2

Sri Vasudev Sarvabhouma, Kavi Karnapur, Sri Rupa, Sri Sanatana, Sri Srijiva Goswami, Sri Baladev Vidyabhushana --none of them accepted any link between Madhva sect and the Gaudiya Vaishnava sect.(Reference: Mahaprabhu Sri Chaitanya, Radhagovinda Nath, Sadhana Prakashani, Page 753.

Why were they of this opinion?

It is interesting because some prefer to call them as the Madhva-Gaudiya sect in these days.

2

It is wrong to say that Gaudiya Vaishnavas do not accept any link with the Madhva Sampradaya. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was Himself a disciple of a Madhva Guru, Sri Isvara Puri.

Baladeva Vidyabhusana himself acknowledges the link between the Madhva Sampradaya and the Gaudiya Vaishnava Sampradaya in his "Prameya Ratnavali".

tatra guru-paramparā yathā sri krsna brahma devarsi badarayana-samjnakan sri-madhva-sri-padmanabha sriman-nrhari-madhavan aksobhya-jayatirtha-sri- jnanasindhu-dayanidhin sri-vidyanidhi-rajendra jayadharman kramad vayam purusottama-brahmanya vyasatirthams ca samstumah tato laksmipatim sriman-madhavendram ca bhaktitah tac-chisyan srisvaradvaita nityanandan jagad-gurun devam isvara-sisyam sri caitanyam ca bhaj amahe sri-krsna-prema-danena yena nistaritam jagat

With great devotion we glorify the spiritual masters in the Gaudiya Vaisnava disciplic successions. A list of their names follows: 1) Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, 2) Brahma, 3) Narada, 4) Vyasa, 5) Madhvacarya, 6) Padmanabha, 7) Nrhari, 8) Madhava, 9) Aksobhya, 10) Jayatirtha, ll) Jnanasindhu, 12) Dayanidhi, 13) Vidyanidhi, l4) Rajendra, 15) Jayadharma, 16) Purusottama, 17) Brahmanya, 18) Vyasatirtha, 19) Laksmipati, 20) Madhavendra Puri, and 21) Isvara Puri, Advaita Prabhu and Nityananda Prabhu (who were all disciples of Madhavendra Puri). We worship Isvara Puri's disciple, Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who delivered the entire universe by granting the gift of krsna-prema (pure love of Krsna). (Prameya Ratnavali, Text 7)

  • The guruparampara is also wrong as Isvar Puriji was not a disciple of the Madhva sect as explained by Radhagovinda Nath. Pl see my update. – user17294 Feb 25 at 7:05
2

I generally don't participate in HSE, but I keep observing.

The reference that you provided in the question and elsewhere in your other answers in relation to Gaudiya Vaishnavism are from secondary sources and many times they are cherry picked into the sources which don't present Gaudiya Vaishnavism properly.

The guru parampara is first researched and the full list is mentioned by Kavi Karnapur in his book that was completed in 1576 AD.

These are the all the books where Madhva-Gaudiya link is clearly said:

Gauraganoddesa-Dipika of Kavi Karnapur.. Text 22, https://archive.org/details/gaura-ganoddesa-dipika_201804/page/n1

Bhakti Ratnakara

Narayana Bhatta Caritamrta

Gaura-gana-svarupa-tattva-Candrika of Vishwanath Chakravarty Thakur

Prameya-ratnavali, Govinda-bhasya and Siddhanta-ratna of Baladeva Vidyabhusana https://archive.org/details/PrameyaRatnavali.AKShastri/page/n33

Especially in Prameya Ratnavali, Baladeva Vidyabhusana mentions the common points of Madhva & Gaudiya school.

In Text 3, he offers special respect to Madhvacharya:

anandatirtha nama su-kha maya dhaama -yatir jiyat samsararnava taranim -yam iha j anah kirtayanti budhah

All glories to Srila Madhvacarya Svami, the abode of transcendental happiness. Those who are learned and intelligent glorify him, for he is like a boat which enables the conditioned souls to cross beyond this realm of repeated birth and death.

