Soul ? What soul ?

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 19 Jun 2009, 18:14

I see the phrase "may his soul rest in peace" everywhere but I think one needs to reflect on what it might mean to one's own theological beliefs (if any) and those of the departed person (if any). If not, it is not good practice to mouth it or type it in an inane and absentminded fashion.

Hinduism (advaita)
"Atman" should not be translated to "soul". "Self" would be a better translation. So there's only one universal "self" and any idea of an individual "self" is purely illusory which disappears once there's gnyana. Till then there's no "rest" for the illusory atman as it goes through the Karmic cycles of different lives. And once there's gnyana there's no "soul"!

Buddhism
Nothing called the "soul" or atman. Kshanika vignana vada shows the illusory nature and philosophical superfluity of any underlying substratum called "soul" or atman. Instead, everything can be explained as an endless series of chitta vrittis which when ceased, leads to nirvana. Leaves some loose ends but an extremely logical and satisfying theology.

Hinduism (dvaita)
Again Atman should not be translated as "soul". In any case, there's no rest for the mistranslated "soul" until the series of transmigrations ends at the lotus feet of the Lord. So I suppose the phrase "may his soul rest in peace" may be loosely acceptable.

Hinduism (chArvakas)
Neither soul nor God. All nonsense.

Sikhism
Very close to an advaitic concept of the intertwining of atma and paramatma.

Judaism
Body and "soul" are inextricably tied. Hence their need to preserve the body by burial very close to the place of death, to be awakened for the day of judgment. What is and why exactly we need to postulate a substratum called the "soul" is not clear.

Christianity
A wide variety of theologies exist under the banner of christianity. In general, the all of them converge to a belief in a single life, then getting dispatched to heaven or hell in the form of a soul. Thus, "may his soul rest in peace" may be appropriate and may be construed as going to heaven. Some Christian theologies have an in-between period of rest till the final day of judgment when every "soul" will be awakened, judged and dispatched to heaven or hell ! In this case too "may his soul rest in peace" is appropriate.

Islam
Single life on earth for a body-soul which is then dispatched to a "trisanku" kind of place to rest till the day of judgment when Allah will come down and judge and despatch to heaven or hell. Very similar to fundamentalist Christian theology.

And so on....

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 19 Jun 2009, 19:03

British legacy and followed by American melting pot make us use "May soul rest peace". Probably we are unitarians!

srikant1987 · Post by **srikant1987** » 19 Jun 2009, 19:14

^^^

I doubt it.

I think "avarodaya aatma shaanti adayanum" isn't something created to translate it.

We mean in the dvaita sense, I suppose.

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 19 Jun 2009, 19:21

In those days people used to walk everywhere and thus the feet (particularly the bottom side) are bruised, aching. Once dead, of course no walking. So I think this was meant to be "May his sole(s) rest in peace"

Arun

suma · Post by **suma** » 19 Jun 2009, 19:42

arunk wrote:In those days people used to walk everywhere and thus the feet (particularly the bottom side) are bruised, aching. Once dead, of course no walking. So I think this was meant to be "May his sole(s) rest in peace"

Arun

ha ha ha

))

naarayanan · Post by **naarayanan** » 19 Jun 2009, 22:08

some people dont even have time to type it in full. i have seem some typing 'may his soul rip (rest in peace)'. as if the departed is 'jack the ripper'

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 20 Jun 2009, 02:16

If there is a soul, and if the one who leaves our midst believed in one, 'rip'ping apart his so called soul is not going to leave him in peace. After all, we say it to pay respect to the deceased. Uday's intent was to say that the expression was not always appropriate.

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 20 Jun 2009, 02:32

But the question should be: does music have a soul?

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 20 Jun 2009, 02:58

How does the topic relate to the forum? I hate to throw a spanner at good discussions, but do we need a separate section for culture & philosophy? Else this thread appears to be somewhat out of place.

That apart, I dont think this topic can be summarized into a paragraph each for each major faith/philosophy, as Uday has attempted to do above.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 20 Jun 2009, 05:16

...and then what do we say to folks without a soul

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 20 Jun 2009, 06:25

Humans lacking sensitivity or the capacity for deep feeling may be called soulless

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 20 Jun 2009, 07:06

.. we may say still "May his soul rest in piece"

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 20 Jun 2009, 08:31

srkris wrote:How does the topic relate to the forum? I hate to throw a spanner at good discussions, but do we need a separate section for culture & philosophy? Else this thread appears to be somewhat out of place.

