Talk:Jiva

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[soul]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Atman and Jiva

message: "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)
thread_title: this animate world is made up of [[jiva]]s and the inanimate world is constituted of matter

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: If you wish. Editor2020 (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization of the Hinduism Section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jivatman