[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Sin.
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Sin.
-
From: dwaite@aladdin.co.uk (Dennis Waite)
-
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 1995 21:37:21 GMT
-
From news@alpha.aladdin.co.uk Wed Aug 2 17: 25:41 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: SoNet - The first Internet provider on the south coast
-
References: <3uotgn$gem@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
mpt@mail.utexas.edu (michael tandy) wrote:
>In article <3um2jp$qu3@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, dwaite@aladdin.co.uk (Dennis Waite) says:
>>
>>susarla@owlnet.rice.edu (Hari Krishna Susarla) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How excellent can such a commentary be, if it justifies unrestricted sense
>>>gratification?
>>
>>It does not justify any such thing. It is made clear that desire leads
>>only to frustration, anger, delusion and death - man must lose all
>>desires to regain himself.
> That is all well and good, but I don't think you have really
> addressed Mr. Susarlas's question, have you?
To specifically answer the question - *if* the commentary justified
unrestricted sense gratification, it would not be so excellent. Since
it doesn't, however, the question doesn't arise.
>>
>>>If we take that logic to its natural extreme, then theft, rape, and murder are
>>>not sins because there are people who commit them who feel absolutely no
>>>guilt. I know for certain that there are looney serial killers/rapists who
>>>certainly do NOT feel guilt for their crimes.
>>
>>Do you really know this to be so?
> I do, yes.
How can you know (unless speaking from personal experience :-))
>I suspect most if not all *do* feel
>>that they are doing wrong but cannot help themselves. If they
>>genuinely do not then no, they are not committing sin. Clearly they
>>are acting inappropriately
> Why? Allegedly they aren't committing sin, so what is the
> problem?
As far as *we* are concerned, trapped as we are in our world of maya,
they are 1) not playing the game according to the rules of the society
in which they live; 2) not acting with respect and love of others; 3)
not following a path likely to lead to realisation of the truth and
release from maya.
>>An even more startling viewpoint I have encountered is that the very
>>notion of sin is nonsense. Who is there to sin? Only the individual
>>ego, which after all is an illusion. The Self is clearly unaffected by
>>any of this play.
>
> All due respects, I think you and I are definitely affected by
> this, otherwise we wouldn't be impelled to sin in the first
> place.
Yes - "you" and "I" clearly are but the Self is beyond all.
> What you have mentioned above is hypothetically true,
> or even absolutely true, yet so far beyond the realization of
> most of us as to be irrelevant for all practical purposes.
It is our true state *now* whether the ego accepts it or not.
> Ironically, it is an argument often used to justify sin, and
> if I understand him correctly, this is what Mr. Susarla was
> trying to point out.
>>(Criticism is, in any case, always negative and never justified.)
> Consider the following statement, from the Gita (7.15):
>
> na mam duskrtino mudhah
> prapadyante naradhamah
> mayayapahrta-jnana
> asuram bhavam asritah
> "Those miscreants who don't surrender to Me
> are asses; they are the lowest of men. Their
> knowledge is stolen by maya, and they have taken
> shelter of demoniac attitudes."
> It would be very difficult, by any stretch of the imagination,
> to construe this as anything but criticism.
Not at all. It is a statement of fact without any criticism at all. An
individual can choose to acknowledge or ignore it. (Also our knowledge
is 'being stolen by maya' even now in this discussion :-))
>>One final point, relevant to your comments (although I have only been
>>told this and have not verified it from any written source):- Was not
>>Valmiki (correct sp.?), later in life the author of the Ramayana (?),
>>originally a thief and a murderer? ("Some rise by sin, and some by
>>virtue fall.")
> I don't find any correlation between Valmiki's past sinful life
> and his later spiritual success, except perhaps that his condition
> was so undeniably fallen that he could hardly avoid submissive
> reception of great souls, which is factually what elevated him.
> Perhaps you could explain.
No correlation was intended. I was simply pointing out that one should
not condemn "looney serial killers who do not feel guilt" as
irredeemable - they may just surprise us later.
Apologies for delayed response - I've just been on holiday.
Regards,
Dennis
dwaite@aladdin.co.uk