Then he mentions full list in Text 7:

tatra guru-paramparā yathā sri krsna brahma devarsi badarayana-samjnakan sri-madhva-sri-padmanabha sriman-nrhari-madhavan aksobhya-jayatirtha-sri- jnanasindhu-dayanidhin sri-vidyanidhi-rajendra jayadharman kramad vayam purusottama-brahmanya vyasatirthams ca samstumah tato laksmipatim sriman-madhavendram ca bhaktitah tac-chisyan srisvaradvaita nityanandan jagad-gurun devam isvara-sisyam sri caitanyam ca bhaj amahe sri-krsna-prema-danena yena nistaritam jagat

With great devotion we glorify the spiritual masters in the Gaudiya Vaisnava disciplic successions. A list of their names follows: 1) Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, 2) Brahma, 3) Narada, 4) Vyasa, 5) Madhvacarya, 6) Padmanabha, 7) Nrhari, 8) Madhava, 9) Aksobhya, 10) Jayatirtha, ll) Jnanasindhu, 12) Dayanidhi, 13) Vidyanidhi, l4) Rajendra, 15) Jayadharma, 16) Purusottama, 17) Brahmanya, 18) Vyasatirtha, 19) Laksmipati, 20) Madhavendra Puri, and 21) Isvara Puri, Advaita Prabhu and Nityananda Prabhu (who were all disciples of Madhavendra Puri). We worship Isvara Puri's disciple, Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who delivered the entire universe by granting the gift of krsna-prema (pure love of Krsna).

Madhavendra Puri is also well-known as a Madhva amongst the Vaisnavas of the Vallabhacarya-sampradaya. By the end of his Sri-Vallabha-digvijaya, Yadunatha (16th century AD), grandson of Vallabhacarya, described the episode of Vallabhacarya’s taking sannyasa from Madhavendra Puri, whom he describes as a sannyasi of the Madhvasampradaya. In his Do Sau Bavan Vaisnava Kl Varta, Gokulanatha (l6th century AD), another grandson of Vallabhacarya, narrated how Vitthalanatha studied the scriptures from a Madhva renunciant named Madhavendra Puri.5 It is beyond doubt that Madhavendra Puri was the guru of Isvara Puri, from whom Lord Caitanya received diksa.

I have taken many points from here:

https://archive.org/details/BrahmaSutraKarikaBhasyam/page/n5.

You may read from Page 6 to Page 22. I gave some primary references also above.

Though direct followers of Madhvacharya don't have this full record, they acknowledge meeting of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Vyasatirtha and Gaudiya sampradaya being part of Madhva Sampradaya. Gaudiya Sampradaya is not an independent one and only misguided or uninformed Gaudiya Vaishnavas think that they are independent sampradaya.

enter image description here

There are letters written by other mutts of Udupi. Since they are in Kannada, I am not attaching them.

  • 2
    I do not think the scholars like Radhagovinda Nath would write anything baseless. For Mahaprabhu's followers, the Guru-Parampara is NOT that important as Mahaprabhu was a disciple of Kesava Bharatiji, who was a Vedantist monk. Achintya-vedaveda is completely different from Dvaita philosophy ofSri Madhva.In Chaitanya Charitamrita 2/9/235-51 Mahaprabhu mentions both merits and demerits of the Madhva sampradaya. He also criticised the Madhva Philosophy in front of Sri Vasudeva Saarvavouma and embraced Ray Ramananda's views which basically is Achintya Bhedaabhedavada. – user17294 Feb 19 at 15:33
  • @Partha this also you must have got from secondary source.. Show me the proof of what you said in primary source. I am aware of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu discussion with Madhvas in Udupi as mentioned in Chaitanya Charitamrta, yes there are differences that's why it is called Gaudiya Sampradaya not Tattvada school. Baldeva Vidyabhusana who discussed common points in Prameya Ratnavali also said the differences in his commentary to Tattva Sandarbha few points of Madhva school that are not accepted by Gaudiya school. Inspite of differences, Gaudiya is still branch of Madhva school. – user2612 Feb 19 at 15:47
  • @Partha do you think Kavi Karnapurna and Baladeva Vidyabhusana and others have written baseless things? Though Chaitanya took sanyas in Advaita line, he didn't preach advaita. He preached what Ishwara puri taught him. Factually, his sanyas guru line is irrelevant because except wearing external garments etc.. Chaitanya didn't follow anything of that line. – user2612 Feb 19 at 15:48
  • 1
    @Partha my personal opinion is varnashrama is broken and is irrelevant in modern times.. – user2612 Feb 19 at 17:18
  • 1
    @Partha lol are you kidding? "One respected Sri Vaishnava acharya" ha ha.. Some random Sri Vaishnava writing something and you are using it as a reference. You can read the response also.. you can read response to that as well. www.ibiblio.org/sripedia/ramanuja/archives/apr05/msg00038.html. Even current acharyas refer Madhva sect as Tattvavada sect just like Jiva Goswami did. It is not Baladeva, even before him Vishwanath Chakravarty and Kavi Karnapurna stated the link. Despite differences, they never rejected the link. You shouldn't give much credibility to some local man RadhaGovinda Nath. – user2612 Feb 25 at 13:36
0

