Tripartite classification of Souls? - Gaudiya vs Madhva siddhanta

Dear Prabhus,
Humble obeisances.
What does Gaudiya siddhanta have to say about Sri Madhvacarya's assertion that souls themselves are classified according to spiritual gunas, into mukti-yogya, nitya-samsarin, and tamo-yogya? Is Gaudiya siddhanta (a) silent on the issue, (b) prefers to ignore the issue philosophically, or © positively disagrees with it?

Would appreciate any inputs. Hare Krishna.

It must be obvious that Gaudiya Vaisnavism does not agree with this, and also obvious to anyone who knows a Madhva or has actually studied their philosophy they do believe this. Thus the lesson here is that these are obviously two different doctrines of two completely different sampradayas.

Keshava prabhu,
Why is it "obvious" that Gaudiya siddhanta does not agree with this? Could you please put down a few points? Sorry to bother.

There is no other Hindu philosopher but Madhva who has this conception. On the basis of the statement in Bhagavad Gita(and other things) "I cast them down never to return" Madhvas opine an eternal hell. This is the sure destination of the Tamayogin. Nothing this tye of soul can do will release him from this fate. That is his destiny. Similarly the nitya samsarin is also, just that, eternally in samsara. And the mukti-yogya also will definitely reach moksha. All of these according to Madhva scholars reach their final destination within the time limit of one kalpa. They can seemingly make advancement towards another goal uptil then but ultimately by the very nature of their soul (not body) whether it (their soul/atma) be sattvic, rajasic or tamasic they are destined to go to moksha, stay here in samsara or go to hell, eternally. There is no way for them to avoid their ultimate fate and there is no way to change it once it is attained.

Need I say more.

As you can see, this is really a question of predestination, which created much difficulty for Calvin and others. If God knows all things, past, present and future, then clearly it has been decided who will end up where. The Vedanta Sutra itself, according to most bhashyas, admits that the jiva has free will, which is independent of God's knowledge of how we use it.

I understood what Madhvacarya's point was. My question was about how this contradicts any explicit theological statement in Gaudiya siddhanta. From what little I know, the only fair comment is that Gaudiya siddhanta is silent on this issue, or prefers not to get into it because of obvious psychological problems that the idea of "pre-destination" can have for sadhana.

Where pure Krishna-consciousness is, there also is Vaikuntha, in a sense. The pure devotees don't mind living in the hellish worlds as long as they are in Krishna Consciousness. The separation is ecstatic, etc.

In that sense, the ultimate "destination" of the soul seems irrelevent, doesn't it? Now what exactly Madhvacarya meant by the the spiritual equivalents of the material guna tamas (and rajas) could be debated.

The Gaudiya position about rising to "shuddha-sattva" is in reference to the material, mind-related guna, isn't it? Many scriptural verses have layers of meaning.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no indication whatsoever in the vast canon of Gaudiya-literature that all jivas wouldn't be eligible for attaining para-bhakti. That in itself indicates that there is disagreement over this issue.

The ultimate "destination" isn't irrelevant in the least, since prema cannot be perfected but in a form of Krishna's associate. If you read the second chapter of Visvanatha's Raga-vartma-chandrika, this attainment and the further growth of prema is discussed therein.

Shuddha-sattva is not in reference to the material guna of sattva. Shuddha-sattva is the equivalent of existence manifest of sandhini-shakti.

I don't think the Gaudiyas are silent. They are very much against the idea that there is any soul who is outside the purview of Krishna's mercy. We may accept the possibility that some jivas choose eternal bondage, but we believe that Krishna never abandons anyone. Nothing can exist without his presence, and his mercy is constantly acting on the jivas, who after endless lifetimes of resistence eventually capitulate to his love.

I find it easier to think that the Gaudiya acharyas did not discuss a particular problem because they did not think of it or because it was not an issue, rather than out of a deliberate attempt to protect the foolish from unnecessary mental effort. In this case I would say that it was not an issue. But they are interested in the question of how devotion first arises in several places, such as Madhurya-kadambini.

