[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Sin.
-
To: alt-hindu@cis.ohio-state.edu
-
Subject: Re: Sin.
-
From: susarla@owlnet.rice.edu (Hari Krishna Susarla)
-
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 95 02:40:05 GMT
-
From news@larry.rice.edu Tue Jul 11 23: 29:51 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
-
References: <3tujf3$7jc@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
In article <3tujf3$7jc@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
dwaite@aladdin.co.uk (Dennis Waite) wrote:
>Sri Parthasarathy says in his excellent commentaries on the Gita that
>something is a sin if it causes an adverse reaction in the mind after
>the event. Thus, it is O.K. to eat meat for example if one feels no
>guilt or other negative reaction afterwards but if one feels bad about
>it (mentally!), then it is a sin. This avoids all direct consideration
>of 'good' and 'evil', 'right' and 'wrong' etc. and the
>opinions/beliefs of others.
How excellent can such a commentary be, if it justifies unrestricted sense
gratification?
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.
It is unfortunate that some opinionated individuals can be accepted by
Hindus as Gita scholars when they give such materialistic interpretations of
our sacred scripture.
-- HKS
