Is Madhva's Dvaita Vedanta consistent with classical Hindu thought, and is it valid?

[Spirit_Warrior]

I hope I framed the question properly. I would like to first present my position of Dvaita Vedanta. I do not think Dvaita Vedanta is consistent with classical Hindu thought or in general Dharmic thought. I also think his interpretation of Upanishads is not justified, because Madhva's adds words to the original statements in the Upanishads which are not there, e.g. "Tat Tvam Asi" he parses as "Atat tvam asi" to suit his philosophy, turning "Thou art that" to "Thou are NOT that" However, this can be easily refuted by looking at the original statement in the context of its discussion, where the Upanishads repeatedly assert the identity between Atman and Brahman(Soul and God) and explain all differences as being only due to name and form(upadhi) Such as the difference between pot-space, room-space and cup space, is only owing to the limiting adjunct or condition which is associated with space, but which in fact does not belong to space. If the limiting adjuncts are removed only space alone remains. Similarly, the Upanishads argue that the distinction between Atman and Brahman is only due to the body, mind and ego, each which is conditioned due to its circumstances, but when removed only Atman/Brahman remain.

As this debate started in another thread where it is off-topic, I am continuing the debate here where we can debate it more comfortably.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I think this discussion has sorta reached the climax of productivity, but a few brief comments before I throw in the towel. I think my main disagreement with you points is that you are defining classical Hinduism as something which is it is not. For example, I would argue Madhavacharya is a classical teacher. Usually in the study of Vedanta, three schools are concidered traditional, Dvaita of Madhavacharya, Adwaita of Sankaracharya and Vashista Adwaita of Ramanujacharya. All three of these teachers accept the following points 1) Vedas apaurasheya (i.e not of human origin), 2) Brahman can only be established through Sabda 3) The necessity of a Guru and School (though not blind faith). I agree with you, that perception and reason must follow alongside, but in the matters of the absolute reality, all three of these schools agree that only Sabda can allow us to establish that reality, while the other Pramanas cannot touch that plane. It seems we disagree here, so let us leave it at that.

I am responding primarily to the emboldened part. Madhvacharya is not a classical teacher, because he falls during the medieval age: Wiki --

Madhva Acharya (Sanskrit pronunciation: [məd̪ʱʋɑːˈtʃɑːrjə]; AD 1238–1317), also known as Purna Prajña and Ananda Teertha, was a Hindu philosopher and the chief proponent of the Dvaita (dualism) school of Vedanta.[1][5] Madhva called his philosophy as "Tattvavada" meaning "the realist viewpoint".[5]​

Shankara by traditional reckoning falls in 500BCE, though modern scholars(see Indus valley civilisation debate to see why most Indian dates for the ancient period are off) place in somewhere in the early 8th century, which is still the time-frame in which scholars agree classical Indian philosophical thought developed such as Samkhya, Nyaya, Vaiseshika, Vedanta, Buddhism and Jainism. As Madhva came at least 600-700 years later falling in the medieval age, his thoughts cannot be considered classical. It is pertinent to note here that Madhva's school of Vedanta Dvaita was a reaction to the well established monist and qualified monist schools of Vedanta. Madhva came to offer new interpretations. However, his interpretation veered strongly away from not just classical Hindu thought, but in general classical Dharmic thought. His way thinking of has(in my opinion rightly) been compared to Abrahamic thought.

AHh okay, I again maintain that it is only Adwaita in the Hindu Dharmas that has such a concept. We could call Buddhism and Jainism branches of the Dharmic faiths, but I would not call them Hindu at all. Sankaracharya infact criticizes them for rejecting the tradition which made a school a Hindu one.

No I disagree, I have already described to you two-view doctrine of reality is shared across dharmic traditions. Also across Hindu thought. Prior to Dvaita Vedanta which rejected the path of knowledge and insisted on total surrender to Lord Vishnu as God where the devotee becomes just a servant of God, the overall Hindu and Dharmic view was that ignorance is the problem and that ignorance is we are not apprehending reality as it really is, that our perceived or conceptualised reality was not reality as it really was. Henceforth, the antidote to this was knowledge. Madhva steered away from this in a very fundamental way, which warrants that we call Madhva's interpretation as radically new and divergent one from classical thought.

Again correlation with Abrahamic faiths not does disqualify something to be Hindu. Madhavacharya could not have been influenced by Abrahamic religions, especially at the time he existed. He followed greatly from another acharya, called Ramananuja, who had similiar concepts to him.. I would argue that classical Hinduism, is Hindu school that can trace its lineage and philosophy back to the time of Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhava

Although some scholars have suggested there is a Christian influence on Madhava's philosophy/theology, others have rejected this on the grounds that there is no evidence of any Christian presence in the place of his birth when he was born. That may well be the case, but there was definitely the influence of Islam the time he was living, which is an Abrahamic religions. At that time Islam was rampant throughout India, and it is unlikely that Madhava would not have been exposed to Islamic theology which stipulated some of the same things he taught.

As for the idea of "eternal damnation", that is false. Heaven and Hell are temporary not eternal. They are there for the duration of our Karma. As for the heirarchy of souls in heaven, Madhavacharya believed in the concept of panca bheda or 5 differences. Unlike Adwaita, which believes in total monism, Madhacharya interpreted that the world consisted of 5 different tattvas (or subjects). And even in the perfected stage, there are different levels of souls who serve God in different ways. Madhavacharya also gave alot of support from Sruti and Smrti to back this up, so there is not reason to disqualify him from classical Hinduism. Even the very ancient commentators of the darshanas had similiar claims.

Actually it is true:

According to Madhva's philosophy, some individuals possess a higher level of eligibility (adhikara) to access this knowledge of the true nature of Brahman and thereby exude devotion toward him. Others can gain only partial knowledge and exude half-hearted devotion, or else none at all. With this in mind, Madhva divides souls into three classes: one class which qualifies for liberation Mukti-yogyas; another subject to eternal rebirth or eternally transmigration due to samsara, Nitya-samsarins; and finally, a class that is eventually condemned to eternal hell or Andhatamas, known as Tamo-yogyas. With this concept of eternal damnation, Madhvacharya differs significantly from traditional Hindu beliefs concerning the fate of the soul; by contrast, most Hindus believe that all souls will eventually obtain moksha, though it may take millions of rebirths.​

Madhva - New World Encyclopedia​

It could be argued, however, that this is an independent thought that is similar to Abrahamic theology but not necessarily influenced by it. His philosophy of difference(tattva-vada) probably naturally leads to the conclusion that all souls are different from one another and hence have different degrees of goodness, with the really good being God's most beloved and the really bad being his most hated. However, ideas like this are dangerous, because it leads to excluding some people are perceived to be less good as being intrinsically less good and hence condemned to either cycling around samsara forever or eternal damnation. Then who intercedes on behalf of God to divide people into worth of liberation, not worthy of liberation and eternally damned, as God himself cannot speak to us, it is the priest-class or custodians of God who decide.

In contrast, in classical Hindu and generally Dharmic thought, evil is seen as caused by ignorance, so actions can be evil but the agent is not evil. Like if a child commits a boo-boo, we do not condemn the child by saying it is evil, rather we say the child is ignorant and we attempt to bring the child to knowledge to see that it has committed a boo boo and we also see evidence that sometimes the child does learn from its mistakes. This is a compassionate approach which classical Hindu and Dharmic thought in general endorses. This is why the law of karma is there to as an impersonal moral law to which punishes or rewards an actor in proportion to their action. As all actions are limited and temporal, the reward and punishment is also limited and temporal.

 

[sayak83]

I hope I framed the question properly. I would like to first present my position of Dvaita Vedanta. I do not think Dvaita Vedanta is consistent with classical Hindu thought or in general Dharmic thought. I also think his interpretation of Upanishads is not justified, because Madhva's adds words to the original statements in the Upanishads which are not there, e.g. "Tat Tvam Asi" he parses as "Atat tvam asi" to suit his philosophy, turning "Thou art that" to "Thou are NOT that" However, this can be easily refuted by looking at the original statement in the context of its discussion, where the Upanishads repeatedly assert the identity between Atman and Brahman(Soul and God) and explain all differences as being only due to name and form(upadhi) Such as the difference between pot-space, room-space and cup space, is only owing to the limiting adjunct or condition which is associated with space, but which in fact does not belong to space. If the limiting adjuncts are removed only space alone remains. Similarly, the Upanishads argue that the distinction between Atman and Brahman is only due to the body, mind and ego, each which is conditioned due to its circumstances, but when removed only Atman/Brahman remain.

As this debate started in another thread where it is off-topic, I am continuing the debate here where we debate it more comfortably.

While I disagree with Madhava, I am not sure what make classical Hinduism more privileged than (say) archaic Hinduism, medieval Hinduism or modern Hinduism? I think a proper criticism should be based on argument and evidence and exegesis and not when a guy was born? Overall, I would agree that Madhva's theology is hard to support given the thrust of Vedic and Upanisadic thought. But Hindu schools do not require it strictly. Samkhya and Vaisesika never did, and Nyaya and the Agama traditions only pay lip service at the end of the day.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

While I disagree with Madhava, I am not sure what make classical Hinduism more privileged than (say) archaic Hinduism, medieval Hinduism or modern Hinduism? I think a proper criticism should be based on argument and evidence and exegesis and not when a guy was born? Overall, I would agree that Madhva's theology is hard to support given the thrust of Vedic and Upanisadic thought. But Hindu schools do not require it strictly. Samkhya and Vaisesika never did, and Nyaya and the Agama traditions only pay lip service at the end of the day.

