How is Sin Defined? Who Defines? Do Animals Sin? etc.

October 24, 2009

How SIN is defined? Who can define SIN? Do animals commit SINS?

Loving your wife is not a SIN, but forcibly loving her against her will is aSIN?

I think the definition of SIN changes with time. In some cases, whatever was SINa century ago is not a SIN today...

So please offer your comments on SIN.....

Gee Waman

=================================

NEW POSTING

Shree Hari

Ram Ram!

Dear Gee Waman, thank you for a good question!

Some excellent responses have already been posted! Based on Swamiji Maharaj's views on the subject and what Gitaji says: It is not a particular action which is sin but it is the the motivation behind the action which is the determinator. Casually speaking, the robber uses a knife on a person to injure and rob him and a doctor uses the knife on the patient to cut the diseased or affected area, the physical action is the same, we classify action by the robber as a sin and the for the doctor we call it as a noble act.

Interestingly, Arjuna asked the question in Gita (3-36):

By what a man is compelled by, to commit sin, as if driven by force, even against his will, O Varshneya (Krishna)?

Blessed Lord said:

Lord Krishna answers in Gita (3-37),

It is desire, which turns into anger, born of mode of passion (Rajas), ever insatiable and most sinful. Know this to be the foe here on earth.

Also in Gita (18-17), the Lord says:

He whose mind is free from the sense of doer-ship, and reason is not tainted by worldly objects and activities, does not really slay, even having slaughtered all these creatures, nor is bound by sin.

Now, how the actions should be done, Lord says ion Gita (3-09)

Man is bound by his own action except when it is performed for the sake of sacrifice. Therefore, Arjuna, perform actions as a duty, free from attachment; for the sake of sacrifice alone

Another place, Lord declares in Gita (2-38):

Treating alike, pleasure and pain, gain and loss, victory and defeat, get ready for the fight, then; fighting (doing your ordained duty) thus you will not incur sin.

Ram Ram!

Humble regards,Madan Kaura

--------------------------

It is interesting to note very often that standard answer to the question - "Do animals commit SINS?"

is NO.... It appears to be not true.... It is only an asumption we make again and again for our convenience..... It must be examined and understood with the following in view:

How do we know what an animal is going through in his mind?

We all know animal fight for mates, fight for food, very cleverly plan for their prey, build homes, protect each other, fight each other for power, communicate with each other, have families, have head of family, have rules of running their groups, they love and form relationships even with human beings, for survival, animals find their own innovative ways, they fight with some, love others, etc. etc. ..... yes they may have some limitations because of their different designs.....but they do have many better features than human beings....

They may be committing SINS and are doing many things good..... We have many things to learn from them...

But this question is highly irrelevant.... I must be concerned about me and what I do. And not think about what others (including animals) think or do?........

Sushil Jain

----------------------------

Imo sin is every arrogant thought that one has that separates oneself from God,(in whom there is no separation) and the other (with whom we recreateseparation).How could any of us know what we'd do in any possible situation except by beingin that situation.All the rest of it is dogma-inspired madness that has killed/and killsmore humans than any plague every visited...~Anna

------------------------

PRIOR POSTING

Hari Om

Q: How SIN is defined?

Ans: Every dereliction of 'Duty' is a sin . Basic sin is not facing Paramatma ( Vimukhata) . SIN is doing/wishing/ understanding that with reference to others; which we dont want some one doing/wishing/understanding with reference to us.

Specifically: Abortion, Slaughtering of Cows, Theft of Gold, Consumption of Alcohol, Adultery with Guru's wife are stated to be 'great sins'. (Mahapaaps). Hurting others by mind/speech/body is always a SIN. In fact, every Karma which we do is sin unless we are 'equanimous' within the meaning of Scriptures !

Hence turning towards Paramatma and conducting equanimously is the only way to stop an otherwise continuous incurring of sins in human life.

Q: Who can define SIN?

Ans: Scriptures, Saints and Sages and one's own Antaratma (Conscience)

Q Do animals commit SINS?

Ans: No ! They have no 'Duty' to perform and hence Q of dereliction of 'Duty' does not arise. Theirs is 'bhog' yoni. All actions by them are part of 'bhoga'. Their birth is only for bhoga ! For example, no fresh sin is incurred by lion when it kills others.

