Which Ācārya Did Śrī Caitanya Meet in Uḍupi?
The following is a response to a post on Instagram by one "Bheemesha Dasa", who was mainly challenging some mistranslated writings of my Paramagurudeva, Śrī Śrīmad Bhakti Prajñāna Keśava Gosvāmī Mahārāja. It brings into focus the present-day tensions between the Mādhva and Gauḍīya communities. Some dispute between estranged Vaiṣṇava cousins is perhaps to be expected. I strongly believe it is utterly unnecessary and orchestrated by Kali Mahārāja and his stooges.
Readers can refer to the original Instagram post here: https://www.instagram.com/p/DLiVaLsTpH-/?img_index=1
śrī śrī guru-gaurāṅgau jayataḥ
Dear Bheemesha Dasa,
I respect your effort to clarify misconceptions and push back against offensive rhetoric from ISKCON and Gauḍīya Maṭha devotees. I must insist that any such derogatory comments made by Gauḍīya devotees are rooted in sheer ignorance. Few Gauḍīyas properly study the Mādhva tradition and even among those who do, there are deep divides and various motives. You may have heard of Sundarānanda Vidyāvinoda. His writings, which are woven from deceptive half-truths, are the source of most of these offensive remarks. But that is a much larger subject for another time.
For now, I must humbly point out, as your Vaiṣṇava cousin, that in attempting to defend your lineage, you have rather unfortunately thought it wise to attack one of your greatest allies in all this confusion—Śrī Bhakti Prajñāna Keśava—by misconstruing his words. However, this is not your fault. You have been misled largely by mistranslation.
Mistranslation Issues in Beyond Nirvāṇa
Beyond Nirvāṇa is an outdated English translation of Śrī Bhakti Prajñāna Keśava’s Māyāvāder Jīvanī that is in dire need of extensive editing or retranslation. The publisher, Gauḍīya Vedānta Publications, is aware of the issues and in the process of rectifying them. This single-page excerpt alone contains numerous mistakes, most glaringly the one in the second-to-last sentence, which frames Śrī Vyāsa Rāya as a follower of Śrī Caitanya. Śrī Bhakti Prajñāna Keśava did not write this, nor did he claim with certainty that Śrī Vyāsa Rāya met with Śrī Caitanya, nor that Śrī Vyāsa Rāya was eager to meet with Him, nor that Śrī Vyāsa Rāya definitely produced Nyāyāmṛta as a result of that meeting. Śrī Bhakti Prajñāna Keśava simply suggested that “it seems” that book was a result of their meeting. And naturally, Śrī Bhakti Prajñāna Keśava spoke of His iṣṭa-deva Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu with devotional fervor. Below I provide the original Bengali along with a fresh, accurate English translation, line by line.
Śrī Caitanya-deva and Vyāsa Rāya
শ্রীকৃষ্ণচৈতন্য মহাপ্রভুর সহিত মধ্ব-সম্প্রদায়ের তদানীন্তনকার প্রধান প্রধান আচার্য্যবর্গের সহিত সাধ্য-সাধন-তত্ত্ব সম্বন্ধে বিচার ও আলাপ আলোচনা হইয়াছিল।
Deliberations and discussions ensued regarding the principles of sādhya (the goal) and sādhana (the means to achieve it) between Śrī Kṛṣna Caitanya Mahāprabhu and the then-principal ācāryas of the Madhva-sampradāya.
রঘুবর্য্য তখন উডুপী মঠের অধ্যক্ষ ছিলেন ।
Raghuvarya was the head of the Uḍupi Maṭha at that time.
ব্যাসরায় রঘুবর্য্যের পরে ক্রমশঃ অধ্যক্ষতা লাভ করেন। তিনি অতি দীর্ঘায়ুঃ ছিলেন। ন্যায় শাস্ত্রে তাঁহার অগাধ পাণ্ডিত্য ছিল ৰলিয়া পণ্ডিত সমাজ আজও তাঁহার পূজা করিয়া থাকেন ।
After Raghuvarya, Vyāsa Rāya eventually gained the leadership. He had a very long life. The community of scholars still reveres him today because of his profound scholarship in the science of Nyāya (logic).
কাহারও মতে তিনি ১৪৭৬ খৃষ্টাব্দ হইতে ১৫৬৯ খৃষ্টাব্দ পর্য্যন্ত যে জীবিত ছিলেন তাহাতে কোনও সন্দেহ নাই ৷
According to some, there is no doubt that he lived from 1476 CE to 1569 CE.
এবং জীবনের শেষ ৬০ বৎসর তিনি উড়পী মঠের অধ্যক্ষতা করেন।
And he served as the head of the Uḍupi Maṭha for the last 60 years of his life.
তাঁহার অবস্থিতিকাল সম্বন্ধে মতদ্বৈত থাকিলেও শ্রীচৈতন্যদেবের সহিত তাঁহার সাক্ষাৎ হইয়াছিল ইহা অনুমান করিতে কোনও বাধা নাই ।
Even if there are differing opinions on his lifespan, there is no hindrance to estimating that he met Śrī Caitanya-deva.
কারন, চৈতন্যদেব অনুমান ১৫১৫ খৃষ্টাব্দে উডুপী ক্ষেত্রে গিয়াছিলেন ।
Because Caitanya-deva is estimated to have visited the Uḍupi region around 1515 CE.
সেই সময় আচার্য্য ‘ব্যাসরায়' তথাকার মাধ্ব মঠের অধ্যক্ষপদে সমাসীন ছিলেন ।
At that time, Ācārya ‘Vyāsa Rāya’ presided over the Mādhva Maṭhas there.
শ্রীচৈত্যদেব স্বয়ং ভগবান্ হইলেও আধ্যক্ষিক পণ্ডিত সমাজ তাঁহাকে ন্যায়-শাস্ত্রের অধিদেবতা বলিয়া জানিতেন।
Although Śrī Caitanya-deva is the Lord Himself, the empirical scholars knew Him as the presiding deity of the Nyāya scriptures.
তাঁহার ন্যায় শাস্ত্রের পাণ্ডিত্য প্রতিভার কথা শ্রবণ করিয়া রঘুবর্য তীর্থ, ব্যাসরায় প্রভৃতি মনীষিবৃন্দ তাঁহার পাদপদ্ম দর্শনে আসিয়াছিলেন।
Hearing about the profound brilliance of His scholarship in Nyāya-śāstra, eminent personalities like Raghuvarya Tīrtha and Vyāsa Rāya came to see His lotus feet.
ব্যাসরায়ের ন্যায়-শাস্ত্রে অগাধ পাণ্ডিত্য ছিল।
Vyāsa Rāya was fathomlessly learned in Nyāya-śāstra.
মহাপ্রভুর সহিত সাক্ষাৎ হওয়ায় তিনি আরও ন্যায়-শাস্ত্র সম্বন্ধে প্রভূত জ্ঞান লাভ করিয়াছিলেন।
By meeting Mahāprabhu, he gained even more profound knowledge regarding Nyāya-śāstra.
ব্যাসরায়ের রচিত “ন্যায়ামৃত” গ্রন্থ শ্রীমন্মহাপ্রভুর সহিত সাক্ষাতের ফল-স্বরূপ বলিয়া মনে হয় ।
Vyāsa Rāya’s text, Nyāyāmṛta, seems to be the fruit of his meeting with Śrīman Mahāprabhu.
চৈতন্যদেব ও তাঁহার অনুগত জনগণের প্রচণ্ড প্রচার-প্রতাপে যে মায়াবাদের সার্বভৌম বিচার দগ্ধীভূত হইয়া ভস্মস্তুপে পরিণত হইয়াছিল, তাহা ব্যাসরায়ের ন্যায়ামৃতের প্রবল সুতীক্ষ্ণ ধারায় বিধৌত হইয়া অস্তিত্ব পৰ্যন্ত লোপ হইতে বসিয়াছিল ।
The once sovereign philosophical system of Māyāvāda, which had been burnt to a heap of ashes by the fierce intensity of the preaching of Caitanya-deva and His followers, was promptly washed away by the very strong, sharp current of Vyāsa Rāya’s Nyāyāmṛta, and was poised to lose its very existence.
