Hell and Sins

[Silverbackman]

Alright so basicly Agnideva and Harishankar have different opinions on hell? What sect of hinduism are you two? I assume different sects.

Anyway if I understand you guys correctly, Agnideva believes that there is a heaven or hell after you die but it is really only like a state of mind (like a dream world except a dream that exists). But won't be able to meet your loved ones that have gone as well in this new land before being reincarnated back on to the Earth?

I also don't see how it is much different from the Abrahmic veiw of heaven and hell. Of course its not as simple as the Abrahmic view of heaven and hell, but Abrahmic religious followers believe your soul leaves your body when you die and goes to this subtle plane that cannot be seen. So it does not seem it is all that different, the main point being your soul enters a different realm but the difference of course would be that heaven and hell is not eternal and you eventually get reincarnated back into this realm.

And Harishankar believes that heaven and hell is what we are reborn in, and there is no period between death and rebirth, right? Interesting.

--

Also about sins, can some of these thoughts really be considered sins? When you have sex with your woman for example you obviously going to lust, and I don't see the problem with that. So isn't it a little extreme to say that something like lust is a sin unless it turns into something bad?

[harishankar]

Also about sins, can some of these thoughts really be considered sins? When you have sex with your woman for example you obviously going to lust, and I don't see the problem with that. So isn't it a little extreme to say that something like lust is a sin unless it turns into something bad?

No. Actually only when you cast your eyes on somebody who is not your spouse and is married to another or you are married to somebody and cast your eyes on another, then it's lust. Also, it should be a very strong emotion, not a mere fancy. Only when it grows out of control within your mind then it's sin. That's my view. So there is no sin merely by having strong feelings towards your wife/husband. It is perfectly acceptable and in fact, desirable. Because a marriage is a Cosmically Sanctified relationship.

You should realize that thoughts, words actions are not independent of the environment around us. It's the way that these interact with the environment that gets you into trouble.

In other words, when a thought, word or action goes out of control it assumes life of its own and hence brings about Karma. Mild thoughts, words and actions don't count to increasing Karma. Only very strong thoughts that actually go out of your conscious control do.

Alright so basicly Agnideva and Harishankar have different opinions on hell? What sect of hinduism are you two? I assume different sects.

That's the beauty of Hinduism. Even within the same "sects" as you call it, we needn't agree on some things, but we agree on the basics, and that's what counts, I believe. The technicalities are best left to the experts...

It's important I think for somebody new to Hinduism to understand that Heaven and Hell are not central concepts to our religion. Sure, we are interested for academic reasons, but the main focus of Hinduism is evolution of the Individual Soul and growth of the individual to higher levels of Being until we reach the Cosmic Divine. For this, the focus is on living in this world, not in any other world. There can be no relinquishing of responsibilities of our very material and worldly duties in this life... that neglecting of duty by itself can be termed as negative Karma. Hinduism is about doing our duties and carrying out our responsibilities in life with the right attitude all the time. And "attitude" is a very important element. That is the essence of Krishna's teachings in the Bhagavad Gita.

Our lives, we believe, should be lived rightly and positively and with the right religious bent of mind for us to gain good Karma which will enable us to reach a higher form of living in some future life. So life is not escapism. Rather it's focus is to grow spiritually as a human being without neglecting our worldly duties. We have to grow within the world we live in, not without. Therefore any form of escapism or after-life is not really the key to success. Living the right life is the key... and that's all there is to it, really.

[Agnideva]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

Alright so basicly Agnideva and Harishankar have different opinions on hell? What sect of hinduism are you two? I assume different sects.

Clearly, we do . I don’t think it is a sectarian difference really. As Harishankar explained so eloquently, every Hindu is allowed to and will have different opinions on some subjects, and we need not agree on every issue. But, heaven and hell are definitely not central concepts of Sanatana Dharma.

