The Gauiya Tradition As A Distinct Samp

The Gauḍīya Tradition as a Distinct Sampradāya:
The Madhva Connection
Kostiantyn Perun
T his paper focuses on the question of whether or not the Gauḍīya sam-
pradāya, started by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu (1486-1533), can be consid-
ered a distinct sampradāya—particularly in the light of the long-standing
controversy regarding the Mādhva-Gauḍīya affiliation, which is the main factor in
this discussion.
On a personal note, I want to say that working on this article was a matter of
scholarship. In many ways, it is a risky and uncomfortable subject for practitio-
ners in the Caitanya lineage, and it was certainly not my wish to challenge estab-
lished concepts proposed by great ācāryas. My personal goal was to maintain
a balance between the inescapable conclusions I make in this paper and the
repeated statements offered by revered stalwarts of the Gauḍīya tradition. That
said, I think these topics—wherever they may lead us—should be analyzed and
discussed, because many devotees are unaware of them, believing that we indeed
share an abundance of teachings with the Mādhva tradition, without any diver-
gence, which just isn’t so. No doubt, Gauḍīyas can claim a substantial link to the
Mādhvas, but the differences and ongoing questions exist as well, and it serves
everyone’s purpose to carefully explore them.
Another introductory note: All translations from Sanskrit and Bengali are my
own (unless noted otherwise). All references to the Bhāgavata verses are according
to the Gauḍīya (Śrīdharīya) system of chapter and verse division, and not accord-
ing to the Mādhva system. All references to the Vedānta-sūtra, however, are made
according to the respective school’s tradition of chapter-sūtra division.
25
26 Journal of Vaishnava Studies
Distinct philosophy as a Sufficient Reason for a Distinct Sampradāya

“Sampradāyaḥ” is derived from the Sanskrit verbal root dā, “to give,” to which
intensifying prefixes sam- and pra- are added with the meaning “completely,”
“wholly.” Thus, sampradāya means “teachings handed down by tradition”1 or
“that by which teachings are delivered in a perfect or complete form” or “the act
of handing down completely.”2 Thus, the main distinctive feature of a sampradāya
is the teachings that it delivers—a particular worldview and philosophy to which
all its followers subscribe. There can be various sub-sects within a sampradāya
with slight variances in teachings, but not significant enough to make them sepa-
rate sampradāyas.3 However, a different, distinct philosophy necessarily makes
such a tradition a distinct sampradāya, regardless of whether or not it has its ori-
gins in another tradition.4
Such philosophy is essentially a school’s outlook on the relationships between
three main Vedāntic categories of Īśvara (God), jīva (individual soul) and prakṛti
(matter). According to the Gauḍīya teachings these relationships between God
and his energies are fully described by the concept of acintya-bhedābheda—
“inconceivable simultaneous difference and non-difference.” It is a distinct phi-
losophy, quite different from the teachings of all other Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas. This
alone can be seen as a necessary and sufficient condition to consider the Gauḍīya
tradition a distinct sampradāya.
There have been attempts to show that acintya-bhedābheda is a further develop-
ment of Madhva’s bheda philsophy,5 but on closer examination they turn out to
be a misinterpretation of the actual teachings of Madhva. These attempts focus
on the following terse quote from an unknown work by the name Brahma-tarka in
Madhva’s commentary on the Bhāgavata (11.7.49) (emphasis mine):
avayavy-avayavānāṁ ca guṇānāṁ guṇinas tathā

śakti-śaktimatoś caiva kriyāyās tadvatas tathā
svarūpāṁśāṁśinoś caiva nityābhedo janārdane
jīva-svarūpeṣu tathā tathaiva prakṛtāv api

cid-rūpāyām ato’naṁśā aguṇā akriyā iti
hīnā avayavaiś ceti kathyante te hy abhedataḥ
pṛthag-guṇādy-abhāvāc ca nityatvād ubhayor api
viṣṇor acintya-śakteś ca sarvaṁ sambhavati dhruvam
kriyāder api nityatvaṁ vyakty-avyakti-viśeṣaṇam

bhāvābhāva-viśeṣeṇa vyavahāraś ca tādṛśaḥ
viśeṣasya viśiṣṭasyāpy abhedas tadvad eva tu
The Gauḍīya Tradition and Its Madhva Connection 27
sarvaṁ cācintya-śaktitvād yujyate parameśvare/ tac-chaktyaiva tu jīveṣu cid-rūpa-

prakṛtāv api/ bhedābhedau tad anyatra hy ubhayor api darśanāt
kārya-kāraṇayoś cāpi nimittaṁ kāraṇaṁ vinā
Everything regarding Janārdana (Viṣṇu), such as the limbs of his body and
his body itself; his qualities and [he as] their possessor; his energies and [he
as] their possessor; his activities and [he as] the performer; his personal parts
(svarūpāṁśa) and [he as] their whole—as well as the same things related to the
svarūpas of the jīvas and to the sentient prakṛti—have an eternal exclusive non-
difference (nitya-abheda) between them. But because of non-difference and
because of the absence of separate qualities etc., and because of the eternality of
the two [the part and the whole, the qualities and their possessor, the limbs and
the body, etc.], they are said to be bereft of parts, qualities, activity and limbs.
Everything is indeed possible due to Viṣṇu’s inconceivable energy. Even with
regards to the eternality of activities etc. [of Īśvara, jīva and cit-prakṛti], either
manifested or unmanifested—the attitude, modified by either existence or non-
existence, is similar. The non-difference between the relative particulars (viśeṣa)
and the composite whole (viśiṣṭa) is exactly the same. Because of the inconceiv-
able energy everything suits the Supreme Lord. Only by his energy [this is also
true] even for the jīvas and sentient prakṛti. Everywhere else there is certainly
difference and non-difference (bhedābheda) because they both are seen. This
is also true for the cause and effect, except for [Brahman as] the instrumental
cause (nimitta-kāraṇa).
Thus, although Madhva indeed acknowledges bhedābheda, he does so only in

respect to everything besides Īśvara, jīvas and sentient cit-prakṛti, taken as sepa-
rate categories—effectively limiting its scope only to insentient matter and its
various attributes. In other words, there is identity or non-difference (abheda)
between qualities, activities, etc. within one given category (i.e. Īśvara, jīvas or
cit-prakṛti), but there is no abheda, or even bhedābheda, between the two of such
categories (i.e., between Īśvara and his energies like jīva or prakṛti). According to
Madhva, these categories are eternally completely different (nitya-bheda).6 This
is exactly why the bhedābheda between the cause and effect in the quote above
is qualified by “except for the instrumental cause”: the instrumental cause here
is Brahman (God) and the effect is his creation, but for Madhva there cannot be
any bhedābheda between them—it is only bheda, difference, because for him Brah-
man is only the instrumental cause of the creation and cannot be the material
cause (upādāna-kāraṇa) of it. According to Madhva there is also no bhedābheda or
bheda whatsoever between various direct manifestations of God (svarūpāmśa), like
avatāras, and we will discuss this in more detail later on in this paper.
The question of bheda and abheda between jīvas and God is also directly
addressed in Madhva’s commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra (2.3.43), as there are
scriptural statements to both effects. He draws the following conclusion by quot-
ing an untraceable verse from the Vārāha Purāṇa:
yato bhedena tasyāyam abhedena ca gīyate

ataś cāṁśatvam uddiṣṭaṁ bhedābhedau na mukhyataḥ
Whenever he [Viṣṇu] is described by the statements of difference from jīva, as

well as by the statements of their identity—it is done to explain the jīva’s posi-
tion as a part of Viṣṇu. Both difference and non-difference [between jīvas and
Viṣṇu] simultaneously cannot be accepted in their primary sense.
Thus, since both of them together cannot be taken in their primary sense, only
one should be understood in its primary (mukhya) sense and the other must be
taken in its figurative (gauṇa) sense.7 Obviously, for Madhva, who was the propo-
nent of dvaita, only bheda can be accepted in the primary sense.
Jayatīrtha (c.1345–c.1388), the foremost among Madhva’s commentators, eluci-
dates this even further in his sub-commentary:
etac chruti-dvayena jīveśāyor bhedābhedāv ucyete | na cānyatara-śruti-bādho yuktaḥ |

na ca sākṣād bhedābhedāv upapannau | virodhāt | ataḥ śruti-dvayānyathānupapattyā
bhedam aṅgīkṛtyābhedasthāne aṁśatvaṁ vaktavyam iti bhāvaḥ | uktaṁ cābheda-
śrutayo’ṁśatvād iti | bhedābhedokty anyathānupapattyāṁśo jīva ity atrāpi śrutim āha ||
By these two statements from the śruti both the difference and non-difference
between the jīva and God are stated. Also it is not proper to block [with one
śruti statement] another śruti statement. Neither are direct simultaneous differ-
ence and non-difference appropriate because of being mutually contradictory.
Therefore, because of both śruti statements being otherwise inappropriate, only
difference should be accepted, whereas [jīva’s] position as a part of [God] should
be explained where there [are statements of] non-difference. This is the mean-
ing. It is also said “śruti statements about non-difference [are made] because of
[jīva’s] being the part [of God].” Due to the statements about difference and non-
difference being otherwise inappropriate, he [Madhva] quotes from śruti regard-
ing a part, which is jīva.8
Thus, it is clear that neither Madhva nor his commentators accept bhedābheda in
relationship between God and his creation—the only real relationship between
them is bheda, whereas any notion of abheda or bhedābheda are necessarily figura-
tive, only indicating the creation’s dependence on God.

It is also noteworthy in this regard that although the direct successors of Śrī
Caitanya, who were instrumental in developing this distinct philosophy of acintya-
bhedābheda—Rūpa, Sanātana and Jīva Gosvāmīs—were familiar with Madhva’s
commentaries to the Bhāgavata, the Vedānta-sūtra and with his version of the
Māhābhārata (as I will show later in this paper), they have never referred to this
quote to show that their philosophy originates from or has something in common
with Madhva’s teachings. Jīva Gosvāmī instead contrasts Madhva’s philosophy
with his own in his auto-commentary named Sarva-saṁvādinī on his Paramātma-
sandarbha (78), where he discusses various schools with different gradations of
non-difference (abheda) and difference (bheda)9:
apare tu, tarkāpratiṣṭhānāt iti nyāyena bhede’py abhede’pi nirmaryāda-doṣa-

santati-darśanena bhinnatayā cintayitum aśakyatvād abhedaṁ sādhayantas tadvad
abhinnatayāpi cintayitum aśakyatvād bhedam api sādhayanto’cintya-bhedābheda-
vādaṁ svīkurvanti |tatra bādara-paurāṇika-śaivānāṁ mate bhedābhedau, bhāskara-
mate ca | māyāvādināṁ tatra bhedāṁśo vyāvahārika eva prātītiko vā | gautama-kaṇāda-
jaimini-kapila-patañjali-mate tu bheda eva | śrī-rāmānuja-madhvācārya-mate cety api
sārvatrikī prasiddhiḥ | sva-mate tv acintya-bhedābhedāv evācintya-śaktimayatvād iti |
Still others, seeing, in accordance with the statement “logic is not substantial,”10
that there are innumerable defects either in difference or in non-difference,
strive for non-difference, being unable to contemplate in terms of difference,
or strive for difference, being similarly unable to contemplate in terms of non-
difference, and thus accept the philosophy of inconceivable difference and non-
difference. The philosophy of the followers of Badara, Purāṇas and Śaivas is both
difference and non-difference. This is also Bhāskara’s philosophy. For māyāvādīs
(followers of Śaṅkara) the partial difference is only figurative or imaginary. Phi-
losophies of Gautama, Kaṇāda, Jaimini, Kapila and Patañjali certainly [postulate]
only difference, as well as the philosophies of Śrī Rāmānuja and Śrī Madhvācārya
that are well-known everywhere. My own philosophy, however, is only acintya-
bhedābheda, inconceivable difference and non-difference, because [Brahman is]
the embodiment of inconceivable energies.11
Śrī Caitanya, his early followers, Śrīdhara Svāmī and Madhva

