shankaracharya

[jijaji]

Again...

 

If Isvara Puri, Advaita Acarya and Nityananda did indeed belong to Madhva Sampradaya, why oh why did Nimai Pandit go over to the Advaita line and abandon his Madhva Sampradaya origins?

 

Remember: Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Sampradaya is the line intoduced by Bhaktisiddhanta right...so I think these questions are relevent.

 

Certainly Gaurangadev could have taken Sannyass in Madhvas line who's school had gained some acceptance by that time, enough at least for Sri Chaitanyas associates to take diksha into.

 

One thing to consider is that Madhvas school would NEVER accept Sridhar Svamins commentary on Bhagavat Purana, which Sri Chaitanya held so dear, as they are strictly adverse to non-dualism, advaita and the like.

 

jijaji

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-06-2002).]

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-06-2002).]

[Guest guest]

What is the reason for Caitanya's actions?

What is the purpose of his actions,is a better question.The trivial pursuit of trying to define Sri Caitanya,by scrutinizing his activities,without the endeavor to understand his purpose,his teachings,and his ultimate identity,seems to be an activity devoid of reason.

What is your purpose?

Try to understand that question.

Are you trying to understand Caitanya?,are you trying to bring understanding?,or are you simply arguing for the sake of arguing?

The intellectual desire to try to understand Sri Caitanya,without the guidance of the intimate associates of Mahaprabhu,is akin to trying to taste honey, by licking the outside of the honey jar,you will see the honey maybe,but the sweetness eludes you.This is how God distributes love,by giving you a taste of love.The inconsequential trivia surrounding Sri Caitanya's activities,may in fact be transcendental,yet the focus of your intellect on the trivia,is not the purpose of his life.The Big picture,that is important,what is Sri Caitanya's purpose?

It is to give entrance, to the realm of ecstacy,the transcendental ecstacy of a direct, loving relationship, with the Foundation of your being.Wherever you go,you can exist in ignorance, of your connection to the controller of your life,or you can exist in constant union with the Supreme.

Everywhere there is God,yet God chooses to communicate directly, only with those who are aware of the actual nature of his personality.This is Caitanya's purpose,to unite with you,everywhere you go ,you are with God,God desire's you to be conscious of this.To do this you need to understand, what is the relationship that is desirable by God?

Does God desire anything more then a casual aquaintance?

Is there more?

Is it possible to interact with the Supreme Being, on his level?

How can I understand the level of interaction that is desirable by God?

These are the questions, that Caitanya sought to bring an answer for.

This is the purpose of his life,all the activities and interactions of his life should be understood in this light.

 

 

[jijaji]

Who is arguing?

 

I am asking questions about Sri Chaitanyas Sannyass and trust me, these questions have been going on for hundreds of years in more learned circles than these.

 

Some believe without questioning...

 

Others question before they believe...

 

Still others try to KNOW what the truth is beyond any belief at all and that takes some investigative research and analysis which often times is condemned by some believers because it can challenge long-held beliefs which if exposed as inaccurate would hurt those associated with those beliefs.

 

My intention here is not at all to 'HURT BELIEVERS' but to arrive at the truth of the matter.

 

jijaji

[gHari]

I revealed the reasons earlier in a short post.

 

Why was it arranged for me to work for the Presbyterian Church head office, surrounded by the twenty most influential theologians in the church, chanting and offering incense in my office as I remembered Krsna all day with my Spiritual Sky Syamasundara on my computer monitor, innocently preaching nonsectarian truth in their prayer meetings? They had fallen from the path.

[jijaji]

Originally posted by gHari:

I revealed the reasons earlier in a short post.

 

Why was it arranged for me to work for the Presbyterian Church head office, surrounded by the twenty most influential theologians in the church, chanting and offering incense in my office as I remembered Krsna all day with my Spiritual Sky Syamasundara on my computer monitor, innocently preaching nonsectarian truth in their prayer meetings? They had fallen from the path.

Was this meant for another thread perhaps..?

 

 

 

 

[jijaji]

The Chaitanya sect some time after it's birth was affiliated as a sub-branch of the Madhva-sect which was the most influential in Bengal before the time of Chaitanya.

It is said that Chaitanya himself was brought up in the Madhva tradition. His predecessor, Advaita, as well as many of his influentilial relatives and associates had close connection with Madhvaism.