Jagat prabhu,
Sorry for being a persistent fool, but I need more explanation:

How does Gaudiya siddhanta explain the variance of karmic trajectories without a spiritual root-cause? Also, this tripartite division of souls is part of Madhvacarya's theodicy.

If Gaudiyas can accept that different souls have different, eternal rasas with the Lord, what is the harm in speaking of spiritual gunas in that perspective? After all, although we usually speak only of the 5 primary rasas, there are 12 in all, and some of them are clearly in pure macabre (tamas), or chivalrous (rajas) terms. The 5 primary rasas, of course, include and exceed all secondary ones.

Besides, how can material gunas not have some spiritual equivalent? It would be simply illogical if that were not so.

A soul of a particular spiritual guna, when placed in material energy, takes a karmic trajectory based on its spiritual essence. That explains the karmic variance upto the root-cause, which must be in the Absolute realm to be truly defensible.

So that's what my point was: I personally see several possible ways to accept Madhvacarya's classification without militating against any beliefs in the Gaudiya siddhanta. I wanted senior devotees to share their thoughts on the issue.

No, I do not think that you have really understood Madhva's conception.


No, the Madhva concept is that at the end of one kalpa maximum or before that even, each soul works out it's destiny. Parabhda (original) karmas are inherent along with each soul and only the concommitant sancita and agami karmas change according to one's actions. However by the end of one kalpa all these karmas are worked out and one attains one's sattvic, rajasic or tamasic destiny respectively. Every soul according to Madhva has to come through the material world to work out it's destiny. One cannot go to the spiritual world without having been here first and without being a sattvic soul. So the perfection of the sattvic soul is to go to Vaikuntha. The rajasic types of souls stay in this material world going up and down in samsara and that is their perfection, it will never change, because it is their intrinsic nature to be rajasic souls. Since they are in the material world in their different bodies they can be as sinful or as pious as they like but it does not matter and it will have no effect. The tamasic souls perfection is to go to hell forever. There is nothing they can do about that either, it being their intrinsic nature.


You (and other Gaudiyas) can debate it as much as you like but there is absolutely no disagreement amongst Madhvas on these points. Neither are their any Madhvas who accept Gaudiyas as part of their sampradaya. Neither do Madhvas accept anyone or any other even Vaisnava philosophy or sampradaya as true or bonafide. According to Madhvas there is only one absolute truth and that is theirs. I know a lot of Madhvas, if you do not believe me you can make some research but you are wasting your time.

Certainly no other Hindu philosopher believes in eternal damnation. I believe it is a Semitic influence. Christians and Jews have lived in the area around where Madhva flourished long before him so no doubt they have some influences.

With the Madhva conception it is not a matter of capitulation, the individual soul has a fixed nature which cannot be changed whether by the soul itself or by God. That is their stand on the matter.

Right, it just is not an issue and never has been because no one else accepts this.

I find it curious that Baladeva didn't mention this when he outlined the differences the Gaudiyas have with the Madhvas. Surely he must have been aware of this.

Seems to me you forgot "(d)"
For example...

(d) don't want to hear "philosophy" that is painful to the heart.

That whole concept is abominable...

It seems, that in order to fully grasp what Madhva was meaning in this particular statement, we would need to look at the total body of his works and know the context, elaboration and ellucidation of his doctrine, which you would think would have some basis in Vedanta.
Any time you take one verse or one statement out of context and try to examine or understand it seperately from the total body of works, then you end up with much conjecture or speculation on the issue.

It's easy to take a statement out of context and construe many different meanings from it. However, it is a lot more work and effort to examine it in context of the total body of works to get a complete picture.

The great Vaishnava acharyas are more complex and sophisiticated intellecually than any truncated examination of their works and teachings can explain.

Dabbling in any philosophy or doctrine with an abbreviated examination will never yield a complete picture or understanding.