All three Gosvāmīs mentioned above were familiar with Madhva’s works—they
knew at least his commentaries on the Bhāgavata and the Vedānta-sūtra.12 Thus,
Rūpa and Sanātana quote an untraceable verse that they attribute to the Mahā-
Kurma-Purāṇa13 and the verse and attribution to the said Purāṇa appears in Mad-
hva’s commentary to Bhāgavata 1.10.30. In his Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta Rūpa directly

mentions Madhva by name and quotes four verses from his commentaries to
the Bhāgavata and the Vedānta-sūtra.14 It is noteworthy that although Rūpa criti-
cizes Rāmānuja’s concept of Nārāyaṇa as the highest and original manifestation
of God,15 he does not criticize one of the most recognizable and fundamental
concepts in Madhva’s theology—the complete identity and equality of all direct
manifestations of God—an idea so central to Madhva and so opposed to Gauḍīya
theology (especially to Rūpa’s Laghu-bhāgavatāmrta, where he demonstrates the
hierarchy in the God’s forms, which in turn is completely opposed to Madhva’s
teachings on the nature of God).16
Jīva Gosvāmī and Madhva

Jīva Gosvāmī quotes Madhva in his philosophical works more frequently than
Sanātana and Rūpa, and he also knew Madhva’s Mahābhārata-tātparya.17 In the
beginning of his magnum opus, the Ṣaṭ-sandarbha, Jīva mentions18 three previous
authorities that he will be following in his interpretation of the Bhāgavata: first
of all he will look to the explanations of Śrīdhara Svāmī whenever they conform
to the pure Vaiṣṇava standpoint.19 According to Jīva Gosvāmī, Śrīdhara was a
great Vaiṣṇava who included some Advaitic ideas in his commentaries to attract
monists. Then he will also utilize the teachings of Rāmānuja, the celebrated teach-
er of the great Vaiṣṇavas in the South (Jīva even quotes a verse from the Bhāgavata
(11.5.39) to show how the South is famous for having many such Vaiṣṇavas20).
Then he will also refer to the śrutis and Purāṇas available to him, or he will quote
such works, that he did not see personally, from the writings of Madhva.
The order in which Jīva lists these three authorities seems to be of some impor-
tance to him—Śrīdhara Svāmī being undoubtedly the foremost among them. It is
noteworthy how Jīva refers to Madhva as “the ancient guru of the tattvavāda [doc-
trine], who widely propagated special Vaiṣṇava teachings and was the best among
the knowers of Vedas and their meanings; who had disciples and grand-disciples,
such as Vyāsa Tīrtha and Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha, who were famous in the South and
elsewhere.”21
Thus, Jīva clearly refers to Madhva with great respect and accepts his untrace-
able quotes from unknown sources as genuine.22 At the same time, he does
not provide any indication that Madhva or his followers, whom Jīva mentions,
belonged to his (or Śrī Caitanya’s) sampradāya.
The Relative Positions of Śrīdhara Svāmī and Madhva

in the writings of the Gosvāmīs
From the writings of these three original Gosvāmīs of the Gauḍīya sampradāya
we can see that Śrīdhara Svāmī clearly occupied a very special position as the
main authority on the teachings of the Bhāgavata, the cornerstone of the Gauḍīya-
sampradāya. This adherence to Śrīdhara Svāmī apparently sprang from Śrī Caitan-
ya’s total acceptance of him as “guru, by whose mercy he knew the Bhāgavata.”23
Śrīdhara Svāmī’s commentary on the Bhāgavata—and to a lesser degree his
commentaries to the Bhagāvad-gītā and the Viṣṇu Purāṇa—essentially acted as a
precursor of the Gauḍīya philosophy,24 which was founded on them as opposed to
Madhva’s teachings.25
Objectively speaking, Gauḍīya teachings have by far much more in common
with the teachings of Śrīdhara Svāmī than with those of Madhva. This adherence
to Śrīdhara, who is seen in the Mādhva tradition as a purely monistic or advaitic
commentator from the Śaṅkara school,26 has prompted one of the most prolific
English writers in the Mādhva tradition in recent times, B. N. K. Sharma, to state:
Still, it could not be said that Rūpa had decided to adopt Madhva as his sole
and only guide and teacher or was prepared to entirely agree with him, in
all matters. His respect for Madhva does not exclude his homage to the great
Advaitic commentator on the Bhāgavata: Śrīdhara Svāmin, whom he quotes and
mentions several times … Rūpa’s nephew, Jīva Gosvāmin, is no doubt greatly
influenced by the views of Madhva and is prepared to take his word for it, that
such sources as Caturvedaśikhā, Brahmatarka, are genuine. But, he is equally well-
disposed towards the memories of Śaṁkara and Rāmānuja. The attitude of the
early followers of Caitanya, then, seems to have been one of eclecticism. ... All
these show that the Gosvāmins were equally divided in their allegiance between
Madhva and Śrīdhara.27
The last statement is obviously incorrect—the Gosvāmīs, in fact, give in their writ-
ings a much more prominent position to Śrīdhara Svāmī, whom they repeatedly
mention in their invocations and cite literally hundreds of times, whereas they do
not do so to Madhva.
Similarly, Śrī Caitanya did not say the same thing about Madhva or his com-
mentary on the Bhāgavata that he said about Śrīdhara, despite the fact that it was
written earlier than the latter’s, and he neither referred to Madhva as “guru” nor
even mentioned him by name.
For all practical purposes, Mādhva’s tradition was in “low profile” in the
Gauḍīya Sampradāya up to the early 18th century, as Sharma notices: “It was in
the 18th century that this influence [of the writings of Madhva and his followers]
became very pronounced and predominant.”28
Sanātana Gosvāmī’s Critique of Madhva and Deference to Śrīdhara Svāmī

Sanātana and Jīva Gosvāmīs even criticize some of Madhva’s core teachings. The
most famous example would be in their commentaries to the three chapters (12-
14) in the Tenth Book of the Bhāgavata that deal with the stealing of the calves
and cowherd boys by Brahmā and his subsequent illusion created by Kṛṣṇa. These
chapters are rejected in the Mādhva tradition as spurious.29
In his commentary to the Bhāgavata verse 10.12.1, Sanātana directly says that
“some straightforward Vaiṣṇava tattvavādīs, who consider liberation certainly to
be the highest goal, and who cannot tolerate [such stories as] a demon’s liberation
and [Kṛṣṇa’s] drinking from the gopīs’ breasts, etc., say that these three chapters,
as well as the statements about Pūtanā’s liberation, are inconsistent. … This is
improper.”30
Sanātana then goes on to show that these chapters should be accepted as genu-
ine due to the following reasons: 1) they are seen in many manuscripts; 2) they
are accepted with respect by ancient and contemporary authorities, belonging
to the genuine sampradāyas, such as Śrīdhara Svāmī and others; 3) the places
where Aghāsura was killed and where Brahmā offered his prayers to Kṛṣna after
stealing his calves and friends are well-known in Vṛndāvana; 4) these stories are
also narrated in other sources, such as the Padma Purāna; 5) and, finally, such
stories of demons like Agha and Pūtanā being liberated does not contradict the
philosophical conclusions (siddhānta) of the great Vaiṣṇavas, because liberation
(mukti) is not acceptable for those who are fixed in bhakti (bhakti-niṣṭhāṇāṁ mukter
anupādeyatvāt).
Two of these reasons are especially relevant to our discussion—namely, num-
bers 2 and 5: that is, Sanātana Gosvāmī’s reference to Śrīdhara Svāmī in the
context of what is genuine and what is not and his last statement about mukti
and bhakti. By the latter he seems to indicate that those who reject these stories
consider mukti as the highest goal and do not actually see liberation as inferior to
bhakti. This is interesting because it shows that Sanātana clearly implies that he
does not subscribe to such understanding and thus he cannot be truly accepted
as a genuine follower of Madhva, who, at least according to Sanātana, shares such
attitudes toward liberation. If he were, he would not have referred to the authori-
ties from the other traditions, headed by Śrīdhara Svāmī, to show that some
teachings of an ācārya from his own sampradāya are not to be accepted. We have
already mentioned that Śrīdhara Svāmī’s conclusions are not in complete agree-
ment with the teachings of Śrī Caitanya and his followers—Jīva Gosvāmī openly
says so in his Tattva-sandarbha—but no Gauḍīya ācārya ever resorted to Śrīdhara
Svāmī’s authority to refute a previous ācārya from his own tradition. This shows
that for Sanātana Gosvāmī, Madhva’s authority is lesser than that of Śrīdhara
Svāmī and thus we cannot really speak of a philosophical affiliation between the
Gosvāmīs and Madhva.
Jīva Gosvāmī’s Critique of Madhva

and his Clear Reference to “Another sampradāya”
In his commentary to the same verse, Jīva Gosvāmī lists the names of the com-
mentaries that include these three chapters and provides an argument very
relevant to our discussion: “If these chapters are spurious on the strength of not
being accepted in his [Madhva’s] own sampradāya, why then could the opposite
not be true on the strength of them being accepted in another sampradāya?”31 In
other words, if some tradition rejects them as inauthentic, this in itself does not
make them such for another tradition where they are accepted. It is noteworthy
how Jīva uses his words to contrast “his [Madhva’s] own sampradāya” (tadīya-sva-
sampradāya) with “another sampradāya” (anya-sampradāya), who disagrees with
it. From such sharp differentiation it is clear that for Jīva there is no affiliation as
the two traditions are two distinct sampradāyas. He then proceeds to reject Mad-
hva’s “dvi-jīvatā-siddhānta”—the concept of two souls (befitting extreme dualism),
according to which whenever there are descriptions of demons attaining libera-
tion it must be understood that there were two souls in their body and the libera-
tion is actually achieved only by the “good soul,” whereas the actual “demonic”
soul goes to hell.32
Thus, although we can see Madhva’s direct influence on the works of Gosvāmīs,
it was not a very strong or a primary one that would allow us to speak of the two
sampradāyas’ affiliation—for the Gosvāmīs Madhva is just one of the great authori-
ties, together with Śrīdhara Svāmī, Rāmānuja, and others, that they refer to in the
development of their philosophy.
Kavi Karṇapūra and the Mādhva-Gauḍīya Affiliation