Q Loving your wife is not a SIN, but forcibly loving her against her will is aSIN?

Ans: Whether by consent or by non consent, a physical union (making love) is sin UNLESS it with your legitimate spouse; AND unless it is only made with object of child birth.

Thus even if the other party is consenting but the object is not child birth, still it is a sin. Similarly, I dont think that using reasonable persuation, even gentle force, with your legitimate spouse to get his/her consent for making love (physical union) so as to get a child is sin as it is part of 'Duty' of a householder.

Q I think the definition of SIN changes with time. In some cases, whatever was SIN a century ago is not a SIN today...

Ans: 'Duty' does not depend upon Time. Not hurting others is not dependent or governed with reference to Times. The basics of Sin and Virtue are facing away from and facing towards Paramatma ( Vimukhata and Sanmukhta respectively) ! What Time has got to do with the same ? Practice of Equanimity has no corelation with Time. What was sin , say a thousand years ago, the same thing if done today is also sin. Dharma (Duty) is always eternal and never changes with Time. Rituals/Customs change !

Jai Shree Krishna

Vyas N B

-----------------------

-Shree Hari-

Reflecting upon the format of the question, the answers are already there.Krishna Samuladra made a very to the point observation! Sin is defined byreligion, and I might add by cultural acceptance, which may well be traced backto some religious platform. No point in me repeating what was written. The pointmade, was what is sinful in one society is not in another, (may even be regardedas virtuous).Sushal jain touched on an interesting point. Indeed a point of view I have heldfor some time, in my way of expressing, it is evolutionary within ones self, soin the fullness of time, if one is focused on 'The Divine', then actions one mayhave considered OK, become abhorrent to one. A cleansing process takes place.This can be seen reflected in Bhagavad Gita 9:30 (Oft quoted at this Satsang).'Even the vilest sinner worships Me with exclusive devotion he should beconsidered a saint, for he has rightly resolved to be My devotee.'

I noticed Swamiji commented on how this can come about, also talks aboutchanging ones egoism. Changing is a dynamic process, until one has changed!

Animals such as pack animals seem to follow certain rules, and rogues are chasedout. An interesting point is humanity often follow pack mentality, and theyoften persecute saints, and the pure!

Om...... Shanti.....

Mike (K).

--------------------

Animals do not have the power of discrimination. Therefore they do not sin. But the very fact that they have taken birth as an animal form of life means that they are suffering for their past sins. Rape is a sin even with one's own wife.

Hari Shanker Deo

-----------------------

Dear Sadaks,Man is capable of understanding the whole universe. But he does not, due to his lack of interests on knowing it from Upanashids. For instance:- Jada Bharat was born as deer, but had the knowledge of his earlier birth. Gajendra Elephant had knowledge on earlier birth instinct. That is why in danger with crocdile the elephant called GOD as Aadhi Moolam (ONE that has NO end or begining). In tulasi Ramayan, a prostitute rears a parrot bird. That calls Rama Rama and dies and gets elevated. Nala & Maniguba two Gandhervas as TREES got elevated when Sri Krishna pulled them apart. In Bible Chirst curses a tree and it goes to ashes for not yielding fruits. When Chirst can understand a tree, why not a man. A snake and Elephant got elevated in Kalahasti. Trees, animals, ants, plants, birds get salvation. So the man has to think, in understanding them. Man is worst of all animals and plants, because he causes dangers or kills them, instead of living with themB.Sathyanarayan

------------------------

Any act done with the help of body, mind or intellect, which may harm others orself in any manner is sin in my view."mahendra c" -----------------You are correct there is nothing as SIN universally acceptable and applicable at all times and all societies and under all circumstances. What a person thinks as Sin, he is unlikely to commit as sin. What most people believes as Sin, is therefore generally accepted as Sin. At some point, some people argues and demonstrate that what is considered a situation can in fact be socially desirable. At some point, such actions gets accepted as not Sin. Better is not to worry about Sin in general or those committed by others, but look at one's own action to determine what Sin one need not commit.Basudeb Sen---------------------------Namaste,

The following statement could be misleading:

"DO NOT WASTE the gift from THE DIVINE to seek THE DIVINE."

