HinduPost is the voice of Hindus. Support us. Protect Dharma

Will you help us hit our goal?

HinduPost is the voice of Hindus. Support us. Protect Dharma
-3.1 C
Wednesday, November 29, 2023

Why Saving Souls and Conversion is False Imagination

Abrahamic Concept of the Soul and Hindu Atman

The western term “soul” is sometimes used for the Hindu term “Atman”. The two terms can be very different in meaning, and if we use the term soul for Atman, we must carefully qualify what we are indicating.

In Abrahamic traditions, soul indicates the immortal part of our nature, conceived in the image of God. Yet that God is a personal God, with special messengers and a chosen people, not a universal principle beyond duality. The soul is created by God and is different than God, not a unitary principle one with divinity as the Atman in Hindu thought.

In Christianity the soul is conceived as incomplete without a body. Going to heaven depends upon the resurrection of the physical body as a necessary component of the soul’s identity. The same is true in Islam in which Paradise is a physical world that requires a body to enjoy it. Such a soul is a continuation of one’s earthly ego. Souls in heaven are said to join up with friends and families, who maintain, perhaps glorified, their physical appearances.

As for souls who do not accept Christian or Islamic beliefs, they are condemned to hell, perdition or permanent estrangement from Divinity. The nature of these fallen souls is also regarded as a continuation of their earthly identity, judged by the consequences of their earthly actions.

Atman as the True Self

The Hindu term Atman refers to Self in the highest sense as pure consciousness beyond body and mind, time and space. There is a distinction between the Jivatman, the individual Self or soul, and the Paramatman or Supreme Self. The Jivatman is the reincarnating soul that upon its full Self-realization merges back into Paramatman. The Jivatman is bound by ignorance and karma, while Paramatman is not.

In orthodox Christian and Islamic theology, of course, there is no acceptance of karma and rebirth, and no concept of Moksha or release from Samsara (worldly cycle of death and rebirth). The Christian soul gains salvation from sin by belief in Jesus and the One God of the Bible. The Abrahamic soul is not the Self, whether as Jivatman or Paramatman. It is not the Self of all, but a creature created by God.

Saving Your Soul

This means that in Hindu thought, there cannot be any such thing as “saving your soul” or “losing your soul”. The soul or essence of your being, meaning here the Atman, is your true Self and nature, who you really are. You cannot lose yourself. There is only ignorance of our true nature that can be removed by knowledge.

You cannot save the soul of another either, in the sense of their true Self. The other person has his or her own Divine essence, their Atman; it is not for you to give this or to take it away. That is only arrogance on the part of those who think they can. Similarly, the soul as the Atman can never be converted to anything. It remains what it is, which is Being-Consciousness-Bliss Absolute, Sadchidananda. You cannot be made into something that you are not. You are in essence the Divine consciousness. No religion can alter that. If a religion tells you that access to the Divine is only possible by their beliefs, then it is not a product of higher consciousness but of human prejudices.

Nothing can change its nature. You cannot turn fire into water and have it remain as fire. Saving of souls, conversion and going to heaven are all myths and false imaginations. What is necessary is to know ourselves – to be true to our inner nature beyond the biases and opinions of the external world, including all religious dogmas.

In Hindu thought, no one can be condemned by God, though each individual is responsible for his or her own karma. No soul can be rejected by God or separated from the Divine presence, which like the sun shines on all. There is an underlying unity of existence that embraces all beings, which is your inmost Self. It is accessible at any moment to all who are receptive to it.

The greatest of all questions is “Who am I?” The highest form of knowledge is Self-knowledge, in which we come to know our true nature and identity beyond time, space and karma. This knowledge of our immortal essence is much more than what Christianity and Islam refer to as knowing or saving one’s soul.

Knowledge of the soul in Abrahamic traditions is not the same as Self-knowledge in Vedanta. The true Self does not need a body. The Jivatman takes many births and has many bodies. The Paramatman is the true Self behind all bodies and minds, all creatures and all worlds. Vedantic thought is very scientific. It does not require belief in a soul but only the willingness to examine our own minds. Our true Self is the witness of our thoughts, behind the three states of waking, dream and deep sleep. That true Self is one with the supreme Deity, however one wishes to call it, by its very nature. We discover it through complete silence of the mind, not through any belief or projection of thought or emotion.