One of the first works mentioning the descriptions of the Gauḍīya tradition being
a part of the broader Mādhva-sampradāya was Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā (finished in
1576) by Kavi Karṇapūra (16th cent.), who was a younger contemporary of Śrī Cai-
tanya and a son of his close associate, Śivānanda Sena. In this work, dealing with
the previous incarnations of Caitanya’s associates, Karṇapūra provides the list of
Śrī Caitanya’s guru-paramparā and traces it all the way to Madhva. Some scholars
and devotees of the Gauḍīya tradition have questioned the authenticity of this
account or even of the work itself,33 mainly because of the following two reasons.
One of them is that the list of Śrī Caitanya’s predecessors in the tattvavāda tradi-
tion apparently contradicts Kavi Karṇapūra’s own estimation of the same tradi-
tion in his Caitanya-candrodaya-naṭaka (chapter 8), where Śrī Caitanya is recorded
to have said said the following:
kiyanta eva vaiṣṇavā dṛṣṭās te ’pi nārāyaṇopāsakā eva | apare tattvavādinas te tathā-
vidhā eva | niravadyaṁ na bhavati teṣāṁ matam | apare tu śaivā eva bahavaḥ | pāṣaṇḍās
tu mahā-prabalā bhūyāṁsa eva | kintu bhaṭṭācārya rāmānanda-matam eva me rucitam |
I have seen some Vaiṣṇavas, but they indeed were worshipers of Nārāyaṇa. Oth-
ers were tattvavādīs; they were indeed of the same category. Their philosophy
is not blameless. While others indeed were Śaivas, [there were] many of them.
Whereas, the heretics were very strong and numerous. But Rāmānanda’s phi-
losophy is pleasant to me, O Bhaṭṭācārya.”
Here Śrī Caitanya clearly dismisses tattvavādīs as those whose opinions are not
faultless and not relishable to him.
Another reason is that the verses preceding the list and immediately follow-
ing it are closely related—they describe Śrī Caitanya as the avatāra of Kṛṣṇa, who
accepted the mood of Rādhā, whereas the paramparā verses in between them
seem out of context.
However, these arguments are not irrefutable and thus insufficient to reject
the verses as a later interpolation. Firstly, it is clear that while speaking about
tattvavādīs, Śrī Caitanya expresses his striving for Vraja-bhakti and worship of
Kṛṣṇa in that particular mood that he valued the most. That is why he preferred
the association of Rāmānanda Rāya to the association of those Vaiṣṇavas who
worshiped Nārāyaṇa in the mood of awe and reverence.
On the other hand, a list of disciplic succession does not necessarily entail shar-
ing of the mood and mode of worship. Secondly, the verse preceding the list ends
with the mention of Kali-yuga. It is stated at the end of the verses describing the
list that Caitanya accepted Īśvara Purī as his teacher and flooded the world with
prema. The next verse after the list describes the same Śrī Caitanya as Kṛṣṇa, the
ocean of rasa, in the mood of Rādhā.
The usage of such words as “flood” and “ocean” may serve as a connection
between the two sets of verses.
Thus, if authentic,34 the account may be one of the earliest evidences of the
link from a personal associate of Śrī Caitanya.35 It has been reproduced in other
Gauḍīya works, too, like the Bhakti-ratnākara of Narahari Cakravartī (ca. 1740) and
Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s Prameya-ratnāvalī (18th century).
Other Questions Regarding the Link

1) Vyāsa Tīrtha (ca. 1460-1539)
There is no indication that Śrī Caitanya knew or heard about Vyāsa Tīrtha, who,
according to the traditional list of succession given in the Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā
and Prameya-ratnāvalī, was the guru of Mādhavendra Purī’s guru and was actually
a contemporary of Śrī Caitanya. It is rather interesting that, given the fact that
Vyāsa Tīrtha was living at Hampi as king Kṛṣṇadeva Rāya’s guru and main priest
exactly at the same time when Śrī Caitanya traveled in the South and even passed
by Hampi (Vijayanagara), the latter still didn’t go to visit him. It is also quite inter-
esting that Vyāsa Tīrtha—a great scholar and one of the greatest opponents of
monism at the time in addition to being considered Śrī Caitanya’s pūrva-guru—is
not even mentioned anywhere in the latter’s canonical biographies.36
On the other hand, Jīva Gosvāmī was intimately familiar with Vyāsa Tīrtha’s
Nyāyāmṛta—he refers his readers to it in his auto-commentary on the Paramātma-
sandarbha (78) and also acknowledges that he borrowed some ideas from it for his
refutation of the oneness of jīva and Īśvara.37 However, Jīva never mentions any-
thing about the Gauḍīyas’ relation to Vyāsa Tīrtha (whom he calls a “tattvavādī,”
but not “our ācārya” or something similar) or that he was the parama-guru of
Mādhavendra Purī, one of the most venerated saints in the Gauḍīya tradition.
2) Mādhavendra Purī (second half of the 15th century-early 16th century)

In the lists tracing Śrī Caitanya’s lineage to Madhva, Mādhavendra Purī comes
right after the unbroken sequence of Mādhva “Tīrtha” titles. His distinctly
Advaitic title “Purī”38 has been a puzzle for researchers and an often-cited
evidence to dismiss the affiliation as fictitious. However, this discrepancy
alone is not sufficient to wholly reject the link—we know only of a few events
from Mādhavendra’s life and there seems to be no solid evidence to show that
Mādhavendra could not possibly have been initiated into the Mādhva tradition
before he took sannyāsa from a “Purī” renunciant in the Advaita line.39
It is also noteworthy that Mādhavendra Purī holds a very special place in the
Gauḍīya tradition, where he is metaphorically described as “the first sprout of the
tree of bhakti.”40 He is said to have always experienced intense love of God (prema)
in the mood of separation, which is central to the Gauḍīya teachings on sādhya,
the goal of life. But nowhere in the canonical biographies of Śrī Caitanya is he
associated with the Mādhva tradition.
Analysis of the Philosophical Similarities and Differences Between the

Gauḍīya and Mādhva traditions
Whereas the information for analysis of the Mādhva-Gauḍīya link by initiation is

extremely scarce to arrive at any definite conclusion, we have ample information
to analyze the question of their doctrinal affiliation. I have already discussed some
disagreements between them on certain issues concerning the Bhāgavata Purāṇa
and the liberation of demons, and now I will try to point out some of the most vis-
ible philosophical similarities and differences between them. Objectively speak-
ing, all the major similarities inevitably contain some major differences, so there
cannot be a clear and distinct separation between the two.
The Ten essential Concepts

An often cited reference in the discussions of the Mādhva-Gauḍīya affiliation is
Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s Prameya-ratnāvalī.41 It is there that he summarizes the
philosophy of each school in ten points and makes a clear indication that both
Madhva’s and Śrī Caitanya’s teachings are essentially the same. Although there
is a general mutual agreement on these ten concepts as they are listed in the
Prameya-ratnāvalī, there is a substantial difference of what is really meant by some
of them in each of the two traditions.
Moreover, taken in this general sūtra-like form, without going into details,
these ten concepts are actually common to all Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas, not only
to the Mādhva or the Gauḍīya sampradāya. Take, for example, one of them—the
gradation of jīvas (jīva-tāratamya) in the context of Madhva’s teachings: for him
it is an extremely hierarchal system that includes the concept of the three types
of souls (jīva-traividhya), discussed below. These two concepts about souls’ innate,
eternal and unchangeable natures have no place in the Gauḍīya theology, where
the same tenet of the gradation of jīvas refers to the mukta-baddha dichotomy and
the five types of relationships between the liberated jīva and God, and is not at
all related to the soul’s intrinsic inclination to serve or to hate God or to the jīva’s
predetermined position after liberation. Similarly, as has already been said above,
although Gauḍīyas accept another of the ten tenets—bheda, which is central to
Madhva’s system, they also accept abheda, which ultimately has no place in Mad-
hva’s philosophy.
Tāratamya as a Concept (Though Applied Differently)

One of the most recognizable features of Madhva’s philosophy is his teachings
of tāratamya—hierarchy between Viṣṇu’s devotees and souls in general. Ācāryas
of the Gauḍīya tradition also use a similar gradation of Kṛṣṇa’s devotees in their
works,42 but the two tāratamyas are very different. Thus, for Madhva the highest
among jīvas are Vāyu (the god of wind, who incarnated previously as Hanumān,
Bhīma, and Madhva himself), Brahmā and Lakṣmī. They are the topmost devotees
of God and most dear to him. But in the Gauḍīya-sampradāya they do not rank as
the best devotees (in fact, Vāyu does not have any prominent place in Gauḍīya
theology at all). We will discuss the concept of tāratamya in other places of this
paper as well.
Attitude Towards the Form of God and His Mūrti

According to the Caitanya-caritāmṛta, when Śrī Caitanya visited Udupi and had a
conversation with the then ācārya of the tattvavāda Matha, he dismissed the lat-
ter’s philosophy as mixed with karma and jñāna, but acknowledged “one good
quality” in their sampradāya:
sabe, eka guṇa dekhi tomāra sampradāye

satya-vigraha kari’ īśvare karaha niścaye
“Now, I see one good quality in your sampradāya: accepting that the God’s form is
real, you maintain that with certainty.”43
Although this and preceding statements by Śrī Caitanya indicate that he dis-
tinguished his tradition from the tattvavāda school, and although he criticized
tattvavādīs for practicing mixed bhakti, he nevertheless appreciated that they
accept God’s form as eternal. This statement refers to the general concept of
Supreme as having a form or being formless. Śaṅkara’s school of extreme monism
(kevalādvaita) subscribes to the latter view, rejecting any notion of a form in
Brahman as a temporary product of māyā, whereas all major Vaiṣṇava traditions
vehemently oppose such understanding and hold that the scriptures refer to the
eternal spiritual form of God, free from any tinge of māyā. Thus, this statement
cannot be taken as definitive evidence to suggest that this was the reason why Śrī
Caitanya favored Mādhva sampradāya—the eternality of the Lord’s form is not an
idea peculiar only to Madhva’s tradition, but a common fundamental concept of
all Vaiṣṇava traditions.
Additionally, this statement is sometimes interpreted to refer to the form of
a deity—mūrti or arcā-vigraha. However, such interpretation is not persuasive
because, ironically, in the Mādhva tradition the form of a deity (mūrti) is consid-
ered to be a temporary representation of God (pratimā), made of matter, in which
he simply resides after installation and thus is by no means identical with God
himself.44 By contrast, in the Gauḍīya tradition, as well as in the Śrī-vaiṣṇava tradi-
tion, the mūrti is seen as God himself who entered it and became identical with it
just as milk when mixed with water becomes one and the same. The concept of
pratimā—mūrti being a representation of God and not God himself—is directly repu-
diated in the Gauḍīya theology.45
Other Differences
In addition to the differences between the two schools mentioned above, there
are other philosophical disagreements on fundamental principles, some of which
we will briefly discuss here.
The Position of Kṛṣṇa

The concept of Kṛṣṇa as svayaṁ-rūpa or svayaṁ bhagavān (the original, highest and
fullest form of God) is the cornerstone of all Gauḍīya teachings. It is based on the
all-important Bhāgavata verse:
ete cāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam

indrāri-vyākulaṁ lokaṁ mṛḍayanti yuge yuge
“These [avatāras described in preceding verses], as well as plenary portions of

the [Supreme] Male [Mahāviṣṇu] and their portions, delight the world, troubled
by the enemies of Indra, age after age, but Kṛṣṇa is the [original] God himself.”
(1.3.28)
Madhva, however, rejects such an interpretation, as well as any notion of one

form of God being in any way different from or exceeding his other forms. Mad-
hva even reads the verse differently:
ete svāṁśa-kalāḥ46 puṁsaḥ kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam

indrāri-vyākulaṁ lokaṁ mṛḍayanti yuge yuge
Although Madhva wrote an extremely concise commentary on this verse in his

