OBJECTION 1

OBJECTION: The Gauḍīya followers of Caitanya claim to be in the disciplic succession descending from Madhvācārya, yet we find certain anomalies which seem to prove otherwise. In light of these points, how can they claim that they are in the line of Madhvācārya, when they have differed from him philosophically and their lineage is so dubious?

Śrī Madhvācārya taught the system of Dvaita Vedānta, yet the Gauḍīyas do not accept this philosophy. Rather they follow the system of Acintya-bhedābheda-vāda. If they are true followers of Madhva, what was the need of their Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa to write a separate commentary on Vedānta-sūtras when Śrī Madhva had already composed an exhaustive explanation?

REFUTATION: To say that the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas do not accept the philosophy of Śrī Madhva is not entirely correct. In his Prameya Ratnāvalī, the Gauḍīya Vedāntācārya Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, paraphrasing Śrī Vyāsa Tīrtha, *(1) has written nine points of Madhva that the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas accept —

śrī madhva praha
viṣṇuṁ paratamamakhilāmnāyavedyañca viśvaṁ
satyaṁ bhedañca jīvān haricaraṇajuṣastāramyañca teṣam
mokṣaṁ viṣṇvaṁghrilābhaṁ tadamalabhajanaṁ tasya hetuṁ pramāṇam
pratyakṣāditrayañcetyupadiśati hariḥ kṛṣṇa caitanya candraḥ

Śrī Madhva has said” (1) Viṣṇu is Supreme. (2) He is known by the study of the Vedas. (3) The Material world is real. (4) The jīvas are different from the Lord. (5) The jīvas are by nature subservient to the Lord. (6) In both the conditioned and liberated condition, the jīvas are situated in higher and lower statuses. (7) Liberation is the attainment of Lord Viṣṇu’s lotus-feet. (8) Pure devotion grants liberation. (9) Direct perception, logic and Vedic authority are the three sources of actual knowledge. These truths are also taught by the Supreme Lord Himself in His appearance as Kṛṣṇa Caitanya-candra.

However, one important aspect has not been elaborated upon and that is the aspect of rasa (divine loving mellows). This is explained by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura in his Daśa-mūla Niryasa:

yadā bhrāmaṁ bhrāmaṁ hari-rasa-galad-vaiṣṇava-janaṁ
kadācit sampaśyan tad-anugamane syād ruci-yutaḥ
tadā kṛṣṇāvṛtyā tyajati śanakair māyika-daśāṁ
svarūpaṁ bibhrāṇo vimala-rasa-bhogaṁ sa kurute

After repeatedly wandering in the path of māyika existence, a fallen soul may meet a pure Vaiṣṇava from whom trickles the nectar of the mellows of pure devotion to Lord Hari. By following that pure devotee, he becomes attracted to imbibe the sweet principle of devotional service. By constant study of kṛṣṇa-bhakti, he slowly abandons the māyika condition, and in the end obtaining his true nature, he enjoys the sweetest unalloyed rasa, which is the ultimate status of the soul. (Daśa-mūla 7)

It is to be understood that there is a progression in the descent of divine knowledge. Śrī Madhva preached the philosophy of Dvaitavāda in order to counter the widespread māyāvāda doctrine of Ādi Śaṅkara which was prevalent at that time.

It is acknowledged by the Gauḍīya school that the doctrine of Dvaita is an intrinsic part in the evolution of theism. It was propagated according to kāla and pātra (time and circumstance) and was not meant to be the last word in the Absolute Truth.

Rasa-tattva is a very subtle truth and could not have been taught during that period of India’s history. The necessity of the time demanded that a powerful ācārya boldly expound the basic beliefs of the Vedic scriptures and burn the weeds of Advaitavāda to the roots. It is only fitting that the incarnation of Bhīma perform this task. It would not be appropriate for such a forceful personality to simultaneously explain the subtle divine mellows of mādhurya-rasa. This would be inconsistent with his mission. The intricate concepts of rasa-vicāra were later expounded by Śrī Caitanyadeva and His followers.