Madhavendra Puri was the initiator of the bhakti movement in Bengal before Sri Chaitanya. Iswar Puri and Madhavendra Puri, the two preceptors of Chaitanya, are claimed to have been ascetics of the Madhva-sect. But the Madhva-sect itself never mentioned the names of Madhavendra Puri or Iswar Puri in the list of succession prepared by R.G. Bhadarkar from thr original lists produced from Miraj, Belgaum and Poona. Baladeva's list differs materially from this more authentic list. Anandin in his commentary on Prabodhananda's Chaitanya Chandrarita claims that Chaitanya Himself and his followers were the founders of the Bengal Sampradaya and owed nothing to the Gurus of any other Sampradaya. Madhvaism or affiliation to the Madhva-sect is never acknowledged in the important authoritative biographies of Chaitanya nor in the words of the Vrndavana Gosvamis. Only Kavi Karnapura, in his Gauraganoddesha dipika, described Madhavendra Puri, Iswar Puri and Chaitanya as Madhva ascetics. But in the drama Chaitanya Chandrodaya, Kavi Karnapura never mentioned Madhavendra Puri as a Madhva ascetic. On the other hand, Chaitanya was a sannyasi of the advaitavadin order. Baladeva Visyabhusan, in his Govinda bhasya on Vedanta sutra and in his Prameya-Ratnavali attribute Madhva affiliation when giving the Guru-Parampara. He also describes Chaitanya as a Madhva ascetic, reason being his guru Radha Damodara appears to have been considerably influenced by Madhva in his Vedanta-syamantaka, and the disciple Baladeva had strong leanings towards Madhvism which is clear from his erudite writings in Prameya-ratnavali.

Chaitanya formally belonged to the dasnami order of Sankara Sannyasis, though Vaishnava Bhakti movement had nothing to do with the extreme advaitavada of Shankara. Barring these two authors, there is no mention anywhere that Madhavendra Puri or his disciple Iswar Puri were Madhva-ascetics. Perhaps Kavi Karnapura and Baladeva Vidyabhusan derived the list from the same source. There is no evidence that Madhavendra Puri or Iswar Puri or Advaita had Madhva outlook. The sannyas name of Madhva was Ananda Tirtha. He himself was a sannyasi of the Shankara order. But both Madhavendra and Iswar were Puris not Tirthas, while Keshava Bharati belonged to the bharati order of Shankara. At Puri, Chaitanya was introduced to Vasudev Sarvabauma as a sannyasi of the Bharati order of Shankara. Chaitanyas sannyas was through advaita parampara. His indulgence in singing and dancing is in direct disapproval of Madhva doctrine. All the facts jointly go against Chaitanyas alleged connection with Madvaism. S.K.De, on the origins of Chaitanyaism is of the opinion that Chaitanya never belonged to the Madhva-sect, or was never influenced by Madvaism, on the other hand, he stated that Madhavendra Puri and his disciple, Iswar Puri were Shankarite sannyasis of the same order to which Sridhara Swami belonged. Madhavendra Puri sowed the seed of Bhakti in the soil of Bengal and Chaitanya is the ‘Noble Tree’ of that seed. Chaitanya took initation from Madhvendra Puri’s disciple Iswar Puri…

 

[Rati]

Jijaji: You make a valid point about the supposed connection of the Caitanyite tradition to that of Madhva. Certainly there is a gulf of difference doctrinally and orthodox Gaudiya followers do not claim the connection and only trace the sampradaya as far back as Sri Caitanya. The Madhvaite connection was introduced by Gaudiya Matha and propagated by its successors.

 

The problem with the Gaudiya Math and ISKCON (and their splinter offshoot groups) is that they like to think of the beginning of the bhakti movement in India as originating with Sri Caitanya, when in fact it was already well under way when He appeared. Radha came to the forefront with Jayadeva's writing of the Gita Govinda in the 13th Century and the Krsna centric Vaishnava sects had already been around for several centuries in Jayadeva's time. What is more important in the historical context, at least from a doctrinal standpoint is the refinements made by the theologian Rupa, and not so much the sankirtana parties. It is more an issue of misplaced emphasis than one of keeping a genealogical diksa tree with pinpoint accuracy.

 

 

[This message has been edited by Rati (edited 04-07-2002).]

