Sense of right and wrong

[Guest guest]

Another question for the group. (Many thanks to those who have and are

responding to the earlier questions incidentally. This is all very much

appreciated and I will acknowledge your help in the book if it ever gets

published - I've already included a general section about Advaitin in the

Appendix on organisations, internet links and resources, books to read etc.)

 

I have a paragraph under the topic of 'Sin', that is reproduced below:

 

"We each have our own sense of what is right and wrong, inculcated in us

through our own particular upbringing no doubt, but this is all we have.

Whenever we act, we do so against the background of this set of values. If

our action contravenes those principles, we feel guilt subsequently. Clearly

if we act according to the principles for good action that we have been

taught to respect, we cannot really be said to be sinful. For someone else

it might be so regarded, having been exposed to a different culture with

differing values. Swami Chinmayananda puts this very simply. He says that

sin is not in action but in reaction. If, after a particular act, we feel

guilt, then it was a sinful act."

 

One of my reviewers (a different one from previous questions) asked, with

reference to the phrase 'but this is all we have', "Is it?" And this caused

me to think! As with one of the earlier questions, I think she was referring

to buddhi. Buddhi is able to differentiate between the transient and

eternal, truth and falsehood, without reference to acquired ideas.

Presumably this is a true statement. But is it in fact the case (I think it

is) that our sense of what is right or wrong comes *only* from what we are

'taught'? For example, some cultures believed it right to eat the bodies of

their dead (I think). We would obviously regard this to be wrong today. If

this applies to everything, that there simply are no 'absolutes' in these

matters, then my statement is true. In order for this not to be the case,

there would have to be some 'absolute' concepts (?) of right and wrong, to

which buddhi could somehow refer, in order to arbitrate. I can't immediately

think of any such teachings in Advaita.

 

Any comments?

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dennis Waite wrote:

>I have a paragraph under the topic of 'Sin', that is reproduced below:

>

>"We each have our own sense of what is right and wrong, inculcated in us

>through our own particular upbringing no doubt, but this is all we have.

>Whenever we act, we do so against the background of this set of values. If

>our action contravenes those principles, we feel guilt subsequently. Clearly

>if we act according to the principles for good action that we have been

>taught to respect, we cannot really be said to be sinful. For someone else

>it might be so regarded, having been exposed to a different culture with

>differing values. Swami Chinmayananda puts this very simply. He says that

>sin is not in action but in reaction. If, after a particular act, we feel

>guilt, then it was a sinful act."

 

Swami Chinmayanandaji also defines 'sin as the divergence of mind and

intellect'. Yoga integrates these two. For example, when I kill for

my self-centered need, I commit a sin since my intellect knows

killing is wrong, and my mind goes against the judgement of my

intellect due to my likes and dislikes. If a tiger kills its pray,

there is no sin involved since there is no divergence of its mind and

intellect in that action. But in its evolution process, it acquires

the sensitivity not to hurt others for sake of one's sake and then if

one goes against that, then one commits a sin - another quote of

Swamiji - "One is punished by the sin and not for the sin".

Resulting agitations in the mind is the hell that one goes through. -

one looses one's peace of mind when one goes against ones own

judgement.

>One of my reviewers (a different one from previous questions) asked, with

>reference to the phrase 'but this is all we have', "Is it?" And this caused

>me to think! As with one of the earlier questions, I think she was referring

>to buddhi. Buddhi is able to differentiate between the transient and

>eternal, truth and falsehood, without reference to acquired ideas.

>Presumably this is a true statement. But is it in fact the case (I think it

>is) that our sense of what is right or wrong comes *only* from what we are

>'taught'?

 

Instead of 'taught' - I will use the word ' what we learn' - that

learning includes from ones own experiences as well.

