Talk:Tattva

[Untitled]
Permission to use this article given by Magical Path

See An Introduction to Tattvas for original article.

Combination of this article to Tattwas 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)

Apparently no one is commenting on this, so I am doing it anyways. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbols and Colours
This section is lacking neutrality and objectivity, particularly in the second half. It needs to be modified to be more encyclopedic. Thank you. :) &mdash; RJH 19:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Even Sri Brahma is a tattva. Along with him, Sri Lakshmi, Sri Saraswati, Sri Parvati, are tattvas. All the materials in the universe is also a Tattva. Sri Vishnu is a Tattva. Vishal Kandasamy (talk) 06:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Adityas Vasus Rudras, all gods are tattvas too. Vishal Kandasamy (talk) 06:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Bias
""""""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? Zachorious 04:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio
Well, the article was really terrible and hardly NPOV, 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, understands GFDL, 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 and unverifiable. &mdash;Hanuman Das 05:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is easy to just delete stuff, but the article as it stands now makes no sense; it is impossible to understand what is being talked about. The article starts with the etymology of the Sanskrit word, but it lacks a definition of the concept—what is a tattva?  The gibberish: “[tattva is an] aspect of reality conceived as an aspect of deity” is hardly encyclopedic.  The relevant sections should have been rewritten, not discarded.  Freederick 18:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree the article needs a better structure, and more clarity, but have removed the classical element box as to have it gives the impression that tattva means 'physical element' which is not really the case. It's a hard one to translate exactly - it is often used to describe 'a truth' or to classify esoteric elements of belief systems which is far more broad a meaning than covering the simple base elements etc... Ys, Gouranga(UK) 10:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Panch Tattva
This Article does not discuss anything about what generally is perceived as Tattva - the Panch Tattva or Panch Mahabhoot - Agni, Vayu, Jal, Bhumi and Aakash. The article talks about definitions and associations of Tavva i have never heard. Also the Panch Tattva link leads to Vaishanav association with it, rather than the general association with the classical elements. It however directs you to Mahābhūta. but there again the Mahābhūta article says itz a Buddhist concept with only 4 elements. Shouldn't the Hindu Concept of Pachatattva 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.--Redtigerxyz 08:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How about creating a new article under Pancha Mahabhuta? Other Hinduism based links could then go to there, rather than the Mahabhuta page? Gouranga(UK) 10:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)