Guest guest Posted June 24, 2000 Report Share Posted June 24, 2000 Jada-jiva-bheda, or on differentiation between matter and self ----------------------------- By JanJM, June 2000 "Indra, king of the devas, and Virochana, king of the demons, once approached Brahma to learn knowledge of the atma or self. To test their intelligence, Brahma taught them that the self is the image seen in a mirror or a pan of water. The foolish Virochana happily returned to his kingdom and was hailed as guru by the demons, who eagerly embraced this worthless doctrine. Indra, unsatisfied, had second thoughts. He returned to Brahma and received the true knowledge of the self as eternal atma." (Chandogya Upanisad, chap. 8) * Introduction Those who came in touch with Vaisnava scriptures, especially the books of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, know terms like jiva and atma very well. Their definition is clear because the whole Vedic philosophy needs a solid basis. But when these Sanskrit terms are translated into Western (or other) languages there is suddenly a problem. Usually used equivalents - "soul" or "spirit" - are too vague to carry their precise meaning. I have become aware of this problem during my editorial work with the translations of Prabhupada's books. It has also been my experience that even many of those who are interested in Eastern philosophies and religions do not understand the difference between the jiva and her subtle (astral) or even gross physical body. I am convinced this has a lot to do with language. Reader of Prabhupada's books will sooner or later reach the proper understanding but this time could be much shorter provided there is a clear definition of terms in target languages. This article shows that the root of this problem exists already in Judeo-Christian philosophies, the basis of Western society. Although the original religious paradigm slowly dissipates due to secularization, the use of these terms continues even though their meaning is even less known today than 200+ years ago. * Importance of differentiation Great acarya Madhva (12th century) in his Dvaita Vedanta philosophy, the antipode of Advaita Vedanta of Shankara, defines five essential differences among three irreducible entities: jiva (individual living being), ishvara (supreme living being, Vishnu, God) and jada (insentient substance, matter): - jiva-ishvara-bheda, or difference between the jiva and Vishnu; - jada-ishvara-bheda, or difference between the insentient and Vishnu; - mitha-jiva-bheda, or difference between any two jivas; - jada-jiva-bheda, or difference between insentient and jiva; and - mitha-jada-bheda, or difference between any two insentients. Here, "insentient" is used to refer to _all_ matter, including so-called "living bodies", and is also used to refer to such other insentients as space, energy, linguistic or mathematical entities and their symbols, etc. The understanding of these five differences is seemingly trivial, but upon careful consideration, one sees that to properly understand them, one needs to know the significant properties of every kind of entity in the whole universe! Thus, such understanding is not easily gained, and it is said that all misery and unhappiness is due to one's lack of understanding of one or more of these differences. The grief one experiences due to loss of beauty, strength, vitality, the passing of a loved one, etc., is due to the false identification of the insentient and ever-changing body with the sentient, immutable jiva. One who correctly perceives all five differences is said to have attained knowledge and to be fit for liberation. * West: unclear philosophy influencing language Soul (American Heritage Dictionary): 1. The animating and vital principle in human beings, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity. 2. The spiritual nature of human beings, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state. 3. The disembodied spirit of a dead human being; a shade. Although these definitions may serve general purposes, they do not help to differentiate between material (subtle body) and immaterial (jiva). The problem of lacking precise definitions can be traced back to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Klaus Klostermaier devotes a whole article to this topic (see Literature) but already in the beginning he mentions a capitulation of Christian philosophy while facing the problem of soul's identity: "There is not a single statement regarding the nature and destiny of the soul that would be accepted by all Christian denominations. The doctrinal development in the various Christian denominations, and the disinterest shown by many contemporary Christians in any formulations of 'metaphysical doctrines' has reached a point where it is pretty meaningless to speak of a 'Christian position' on questions like the soul and its destiny." Then he gives an overview of main terms: "Soul (Latin: anima) is the translation of the Biblical nephesh and psyche, and etymologically both contain the idea of breath, blowing, drawing breath. Sometimes psyche is used simply as a synonym for life, or the