[Guest guest]

 

The bhakti movement did in fact begin with Mahaprabhu,Certainly there were Radha krsna devotees earlier,like jayadeva.But they were not respected as serious,by the establishment,there numbers were few.Mahaprabhu initiated the resurgence on a mass scale, of krsna bhakti,followed by many others.

[Rati]

Sorry Shiva, but not so. The bhakti movement by the time of Jayadeva had spread all over India and there were followers in large numbers. Gita Govinda was sung to different ragas in the Jagannatha mandira at Puri and that practice eventually spread to all of the temples in Orissa and within a short period of time the text became famous and loved all over India. The Bhagavata Purana had also become a central text by Jayadeva's time and bhaktas that based their faith on its teachings were there in large numbers (not just a few as you have erroneously stated).

 

 

[abhi_the_great]

As gHari said, its interesting to note that the Advaita Scholars are accepting both the nirguna and saguna features of the Supreme.

 

I feel this synthesis might have come over time, by deeper interactions with the Vaishnava Schools.

 

In gaudiya vaishanva line both the personal and impersonal eternal aspects were always accepted. Gaudiya Vaishnavism does not claim sole propreitory over liberation or an overtly feeling of "holier than thou" attitude. The overtly scathing attacks on Advaitha or any school, was/is to distract people from thinking *mukthi* and bring them into thinking *bhakti*. To shift the focus into selfless devotion,is the main idea, rather than actually negating the bonafideness of any other path.

 

What to talk of other vedic paths, Srila Prabhupad was of the opinion that pious Christians and Muslims cd also attain liberation. How can a gaudiya really think that the bodnafide paths establilshed by great acaryas of the stature of Sankara, Madhva, Ramanuja be futile?

 

These doubts are born out of misunderstanding the basic goal of Gaudiyas - bhakti as Vs mukti.

 

I have always felt that all these paramparas are genuine and deliver what they promise.

 

sha thanks for that wonderful posting of Shiva Ratri.

 

abhi

[Rati]

From this URL: http://userpages.umbc.edu/~achatt1/Bio/joydev.html

“Very little is known of the life of this poet. He was born in Kendubilva, better known as Kenduli, in the district of Birbhum. His father's name was Bhojadeva and his mother's Bamadevi. In early life Jayadeva left home, and it is said, began preaching the faith and love of Krishna. After passing a few years in devotion and study, Jayadeva married and settled down in his native village. The daily routine of home life was however ill adapted to the feelings of the ardent poet, and he left home once more and travelled through northern India as far as Vrindavan and Jaypur, to which latter place he seems to have been invited by the king. Nothing more is known of the poet than that he survived his wife Padmavati, and that he passed his last days in devotions in his native village, where his tomb is yet to be seen surrounded by beautiful groves and trees. “

 

So, considering that Jayadeva had a personal invitation from the King of Jaipur, the bhakti movement and its leaders was hardly unrespected.

 

[Rati]

“The poet Vidyapati appears to have been born in or around 1352 in Bihar, in the Madhubani village of Bisapi in the region of north eastern Bihar known as Mithila. As a Brahmin, he is likely to have learned Sanskrit at an early age, and certainly his earliest compositions suggest his mastery of the language. Vidyapati received his first commission from Kirti Simha, the Mathili king who reigned from 1370 onwards, and he penned a poem in which he celebrated the king’s prowess; he then became resident at the court of Kirti Simha’s son and successor, Deva Simha, and in his work Bhuparikrama (Around the World), Vidyapati offered political and religious wisdom in the form of romantic stories. “

From this link:

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/Culture/Literature/vidya_literat.html

 

[jijaji]

Sorry Shiva he is correct.

Sounds like you are referring to how the Gaudiya Math portrayed Gaudiya Vaishnavism in the period just before Bhaktivinode, as being nothing but fallen debached Sahajiyas. Which is a total exaggeration and misrepresention of Historical fact.

 

jijaji

[jijaji]

From Ratis Linkpage on Vidyapati;

 

"Vidyapati’s most enduring contribution to Indian literature, indeed what he has been remembered for in the last few hundred years, is a corpus of over five hundred love songs. The subject of these songs, which were composed between 1380 and 1406, is the love of Krishna and Radha; surprisingly, perhaps, Vidyapati himself was not a Krishna bhakta, not even a Vaishnava. Vidyapati lived for another forty odd years, dying around 1448, but he never returned to the theme of Krishna and Radha, and indeed in the later compositions his attention was riveted on Shiva and Durga."