Our Tattvavādī friends raise the question as to why Baladeva wrote a commentary on the Brahma-sūtras when Śrī Madhvācārya had already done so. It is understood that Śrīmad Bhāgavatam is the natural commentary on the Brahma-sūtras. This is stated in Garuḍa Purāṇa:

artho’yaṁ brahma-sūtrāṇāṁ bhāratārtha-vinirṇayaḥ
gāyatrī-bhāṣya-rūpo’sau vedārtha-paribṛṁhitaḥ
purāṇānāṁ sāma-rūpaḥsākṣād-bhagavatoditaḥ

The Śrīmad Bhāgavatam is the authorised explanation of Brahma-sūtras, and it is a further explanation of Mahābhārata. It is the expansion of the gāyatrī-mantra and the essence of all Vedic knowledge. This Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, containing eighteen thousand verses, is known as the explanation of all Vedic literature.

However, since Śaṅkara commented upon the pristine teachings of Vyāsa found in the Brahma-sūtras, it was the duty of the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas such as Śrī Rāmānuja and Śrī Madhva to counter his doctrine of illusion and present their own commentaries.

Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa was challenged by the Rāmānandī sect in Galta as to why the Gauḍīyas claimed to be affiliated to the Madhva sampradāya when they differed in philosophy to them. Again, this was a point of rasa-vicara because the Gauḍīyas worshiped the Deity of Govindadeva, regarding Him as superior to the form of Nārāyaṇa. This is a point which will be discussed in a later chapter.

In order to prove the validity of the Gauḍīya sampradāya, Baladeva was told by the Rāmānandīs that it would be necessary for him to produce a commentary on the Vedānta-sūtras supporting the Gauḍīya philosophy of Acintya-bhedābheda-tattva. Baladeva did this in seven days and called his commentary the Govinda Bhāṣya.

His bhāṣya was so profound and complete that the opposition was silenced. Considering the fact that the Madhva sect have not explained the intricacies of rasa-tattva, it would have been futile for the Gauḍīyas to refer to Madhvācārya’s commentary as their own.

Our Tattvavādī friends have referred to Madhva’s commentary on the Vedānta-sūtras as ‘exhaustive’, inferring that there is nothing else to be said on the subject. We therefore raise the question, why did Jaya Tīrtha write his Tattva-Prakāśikā commentary to Madhva’s Vedānta-sūtra-bhāṣya? Why did Rāghavendra Tīrtha write his Tattva Mañjarī commentary on the Anu-bhāṣya of Madhva? Why did Trivikrama need to write his Tattva-pradīpa commentary? In fact, all of the works of Madhvācārya have been commented upon by many ācāryas following in the Dvaita line.

OBJECTION 2

OBJECTION: You have explained that Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa accepted nine basic tenets of Śrī Madhvācārya, yet Śrī Caitanya Himself only accepted one point and rejected the philosophy of Madhva. This seems to be a contradiction.

REFUTATION: In the Caitanya-caritāmṛta (Madhya-līlā 9.277) Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu addressed the ācārya of the Tattvavādīs thus:

sabe eka guṇa dekhi tomāra sampradāye
satya-vigraha kari’ īśvare karaha niścaye

The only qualification that I see in your sampradāya is that you accept the form of the Lord as truth.

It is not that Śrī Caitanya rejected Madhva’s philosophy *(2), rather, he rejected the erroneous, distorted dogma which had entered the sampradāya of Madhvācārya at that time. *(3) This is the reason why Mahāprabhu used the phrase, tomāra sampradāya (‘your sampradāya’) rather than ‘our sampradāya’ — in order to establish that He did not subscribe to the philosophy that was being propounded in the name of Madhva. Later, in the 16th Century, these inconsistencies were corrected to some extent by the great reformer Śrī Vādirāja Tīrtha. *(4)

The major principle established by Śrī Madhvācārya was that the Lord and His creation are real and that the jīva is eternally subservient to Īśvara – the nine prameyas enhance these points. In this way the Gauḍīyas strictly follow in the footsteps of Madhvācārya.

OBJECTION 3

OBJECTION: The Gauḍīyas accept Nārada Ṛṣi as the guru of Vyāsa, whereas the followers of Madhva contest this since Vyāsa Mahāmuni needs no guru being a full incarnation of Godhead.

