Madhwa's methods have been characterized as

"often Sri Madhva's arguments rely on nuances and ingenious usage of grammar, often lending unusual meanings to very familiar and straightforward words."

the most noteworthy case being:


Tat Tvam Asi (Devanagari: तत्त्वमसि, Vedic: tát túvam ási), a Sanskrit phrase, translated variously as "Thou art that," (That thou art, That art thou, You are that, or That you are, or You're it) is one of the Mahāvākyas (Grand Pronouncements) in Vedantic Sanatana Dharma. It originally occurs in the Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7,[1] in the dialogue between Uddalaka and his son Śvetaketu; it appears at the end of a section, and is repeated at the end of the subsequent sections as a refrain. The meaning of this saying is that the Self - in its original, pure, primordial state - is wholly or partially identifiable or identical with the Ultimate Reality that is the ground and origin of all phenomena.

According to Madhwa:

“Sa atmaa-tat tvam asi” in Sanskrit is actually “Sa atma-atat tvam asi” or “Atma (soul), thou art, thou art not God”.

What are some examples of criticism of Madhwa's scripture-interpretations, not necessarily on sectarian grounds?

note: this question has been edited and does not focus solely on Mahavakyas, and is clearly not a duplicate of this

What are the exact interpretations of four Mahavakyas by Dvaita, Vishishtadvaita and Advaita?



You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .