Sri Madvacharya's works on Prasthanatrayi (Upanisads, Brahmasutras and Bhagavadgita) are well known. Apart from the Geetabhashya, he had written Gitatatparya for Bhagavadgita and three works, viz. Anubhashya, Anuvyakhyana and Nyayavivarana for Bramhmasutras. In addition to the Bhashyas for Upanishads, he had written a Bhashya on the forty hymns of Rigveda.The doctrines presented in the Prasthanatrayi are further elaborated in two types of works, viz., Vadagranthas and Prakaranagranthas. The Vadagranthas present long debates on other Schools of Vedanta. Anuvyakhyana is a Vadagrantha. The Prakaranagranthas are small treatises on specific issues of philosophy.

Sri Madhvacharya had written ten such Prakarana works which are collectively known as the Dasaprakaranas. These are neatly planned.
* Four treatises viz., Tatvasamkhyana, Tatvaviveka, Tatvodyota and Tatvanirnaya present Vishnusarvottamatva, Jagad sathya (reality of the world), Panchabeda (the cardinal five differences), nature of Jiva, nature of Liberation etc and the import of the relevent Sruti passages. The interpretations of other schools of Vedanta are also discussed.
* Three treatises, known as the Khandanatraya,viz., Mayavada Khandana, Upadhi Khandana and Prapanchamithyatvanumana Khandana, critically review the Advaitic concepts of Upadhi, Mithyatva, Mayavada and reject them.
* Two treatises, viz., Pramana Laksana and Kathalaksana, deal with the epistemology and the Art of the Philosophical Debate.
* Karmanirnaya, the 10th Prakarana, is unique. In this work, the import of the Karmakanda portion of the Vedas is brought out by interpreting the Mahanamni hymns and pointing out that Indra etc. names convey the Supreme God Vishnu only.

Tatvasamkhyana has 11 and Tatvaviveka has 13 (metrical) granthas. Strictly speaking, these two texts form one unit. Categories of reality are enumerated. Reality is classified into Svatantra (independent) and Paratantra (dependant). This is the highest metaphysical and ontological classification in Sri Madhva's system, hence his system derives its name "Dvaita". The Supreme God alone is Svatantra and all other categories are Paratantra. The Svatantra is defined as that which is independent in respect of its very essential nature, the functions and the comprehension. The Supreme God alone is independant. All others are entirely dependant on Him. The Paratantra is further classified as Bhava and Abhava ie, Positive and Negative. That which presents itself as "Is" in its first cognition is Positive and that which presents itself as "Is not" in its first cognition is "Negative". The Bhava ie the Positive is classified into Chetana and Achetana ie., sentient and non-sentient. The sentient is further classified as that which is never afflicted by sorrow and those that are afflicted by sorrow. Goddess Lakshmi only is never afflicted by sorrow. She is nityamukta ie ever free from the bondage. She is the presiding deity of (Acit)-Prakrti. Achetana, the non-sentient, is classified into three viz., Pragabhava (previous negation), Pradhvansabhava (later negation) and Sadabhava (total negation). Anyonyabhava, ie Bheda, is considered as Dharmisvarupa, ie an internal attribute of every entity. To be distinct from all other entities is the very nature of each entity. Therefore, this fact of being distinct from all entities is part and parcel of the very nature of each entity. Therefore, it is not negative and hence is not to be considered as a
category of Abhava.

Tatvaviveka has verses of a larger work of the same name composed by God Himself. Thirteen verses are quoted in this small work in support of Tatvasamkhyana. Therefore, it is not a repetion but an extract of a source work to support Tatvasamkhyana. In Tatvasamkhyana, the attributes are not separately mentioned keeping in view that the attributes are not totally different from the substance. The classification of the categories is different from the pattern followed in the other systems, such as Nyayavaisesikas. The Nyayavaisesikas go by the pattern as Dravya, Guna etc (as in science). This is because, the objective of these systems is to provide knowledge of the material world while that of Dvaita Vedanta is to lead to the knowledge of the Supreme God. Therefore, the Supreme God is first ststed as Svatantra (independant) and all else is dependant on Him. Dependance on the Supreme God does not mean unreality. The finite creation is always dependant on God but is none the less real, as He is. Sri Madva emphasizes that difference and disparity are found everywhere among finite selves in their constitution and equipment which point to hierarchy among gods, demons and men. Three classes of souls are distinguished among those that are now in bondage : Muktiyogas (salvable), Tamoyogas (those that will eventually qualify for eternal redemption) and Nityasamsarins (those that will always be subject to transmigration).

