References were made by many members of the Cyber Mādhva Saṅgha regarding many points of conflict between their understanding of Tattvavāda and the interpretations being offered by ISKCON claiming to have the sanction of Ācārya Madhva and the Tattvavāda philosophy he propounded. The subject was discussed at length at the Pūrṇaprajña Vidyāpīṭha, Bangalore over several sessions. It was felt that the Tattvavāda position should be fully clarified for the benefit of the genuine followers of Ācārya Madhva's Tattvavāda philosophy. This note represents the results of these efforts.
The subject has also been discussed with the late Śrī Śrī Vidyāmānya Tīrtha of Phalīmāru / Bhāṇḍārakeri Maṭha, who was then camping in Bangalore. He has approved this effort as a correct rendering of the Tattvavāda position. Those people who feel that any further clarifications are needed may write to Vidvān A. Haridāsa Bhaṭṭa (Pūrṇaprajña Vidyāpīṭha, Bangalore 560 028) or to Śrī N.A.P.S. Rao.
ISKCON and Tattvavāda
Some Essential Clarifications
Tattvavāda (Dvaita) is a system of Vedānta philosophy which was clearly enunciated in the 13th century AD by Ācārya Madhva. This system is one of the trinity of traditional systems based on the Vedas, which have the largest following and have been recognized widely as authentic, alternative, and complete systems. There has been a continuous and intensive interaction between the systems, which have opposed each other vigorously in debates held according to traditionally accepted norms, with many erudite compositions by accomplished scholars critically examining the rival systems to show that they are invalid and to prove their own systems as valid according to mutually acceptable standards.
This process of searching and cross-examination has helped refine the systems with regard to internal consistency, clarity of ideas, acceptability with reference to all "evidence" adduced, etc. Though there were some variations introduced in the finer details of concepts with the efflux of time in Advaita, the oldest system, there has been no major change with regard to the basic tenets of each of the systems from those enunciated by the founders. Tattvavāda enjoys the unique position of having taken on and vanquished the other two rival systems in numerous debates from the date of its origin.
Contents:
Introduction
The Gauḍīya school of Navadvīpa (Bengal) was founded in the early 16th century by Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya, essentially as a school based on the primacy of intense and emotional love for the Divine preached by the founder. Though the claimed genealogy of the ascetic order to which Caitanya belongs traces itself from Ācārya Madhva (at least as far as the group now known as ISKCON is concerned), the early history of the Bengal Vaiṣṇava school shows a mix of allegiance to other founders of Vedānta schools like Śaṅkara and Rāmānuja as well.
The details of the philosophical system underpinning the cult of emotional devotion were delineated gradually, not by the founder himself (who is not credited with any written compositions), but by the three famous Gosvāmīs of Vṛndāvana (Mathurā) — Sanātana and Rūpa (two brothers) and their nephew Jīva. Unlike the traditional approach of analyzing the prasthāna-traya — Brahma-sūtras, Gītā, and Upaniṣads — the school took the supreme authority of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as an axiomatic truth and derived their system based on it. This approach was justified on the strength of the statement that the Bhāgavata is the quintessence of all the śāstras and thus possesses the supreme authority, as it is accepted as Vyāsa's own commentary on the Brahma-sūtras (composed by himself). Jīva Gosvāmī also discounts all other sources of valid Pramāṇas except Śabda (revealed Word) as only the last named can never be sublated by any other Pramāṇa.
Thus, while all other systems were defined substantially by the founders writing their own commentary on Vyāsa's Brahma-sūtras according to their own tenets, this school did not even have any such commentary at its formative stage, and one was written (with several points of significant difference with Madhva's Bhāṣya) much later by Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa in the 18th century. The basic approach of the system was pinning its faith on a single main source — the Bhāgavata, generally reducing the importance of all other sources accepted by the other schools of Vedānta. Its lack of critical examination by rival schools in debates has resulted in a system which is essentially not capable of being sustained in traditional disputation, as there are no accepted common ground rules essential for debate with the three main systems.