This is a fair point. This is why I framed the original question as two questions, one question asking whether Dvaita Vedanta of Madhva is consistent with, as you say the thrust of all Vedic and Upanshadic thought. The other question is whether it is valid.

As for Samkhya, Nyaya and Vaiseshika they all share the common denominator the fundamental problem is a problem of ignorance, and knowledge is the solution. Madhva diverges from this radically by insisting it is not knowledge, but bhakti to God(as Lord Vishnu, not just any God, only Vishnu is God in his theology) whereby you win his grace. However, there are terms and conditions, each soul has intrinsic amount of ability to do bhakti and win his grace. There is one class that can do enough bhakti to win his grace; another class that can never do enough to win his grace so they keep circling about in samsara, and there is another that are eternally condemned to hell.
Now, contrast this to what Krishna says in the Gita, that all his souls are beloved and all of them will eventually come to him.

 

[sayak83]

This is a fair point. This is why I framed the original question as two questions, one question asking whether Dvaita Vedanta of Madhva is consistent with, as you say the thrust of all Vedic and Upanshadic thought. The other question is whether it is valid.

As for Samkhya, Nyaya and Vaiseshika they all share the common denominator the fundamental problem is a problem of ignorance, and knowledge is the solution. Madhva diverges from this radically by insisting it is not knowledge, but bhakti to God(as Lord Vishnu, not just any God, only Vishnu is not God in his theology) whereby you win his grace. However, there are terms and conditions, each soul has intrinsic amount of ability to do bhakti and win his grace. There is one class that can do enough bhakti to win his grace; another class that can never do enough to win his grace so they keep circling about in samsara, and there is another that are eternally condemned to hell.
Now, contrast this to what Krishna says in the Gita, that all his souls are beloved and all of them will eventually come to him.

Yes, good. That is a a good argument. I personally haven't read Madhava. So I would be interested in following this thread (as Dasa replies).

 

[निताइ dasa]

Okay, before we can have a meaningful discussion on whether Sripad Madhvacharya is either a classical or a medieval acharya, we must first define what is it that makes a school classical Hinduism. Because it seems that we have different opinions on this definition. I will respond to your historical arguments later on.

I am aware of historically the three time periods, Vedic, Classical and Medieval Hinduism, and each of these periods have unique features. Firstly, I think we would agree in the claim that Sripad Sankaracharya was a classical philosopher. Now, what makes a school of Hinduism classical?

Well, in my understanding, a classical school of Vedanta (or of any other Darshana) is a school of thought that has an established commentary on either is basis Sutras (for Vedanta it is the Brahma Sutras) as well as various commentaries on the primary Upanishads and other scripture. Just like Sankaracharya wrote a commentary on the Brahma Sutras and the primary Upanishads, and also so did Madhavacharya write a commentary on the primary upanishads and Brahma Sutras. It is for this reason, that Madhvacharya's Dvaita school falls into the classical category of Hinduism. You seem to be arguing that because Madhavacharya's philosophy shared components with that of Islamic religions, it cannot be considered classical. I have two objections to this claim. 1) Many of these claims by Madhavacharya (surrender to God, superiority of Narayana) are found heavily in the works of Ramanujacharya (who is also a classical and Vaishnav teacher) and Sankaracharya also in the Gita Bhasya alludes to these principles. If you want, I am happy to present proof regarding this. 2) Just because a certain traits of Classical Hinduism may overlap with that of other religions, does not make them any less or more valid. In fact, I do not see any convincing comparison you have presented that equated Dvaita philosophy with that of the Abhrahamic religions.

Okay back to your response:

Shankara by traditional reckoning falls in 500BCE, though modern scholars(see Indus valley civilisation debate to see why most Indian dates for the ancient period are off) place in somewhere in the early 8th century, which is still the time-frame in which scholars agree classical Indian philosophical thought developed such as Samkhya, Nyaya, Vaiseshika, Vedanta, Buddhism and Jainism.

Source? The majority consensus is that Sankaracharya was born somewhere around 600 AD. In his Brahma Sutra Bhasya, he talks about the city of Pataliputra, which did not exist in 500BCE. The following link is good at explaining this:

Year of Birth of Adi Shankaracharya – 509 BC, 44 BC, 788 AD ~ Hindu Blog

As Madhva came at least 600-700 years later falling in the medieval age, his thoughts cannot be considered classical.

The works of Madhavacharya, especially how he commented on the scripture is very typical of the classical philosophers not medieval ones. The medieval teachers tended to focus more on the Puranas, not the primary Upanishads.

Prior to Dvaita Vedanta which rejected the path of knowledge and insisted on total surrender to Lord Vishnu as God where the devotee becomes just a servant of God, the overall Hindu and Dharmic view was that ignorance is the problem and that ignorance is we are not apprehending reality as it really is, that our perceived or conceptualised reality was not reality as it really was. Henceforth, the antidote to this was knowledge. Madhva steered away from this in a very fundamental way, which warrants that we call Madhva's interpretation as radically new and divergent one from classical thought.

This is also a misunderstanding of Madhacharya's Tattva Vada. According to Dvaita ignorance is the cause of bondage, and it is only knowledge of ones true position that yields Moksha. According to Sankara that true position is awareness of the self as Brahman. According to Ramanujacharya and Madhavacharya that true position is understanding that I am a servant of Parambrahman Narayana. Even our school of Gaudiya, which follows on from Madhava understands that it is ignorance that is the cause of suffering. Brahman Jnana is the cause of Mukti, and the awakening of the Jnana is by Bhakti Yoga to Sri Krsna. Therefore this objection does not work.

Actually it is true:

According to Madhva's philosophy, some individuals possess a higher level of eligibility (adhikara) to access this knowledge of the true nature of Brahman and thereby exude devotion toward him. Others can gain only partial knowledge and exude half-hearted devotion, or else none at all. With this in mind, Madhva divides souls into three classes: one class which qualifies for liberation Mukti-yogyas; another subject to eternal rebirth or eternally transmigration due to samsara, Nitya-samsarins; and finally, a class that is eventually condemned to eternal hell or Andhatamas, known as Tamo-yogyas. With this concept of eternal damnation, Madhvacharya differs significantly from traditional Hindu beliefs concerning the fate of the soul; by contrast, most Hindus believe that all souls will eventually obtain moksha, though it may take millions of rebirths.

This website is incorrect. The Tamo yogyas (literally meaning the ignorant yogis, showing here that ignorance is the cause of suffering), are subject to non-eternal hell, not eternal damnation. What it means, that those jivas in tamo or ignorance will forever live in hell and never reach mukti as long as they are in this state of tamo. This is because he nature of tamo is suffering. It does not suggest eternal damnation. In his commentary to the Gita, Madhavacharya states that after reaping the fruits of ones Karma (either in heaven or hell) one returns to this world to perform Karma again. I suggest you read the commentary of both Sankaracharya and Ramanujacharya on GIta 16.19-20.

However, ideas like this are dangerous, because it leads to excluding some people are perceived to be less good as being intrinsically less good and hence condemned to either cycling around samsara forever or eternal damnation. Then who intercedes on behalf of God to divide people into worth of liberation, not worthy of liberation and eternally damned, as God himself cannot speak to us, it is the priest-class or custodians of God who decide.

I think this is a strawman. The Vaishnavs school hold that all jivas are fit for Moksha provided that they have a human birth in order to understand Brahman. In-fact of the three, Sankaracharya is more conservative, because he holds that only in a male body one may get Moksha (see my Vivekchudamani verse I quoted). If you are going to apply this idea to Madhavacharya, why not Sankara?

In contrast, in classical Hindu and generally Dharmic thought, evil is seen as caused by ignorance, so actions can be evil but the agent is not evil. Like if a child commits a boo-boo, we do not condemn the child by saying it is evil, rather we say the child is ignorant and we attempt to bring the child to knowledge to see that it has committed a boo boo and we also see evidence that sometimes the child does learn from its mistakes. This is a compassionate approach which classical Hindu and Dharmic thought in general endorses. This is why the law of karma is there to as an impersonal moral law to which punishes or rewards an actor in proportion to their action. As all actions are limited and temporal, the reward and punishment is also limited and temporal.

It is far more complex then this, but both views can be resolved together. Sin or paapa, is that which occurs in ignorance. This ignorance results in bondage and as long as this ignorance remains, our bondage is eternal. When this ignorance is removed, the bondage is also gone. Let me give you an example. Lets say there is a rock. Now, if that rock is not moved or touched by anything or one, then that rock will remain in that position eternally. In a similiar way, when the acharyas talk about eternal rebirth, they mean that as long as the Jiva remains in ignorance, she is eternally conditioned to be born and reborn. It does not mean that there is no way for the Jiva to escape this cycle (aka eternal damnation). The law Karma, which is accepted by all Vedantins (includin Madhavcharya) simply does not allow such a view. Therefore, trying to interpret Madhavacharya's statements as supporting eternal damnation (the abhrahamic concept) is incorrect.

 

[निताइ dasa]

adhva diverges from this radically by insisting it is not knowledge, but bhakti to God(as Lord Vishnu, not just any God, only Vishnu is God in his theology) whereby you win his grace. However, there are terms and conditions, each soul has intrinsic amount of ability to do bhakti and win his grace. There is one class that can do enough bhakti to win his grace; another class that can never do enough to win his grace so they keep circling about in samsara, and there is another that are eternally condemned to hell.

This is also a misunderstanding.

What madhavacharya is talking about, when he talks these classes, is that he is talking about three categories. This categories themselves are not fixed or eternal, but rather a Jiva can move through them, as they again Jnana. For example, there is a class of jivas who are eternally present in Vaikuntha with Narayana (they are called Siddhas and they will, in their current state exist eternally with Narayana). There is another class of jivas who are in eternal rebirth (which means that if left in their state, they will continue to undergo the cycle of birth and rebirth). and there is another class in tamo guna who are in hell (eternally if left in that stage). However a Jiva can elevate themselves up into the position of Siddha through Sadhana (assuming one has human birth). Otherwise, it would be impossible for us (in this world who are in rebirth) to attain Moksha and therefore Madhavacharya would have no need to put forth any philosophy regarding this.

I shall present proof, from the commentary of Madhavacharya himself (on Gita 8.16)

"Starting with Brahma the designer and architect of creation who resides on the crest of Mt. Meru in Brahmaloka which is the highest material planet all living entities are subjected to samsara or the perpetual cycle of birth and death. Therefore it is stated in the Narayana Kalpa that: In all cases concerning the material worlds from the highest Brahmaloka down through the heavenly planets to the worlds of humans there is no possibility of attaining the Supreme Lord without moksa or liberation.

Now begins the summation.

Liberation from samsara and attaining the Supreme Lord Krishna is only possible through bhakti or exclusive loving devotion to Him exclusively. Those whose goal is to enjoy in the heavenly planets which is free from disease, decrepitude and old age will reach those worlds and enjoy; but they will take birth in a womb again for attainment of the Supreme Lord was not their goal; but the devotees of Lord Krishna whose only goal is Him attain moksa."



The purport here is simple, all living entities in this world are in the cycle of Samsara. However by the process of Moksha, these entities can be liberated. There is nothing in Dvaita about intrinsic amount of Bhakti, because all living entities in this world a jiva tattva and therefore equal.


Anyway, to me this debate seems pointless, unless we can define some characteristics of Classical Hinduism that we can use to apply to each of the schools. As for the validity of Dvaita, I am pretty sure I could present a scriptural defense of it.



Mind you my school believes that the atma and Brahman are both one and also different, like a drop from the ocean. The jivatmas is only a partial manifestation of Brahman. Prabhupada called it part and parcel of God. I can defend this surely. For example this verse in Mundaka Upanishad very clear shows the distinction between Jivaatma and Ishwara:

dvā suparṇā sayujā sakhāyā samānaṃ vṛkṣaṃ pariṣasvajāte /
tayor anyaḥ pippalaṃ svādv atty anaśnann anyo abhicākaśīti // 4.6 //


Like two birds of golden plumage, inseparable companions, are perched on a branch of the same tree. One of them tastes the sweet and bitter fruits of the tree; the other, tasting neither, calmly looks on.

[this verse shows that in the tree of the body there are two different and distinct birds. One is the jivatma who is eating the fruits of the tree, i.e enjoying his karma, and the other is Ishwara, of Paramatama, who is watching]



samāne vṛkṣe puruṣo nimagno anīśayā śocati muhyamānaḥ /
juṣṭaṃ yadā paśyaty anyam īśaṃ asya mahimānam iti vītaśokaḥ // 4.7 //


On the same tree, the individual self (jiva), deluded by forgetfulness of his identity with the divine Self, bewildered by his ego, grieves and is sad. But when he recognizes the other as the Lord worshipped by all and His glory, he becomes free from grief.

[The jiva suffers because of ignorance of the Paramatma, the sumpreme Lord, but when she recognizes Him, she becomes free from grief]

These two verses from the Upanishads prove the different between the jivaatma (us) and Ishwara. They both reside in the body but they are not the same. There are various other verses in Upanishads that support this.




It is true, that Brahman and Atman are one in one sense but there is also some difference between them. When the Upanishads talks about Atma, they are can refer to two different objects. The first Atma is the Paramatma (or Ishwara, the Sumpreme Soul, who is all pervasive, all knowing, the object of sacrifices etc).. The second Atma is jivaatma or us the souls, who are parts and parcels of Brahman, like a drop of an ocean. The jivatma and the paramatma are not identical.


The argument for this is that sruti describes Atman to be all pervasive and all knowing, but it is evident that we are not all pervasive (because if we were, then it would be impossible for the soul to move, but the soul does move as it transmigrates through various bodies). Therefore we cannot be the all pervasive Atman that is described in Sruti. In a similiar way, Atman is all knowing, but we cannot know anything that is outside out scope of experience (I cannot know your thoughts, nor can you know mine). Therefore we cannot be the all knowing Atman that is described in Sruti.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Okay, before we can have a meaningful discussion on whether Sripad Madhvacharya is either a classical or a medieval acharya, we must first define what is it that makes a school classical Hinduism. Because it seems that we have different opinions on this definition. I will respond to your historical arguments later on.

I am aware of historically the three time periods, Vedic, Classical and Medieval Hinduism, and each of these periods have unique features. Firstly, I think we would agree in the claim that Sripad Sankaracharya was a classical philosopher. Now, what makes a school of Hinduism classical?

I am glad we agree that Shankara is classical. However, I don't think describing such and such author as vedic, classical, medieval and modern is a matter of subjective opinion, it is simply a matter of what time frame they fall in e.g. when we say Platonic and Neo-platonic, we mean that though Plotinus is working in the same philosophy of platonism, he is a later platonist that offers a new interpretation. Similarly, we can of Vivekananda who is working in the same philosophy of Advaita, but he is a later Advatist that offers a new interpretation of Advaita, so we say he is a Neo-Advatist. Just because something is 'neo' does not mean it is wrong. This is why I have framed the original question as two questions, one that asks whether Madhva's thoughts are consistent with classical Hindu thought(I definitely think it is not) and the other is whether it is valid(debatable)

Well, in my understanding, a classical school of Vedanta (or of any other Darshana) is a school of thought that has an established commentary on either is basis Sutras (for Vedanta it is the Brahma Sutras) as well as various commentaries on the primary Upanishads and other scripture. Just like Sankaracharya wrote a commentary on the Brahma Sutras and the primary Upanishads, and also so did Madhavacharya write a commentary on the primary upanishads and Brahma Sutras. It is for this reason, that Madhvacharya's Dvaita school falls into the classical category of Hinduism.

This is not what makes Dvaita classical Vedanta. If today I also offer my own interpretation on the principal Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and Bhagvad Gita using my knowledge of philosophy, science and life today it would not be considered classical at all. All Madhva did was to follow the same tradition that Shankara established some six centuries before him of the Vedanta school. In order to challenge the Vedanta school Madhava had to work within the limits of the Vedanta school. If he didn't do that, the new school he was starting would not have been considered a subset of the Vedanta school, it would have been considered a new school or even a new religion. I recall what my guru said to me when I challenged some of the teachings of Advaita, he told me if I wanted to raise a real challenge I would have to offer my own commentaries on the triple canon to build up my own school of Vedanta. Madhva would have been in the same position, because he studied Advaita and he disagreed with it, so he created his own school.

You seem to be arguing that because Madhavacharya's philosophy shared components with that of Islamic religions, it cannot be considered classical. I have two objections to this claim. 1) Many of these claims by Madhavacharya (surrender to God, superiority of Narayana) are found heavily in the works of Ramanujacharya (who is also a classical and Vaishnav teacher) but Sankaracharya also in the Gita Bhasya alludes to these principles. If you want, I am happy to present proof regarding this. 2) Just because a certain traits of Classical Hinduism may overlap with that of other religions, does not make them any less or more valid. In fact, I do not see any convincing comparison you have presented that equated Dvaita philosophy with that of the Abhrahamic religions.

No, I agree with you that the ideas of grace(prasad) and surrender to God(Ishvara pranidhana) are found in classical thought, but certainly not to the same exclusive extent as it is found in Madhva's later philosophy. In Advaita for example god's grace(such as in the Vivekachudamani it says three thing are hard to attain human birth, a true guru and god's grace) is a function of your sadhana which is jnana-abhyasa. The more effort you put in into your sadhana, which is also repeated by Patanjali when he says "The destination is not far for one of intense uninterrupted effort" the faster it will bear fruit and that is equivalent to winning God's grace. In Yoga shastra surrender to Ishvara is considered as a necessary humbling practice to minimise the ego identity. It is a means, rather than an end in itself, to the final goal of achieving self-realisation.

In contrast in Madhva's thought, the grace of God is not equally distributed to all souls, some souls are more deserving than others. It is this idea which is definitely found without support in classical Hindu thought. However, it is in found with support in the Islamic theology, for example there is a verse in the Quran which says that God/Allah created souls with different levels of intelligence, some which are chosen accept him, others he has deluded to not accept him.

Source? The majority consensus is that Sankaracharya was born somewhere around 600 AD. In his Brahma Sutra Bhasya, he talks about the city of Pataliputra, which did not exist in 500BCE. The following link is good at explaining this:

Year of Birth of Adi Shankaracharya – 509 BC, 44 BC, 788 AD ~ Hindu Blog

This is a separate debate, but I will gladly discuss this with you in another thread. In all the Shankarcharya Maths Shankara's date is recorded as 500BCE and not 788CE. To understand why there is a confusion of 1200-1300 years, you need to see the debate 'Indus valley civilisation' where I show that in order to shorten India's history as recorded in the itihas purana to bring in line with biblical history, all the dates of Indian dynasties and their respective kings were shortened. The 'sheet anchor' used for this was by identifying 'Sandrocrottus' that was a contemporary of Alexander with Chandragupta Mauraya, when in fact 'Sandrocrottus' matches the description of Chandragupta Gupta, who was 1200-1300 years after him. In this way all ancient dates have to be pushed back by 1200 years.