We should be very cautious in such armchair philosophizing. The conclusions will almost assuredly be faulty and defective.

Kshamabuddhi ji, I hope that you are not including me in those you see as arm-chair philosophers.

In regards to Madhvas I probably have more first hand experience than anyone else on this site. I have been visiting South India since the 70's and have lived for 4 years straight there in the 80's. I continue to live there as I have a home there. I have lived with Madhvas, have many Madhva friends, personally know all the Swamis of the Madhva sampradaya, (even met my wife in Udipi), know and have worked with many big Madhva scholars (the late BNK Sharma, Bannanje Govindacharya, KT Pandurangi, etc). Pejwar Swami considers me just like a disciple and I have even had tapta mudras from him. I have argued with them for days at a time on the 3 types of souls thing. Finally it comes down to them stating that that is their position. Not one of them has ever even suggested reality could be any other way. For those of you who do not have the direct experience with the Madhva sampradaya that I do please visit them or at the very least contact them by email (start with Dvaita.org or one of their discussion lists).

I will just quote from BNK Sharma's Magnum Opus (the section on Madhva's Work Tattva Samkhyana which as the name implies enumerates the Tattvas)

"Three classes of souls are distinguished among those who are now in bondage: Muktiyogyas (salvable), Tamoyogyas (those that will eventually qualify themselves for eternal perdition) and Nityasamsarins (those that will always be subject to transmigration). History of Dvaita Vedanta and it's Literature P 142

On the P 143 There is a chart of Tattvas (categories). Under cetanas or living beings there are two categories duhkhasprsta and duhkhAsprsta. Those who are touched by sorrow and those who are not touched by sorrow. RamA devi or Laksmi is the only one under the not touched by sorrow category. Liberated souls vimukta (already liberated) and duhkhasamsthAh (in bondage or sorrow) are the two branches under those who have been touched by sorrow. Thus it is clear that Madhva says that even liberated souls had to come from a sorrowful position in the material world. He does not accept eternally liberated souls. (Laksmi seems to be an exception). Then under the heading duhkhasamsthAh (in bondage or sorrow) there are two categories muktiyogya (those who can be liberated) and mukti ayogya (those who CANNOT be liberated). The muktiyogya (those who can be liberated) examples are given like deva, rsih, pitri, narAh (gods, s?ges, forefathers, men). Under the mukti ayogya (those who CANNOT be liberated) category there are also two divisions, tamayogya (tamasic souls) and nityasamsarinah (rajasic souls that stay in samsara eternally). Tamayogya (tamasic souls) are further divided into 4 as daitya, raksah (raksasa), pishaca and martAdhamAh. There are 2 further divisions of each but only the two divisions of the daitya class are given in the chart as prAptAndhatamasah and sutisamsthAh.

Keshava prabhu,
Could you expand on this? Or give me links where I can read up. I do plan to read BNK Sharma's book one of these days.
Isn't prArabdha just a label for that portion of sancita karma that discharges in a particular lifetime?

I've heard of Kalpa-moksha in other traditions also. It is not unique to Madhva sampradaya.

Most importantly as Madhava prabhu pointed out:
Why?

Again, I believe the spiritual gunas that Madhvacarya speaks of is not the same as material equivalent.

Here's some links to explain Madhva and Jiva Trividhya

http://www.hindunet.org/alt_hindu/1995_Mar_2/msg00043.html

http://www.dvaita.org/docs/faq.html

http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/prameya.shtml

Wherein it has this to say about the status of the Jivas:

nIchochcha bhAvaN^gatAH

(The jîva-s are) headed for higher and lower states.

