[Advaita-l] Analysis of madhvAcArya’s mAyAvAdakhaNDanam

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

--- On Fri, 12/26/08, Krunal Makwana <makwanakb at googlemail.com> wrote:

 This series in no way a refutation of the
dvaita view or to disrepect shri Ananda tirtha but to assist genuine seekers
(including myself!) to understand advaita better.

................

By praising the qualities of the Lord, MV directly refutes the idea of
nirguNatva of AV which advocates that the supreme brahman is without quality
and impersonal. Dvaita vedAnta [hereafter DV] of MV insists that supreme
brahman is saguNa, with qualities and that nirguNatva is also a quality of
the Lord. DV also hold the view that supreme brahman is personal and not
impersonal unlike the view of AV.

-------------
Shree Krunal Makwana - PraNAms

From my point, Deepak Sharma seems to interpret MV sloka as refutation of AV. If one pushes the arguments to their limit, I consider more a refutation of Vedanta than AV. Please note that Shankara also starts his Gita Bhaashya with prayer to the Lord Narayana - that does not mean that he is refuting his own philosophy of AV that para Brahman is Nirguna while he himself praying Narayana as suguNa. Since the purpose of your posts is to understand Advaita, I am taking liberty to separate what AV says vs. what the interpreter thinks or says what AV says. 

GuNas belong to prakRiti - as part of apara Brahman from the point of AV and comes within vyavahaara. What is pointed out as nirguNa as Shruti says - yato vaacho nivartante apraapya manasaa saHa - the words cannot reach there neither the mind and they return back - Hence any description of para Brahman is futile - but one can invoke in any form for prayer and that is personal and AV does not negate that and accepts it as part of vyavahaara satyam. Hence Shankara also prays Lord Naryana before he starts his Gita Bhaashya. It is at paaramaarthika satyam that nirguNa, applies since infinite cannot be described. Even nirguNa is only from the point of vyavahaara only by process of negation of any thing that has guNa is finite and belong to prakRiti only.

Personally I have no further interest in the analysis of madhvachaarya's work, but like to point out to be careful in their interpretation of what AV says vs. what they think AV says and refutes their understanding of AV. It is going to be mind boggling work ( and futile I must say) to provide a correct interpretation of AV through their works. It is better study prakaraNa granthaas of AV to understand AV, if that is the purpose of these postings. To attempt to understand AV through Madhvachaarya's work will be scratching the head with fire-wood. To understand Madhvacaarya's work on its own is a separate issue - one should follow that if one is interested in that. There are many dvaita list serves for that. Anyway this is my opinion. 
 

Hari Om!
Sadananda