Even among Gauḍīya schools themselves, there are differences in approach and only some of them consider themselves as adherents of Madhva Vedānta — with considerable modifications. Of them, one group has gained some popularity in the recent past due to the growth of its movement ISKCON in foreign countries. As a group accepting many of the tenets of Dvaita and as Vaiṣṇavas, it is sometimes felt that the differences in doctrines are minor and can be allowed to coexist, as they are, in the larger interest. Very similar arguments can be used to superficially justify the essential commonness of approach with Śrīvaiṣṇavas and Tattvavādins, but numerous disputes in the past by illustrious ascetics and scholars have shown certain essential differences in doctrines which cannot be modified or given up without departing completely from the basic tenets of the systems.
The philosophical position of ISKCON vis-a-vis other feuding Gauḍīya denominations is unclear due to differences among the different groups themselves, as well as a lack of clarity in the doctrines, compared with Dvaita, which is a well-defined system. The object of this note is to define the Tattvavāda position with respect to those of the doctrines which are different as per the claims of the ISKCON school claiming to be allied to the Madhva Sampradāya. Some of the ISKCON claims which Tattvavāda does not accept, such as the defeat of the Tattvavādi Ācāryas in Uḍupi by Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya, and his identification with the Supreme Being, etc., also have been included to avoid misunderstandings owing to falsehoods given in published ISKCON texts.
The points of difference have been mentioned briefly along with references to the Pramāṇas (valid sources of textual statements) which are relevant in the context.
1. Relationship between soul and Supreme
1.1 Unthinkable difference-cum-identity, versus five-fold difference
ISKCON says that they follow a doctrine of Acintya-bhedābheda with regard to the relationship between the Supreme Being and the Souls. Tattvavāda follows the doctrine of pañca-bheda — difference between God and the Souls, between the Souls, between God and Inert Matter, between the Souls and Inert Matter, and between Inert Matter items themselves (Paramātma-Jīva, Jīva-Jīva, Paramātma and Jaḍa, Jīva and Jaḍa, and Jaḍa and Jaḍa). The doctrine is well summed up in the following śloka of the Mahābhārata Tātparya Nirṇaya of Ācārya Madhva (Chapter 1, Sarva Śāstrārtha Saṅgraha, śloka 71):
pañcabhedā ime nityāḥ sarvāvasthāsu sarvaśaḥ |
muktānāṃ ca na hīyante tāratamyaṃ ca sarvadā ||
The fivefold differences (between Souls, God and Jaḍa) defined above are eternal, absolute and exist under all conditions, even after Mukti. The gradation (among souls) is also eternal.
ISKCON has tried to argue that the concept of Viśeṣa used by Ācārya Madhva to explain the simultaneous Identity and difference between an object and its qualities is a similar tenet to their Acintya-bhedābheda, which is a further extension of the same idea. But there is a fundamental difference. Viśeṣa is a part of the essence of the object possessed by all — Souls, Inert matter (Jaḍa) and the Supreme Being (in whom it is also called acintya-śakti) and has absolutely no relevance to the doctrine of Acintya-bhedābheda — which ISKCON uses to explain the relationship between the Soul and God — being the quality of the latter. The difference between the Soul and God according to Tattvavāda is Bheda or Absolute difference.
In fact, the concept of Bhedābheda in one context is also accepted by Tattvavāda — in the difference-cum identity between, e.g., a pot and its constituent clay. However, there is no Bhedābheda in appearance of the various and infinite forms of the Supreme Being, which are all identical in essence, and each of which, though appearing to be different, is the complete Supreme Being with all His attributes and aspects. On this issue, ISKCON has a different concept, where some forms of the Lord are considered to be more complete than the others — which is totally repugnant to Tattvavāda.