Bhāgavata-tātparya, he quotes it and then elaborates on it in his commentary
on the Bhāgavad-gītā 10.41.47 Here, Madhva reads svāṁśa-kalāḥ instead of cāṁśa-
kalāḥ and takes it to mean “the plenary portions that are svāṁśas,” i.e., “direct
manifestations of Viṣṇu,” contrasting them with the general kalās who are jīvas or
vibhinnāṁśas (not svāṁśa-kalās)—sages, Manus, devas, etc., described in the previ-
ous verse (1.3.27)—who are simply “general portions of Viṣṇu.” In other words,
for Madhva this verse simply makes a clear distinction between the svāṁśa-kalās,
the direct manifestations of Viṣṇu (avatāras), and the kalās in general (jīvas).
Pointing out syntactical connection and taking the conjunction tu in the sense
of “certainly,” Madhva interprets the verse to mean that “all these svāṁśa-kalās
(avatāras) are directly God, Kṛṣṇa, himself”—in other words, all of them (not just
Kṛṣṇa) are mūlarūpī—that same original, but not in any way different, source of all
manifestations, Mahāviṣṇu.48
Madhva then proceeds to show that even Kṛṣṇa-avatāra is an aṁśa of this
Mahāviṣṇu by quoting a statement from the Viṣṇu Purāṇa (5.1.60), where it is
described that Mahāviṣṇu once pulled out two of his hairs, white and black, and
they became Balarāma and Kṛṣṇa.49 This narration of keśa-avatāra, along with
some other stories from the Purāṇas and the Mahābhārata, is repudiated by the
Gauḍīyas and by Śrī Caitanya himself as “māyāmaya vyākhyāna” or “illusory inter-
pretations,” meant to bewilder the asuras.50.Thus, these two concepts in Madhva’s
explanation of the Bhāgavata verse 1.3.28 (that Kṛṣṇa is not the original form of
God and that he is the incarnation of Mahāviṣṇu’s hair) are directly opposed to
the Gauḍīya-siddhānta.
Tāratamya in the Supreme

I have already briefly mentioned the concept of tāratamya, hierarchy, that is char-
acteristic of Madhva’s teachings. Gauḍīya ācāryas may or may not have drawn
from Madhva when they teach about gradation among Kṛṣṇa’s devotees. How-
ever, they also use tāratamya in relation to various manifestations or avatāras of
God, and this is one of the pillars of the Gauḍīya theology—but it is nothing short
of sacrilege for those in the Madhva lineage.51 Drawing from the Padma Purāṇa and
other sources, Rūpa Gosvāmī dedicates his Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta to show that God
in his various avatāras manifests himself and his potencies to various degrees and
only three of his avatāras—Narasiṁha, Rāma and Kṛṣṇa—are exceeding all other
forms. But among them Kṛṣṇa is the original form of God, his fullest manifestation
(pūrnatama52), and the source of all other avatāras, that are simultaneously one and
different from him (bhedābheda).
Although on the one hand Madhva advocates a complete difference (bheda)
between God, jīvas and prakṛti, on another hand he advocates complete one-
ness within God and his manifestations. Thus, any notion of bheda or bhedābheda
between them is tantamount for him to the greatest offence towards God.53 In
his commentary to Bhagavad-gīta 2.25, he quotes the following untraceable verses
from the Mahā-Vārāha Purāṇa:
matsya-kūrmādi-rūpāṇāṁ guṇānāṁ karmaṇām api

tathaivāvayavānāṁ ca bhedaṁ paśyati yaḥ kvacit
bhedābhedau ca yaḥ paśyet sa yāti tama eva tu

paśyed abhedam evaiṣāṁ bubhūṣuḥ puruṣas tataḥ
One who sees difference (bheda) anywhere in the forms, qualities, activities or
limbs of such forms as Matsya, Kūrma and others, or one who sees difference
and non-difference (bhedābheda), certainly goes to the darkness (hell). A person
who desires his own welfare should only see their non-difference (abheda).”54
In addition to the discussion of bhedābheda here and in another section above, it

should be also said that although the concept of viśeṣas, introduced and developed
by Madhva to explain the apparent difference between God and his attributes, is
similar to the Gauḍīya concept of acintya-bhedābheda, it is nevertheless a different
concept wholly within the broader kevala-bheda philosophy.55
Attitude Towards the Realization of the Majestic Aspect of God

In his Mahābhārata-tātparya-nirṇaya Madhva gives the following definition of
bhakti:
māhātmya-jñāna-pūrvas tu sudṛḍhaḥ sarvato’dhikaḥ

sneho bhaktir iti proktaḥ tayā muktir na cānyathā
“Very strong love (sneha), exceeding everything and preceded by the knowledge
of the greatness of God, is called bhakti. Liberation can be achieved by it and not
otherwise.” (1.85)
However, in the Gauḍīya understanding this very māhātmya-jñāna is ultimately

an obstacle in the highest levels of bhakti, such as those of Kṛṣṇa’s close friends,
parents and especially the Vraja-gopīs—the simple cowherd girls of Vṛndāvana
village, who are held in the highest esteem by Śrī Caitanya and his followers.
Discussing the gopīs’ devotion in his commentary on Bhāgavata 10.29.11, Madhva
states that they eventually attained Kṛṣṇa only because they realized him as Para-
brahman (Supreme God). The Gauḍīya tradition teaches the exact opposite of this
understanding—the gopīs occupy the highest rank of Kṛṣṇa’s devotees exactly
because they do not see him as the Supreme God, but only as their beloved.56
Position of the Vraja-gopīs

The fact that Madhva found and worshiped two-handed deity of Kṛṣṇa, who in
his biography is called “the beloved of the gopīs” (gopikā-praṇayinaḥ)57 can be seen
as another similarity between Mādhvas and Gauḍīyas. We can also add to this the
story behind this deity that is described by Raghuvarya Tīrtha (the head of Pali-
maru Matha in 1669-1714) in his Saurabha commentary on the short biography of
Madhva by Nārāyaṇa Paṇḍita called Prameya-nava-mālikā (also known as Anu-mad-
hva-vijaya after the full biography by the same author). According to Raghuvarya,
Kṛṣṇa’s mother Devakī asked him to show her some of his childhood pastimes
that were witnessed by Yaśodā in Vṛndāvana. In response to this request Kṛṣṇa
assumed the form of a small boy and enacted some of his childhood activities,
after which he manifested the Deity of him in that age and presented it to Devakī.
When Kṛṣṇa’s first wife Rukmiṇī saw the Deity she asked for a similar form to be
made for her and Viśvakarmā carved it from the sacred śalagrāma stone. After
many years that deity worshiped by Rukmiṇī was found by Madhva and installed
in Uḍupi.
However, despite the fact that the Kṛṣṇa deity was directly connected with
Vṛndāvana and the gopīs, who in the Gauḍīya hierarchy of devotees mentioned
above are the highest, purest and most dear to Kṛṣṇa,58 for Madhva they are
“apsarā-striyaḥ,”59 or “heavenly courtesans,” and are ranked among the lowest
in his hierarchy of Kṛṣṇa devotees. Thus, commenting on the Bhāgavata verse
11.12.22, Madhva quotes from an unknown work by the name Antaryāmi-saṁhitā:
kṛṣṇa-priyābhyo gopībhyo bhaktito dviguṇādhikāḥ |

mahiṣyo’ṣṭau vinā yās tāḥ kathitāḥ kṛṣṇa-vallabhāḥ ||
tābhyaḥ sahasra-samitā yaśodā-nanda-gehinī |
tato’py abhyadhikā devī devakī bhaktitas tataḥ ||
vasudevas tato jiṣṇus tato rāmo mahā-balaḥ |
na tato’bhyadikaḥ kaścit bhakty-ādau puruṣottame |
vinā brahmāṇam īśeśaṁ sa hi sarvādhikaḥ smṛtaḥ ||
The devotion of the queens of Dvārakā [the 16,100 wives of Kṛṣṇa], except for the
eight main principal queens, who are said to be beloved of Kṛṣṇa, is twice greater
than that of the gopīs, who are dear to Kṛṣṇa. A thousand times greater [in devo-
tion] than the queens is Yaśodā, the wife of Nanda. Even greater than her is
Devakī Devī, then Vasudeva, then Arjuna, then mighty Balarāma. There is no
one greater than him in devotion to the Supreme Person, Puruṣottama, except
Brahmā, who is the Lord of Lords and is known as surpassing all others.60
According to the Gauḍīyas, the gopīs may appear to have strong “lust” (kāma) for
Kṛṣna, but in fact are completely free from it.61 For Madhva, however, they are
always endowed with kāma, lust, just as demons are always endowed with hatred,
dveṣa, towards God, but can attain mokṣa by their lust directed towards Kṛṣṇa.62
In addition to Madhva’s emphasis on the realization of Kṛṣṇa as Supreme God,

discussed above, Madhva also states that the gopīs who left their bodies because
of their strong feelings of separation from Kṛṣṇa, first went to Svarga (where,
according to him, they originally came from as apsarās). Only after some time—
having fully realized Kṛṣṇa as Parabrahman, they attained liberation, which, Mad-
hva says, cannot be achieved without such realization (jñāna).
Elsewhere, while dealing with the glorification of the gopīs in the Bhāgavata,
Madhva explains that it was narrated just to show the preeminent position of the
devas, such as Vāyu and Brāhma:
gopikā api māmāpuḥ kim u vāyv ādyā iti darśayitum gopikā-praśaṁsanam | sar-
vair guṇaiḥ sarvottamas tu vāyur eva | sa eva ca hiraṇyagarbhaḥ |63
Even the gopīs attained me, what to speak of [the gods such as] Vāyu and oth-
ers—to show this, glorification of the gopīs [is narrated]. Only Vāyu exceeds all by
all his qualities. And he is also Hiraṇyagarbha [Brahmā].64
Such teachings are in fact not just another minor disagreement between the two
schools on the importance of jñāna, but would be considered sacrilege for the
Gauḍīyas, who see the gopīs of Vṛndāvana as the topmost, purest and most dear
devotees of Kṛṣṇa—eternally liberated manifestations of his personal potency
(svarūpa-śakti), whose bhakti is to be followed and emulated by practitioners.
Three Types of jīvas

Another application of the tāratamya concept that marks the contrast between
the Gauḍīya and the Mādhva philosophy is Madhva’s theory of three types of
souls (jīva-traividhya), peculiar only to his teachings. Although Madhva, simi-
larly to all other Vaiṣṇava traditions, accepts the two broad divisions of jīvas being
either liberated (mukta) and bound (baddha), he postulates further three divisions
that, according to him, are intrinsic to the soul’s innate nature and cannot be
changed.65
These three type of souls are those who are “fit for liberation” (mukti-yogya),
those who “perpetually remain within saṁsāra” (nitya-saṁsārī) and those who are
“fit for hell” (tamo-yogya).66 They clearly parallel the three guṇas described in the
Bhagavad-gītā and many other sources. However, in the Gauḍīya tradition such
divisions based on the guṇas are exclusively limited to the realm of matter (e.g.
the body of the jīva), but not to the jīva himself, who is spiritual and thus free of
any connection with them (nirguṇa).
The Mādhva-Gauḍīya Affiliation

in the Works of Some Later Gauḍīya ācāryas
Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa (ca. 1700-1793)

Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa is often credited with introducing the idea of the
Gauḍīyas’ affiliation with the Mādhva-sampradāya, but this claim is inconclusive
since there is clear evidence that similar ideas were in vogue even before Balade-
va.67 He was, perhaps, the most vocal supporter of the Mādhva-Gauḍīya link
among the prominent Gauḍīya teachers that came after Śrī Caitanya. He included
Madhva in the invocatory prayers in the majority of his works and based many of
them on Madhva’s philosophy.
However, although Baladeva repeatedly stresses the link and emphasizes the
sameness of the core teachings, in some places of his Vedānta-sūtra commentary
styled Govinda-bhāṣya, that he wrote on the basis of Madhva’s own commentary,
he provides explanations that are not in line with Madhva’s teachings.68 Thus,
most remarkably, he accepts Brahman as the material cause of creation (upādāna-
kāraṇa, sūtras 1.4.23-27)—an idea directly opposite to the teachings of Madhva.
Baladeva also differs from Madhva in dividing the text of the Vedānta-sūtras into
sections (adhikaraṇas) and individual sūtras: there are 558 sūtras in 203 adhikaraṇas
in his version, whereas Madhva has 563 sūtras in 223 sections and all followers and
commentators of Madhva maintain his division as the indispensable condition of
the proper interpretation of the Vedānta-sūtras. In another of his works, Siddhānta-
darpaṇa, Baladeva—similarly to Sanātana and Jīva Gosvāmīs—refutes the idea that
three chapters in the tenth book of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, the ones that deal with
the illusion of Brahmā, are a later interpolation—an idea for which the Mādhva
tradition is famous.69
Kedāranātha Datta Bhaktivinoda (1838-1914)

Another recent, important teacher in the Gauḍīya tradition was Kedāranātha
Datta, also known as Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura. In his writings, he also repeatedly
emphasized the link. Thus, in his Śrīman Mahāprabhura Śīkṣā,70 he famously writes:
ihāte spaṣṭa jānā yāya ye brahmasampradāya nāmaka ekaṭī sampradāya sṛṣṭira

samaya haite caliyā āsiteche | sei sampradāye guruparamparāprāpta vedasaṅgitā [sic]
viśuddhā vānī-i bhagavaddharma saṁrakṣaṇa kariyāche | sei vāṇīra nāma āmnāya
(ā-mnā-ghañ) | ye sakala loka “paravyomeśvarasyāsīcchiṣyo brahmā jagatpatiḥ” ityādi
vākya krame pradarśita brahma sampradāya svīkāra karena nā tāmhārā bhagavadukta
pāṣaṇḍa mata pracāraka | śrīkṛṣṇacaitanya sampradāya svīkāra karata yāhārā gopane
guruparamparā siddha praṇālī svīkāra karena nā tāmhārā kalira gupta cara ihāte san-
deha ki?
From this we can clearly understand that one sampradāya by the name “Brahma-
sampradāya” is coming from the [beginning of] creation. In this sampradāya,
the highly pure teachings, known by the term “Vedas,” are aquired through
the succession of gurus, fully protected the dharma of the Supreme Lord. These
teachings are called “āmnāya” (derived as follows: ā + mnā + ghañ). All those
people who do not accept the Brahma-sampradāya that is shown in the state-
ments starting with “Brahmā, the lord of the universe, was a disciple of the Lord
of the Spiritual Sky ...,”71 are preachers of the atheistic philosophy mentioned by
the Lord. Those who accept the sampradāya of Śrī Krishna Caitanya but hiddenly
do not accept the perfect succession of gurus are the secret spies of Kali. What
doubts can be there?
Two paragraphs later he reiterates his assessment by saying that anyone who
does not accept the system of succession described by Kavi Karṇapūra and
Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa is the greatest enemy of the followers of Śrī Kṛṣṇa Cait-
anya.72
However, although Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura openly defended the Madhva-
Gauḍīya link and criticized those who deny it, he made it clear that the teachings
of Madhva and Caitanya were in fact quite different and the number of concepts
common to both is rather limited. It is noteworthy that he did this before and
after he was prompted to make the strong statements quoted above. Thus, in his
earlier work, Śrī Navadvīpa-dhāma-māhātmya (1889), he describes Śrī Caitanya’s
teachings as the essence of all four major sampradāyas:
madhva haite sāra-dvaya kariba grahaṇa

eka haya kevala-advaita nirasana
kṛṣṇa-mūrti nitya jāni’73 tāṅhāra sevana
sei ta’ dvitīya sāra jāna mahājana
rāmānuja haite āmi lai dui sāra
ananya-bhakati, bhakta-jana-sevā āra
viṣṇu haite dui sāra kariba svīkāra
tvadīya-sarvasva-bhāva, rāga-mārga āra
tomā haite laba āmi dui mahā-sāra
ekānta-rādhikāśraya, gopī-bhāva āra
From Madhva I will take two essential [concepts]. One is refutation of exclusive
monism. Service to the form of Kṛṣṇa, knowing it to be eternal,—know it
to be the second one, O great person. From Rāmānuja I take two essential [con-
cepts]—exclusive devotion and service to devotees. From Viṣṇu [Svāmī] I will
accept two essential [concepts]—the mood of complete belonging to Kṛṣṇa and
the path of spontaneous attachment. From you [Nimbārka], I will take two great
essential [concepts]—taking exclusive in Rādhā and the mood of gopīs.”74
Then in his magnum opus, Jaiva-dharma (originally published serially in his Sajjana-
toṣaṇī magazine in 1893-1897) after describing how different ācāryas like Śaṅkara,
Madhva, Rāmānuja, Nimbārka and Viṣṇusvāmī established their own philoso-
phies to interpret the Vedic statements, he explains:
śrīmanmahāprabhu samasta śruti vacanera sammāna pūrvaka yemata siddha haya

tāhāi śikṣā diyāchena | tāhāra nāma acintya bhedābheda tattva | śrīmanmadhvācāryera
sampradāya bhukta haiyāo tāmhāra matera sāramātra svīkāra kariyāchena |
Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu provided his teachings on how all statements of the
śrutis can be upheld and respected. Their name is acintya-bhedābheda-tattva.
Although belonging to the sampradāya of Madhvācārya, he accepted only the
essence of his philosophy.”75
Similarly, Bhaktivinoda’s son and follower, Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī (1874–

