Skip to main content

Human nature? Why is there a hollow desire to be remembered after death

By N.S. Venkataraman* 
It appears to be human nature—and indeed the nature of every creature in the world—to desire to live as long as possible. In spite of such wishful thinking, humans are subconsciously aware of the grim reality that living forever is impossible, as death is a natural and unavoidable event. In this context, many people wish to be remembered for as long as possible after their passing. There are countless instances of individuals buying or reserving land for their burial or cremation, so that they might remain in the memory of future generations. We often hear of memorials constructed or statues erected by admirers and friends to perpetuate the memory of those who have passed away.
This “greed” for remembrance is widespread, particularly among those with wealth, political power, or celebrity status, who are carried away by the reputation and popularity they command.
What could be the reason for such a strong desire to be remembered, especially when no one knows with certainty what awaits after death? Clearly, such a desire stems from the ego-centric mindset of people, which seems to be a basic feature of human thought, regardless of background.
The reality is that there is no conclusive or proven explanation of where life begins or where it goes after death. Over centuries, saints, sages, and founders of religions have reflected deeply on this subject. Their conclusions, though revered, may be seen as postulates or unproven theories when measured against the rational faculty of human beings.
Some religions teach that souls proceed to heaven or hell after death, depending on their deeds. Hinduism provides a more layered explanation, speaking of rebirths determined by one’s actions. It advocates detachment from material desires and emphasizes the ultimate union of the Jeevatma (individual soul) with the Paramatma or Brahman (the Supreme). The goal is to achieve Ananda (a state of supreme bliss), ending the cycle of birth and death. Hindu thought also emphasizes saranagathi—total surrender to God.
In essence, religions often ask humans to accept their explanations without question and to surrender to the divine. They frame life as a passage toward God, with little intrinsic purpose beyond this. Almost all people, lacking better alternatives, accept one or another of these perspectives. Thus, the desire to be remembered after death may arise from a hollowness in human thought—a shallow impulse.
Science and technology have explained many aspects of life and enabled immense progress in communication, medicine, and artificial intelligence. Cloning, robotics, and AI now substitute human activity in remarkable ways, raising profound questions about whether life is truly governed by divine will. Yet, despite its triumphs, science has not answered the fundamental mysteries: where does life originate, and where does it end? Nor does it show signs of providing an ultimate explanation for “Creation” or the “Creator.” On these questions, science remains silent.
Science also offers no justification for the desire to be remembered, for it has no answer to the deeper questions of existence and death.
Adi Shankara, one of Hinduism’s greatest saints, posed the question, bhaktih kim na karoti?—“What can devotion not achieve?” He taught that unwavering surrender to Brahman was the highest path, implying that the desire for remembrance is ultimately a pursuit in emptiness. Similarly, Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi urged seekers to ask, “Who am I?”—turning the mind inward through self-inquiry. His teaching suggested that the longing for remembrance stems only from ignorance.
In light of such insights, one must ask: is it not shallow to seek remembrance after death—or for admirers to erect memorials and statues to perpetuate the memory of the departed? It seems even more hollow to bestow posthumous awards.
Shallowness or not, it makes no difference to the departed themselves—wherever they may be and whatever they may have become.
---
*Trustee, Nandini Voice of the Deprived, Chennai

Comments

TRENDING

The Nazia Elahi Khan controversy and the normalisation of hate

By Mohd. Ziyaullah Khan   The registration of two FIRs in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region against BJP Minority Morcha leader and social media influencer Nazia Elahi Khan for allegedly making derogatory remarks about Prophet Muhammad is not merely another isolated controversy. It is a disturbing reminder of how hate speech and communal provocation have become increasingly normalised in contemporary India.

Congress leader Gohil "misinformed" about the OBC caste status of Modi, contend senior Gujarat academics

Shaktisinh Gohil By A Representative Did senior Gujarat Congress leader Shaktisinh Gohil display his poor understanding of the caste system in Gujarat when he declared that Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi does not belong to the other backward class (OBC) but to an upper caste? At least two top senior experts, known for their proficiency in sociology and history of Gujarat, have wondered “how could Gohil go so wrong” on Modi’s caste status. Gohil, who all-India Congress spokesperson, has created a ripple by “disclosing” that Modi included his caste, modh ghanchi, into the OBC list three months after he came to power through a government resolution dated January 1, 2002.

Incarceration of Prof Saibaba 'revives' the question: What is crime, who is criminal?

By Kunal Pant* In 2016, a Supreme Court Judge asked the state of Maharashtra, “Do you want to extract a pound of flesh?” The statement was directed against the state for contesting the bail plea of Delhi University Professor GN Saibaba. Saibaba was arrested in 2014, a justification for which was to prevent him from committing what the police called “anti-national activities.”