[Advaita-l] Is Brahman understood as vyakti by Dvaitins?

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

There is lot of misunderstanding on Dvaitin's understanding regarding
Brahman. As a result one member charges Dvaitins and argues Brahman/Tatva
is rendered as vyakti in Dvaita.

Here is his claim;

I am not sure where you got these idea. I am afraid you are not
>> representing your pUrvapaxa correctly.
>>
>
> I get the idea from Madhva's commentary in the BG where he says 'Prakriti
> is Brahman's bhAryA'. Only human-like persons can have bhAryA. A Tattva
> cannot have any relationship with anything/anyone. The Tattvam is asanga.
> Brahman has son (aniruddha, brahmaa), grandson (pradyumna?, shiva), etc. as
> per non-advaitins. Advaitins do not take puranic pictorial descriptions as
> literal.
>
>>
>>
The wrong idea is quite obvious. He thinks bhAryA is only bhAryA in loukika
sense. Such wrong idea is refuted by both shruti and smiriti.

Purusha Suktha quite clearly says Purusha having patItvaM "hRiischate
lakshmiitscha patnyou', aho raatre paarshve ..." Purusha identified as
husband of hRii and Lakshmi.

In mahAvishNu-purANa, shri VedavyAsa states :

"mahAlakshmIriti parA bhAryA nArAyaNasya yA | prakritir nAma sA jnyEyA
prakarshEna karOti yat ||
tasyAstu treeNi roopANi sattvam nAma rajas tamaha | srishTi kAlE
vibhajyantE
satvam shreehi sadguNaprabhA ||
rajO ranjana kartrtvAt bhooho sA srishTikaree yataha | yadAvEshAdiyam
prithivee bhoomirityEva kathyatE ||
jeevAnAm glapanAd durgA tama ityEva keertitA | EtAbhihi tisribhihi jeevAha
sarvE
baddhA amuktigAha ||

Now, will that member accuses Purusha Sukta and VP with the same charge as
he accused Madhva?

/sv