The Gauḍīya Sampradāya is not a branch of the Madhva Sampradāya

The Gauḍīya sampradāya is not a branch of the Madhva sampradāya-

There is a gulf of difference between the Madhvaites and Gauḍīyas in sādhana and siddhānta. In Galta Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa may have presented the Gauḍīya Sāmpradaya as a part of the Madhva Sampradāya, to gain legitimacy for regaining the service of Govinda Mandir, but that was only for preaching purposes. The dvaita philosophy of the Madhvaites is very different from the acintya bhedābheda philosophy of the Gauḍīyas, and the Gauḍīyas have a totally different sādhana (pure rāgānugā) and goal (mañjarī bhāva in the service of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa in Vṛndāvana). Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa has recognized certain differences of opinion with the teachings of the Madhva sampradāya in his commentary on Tattva sandarbha (28):

bhaktānāṁ viprānām eva mokṣaḥ devah bhakteṣu mukhyāḥ viriñcasyaiva sāyūjyaṁ lakṣmyā jīva-koṭitvam ity evam mata viśeṣāḥ

“Only a brāhmaṇa-devotee is eligible for liberation (born brāhmaṇa of course), the demigods are foremost among devotees, Brahmā attains sāyūjya-mukti (merging in Brahman), and Lakṣmī-devī is included among the jīvas – these are differences in opinion.”

Other differences include:

1. The Madhvaites practice upāsana on vidhi-mārga, filled with moods of aiśvarya (majesty) while the Gauḍīyas’ worship is one of rāga-mārga, where mādhurya (sweetness) predominates.
2. The Madhvaites worship Nartaka-Gopāla alone, whereas the firm resolve of the Gauḍīyas who follow the footsteps of Śrī Raghunātha Dāsa Gosvāmī is substantially different: ya ekaṁ govindaṁ bhajati kapaṭī dāmbhikatayā “Whoever worships Govinda alone is a cheater and a hypocrite”. To highlight the contrast, it may be noted that many proponents of the Madhva-sampradāya contest the existence of Śrī Rādhā altogether, since she is not presented in the literature of their sampradāya as a consort of Gopāla! While She is the very goal of the Gauḍīya Sāmpradāya!
3. Madhva taught the concept of dvaita, or absolute duality, whereas Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu presented the refined concept of acintya-bhedābheda-tattva, the doctrine of simultaneous oneness and difference.
4. Moreover, we find the following words spoken by Śrīman Mahāprabhu Himself to an ācārya of the Madhva-sampradāya in the Caitanya Caritāmṛta (Madhya-līlā, 9.273-277):

śuni’ tattvācārya hoilo antare lajjita;

prabhura vaiṣṇavatā dekhi, hoilo vismita

ācārya kahe – tumi yei kaha, sei satya haya;

sarva-śāstre vaiṣṇavera ei suniścaya

tathāpi madhvācārya ye kariyāche nirbandha;

sei ācāriye sabe sampradāya-sambandha

prabhu kahe karmī, jñānī, dui bhakti-hīna;

tomāra sampradāye dekhi sei dui cihna

sabe, eka guṇa dekhi tomāra sampradāye;

satya-vigraha kari’ īśvare karaha niścaye

“Hearing these words of Śrīman Mahāprabhu, the ācārya of the Tattva-vāda sampradāya became ashamed, and was struck with wonder upon seeing His degree of Vaiṣṇavism. The ācārya said, “Whatever you have told, that is the truth proclaimed in all scriptures, and the firm conviction of the Vaiṣṇavas. However, whatever Madhvācārya has firmly established, that we practice due to our sampradāya-connection with him.” Prabhu said, “Karmīs and jñānīs are both devoid of bhakti. In your sampradāya, I can see symptoms of both. All in all, the only qualification I see in your sampradāya is your firm acceptance of the truth of the Lord’s form.”

Hence it should not be a surprise that a majority of the Gauḍīyas have little or no identification as members of the Madhva sampradāya. The fact that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu speaks of the Madhva Sampradāya as tomāra sampradāya, or ‘your tradition’, in verse 277, is the strongest confirmation that the Gauḍīya Sampradāya is not Madhva- or Madhva-alllied.

