the reference can be found in the second post of this post thread.
It is accepted by Shankarites that they translate by mode of gauna Vritti, indirect meaning. Mukhya-vṛtti (“the direct meaning”) is abhidhā-vṛtti, or the meaning that one can understand immediately from the statements of dictionaries, whereas gauṇa-vṛtti (“the indirect meaning”) is a meaning that one imagines without consulting the dictionary. For example, one politician has said that Kurukṣetra refers to the body, but in the dictionary there is no such definition. Therefore this imaginary meaning is gauṇa-vṛtti, whereas the direct meaning found in the dictionary is mukhya-vṛtti or abhidhā-vṛtti. That is where our differences lie. We accept the Puranas not in any allegorical sense.

Madhvacarya recommends that we only translate in the mode of gauna vritti, indirect meaning, if direct meaning cannot be understood


Text 8
The objection may be raised: "The Vedas say brahmaham asmi ('I am Brahman'). The word brahman is certainly in the nominative case (prathama vibhakti). You cannot say it is possessive (sasthi) and thus change the meaning. How is it that you have foolishly interpreted tat tvam asi as a possessive compound (sasthi-tatpurusa-samasa)? How can you avoid interpreting the quote api ca so yam devadattah ('O Devadatta, you are that') in the nominative (prathama) and try to make it genitive (sasthi)?"
To this I reply: "When the scriptures explain that the individual spirit soul is Brahman, the proper understanding is that the individual souls are like tiny sparks that have emanated from the great fire of the Supreme Brahman. As far as the possessive compound (sasthi-tatpurusa) interpretation of tat tvam asi: you may not like it, but it is certainly grammatically sound. Why do you not accept it?"

Text 9
Accustomed to speak in metaphors, poets say: "This youthful brahmana is a blazing fire," "This beautiful face is the disc of the full moon," "These breasts are Mount Meru," or "These hands are blossoming twigs." The charm of these metaphors lies in considering two things, which are actually different, to be completely equal because they have one common feature. The poetic author of the Vedas has used this device in the phrase brahmaham asmi. The spiritual living entities have emanated from the Supreme Brahman, but they are not equal to Him in all respects.


Text 10
Innumerable waves splash within the great ocean and, in the same way, countless spirit souls exist within the Supreme Brahman. A single wave can never become the ocean. O individual spirit soul, how do you think you will become the Supreme Brahman?

Text 11
Everywhere in the Vedic scriptures pairs of opposites are described. Spiritual enlightenment and spiritual darkness, religion and irreligion, knowledge and ignorance are all described as different. The Vedic scriptures also describe the Supreme Brahman and the individual spirit soul as different in the same way. O saintly audience, how can anyone, with an honest heart, claim that the individual spirit soul and the Supreme Brahman are identical in all respects?

Text 12
The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the foundation upon which everything rests. He is the supreme monarch and the independent controller of the illusory potency (maya). O individual spirit soul, you are simply a reflection of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Only one moon shines in the sky, although innumerable reflections of that moon may appear in the water or other places. O individual spirit soul, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is like that single original moon, and the individual spirit souls are like innumerable reflections of Him. Just as the reflections remain always distinct from the moon itself, in the same way the individual spirit souls remain eternally different from their original source, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. O individual spirit soul, this is the eternal distinction between you and the Supreme.

Text 13
The Vedic scriptures say that the Supreme Brahman is immeasurable, inconceivable, and without any material activities or duty. O individual spirit soul, you are very easily perceivable by the material mind and describable by material words. How is it possible, then, that you are the same as the inconceivable Supreme Brahman?

Text 14
O individual spirit soul, your intelligence has been stolen by the darkness of the Mayavada theory, and for this reason you continually mutter brahmaham asmi ("I am the Supreme Brahman") as if you have become mad. I say to you, "If you are the Supreme Brahman, where is you unparalleled opulence? Where is you supreme dominion over all? If you are the Supreme Brahman, where is you all-pervasiveness and all-knowledge? Your equality with the Supreme Brahman is like the equality of a mustard seed with Mount Meru!"

Text 15
O individual spirit soul, you are by nature very limited, but the Supreme Lord is unlimited. You can only be at one place at one time, but the Supreme is eternally everywhere. At one moment you enjoy, and at another moment you suffer. In this way, your happiness and suffering is all temporary, but the Supreme Lord experiences the perfection of transcendental bliss at every moment. O individual spirit soul, why are you not embarrassed to speak these words so ham ("I am the Supreme")?

Text 16
Glass is glass. A jewel is a jewel. An oyster is an oyster. Silver is silver. They will never lose their nature and become each other. If one thinks that glass is a jewel, or an oyster is silver, he is mistaken. Impelled by the same kind of illusion, the individual spirit soul imagines he is the same as the Supreme Brahman. Illusioned in this way, the spirit soul propounds the Mayavada interpretation of tat tvam asi and other statements of the Vedas.

Text 17
The Vedic statement tat tvam asi should be interpreted in the following way: tat means "the Supreme Brahman who is like a nectar ocean of perfect transcendental bliss." Tvam means "the distressed individual spirit soul, whose mind is anguished by the fears produced by continued residence in the material world." Because the natures of the individual spirit soul and the Supreme Brahman are different in this way, they cannot be equated. In reality the Supreme Brahman is the supreme object of worship for innumerable universes, and the individual spirit soul is His servant. This is the actual meaning of tat-tvam asi.

