What is sin?..... A good question!!!

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

This is a really interesting question and I have been trying to

finally understand what is it that, which we call sin...

 

Firstly, we must find a way to define sin in a universally accepted

way as you say, so that it is intellectually correct, religiously and

spiritually correct as well.

 

This means that the definition must be grammatically and

esoterically accepted, it is in accordance with the spiritual laws

and has an inter-religious character.

 

Sin, as defined by various religions tends to be associated with

prejudices that originate from ancient traditions and olden ways of

life. My experiences with the christian church have, unfortunately,

shown me that their definitions of sin are solely dogmas with no

logical nor any esoteric support, whatsoever. This is sad indeed,

because to the educated peson, religion looses its real worth and is

unable to serve its purpose. Nowadays, very few people accept blindly

dogmas and ideas imposed on them by the church or by any other mental

dictator.

 

Of course, it has been not only christianity but most degenerated

forms of spirituality (religions) and sects that function through

brainwashing, taking advantage of our worldly fears and spiritual

ignorance.

 

Who defines what a sin is? Who has the great spiritual authority to

decide what is morally good and what wrong? Which are the criteria

considered to reach such a conclusion? And how is it possible that

different religions have different definitions of sin ?!

 

If the source of the divine spirit is one for all humans... if we are

all children of the same GOD... then why would GOD has different

criteria for judging the hindus, the christians, the sikhs or the

muslims?......

 

........ Is God a racist?..........

 

Or are there different gods and different systems of divine justice

for different races and religions?

 

I doubt that.

 

When we start talking on stricktly esoteric terms, the question of

sin and morality does not arise. We can neither judge nor condemn any

act because there is no point in practicing this criticism. Good and

bad, wrong and right, yin and yang, male and female are all pairs of

opposites that limit us to the world of the three gunas. Once

spiritual liberation, moksa or nirvana takes place, there is only

oneness... the soul realizes that it had always been a part of the

supreme soul and universal unity prevails.

 

So there is nothing wrong or right.

 

However, it would be thoughtless of the spiritual seeker and yogic

practicioner to ignore the spiritual laws of karma. Karma is not

about punishment, there is no god that will punish us for our immoral

actions. Rather the actions themselves will punish us like a

boomerang.

 

Newton discovered the cosmic law that every action has an equal and

opposite reaction. No form of energy in nature can disappear, it just

transforms itself into a different form of energy. That is why all of

our actions in this world have conscequences. Now, we dont care if

the actions are moral or immoral, nor if the consequences lead to the

hells or the heavens. What considers the yogi is, will this action

have an impact on my sadhana? Will it interfere with my meditation

and does it respect the spiritual laws, such as ahimsa for example.

 

This is the base of all morality, the esoteric laws. The laws that

religions fail nowadays to understand and explain to the public

because they have ceased to function mystically and in communion with

their creator.

 

Smoking is truly bad for the etheric body, the occult scientist will

explain us. Drugs seriously damage the astral body and the nervous

system, without which no sadhana can take place. Too much eating

prevents the pranas from concentrating on spiritual disciplines and

the energy of the body is used for digestion. There has been so much

misunderstanding about sex. Sexual activity inflames the kama agni, a

heat that disturbs the ojas and alters the brain chemistry. But here,

I mentioned only the negative consequences. Drugs, if properly used

(accoding to the left hand path tantra) can strengthen the nervous

system and prepare it to accept the immense power of the kundalini.

Tantric sex can lead the kundalini to unive with the shiva

consciousness in the seventh chakra etc.

 

As we saw above, the question of morality does not arise when we are

trying to define sin. Its rather the practical spiritual consequences

that are important.

 

This does not mean that we have to stop making any kind of actions

because no one can exist in this world without acting. Nor that we

have to start violating the spiritual laws. The key in life is

balance and as the ancient greeks used to say virtous is that, which

has a limit. Or as Buddha put it: The middle path.

 

To conclude, I think its not essential to try to classify any action

as a sin or not. Especially when the motives behind judging a person

are selfish and self promotive. Its a rather purely individual

subject, no religious or spiritual authority has the right of

criticising, and each person will eventually face the benefits or

harms of its actions.

 

Hari Om.

 

 

 

 

 

, "sardarajitsingh" <the-hermit@i...>

wrote:

> Sat Naam sri vahe guru,

>

> sins are also classified as per religions. Like smoking is a sin

> in sikhism but not in other religions.

>

> Can there be a universally accepted act which can be called a

SIN ?

> What exactly is a sin spiritually?

> Sat sri akaal

[Guest guest]

Thanks DeSpell for such an honest reply. Dr.Yadu perhaps did not

understand my question and wanted to divert the discussion to Smoking

versus drinking. I gave example of smoking just to show that certain

acts are called sin in a religion. I really wanted to know if sin

can be defined in such a way that it is accepted by all religions and

your answer was certainly upto the mark. I too agree sin is not to

be defined as smoking, or drinkig or eating a particular animal's

meat. There has to be some explanation which defines sin.

