Cremation and its origin in Hinduism , a thought

[Guest guest]

Cremation and its origin in Hinduism

 

 

 

It is an ancient custom among Hindus to cremate their dead. After a person dies,

it is understood that the lighting of the funeral pyre will be led by the eldest

son of the deceased. In this article, a number of issues dealing with cremation

and its origins are discussed.

 

 

 

During early days of civilization, fire used to be started by rubbing sticks of

special materials against each other. Lighting any fire afresh therefore used to

be a difficult task that was time-consuming, laborious and required a lot of

effort and energy. One of the prayers (Book 1: Hymn 94.3) in the Rig Veda, "O

Agni, may we have power to kindle thee," indicates that the person lighting a

flame had to be in good physical condition.

 

 

 

A ritual fire, such as in yajna (fire worship) or cremation (using a pyre of

wood), was usually ignited afresh. This would also mean therefore that a healthy

and strong person in the family had to light the fire on any special occasion. A

physically fit and robust son would naturally be an ideal choice for this job.

In this regard, a number of Vedic prayers were dedicated for obtaining a good,

strong and healthy offspring (usually a male). It was expected that he would

eventually be involved in fire starting duties. Moreover, by igniting the fire

himself, he would spare his family from depending on others for lighting the

ritual flame or borrowing it from outside.

 

 

 

The practice of a strong male (usually the son) lighting the funeral pyre slowly

grew into a custom, which over time became quite rigid. It implied that a son

had to perform the last rites for his parents. It also led to the unfortunate

belief that the last rites for a parent would not be acceptable religiously

unless the deceased's son had carried them out. This thinking put more pressure

on the families to have sons while undermining the importance of daughters.

 

 

 

There were also several reasons for a daughter (or another woman) to not play an

active part at her parent's funeral. A woman was generally not as strong as a

man for lighting the funeral flame by rubbing sticks against each other. This

was a strenuous and time-consuming task that had to be carried out usually in

wet and cold conditions of crematorium near a river. Moreover, a woman's health

during menstruation, pregnancy and child delivery could make it difficult for

her to take any strenuous assignment. Women would also be prone to get

emotionally more upset at funerals than men, and therefore not suited to

undertake additional responsibility. Similarly, a daughter could be away at her

in-laws when her parents died and therefore not able to attend the funeral in

time. Note in this regard that there used to be no holding and refrigeration

facilities to safely store a corpse, and therefore the funeral was held without

delay -- usually within a day after the death of a person. To

eliminate any uncertainty regarding women's participation at funerals for their

family members, the cremation duties were assigned to their male kin in stead.

This was basically to avoid any confusion at the last moment. Furthermore, in

case of a deceased person having more than one son, job of lighting the pyre

would go first to the eldest son. If he was unable to fulfil his duty, then his

place would automatically be taken by the second son, and so on. This orderly

division of labor was to complete the cremation reliably and without delay.

Everyone understood his role in the family.

 

 

 

Traditionally, whenever there was a death in the community, a male person

belonging to each household -- irrespective of the caste -- would attend the

funeral to pay respects to the dead. Moreover, everyone going to the crematorium

on such occasion would carry some wood with him to add to the pyre. This was to

assist in gathering the necessary fuel for cremation.

 

 

 

Note that the Hindus originally started the practice of cremating their dead for

several reasons. They did not want to leave dead bodies around to be consumed by

vultures. Such a sight could be very traumatic . especially to the family of the

deceased. Hindus also had a reverence for their dead and wanted to maintain

sanctity of the corpse against attacks from savages. They did not therefore

follow the practice of leaving their dead to the vultures.

 

 

 

Cremation was also preferable to burying the dead. A grave or burial site would

require a piece of land, which had to be in a good, safe and secure location.