principle of life, (Matt. 2:20; 10:28; 10:39; John 10:11) or for 'living being' - either animal or man; (1 Cor. 15:45; Rom. 13:1) in other places it means the principle which is opposed to the body, (1 Pet. 2:11) which is immortal and which is man's most valuable 'part': 'What does it profit you if you gain the whole world and lose your soul? What can you give in exchange for your soul?' (Matt. 16:26) And: 'There is no need to fear those who kill the body but have no means of killing the soul; fear him more, who has the power to ruin body and soul in hell. (Matt. 10:28) [Connection to breath as well as mention of ruining soul in hell (only matter can be destroyed, or rather transformed) suggest that this refers to prana.] "Spirit (Hebrew: ruah; Greek: pneuma; Latin: spiritus) is used often in the Bible in different senses. Sometimes it is a synonym for life, soul or living being, people. (Heb. 12:23) Occasionally it stands for the seat of feelings, thoughts, intentions. Sometimes pneumata (spirits) describes the deceased ones. (Rom. 8:4-13) With Paul we find very often spirit as the opposite to 'flesh' (sarx). Spirit stands for union with God, and thus also the body of the redeemed ones (as referred to here, the body of the risen Christ) is 'spirit', whereas the whole existence of the sinner, who is 'far from God', is 'flesh'. (1 Cor. 6:16) Spirit is the divine power which justifies and sanctifies; flesh is the weakness in which sin is dwelling and thriving. This 'spirit' is the 'spirit of Christ' - the faithful become 'One spirit with Christ'. [Ruah, or "breath of life"; pneuma; prana, or "life-force"; ki (Japanese); cchi (Chinese) or mana (Polynesian) are all synonyms for the vital energy that keeps the body alive and maintains good health. Deceased persons have an airy, or pranic, body.] "Spirit (Lat. spiritus, spirare, "to breathe"; Gk. pneuma; Fr. esprit; Ger. Geist). As these names show, the principle of life was often represented under the figure of a breath of air. The breath is the most obvious symptom of life, its cessation the invariable mark of death; invisible and impalpable, it stands for the unseen mysterious force behind the vital processes. Accordingly we find the word "spirit" used in several different but allied senses: (1) as signifying a living, intelligent, incorporeal being, such as the soul; (2) as the fiery essence or breath (the Stoic pneuma) which was supposed to be the universal vital force; (3) as signifying some refined form of bodily substance, a fluid believed to act as a medium between mind and the grosser matter of the body." (Catholic Encyclopedia) [Definition (1) describes jiva but (2) and (3) describe prana. Without the help of Vedic scriptures it is difficult to differentiate between them.] "There are some more expressions in the Bible which could be used in order to show how 'soul' is to be understood: we find sometimes human essence expressed as 'the heart' (Hebrew: leb; Greek: kardia). Also 'flesh' is used as expressing human existence, not just in the negative sense. The terminology of the Bible is far from uniform, and we do not find clear definitions of the term. Life, soul and spirit stand for a reality which is transcategorical. The Bible wants to make clear that the whole existence of humans is from God, and depends on God, who is the 'living God'." (Klostermaier) [Heart is the seat of jiva and prana. During deep sleep (susupti) the pranas withdraw into the heart cavity and rest with the jiva in the Paramatma (dahara), aspect of God as the supreme witness. (Vedanta-sutra 3.2.7-8) It is mentioned also in Koran 6.60: "And He it is Who takes your souls at night (in sleep), and He knows what you acquire in the day (...)."] Therefore even theologians like Thomas Aquinas mix jiva with mind and intelligence (i.e. subtle body) and prana: "We must conclude, therefore, that the human soul, which is called the intellect or the mind, is something incorporeal and subsistent." (Summa Theologica 1, 75, 2) "We may therefore say that the soul understands, as the eye sees; but it is more correct to say that man understands through the soul." (STh 1, 75, 2). "Now it is clear that the first thing by which the body lives is the soul. And as life appears through various operations in different degrees of living things, that whereby we primarily perform each of all these vital actions is the soul. For the soul is the primary principle of our nourishment, sensation, and local movement; and likewise of our understanding. Therefore this principle by which we primarily understand, whether it be called the intellect or the intellectual soul, is the form of the body. This is the demonstration used by Aristotle (De Anima ii, 2)." (STh 1, 76, 1). Aquinas also considers different koshas (layers of gross and subtle body) as different souls: "Whence we must conclude, that there is no other substantial form in man besides the intellectual soul; and that the soul, as it virtually contains the sensitive and nutritive souls, so does it virtually contain all inferior forms, and itself alone does whatever the imperfect forms do in other things. The same is to be said of the sensitive soul in brute animals, and of the nutritive soul in plants, and universally of all more perfect forms with regard to the imperfect." (STh 1, 76, 4) Aquinas follows Aristotle (although he often disagrees with him) who is considering mind to be immaterial: "Mind is not composed of matter and form, for its ideas are not physical but spiritual as their universality declares, they are abstract and not tied down to matter or to the material conditions of time and place. The mind is, therefore, a subsisting form, and is consequently immortal." (De Anima 14) Christian philosopher Justin Martyr (2nd century) in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, ch. 5, discusses the soul's nature. He promotes Platonist approximate idea of jiva but is convinced by Trypho that soul is of similar nature as world, i.e. material. Again, this refers to prana. A side comment: in this as well as the previous chapter, Justin mentions reincarnation of men into animals. Trypho disagrees but his counterargument - that those punished in this way do not remember their guilt and therefore such punishment has no meaning - is purely subjective. The story of Maharaja Bharata from the Bhagavata Purana refutes it. The result is that whatever transcends gross, tangible reality is labelled as "transcendent(al)", "metaphysical", "spiritual" etc. This means a problem for a Vaisnava translator: "Complete knowledge includes knowledge of the phenomenal world, *the spirit behind it*, and the source of both of them. (Bhagavad-gita 7.2, purport) "The difficulty in Dutch is the word 'spirit' which can be translated as 'ghost', 'mind', 'soul', 'character', 'mood', 'vitality' etc. Neither, however, really seems to fit. Even the word 'soul' does not seem right here for 'soul' indicates a person (at least in Dutch), so to later say '..., and the source of both' may become impersonal." The difficulty does not exist only in Dutch but in majority of languages. They simply lack terms to describe higher reality outside of this material world which is so elaborately dealt with in the Sanskrit language of the Vedic scriptures. Here is most probably meant immaterial, internal energy (antaranga-sakti). But even Bible translators have problems of this kind. Renowned Christian linguist Eugene A. Nida says: "In some languages, "Holy Spirit" means little more than a "white ghost," for "holy" has been equated with cleanness or whiteness, and "Spirit" is more readily understood in such a context as "ghost" rather than as the "Spirit of God." An even worse situation was encountered in a language in which "holy" was rendered as "that which makes taboo" and "spirit" meant primarily an evil or malicious spirit. It was quite understandable that the people in this area were very reluctant to receive "a tabooing demon," especially when the possession of such a demon ruled out any sexual relations with one's spouse." (...) For example, in Mark 1:12, it is possible that people will understand "the Spirit drove him into the wilderness" as being the activity of a demon rather than of the Holy Spirit. In the Greek New Testament the term pneuma, "spirit," without qualifier usually designates the Holy Spirit. In many languages, however, the general term for "spirit" by itself may designate evil spirits. In such languages, it is best in all passages in which the Greek uses simple pneuma for the Holy Spirit to use whatever specific expression has been adopted to refer to the Holy Spirit. In most cases this involves the use of some qualifier, which provides the required contextual conditioning." Let us turn to Vedic sources now. * Vedic definitions Bhagavad-gita (BG) 7.4: "Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind [manas], intelligence [buddhi] and false ego [ahankara] - all together these eight constitute My separated material energies [bhinna-prakrti]." The first five elements - solid, liquid, radiating and gaseous substances plus ether - are gross material and constitute the physical body. Three other - mind, intelligence, false ego - are subtle material and constitute the subtle (or astral) body. Witnesses of NDE/OBE describe this body as a foggy cloud having a form of body. (Beings with only this body are called ghosts). Subtle body is in a sense immortal because it stays with jiva during her whole material existence. Prana is a subtle material energy arising from rajo guna. It works as an interface between gross and subtle body, enabling all the psychophysical functions (i.e. animation - from Latin "anima"). Vedanta-sutra defines it as a special type of air. Prana leaves the gross body together with the jiva and subtle body at death and is reincarnated (Vedanta-sutra 2.4.13, Bhagavata Purana 4.28.24). As such prana is also witnessed by the jiva which is floating in prana in the heart cavity (Katha Upanisad 1.3.1). Prana's movement leads to jiva's identification with the gross body (SB 4.29.71). Prana is one but acts in different ways. Lower pranas control the senses and are under the control of main prana controlled by the Paramatma according to desire and karma of the jiva. Vedanta-sutra 