REFUTATION: This argument is foolish. Other incarnations of Godhead have accepted gurus — Śrī Rāmacandra accepted Vasiṣṭha Muni as His preceptor and Śrī Kṛṣṇa accepted Ācārya Sāndīpani. The acceptance of a spiritual guide by the Supreme Person is not a mundane activity. He does this to teach the importance of accepting a sat-guru to the minds of ordinary men. Therefore, Śrī Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna in Bhagavad-gītā:

yadi hy-ahaṁ na varteyaṁ jātu karmaṇy-atandritaḥ
mama vartmānuvartante manuṣyāḥ pārtha sarvaśaḥ

If I avoid activity then all men will follow My path and neglect their prescribed duties, O Pārtha. (Bhagavad-gītā 3.23)

Furthermore, Śrī Kṛṣṇa says in the Fourth Chapter of Gītā, dharma-saṁsthāpanārthāya, “I come to establish religious principles.” By His acceptance of a spiritual preceptor, His Godhood is not affected. To suggest such a thing is simply atheism.

OBJECTION 4

OBJECTION: Padmanābha Tīrtha, Nṛhari Tīrtha, Mādhava Tīrtha and Akṣobhya Tīrtha are listed by the Gauḍīyas as having a guru-disciple relationship. However, it is an indisputable fact that these four personalities were all direct disciples of Śrī Madhva himself.

REFUTATION: In his Prameya Ratnāvalī (v.7), Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa writes —

śrī-kṛṣṇa-brahma-devarṣi bādarāyaṇa-saṁjñakān
śrī-madhva-śrī-padmanābha śrīman-nṛhari-mādhavān
akṣobhya-jayatīrtha-śrī-jñānasindhu-dayānidhīn
śrī-vidyānidhi-rājendra jayadharmān kramād vayam
puruṣottama-brāhmaṇya vyāsa-tīrthāṁś ca saṁstumaḥ
tato lakṣmīpatiṁ śrīman-mādhavendraṁ ca bhaktitaḥ
tac-chiṣyān śrīśvarādvaita nityānandān jagad-gurūn
devam īśvara-śiṣyaṁ śrī-caitanyaṁ ca bhajāmahe

Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s disciple was Brahmā, whose disciple was the sage of the demigods, Nārada. His disciple was Bādarāyana (Vyāsa) whose disciple was Madhva. His disciple was Padmanābha, whose disciple was Nṛhari. His disciple was Mādhva whose disciple was Akṣobhya, whose disciple was Jayatīrtha. His disciple was Jñāna-sindhu, whose disciple was Dayānidhi. His disciple was Vidyānidhi whose disciple was Jayadharma. His disciple was Puruṣottama and his disciple was Brāhmaṇya whose disciple was Vyāsa Tīrtha. His disciple was Lakṣmīpati and his disciple was Mādhavendra whose disciples were Īśvara, Advaita and Nityānanda the guru of the whole world. Another of his disciples was Śrī Caitanya who we offer our respects to.

Similar verses are also found written by other Gauḍīya ācāryas such as Śrī Kavi Karṇapura, Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda, Narahari Cakravartī, Śrī Devakinandana and Śrīla Sarasvatī Ṭhākura.

It is a fact that Padmanābha, Nṛhari, Mādhava and Akṣobhya were all contemporaries and direct disciples of Śrī Madhva Muni. However, this does not rule out the fact that there was a śikṣā link between them, especially when one considers that Padmanābha was senior to Nṛhari, Nṛhari was senior to Mādhava, and Mādhava was senior to Akṣobhya, who was the last initiated disciple of Madhvācārya. This listing is given, since in the paramparā of the Gauḍīyas, śikṣā is considered to be more important than dīkṣā.

Although Madhva was given initiation by Acyuta Prekṣa, the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas place more stress on the relationship between Madhva and Vyāsadeva. This is because the śikṣā he acquired from Vyāsa was of more importance from the transcendental perspective than that which he accepted from Acyuta Prekṣācārya.

Therefore, the Madhva paramparā reads as Haṁsāvatāra, Brahmā, Catuḥsana, Durvāsā, Jñānasindhu Tīrtha, Garuḍavāhana Tīrtha, Kaivalya Tīrtha, Jñānīśa Tīrtha, Parā Tīrtha, Satyaprajña Tīrtha, Prajña Tīrtha, Acyuta Prekṣa, Madhva, etc.

Whereas the Paramparā of the Gauḍīyas reads as Kṛṣṇa, Brahma, Devarsi Narada, Vyāsa, Madhva etc.