Kindly, read it as,

"DO NOT WASTE the gift from THE DIVINE by not utilizing it to seek THE DIVINE."

Respects.

Naga Narayana-----------------------

PRIOR POSTING

Shree Hari

Ram Ram

You have asked -

1) How can sin be defined? That which you do not wish for yourself, to do to others is sin.

2) Who can define sin? You yourself can define sin.

3) Do animals commit sin? Question is unrelated. Man is incapable of understanding animal's relations.

4) Loving your wife is not a SIN, but forcibly loving her against her will is it a SIN? Wife is not an object of pleasure for the husband. She is a life partner in fulfilling dharma. loving her against her will is considered brute force. Any kind of brute force is considered a sin.

5) whatever was SIN a century ago is not a SIN today...definition changes with time. Without giving specific example, your statement appears to be incomplete. Whatever changes with time is not in essence real, is not true. Truth is eternal and unchanging with time.

So be it,

Vineet Sarvottam

------------------------

The best reply to this Q is given by Ved vyasji is:whatever you dont like to be done to your self,Dont do it to othersThanxRaja Gurdassani------------------------

Dear Sadaks,Sin that which the conscience (Antherathuma) says is wrong. Forcing any thing or any living thing is SIN. Sin is also defined as that which done against Sastras. Sin is also said to be when One refrains from his duty. Sin changed its impact in Threta Yug from Sathya Yug and reduced impact in Kali yug. But certain Sins like beating parents, killing human, and wearing saffrin robes as disguise as a swamiji remains same. In the book Gnaneswari the interpertaion meaning of Geetha written by great saint Gnaneswari, it says , staring a person also is Sin since the other person feels frightened. Vast Subject.B.Sathyanarayan--------------------------

What is SIN? One's apparent behavior that violates one's inherent nature is THEONLY SIN which may manifest variantly in accordance with the variant combinationof nature and behavior as such.

Why is this sin? Because, this is the root cause for all the desires and fearstrapped in a person.

Who can define SIN? The only one who is authorised to define one's sin isONESELF as both behavior and nature belongs to the person.

How such violations become sin? Actually, the behavioral violation of one'snature (VarNa Sankara) is the result of the sin. The desires and fears are theroot causes for the violation. The desire is one which keeps generating a notionof difficiency of certain things that are notionally dear to the person. Whenone's nature cannot cater to the innate demands, the behavior tries tocompensate it distorting one's nature within. On the other hand, the comfortdeveloped with the nature within, generates a prepetual notion of loosing thesame when anything is borrowed from the outside world as it remains alien andanknown to one's experience. Then, the nature tries to confine one's behaviordistorting the effort as well as its intent. As a result, fissures are generatedwithin the person that bothers the individual.

What is responsible for the sins? The only one who is responsible for the sinsis its preceptor and perceiver - one who generates as well as acknowledges - theindividual. It is the ignorance harbored within that tears the person in termsof individual difficiencies. It is the inertia harnessed by the individual whichthreatens the individual in terms of environmental uncertainties.

Do animals commit SINS? Anything that harbors desire is bound to be afraid andhence committed to the sin as such. The very birth is a proof for the sinwithin. That is why saints such as Swamiji keep warning us, when you have humanbirth, when you have faculties to appreciate these facts in clarity, ... DO NOTWASTE the gift from THE DIVINE to seek THE DIVINE.

Iha chedavedeetatha satyamasti, na chedihaavedeenmahatee vinashTih |

Therefore, seek the awareness of The Truth TRUTHFULLY - NOW and HERE. The whipis whipping me all around from quite some time … but, the ignorance and inertiaentertained within since god knows when have created so many layers not to feelthe intensity as I should ... Therefore, I insist to myself to get rid of theignorance and inertia that are the root causes for ALL THE SINS categorically,

HiraNmayena paatrena satyasyaapihitam mukham |

The individual that I am, am clad with the glistening identities to which all myvision is glued in awe in spite of knowing how they are masking The Truth thatis inherent beneath.

