Talk:Ātman (Hinduism)

message: This article has an inacuracy. Atman is not "synonymous" with Brahman. Rather, Adi Shankara arrives at the conclusion that in fact atman is Brahman -- that atman is one with and absolutely identical with Brahman. But this does not mean the words are mere synomyms. If they were simply synomyms then this would not have required his arguments. In western style language atman is what we would call the soul or self, the individual witness. But Brahman is the Over-soul, the unified indivisible eternal Self. Adi Shankara arrives at the discovery that the two are one and the same. But they are not simply symantic synomyms. Synomyms are words that are simply interchcangable in any sentence like "rich" and "wealthy." How to express this slight shade of explanation will be difficult and I may attempt it at some later date unless someone else sees how to do so. 
Chris 12:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has since been rectified. Ys, GourangaUK 13:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! Chris 03:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not synonyms

message: Just a reminder to all that this talk page, and Wikipedia in general, is not a forum for general discussion of this subject. Discussion here is specifically for improvement of the article Atman, its structure and references.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.204.44 (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a forum

message: It seems this page tries to justify how Dvaita is better than Advaita?
you quote from the Srimad Bhagavatam, hardly much from other sources...
Stick to the topic!Domsta333 (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  sounds like... 

message: Is there any link between the atlas bone supporting your head, atman in your head - and then of course atlantis being the pineal gland submerged by brain fluid?
220.101.166.244 (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atlas 

message: The Samkhya and Yoga section of the article refers to Vedic worldview as dualistic. While, Vedic worldview has been called Pantheistic, Panentheistic and even Agnostic calling it dualistic is novel way of describing it. Since, such a description is rare, further citation should be provided (other than the InfoRefuge one) or the word "dualistic" should be removed from the sentence.CorrectKnowledge (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dualistic Vedic world view 

message: I removed an image from the lead section as it did not appear to be related to the topic. If an image is added there, please make sure it is helpful to the topic and its relation to the topic is made clear to the reader. Hoverfish Talk 17:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: The article states that:
Buddhism has defined nirvana as that blissful state when a person realizes that he or she has "no self, no soul".
This seems far too simplistic. I am well aware that there are Buddhists who think like this, and of course there is the obligatory reference, which seems satisfactory enough, but it has been my experience that those knowledgeable about the issue of the Self in Buddhism will often take a much more nuanced view than the one provided here.
Perhaps someone with more expertise could clarify?
169.226.221.49 (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @169.226.221.49: We need to stick to summarizing scholarly sources, per wiki content policies. I have added a few more sources and embedded quotes, to the many that the article already had. If you have a reliable scholarly source that explains the "nuanced view" of the Self, please share. We must ignore experience/ wisdom/ prejudice/ opinion – those may be better for a blog, not an encyclopedia article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Self 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ātman (Hinduism). 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/20120217121958/http://vedabase.net/sb/3/28/41/en to http://vedabase.net/sb/3/28/41/en
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) 17:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The term Atma means breath and should be translated as Life Breath or Life Odem. It could in no way depict the soul of a beeing which is called Kshetrajna. It is also not the individual spirit of a being which is called non-Atman or Jiva (Jivatma) which is the active force of a being while Atma is described as inactive and only witnessing which connects it with Karma. The Jiva (individual spirit) is a product of the incorporated Atma at the 1st birth of a being. Both Atma and the Jiva are situated in the heart, while Kshetrajna is situated in the blood. The heart keeps the blood flowing and thus the body becomes living.--80.133.253.60 (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atma is not the self or soul 

message: Per my readings on Swaminarayan Theology I understand that their belief on the Jiva/Atman differs from other Vedant schools (advait, dvait, etc). In the Vedant paragraph, the beliefs associated with Dvait, Advait, Vishishtadvaita and Bheda Abheda are briefly mentioned. I am curious as to why you reverted this paragraph? ping Joshua Jonathan
Apollo1203 (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for starting a thread. WP:UNDUE: how significant is this point of view? We'll see what others think of it. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Akshar-Purushottam Darshan 

message: Three things:
* I converted Shephard (1991) and Shepherd (1991) to Shepard (1991) and changed the URL to point to GBooks instead of encyclopdia.com (which didn't appear to be hosting the intended source).  I'd appreciate if somebody with knowledge of the source material could check that these edits were correct.
* I imported this missing source information from Javanaud (2013) from :Buddhism. Again, I would appreciate if an editor with knowledge of the field could check that I got the correct source and correct if necessary.
* (Least important) The article currently uses a mix of CS1 ( and friends) and CS2 () templates.  I am happy to do the work of converting to use one or the other, but would like a consensus here as to which is best before I start.
Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 08:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look into the sources. regarding the templates, I prefer "Citation," but that's because that's what I'm used to. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nobody else has commented and it's been a week, I've gone with .  Best, Wham2001 (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: there should be an atman article for buddhism, not only just hinduism, since these form separate concepts in different dharmic Indian religions. Lord saturnus (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See :Ātman (Buddhism). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  separate subject confused.