If the jîva-s are not inherently identical, one might wonder, do they yet reach the same ultimate state? If they do, then again one might accuse Vishnu of arbitrarily assigning all jîva-s to some fixed state, not recognizing the higher worth of some of them. But, as a matter of fact, it cannot be accepted that Vishnu is shown as flawed; as Srimad Ananda Tîrtha puts it:

dhyeyo nArAyaNaM nityaM sR^ishhTisthitya.ntakArakaH |
bhaktAnAM muktido nityamadhamaj~nAninAM tamaH ||
Worthy of contemplation is that NârâyaNa (Vishnu) who is Eternally the Cause of Creation, Sustenance, and Destruction; who is the Giver of mukti (liberation) to [His] devotees, and of eternal damnation to the evil.
But what is the scriptural basis for this assertion? After all, isn't it true that nearly every other doctrine denies the existence of eternal damnation?

In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says:

UrdhvaM gachchhanti sattvasthA madhye tishhThanti rAjasAH |
jaghanya guNa-vR^ittisthA adho gachchhanti tAmasAH ||
Upwards (to liberation) go those situated in sattva; the rAjasa-s stay in the middle; those situated in abominable qualities and deeds, the tâmasa-s, go to the lowest state.
But can it not be argued that the `sattvasthA' refers to qualities born out of attachment to other entities, rather than to innate qualities, thus showing that eternality of the states described is not indicated? Not so. In a previous chapter of the 'Gita itself, it is said:

traiguNya vishhayA vedA nistraiguNyo bhavArjuna |
nirdvandvo nityasattvastho niryogaxema AtmavAn.h ||
The Veda-s deal with the three qualities -- [knowing them], be without the three qualities, O Arjuna; be free of the pairs-of-opposites (love/hate, friendship/enmity, etc.), continuously situated in sattva, without concern for accrual or maintenance [of material entities], and given to contemplation of the Lord.
Now, the three guNa-s, or qualities, are sattva, loosely translated as "goodness," rajas, translated similarly as "indifference," and tamas, also so translated as "evil." Now, Krishna is telling Arjuna to stay apart from the three guNa-s, and yet be always situated in sattva; does this make any sense?

It does, if one considers that guNa-s can be either acquired, or of one's own innate nature. Krishna is telling Arjuna to slough off all his acquired guNa-s, and be situated in the sattva that is his own nature (it cannot be the other way!).

But why can it not be argued that there are no qualities of one's own nature, at all, but all qualities are merely acquired by association?

For several reasons; some of them are:

While there are instances of qualities being acquired, there is never an instance of the property of having qualities, itself being acquired.
An entity that has no quality similar (even in being opposite) to the one being acquired, cannot even form the association necessary to effect the acquisition.
Considering that the qualities of good, indifference, and evil cannot be said to reside in the Lord or in inanimate nature, the question arises as to where they are being acquired from.
Also, observe that the exact word `sattvasthA' used in "traiguNya vishhayA vedA" to denote the quality of one's own nature, is also used in "UrdhvaM gachchanti sattvasthA," thus showing that it is the inherent, rather than the overlaid, quality that is being referred to. In any event, it is also seen that Krishna uses `rAjasAH' ("the indifferent") and `tAmasAH' ("the evil") as if they were inherent to the jîva-s described; there is no indication in His words that the qualities indicated are acquired ones.

Further support for the position is found in the sixteenth chapter:

tAnahaM dvishhataH krUrAn.h saMsAreshhu narAdhamAn.h |
xipAmi ajasraM ashubhAn.h AsurIshhveva yonishhu || 19 ||

AsurIM yonimApannA mUDhA janmani-janmani |
mAmaprApyaiva kaunteya tato yAntyadhamAM gatim.h || 20 ||
Those who are hateful towards me, are cruel and the worst humans in the world; them I forever hurl only into demonaic species.
Having reached evil species in birth after birth, the fools; completely failing to reach me, only, they then go to the lowest state.

Notice the use of `eva' (meaning, "only," or "certainly") in the second line of the 20th verse; it is clearly stated that there are some who never reach mukti.

The IshAvAsya Upanishad says:

a.ndhantamaH pravishanti ye.avidyAmupAsate |
Unto a blinding darkness (eternal hell) enter those who worship falsely.

