1

I read here on Hindustack exchange, in the comments of this answer

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

Also in another comment

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.

What are the views of Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu regarding Dvaita of Shri Madhwacharya?

What were his criticism regarding Dvaitha sampradaya and what were the contents of his discussion with scholars of Udupi. In general wha are the criticism of Achintya Bhedabheda school regarding Dvaitha school.

2
+50

I will post conversations from Chaitanya Charitamrita(CC). CC describes it from verse Madhya 9.245, when Sri Chaitanya arrives in Udupi to visit the famous temple of Krishna. He then has a discussion with Madhavacharya Tradition Acharyas as follows.

Caitanya Mahāprabhu said, “I do not know very well the aim of life and how to achieve it. Please tell Me of the best ideal for humanity and how to attain it.” The ācārya replied, “When the activities of the four castes and the four āśramas are dedicated to Kṛṣṇa, they constitute the best means whereby one can attain the highest goal of life." Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu said, “According to the verdict of the śāstras, the process of hearing and chanting is the best means to attain loving service to Kṛṣṇa. This process entails hearing, chanting and remembering the holy name, form, pastimes, qualities and entourage of the Lord, offering service according to the time, place and performer, worshiping the Deity, offering prayers, always considering oneself the eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa, making friends with Him and dedicating everything unto Him. These nine items of devotional service, when directly offered to Kṛṣṇa, constitute the highest attainment of life. This is the verdict of the revealed scriptures When one comes to the platform of loving service to Lord Kṛṣṇa by executing these nine processes, beginning with hearing and chanting, he has attained the fifth platform of success and the limit of life’s goals.When a person is actually advanced and takes pleasure in chanting the holy name of the Lord, who is very dear to him, he is agitated and loudly chants the holy name. He also laughs, cries, becomes agitated and chants just like a madman, not caring for outsiders .In every revealed scripture there is condemnation of fruitive activities. It is advised everywhere to give up engagement in fruitive activities, for no one can attain the highest goal of life, love of Godhead, by executing them. Occupational duties are described in the religious scriptures. If one analyzes them, he can fully understand their qualities and faults and then give them up completely to render service unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead. A person who does so is considered a first-class man.‘Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.’ As long as one is not satiated by fruitive activity and has not awakened his taste for devotional service by śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ, one has to act according to the regulative principles of the Vedic injunctions. Both liberation and fruitive activity are rejected by devotees. You are trying to establish these things as life’s goal and the process for attaining it. Seeing that I am a mendicant in the renounced order of life, you have been playing with Me in a duplicitous way. You have not actually described the process and ultimate objective.” (CC Madhya 9.255-272)

Hearing this reply, the Tattvavadi Acharya replied

"Still, whatever Madhvācārya has established as the formula for our party we practice as a party policy."(CC Madhya 9.275)

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu replied, "Both the fruitive worker and the speculative philosopher are considered nondevotees. We see both elements present in your sampradāya.The only qualification that I see in your sampradāya is that you accept the form of the Lord as truth."Thus Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu broke the pride of the Tattvavādīs to pieces. He then went to the holy place known as Phalgu-tīrtha.(CC Madhya 276-278)

The disagreement was with Excessive Obession to fruitive works and the speculative philosophy and adherence to Varnasrama alone with a goal to attain Moksha in Madhavacharya Sampradaya. Sri Chaitanya said attaining love for Krishna by giving up all speculations and occupational duties is the aim of life and devotees even reject Liberation and focus only on attaining devotional service to Lord Krishna.

1

It's difficult to say what exactly were the views of Sri Caitanya on Madhva's Dvaita because there are no much info on that in the biographies of Sri Caitanya, and Sri Caitanya himself didn't write any book in which he would, say, explain his teachings precisely and in detail, even speaking critically on the teachings of other sampradaya schools (Hindu traditional schools) and acaryas (Hindu traditional teachers). But at least we could say that there are differences in scriptural interpretation between Madhva and Gaudiya Vaishnavas. The easiest way how to see this is to compare how Madhva explained some verses and how Gaudiya Vaishnavas explained those verses. For example, if you go verse by verse of the Bhagavad gita commentaries written by Madhva and some Gaudiya Vaishnava acarya, if you compare them you'll see that sometimes they greatly differ in opinion as to how some verse should be translated and explained. Now, the thing is that just because there is the difference in opinion about some verse it still doesn't necessarily mean that there Gaudiya Vaishnavas must be thinking Madhva failed at that verse, ie misinterpreted that verse. This is so because sometimes it is possible to interpret some verse in several different ways which all can be correct due to the fact that a verse can have several different meanings. However, sometimes Gaudiya Vaishnavas might possibly think that Madhva's interpretation is not acceptable, or that is to say it's wrong. Now, since there are many of such instances where Gaudiya Vaishnavas differ in opinion from Madhva, it's not always easy to say whether Gaudiya Vaishnavas differ in opinion from Madhva because they just prefer some other possible meaning of the verse, or they differ in opinion from Madhva because they think Madhva was wrong. By the way, those kind of questions concerning possible criticism of one sampradaya school (one Hindu traditional school) towards other sampradaya school belong to more advanced study of sampradaya schools and their particular scriptural interpretations, and since both of those schools, Madhvas as well as Gaudiya Vaishnavas are followers of Vedanta, namely they both are Vedanta schools, to find possible criticism of Gaudiya Vaishnavas towards Madhvas would require solid and good background in knowledge of Vedanta.

That what I said above applies not only to possible criticism of Gaudiya Vaishnavas towards Madhva but to any other acarya or author such as Ramanuja, etc, or any other school.

To be sure that Gaudiya Vaishnavas made criticism of Madhva, or any other Hindu sampradaya or acarya, we should search for their explicit statement to that effect such as "we do not agree with acarya this or that or school this or that", or at least we should search for their explicit statement to the effect where they say that the verse cannot be interpreted in such and such manner, or even what they mention in the Purvapakshas in their books such as Vedanta sutra commentary. But there are not much of those explicit statements in the Gaudiya Vaishnava books except for Vedanta sutra commentary where many such examples can be found.

For comparison you can take Srila Prabhupada's commentary on the Bhagavad gita, Bhagavad-gita As It Is available at vedabase, and Madhva's commentary on the Bhagavad gita under the title The Bhagavadgita Bhasya of Sri Madhvacarya Rendered into English by Dr. B.N.K. Sharma.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .