On the glorification of Prabhupada and ISKCON by some Madhva svamins from Udupi
There are videos of Vishvesha Tirtha glorifying A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and saying that Caitanya’s teachings and Madhva’s teachings are the same.
There are other Madhva-sampradaya svamins who say the same thing about Prabhupada and Caitanya’s teachings. With such statements, Vishvesha Tirtha and other svamins continue to reinforce the myth that Caitanya’s school is part of the Madhva school, a myth which was composed by Caitanya’s followers in the 18th century, although Caitanya’s genuine traditional followers, the so-called Babaji groups, have always denied any connection between the two schools. Prabhupada’s ISKCON and Gaudiya Math followers insist on a link.
In September 2015, I met with the heads, i.e. svamins of the Kaniyuru-, Adamara- and Shirur-mathas in Udupi and asked them a few questions:
A) Have you studied the teachings of Caitanya and the tradition of the Caitanya school?
B) Have you read the books of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada?
C) Do you know that according to A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami the “Tattvavadis are only formally Vaishnavas, followers of Madhvacharya, because their principles of life are different from the strict principles of Vaishnavism enunciated by Madhvacharya”?
It turned out that the svamins have never studied the teachings of Caitanya. All their views on the subject are based on the very superficial explanations of Prabhupada’s followers and some Tattvavadins.
Not all svamins of the Tattvavada-sampradaya agree with the opinion of the svamins who claim that the teachings of Madhva and Caitanya are one, or that the Gaudiya-parampara is part of the Madhva-parampara.
The svamins of the said Madhva-mathas also signed a number of letters in support of Prabhupada and the assertion of the unity of the teachings of Caitanya and Madhva, arguing that Caitanya’s followers “also worship Krishna.”
Vidyavallabha Tirtha — the svamin of Kanyuru-matha in Udupi has never studied the teachings of Caitanya, nor has he read A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami’s books. In his opinion Caitanya’s parampara is related to Madhva’s parampara through Vyasatirtha. It is “in his opinion” and not in the opinion of all tattvavada panditas. His written reply to the followers of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami was inaccurately translated by the GBC emissaries from ISKCON as a reply on behalf of the entire sampradaya, whereas in the letter itself Vidyavallabha Tirtha speaks about the parampara of the Caitanya school on his own behalf and only in the concluding paragraph urges not to offend anyone.
Vidyavallabha Tirtha was very surprised and disturbed when he learnt who Caitanya really considered Madhva’s followers to be and in what terms ISKCON founder A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada said about them.
Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada said about them, that Jiva Gosvamin, the religious leader of Caitanya’s school of 16th century (Vidyavallabha Tirtha did not know who he was), considered Madhva to be a Mayavadin, that Caitanya had defeated Madhva’s teachings and humiliated the Tattvavadi-acarya by calling him and all Madhva followers proud, that the Tattvavadins’ lifestyle was not conducive to bhakti (devotional service), as A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami claimed.
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami writes in his commentary on the Caitanya-caritamrita 2.9.277, that his guru Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati equates the Tattvavadins with the Nirvishesha-Brahmavadins, Kevaladvaitavadins, Mayavadins (followers of Shankara), Shuddhadvaitavadins (followers of Vallabha) and emphasises that all of them are engaged in mere superficial chatter (see Anubhashya to CC 2.9.250), etc. Vidyavallabha Tirtha said that he would certainly verify this information.
Lakshmivara Tirtha’s reply (Shirur-matha in Udupi) is in the same spirit as Vidyavallabha Tirtha’s reply (he does not know the doctrine, has not read books). To discuss the subject of parampara, he recommended to consult his brother (Latavya Acharya), and certified the latter as well versed in these matters.
Latavya Acharya emphasised the unity of the Gaudiya-parampara and Madhva-parampara through Vyasatirtha, but when the factual inconsistencies in it and the discrepancies between the periods of life of some of the links (Madhavendra Puri, Ishvara Puri, Caitanya and Vyasatirtha), and hence the impossibility of unity of the parampara, were explained to him, Latavya Acharya was puzzled and could not find anything to answer, as the only apparent reason for this was the fact that there was no unity of the parampara. The only apparent clue uniting the two paramparas suddenly disappeared due to the incontrovertible facts not only from our side but also from the facts given by B.N.K. Sharma.
Svamin of Palimaru-matha and Vishwesha Tirtha of Pejavara-matha were away at the time, so it was not possible to meet them. I don’t think their answers would have been any different from other Prabhupada glorifiers.
Svamins are often invited by various organisations to their functions as guests of honour. There have been times when Svamins have sat on the same podium with Mayavadins. And some exalted personalities misunderstand this as an endorsement of their delusions.
In 2014, Vishvesha Tirtha attended a memorial gathering dedicated to A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. It was an unquestionable indiscretion on his part to declare the identity of Madhva and Caitanya’s philosophy. The Tattvavada is not based on the presumption of infallibility of its leaders, but on shastra-siddhanta. The identity of the two philosophies can easily be verified from books, which we have done in the series of articles and in my book “About some dogmas of the Caitanya cult in the light of Madhva’s teachings”.
Lyrical digression. If Caitanya had an identical philosophy to Madhva, why would one establish a separate movement and call themselves “followers of Caitanya”, why would one create a new movement around someone who is exactly following the already established teachings of someone else? Maybe the Gaudiya-sampradaya considers itself a branch of the Tattvavada with extra services?
The followers of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada try to turn everything into “This authority said…, do you think you know the shastras better than this svamin? Who are you to yell at Caitanya, your gurus even glorify him, and you don’t consider your gurus as authorities”. Fortunately in Tattvavada, shastra is above personal authority, including the authority of the head of the matha.
Like any human being, a svamin can make mistakes. And sometimes svamins make the mistake of trusting unverified information or trying to gain allies for political points. For example, there has long been a struggle around Krishna-matha for the right to conduct worship ceremonies not only by Madhvaite brahmanas but also by Dalit priests. It is a political struggle. Or perhaps mistakes are made out of naivety and ignorance.
Not all the acaryas, svamins and panditas of the Tattvavada consider the teachings of Madhva and the teachings of the Caitanya to be identical. Certainly at the level of their familiarity with the teachings of Caitanya. Why should the opinion of the five svamins be imperative for the rest of the Tattvavadins, especially if there is no reason to believe their opinion is reasonably correct?
Unlike the followers of Caitanya, who introduced something new of their own into the “teachings of the Caitanya”, often contradicting their predecessors, the svamins of the Tattvavada have no divergence in the teachings of Madhva.
I believe the opinion of Bannanje Govindacarya, the leading acarya and pandita of the Madhva school our days , will set the record straight. He calls Caitanya’s school and ISKCON a traditions of errors and mistakes (bhrama-sampradaya).
The blind trust of the flock in their preacher without proper verification of his words for authenticity is a wrong dishonest attitude towards knowledge (jnana), the inner search for answers to the questions posed by reality and sadhana.
The search for truth and shastra should not be confused with devotion to the guru. Such devotion is not bhakti-sadhana.
