Talk:Jiva

soul

sorry, I don't mean to be difficult, but christians by no means have exclusive domain to the word soul. Sam Spade 04:58, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say they did, although one could argue that the word has strong Abrahamic connotations. What bothers me about your wording is that it seems to imply that "soul" would be an acceptable translation for "jiva". None of the English-speaking Hindus or Jains I know would use the word "soul" other than to refer to the western concept of soul, which is distinct from the vedic concept of jiva. Mkweise 10:36, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

JIVA

What are they similarities and differences betweem the concept of jiva and of atman? Are they the same or just related?

Atma is cosmic universal soul, when Atma is contained within a physical body it is called Jiva, or invidual soul. --Kbob (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

When I read the article, I felt more confused than enlightened, because the above statement:

"Atma is cosmic universal soul, when Atma is contained within a physical body it is called Jiva, or invidual soul."

is exactly what I red about the distinction Brahma / Atman, paraphrasing:

Brahma is the cosmic universal soul, whereas Atman is the individual soul.

I think the article should make a distinction between all three concepts. Kathedra87 (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Atman and Jiva

This article appears to have been written (conscientiously, to be sure) by someone (probably with a backround in Christian theology) to whom the term being defined, and the relevantly related terms, are foreign, alien, or both.

Atman is the immortal essence of the living being. Jiva is a soul-mind complex. The idea is that presently the soul is in a knot with the mind, it being the latter which contains our memories, desires and aversions and so forth (the soul i.e. Atman being pure, untaintable), in harmony with which we are experiencing separation from God (Brahman).

Speaking of Atman is speaking of the reality of the self; speaking of Jiva is speaking of the plight of the soul as it sojourns alone in strange worlds. The similarity between the terms is superficial. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rflacco (talk • contribs) 03:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

i completely agree with you...i'm reading 'masks of god' by joseph campbell, written only 50 years ago and his definition of jiva is completely different, more having to do with the mischievous ego one must rid himself of to attain true consciousness. has the term changed so much over this period of time? im confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.14.48 (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Campbell confuses jiva with ahankara. In Bhagavad gita jiva is precisely defined as individual, eternal, atomic, etc. entity beyond mind (manas) and intelligence (buddhi) which are of lower, material (apara) nature prakrti. Jan 90.177.206.31 (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Translating vs. Communication

Many Vedantic and even Sufi words have no perfect western counterpart. For instance the western word "God" with all its Abrahamic connnotations, falls very far from approximating Shankara's "Brahman." However, we are in a new era where east and west are trading notes so to speak, and some in the west are keen to try to grasp eastern philosophy. To make this easier it is useful to reference a western term that at least approximates the eastern usage of another term -- comes closest. I think the article is currently clear that "soul" and "jiva" or "atma" are by no way exact correlaries, but certainly approximately analogous. Meher Baba was one person who tried very hard to create a trio-lexicon that could be useful for encouraging cross-overs in communication of esoteric mystical philosophy and incite discussion across traditions. See a useful discussion of this subject at Talk:Godman (disambiguation)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Jiva (Hinduism and Jainism) → Jiva —

• Over redirect, back to original name. This is the primary meaning of "Jiva", and the move was only "for disambiguation", which is better handled with a hatnote. This is not controversial. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• But Jiva (disambiguation) now has 3 meanings. Is Jiva (Hinduism and Jainism) a dominant meaning? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes. One is part of the name of a person (who will never be searched for as "Jiva"), the other is a variant/misspelling of a technical term in a system of trigonometry no longer used. Besides, the move only happened recently. See e.g. Google. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support reversion of undiscussed move. This is the only article actually titled Jiva. A hatnote to a dab page is more than sufficient. Station1 (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

this animate world is made up of jivas and the inanimate world is constituted of matter

"Sri Brahma-samhita 5.62

aham hi visvasya caracarasya bijam pradhanam prakritih pumams ca mayahitam teja idam bibharshi vidhe vidhehi tvam atho jaganti SYNONYMS

aham -- I; hi -- certainly; visvasya -- of the world; cara-acarasya -- of animate and inanimate objects; bijam -- the seed; pradhanam -- the substance of matter; prakritih -- the material cause; puman -- the purusha; ca -- and; maya -- by Me; ahitam -- conferred; tejah -- fiery energy; idam -- this; bibharshi -- you bear; vidhe -- O Brahma; vidhehi -- regulate; tvam -- you; atha u -- now; jaganti -- the worlds. TRANSLATION

"Listen, O Vidhi, I am the seed, i.e., the fundamental principle, of this world of animate and inanimate objects. I am pradhana [the substance of matter], I am prakriti [material cause] and I am purusha [efficient cause]. This fiery energy that belongs specially to the Brahman, that inheres in you, has also been conferred by Me. It is by bearing this fiery energy that you regulate this phenomenal world of animate and inanimate objects." PURPORT