Moreover, if the practice of burying the dead had been prevalent, huge areas of

good territory would be lost as graves. During early days of civilization,

digging a grave would be more difficult, laborious and time-consuming because of

lack of proper tools. In comparison, cremation was easier and cheaper (needing

no land), because everyone going to the crematorium to pay respects to the dead

would simply carry some wood with him to add to the fire.

 

 

 

In case of burials, fresh graves would also need to be guarded against attacks

by prowlers. As indicated in some of the Vedic hymns for seeking protection from

intruders, the early communities were under a constant threat from beasts, wild

dogs, and rakshashas (cannibals, uncivilized humans). Danger from these savages

seeking food and flesh (literally) used to be more imminent during special

rituals (yajnas, funerals, and other celebrations). As people on such occasions

would gather outside for extended periods of time and display large quantities

of food (holy offerings), they would become an easy prey. Thus if people were to

bury a dead body in the ground, there would the possibility of savages

(intruders) raiding the fresh grave for an easy meal. Such an occurrence would

be traumatic and unacceptable to the surviving family-members. They would

therefore need to protect the grave so that it did not get disturbed. But

guarding a grave was not easy and cheap long ago because of lack

of resources. Furthermore, in case of a large number of graves or burial sites

in the community, securing them all against attacks from savages would almost be

impossible. In comparison, cremation by fire was quite simple and it hardly

posed undesired situation of intrusions that might have occurred in case of

buried corpses. Cremation by fire was therefore the better way to dispose of a

dead body.

 

 

 

In some unusual situations though, such as, when monks and children died, the

dead were buried rather than cremated. It was perhaps because the deceased in

this case did not leave any offspring behind. Since the prevailing custom

required a son to ignite the funeral pyre, cremation would be considered

inappropriate for a child or a monk -- dying usually without leaving any

offspring (son) behind. Therefore the dead were buried in such cases. Note also

that burying the body of a small child in the ground was probably easier than

preparing and igniting the pyre for its cremation. Similarly, ensuring the

safety of burial site in such infrequent and special instances would be

relatively easy because of the close proximity of the grave to a community. For

example, grave for a monk would generally be located close to the monastery, and

that for a child would be near the surviving parents' home. People would thus be

able to watch over these sites easily and also thwart any potential attacks

on them.

 

 

 

The Hindu custom of cremating the dead also indicates that there was probably no

significant Aryan invasion or large scale Parsee (Persian) infiltration into

ancient India. Had there been such foreign influences on the early Hindus, they

would have adopted the Aryan custom of burying the dead or the Parsees' way of

leaving corpses to the vultures. But such is not the case. Hindus do not bury

their dead or leave the corpses to vultures. Note also that disposal of a dead

body makes a very important ritual in each culture. Had the foreign invaders

drastically influenced Hinduism -- already prevailing as a religion -- in India,

or if they had introduced Hinduism -- as a fully developed religion from outside

-- in India, the Hindu ritual for the dead would now be something else and not

cremation. Hinduism thus -- having customs different than those of the ancient

foreigners -- appears to be an indigenous and unique faith that originated and

evolved in India over a long time with small,

insignificant and infrequent inputs from outside. Moreover, whenever the

foreigners arrived in India (usually in trickles), they were quickly absorbed

into the local culture without influencing it drastically.

 

 

 

Finally, in a related discussion, the reverence to Sun by people in India,

Egypt, Mesopotamia and elsewhere does not imply that Indians were ever under the

cultural influence of outsiders. It simply indicates that the Sun is a very

important natural force, and its impact is felt by all forms of life (animals

and plants) everywhere since times immemorial.

---

By: Dr. Subhash C. Sharma

Email: lamberdar

Oct. 12, 2003

 

 

 

 

 

Sharing with you a group of Mahasaraswati Mahalakshmi Mahakali / Hinduism

 

divyabhakti

 

 

 

 

 

 

Click to join divyabhakti

 

Sharing with you all a group of Sri Mookambika Devi - Kolur

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Click to join

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BYE!! Thank

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Start your day with - make it your home page