There is no point replying to this point here, this is a separate debate. Let us focus on the OP question here.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

The works of Madhavacharya, especially how he commented on the scripture is very typical of the classical philosophers not medieval ones. The medieval teachers tended to focus more on the Puranas, not the primary Upanishads, while Madhavacharya does.

Actually many of the medieval philosophers commented on older texts. The medieval world was very much a scholastic world, not just in India, but in Europe too. Madhva is very much consistent with that.

This is also a misunderstanding of Madhacharya's Tattva Vada. According to Dvaita ignorance is the cause of bondage, and it is only knowledge of ones true position that yields Moksha. According to Sankara that true position is awareness of the self as Brahman. According to Ramanujacharya and Madhavacharya that true positioon is understanding that I am a servant of Parambrahman Narayana. Even our school of Gaudiya, which follows on from Madhava understands that it is ignorance that is the cause of suffering. Therefore this objection does not work.

In Advaita Vedanta that ignorance is a perceptual ignorance, which is why in Vedanta we use many analogies of perceptual ignorance like seeing silver in the shell, an oasis in the mirage or blue in the sky. This ignorance only ends, when we can perceive the Self as Brahman. In Madhva's philosophy, the ignorance is an ignorance of belief, that those souls who have not surrendered to God and fully dedicated every bit of their being to God are ignorant. If we take anything else in the world as more important than God then we are ignorant. In Advaita we take the Self as the most important; in Dvaita you take Ishvara as the most important.

This website is incorrect. The Tamo yogyas (literally meaning the ignorant yogis, showing here that ignorance is the cause of suffering), are subject to non-eternal hell, not eternal. What it means, that those jivas in tamo or ignorance will forever live in hell and never reach mukti as long as they are in this state of tamo). It does not suggest eternal damnation. In his commentary to the Gita, Madhavacharya states that after reaping the fruits of ones Karma (either in heaven or hell) one returns to this world to perform Karma again. That is known as the cycle of rebirth. I suggest you read the commentary of both Sankaracharya and Ramanujacharya on GIta 16.19-20.

I can only take your reply as an apology. I have read in several sources that this is indeed what Madhva's theology teaches. What you are doing is playing words games to show that eternal damnation does not mean eternal damnation. I have shown you a source to show that Madhva's does indeed say that a certain class of souls are eternally condemned. Now, if you dispute this, you need to show me a source that says Madhva does not say this.

I think this is a strawmen. The Vaishnavs school hold that all jivas are fit for Moksha provided that they have a human birth in order to understand Brahman. In-fact of the three, Sankaracharya is more conservative, because he holds that in a male body one may get Moksha (see my Vivekchudamani verse I quoted). If you are going to apply this idea to Madhavacharya, why not Sankara?

This is not supported by the source I cited. It says that each soul has different intrinsic abilities to perform bhakti, which like I said is very similar to Islamic and in general Abrahamic concepts, that certain souls are just condemned from the beginning. God has created each soul different, the fortunate ones are those that have enough intrinsic ability to get liberation, the less fortunate are those that don't have enough intrinsic ability so will forever remain bound in the cycle of birth and rebirth and the least fortunate are those that are condemned.

It is far more complex then this, but both views can be resolved together. Sin or paapa, is that which occur in ignorance. But this ignorance results in bondage and as long as this ignorance remains, our bondage is eternal. When this ignorance is removed, the bondage is also gone. Let me give you an example. Lets say there is a rock. Now, if that rock is not moved or touched by anything or one, then that rock will remain in that stage eternally. In a similiar way, when the acharyas talk about eternal rebirth, they mean that as long as the Jiva remains in ignorance, she is eternally conditioned to be born and reborn. It does not mean that there is not way for the Jiva to escape this cycle (aka eternal damnation). The law Karma, which is accepted by all Vedantins (includin Madhavcharya) simply does not allow such a view. Therefore, trying to interpret Madhavacharya's statements as supporting eternal damnation (the abhrahamic concept) is incorrect.

I see what you are saying. Now try to see what I am saying. If ignorance is a reversible condition as it is in Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaiseshika, Jainism and Buddhism, then ignorance can be removed. If ignorance is intrinsic to a certain class of souls(tamo-yogyas) then it can never be removed. If there is intrinsic varying levels of ignorance then each soul can only rise to a certain extent to knowledge and not beyond. This is what makes Madhva so different to classical Hindu and Dharmic thought. In them, every soul has the capacity to rise to absolute level of enlightenment or pure and infinite knowledge. Not in Madhva's theology.

 

[निताइ dasa]

However, I don't think describing such and such author as vedic, classical, medieval and modern is a matter of subjective opinion, it is simply a matter of what time frame they fall in e.g. when we say Platonic and Neo-platonic, we mean that though Plotinus is working in the same philosophy of platonism, he is a later platonist that offers a new interpretation.

But who defines these time period? They are define in accordance with characteristics of that period. My argument is that Madhavacharya's philosophy and its characteristics fall into the Classical period because the dates surrounding the period itself is not very clearly define and from study of Madhavacharya style and works (and its similarity with Ramanujacharya's works).. Just like there a certain features of the Platonic period, there must be certain features in the Classical period. The boundaries of these states are very subjective and different scholars give different starting and end points.

This is not what makes Dvaita classical Vedanta. If today I also offer my own interpretation on the principal Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and Bhagvad Gita using my knowledge of philosophy, science and life today it would not be considered classical at all. All Madhva did was to follow the same tradition that Shankara established some six centuries before him of the Vedanta school. In order to challenge the Vedanta school Madhava had to work within the limits of the Vedanta school. If he didn't do that, the new school he was starting would not have been considered a subset of the Vedanta school, it would have been considered a new school or even a new religion.

Classical schools of Vedanta are distinguished by their commentaries on the primary Upanishads and Brahman Sutras. Obviously if you made a commentary today, it would not be classical because one, it falls widely out of the time frame and secondly there is not traditional backing of your claims. With Madhavacharya however, we can argue very well that he falls into the controversial time period, of late classical to early medieval (he came only only 200 years after Srila Ramanuja, who as classical). Therefore it is not a bad argument to make, that Madhavacharya can be considered a classical teacher as he falls very close to the other classical teachers and his focus on the Brahma Sutra and Upanishads is similiar to them).

In contrast in Madhva's thought, the grace of God is not equally distributed to all souls, some souls are more deserving than others. It is this idea which is definitely found without support in classical Hindu thought. However, it is in found with support in the Islamic theology, for example there is a verse in the Quran which says that God/Allah created souls with different levels of intelligence, some which are chosen accept him, others he has deluded to not accept him.

Again where are you getting this from? This is blatantly incorrect I'm afraid. In Dvaita God's Grace is attained through Bhakti Yoga and every soul is eligible to it. All the Jivatmas are qualified for God's grace because all the Jiva atmas are equal in tattva (according to Jiva Brahman bheda). There may be difference in the liberated stage yes, but there is no class of Jivas are eternally damned.

I'll try and summarize. According to Madhavacharya, the souls do have intrinsic difference in the liberated stage(this is called taratamya or svarupa bheda), but this does not mean that certain souls are damned eternally to hell or remain to be conditioned. Every soul is eligible for Moksha, but even in the Mukta stage there is eternal differences. Some souls may have a particular identity as the servant of God, while other souls may have another higher identity. But all these souls are liberated. Quoting directly from a reputable source:

"Tripartite classification of souls: Madhvas doctrine of the
Soul insists not only upon the distinctiveness of each soul but also upon
an intrinsic gradation among them based on varying degrees of knowledge,
power, and bliss. This is known as tarat amya ,
which comes out all the more clearly in the released state, where the
souls realize their true status. Jiva-traividhya or tripartite
classification of "unreleased souls" into (1) muktiyogya (salvable), (2)
nitya-samsarin ( ever-transmigrating) and (3) tamoyogya (damnable) are
the allied doctrines of svarupataratamya of souls. This theory of
Madhva, is intended to justify and reconcile the presence of evil with
divine perfection."


In the released or perfect stage, the classification is intrinsic, but in the unreleased state the classifications (of muktiyigya, nityasamsarin and tamoyogya) are actually due to the different levels of Satva, Raja and Tamo respectively . And because of this, the unreleased state is not intrinsic and can change with sadhana. Therefore there exists no such thing as eternal damnation while there is eternal differences between souls. In-fact no matter what class one is in the unreleased state, one can always move up or down. This is confirmed in the following commentaries by Madhava:

"They [conditioned souls] will have the opportunity to achieve moksa if by the mercy of a devotee they happen to propitiate the Supreme Lord Krishna or any of His incarnations and expansions. By this they will free themselves from the illusory energy and eventually attain the Supreme Lord. Thus it is clear and not necessary to elaborate that one who is worshipping the Supreme Lord in accordance with the Vedic scriptures will definitely attain Lord Krishna without a doubt."

"Only by being established and situated in sattva guna the mode of goodness is a jiva or embodied being redeemed which leads to atma tattva realisation of the immortal soul, moksa freedom from material existence and attaining communion with the Supreme Lord. Therefore to receive salvation one should eternally perform prescribed Vedic actions in sattva guna which always pleases the Supreme Lord Krishna."

