By Kiyokazu Okita
Since the founding of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) in 1966, the teachings of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism have spread internationally as a result of the missionary endeavours of A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami (the founder of ISKCON) and his followers. According to the founder’s teaching, Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism belongs to the Brahma sampradāya descended from the 12th to 13th century dvaita (dualist) philosopher, Madhvācārya. Thus, the tradition claims to be the Brahma–Mādhva–Gauḍīya sampradāya even though in terms of its theology, the Gauḍīya tradition differs significantly from the Mādhva2 tradition. This Gauḍīya affiliation with the Mādhvas has been severely criticised by a group of young Mādhva followers in recent years keen to assert the distinctiveness of their own tradition. I explore here the claims of the ISKCON founder that Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism is a branch of the Mādhva sampradāya and the counterclaims put forward by Madhva followers challenging Gauḍīya affiliation with the Mādhvas. It also examines the use of modern mass media by Mādhva followers to present their counterclaims and the transformative effect this has had on a sampradāya whose central teachings have traditionally been transmitted via highly restricted channels.
The term sampradāya derives from the verb root √dā, which means to give or to bestow. Thus, the primary meaning of the word is ‘traditional handing down of instruction’ (Apte, 1957–59: 1646). In the context of Indian intellectual history, this idea of sampradāya or tradition is inextricably connected with the system of paramparā, which means ‘an uninterrupted series, succession’ (Apte, 1957–59: 966). The term paramparā appears in the Bhagavad Gītā 4.2,3 which Bhaktivedanta Swami translates as ‘disciplic succession’. Commenting on the verse, he writes:
As soon as the original purpose was scattered by the motives of the unscrupulous commentators, there arose the need to reestablish the disciplic succession […] at the present moment also there are so many editions of the Gītā (especially in English), but almost all of them are not according to authorized disciplic succession […] Since there is a great need of an edition of the Gītā in English, as it is received by the paramparā (disciplic succession) system, an attempt is made herewith to fulfill this great want. Bhagavad-gītā — accepted as it is […] (Swami, 2003)
In this comment Bhaktivedanta Swami claims that the message in his Bhagavadgītā As It Is, his translation and commentary of the Bhagavad Gītā, is authentic because it is received through a succession of teachers (paramparā). The idea is that the authenticity is guaranteed because the origin of the message can be traced ultimately back to Kṛṣṇa, understood as the Lord Himself, the source of the Gītā. Thus, elsewhere Bhaktivedanta Swami writes:
One who distributes knowledge exactly as God distributes it, who distributes the same knowledge imparted by God, is also perfect. A postman may deliver us a hundred dollars, but we do not consider that the postman is giving us a hundred dollars. The money is sent by a friend, and it is simply the postman’s business to hand it over as it is, without taking anything or adding anything to it […] we are receiving knowledge from Kṛṣṇa perfectly through the agency of the spiritual master. (Swami, 2003)
Using the analogy of the postman, Bhaktivedanta Swami thus explains how a spiritual master, like a postman, delivers the message from God ‘without taking anything or adding anything to it’. According to this presentation of paramparā, a sampradāya should always maintain the same teachings.
In the introduction to Bhagavadgītā As It Is, Bhaktivedanta Swami (2003) delineates the disciplic lineage to which he belongs:
1. Kṛṣṇa 2. Brahmā 3. Nārada 4. Vyāsa 5. Madhva 6. Padmanābha 7. Nṛhari 8. Mādhava 9. Akṣobhya 10. Jaya Tīrtha 11. Jñānasindhu 12. Dayānidhi 13. Vidyānidhi 14. Rājendra 15. Jayadharma 16. Puruṣottama 17. Brahmaṇya Tīrtha 18. Vyāsa Tīrtha 19. Lakṣmīpati 20. Mādhavendra Purī 21. Īśvara Purī, (Nityānanda, Advaita) 22. Lord Caitanya 23. Rūpa, (Svarūpa, Sanātana) 24. Raghunātha, Jīva 25. Kṛṣṇadāsa 26. Narottama 27. Viśvanātha 28. (Baladeva) Jagannātha 29. Bhaktivinoda 30. Gaurakiśora 31. Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī 32. A. C. Bhaktivedānta Svāmī (Swami, 2003)
This line of succession presents the Gauḍīya tradition as the Brahma–Mādhva–Gauḍīya sampradāya since the list connects Caitanya (22), the inaugurator of the Gauḍīya tradition, to the Mādhva tradition through Lakṣmīpati (19) and Mādhavendra Purī (20). If we apply Bhaktivedanta Swami’s understanding of paramparā, what is taught by Kṛṣṇa (1), Madhva (5) and Caitanya (22) must be identical. In other words, the teachings of the Mādhva sampradāya and those of the Mādhva–Gauḍīya sampradāya must be identical. It is this theological identity of the two traditions that is criticised by some of the Madhva followers, as we shall see in the discussion to follow.