There is clear evidence in Sri Chaitanya Charitamrita that Mahaprabhu did not consider Himself a follower of the Madhva sect.

Its true that Sri Chaitanyadeva was a disciple of Sripad Iswarpuri, Who was from Madhva lineage. Sri Chaitanya was God Himself Who incarnated to the earth 'to take the taste of the Radha-bhava and preach the Mahamantra-sankirtana, which is the yuga-dharma'.

So He Himself remeined in Radha-bhava which was not emphasised on in the Madhva lineage. Sri Chaitanya defines Sri Krishna as 'Rasaraja' and 'Kishora'. From Sri Ray Ramananda, Mahaprabhu got the support of Radha-Bhava. He later therefore mentioned both merits and demerits of the Madhva sect.

Mahaprabhu asked the Tattva-vadi Acharya of the Madhva sect about the goal and ways (Sadhya-Sadhanaa of their sect. The Acharya said : Surrendering the Varnashrama Dharma to Sri Krishna and going to Vaikuntha getting one of the five forms of Mukti. Mahaprabhu said : The scriptures stress on Sravana and Kirtana. These lead to Krishna-Prema which is the highest purusartha. The real devotees reject the five forms of Mukti as of no value. They reject both karma and mukti...Karmi,and Jnani are both devoid of Bhakti. I see that these two (karma and Jnana) are very much present in your sect. Only one quality of your sect is that you regard Sri Krishna as God (Sri Chaitanya Charitamrita 2/9/238-251).

If Mahaprabhu accepted that He was of the Madhva sect, He could never mention the Madhva sect as 'Your sect' to the Acharya of the Madhva sect. He never mentioned it as 'Our' sect. So it is very clear that He did not consider Himself as a member of the Madhva sect.

Gaudiya Vaishnavas are followers of Mahaprabhu who worship Him as God.So chanting of the Mahamantra,treating Gopibhava and its culmination Radhabhava as the highest bhava and worshipping Sri Chaitanya as God make them different from the Madhva followers.

As Sri Radhagovinda Nath points out in the vol 1 of his 'Gaudiya Vaishnava Darshana, (page 165-171)

(a) According to Maadhvas, Iswara is Sevya and Jiva is His sevaka.But the same holds for the other Vaishnava sects also.

(b) The Upasya of Maadhvas is Vaikuntheswara Narayana. The Upaasya of Gaudiyas is Nandanandana Sri Krishna.

(c) The Upaasana of Madhvas is ten types of bhajana: satya, hita, priya kathana, sasraanusilana, daya, spriha, sraddha, daana,paritrana, parirakshana. According to Gaudiyas, shravana and kirtana are main elements of Upaasanaa.

(d) As mentioned by Mahaprabhu, the Maadhva's goal is five types of Mukti and going to Vaikuntha. Gaudiyas never want Mukti and want to serve Sri Krishna alone.

(e) According to Madhvacharya, gopis are 'Apsara-strees'(wordly wives having heavenly bodies).This statement is against the scriptures according to the Gaudiyas, who think Radha and Krishna are One. Further, according to Madhva, Brajagopies< Asta-mahishis< Jasoda< Devaki< Vasudev < Arjun< Balaraama< Brahmaa. So Brahmaaa is the best devotee. Gaudiyas treat this as against the scriptures. They quote from Vamana-Purana to show that Sri Krishna was eager to take the dust of feet of the gopis.