1937), always emphasized the link and promoted the concept of the “Brahma-
Mādhva-Gauḍīya-sampradāya.” Nevertheless, he also at times pointed out the obvi-
ous differences in theology and practice of the two schools.76
Conclusion
While there is no solid evidence to show that there was no formal connection
between the two traditions, for all practical purposes the Gauḍīya-sampradāya has
all characteristics of a separate, distinct sampradāya, founded by Śrī Caitanya and
further developed by his followers,77 particularly by the three main Gosvāmīs:
Rūpa, Sanātana and Jīva. Since we cannot speak of a close relation in theology,
philosophy, or practice between the Gauḍīya and Mādhva traditions, the Gauḍīya-
sampradāya is de facto a distinct sampradāya, even though historically there may
have been a dīkṣā connection between them.
Endnotes
1. Amara-koṣa 3.2.242.
2. Depending on whether the kṛt-pratyāya “ghañ,”supplied to the word, is in karmāṇi or
bhāve prayoga.
3. The most famous example of this are Vaḍakalai and Teṅkalai groups—two large sub-
sets of the Śrī Vaiṣṇava sampradāya, who share a lot of common teachings and adhere to
the same viśiṣṭādvaita philosophy of Rāmānuja, but who still have very different outlook on
some minor details.
4. An illustrative example of this is the Mādhva tradition itself, which though being for-
mally connected to Śaṅkara’s sampradāya (where Madhva received his sannyāsa initiation),
is diametrically opposed to its advaita philosophy.
5. Vidyāvinoda 1939: 259-262; Haridāsa Dāsa 1969: 112. For a detailed discussion of this
(and refutation from the Mādhva side) see Sharma 2008a: 588-596.
6. See Mahābhārata-tātparya 1.70-71: jīveśayor bhidā caiva jīva-bhedaḥ parasparam | jaḍeśayor
jaḍānāṁ ca jaḍa-jīva-bhidā tathā | pañca-bhedā ime nityāḥ sarvāvasthāsu sarvaśaḥ: “These five
differences are eternal in all conditions and by all means: (1) the difference between the
souls and God; (2) the difference between the souls themselves; (3) the difference between
matter and God; 4) the difference between the various manifestations of matter; and (5) the
difference between matter and the soul.”
7. See Sharma 2008b: 2: 274.
8. Tattva-prakāśikā-ṭīka 2.3.43.
9. In the same section, before setting forth his conclusion of acintya-bhedābheda,
Jīva Gosvāmī also discusses bheda-siddhānta in which the difference and non-difference
between the cause and effect is not accepted, and then refers his readers to Vyāsa Tīrtha’s
Nyāyāmṛta for further details. The arguments he sumarizes there are very similar to the
arguments from Madhva and Jayatīrtha discussed here.
10. Vedānta-sūtra 2.1.11
11. Jīva Gosvāmī also makes similar analysis in his Sarva-saṁvādinī on the Bhaga-
vat-sandarbha 7. It should be noted here that although Jīva Gosvāmī speaks of acintya-
bhedābheda as “his philosophy,” it was already mentioned by Sanātana Gosvāmī in his
Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta (2.2.195-196) and referred to even by Śrī Caitanya himself in his
instructions to the latter (Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya 20.108). Thus it was developed jointly
by the direct followers of Caitanya on the basis of instructions that they received from him.
12. All the references to Madhva in the works of these three early Gosvāmīs mainly deal
with the nature of God, his māyā-śakti and—to a lesser degree— with the position of some
of the Lord’s associates (see, for example, Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.2.304; Kṛṣṇa-sandarbha 93
and 115; Bhakti-sandarbha 317; Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī 10.5.20, etc.).
13. Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.2.304, Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta, Dig-darśanī-ṭikā 2.7.151.
14. Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta 1.3.43, 1.5.97, 1.5.210, 1.5.414.
15. Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta 1.5.226.
16. The possible reason for this may be the somewhat ambiguous and concise state-
ment in Madhva’s commentary to the all-important for Gauḍīyas Bhāgavata verse kṛṣṇas
tu bhagavān svayam (1.3.28), where he simply states “mūlarūpī svayam eva,” without giving
any further explanation. Taken as is, the statement may be seen as supporting the Gauḍīya
understanding of the verse. However, in many places of his works Madhva unambiguously
establishes his position on this issue—all avatāras and forms of the Lord are essentially one
and the same and there is no gradation or hierarchy between them. See Sharma 1989:222-
226.
17. Tattva-sandarbha 28.
18. Tattva-sandarbha 28.
19. bhāṣya-rūpā tad-vyākhyā tu samprati madhya-deśādau vyāptān advaita-vādino nūnaṁ
bhagavan-mahimānam avagāhayituṁ tad-vādena karburita-lipīnāṁ parama-vaiṣṇavānāṁ
śrīdhara-svāmi-caraṇānāṁ śuddha-vaiṣṇava-siddhāntānugatā cet tarhi yathāvad eva vilikhyate |
20. kvacit teṣām evānyatra-dṛṣṭa-vyākhyānusāreṇa draviḍādi-deśa-vikhyāta-parama-bhāg-
avatānāṁ teṣām eva bāhulyena tatra vaiṣṇavatvena prasiddhatvāt | śrī-bhāgavata eva, kvacit kvacin
mahārāja draviḍeṣu ca bhūriśaḥ ity anena prathita-mahimnāṁ sākṣāc chrī-prabhṛtitaḥ pravṛtta-
sampradāyānāṁ śrī-vaiṣṇavābhidhānāṁ śrī-rāmānuja-bhagavat-pāda-viracita-śrī-bhāṣyādi-dṛṣṭa-
mata-prāmāṇyena |
21. tattva-vāda-gurūṇām anādhunikānāṁ pracura-pracārita-vaiṣṇava-mata-viśeṣāṇāṁ
dakṣiṇādi-deśa-vikhyāta-śiṣyopaśiṣyībhūta-vijayadhvaja-vyāsatīrthādi-veda-vedārtha-vid-varāṇāṁ
śrī-madhvācārya-caraṇānāṁ |
22. This is in contrast to Jīva’s contemporary Appayya Dīkṣita (ca. 1520–1593), who was
among the first to raise severe objections to Madhva’s unknown sources and untraceable
quotes and rejected them as Madhva’s own compositions.
23. Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Antya 7.133
24. Some noteworthy examples of Śrīdhara Svāmī’s explanations in his commentaries
to the Bhāgavata verses are the following: Kṛṣna as the origin of all other forms (1.3.28,
2.7.26, 10.2.9); the liberation (mokṣa) as kaitava-dharma (1.1.2); continuation of bhakti after
mokṣa (1.1.3, 1.7.10); preeminence of love of God (prema-bhakti) over liberation (mukti)
(5.6.18); his acceptance and defence of the eternality of the God’s form (8.6.8-9); his glori-
fication of the gopīs as the most exalted devotees of Kṛṣṇa (in his commentaries to Tenth
Book of the Bhāgavata, especially chapters 29-33 and 47); his glorification of prema and
nāma-saṅkīrtana (11.2.40-42); his direct support of the bhedābheda between the jīvas and God
(11.22.10), etc. All these teachings are evidently opposed to the mainstream Advaita phi-
losophy. They are crucial for the Gauḍīya tradition, but some of them are directly opposed
to the teachings of Madhva.
25. Interestingly, the attitude towards the form of God was that “one good quality”
that Śrī Caitanya saw in the Mādhva tradition when he visited Udupi and had a discussion
with the ācārya there. Based on this, the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas, then, belong more to Śrīdhara
Svāmī’s tradition, who similarly accepted and defended the eternal form of God (see his
commentary to the Bhāgavata 8.6.8-9 and the Bhagavad-gītā 9.11), but in addition to that
also provided other philosophical and theological grounds for the teachings of Śrī Caitanya
and his followers, mentioned in endnote 21 above, that are either absent in the tattvavāda
school of Madhva or are directly opposed to it.
26. See Sharma 2008a: 459: “On more vital occasions, he [Śrīdhara Svāmī] is frankly
dualistic in his interpretations, even where a monistic one could be thought of (i, 18, 14;
vii, 3, 34). He is even anti-monistic at times : XI, 12, 20; admits the reality of “śrīvigraha” and
the continuation of Bhakti in Mokṣa. With all that, Śrīdhara, was a staunch Advaitin (i, 5,
20) and there is much more than a casual agreement between his interpretation of vii, 9, 10
and its criticism at the hands of Vijayadhvaja.”
27. Sharma 2008a: 527.
28. Sharma 2008a: 528.
29. Possible reasons for the rejection are Brahmā’s illusion, his acknowledgement of it
and of his low position, his glorification of the residents of Vṛndāvana, including the vraja-
gopīs, and his prayer to take birth there, as well as the descriptions of Agha demon’s libera-
tion. All these narrations contradict the Mādhva-siddhānta.
30. etac cādhyāya-trayaṁ kecit tattvavādino vaiṣṇavā mukter eva parama-puruṣārthatāṁ
manyamānāḥ ṛju-buddhayo’trāsura-mukti-gopī-stanya-pānādikaṣ cāsahamānāḥ pūtanā-sad-gati-
pratipādakaṁ ‘pūtanā loka-bālaghnī’ ity ādi śloka-ṣaṭkam iva ‘ya etat pūtanā-mokṣam’ iti ślokam iva
ca vigītam ity āhuḥ, tac cāsaṅgatam |
31. tadīya-sva-sampradāyānaṅgīkāra-prāmāṇyena tasyāprāmāṇyaṁ cet, anya-sampradāyāṅg-
īkāra-prāmāṇyena viparītaṁ kathaṁ na syāt?
32. The concept of “two souls” is peculiar only to the Mādhva tradition where it is one
of the fundamental teachings. Madhvācārya propounds this theory in many places of his
works, most notably in his commentaries on the Bhāgavata verses 3.2.24, 7.1.31, 10.4.18.
Commenting on the liberation of Pūtanā in his Mahābhārata-tātparya-nirṇaya (12.87), Mad-
hva explains that it was Urvaśī, living in the body of Pūtanā due to a curse, who actually got
liberated, while Pūtanā herself went to hell. The “two souls” concept is also applied in the
Mādhva tradition to Śaṅkara, who according to them was a combined incarnation of Śiva
and demon Maṇimān. This idea is not accepted in the Gauḍīya tradition, where Śaṅkara is
seen as an incarnation of Śiva alone, endowed with a special mission to bewilder the asuras.
33. See Vidyāvinoda 1951: 194; Nātha: 171-173. One of the earliest recorded attempts to
disregard the Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā as the work of Kavi Karṇapūra happened in early 1892
in an article in the Caitanya-mata-bodhinī magazine (reviewed in Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s
Sajjana-toṣaṇī, vol. 4, number 2, pp. 24-26). It was suggested there that the Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-
dīpikā was actually written not by Kavi Karṇapūra, but by Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa. Other
attempts to dismiss the Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā as Kavi Karṇapūra’s work have also been
made by Rāsabihārī Sāṅkhyatīrtha in his Vaiṣṇava-sāhitya, as well as in the Sonāra Gaurāṅga
magazine (vol. 3, number 11, p. 684, 1332 Bengali year) and in the Basumatī magazine (Ben-
gali year 1342, Pauṣa month (January 1936, p. 455). Their arguments were analyzed and
dismissed by Majumdar (2016: 97-100). For a recent elaborate analysis of the authenticity of
the passage in the Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā see Hawley 2013.
34. There are some additional questions regarding some descriptions in the list of suc-
cession. It is stated there that Madhva authored a book called Śata-dūṣaṇī and that Vyāsa
Tīrtha wrote Viṣṇu-saṁhitā. Neither of these titles are known among the followers of
the Madhva-sampradāya. There is a book called Tattva-muktāvalī (Māyāvāda-śata-dūṣaṇī),
which was first published in the late 19th century and which is sometimes wrongly attrib-
uted to Madhva. The author mentions his name as Pūrṇānanda Kavi and he is called Gauḍa
Pūrṇānanda in the colphon. His style is clearly very different from Madhva’s and scholars
of the Mādhva tradition unanimously agree that this is certainly not Madhva’s work, but
was written much later (around 17th century) in Bengal (see Sharma 2008a: 450). The work
has been widely thought of as a work of Madhva in the nineteen-century Bengal, so the
mention of a similar title in the Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā is curious and requires further
research. Additionally, Narahari Cakravartī (first half of the 18th century) does not mention
Śata-dūṣaṇī by Madhva, although he does mention Viṣṇu-saṁhitā by Vyāsa Tīrtha, in the
Bengali paraphrase of this section of the Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā in his Bhakti-ratnākara. An
old manuscript of the Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā from the 16th or 17th century would be very
helpful in ascertaining the original text. There is another, more well-known Śata-dūṣaṇī by
Vedānta Deśika (1268–1369) from the Śrī-sampradāya. The reference to the Viṣṇu-saṁhitā
authored by Vyāsa Tīrtha is mysterious—his works are well-known, well preserved and all
of them deal exclusively with the highly technical logic of Vedānta (nyāya) and meticulous
refutation of the methodology and linguistics of exclusive monism. No one of them deals
directly with Viṣṇu to be rightly called “The treatise on Viṣṇu.” Sharma (2008a: 296) opines
that this refers to the three great masterpieces of Vyāsa Tīrtha together, but this assump-
tion is not conclusive. Another evidence against Kavi Karṇapūra’s knowledge and accep-
tance of the Mādhva-Gauḍīya link is the fact that he identifies Hanumān and Bhīma, who
are both regarded in the Mādhva-sampradāya as previous incarnations of Madhvācārya,
with Murāri Gupta and one of Bhavānanda Rāya’s five sons respectively (Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-
dīpikā 91, 122). He does not mention that they were one and the same person or that for-
merly they appeared as his previous ācārya, Madhva.
35. There is a work very similar to Karṇapūra’s Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā named Gaura-
gaṇa-svarūpa-tattva-candrikā, which is attributed to Viśvanātha Cakravartī (late 17th cent.
–early 18th cent.), where the link is upheld in a very similar way to the Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-
dīpikā. However, the authorship is disputed for several reasons (Vidyāvinoda 1951: 208-213,
Martins 2015: xxxvi-xl). Only one poorly transcribed manuscript of the work belonging to
a very recent date (late 19th century) is known, with no date of the work and a plain scribal
attribution of it to Viśvanātha. There are three works with the similar titles attributed to
him, so this particular work may have been falsely acribed to him because of the similar-
ity of the titles. Nowhere else in his works does Viśvanātha mention the Mādhva-Gauḍīya
link, refer to Madhva as one of the ācāryas of his tradition or even give Madhva any special
treatment among other authorities he cites. In his commentary on Bhāgavata 11.22.10
Viśvanātha rejects the idea of complete difference (atyanta-bheda) between God and jīva.
36. It was suggested in Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu by Swami Bhakti Pradip Tīrtha of the
Gaudiya Mission (Tīrtha 1939: 80) that the tattvavāda-ācārya that Śrī Caitanya met in Uḍupi
might have been Vyāsa Tīrtha. He refers to “a tradition among the Madhvas” to support
his statement. It is stated in the Vaisnava Vijaya by Swami Bhakti Prajñāna Keśava of the
Devananda Gaudiya Math (Keśava 1996: 142) that Śrī Caitanya indeed met Vyāsa Tīrtha
in Uḍupī (along with Raghuvarya Tīrtha, with whom Śrī Caitanya had a debate) and had
“many dialectical deliberations” with him. However, lacking any supportive evidence,
these allegations seem highly untenable in the light of Vyāsa Tīrtha’s position as one of the
most revered teachers in the Mādhva-sampradāya, and—considering the Madhva-Gauḍīya
link that both authors vehenmently supported—as the grand-guru of Mādhavendra Purī,
as well as the personal guru and priest of the kings of the Vijayanagara empire. It also
goes against their guru’s opinion that Śrī Caitanya had a debate with Raghuvarya Tīrtha
alone. A possible reason why Śrī Caitanya did not go to see the famous scholar Vyāsa Tīrtha
may be the fact that the king of Vijayanagara was an adversary of king Pratāparudra of
Orissa, who later became an ardent devotee of Caitanya. They fought several wars both
in Vijayanagara and in Orissa in the early sixteen century around the time of Caitanya’s
travels in the South. In addition to the animosity between the kings, there was also a philo-
sophical confrontation between the kings’ court pandits—Vyāsa Tīrtha and Sārvabhauma
Bhaṭṭācārya—around the same time when the latter became Śrī Caitanya’s follower. See
Bhattacharyya 1940: 65 and Sharma 2008a: 291-292 for details.
37. Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣanī 10.87.2.
38. The title “Purī” is strongly associated with the Advaita tradition and no there are
no records of any traditional Mādhva-sannyāsī having any other title except “Tīrtha.” See
Sharma 2008a: 525.
39. This is an often-cited conjecture (e.g. Vidyāvinoda 1939: 252). There is a partially
preserved less-known biography of Śrī Caitanya named Gaurāṅga-vijaya by Cūḍāmaṇi Dāsa
where it is suggested that Mādhavendra Purī received mantra-dīkṣā from a sannyāsī named
Kṛṣṇendra Purī (Sen 1957: 1, Vidyāvinoda 1962: 478-481.). However, since the book also
describes some important incidents that are curiously not mentioned in other biographies
of Caitanya, like Mādhavendra’s staying in Navadvīpa during Caitanya’s birth and child-
hood, Mādhavendra’s conversation with Śri Caitanya (all other biographies are silent on
this and seem to suggest that the two never met in person); his visit to Rāḍha to see newly
born Nityānanda, etc., it is not clear if the book is reliable.
40. Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi 9.10.
41. Verse 1.8
42. Sanātana Gosvāmī’s Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta and Rūpa Gosvāmī’s Upadeśāmrṭa. It is not
clear if this gradation is due to Madhva’s influence.
43. Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya 9.277.
44. See Madhva-vijaya 6.42, 9.40-43, 14.12; Sharma 2002: 353-355.
45. Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi 5.225, Madhya 5.96. In this understanding of mūrti as the
full-fledged form of the Lord (arcā-avatāra) the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas are actually much closer
to the Śrī-Vaiṣṇavas, who share the same attitude towards the deity. At the same time,
Madhva considers that all avatāras of God (but except arcā) are eternal—a teaching that is
seemingly not accepted by the followers of Rāmānuja, but shared by the Gauḍīyas.
46. This is the reading accepted in the Mādhva tradition.
47. From this commentary and its subcommentary of Jayatīrtha it is clear that Madhva
and Jayatīrtha are trying to refute an interpretation identical to the Gauḍīya and Śrīdhara
Svāmī’s understanding of the verse and that such interpretation was prevalent in some
Bhāgavata commentaries even prior to Śrīdhara Svāmī (quite possibly in some of the now
extinct commentaries mentioned by Jīva Gosvāmī in his Tattva-sandarbha). Vopadeva (c.12-
13 cent.) provides a similar interpretation in his Muktā-phala 3.29. See also Govindacharya
1980: 20 for the extract from an ancient pro-Mādhva commentary that also discusses such
interpretations.
48. See Sharma 1989: 223-226 and Sharma 2008b: 2: 275-276 for more details.
49. udbabarhātmanaḥ keśau. Madhva repeatedly refers to the keśa-avatāra narration in
his version of the Mahābhārata (See, for example, Mahābhārata-tātparya-nirṇaya 12.111-112,
17.147, etc.).
50. See Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya 23.117-118.
51. Sharma (2002: 353) writes: “... there is one important difference that in Mad-
hva’s view, these various manifestations are absolutely on a par with one another. There
is no gradation among them in respect of powers or potentialities. Madhva is vehemently
opposed to the idea of making any invidious distinctions among these manifestations of
God or putting some one a higher pedestal than others.” This is another instance of the
Gauḍīyas being actually closer to the Rāmānuja tradition, where the gradation in different
manifestations of God is also accepted.
52. See Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.1.221.
53. See Mahābhārata-tātparya-nirṇaya 1.110-111.
54. The notion of bheda between God and his attributes is similarly rejected in the
Gauḍīya tradition (see Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya 9.154), but at the same time bhedābheda,
which is rejected by Madhva, is accepted.
55. For more details on the relation of the concept of viśeṣas, bheda, abheda and
bhedābheda see Sharma 2002: 73-105.
56. See Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya 8.230, Antya 7.41; Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.2.303;
Prīti-sandarbha 332, etc.
57. Madhva-vijaya 9.41.
58. See Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya, 14.157; Rūpa Gosvāmī’s Upadeśāmṛta 10, and the
Bhaktāmṛta section of his Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta for short sūtra-like statements. For the
elaborate discussion see Rūpa Gosvāmī’s Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi and Jīva Gosvāmī’s Prīti-sandarbha.
59. Bhāgavata-tātparya 10.29.15.
60. Pandurangi 2007: 268.
61. Caitānya-caritāmṛta, Ādi 4.162-175.
62. Bhāgavata-tātparya 10.29.15.
63. Bhāgavata-tātparya 11.12.17, Pandurangi 2007: 259.
64. Here again the Gauḍīyas are much closer to the Rāmānuja tradition than to Madh-
va’s: in the Śrī-vacana-bhūṣaṇa (sūtra 248) Pillai Lokācārya (1205–1311) and his commentator
Manavāla Mamunigal (1370–1450) also compare the gopīs with Brahmā and conclude that
Brahmā is low because he could not attain Kṛṣṇa, whereas the gopīs are exalted because
they attained him by their love of him (brahmā hīno gopikā prāptavatītyevaṁ kartuṁ yogyaḥ).
Interestingly, among all Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas the gopīs are held in high esteem, and only
in the Mādhva tradition are they considered as devotees of very low rank.
65. Mahābhārata-tātparya-nirṇaya 1.18. Madhva propounds his teachings on the various
natures of souls and the gradation between them in the first chapter of this work.
66. Mahābhārata-tātparya-nirṇaya 30.53-55.
67. See Majumdar 2016: 582 and Martins 2015: xii-xx.
68. See Sharma 2008a: 588, 593-596 for more details.
69. The possible reasons why Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa emphasized the Mādhva-Gauḍīya
affiliation have been analyzed elsewhere by scholars and devotees from the both sides of
the controversy. They are related to his Galta debate against opponents of the Gauḍīya tra-
dition and supporters of the concept of “four sampradāyas.”
70. First published serially in the Sajjana-toṣaṇī magazine in 1892 and then published
many times as a book.
71. The list of gurus in the Mādhva-Gauḍīya-sampradāya in the Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā
starts with this verse.
72. ei samasta vākyadvārā spaṣṭapratīta haya ye śrībrahma sampradāya-i śrīkṛṣṇacaitanya-
dāsadigera gurupraṇālī | śrīkavikarṇapūra gosvāmī ei anusāre dṛḍhakariyā svīyakṛta gaura-
gaṇoddeśa dīpikāya gurupraṇālīra krama likhiyāchena | vedānta sūtra bhāṣyakāra śrīvidyā-bhūṣaṇa
o sei praṇālīke sthira rākhiyāchena | yāṁhārā ei praṇālīke asvīkāra karena tāṁhārā ye śrīkṛṣṇacaita
nyacaraṇānucaragaṇera pradhāna śatru ihāte āra sandeha ki?
Two months before this publication, in May 1892, Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura wrote a review
of an article published in a new magazine known as Caitanya-mata-bodhinī, where the
Mādhva-Gauḍīya link and the authenticity of the Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā were disputed
(see endnote 7 above). Evidently, it was this article that prompted him to write these state-
ments about the non-believers in the Madhva-Gauḍīya link.
73. This seems to indicate that Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura interpreted Śrī Caitanya’s state-
ment in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta (Madhya 9.277) as referring not to the Lord’s form in the
ultimate sense, but to his form as the deity. This was discussed above and the Mādhvas’
attitude towards the deity is actually quite different from the Gauḍīyas’ understanding.
74. Bhaktivinoda 1889: 104-105.
75. Chapter 18, published in the Sajjana-toṣaṇī magazine (vol. 6, number 8, pp. 142-144)
in December, 1894.
76. See Bhaktisiddhānta 2000: 130-133 and “A Word to our Madhwa-Vaishnava Breth-
ern” in The Harmonist (Vol. 31, number 18, p. 412, May 14, 1935).
77. This conclusion was also made by Ānandī (c. late 17th-early 18th cent.) at the end of
his commentary on Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī’s Caitanya-candrāmṛta: ataḥ śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya-
mahāprabhuḥ svayaṁ bhagavān eva sampradāya-pravartakas tat-pārṣadā eva sāmpradāyikā
guravo nānye—“Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Mahāprabhu is certainly Svayam Bhagavān (the original
fullest manifestation of God) and the founder of his own sampradāya. His associates are cer-
tainly gurus of that sampradāya, not others.”
Bibliography
Sanskrit texts
Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa. Govinda-bhāṣya (with Sūkṣmā ṭīka). Ed. and transl.
(Bengali) Bhakti Śrīrūpa Siddhānti Mahārāja. Calcutta: Śrī Sārasvata-
Gauḍīyāsana Mission, 1966. (In 4 vols.).
————. Prameya-ratnāvalī (with Kāntimāla-ṭīkā by Kṛṣṇadeva Sārvabhauma and
Bengali commentary by Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī). Ed. Sundarānanda
Vidyāvinoda. Calcutta: Śrī Gauḍīya Maṭha, 1925.
————. Siddhānta-darpaṇaḥ (with the commentary of Nanda Miśra). Ed. and transl.
(Bengali) Haridāsa Dāsa. Navadvīpa: Haribola Kuṭīra, 1943.
Govindacharya, Bannanje, ed. 1980. Sarva-mūla-granthāḥ. Vol. 3: Śrī Bhāgavata-
tātparya-nirṇaya. Udupi: Akhila Bhārata Mādhva Mahā Maṇḍala Publica-
tions.
Jīva Gosvāmī. Bhakti-sandarbha. Ed. and transl. (Hindi) Haridāsa Śāstrī. Vṛndāvana:
Gadādharagaurahari Press, 1986.
————. Paramātma-sandarbha (with Sarva-saṁvādinī and Vinodinī commentaries). Ed.
and transl. (Hindi) Haridāsa Śāstrī. Vṛndāvana: Gadādhara-gaurahari
Press, 1984.
————. Saṁkṣepa-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī. Ed. Purīdāsa Mahāśaya. Mymensingh:
Śacīnātha Rāya Caturdhurī, 1946.
————. Sarvasaṁvādinī. Ed. Purīdāsa Mahāśaya. Vṛndāvana: Haridāsa
Śarma, 1953.
————. Tattvasandarbha (with commentaries of Jīva Gosvāmī, Baladeva
Vidyābhūṣaṇa, Rādhamohana Gosvāmī, Gaurakiśora Gosvāmī). Ed.,
(Hindi) Haridāsa Śāstrī. Vṛndāvana: Gadādharagaurahari Press, 1983.
Kavi Karṇapūra. Caitanya-candrodayam (carita-naṭakam). Ed. Purīdāsa Mahāśaya.
Vṛndāvana: Haridāsa Śarma, 1954.
————. Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā. Ed. and transl. (Bengali) Rāmanārāyaṇa
Vidyāratna. 4 ed. Baharampūr: Rādhāramaṇa Press, 1914.
Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja. Caitanya-caritāmṛta (with the commentaries of Bhaktivinoda
Ṭhākura and Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī). Ed. Bhakti Śrirūpa Bhāgavata
Mahārāja. 6 ed. Calcutta: Gauḍīya Mission.
Panchamukhi, R. S. (ed.). 1980. Bharma Sutra Bhashya of Sri Madhvacharya with the
commentary Tatva-Prakasika of Sri Jayatirtha and a gloss thereon Bha-
vadipa of Sri Raghavendratirtha. Vol. 2. Dharwad: Karnataka Historical
Research Society.
Pandurangi, K. T., ed. 2007. Śrīmad Bhāgavatam. Vol. 12: Śrīmad Bhāgavatam with
Tātparyanirṇaya of Śrī Ānanda Tīrtha, Śrī Śrīnivāsa Tīrtha’s commentary

