Sin in hinduism

[wcrow]

Greetings,

I have seen a few people on here using the word "sin" in the context of hinduism, and I was wondering what they meant by it. The word usually has very different meanings depending on the religious context, so can have several very diverse meanings.
So, how is sin incurred, what are the major sins (if they are defined) and what is done to atone for sin?

Thanks in advance,

Wilfred.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam wcrow:

There is no sin in Hinduism. This is another western concept that has crept in via the Christian missionaries or via Hindus doing too much reading about Christianity. It's a foreign concept brought to us by foreigners, and had no place in SD.

Similarly, there is no good or bad karma. There is just karma. The world of seeing duality and polar opposites everywhere is totally Abrahamic. You may think it is daytime right now, but it is night time somewhere else. A totally overly simplistic view of the world.

There is, however, behaviour that takes us away from God, and behaviour that takes us towards God. Sin was talked about by some recent universalists because they wanted to cater to the Christians who liked to pretend to be Hindus.

We have anava, or primal ignorance, the inability to distinguish dharma, otherwise known as stupidity.

We make up for doing stupid things by apologising or doing a self imposed penance, and by not repeating the same mistake. Mistakes are part and parcel of the path. Experiences are necessary to advance character.

The Christians are welcome to the concept. After all, simplistic black white philosophy is there forte, no.

Aum Namasivaya

[sambya]

although we have a word 'paap' which is normally defined as sin , it is not the same thing as a christian sin .
as eastern mind said , its all about karma , good or bad . good takes you closer to god while bad takes you away from him . but even good karma cannot reach to god . one must transcend both paap and punya to realise the supreme .

there's no formal atonement for sin .

[sanjaya]

This is an interesting question, and I've been trying to understand it in the context of the meaning of the Satyanarayana Puja. Sin, adharmic actions, or whatever we wish to call it, seems to involve things that harm others or ourselves (in the latter case, by taking us away from God). I note that the puja's purpose is not to somehow atone for sin, but to remove the negative consequences that the sin has on us. Is this correct?

[ScottMalaysia]

From what I understand, sin in Hinduism is something that makes us forget God, by which we take ourselves away from God. The term sin has been used by Hindu gurus, particularly Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Sivaya Subramuniyaswami.

The Hindu view of sin is not the same as the Christian view. Christians (particularly Catholics) believe that sin is an offence against God. According to Catholic theology, a mortal sin (a bad act commited with full knowledge and significant reflection) breaks a person's relationship with God and if they die unrepentant in a state of mortal sin, they will go to hell.

For the Hindu version of hell (Naraka) and the sins which send one there, read the Garuda Purana (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/gpu/index.htm).

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~

namasté

I think ScottMalaysia has said it best... My teacher said sin is predicated on not knowing the Self. The implications are vast and wide. How can we know God adore Him/Her and have a devotional life if we don't know our Selves to begin with? What would we give Him/Her?; what is there to offer?

As said the implications are vast and wide and from this one can have various beliefs - yet they can ( or cannot ) be based upon truth.

praṇām

[nirotu]

There is no sin in Hinduism. This is another western concept that has crept in via the Christian missionaries or via Hindus doing too much reading about Christianity. It's a foreign concept brought to us by foreigners, and had no place in SD.

The Christians are welcome to the concept. After all, simplistic black white philosophy is there forte, no.

Dear EM:

It never ceases to amaze me! Perhaps, ponder over this.

Sin
From The Mahabharata
Santi Parva, Section CLVIII
Translated by Sri Kisari Mohan Ganguli

Yudhishthira said: I desire, O bull of Bharata’s race, to hear in detail the source from which sin proceeds and the foundation upon which it rests.

Bhishma said: Hear, O King, what the foundation is of sin. Covetousness alone is a great destroyer of merit and goodness. From covetousness proceeds sin. It is from this source that sin and irreligiousness flow, together with great misery. This covetousness is the spring of also all the cunning and hypocrisy in the world. It is covetousness that makes men commit sin. From covetousness proceeds wrath; from covetousness flows lust, and it is from covetousness that loss of judgment, deception, pride, arrogance, and malice, as also vindictiveness, loss of prosperity, loss of virtue, anxiety, and infamy spring. Miserliness, cupidity, desire for every kind of improper act, pride of birth, pride of learning, pride of beauty, pride of wealth, pitilessness for all creatures, malevolence towards all, mistrust in respect of all, insincerity towards all, appropriation of other people’s wealth, ravishment of other people’s wives, harshness of speech, anxiety, propensity to speak ill of others, violent craving for the indulgence of lust, gluttony, liability to premature death, violent propensity towards malice, irresistible liking for falsehood, unconquerable appetite for indulging in passions, insatiable desire for indulging in ear, evil-speaking, boastfulness, arrogance, non-doing of duties, rashness, and perpetration of every kind of evil act,- all these proceed from covetousness.

When wicked-souled persons under the domination of covetousness apparently practise the duties of righteousness, the consequence that results is that the desecrations committed by them soon become current among men. Pride, anger, arrogance, insensibility, paroxysms of joy and sorrow, and self-importance, all these are to be seen in persons swayed by covetousness. Know that they who are always under the influence of covetousness are wicked.
http://www.hinduism.co.za/sin.htm

Jesus said in Luke 12:15, “And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.” (KJV)

Blessings,

[Eastern Mind]

Nirotu: What I meant was 'sin' as defined by Christianity. Translators have a difficult time of it when there are uncertain English words for the matter. I've never read the Mahabharata and don't view it as 'Great scripture" like some others.

