[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Sin
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Sin
-
From: dwaite@aladdin.co.uk (Dennis Waite)
-
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 20:52:28 GMT
-
From news@alpha.aladdin.co.uk Tue Aug 15 16: 42:55 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: SoNet - The first Internet provider on the south coast
-
References: <3v3nvt$jgp@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
vijaypai@ece.rice.edu (Vijay Sadananda Pai) wrote:
>In article <3um2jp$qu3@babbage.ece.uc.edu> Dennis Waite writes:
>>susarla@owlnet.rice.edu (Hari Krishna Susarla) wrote:
>>>I know for certain that there are looney serial killers/rapists who
>>>certainly do NOT feel guilt for their crimes.
>>
>>If they
>>genuinely do not then no, they are not committing sin.
>This part is untenable, as it reduces sin to some function of the mind
>and senses. I seriously doubt that you could find any scriptural support
>for this opinion with regard to human beings.
>>Clearly they
>>are acting inappropriately and we should endeavour to educate them but
>>this is another issue.
>This part we agree on
>>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.
>I have a feeling that ideas like this are the reason that Shankaracharya
>only taught advaita-vada to sannyasis: I think the appropriate English
>expression is "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Attempts by those
>who are not renounced and austere to understand advaita are invariably
>dangerous since they generally conclude that parampara, sastra, etc
>are not useful, and other things that you have mentioned. Rather than
>breaking out of illusion, they get further engrossed in sense gratification
>and then convince themselves "Oh, the Self is clearly unaffected by any
>of this play." These ideas are completely ludicrous in the context of much
>of the Bhagavad Gita, especially the latter third, which repeatedly explains
>that which is dharmic and that which is adharmic, what is in each mode
>of nature, and what happens to those in each mode of nature.
>Note that there is no such fundamental danger in Vaisnava philosophies,
>because these philosophies invariably teach that the jivatma is both
>real and individual. Thus, these systems can, in a real and meaningful
>(not just "vyavaharika") way, distinguish karma, vikarma, and akarma.
>>Are you
>>familiar with his commentaries that you can make such a criticism?
>Actually, my cousin's brother-in-law gave me one of his books about a
>year ago; I peeked through it long enough to convince myself it was
>nonsense (a few minutes) and then left it behind.... I am pretty sure
>(and maybe someone like Anand H or Vidya can correct me on this) that
>his ideas are also outside the pale of traditional advaita. Anyway,
>"avaisnavo gurur na syad" [Padma P.] carries the day here.
>>(Criticism is, in any case, always negative and never justified.)
>This very statement is both self-contradictory and ignores history.
>This line is itself a criticism, and therefore must be "negative and
>never justified" and can therefore be thrown out. It also ignores
>history -- was Shankara not a digvijaya? Did he not defeat the
>Buddhists and karma-kandiyas through argument? Did Ramanuja not do the
>same afterward to Shankarites? etc. etc. throughout history. Some
>commentator may convince you that "Criticism is, in any case,
>always negative and never justified," but that ignores history and
>Vedic tradition. After all, Lord Krishna Himself smiled and
>told Arjuna that Arjuna was speaking learned words but proving himself
>to be unwise. That seems to be a simple enough instruction (and yes,
>criticism) upon which to base further talks.
>>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.")
>Yes, but he did not rise by sin -- he rose by accidentally chanting the
>name of Rama. At that time he became completely purified and left his sinful
>life behind. Only later did he write the Ramayana. So, clearly, the
>sinner can become a very meaningful part of religious society, but only
>after he leaves behind his sinful deeds and chants the name of the Lord.
>Yours,
>Vijay
Dear Vijay,
My apologies for not responding earlier. I really cannot think of
anything else I want to say on the topic. I certainly would not wish
to embark upon any argument of the Advaita-versus-other-schools type -
[especially with someone clearly so much more knowledgeable than
myself :-)]. I would just, in humble support of my original comments,
like to quote Swami Chinmayananda (as someone whose authority I
value):- "Sin is never in action, it is always in reaction."
Sincerely,
Dennis
dwaite@aladdin.co.uk