[this implies that we can perform Sattvic actions which improve our position and eligibility]

"But yet the question will still persist of how can this maya be overcome? To answer this Lord Krishna replies with the words: mam eva ye prapadyante meaning only those who surrender unto Him. Those who renounce all else and take exclusive shelter of Him alone can surmount this maya. Those who humbly serve and devoutly worship the spiritual master in adoration, such worship surely reaches unto the Supreme Lord because they have realized that their holy preceptors greatness is due to the fact that the Supreme Lord has manifested within His heart."

"After the experience of many, many lifetimes one becomes aware of Lord Krishna's supreme position. The Brahma Purana states: Becoming aware after taking many, many births one resorts to the Supreme Lord. It is not that everyone who first approaches the Supreme Lord Krishna is aware of His paramount position as the Supreme controller. It is subsequently after many, many lives of approaching Him that one becomes aware of this."


From these commentaries, I think it is evident that Madhavacharya did not support a concept of eternal hell.

 

[निताइ dasa]

In Advaita Vedanta that ignorance is a perceptual ignorance, which is why in Vedanta we use many analogies of perceptual ignorance like seeing silver in the shell, an oasis in the mirage or blue in the sky. This ignorance only ends, when we can perceive the Self as Brahman. In Madhva's philosophy, the ignorance is an ignorance of belief, that those souls who have surrendered to God and fully dedicated every bit of their being to God are ignorant. If we take anything else in the world as more important than God then we are ignorant. In Advaita we take the Self as the most important; in Dvaita you take Ishvara as the most important.

I see very little difference fundamentally between the positions. If assume the Adwaita definition (that We are Brahman) then Moksha means to realize this and perceive one as Brahman. In Dvaita definition, we are Visnu dasa, or the servants of Narayana, and Moksha means to realize this and perceive one's self as Vishnu dasa. This can only be done in a spiritual body with spiritual upadhis. It is not simply a theoretical belief, because there exists something (according to Dvaita) as transcendental Bhakti which is different from the Sadhana that is Bhakti. This type of Bhakti is done after attaining a spiritual body in Vaikuntham. According to Madhavacharya, Mukti is only possible once we leave this body and enter into a spiritual one as Vishnu dasa. Again this is not simply a theoretical understanding, but it is a realization that comes from Bhakti Sadhana. When performing Bhakti, one should see the beautiful form of Lord Narayana in one's heart and see all His pastimes. It is not a belief, but rather a state that entails Mukti. There are five types of mukti (sāyujya, sālokya, sārupya, sāmipya and sārsti) which are the end result of Sadhana and must be perceived by it.

I can only take your reply an apology. I have read in several sources that this is indeed what Madhva's theology teaches. What you are doing is playing words games to show that eternal damnation does not mean eternal damnation. I have shown you a source to show that Madhva's does indeed say that a certain class of souls are eternally condemned. Now, if you dispute this, you need to show me a source that says Madhva does not say this.

This source is incorrect, I'm sorry. Please go read the original commentaries of Madhavacharya that I have linked in my previous post. He says that all souls from Brahma downwards are in eternal birth and death cycle, but then later he says that they can be liberated by Bhakti to Krsna. Now if these souls are eternally damned, then Madhavacharya would have no need to say the last part of that statement.

In-fact my interpretation is reinforced, if you read the commentary of Sankara and Ramanjacharya on Gita 16.19 who translate birth and death as forever (but this does not mean eternal damnation)


The commentaries are below:


Sankara:

"16.19 Because of their defect of unrighteousness, aham, I; ksipami, cast, hurl; ajasram, forever; all tan, those; who are dvisatah, hateful of Me; kruran, cruel; and asubhan, who are evil doers; samsaresu, in the worlds-who are on the paths leading to hell; who are the nara-adhaman, vilest of human beings, who are opposed to the right path, who are hostile to the pious people; eva, verily; asurisu, into the demoniacal; yonisu, classes-tigers, loins, etc., which are full of evil deeds. The verb cast is to be connected with 'into the classes'. 16.20 Being born among the demoniacal species in births after births, the foods, without ever reaching Me, O son of Kunti, attain conditions lower than that.
16.20 Apannah, being born, having acquired; (births) asurim, among the demoniacal; yonim, species; janmani janmani, in births after births; the mudhah, fools, non-discriminating ones; being born in every birth into species in which tamas prevails, and going downwards, aprapya eva, without ever reaching, approaching; mam, Me, who am God; O son of Kunti, yanti, they attain; gatim, conditions; tatah adhamam, lower even than that. Since there is not the least possibility of attaining Me, what is implied by saying, 'without ever reachin Me', is, 'by not attaining the virtuous path enjoined by Me.' This is being stated as a summary of all the demoniacal qualities. The triplet-under which are comprehended all the different demoniacal qualities though they are infinite in number, (and) by the avoidance of which (three) they (all the demaniacal qualities) become rejected,


See how Sankara here is talking about classes, and how those in the demonic class will never reach Krsna. This does not mean eternal damnation, but rather it is a property of those in demonic conceptions.

Ramanujacharya:

"The meaning is that Krishna will confirm their malevolent disposition so that they would be impelled to do things which lead to prolonging the cycle of reincarnation.They are born in conditions that are not conducive to obtaining Krishna and remain deluded — that is, remaining ignorant or misinformed about Him. They never 'attain Me,' — that is, realise that Krishna, the Lord and the ruler of all, truly exists. They sink farther and farther down, from that birth, to the lowest level."


Do you see how both acharyas use the concept of never attaining, Krsna ? They even use the word forever. If you are going to accuse Madhavacharya of advocating for an eternal cycle where some souls can't reach God, then you must apply that same standard to Ramanujacharya and Sankara. However my interpretation is able to resolve this issue easily (eternal hell, or rebirth does not mean damnation, but are rather categories that the Jiva can move through).

This is not supported by the source I cited. It says that each soul has different intrinsic abilities to perform bhakti, which like I said is very similar to Islamic and in general Abrahamic concepts, that certain souls are just condemned from the beginning. God has created each soul different, the fortunate ones are those that have enough intrinsic ability to get liberation, the less fortunate are those that don't have enough intrinsic ability so will forever remain bound in the cycle of birth and rebirth.

Again, that source is incorrect. See the commentary of Madhavacharya on the I posted before. There no such thing as intrinsic ability to get liberation or to perform Bhakti. Bhakti can be performed by all souls. In-fact Madhavacharya clearly states that in this commentary to Gita 9.30

"The unrighteous and wicked who are of vile and evil nature can practically never be devotees of the Supreme Lord Krishna. But if some how by chance they receive the mercy of His devotees then by that potency they sometimes can have a change of heart and begin to regard the Supreme Lord in a reverential mood propitiating Him exclusively. This causes them to accumulate much merit and as they develop and advance with this state of consciousness they can be considered to be transformed into the noble and saintly for being rightly resolved."

This again supports my interpretation that Madhavacharya is not talking about individual souls, but rather classes and the souls are able to move through these classes by the mercy of God and His devotees.

. If ignorance is intrinsic to a certain class of souls(tamo-yogyas) then it can never be removed. If there is intrinsic varying levels of ignorance then each soul can only rise to a certain extent to knowledge and not beyond. This is what makes Madhva so different to classical Hindu and Dharmic thought. In them, every soul has the capacity to rise to absolute level of enlightenment or pure and infinite knowledge. Not in Madhva's theology.

Sure, but like I said, in Madhavacharya's philosophy ignorance is not intrinsic. The intrinsic nature of the souls is to be knowing. Those three categories are classes not intrinsic properties. A anandi baddha (or eternally conditioned soul) can through sadhana and become a siddha soul. In a similiar way, a soul in tamo-yogyas by gaining knowledge and through sadhana can become a siddha soul.

I believe I have presented sufficient evidence, from Madhavacharya directly to show how these categories are not intrinsic properties but rather classes. I highly doubt the authenticity of your source, and would recommend reading Madhava's commentaries directly (at least the ones I have linked).

I mean even in retrospect, it hard to interpret it in any other way. If there were truly some jivas who are eternally conditioned (either in hell or birth and death) and some who were permanently liberated, then what would be the need for sadhana, or scripture or any process to get Mukti. If the souls can't attain a higher position then that in which they were created then why would Madhavacharya write these commentaries and steps for his disciples? It makes no sense in the greater context.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I will reply to you later. I just want to say this, Madhva's categories of 5 differences 1)Between matter and matter 2)soul and soul 3) soul and matter 4) God and matter 5) Soul and God are ontological and not just merely just classes. Thus from his philosophy of difference it follow that he would have a hierarchical understanding of the difference between various types of souls. The fact that you already admit that each soul can only rise to a certain position already betrays that Madhva's system is not egalitarian. This is in contrast to classical Hindu and Dharmic philosophy, in Buddhism everybody can rise to the level of Buddha; in Jainism everybody can rise to the level of a Tirthkara; in Samkhya-Yoga everybody can rise to the level of pure consciousness; in Advaita everybody can realise Brahman as their true self; in Viseshadvaita everybody can realise that they share and participate in God. It is only in Dvaita there is a concept of an ontological hierarchy.

Although you keep denying that Madhva does not allow for eternal damnation, despite the fact I have read several sources that show that Madhva does indeed admit an ontological category of souls that are condemned to remain in hell forever. It actually follows from his philosophy of difference, if there is a hierarchy of souls, then that implies somebody who is at the top and somebody who is at the bottom.