Feel free to believe what you wish about SD. Quoting the Bible is absolutely irrelevant to me as well.

From Wikipedia:
Hindu views of sin

Main article: Hindu views of sin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_of_sin)
In Hinduism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism), although the term sin (pāpa in Sanskrit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit)) is often used to describe actions that create negative karma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma) by violating moral and ethical codes it is different from other religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the sense that sin is against the will of God. It is against the Dharma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma).

Aum Namasivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~

namasté

We find this pāpa¹ in the Bhāgavad gītā, chapter 4, 36th śloka:
Even if you were the most sinful (pāpa-kṛttamaḥ) of all sinners (pāpebhyaḥ) , you would cross over all evil by the raft of knowledge alone.

praṇām

1. pāpa or pāpá पाप as a noun is considered sin , vice , crime , guilt ; further it is evil , misfortune , ill-luck , trouble , mischief, harm .
in Jyotish it is considered boding evil , inauspicious . Used in the masculine gender it is considered a wicked man , wretch , villain
Female gender it is a beast of prey or a witch .
pāpám is badly , miserably , wrongly .
pā of pāpa has 4 derivations - the 4th one is to rise against, be hostile.

[nirotu]

We find this pāpa¹ in the Bhāgavad gītā, chapter 4, 36th śloka:
Even if you were the most sinful (pāpa-kṛttamaḥ) of all sinners (pāpebhyaḥ) , you would cross over all evil by the raft of knowledge alone.

Dear Yajvan:

Good point!

It is said that just as streaming water is purest at the source, so is the knowledge that is purest at the source (with God). The implication of the verse here is that as long as we are present on this planet we will never have knowledge that is purest, and thus, are sinning. Is it any different than what we understand from the Bible, which also says; man is born sinner with the capacity to sin? Just curious!

Blessings,

[sambya]

The term sin has been used by Hindu gurus, particularly Ramakrishna Paramahamsa ..............

once ramakrishna desired to hear from bible . after listening a few pages he asked the reader to stop .
and then he said -- " the same old thing . sin sin and sin . why are they so much preoccupied with sin ? one who constantly thinks that he is a sinner becomes a sinner . you become what you think . one should have immense faith in purifying power of god's name . your attitude should be like-'what !! i have uttered his name once . can any more sin remain in me ?!! ' "

then he narrated a story of a certain brahmin whom he personally knew . the man was a staunch orthodox brahmin of that era(19th century) and had immense love for shiva . once when he was on a tour and felt thirsty he came across a well with only one untouchable man drawing water from it . the brahmin asked for some water from him . to this the man got startled and said " brahmin , i cant do this . im a chandala ! " the brahmin replied back " oh i see !! dont worry . just utter 'shiva' thrice and give me water . " such was the faith of the brahmin in lords name . ***

ramakrishna ended off by saying that we should have such faith in god's name and never ponder over sins ......:)





*** this story should be understood keeping in mind the sociological conditons prevailing 150 years ago in india .

[atanu]

Dear Yajvan:

Good point!

It is said that just as streaming water is purest at the source, so is the knowledge that is purest at the source (with God). The implication of the verse here is that as long as we are present on this planet we will never have knowledge that is purest, and thus, are sinning. Is it any different than what we understand from the Bible, which also says; man is born sinner with the capacity to sin? Just curious!

Blessings,

Namaste Nirotu

How do you surmise the above implication?

[sambya]

Dear Yajvan:

Good point!

It is said that just as streaming water is purest at the source, so is the knowledge that is purest at the source (with God).

i agree


The implication of the verse here is that as long as we are present on this planet we will never have knowledge that is purest, and thus, are sinning.

i dont see this meaning to the aforesaid verse .

knowledge might be purest with god . but remember in hinduism god is not someone who sits on a throne high up in the heavens . he is the only thing that exists and everything is him alone ( both according to vishishtadvaita and advaita) . knowledge is also 'purest' with us . we are not something seperate from him .

knowledge cannot be impure . all knowledges are knowledge . but there is such a thing as perfection of knowledge . god realization is that perfection . that knowledge through which all else becomes known is perfect knowledge .


Is it any different than what we understand from the Bible, which also says; man is born sinner with the capacity to sin? Just curious!


yes there is . bible makes the man inherently pure . its like , you begin as an impure one , then rise to the level of purity through grace of jesus or father .
but as per hindu thought , you (soul) are inherently pure . its the maya that makes you feel impure .and in absolute sense there is nothing like impurity as everything emanates from god . impurity and purity are too conditions of mind based on maya . in hinduism your true self remains divine throughout .

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~

namasté

Sin is wrong action. What is action based upon? Thinking. So sin (pāpa¹) is connected with thinking/thoughts and these thoughts carried out.


nirotu offers

it is said that just as streaming water is purest at the source, so is the knowledge that is purest at the source (with God). The implication of the verse here is that as long as we are present on this planet we will never have knowledge that is purest, and thus, are sinning. Is it any different than what we understand from the Bible, which also says; man is born sinner with the capacity to sin? Just curious!

There is a level of Being one can experience that is at the 'source' the fountainhead of Consciousness and its purity. When we operate from this level of Being each action is grounded in this level and yet we are untouched by actions. That is, they are not binding¹. This is why Kṛṣṇa informs us, be without the 3 guna-s ¹. The śloka says , freed from duality ever firm in purity. Hence one is without pāpa.

So here is another consideration - many talk of good karma and bad karma. It does not matter if good or bad, both are binding. Both keep one in ignorance.
I much prefer good over bad - really sattva or tamasic tendencies, yet with the infusion of pure awareness into one's daily routine, sattva comes along and takes hold.
Over time sattva builds and negative thinking is not entertained - pāpa dwindles and the seed of sin is roasted on the flame of pure awareness and the infusion of Being into one's life.


praṇām


words & references

Bhāgavad gītā - chapter 2, 45th verse
pāpa or pāpá पाप as a noun is considered sin , vice , crime , guilt ; further it is evil , misfortune , ill-luck , trouble , mischief, harm .
What is the notion of binding and not binding - see this HDF post if there is interest: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4033

[wcrow]

Thanks all. I think I get the basic premise. But what kind of actions are considered tamasic/bad? - I am guessing it is not as perscriptive as the abrahamic religions. Is it vitue or consequence based? Or is there a "list" of things that take you away from god, and things that draw you near?


hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~

namasté

Sin is wrong action. What is action based upon? Thinking. So sin (pāpa¹) is connected with thinking/thoughts and these thoughts carried out.


nirotu offers

There is a level of Being one can experience that is at the 'source' the fountainhead of Consciousness and its purity. When we operate from this level of Being each action is grounded in this level and yet we are untouched by actions. That is, they are not binding¹. This is why Kṛṣṇa informs us, be without the 3 guna-s ¹. The śloka says , freed from duality ever firm in purity. Hence one is without pāpa.

So here is another consideration - many talk of good karma and bad karma. It does not matter if good or bad, both are binding. Both keep one in ignorance.
I much prefer good over bad - really sattva or tamasic tendencies, yet with the infusion of pure awareness into one's daily routine, sattva comes along and takes hold.
Over time sattva builds and negative thinking is not entertained - pāpa dwindles and the seed of sin is roasted on the flame of pure awareness and the infusion of Being into one's life.


praṇām


This is really interesting. So you are saying (and from my knowledge of the Gita) that good or bad actions matters little, but renunication of all Karma by surrender/awareness to god is the best way? If there is little difference between good and bad actions, what is the impetus to do Sattvic over Tamasic?
I hope I am not confused here.

Thanks,

Wilfred.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~

namasté wcrow,


This is really interesting. So you are saying (and from my knowledge of the Gita) that good or bad actions matters little, but renunication of all Karma by surrender/awareness to god is the best way? If there is little difference between good and bad actions, what is the impetus to do Sattvic over Tamasic? I hope I am not confused here.

You ask a very practical question. One must discriminate between good and bad of this there is no doubt. Note that I said both good and bad actions are actions (karman) which bind. This is the 'physics' behind it... both bind i.e. I can throw a bomb or I can throw a flower - the act of throwing is the same ( an action) yet the results differ, no?

So what does kṛṣṇa-ji inform us ( chapter 3)? Do action worthy of performance ( verse 19), perform right actions. What are they ? What is the theme of right action? It is those actions that are life supporting to the doer ( the individual) and to the environment ( his/her surroundings). It is actions that support one's unfoldment of Being in his/her life , sustaining themselves and the environment. This is the basis of dharma .

Verse 35 chapter 3, of the Bhāgavad gītā says one should perform one's own dharma. This dharma is quite profund as it is rooted in dhṛ to uphold, preserve, support. We can see how we get to 'life supporting' from dharma.


So from this conversation the issue is not so much good and bad but that of right action and wrong action. Some may equate right action to good and wrong action to bad , but this is a conventional understanding and can cause mishief depending on one's norms , roles, culture.

More can be said if you have interest... lets be sure we have this good and bad stuff vs. right and wrong in place and then we can continue if you wish.


praṇām

[sambya]

If there is little difference between good and bad actions, what is the impetus to do Sattvic over Tamasic?
I hope I am not confused here.

Thanks,

Wilfred.


a parable of sri ramakrishna paramahamsa to give you the answer .

a lonely man was passing by the forest when he was attacked by three thugs who tied him with rope and gagged him . after they were done with the looting the first thug said ' lets kill him right now ' . the second thug replied 'what is the need to take trouble in killing him ? let him be here tied like this' . saying this they went off . after an hour the third thug came back , untied the fellow and said 'come with me , i'll help you with the way to the village' . saying this both walked through the bushes and outgrowths till they came to the end of the forest . the thug said 'see there's your village . go back now' . but the man was now filled with gratitude for what the thug has done for him and said , 'hey . i cant go alone . you must come with me to the village . you saved my life !! ' . the thug replied ' im sorry . i cannot cross this forest . that village lies beyond my territory . '

the first thug is tamo guna - one that kills .
the second thug is rajo guna - one that keeps a man bound in maya .
the third thug is sattva guna - one that liberates a man and shows him the path to god , but himself cannot reach god .

god can be reached when a person transcends these three gunas .

[satay]

namaste,


Namaste Nirotu

How do you surmise the above implication?

I was wondering about the same.:Cool:

[sanjaya]

Dear EM:

It never ceases to amaze me! Perhaps, ponder over this.