Tattvam pooshannapaavriNu satyadharmaaya drishTaye ||

I truthful seeker of The Truth. O Self! Please help me remove these masks of myidentities altogether to reveal yourself in me as myself. O Truth! Nourish mystrength to tear down all these glistening garments of 'mine' once for all toseek You as such.

I pray Devi Chamundeshwari (THE TRUTH) to destroy the sin that is consuming mefrom within, the apparently invincible duo - Mahishasura (the ego) who keepschurning out the Raktabeejaasura (the desires and fears) who keeps the formerintact - at once to releive this sinner within.

Regards.

Naga Narayana.-------

Shakespeare said nothing is good or bad only thinking makes it so. Only human beings have the power of discrimination or vivek, that is the power of differentiating between right and wrong. When we are doing something wrong our conscience pricks us. When we go against our conscience, we commit sin. So we do not have to depend upon man made laws for that.Hari Shanker Deo

----------------------------

Such questions are indicative of quest for learning.....and not SINThese dissolve or disappear as we understand the wisdom of life better....All that we require is some patience and contineous effort in this direction...Understanding is the key...... with better understanding level of conciousness change...giving clarity and happiness... Generally.....SIN means bad or a bad act..... At another level.....Anything you do with awareness is good and anything you do without awareness(state of unconsciousness) is SIN.... At another level........anything that gives you long lasting happiness followed by more happiness is goodanything that gives you short/temp happiness followed by unhapiness, guilt, hatred, etc....is SIN... At another level.....to love is good, to hate is SIN.... No, with time the definitions do not change.....the change is due to one's level of consciousness....your reference points....... One answer which you could use and put to test......any time....is anything which gives you happiness and make others happy too (without harming anyone) is NOT SIN. All else is SIN...

You have to experience the answer.....It will come from within you.... Answers are not outside...Others is of fascilitate...the process.......best wishes...Sushil Jain---------------------Paropa karaya punyaya, papaya para peedanam.Helping others is a virtue and torturing others with yours words and deeds is a vice

Badri Narayana Miriyala

-------

While writing a book on the origins, distant and recent past of VisishtaAdvaita, I realized we use SIN as a translate of Paapa and THAT IT IS WRONG. Ispent quite a time on distinguishing these two concepts and now I KNOW that Sinis not the same as Paapa. I will be short. the interested may contact mepersonally or thru this group. They are welcome.There is an ocean of difference between Dharma (Sanaatana) and religion, thoughin NOrth INdia Dharma is erroneously used for Religion. Bharata Varsha never hada religion. It was Dharma that prevailed in Bharata Varsha and Bharata Varshaextended much beyond the political borders prescribed now. Per my understanding, the basic differencebetween Dharma and Religion is Dharma wants you to question and know or learn.Religion wants you to believe without any question. If a fairly powerful mangets a fancy into the mind and tells others that God has told him this or that,you obey or else yu will not be there to disobey. That is religion. See thedifference.SIN is religion specific. That is what is sin in one religion is not so inanother. Eating pork or eating any animal that has not been killed a sper theprescribed ritual (Kosher or Halaal) might be a sin in two of the Semiticreligions but a Christian is not shunted to Hell for having a Bacon sandwich forbreakfast. Sin, thus is a purely human prescription and has nothing to do withGod, the Parama Atma.PAAPA is a Dharmaic concept. Paapa is causing needless inconvenience to fellowbeings. Hunting and killing an animal to consume its meat to fill in the stomachand survive for the day was an inconvenienc to the deer; but it was essentialfor the hunter. It does not come under needless category. It is not PAAPa.However, as I like capsicum flavor consuming large quatities of that fruit is aneedless inconvenience to the fellow beings capsicum as well as fello consumers.Driving on the wrong side of the road may not be a sin in any religion but is isPaapa as it causes needless inconvenience to several. Jumping a quee is not sinbut Paapa.In short Paapa is an universally applicable concept and Sin is produced by themyths that go under the name religion.BE SURE TO TELL YOUR FRIEND THAT WHAT WE HAVE AND HAD IS DHARMA OR ANTHOLOGY OFREALIZATIONS AND NOT RELIGION WHICH IS AMALGAMATION OF CLAIMED REVELATIONS.AVOID USE OF HINDU ism USE ONLY SANAATANA DHARMA INSTEAD.Krishna Samudrala--------

GITA TALK GROUP GUIDELINES: PLEASE -

FOR QUESTIONER1. The questions as far as possible must be relevant to Gita, relevant toDharma, relavant to other scriptures and relevant to motivate Sadhaks to take upspiritual path2. The Questioner must commit to daily Gita study3. Only one question at a time.4. Question must be brief, to the point and relevant to the group's primary aimof deeper understanding of Gita.