Text 18
The Mayavadis claim that when the Supreme Person is described in the Vedic literatures, one should reject the literal meanings of such descriptions, and instead accept them allegorically, or not in the sense conveyed by the primary meaning of the words.

Text 19
O Mayavadis, if you insist on interpreting the Vedic description of the Supreme in an allegorical, or indirect, sense, then please tell us why you abandon the direct literal meaning in favor of this indirect interpretation?

Text 20
There are three reasons for rejecting a word s primary meaning and accepting a secondary meaning instead. They are: 1. If the primary meaning makes no sense; 2. If tradition or common usage supplants the primary meaning with a generally accepted secondary meaning; 3. If an authorized commentary explains that a secondary meaning should be understood. In these circumstances one may reject the primary meaning and accept the secondary meaning of a word.

Text 21
If the primary meaning is senseless, one must find a secondary meaning that makes sense.

Text 22
One should not accept the primary meaning if it makes no sense. For example, the primary meaning of grama is "village," but if the grama is described as unlimited, one must reject the primary meaning and accept a secondary one ("multitude"). In the same way, the primary meaning of putra is "son," but if the putra is described as appearing without a father, the primary meaning should be rejected and a secondary one ("that which rescues from hell") should be accepted.

Text 23
The sentence kumbha-khadga-dhanur-banah pravisanti is an example of the use of secondary meaning. Pravisanti means "enter" and kumbha, khadga, dhanuh, and bana mean "pitchers, swords, bows and arrows" respectively. The primary meaning of the sentence is "pitchers, swords, bows, and arrows enter." This interpretation clearly makes no sense. In these circumstances, the secondary meaning should be accepted. If the first two words are accepted as bahuvrihi-samasas, then the secondary interpretation "men carrying pitchers, swords, bows, and arrows enter" may be accepted to replace the rejected primary meaning.

Text 24
The sentence gangayam ghosah is another example of the use of secondary meaning. The primary meaning here is "the River Ganges spoke." This primary meaning should be rejected because a body of water cannot speak. Here the secondary interpretation "he spoke the word Ganges" is more appropriate.

Text 25
The sentence ayur ghrtam is another example of the use of secondary meaning. Taken literally, the sentence means, "Clarified butter is identical with long life." In this sentence clarified butter and long life are equated although they are not at all the same thing. In this sentence, the secondary interpretation "Eating foods prepared with clarified butter prolongs one s life" must be accepted if the sentence is to make sense.

Text 26
A text may be interpreted in three ways: 1. The literal (primary) meaning may be accepted; 2. One may reject the literal meaning and accept a secondary, not so commonly used, meaning of the words, or 3. One may accept the statements as metaphorical or allegorical. In order to establish their theory, the Mayavadis have diligently rejected the literal interpretation of the Vedic statements and have put forward an interpretation based on accepting the secondary meanings of the words.

Text 27
Taken literally, the Vedic statements do not at all support the theory that the individual spirit soul is the same as the Supreme Brahman. For this reason, the Mayavadis have rejected the literal meaning of the texts and concocted a figurative interpretation based on accepting obscure definitions of words and rejecting the commonly used meanings of words. How do the Mayavadis expect to understand the truth about Brahman if they adopt this devious policy?

Text 28
The Vedas directly state that the Supreme Brahman is the original creator of the universe (jagat-karta). From this statement it is only logical to infer that the one Supreme is the cause of the many living entities. The many living entities thus have the Supreme as their creator. This is the direct meaning of the Vedic statement.

Text 29
The sruti and smrti give abundant evidence to support this interpretation: that the one Supreme Brahman is the creator of the many living entities. That the Vedas describe the distinct individuality of the one Supreme Brahman and the many individual spirit souls is confirmed by Lord Krsna in Bhagavad-gita, where He said (15.15): vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyah ("by all the Vedas I am to be known").

Text 30
The Mayavadis claim that the Vedas say that the material world is unreal. O Mayavadis, even if this is so, how can you infer from it that the Supreme Brahman, who is full of all opulences and the origin of all moving and unmoving entities is also unreal?
www.stephen-knapp.com/mayavad...sani.htm
taken from Mayavada-sata-dusani
or
Sri Tattva-muktavali
The Pearl Necklace of Truths or 100 Refutations of the Mayavada Fallacy

by Sri Madhvacarya 1238 CE


I post this not in mood of fighting, but thought perhaps you may not know where are actual disagreements lie. If we know what is the actually disagreement then perhaps we can avoid that subject and focus on those things which are in common. Such as compassion for all creatures. Most of the world nowadays are unnecessarily causing violence to animals. That is a major subject that anyone who is of any hindu faith should consider educating others about. Hare Krishna
Your humble servant,
Nityananda Chandra Das

u say that this is simplu your perspective ganesh ji, however, if u re-read ur post, u seem to state a lot of absolutes.

u claim shankaracharya to be THE supreme absolute one consiousness (ur words exactly), the HIGHEST conclusion of the vedas. etc and so forth.

u say u do not wish to challenge makhancora and his "sect" (u should refrain from using this word as it has many pejorative connations and is no longer used in intellectual circles) u challenge him by the very fact that u say there are many paths, we all can believe what we want, as long as we accept shiva and or shankaracharya to be supreme.

now i dont really care, i think its great that u love adi shankaracharya and shiva. i just wanted to point out the discrepancies in ur post, its kinda funny, u say all paths are good etc, but shiva is supreme and krsna / visnu comes from him.

blatant double standard if i do say so.