If you want to see the difference between Madhva and Baladeva just look at Baladeva's Prameya Ratnavali and compare his 9 prameyas with those of Madhva as set out by Sri Vyasa Tirtha.

Baladeva here: See Text 5.

http://www.philosophy.ru/library/asiatica/...-ratnavali.html

Madhva here: Compare Text 5 above with the Prameya Sloka from below:

http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/prameya.shtml

WARNING: DO NOT READ THE LINKS BELOW IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE OFFENDED BY CRITICISM OF A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami and/or Gaudiya Vaisnavism.

Finally for anyone who is still under the impression that the Madhva's views are close to Gaudiyas can read links starting with:

http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/gita/prabhupada_review.shtml

There are other links at the bottom of the page showing other criticisms of ISKCON etc. and the idea of a Madhva Gaudiya linked sampradaya.

Keshava prabhu,
Thanks for posting the link to Baladeva ji's Prameya-ratnavali. I will respond later.

Meanwhile, just wanted to say that I had been through the dvaita.org website long ago. It doesn't change what I'm trying to speculate on. It is possible that the MAdhvas are over-simplifying Madhvacarya's idea of spiritual gunas (eternal "damnation" certainly seems to be a rather tendentious translation of tamo-yogya). And it may also be that the Gaudiyas, in turn, are ignoring many nuances of philosophy and rejecting outright Madhvacarya's classification. I am definitely rejecting the idea of "eternal damnation/suffering" in the commonly held Christian (i.e. Church-ian dogma) sense of the term (though the Mormons have an interesting take on it). But I think Madhvacarya's idea may be intelligently reconciled to Gaudiyaism.

As for the dvaita.org attack on Srila Prabhupada, been through that as well. No offense taken at all. The Bangalorean hotheads behind that website are clearly disturbed by the way several MAdhva people join or become patrons of ISKCON. Envy and misunderstanding are normal human traits common to us all. Their charges were responded to nicely.
http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/...radayas_fs.html

Moreover, "the senior-most leader of the Madhva sampradaya, H.H. Visvesa Tirtha Swami of Pejavara Matha, glorified Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, "just as Bhagiratha brought the Ganga to India, Swami Prabhupada brought the Bhakti-Ganga to the whole world." A video clip from this conversation, along with letters of appreciation from five prominent Madhva leaders may be found here:"
http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/udupi/

I hope this thread doesn't get derailed by the ignorant argumentativeness of certain dogmatic elements on either side. I'm personally not interested in knowing about howmany "MAdhvas" have contempt for the Gaudiyas or vice versa, or how they are fanatical, etc. I was hoping the devotees could speculate on IF and HOW this particular unique and decisive assertion of Sri Madhvacarya can be reconciled with Gaudiya Vedanta. Hare Krishna.

Yet, do not the Gaudiya scriptures also make reference to "nitya- baddha" jivas?

Eternally bound or conditioned living entities can become liberated, but until they do they are classified as eternally conditioned (damned).

It has also been said that a living must be elevated to the mode of goodness before he can attain liberation, so Madhva's statements about entities in the mode of ignorance not being eligible for liberation is not really much different than the Bhagavat concept that the living entity must be elevated to the mode of goodness before he can attain liberation.

Again, I think that Madhva's conception could be rationalized with Gaudiya siddhanta if it could be understood from a deeper understanding than an elementary understanding can afford.

There are probably purports to his teachings that, if analyzed deeply enough, would shed some light upon the controversy.

Are there not plants and animals in the spiritual world?
Could there not be some sort of spiritual mode of ignorance and passion?
Are the insects and trees in the spiritual world exactly as elevated and advanced as say the gopis who are embued with hladini-shakti?

Arguing with a few pundits on one specific point or issue is not equivelent to full study and dedication to understanding the total body of the Madhva doctrine.

It takes a lifetime to even get a glimpse into the teachings of any great acharya.
There are esoteric meanings in their teachings than can only be penetrated with a great dedication and devotion.
Academic observations of any spiritual doctrine will ultimately leave much to be understood.