(f) To establish the superiority of Brahma among the devotees, Madhva did not write the commentary of chapters 12,13 and 14 of the 10th Canto of Bhagavatam. This is highly objectionable to the Gaudiyas.

In Vrihad-Vaishnava-Toshini commentary of Bhadgavata by Sripada Sanatana Goswami, a protest agaist the Maadhva sect is recorded.

Sripada Srijiva Goswami in Laghu-Vaishnava-Toshini has strongly protested against the Maadhva views of the Brahma-mohana-leela.

So there is little similarity of the Maadhva and Gaudiya sects. In fact the opinion of Maadhvas is AGAINST the opinion of the Gaudiya sect.

Kavi Karnapur also mentions in Chaitanya-Chandrodaya(8/1) that Mahaprabhu did not accept the opinion of the Madhvas.

Sripad Srijiva Goswami has mentioned the Madhva sect as 'the Other Sect' in his Sarva-Samvaadini. He always refers to Madhva as Tattvavada-Guru, but NEVER as 'Guru of Our Sect'.

By the way a similar happening is there is Kavirji's life.He was a disciple of Sri Ramananda, Who was a worshipper of Sri Rama with Form. But Kavir after illumination rejected the worship of God with form and in temples. His followers are known as Kavir-panthis who no longer worship Rama with form and accept Kavirji as an Incarnation of the Supreme Godhead. So Kavir-panthis inspite of having the Ramananda lineage are not followers of that sect.Theirs is a new sect.

Since about hundred years we are hearing the term 'Madhva-Gaudiya' sect coming into prominance (primarily from some individuals who took sannyasa after the Madhva lineage.If we regard Sri Chaitanyadeva and His followers' teachings to be the essence of the Gaudiya Vaishnavism, this term seems unacceptable. These are probably coming from the ones who never read the original books and are not dependent on any authentic sources.Radhagovinda Nath also established that none of the direct disciples of Sri Chaitanya did accept wearing of coloured clothes or taking external sannyas as their focus is on Seva.What the current Acharyas say about this has nothing to do with my question. So the view of Radhagovinda Nath seem absolutely valid.

One of Radhagovinda Nath's books on Sri Chaitanya is available online here: https://archive.org/details/GauraTattva/page/n1

enter image description here

Addition

One respected Acharya of the Shri-Vaishnava sect is of the same opinion:

I also have a strong objection to gaudiyA's position as followers of madhva sAmpradAya as there is no real disciplic line. (disciplic line just doesnot mean guru's sishya is next guru, but the guru's teachings are unchanged by sishya when he becomes guru.) If there were a disciplic line, then gaudiyAs cannot deviate from sri Ananda teertha's pancha-bhEda and formulate their own achintya bhEda-abhEda. It would have been proper to call themselves chaitanya sampradAya, rather than 'madhva-gaudiya' sampradAya if they want to have a different interpretation of vedanta. If a disciplic line is genuine, then they will not deviate from the original teacher's readings (in this case sri madhva's). Hence, I do not see any genuinity of Gaudiyas as a bonafide vaishnava disciplic line, even in the case of Sri madhva being a bonafide AchArya. Hence their teaching that there are 4 bonafide disciplic lines is of little value. I do not mean to offend the devotion of gaudiya vaishNavAs or madhvas, but exposing the truth behind the genuinity of their disciplic lines. (Reference: http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia/ramanuja/archives/apr05/msg00016.html)

UPDATE

According to Radhagovinda Nath, Sripad Ishvar Puri was not a disciple of Madhva sect at all. The title of the Madhva sect monks is Tirtha, and never Puri.Radhagovinda has also shown with logic that Baladeva Vidyabhushana was earlier a disciple of the Madhva sect and later joined the Gaudiya sect and the Guru-parampara sloka is written by the commentator of Baladeva (who was a Madhva) and not by Baladeva Vidyabhushana.(Reference: Gaudiya Vaishnava Darshan, Page 171-175).

So the Guru-parampara shown is other answers is questionable.

  • @PrasannaR The ordering is perfect as the sloka of Madhva is given in the footnote.According to Radhagovinda, Jishnu means Arjuna here.If you need photos of any other point, pl let me know – user17294 Feb 20 at 13:11

You must log in to answer this question.