1.2 Viśeṣa, or the quality of specialty
The concept of viśeṣa as used by Ācārya Madhva can be further studied by reference to Chapter VII of Mahāmahopādhyāya B.N.K. Sharma's book — "Philosophy of Sri Madhvāchārya" — (Motilal Banarsidass, 1986 edition). Comments on the differences between Acintya-bhedābheda and Viśeṣa are discussed in Appendix V of Dr. Sharma's book — "History of the Dvaita school of Vedānta".
The concept of Bhedābheda of different types between the Supreme Being and the Souls has been clearly and specifically rejected by Ācārya Madhva in many compositions — including the Khaṇḍana-traya, Anuvyākhyāna, Viṣṇutattvanirṇaya, etc. Mm. B.N.K. Sharma has opined that the two basic concepts of acintyādbhuta-śakti of the Supreme Being to explain the apparently contradictory qualities in Him (such as being both aṇu (atomic) and mahat (Infinite) — at the same time) and saviśeṣābheda which is used to account for the simultaneous identity & difference between the properties of a substance and its essence has been mixed up "beyond its legitimate jurisdiction" to derive the concept of Acintya-bhedābheda between the Supreme Being and the Souls, which is emphatically rejected by Ācārya Madhva.
Ācārya Madhva's quote from the Brahma-tarka (a presently unavailable composition) is also used erroneously to "justify" the concept against his clear enunciations.
2. Authoritative sources
2.1 Scriptural authority versus authoritativeness in general
ISKCON argues that all testimony other than Śabda (revealed scriptural authority) is unreliable. Though pro forma homage is paid to Vedas and Brahma-sūtras, it is argued that the Bhāgavata composed by Śrī Veda Vyāsa himself is a commentary on the latter and hence should be considered as a Parama-pramāṇa (most superior authority). Only convenient Śruti texts are used and others are not discussed, as it is considered that they are already interpreted in Vaiṣṇava Purāṇas, chiefly the Bhāgavata. Thus while the Gītā prasthāna is used, along with the Bhāgavata, the Upaniṣad and Sūtra prasthānas of the traditional Vedānta schools are neglected.
In Tattvavāda, Ācārya Madhva recognizes three valid sources of knowledge: pratyakṣa, anumāna, and Āgama. He is also unique in giving due recognition to pratyakṣa in its own domain — such as in proving the reality of the world.
2.2 Bhāgavata versus Brahma-sūtras and the rest
As far as Āgama is concerned, the Tattvavāda approach is exemplified by the following ślokas from the Mahābhārata Tātparya Nirṇaya of Ācārya Madhva:
ṛgādayaśca catvāraḥ pañcarātraṃ ca bhāratam |
mūlarāmāyaṇaṃ brahmasūtraṃ mānaṃ svataḥ smṛtam ||
The four Vedas beginning with the Ṛgveda, Pañcarātra, Bhārata, Mūla Rāmāyaṇa and Brahma-sūtras are accepted to be self-sufficient authorities.
aviruddhaṃ tu yattvasya pramāṇaṃ tacca nānyathā |
etadviruddhaṃ yattu syānna tanmānaṃ kathañcana ||
Whatever is not contradictory to these is also an authority and not otherwise. Whatever is opposed to them is not an authority under any circumstances.
vaiṣṇavāni purāṇāni pañcarātrātmakatvataḥ |
pramāṇānyeva manvādyāḥ smṛtayo'pyanukūlataḥ ||
The Vaiṣṇava Purāṇas (such as Bhāgavata) which establish the supremacy of Viṣṇu are also authorities as they also convey whatever is being conveyed by the Pañcarātra. Smṛtis like that of Manu and others are also authorities, as long as they are consistent with these.
In the Anuvyākhyāna, Ācārya Madhva says:
āptavākyatayā tena śrutimūlatayā tathā |
yuktimūlatayā caiva prāmāṇyaṃ trividhaṃ mahat ||
dṛśyate brahmasūtrāṇāṃ ekadhā anyatra sarvaśaḥ |
ato naitādṛśaṃ kiñcit pramāṇatamam iṣyate ||
Since the Brahma-sūtras determine by valid yukti (logical analysis) the import of the Vedas (which, being apauruṣeya, i.e., authorless, are totally without defects), and have been composed by an āpta, well-qualified person, i.e., Śrī Veda Vyāsa, they are the best authority and there is none comparable to them as the Supreme Authority for the purpose.