The last verse of Tatvasamkhyana enumarates the creation, sustenance, destruction etc, eight states of the world caused by God and glorifies Him by giving His Sristyadi astakartritva definition. The concluding verse of
Tatvaviveka emphatically states that it  is the knowledge that the entire world consisting of Chetana and Achetana entirely depends upon God that enables one to attain the Liberation.

Kandanatraya is a collection of three treatises, Mayavada Khandana, Upadhi Khandana and Prapanchamithyatvanumana Khandana, that critically review the Advaita concepts of Upadhi, Mithyatva etc.

In Mayavada Khandana, consisting of 20 granthas, Sri Madvacharya shows that the Mayavada, the identity of Jiva and Brahman, the central thesis of Advaita, is riddled with contradictions and that the Jiva Brahma Aikya is
not the purport of the Sruti.

a) If Jiva Brahma Aikya is true and the resulting entity is different from Brahman, then we have dualism. This defeats the very concept of Advaita, since there are now two real entities, viz., the Brahman and the
Jiva-Brahman unified entity to contend with.

b) If Jiva Brahman Aikya is true but the resulting entity is not different from Brahman, then the resulting entity is expected to have properties as that of Brahman. According to Advaita philosophy, Brahman is conceived as essentially self-revealing (svaprakasa) and is outside the pale of Pramanas (shastras). Hence, the Jiva Brahma Aikya must also be self-revealing and not come under the purview of Pramanas and Shastras, including the Advaita
Vedanta! This means that no Shastras are needed to teach it as it is already known. Afterall, according to Advaita, Pramana is what makes the unknown known.

c) It cannot be stated that the Ajnana (ignorance) has veiled the Brahman resulting in not cognizing the Jiva Brahma Aikya and hence Sastras work as Pramanas to reveal this knowledge. But this arguement is contradicting the earlier statement that Brhaman is self  revealing. Ajnana cannot veil the very Brahman as it is self revealing. Moreover, Ajnana cannot veil any charecteristics or features of Brahman, since, according to Advaita, Brahman is nirvisesa, ie , Brahman has no features or charecteristics.

d) Further, since Ajnana cannot veil Brahman, there is no subject matter for the Sastras to teach. According to  Advaita, the Liberation is of the nature of the removal of Ajnana. As there is no Ajnana, there is no need of any removal of it. Thus there is no purpose to be served by the Sastras! As there is no Ajnana, there is no Adhikarin, ie eligible person to study the sastras. This means there is no Anubandhachatustaya viz., the subject, the object, the eligible person and the relevance of all these. Hence, Sri Madhvacharya says that the Advaita sastra is not worth pursuing.

e) If Jiva Brahma Aikya is Mithya, ie not true, then the Sastras that teaches this shall not be pramana. In this way, the untenability of the Advaitic doctrine of Jiva Brahma Aikkya is established. The purposelessness of Advata Sastra is also established. Towards the close, Sri Madhvacharya refutes briefly the view of Sriharsa that cessation of Ignorance is indistinguishable from the Atman as well as that of Vimuktatman that it belongs entirely to a fifth order of predication.

Then, it is declared that Visnusarvottamtva is the purport of all Sastras. This is demonstrated by quoting the verses "Dvau Imau Purusau" etc from Bhagavadgita and "Indriyebhyah para hi arthah" etc from Kathopanisat.The two aspects of the theme of this text are brought out in the Mangala  verse of this text. The first line mentions the untenability of Advaita and the second line states the Visnusarvottamatva doctrine.

