A recurring misunderstanding is that this school somehow diminishes Brahman by treating God as merely one being among many, or as an equal counterpart to the individual soul. In fact, it affirms a single supreme, independent reality—Viṣṇu or Nārāyaṇa—as the only truly independent principle, with all souls and all forms of matter entirely dependent upon that one Lord. The dualism it upholds is therefore not a dualism of equals, but a relationship of sovereign and subject, of independent and dependent. Closely related is the notion that individual souls are fully autonomous; rather, they are distinct, conscious, eternal entities whose very existence and functioning rest upon Brahman’s sustaining power.

Another common misconception is that this perspective denies any meaningful unity or intimacy between the soul and the divine, as if “difference” meant sheer separation or alienation. While it firmly maintains ontological distinction, it simultaneously emphasizes a deep relationship of dependence, devotion, and service: the soul is bound to God as servant to master, body to indwelling Lord, enjoying proximity and direct vision in liberation without ever becoming identical with God. Liberation is not rejected or rendered shallow; it is described as eternal blissful service and loving nearness to Brahman, free from suffering yet preserving individuality. Thus, “union” is understood as a devotional and experiential closeness rather than a merger of essences.

It is also easy to mistake this system for a crude, materialistic or Western-style mind–body dualism, or to see it as either purely intellectual on the one hand or merely emotional and devotional on the other. In reality, it is a highly systematic theistic realism, with a developed epistemology, metaphysics, and scriptural hermeneutics, even as it places bhakti—loving surrender to Viṣṇu—at the heart of spiritual life. Knowledge of the distinct natures of God, soul, and world is considered essential, yet that knowledge is meant to culminate in devotion rather than dry speculation. Far from being pessimistic, it holds that through genuine effort, moral responsibility, and above all divine grace, liberation is truly attainable.

Finally, Dvaita is often caricatured as a simple negation of non-dual schools or as a form of polytheism that multiplies independent deities. In fact, it presents a carefully ordered vision of reality structured by what it calls real differences—between God and souls, God and matter, soul and soul, and so on—yet all harmonized under the sovereignty of one supreme Lord. Other deities are not rival absolutes but dependent manifestations within this hierarchy. When approached on its own terms, this tradition emerges not as a reactionary stance, but as a nuanced affirmation of both real difference and profound, devotional connectedness to the one supreme Brahman.