First we shall mention some prominent arguments put forward by Śrī Sundarānanda Vidyāvinoda.
Objection 1: “According to Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta and Śrī Caitanya-candrodaya-nāṭaka, Śrī Caitanyadeva accepted sannyāsa from a kevalādvaita-vāda sannyāsī, Śrī Keśava Bhāratī, and He referred to Himself as a māyāvāda sannyāsī. In addition to this, Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī, who was the guru of the māyāvāda sannyāsīs of Kāśī, also described Him as a sannyāsī from a māyāvādī sampradāya (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 7.66–67):
keśava-bhāratīra śiṣya, tāte tumi dhanya sāmpradāyika sannyāsī tumi, raha ei grāme
You are greatly fortunate to be a disciple of Śrī Keśava Bhāratī, You are a sannyāsī of our māyāvāda sampradāya, and You also reside in this village.
“Sarvabhauma Bhattācārya has also accepted this: ‘bhāratī-sampradāya ei—hayena madhyama – He is within the Bhāratī sampradāya and therefore a second-class sannyāsī’ (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā 6.72).”
Refutation: This argument of the opposing party is totally unfounded. After a jīva has realized that material existence in the chain of birth and death is useless and distressful, he can recognize that the attainment of service to the lotus feet of Bhagavān is the supreme auspiciousness. Therefore, one who is extremely fortunate accepts both initiation (dīkṣā) and instructions (śikṣā) from a person who is thoroughly versed in the Vedic scriptures (śabda-brahma), who is adorned with realization of Bhagavān and who is detached from sense gratification. That jīva then enters into paramārtha, the acquisition of his highest spiritual objective. In Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s human-like pastimes (nara-līlā), He went to Gayā-dhāma on the pretext of making offerings for the benefit of His deceased father (pitṛ-śrāddha). There He offered Himself fully at the lotus feet of Śrī Īśvara Purīpāda, who was the bud of the desire-tree of prema and also a supremely rasika and bhāvuka disciple of Śrī Mādhavendra Purī, the root of that desire-tree.
prabhu bale,—“gayā-yātrā saphala āmāra yata-kṣaṇe dekhilāṅa caraṇa tomāra
Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata(Ādi-khaṇḍa 17.50)
The Lord said: My journey to Gayā is successful, because I am able to see your lotus feet.
saṁsāra-samudra haite uddhāraha more
ei āmi deha samarpilāṅa tomāre
kṛṣṇa-pāda-padmera amṛta-rasa pāna āmāre karāo tumi’—ei cāhi dāna
Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata(Ādi-khaṇḍa 17.54–55)
Please deliver Me from the ocean of material existence. I offer Myself completely to you. Please enable Me to drink the nectar of the lotus feet of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. I beg this charity from you.
āra dine nibhṛte īśvara-purī-sthāne mantra-dīkṣā cāhilena madhura-vacane
Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata(Ādi-khaṇḍa 17.105)
On another day in a solitary place, with sweet words, He requested Śrī Īśvara Purī to initiate Him into the kṛṣṇa-mantra.
tabe tāna sthāne śikṣā-guru nārāyaṇa karilena daśākṣara-mantrera grahaṇa
Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata(Ādi-khaṇḍa 17.107)
The instructing spiritual master of the three worlds, Śrī Nārāyaṇa Himself, accepted initiation into the ten-syllable mantra from Śrī Īśvara Purī.
According to this section of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata, Śrī Nimāī Paṇḍita performed the pastime of surrendering His heart at the feet of Śrī Īśvara Purī. He prayed to him for the dīkṣā-mantra in order to get release from material existence and to attain śrī kṛṣṇa-prema, and Śrī Purīpāda very affectionately initiated Him into the ten-syllable mantra.
Sometime afterwards, Śrī Nimāī Paṇḍita accepted sannyāsa in Kaṭvā from the advaita-vāda sannyāsī Keśava Bhāratī. After accepting sannyāsa, He set off for Vṛndāvana, saturated in the madness of prema. When He arrived in Rāḍha-deśa, absorbed in prema, He chanted a verse from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (11.23.57):
etāṁ sa āsthāya parātma-niṣṭhā- madhyāsitāṁ pūrvatamair maharṣibhiḥ ahaṁ tariṣyāmi duranta-pāraṁ tamo mukundāṅghri-niṣevayaiva
I shall easily cross over the insurmountable ocean of ignorance by rendering service to the lotus feet of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, which were worshipped by the great ṛṣis of ancient times, who were fixed in firm devotion to Mukunda.
prabhu kahe,—sādhu ei bhikṣuka-vacana mukunda sevana-vrata kaila nirdhāraṇa
parātma-niṣṭhā-mātra veśa-dhāraṇa mukunda-sevāya haya saṁsāra-tāraṇa
sei veśa kaila, ebe vṛndāvana giyā kṛṣṇa-niṣevaṇa kari nibhṛte vasiyā
Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta (Madhya-līlā 3.7–9)
After accepting sannyāsa, Mahāprabhu said, “This word of the tridaṇḍi-bhikṣu is supremely true because the vow to serve the lotus feet of Śrī Kṛṣṇa is fixed by accepting this dress of the renounced order. Having renounced dedication to material sense objects, the purpose of accepting sannyāsa is to attain parātma-niṣṭhā, single-pointed devotion to the lotus feet of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. I have accepted this dress, so now I will go to Vṛndāvana and serve the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa.”
In the aforementioned verse, the phrase parātma-niṣṭhā-mātra veśa-dhāraṇa is particularly worthy of consideration. It indicates that Mahāprabhu only accepted the external dress of the renounced order from Śrī Keśava Bhāratī because that dress was favourable for the cultivation of bhagavad-bhakti. He did not accept any advaita-vāda mantra or doctrine. On the contrary, throughout His life He refuted kevalādvaita-vāda and the philosophical conclusions of māyāvāda.