 

Most Gaudiya Vaishnavas do not understand the implications of this. Thanks for the link.

 

jijaji

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-07-2002).]

[Rati]

Impressing learned pundits and scholars around India, Vallabhacharyaji came to the South Indian Empire of King Krishnadev-rai. The court at Vidyanagar was debating the merits of various Vedic philosophies. The heated debate seemed at a dead-lock and no-one seemed to have answers that would satisfy the king. Shri Vallabhacharyaji came in to the debate at this point and within seven days won the arguments for his philosophy of Vishudhadviata.

From this link: http://www.itihaas.com/medieval/contrib2.html

 

[jijaji]

The Bhakti Movement 800 A.D - 1700 A.D.

Bhakti movement in Medieval India is responsible for the many rites and rituals associated with the worship of God by Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs of Indian subcontinent. For example, Kirtan at a Hindu Temple, Qawalli at a Dargah (by Muslims), and singing of Gurbani at a Gurdwara are all derived from the Bhakti movement of medieval India (800-1700). "The word bhakti is derived from Bhakta meaning to serve, honour, revere, love and adore. In the religious idiom, it is attachment or fervent devotion to God and is defined as "that particular affection which is generated by the knowledge of the attributes of the Adorable One."

 

 

[Rati]

"It is a work undertaken to establish that music and especially formalised music of India initiated, developed and progressed through the devotional hymns of devotees of god.

"Whether they were the Aryan Rishi-poets cum singers, Buddhist or Jain monks or Alwar and Nayanmar saints of south or Sufi saints or saint singers like Kabir, Sur, Meera, Nanak of the north or devotees of Vitthal of Maharashtra or Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Chandidas and others from Bengal or Shankar Dev and Madhav Dev of Assam all of them sang their devotional hymns as a part of formalised music of India.

"Sam-gayan" of Vedic-reshis is supposed to be the first stage of formalised music of our country and the author has tried to establish that this music developed into a system of scale and Murchchanas as the "Sam-gayan" also developed and progressed.

"Thus, in the present work, it has been stressed that the trend of rendering devotional hymns, as a part of formalised music was set centuries ago because the rishi-singers believed that "Swaras" of Indian music were not merely a collection of notes but they were founded on microtones known as "Shrutis" which could bring the human-mind to meditation leading to the attainment of god-consciousness.

From this link: http://www.vedamsbooks.com/no11148.htm

 

[Rati]

The greatest blessing of Surdas's life came when Sri Vallabhacharya, the celebrated exponent of the Shuddhadvaita. also known as Pushti Marga, accepted him as his disciple and gave him mantra deeksha.

Sri Vallabhacharya imparted to his worthy disciple, who was on the threshold of his own youth, the esoteric knowledge symbolised by Radha Krishna Lila.

Surdas who never entertained any idea of marriages saw in Sri Krishna the eternal lover and he portrayed the love between Radha and Krishna as ethereal love-the irresistible attraction the individual soul has for the Oversoul or of the Jivatma for the Paramatma.

The singer of the "Ocean of Melody" identifies himself with Radharani and sings:

"Sakhi! See Shyama, a veritable sea of beauty. Yes, a sea, which, with all our intellect and learning, we cannot cross.

A Bhakta like Surdas longed only for that Krishna who could be loved and adored and not for any philosophical abstraction.

Taking the Bhagavata episode of Uddhava's visit to Braj where he was sent as a messenger by Krishna, Surdas sings:

"Uddhava! repeat not the painful `yoga' message again, Remain silent if you desire us to live a little. You revel in joy, while we suffer tortures when you ask us to devote ourselves to the Formless Lord. Better we give up our life than our Faith in the worship of Shyama of the beautiful Form.

Remembering our past love He sent you as a messenger, and you come to fan in us the smouldering fire of separation!"

Many a mystic poet-Vidyapati, Chandidas, Narsi Mehta, Mirabai - has sung in this vein exalting divine love.

The fame of Surdas spread far and wide though he never moved out of the bounds of Braj. Emperor Akbar, with his court poet and singer Tansen, and many other temporal and spiritual heads pass him the homage that was due to a saint extraordinary. It was acclaimed by all that Krishna's vision was constantly before his inner eye and his face shone with a divine lustre. He lived to a ripe age of 105 before becoming one with Krishna.

