Sin

[Guest guest]

If one performs sinful activities in this lifetime, does he/she suffer only in this lifetime or are they carried forward to next birth? Similarly, are we paying for sinful activities in this lifetime that were committed in our previous lives?

 

Haribol

[Guruvani]

 

If one performs sinful activities in this lifetime, does he/she suffer only in this lifetime or are they carried forward to next birth? Similarly, are we paying for sinful activities in this lifetime that were committed in our previous lives?

 

Haribol

 

Both.

 

If you are at the Superbowl game and some drunk is standing up in front of you screaming and yelling and being the fool and you tap him on the shoulder and say "set down and shut up, we are trying to watch the game" and then this drunk turns around and punches your lights out, then that is an example of INSTANT KARMA.

 

There is instant karma and there is karma that takes time to manifest.

 

Sometimes they say "when the chickens come home to roost".

That means that eventually, sooner or later the karma will be there and the karmic reaction will occur.

 

The intricacies of karma are mysterious.

 

Nobody can say for sure when the reaction is going to come.

 

That is all decided by the will of providence and the Supreme Being that dwells in the heart of all living things.

[Guest guest]

Hmmm...makes sense, can anyone provide links to scriptures on this matter?

[Guest guest]

'Action, deed', derived from verb-root 'kru' - to do. Any action or deed - including word and even thought - that will sooner or later reap its consequences. Forms part of a universal, unbiased and inescapable law central to Indian philosophy linking actions and their fruits - cause and effect - to the very performer of the actions, via God - the giver of the fruits of each karma; i.e., pious deeds reap pleasant fruits for the performer, impious deeds reap painful fruits for the performer {Gadhada III-26.4}.

There are three types of karmas: sanchit karmas (deeds accumulated over infinite births), prãrabdha karmas (deeds whose consequences are already set in motion) and kriyamãn karmas (deeds whose consequences are in the process of being formed). These can be explained with the popular analogy of the various stages of growing rice: rice harvested and stored in the granary can be likened to sanchit karmas; from this stock, a portion selected and readied for cooking and eating is like prãrabdha karmas - past deeds shaping the present events; meanwhile, new grains being sown in the fields which will yield a fresh crop in the future, and in turn be added to the stock in the granary, are like the kriyamãn karmas, i.e., current deeds eventually being added to sanchit karmas until they 'ripen' to bear fruit as prãrabdha karmas, either later in the present life or in a future life.

[theist]

Very nice explanation guest. Thank you.

 

The title of the thread is sin. It is common in America to hear people say Indian philosophy has no concept of sinful actions and reactions, Can you say something on this?

[theist]

TRANSLATION Bg 3.15

Regulated activities are prescribed in the Vedas, and the Vedas are directly manifested from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Consequently the all-pervading Transcendence is eternally situated in acts of sacrifice.

 

PURPORT

Yajnartha-karma, or the necessity of work for the satisfaction of Krishna only, is more expressly stated in this verse. If we have to work for the satisfaction of the yajna-purusha, Vishnu, then we must find out the direction of work in Brahman, or the transcendental Vedas. The Vedas are therefore codes of working directions. Anything performed without the direction of the Vedas is called vikarma, or unauthorized or sinful work.

[Guest guest]

I have found some info ie reference to texts:

 

DoubleyouDoubleyouDoubleyouDot.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/dharma.htm#b

 

Are there any references to sanchita, prarabdha and kriyamana karma in Shrimad Bhagwad or Bhagwad Gita?

[theist]

Note to guest108. If you just copy and paste the url into the reply box it will automaticaly br turned into a direct link to the site you are referring to.

 

Example. Here is a link to the index page of the site you referrenced.

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/index.htm

[theist]

Here is a definition of karma from vedabase folio.

 

Karma—1. material action performed according to scriptural regulations; 2. action pertaining to the development of the material body; 3. any material action which will incur a subsequent reaction; 4. the material reaction one incurs due to fruitive activities; This Sanskrit word means 'action' or, more specifically, any material action that brings a reaction binding us to the material world. According to the law of karma, if we cause pain and suffering to other living beings, we must endure pain and suffering in return; One of the five tattvas, or Vedic ontological truths: the activity or work which the embodied living entity performs with the karmendriya, as well as the resultant reaction. The soul receives the due reaction to work by taking his next birth in a subhuman species, or the human species, or a superhuman species. Or the soul may be liberated from birth and death altogether. All this depends upon whether the karma performed within this lifetime is ignorant, passionate, good or transcendental. Karma dedicated in sacrifice as directed by Vedic injunctions raises the quality of a human being's work. Sacrifice culminates in activity dedicated only to Lord Krsna's service. Such transcendental karma is called naiskarma.