 

[निताइ dasa]

I look forward to your answer, I just want to comment that we are not discussing Panca Bheda here. (which you brought up as an ontological subject). We are discussing here svarupataratamya . (degrees of differences within souls) and whether they permit an eternal hell. I have shown at svarupataratamya are classes and trying to interpret it in any other way contradicts Madhavacharya's commentary. This is because Madhava himself admits that everyone is eligible to worship God and by His mercy get Moksha. You are claiming that the categorization of tamoyogyas is eternal and those jivas that are tamoyogya will remain eternally (with no hope of moksha). But I am saying (citing Madhavacharya's commentary itself) that it is not the case, and the case of permanent hierarchy differences in Dvaita occur only in the perfected stage. It doesn't apply to conditioned souls who are in samsara. The traividhi classification is not permanent nor instrinsic. Tamoyogya jivas remain in hell due to their own tendencies not because God orders and forces them there. Otherwise this would violate His characteristic of being samadrta (seeing all the souls with equal eye). Dvaita is unique I agree in that there is variety in identity of Jivas even after Moksha, (like according to Madhava, Balarama, Laksmi experience greater bliss etc then you and I ever can) but that doesn't become a problem, nor is it an Abrahamic concept. We have a similiar concept in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. There are classes of devotees in the spiritual world, but each devotee is fully satisfied in their identity and service to God, so it does not become a problem. But in the conditioned state, no jiva is condemned over the other, because God is fair.

I believe I have given sufficient proof on this matter, so I ask you to present some primary evidence (from the words of Madhava himself etc) to support your claim.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Hari Om Dasa,

Normally I would think it is proper form to respond to each point separately in your posts, but I think it is better just focusing on just one point for now so we can have a more focused debate. You keep denying that there is no eternal damnation in Madhva's Dvaita philosophy, though I have already produced one source(the new encyclopedia) that says there is. You said the source was was wrong, so I am showing you another source, an actual official web site dedicated to Dvaita, which references a work by a recognised Dvaita authority H.H. Srî Vidyâmânya Tîrtha

V. The fifth prameya is:

nIchochcha bhAvaN^gatAH (The jîva-s are)
headed for higher and
lower states.
If the jîva-s are not inherently identical, one might wonder, do they yet reach the same ultimate state? If they do, then again one might accuse Vishnu of arbitrarily assigning all jîva-s to some fixed state, not recognizing the higher worth of some of them. But, as a matter of fact, it cannot be accepted that Vishnu is shown as flawed:

dhyeyo nArAyaNaM nityaM sR^ishhTisthitya.ntakArakaH |
bhaktAnAM muktido nityamadhamaj~nAninAM tamaH ||
Worthy of contemplation is that NârâyaNa (Vishnu) who is Eternally the Cause of Creation, Sustenance, and Destruction; who is the Giver of mukti (liberation) to [His] devotees, and of eternal damnation to the evil.
But what is the scriptural basis for this assertion? After all, isn't it true that nearly every other doctrine denies the existence of eternal damnation?

In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says:

UrdhvaM gachchhanti sattvasthA madhye tishhThanti rAjasAH |
jaghanya guNa-vR^ittisthA adho gachchhanti tAmasAH ||
Upwards (to liberation) go those situated in sattva; the rAjasa-s stay in the middle; those situated in abominable qualities and deeds, the tâmasa-s, go to the lowest state.
But can it not be argued that the `sattvasthA' refers to qualities born out of attachment to other entities, rather than to innate qualities, thus showing that eternality of the states described is not indicated? Not so. In a previous chapter of the 'Gita itself, it is said:

traiguNya vishhayA vedA nistraiguNyo bhavArjuna |
nirdvandvo nityasattvastho niryogaxema AtmavAn.h ||
The Veda-s deal with the three qualities -- [knowing them], be without the three qualities, O Arjuna; be free of the pairs-of-opposites (love/hate, friendship/enmity, etc.), continuously situated in sattva, without concern for accrual or maintenance [of material entities], and given to contemplation of the Lord.
Now, the three guNa-s, or qualities, are sattva, loosely translated as "goodness," rajas, translated similarly as "indifference," and tamas, also so translated as "evil." Now, Krishna is telling Arjuna to stay apart from the three guNa-s, and yet be always situated in sattva; does this make any sense?

It does, if one considers that guNa-s can be either acquired, or of one's own innate nature. Krishna is telling Arjuna to slough off all his acquired guNa-s, and be situated in the sattva that is his own nature (it cannot be the other way!).

But why can it not be argued that there are no qualities of one's own nature, at all, but all qualities are merely acquired by association?

For several reasons; some of them are:

1. 
   
   
   • While there are instances of qualities being acquired, there is never an instance of the property of having qualities, itself being acquired.
     
   • An entity that has no quality similar (even in being opposite) to the one being acquired, cannot even form the association necessary to effect the acquisition.
     
   • Considering that the qualities of good, indifference, and evil cannot be said to reside in the Lord or in inanimate nature, the question arises as to where they are being acquired from.

Also, observe that the exact word `sattvasthA' used in "traiguNya vishhayA vedA" to denote the quality of one's own nature, is also used in "UrdhvaM gachchanti sattvasthA," thus showing that it is the inherent, rather than the overlaid, quality that is being referred to. In any event, it is also seen that Krishna uses `rAjasAH' ("the indifferent") and `tAmasAH' ("the evil") as if they were inherent to the jîva-s described; there is no indication in His words that the qualities indicated are acquired ones.

Further support for the position is found in the sixteenth chapter:

tAnahaM dvishhataH krUrAn.h saMsAreshhu narAdhamAn.h |
xipAmi ajasraM ashubhAn.h AsurIshhveva yonishhu || 19 ||

AsurIM yonimApannA mUDhA janmani-janmani |
mAmaprApyaiva kaunteya tato yAntyadhamAM gatim.h || 20 ||
Those who are hateful towards me, are cruel and the worst humans in the world; them I forever hurl only into demonaic species.
Having reached evil species in birth after birth, the fools; completely failing to reach me, only, they then go to the lowest state.

Notice the use of `eva' (meaning, "only," or "certainly") in the second line of the 20th verse; it is clearly stated that there are some who never reach mukti.

The IshAvAsya Upanishad says:

a.ndhantamaH pravishanti ye.avidyAmupAsate |
Unto a blinding darkness (eternal hell) enter those who worship falsely.

The Nine Tenets of Vedanta

Are you going to say this source is wrong too?​

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Forgive me to to clarify your own philosophy, you clearly have studied this philosophy more than i have, however I do think you have missed a very basic point of this philosophy. It is called "tattva vada" because it is a realist epistemology, it claims all differences are real, and not just perceived. Hence, if one soul is evil and another is good, it is not the case that their goodness and evilness are a result of some misperception, they are real differences. Some souls are just evil and some souls are just good. In contrast, Advaita does not have a realist epistemology, rather it says all differences are due misapprehension by mistaking the conditioning of the soul for the soul itself, sans the conditioning, every soul is the same pure satchitananda.

The commentaries you have furnished above either are cherry picking or Madhva's is contradicting his own philosophy. He did often struggle to justify his interpretations, because they were completely divergent from what the original scripture was saying.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

This is also a misunderstanding.

What madhavacharya is talking about, when he talks these classes, is that he is talking about three categories. This categories themselves are not fixed or eternal, but rather a Jiva can move through them, as they again Jnana. For example, there is a class of jivas who are eternally present in Vaikuntha with Narayana (they are called Siddhas and they will, in their current state exist eternally with Narayana). There is another class of jivas who are in eternal rebirth (which means that if left in their state, they will continue to undergo the cycle of birth and rebirth). and there is another class in tamo guna who are in hell (eternally if left in that stage). However a Jiva can elevate themselves up into the position of Siddha through Sadhana (assuming one has human birth). Otherwise, it would be impossible for us (in this world who are in rebirth) to attain Moksha and therefore Madhavacharya would have no need to put forth any philosophy regarding this.

Apparently not, a jiva destined to be a Siddha can only become a Siddha, but a jiva destined to be a Tamo yogya can only ever become a Tamo yogya. I will quote you another source:

Madhva's belief in the innate difference of one soul from another led to some interesting doctrines in his system. He believed in a hierarchy of jivas, based upon their innate configurations of virtues (gunas) and faults (dosas). For example, Visnu is supreme because He possesses all qualities in their most fulfilled and perfect form. Furthermore, because Madhva believed that souls possess innate characteristics and capacities, he also maintained that they were predestined to achieve certain ends. This perspective put Madhva at odds with traditional Hindu views of the karma theory wherein differences in social and religious status are explained via past moral or immoral acts. For Madhva, each individual being possesses an innate moral propensity and karma is merely the mechanism by which a given soul is propelled towards his or her destiny.​

Madhva | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

​

I have now presented you three sources in agreement New Encyclopedia, Dvaita and Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy. I think you should concede now.

I shall present proof, from the commentary of Madhavacharya himself (on Gita 8.16)

"Starting with Brahma the designer and architect of creation who resides on the crest of Mt. Meru in Brahmaloka which is the highest material planet all living entities are subjected to samsara or the perpetual cycle of birth and death. Therefore it is stated in the Narayana Kalpa that: In all cases concerning the material worlds from the highest Brahmaloka down through the heavenly planets to the worlds of humans there is no possibility of attaining the Supreme Lord without moksa or liberation.

Now begins the summation.

Liberation from samsara and attaining the Supreme Lord Krishna is only possible through bhakti or exclusive loving devotion to Him exclusively. Those whose goal is to enjoy in the heavenly planets which is free from disease, decrepitude and old age will reach those worlds and enjoy; but they will take birth in a womb again for attainment of the Supreme Lord was not their goal; but the devotees of Lord Krishna whose only goal is Him attain moksa."