The ISKCON imposes no restrictions on the dissemination of its theological knowledge. According to the Caitanyacaritāmṛta 2.7.128, Caitanya gave the following instruction to a Brāhmaṇa: ‘yāre dekha, tāre kaha “Kṛṣṇa”-upadeśa, āmāra ājñāya guru hañā tāra’ ei deśa’. Bhaktivedanta Swami translates:
Instruct everyone to follow the orders of Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa as they are given in the Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. In this way become a spiritual master and try to liberate everyone in this land. (Swami, 2003)
Commenting on the verse, Bhaktivedanta Swami says: ‘This is the sublime mission of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.’ Following the spirit expressed in the verse, ISKCON aims at transmitting the message of Caitanya to all, regardless of such particulars as the caste or class, nationality, gender or age of the recipients. Bhaktivedanta Swami’s Bhagavatgītā As It Is, for example, is translated into more than 40 languages and distributed far and wide by the members of the society. His books are also available at the numerous ISKCON temples and community sites all over the word. The ISKCON publications are sold online, and ISKCON’s multiple websites (including, for instance, www.iskcon.com and www.vedabase.net) disseminate Bhaktivedanta Swami’s teachings.
In sharp contrast to ISKCON, the Mādhva tradition imposes strict limits on the dissemination of its teachings. In his Brahmasūtrabhāṣya 3.4.49, Madhva says:
But one should not think that this [i.e., the teachings imparted by a guru] is for the mass distribution. Because there is a reason. When it is revealed in public, it would undesirably result that even those who are unqualified would receive [it].4
On this point of restriction, Deepak Sarma writes:
According to Madhvācārya, ‘Not everyone possess the eligibility (adhikāra)’ for acquiring knowledge of the Supreme Being (brahman) and for obtaining release (mokṣa) from the cycle of birth and rebirth [...] This restriction of the study of the Vedas to the twice-born was the most important component in the Madhva insider epistemology. It was virtually impossible to gain access to the root texts if one was not born a male member of a twice-born class. (2004: 22–35)
According to the classical scheme, the twice-born (dvija) comprise the Brāhmaṇas, the Kṣatriyas and the Vaiśyas, the first three categories in the fourfold varṇa system. However, in practice the Mādhva sampradāya allows only its Brāhmaṇa adherents to study the tradition. According to a Maharashtrian Brāhmaṇa belonging to a Mādhva family:
The Mādhvas are very conservative. There is no question of teaching the Vedas to the Kṣatriyas and the Vaiśyas. Only to the children from the Brāhmaṇa families … But even if you are a Brāhmaṇa, you are not allowed to listen to the Vedic recitation unless you are actually studying the Vedas. I remember when I visited Udupi5 as a child, I was refused to hear the Vedas being recited because I was not studying the Vedas. I was attending a normal school.6
This individual further recalled that in Udupi:
… they didn’t allow me to go inside their houses because I come from Maharashtra … Even if I say ‘I’m a Brāhmaṇa’, they say ‘But we don’t know what kind of Brāhmaṇa you are’.
This account clearly illustrates the rigour with which Madhvācārya’s restrictions on the dissemination of knowledge are followed even by contemporary Mādhvas; the restrictions Madhvācārya imposed are practised and embodied in the living tradition. All the pontiffs of the Aṣṭa Maṭhas (eight monasteries) of Udupi are male Mādhva Brāhmaṇas, and only young Mādhvas who hail from the same caste can succeed them (Hebbar, 2005: 154). All the Mādhva gurus in Udupi are also Brāhmaṇas, be they renouncers (sannyāsī) or householders (gṛhastha) (Rao, 2002: 88).
The rigid caste distinctions followed by the Mādhvas are evident also in the following account narrated by Vasudeva Rao (2002). This account suggests that while some Mādhva leaders are somewhat uncomfortable with caste inequality, they feel obliged to maintain the traditional distinctions since these are central to the Mādhva paramparā to which they wish to remain true. At a pravacana gathering (an informal discourse open to lay audiences), a novelist from the Dalit caste asked one of the Mādhva swamis:
Our Pejavara Swamiji goes out into our settlements bestowing tirtha (sacred water) and prasada to our pious folk, but this is not enough […] I have a straight and simple question for the swamiji. Is he ready or willing to take one of our Harijan boys as his shishya (student)? (2002: 202)
To this, Pejavara Swami (one of the leaders of the Udipi aṣṭamaṭha) answered:
Our young friend here has asked me a straightforward question. I congratulate him on his candour and courage. He has given voice to the wounds of the Shudra masses, trodden upon since centuries. I am a sannyasi, I must renounce all caste prejudice. I personally do not believe in or recognize any such distinctions […] I know fully well, what I have been doing is too inadequate but I have severe limitations. I am like a captain leading a troop. I cannot march way ahead leaving my troop behind […] I have to take my troop along with me. My young learned friend must understand my peculiar position and condone what little I do. (Rao, 2002: 202–03)
In contrast to pravacana, the process of training undergone by Mādhvas aiming to become gurus and teachers in the tradition is referred to as paṭha (literally ‘recitation’). This process is restricted to the male students who come from the Mādhva Brāhmaṇa families. Non-Brāhmaṇas and women are not eligible to take part. Paṭha entails full-time study, and starts soon after a Brāhmaṇa boy undergoes the upanayana ceremony7 and becomes a twice-born (dvija). The study entails in-depth training in the Mādhva texts, and it normally takes 12–13 years to complete. It starts with the study of Sanskrit grammar, which is followed by the reading of the Madhvavijaya, a hagiography on Mādhva. Then the student moves to the study of the Ramayana and the Mahābhārata, followed by the study of the Upaniṣads, logic and Sanskrit poetics (kāvya). These comprise the foundational studies. After completing all these, the student becomes eligible to study Madhva’s commentaries8 on the Brahmasūtras and further sub-commentaries. The study of Jayatīrtha’s Nyāyasudhā, a commentary on Madhva’s Brahmasūtrānuvyākhāna, is considered as the culminating point of the training process. A student who completes his study in Nyāyasudhā is highly respected in the community, and is qualified to become a teacher (Rao, 2002: 84–85).
These restrictions on the transmission and reception of the tradition have, however, been drastically loosened in recent times, with some Mādhvas actively using the Internet to disseminate the sampradāya’s teachings. As Sarma observes:
In the mid-1990s up to the present time, Mādhvas have also made use of the newest form of publication, namely the World Wide Web […] These sites contain introductions in both English and Kannada to Madhva doctrines, translations and summaries of root texts, downloadable recordings of discourses of Madhva teachers and religious leaders, and even downloadable copies of Madhva root texts. These are available to the masses and are not restricted in any way […] (2004: 66)
The first website to be created by some of the young Mādhvas was www.dvaita.org. They were clearly aware of the restriction on the dissemination of knowledge imposed by the tradition, as they make clear in the Web narrative:
The Dvaita Home Page was started in June 1995 by a few unqualified people who noticed that there was no representation of the sterling philosophical tradition of Āchārya Madhva on the World Wide Web […] There was no guidance from learned elders, so maintaining fidelity to the tradition and avoiding misrepresentations was a very challenging constraint also. There were those who suggested that a website for Dvaita was itself contrary to shāstra because it was sacrilege to expose Āchārya Madhva’s works and philosophy to the world at large rather than keeping them to the qualified few.9
Their desire to maintain fidelity to the tradition is clear. Nonetheless, they felt it was necessary to create such a website. It is significant that the reason for this decision seems to have been the influence of ISKCON. The site explains its raison d’être:
