Donating Organ, impact on souls journey after life

Hare Krishna,

Does donating organ post death hamper the souls journey after death? In such cases does the soul remain attached to the material body and hence does not proceed to the spiritual realm?

Regards,

Karishma

You need to be a member of ISKCON Desire Tree | IDT to add comments!

Join ISKCON Desire Tree | IDT

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies

              • Hare Krishna Rajdip Prabhuji !

                Your question is, "Is blood donation against the Hindu scriptures".

                No. As it is not an organ donation, and donating blood help save someone's life, it is not against the Hindu scriptures.

                Even Shrila Prabhupad supported it. Let us read below conversation between him and a guest :

                Guest : Are blood transfusions permissible, Swami?

                Shrila Prabhupada : Well, that is not bad. Because if one life is saved by transfusion admission... He is not dying. He is living. He is contributing his blood. So if he is contributing, you are saving some life, there is no harm.

                (Room Conversation with Alcohol and Drug Hospital People -- May 16, 1975, Perth)

            • JAI SRILA A.C. BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI PRABHUPADA

              JAI ACHARYAJAN

              JAI VAISHNAVAS!

              HARI BOL!

              Yes and No.

              Karmi perspective

              No because we are indebted to demigods and should return to them these organs after antyesti of material body.

              Devotee perspective

              No because it is just an act of good karma or philantrophy in case of eye donation independent of devotional service. It will entangle us in karma.

              Yes if we are giving it dependent on devotional service and do not want any good karma.

              • Dear Shubham Prabhuji,

                Hare Krishna !

                A 'karmi' means one who is engaged in fruitive activities. He may make fruitive sacrifices in order to please the demigods. This entangles him further in karmas.

                Whether, we are karmis or not, even a Vaishnava is bound to purify his existence by 16 sanskaras. These demigods are part and  parcel of Lord Krishna hence when we return these organs to them during the antyeshti sanskaras, we are in fact returning these organs to Krishna Himself.

              • Vaishnava Perspective on Organ Donation

                Question: In my country organ donation will become compulsory. Therefore I would like to know the Vaishnava perspective on this.  Some say that one cannot get liberated if the entire body is not cremated or one becomes a ghost. Others say that it is an act of charity to donate organs and will create good karma. Again others say that organ donation may result in sin because sinful people may use your donated organs to digest alcohol, meat and drugs. What is your opinion on this or what can we find on this in shastra?

                Answer: Liberation does not depend upon the cremation of the body.yam yam vapi smaran bhavam (BG 8.6) – that is the principle of rebirth or next destination. Devotees do not become ghosts just because the full body was not cremated. It will be an insult to bhakti even to think that a devotee became a ghost just because his/her whole body was not cremated. It would mean the Holy Name has no power. You know the verses speaking of the power of the name. Even Yamaraja instructs his servants not to approach the devotees. Chota Haridas drowned himself in Ganga. Did he become a ghost? His body was not burnt. In the Mahabharata war so many soldiers from both sides lost their limbs and then their bodies were not always burnt, but sometimes eaten by vultures and jackals. It is not mentioned that they became ghosts. Moreover a devotee is not interested in liberation. His interest is in service in this or the next life, wherever he/she is born.

                Question: “Others say that it is an act of charity to donate organs and will create good karma.”

                Answer: This is true if this is what one wants. In Gita (17th ch.) Krishna talks of charity in the three gunas and one can read there what is the effect of such charity. It also involves desha-kala-patra(time, place and individual). But does a devotee want good karma? Is devotee interested in sevaor karma? What does a devotee has to do with good karma? Does he work to accrue goodkarma? Then how can such a person be called a devotee? In Srimad Bhagavata (SB 11.20.9) Lord Sri Krishna tells Uddhava:

                tavat karmani kurvita na nirvidyata yavata 
                mat-katha-sravanadau va sraddha yavan na jayate.

                Question: “As long as one is not satiated by fruitive activity and has not awakened his taste for hearing and chanting topics of Me one should act according to the regulative principles of the Vedic injunctions.”

                Answer: He categorically forbids devotees to engage in fruitive actions. This is an injunction and not an option.

                Question: “Again others say that organ donation may result in sin because sinful people may use your donated organs to digest alcohol meat and drugs.”

                Answer: This should be answered by the above.

                Question: “What is your opinion on this or what can we find on this in shastra?”

                Answer: My opinion is that a devotee is interested in devotional service, not in altruistic activities. Even if he wants to do altruistic activities it should be dovetailed with devotion and not done independently. The best welfare to society lies in bhakti. This was the question posed by Shaunak Rishi to Suta Gosvami in the very first chapter of Srimad Bhagavata – what is the best welfare for humanity? The answer was Krishna Bhakti. All other solutions are ultimately useless and create another problem, as Sri Prahlada has said in Srimad Bhagavata. A devotee hits at the root of the problem. That is why he is not appreciated by common persons because they want an immediate solution (which definitely leads to a new problem). So if we donate our limbs to a devotee that is very good. If we donate to a non-devotee it does not matter. From our perspective it is neither good nor bad. Because in the ultimate sense it makes no difference. Therefore a devotee neither gets a good karma nor bad karma. He/she is not interested in it.