and Tāmraparṇi Ānandatīrthācārya’s Bhāvachandrika. Bangalore: Dvaita
Vedanta Studies and Research Foundation.
Prabhanjanacharya, V., ed. 1998. Mahabharata tatparynirnaya of Sri Madhwacharya
(Sr Anandatirtha Bhagavatpada) (with the commentary of Sri Vadirajatirtha).
Bangalore: Sri Vyasa Madhwa Seva Pratisthana.
Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī. Caitanya-candrāmṛta (with the Rasikāsvādinī commentary
by Ānandī). Ed.and Transl. (Bengali) Rāmanārāyaṇa Vidyāratna Baharam-
pūr: Rādhāramaṇa Press, 1884.
Prahlādācārya, P. D., ed. 2006. Gītātātparyanirṇayaḥ of Śrī Madhwācārya with the
Nyāyadīpikā commentary of Śrī Jayatīrtha and the Bhāvadīpa sub-commentary
of Śrī Raghavendratīrtha. Bangalore: Poornaprajna Samshodhana Mandi-
ram.
Rūpa Gosvāmī. Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ (with the commentaries of Jīva Gosvāmī,
Mukundadāsa Gosvāmī, Viśvanātha Cakravartī). ed. and transl. (Bengali)
Haridāsa Dāsa. 2 ed. Navadvīpa: Haribola Kuṭīra, 1961.
————. Saṁkṣepa-bhāgavatāmṛtam. Ed. Purīdāsa Mahāśaya. Mymensingh:
Śacīnātha Rāya Caturdhurī, 1946.
Sadhale, S. G. S., ed. 1936. The Bhagavad-Gita with eleven commentaries. Vol. 2. 2nd
ed. Bombay: The Gujarati Printing Press.
Sanātana Gosvāmī. Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī (Daśama-ṭippanī). Ed. Purīdāsa Mahāśaya.
Vṛndāvana: Haridāsa Śarma, 1951.
————. Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛtam (with the Dig-darśiṇī-ṭīkā). Ed. Purīdāsa Mahāśaya.
Mymensingh: Śacīnātha Rāya Caturdhurī, 1945.
Śāstrī, Haragovinda, ed. and transl. (Hindi). 1998. Amarakoṣa (Nāmaliṅgānuśasana).
Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series.
Shyamachar A.B., Pandurangi S. R., ed. 2000. Sumadhvavijayaḥ of Nārāyaṇa
Paṇḍitācārya (with the commentaries of Nārāyaṇa Paṇḍitācārya, Viśvapati
Tīrtha, Chalārī Śeṣācārya). Vol.1. Bangalore: Dvaita Vedanta Studies and
Research Foundation.
————., Pandurangi S. R., ed. 2001. Sumadhvavijayaḥ of Nārāyaṇa Paṇḍitācārya
(with the commentaries of Nārāyaṇa Paṇḍitācārya, Viśvapati Tīrtha, Chalārī
Śeṣācārya). Vol.2. Bangalore: Dvaita Vedanta Studies and Research Foun-
dation.
Śrīdhara Svāmī. Bhāvārtha-dīpikā. Ed. Purīdāsa Mahāśaya. Mymensingh: Śacīnātha
Rāya Caturdhurī, 1947. (2 vols.).
Vopadeva. Muktāphalam (with the commentary of Hemadri). Ed. Sastri, I. C., Vidyaba-
gisa, H. Vol. 1. Calcutta: Calcutta Oriental Series, 1920.
Bengali texts
Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī. 2000. Brāhmaṇa o Vaiṣṇava. 3rd ed. Māyāpur: Śrī Cait-
anya Maṭha.
Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura. 1889. Śrī Navadvīpa-dhāma-māhātmya. Calcutta: Bhakti-
bhavan.
————, ed. 1892. Sajjana-toṣaṇī. Vol. 4. Calcutta: Bhakti-bhavan.
————, ed. 1894. Sajjana-toṣaṇī. Vol. 6. Calcutta: Bhakti-bhavan.
Haridāsa Dāsa. 1969. Gauḍīya-vaiṣṇava-sāhitya. 2nd ed. Navadvīpa: Haribola Kuṭīra.
Majumdar, B. B. 2016. Caitanyacaritera Upādāna. 2nd ed. Reprint of the 1939 ed.
Kolkata: Sanskrit Book Depot.
Nāth, Rādhāgovinda. 2016. Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Darśana, Vol. 1. Kolkata: Sanskrit Book
Depot.
Sen, Sukumar (ed.) 1957. Gaurāṅga-vijaya. An early biography of Caitanya written in
Middle Bengali. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society.
Vidyāvinoda Sundarānanda. 1939. Vaiṣṇavācārya ŚrīMadhva. Ḍhākā: Śrī
Supatirañjana Nāga.
————. 1951. Acintyabhedābhedavāda. Kolkata: Gauḍīya Mission.
————. 1962. Paratattvasīmā ŚrīŚrīKṛṣṇaCaitanya. Navadvīpa: Śrī Navīna-kṛṣṇa-
dāsa.
English texts
Bhattacharyya, Dinesh Chandra. “Vāsudeva Sārvabhauma.” The Indian Historical
Quarterly, vol.16, 1940:58-69.
Chari, S.M.S. 1997. Philosophy and Theistic Mysticism of the Alvars. Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass.
Hawley, J. S. “How do the Gauḍīyas Belong? Kavikarṇapūra, Jaisingh II, and the
Question of Sampradāy.” The Journal of Hindu Studies 2013; 6:114–130.
Keśava, Bhakti Prajñāna. 1996. Vaiṣṇava Vijaya (The Life History of Māyāvādism).
Atlanta: Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Press.
Martins, Demian, ed. and transl. (English). 2015. Gaura-gaṇa-svarūpa-tattva-
candrikā. Vrindavan: Jiva Institute.
Sharma, B. N. K. ed. and trans. (English). 1989. The Bhagavadgītā Bhaṣya of Śrī
Madhvācārya. Rendered into English (with text separately given). Bangalore:
Anandatirtha Pratishthana.
————. 2002. Philosophy of Śrī Madhvācārya. Reprint of the revised edition. Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass.
————. 2008a. History of the Dvaita School of Vedanta and its Literature. Reprint of
the 3rd rev. ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
————. 2008b. The Brahmasūtras and Their Principal Commentaries. Vol. 2. Third
reprint. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.
Tīrtha, Bhakti Pradīpa. 1939. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Mymensingh: Śacīnātha Roy
Caudhurī.