This is a short metrical work in 20 granthas. In this, Sri Madhvacharya critizises the concept of "Upadhi", pluralising factor or agency, which is a central theme in the Advaita philosophy of Sri Sankara. The world of
plurality is believed by the Advaitin to be the outcome of fontal ignorance or nescience or Ajnana playing upon the One Real. According to the Advaitin, the oneness of existence is the truth of things and all plurality is ascribable to this fontal ignorance. In Mayavada Kandana, it was pointed out that that the concept of Ajnana envisaged in Advaita is not tenable. Sri Madvacharya naturally opens his attack by pointing out that the very idea of such nescience descending upon Brahman is unthinkable, unaccountable and impossible. In Upadhi Khandana, he points out that Ajnana cannot play the role of Upadhi, ie as an adjunct to project Brahman as Jiva as well as projection of Jiva and Jagat. According to Advaita, it is the cause of the bondage and its removal is Liberation. Sri Madhvacharya refutes this Advaitic theme by examining the nature and role of the concept of Upadhi.

a) Since Brahman is omnisiant, He cannot be veiled by Ajnana. Brahman cannot be the locus of Ajnana nor the object of Ajnana.

b) Advaita considers Jiva as not being different from Brahman in the ultimate analysis and that Jiva is projected as distinct by means of Upadhi,ie adjunct and hence Jiva can be locus of Ajnana. To respond to this, Sri Madvacharya asks whether this so called adjunct is a real adjunct or this is also projected by Ajnana.

c) If the adjunct is real, there will be two reals: Brahman and Upadhi. This will defeat the very concept of Advaita and spell danger to Monism.

d) If the Upadhi is projected by Ajnana, and hence not real, then there will be infinite regress, ie Anavastha. This is as follows: To project Jiva as distinct, Upadhi ie Ajnana is required, to project that Ajnana, one more Ajnana is required and so on. Further, there will be reciprocal dependance, ie Anyonyasraya also. The projection of Upadhi depends upon the projection of Ajnana and the projection of Ajnana depends upon projection of Upadhi. It will also lead to circular dependance, Chakraka, as follows: The location of Ajnana on Jiva depends upon the distinction of Jiva from Brahman, the distinction of Jiva depends upon the projection of Upadhi and the projection of Upadhi depends upon Ajnana. Thus, to rely on a previous Ignorance (Ajnana) to create a subsequent Upadhi, is to court the double fallacy of regressus ad infinitum resulting in an impossible and hopeless situation to make out any rational and intelligible relation between the Upadhi and Brahman.

e) The above points are made against those Advaitins who consider the  Ajnana as Mithya ie Projected. The concept of the Upadhi of such Advaitins who consider both the Upadhi, ie the adjunct and the bheda, ie the distinction as real is criticised by Sri Madvacharya as follows:
The contention that a real distinction between Brahman and the Jivas is caused by a set of real Upadhi such as Anthakaarana etc is not tenable. Upadhis do not cause any distinction but only indicate the distinctions that are already there. In the instance of Akasa also, the Upadhis such as Ghata, Matha etc., only indicate the particular places. If it is insisted that the Upadhi does not merely indicate the distinction but actually causes it, then, does it cause the distinction by contacting the whole of the object to be differentiated or only a part of it? If the whole, then it is unable to differentiate, if by contacting a part, then to carve out that part, another Upadhi will be required. Thus this leads to infinite regress, ie Anavastha. In the case of the difference between the Brahman and the Jiva, and among the Jivas, if it is not real, then, all will have to share the pains and the pleasures of all. It is the experience of all that they do not share the pleasures and the pains of all. From this it can be easily inferred that all are really different from each other. The function of Upadhi must be to help understand the existing distinctions in reality and not to create a non-existing difference.  Thus, the concept of Ignorance being thus arrested at the very outset, the Advaitic principles then cannot go forward to explain neither the status of individual souls or adhikarins nor subjects fit for metaphysical investigations. On the other hand, Dvaita has no such difficulties. In it, a spiritual aspirant (not identical with Brahman) knowing something of Brahman and wanting to know more becomes the proper person (adhikarin) to undertake metaphysical quest, undergo the necessary discipline laid down in the Sastras and reap the benefit of his labors. After pointing out the untenability of the concept of Upadhi and the differentiation by it, a clear difference between the Brahman and the Jivas is brought out by mentioning the contrasting charecteristics of the two. The Jivas have limited capacity, sufferings and the limited agency. These definitely indicate that he is different from God who has unlimited knowledge, power etc. Everything is thus inteligible in Dvaita.