এমন সময় অদ্বৈতবাদিকুল অত্যন্ত বিপদে পড়িয়া প্রাণ রক্ষার জন্য 'বিপদে মধুসূদন' বলিয়া আৰ্ত্তনাদ করিতে লাগিল ।
It was at this time that the followers of Advaita-vāda, finding themselves in extreme danger, began to cry out in distress for survival, “Vipade madhusūdana – Madhusūdana in times of peril!”
This passage is admittedly very confusing to the uninformed reader, who might assume he is being told that Śrī Raghuvarya Tīrtha and Śrī Vyāsa Rāya were somehow both the head of the same single maṭha at the same time when Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu visited. However, if we know a bit more about each of these two Mādhva ācāryas, the confusion evaporates.
As correctly stated by Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, Śrī Raghuvarya Tīrtha was the pontiff of the Uttara-rāḍhi/Uttarādi Maṭha. His reign was from 1502 to 1535 CE, according to Wikipedia information, which coincides nicely with Śrī Caitanya’s visit sometime between 1515 and 1520 CE. As you kindly concede, “there is also a possibility that Raghuvarya Tīrtha was present at the monastery when Caitanya Mahāprabhu visited, which is a very rare occurrence”, yet you rule out Raghuvarya Tīrtha too easily by referencing Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.9.251, which simply states that the Mādhva Vaiṣṇavas offered Mahāprabhu great honor once they realized he was a Vaiṣṇava and not a Māyāvādī sannyāsī. There is no mention of any elaborate fanfare or an official reception that would have involved whoever was head pontiff of the Aṣṭa-maṭhas serving Śrī Gopāla-jī at that time. I don’t understand how you are ruling out Raghuvarya Tīrtha so confidently.
You must acknowledge that the little information we have of Śrī Caitanya’s meeting with the Vaiṣṇavas in Uḍupi suggests that it unfolded quite organically with Śrī Caitanya first being ignored as a Māyāvādī sannyāsī and then receiving some honor because of the premāveśa He showed. The Caitanya-caritāmṛta describes how Śrī Caitanya convened a “goṣṭhī”, which till this day in our community usually refers to an impromptu and informal discussion. None of this suggests that only one of the Aṣṭa-maṭha ācāryas had to have been there to receive and engage with Him.
Is it not possible that Śrī Raghuvarya Tīrtha happened to be in the temple that day? Or perhaps someone summoned him from the Uttarādi Maṭha branch just down the lane—I saw it: just three-minutes walk on Googlemaps—specifically to converse with Śrī Caitanya. Caitanya-caritāmṛta says the ācārya was proficient in all the scriptures (Cc. 2.9.254). The eminent and accomplished scholar ācārya of the Uttarādi Maṭha, which as far as I understand is charged with spreading the Mādhva tradition outside of the Tulunadu region, seems the most appropriate person to handle a discussion with a mysterious visiting sannyāsī, especially if said scholar dwelt only a three-minute walk away!
If this is incorrect, then do you have record of who in the Paryāya rotation was serving at the Kṛṣṇa Maṭha that year of 1515—if that was indeed the year Śrī Caitanya was there? Was it the ācārya of the Puttige Math perhaps? Which ācārya of theirs was serving Śrī Gopāla that year, that month? Do they have any record of a meeting with Śrī Caitanya? Does anyone in the Mādhva community have such a record? Was it a significant enough event for the Mādhva Vaiṣṇavas in Uḍupi to record? Or was the exchange perhaps a bit disturbing for the Mādhva Vaiṣṇavas and they preferred to forget about it? It does not seem likely that the Mādhva tradition would have any record of Śrī Caitanya’s visit. So what can we do but rely on our own?
The Uttara-rāḍhi Maṭha is referred to as Śrī Madhvācārya’s “main maṭha”, so although Raghuvarya Tīrtha was not part of the aṣṭa-maṭha structure, he was the pontiff of the largest Mādhva maṭha, was he not? Does that not amount to being the head of all the Uḍupi maṭhas in one sense? From what I can gather, the Uttarādi Maṭha was bifurcated twice, first by Kavīndra Tīrtha and Rājendra Tīrtha. Kavīndra Tīrtha’s maṭha continued as the official Uttarādi Maṭha and that seat was inherited by Śrī Raghuvarya, while Rājendra Tīrtha founded the Pūrvādi Maṭha, to which Śrī Vyāsa Tīrtha, or Vyāsa Rāya, belonged. In fact, that branch seems to have been renamed after him as the Vyāsarāja Maṭha. Am I correct on these details?
In one sense, therefore, especially from a less-informed outsider Gauḍīya perspective, Śrī Raghuvarya Tīrtha and Śrī Vyāsa Tīrtha do belong to the same lineage, to Śrīman Madhva’s, up to Vidyādhirāja Tīrtha, prior to the bifurcation of the original maṭha. Regarding Śrī Vyāsa Tīrtha, Śrī Bhakti Prajñāna Keśava simply stated that he kramaṣaḥ (eventually, in due course of time) inherited the adhyakṣatā (superintendence, oversight) after Raghuvarya. That is a fairly broad statement that could refer to a number of high-ranking roles within the Mādhva-maṭha heirarchy.
Śrī Vyāsa Tīrtha, aka Vyāsa Rāya, appears to be a uniquely blessed individual who distinguished himself at a very young age by his mastery of the Ṣaḍ-darśanas, Nyāya, and Dvaita Vedānta. There appears to be much debate surrounding the dates of his birth and death, though consensus crops up on the notion he was blessed with an extremely long life. A thorough analysis of the dating of Vyāsa Rāya can be found in Kumata-kālānala (pages 460–478), which unveils numerous other aspects of his illustrious and lengthy career. Aside from being the guru of Kṛṣṇadeva Rāya of the Vijayanagara Empire and possibly inhabiting the king’s throne for a time, he seems to have travelled widely throughout north and south India, with numerous biographies, not just the Vyāsa-yogi-carita, being written about him. Is there mention of Śrī Caitanya in any of those, I wonder? And if there ever was mention in them, would someone have stripped them out due to sectarian fear or jealousy? Who can ever know?
Śrī Bhakti Prajñāna Keśava’s suggestion/guess (anumāna) that Śrī Vyāsa Tīrtha was in Uḍupi to meet Mahāprabhu is based on the dates he had, which were mistranslated in Beyond Nirvāṇa, by the way. The dates given in the Bengali original are “1476 CE to 1569 CE”, not “1486 CE to 1539 CE”—which would effectively shave forty years off Śrī Vyāsa Tīrtha’s lifespan, if my math is correct. The numeral for the seven was confused with eight and the six with three.
Going by the dates Śrīla Keśava Mahārāja was furnished with, Śrī Vyāsa Rāya would have been around forty years of age in 1515, already well distinguished and very plausibly positioned to inherit a significant position in Uḍupi. Surely, he was at least a well-recognized figure in Uḍupi given his famous royal patronage. It is not wildly absurd to presume he eventually inherited a prominent position in Uḍupi after Śrī Raghuvarya Tīrtha, regardless of the fact they belonged to different maṭhas. Clearly the ācāryas distinguish themselves in Mādhva society by their accomplishments and not simply their spot in one of the Aṣṭa-maṭhas.
The specific language Śrī Bhakti Prajñāna Keśava uses also deserves note. He says that Vyāsa Rāya was samāsīna, which can mean simply “seated” or “evenly, jointly seated”, in an adhyakṣa-pada (supervisory position) at the Mādhva maṭha(s). There is no way to tell if Śrī Bhakti Prajñāna Keśava meant a singular Mādhva maṭha or numerous. He could easily have been referring to Vyāsa Rāya’s uniquely distinguished status in the Mādhva community and across the Mādhva maṭhas.
The only thing I can say Śrī Bhakti Prajñāna Keśava was “guilty” of was suggesting that there was some exchange of ideas between Śrī Caitanya and Śrī Vyāsa Rāya. He wrote “mane haya” (it seems) that Vyāsa Rāya’s Nyāyāmṛta was the result of his meeting with Śrīman Mahāprabhu. While this is conjecture, it is innocent and not in any way aimed at diminishing the Mādhva ācāryas. Śrī Bhakti Prajñāna Keśava was widely read and likely read Nyāyāmṛta. If he felt in his heart, which was steeped in the teachings of Śrī Caitanya, that Vyāsa Rāya’s Nyāyāmṛta contained something that had been bequeathed to its author by Śrī Caitanya, who are you to challenge that intuition? It may be so. And how wonderful a cross-pollination between branches of the Mādhva lineage! We should celebrate this possibility, not contest it.
Moreover, Śrī Bhakti Prajñāna Keśava did not call Vyāsa Rāya a follower of Śrī Caitanya. Rather, he glorified Vyāsa Rāya for wiping out the burnt vestiges of Māyāvāda.
Śrī Bhakti Prajñāna Keśava was writing a series of brief summaries on ācāryas who contributed to subduing Māyāvāda. For the sake of brevity, in his quick, joint summary of the contribution of both Śrī Caitanya-deva and Śrī Vyāsa Rāya, he did not elucidate the number of maṭhas in Uḍupi, nor delve into the distinctions between the Uttara-rāḍhi Maṭha, the Vyāsarāja Maṭha, the Aṣṭa-maṭha temples, nor the twenty-four or so divisions of the Mādhva tradition across India. This is surely an understandable omission of detail.
What is absurd is to think that Śrī Keśava Mahārāja was not aware of what Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura clearly stated in his commentary on Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.1.114—that Śrī Raghuvarya Tīrtha was head of the Uttara-rāḍhi Maṭha—and to fault him for “flip-flopping” or somehow changing the narrative. Śrī Bhakti Prajñāna Keśava’s reference to “the Uḍupi maṭha” on page 105 of Māyāvāder Jīvanī is most definitely a reference to the Uttara-rāḍhi Maṭha. His references to Vyāsa Rāya’s inheritance of oversight of the Mādhva or Uḍupi maṭhas are surely due to having read of Vyāsa Rāya’s well-known and illustrious career.
Do find it in your heart to forgive this omission of detail and the natural fervor of a devotee writing of his worshipful lord.
The Gauḍīya Patrikā Excerpt
Secondly, the excerpt from Gauḍīya Patrikā, the translation of which contains a minor error, was published in 2001–2002, over thirty years after Śrī Bhakti Prajñāna Keśava Mahārāja’s departure in 1968. It is more polite to lambast him, as you have, for his own words than hold him so severely accountable for a tersely worded essay that is simply reiterating the account of Caitanya-caritāmṛta, which is wildly misunderstood and blown out of proportion by nefarious types like Sundarānanda Vidyāvinoda in order to divorce the Mādhva and Gauḍīya traditions and give way to Sahajiyā and Māyāvāda deviancy.
The error I mentioned is in the third sentence, where the translation reads: “Although Śrī Raghuvarya Tīrtha has accepted the Madhva-sampradāya….” The original Bengali says: “Though Śrī Mahāprabhu accepted the Madhva-sampradāya….” But this is a minor error with little to no ramification.
Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and whoever the ācārya was with whom He had discussions did not, by the account of Caitanya-caritāmṛta, have any actual disagreement. They agreed with each other. See Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.9.274. It was a pleasant exchange between philosophers. Mahāprabhu had some comments about what He saw in their community. Ego does not look good on anyone. Mahāprabhu felt the Vaiṣṇavas in Uḍupi had some ego, as they rightly should. The Mādhva Vaiṣṇavas are a very astute and accomplished people. But Mahāprabhu wanted to curb some of that ego. And He saw them drifting away from teaching openly the principles of śuddha-bhakti. While most sādhakas in this world are only qualified for some form of karma-miśrā bhakti and that must be taught for the general congregation, that is not the whole story. Mahāprabhu understood the provision for the general masses, but He wanted to push the ācāryas in Uḍupi to teach the full story, as Śrī Madhvācārya himself had. There is nothing even slightly offensive or malicious about that. That is a purehearted intention.
We have studied Śrī Madhvācārya’s writings to some extent. He writes very clearly of bhakti being the supreme goal, so any malicious Gauḍīya claims to the contrary, likely originating from Sundarānanda Vidyāvinoda, who also falsely accuses Madhva of calling the gopīs “svar-veśyā (celestial prostitutes)”, can be thrown out completely. However, Madhvācārya also prescribes karma (as did Kṛṣṇa in the Gītā) as a secondary means only, as seen in his commentary on Brahma-sūtra (3.4.33). This and more is in the Gauḍīya Patrikā article you quoted from, but perhaps you didn’t read the full article, or worse yet, perhaps you purposefully omitted these crucial points just so you could launch an attack in a battle you need not fight—because there is no actual conflict!
You are jumping to malformed conclusions in your haste to paint Gauḍīya ācāryas in a negative light, effectively doing exactly what you accuse us of doing. You cannot defend your ācāryas by maligning ours, and there is absolutely no need to. You have not recognized your enemy. Sundarānanda Vidyāvinoda’s writings are the source of almost all the negative remarks made about the Mādhva Vaiṣṇavas. He himself was a parrot of the various deviant Gauḍīya sects who sought to divorce themselves from the traditional Vaiṣṇavism of the South in order to serve their own egoes and perhaps give themselves the freedom to bolster various filthy Tantric practices. Given enough time and page space, I can prove, point by point, how you actually have no conflict with the Sārasvata-parivāra or what they are saying. They are the greatest supporters and admirers of the Mādhva tradition. Ignorance, confusion, and the natural fear that exists between members of different institutions, however, has given rise to the unfortunate exchange of disrespect we see nowadays.
It is clearly evident to anyone who reads the account of Mahāprabhu’s discussion with the Uḍupi ācārya—whoever that was—in Caitanya-caritāmṛta that this meeting, which has been blown way out of proportion by Sundarānanda Vidyāvinoda and other deviant Gauḍīyas, was actually a very lighthearted and sweet exchange. I summarize, in order to convey the mood of this meeting as apparent from the verses of Caitanya-caritāmṛta (2.9.252–278):
Knowing they (the Vaiṣṇavas in Uḍupi) had some pride in their hearts regarding their being Vaiṣṇavas, Gauramaṇi (Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu) chuckled and said something. He began a goṣṭhī (informal discussion). Showing great humility, He asked the ācārya to advise Him the greatest sādhya and sādhana, to which the ācārya promptly replied that karma-miśrā-bhakti is the greatest sādhana and going to Vaikuṇṭha, having obtained the five types of mukti, is the greatest sādhya. Śrī Caitanya countered this answer with many quotes from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam about the performance of the limbs of bhakti, such as śravaṇa and kīrtana. He said, “Mukti and karma are two things that devotees reject, but you establish them as sādhya and sādhana. You see I am a sannyāsī, so you deceive me; that is why you did not explain to me the lakṣaṇa (specific characteristics) of sādhya and sādhana” (see Cc. 2.9.271–272).
Kavirāja Gosvāmī writes that the ācārya felt embarrassed at heart (antare lajjita) and stunned by Mahāprabhu’s vaiṣṇavatā. Then the ācārya said, “What you say is true, definitely so, as per all Vaiṣṇava scriptures. However, this is what Madhvācārya has prescribed, so this is what we follow as per our lineage.”
What prompted the exchange was Śrī Caitanya sensing the pride the Mādhva Vaiṣṇavas had (see Cc. 2.9.252–253). If you accept Śrī Caitanya as Bhagavān, then this is indeed a sweet līlā, as Bhagavān is frequently seen demolishing His devotees’ pride. Though you refer to the meeting in Uḍupi as a līlā, I have to wonder if you are being sincere in your usage of the word līlā? That word is usually reserved for reverent reference to Bhagavān’s activities, is it not? Am I to understand you believe Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is Bhagavān? Or are you just being sarcastic?
Śrī Caitanya clearly played a trick on the ācārya and set him up to give a very simple answer and then surprised him by going into the depths of bhakti-tattva. It was deceptive but executed in an affectionate mood. This deceptive sweetness is typical of Kṛṣṇa, is it not? He pretended to be an ignorant sannyāsī and the ācārya gave the accepted simple answer one would give an outsider. Rāya Rāmānanda gave Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu a similar answer in Godāvarī, before Mahāprabhu pressed him to go further. This was not the first time Śrī Caitanya had this sort of discussion. This was a tactic of sorts to get to the beating heart of the matter.
After quoting many irrefutable sources, Mahāprabhu backed off and respectfully acknowledged that the ācārya knew all of these deeper truths of bhakti. The ācārya acknowledged that everything Mahāprabhu said was right, but that they still follow karma-miśrā-bhakti as per the order of Śrī Madhvācārya.
Mahāprabhu presumably accepted that reasoning as sound but proceeded to warn the ācārya that He sees signs (cihna) of the karmī and jñānī in their tradition. “But,” He says, adding another conciliatory remark, “You accept the form of Īśvara as true and real.”
All in all, that amounts to quite a pleasant exchange.
I will admit that the Gauḍīya Patrikā is quite strongly worded in explaining what Mahāprabhu meant by “tomāra sampradāya”. If I were you, I would have included this portion instead, which follows the portion you quoted:
“All that He (Mahāprabhu) conveyed to that tattva-vādī ācārya by these words was—“You have not understood the real purport of the Madhva tradition I am referring to and accept. You have become trapped in the outer doctrine and thus functionally created a different tradition, wherein the only remaining pure tenet of Vaiṣṇavism that I see is the acceptance of the reality of Bhagavān’s form.”
I can see why Mādhva Vaiṣṇavas may feel offended by this. But no offense was intended by the Gauḍīya Patrikā article, nor by Caitanya-caritāmṛta. All that these texts convey is a passionate dedication to purity. Pure bhakti should be taught primarily, nothing else. That is the ambition of any genuine Vaiṣṇava. I think you and your ācāryas would agree.
You mention that it is absurd to think Śrī Raghuvarya Tīrtha drifted from Madhva’s teachings as he belongs to the lineage of Śrī Jayatīrtha, who wrote extensively on Madhva’s mūla-granthas. The account found in Caitanya-caritāmṛta we have discussed makes no indication that the commentarial tradition of the ācāryas contained any such deviation. I’m sure those texts are pristine. My suspicion is this was a simple matter of internal versus external: teachings for the masses or general congregation members versus more nuanced and therefore more accurate philosophical understanding more in line with Śrī Madhva’s essential teachings.
Putting aside beliefs of Śrī Caitanya being Bhagavān, as a scholar, a sannyāsī, and an advanced practitioner of bhakti whose gurus (Īśvara Purī, Mādhavendra Purī) reportedly had at least some connection with the Mādhva lineage, Śrī Caitanya had every right to humbly and playfully point out to the ācārya what He saw as a schism and caution him with strong words that implied they were veering off from Śrī Madhvācārya’s original teachings.
The Iskcon community has experienced numerous such schisms. During my childhood, a disciple of A.C. Bhaktivedānta Svāmī Prabhupāda became the unofficial leader of the community I grew up in and was heavily promoting varṇāśrama-dharma as the main process we were to follow. Śravaṇa and kīrtana of Bhagavān’s name were absurdly given a secondary status. My gurupāda-padma, Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyāṇa Gosvāmī Mahārāja, had to come and correct this deviation and bring us back to practicing the main limbs of bhakti.
These deviations are natural in any community with members at varying levels of spiritual eligibility. The leader tries to guide the community as he best knows how. It would be strange if they did not occur. It would be suspicious if you deny this ever happened in the Mādhva tradition.
The Gauḍīya Patrikā article you have taken issue with is attributed to Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Vāmana Gosvāmī Mahārāja, the successor of Śrīla Bhakti Prajñāna Keśava Gosvāmī. As you pointed out, he does write that there appears to be considerable difference between the original teachings of Madhva and the teachings and conduct of the modern Tattva-vādī community. Is it your claim that there is absolutely no truth to this statement? There have not been any adjustments in the Mādhva philosophy? No developments? Everything is practiced and taught exactly as it was in the 12th century? I am sorry that the implications of the words of our ācāryas are bitter to you, but that does not mean they are wrong, does it?
Rather than complaining about our ācāryas and trying to make them out be liars and fools—because that’s the implication you gave: that they did not do their research and they flipflopped, etc.—why not defend yourself properly? Show us, with evidence, that there have definitely not been any deviations in your community since the time of Śrī Madhva. That would be a real contribution to this debate. Take it seriously. Do your homework. I will do mine.