Ksamabuddhi prabhu,
Well said. The dogmatic parroting of certain statements by followers and fans of great acaryas could be in ignorance of the deeper purport of those statements.

Clearly, Gaudiya siddhanta recognizes the eternally different states (rasas) of souls. So logically there should be no outright rejection of what Madhvacarya is saying. The question is only about correlating or aligning the two positions. No real logical gap needs to be bridged.

Kalpita moksha (moksha after a Kalpa) is common to ALL schools, and refers to the grand dissolution.

Also, the material gunas work independent of the spiritual gunas, inasmuch as our materially-conditioned behaviour and propensities have nothing to do with our svarupa. A tamo-yogya jiva could be the most sattvik person on Earth -- in terms of material guna. There need not be a contradiction in that. OTOH, we clearly see that great Vaishnavas have exhibited behaviours that externally appear to be rajasic or even tamasic. But actually they are transcendental. Therefore we are asked not to judge a Vaishnava's behaviour.

We can see that these gunas work distinctly at every level of our material being itself - physical, mental, etc. E.g. we see people who are the most well-ordered, diligent, hygienic successful people, but who are emotional wrecks deep inside. OTOH, we see very joyful, equipoised people who are slobs in terms of their material lives.

Those verses that Madhvacarya quoted from the BG can have layers of Truth to it - depending on the depth of the reader's spiritual insight. That is the genius of the Vedic scripture.

It is interesting to note the fact that, in Sankhya philosophy, the Prakrti is acknowledged to be formless, etc, whereas Purusha is personal and full of original qualities, which are only reflected in Prakrti when it comes into contact with it. Srila Prabhupada gave the example of a person putting on a shirt. A crumpled, "formless" shirt then acquires the form of the human torso. The Mayavadi description of "Brahman" seems more in line with the Sankhya description of Prakrti than Purusha.

It is also interesting to note that Madhvacarya has said that this Mayavada is an eternal philosophy -- one that has always existed, and will always exist.

I wouldn't say it's "parroting" if someone mentions a conclusion that's been well-established in a sampradaya for centuries, as is the case with this particular conclusion and the Madhva-tradition.

If someone wants to "step over" the centuries of Madhva-heritage and claim he's discovered the real purport of Madhva's meanings, then please, entertain us. Be prepared to do some damn serious homework before you go public with that, though. Be prepared to minutely examine each and every related statement of Madhva's and also explain how the tradition has misinterpreted them.

Superficial comments and speculations on what Madhva might have meant are little more than a waste of time. To quote Keshava:


I do realize some of these topics can provide juicy "brain-food", but let us rather apply our brains to something that'll yield more tangible a result in terms of reaching a meaningful conclusion.

Some issues here.

1. It is not an established conclusion that the svarupa of the jiva is eternally fixed in the sense of its being predetermined. Some have propagated such an understanding, but it isn't established, not by a far stretch.

2. You cannot draw a meaningful parallel between the manifestation of the svarupa of a mukta-jiva and the Madhvite-concept of the jiva's eternal position vis-a-vis prakriti and the three gunas.

Madhava prabhu,
I am prepared to do serious work, just to try to understand the purports of the great acaryas. I think there is spiritual merit in the effort itself. I have no motive in trying to "newly discover the real purports of MAdhva's statements". But I find it edifying just to contemplate the awesome words of shAstra, and the greatest commentators of shastra. I'm not exactly an elevated soul in bhava, and so philosophical speculation is unfortunately part of my neophyte sadhana.

So I was hoping to get some guidance in this from you. Can you suggest some authoritative books and sources? Could you also comment on some of the points that kshamabuddhi and myself raised, and if there is any real correlation? The whole point of coming to this forum is so that I can tap into the vast experience and learning of senior devotees. I hope I have not committed any offense.

Such as?

I would also appreciate it if Keshava prabhu could expand on that bit about Madhva's explanation of "prArabdha" and sancita karmas.