All you have presented here is that all jivas go through samsara and it is only through bhakti to Vishnu they can be liberated. However, this does not refute the point that each jiva is destined for a different destination. Even in this quote we can interpret that it saying different jivas have different goals when it says "Those whose goal" A point you are not understanding this philosophy teaches that the goals we aspire to are due to innate disposition. A jiva that seeks money, has an innate disposition for money; a jiva that seeks God has an innate disposition for God.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

These two verses from the Upanishads prove the different between the jivaatma (us) and Ishwara. They both reside in the body but they are not the same. There are various other verses in Upanishads that support this.

Thank for this, because here you show the classic, I am sorry to say tricks that Dvaitists use to interpret the Upanishads as teaching a doctrine of difference between Brahman and Atman. You just looked at two lines, but did not look at them in context of the entire discussion. If you do, it becomes impossible to maintain a doctrine of difference without being intellectually dishonest.

Two birds, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree. One of them eats the sweet fruit, the other looks on without eating 1.

2. On the same tree man sits grieving, immersed, bewildered by his own impotence (an-îsâ). But when he sees the other lord (îsâ) contented and knows his glory, then his grief passes away 2.

3. When the seer sees the brilliant maker and lord (of the world) as the Person who has his source in Brahman, then he is wise, and shaking off good and evil, he reaches the highest oneness, free from passions;

4. For he is the Breath shining forth in all beings, and he who understands this becomes truly wise, not a talker only. He revels in the Self, he delights in the Self, and having performed his works (truthfulness, penance, meditation, &c.) he rests, firmly established in Brahman, the best of those who know Brahman 3.

When a man's nature has become purified by the serene light of knowledge, then he sees him, meditating on him as without parts.

9. That subtle Self is to be known by thought (ketas) there where breath has entered fivefold, for every thought of men is interwoven with the senses, and when thought is purified, then the Self arises.

10. Whatever state a man, whose nature is purified imagines, and whatever desires he desires (for himself or for others) 2, that state he conquers an those desires he obtains. Therefore let every man who desires happiness worship the man who knows the Self
​

The Upanishads use the word "Brahman" and "Atman" interchangeably, hence implying there is no difference between Brahman and Atman. The above verse is classically translated to refer to the duality of the Self that we experience in every experience we have. There is an unchanging witness consciousness(sakshi) and there is a constantly changing 'I' or ego consciousness. The witness consciousness watches the dramas of the ego, which really is the vrittis or thought patterns that constitute the ego, the false self. This is why the Upanishads refers to this witnessing consciousness which is the source of our "personhood" as the true Self.

We do not have to go into extensive metaphysics or religious discussion. You can experience the duality of these two selves in every experience you have e.g. When you get angry and do something really silly, there is a part of you that watches your anger and what you did, and you become aware that you are angry and you did something silly, which allows you to reflect. This is similar to Satre's being-in-it-self and being for-it-self

Being-in-itself and being-for-itself have mutually exclusive characteristics and yet we (human reality) are entities that combine both, which is the ontological root of our ambiguity. The in-itself is solid, self-identical, passive and inert. It simply “is.” The for-itself is fluid, nonself-identical, and dynamic. It is the internal negation or “nihilation” of the in-itself, on which it depends. Viewed more concretely, this duality is cast as “facticity” and “transcendence.” The “givens” of our situation such as our language, our environment, our previous choices and our very selves in their function as in-itself constitute our facticity. As conscious individuals, we transcend (surpass) this facticity in what constitutes our “situation.” In other words, we are always beings “in situation,” but the precise mixture of transcendence and facticity that forms any situation remains indeterminable, at least while we are engaged in it. Hence Sartre concludes that we are always “more” than our situation and that this is the ontological foundation of our freedom. We are “condemned” to be free, in his hyperbolic phrase.​

Jean-Paul Sartre (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
​

This is a rather convoluted way of saying the same thing Shankara does in less words: I am not what I am aware of. I am aware of my body, I am not my body; I am aware of my thoughts, I am not my thoughts; I am aware of my ego, I am not my ego.

​

 

[निताइ dasa]

Hari Om Dasa,

Are you going to say this source is wrong too?​

Unfortunately yes. The conclusion of an eternal hell does not follow. There are differences of opinion regarding Madhava's works even within his school. The site which you have received this information from (dvaita.org) is notorious for having views that are not typical or in line with that of Madhava. As a result, this math in particular has been criticized by other traditional Dvaitins constantly. Personalities such as Sri Laksmivara Tirtha Swami and Subhramanya Swami have written letters regarding the content on that site and how it does not wholly represent Madhavacharya's Dwaita.

For example, these guys claim that Madhavacharya's Tattvavada is the only way to attain Moksha, while the older more traditional followers who I've read admit that any form of authorized Bhakti to Lord Narayana grants Moksha. For example, I will quote from a speech that HH Pejavara Swami gave when his Sampradaya (Dvaita) and our Sampradaya (Gaudiya) met:

"Devotion is not meant for only a limited number of people or a certain class of people. Bhakti is meant for anyone and everyone. According to Srimad Bhagavatam, the lower classes of people have been considered to be kirata-hunandhra-pulinda-pulkasabhira-sumbha-yavana-khasadayah. These different types of people, human beings, who are considered to be the lower classes. But in the Srimad Bhagavatam, it has been pointed out that these classes of people are also eligible for devotion. Irrespective of one's background, when one accepts devotional service and becomes a devotee of Sri Krsna, he becomes the best of humans. He becomes the highest class person, the best of all."


I have studied the dasa prameyas of Dvaita (the 10 principles that form the core of Madhava's philsoophy) and read Madhavacharya's original words regarding this, and there is no evidence to support the idea and in the conditioned state, the jivas are restricted to stay in either respective classifications. In fact, as per the commentaries Madhavacharya says multiple times that in the conditioned state, anyone may worship Lord Hari and be gradually elevated to the position of Moksha. Heck eternal hell doesn't really work in any Vedantic philosophy (esp the Vaishnav ones) because heaven and hell are both temporary manifestations. At the end of the day of Brahma, the whole creation including heaven and hell dissolve in mahat tattva and then into the body of Maha Vishnu. Where is there a question of eternal hell here?

I will go briefly through the points and show you why this is incorrect.

UrdhvaM gachchhanti sattvasthA madhye tishhThanti rAjasAH |
jaghanya guNa-vR^ittisthA adho gachchhanti tAmasAH ||
Upwards (to liberation) go those situated in sattva; the rAjasa-s stay in the middle; those situated in abominable qualities and deeds, the tâmasa-s, go to the lowest state.
But can it not be argued that the `sattvasthA' refers to qualities born out of attachment to other entities, rather than to innate qualities, thus showing that eternality of the states described is not indicated? Not so. In a previous chapter of the 'Gita itself, it is said:

traiguNya vishhayA vedA nistraiguNyo bhavArjuna |
nirdvandvo nityasattvastho niryogaxema AtmavAn.h ||
The Veda-s deal with the three qualities -- [knowing them], be without the three qualities, O Arjuna; be free of the pairs-of-opposites (love/hate, friendship/enmity, etc.), continuously situated in sattva, without concern for accrual or maintenance [of material entities], and given to contemplation of the Lord.
Now, the three guNa-s, or qualities, are sattva, loosely translated as "goodness," rajas, translated similarly as "indifference," and tamas, also so translated as "evil." Now, Krishna is telling Arjuna to stay apart from the three guNa-s, and yet be always situated in sattva; does this make any sense?

It does, if one considers that guNa-s can be either acquired, or of one's own innate nature. Krishna is telling Arjuna to slough off all his acquired guNa-s, and be situated in the sattva that is his own nature (it cannot be the other way!).

But why can it not be argued that there are no qualities of one's own nature, at all, but all qualities are merely acquired by association?

This is true, according to the guna qualities we are impelled towards certain destinations. But this qualities are not innate. We can become free of them The analysis of the second verse quoted here, is not the interpretation of Madhavacharya, but rather their own. Please read Madhvacharya's own commentary on that verse, and you will see that the 3 modes of nature can be overcome with those who have spiritual knowledge:

"Amelioration of the effect of the three-fold modes is the subject matter of the three-fold Vedas. Taking protection under Vedas, the wise becomes freed from the effect of threefold modes and taking refuge in Sri Vasudeva. Because of his luminous attributes Sri Vishnu is known as Truth and also continuously remembering him as the perennial comprehensive presence and as the Supreme Being is one‟s master"

Very clearly it is said here that one may be free themselves from the effects of these three gunas. If the Jivas innately within their swarupa had these properties, then it would not be possible to free oneself from them. But this is clearly not the case, therefore the idea that the guna qualities are innate is incorrect. Madhavacharya states this again, in his commentary to another verse of the Gita verse 14.18:

"But yet the question will still persist of how can this maya [consisting of the three modes] be overcome? To answer this Lord Krishna replies with the words: mam eva ye prapadyante meaning only those who surrender unto Him. Those who renounce all else and take exclusive shelter of Him alone can surmount this maya. Those who humbly serve and devoutly worship the spiritual master in adoration, such worship surely reaches unto the Supreme Lord because they have realised that their holy preceptors greatness is due to the fact that the Supreme Lord has manifested within His heart. The Narada Purana states: The madhya or intermediate humans duly propitiate the holy preceptor due to the Supreme Lord manifesting within him. The uttama or topmost human beings propitiate all beings as they recognise the Supreme Lord in all beings. In the Bhagavat Purana it states: That the Supreme Lord through the form of consciousness which pervades the mind of the spiritual master teaches the humble aspirant true wisdom about Himself."