It is clear that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu accepted only Śrī Īśvara Purīpāda as His actual guru, because it is Śrī Īśvara Purīpāda’s pure bhakti that He accepted, preached and propagated throughout His life. Śrī Mādhavendra Purīpāda and Śrī Īśvara Purīpāda are included within the Madhva sampradāya, so Śrīman Mahāprabhu and His followers, the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas, are also included in the Madhva sampradāya. Moreover, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s contemporary pastime associates, Śrī Nityānanda Prabhu, Śrī Advaita Ācārya, Śrī Puṇḍarīka Vidyānidhi, Brahmānanda Purī and others, are also followers of the Śrī Madhva sampradāya because they are all in the line of Śrī Mādhavendra Purī.
Śrīman Mahāprabhu always respected the disciples of Śrī Mādhavendra Purī as His gurus, and He treated the disciples of Śrī Īśvara Purī as godbrothers. “Guru ājñā haya avicāraṇīyā – one should not question the order of the guru.” According to this philosophical conclusion, He accepted Govinda as His servant [on the order of His guru]. It is proved by this that Īśvara Purī was actually His guru.
Objection 2: Because Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu accepted sannyāsa from the kevalādvaita-vādī Keśava Bhāratī, He is to be included within that sampradāya.
Refutation: If for argument’s sake we accept this proposition, then it should be noted that Śrī Madhva Ācārya accepted sannyāsa from Acyutaprekṣa, who also was a kevalādvaita-vādī. In that case, if Mahāprabhu is a kevalādvaita-vādī sannyāsī, then by the same logic, Madhva Ācārya is also. Where, then, is the obstacle to Śrīman Mahāprabhu’s being in the Madhva sampradāya, if both of them accepted the advaita-vādī Śaṅkara’s sampradāya?
A second point is that Śrī Madhva Ācārya accepted eka-daṇḍa (a single staff indicating the renunciation of the monists) according to the customs and regulations of the Śaṅkara sampradāya. It would be logically consistent to say that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu followed his ideal example, and also accepted eka-daṇḍa sannyāsa from a sannyāsī of the Śaṅkara sampradāya, namely Śrī Keśava Bhāratī. From this it seems clear that Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas are in the line of Śrī Madhva Ācārya.
Objection 3: Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava ācārya Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī has not mentioned any sort of relationship between the Gauḍīya sampradāya and the Madhva sampradāya anywhere in his writings such as Tattva-sandarbha or Sarva-saṁvādinī. This idea has been introduced by Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, who was initiated into the Madhva sampradāya in the early part of his life and only later entered the Gauḍīya sampradāya. For this reason, he had a natural inclination towards the Madhva sampradāya. Therefore, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa has forced the issue out of prejudice, and has mentioned the Śrī Madhva sampradāya in his commentary on Tattva-sandarbha. In his Prameya-ratnāvalī, he delineated a guru-paramparā that includes Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and His sampradāya within the Śrī Madhva sampradāya.
Refutation: These accusations are completely groundless and imaginative fabrications. Actually, Jīva Gosvāmī acknowledged the tattva-vāda of Śrī Madhva Ācārya, the very guru of tattva-vāda, and took support from it when he compiled his Tattva-sandarbha, Bhagavat-sandarbha and so on. Not only this, but he also cited in his writings the main substantiating verses of tattva-vāda, such as vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvam (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.2.11).
Among the four Vaiṣṇava sampradāya-ācāryas, only Madhva Ācārya is celebrated as tattva-vādī. In the Madhva-Gauḍīya sampradāya, Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī has personally established tattva-vāda, and therefore, the Vaiṣṇavas of that sampradāya are tattva-vādīs. In the third verse of the auspicious invocation (maṅgalācaraṇa) of Tattva-sandarbha, Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī glorifies his guru Śrī Rūpa Gosvāmī and his parama-guru Śrī Sanātana Gosvāmī as tattvajñāpakau, the ācāryas who proclaim tattva. Similarly, the crest jewel of the dynasty of Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Prabhu, has also designated Śrī Rūpa and Śrī Sanātana as tattvavid-uttamau, the highest of all those who know fundamental truths, in his commentary on this same verse.
It is clear from this that Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī has offered respect to Śrī Madhva Ācārya, and that Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa has followed Jīva Gosvāmī in also honouring Madhva Ācārya. Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Prabhu has not shown any prejudice towards Madhva Ācārya. On the contrary, if we compare Jīva Gosvāmī with Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, we find that Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa has glorified the two gosvāmīs Śrī Rūpa and Sanātana more than Jīva Gosvāmī has. There is no doubt whatsoever that Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa is situated in the āmnāya-dhārā, the transcendental current of conclusive evidence, or the paramparā, of Śrī Gaura-Nityānanda Prabhus and of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmīpāda, who immediately follows Them.
According to bhāgavata-paramparā, Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa is in the ninth generation from Śrī Nityānanda Prabhu, and according to pāñcarātrika-paramparā, he is in the eighth generation. Historians have accepted his pāñcarātrika-paramparā as follows: Śrī Nityānanda, Śrī Gaurīdāsa Paṇḍita, Hṛdaya-caitanya, Śyāmānanda Prabhu, Rasikānanda Prabhu, Nayanānanda Prabhu and Śrī Rādhā-Dāmodara. Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Prabhu is the initiated disciple of this Śrī Rādhā-Dāmodara and is also the most prominent śikṣā disciple of Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartī.