This brings us to your eighth slide (“Coming to other claims,”), which I will not address in full except to state this requires much more discussion and further study on my part. As far as I understand, we do follow the core teachings of Śrī Madhva, especially in regard to Dvaita and jīva-tattva. We accept all of Śrī Madhva’s statements, for our hearts have been imprinted with utmost honor for him by our gurus in the Sārasvata-parivāra. We do analyze Śrī Madhva’s statements very keenly to understand what exactly he meant and in what context.
For example, when speaking of devatā-tāratamya, Śrī Madhva speaks of Uddhava as an aṁśa of Bṛhaspati, who is lesser than Pradyumna as an aṁśa of Kāmadeva, and Balarāma as a “śaṅkarṣaṇāviṣṭa śeṣa”, a jīva. These are all of course lesser than Brahmā to whom Nārāyaṇa revealed all the secrets of bhakti. We can agree with this. However, the Gosvāmī followers of Śrī Caitanya brought up other complex nuances, like rasa-tāratamya, which puts the gradation of Kṛṣṇa’s devotees into a completely different structure. Hopefully such diverse perspective are tolerable to you.
I recommend you study a text entitled Kumata-kālānala by one Śrī Haripriyā Brahmācārī. Therein you will find a detailed dissection of Sundarānanda’s deviousness and reconciliation of all the apparent conflicts between Mādhvas and Gauḍīyas.
That said, I have some additional questions for you:
(1) If you are certain that neither Śrī Raghuvarya Tīrtha nor Śrī Vyāsa Tīrtha met with Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, are you able to indicate which ācārya Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu did meet with when He visited Uḍupi? Or shall we assume the account of Caitanya-caritāmṛta is false and Mahāprabhu did not visit Uḍupi since His visit is not recorded in any of your historical texts?
(2) Do you think it is possible that sectarian fears and insecurity led Mādhva biographers and historians to omit mention of Mahāprabhu, especially since He challenged at least one of their leading pontiffs? Or perhaps Mahāprabhu’s visit was not so very momentous for the Mādhva community. Maybe they did not think twice about Him after He left and therefore recorded nothing.
(3) You say that the Gauḍīyas have maligned Raghuvarya Tīrtha and many other respected Mādhva saints. So far, I can only see evidence of something negative being implied of Raghuvarya Tīrtha. Who are these many other saints we have maligned? Or do you mean to say that the Sārasvata-parivāra has maligned all the Mādhva saints by maligning one? In that case, you are guilty of maligning your own saints, because we do share the same lineage and honor the same saints, whether you accept that fact or not, a fact that has been proven in formal debate in Uḍupi by Śrī Haripriyā Brahmācarī.
(4) Have there never been any deviations or disagreements between the different maṭhas and ācāryas in Uḍupi and beyond? We know there have been divisions among the maṭhas. For what reasons?
(5) Your language in slide # 7 is unclear when you write, “There is a possibility that Raghuvarya Tīrtharu was present at the monastery when Caitanya Mahāprabhu visited, which is a rare occurrence.” Obviously, Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s visit was rare, because it only happened once. Or, are you saying that Raghuvarya Tīrtharu was rarely in Uḍupi? Where was he known to be residing otherwise, if not in Uḍupi?
Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, Śrī Bhakti Prajñāna Keśava Gosvāmī, and Śrī Bhaktivedānta Svāmī have done nothing but bequeath to their disciples and followers utmost honor and regard for Śrī Madhvācārya-pāda and his followers. Please ignore the ignorant comments of uninformed and misled institutional sycophants. Or better yet, help us check their tongues.
Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Prabhupāda has profusely glorified Śrī Madhvācārya, referring to him as his “prāṇa-nātha” for having rescued the Vaiṣṇava community from Māyāvāda. Please see https://www.bigdrum.us/prananatha-lord-of-our-life-airs/.
You say there have been claims that Mādhva siddhānta is incomplete and that Mādhvas had some goal other than bhakti. Any Gauḍīya devotee—ācārya or general devotee—who makes any such claim is quite simply misinformed or crazy. The core tenets of our Gauḍīya teachings are founded on the basis of Madhva’s teachings. While we take into account abheda concepts, our philosophy is primarily hinged on Madhva’s concept of bheda, or dvaita. Minor detail: This is why we refer to our philosophy as “Acintya-bhedābheda”, and not “Acintya-abhedābheda”.