The Gauiya Tradition As A Distinct Samp

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Gauiya Tradition As A Distinct Samp

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Gauḍīya Tradition as a Distinct Sampradāya:

The Madhva Connection

Distinct philosophy as a Sufficient Reason for a Distinct Sampradāya

avayavy-avayavānāṁ ca guṇānāṁ guṇinas tathā

jīva-svarūpeṣu tathā tathaiva prakṛtāv api

kriyāder api nityatvaṁ vyakty-avyakti-viśeṣaṇam

sarvaṁ cācintya-śaktitvād yujyate parameśvare/ tac-chaktyaiva tu jīveṣu cid-rūpa-

Thus, although Madhva indeed acknowledges bhedābheda, he does so only in

yato bhedena tasyāyam abhedena ca gīyate

Whenever he [Viṣṇu] is described by the statements of difference from jīva, as

etac chruti-dvayena jīveśāyor bhedābhedāv ucyete | na cānyatara-śruti-bādho yuktaḥ |

tive, only indicating the creation’s dependence on God.

apare tu, tarkāpratiṣṭhānāt iti nyāyena bhede’py abhede’pi nirmaryāda-doṣa-

Śrī Caitanya, his early followers, Śrīdhara Svāmī and Madhva

hva’s commentary to Bhāgavata 1.10.30. In his Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta Rūpa directly

Jīva Gosvāmī and Madhva

The Relative Positions of Śrīdhara Svāmī and Madhva

Sanātana Gosvāmī’s Critique of Madhva and Deference to Śrīdhara Svāmī

Jīva Gosvāmī’s Critique of Madhva

Kavi Karṇapūra and the Mādhva-Gauḍīya Affiliation

Other Questions Regarding the Link

2) Mādhavendra Purī (second half of the 15th century-early 16th century)

Analysis of the Philosophical Similarities and Differences Between the

Whereas the information for analysis of the Mādhva-Gauḍīya link by initiation is

The Ten essential Concepts

Tāratamya as a Concept (Though Applied Differently)

Attitude Towards the Form of God and His Mūrti

sabe, eka guṇa dekhi tomāra sampradāye

The Position of Kṛṣṇa

ete cāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam

“These [avatāras described in preceding verses], as well as plenary portions of

Madhva, however, rejects such an interpretation, as well as any notion of one

ete svāṁśa-kalāḥ46 puṁsaḥ kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam

Although Madhva wrote an extremely concise commentary on this verse in his

Tāratamya in the Supreme

matsya-kūrmādi-rūpāṇāṁ guṇānāṁ karmaṇām api

bhedābhedau ca yaḥ paśyet sa yāti tama eva tu

In addition to the discussion of bhedābheda here and in another section above, it

Attitude Towards the Realization of the Majestic Aspect of God

māhātmya-jñāna-pūrvas tu sudṛḍhaḥ sarvato’dhikaḥ

However, in the Gauḍīya understanding this very māhātmya-jñāna is ultimately

Position of the Vraja-gopīs

kṛṣṇa-priyābhyo gopībhyo bhaktito dviguṇādhikāḥ |

In addition to Madhva’s emphasis on the realization of Kṛṣṇa as Supreme God,

Three Types of jīvas

The Mādhva-Gauḍīya Affiliation

Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa (ca. 1700-1793)

Kedāranātha Datta Bhaktivinoda (1838-1914)

ihāte spaṣṭa jānā yāya ye brahmasampradāya nāmaka ekaṭī sampradāya sṛṣṭira

madhva haite sāra-dvaya kariba grahaṇa

śrīmanmahāprabhu samasta śruti vacanera sammāna pūrvaka yemata siddha haya

Similarly, Bhaktivinoda’s son and follower, Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī (1874–

Tātparyanirṇaya of Śrī Ānanda Tīrtha, Śrī Śrīnivāsa Tīrtha’s commentary

You might also like