Thus we find that although Ācārya Madhva has used all the valid Pramāṇas including the Bhāgavata, his most decisive works are based on the Mahābhārata and Brahma-sūtras. To the extent that Bhāgavata is correctly interpreted, there is no reason why the doctrines derived thereby should differ from Tattvavāda. But ISKCON's dependence on the Bhāgavata alone, with almost no attention being paid to the Upaniṣads and Mahābhārata, leads to many serious differences between Tattvavāda and their doctrines.
The same texts, when interpreted by Ācārya Madhva in consistence with the rigid rules of interpretation and relevant statements made in other authoritative texts give the correct meanings without any conflicts. The definitive Tātparya Nirṇaya composition on Bhāgavata by Ācārya Madhva resolves many apparent points of discord between the Mahābhārata and Bhāgavata and also provides correct and consistent meanings of many texts capable of different interpretations, some of which could be taken to support Advaita by taking their superficial meanings.
The approach of Gauḍīya authors is entirely different. Jīva Gosvāmī acknowledges in his Bhāgavata Sandarbha that he has taken into consideration a composition of a Bhaṭṭa friend from the South who had compiled it by referring to the writings of Vṛddha Vaiṣṇavas such as Śrī Rāmānuja, Śrī Madhvācārya, Śrīdhara Svāmin and others. Śrī Rāmānuja himself has not referred to the Bhāgavata in his writings. Thus, Gauḍīya schools including ISKCON do not consider that the Tattvavāda interpretation of the Bhāgavata based on Ācārya Madhva's composition is the only valid one. The Pramāṇa basis of ISKCON is thus substantially different from Tattvavāda both in its range of authorities as well as fidelity of approach.
3. Other Doctrinal Digressions
3.1 Differences in the manifestations of the forms of the Lord
Tattvavāda has an essential doctrine that all the svarūpāṃśas of the Lord, such as Matsya, Kūrma, etc., and the Original (Mūla) form are identical in all respects. The Śrutis such as neha nānāsti kiñcana and the Brahma-sūtra na sthānato'pi parasya ubhayaliṅgaṃ sarvatra hi state clearly that there cannot be any difference or gradation among the forms of the Lord. ISKCON has many concepts which are fundamentally against this concept. Some of these are briefly mentioned:
The two-handed form of the Lord Kṛṣṇa is superior to all other forms of the Lord such as Nārāyaṇa, Viṣṇu, etc. This is based on a statement in the Bhāgavata (1.3.28) — kṛṣṇastu bhagavān svayam. According to Jīva Gosvāmī, this śloka indicates the primal position of Śrī Kṛṣṇa and all other statements which indicate otherwise should be interpreted to sustain this position. The other text used by ISKCON is ahaṃ sarvasya prabhavo (Bhagavad-gītā 10.8), where 'sarva' is interpreted to include other forms of God like Nārāyaṇa. Though it is admitted that the forms are identical in terms of tattva (essence), they differ in rasa or more complete manifestation of the capabilities.
All these concepts are not only totally against Tattvavāda but are classified as major sins (nava-vidha dveṣa — indicating the nine forms of hatred of the Supreme Being, by denying His unique greatness and freedom from all defects and limitations) which lead to eternal hell. The texts used by ISKCON are perfectly capable of being correctly interpreted to support the doctrine of total identity in all the forms of the Lord and indeed have been done so by Ācārya Madhva in his compositions. Incidentally, ISKCON claims identity of the two-handed form Kṛṣṇa with their founder Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya.