Hello Nirotu,

Your explantion only makes sense if we take both the Mahabharata text and the Bible out of their contexts, and even then it's not that strong. It is quite reasonable to understand that desire for possessions leads people to evil behavior. Hinduism teaches that we should rid ourselves of worldly attachments. Christianity doesn't teach this. In fact, Christian evangelists keep telling me that this is actually a point of major disagreement between Hinduism and Christianity. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Eastern Mind correctly stated that sin (which he replaces with another term), as per the Hindu understanding, is that which leads us away from God. In Christianity the idea of walking away from God is secondary to the affront to God that sin represents. Sin is considered to be a usurping of God's authority, and an offense against his character. This isn't the same thing.

The Mahabharata text you quoted describes actions that lead to sin. It doesn't give a definition of sin, so I'm not sure why we're discussing it (not that I mind). As for the Biblical quote, I'll let Christians interpret their own scriptures, and not presume to dictate their theology to them.


It is said that just as streaming water is purest at the source, so is the knowledge that is purest at the source (with God). The implication of the verse here is that as long as we are present on this planet we will never have knowledge that is purest, and thus, are sinning. Is it any different than what we understand from the Bible, which also says; man is born sinner with the capacity to sin? Just curious!

I'm not aware of any Hindu text which says that man is born a sinner. Hinduism acknowledges that man has the capability to sin (again, as per the Hindu understanding). But we also recognize man's ability to do good. We don't refer to all people as sinners, because this implies some sort of lifestyle characterized by sinning.

Question: if I wet the bed once when I was four years old, am I now a bedwetter? Most reasonable people would say no. But Christians tell me that even if a man does not habitually sin, even one sin is enough to classify him as a sinner. This is the problem with your premature conclusion that all people are "sinners."

[Eastern Mind]

Sanjaya: Thanks for being so well equipped with some degree of knowledge regarding this debate. What little I know is from Comparitive East versus West essays written from the eastern POV.

I also took a vow at 14 years old or so to never argue with a Christian, as it leads nowhere, but this again is just my POV. So I leave this 'debate' in your capable hands. Nandri!

Hopefully it won't lead to a sit down meal involving a rice and curry.

Aum Namasivaya

[wcrow]

Sabya: Thankyou for relating that story.

Yajvan: Thanks, that makes sense. I think I understand now. Right action is ones duty, or Dharma.


hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~



More can be said if you have interest... lets be sure we have this good and bad stuff vs. right and wrong in place and then we can continue if you wish.


praṇām

Yes, please continue!

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~

namasté wcrow (et.al)



Yajvan: Thanks, that makes sense. I think I understand now. Right action is ones duty, or Dharma. Yes, please continue!
I wrote,


What is the theme of right action? It is those actions that are life supporting to the doer ( the individual) and to the environment ( his/her surroundings). It is actions that support one's unfoldment of Being in his/her life , sustaining themselves and the environment. This is the basis of dharma .

There are many things we can do that are considered right action... Let me mention a few first, then let me mention a condition where each action we do is spontaneously correct or in line with the laws of nature.

Lets look to the taittirīya upaniṣad ( part of the kṛṣṇa yajur ved) and visit the śikṣā vallī (section). This śikṣā¹ has a few meanings , one is learning, education. The other is proper pronunciation.

Now I am going to work backwards here and we will move forward in this section in the next post. After the teacher (ācārya¹) gives this śikṣā to the student in this section he finalizes his words by saying this:
Speak the truth (satyaṁ), practice dharmaṁ ( that which upholds), do not neglect self-study (svādhyāyānmā); let there
be no neglect of truth, let there be no neglect of righteousness, let there be no neglect of protecting your self, let there be no neglect of
self-study and teaching.

Said another way ( via svāmi śivānanda's translation ) , never swerve away from truth, never swerve away from duty (dharma) nerver neglect your welfare, swerve not from any act for the protection of your self.

This is a firm basis for right action. We will go a bit deeper as you know the words can be quite profound.

praṇām

words

śikṣā शिक्षा - learning ,study, knowledge , art , skill in ; the science which teaches proper articulation and pronunciation of Vedic texts, one of the six vedāṅga; this word also means modesty , humility
ācārya आचार्य - ' knowing or teaching the ācāra or rules'

[nirotu]

Namaste Nirotu

How do you surmise the above implication?

Dear Atanu:

Relevant question and I appreciate it. How did I conclude this way? Let us revisit the verse put forth by Yajvan:


Bhāgavad gītā, chapter 4, 36th śloka:
Even if you were the most sinful (pāpa-kṛttamaḥ) of all sinners (pāpebhyaḥ), you would cross over all evil by the raft of knowledge alone.

Please, bear with me. In my opinion, the verse clearly declares that only the knowledge (jnana) will overcome Papa (sin). Knowledge, I mean, that of the truth or reality.

I also said, “knowledge is purest at the source”. What I mean is, in this creation, while all knowledge is representative of some aspects of reality, it is not complete and perfect until it takes in the whole of reality. However, the possibility of error is not removed until our knowledge becomes complete and comprehensive, and individual knower is freed from all defects. In Samsara this is not possible, though the aspiration is there.

