[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Sin.
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Sin.
-
From: dwaite@aladdin.co.uk (Dennis Waite)
-
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 21:11:27 GMT
-
From news@alpha.aladdin.co.uk Wed Jul 19 17: 00:54 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: SoNet - The first Internet provider on the south coast
-
References: <3u4e26$7ih@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
susarla@owlnet.rice.edu (Hari Krishna Susarla) wrote:
>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?
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.
>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 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 and we should endeavour to educate them but
this is another issue.
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.
>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.
I have not encountered anyone who is better able to explain the Gita
and he does so in a way which makes clear he speaks from truth and not
from opinion. His explanations are in no way materialistic. Are you
familiar with his commentaries that you can make such a criticism?
(Criticism is, in any case, always negative and never justified.)
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.")
"To thine own self be true and it must follow, as night the day, thou
can'st not then be false to any man."
Dennis Waite
dwaite@aladdin.co.uk
