Talk:Vishishtadvaita

message: Please note that Panentheism is a belief that God resides in all and everything resides in God.
	
Monotheism is more related to religion.
	
Panentheism is related to philosophy. 
	
Philosopher4 11:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vishishtadvaita: Panentheism & Monotheism 

message: i don't get why it is in some places written with a capital "a," and not in others. to my mind, it is best written as "vishishtadvaita." at least, if you really are gonna write it with a capital "a," write it that way everywhere (to everyone that feels concerned). /2 cents Twipley (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It has to be written as viSishtAdvaitam if one were to write it in the ITRANS format for writing Indic text. In ITRANS, a longer syllable is denoted this way (an "aa" or "A"). The need for a longer syllable of "a" being the word viSishtAdvaitam is a union of two words viSishta and advaitam. According to Sanskrit Grammar when two words unite, if the first ends with a short vowel and the second word starts with a short vowel as well, the two short vowels combine to form a single longer vowel that corresponds to them.
Thus viSishta advaitam in one word would become viSishtAdvaitam (or) viSishtaadvaitam depending on the writing format. As for visishtadvaitam, the lack of a longer vowel there would mean the word would become viSishta dvaitam which in essence means "Qualified Dualism" as opposed to "Qualified Non-Dualism" which the school actually states. Hope it clarifies things. Sriram Murali (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  VishishtAdvaita vs Vishishtadvaita 

message: This is a very detailed and complex article and given that it is well written - yet on the other hand it could do with more specific quotations from scripture and gurus and in-line citations from modern commentators.
There is a great deal of breaking down into various schools of though and comparisons between them which makes it hard to get an overall grasp balanced with enough detail. I'd like to have a more concise article with spin-off articles on the separate schools. I approached this article with a determination to learn more about the subject but found it hard to see the wood for the trees.Steve M Kane (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break the detail on different schools etc down into several articles? 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://sriramanujar.tripod.com/tVsv.html (there is no doubt this is the source as it was cited when the content was pasted here). Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: The article is quite confusing when it comes to explaining the "qualified" in "Qualified non-dualism". It concludes by stating that God, Soul and the Universe are the trinity. This is the non-dualist part. Next it states that matter (achit) and the souls are the attributes to a substance. This is the "qualified" portion. What does this mean?
Further in the Ethics section, the article states that, 
"Individual Souls retain their separate identities even after moksha. They live in Fellowship with God either serving Him or meditating on Him. The philosophy of this school is SriVaishnavism, a branch of Vaishnavism."
If Souls are distinct (from God) even after moksha then how is this different from dualistic philosophies like Dvaita?
And where does "Sri" as in SriVaishnavism fit in all this? Sri is defined as the medium for salvation. If she is distinct from Vishnu, then is she another soul? Elsewhere it is written Sri is an avatar of Lakshmi. According to SriVaishnavism article, Sri is inseparable from Vishnu. Does this mean Sri is a soul distinct from Vishnu but is inseparable because she has already attained moksha or liberation? Does this also mean that the laws of Karma do not apply to Sri as she has already attained moksha (as Lakshmi is generally said to be waiting on Vishnu in Vaikuntha), or do they apply?
Care to explain, anyone?
Nittawinoda (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Qualified" in "Qualified non-dualism" is convoluted 

message: I am researching on schools/sub-schools of Vedic philosophy and saw this tradition in the section for Traditions following Vishishtadvaita. Anyone has more information on this tradition? Any references or external links that I can read more on? I tried to look, but was not able to find any good sources. Asteramellus (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dāmodariya Vaiśņava sampraday of Assam 

message: It is the vlogger real name of rounak is rounak Narula the age of rounak Narula is 13 .the content of rounak is friend vlog family vlog
This is third channel, second channel is terminated and first channel password is forgot...support this channel 103.149.160.182 (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rounak vlog rv 

message: Is this tag needed? It has been on this article since March 2017. As Vishistadvaita is part of a religion (Hinduism), I think it's acceptable for the article to use "texts from within a religion or faith system", and I don't see it as necessary for there to also be sources that critically analyse it? This doesn't seem to be the norm in religion articles. This tag is not on, for example, the article Vedanta which doesn't include a criticisms section nor does it seem to refer to any criticisms within the article. I'd suggest that a page providing information about a religion and its beliefs is primarily intended to be for information about that religion. If there is significant debate and criticisms they are often in a separate article, e.g. Criticism of Christianity. Snowpeek (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary sources tag