Logical overview of Shraadh and Pitar
In vogue
Let us look at what is in vogue regarding shraadh.
Time: Fifteen days are earmarked in a year for this purpose.
Belief: Pitru/pitar visit on that day with their subtle bodies. They partake food with Brahmins. If they are not able to come due to any reason, food is given to Brahmins, which will reach them.
Question: Is not pitru/pitar mean, the soul of the dead one?
Reality: Pitru/Pitar, as already made clear, represents the merged entity of body and soul. So, it is false. In other words, it is the height of illogicality to say that Pitru/Pitar arrive with their subtle bodies to receive the food.
Let us assume just for the sake that Pitru/Pitar would arrive with their subtle bodies. The question now is, how would they eat without their gross bodies as subtle bodies do not eat or do not need food.
If it is taken that they eat with the Brahmins, then the question is, will they be eating the food first? If the Brahmins eat first, will not the pitru/pitar be eating the leftover food? If both Brahmins and Pitru/Pitar were to eat together, then, both of them are sharing the same food and leftovers. But if Pitru/Pitar were to take food first, then why feed the Brahmins at all?
Now the question is, why only 15 days in a year are assigned? Will not the pitru feel hungry for the rest of the year? Is the food given in the 15 days enough to satisfy them for the whole year?
Is it ever possible or logical? The answer is obvious, of course not.
Can a person remain satiated for the whole year if fed only for fifteen days? That too fed only on one day within the specified period of fifteen days.
Now, the question is, if the food fed to a brahmin reaches the pitar, how can the stomachs of brahmins be full? Surely, the brahmin will remain hungry if all the food reaches the pitar. How can the brahmins feel satiated when the food has reached the Pitru/Pitar?
Where do the Pitru/Pitar to whom the Shraaddh is offered stay? When it is unknown where the soul resides or where the soul has gone after death, what is the use of giving a feast of foods for it through Brahmins?
Rebirth and Shraaddh
The Hindu community believes in rebirth. That means, there is a rebirth of the soul in another body within a specified period (variable depending on the factors determining rebirth) after death. But against this, we say that the soul is wandering in the pitr-lok thirsting for water and hungry for food. So we keep them feeding every year.
As per Hindu belief, the soul leaves one body and enters into another one as per the past karmas just as you move from one house to another house. It is again like a man casts off worn-out garments and takes new ones, so the dweller in this body casts off the present body and enters into a new one. Death does not denote the end of life. Life is one continuous never-ending process. Death is only a passing and necessary phenomenon, which every soul has to pass through until finding the way to get out of the cycle of birth and death. This is what Shri Krishna too has said in Gita.
So, if they are taking birth through another body, where is the question of the soul remaining as pitru/pitar? Seen in this way, if the pitru/pitar was to arrive for shraadh, the soul would have to come from that new body and, that cannot happen without its death.
If the soul had taken birth as a lion or tiger (based on past karmas), and if it is believed that the soul comes from that new body then, will the Pitru/Pitar be satisfied with these sweet dishes as the soul has now the impression of a carnivorous animal? Please think about these things logically.
Now, suppose a person by virtue of the good and noble deeds done in this birth has attained higher worlds to enjoy the fruits of good karmas as transient salvation, of what use are these mortal foods for that soul? On the other hand, if the Pitru/Pitar is born as a gutter/dirt worm because of such evil deeds, what use is there with these sweet foods? Each species has its own specific choice of food. It is not necessary that all forms of life relish human food.
Look! Think of a letter being posted without writing the address of an addressee on the envelope! Would the letter be ever delivered to the concerned person? No chance at all. So, unaware of where the Pitru/Pitar has gone or is residing, would the food fed to a brahmin reach the Pitru/Pitar? This is preposterous. This is superstition, plain and simple.
Absurdity
If food could reach somebody by feeding another person, then, what is the need of taking food while on tour? So, in the name of the person, we feed a brahmin at home and expect the person’s hunger to be satisfied. Could you call this as sensible or a wise act?
If the Pitru/Pitar has attained Bliss or Salvation due to wisdom and good deeds, then, there is no need whatsoever for conducting Shraaddh for him. Even when he takes rebirth, there is no necessity for Shraaddh. Even if he has not attained salvation and also not taken rebirth and remains suspended, no Shraaddh is needed. If one had died as a sinner, doing Shraaddh for such one will not absolve of his/her sins. Moreover, such one is not entitled to get an improved status of birth. But if the person had died having done good deeds in his lifetime, he/she is not likely to be condemned to a lower status of birth just because shraaddh was not performed for the person. Shraaddh is immaterial in this case.
As per Hindu belief system, every soul is expected to enjoy the fruits of its deeds and therefore, doing Shraaddh for the deceased parents is a sheer waste of time, labour, money, and above all, it is nothing but self-deception.
What is wrong?
Question: If food is not received by pitru/pitar by doing shraadh, so be it. But, what is wrong in giving some food in the name of the deceased parents? At least some donations can be made in the name in the pretext of shraadh to dead parents. By this, at least some merit (Punya) can be earned in the name of parents?
This is just a worldly way of thinking. If you see what is said in the Vedas, which was the culture followed by all before the advent of mythological beliefs, a mention about five yajnas can be seen.
- PitruYajnya -Honouring the living parents.
- DevaYajnya – To purify the atmosphere.
- BrahmaYajnya – Worship of God.
- Balivaishvadeva Yajnya – Helping the poor and needy.
- AthithiYajnya – Honouring the learned scholar guests, is to be done to the best of one’s capacity.
This is a Vedic command. Instead of doing these Vedic Yajnyas, setting apart fifteen days in a year and calling it as ancestral fortnight (Pitru Paksha), does it not defame the daily duties? Further, even when done on the day of death of Pitru/Pitar every year, all the said faults continue to persist as such.
Charity does not serve the purpose
Now, regarding Charity or indulgence in philanthropy, offering food for the needy poor in memory of deceased parents and making a donation is not bad by itself. But doing so under a pretext will not yield satisfactory results! Why? Because, it is not done in the right intention but with the hidden intention of doing good for the deceased parents and so no good karmic imprint is left on the doer soul. Only such deeds are considered meritorious which are done prompted by honest thinking, matched by saying and action. Otherwise, no merit is earned here. Any work for that matter should be done with a sense of dispassion and honesty.
The belief that feeding Brahmins would satisfy the deceased parents is a wrong notion. Even to say that feasting is meritorious also does not indicate honesty. Giving alms or donations to the undeserved would only promote the number of lazy and indolent individuals. This does no good for society. If serving food and making donations were considered necessary, then why make it only on Shraaddh days? And further, why to Brahmins only? Should we not help poor, hungry, sick, and blind irrespective of caste? Just as we celebrate the birth anniversaries of great men like Ram and Krishna, if we could celebrate the birth events of the departed Pitru/Pitar in token of offering our respects to them, Shraaddh indeed becomes meaningful. Otherwise, it is a senseless act.