Historians have declared that in no branch of the Madhva guru-paramparā were there any brilliant scholars of such widespread fame as Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa. In fact, at that time no one in any sampradāya anywhere in India equalled Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s knowledge in logic, in Vedānta and in scriptures, such as the Purāṇas and Itihāsas. It is true that he stayed for some days in the most prominent maṭha established by Śrī Madhva Ācārya in Uḍūpī, and that he studied Śrī Madhva’s commentary on Vedānta. However, the Śrī Gauḍīya sampradāya was more of an influence upon him than the Śrī Madhva sampradāya.
It is logical and natural for such a worshipful and scholarly personality as Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa to follow in the lotus footsteps of the most powerful and influential Vaiṣṇava ācāryas of the Madhva-Gauḍīya sampradāya. Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa thoroughly studied the commentary of Madhva and also made a meticulous study of the commentaries of Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Bhāskarācārya, Nimbāditya, Vallabha and others. It is illogical to say that he is included in each one of those sampradāyas merely because he had studied those groups of philosophers.
Śrī Baladeva Prabhu has described historical events and quoted the conclusions of the previous Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava ācāryas in many of his books, such as Govinda-bhāṣya, Siddhānta-ratnam, Prameya-ratnāvalī and in his commentary on Tattva-sandharba. He has enabled all the philosophers of the world to understand that the Śrī Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava sampradāya is included within the Madhva sampradāya. In this regard, all the scholars of the world, Eastern and Western, ancient and modern, have bowed their heads in reverence, and have unanimously accepted the philosophical conclusions and opinions of Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Prabhu.
Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa was sent by Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartī to protect the honour of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava sampradāya at Galtā-gaddī in Jaipura. There he defeated the objecting paṇḍitas of the Śrī sampradāya in a scriptural debate. There are no second opinions about this. Does this not show that Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura personally inspired his śikṣā disciple Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa to prove that the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas are in the line of Madhva Ācārya? Śrīla Cakravartī Ṭhākura sent his dīkṣā disciple Śrī Kṛṣṇadeva Sārvabhauma with Śrī Baladeva to help him. Had Śrī Cakravartī Ṭhākura not been so aged and weak at that time, he certainly would have gone to Jaipura in person to take part in this debate about the sampradāya. He would also have established the very same conclusion as Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa. There is no sound evidence to prove that Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa was first an ācārya or disciple in the Madhva sampradāya. There may be hearsay and rumours based on imagination, but no one has given any substantial proof.
The opposition party has alleged that Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has not mentioned anywhere in his writings that Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas are in the line of the Madhva sampradāya. This accusation is born of ignorance and is absurd to the extreme. In numerous places in Tattva-sandarbha, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī mentions his being in the line of Madhva. Moreover, while composing the Ṣaṭ-sandarbhas, he accepted the guidance of ācāryas in the Śrī Madhva sampradāya, such as Vijayadhvaja, Śrī Brahmaṇya Tīrtha and Vyāsa Tīrtha, and collected many scriptural proofs from their literatures. It is true that he also quoted statements of Śrī Rāmānuja Ācārya and Śrīdhara Svāmīpāda in many places, but he did not consider them to be previous ācāryas of the Śrī Gauḍīya sampradāya. Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī has even accepted the statements of sages of different philosophical schools such as Kapila and Pātañjali where they are in accordance with bhakti. Nonetheless, that does not mean that he is within those sampradāyas. One may establish a specific point of siddhānta that supports the view of an ācārya of a particular sampradāya. That does not mean that one is then a member of that sampradāya. Only when one establishes siddhānta by taking all the opinions of the ācārya’s disciple and grand-disciple is he considered to be in that sampradāya, otherwise not.
In regard to this topic, we quote a few parts from Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī’s Tattva-sandarbha (28):
atra ca sva-darśitārtha-viśeṣa prāmāṇyāyaiva, na tu śrīmad-bhāgavata-vākya-prāmāṇyāya pramāṇāni śruti-purāṇādi-vacanāni yathā-dṛṣṭam evodāharaṇīyāni kvacit svayam adṛṣṭākarāṇi ca tattva-vāda-gurūṇām anādhunikānāṁ śrīmacchaṅkarācārya-śīṣyatāṁ labdhvāpi śrī-bhagavat-pakṣa-pātena tato vicchidya pracura-pracārita-vaiṣṇava-mata-viśeṣāṇāṁ dakṣiṇādi-deśa-vikhyāta-śiṣyopaśiṣyī-bhūta-vijayadhvaja-jayatīrtha-brahmaṇyatīrtha-vyāsatīrthādi-veda-vedārtha-vidvad-varāṇāṁ śrī-madvācārya-caraṇānāṁ bhāgavata-tātparya-bhārata-tātparya-brahma-sūtra-bhāṣya-adibhyaḥ saṅgṛhītāni. taiś caivam uktaṁ bhārata-tātparye–
śāstrāntarāṇi saṁjānan vedāntasya prasādataḥ deśe deśe tathā granthān dṛṣṭvā caiva pṛthag-vidhān
yathā sa bhagavān vyāsaḥ sākṣān nārāyaṇaḥ prabhuḥ jagād bhāratādyeṣu tathā vakṣye tad-īkṣayā. iti
tatra tad-uddhṛtā śrūtiḥ—catur-veda-śikhādyā; purāṇañca—gāruḍādīnāṁ samprati sarvatrāpracarad-rūpam aṁśādikaṁ; saṁhitā ca—mahā-saṁhitādikāḥ; tantrañca—tantra-bhāgavatādikaṁ brahma-tarkādikam iti jñeyam.