 

[निताइ dasa]

tAnahaM dvishhataH krUrAn.h saMsAreshhu narAdhamAn.h |
xipAmi ajasraM ashubhAn.h AsurIshhveva yonishhu || 19 ||

AsurIM yonimApannA mUDhA janmani-janmani |
mAmaprApyaiva kaunteya tato yAntyadhamAM gatim.h || 20 ||
Those who are hateful towards me, are cruel and the worst humans in the world; them I forever hurl only into demonaic species.
Having reached evil species in birth after birth, the fools; completely failing to reach me, only, they then go to the lowest state.

Notice the use of `eva' (meaning, "only," or "certainly") in the second line of the 20th verse; it is clearly stated that there are some who never reach mukti.

Even this interpretation is a liberty not in line with Madhava. Read the commentary of Sankara and Ramunajcharya on this verse, and you will see why the conclusion that is reached does not make sense.

Forgive me to to clarify your own philosophy, you clearly have studied this philosophy more than i have, however I do think you have missed a very basic point of this philosophy. It is called "tattva vada" because it is a realist epistemology, it claims all differences are real, and not just perceived. Hence, if one soul is evil and another is good, it is not the case that their goodness and evilness are a result of some misperception, they are real differences. Some souls are just evil and some souls are just good. In contrast, Advaita does not have a realist epistemology, rather it says all differences are due misapprehension by mistaking the conditioning of the soul for the soul itself, sans the conditioning, every soul is the same pure satchitananda.

This realistic epistemology can only occur in the liberated stage. This is because the traividhi classification is the function of maya which is temporary and only a covering. The three gunas form from the interaction of the jivatma with its subtle body (and the resulting upadhis). However just as the subtle body is not an innate property of the Jivas, so are not these Guna. When moksha occurs the subtle body dissolves and spiritual one forms which is situation in Suddha Sattva. The differences between Jivas are certainly real (there are certain Jivas in tamo, raja or sattva) but this difference are neither eternal nor intrinsic to the jiva. Souls are not evil or good in dwaita, but rather it is the covering which is good and evil.

Madhva's belief in the innate difference of one soul from another led to some interesting doctrines in his system. He believed in a hierarchy of jivas, based upon their innate configurations of virtues (gunas) and faults (dosas). For example, Visnu is supreme because He possesses all qualities in their most fulfilled and perfect form. Furthermore, because Madhva believed that souls possess innate characteristics and capacities, he also maintained that they were predestined to achieve certain ends. This perspective put Madhva at odds with traditional Hindu views of the karma theory wherein differences in social and religious status are explained via past moral or immoral acts. For Madhva, each individual being possesses an innate moral propensity and karma is merely the mechanism by which a given soul is propelled towards his or her destiny.

Your conclusion does not follow. Okay I shall put is in the simplest way possible. Madhavacharya has a principle called taratamya in which souls in their original liberated state are in a system of heirachy. Vishnu is the highest, then next is Lakshmi, then Vayu and so on. This is correct. In Gaudiya Vaishnavism we call this the concept of Siddha Deha,(i.e there are differences in our liberated stage). The concept of trayividhi (as tamoyogya, etc) is a different principle all together. These refer to the graduation of souls in the conditioned or baddha state. However, such as conditioning being an effect of Maya is temporary, so are these classification. I mean, the commentaries I have show very very clearly state that. I mean in one of the quoted commentaries, Madhava states that one needs to strive to be "established" in Sattva so that one can pursue liberation.

The commentaries you have furnished above either are cherry picking or Madhva's is contradicting his own philosophy. He did often struggle to justify his interpretations, because they were completely divergent from what the original scripture was saying.

This is a red herring. Please show a commentary directly of Madhava that supports your poiint. At least I'm aiming to go to the primary literature here and support my points.

I have now presented you three sources in agreement New Encyclopedia, Dvaita and Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy. I think you should concede now.

Interesting thing is, that none of these sources quote Madhava directly. I even tried to follow the references back, and I could not find any quote by Madhavacharya himself. This is a problem that I have with so called academic sources that tend to discuss these subject. They discuss from a very superficial way, I believe.

All you have presented here is that all jivas go through samsara and it is only through bhakti to Vishnu they can be liberated. However, this does not refute the point that each jiva is destined for a different destination. Even in this quote we can interpret that it saying different jivas have different goals when it says "Those whose goal" A point you are not understanding this philosophy teaches that the goals we aspire to are due to innate disposition. A jiva that seeks money, has an innate disposition for money; a jiva that seeks God has an innate disposition for God.

This is quite a resistant reading of the bhasya. Like I have shown before if every jiva and perform Bhakti to Krsna and be liberated, then even tamoyogya jivas fall into that category.

Thank for this, because here you show the classic, I am sorry to say tricks that Dvaitists use to interpret the Upanishads as teaching a doctrine of difference between Brahman and Atman. You just looked at two lines, but did not look at them in context of the entire discussion. If you do, it becomes impossible to maintain a doctrine of difference without being intellectually dishonest.

Okay lets just quickly go through the sanskrit here. If you want I can bring up Madhava's commentary on these verses, but I should be able to argue another away.

4. For he is the Breath shining forth in all beings, and he who understands this becomes truly wise, not a talker only. He revels in the Self, he delights in the Self, and having performed his works (truthfulness, penance, meditation, &c.) he rests, firmly established in Brahman, the best of those who know Brahman 3.

When a man's nature has become purified by the serene light of knowledge, then he sees him, meditating on him as without parts.

9. That subtle Self is to be known by thought (ketas) there where breath has entered fivefold, for every thought of men is interwoven with the senses, and when thought is purified, then the Self arises.

10. Whatever state a man, whose nature is purified imagines, and whatever desires he desires (for himself or for others) 2, that state he conquers an those desires he obtains. Therefore let every man who desires happiness worship the man who knows the Self

Yes, but this doesn't disprove my point. Like I have mentioned before in my explanation. Atman, can mean two entities, the Jivatama (us the souls) and paramatma (or Brahman). This is certainly how Madhavacharya interprets this. There is no difference between Brahman and Paramanatma, but there is certainly a difference between Jivatma and Paramatma. Reading it like this, the verses make sense.

The first 3 verses describe that Jivatma (the bird eating the fruit) and Paramatma (the bird watching) are different entities. Then the next 4 verses describe that when he (the Jivatma, i.e the subject) realizes the Self (Paramatma who dwells within all of us) and takes delight the worship of that Brahman (because Paramatma and Brahman are the same) becomes liberated. In verse 9, the process of realizing that Paramatma (Atman) is given the process of controlling and purifying one's thoughts.

If you are going to argue that jivatma and paramatma are the same, then the first 3 verses become meaningless. I also presented another argument my previous response of why we (the Jivatma) cannot be Paramatma (who is all pervasive and all knowing).

There is an unchanging witness consciousness(sakshi) and there is an 'I' or ego consciousness. The witness consciousness watches the dramas of the ego, which really is the vrittis or thought patterns that constitute the ego, the false self. This is why the Upanishads refers to this witnessing consciousness which is the source of our "personhood" as the true Self.

Yes that is the Adwaita intepretation. As you realize the Vaishnav schools differ.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Forgive me to to clarify your own philosophy, you clearly have studied this philosophy more than i have, however I do think you have missed a very basic point of this philosophy. It is called "tattva vada" because it is a realist epistemology, it claims all differences are real, and not just perceived. H

'

It seems like this debate is sort of hinging of unproductiveness so I will leave a few final comments. It is pretty evidence that you lean towards the Adwaita side of interpreting Vedanta, but you have to understand that there is a whole school of thought (headed by Ramanujacharya and Madhavacharya) who do not accept the claims of Adwaita. In both of the lives of this great teachers, they have written various challenges and refutations to the Adwaita and have written huge commentaries of scripture to support their understanding. In Hinduism, especially in academics, people seem to label Adwaita as the golden standard and hence label any philosophy which does not subscribe to it as being either wrong, or twisting of scripture and that Adwaita is the only way to read the Upanishads. As someone who has studied these philosophy, frankly I find this attitude quite condescending (I'm not accusing you, but this is the general feeling I get from some Adwaitins I know). Adwaita has always had a very scholarly basis, because its sannayasis thought that the sole object goal of a sannayasi was to read and study scripture. The Vaishnavs on the other hand were more content to chill and worship Lord Visnu and only really wrote huge scriptural works when they were challenged. My point is, I feel like you have a very very rudimentary understanding of the Vaishnav philosophies (and I do not mean this in an offensive way, so I apologize if it come out like this). The whole western academia that exists towards Hinduism is heavily biased towards Adwaita. Most of the translations of Upanishads are usually Adwaitic in nature. In the universities in India, usually Adwaita is offered as a major while other schools are not. As a Vaishnav it is a sad thing, but I have made an attempt to explain some of these aspects and hopefully you did learn a few things.

You certainly have a very good knowledge of the principles of Adwaita and the other Darshanas (forgive me if my knowledge of the other darshana was lacking as I have not studying them like I have studied Vedanta). But Hinduism is really an umbrella of religions. There is not such thing as traditional Hindu thought because Hinduism itself consists of usually contradicting schools. I mean there are a few concepts that all Hindu will generally agree one (Karma perhaps?), but even that is very small if you actually look at it.