It is sometimes said that Padmanābha Tīrtha was the dīkṣā-guru of Nṛhari Tīrtha, but this is not supported anywhere. However, since Padmanābha Tīrtha was senior to Nṛhari, it would only be natural that he would impart important śikṣā to him. The same principle applies to Mādhava Tīrtha, Akṣobhya Tīrtha and all those ācāryas after them, namely Jaya Tīrtha, Jñānasindhu Tīrtha, Dayānidhi Tīrtha, Vidyānidhi Tīrtha (Vidyādirāja), Rājendra Tīrtha, Jayadharma Tīrtha, Puruṣottama Tīrtha, Brāhmaṇya Tīrtha, Vyāsa Tīrtha and Lakṣmīpati Tīrtha.

OBJECTION 5

OBJECTION: There is mention of the names Jñānasindhu, Dayānidhi and Lakṣmīpati Tīrtha in the Gauḍīya paramparā, yet no one of that name is found in the paramparā lists of the Madhva sampradāya. We may therefore conclude that these personalities did not actually exist.

REFUTATION: The very fact that there is no mention of these names in any Madhva records does not negate the fact that such persons existed. It simply means that they never held a pontifical position in the Madhva sampradāya. Those renunciates of the Dvaita school who were never heads of any maṭhas are known as ‘bidi sannyāsīs’ (stray sannyāsīs) in the Kannada language. *(5) Even Madhva scholars acknowledge that Vyāsa Tīrtha may have had a follower called Lakṣmīpati. *(6)

This argument does not stand, considering the lack of information you have on your own sampradāya-ācāryas. You have scant information even about the direct disciples of Madhvācārya, what to say of those who appeared after them? For example, every orthodox Madhva is familiar with the Maṅgalāṣṭakam and it is part of his nitya-kriyā to recite it daily. However, it is still contested as to who composed it. Some say Śrī Vādirāja Tīrtha, others are in favour of Śrīpādarāja (Lakṣmī-Nārāyaṇa Tīrtha). There is no precise information, only conjecture.

Just as our detractors deny the existence of a number of ācāryas in our line, their logic can just as easily be used to argue that ācāryas who pre-dated Madhva, such as Satyaprajña Tīrtha, Prajña Tīrtha, Durvāsā etc. never existed and were simply the concoction of Nārāyaṇa Paṇḍitācārya when he composed his ‘Maṇi Mañjarī’ in order to add historical and traditional credibility to his paramparā. Similarly, it can also be questioned as to what transpired within the Madhva school after Prajña Tīrtha, since it is admitted by them that there is a gap of over 400 years before the line starts again with Acyuta Prekṣa. *(7)

OBJECTION 6

OBJECTION: Since Mādhavendra, the disciple of Lakṣmīpati Tīrtha, has the sannyāsa title of ‘Purī’ (which is a daśa-nāmī title used by the Śaṅkarites), how can you say he is coming in the line of Madhva?

REFUTATION: The title ‘Purī’ is indeed one of the ten sannyāsa names used by the Śaṅkara sampradāya, the others being Tīrtha, Āśrama, Sāgara, Araṇya, Vana, Giri, Pārvata, Bhāratī, and Sarasvatī.

It was in vogue with the members of the Madhva sect that sannyāsīs converted from the Śaṅkara school were allowed to retain their titles rather than change them to ‘Tīrtha’. This was done in order to demonstrate their victories over māyāvāda. It could be deduced that Mādhavendra Purī must have been either a direct convert or the disciple of such a convert.

Whichever way it may be, we gather from this that previously Śrī Mādhavendra had taken sannyāsa in the line of Sankarācārya from a renunciate of the Purī order. However, as an ācārya who taught the highest elements of Love of God, we must also accept that his dīkṣā could only have been in a genuine disciplic lineage. His faith and love for Śrī Kṛṣṇa was far too sublime and deep to keep him within the bounds of the Madhva school itself, what to say of the illusory misconceptions of the sampradāya of Ādi Śaṅkara. *(8)

Since it is mentioned by the Gauḍīya ācāryas that Mādhavendra’s guru was Lakṣmīpati Tīrtha, we conclude that his dīkṣā was in the line of Ācārya Madhva, though he may have accepted formal sannyāsa in the line of Śaṅkara. Mahāprabhu Himself took mantra-dīkṣā from Īśvara Purī (Mādhavendra’s disciple) and sannyāsa from Keśava Bhāratī of the Advaita line.

This was also the case of Madhvācārya who took dīkṣā from Acyuta Prekṣa, a sannyāsī in the line of Śaṅkara. *(9)

OBJECTION 7

OBJECTION: But according to the ‘Maṇi Mañjarī’ of Nārāyaṇa Paṇḍitācārya and other works of Madhva scholars, Acyuta Prekṣa was actually in the genuine line from Haṁsāvatāra to Brahmā which delineated the pure Vaiṣṇava teachings. Due to the forceful nature of the māyāvādīs at that time however, the Brahmā Sampradāya was forced to go underground and adopt the garb of Advaitins.

