samcdkey
In Hindu, Buddhist and Islamic philosophy, we see a dual definition of the soul:
one, which is the corporal or individual soul, also defined as the self;
second, which is the celestial or supreme soul, also defined as the impersonal consciousness
At least as far as vedic analysis goes there are three aspects of the absolute truth (inother words three aspects of god) - (to use the xample of the sun) the impersonal is one (the sunshine, ie homogenous), the localised is another (seeing the sun disc in the sky, ie recognising the locality from which the sunshine emmanates) and the personality of god (equivelant to taking a side to enter the sun planet, minus the burning up of course)
Distinct from God is the living entity, sometimes also refered to as atma - three definitions for atma - body, mind and soul - just like if you take a coconut from a tree it is called a coconut, if you take off the husk of the coconut you still call it coconut (ie take away the body), and if you break open the shell it is still called cocout (ie take away the mind) - in other words the essence and value of a coconut is the white flesh inside, similarly, body and mind are coverings of the soul, and it is the presence of the soul that gives any value to the mind or body.
In otherwords we have false ego and real ego - false ego is identifying with the body and mind and real ego is identifying with the soul - when one becomes sufficiently qualified by identifying with the soul, distinct from body and mind, one is qualified to enter the spiritual world, which ..... is a whole different subject again
In Hindu philosophy, the jiva (or individual soul) is limited from complete freedom by the three bonds of ego, action and illusion (so may be said to need a body for definition, as well).
The self does not require a material body, but material life covers the self in a material body - just like we don't actually require a shirt to be living in this world, but most people are seen to be wearing one. (in other words there is a distinction between our body and the clothes we wear, the clothes are never really merged with our body because they are lifeless coverings - the same of the mind and body)
In all cases, the individual soul may be said to require a body for definition.
PS *lightgigantic, perplexity, pls correct any errors*
I guess I am just a stickler for details
But to get to Q's original query about a living person bereft of their body, the fact that a person is living indicates tat the soul hasn't left the premises of the body - th emoment a person is dead is the moment that the soul has left, and no amount of material restoration will bring it back.
Did you know that Walt Disney's Head is in some deep freezer somewhere in the states because he wanted in his will that his head be frozen so that science could revive him sometime in the future - the poor guy - he has probably been reincarnated as some Mickey Mouse by now