Certain thinkers conclude that the nondifferentiated Brahman is the ultimate entity and by undergoing self-delusion (vivarta) exhibits the consciousness of differentiation; or, the limiting principle itself (Maya), when it is limited, is the phenomenal world and is itself the Brahman, in its unlimited position; or, the Brahman is the substance and this phenomenal world is the reflection; or, everything is an illusion of the jiva. Some think that Godhead is evidently a separate entity. Jiva is another different entity. and the phenomenal world, although it is a singular principle, exists separately as an eternally independent entity; or, Godhead, is the substantive entity and all other entities, as cit and a-cit attributes, are one in principle. Some suppose that by the force of inconceivable potency sometimes the monistic and sometimes the dualistic principle is realized as the truth. Some again arrive at the conclusion that the theory of the nondual minus all potency is meaningless; whence the Brahman is the one eternally unalloyed entity vested with the pure potency. These speculations have originated from Veda relying on the support of the Vedanta-sutra. In these speculations although there is no truth that holds good in all positions, there is yet a certain measure of truth. Not to speak of the anti-Vedic speculations Sankhya, Patanjala, Nyaya and Vaiseshika, nor even of Purva-mimamsa which is fond of exclusive fruitive activity in conformity with the teaching of one portion of the Veda, the bodies of opinions detailed above have also come into existence by relying outwardly on the Vedanta itself. By discarding all these speculations, you and your bona fide community should adopt the ultimate principle identical with the doctrine of acintya-bhedabheda (inconceivable simultaneous distinction and nondifference). This will make you eligible for being a true devotee. The basic principle is that this animate world is made up of jivas and the inanimate world is constituted of matter. Of these all the jivas have been manifested by My supreme (para) potency and this phenomenal world has been manifested by My secondary (apara) potency. I am the cause of all causes. In other words, I regulate all of them by the power of My will although I am not a different entity from the marginal and material (tatastha and acit) potencies. By the transformation of those distinct potencies pradhana (substantive material principle), prakriti (material cause) and purusha (efficient cause) have been produced. Hence although as regards the subjective nature of all potency I am pradhana, prakriti and purusha, yet as the possessor of power I am eternally distinct from all those potencies. This simultaneous distinction and nondifference has also sprung from My inconceivable power. So let the attainment of love for Krishna by the practice of pure devotion through the knowledge of their mutual true relationship that subsists between the jiva, the jada (matter) and Krishna based on the principle of inconceivable simultaneous distinction and non-difference, be My instruction for being handed down in the order of spiritual preceptional succession in your community (Sri Brahma-sampradaya)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.128.162 (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jiva. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070101214333/http://vedabase.net/j/jiva to http://www.vedabase.net/j/jiva

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Organization of the Hinduism Section

Editor2020 - thank you for the additional clean-up on the article thus far. I've been thinking about the structure of the article overall and a couple things come to mind, particularly. First, the Vedant section should be a sub-section under Hinduism as it is a branch of Hinduism. Second, which may require a bit more work and consensus from other editors, a Jiva (Jainism) page already exists, could we re-name and edit this page to be Jiva (Hinduism) page? Thank you! Apollo1203 (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

If you wish. Editor2020 (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Jivatman

Should "Jivatman" be mentioned as an alternative or more precise name? Also, it would be helpful if a hatnote distinguished the three types was added to all three pages since they are related: Atman, Paramatman and Jivatman. Jroberson108 (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

"Similarities with other Schools" section

Hi @Asteramellus

I noticed you added a new section for similarities with other schools. I’m curious whether the Nyaya school could also fit in here. The school shares similar philosophies with other schools in the article such as:

1. The jiva being subjected to the fruits of its previous positive & negative deeds (karma)
2. The jiva undergoes reincarnation
3. The jiva is eternal

However there are also some key differences. While the Vedanta schools believe the jiva to be the source of consciousness, Nyaya schools believe that consciousness is only an attribute due to association with a mind. Nyaya schools also believe liberation to be a complete absence of suffering, rather than a state of bliss and happiness.

I think it may be worth adding information about this school to the section.

Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks,

Starlights99 (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes definitely - sorry I added a new section since I didn't find any specific place to add for Samkhya and hoping to expand this new section in future. I have not read much about nyaya yet, so I’ll be of little help there currently. I am reading more about Samkhya and Vedanta sub-schools - I came across couple of new books that I am currently reading and hoping to contribute from those books also. Asteramellus (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

Okay thanks. I've started looking into Nyaya and will add some further information to develop the section. I think it would be useful to provide additional context on the view of the jiva in different schools.

Thanks,

Starlights99 (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)