 

No other friend has any other view ? What is Sin and why thought

of sin is necessary for our life ? i think there is a grand meaning

into this.

 

I personally feel hurting someone is a spiritual sin, but this is

not sufficient. Hurting too sometimes may become a virtue, if done

to correct someone.

 

Sat Sri akaal

[Guest guest]

A well known prayer goes as follows -

 

karacharaNa kR^itaM vaakkaayajaM karmajaM vaa .

shravaNanayanajaM vaa maanasaM vaaparaadhaM .

vihitamavihitaM vaa sarvametatkshamasva .

jaya jaya karuNaabdhe shriimahaadeva shambho ..

 

"Oh Lord kindly forgive my wrong actions done knowingly or

unknowingly, either through my organs of action (hand, feet, speech)

or through my organs of perception (eyes, ears) or by my mind. Glory

unto Thee O Lord, who is the ocean of kindness."

 

Every action of ours has a effect and we are responsible for all our

acts, conscious or not. In Hindusim the concept of sin is different

from most others, because the merit of actions depends on the

intention behind the act. Instead of giving orders, Hindusim gives

some natural laws and people are expected to live and face

consequences according to choices made. If the intention is to

deliberately hurt or bring pain, motivated by revenge, anger, hate,

sacarsm manipulation and other egotistical qualities, etc, then even

the use of pleasant words will bring negative results per the laws.

If on the other hand I have to kill someone in defence, then as the

BG indicates, one need not be touched by the act if done with

detached equanimity. Unfortunately this freedom to act is often

misused by extremists who attempt to justify aggression in the name

of self-defense, revenge in the name of consequence.

 

A story I have shared earlier goes like this. A Samurai warrior had

defeated an army and was finally tackling the leader of the pack.

As he towered over the enemy about to strike his final blow, the

enemy spat on his face. The Samurai warriors face cringed with anger

and he stepped back and stopped the fight. When asked why he was

doing that he stated, that he was angry and will not act on anger.

Instead he will calm his anger and return to complete the

destruction of the enemy without any emotion the next day!!!

 

So to judge whether an action is positive or not, I look at its

need, alternatives available and what is the intention behind the

act.

 

_/\_ Tat twam asi

 

Uma

[Guest guest]

Dear respected sardarajitsingh:

 

>> Dr.Yadu perhaps did not

> understand my question and wanted to divert the discussion to

Smoking

> versus drinking. I gave example of smoking just to show that

certain

> acts are called sin in a religion.

<<<

 

 

Our manusmR^iti(our code of conduct) tells to follow a simple advise

in oreder to avoid "sins":

 

dR^iSTipuuta.m nyasetpaada.m vastrapuuta.m jala.m pibet .

satyapuutaa.m vadedvaaca.m manaHputa.m samaacaret . manusmR^iti 6

\.46 ..

Overall meaning - Always look before you step, filter the water

before you drink and speak the words that have been purified by your

mind.

 

I was just trying to understand if the ban on smoking (as you had

mentioned in your earlier post) was possibly related to the incorrect

pronunciation?

 

tama ku chhoDa - would mean keep away from the "tamaa" (anger).;

however, if one mispronounces the word as "tama-khu chhoDa" or makes

a sandhi-samaasa as "tamaaku chhoDa" then it would mean a directive –

"do not consume tobacco".

 

Sanskrit language has several such incidences that cause the

confusion and possibly lead to misinterpretation. That is why our

famous Shaanti Mantraa tell us "bhada.m karNebhiH shR^iNuyaama devaa"

(meaning – let me hear properly with my ears). This was to ensure

the correct transfer of knowledge between teacher and the student.

This was part of the Shaanti Mantraa because our ancestors wanted us

to avoid confusion and stop the propagation of "wrong" things, which

can possibly create "a-shaa.nti" (unnecessary debate, fights etc…..).

 

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

[Guest guest]

Alakh NIRANJAN! sardar saheb!

 

You know very well what the guru granth sahib says on the subject

of 'sin'

 

now, please allow me to quote a corresponding verse from Shri adi

shankasra's famous Nirvana Shatakam!

 

Na punyam na papam na saukhyam na dukham

Na mantro na tirtham na veda na yagnaha

Aham bhojanam naiva bhojyam na bhokta

Chidananda rupah shivoham shivoham .

 

 

 

I am not attached to any righteousness) or sin; I have neither

pleasure nor sorrow; I have no need for any Mantra; I have no need

for pilgrimages ; I have no need for any sacred scriptures; Nor will

I perform any sacred rituals; I am neither the subject nor the object

nor the doer; I am a fortunate, joyful, supreme being as the emblem

of truth, knowledge and eternal bliss. I am the self spiritual joy of

pure consciousness Shiva, Shivoham, Shivoham.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, "sardarajitsingh" <the-hermit@i...>

wrote:

> Thanks DeSpell for such an honest reply. Dr.Yadu perhaps did not

> understand my question and wanted to divert the discussion to

Smoking

> versus drinking. I gave example of smoking just to show that

certain

> acts are called sin in a religion. I really wanted to know if sin

> can be defined in such a way that it is accepted by all religions

and

> your answer was certainly upto the mark. I too agree sin is not to

> be defined as smoking, or drinkig or eating a particular animal's

> meat. There has to be some explanation which defines sin.

>

> No other friend has any other view ? What is Sin and why

thought

> of sin is necessary for our life ? i think there is a grand meaning

> into this.

>

> I personally feel hurting someone is a spiritual sin, but this

is

> not sufficient. Hurting too sometimes may become a virtue, if done

> to correct someone.

>

> Sat Sri akaal

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr Yadu,

 

It is interesting to read your piece on the use sandhi in sanskrit

and the problems it can create if its not read correctly. Because of

this everyone seems to find support for everything they do simply by

looking at the words differently!!

 

You have quoted an interesting text - Manu Smriti (being one of the

few attempts to set laws to govern behavior) and I love the peice

that you have mentioned.

 

> dR^iSTipuuta.m nyasetpaada.m vastrapuuta.m jala.m pibet .

> satyapuutaa.m vadedvaaca.m manaHputa.m samaacaret .

>manusmR^iti 6 \.46 ..

> Overall meaning - Always look before you step, filter the water

> before you drink and speak the words that have been purified by

>your mind.

 

I guess what comes through the filter is only as clear as the purity

of the filter!!!

 

I wonder if you can spend some time sharing more of the text with us

here. While there are several wonderful sections in it, there are

also some controversial ones. Manu Smriti seems to have been written

in each Yuga according to the needs of that period. I wonder how

well the one that is applicable at present fits the needs of the

times!

 

_/\_ Tat twam asi

 

Uma

 

, "ymoharir" <ymoharir> wrote:

[Guest guest]

The most important filter has to be you yourself. To distill & to

purify the toughest filter can be no other individual but you

yourself without substitution.

 

This applies to every situation, whether it is eliminatin of "SIN's"

or finding a "GURU".

 

The phrase manaHpuuta is extremely important. Even this phrase has

been often used out of context, without understanding. Often this

expression is loosely used as a slang term for someone who behaves as

he/she pleases.

 

Just following this one simple term properly one can achieve a lot.

That is why kaalidaasda in his famous play shaaku.nla says -

 

"santaa hi sandehapadeShu vastuShu prmaaNantaHkaraNapravR^itaayaH ..

shaaku.nla .. 1.20 .."

 

Meaning - saints use their own inner-conscious (voice) as validated

truths.

 

This is possible because their thoughts were purified by their own

conscious mind. Thus expressing and implementing the correct meaning

of the phrase manaHpuuta. Some times we call it a gut feeling.

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

, "Tatwamasi" <tatwamasi> wrote:

>

> I guess what comes through the filter is only as clear as the

purity of the filter!!!

[Guest guest]

Thank you dr.yadu for sharing the lovely verse from poet kalidasa'

mahakavyam "Shakuntala."

 

for thos of you who are not familiar with this great romantic story,

here it is in a nutshell...

 

Story of Dushyanta and Shakuntala

 

Once, the great king of the region, King Dushyanta, happened to come

near the ashrama of Shakuntala by way of hunting. He caught sight of

Shakuntala and lost his heart to her beauty and grace. The king

proposed to Shakuntala and they were married secretly. Dushyanta

stayed overnight and left for his capital city promising Shakuntala

that he would soon send for her. He gave his precious ring to his

wife cautioning her not to lose it.

 

As the destiny had it, in his busy schedule of affairs of the

kingdom, the king Dushyanta forgot all about his love -- Shakuntala.

 

Here, in the ashrama, Shakuntala was worried as news of her husband

did not reach her, nor did he send anyone to take her to his palace.

The worry almost turned into panic because of the fact that she was

pregnant, and soon her condition was sure to reveal this truth. And

indeed, sage Kanva and ladies of the ashrama noticed the change in

Shakuntala. On inquiry, the truth became known to all. Sage Kanva had

brought up Shakuntala as her daughter and hence he decided to send

her to her husband, king Dushyanta, where she should be accepted as

his queen.

 

The day was fixed for Shakuntala to leave. She was dressed in most

beautiful silk attire and left for the kingdom of her husband in a

ferry boat. The cool and balmy breeze put her to sleep and the royal

ring slipped out of her finger. Soon it was swallowed by a fish.

