|WikiProject Hinduism / Philosophy / Vaishnavism||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class)|
I came across an article in the 'Kalyana Kalpataru' which tried to reconcile dvaita and visishta opinions with advaita by actually terming them dvaitadvaita and visishtadvita respectively. Briefly put, calling them the two-in-one and three-in-one theories respectively. So both the material and the cause is god, but the conditioned or the individual soul is 'smaller' and cannot become the 'larger' (but can merge with it).
"In which a response for this would be, that we have not realised the non-duality of our soul and brahman. This realisation comes upon true knowledge, Madhva like any other human may have not realised the non-duality of reality and developed a philsophy or rather a doctrine from his interpretations."
I don't understand this, could someone please reword? Poweroid 18:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: "Dvaita philosophy has some glaring drawbacks"
To Hnaluru and the anon user who keeps adding the text beginning with: "Dvaita philosophy has some glaring drawbacks" - please see the following Wikipedia guideline page What Wikipedia is Not. This article is not a place to add personal opinions on Dvaita philosophy - it is an encyclopedic entry. What you added where point of view statements, not neutral arguments. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 15:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
"The Absolute Truth is both subject and object, and there is no qualitative difference there. Therefore, Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan are qualitatively one and the same. The same substance is realized as impersonal Brahman by the students of the Upanishads, as localized Paramatma by the Hiranyagarbhas or the yogis, and as Bhagavan by the devotees. In other words, Bhagavan, or the Personality of Godhead, is the last word of the Absolute Truth. Paramatma is the partial representation of the Personality of Godhead, and impersonal Brahman is the glowing effulgence of the Personality of Godhead, as the sun rays are to the sun-god. Less intelligent students of either of the above schools sometimes argue in favor of their own respective realization, but those who are perfect seers of the Absolute Truth know well that the above three features of the one Absolute Truth are different perspective views seen from different angles of vision."
To GourangaUK and whosoever that are removing the Drawbacks section,
I have added the above Drawbacks section. If you are the person who added up the above italicized substance, pls have a thorough reading of your own quotation. As all the rivers flow into the ocean, the supreme spirit engulfs all the materialistic substances in the universe. The above paragraph inherently implies the same philosophy. "...ONE absolute truth are different perspective...". One absolute truth is what preached by "A"-Dvaita. This also proposes that the hierarchies as propogated by the Dvaita philosophy are redundant. They do ot exist. If it is the one and only Brahman, why there is a lesser part of it subordinating to the greater other.
This is the TRUTH that there are no differences between Gods - NO Tharathamya
I just wanted to debate your idea of Tharathamya and not vandalise this article. If you wish not to acknowledge this fact, that's fine but truth is truth and this is mentioned in the Vedas. - "Aham Brahmasmi - (I am that supreme Brahman) - Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanishad, Yajur Veda" and this is salvation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
- The quotation given in italics above ("The Absolute Truth is both subject and object...") gives the opinion that both Dvaita and Advaita viewpoints are 'correct' to an extent as they describe different facets of the same Absolute Truth. It is not supporting the Advaita viewpoint in the sense you understood it to be.
- To argue one point of view as the only 'TRUTH' is a personal opinion, and ultimately Wikipedia is not designed for the purpose of adding personal opinions. I appreciate your desire to add to this article, however please be sure to read please the Wikipedia guideline page What Wikipedia is Not in order to understand why your edits keep being reverted. Regards, ys, Gouranga(UK) 10:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
"Whereas Adviata preaches that Atman and Brahman are one and the same, which is not evident to the atman till he comes out of a so-called illusion, Madhvacharya puts forward the truth as Brahman (Vishnu) and Atman (soul) to be eternally different, with God always the most superior one."
Isn't this POV? Contrast the terms used to describe the Advaita ("so-called illusion") and the Dvaita ("truth") positions. Couldn't this be phrased in a more even fashion?
Quotes in Lead?
Define terms used for first time? (re: 'jaati')
There was a term in this article that meant nothing to me.. 'jaati'. I searched wikipedia in the hopes that I could link to an existing article but there wasn't one as far as I could tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Comparison of Dvaita with Christianity
Can somebody please explain the purpose of this sub section? Two points have been given to support this claim 1. Both have Prophets who are worshipped as "Son Of God" 2. Much little has been written about their Lives.
Jesus is claimed to be the "Son of God". Madhwacharya is said to be the son of Vaayu. He is not told to be the son of Brahman/Narayana/Sri Hari. According to Madhwa phylosophy Vaayu is subordinate to Hari. How is this statement justified?
The second argument is too weak to support the above claim. Many founders of religion do not have a well documented history of themselves. What makes it a unique similarity? Requesting permission to delete this section.--Gthorvey (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)