What is sin?

[Guest guest]

Sat Naam sri vahe guru,

 

sins are also classified as per religions. Like smoking is a sin

in sikhism but not in other religions.

 

Can there be a universally accepted act which can be called a SIN ?

What exactly is a sin spiritually?

Sat sri akaal

[Guest guest]

Dear Respected sardarajitsingh:

 

Do you have any idea why this could be so?

 

As far as I know other stimulating substance, such as, alcohol is

O.K. to consume ?

 

Thank you,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

, "sardarajitsingh" <the-hermit@i...>

wrote:

> Sat Naam sri vahe guru,

>

> sins are also classified as per religions. Like smoking is a sin

> in sikhism but not in other religions.

>

> Can there be a universally accepted act which can be called a

SIN ?

> What exactly is a sin spiritually?

> Sat sri akaal

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ajit,

 

Before going into a universally accepted act, can we first define

what sin is?

 

What is sin? When do we call an action a sin? Can an act considered

to be a sin by one group of people be considered a non-sinful act by

another faction?

 

Trying to answer these questions might give us a clearer picture of

*What* sin is, and will help us to answer your question. I request

the members of the group to answer these questions so we can derive

some conclusion.

 

Hari Aum !!!

[Guest guest]

>>Can there be a universally accepted act which can be called a SIN ?

What exactly is a sin spiritually?<<

 

First let us see what sin is. When do you call an act a sin?

Let me give you 2 acts, and we'll see if those acts are sinful or not.

 

1. distributing sweets to the people you know

2. act of beating

 

Now which of these acts would you call a sin. Obviously it's act # 2.

Act # 1 is something that is welcomed by all people, so it obviously

cannot be a sin. Would we change our mind, if we took a deeper look?

Let's see :

 

1. You have been promoted in your office, so you decide to treat your

colleagues by taking a packet of sweets with you and distributing it.

One of them is a diabetic, and you are aware of it. He has very sever

diabetes with a very high Fasting Blood Sugar level, and he's

supposed to be on a strict diet. Taking just one small portion of

sweet might result in diabetic coma and possible consequent death.

You know this fact, and yet you give him a sweet.

 

2. A child commits a small theft and the mother beats the child (

beating children is common in India, as children are mostly NOT

abused), only with the intention of correcting the child. Fearing the

pain , the child refrains from stealing the next time.

 

Now after looking into the above illustration, what do you find?

isn't distributing sweet to that diabetic a sinful act? and isn't

beating the child by the mother a non sinful act ? Why have we

changed our minds to the contrary just after 2 paragraphs?

 

What do we see from this? From this we see that, no action by itself

is either sinful or nonsinful. It's the circumstances that determine

an act to be so. So when do we call an act a sin?

 

If we take the illustratino of a traffic system, there are a set of

rules to follow. When you have a red light, you are not supposed to

proceed. Violation of this will be considered a misdemeanor.

Similarly, in every religion there are a set of rules to follow.

violation of those rules is called a sin.

 

Now your second question is, why we cna't have a universally accepted

sin. The reason is multiplicity. This world is full of multitudes,

and this is how it's meant to be.

 

In Alaska, it is supposed to be cold, and you keep yourself warm by

lighting a fire and wearing winter clothing. Contrarily in the middle

of the Sahara, it's pretty hot, and you must not do the same thing

that you would in Alaska, for lighting a fire and sitting around it

in Sahara might result in boiled humans.

 

All over the world, you see multiplicity in everything, in seasons,

geography, vegetation, animal life, cuisine, language, people,

religions etc. Depending on the temperament of the people, they

belong to their respective religions, language, country, etc. Based

on that, rules are made to guide the sadhaks on their way to the one

common goal of all.

 

To reach Delhi from Kanyakumar, you could travel in a bus, or you

could take a train or board a flight. All people have the same

destination, but different ways of reaching it. The safety rules you

have to follow in a plane may not apply to the one travelling in a

bus, and again the rules for a person travelling in a bus may not

apply for the one travelling in a train. Based on their different

paths, each must stick to their own set of rules for their safety.

 

Similarly, every religion has different paths, and has its own set of

rules to suit its path. Thus you cannot have one universally accepted

sin. Even the traffic rules differ from country to country.

 

What matters is not why there is no universal sin, but trying to

understand the set of rules that we are supposed to follow in the

religion that we belong to, so that we can reach our goal.

 

Hari Aum !!!

[Guest guest]

Hello Dear Ones,

Regarding sin I have a very clear notion; and I dont expect everyone

to accept it. However, I am giving my own attitude:

1. Society perspective 2.Spieitual perspective. One (no1) is subject

to change with the ethical standerds of the age/county/society. since

we are both social and spiritual entity at the same point of time, we

are obliged to accept both. Both perspectives are as follows

1. Society perspective ---- To act, behave or manupulate against the

law of the land is "sin" (often termed as 'Guilt')

2.Spieitual perspective----- To act, behave or pose in contrary of

your inner being, i.e. to pose what actualy you are not is "sin"

In other words, to be different inwardly and different outwordly

is "sin"

If this notion is incorrect, I would be only too happy to revise

myself

Love to all

Satish