That apart, I dont think this topic can be summarized into a paragraph each for each major faith/philosophy, as Uday has attempted to do above.

srkris, I wrote this in direct response to the rasika responses to the passing of various Hindu musicians who have been doing so with an alarming regularity in recent times.

I've always had a serious peeve about the phrase "may his soul rest in peace" wherever I see it because it is so un-Hindu like. The Hindu goal is "liberation"/moksha and dissolution of all individual identities, not "resting" somewhere as a separated individual "soul", i.e., as a sleeping sUkshma sharira !! Hinduism offers many profound and serious things to say pertaining to the passing of a person...we don't need this silly British implantation.

That said, I agree we can discuss these matters till the cows come home but my goal was to set the appropriateness of the expression for various faiths. I am not sure of the accuracy of what I wrote either

.

Srikanth,
The tamil phrase you quoted can be translated back into english as "may his Atma attain peace" which is very different from "may his soul rest in peace". Even so, I think it is a modern corruption and ancient Tamils probably said something different and more Hindu-like.

coolkarni · Post by **coolkarni** » 20 Jun 2009, 10:50

erode14 · Post by **erode14** » 20 Jun 2009, 11:34

always, we have a theory of somehow maiking it correct.

till the self realises, that it is soul, the soul can't be peaceful as the self is wandering behind earthly pleasures. self, takes several births owing to wrong 'thEdal' of AnandhA. so, the soul becomes restless by the annoying de-tour of self.

so, everyone indirectly wishes a rest in peace for the soul, which implies the self realisation and full stop to karmAs!

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 20 Jun 2009, 12:56

we don't need this silly British implantation.

Why call it an implantation? Indian expressions are richer because of various influences.
Hope we don't have to back to the Vedic age to start speaking from now on.

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 20 Jun 2009, 19:52

Uday_Shankar wrote:I've always had a serious peeve about the phrase "may his soul rest in peace" wherever I see it because it is so un-Hindu like. .

unhindu like hmm... This is like our Hindustan Brahmin Vadyars and Pandits saying that karmas done in Overseas for bereaved have no effect unless it is again done in India all over!

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 20 Jun 2009, 20:32

...Sins done abroad also will not be counted

God (as well as Indian Govt) acquits crimes done abroad! prime example 'Quatrocci'

erode14 · Post by **erode14** » 21 Jun 2009, 01:19

Once a mama, who went abroad came to have dharshan of periyava.
"though I went there, I never missed sandhya vandhanam and regular pooja.. in fact, I did amAvAsyai tharpaNam too..."

"nee pOnadhu paththAdhunnuttu, un pithrukkaLaiyum azhaichuNdu pOittayO?"

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 21 Jun 2009, 23:10

pithrukkaLs do not need visa or passport so they can go anywhere they want

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 22 Jun 2009, 02:19

But Nagaraj's quote is from the highest authority! Couched in the humorous statement was a pointer to the gentleman who spoke about his trip abroad and prided himself in his adhering to rituals even when he was away from home. His holiness was not impressed because to him, it is not adhering to rituals alone which is honorable. One's values in life and one's spiritual enquiry are of more importance. At least, that is how I read it...

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 22 Jun 2009, 07:59

VK RAMAN wrote:
Uday_Shankar wrote:I've always had a serious peeve about the phrase "may his soul rest in peace" wherever I see it because it is so un-Hindu like. .
unhindu like hmm... This is like our Hindustan Brahmin Vadyars and Pandits saying that karmas done in Overseas for bereaved have no effect unless it is again done in India all over!

I find that neither true nor funny because I'd like to think, admittedly gratuitously, that I'm talking about something far deeper.

We're talking about core theological beliefs that run through several strains of Hinduism that distinguish it from the core theological beliefs of Semitic religions. Indeed, one can bury one's dead, put a cross on the grave, write an epitaph like "may his soul rest in peace" and still call oneself Hindu. However, it would run counter to most streams of Hinduism that I know...all of which do not have this concept of a "resting soul" awaiting the day of judgment. For there is no concept of a single day of judgment or even of a soul! The theory of Karma is a far greater aggregation of the simple first order model put forward by most Semitic religions.

Now this should not be construed that I have anything against Christianity or overtly in favor of Hinduism...I find Christian practices egalitarian, progressive and compassionate and the example of Christ inspiring. For example, I haven't seen a good Hindu equivalent of the golden rule "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself".

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 22 Jun 2009, 08:23

Well said Uday Shankar. I just wrote my experience in India. When I went to India to do my father's first Death Anniversary Karma, I was told by Pandits from Chennai and Kerala that I have to do Prayachittam for 12 months karmas and do all over matsyam somam in India as any karma done overseas is not recognized in India.

rajumds · Post by **rajumds** » 22 Jun 2009, 14:16

On a side note, while abroad what do you say during sankalpa , for "bhArata varshE, bharata kandE" ?

MaheshS · Post by **MaheshS** » 22 Jun 2009, 14:18

rajumds wrote:On a side note, while abroad what do you say during sankalpa , for "bhArata varshE, bharata kandE" ?

Actually the gurukal mama's in London have figured that one out. They do not use Bharatha Varshe Bharatha Kande ... I can't remember what though, I can find it out for you.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 22 Jun 2009, 14:44

Very interesting observation and discussion! It had crossed my mind that the use of the 'rip' phrase was slightly out of place here, but, of course, one does not get semantic when people are talking about such a loss.

Personally, I am in the condoling camp. The grief and suffering is felt, not by the departed, but by those who are left behind, from family, to students, to audience and even the wider public, depending on the mark made by the life now over.

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 22 Jun 2009, 17:08

Indeed, one can bury one's dead,

Sages and other enlightened people are not cremated, but buried.
Hope that doesn't make them non-hindu??

Again, another case of much ado...

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 22 Jun 2009, 18:22

rajumds wrote:On a side note, while abroad what do you say during sankalpa , for "bhArata varshE, bharata kandE" ?

In U.S also Vadyar's have modified their scripts slightly to fit which country we reside.

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 23 Jun 2009, 08:04

ragam-talam wrote:
Indeed, one can bury one's dead,
Sages and other enlightened people are not cremated, but buried.
Hope that doesn't make them non-hindu??

Not true. There are no hard and fast rules regarding the burial of "sages and other enlightened people". In any case, that's not the central point of what I was saying and this is merely an attempt to cherry-pick a few words out of context in an ill-advised attempt to discredit the whole. Responding to you is a waste of time - this is the last time for sure. God knows I say stupid and wrong things all the time, but mostly only in good faith. A word of advice to you - get over your malice, if any, and you won't end up consistently making irrelevant and non-sequitur remarks.

The point I was making is merely that a majority of Hindus (i.e., barring a few "sages and other enlightened people") cremate their dead and hence it can be considered a central practice to the religion.

For your information, the following wll-known "sages and enlightened people" were cremated:

1. Ramakrishna Paramahamsa at the Cossipore burning ghat
2. Swami Vivekananda at the Belur Math
3. Practically all of the paramahamsa's disciples, i.e. Swami Vivekananda's co-disciples of the Ramakrishna order.

It is not important to keep saying something, as Srikanth astutely observed:

http://rasikas.org/forums/post124072.html#p124072

Shivadasan · Post by **Shivadasan** » 23 Jun 2009, 13:20

Burial of dead bodies is still prevalent in Hinduism. Saint Ramalingaswamy himself recommends burial. In the case of sages and saints, the practice of burial or placing them in waters of sacred rivers is ensure that their spiritual vibrations benefit the society. Ordained Sannyasis are always buried. Burial therefore need not be considered as an non-Hindu act. What difference will the burial or burning will make to the departed 'soul' (my apologies to Udai) is a mystery no one knows.

coolkarni · Post by **coolkarni** » 23 Jun 2009, 14:24

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 23 Jun 2009, 16:18

Coolkarni -
With apologies to Pascal's wager:
(see here for a description of the wager: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager )
"It's better to believe in Soul, just in case..."
And ghosts et al are related to souls, I think.

Btw, Parsis let their corpses be eaten by vultures.

It's ironical Uday should refer to the srikant quote. That was in the context of my "Much ado" observation. Same applies to this discussion.

Enough said.

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 24 Jun 2009, 08:32

Shivadasan wrote:What difference will the burial or burning will make

Interesting question.

I personally am in favor of burial from an environmental point of view because it returns a lot of useful nutrients back to the earth. On the other hand, I think there's a fundamental Hindu spiritual message for the surviviors about the ephemeral and inert nature of the body or dEha that gets reinforced by the act of cremation. Needless to say, I am totally against polluting the Ganga or any other water body with any more remains than an urnful of ash.