Advaitins's plea that "the very inability to explain the nature and the role of Ajnana is a merit" is ridiculed.
It is traditionally believed that this Prakarana contains some of the arguements actually employed by Sri Madhvacharya in his historic debates with two celebrated Advaitins of his day, Pundarika Puri and Padma Tirtha. The main theme of this text is to point out the difference between the Brahman and the Jivas even in the Liberated State and the fact that both the Jiva and Jagat are completely under the control of the Supreme God and are regulated by him. The concept of Anirvachinya, proposed by Advaitins, is warranted neither by the facts of life nor by the force of logic. The syllogism proposed by the Advaitins for the concept of Mithyatva that was briefly reviewed in Prapanchamithyatvanumana Khandana is reviewed here again in greater detail. Here, two more Hetus viz., Jadatva and Parichchinnatva are examined. The concept of Ajnana is refuted. The role of Pratyaksa Pramana in comprehending the reality is examined and its priority over other Pramanas is pointed out. The correct import of the Sruti passages Tat tvam asi , Vacharambhanam etc is explained.

The most important item discussed in this text is the sameness of the Bhuddhistic position (Sunyavada) and the Advaita position (Mayavada). This is pointed out in three important respects by quoting the relevant passages from the Texts of Buddhism and Advaita.

1) The Sunya of Buddhism is described as a) Nirvisesa, without any characteristics b) Manovacham agochara, not cognisable either by the mind or the words c) Svaprakasa, not the object of any knowledge. The Brahman
of Advaita also is described in the same way.

2) There are two levels of reality, viz., Samvrita satta and Paramarthika satta, according to Buddhists. According to Advaita also there are two levels, viz., Vyayvaharika and Paramarthika.

3) The whole world is a projection of Samvriti according to Buddhists and it is a projection of Avidya according to Advaita.

After pointing out the similarity between Buddism and Advaita, the Sruti passages that are quoted to support Advaita are discussed and shown that they do not support Advaita. In conclusion, it is summed up that the Jivas
are different from Brahman even at the liberated state and they are regulated by God even at that stage.

This is a work of Epistemology. Nature and number of Pramanas are discussed. In traditional accounts of systems of Indian thought, it is usual to begin with a statement of the number and nature of Pramanas, ie sources or guarantors of correct knowledge, recognized by a given system. Max Muller expresses great admiration for this practice of Indian writers, as it removes a good deal of misunderstanding and makes the task of philosophical assessment of a given system easy. Following this time-honored practice, Sri Madhvacharya discusses the number of Pramanas admitted by him, their definitions, modes of functioning and the nature of reality apprehended by them. At the end, it is stated that this work follows Brahmatarka of Vyasa which is now not extant. True knowledge per se is Kevala Pramana and what leads to it is Anu-Pramana. Sense-perception, Inference and Verbal testimony come under the latter. Three Pramanas are considered fundamental : Pratyaksa (sense perception), Anumana (inference) and Agama (verbal testimony or Scriptures). This scheme of Pramanas is thus considerably simplified and reduced to the barest limits of logical necessity. The vindication of the status of Smrti as a valid experience is one of the distinctive and outstanding contributions of Sri Madhvacharya to Indian thought.

The philosophical debate is called Katha. Certain guidelines and rules are laid down for philosophical debate in Indian tradition. These are given in this text. The philosophical debate is classified in three categories:
1) When the teacher and the pupil or any two friendly scholars conduct a debate in order to discover the truth or to show the truth more clearly and precisely, it is called vada.
2) When two scholars enter into a debate to obtain the fame as a scholar or envying each other s schlorship, then it is called Jalpa.
3) When one of the scholar has an intention to conceal or reject the truth and enters into an argument with such intentions, then it is called Vitanda.
Referee(s) must be impartial, should be able to remove the doubts, free from malice and god-minded.
In the case of Vada, the inability to determine the truth itself is defeat. In Jalpa, one who is silenced in the debate has to be blamed or fined. The same is the case in Vitanda also. These details of the philosophical debate are also derived from Brahmatarka.

Vishnu-Tattva-Nirnaya  is the biggest (540 granthas) and the most important Prakarana and contains an exhaustive and brilliant refutation of Advaita. It is a neatly planned text. The very benedictory verse gives its plan. The first adjective in the verse sadagamaikavijneya is elaborated in the first chapter, the second adjective samatitaksraksara in the second chapter and the adjective nirdosasesasadguna is elaborated in the third chapter. Before establishing the central thesis of his thought that Brahman (Narayana) is the highest subject-matter of the Vedasastra, Sri Madhva discusses the place and importance of Sabda among Pramanas and argues a strong case for the infallibility and Apauruseyatva of the Vedas. He is the only Vedantin (after the Mimamsakas) to have given this question serious attention. The Vedas are self-valid and cannot be ascribed to any known author, human or divine. The eternity of the Vedas rests on the eternity of Sabda. It is convincingly shown that no system of philosophy can do without some kind of Apauruseyavakya, for its ultimate validity. Even the Buddhists and the Carvakas are forced to admit some kind of Sabdapramana, which is incapable of being ascribed to any author.