(Source: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan)

From this link:

http://www.hssworld.org/all/great_people/surdas.html

 

[Rati]

The earliest saints who appeared after Buddhist era on the Indian scene were Alvars (a.k.a. Alwars). They came from present day Tamilnadu.

According to modern scholars the Alvars flourished between seventh and ninth centuries A.D. They were worshippers of Vishnu and are known as Bhagavata (followers of Lord Vishnu; also known as Vaishnavas). Vishnu's incarnation is Krishna, who for is popular in Western India. The Guptas in North and Pallavas in South were followers of Vishnu and Bhagavata teachings. The Alvars who are twelve in number were great mystics and sang their mystic experiences in simple poems known as Pashuras composed in ecstatic love towards the Lord which depict different bhavas (attitudes).

This Alvar Bhakti cult was quite popular when the great Acharya Ramanuja (born in 1017 A.D.) appeared on the scene. Ramanuja was a well learned, liberal philosopher and defined a new realm of Indian spirituality known as Vishishtadwaita or Qualified Monism.

From this link:

http://www.kamat.com/indica/faiths/bhakti/alvars.htm

 

[Rati]

So we can see from the above posts that a wave of bhakti movements had been spreading across various parts of the Indian subcontinent for almost a millenium before Sri Caitanya appeared, and in a big way. It is a huge misconception to view the state of the Vaishnava community during that time frame as being some tiny pocket amidst a much vaster smarta brahman caste oriented oligarchy. There was even a section of the Muslim community of sufis as represented by Kabir that was influenced by the very popular movement. It is much more accurate to view this spirit as being tapped into by Sri Caitanya and thus being fertile and receptive ground for his festivals and chanting parties. Despite the Islamic oppressors' attempts to stamp out these Hindu factions, they thrived and multiplied nonetheless.

 

It is only fair to acknowledge the whole of the movement and its long history, and certainly innacurate and unjust to take only the past five centuries as being significant. Of course, why should accuracy and fairness matter to fanatics that create propaganda machines for their own politically motivated campaigns?

 

[This message has been edited by Rati (edited 04-07-2002).]

[jijaji]

I have had the experience of trying to tell certain christians that Jesus was a JEW.

Born a Jew, Lived a Jew and Died a Jew.

Yet they refuse to accept that FACT in some crazy insane way because it goes against their conditioned conceptions of the churches 'Christ'.

 

[jijaji]

I reposted an earlier..but deleted it thinking I should let the past go and be here now!!

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-08-2002).]

[abhi_the_great]

I got this reply from one of the senior disciples of Srila Prabhupad.

 

Here is what Srila Prabhupada says:

 

> The followers of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu never accepted the Mayavada

> order of sannyasa, and for this they cannot be blamed. Sri Caitanya

> Mahaprabhu accepted Sridhara Svami, who was a tridandi-sannyasi, but

> the Mayavadi sannyasis, not understanding Sridhara Svami, sometimes

> think that Sridhara Svami belonged to the Mayavada ekadanda-sannyasa

> community. Actually this was not the case."

 

--Caitanya-caritamrta Madya-lila 3.6, purport

 

If I recall, I've seen someplace--maybe in the Sat Sandarbhas--that

Sridhara Svami has in a few places given concessions to the Mayavadis,

as something of a preaching tactic. But that is far different from

"combining Advaita and Devotionalism."

 

[shvu]

 

As gHari said, its interesting to note that the Advaita Scholars are accepting both the nirguna and saguna features of the Supreme.

 

I feel this synthesis might have come over time, by deeper interactions with the Vaishnava Schools.

Like I said before, no new concepts have been introduced into Advaita with time. Everything was taught by Shankara, right at the start. A good place to learn this would be to study Shankara's Gita Bhaashya.

 

In gaudiya vaishanva line both the personal and impersonal eternal aspects were always accepted. Gaudiya Vaishnavism does not claim sole propreitory over liberation or an overtly feeling of "holier than thou" attitude.

Someone posted sometime back that according to Chaitanya, anyone who studied Shankara's BSB was doomed.

 

The overtly scathing attacks on Advaitha or any school, was/is to distract people from thinking *mukthi* and bring them into thinking *bhakti*. To shift the focus into selfless devotion,is the main idea, rather than actually negating the bonafideness of any other path.

What was the point, when Krishna himself has announced several times in the Gita that a person should attain Mukti (the highest goal in life) and also took the trouble of describing 4 different paths to attain Mukti? What is the good sense in worshipping Krishna while discarding his basic teaching?

 

In any event, if Gaudiya Gurus are into "overtly scathing attacks" on other schools, that is enough to show they do not consider anyone else as bonafide. One cannot attack x and also simultaneously pat x on the back by saying x's system is bonafide.

 

The big three themselves do not accept one another. The reason being there can be only one truth and they all hold, their own interpretation is the true one. This being the case, there can be *only one* bonafide system. Everyone_is_true, etc are relatively neophyte views, used to preach in today's circumstances.

 

Cheers

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 04-08-2002).]

[jijaji]

Originally posted by abhi_the_great:

I got this reply from one of the senior disciples of Srila Prabhupad.

 

Here is what Srila Prabhupada says:

 

> The followers of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu never accepted the Mayavada

> order of sannyasa, and for this they cannot be blamed. Sri Caitanya

> Mahaprabhu accepted Sridhara Svami, who was a tridandi-sannyasi, but

> the Mayavadi sannyasis, not understanding Sridhara Svami, sometimes

> think that Sridhara Svami belonged to the Mayavada ekadanda-sannyasa

> community. Actually this was not the case."

 

--Caitanya-caritamrta Madya-lila 3.6, purport

 

If I recall, I've seen someplace--maybe in the Sat Sandarbhas--that

Sridhara Svami has in a few places given concessions to the Mayavadis,

as something of a preaching tactic. But that is far different from

"combining Advaita and Devotionalism."

Here's the REAL historical FACTS about Sridhar Svamin..he was an Advaitavadin plan & simple!

 

Chaitanya & Sridhar Svami...

Sri Krishna Chaitanya, the famous Saint of Nadia, Bengal, India, accepted only one commentary on Bhagavata Purana as being valid. That commentary was written by the famous Sridhar Svami years before Sri Chaitanya had settled in the great city of Puri on the Western coast of India.

Sridhar Svami had been the 10th Shankaracarya of the Shankara Govardhan Math of Puri. Interestingly enough, despite his background, Sridhar Svami also saw the Bhagavata Purana as the shining sound incarnation of Krishna for Kali Yuga as did Sri Chaitanya.

Sridhar Swami, reached his intellectual peak at a hill top shrine known as Kapilash in Orissa which served as his abode in the 14th Century A.D. The treatises on "Srimad Bhagavat Geeta", "Vishnu Purana" & "Sripadyabali" were written here by Sridhar Swami during his long stay.

That Sri Chaitanya accepted Sridhars Svami’s commentary above all others, including Madhvas, whom Gaudiyas claim lineage from, is a puzzle in itself.

Was it because Sridhar Svamin belonged to Shankaras sampradaya, which Sri Chaitanya took Sannyass Diksha into?

Does it have anything to do with the influence Sridhar Svamis commentary had on the region where Sri Chaitanya had moved immediately after he took Sanyass? Because at the time of Sri Chaitanya’s arrival in Orrisa the whole atmosphere was steeped in the Holy memory of Sridhar Svami.

Sri Chaitanyas acceptance of Sridhar Svamins Bhagavatam (a known advaitin) over and above the then available Vaishnava commentaries is worthy of our investigation.

Sri Chaitanya came to settle in Puri after he had taken sanyass from the Advaitin Keshava Bharati. It is contended by his followers that Sri Chaitanyas reason for taking initiation from Keshava Bharati was because it was the then accepted and most known form of Sannyass at that time. They also say that Sri Chaitanya had devised a plan to save the fallen souls of Kali Yuga by taking this Sannyass, thus giving people the chance to bow to him and be saved by that very act.

But we ask why did Sri Chaitanyas Gurus Isvara Puri and Madhavendra Puri accept Sanyass into the Madhva Sampradaya or did they?

In Sri Chaitanys biographies he is described as having the ability to convert one into a devotee of Krishna, by one having a mere glance of him dancing in Kirtan. In fact whole villages were converted in this way. Why then the need to accept Sanyass from a school of thought that was opposed to his dualistic teachings of Krishna Bhakti?