I respect you as a scholar in Shankara so I will not belabor too much with what you already know. However, I will say this: Shankara argues; It is only when the knowledge is at its highest, when it reaches its goal, man shall have a single organized experience. Now, given the fact that it is impossible to achieve purest of the pure knowledge, the ethics of Shankara says, Avidya becomes the cause of our bondage. He asserts that Kama is born of Avidya and Karma is the result of Kama. Thus, the Avidya is responsible for the propensity in man for doing mainly bad things (call it sin or by any other name). This Avidya is there as long as man shall exist in this creation because knowledge is never complete.

Therefore, it would make sense for me to believe that the propensity to commit sin is there as along man shall live. Now is that any different than what David says, “I am conceived in Sin” or I am born with the capacity to Sin?

I like to hear your thoughts!

Blessings,

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~

namasté wcrow (et.al)

I wrote,


Let's look to the taittirīya upaniṣad ( part of the kṛṣṇa yajur ved) and visit the śikṣā vallī (section). Now I am going to work backwards here and we will move forward in this section ...
Now the student (śiṣya) of this śikṣā vallī is named prācīnayogya. As you know these names are relevant to the teaching and gives us a hint on the knowledge being imparted or of the quality requirements of the student.
Lets look at his name - prācīna+yogya. Prācīna = ancient or preceding, or prior. It also means in front , forward in space and time, or 'further on from that point'. And and yogya means proper for practice, fit or qualified. Hence this informs me prācīnayogya is fit and qualified and is 'in front' or advanced in his ability, yet ancient ( well grounded) to learn. He is adept.
This also tells us on how to view and consider this wisdom. We too must be ready to groom our comprehension i.e. clarity of mind and purpose vs. intellectual window shopping ( I am not suggesting any one is doing this - we just need to be mindful of this notion).

In the last post I offered this from the 12th anuvāka (sub-section).
Speak the truth (satyaṁ), practice dharmaṁ ( that which upholds), do not neglect self-study (svādhyāyānmā). Now this is mildly interesting, but if we go to the 9th anuvāka, we find the weight of these words offered by 3 ṛṣi-s:

truth is what matters says satyavacas (the one who says truth only)
tapas ( purification) is what matters says taponitya ( the one constantly engaged in tapas)
svādhyāyānmā (Self-study) and listening to the expositions of the guru is what matters says nāka (naka is of a man and nāka is 'where there is no pain)Note these 3 items are not competing with each other, all are complementary to each other. So we can see a pattern of what is important.

Yet the 1st word of this śloka is ṛtaṁ. It says ṛtaṁ along with self-study and listening to the expositions of the guru is to be practiced. What is this ṛtaṁ ? It has a few meanings worthy of note:


ṛtaṁ ( some my spell it ritam) - means right , fit , apt , suitable , able ; as a noun it is truth in general , righteousness , right.
Since this ṛtam is rooted (√) in i it implies and also means 'to go the right way' , 'be virtuous'. We now arrive back at right action. But where does this ṛtaṁ come? How is it groomed? From truth, svādhyāyānmā and tapas. These are purifying in themselves yet the śloka also informs us of the withdrawal of the mind and of the senses. What's this then?

It is through this withdrawal ( meditation) that truth, is revealed - it is the ultimate 'Self-study' . It is tapas ( purification via withdrawal).
Note this withdrawal is not the notion of running away or of a physical nature . It is of the withdrawing the senses and this occurs
naturally with meditation ( or various upāya-s i.e. techniques) that bring one to turiya or the 4th, that level of pure awareness.

There is more this śloka offers, yet the 4 notions above i.e. ṛtaṁ, satyaṁ (truth), tapas & svādhyāyānmā are a wealth of knowledge to consider and practice. Yet the implication to this wisdom is thus: We can have limited right action with limited consciousness. We can have full right action with full consciousness. This should be discussed next - but lets see if there are questions or comments to the knowledge offered above.

praṇām

[nirotu]

Dear Sanjaya:



Your explantion only makes sense if we take both the Mahabharata text and the Bible out of their contexts, and even then it's not that strong. It is quite reasonable to understand that desire for possessions leads people to evil behavior. Hinduism teaches that we should rid ourselves of worldly attachments. Christianity doesn't teach this.

Word game and poor scholarship!

Please, explain me one thing. How does the meaning of what Bhishma’s response to Yudhistira or Jesus’ response to disciples about covetousness in reference to Sin change with context? Does, changing context make “sin” any more or less relevant? Just by using clever twisted words does not necessarily make its meaning as purported in above verses any different, unless you consider literal meaning is irrelevant.


In fact, Christian evangelists keep telling me that this is actually a point of major disagreement between Hinduism and Christianity. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The problem, as I see, is that when discussing with me, you are too hung up on Evangelical interpretation and interpret Jesus’ message based on it. At least when you discuss with me do me a favor. Try not to generalize with what you know from Evangelicals, which is more of doctrinal. Go by what truly Jesus says and means from the Bible. I think it would be best to keep ones eye upon Christ and not so much what men do in the name of Christ. I agree some Christians are very "Arrogant" in their methods of presentation of the Gospel, and many church's "version" of the Gospel isn't particularly "good news" anyway. Most people who think they're "suffering for Jesus" nowadays are really only "suffering" because they have lousy interpersonal skills. If you ignore Evangelical teachings and hit straight to Jesus’ messages as it says in the Bible, perhaps one can gain more insights to share.

