Om, if you only knew. It is way more than 'transcending'. Spiritually sin is what it is in the subtle bodies. The life lived. These lists are pretty good in enumerating the parameters between virtuous and sinful practices.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > Call it what you like, the good, > > the fair, the just etc. of antiquity. > > Yup, but essentially it is > > virtuous vs. sinful on a > > spiritual scale of 'life-supporting'. > > The opposite of virtue is vice, not sin. A religious person might call vice > 'sin', but 'sin' is not recognised outside of religious thought. > > For example, in the Torah, the tablets of the ten commandments were > destroyed. God then replaced them. Except the commandments on the new tablets > were different, e.g., 'Thou shalt not boil a calf in its mothers milk' was > one of the restored commandments. Few today would call boiling a calf this > way a sin. Vegetarians and animal lovers maybe. > > An atheist might get enlightened, but would not give any value to the word > sin as he/she moved 'up' on the 'spiritual scale'. 'Spiritual scales' seem to > be devices by which one can manipulate the emotive behaviour of another by > comparing them to the scale, relying on such a person's emotional immaturity > and weakness to nudge or browbeat them into submission. This is the opposite > of the technique for transcending, which is to gently let go. > > The unified field is everything. If you want to know what god wants, just > watch what happens in the universe at large. Sin is either meaningless as a > concept or it must be a property of god. > > Someone once asked Maharishi where bad thoughts came from, presumably since > thought arises out of the 'field of pure intelligence'. His answer was such a > thought was 'rotten to the core'. > > If you want to bring sin as a concept into the game of enlightenment, you > have a lose-lose situation especially in the modern Western world where > traditional religious sentiment is slipping. > > Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? > Then he is not omnipotent. > Is he able, but not willing? > Then he is malevolent. > Is he both able and willing? > Then whence cometh evil? > Is he neither able nor willing? > Then why call him God? > > --Epicurius (b.341 BCE) >