GITA TALK GROUP GUIDELINES for RESPONDER: PLEASE -1. Only responses that further clarify Gita message will be posted.2. Quote Gitaji/scriptures wherever possible.3. Limit personal feelings, opinions, beliefs etc. to the extent that theyfurther help in understanding the Gita shlokas4. Be as concise, to the point, respecting sadhaka's time.5. Focus on subject at hand only.6. Do not include links to the other sites; personal information (Ph #, addressetc) or personalize message to particular person7. All responses may not be posted and moderator at his discretion, may modifythe posting.8. Please keep in mind novices, youth, westerners, non-sectarian audience. Limitthe use to Sanskrit words and provide English word bracketed.

GITA TALK MODERATORSRam Ram------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------Post message: Subscribe: - Unsubscribe: -

October 27, 2009

How SIN is defined? Who can define SIN? Do animals commit SINS?

Loving your wife is not a SIN, but forcibly loving her against her will is aSIN?

I think the definition of SIN changes with time. In some cases, whatever was SINa century ago is not a SIN today...

So please offer your comments on SIN.....

Gee Waman

=================================

NEW POSTING

Dear Sadhakas,Hare Krishna. This is in response to a question from a Sadhaka. Any action performed with a Demoniac quality, is a Sin. Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita,"Dambho darpo bhimanas ca,Krodhah parusyam eva ca,Ajnanam cabhijatasya,Partha sampadam asurim. "( Gitaji, 16, 4 )Which means'Pride, arrogance, conceit,anger,harshness and ignorance, belong to the people of Demoniac Nature. 'Any action,performed with a Divine quality is Holy,(Gitaji 16 ,1 to 3). Any selfish action is immoral. Any selfless action is moral. Immoral actions incur Sin. Animals do not incur sins because they behave, as ordained by the Lord. They have no selfish motive. Thank YouHare KrishnaPrasad.A.Iragavarapu, M.D-------------------------

hare krishna u have explained very well about sins..