Shakuntala was not even aware of this fact.

 

She reached the court of Dushyanta, and a message was sent to the

king of the arrival of 'a woman who claimed to be his wife'.

Dushyanta had lost his memory about Shakuntala and all about their

stay together. He refused to accept Shakuntala as his wife. The

pitiful Shakuntala tried to remind her husband about the night they

had stayed together in the forest ashrama of Kanva, etc.; but of no

avail. The king had forgotten that part of his life. As a last

resort, the pleading Shakuntala told him about the ring and tried to

show the same, but in stead there was tragic dismay on her face when

she did not find the ring on her finger!

 

Dejected and disappointed, Shakuntala left for the forest all alone

and decided to give birth to the child. Gradually her self confidence

returned, her fear vanished, and in due course of time she gave birth

to a most beautiful and well developed son. She named him Bharata.

 

Bharata grew without any human company other than her mother. All

around in the jungle he encountered wild animals, plants and trees.

He developed into a fearless, healthy, and active child. Lions and

tigers were his friends, and he used to ride them as we ride horses!

The mother taught him, as a prince should be taught, skills in

archery, and use of other weapons; as also acquainted him with

Scriptures: Veda, and Upanishad. Bharata soon grew up as handsome,

intelligent and fearless youth - a prince in exile!

*

There in the kingdom of Dushyanta, one fisherman caught the fish that

had swallowed the royal ring that had slipped from the finger of

Shakuntala. When he cut open the fish, he found the ring. He rushed

to the royal court, and narrated the story to the king. On seeing his

ring, the king remembered everything about Shakuntala and his love

for her. He was sorry to send her pregnant wife away with such

rudeness. He sent his men all around the kingdom in search of

Shakuntala.

 

And one day the good news reached him when his minister told him

about Shakuntala and her handsome son safe in the heart of the

forest. The king went to fetch his wife and son, begged their pardon

and with due honour and festivity brought them to the palace.

 

Later, Bharata became the king of ancient India. His rule extended

over vast area, almost all over India. Righteousness and justice

prevailed everywhere. There was no want, no misery, nor any disease

in his kingdom. Since then India is also known as Bharatavarsha - the

Land of Bharata.

 

**********************************************************************

before, Dushyanta justified his own decision to make love to Kanva's

daughter by listening to his inner voice which is expressed in this

verse....

 

"Sataam hi sandehapadeshu vastushu

 

pramaanamantahkaranapravrttayah.

 

'In cases of doubt, when there is no other approved means to solve

it, the good people rely on the voice of conscience.'

 

but folks, let me ask you this...

 

1) where was king dushyanta's 'conscience' when lady shakuntal

approached the king in front of one and all and revealed to the king

that he married her in kanva muni's ashram by 'gandharva' rites and

exchanged 'rings' and soleminized the congugal relationship?

 

2) king dushyanta could not recall anything and failed to recognize

shakuntala , this is because of a curse vishwamitra had put on

shakuntala who had failed to serve the 'sage' who had come to her

ashram! for, shakuntala was so deeply in love with king dushyanta

that she was oblivious to the outer world!

 

3) so shakuntala had no proof that she was married to king dushyanata

as she had lost the 'ring' !

 

now, folks! can king dushyanta can be called a 'saint'?

 

1) he insulted shakuntala in front of a whole audience by failing to

recognize her...

 

2) not only that, shakuntala had to bring up her 'son' as a single

mother all by herself although her son should have led a royal life

of a prince...

 

my point is "conscience' is not something you turn on and off at your

will !!!

 

thank you!!!

 

 

 

> extremely important. Even this phrase has

> been often used out of context, without understanding. Often this

> expression is loosely used as a slang term for someone who behaves

as

> he/she pleases.

>

> Just following this one simple term properly one can achieve a

lot.

> That is why kaalidaasda in his famous play shaaku.nla says -

>

> "santaa hi sandehapadeShu vastuShu

prmaaNantaHkaraNapravR^itaayaH ..

> shaaku.nla .. 1.20 .."

>

[Guest guest]

dear all, i apologize...

 

the sage who cursed Shakuntala was 'durvasa' muni and not vishwamitra-

 

shakuntala is actually the daughter of sage vishwamitra and mmenaka,

the celestial apsara...

 

to read the entire play .... go to the following link...

 

www.sibal.com/sandeep/texts/shakuntala.html cached

 

 

we;;ll, king dushyanta forgot all about shakuntala because of sage

durvaasa's curse! so, we will forgive him as he made amends later on

when he regained his memory!!

 

well, folks! in hinduism, it is said, first follow the scriptures

like the vedas, upanishads, the bhagwat gita,- the shrutis, the

smritis etc... and then if all else fails, follow the inner voice or

the conscience!!!