Also, there is no doubt that all acaryas often do mask certain aspects of doctrine in order to avoid obfuscation or motivational issues for immature neophyte devotees. I think Jagat prabhu denied that happens, but it seems clear to me that this is the case, and is perfectly reasonable. In 2nd grade, kids are told that one can't subtract a larger number from a smaller number...

From what I know of Madhva philosophy on the Dvaita List, a lot of doctrinal issues were further hammered out by Madhva's successors (such as Jaya Tirtha), so it might be worth the while checking out what they had to say on this matter in their works as well.

I am hoping that Gaudiyas will just realize that their philosophy is different and forget about trying to rationalize being part of the Madhva sampradaya. I really do not think that it is useful to try to reconcile the two.

Mahaprabhu grafted the plant of Gaudiya siddhanta onto the roots of the Madhva doctrine. The plant is different, but the roots are the same. I think that this is about as much reconciling and rationalizng as can be done on issues of difference.

You can take certain fruit trees and graft them onto the root systems of other species that will make it more hardy, disease resistant and able to grow is otherwise intolerable conditions. If Gaudiyas cannot accept that their roots are in the Madhva doctrine, then they are living in denial - plain and simple. Without Madhva roots, the Gaudiya tree could never have thrived in the environment it was planted in.

To say that Madhva's conclusions are "horrible" seems to be biting the hand that feeds you.

Keshava prabhu,
I'm not trying to artificially reconcile Gaudiya siddhanta with MAdhva siddhanta. I don't know many Gaudiyas who are overly anxious to feel part of the Madhva sampradaya. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is the sole and SUFFICIENT reason people take shelter under his lotus feet. His favourable opinion of the Madhva sampradaya is only incidental.

I'm only trying to find out the extent to which the two siddhantas agree (as interpreted by present-day followers). Sometimes I do feel that there is some dogmatic nit-picking in the way the "differences" are accentuated. To give an example, the cocksure blasphemers who put up the dvaita.org website want to wrangle on this point: Madhvacarya says that pratyaksha, anumAna and sabda pramAna are all of equal significance, whereas Jiva Gosvami says that sabda pramana is superior to all. Now this is clearly a blind comparison. Madhvacarya said the 3 are equal PROVIDED the means of knowledge in the first two are PERFECT. Now since we know of the 6 defects of human senses, if follows logically, almost as a corollary to Madhvacarya's prameya, that sabda-pramAna is to be given first priority, because it is apaurusheya. But these guys are so eager to add to the list of "differences", that they not only misrepresent the Gaudiya position, but also misrepresent (by over-simplification and dogmatism) Madhvacarya's doctrine.

So my idea is only to explore the extent to which there is doctrinal agreement. Comparative study helps me understand the philosophy better, and even doctrinal differences highlight some interesting points. That is my only interest.

Actually, it might be possible for a Gaudiya, schooled in acintya bheda abheda tattva and siddhanta, to see even deeper meanings in the doctrine of Madhva than even his own heritage.
The Madhvites are limited by their own parameters and do not have the advantage of the Gaudiya siddhanta to see beyond the veil of their own limitations.

Someone who only knows about Windows 95, cannot understand the advanced functions of Linux or Windows XP etc.

Someone using an older operating system might argue with somebody using a newer operating system because he is not aware of the new innovations built into the newer software.

In the same way, a Madhvite might not fully understand the depths of Madhva's siddhanta because he is being restricted by a limited knowledge of the highest truths as propounded by Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and the great Gaudiya acharyas.

A child can read a book and learn something from it. But, an adult can read the same book and get a lot more out of it due to his maturity and experience in deeper thinking and intellect.

Maybe Madhva was a lot deeper and more esoteric than any of his followers ever knew? Maybe, like Sankara, he taught something that was not the whole truth, because his mission was not about that? Maybe Madhva taught exactly what the Lord wanted him to teach, even though there was some questionable content there?

Should Madhva or his doctrine be criticized if in fact he was ON A MISSION FROM GOD?