Re: Dvaita and Advaita: A Reconciliation

In article <3ti2tp$43t@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, Shrisha Rao <shrisha@lcl.cmu.edu> says:

>>   I agree there is a difference between nirguNa and saguNa brahman, but
>>  there is no question of who is the superior of the two. They are one
>>  and the same. Hari is easily recognized to be the saguNa brahman. He 

>This is a patent contradiction. You agree that there is a difference, and 
>in the same paragraph, say that they are one and the same. It is worth 
>your while to decide which *one* of these mutually incompatible positions 
>you want to hold.

	Pardon me if I am butting into this debate, but it appears
	to me that he is espousing the only Vedanta view that cannot
	be assailed by it's own statements, acintya-bhedabheda-tattva.
	We shouldn't be overeager to try to artificailly stuff the 
	Supreme Brahman into the convenient paradigm of our logic; He
	has no obligation to be so stuffed. The conceptions of dvaita
	and advaita are not necessarily ontologically incompatible; 
	rather our own minds may be incompatible with their 
	reconciliation. However, what we can see is that we are one 
	in essence, yet different in volume and potency, like a drop from
	the ocean which contains absolutely nothing other than ocean 
	water, sans the ocean volume and its potential power.

	Secondly, I can't agree that Sri Hari is saguna-brahman. How
	would both of you respond if I said that He is in fact the 
	nirguna brahman?