Talk:Tattva

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Hinduism: Shaivism Mid‑importance

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Shaivism task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Introduction

Permission to use this article given by Magical Path.

See An Introduction to Tattvas for original article.

Combination of this article to the Tattvas 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]

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. :) RJH 19:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It now has neutrality and objectivity, particularly in the second half. It has been modified to be more encyclopedic. 117.231.194.101 (talk) 08:18, 25 September 2024 (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]

Brahma and Sarasvati are Jiva and Jivi Tattvas. Vishnu and Lakshmi are Vishnu and Lakshmi Tattvas. Shiva and Parvati are Shiva and Parvati Tattvas. All the materials in the universe are Mahat Tattva. 117.231.194.101 (talk) 08:40, 25 September 2024 (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]

All the other gods and goddesses mentioned above are in Jiva and Jivi Tattvas. 117.231.194.101 (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That means the Western system of Tattvas is more scientific than the Eastern system of Tattvas, they say that here. But, both of them are equally scientific and both of them are important to this article here always now itself. 2409:4072:38F:2816:A1F0:336D:6473:3BBC (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Hanuman Das 05:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 a deity” is hardly encyclopedic. The relevant sections should have been rewritten, not discarded. Freederick 18:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Yes. Gouranga(UK) 10:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pancha Tattva

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 to Mahābhūta . 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.--Redtigerxyz 08:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]