namaskaram Aupman jav ji , Prana ji , तत्त्वप्रह्व ji
Dvaitādvaita was propounded by Śri Nimbārka not Śri Madhva as suggested by
@Aupmanyav ji above.
Though it is believed that Śri Caitanya accepted sannyāsa from an ācarya of Śri Madhva tradition, its later developments diverge completely from Tattvavāda. The subsequent commentary by Śri Vidyabhūṣaṇa on brahmasūtras makes it a different school altogether - not a fork. There are no diverging schools of thought within tattvavāda.
श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।
Yes , I think it is fair to say difernt school altogether , ... Sri Nimbarka belongs to Kumara Sampradaya , ...Sri Krsna Chaitanya belongs to Brahma Sampradaya and ...Sri Ramanujacharya to the Rudra Sampradaya , ....
each themselves refining the understanding within their own tradition , ..but we are all Vaisnava , ...so we should happily accept each others tradition without need to think of one as offshoot of another .
Oh, you are right, Tattva. I did not read Prana's question carefully. I am sorry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimbarka
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Nimbark-Sant-Ashram/ (Salemabad, Pushkar, Rzajasthan)
You are right also about there being no forks in Tattvavada, but that is what Gaudiya Math people claim.
It is morning here, perhaps I am still sleepy.
to my knowledge all that Gaudiya math should claim is that above vigorous debating there should be love of God , ...
meaning that we belive that absorbtion in the lord is more important than vigerous debate, ...hope that makes sence I am still sleepy too , ...