REFUTATION: As we have previously mentioned, it may be argued that your ācāryas have written such in order to add credibility to their sampradāya. There is no strong evidence to support the idea that Acyuta Prekṣa was a Vaiṣṇava prior to meeting Śrī Madhvācārya. You can only point at the texts written by your own ācāryas.

The same arguments that you fling at the Gauḍīyas, can certainly be used against your sect in the same manner.

Our young detractors seem very keen to malign the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas in so many ways, calling their philosophy a “hotchpotch presentation” “fit to be thrown in a dustbin.” “far-fetched”, “rubbish” “hogwash” and a “perverted Kali-yuga philosophy to please every Tom, Dick and Harry”. They have insulted prominent Gauḍīya ācāryas calling them “deluded“, “Pseudo-Vaiṣṇavas“, who “lack any understanding of real philosophy” whose purports are “a travesty“, “ludicrous“, “very stupid” “very poor” and “cannot be taken seriously” which are something that “should be given up” because they represent “something which is definitely not a Vaishnava tradition.” *(10)

Although these persons rant about how Dvaitavāda is superior to all, and how Madhva is the greatest exponent of Vaiṣṇava philosophy the world has ever seen, the fact of the matter is that the glories of Madhva have been spread all over the world by the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas, specifically His Divine Grace Śrīla A. C. Bhaktivedānta Swami Prabhupāda and his followers.

OBJECTION 8

OBJECTION: Under the circumstances, no real follower of Ācārya Madhva will accept your sampradāya as genuine, neither would they accept you or your ācāryas as Vaiṣṇavas!

REFUTATION: By making such an arrogant blanket-statement, you have condemned some of the present-day ācāryas in your own lineage. For example, Śrī Viśveśa Tīrtha Swamiji of Pejāvara Adhokṣaja Maṭha had this to say about Śrīla Prabhupāda:

“Sage Bhagīratha only brought the divine Gaṅgā from heaven to India, but Swami Prabhupāda brought the Bhakti-Gaṅgā down from above and flooded the whole world!” *(11)

“We are simply specks of dust at the feet of the disciples of Swami Prabhupāda who are spreading the message of bhakti and the Bhāgavata all over the world.” *(12) See Letters to the Editor.

Śrī Viśveśa Tīrtha Swamiji has also been magnanimous enough to request Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas to perform nāma-saṅkīrtana in Uḍupī on many occasions. It would seem most incongruous for him to invite a bogus theological school of thought to chant the names of the Lord at such an important function as the paryāya ceremony. Although the revered Swamiji may not agree in total with the philosophy of the Gauḍīya school, he is noble and bold enough to publicly acknowledge its contribution to humanity at large, and accept the Gauḍīyas as a branch from the Madhva sampradāya. This was confirmed in writing by Pejāvara Swami himself in an official letter. See Aṣṭa Maṭha Swami Letters Page.

Some people may try to cover up the above statements spoken by the Swamiji, explaining that he is simply being polite and trying to be harmonious and friendly. However, we, at least, find it hard to believe that someone of the straightforward nature of Śrī Pejāvara Swamiji would compromise the philosophy and mood of Madhva. Did the Swamiji ever express such eulogies for Jayendra Sarasvatī, Bhāratī Tīrtha, Gaṇapati Sacchidānanda, Sāi Bābā or any other such personage? Were they or their followers ever invited to annually participate in an important function in Uḍupī? We would deem it highly unlikely.

CONCLUSION

It can therefore be concluded that the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava paramparā is a genuine branch of the Madhva sampradāya, although it is acknowledged that there are certain differences in the sādhana (process) and sādhya (goal) of the two schools.

We wish to point out here that although we have presented argumentative objections to the antiquity of the Madhva paramparā, which has been presented by previous Dvaita ācāryas, such as Śrī Nārāyaṇa Paṇḍitācārya, in fact we find no fault in what they have said. We merely wish to point out that the arguments presented by the challenging party can logically also be raised against their own tradition.

As stated previously, it is the firm belief of the Gauḍīyas that the teachings propounded by Madhvācārya are an important step in the evolution of theism culminating in the sublime acintya-bhedābheda-tattva doctrine of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu.

