On the one hand we say the atma does not die, is everywhere, and we are that ONE atma. Yet the ceremonies revolve around an 'atma' transmigrating several worlds and going through hunger and thirst that need to be propitiated. Some vedantic scholars try to explain these as similar to sun rising and setting which is our perception and not a reality. Can someone kindly explain for someone who really wants to understand and is confused ? Good references to texts one can read is fine too but they need to be not of a type "I told you so" but something that lays out the underlying reasons in a way a rational person can relate to. And, PLEASE no tacky or cynical side comments! Tejasvi na vidhitamastu !!
I believe that the ceremonies after death of a person are all a way of exhibiting our regard, reverence, love & affection, etc., towards the deceased person (who is no more, anyway). It is purely a social construct and, as long as we live ina society and claim to be part of it, we must abide by these societal norms and customs.
These after-death ceremonies have no logical relationship with philosophy. Acoording to the rig veda there is no rebirth and all who die go to pitruloka where each one gets to live in a style and comfort (or suffering & miseries) in accordance with the good and bad deeds which each person had committed during his lifetime in this world. Life in the pitruloka is eternal so to say, because there is no mention in that veda about anything happening to the deceased person after sufficiently staying there etc.
Punarjanma and the Karma theory were later additions to our religious lore. If there is punarjanma, then the question naturally arises as to how long SrAddham should be made to one's deceased parents, etc. The stock answer given is that the next janma takes anything between a few hundred earth years to a thousand earth years to happen (the period is more in the case of souls with more punya to their credit) and hence our system of SrAddhas, Tharpanams etc., are quite valid.
But the Advaita philosophy seems to come in the way, although it tries to make a distinction between Parabrahman and the jeevAtmA.
If you find my reply to be
not tacky, well &good, otherwise, skip through.