[S]o many of our own people are seriously misled in respect of ISKCON—and this includes, as we have seen, even leaders of our tradition. In this day and age, neo-Vedanta &c., the schools like ISKCON which claim to offer something for nothing, are a more serious threat to our society than any traditional counter-doctrine. We have come across or heard of many who, though born into Mādhva families, adopt ISKCON as their philosophy of choice, but have never come across or heard of any contemporary Mādhva who was swayed by reading Srī Shankara’s commentaries and became an Advaitin. As such, it would seem to be fair to say that our community as a whole needs to re-train its efforts in preserving the sanctity and purity of Srī Madhva’s philosophy, rather than merely be content with the classical approach, which focuses almost entirely on refutation of other standard doctrines, and which is not as relevant to today’s circumstances as it once was.10
The polemical nature of the site is evident. Uninformed Mādhvas, according to this narrative, are misled by ISKCON, which claims ‘to offer something for nothing’. Therefore, ‘the sanctity and purity of Śrī Madhva’s philosophy’ is under threat and should be protected. Lay Mādhvas remain uninformed about their tradition because of the restrictions placed on the transmission of knowledge; interestingly, the quote above suggests that even Mādhva leaders are misled by ISKCON. The authors of the website emphasise the need to clearly delineate the distinctive features of Mādhva Vedānta so that young Mādhvas cease to be misled by ISKCON, which presents itself as the Mādhva sampradāya. The main aim of the website would appear to be to reach, and educate, contemporary Mādhvas about the distinctiveness of their tradition rather than to distribute knowledge to outsiders. In this sense, although the website makes knowledge of the Mādhva tradition accessible to outsiders, this is not its central aim. The creators of the website are not missionaries like the members of ISKCON, who have a clear agenda to reach out to outsiders and recruit new members.
The website carries a ‘Position Paper on ISKCON’ authored by Poornaprajna Vidyapeetha, aimed at educating the followers of Mādhva about the differences between their own and the ISKCON traditions.11 At the outset, the paper states: ‘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 Mādhva Sampradāya.’ The paper is an attempt to dispute ISKCON’s affiliation with the Mādhva sampradāya by pointing out significant theological differences between the two schools. It explains that whereas the Mādhva sampradāya was founded in the 13th century CE by Madhvācārya, the Gauḍīya tradition originated much later with Caitanya in the 16th century CE. It points out important differences in how the relationship between brahman and the multiplicity of sentient beings is understood in the two traditions. It points to differences in the intended goal of spiritual striving in the two traditions (liberation or mokṣa, in the Mādhva tradition; love of Kṛṣṇa or prema in the Gauḍīya tradition).
The paper explains out how the sources of textual authority in the two traditions differ, with the Mādhva tradition relying on the Prasthānatraya (the Upaniṣads, the Bhagavadgītā and the Brahmasūtras) and the Mahābhārata, and the Gauḍīyas relying in the main on the Bhāgavata Purāṇa. It argues that Mādhvas accept only the teachings of Madhvācārya as correct whereas the Gauḍīyas hold the view, based on an untraceable verse attributed to the Padma Purāṇa, that there are four authorised Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas. It also points to differences in understandings of the supreme deity—with the Mādhvas according equal importance to all the avatāras of Viṣṇu, and the Gauḍīyas privileging Kṛṣṇa above all the others. The Gauḍīya identification of Caitanya as Kṛṣṇa, and the Gauḍīya worship of Rādhā, the paper argues, is unacceptable to Mādhvas.
The paper does not merely list the differences between the two schools but rather presents the teachings unique to the Gauḍīya tradition as mistaken because they deviate from the teachings of Mādhva. The tone of the presentation is triumphalist and exclusivistic and is based on the premise that the Mādhva tradition is the only true tradition:
According to Tattvavāda, the only correct school is that of Āchārya Madhva—ante siddhas tu siddhānto Mādhvasyāgama eva hi12 in the words of the revered saint—Sri Vādirāja.
This polemical tone is repeated in other papers published on the website as well. In a review of Bhaktivedanta Swami’s Bhagavadgītā As It Is, for example, Bhaktivedanta Swami is compared to a blind person leading other blind people:
In the Upanishads, the sacred Vedanta texts of yore, one finds in more than one place the well known metaphor of a blind person leading other blind people astray, to illustrate what happens when an incompetent, styling himself a learned man, attempts to teach others what he knows not himself. This metaphor is very apt to describe Prabhupada’s translation and purport for the Bhagavad Gītā.13
Bhaktivedanta Swami, according to the paper, claims to follow the Mādhva tradition when in fact he does not:
For while he claims that his translation and purports follow a ‘disciplic succession’ of traditional commentaries and understanding of the work deriving from the dualistic school of Vedanta of Madhva, they in fact show a great divergence and opposition to the traditional understanding found in the latter’s works.