krishna in form of u he made me to know about sins

Sruthi nandina

---------------------------

Hari OmIndeed so much is available in Scriptures, Voices of Saints and Sages and in our direct experiences regarding the 'sin'! Key is however: Vimukhata from Him, Duty and Equanimity ! The desires and intentions (bhavas) again are outputs of 'sanmukhata' to world / 'vimukhata' from God ! Message of Sadhak Madanji Kaura rightly therefore stresses on Turning towards Him and practicing Equanimity. Swamiji once said there is One and half (1.5) sin out of which 1 is 'vimukhata' from Paramatma (tilt towards the World; facing away from Him) . Similarly virtue (punya ) is 1.5 out of which 1 is 'sanmukhata'. (Turning towards Him and turning away from world)! Desires are stated to be root cause of sin in Gita. Those desires in fact arise because of tilt towards world (vimukhata from Him)! Hence first and important step - Turn towards God immediately. Be of God's !!Equanimity and Duty - these two things are like "Raambaan" cures for sins. If one does his duty ( Duty is what you CAN DO and what you SHOULD DO ) and practices Equanimity ,he shall not incur sin - this is an established principle taught by Gitaji and Swamiji ! Equanimity and Duty are also called 'Dharma' . Hence God is stated to be established in Equanimity and Duty ! Turning towards Him thus is never failing single point solution.SANMUKH HOY JEEVA MOHI JAB HI ! KOTI JANAM AGH NAASHAHI TAB HI !!(When Jeeva turns towards Me, the sins of millions of life times get destroyed then)Refer also: BG 9:30 , so correctly quoted by Brother Mike. More so because, It is also a fact that every karma done by a Jeeva is a sin unless when you are equanimous. Because the result of every sin is "ashubh" ( inauspicious). Now even if you do a good deed, so long you are not equanimous,( doing it for selfish reasons / with bias) that good deed will produce a "bondage" for you (in the form of favourable circumstances). Every Bondage is "ashubh" ! Hence good deed is sin because 1. You were worldly ( vimukhata from Paramatma) 2 You were in-equanimous ( Act done with bias; for selfish reasons, expecting returns say heaven, prosperity etc, again 'worldly' ) !"Intention/ Bhava" of Karta most certainly is crux/ yardstick for determining a sin. Once you turn towards Paramatma the "bhavas" become purer and purer ! So long as you provide importance to world and are in-equanimous ( in other words- vimukh from Him) , your bhavas/intention behind the deed ( however good or great that deed may be ; and for that purpose however ghastly or evil that deed may be) can not be said to "equanimous/shubh" ! Hence the karma is a sin. Thus every karma (irrespective of good or bad ) is sin - unless the 'Karma' is done with 'Yoga' - Equanimity ! Unless the 'Karma' has become 'Akarma' !! Sushilji ! There is a sound logic given by Scriptures and Saints ( particularly by Param Shraddheya Swamiji Shri Ramsukhdasji Maharaj) behind the conclusion : Animals do not sin. They are life forms made for sufferring/enjoying deeds done in human form of life. They are 'bhog' yonis. The human life is 'Yog Yoni'. (Equanimity)/ 'Karma Yoni' ( Duty) ! I will go one step further: The very Question of incurring sin or virtue arises ONLY in "Karma Yoni" ( Karma - Duty/Yoga) viz human life. Such a Q does not arise in any other form of life including even Demi Gods, ghosts, animals, pisaachas, pittars, etc. Sin is dereliction of Duty. ( Kartvya-chyut ta) The Q of Duty arises in human life only. (Afterall, human form of life is the junction station- from where ONLY you can go to heaven/hell/God/animalhood - everywhere else ) If we consider that animals sin then where will be the end of cycle ? Will they ever be able of move up ? Hence Scriptures are certain that animals do not incur sin.Jai Shree KrishnaVyas N B -

Shree Hari. Ram Ram.Vedic knowledge can give answers from different perspective and therefore, knowledge is vast and can be sometimes confusing. Yes, there is sin and many people have given many definitions of sin. Bhagavad Gita goes one step forward on "SIN". I will use term "Paap" which is sanskrit word for SIN.It gives more importance to internal consciousness. Those people whose internal consciousness is divine, don't incur any Paap. In true sense, external activity results from inert matter. Our self is beyond inert matter and inert matter cannot touch our true self.Paap etc. are for those who identify themselves with body. But for those who see themselves as true spiritual self and not as body, there is no Paap.There are many symptoms of this state. More we advance towards this state more we become free from Paao and also, piety (punya). Bhagavat Gita does not even consider punya (opposite of paap) as best. The best conditions is when one goes beyond paap and punya.Here are some symptoms:-- Understand that I am not this body. My true self is different from inert matter and truly act on this platform.-- I am Bhagavan's and Bhagavan is mine. (Bhagavan - sanskrit term for God)-- Detachment from inert matter (obviously, since I am not product of matter and beyond matter, I won't be attached to inert matter.)-- Doing service with understanding that God (Bhagavan) is in everyone and everyone is representative of God. Such person will love everyone and serve everyone.-- Being internally happy from within and being unaffected by external environment (equanimity)-- and so on.Please read Bhagavad Gita carefully.Gita Talk Moderators --- Is there English Sadhak Sanjivini online?Ram Ram,Gaurav Mittal------------------------

Sin ............!

paapa and punya ..............................ah !

Consciousness as intelligence playing the game of Hide and seek ....................

Consciousness , the source of being, ever eclipsed by its own will and joy ..................!!

thought, word and deed ............ the drama and play ......................

when thoughts , words, or deeds .................. add to the eclipsing of the source, spreading fear, guilt and pain in the self ....

paapa..............................sin !!!!

when thoughts , words, or deeds .................. dance in the fray of de- eclipsing ,liberating the being from fear, guilt, pain and delusion ....

