[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Sin
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