The Scope of the Sacred Literature :
The four Vedas, Mahabarata, Pancharatra, Mula Ramayana and such of the Puranas that are not in conflict with the teachings of the Vedas etc are sadagama. All other works that follow these also constitute Sadagama. But works that are opposed to the teachings of these, such as Pasupata etc., arenot Sadagamas. However, even in these works, whatever is in tune with the teachings of the Vedas etc., is acceptable. This explanation of the scope of Sadagama brings out two important points:
1) The scope of the sacred literature is not to be confined to the Vedas only but Ithihasa Purana are also to be included in it.
2) Every work that goes under the name Agama is not necessarily a sacred work. Its content has to be examined. If it is not opposed to the teachings of the Vedas etc., sacred works, then only, it is part of the sacred literature. Another point that emerges from this definition of the sacred literature is, the Vedas should be understood in the light of Ithihasapurana but not in isolation and therefore, these texts have to be interpreted and comprehended in the light of the tradition but not in isolation.

The Doctrines of Vedapouruseyatva :
Vedas constitute the highest sacred literature. This is because they are apaurruseya and Svatah pramana. Therefore, Vishnutattvanirnaya takes up these two issues for the discussion in the next section.In Indian Philosophy, Vedapauruseyatva is a very important issue. This is discussed in Purva Mimasa in detail and elaborated by Sayana in his Vedabhasyabhumika. This discussion is confined to only three points:
1. Whether a composer of the Vedas, if there was any, could be ascertained in a reasonable way and in absence of such ascertainment is it not reasonable to conclude that there was no such composer?
2. If the Vedas were not composed at a given point of time, then how to account for the references to the names of certain personalities flourished at certain times in tradition and mythology?
3. What is the role of the sages who are declared to be the seers of Vedic hymns? Are they mere seers or are they composers?
These questions and the answers given to the same do not take us deeper into this problem and do not reveal the deeper insight into the concept of Vedaapouruseyatva. Therefore, the inquiry has to be done differently. The scope of the inquiry of both Purvamimamsa and Vedanta is not confined to the external world and its categories. The enquiry into the nature and the role of moral concepts such as Dharma and Adharma, and the spiritual concepts such as God etc. is the chief task of these two disciplines. The epistemological means like Pratyaksa, Anumana that are sufficient only to comprehend the external world and its categories do not help to comprehend the moral concepts like Dharma and Adharma and the spiritual concepts like Self and God. Instructions contained in a work composed by a human being cannot also help us in the matter. Such a human being also has to derive his knowledge from some authentic source. He himself cannot claim to be the source of the knowledge of moral and spiritual concepts. These have to be revealed to the morally and spiritually sensitive minds. Such revelation may be embodied in words and also in other ways. The Vedas constitute such revelations of moral and spiritual concepts as embodied in words i.e. Vedic hymns. This is the basis of the concept of apauruseyatva. The words, i.e Vedic hymns that embody the revelations of spiritual and moral concepts are naturally  not composed by anyone. In Indian tradition, varnas are considered as eternal. The words that consist of one or more varnas and the sentences that contain one or more words of the revealed literature are also eternal. The order in which these occur is also not man made. These are ever present in God s mind and are revealed to the seers. These are handed over by a long tradition of the teacher and the taught.

In view of this, the objections raised in taking the human composition, i.e., pauruseyavakya as a model do not apply to the revealed literature. The sages referred to as seers of the Vedas are not composers but seers, i.e., the recipients of the revelations. Revealed sentences do not need a composer. References made to personalities and events in revealed literature have no temporal restrictions. Therefore, the objections based on these considerations do not hold good in respect of revealed literature which is apauruseya and svatahpramana.