In the Ṣaṭ-sandharbhas, I (Jīva Gosvāmī) have quoted various authentic scriptural statements as evidence. This is to establish the authenticity of my own interpretation or opinion, which I have expressed in this literature. It is not to try to prove the authenticity of the statements or conclusions of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Bhāgavatam, like the Vedas, is self-evident (svataḥ-pramāṇa) and therefore does not depend upon any second evidence. In the Sandarbhas, I have quoted various statements of evidence from the original texts of Śruti, Smṛti, the Purāṇas and so on, exactly as I have personally seen them in those literatures. Besides that, my predecessor ācāryas from among the tattva-vāda guru-varga have cited evidence which I, the author of Tattva-sandarbha (tattva-vādī), have also quoted, although there are several of the original texts which I have not seen personally. These tattva-vādī predecessor gurus such as Śrī Mādhavendra Purī have accepted the discipleship of Śrī Śaṅkara Ācārya by accepting sannyāsa from ācāryas in the Śaṅkara sampradāya. Nonetheless, because of their strong inclination to Bhagavān, they remained completely aloof from Śaṅkara’s doctrines. They broadly promulgated Vaiṣṇava conceptions, which contain various specialities from the conclusions of the ācāryas. The disciples and grand-disciples of the renowned Ānanda Tīrtha, such as Vijayadhvaja, Brahmaṇya Tīrtha and Vyāsa Tīrtha, have collected evidence from literatures such as Bhāgavata-tātparya, Bhārata-tātparya and Aṇu-bhāṣya, which were composed by Śrīman Madhva Ācārya, the best of those who know the Vedas and their inner purport.
In his Bhārata-tātparya, Śrīman Madhva Ācārya has also written, “By the grace of Vedānta and the Upaniṣads, I will establish the siddhānta, since I know the confidential mystery of various other śāstras. I have investigated varieties of literatures from different countries and I honour the conclusions expressed in texts such as the Mahābhārata, written by the direct manifestation of Nārāyaṇa, Śrī Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana Vedavyāsa.
I am writing Tattva-sandarbha following Śrīman Madhva Ācārya’s words. I am accepting statements quoted by him and those in his line, without having personally seen the originals of many of the texts, which are not widely broadcast these days, such as Caturveda-śikhā and other Śrutis, the Garuḍa Purāṇa and other Purāṇas. This includes the Saṁhitās like the Mahā-saṁhitā and Tantras such as Tantra-bhāgavata and Brahma-tarka.
This evidence clearly proves that Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī has indeed accepted Śrīman Madhva Ācārya as the predecessor ācārya of the Śrī Gauḍīya sampradāya. Nowhere does Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī make such a clear statement in regard to Śrī Rāmānuja Ācārya or Śrīdhara Svāmīpāda. Specifically he has not accepted all the conclusions of the disciples and grand-disciples of any sampradāya ācārya other than Madhva. Śrī Rāmānujācārya had many disciples and grand-disciples, and Śrīdhara Svāmī also had many disciples, but Jīva Gosvāmī has not recorded their names anywhere. What to speak of mentioning Nimbārka Ācārya’s name, we cannot find even a scent of his existence anywhere in Jīva Gosvāmī’s writings.
Objection 4: Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has described the glories of Śrīman Mahāprabhu in a verse in the invocation (maṅgalācaraṇa) of his Sarva-saṁvādinī. Praying to Mahāprabhu, he has described Him as sva-sampradāya-sahasrādhidaiva, the eternal presiding deity of thousands upon thousands of sampradāyas established by Him. How, then, can He be included within any other sampradāya? He is personally the founder of the independent Gauḍīya sampradāya.
Refutation: This objection is quite ridiculous. The complete verse from the maṅgalācaraṇa of Sarva-saṁvādinī reads as follows: “durlabha-prema-pīyūṣa-maya-gaṅgā-pravāha-sahasraṁ sva-sampradāya-sahasrādhidaivaṁ śrī-śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanyadeva-nāmānaṁ śrī-bhagavantam – I offer my obeiscences to Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanyadeva, the Supreme Lord. He enabled the flow of that most rare nectar of prema for Śrī Kṛṣṇa to flow in hundreds and thousands of streams, by becoming the presiding deity of His own chosen sampradāya.”
Śrī Sundarānanda Vidyāvinoda and other antagonists have interpreted sva-sampradāya-sahasrādhidaivam in this verse to mean ‘the presiding deity of thousands of sampradāyas which Śrīman Mahāprabhu has personally inaugurated’. The salient point here is that Śrīman Mahāprabhu has not founded thousands of sampradāyas ; He has established only one, which is called the Śrī Madhva-Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava sampradāya. Therefore their interpretation is completely erroneous.
Śrī Rasika-mohana Vidyābhūṣaṇa Mahodaya has interpreted sva-sampradāya-sahasrādhidaiva in another way, as ‘the supreme presiding deity of His own chosen sampradāya’. This meaning is quite appropriate, and all Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas have accepted it. One may say, “Śrīman Mahāprabhu is Svayam Bhagavān, and is directly Śrī Kṛṣṇacandra. Is it necessary for Svayam Bhagavān Gauracandra to consider any other personality as His guru and accept dīkṣā and śikṣā from him?” The answer is, “Yes, it is necessary when Śrī Bhagavān performs His human-like pastimes (nara-līlā).” Śrī Rāmacandra has exhibited the pastime of accepting dīkṣā and śikṣā from Vaśiṣṭha Muni, Śrī Kṛṣṇa from Sāndīpani Muni, and Śrīman Mahāprabhu from Īśvara Purī. These activities do not affect Their bhagavattā, quality of being Bhagavān, even in the slightest way. Svayam Bhagavān performs such pastimes in order to give instructions to the world. There is no question of Śrīman Mahāprabhu’s bhagavattā, or tattva, being lost if He is included in any sampradāya.
It is not the personal duty of Bhagavān to establish a sampradāya ; His devotees do that. History shows that in all cases only viṣṇu-śakti or the servants of Viṣṇu have ever founded a sampradāya. Granted, Śrī Bhagavān is the original, eternal personality of sanātana-dharma, which He Himself establishes, as is evident in scriptural statements such as dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 6.3.19) and dharmo jagannāthaḥ sākṣāt nārāyaṇāḥ. Still, the statement akartā caiva kartā ca kāryaṁ kāraṇam eva ca (Mahābhārata, Śānti-parva 348.60) shows that Bhagavān has no direct engagement in the business of establishing a sampradāya. Rather, He accomplishes this task through His empowered representatives. If this were not so, then instead of the Brahmā, Rudra, Sanaka and Śrī sampradāyas, there would be the Vāsudeva, Saṅkarṣaṇa and Nārāyaṇa sampradāyas.
Objection 5: While touring in South India, Śrīman Mahāprabhu went to Uḍūpī. There He had a discussion with a tattva-vādī ācārya who was in Śrī Madhva Ācārya’s sampradāya. Mahāprabhu refuted the views of the tattva-vādīs, so He can never be included in that sampradāya.
Refutation: Śrīman Mahāprabhu did not directly refute Madhva Ācārya’s ideas about śuddha-bhakti. Rather, He refuted the distorted opinions of the tattva-vādīs which had entered into the Madhva sampradāya in the course of time. Readers can understand this simply by looking in this section of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta (Madhya-līlā 9.276–277):
prabhu kahe,—“karmī, jñānī,—dui bhakti-hīna tomāra sampradāye dekhi sei dui cihna
sabe, eka guṇa dekhi tomāra sampradāye satya-vigraha īśvare’, karaha niścaye”
The Lord said: Fruitive workers (karmīs) and speculative philosophers (jñānīs) are devoid of devotion, and it is seen that both of these are respected in your sampradāya. Still, in your sampradāya there is one very great quality – the deity form of Bhagavān has been accepted. Not only this, but the deity has also been accepted as Vrajendra-nandana Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself. He is worshipped in your sampradāya in the form of the dancing Gopāla.
This proves that Śrīman Mahāprabhu refuted the distortions that later entered the Madhva sampradāya in the course of time. He did not refute Madhva Ācārya’s opinions on śuddha-bhakti or the fundamental philosophical conclusions that he expressed in his commentaries. On the contrary, we have already shown that literatures such as Tattva-sandarbha and Sarva-saṁvādinī have been based on the conclusions of Śrī Madhva and his disciples and grand-disciples. In this connection we should point out that a difference of sampradāya does not generally arise from some minor difference of opinion. Rather, the difference between sampradāyas comes from the differences in doctrine regarding the principal object of worship.
Objection 6: Some people criticize Madhva Ācārya’s doctrine, saying that it includes the following specific points: (a) liberation is only attained by brāhmaṇas who have taken birth in a brāhmaṇa dynasty; (b) among devotees, the demigods are prominent; (c) only Brahmā merges with Viṣṇu; (d) Lakṣmījī is in the category of jīva; and (e) the gopīs are in the category of the apsarās of Svarga, the heavenly damsels. However, in the opinion of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas in His line, these conceptions of Madhva are contradictory to the conclusions of śuddha-bhakti. Under such circumstances, why would Śrī Caitanyadeva accept the Madhva sampradāya? That being the case, how can the ācāryas following in His Gauḍīya sampradāya be included within the Madhva sampradāya?
Refutation: When Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa was in Galtā-gaddī in Jaipura, he used scriptural evidence and infallible logic to break to pieces all these arguments of the opposition party. He quoted the conclusions of Madhva Ācārya as well as those of his disciples and grand-disciples, such as Vijayadhvaja, Brahmaṇya Tīrtha and Vyāsa Tīrtha. Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa has refuted all such accusations in his books, such as his commentary on Tattva-sandarbha, his Govinda-bhāṣya, Siddhānta-ratnam and Prameya-ratnāvalī, and he has proved that the Śrī Gauḍīya sampradāya is included within the Madhva sampradāya.
In the Galtā-gaddī assembly, Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa proved that Śrī Madhva considered Laksmījī to be the dear consort of Viṣṇu. Śrī Madhva taught that her spiritual body is composed of knowledge and pleasure and, like Viṣṇu, she is also completely free from defects, such as the misery of being confined in the womb prior to birth. She is all-pervading, and she also enjoys in unlimited forms along with the unlimited forms of Śrī Viṣṇu. When the avatāra of Viṣṇu descends, Lakṣmī also descends and reigns in the form of that avatāra’s dear beloved consort. Like Viṣṇu, Lakṣmī also has various names and forms (Śrī Madhva’s Bṛhad-āranyaka-bhāṣya 3.5).
Furthermore, Lakṣmī-devī is Viṣṇu’s subservient embodiment of all knowledge. She is also superior to and more qualified than Catur-mukha Brahmā. She resides on the limbs of Bhagavān in the form of various types of ornaments, and it is she who manifests all facilities for the pleasure of Viṣṇu, such as His bed, seat, throne, ornaments and so on. (Śrī Madhva Ācārya’s explanation of Brahma-sūtra 4.2.1, supported by Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.9.13)
Nowhere has Śrī Madhva described Śrī Lakṣmī to be in the category of jīva. Similarly, the ideas that only brāhmaṇas attain liberation, that the demigods are the prominent devotees, that only Brahmā merges with Viṣṇu and so on, are all foreign to the Madhva sampradāya.
