Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There is a stigma because some people believe your body needs to be whole during your last rites (Even though you cremate the body in the end if you're Hindu). This is pure superstition.

This is gradually changing with increasing education and awareness among people, making organ donations socially acceptable and something to be proud of.



Objectively, the funeral is really about the survivors and not the deceased. It’s sometime dressed up in religion so thoroughly that it’s hard to see, but it’s still there. If your perspective is that your loved one is “still with us” more concretely when some other person gets the gift of life from your tragedy, then that may be of great comfort. If not, then it might be more anxiety in an already very difficult situation. Look what they did to my boy.

The relative frequency of “nobody went to his funeral” vs “I missed my mother’s funeral and I’m a terrible person” story arcs in movies and tv seems to follow this pattern. Human interest stories about parents who still visit the recipient who got their motorcycle-riding son’s heart pop up at least once a year (please don’t ride motorcycles, kids).


Some Hindus bury, fyi


I know this is mentioned a lot but this is very rare, i would say < 5 % (anecdotal)


Buried if unmarried, cremated otherwise. I don't know if it's only our tradition.


nope... I know that some castes like Lingayats in Karnataka and Pisharody in Kerala bury all their dead. Probably there maybe more such castes in other parts of India.


Bhils in Sindh


Everything that you don’t agree with or don’t understand isn’t ‘pure superstition.’


> some people believe your body needs to be whole during your last rites (Even though you cremate the body in the end if you're Hindu). This is pure superstition

It's not just superstition, it's easily defeated with reason: If this were true, then every innocent person who has to suffer an amputation due to an accident would be unjustly disadvantaged.

It's similar to people who argue against gay marriage since kids aren't produced: This implies every heterosexual marriage without children is worthless


> it's easily defeated with reason: If this were true, then every innocent person who has to suffer an amputation due to an accident would be unjustly disadvantaged

How's that a defeat? Terrible things happen unjustly all the time.

Every innocent person who has to suffer an amputation due to an accident already is unjustly disadvantaged; it's not like this is an impossible state of affairs. (Just ask them whether they'd prefer to have their appendages back!)


Unless you believe there are no accidents.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: