sin or no sin...

[3bob]

Some eastern or other ways deny that there is sin, others have no problem in recognizing it.

 

I believe Zen says sin is like missing the mark,  which does not sound to major since one was trying, right?  (and will try again and again until they figure it out one way or another)  Others dismiss sin same as they dismiss Abrahamic religions as some kind of guilt trip foolishness.   In many forms of Hinduism sin is like bad karma and has to be balanced out, etc.

 

Anyway I think denial of sin would have to include denial of will and self-knowledge from ones experiences gained in interaction with the world and natural conditions, laws - and the results that take place via any level of will exercised and self-knowledge about same,  for only if one has some degree of will and self-knowledge related to such could one then go against it willfully and knowingly, thinking that the system could be gamed for ones ego in a lasting way.

 

Your thoughts?

[Apech]

Interesting question.  I think the idea that sin means missing the mark comes from Christianity through the etymology of the Greek word 'hamartano' http://biblehub.com/greek/264.htm , but I have heard it suggested that the sin is to aim in the first place - in the sense that to have an aim is to have a private purpose of one's own as distinct to God's will.

 

I haven't heard Buddhist teachers use the word sin but rather what is wholesome and what is unwholesome - and of course the background to this is what generates helpful karmic outcomes and what generates harmful karmic outcomes.  Buddhists are not supposed to kill, lie, steal, become intoxicated or do sexual misconduct -  and broadly it is these things which are thought of as bringing about essentially a bad future or a low level rebirth.  Now it's possible to get into the mine field of moral philosophy and come up with circumstances where it is better to kill for instance - maybe if your child has a parasitic worm and you give medicine which kills the worm - and the ideas about what is and is not sexual misconduct are superbly vague and yet unhelpfully specific - like don't have sex with the wife of an arhat (chance would be a fine thing) or don't have sex with a prostitute paid for by another (!).  These are rules for lay people - obviously monks don't have sex at all (officially).  But overall if you are not a monk the attitude to transgression is very forgiving - as in you are hurting yourself and you should try to be better - rather than condemning.

 

My own approach is that it is all about your own cultivation - in that ethical conduct is conducive to forming a balanced and stable subtle body and mind - and the effect on others is the same.  So yes I would say ultimately it is about your will and the value you place in truth and consistency.  If you indulge you are indulging in appetival drives over which you have no control - rather as in addiction of some kind - this is weakening and destructive to yourself and those around you.  But the rules you adopt are rules of thumb which occasionally may not apply and you have to remember that you adopt them to learn about yourself.  Ultimately you can learn to be spontaneously responsive to whatever is going on - but that is quite an advanced state.

[liminal_luke]

if sin simply means the act of doing something wrong, then of course it exists: we do things wrong all the time.  So why do I run screaming away from people who use the word, as if I`d seen the Devil himself?  Because, in my experience, the word sin is wielded as an instrument of control.  It`s bandied about by people who think they are right and other people (usually me) are wrong.  It`s a favorite linguistic tool of those who would oppress and suppress, those who want to kill anything that doesn`t fit in with their worldview.

 

OK, so maybe I exaggerate a little.  Maybe it`s not always like that.  But I say these things because I`ve been burned.  I don`t like the word sin. 

Edited April 29, 2017 by liminal_luke

[Marblehead]

What is considered sinfull differs between different cultures.  It really has nothing to do with religions but rather the moral standards of the peole within a culture.

[silent thunder]

For me, sin is only possible on the level of the relative...  in the midst of duality.

 

From universal, foundational awareness...  there is no sin... all is spotless, untaintable, raw and pure.

[3bob]

yes, the unified, unbreakable unwavering Supreme! 

[Apech]

yes, the unified, unbreakable unwavering Supreme(s)! 

 

 

[silent thunder]

dang... those ladies were glowing!

[3bob]

LOL, yes they were great!