As you have seen that while we discussed the human body and its parts, there was no need to mention anything about soul. Whatever we found in the human body was evident Parts of the body could be seen and felt. Our experience helped us a lot to understond human body thoroughly. It was all acceptable to our rationalism.
But if we take up soul for consideration, we can neither see it nor touch it. So for our knowledge about soul is concerned, I am not able to collect anything about it.
Souls are simply based on blind belief. Intellect and experience have no role to play regarding soul. Then what is soul? It is created as irrational as god. God is nothing with definite form or appearance. Soul is also like that. God is unseeable and untouchable. So also is the soul. God has no fixed and definite limbs or parts of eyes, nose, ears, mouth, hands, etc. So also is the soul. One connot conceive or realise god. You connot have access to its power or see its functions. No one is able to establish the existence of god by convincing methods and reasonable ways. Soul is also like god.
Here are the views of two intellectual giants, Bertrand Russell and Thanthai Periyar on the all elusive "Soul". All speak about "Soul" but none knows anything about "Soul". Like 'God' soul is a creation of human imagination. Both Russell and Periyar try to expose the hollowness of the much hallowed term 'Soul'. While Russell is scholarly and sophisticated in his approach to the concept of "Soul", Periyar is pragmatic and down to earth. As we have to read between the lines to catch at the intent of Russell, Periyar gives it to us on a platter. While Russell convinces the educated with mystified arguments, Periyar convinces the common man calling a spade a spade. Make a comparative reading and enjoy.
Why do we need a soul? What for is it created? Who created it? Who is benefitted by it? You get no reply from any source for all these. You have to simply believe that there is soul. 'Soul' is something which cannot be questioned or tested.
Non-believers in god and religion are accustomed to rational thitiking. They have nothing to do with what is called soul. Let us enquire into the philosophy of soul. Body, mouth, ears, nose and eyes are called Pancha Indiriyas (Five senses), if a thing is not established by these senses it connot really exist. There are people who say that god is beyond truth. But to say that, one thing is beyond the test of truth would amount to erasing the word ‘truth’ from the dictionary.
The word 'Athma' (soul) is not a Tamil word. It is clear from this that Tamilians or Dravidians were not aware of the philosophy of soul. You find the word soul described only in the Northern language. The word ‘soul’ in English does not cannote the meaning and interpretation given by the Northeners.
You don't find a place given or allotted to soul in the human body. You find that every part of the body is doing a definite work. Soul has no work in the body. All the parts in the body function. Our sense organs enoble us to perceive things.
Everything is found to be there. But what about 'soul'? Where is it? What is it? What is its hmction? Soul is something unperceivable, unwanted and unrelated to the human body
How does a machine work? It is because of the various parts assembled. Look at a clock. It ticks. It wakes up man by raising the alarm. There are many kinds of mechanical devices inside. Accordingly it performs different functions. Who will believe if we say that there is some miraculous ghost or thing inside the clock, which enables the clock to perform all these different functions. Would anyone believe?
Some fifty years ago, a villager came to our shop. He looked at the big clock in our shop. He saw the pendulam oscillating. He heard the ringing. He was surprised. He enquired us where the man was who moved the pendulom. He wanted to know where the man was ringing the hours. I jokingly remarked that there were men standing on the other side of the wall doing all these. He believed what I told him and began to flatter me. “You are lords. A big Maharaj/ You can afford to have any number of people".
Why do I tell this episode about the villager? It is to make clear that only those who are as ignorant as the villager would believe in gods, religion and soul. You are able to see a lot of machines do wonderful things which a man cannot. Yet the mochines do not have any 'soul' which is supposed to be the proud possession of man.
Christianity and Islam do not speak of any soul. Buddhists deny 'soul'. Original Dravidians too did not have any belief in 'soul'. Then how did come the idea of soul to dominate us? Is there any sensible reason for creating such a fantastic thing? Is the meaning given to soul convincing? The philosophy about soul is applicable only to o particular religion. In other words without this soul there is no Hindu religion.
To hush up a lie many lies are needed. Similarly to protect a false religion and god, a false 'soul' is created. To establish the baseless Hindu philosophy, many false philosophies are created such as soul, heaven, hell, fate and karma. What do we see of a man? He is born. He grows. He does things according to the abilities of his body and development. After death he is either cremoted or buried. He is no more in the world. This is what we actually see in the day today life of a man. What is the need for an imagination of a soul?
Supposing a watch does not show the correct time, whose mistake is that? It may be because of the man who made it. It may be due to the negligence of the man who took care of the watch. It may be the fault of the person who noted the time.
Leaving aside all those who have some connection or other with the watch, if one is to throw the blame on the 'soul' of the watch and further refuse to show or point out or explain what the soul is and where the soul is, how could it be right to blame the soul for anything and impose reward or punishments on it? Won't you think it is a big fraud? Similarly, it is bigger fraud to link the soul with the actions of man, and subject the soul for a reward or of punishment.
How do we term certain actions as good and others as bad? Is there any universal standard or accepted scale to measure the actions as good or bad? Then how can we say that our souls are awarded rewards for good acts after death? How are we to believe that a soul undergoes punishments for the bad acts after death? How fantastic lies are these! Please think over. Where is the proof for all these? How to believe in 'soul' and its work? How are we to believe that the soul attains 'moksha' only on account of its good deeds? Is there anyone to prove it in any manner? You can now understand that the philosophy about soul is
false and absurd. In short it is a mere castle built in the air!
What is the Soul?
One of the most painful circumstances of recent advances in science is that each one of us know less than what we thought we know. when I was young we all knew, or thought we knew, that a man consists of a soul and a body; that the body is in time and space, but the soul is in time only. Whether the soul survives death was a matter as to which opinions might differ, but that there is a soul was thought to be debatable. As for the body,
its existence is self evident, and so did the man of science, but the philosopher was apt to analyse it a way after one fashion or another, reducing it usually to ideas in the mind of the man who had the body and any else who hoppened to notice him. The philosopher, however, was not taken seriously, and science remained comfortably materialistic, even in.the hands of quite orthodox scientists. Nowadays, these fine old simplicities are lost physicists assure us that there is no such thing as matter, and psychologists assure us that there is no such thing as mind.