Talk:Tattva
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Permission to use this article given byMagical Path.
SeeAn Introduction to Tattvas for original article.
Even though technically there is a difference between Western and Eastern traditions, I think that these two articles should be combined somehow. --Rmcnew (talk)17:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently no one is commenting on this, so I am doing it anyways. --Rmcnew (talk)19:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This section is lacking neutrality and objectivity, particularly in the second half. It needs to be modified to be more encyclopedic. Thank you. :)RJH19:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even Brahma is a Tattva. Along with him, Lakshmi, Sarasvati, Parvati, are Tattvas. All the materials in the universe is also a Tattva. Vishnu is a Tattva and Shiva is a Tattva.Vishal Kandasamy (talk)06:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adityas, Vasus, Rudras, Maruts, Vishvadevas, all the total other gods and all the total entire goddesses in Hinduism are Tattvas too.Vishal Kandasamy (talk)06:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Compared with the Tattvas, the Enochian system has been more intellectualised. This seems only natural in that (in psychological terms) the Western tradition is one of "thinking" and the Eastern tradition is one of "feeling".
What the heck is that supossed to mean?Zachorious04:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article was really terrible and hardlyNPOV, but it was also a copyvio, so I've removed most of it. I know that it says on the talk page that permission is given, but how do we know that is the author, etc. That is not the process for giving permission, WP has stricter policies about that to ensure that it is actually the author who is giving permission, understandsGFDL, etc. In any case, the source article is not encyclopedic. I don't think that it is a good idea to use it as the basis for the WP article at all. It is both biased andunverifiable.Hanuman Das05:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not discuss anything about what generally is perceived as Tattva - the Pancha Tattva or Pancha Mahabhuta - Agni, Vayu, Apas, Bhumi, Akasha. The article talks about definitions and associations of Tattva i have never heard. Also the Pancha Tattva link leads to Vaishnava association with it , rather than the general association with the classical elements. It however directs you toMahābhūta . but there again the Mahābhūta article says it's a Buddhist concept with only 4 elements and one fifth derived element. Shouldn't the Hindu concept of Pancha Tattva be discussed here. i found the older editions of the article had refs to the classical elements which were removed. Can the editors of this article please clarify.--Redtigerxyz08:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