--

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

Note to guest108. If you just copy and paste the url into the reply box it will automaticaly br turned into a direct link to the site you are referring to.

 

Example. Here is a link to the index page of the site you referrenced.

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/index.htm

 

This is not true for guests--or for new members, for that matter. Since you joined five years ago, perhaps you forgot (or, perhaps the forum had a different policy then).

 

I joined this forum recently and was not able to insert URLs until I had posted a certain number of posts. I'll look for the exact policy.

[theist]

Oh yeah your right. I did forget reading about that. What's the number of posts someone needs...25 was it?

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

Oh yeah your right. I did forget reading about that. What's the number of posts someone needs...25 was it?

I think you're right about the number being 25, though, after looking around on the forum, I couldn't find any FAQ to give a definitive answer.

 

Getting back on topic (or, for me, getting on topic for the first time), it might be a stretch to say that Vedic/Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy has no conception of "sin". It *is* true that the word is not used very frequently (though you'll find it used from time to time here on these forums).

 

Certainly the Vaishnava (GV) conception of sin is very different from the Judeo-Christian (JC) conception, wouldn't you say?

 

Perhaps shame and guilt are not inherent in the JC conception of sin, but the focus on repentance certainly does open the door for shame and guilt to enter.

 

With the concept of karma, there is not so much shame or guilt. Simply, an action will beget a reaction. Of course, the Lord is behind everything, but in the GV tradition, there isn't this image of God musing up the perfect punishment for a little boy who cheated on his mid-term.

 

Of course, when Westerners such as myself--who are knowingly or unknowingly steeped in the Judeo-Christian culture--try to adopt the GV path, often we bring remnants (or even icebergs) of our conditioning with us. We can end up muddying up for ourselves (or others) the sweet, clear waters of the Vaishnava teachings.

 

So, there are actions which are considered sinful by the Vaishnava/Vedic scriptures (killing a cow, for instance), but not so much focus on atonement. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement)

 

In other words, nobody is saying that Krishna is dying for our sins (at least I hope they are not), as beautiful as the concept of God (or His Son) doing so might be.

[Guruvani]

 

I think you're right about the number being 25, though, after looking around on the forum, I couldn't find any FAQ to give a definitive answer.

 

Getting back on topic (or, for me, getting on topic for the first time), it might be a stretch to say that Vedic/Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy has no conception of "sin". It *is* true that the word is not used very frequently (though you'll find it used from time to time here on these forums).

 

Certainly the Vaishnava (GV) conception of sin is very different from the Judeo-Christian (JC) conception, wouldn't you say?

 

Perhaps shame and guilt are not inherent in the JC conception of sin, but the focus on repentance certainly does open the door for shame and guilt to enter.

 

With the concept of karma, there is not so much shame or guilt. Simply, an action will beget a reaction. Of course, the Lord is behind everything, but in the GV tradition, there isn't this image of God musing up the perfect punishment for a little boy who cheated on his mid-term.

 

Of course, when Westerners such as myself--who are knowingly or unknowingly steeped in the Judeo-Christian culture--try to adopt the GV path, often we bring remnants (or even icebergs) of our conditioning with us. We can end up muddying up for ourselves (or others) the sweet, clear waters of the Vaishnava teachings.

 

So, there are actions which are considered sinful by the Vaishnava/Vedic scriptures (killing a cow, for instance), but not so much focus on atonement. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement)

 

In other words, nobody is saying that Krishna is dying for our sins (at least I hope they are not), as beautiful as the concept of God (or His Son) doing so might be.

 

Srila Prabhupada used the word "sinful" quite a bit.

I think he must have been predicting my incarnation?

 

I think the Sanskrit word that corresponds to "sin" is papa.

there is definitely a concept of sin in Vaishnava philosophy.

 

If there was no such thing as sin, I wouldn't have any purpose for living.

 

But, as least I didn't murder the acharya.

 

thank god for that....................