This is most interesting.
If we can remove the label "soul" to the term "urvan" and replace it with "self", this would make much more sense. It would amount to one more step in transferring Zoroastrianism from a moralistic to an ethical belief system in the English language. And much closer to the truth of Zarathushtra's intentions.
Don't you agree?
Well :)! I do believe that the Bible in its 2 versions of NT and OT
give an answer to what the soul is , alas! the 2 answers are
different! But still they are answers. The OT's nephesh is living
creatures, the life force there of. IE what makes one be alive.
Strangely the Vulgata in Latin agrees translating it as anima. It
stands precisely for that. However the NT was written in Koine Greek
and soul there is Psuche a cognate of Psyche and therefore something
So one answer would imply that the soul either lives on after death
(or not) but cannot manifest that life lacking a body Or is the mental
nature of a self which might or might not survive bodily separation.
Now you might not like these answers but they are there.
Interestingly urvan who many translate as soul its said to literally
refer to the part of a being that is concerned with making a choice.
In other words, it includes the will and the ego and its consciousness
of ethics or conscience. Because of,I prefer to translate it as self.
By the way I have not read all of helen's messages but I have yet to
eadr one in which she depicts after life as seating in a garden, :):)