Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c5.s2.19

c5.s2.19

there is no evidence anywhere in the early standard works of Bengal Vaisnavism¹ that Mādhavendra Puri or his disciple Īśvara Puri, who influenced the early religious inclinations of Caitanya, was in fact a Mādhva ascetic. There is nothing to show that either they or their alleged disciple Advaita were Mādhavas in outlook. Tradition records that Madhva himself was initiated into the Tirtha order of Śamkara by Acyutaprekṣa or Puruṣottama Tirtha; and even after he promulgated his Dvaita doctrines in opposition to Śamkara’s teaching of Advaita,² he adhered to his Tirtha designation under his Saṃnyāsa name of Ānandatirtha. Ever since his time and up to the present day, all the Gurus of his order called themselves Tirthas, and not Puris or Bhāratīs³. Mādhavendra and Īśvara were both Puris, and not Tirthas; while Mādhavendra’s other alleged disciple Keśava Bhārati was apparently also a Saṃnyāsin of the Bhārati order of Śamkara.⁴ To Vāsudeva Sārvabhauma at Puri, Caitanya is introduced (C-C, Madhya vi) as a Saṃnyāsin belonging to the Bhārati-saṃpradāya. There are also other facts recorded in his authoritative biographies which militate against the assumption of Caitanya’s Mādhva leanings. His calling himself a Māyāvādin ascetic on several occasions⁵; Kavikarṇapūra’s distinct statement that he belonged to the Advaita monastic order and did not approve of the Tattva-vādins; the raillery of Prakāśānanda, an Advaita ascetic, on Caitanya's avoidance of his fellow Māyāvādin ascetics and on his improper indulgence in singing and dancing¹: his direct disapproval of Mādhva doctrines²:—all these and other indications raise a legitimate doubt regarding the historical accuracy of Caitanya's alleged connexion with Madhvaism.