@Cognostic

If you click on the link in the OP, there's commentary which says:

This section describes the goal and the result of all meditations. When a man who knows those meditations departs from this world, gives up the body, he reaches the air, which remains crosswise in the sky, motionless and impenetrable. The air makes an opening there, in its own body—separates the parts of its own body, i.e. makes a hole in it—for him, as he comes. What is the size of that hole? Like the hole of a chariot-wheel, which is of a well-known size. He, the sage, goes upwards (lit. upward-bound) through that and reaches the sun. The sun stands blocking the way for the prospective traveller to the world of Brahman; he too lets a sage with this kind of meditation pass. He makes an opening there for him like the hole of a tabour (Lambara), a kind of musical instrument. He goes upwards through that and reaches the moon. She too makes an opening there for him like the hole a drum, the size of which is well known. He goes upwards through that and reaches a world, that of Hiraṇyagarbha. What kind of world? Free from grief, i.e. mental troubles, and from cold, i.e. physical sufferings. Reaching it, he lives there for eternal years, i.e. for many cycles of ours, which constitute the lifetime of Hiraṇyagarbha.

That's why I assumed it's talking about the human soul and not the physical body. See Wikipedia for Brahman and Hiraṇyagarbha.

Russell's teapot is in fact falsifiable. All you have to do is hop in your little flying saucer and search all of space. Russell's magical, non-corporal, invisible, spiritual teapot is non-falsifiable. (A teapot is a real thing. Space is a real thing. Orbits are real things.)

Not in the way Russell defined it:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

What if the teapot is the size of a fingernail? How will you falsify something designed not to be easily found?

The soul is not connected to the real world? What soul. I have no idea what you are talking about. You would need to define the concept before it can be effectively discussed.

Agree I think this is where the problem is with the original claim. It needs to define the terms. Let's say the book which made the original claim also has definitions for all the other terms. Even then I'm guessing I still need to show you a sample soul...so this is where evidence of a soul comes in because you cannot disprove a claim about something you don't fully understand?

@Old man shouts ...

Another claim in a book is not evidence.

Any subsequent claims must be held in abeyance until the Prime claim (that a soul or souls exist) is substantiated or at least probable.

My second quote was not to make another claim. It's just defining atman or soul because you asked for it. Yes, the way these things are defined, one claim leads to another.

Note: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence or they can be dismissed without examination"

Yes, I'm aware of Hitchen's razor as well. But this isn't about evidence and dismissing claims that don't have evidence. This is only about falsifiability, in theory. E.g., 'the Moon is made entirely of cheese' is in theory falsifiable (all one needs to do is find a moon-rock to disprove the claim), even if no one has visited the Moon and collected any samples. But I agree we need to have good understanding of both 'Moon' and 'cheese' in order to say the claim is falsifiable or not.