot be resolved, especially between sampradayas. However within a sampradaya it should be easier to understand the conclusion, after taking the same axioms, pramanas and mthodology.

I'm sorry I simply do not agree with this statement. If the jiva has absolutely no control over his/her thoughts then there is absolutely no free will at all. Without free will there is no point to the whole exercise of the material world. There is no meaning to love. There can be no meaning to karma. There can be no meaning to adopting a process for realization or moksha because without at least a concept of free will for the jiva there cannot be any meaning to bondage or moksha. It must all be an illusion. This is nothing but Advaitavad.

It seems you are not aware of the true nature of Madhvas definition of the three types of souls. He says that these three types are eternally like that. A Tamayogin cannot ever by performing whatever pious deeds or devotional service or whatever become liberated, he may delay his/her fall to hell for maximum one kalpa at the end of which s/he will go to hell eternally no matter what s/he does. A Sattvic soul cannot indefinitely stay here or go to hell s/he must be liberated after a certain time. And the Nitya Samsarin stays here and can neither go to moksha or hell but is doomed to be in this middle plane forever, enjoying and sufferring in different births.

Accordingly one cannot know what type of souls one is. Only time will tell. And there is absolutely no way of changing your category or fate.

Please give me some time to answer your previous post.

Now, a tamoyogya is bound by his nature to perform evil. And it is his reactions to evil that will lead him to hell. So there is no need to blame anyone other than himself or at most, the status quo. God did not make him like that. God did not even create the situation. And definitely God does not want to interfere, where the interference is deemed to be troublesome. Such a soul may sometimes do good by some fortuitous association with sattva, but that won't last long and his intrinsic evil nature will surface.

Similarly, the nityasamsaarin will do raajasic activity prompted by his intrinsic svaroopa.

And a saatvika soul, again, is bound by his nature to search after God so he will anyway endeavour for moksha and it is his endeavour that will result in his liberation.

Apart from that, according to the Maadhvas, there are some seers who can actually identify the different kinds of souls, just that they don't reveal it, even under extreme provocation.

These are not material trigunas. These are the jivas themselves. Their nature is not separate from them. The correspondence between the three kinds of jivas and the trigunas seems to be incidental (But one can suggest he was influenced by the concept of the trigunas). Of course, Madhva brings out various quotes from all kinds of Shrutis etc. and interprets them in this way.

Dear Kashalayaji, if you think, that tattvavadi are correct in their presentation, please, explain, how such point of wiew harmonizes with this quotes from sruti:

and smriti:

It seems, that there is only two paths for men, seeking truth. No way eternal hell.

Personally, I am not a very big fan of their conclusions.

However, some parts of their philosophy make sense, as do some parts of Sri Vaishnavism and some of the Gaudiyas'.

If you really wanted to know how the tattva-vaadis "harmonize" the shrutis, then perhaps they themselves would be the best reference. I am not really trained in their methodology. But considering the fact that they have managed to interpret *all* shruti (even the ones which are not extant), I am definite you will receive a quick reply.

Sorry, Kishalayaji, than this question is not for you.

Unfortunately, I don't know any open public forum or mailing list, run by Madhva followers, where I could freely put my question. Perhaps, you know? Then, please, provide a link for it.

From the recent letter at well known dvaita.info mailing list:

After such warnings I don't want even try to ask questions there...

Some of my best friends are bla... ummm... I mean - from ISKCON!

This is interesting. You have any internet link to your philosophy of life?

I'm not at all impressed by your atheistic bravado. Instead of just spewing nonsense why not give us some reasons why you think what you think.

Amen keshava.Exactly how I felt when I saw a Vaisnava Acarya,Gita,and Vedic
system called 'meaningless junk'.

Perhaps when he has stated that 90% of what is in Bhagavad Gita is junk in the middle of GaudiyaDiscussions, then surely he is not here to impress. But his philosophy (minus the ISKCON history) in the other thread makes for an interesting reading. I am really wondering which 10% is not junk !

Agreed. One cannot make hit-and-run statements. Such strong claims would have to be well founded.

Come on Madhava ji. No need to take it so seriously.