Punya ............................!!!!

and friends ,

Consciousness chooses to play intelligence at expanding levels of the self only in humans .............. the animal Consciousness has never risen to the levels of seeking beyond the natural play of the senses ...............

hence , no sin , nor virtue in the animal world ...........

in their world, Nature, Prakriti, dances in full freedom ...... and smiles at its play

and then,for reasons beyond knowing,

in the scale of evolution, Prakriti, outdoes its own behests ,,,,,,,,,,

chooses to become 'sentient' with seeming freedom of choice ....

and the drama of Punya and Paapa unfolds for the self ..................

for seekers true ............. the Injunction of Injunctions shall ever be ......

" Do unto others as ye shall have others do unto you "

aum

narinder bhandari

---------------------------

Dear Sadaks,Dharma Vyajar was born in a slaughterer family killing of goat/sheep. But it is said in script Mahabarath, that he was saint. Rishi Konkaner learnt some matters from him. Muslims marries many wives, but Hindi Dharma says it is not correct. A sin committed by a learned Bhramin is 10 fold punishable for the same commited by a Chandala (Schedule caste person). Intellect is Guru to tell what is Sin and Not. May be for that SIN is termed as:- S=Something. I=Intelect. N=Negative. SOMETHING INTELLECTUALLY NEGATIVE.B.Sathyanarayan

-------------------

In Ramcharitmanas, it is mentioned that there is no other punya (piety) than acting for the welfare of others. There is no other sin worse than inflicting suffering on others.

SB 12.2.41 - What can a person who injures other living beings for the sake of his body know about his own self-interest, since his activities are simply leading him to hell?

SB 10.2.22 - A person who is very cruel is regarded as dead even while living, for while he is living or after his death, everyone condemns him. And after the death of a person in the bodily concept of life, he is undoubtedly transferred to the hell known as Andhatama.

This is very clear. We should be good to others and don't hurt others. Basically, do what you want others to do. If you will hurt others, then you will do down to lower planetary systems called narak or hell. That can be one definition of sin. This is very complicated topic. Ultimately, one should rise above both good and bad and situate oneself beyond matter.

It is very interesting that Tulsidasji mentions good and bad in the beginning of Balkand. Later on, he says that the people with knowledge ultimately don't see anything good or bad. For them, everything is all good. But I have described them to you so that you can be like Swan. Just like swan accepts milk and rejects the water, similarly devotees accept goodness and reject bad things. Therefore, he described them so that we can discriminate.

If you are pure hearted without duplicity, then ultimately you will do good. Even if something bad happens with your good intentions, it will be ok. From absolute perspective, it does not matter. You have done tons of piety in previous life and tons of sins in previous life. Still, you are in the cycle of this world. So, ultimately you have to rise beyond both of them.

Q Loving your wife is not a SIN, but forcibly loving her against her will is a SIN?

Based on above definition, loving wife is not a sin. Actually, you are supposed to love everyone.

Taking meaning of word love as sex, for most of us having moderate sex with wife is not sin. But those who really want to elevate their consciousness higher and lead life fully dedicated to yog, they give up propensity to enjoy from inert matter. Therefore, they have sex with purpose i.e to get a child.

But most of us are not at such a high level. For us, sex with wife is not SIN. I am writing another email which discusses Vyasji's comment.

Q I think the definition of SIN changes with time. In some cases, whatever was SIN a century ago is not a SIN today...

Yes. Completely changes. Those who say "NO" really don't know the truth.

I am writing another email which shows this. How definition of "SIN" has changed?

---------

dear sadhaks

When I take a decision to do an action, a work, a job, and at that time if I feel that this action is not correct, if my inner me tells me that it is wrong, if I get a shivering or fear of doing it, definitely, no need to think again that it is an action of SIN. If my inner spirit tells me (The AnAhata) that what I am telling is untruth, what I am doing is wrong, what I am doing is a Sin, then, definitely it is a sin.

This is what I understood about Sin. If anybody is able to give more light, happily welcome.

The telling that what century ago was considered to be a Sin, today is not considered to be a sin, does not seems to be correct. It is only an interpretation given by the doer to suit his taste. This is what I understand.

Best wishes

vijayan