                Karma also depends on sankalpa and not on mere act. If there is a hungry person a devotee gives food not because it is an act leading to good karma. His compassion is not independent of devotion. King Bharata became a deer because he became compassionate on a deer cub independent of devotion. Otherwise it was not possible. He was such a great devotee. So a devotee is compassionate from the devotional point of view and not independently.

                Question: Thank you for your enlightening answers. Please allow me, however, to probe a bit more because I am very slow of understanding. You said that donating organs to a non-devotee (thus a potential meat-eater and drinker) would not matter. Are we then not assisting in his sinful activities or do you consider us anyway free from sin because of our nAmAshray? But if we know in advance that the recipient of our organs is a sinner, would that not amount to nAmno balAd pApa buddhiH, as in the nAmAparAdhas?

                Answer: Certainly a devotee is not interested in donating his/her limbs to a meat-eater non-devotee, at least I would not like to do that. But if it is a law in some countries, then I have no choice. In that case I will not get sin. But if I donate to a sinner knowingly and then think I am free from sin because I am a devotee then that will be nAmAparAdha. If it is compulsory to donate, even then I should think that my limbs are meant only to serve the Lord and may whoever gets them will use them only to serve the Lord. That I think is the proper attitude. Making a good use of a bad bargain, as the saying goes.

                http://www.jiva.org/organ-donation/

                this may help. I do not take responsibility of this site's contents.

    • Thank you very much Prabhuji for your valuable insights. Hare Krishna.

  • Volunteer

    My humble obeisances Prabhu, please could You explain in detail what do You mean?

    Does it mean that person who donated his organ left his body?

    Or?

    Thank You!

    Usually we get next body according what about we think at the time of death. 

    Your servant, 

    • Hare Krishna Mataji,

      There are individuals who pledge to donate their organs after death such as eyes, kidneys etc. These organs after the persons death are transplanted to another needy patient. Would help if you could explain if this is allowed as per the scriptures.

      Regards,

      Karishma

      • Volunteer

        There are individuals who pledge to donate their organs after death such as eyes, kidneys etc. These organs after the persons death are transplanted to another needy patient. Would help if you could explain if this is allowed as per the scriptures.

        i think i would rather die than taking someone's happiness away. Be it for money since i am not able to pay so much. So in this way i would rather leave my body. So person who is donating his organs might be out of his compassion as King Ranti dev (if i do not mistake) in order to protect a small bird he agreed and gave parts of his body - flesh for a bigger bird to eat and replace with the flesh of the small bird.

        So in Vedic scripture it is there. 

        So that person who is giving might be very compassionate because he is doing so. But we know that it will bring suffering to him then why to take away his health?? for our own happiness???

        Your servant, 

        P.S. You see Prabhu You are saying that after he donated his organ he died no? So why to take someone's life away for the sake of saving our own life?

        • Hare Krishna Bhaktin Maral Mataji !

          Karishma Mataji is talking about position of Vedic scriptures regarding organ donation 'after death'. Also, She is not talking about a specific person. She is talking in general.

          Also, it was King Shibi and not King Rantideva who was willing to offer his flesh to a hawk for saving the life of a pigeon from the clutches of hawk. The story is as follows :

          The demigods, wanting to test the compassionate nature of King Shibi, took the form of a hawk and a pigeon. The pigeon chased by the hawk fell on King Shibi's lap seeking his protection. The hawk argued that the pigeon is its food. Shibi offered to compensate with his own flesh. Finally he offered himself to be eaten and the demigods showed him their true form and blessed him.

          There is also the example of Dadhichi Muni who gave his bones (and thus left his body) to Indra, so that he could make a weapon out of it to kill the demon Vritrasur. 

          These are the cases of organ donation when still alive. It is in fact a suicide ! Suicide is not supported by Vedas. Shrutis have said that one who desires spiritual elevation should not invite death at an immature time, at an immature age. 

          In case, a great soul commits an act against scripture, his act (which is against the scriptures) should not be followed by people. Only his acts confirming the scriptures should be followed. Only a wise person can understand this. That is why, even though there are some scattered cases of 'benevolent suicides', we should not blindly imitate them. 

          Human body is the only instrument for attaining Moksha. It helps us in performing bhakti of Krishna. That is why we should preserve our body at all cost ! 

          However, talking about donating organs after the death, there are no references in our scriptures.

           

           

           

          • Volunteer

            my humble obeisances Prabhu,

            for example, for making some parts of mridanga people use dead cow's skin so i think even if one voluntarily agrees to give some parts of her or his body after death than it is ok, no?!

            Your servant, 

This reply was deleted.