On this subject, Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura has explained in his Śrīman Mahāprabhu kī Śikṣā why Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu accepted the Madhva sampradāya: “Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī, having determined the authenticity of the Vedic scriptures, has also ascertained the authenticity of the Purāṇas. Ultimately he has proved that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the crest jewel of all evidence. He has shown that the same characteristic qualities that qualify Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam as the topmost evidence also apply to the scriptures endorsed by Brahmā, Nārada, Vyāsa and Śukadeva, and after them, in sequence, Vijayadhvaja, Brahmaṇya Tīrtha, Vyāsa Tīrtha and their tattva-guru, Śrī Madhva Ācārya. These scriptures, then, are also in the category of authentic literatures.
“It is evident from this that the Brahma-Madhva sampradāya is the guru-praṇālī, or guru-paramparā, of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas who have taken shelter of Śrīman Mahāprabhu. Kavi Karṇapūra confirmed this same idea in his delineation of the guru-paramparā in his Gaura-ganoddeśa-dīpikā. The commentator of Vedānta-sūtra, Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, has also accepted this same succession. There is no doubt at all that those who do not accept this succession are prominent enemies of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas who are following in His footsteps.
“The doctrine of bhedābheda or dvaitādvaita, which Nimbāditya propounded, is incomplete. In accepting the teachings of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu the Vaiṣṇava world has attained the complete perfection of the doctrine of bhedābheda. The principal foundation-stone of the philosophy of acintya-bhedābheda is sac-cid-ānanda vigraha, and it is because Śrī Madhva Ācārya has accepted the sac-cid-ānanda vigraha that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu accepted the Śrī Madhva sampradāya.
“There is a technical difference between the philosophical ideas propagated by the previous Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, because they are slightly incomplete. This technical difference marks the difference in sampradāya. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, who is directly the Supreme Truth, has, by the power of His omniscience, completed and made flawless those conceptions that were suffering from some deficiency – Madhva Ācārya’s philosophical conclusion regarding the Lord as the concentrated essence and embodiment of eternality, knowledge and bliss (sac-cid-ānanda nitya-vigraha), Rāmānuja Ācārya’s conclusion regarding the Lord’s potency (śakti-siddhānta), Viṣṇu Svāmī’s philosophy of purified non-dualism (śuddhādvaita siddhānta) and the sentiment of exclusive dependence on Kṛṣṇa (tadīya sarvasvatva), and Nimbāditya’s philosophy of simultaneous dualism and non-dualism between the Lord and the living entity (nitya dvaitādvaita siddhānta) – and has given His own thoroughly pure and realized doctrine of inconceivable, simultaneous separateness and oneness (acintya-bhedābheda), thus showing compassion to the world.”
Another reason for Śrīman Mahāprabhu’s acceptance of Madhva’s conception is that Śrī Madhva’s doctrine distinctly refutes māyāvāda, or kevalādvaita-vāda, which is opposed to bhakti-tattva in all respects. A third point is that Śrī Madhva Ācārya manifested and worshipped Nanda-nandana, the dancing Gopāla, in Uḍūpī. When Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu had darśana of the deity, He became overwhelmed in ecstatic love and began to dance. He had not seen such a deity anywhere else during his tour of South India. This is also powerful evidence for His being in Śrī Madhva’s line.
In his Śrī Kṛṣṇa-vijaya, Śrī Guṇarāja Khān wrote the line, “nanda-nandana kṛṣṇa—mora prāṇanātha – Nanda-nandana Kṛṣṇa is the Lord of my life” (quoted in Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā 15.100), and for this utterance, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu sold Himself forever into the hands of Śrī Guṇarāja Khān’s descendants. Why, then, would He not sell Himself to the paramparā of those disciples and grand-disciples for whom Nanda-nandana Nṛtya-Gopāla is their most worshipful Lord? This is also specific evidence that the Gauḍīya sampradāya is in the line of Madhva.
Although there is some slight difference of opinion between Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas and Śrī Madhva in regard to brahma, jīva and jagat, this simple difference of opinion is not the cause of a difference of sampradāya. The difference between Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas has been created on the basis of a difference in the object of worship (upāsya-tattva), or on the basis of gradations of excellence in aspects of para-tattva. Even if there is some slight difference in regard to sādhya-, sādhana- and sādhaka-tattva, this is rarely considered to be the cause of a difference of sampradāya. Actually, the main cause of distinct sampradāyas is the difference in realization of para-tattva or upāsya-tattva. This was why Śrīman Mahāprabhu overlooked the philosophical differences with the tattva-vādīs and, focusing on their worship of para-tattva dancing Gopāla, accepted Śrī Madhva Ācārya as the prominent sampradāya ācārya.
Objection 7: Some persons who are ignorant of sampradāya-tattva say, “Śrī Mādhavendra Purī and Īśvara Purī cannot be sannyāsīs in the Madhva sampradāya because they are designated by the name ‘Purī’, whereas sannyāsīs in the Madhva sampradāya are called ‘Tīrtha’. If Śrī Mādhavendra Purī is not included in the Madhva sampradāya, then there are no grounds for claiming that Śrīman Mahāprabhu has accepted the Madhva sampradāya.”
Refutation: Śrī Mādhavendra Purīpāda’s title ‘Purī’ is his sannyāsa name. Actually, he was the initiated disciple of Lakṣmīpati Tīrtha, who was in the Śrī Madhva sampradāya. Śrī Mādhavendra Purīpāda later accepted sannyāsa from a sannyāsī bearing the name ‘Purī’, just as Śrīman Mahāprabhu first accepted dīkṣā from Śrī Īśvara Purī and later manifested the pastime of accepting sannyāsa from Śrī Keśava Bhāratī. There is no rule stating that the dīkṣā-guru and sannyāsa-guru have to be the same person. In some cases they may be and in others not. Śrī Madhva Ācārya himself was first initiated into a Vaiṣṇava sampradāya by the viṣṇu-mantra, and after that he accepted sannyāsa dress from an advaita-vādī, Acyutaprekṣa. After some days, Śrī Madhva Ācārya influenced Acyutaprekṣa and brought him into the Vaiṣṇava conception. Even after taking sannyāsa from an advaita-vādī, Śrī Madhva Ācārya did not accept advaita-vāda. On the contrary, he powerfully refuted all the ideas of advaita-vāda and, having established tattva-vāda, he preached and spread it everywhere. The same is also seen in the life of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu.