2.4, Bhagavata Purana 4.25-28 (serpent analogy), Prasna Upanisad and other scriptures contain elaborate descriptions of prana. Various Eastern healing methods and martial arts work with prana. BG 7.5: "Besides these, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is another, superior [para] energy of Mine, which comprises the living entities [jiva-bhuta] who are exploiting the resources of this material, inferior nature." Second chapter of Bhagavad-gita and other scriptures (like Padma Purana) give detailed description of jiva. Ravindra Svarupa Dasa says: "The jiva or atma is described as a separated, minute fragment of God, the Paramatma. God is like a fire; the individual jivas, sparks of the fire. As the analogy suggests, the self and the Superself are simultaneously one with and different from each other. They are the same in quality, for both they are brahman, immaterial substance. Yet they differ in quantity, since the Superself (param brahman - supreme brahman - in Bhagavad-gita 10.12) is infinitely great while the individual selves are infinitesimally small." Gross body undergoes six types of changes which are listed in the Niruktam (1.1.2): jayate 'sti varddhate, viparinamate, apaksiyate nasyati ca - "The body takes birth, exists, grows, reproduces, ages, and finally dies." The jiva, however, does not undergo any of these changes. Krishna explains this in the second chapter of Bhagavad-gita. In the thirteenth chapter the body is described as the field of activities (ksetra), and the jiva as ksetra-jna, the knower of that field. The argument for the jiva not undergoing these changes is that she observes all these changes and activities of the mind and intelligence as well. Scriptures like Bhagavata Purana (SB) 4.28.40 confirm this: "King Malayadhvaja attained perfect knowledge by being able to distinguish the Paramatma from the individual jiva. The individual jiva is localized, whereas the Paramatma is all-pervasive. He became perfect in knowledge that the material body is not the jiva but that the jiva is the witness [saksin] of the material body." SB 7.7.23: "There are two kinds of bodies for every individual soul - a gross body made of five gross elements and a subtle body made of three subtle elements. Within these bodies, however, is the spirit soul [purusa]. One must find the soul by analysis, saying, 'This is not it. This is not it.' Thus one must separate spirit from matter." The observer of a change is not affected by the change or he ceases to be an observer. A passenger sitting in an airplane and unable to look out the window cannot fathom its speed, but a man on the ground is able to observe and measure it easily. Similarly, everyone has the experience of the six types of changes occurring in one's own body, but the observer of these changes is not the body - she is the jiva. Hence the very experience "I am sick" proves that I (the jiva) am not sick, because if I was sick I would be unable to perceive that sickness. The "body-mind-jiva" system can be compared to a computer. The gross material body can be compared to a hardware, the subtle body and the prana to a software, and the jiva to their user. While living in the material world, she has to communicate through them like a paralyzed person using a computer substituting voice etc. If she becomes cured by a proper practice she will not need this "bodily computer" - she can live in a immaterial world in her own immaterial form (svarupa). This is the natural, original position of each of us. * Conclusion: jiva versus prana Terms "soul" and "spirit" in Judeo-Christian tradition often describe prana which is different from the jiva. Everyone speaks about "my soul" which means that soul is outside of us. Nature of the jiva is sac-cid-ananda vigraha (eternal, cognizant, blissful form). While in the material world (whose nature is exactly the opposite) she is inactive and subtle material body and prana serve her as a tool for manipulating gross matter. Using the word "soul" for the jiva should be therefore considered a makeshift choice due to lack of proper term in Western and other languages. This should be remembered while translating Vedic texts and reading their translations as well. * Literature: American Heritage Dictionary, 1993 Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologica (www.newadvent.org/summa) Aristotle, De Anima Bhagavad-gita (www.iskcon.org/sastra) Bhagavata Purana (Srimad Bhagavatam) Bible (bible.gospelcom.net/bible?) Catholic Encyclopedia (www.newadvent.org) Chandogya Upanisad Dvaita FAQ Klostermaier, Klaus, The Soul and its Destiny: Christian Perspectives (www.iskcon.com/ICJ/4_2/4_2klostermaier.htm) Nida, Eugene A., "The Theory and Practice of Translation" (Helps for Translators prepared under the auspices of the United Bible Societies, vol. VIII), 1982, Chapter Six. Ravindra Svarupa Dasa, The Nature of the Self: A Gaudiya Vaisnava Understanding (www.rsdtm.com/PUBLICATIONS/SELF/self.htm) Vedanta-sutra with Govinda Bhasya commentary of Baladeva Vidyabhusana (www.philosophy.ru/library/asiatica/indica/index.html) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.