FOOTNOTES

(1) śrī-madhva-mate hariḥ paratamaḥ satyaṁ jagat tattvato
bhedo jīva-gaṇā harer anucharā nichoccha-bhāvaṁ gataḥ
muktir naija-sukhānubhūtir amalā bhaktiś ca tat-sādhanam
akṣādi-tritayaṁ pramāṇam akhilāmnāyaika-vedyo harir iti

(2) In his book Life Teachings of Śrī Madhwacharya, the Dvaita scholar Śrī C.M. Padmanabhacharya writes:

Sri Chaitanya steered clear of these subtleties. He did not trouble himself to build up a system or think of details for a code of religion. His life shows that he was an uncompromising Dualist (Dwaiti).”

Although we beg to differ on certain points in this quote, it is interesting to note that such a revered Dvaita paṇḍita as Śrī Padmanabhacharya accepted Mahāprabhu as being in the Madhva line.

(3) The History & Literature of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas and Their Relation to Other Medieval Vaishnava Schools by Dr. Sambidānanda Dāsa p.99:

Sri Chaitanya Himself visited the head-quarters of the Madhva sect at Udupi and had discussion with its head Raghuvarya Tirtha, but He differed from him as to the conception of sadhya and sadhana… Sri Chaitanya Deva and the writers of His sect accepted Madhva’s views from his various writings and the particular line through which they traced their own origin to the Madhva sect, and that particular line was somewhat different from the main line of Madhva at Udupi during the 16th Century. Dr. Farquahar tells us that the Madhva Vaishnavas introduced the kirtana form of worship into their sect as the result of Sri Caitanya¹s visit to their head-quarters.”

(4) Ibid p.99: “It was perhaps Vadiraj Swami Tīrtha, later principal of Madhav’s Sode Math, who introduced kirtana into the sect. His poem known as Harinama Saṅkīrtana Sampradāya are (sic) still sung daily by the Dasakuta Madhvas at Rajatapitapura. These songs he first introduced at the Krishadevalaya temple there. He was a great poet and musician. He introduced Madhva’s Dvadasa Stotra to be sung to the accompaniment of music at Madhva Math.”

(5) History of the Dvaita School of Vedānta and its Literature by B.N. K. Sharma (Motilal Bannarsidas 1961) p.455

(6) Ibid p.525 “As for Vyasa Tirtha himself, there is nothing to show that he could not have had a North Indian disciple of the name of Laksmipati, who might have been initiated into the Bhakti Pantha, which he transmitted to Madhavendra Puri and other monks obviously of an Advaitic order.”

(7) Ibid p.75

(8) For further information one should refer to The Pontifical Position of Śrī Mādhavendra by Śrīla Sridhara Deva Gosvāmī Mahārāja and Conversations on Mādhavendra Purī by Swami B. G. Narasiṅgha Mahārāja.

(9) History of the Dvaita School of Vedānta and its Literature p.525 — “As a matter of fact, Madhva himself received orders from Acyuta Preksa, who for all practical purposes represented an Advaitic order, so far as outward appearances went.”

(10) All quotes courtesy of the Madhva Cyber Sangha.

(11) Excerpt of a Hindi lecture by Pejavara Svami at the opening of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Puspa Samādhi, Śrīdhāma Māyāpura, February 1995.

(12) Spoken at a public address in Uḍupī on the 750th anniversary of Śrī Madhvācārya.

1. Tattvavāda and Gauḍīya Siddhānta by Swami B.V. Giri
2. The Validity of the Gauḍiya Paramparā and It’s Link With Madhvācārya by Swami B.V. Giri
3. The Divinity Of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu by Swami B.V Giri
4. The Ontological Position of the Vaiṣṇava over the Brāhmaṇa by Swami B.V. Giri
5. The Supremacy of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam over the Vedas by Swami B.V. Giri

• Letters from the Madhva-Maṭhas in Udupi in Support of Śrīla Prabhupāda and the Gauḍiya Sampradāya
• A Word to Our Madhva Brethren (Originally published in The Harmonist, Vol. 31, May 1935)
• Letters in Response to Articles on the Gauḍīya Sampradāya and Madhvācārya
• Speech by Śrī Viśveśa Tīrtha Swamijī of Pejāvara Maṭha
• Conversations on Mādhavendra Purī by Swami B.G. Narasiṅgha