It is time that the world gave up this false imagination of sin and salvation, saving and losing of souls, heaven and hell, and instead embraces the inner truth of the Upanishads that is agreeable to all: Sarvam khalvidam Brahma, Ayam Atma Brahma – “Everything is Brahman or the Supreme Reality of Being-Consciousness-Bliss. The Self is Brahman.”

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram &  YouTube. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook

Related Articles

Dr. David Frawley
Dr. David Frawley
Dr. David Frawley, D.Litt (Pandit Vamadeva Shastri) is the Director of American Institute of Vedic Studies ( He is a renowned Yoga, Ayurveda and Jyotish Teacher. He is also a Padma Bhushan awardee and author of 'Shiva, the Lord of Yoga' and over thirty other books.


  1. Actually there is a Sanskrit word, commonly available in many Indian vernacular languages, to denote the Christian concept of “soul”.

    It is “Preta”. It is bound to the body. It takes delight in the pleasures of the other. It is a very straightforward translation. It also shares the root with “Prema” (or “love” in the Christian sense).

    Atman has a very different meaning. Using this for translating “soul” is blatantly wrong. Anyybody with a basic knowledge of language and morphology will figure this out.

    “PretaPremi” should be the translation for the “lover of souls”.

  2. Article is shamelessly biased in favour of Illusionistic-vedant or maya-advait school and conveniently pose as if that is equivalent to core vedic thought (which btw is more realistic as opposed to buddhist thought which is closer to maya-advait)

    • I do not see any bias in the article as a matter of fact it a well known truth in Hindu society what we are told by our parents and Priest.

      Soul and atman are very different concept while soul is attached to physical form atman is the realisation and is bounded by our karma and as said ignorance around it unlike the parmatma

      What Vedic thought says? Don’t it also iterate the same that atman is part of parmatma but bounded by our karma and self realisation and once we realise it moksha can be achieved.

      And do you use your word carefully no need to be harsh on something by foul mouthing put facts and discuss like a sane person do.


      • “And do you use your word ….. a sane person do.”
        I Agree, I could have been careful as Author is sympathetic to our Indic traditions.

        “What Vedic thought says? …… realize it moksha can be achieved.”
        I agree with your words but that is not necessarily what Dr. Frawley is saying in many of his sentences. Ex. second last para: That true Self is one with the supreme Deity…. Now if That true Self is same as Jeevatma than that is Jeevbrahmaikyam something rejected by all schools accept maya-advait. So it should not be posted as some undisputed fact of Vedanta.

        “Soul and atman are very different ….. ignorance around it unlike the parmatma”
        I agree.

        “I do not see any bias in the article as a matter of fact it a well known truth in Hindu society what we are told by our parents and Priest.”
        Popularity should never be taken as source of knowledge but merely as acknowledgment IF true knowledge has been derived independent of it. And biased it is in favor of maya -advait school. If Dr. Frawley clearly says he is articulating maya-advait position I dont have a problem but surreptitiously posing it as de-facto vedant is wrong. 🙂

        • Idiot. The main issue here is not your undigested, misunderstood ideas. The idea here is, your base itself, the dharma itself, is in danger. Stupid fool. Stop your ignorant rants.
          This is how Hindus lose their dharma–crying over which hand should touch the spoon which finger should touch the glass…Shame

          • Su…. The soul and the Atman never use such language. Ignorance and awareness go hand in hand. Elevate to a level that such impressive language stops reaching your finger tips. Om Shanti.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here


Latest Articles

Sign up to receive HinduPost content in your inbox
Select list(s):

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Thanks for Visiting Hindupost

Dear valued reader, has been your reliable source for news and perspectives vital to the Hindu community. We strive to amplify diverse voices and broaden understanding, but we can't do it alone. Keeping our platform free and high-quality requires resources. As a non-profit, we rely on reader contributions. Please consider donating to Any amount you give can make a real difference. It's simple - click on this button:
By supporting us, you invest in a platform dedicated to truth, understanding, and the voices of the Hindu community. Thank you for standing with us.