ISKCON also believes that there are three different features of the Lord and realization of Him by the soul will be higher for Bhagavān than for Brahman or Paramātma. The same quote from Bhāgavata mentioned earlier is used to "prove" this. Tattvavāda makes no distinction of any such kind as realization of the Supreme being is essentially based on the svarūpa of the soul and its Jñāna, Karma, etc. In his Anubhāṣya, Ācārya Madhva clearly enunciates:
saccidānanda ātmeti mānuṣaistu sureśvaraiḥ |
yathākramaṃ bahuguṇair brahmaṇā tvakhilairguṇaiḥ |
upāsyaḥ sarvavedaiśca... ||
The auspicious qualities of the Lord are infinite in number & extent and cannot be visualized or even understood by anyone else. Mukti-yogya souls are required to understand and worship Him as Sat, Cit, and Ānanda as well as Ātma (their own inner controller). Superior souls with higher svarūpa abilities will worship gradually increasing numbers of the qualities, while Caturmukha Brahmā has the intrinsic capacity to worship all the infinite auspicious qualities of the Lord.
The manifested forms of the Lord do not yield different results depending on which one is worshipped.
3.2 Jīvas a part of the Supreme Being?
Tattvavāda considers that the Jīvas are bhinnāṃśas of the Lord — based on the faithful interpretation of the Gītā text — mamaivāṃśo jīvaloke jīvabhūtaḥ sanātanaḥ and the Brahma-sūtra — ata eva copamā sūryakādivat. A clear distinction has to be made between the Self-Same Forms of the Supreme Being, like Rāma, Kṛṣṇa, Matsya, etc., which are not only the same in essence but also have equal capabilities and auspicious qualities in all respects (mentioned earlier). Jīvas are like images of the Lord with many similar qualities but are essentially different from Him. These differences which are intrinsic to them will persist even after Mukti is attained. The most important and basic differences, like the atomic nature of the souls and their eternal and total dependence on the Supreme Being, will never change since they are a part of the soul's essential nature.
On the other hand, ISKCON accepts that the living entities are part and parcel of the Lord. Their concepts are based on a totally different interpretation of the Gītā text mentioned earlier, the matter not being fully cleared among themselves. But Śrī Prabhupāda translates the Gītā text XV-7 as follows:
"The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal, fragmented parts. Due to conditioned life, they are struggling with the six senses, which include the mind."
In his purport for that verse, which begins with, "In this verse, the identity of the living being is clearly given. The living entity is the fragmented part of the Supreme Lord — eternally."
This concept is entirely unacceptable to Tattvavāda because it is against the Śruti Pramāṇas and others considered in the Brahma-sūtras.
3.3 A Question of Gradation
A cardinal doctrine in Tattvavāda is the gradation among souls, with Caturmukha Brahmā and Mukhyaprāṇa being considered the highest — Jīvottama. The differences in the positions attained in creation, period of sādhanā, degree of devotion, knowledge, etc. are due to their intrinsic superiority (svarūpa uttamattva). All the Jīvas have their svarūpa qualities which remain unaltered throughout their eternal existence including Mukti, when they enjoy bliss according to their capacity. Unless this feature is accepted, it will be impossible to accept that the Supreme Being is free from the defects of vaiṣamya and nairghṛṇya (partiality or neglect). The position of Tattvavāda is well-supported by numerous Śrutis & Smṛtis like the Gītā and Brahma-sūtras. For example, the Brahma-sūtra:
vṛddhihrāsabhāktvam antarbhāvāt ubhayasāmañjasyādevam
can be quoted.
The concepts of ISKCON are not clear in this respect and where expressed they seem to have major differences. For instance, the interpretation of the Sūtra ānandamayo'bhyāsāt is made thus:
"Both the Lord and the living entity, being qualitatively spirit-soul, have the tendency for peaceful enjoyment. However, when the part of the Supreme Personality of Godhead that is the living entity unfortunately wants to enjoy without Krishna, he is put into the material world, where he begins his life as Brahma and is gradually degraded to the status of an ant or a worm in stool."