THE DOCTRINE OF PRAMANYA SVATASTVA
The doctrine of Pramanyasvatastva mentioned in the context of the Vedas has a much wider scope. Not only the knowledge derived from the Vedas is svatahpramana but all knowledge derived by flawless means of knowledge is svatahpramana. The knowledge derived by nirdusteindriya, nirdustahetu, nirdusta pauruseyasbda is also svatahpramana. The svatahpramanya of knowledge has to be understood in two ways:
1) The knowledge to be true or valid does not require any more additional means than its bonafide means. However, these bonafide means must be flawless.
2) To know the truth or the validity of knowledge no other additional means is required. Saksin that comprehends knowledge also comprehends its validity. Thus both in Utpatti the origination of knowledge and Jnapti the
comprehension of knowledge, no additional factors than the respective bonafide means of knowledge are necessary. This is the implication of the concept of svatahpramanya.
So far as apramanya is concerned, it arises because of certain defects such as indriyadosa, hetudosa etc. The saksin initially does not comprehend apramanya. It needs the assistance of pariksa. The apramanya is detected by sublation, contradiction, vyabhichara etc. These indicate apramanya. It is in this sense that apramanya is said to be paratah. However, apramanya is also comprehended by saksin only by these indications. Apauruseya Vedas being absolutely free from these defects are pramana. Pratyaksa etc. are pramana when these are free from defects. In any case, no additional condition or factor is required to validate knowledge. Therefore, all bonafide knowledge is svatahpramana.

THE DOCTRINE OF SIDDHE VYUTPATTI
According to Mimamsakas, the sentences communicate only activity and those that are connected with the activity. Vishnu is Siddhavastu. Therefore sadagamas that are of the nature of sentences cannot communicate Visnu or Narayana. This view is known as karye vyutpattivada. This is not tenable. Our day to day experience reveals that even  siddhavastus that are not connected with any activity are communicated by the sentence. Therefore, there is no difficulty in sadagamas conveying Visnu. Another point to be noted here is that it is not karyatajnana that is pravartaka but it is Istasadhanatajnana that is pravartaka. Therefore, it is not correct to complain that siddhavakyas are not pravartaka and therefore are not pramana. After settling these two issues, viz., Sadagama is pramana and Sadagama is siddhabodhaka, the main question whether Visnusarvottamtva and Jivesvarabheda are conveyed by Sadagama or abheda is conveyed, is taken up.