Cool,
Regarding your childhood experience, all the time there was neither ghoul nor soul, only Cool

.

sureshvv · Post by **sureshvv** » 24 Jun 2009, 11:07

Actually according to Garuda puranam, the soul gets to go to the "pitru loka" only a year after death. Supposedly it comes back looking for the body after the cremation, and the various rituals done during the 1st 10 days encourage it to drop the idea.

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 24 Jun 2009, 11:27

OMG...the Garuda PurAna...for sure looks like a mass of mumbo-jumbo nonsense at first reading. Looking for a learned person who can interpret it in a sensible and rational (i.e., advaitic) way.

keerthi · Post by **keerthi** » 24 Jun 2009, 11:42

Uday_Shankar wrote: I personally am in favor of burial from an environmental point of view because it returns a lot of useful nutrients back to the earth. On the other hand, I think there's a fundamental Hindu spiritual message for the survivors about the ephemeral and inert nature of the body or dEha that gets reinforced by the act of cremation. Needless to say, I am totally against polluting the Ganga or any other water body with any more remains than an urnful of ash.

burial is more detrimental than cremation, from an 'environmental point of view'.. Almost nobody recycles burial plots.. and you have whole tracts of good land cleared and covered over with concrete..

Incinerating the bodies is the most efficient way of disposing of them.. You can scatter the ashes on soil if you want to return nutrients.. No significant chemical content is lost by burning.. Also the hazards of festering disease or harbouring germs(can happen in case of improper burial) are taken care of by cremation..

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 24 Jun 2009, 11:56

This thread made me think about how the various concepts that are loosely talked about in common parlance fit together.

The important concepts are Dharma, Karma, Reincarnation and Freedom.

If Karma is action, Dharma is the yardstick by which a value judgement is placed on that Karma ( say as positive or negative but it can be a bit fuzzy on a continous scale ).
At the end of one life time, some filter is applied on those karmas as viewed through the lens of Dharma to arrive at an NVJ ( net vaue judgement ) and a decision is made whether reincarnation is deserved or not. Decide one way, the cycle continues, decide another way, the cycle is stopped and Freedom from birth and death is achieved.

Of course, I am brushing aside a lot of considerations on the nature of the thing that carries the NVJ between births and who this decision maker is.

Some unresolved questions...

On initial entry into this system, the carrier of NVJ has to be initialzed with some value. Is it Zero, some positive value or some negative value?
( are you born a sinner, born neutral or born virtuous, is one way of looking at this fundemental issue ).
It is easy to postulate that the objective is be released from this birth cycle. What is the exit criteria? NVJ to be greater than zero?

To be consistent with various religious stories we hear, it makes sense to add a complication to this cyclical model.
To be really released from this cycle, you need to be born atleast one time with a positive NVJ. ( assuming the initial value is 0 )
This affords an opportunity to live in this karma bhoomi one life time in all its glory, be a model and exampe citizen to everyone and then upon death,
assuming you have not messed up too badly to go negative, you shall be released.

I do not know which school of Hinduism such a model emulates. This is something I made up.

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 24 Jun 2009, 11:59

keerti,
I agree with what you say and I've read about the virtues of incineration in environmental forums...I wasn't thinking of any gravestones or mausoleums...just deep unmarked graves. Perhaps impractical given human psychology.

cienu · Post by **cienu** » 24 Jun 2009, 12:02

The Zoroastrians (Parsis) believe that both cremation and burial pollute the earth.

The link below is very interesting (and yes , it also talks about the "soul"

)

http://www.avesta.org/ritual/funeral.htm

"Thus the job is left to the vultures (nature's scavengers) who do their work much more expeditiously than millions of insects would do, if dead bodies were buried in the ground. By this rapid process, putrefaction with all its concomitant evils, is most effectually prevented. According to the Zoroastrian religion, Earth, Fire, and Water are sacred and very useful to mankind, and in order to avoid their pollution by contact with putrefying flesh, the Zoroastrian religion strictly enjoins that the dead bodies should not be buried in the ground, or burnt, or thrown into seas, rivers, etc. "

rajumds · Post by **rajumds** » 24 Jun 2009, 12:15

vasanthakokilam wrote:
Some unresolved questions...

On initial entry into this system, the carrier of NVJ has to be initialzed with some value. Is it Zero, some positive value or some negative value?
( are you born a sinner, born neutral or born virtuous, is one way of looking at this fundemental issue ).
It is easy to postulate that the objective is be released from this birth cycle. What is the exit criteria? NVJ to be greater than zero?