Therefore, when you discuss an idea, try to go beyond dogmatic assertions and forge real arguments. I was hoping that you would at least acknowledge the truth in the verse as I quoted straight from the scripture, instead of perverting it. You seem to jump at the first opportunity to negate it without even thinking. Anytime it comes from me, you consider it wrong because, you seem to have this preconceived notion of proving me wrong all the time. This is a problem with many when they use only intellect as a guide, which only refers to the affairs of mind. Instead, why not make it a matter of heart and not a matter of mind? If it is a matter of mind, you will undoubtedly try to be analytical without any end in sight as you have proved in another post (ice-crystals and evolution).

I like to believe that none of us on this forum hold to a heretical view, and yet we spend our time arguing with each other. And the worst of it is that in the process, we come away missing the point of the text and gaining disputes over words.


Eastern Mind correctly stated that sin (which he replaces with another term), as per the Hindu understanding, is that which leads us away from God. In Christianity the idea of walking away from God is secondary to the affront to God that sin represents. Sin is considered to be a usurping of God's authority, and an offense against his character. This isn't the same thing.

The Mahabharata text you quoted describes actions that lead to sin. It doesn't give a definition of sin, so I'm not sure why we're discussing it (not that I mind). As for the Biblical quote, I'll let Christians interpret their own scriptures, and not presume to dictate their theology to them.
Here again, all you are doing is twisting text with different words and trying to create a different meaning. The purported meaning in Christianity is the same as in the text I quoted from Mahabharata. It is the resulting action that is contrary to God’s command is sin. For example, the temptation in and of itself is not sin. But the actions that result from it that is contrary to God’s will are Sinful. When David says, “I am conceived in Sin”, he is not saying that parents sinful action resulted in his conception. He is saying that I am brought in this world with a capacity to sin. That is how I like to take the meaning of “I am conceived in sin” not as “sinner” by birth.

Thus, I learn, the sin is the natural result of propensity to do bad things that is within us and not a terrible, inexplicable force with horns and tails. The propensity is due nothing but to our own animal urges. To come under their sway is "ignorance: To come to rule over them is "wisdom".


Question: if I wet the bed once when I was four years old, am I now a bedwetter? Most reasonable people would say no. But Christians tell me that even if a man does not habitually sin, even one sin is enough to classify him as a sinner. This is the problem with your premature conclusion that all people are "sinners."

I am sorry that you misunderstand again. There are sins of commission (doing something you are not supposed to), there are sins of Omission (That which you are supposed to do but do not) and then there are sins done in ignorance, which God knows and forgives. As far as I know, every human being fits in one of these three categories. Tell me how you can say people are sinless in the strictest sense of the term, I mean, one with capacity not to do any of the above?

BTW, bed-wetting is not a sin but a medical condition. You will be called bed-wetter if you do not resolve it medically and problem lingers on.

Blessings,

[atanu]

Dear Atanu:

Relevant question and I appreciate it. How did I conclude this way? Let us revisit the verse put forth by Yajvan:



Please, bear with me. In my opinion, the verse clearly declares that only the knowledge (jnana) will overcome Papa (sin). Knowledge, I mean, that of the truth or reality.

I also said, “knowledge is purest at the source”. What I mean is, in this creation, while all knowledge is representative of some aspects of reality, it is not complete and perfect until it takes in the whole of reality. However, the possibility of error is not removed until our knowledge becomes complete and comprehensive, and individual knower is freed from all defects. In Samsara this is not possible, though the aspiration is there.

I respect you as a scholar in Shankara so I will not belabor too much with what you already know. However, I will say this: Shankara argues; It is only when the knowledge is at its highest, when it reaches its goal, man shall have a single organized experience. Now, given the fact that it is impossible to achieve purest of the pure knowledge, the ethics of Shankara says, Avidya becomes the cause of our bondage. He asserts that Kama is born of Avidya and Karma is the result of Kama. Thus, the Avidya is responsible for the propensity in man for doing mainly bad things (call it sin or by any other name). This Avidya is there as long as man shall exist in this creation because knowledge is never complete.

Therefore, it would make sense for me to believe that the propensity to commit sin is there as along man shall live. Now is that any different than what David says, “I am conceived in Sin” or I am born with the capacity to Sin?

I like to hear your thoughts!

Blessings,

Namaste Nirotu

You earlier said: The implication of the verse here is that as long as we are present on this planet we will never have knowledge that is purest, and thus, are sinning.

In your explanation now, you offer that sin and avidya (as in hinduism) are same?

Like you, I also agree that what christians call the original sin, Shankara calles the primeval beginningless avidya. Even, what Ramanujacharya calls beginnigless karma, Shankara calls the primeval beginningless Avidya.

First, I think there is heaven and hell difference in connotation. Shankara, as per me, frees the mind of concept of sin and helps to understand that it is egoistic seeing and understanding that is at the root of the problem. And Shankara does not blame an individual for this ego muddle, since to start with Ego is not a reality but an effect of presence of forms and names. So, Shankara does not teach of a Sin.

Second, the Mahat, the unlimited mind, is transparent, pure sattwik, and present as imperishable intelligence here and now. Though Shri Krishna says that it is difficult for the embodied to overcome this avidya due to presence of body, which is bound to give rise to ego because of pains etc. to the body and localised minds, yet, He teaches that the release is possible Here and Now.

Hope I am clear.

Om Namah Shivaya

[wcrow]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~

This should be discussed next - but lets see if there are questions or comments to the knowledge offered above.

praṇām

Thanks, I think I understand. No questions on the subject matter from me. One thing though - I looked up the passages on an online copy of the upanishads, and the word "tapas" is translated as "penance". Is there a reason for this dual meaning?

Wilfred.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~

namasté wcrow (et.al)


Thanks, I think I understand. No questions on the subject matter from me. One thing though - I looked up the passages on an online copy of the upanishads, and the word "tapas" is translated as "penance". Is there a reason for this dual meaning?


Tapas is defined as heating up; it is also austerity , penance, as you have mentioned, and also special observances. It is the notion of purification. Note tapas has 'tapa' in it. This is defined as 'consumed by heat'. This heat and purification go hand-in-hand as the notion of fire that burns away impurities. Metals are purified by high heat. It is the notion of heat which brings light like the sun. The Sun purifies by its light and radiant heat. So the notion of tapa and tapas.


Let's see if we can bring this back to removing pāpa (sin)... I wrote some posts back,

Sin is wrong action. What is action based upon? Thinking. So sin (pāpa) is connected with thinking/thoughts and these thoughts carried out

Now it is discussed in the Bhāgavad gītā , Chapter 4, that through action one attains brahman. And this is done through the act of yajña , one establishes the mind in wisdom (brahman). We will discuss this in a movement, but one must ask why bring this up, how is it relevant?
We look to verse 30 for the connection as kṛṣṇa-ji informs us '... and through yajña their sins are cast away.'

It seems worthy of our time to look to this yajña and its various forms. These are called out in chapter 4 and tapas is clearly called out, yet there are others. Let me list them out, but first define yajña. Yajña is an offering , oblation , a sacrifice , it is worship , devotion , prayer , praise . In any case it is an act that takes place - and it is right action, a skillful means. Kṛṣṇa-ji calls out several starting in the 25th verse:

yajña to the deva-s ( or daivam), offering the yajña into the fire that is brahman
yajña of hearing and other senses into the fire of control; some offer sound
others offer life-breath ( prāṇa) into the fire of yoga
some perform yajña by means of material possessions, tapas, the practice of yoga, others offer rigid vows,
other offer svādhyāya of their scriptural leaning ( recall svādhyāyānmā form the previous post?)
Others pour the inward into the outward breath (prāṇayam)
etc etc.And kṛṣṇa-ji ends this list with '... and through yajña their sins are cast away.' The ways of yajña can be considered skillful acts or methods ( upāya) of yajña. And what occurs for those performing yajña ? They ( the performers) eat the remains says kṛṣṇa-ji . What's that? They enjoy the results ( the fruit) of their yajña. All these are ways to purify one's self , to become more refined so one can entertain the Divine level Of Being within themselves, or to reach brahman as it is said in the 31st verse.

One needs to be mindful that there is the outer act (on the physical level) and there is the inner act (on the level of one's awareness). One can attend a yajña ( fire sacrifice ) and participate . At the end , one is offered the remains, prasād. One may be given fruits, flowers, etc. from the yajña . It is a symbol of what is to occur within, on the level of awareness. The infusion of Divine Consciousness - this is the prasād.

Let's consider the definition of this prasād ( some write prasada) - it means grow clear and bright, to make serene ,to render calm. It also means to offer favor, to be gracious. But who is doing this offer? It is the grace and favor given by the Divine to the one doing the yajña.

Now if one takes these yajña-s at face value only, they are pure ritual on the physical level. Recall there are 3 ways of viewing the wisdom
of the śāstra-s:

ādhibautika - the physical level - derived or produced from the elements
ādhidaivika - the cosmic level pertaining to the devatā
ādhytmika - spiritual , of the Supreme, Self.So , one must be clear that yajña has an outer value and an inner value and can be performed or viewed as a fire homa or internally as transcending and 'giving up' , the act of offering (yajña) all actions and the senses.
All are left at the 'alter' of duality and one rests (prasād) in the field of pure awareness ( Being, the Divine).

praṇām

[Ramakrishna]

The question has already pretty much been answered, but here is my viewpoint.

I agree that the Christian concept of sin has crept into Hinduism, where it has no place. However, there still is a concept of sin in Hinduism. While the Christian concept of sin and the Hindu concept of sin differ greatly, their both similar in the basic meaning: sin is an offense against God, something that separates us from God.

The main differences lie in the effects and atonement of sin. Most Christians believe that all you have to do is love Jesus and ask him for forgiveness, and your sins are forgiven. That is all. In Hinduism, there is the whole concept of karma. As others have said, there really is no "bad karma" and "good karma", there is just karma. However, people have applied the term "bad karma" to describe the karma that is in effect when we sin. Hindus still ask God for forgiveness and perform penance through prayer and austerity, but the law of karma is always in place.

Another major difference is that Christians believe if you do not love Jesus and ask him for forgiveness, then you will burn in hell forever. Hinduism, of course, does not believe that. As I said, you can ask God for forgiveness and pray and perform penance, and maybe those things lessen the effects of "bad karma", but the law of karma will always be in effect. You will have to pay for your sins, one way or another, either in this life or the next life. It is not really viewed as a punishment from an evil God, but rather a way for you to become closer to God and ultimately attain moksha. This also makes much more sense than just asking Jesus for forgiveness and all sins are forgiven.

[wcrow]

Yajvan: thankyou for answering my question so well. You have explained it so clearly that I do not have any further questions at the moment. Thanks once again.

