Madhvacharya

My question was also related to that topic which was raised yesterday and which you pointed out now.

I guess Shankaracharya was a sannyasi, but you explained that, and were Madhvacharya and Sri Ramanuja also sannyasis?

Yes.

Babaji

And this is now important.

We will learn now principles And as we have heard today from Keshava Maharaj, I think he quoted Madhvacharya, there are three layers in Shastras.

One is the literal meaning and one is, can you please help me, the second was the analogy.

Didactical, what can we learn? And then is the metaphorical.

Ramanuj argued for qualified non-dualism, where the soul is a part of God, not identical to him.

And Madhva went full dualist, saying God, soul, and world are eternally distinct.

This debate between Manas and dualists reflects a deep tension.

Is ultimate reality impersonal or a loving God?

This purport is actually the commentary of all the acharyas that has previously spoken about this verse.

For example, Madhvacharya's commentary, Ramanujacharya's commentary, Vishwanachakurthi Thakur's commentary, The author, the author Srila Prabhupada, he translated all the different commentaries of the acharyas and put it in this purport.

When you're reading this Bhagavatam, this version of the Bhagavatam, you're actually getting the realizations of all these great acharyas all in one place.

So that's why it looks so big.

This conclusion incorporates Māyāvāda, but goes one step further.

The same can be said of respected leaders like Rāmānuja Ācārya and Madhva Ācārya.

Indeed, it can be said that such leaders appeared in this world specifically to refute Māyāvāda philosophy.

If not an outright rebuke, then at least a clarification.

And within the Supreme, all contradictions are inconceivably, most beautifully resolved.

A great teacher of the Dvaita school is Sri Madhva, who's heard of Madhvacarya from South India.

Great saint.

He's actually considered, uh, a partial incarnation of Vayu and Hanuman.