I had the following Iṣṭagoṣṭhī with my friend Anantagovinda, who told me –

“Mādhavendra and Īśvara Puri were from Śankara-sampradaya; they were inclined to bhakti, as it is one of the upāsana of Advaita-vedānta. The title Puri was nowhere in the Madhva-line. Mahāprabhu took sannyāsa from Keśava Bhārati without any problem and doubt; same sampradāya, which was very popular, and they all followed the same line of Śrīdhar Swāmi who was also from advaita-vedānta: they were inclined to bhakti and Śrīdhar Swāmī started this inclination in the advaita-sampradāya.”

Advaitadas: Did you ask the Madhvaites? They say they have no Puri-titles?

Anantagovinda: Sure, they say all Tīrthas are documented; all Yatis are documented.

Advaitadas: So Mādhavendra Puri was not among them?

Anantagovinda: No, for sure. This I read from Jagat, which is the same I got from Madhvaites:

“The problem that Vyasa Raya’s dates presents for the Gaudiya tradition is self- evident. Vyasa Raya’s disciple was Lakṣmipati, whose disciple was Madhavendra, whose disciple was Isvara Puri, Caitanya’s guru, and yet he outlived them all! Though at a stretch of the imagination, it is possible that such a connection existed, the general custom in non-Udupi institutions such as that of Vyasa Raya typically have only one "reigning" pontiff who designates someone to take his place only when it comes to prepare for his departure. Thus, had Lakṣmipati Tirtha been Vyasa’s successor, he would not have acceded to this position before 1539, after Chaitanya’s disappearance. The question we are left with, even if the connection were possible, is how could such mistakes and omissions creep into the Gaudiya knowledge of the disciplic succession, especially in the matter of who was Vyasa Tirtha’s spiritual master, when they were not only contemporaneous, but neighbors? Vyasa Tirtha’s dates are given as 1469-1539, which means that he postdated Caitanya’s death by five years. Interestingly, from 1498 to the end of his life, Vyasa Tirtha lived in Vijayanagara, the capital city of Kṛṣṇadeva Raya, directly to the south of the Orissan kingdom of Prataparudra. These two kingdoms were frequently at war during this time. According to B. N. K. Sharma, Krishnadeva Raya had a lot of regard for Vyasa Tirtha, making several honorific references to him in his writings, even calling him his kuladevata.”

Anantagovinda: Lakṣmīpati is not madhvaite: he is advaitine: they have no any Lakṣmīpati in their line

Advaitadas: So he was not a śiṣya of Vyāsa tirtha?

Anantagovinda: No. It is not mentioned in any Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava grantha and it is not mentioned in any madhvaite protocol.”

Advaitadas: He was the guru of the guru of the guru of Sītānāth, at least supposedly...

Anantagovinda: Yes, but that is not possible. More Jagat :

“The connection of Madhavendra Puri to the Tattvavadi gurus is not mentioned in the most current biographies, Caitanya-bhagavata or Caitanya- caritamṛta, nor even in the Caitanya-candrodaya-nataka, where Madhavendra’s name is mentioned, but not connected to Madhvacharya (CCN 1.21). Nor does Karnapur mention any connection to the Madhva line in his earlier work, Caitanya- carita-mahakavya.”

Anantagovinda: Mahāprabhu wanted only Sridhar's commentary: not Madhva's, not Ramanuja's. Nowhere Vṛndāvan das or Krsnadas mentioned Madhva, nor did Sanātana or Rūpa. Puri is not a Madhvaite's title. It is the same title as Bhārati or Caitanya.”

Advaitadas: Madhvaites use only the tīrtha-title?

Anantagovinda: Yes only tīrtha. No one is Puri among them. Madhva is Ānanda Tīrtha: Puri is advaita-sampradāya sannyāsa who practices bhakti. Baladeva needed to get back Govinda’s service (so he wrote about us being Madhvaites, a recognized sampradāya at the time). Why did he made a separate Vedānta bhāṣya if we are Madhvaites? Because it is a new movement among the advaita sampradāya. Everybody knew that Mādhavendra Puri, Īśvara Puri, Paramānanda Puri, Viṣṇu Puri were advaitines, but they started a bhakti cult. Thus Caitanya Mahāprabhu formed a new doctrine, completely separate: The ārādhyo bhagavān-verse is showing a totally different conception than Madhva's. Īśvara Puri never spoke about Madhva, nor did Mādhavendra Purī. Just compare how Mahāprabhu was in love with the Rāmānujaites: 4 months kathā and kīrtan in their house. Mādhavendra, Īśvara Puri and Caitanya Mahāprabhu dug out bhakti from the śāstras themselves without any help: only with the help of Śrīdhara Swāmī, who was the first māyāvādī inclined to bhakti.