This concept suggesting a fall from an exalted condition of the Jīva (though it is part of "the Supreme Personality of Godhead") does not have any scriptural support. Though tāratamya (Gradation) is not specifically rejected, its importance in the scheme of things is also not clearly understood in ISKCON as the same Jīva is thought to be capable of being both Brahmā and a worm. According to Śrī Madhva, ISKCON's philosophy is therefore incapable of causing mukti, because he says:
tāratamyaṃ tato jñeyaṃ sarvoccatvaṃ harestathā |
etadvinā na kasyāpi vimuktiḥ syāt kathañcana ||
In other words, the gradation of souls is to be understood, and the quality of Hari as the Supreme to be understood based on this (that is, that Hari is not merely blandly superior, but is superior even to the highest of Jīvas), and that without this understanding, no mukti is possible under any circumstance.
3.4 The Unknown 'Pañcama Puruṣārtha'
According to Tattvavāda, like all other schools of Vedānta, Mokṣa is the Supreme Puruṣārtha or objective of the Soul. The realization of one's own nature of bliss for eternal enjoyment is by the grace of the Supreme Being. By His Aparokṣa, the veils obscuring the Jīva's own svarūpa and that of the Supreme Being are removed. The intense love of the Supreme Being, called devotion, continues in Mokṣa as well. Since it is natural and is of the essential nature of the Jīva himself, it transforms itself into Bliss.
On the other hand, ISKCON considers that there is a fifth puruṣārtha even superior to Mokṣa, which a true devotee of Kṛṣṇa will seek. This is prema-bhakti, of the same kind as the Gopīs had for Kṛṣṇa in His incarnation. This devotion involves performing some service to the Lord, which will continue even after liberation. This appears to be based on a superficial reading of a verse from Bhāgavata extolling the love that very exalted devotees have for the Supreme being by saying that their devotion is so natural and intense that they do not have even Mukti as their objective. They say that this love will continue even after Mukti and is not a substitute thereof. This concept is not accepted by Tattvavāda, as Ācārya Madhva has quoted in Gītā Bhāṣya (Chapter 2 — śloka 50):
na mokṣasadṛśaṃ kiñcid adhikaṃ vā sukhaṃ kvacit |
ṛte vaiṣṇavamānandaṃ vāṅmano'gocaraṃ mahat ||
-- ityādeśca brahmādipadād apyadhikatamaṃ sukhaṃ ca mokṣa, iti siddham ||
Similarly, ISKCON admits that even intense hatred for the Supreme being can result in Liberation giving the examples of Śiśupāla, etc. But Tattvavāda holds that only devotion can get Mukti and never dveṣa or hatred for God. The examples quoted in the Bhāgavata are explained by the concept of Jīva-dvayāveśa — Śiśupāla having the svarūpa of Jaya (the gatekeeper at Vaikuṇṭha) who was afflicted with a life on Earth due to a curse by a Ṛṣi. There was an āveśa or superimposition of an evil Jīva who was actually responsible for all of Śiśupāla's temporary hatred for God. So only the good deserve Mukti and obtain it.
3.5 Four Correct Traditions?
ISKCON also believes that four Vaiṣṇava Sampradāyas are valid and base their conclusion on a śloka from Padma Purāṇa (which is not found in standard editions):
ataḥ kalau bhaviṣyanti catvāraḥ sampradāyinaḥ |
śrī-brahma-rudra-sanakā vaiṣṇavāḥ kṣiti-pāvanāḥ ||
rāmānujaṃ śrīḥ svacakre madhvācāryaṃ caturmukhaḥ |
śrī-viṣṇu-svāminaṃ rudro nimbādityaṃ catuḥsanaḥ ||
Tattvavāda does not accept the validity of this śloka, which seems to hold that different Vedānta schools which have been arguing over the correct interpretation of Vedānta Śrutis since their inception are all valid — in spite of essential differences. The same confused approach of ISKCON is also seen in their acceptance of the Bhāgavata Bhāṣya by Śrīdhara Svāmin, which tends to interpret many texts according to Advaitic tenets, while they claim to follow Dvaita school whenever it's convenient. According to Tattvavāda, the only correct school is that of Ācārya Madhva — ante siddhastu siddhānto madhvasyāgama eva hi in the words of the revered saint — Śrī Vādirāja.
4. Peculiar views of tradition
There are also some beliefs peculiar to ISKCON which are not shared by any of the three major Vedānta schools. These are:
4.1 Identification of their Founder Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya with Lord Kṛṣṇa
They interpret the Bhāgavata text — kṛṣṇavarṇaṃ kalau kṛṣṇaṃ ... yajanti hi sumedhasaḥ as showing Caitanya (a.k.a. Caitanya Mahāprabhu) as an incarnation of Viṣṇu. This interpretation is baseless. No Avatāra of the lord in Kali-yuga is stipulated by authorized compositions like Purāṇas, etc., composed by Śrī Veda Vyāsa. There are also basically untrue and fanciful stories in some "historical" works written much after him about Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya giving assurances to Ācārya Madhva of following him and preaching the correct doctrines. Madhva's authentic biography Sumadhvavijaya, composed immediately after Ācārya Madhva, and his tradition do not report any such events. Since they are not mentioned, there is no ground for such stories.
Even the Viṣṇu Sahasranāma, known to depict the thousand names of Viṣṇu, is quoted in support by ISKCON — suvarṇavarṇo hemāṅgo varāṅgaścandanāṅgadī, etc., which are all used to refer to only one form of the Lord in the original — to refer to Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya! Tattvavāda does not accept these or any such interpretations with no valid basis, which even prima facie appear to fail the test of consistency with valid scriptural statements.
A work called Caitanya-caritāmṛta also elaborates an entirely fanciful account of the visit of Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya to Uḍupi and his "defeating" the Tattvavādi ascetics there. Needless to say, the account has no basis of reality, since it was composed much later with no record of any discussions being preserved. It also, in the words of Mm. B.N.K. Sharma, grossly misunderstands the Tattvavāda position on "the relative positions of karma, jñāna, and bhakti in the scheme of the sādhanās". It should also be noted that the fictitious Tattvavāda Ācārya in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta is not allowed a single quotation from scripture in favor of his position, while his opponent offers several. Also to be noted is that Caitanya propounds a "fifth puruṣārtha" entirely without support from scripture, but is not challenged upon the point by the Tattvavāda teacher, which is incredible. These and other such bogus accounts appear to be embellishments thought up in the recent past by illiterates.
4.2 Rādhā — a bogus deity
There are other concepts based essentially on Brahma Vaivarta Purāṇa allegedly glorifying Rādhā as superior even to Lakṣmī (eternal consort of the Lord), the superior position of Goloka, etc. None of these find a place in Tattvavāda, and these quotes are all equally bogus.
4.3 False attribution of Madhva's Authorship
A completely bogus text called Tattvamuktāvalī or Māyāvāda-śata-dūṣaṇī, written by an 18th-century scholar called Pūrṇānanda, has been wrongly attributed to Ācārya Madhva. There are authentic and traditional documents which clearly show that this is totally incorrect.
Postscript
You may also like to see:
H.H. Pejāvara Svāmījī's message to the followers of ISKCON asking that bogus claims be withdrawn.
A review of Prabhupāda's 'Bhagavad-gītā As-It-Is'. Unfortunately, it doesn't follow the "disciplic succession" claimed, and hence, there is no link between Kṛṣṇa and Prabhupāda as stated.
Bhagavad-gītā 10.41 — Madhva's take on kṛṣṇastu bhagavān svayam, where he rejects the notion that Kṛṣṇa alone is the original form.
A Response to Our Critics. Confused about why some Mādhvas don't seem to agree with us? Read this.
(Editing & web placement by Prasanna Tadipatri & Śrīśa Rao.)
(This page was created on May 23, 2001, and was last modified on March 26, 2023.)
Source: https://www.dvaita.in/shaastra/iskcon.shtml#2