It is true that sannyāsīs in the Madhva sampradāya are called ‘Tīrtha’, but ‘Tīrtha’ is not the title of gṛhastha Vaiṣṇavas or brahmacārīs in that sampradāya. Since Śrī Mādhavendra Purī did not have the title ‘Tīrtha’ before taking sannyāsa, when he accepted the dress of the renounced order from a sannyāsī in the advaita-sampradāya, his title had to be ‘Purī’. This is not illogical.
Objection 8: Some say that the goal (sādhya) and the practice (sādhana) of the Śrī Madhva sampradāya differ from that of the Śrī Gauḍīya sampradāya. Therefore, the Śrī Gauḍīya sampradāya cannot be considered to be within the Śrī Madhva sampradāya.
Refutation: This objection is thoroughly false and rooted in ignorance. Śrī Madhva’s doctrine acknowledges bhagavad-bhakti as the sādhana in all respects. As with Śrī Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas, the initial sādhana prescribed for kaniṣṭha-adhikārī sādhakas, neophyte practitioners, is to offer the results of ones’ fruitive activities to Kṛṣṇa. However, bhagavat-parama-prasāda sādhana, i.e., śuddha-bhakti, has been established as the principal practice.
Śrī Madhva Ācārya has established bhakti, as we see in his commentary on Vedānta-sūtra (3.3.53) where he quotes from Māṭhara-śruti: “bhaktir evainaṁ nayati bhaktir evainaṁ darśayati / bhakti-vaśaḥ puruṣo bhaktir eva bhūyasī – It is only unalloyed bhagavad-bhakti that carries the jīvas to Bhagavān and brings about an audience with Him and eternal engagement in service to Him. Bhagavān is only controlled by bhakti.” In the commentary of sūtra 3.3.45 he writes, “varāhe ca—guru-prasādo balavān na tasmād balavattaram / tathāpi śravaṇādiś ca kartavyo mokṣa-siddhaye – The mercy of śrī gurudeva is more powerful than anything else for attaining the perfection of liberation in the form of service to Viṣṇu’s lotus feet. Yet it is still necessary to engage in the limbs of sādhana-bhakti such as śravaṇa and kīrtana.” In his Mahābhārata-tātparya-nirṇaya 1, the position of bhakti is seen throughout: “sneho bhaktir iti proktaḥ tayā muktir na cānyathā – liberation is obtained only through loving devotion, and not otherwise” (1.85) and “bhaktyaiva tuṣyati hari-pravaṇa tvam eva – one can please Hari only by devotion” (2.55). We have not given more evidence simply because of lack of space.
In the Madhva sampradāya, love of Bhagavān is the only goal. Although in some places Śrīman Madhva Ācārya has accepted mokṣa, or liberation, as the goal. His definition of mokṣa is “viṣṇavāṅghri lābhaḥ mukti – liberation is the attainment of service to the lotus feet of Viṣṇu.” Thus, the Śrī Madhva sampradāya accepts the definition of mukti presented in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (2.10.6): “muktir hitvānyathā rūpaṁ svarūpeṇa vyavasthitiḥ – The jīva carries the conception of ‘I’ and ‘mine’ arising from the gross and subtle designations, which are accomplished by the action of māyā. Mukti means to be released from this false identity and to be established in rendering loving service to Bhagavān in one’s pure constitutional form.”
Madhva Ācārya’s mukti is not sāyujya-mukti, or merging with brahma, which Śaṅkarācārya speaks about. Rather, it is based on love of Bhagavān. Nowhere has he accepted sāyujya in the form of the oneness of brahma and jīva. On the contrary, he has refuted it in every way. Śrī Madhva is well-known as bheda-vādī because he accepts that the jīva and brahma are different both in the stage of bondage and in the stage of liberation – abhedaḥ sarva-rūpeṣu jīvabhedaḥ sadaiva hi.
Although Śrīman Madhva emphasizes bheda (difference), he does not at all disregard the Śrutis which indicate abheda (non-difference); instead he has accepted their compatibility. In other words, we find a hint of the acceptance of acintya-bhedābheda, as Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has suggested in his Sandharbhas. According to Vedānta, “śakti-śaktimator abhedaḥ – the potency and the potent are non-different.” An indication of acintya-bhedābheda is found in a statement from Brahma-tarka which Śrī Madhva supported:
viśeṣasya viśiṣtasyāpy abhedas tadvad eva tu sarvaṁ cācintya-śaktitvād yujyate parameśvare
tac chaktyaiva tu jīveṣu cid-rūpa-prakṛtāvāpi bhedābhedau tad-anyatra hyubhayor api darśanāt
Thus there is no particular difference between Madhva Ācārya and Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu regarding sādhya and sādhana. Whatever slight differences are evident are details only.
The Madhva and Gauḍīya sampradāyas bear a distinct similarity. The sannyāsīs presiding over the eight maṭhas of the tattva-vādīs in Uḍūpī perform bhajana in the mood of the gopīs under the guidance of Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s eight beloved nāyikās, or heroines, in Vraja. On this subject, Śrī Padmanābhacārī, the author of Śrī Madhva Ācārya’s biography, has written:
“The monks who take charge of Sri Krishna by rotation, are so many gopees of Brindavan, who moved with and loved Sri Krishna with an indescribable intensity of feeling, and are taking rebirths now for the privilege of worshipping Him” (Life and Teachings of Sri Madhvacharya by C. M. Padmanabhachar, Chapter XII, page 145).
