rrao

No, that's not the truth. Your understanding of Brahma-Madva-Gaudiya Sampradaya disciplic succession does not have any scriptural basis, therefore it is completely wrong.

How does one understand the "Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya Sampradaya disciplic succession" on the basis of scripture? Is there some scripture that lists the parampara from Madhva through Lakshmipati Tirth to Caithanya?

1. The Brahma-Madva-Gaudiya Sampradaya Paramapara, Guru-Disciplic succession, was stated by Srila Kavi Karnapura and authorized by Lord Gauranga Himself.

Can you please explain where "Lord Gaurangaauthorized" the above disciplic succession? Because aside from the fact that he only wrote 8 verses, and there is no mention of the disciplic succession there, there is also no mention of the "Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya" parampara even in the teachings that are attributed to him and recorded in the books of his followers! So, given that he never spoke about such a parampara, how exactly did he "authorize" it?

There can be no questions whatsoever about the legitimacy of the Parampara coming from Srila Madvacharya to Lord Gauranga because Lord Gauranga Himself accepted Sri Ishwara Puri in the disciplic succession as his beloved Spiritual Master.

How does Gauranga accepting Ishvara Puri as a guru prove that his parampara is linked to Madhva? There is no connection at all between these two ideas.

If it wasn't bonafide line of disciplic succession, then, the Lord who is knower of everything and who Himself said in Srimad Bhagavad Gita BG 4.2 - Evam Parampara Praptam, would not have accepted Srila Ishwara Puri as His Spiritual Master.

Huh?

So he is God, so he must have accepted a "bonafide line of disciplic succession?"

If that is true, then do you accept Buddhism? After all, Buddha has more evidence substantiating his divinity than does Chaithanya/Gauranga. So by your argument, Buddha must have also come in a "bona fide line of disciplic succession" even though he rejected the Vedas!

Who can know the past, present and future and what's bonafide and what's not better than the Supreme Lord Himself? If the Lord accepted Srila Ishwara Puri as His Spiritual Master, then that authorizes the disciplic succession from Srila Madvacharya to Srila Ishwara Puri and to Lord Gauranga. What more evidence is needed?

You are aware, are you not, that the idea of Chaithanya being God is only accepted by Chaithanya followers? As in, this is a pretty classic case of circular logic.

2. There are few differences in the philosophy explained by Srila Madvacharya's (dvaita philosophy) and that explained in Brahma-Madva-Gaudiya Sampradaya (Achintya Bhedabhed) from-and-after the divine presence of Lord Gauranga in the Brahma-Madva-Gaudiya Sampradaya.

There are actually quite a few, major differences between Madhvacharya's philosophy and the philosophy of "achintya bhedabhed." There is a total difference of epistemology, a completely different understanding of the Godhead, and a totally different understanding of the relationship of the different tattvas.

Achintya Bhedabhed explanation does not contradict Srila Madvacharya's Dvaita explanations, rather it complements it.

You came to this conclusion after dispassionately studying both philosophies, right?

Brahmana is one who knows the Brahman. Vaisnavas understand Brahman as Para-Brahman, the Supreme Godhead, so they also want to know the Brahma, and that's exactly what vaisnava-diksa offers them.

The question asked earlier is, "why the obsession about becoming a brahmana?" And this was offered as an answer. So in that context, let me ask this:

If a Brahmana is "one who knows the Brahman," then how does one become "one who knows the Brahman" simply by initiation?

How does society actually know who does or does not "know the Brahman?"

If a brahmana is someone who actually knows Brahman, then why does the Bhagavata Purana (1.7.42-43) refer to Ashvatthama as a brahmana? And that too after he murdered the sleeping sons of the Pandavas? Did Ashvatthama, a murderer, actually "know the Brahman?"