 

When someone hurts me, I feel bad and from that experience, I lean

that 'hurting another is bad'

When someone lies to me, I learn that' telling a lie is bad'

When someone steals my property, I learn that 'stealing is bad'

When someone helps me when I am in despair, I learn that 'helping

another is good'

When someone is kind to me, and I appreciate, I learn that ' being

kind to others is important'

 

Thus what is called 'dharma' - that involved - do-s and don'ts -

arise from simple common ethics - What I expect from other to do

towards me, become my dharma to do for others. and what I expect

others not to do - become my dharma not to do. The buddhi picks up

these we experience our life.

 

'Sin' arises when one goes against our own value system. There will

always be conflict between values - to lie to save the life a

someone, for example - When there are conflicts between values, going

along the higher values in life becomes the correct dharma. Hence in

India, the dharma-s are not taught as do-s and don'ts, but through

stories - how mahatmaams tackled the situations when conflicts

between the values arose. These dharma-s become 'time and place or

situation dependent. But the highest dharma is that what one is

convinced through ones intellectual judgements - that becomes

ultimately the swadharma - in following swadharma, even if one is

going in the wrong direction (from the point of others) - he learns

fast and redirects his path with conviction. Hence Krishna's

emphasis on swadharma.

 

> For example, some cultures believed it right to eat the bodies of

their dead (I think). We would obviously regard this to be wrong today.

 

Do we really? When I go to grocery store I see lot of dead meat

being sold! - Right and wrong again depends on the time and place.

If you read Mahabharata - Shakuni - the uncle of Duryodhana, was

selected to be the surviver of their family to take revenge on behalf

of their family against the Kourava race by destroying them. He was

asked to eat the flesh of the kith and kin to keep himself alive. He

ultimately destroyed the Duryodana's side of the family, while

Krishna protected the Pandava's side.

 

What is right and wrong- ultimately is the internal conflict in the

mind and intellect - hence Swamiji's definition that sin is the

divergence between the two. One can see the role of 'swadharma' too

in integrating the two.

 

>If

>this applies to everything, that there simply are no 'absolutes' in these

>matters, then my statement is true. In order for this not to be the case,

>there would have to be some 'absolute' concepts (?) of right and wrong, to

>which buddhi could somehow refer, in order to arbitrate. I can't immediately

>think of any such teachings in Advaita.

 

Krishana gives in many chapters the 'value' system that one should

follow - But value or dharma is of value only when its value is

understood or assimilated. The absolute is ones own self. All

values are not for value sake but for one's sake - to make his mind

peaceful - and that is the absolute value - or the concept that

advaita strives for. All other right or wrong only stem form this

fundamental absolute value - I want to be myself. - all values -

right or wrong ultimately to take me back to my own self. This

become clear if one analyzes clearly the value of values or rights

and wrongs. Hence in 13th Chapter - Before Krishan takes up the

topic of j~naanam and j~neyam, he analyzes the values that he say -

wise follow - starting from - amaanityam adambhitvam ... 24 values -

otherwise one will be other than the wise.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

>

>Any comments?

>

>Dennis

>

>

> Sponsor

>

><http://rd./M=194081.1566667.3122753.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705075991:\

HM/A=766942/R=0/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=3225>

>

>

>

>Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of

>nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

>Advaitin List Archives available at:

><http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advait\

in/

>To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

>Messages Archived at:

><advaitin/messages>\

advaitin/messages

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to the

><>

 

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

An essay worth 'digesting', is the one by Sw. Chandrashekhrendra

Sarasvati of Kanchi [1895-1994]:

 

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

 

"We sin in four different ways.

With our body we do evil;

with our tongue we speak untruth;

with our mind we think evil;

and with our money we do so much that is wicked.

We must learn to turn these very four means of evil into instruments

of virtue." 

 

 

Regards,

 

sunder

                 

 

 

 

advaitin, "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote:

>

> Dennis Waite wrote:

>

> >I have a paragraph under the topic of 'Sin', that is reproduced

below:

[Guest guest]

Thanks to Sadananda for an exceptionally lucid explanation of the meaning of

sin. Excellent! I will have to paraphrase some of this for the book!

 

Dennis