In the conclusion, Bhaktivedanta Swami’s version of the Gītā is described as follows:
In all, a very poor work, which is to be read and understood only for what it most certainly is not—a qualified, balanced representation of the meaning of the Bhagavad Gītā. It is indeed a travesty that it is often taken seriously by those believing it to have the sanction of Madhva.
Young Mādhvas in charge of this website target ISKCON not only because of its perceived ‘misrepresentation’ of the Mādhva tradition, but also because of its wide appeal and reach in the contemporary world, and its considerable influence on Mādhva followers, seen to pose a major threat to the sanctity of the Mādhva tradition. The hostility that Mādhva adherents once directed towards their archenemies, proponents of the Advaita Vedānta (non-dualist) tradition, is thus now targeted towards a fellow school within the dualist tradition. The paper ‘A Response to Our Critics’ cited above, notes:
It is also clearly stated by Āchārya Madhva himself in his bhāshya on verse 9, et seq., of the Īshāvāsya Upanishad that it is not sufficient for one to have the correct understanding; one must also clearly criticize incorrect understanding. The fate of one who fails to criticize incorrectness, in spite of being able to, is far worse than that of the one who is merely incorrect.14
Even though the members of ISKCON are aware of the stated affiliation between the two traditions, many consider the Gauḍīyas to be different from the Mādhvas. A random survey I conducted amongst ISKCON members in June 2009 suggested that whereas they all have a strong sense of identity as a part of the Gauḍīya sampradāya, most of them consider their affiliation with the Mādhvas largely irrelevant. This is typically the case with the vast majority of ISKCON members residing outside the Indian subcontinent.
Indeed despite the assertions in Bhaktivedanta Swami’s writings, ISKCON tends for most part to present itself as a tradition distinct from the Mādhvas. The deities worshipped at ISKCON temples (Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā/Gaura, that is, Caitanya and Nitai/Jagannātha, Baladeva and Subhadrā) mark ISKCON’s difference vis-à-vis the Mādhva tradition. The Mādhvas, as noted earlier, do not worship Rādhā. Similarly, ISKCON members do not worship any of the gurus of the Mādhva tradition. Instead, they worship the six Gosvāmīs of Vṛndāvana who occupy the 23rd and the 24th generations in the list of succession (Rūpa, Sanātana, Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa, Jīva, Gopāla Bhaṭa, Raghunātha Dāsa) as well as the five most recent gurus who occupy the 28th to the 32nd generations (Jagannātha Dāsa Bābājī, Bhaktivinoda ṭhākura, Gaurakiśora Dāsa Bābājī, Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī ṭhākura and Bhaktivedanta Swami). Gauḍīyas, unlike the Mādhvas, also assert Caitanya’s identity with Kṛṣṇa and worship Caitanya in the form of Gaura-Nitai (that is, Caitanya and Nityānanda) and as one of the Pañcatattva (Advaita, Nityānanda, Caitanya, Gadādhara, Śrīvāsa).