THE DOCTRINE OF BHEDA
In respect of bheda, ie difference, the following points are discussed in Vishnutattvanirnaya.
1. Whether bhedastruthis are merely anuvadaaka or pramana?
2. Whether the concept of bheda is tenable or not?
3. What is the ontological nature or bheda? Is it Darmisvarupa or Dharmibhinna?
4. Are the concepts of mithyabheda and aupadhikabheda tenable?
5. Is the very concept of mithya tenable?
Advaitins argue that since bheda is known by pratyaksa and anumana, bhedasrutis merely state what  is already known. Therefore, these are merely anuvadaka but not pramana in respect of bheda. This arguement is not acceptable to Dvaita. To know Jivesvarabheda, one has to know both Jiva and Isvara. Though the jiva is known by Pratyaksa, Isvara is not known either by Pratyaksa or by Anumana. The Anumana proposed by Nyaya to establish Isvara is also not known before one comes across Bhedasrutis. Therefore,  Bhedasrutis are not anuvadakas but the Pramana. Further, if bheda is established by Pratyaksa and Anumana, then abheda sruti that is opposed to this cannot be Pramana. Though ordinarily Sruti is superior to Pratyaksa and Anumana, when these are upajivya to sruti, these are superior. A Pramana that provides the subject is upajivya. In the present context for jivesvarabhedasruti the subject matter, viz., jiva and Isvara are provided by Pratyaksa and Anumana as contended by Advaitin himself. Therefore, these are Upajivya to Abhedasruti. Hence, Abhedasruti that is opposed to the bheda established by these cannot br Pramana. Bheda that is established by Pratyaksa and Anumana, when also stated in bhedasrutis establishes its validity more firmly. Therefore, the mention of bheda in bhedasrutis need not be dubbed as mere anuvada. The next question is whether the very concept of bheda is tenable. Advaitins argue that bheda, ie difference could be comprehended either as adjective or as substantive but these very positions depend upon the comprehension of difference. Similarly, the difference is comprehended having a reference to Dharmin ie, that which is differentiated from something and Pratiyogin that from which it is differentiated. But these two positions depend upon the comprehension of difference. Thus, comprehension of difference results in anyonyasraya i.e., reciprocal dependency. Hence, the concept of difference itself is not tenable. This objection raised by Advaitins against the concept of difference does not hold good. The ontological nature of the difference is that it is an internal attribute of the object concerned. It is padarthasvarupa that is
to say it is dharmisvarupa. When one observes an object, he observes it as  distinct from all others in a general way. Then, he observes it as distinct from this or that object which is referred to in the context. Therefore, there is no question of anyonyasraya, i.e. reciprocal dependency. In case the difference is not considered as an internal attribute of the object, then, when an object is observed its distinction from all other objects would not be  bserved. However, our experience is, when we see an object, we also realize that it is distinct from all other objects also. Therefore, the difference is an internal attribute of the object concerned, i.e. padarthasvarupa. The satyavada of bheda is not only cognised by pratyaksa and anumana but it is affirmed by Sruti more than once. Satyam bhida sathyam bhida satyam bhida is the emphatic statement of Sruti. This bheda is five-fold.
1. Between Jiva and Iswara
2. Between Jada and Iswara
3. Between Jiva and Jiva
4. Between Jada and Jiva
5. Between Jada and Jada
The difference between Jiva and Isvara continues even after liberation. This is made clear in the sruti passages.
From the above exposition of the concept of bheda it is clear that all aspects of the concept of bheda are clearly discussed in Visnutattvanirnaya. Anuvyakhyana discusses these aspects in greater detail. Bhedojjivana of Sri Vyasaraja especially discusses this concept. There is no Dvaita work wherein this concept of bheda is not discussed in some context or other.
INTERPRETATION OF ATAT TVAMASI
The most important itm discussed in Visnutattvanirnaya is the interpretation of key sruti passages. This is to show that the entire sruti supports Visnusarvottamatva and Jivesvarabheda but not Jivabrahmaikya. This statement is illustrated by showing the correct reading and interpretation of the passage Atat tvam asi. The nine illustrations given in the context speak of jivesvarabheda not jivabrahmaikya. The context of the teaching of Atat tvam asi is that svetaketu had developed the pride that he knew everything. He was to be told that he did not know the highest entity, i.e. Supreme God as distinct and superior to him. He also did not know that he was under the control of this Supreme God. In this context, no useful purpose would be served if he is told that he is identical with the God. This would increase his pride. Therefore, he is told Atat tvam asi, you are not the God. You are completely under his control.
Therefore, it is jivesvarabheda that is intended to be conveyed here. Ekavijnanena sarvijnana stated in this context does not indicate upadanopadeyabhava here but it is based on pradhanya and sadrsya, therefore, this does not convey jaganmithyatva.
INTERPRETATION OF AHAM BRAMHASMI
The sruti passages aham brahmasmi, yosau so aham, so aham asmi etc. speak about antaryamitva but not about Aikya ie abeda. In fact, aham, tvam, sah etc., are the names of the Supreme God and speak of him. Therefore, these srutis also do not support jivesvaraikya. The Srutis that are supposed to support Abheda also do not support it.
1. Pare avyaye sarve ekibhavanti Here ekibhava does not mean abheda but it means matyaikya and sthanaikya.
2. He who knows Brahman will attain greatness. This passage does not mean that he will attain identity with Brahman.
3. The sruti prapancho yadi vidyate etc. does not support jaganmithyatva but explains the five-fold differences.
4. The sruti na pretya sanjnasti does not mean after liberation only nirvisesachinmatra remains but it means the liberated will not have vrttijnana and the unliberated will not have the knowledge of the liberated.
5. The sruti na tu tad dvitiyam asti does not mean that there is no second entity but it only means that the different forms of the God are not different from each other.
6. The Sruti yatra tu asya sarvamatmyvabhut tat kena kam pasyet does not state that the liberated will not see, will not hear etc., and attains nirvisesachinmatra state. It is not a statement of the position in the liberated state. But it is prasangapadana. That is to say, it points out certain adverse consequences if the liberated state is described as nirvisesachinmatra state.
From the above discussion of the correct meaning of Srutis, it is clear that no Sruti supports Jivesvarabheda or jaganmithyatva.
THE DOCTRINE OF JAGAT SATYATVA
Visnutattvanirnaya re-enforces the concept of jagat satyatva by quoting a number of sruti passages.
THE DOCTRINE OF VISNUSARVOTTAMATVA
The central theme of Visnutattvanirnaya is to proclaim the supremacy of Lord Visnu. All other issues are only preparatory to the presentation of this final doctrine. This central doctrine is emphasised more than once in this text. Several srutis and Itihasa Purana passages are quoted to bring home this doctrine.
These passages bring out the following special charecteristics of Lord Visnu.
1. He is superior to both Ksara and Aksara. Aksara refers to Goddess Laksmi and Ksara refers to all other beings. God Visnu is superior to these. He is Purusottama, the Supreme.
2. He is conveyed by the entire sacred scriptures. His glory is the chief purport of the scriptures.
3. At the commencement of the creation, he alone existed and all others were created by him.
4. All names convey him only.
5. He is independent, One and Supreme.
6. He creates, sustains, destroys, regulates, gives knowledge, conceals, binds and liberates. All these flow from the Supreme Lord Hari.
7. He gives knowledge, liberation and bliss. He binds and liberates.
8. He is absolutely free from the drawbacks and inadequacies. He is independant and all others are entirely dependant on him.
9. All his attributes and actions are not distinct from him.
10. He cannot be obtained by mere discourses, by mere learning or intelect. Whomsoever the God chooses, he can obtain him. God reveals his nature to him. He who knows Lord Visnu as possessed of infinite attributes gets rid of the bondage and enjoys the bliss in God s presence.  These are only a few passages that bring out the glory of Lord Visnu. The main features of the Dvaita concept of Visnu the Supreme God are : 1. He is svatantra 2. He is gunapurna 3. He is nirdosa 4. He is sarvakarta and 5. He is sarvottama. These are amply brought out in Visnutattvanirnaya.
This concludes this brief presentation of an over-all picture of the text Visnutattvanirnaya.

