> completely irrelevant to the scholars' interpretation which may have been correct in its own way It wasn't correct in the larger context. Which is why this l

> completely irrelevant to the scholars' interpretation which may have been correct in its own way It wasn't correct in the larger context. Which is why this line is important: "Sri Madhva accepted their meaning & added that the Vedas carried three meaning & the Mahabharata had ten & each word of Vishnu Sahasranama a hundred meanings (verse 4)." As their meaning contradicted his meaning they questioned him as to how his meaning is right. Madhva instead says that he accepts the meaning they provided too (only in that context) but in the larger context it fails as the Vedas carry 3 meanings, Mahabharata 10 and each word of Vishnu Sahashranama a 100 meanings. For example, if I am using binoculars to focus on the eye of a bird and call that only an eye and argue that it is not anything else, I am being myopic. Yes it is an "eye" but the larger context is more important: it is "eye" of what? A bird. In this situation, Madhva tells them that though their meaning is correct (it is an "eye"), they are interpreting that particular verse in a wrong manner when it comes to the larger context (that they have completely ignored the bird in the process). Then he goes on to say that, because of that reason alone, the meaning they provided does not fit the larger context (though in isolation their meaning is correct). Why the larger context is important? Because, of the preceding line: "Though the scholars admired his scholarship at heart, outwardly they said that it meant something else & gave their own meaning (Verse 3)". So the question here is not about whether the verse interpretation by itself was right/wrong (which Madhva himself accepts it is right) but that interpretation did not fit the larger context (and hence it becomes wrong). It is more intricate than just straightforward interpretation. That is all that is being conveyed here.