Even today, the service of Yaśodā-nandana dancing Gopāla continues in the main maṭha in Uḍūpī. Śrīla Madhva Ācārya has praised his worshipful dancing Gopāla Śrī Kṛṣṇa in this way in the fifth verse, Chapter Six of his Dvādaśa-stotram:
devaki-nandana nanda-kumāra vṛndāvanāñjana gokula-candra kandaphalāśana sundara-rūpa nandita-gokula vanditapāda
The son of Devakī and Nanda, whose lotus feet are worshipful, is the ornament of Vṛndāvana, and the moon of Gokula. Possessed of exquisite beauty, He delights the residents of Vraja and He eats the roots of the forest as He wanders about.
Similarly, in the Śrī Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava sampradāya, service to Śrī Kṛṣṇa, under the guidance of the gopīs, has been ascertained as the ultimate goal, or sādhya, in the writings of Śrīla Rūpa, Sanātana, Raghunātha, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmīs and others.
In this way, by evaluating the opinions of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava ācāryas from first to last, one can conclude that the Śrī Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava sampradāya is included within the Śrī Madhva sampradāya and that this is consistent with reason in all respects.
Objection 9: The Madhva sampradāya is bheda-vādī, whereas the Gauḍīya sampradāya is acintya-bhedābheda-vādī. Therefore, there is a vast difference of opinion between them.
Refutation: We have said previously that although the Madhva sampradāya accepts five kinds of difference, or bheda, between brahma, jīva and jagat, still there is a hint of acintya-bhedābheda-vāda in their teachings. The Vedic scriptures give evidence for both bheda and abheda in relation to brahma, the individual soul (jīva) and the material world (jagat). However, although there is both bheda and abheda, we only have experience of difference, not non-difference. In the field of bhakti, the difference (bheda) between upāsya, the object of worship, and upāsaka, the worshipper, is the backbone of worship, and this bheda is proved both in the stage of practice and the stage of perfection. Otherwise, if there were no difference between the worshipper and the object of worship, then worship would not be possible. Thus, although there may be some dissimilarities between the Śrī Gauḍīya and Madhva sampradāyas, this can not be the cause of a difference in sampradāya. The object of worship is Bhagavān, the method of worship is bhakti, and the objective is mokṣa in the form of bhagavat-sevā. Vaiṣṇavas of the four Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas hold slightly different opinions in regard to these tattvas, but we cannot say that they are fundamentally different. They are all adherents to the same religious principles.
The difference between Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas has been created only on the basis of difference in their worshipful deity, or a difference of excellence in regard to the ultimate Reality, para-tattva. Though there may even exist divergences in sādhya-, sādhana- and sādhaka-tattva, this is rarely considered a difference in sampradāya. Actually, the principal cause of differences between sampradāyas is diversity in realization of the ultimate Reality (para-tattva), or the worshipful deity (upāsya-tattva). The worshipful deity is determined by the degree of excellence exhibited.
Śrī Murāri Gupta is one of Mahāprabhu’s confidential associates and he is described in the Gauḍīya sampradāya as an incarnation of Hanumān. Although Śrīman Mahāprabhu explained to him that Vrajendra-nandana Śrī Kṛṣṇa has more mādhurya, or sweetness, than Bhagavān Śrī Rāmacandra, Murāri Gupta was not attracted to worshipping Kṛṣṇa. His worshipful Lord was Rāma, and he continued being devoted to Śrī Rāma until the very end. Śrīman Mahāprabhu was most pleased to see his unmovable dedication.
Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita is also one of the principal associates of Mahāprabhu. His worshipful deity is Śrī Lakṣmī-Nārāyaṇa, and Śrī Karṇapūra considered him to be an incarnation of Śrī Nārada. It is well-known that he personally preferred the worship of Lakṣmī-Nārāyaṇa to Mahāprabhu’s unnata-ujjvala-rasa, the most elevated relationship of divine amorous love.
Some ignorant and misguided persons say that there is a difference of opinion between Śrī Rūpa Gosvāmī and Jīva Gosvāmī because Śrī Jīva did not accept the former’s explanation of the parakīya-rasa (paramour love) of the vraja-gopīs and instead supported svakīya-rasa (married love). Therefore, they say that there is a disagreement in the philosophy of Śrī Rūpa Gosvāmī and Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī. But this accusation is completely unfounded and incorrect. The truth is that Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī supported svakīya-vāda for the benefit of some of his followers who had taste for svakīya-rasa. His internal consideration was that unqualified persons entering into the transcendentally wonderful parakīya vraja-rasa should not fall into any adulterous behaviour. It is offensive to consider Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī an opponent of the transcendental vraja-rasa, and he is not considered to be outside the Gauḍīya sampradāya on account of this simple [apparent] divergence of views.
We also see differences of opinion among the ācāryas of the māyāvādī, or kevalādvaita-vādī, sampradāya. The māyāvādīs themselves accept that these inherent contrarieties exist. However, they are all within the advaita-vādī Śaṅkara sampradāya. Some believe in vivarta-vāda, some believe in bimba-pratibimba-vāda, some have accepted avicchinna-vāda, some admit ābhāsa-vāda, and they have refuted each others’ opinions. Even so, they are included within the same sampradāya.
Similarly, although there are some slight mutual differences of opinion between the Śrī Madhva and the Śrī Gauḍīya sampradāya, it is thoroughly appropriate to accept that the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava sampradāya follows Madhva Ācārya.
1Editor: Śrīman Madhva Ācārya’s commentary on Mahābhārata
[CC-by-ND GVP]