VK

Do non human life forms have the concept of karma ?. They don't rationalise and there may be no concept of good or bad. Does a tiger get more bad karma by killing a cow than by killing a goat.

Then what is the NVJ for you take a human form ??

coolkapali · Post by **coolkapali** » 24 Jun 2009, 13:25

Interesting!!!

srikant1987 · Post by **srikant1987** » 24 Jun 2009, 14:08

I wasn't thinking of any gravestones or mausoleums...just deep unmarked graves. Perhaps impractical given human psychology.

Impractical given a philosophy in which there's resting of the dead, resurrection, and preserving bodies ... sleeping in graves ...

Basically if we understand the essence of burning dead bodies (that after a person dies, their body becomes just a mass of organic compounds ... and yes, some free "artificial" transplantable organs) rather than take up the ritual itself seriously, we can do good things with dead bodies.

knandago2001 · Post by **knandago2001** » 24 Jun 2009, 17:29

vk: your post (#37) on the doctrines of karma, dharma, samsara and moksha reminded of the story Nachiketa. I have forgotten the details - did Yama clarify Nachiketa's doubts regarding what happens to the atman / soul after biological death? If anyone has a reference that would be very helpful. Thanks..

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 24 Jun 2009, 18:07

There are pros and cons for each of the alternatives (like most other things in life, I guess)...
- Cremating/burning consumes energy, plus pollution. If all the people in 'burying' societies were to start burning from today, this could add to global warming.
- Also, once the body is cremated, no way of excavating it in case of some forensic requirements.
- And if our ancestors had all cremated their corpses, then we may never have got historical information about them, info that could be quite valuable to our understanding of ourselves.
- At the same time, burning is 'clean', and doesn't take up lots of space unlike cemeteries etc.
- And what about feeding to vultures? (kind of like annadAnam to brahmins!) Can be unhygienic.
In short, each approach to disposing of the body has some drawback.

On the question of Soul: If Hindus believe in reincarnation, what is it that reincarnates? Surely a soul?
You hear stories of children who can recall their previous lives. How is this possible without a concept of soul (call it what you want, but surely it's something that exists without the body).

cienu · Post by **cienu** » 24 Jun 2009, 18:19

ragam-talam wrote: - And what about feeding to vultures? (kind of like annadAnam to brahmins!) Can be unhygienic.
.

Not at all . Infact you should read about the Tower of Silence in the link above.

Yes, I personally do believe in the re incarnation theory. In our own CM field for example , I always believe that Chitraveena Ravikiran must have been the reincarnation of an outstanding musician in his previous Janma to be able to identify 325 ragas and 175 talas at the age of two !!

It is also said that the Mount Everest of Tabla , Ahmed Jan Tirakwa, would practice for hours even in his 80th year saying that he would like to carry his Riyaz into his next birth so that no time is wasted.!

And Classical music requires more than a few Janmas to actually master ..

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 24 Jun 2009, 19:19

ragam-talam wrote:what is it that reincarnates?

The above question is indeed the most important one and a rider should be "why is it that anything reincarnates at all"?

The latter question is more easily answered ... to fulfil any remaining "desires" to the last one and to answer any unanswered "questions" to the last one. What exactly are desires and how substantive are they ? Does reincartion have to take place to satisfy an unfulfilled childhood desire for a lollipop ? According to Hindu theology, the answer is yes. Every trivial desire has to be fulfilled and every silly doubt has to be cleared until finally in some birth all the chitta vrittis ("mental modifications") become quiescent and total peace remains and the person becomes a jivanmukta.

Now all this gives a clue as to "what" reincartes...it is that which causes desires and that which has doubts to be cleared. Now can that be the atman, which is really part of paramAtman ? No. So the "soul", whatever it is, is not the Atman. Then what is it that reincarnates ? It is the mind stuff.

All of this presumes an interpretation to reality called the shrishti-drishti vAda which can itself be called to question

. More on that later.

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 24 Jun 2009, 19:28

So soul less!

coolkarni · Post by **coolkarni** » 24 Jun 2009, 19:42

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 24 Jun 2009, 21:35

Such a 'soulful' discussion. So far, those who have carried on this discussion are mostly 'youngsters' (in comparison, of course--another boon and bane in humans). This is a vicAram which is more our concern than that of young ones.
On the other hand, you are never too young to question things. The sooner, the better--as in learning music.

coolkarni · Post by **coolkarni** » 24 Jun 2009, 22:10