These obvious differences notwithstanding, some followers of Bhaktivedanta Swami, responding to the criticisms levelled against him, have sought to assert the authenticity of his claim that Gauḍīyas belong to the Mādhva lineage. Notable amongst these responses, also posted on the Web, is that from Narasingha Swami, an American disciple of Bhaktivedanta Swami and the head of Sri Narasingha Chaitanya Maṭha in Karnataka.15 His website (www.gosai.com) presents a letter authored by him in Sanskrit and addressed to Pejavara Swami, one of the senior leaders of the Mādhvas. The letter requests Pejavara Swami to condemn the dvaita.org website. The following is an extract from the letter in English translation:
We are writing to you to bring to your notice a matter that is causing displeasure and disturbance to thousands of Krishna-bhaktas all over the world. Over the past few years a number of young men claiming to be followers of Sri Madhvacharya have been continuously blaspheming the Gauḍīya Vaishnava community on a website dedicated to Sri Acharya Madhva (www.dvaita.org). In particular they have targeted Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada who tirelessly propagated the holy name of the Lord throughout the world, resulting in thousands of young men and women of Christian, Jewish and Muslim backgrounds taking to the path of Vaishnavism [...] Therefore we are humbly requesting your holiness to kindly write an official letter on the matha-letterhead, mentioning that the statements of these young men, as shown on their website, do not reflect the mood of Sri Pejavara Adhoksaja Mutt and its community.16
This website contains a number of articles attempting to assert the authenticity of the Gauḍīya affiliation with the Mādhvas.17 It also carries the responses of five Mādhva leaders to Narasingha Swami’s missive. Pejavara Swami’s response reads thus:
We have been emphasizing time and again that even though there are certain difference [sic] in a few aspects of the two Sampradayas, there are many more common grounds and Gaudiya Sampradaya is a part of Madhwa Sampradaya. We have great regard for Prabhupada [i.e., Bhaktivedanta Swami] who has spread Vaisnava Bhakti Siddhanta throughout the world.
We have been admiring him on various occasions also. We are pained to find that the article denigrates Prabhupada and is against our opinion and philosophy.18
Another leader of the Maṭha, Palimar Swami, writes:
He [i.e., Bhaktivedanta Swami] has put manure and water to the seed sowed by Sri Madhwacharya. Sri Prabhupada is responsible for the spread of the branches of the tree of ‘Bhakti cult’ all over India. It is the duty of all Madhwas to recognize the sadhana of Vaishnavite Sri Prabhupada.
It is true that there is a difference between ‘Chaitanya school’ and ‘Madhwa school.’ In spite of the difference between the two schools of thought, one has to look into the similar thoughts that exist between the two. Therefore, the followers of these two cults should never blame each other nor envy each other.19
Indeed all five letters from the Mādhva leaders acknowledge the doctrinal differences between ISKCON and the Mādhvas but emphasise the commonality between the two traditions and to that extent validate ISKCON’s affiliation with the Mādhvas. The same acknowledgement of commonality and difference was evident also in the views expressed by the Mādhva scholar Deepak Sarma, born and raised in the United States, but belonging to a Brāhmaṇa family in the Mādhva tradition (2004: 70–71). According to Sarma:
The relationship is an interesting one. It sometimes seems as if ISKCON folks are seeking some legitimacy via the Mādhva tradition. It also seems as if Mādhva scholars get another kind of legitimacy when they acknowledge a possible link between the two. I know that Mādhva scholars have reluctantly worked with some members of ISKCON. Such connections make the Mādhva scholar known outside of Mādhva circles. So I think that the relationship has been mutually beneficial in some ways. I have enjoyed conversations with many members of ISKCON but, when it comes to metaphysics, the differences will always make us different. My experience at the AAR and in Oxford has meant that I have been able to expand my intellectual family which has given me conversation partners who are familiar with certain sorts of manifestations of bhakti […]20
As a scholar on the Mādhva tradition coming from a Mādhva family, the traditional affiliation is significant for Sarma. He is aware of the metaphysical differences between the two traditions as well. However, he considers some of the ISKCON members as his ‘intellectual family’, and he does not share the kind of exclusivism evident on the Web pages of dvaita.org. Perhaps most crucially, he notes how each sampradāya can derive legitimacy from the other, thus making any collaboration mutually beneficial.
This chapter has demonstrated how Bhaktivedanta Swami’s representation of ISKCON as a part of the Mādhva sampradāya and his understanding of paramparā as unchanging tradition (suggesting that the Gauḍīya and Madhva followers share exactly the same theological and doctrinal premise) have led to tensions between the two groups. The ISKCON founder’s assertion of Mādhva affiliation is perceived by some young Mādhvas as a threat to their tradition; according to them, uninformed Mādhvas end up joining ISKCON, thinking it is the Mādhva tradition. The vast majority of lay Mādhvas remain uninformed about their tradition precisely because of the restrictions that the tradition places on the transmission of scriptural knowledge—male Brāhmaṇas alone are seen as worthy recipients of this knowledge. In response to the perceived threat from ISKCON, some Mādhva followers now use the Internet to reach out to their fellow Mādhvas. In this way they attempt to counteract ISKCON’s international missionary endeavour. The use of the Internet, which allows unprecedented access to the philosophical texts of the Mādhvas, is a new development in the tradition and marks a radical change of practice within the Mādhva sampradāya. The antipathy against ISKCON is not universally shared by Mādhvas and has led to differences of opinion within the larger body of Mādhva followers. It is noteworthy that while the anti-ISKCON assertions on dvaita-org have been contested within Mādhva circles, there appears to have been no corresponding move from within the sampradāya to challenge its radical democratisation via the World Wide Web. What started off as a move to close ranks against ‘outsiders’—the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas—has, paradoxically, compelled sections of this relatively closed tradition to make its teachings available to all, insiders and outsiders, Brāhmaṇas and non-Brāhmaṇas, men and women, alike.
Apte, V. S. 1957–59. The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Vol. I–III. Pune: Prasad Prakashan.
Hebbar, B. N. 2005. The Śri-Krishna Temple at Udupi: The Historical and Spiritual Center of the Madhvite Sect of Hinduism. Springfield: Nataraj Books.
Madhva. 2001. Brahmasūtrabhāṣyam, Volume 6. Bangalore: Dvaita Vedanta Studies and Research Foundation.
Rao, Vasudeva. 2002. Living Traditions in Contemporary Contexts: The Madhva Matha of Udupi. New Delhi: Orient Longman.
Sarma, Deepak. 2004. Epistemologies and the Limitations of Philosophical Inquiry: Doctrine in Mādhva Vedānta. Abingdon: Routledge Curzon.
Swami, A. C. Bhaktivedanta. 2003. The Complete Teachings. Folio Infobase Program. Sandy Ridge, NC: Bhaktivedanta Archives.
1 I would like to thank the following people without whose help this chapter could not have been written: John Zavos for his useful feedback; Maya Warrier for carefully going through the manuscript and helping me to revise it; Maika Puta and Stefanie Schott for their editing.
2 The term ‘Mādhva’ is derived from ‘Madhva’. ‘Mādhva’ literary means ‘that which belongs to Madhva’. Therefore, it can also denote a person who is dedicated to Madhva, that is, a member of the Mādhva sampradāya.
3 evaṃ paramparāprāptam imaṃrājarṣayo viduḥ/
sa kāleneha mahatā yogo naṣṭaḥ parantapa/
4 tac ca bahūnāṃ svīkaraṇārtham āviṣkāreṇeti na mantavyam/anvayād yukteḥ/āviṣkāre ’yogyānām api svīkāraprāptiḥ (Madhva, 2001: 538) (Translation mine)
5 A town in the South Indian state of Karnataka and the centre of the Madhva lineage.
6 Personal interview, 14 June 2009, Hamburg. The interviewee requested anonymity.
7 According to the Manusaṃhitā 2.36, the ceremony should be conducted between the ages of 8 and 11.
8 Madhva wrote four commentaries on the Brahmasūtras in total. They are the Brahmasūtrabhāṣya, the Brahmasūtrāṇubhāṣya, the Brahmasūtrānuvyākhyāna and the Brahmasūtrānuvyākhyānyāyavivaraṇa.
9 www.dvaita.org/shaastra/critics.shtml (accessed 29 April 2009).
10 www.dvaita.org/shaastra/critics.shtml
11 www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml (accessed 25 April 2009).
12 ‘Ultimately, however, the conclusion is established only in the texts of Madhva.’ (Translation mine)
13 www.dvaita.org/shaastra/gita/prabhupada_review.shtml (accessed 2 May 2009).
14 www.dvaita.org/shaastra/critics.shtml
15 I am aware that he is organisationally outside ISKCON. However, I discuss him in this section because he considers himself a follower of Bhaktivedanta Swami.
16 www.gosai.com/dvaita/udupi/asta_matha/to_pejavara_english.html (accessed 12 May 2009).
17 www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/index.html (accessed 12 May 2009).
18 www.gosai.com/dvaita/udupi/asta_matha/pejavara_english.html
19 www.gosai.com/dvaita/udupi/asta_matha/palimar_english.html (accessed 12 May 2009).
20 Personal correspondence, 16 June 2009.