HinduNet
  
Forums Chat Annouce Calender Remote

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Sin.



In article <3smshq$55d@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, Anshuman Pandey <apandey@u.washington.edu> says:

>Sin is supposed to be a deed done contrary to what is good, or simply, a 
>bad deed. So, if an individual commits an act which he is not taught is 
>bad and does not view it as a sin sin, but society as a whole views the 
>deed as bad and as a sin, then is the deed the individual committed a 
>sin?
>Also, another perspective: sin is something which is wrong, and if what 
>is wrong to others is not wrong to you, then is it still a sin?



	The existence of relative values does not mean that there isn't
	an absolute standard, or even that they are, inconcieveably, one
	and the same. My understanding is that punya and papa can only
	be assessed in accordance with one's sva-dharma; this is what 
	makes these relative, for everyone's sva-dharma is to some extent
	unique. This is where the dharma-sastras have to be considered;
	they are invaluable because as even the Gita acquiesces, the
	intricacies of action and reaction are essential unfathomable.
	They must also be accepted under the guidance of a qualified guru.

	But ideally, one's sva-dharma is seen as a function of sanatana
	dharma, or sad-dharma, which is the same for all living beings.
	"Dharmam tu saksad bhagavat-pranitam."  Sanatana-dharma ultimately
	simply means to follow the order of God, which is why He dispenses
	with all sva-dharmas in the Gita (18.66). One who has fully 
	realized this is no longer bound by varna and asrama dharmas; he
	is a nitya-mukta. Of course, that is a high attainment. In the
	highest (and absolute) sense, therefore, "sin" can be defined as
	anything which obstructs one's perfection of sanatana-dharma, or
	surrender to Krsna.




	-m









Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.