Madhva

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

 Martin Gansten <Martin.Gansten at TEOL.LU.SE> wrote:

> I don't know if this is the source you have in mind, but the
question of
> Brahman's/Isvara's cruelty and partiality is raised in Brahmasutra
> 2.1.34-35, and the charge refuted precisely on the grounds of the
> beginninglessness of karman. In other words, there is no 'original
act'. (I
> do not have Madhva's bhashya at hand, but at least Ramanuja and
Baladeva
> both agree on this point.)

But RamanujAchArya accepts that it is possible for the souls to get
out of transmigration by the proper means, i.e., the grace of
Narayana, the supreme God. I am aware that there are some doctrinal
differences regarding this grace between the vaDakaLai and tenkaLai
schools, but both admit that no soul is apriori forbidden from
achieving salvation. Only some may take more time than others.

 I think the original remark was made about Madhvas doctrine (unique
in the Vedantic schools) that some souls cannot achieve salvation
period, whatever they do. Neo-Vedantins who are admirers of Madhva,
like S.S.Raghavachar, quietly ignore this fact because it gives a
"notion of cruelty" (as RZ put it), at the expense of philosophical
correctness. See for example his monograph on dvaita published by the
University of Madras. Bannanje Govindacharya also quietly glosses over
this fact in his monograph published by the Poorna Prajna Vidyapeetha.
I think it is worthy enough of mention as an important feature of
Madhvas eschatology, even in a brief monograph. I don't know if
Baladeva accepts this view point of Madhva.

Rama