Ramakrishna: Thankyou for your imput. Don't worry about if the answer has already been said, many answers give me a wider perspective and help me to understand the topic in deeper detail.

*Edit: Actually I do have a question, about ethics or morality. It seems to be the same kind of subject because ethics also pertains to wrong and right action.
Yajvan, you seem to be quoting and getting most of your information from the upanishads and bhagavad-gita. If I have understood correctly, these are texts which are accepted by most hindus. But I am sure there are other scriptures and texts that contain information pertaining to ethics/sin, wrong and right action. Do sectarian scriptures, for instance, contain this same kind of information on sin/morality that the upanishads and bhagavad gita do? What I am really asking is, is the prinicples of morality/wrong right action the same for all hindus?
The basis for morality is something that greatly interests me. I would be very grateful if you could perhaps point me towards scriptures, aside from gita and upanishads, that contain moral teachings.

Thanks,

Wilfred.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Here is one śloka from the upaniṣad-s ( I am still looking for its exact origin) on the eradication of sin that nicely ties in to the overall knowledge:


yadi śaila samam pāpaṁ
vistīrṇaṁ bahu yojanaṁ |
bhidyate dhyāna yogena
nānyo bhedaḥ kadā cana ||

(translation - any blemishes are attributed to me)
A huge/vast (bahu) mountian (śaila) of sin (pāpaṁ) extending (vistīrṇa) for miles (yojanaṁ) is surely (yadi) destroyed (bhidyate) by the Union (yogena) (with the Divine -or- brahman is implied ) brought about by meditation (dhyāna), without it, or which, there is no way (nānyo) of bursting (bhedaḥ) out (kada cana).

It is though this process of transcending (dhyāna) or infusing pure awareness into one's daily-life-awareness that brings overall progress and removes pāpa (impurities). Yet my teacher would not say it like this, he would say just bring the light ( pure awareness) and it brightens the whole room. No need to deal with the darkness, just open the blinds/curtains. Where now is the darkness? It is gone, you did not have to push it out, no? It is just gone when the light is let in. Like that, so does this pure awareness bring this light and eliminate the darkness or blemishes of ignorance (sin).

words defined

yadi - if, some say it is 'as sure as'
śaila - made of rock or stone, and therefore a mountain or hill
sama - level , ' to make level with the earth'; note the sama has other definitions too i.e. equally distant from extremes , straight , honest, even-ness.
pāpaṁ or pāpa or pāpá as a noun is considered sin , vice , crime , guilt ; further it is evil , misfortune , ill-luck , trouble , mischief, harm
vistīrṇaṁ or vistīrṇa - spread out , expanded , broad , large , great , copious , numerous
bahu - many , frequent , abundant , numerous , great or considerable in quantity
yojanaṁ - measure of distance , sometimes regarded as equal to 4 or 5 English miles , but more correctly = 4 krośa-s or about 9 miles; this is also mental concentration , abstraction , directing the thoughts to one point (= yoga) ; it is also another name for the the Supreme Spirit of the Universe
bhidyate or bhidya - splitting , breaking , destroying
dhyāna - meditation, reflection ; considered transcending, or the inward mach of the mind i.e. withdrawal
yogena - the act of yoking , joining , attaching , harnessing
nānyo - na = not ; nā is vacant or empty
bhedaḥ - breaking , splitting , cleaving , rending , tearing , piercing ; bursting forth or out , expanding , blossoming , shooting out , sprouting
kadá - with the following of caná , it is 'never at any time' ; or na kadā cana , never at any time
caná - and not , also not , even not , not even praṇām

[Sahasranama]

once ramakrishna desired to hear from bible . after listening a few pages he asked the reader to stop .
and then he said -- " the same old thing . sin sin and sin . why are they so much preoccupied with sin ? one who constantly thinks that he is a sinner becomes a sinner . you become what you think . one should have immense faith in purifying power of god's name . your attitude should be like-'what !! i have uttered his name once . can any more sin remain in me ?!! ' "

then he narrated a story of a certain brahmin whom he personally knew


It explains why most catholic priest fall down to sinful acts and become puppets in the hand of money and sex. When people come to confess their sins, these priests have to listen to every word of it. This is like planting the seeds in their mind.

[atanu]

It is not that the concept of pApa and punya are not there in Hinduism. Kamakoti sage, Sri Sri Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati writes about it:

http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part1/chap2.htm


Om Namah Shivaya

[kallol]

Let us understand it another way.

The ideal condition which we all thrive for is the moksha condition.

What is this moksha condition ?

It is two fold (actually one compliments other). Knowledge of self (God) and the making the intensity of the desire, anger, ego, lust, envy, etc. zero. So the mind becomes totally calm with the knowledge of self. This results in a neutral state which enables the mind to remain free.

Now as we see that the state of mind is of profound importance in hinduism.

To attain this state of mind the constant thrive should be to reduce the intensity of this disruptive parameters.

Generally we package the actions, we do, with these parameters. Depending on the state of mind the intensity of packaging varies. The knowledge helps us to choose the actions which reduces the intensity or also to keep the intensity at low level while carrying out the action.

But without proper knowledge the packaging part becomes uncontrollable and mostly it increases.

So any actions which increases the intensity is taking the person away from moksha or slowing down the journey. Any actions which reduces the intensity, increases the speed of journey towards the moksha.

This is the basics. To take this to the laymen people and books have invented many terms to keep the general mass in track.

Love and best wishes