The purpose of this text is to explain the philosophical meaning of Rgveda. For this purpose, Mahanamni hymns are selected. These hymns are called Mahanamni, because, the names of Indra etc., occuring in these hymns are really the names of the Great God Visnu. Infact every word, every mantra and every Sukta conveys Him only. All sacrifices are meant for Him only. The Chaturmukha Brahma, Rudra etc., gods perform the sacrifices for Him only. This is made clear in the very mangala verse of this work. Visnu is called Mahat, ie the Great, because, he has infinite number of qualities. This is contested in Advaita who consider him as Nirguna. Therefore, His gunapurnatva is established by quoting the relevant sruti passages. Then the question "How can the God be conveyed by the Veda, because, vedas always communicate something that is to be acted upon" is raised. It is claimed that all sentences communicate Karya only. The question is answered by pointing out that even Siddhavastu is conveyed by the sentences and therefore, there is no difficulty to convey Visnu by the Veda. After the above preliminary observations, the Mahanamni hymns are interpreted word by word. The import of the very first hymn is explained as under: "O, Lord of the Sacrifice! give us the knowledge to praise you, teach us the import of the traditionally handed down hymns. You are the Lord of the speech and you are the Lord of the knowledge. While giving the above import, the passages from other hymns are profusely quoted in support of the meaning given. For instance, to support the meaning given to the word Maghavan, as many as seven occurances of the word Magha and Maghavan in Rgveda are given. The method of fixing the meaning of a word in Rgveda by examining its occurances in other places of Rgveda in different contexts is supposed to be a modern method. However, Sri Madhvacharya had employed this method 700 years before in his Rgbhasya and Karmanirnaya. Ancient laxicons like sabdatatva are also quoted. Another interesting question raised while interpreting these hymns is the relative position of Vachanika artha and tatparya artha. So far as the Vedas are concerned, there is no Tatparyartha. It is always Vachanikartha. Even the Arthavadas have Vachanika artha. In Pouruseya statements, the Vachanikartha helps to infer the tatparyartha. Its validity depends upon the reliability of the speaker. Another interesting point is stated: all Vedic words are Yaugika words. When a word is stated as Rudha, it only indicates Yoga-visranti, ie stopping of the discovery of further yoga. There are many levels of Mukyarthas. The Supreme God is Paramamukhyartha of every word. All sacrifices and rituals should be performed with the devotion to the God and the detachment from worldly results. All sacrifices be offered at the feet of the God.