Here are a couple of sites for you if you want to read more about heavens and hells:
http://www.ramakrishna.org/message17.htm
http://hinduwebsite.com/reincarnation.htm

there is a heaven or hell after you die but it is really only like a state of mind (like a dream world except a dream that exists).

Precisely! In fact, the physical, subtle and causal planes are often compared to the wakeful, dreaming and deep sleep states of consciousness, respectively.

But won't be able to meet your loved ones that have gone as well in this new land before being reincarnated back on to the Earth?

I don’t know about that. If they’re there maybe you won’t recognized them, or perhaps they’ve already left to be reincarnated. Also, if your karmas dictate so, then maybe you won’t even go to the heavens or hells at all, but just get reborn right away!

I also don't see how it is much different from the Abrahmic veiw of heaven and hell.

The concepts are similar in some regards, but there are some differences: (1) these worlds are not eternal; (2) God pervades all the worlds, even the hellish ones (although you are spiritually further from God in the hellish realms); (3) these worlds transect ours, so they’re not above or below, but within; (4) no hell fire or material pleasures in heaven as I am Free pointed out; (5) no satan or its equivalent to tempt people into hell.

Also about sins, can some of these thoughts really be considered sins?

Did we call them "sins"? These emotions are potentially sinful, and in many cases bad karma. Sin implies an intentional transgression from the path of righteousness (at least in my definition). A sin is necessarily a bad karma, but a bad karma is not necessarily a sin.

[I am free]

Hi All,

Originally Posted by Agnideva

Did we call them "sins"? These emotions are potentially sinful, and in many cases bad karma. Sin implies an intentional transgression from the path of righteousness (at least in my definition). A sin is necessarily a bad karma, but a bad karma is not necessarily a sin.

Originally Posted by harishankar

Hinduism is about doing our duties and carrying out our responsibilities in life with the right attitude all the time. And "attitude" is a very important element. That is the essence of Krishna's teachings in the Bhagavad Gita.

Exactly!!! I could not have said better.

I would really like to delve on the concept of "sin" a little more. Firstly, I dont know for sure if Hinduism has a concept of "sin" so to speak. Karma includes thoughts, words and deeds. There are amoral, unethical and wrong thoughts, words and deeds and these lead to bad karma.

Consider a man who looks at a beautiful woman in admiration for her beauty. If his mind is filled with pure admiration it is not immoral. If he is thinking dirty thoughts, it is wrong. Period.

Consider a soldier who kills in battle. He is doing his duty and his action is not immoral. If the same guy goes back home and kills his brother over a property dispute, it is wrong.

Bottomline, the external action is really irrelevant. It is the thought and intention that counts. And when the thought behind an action is wrong, the action itself is wrong and will accrue bad karma.

It is irrelevant whether a man "chooses to act externally" on his immoral thoughts. The very process of thinking is an action and hence karma. .

The purpose of any religion is to help man progress spiritually. There is no way a man can progress spritually if his mind is not clear of all negative thoughts. This is something I have felt personally and hence I would have to disagree here with you harishankar when you say:

In other words, when a thought, word or action goes out of control it assumes life of its own and hence brings about Karma. Mild thoughts, words and actions don't count to increasing Karma. Only very strong thoughts that actually go out of your conscious control do.

Or maybe I dont understand what you mean by mild thoughts, words and actions.....


Regards.

[Agnideva]

Originally Posted by I am free

I would really like to delve on the concept of "sin" a little more. Firstly, I dont know for sure if Hinduism has a concept of "sin" so to speak. Karma includes thoughts, words and deeds. There are amoral, unethical and wrong thoughts, words and deeds and these lead to bad karma.

The concept of sin (paap) and merit (punya) through actions does exist in Hinduism. Alternatively, they may be called vices and virtues. Not every bad action is a sin, it depends on your intention. For example, I know that arson is wrong, but if I burn my neighbor's house down because I hate him, that would be a sinful act. Hating my neighbor or being angry with him are not by themselves sinful, but definitely bad karma and to be avoided But if I burned his house down by mistake (without intention), then is that a sin?

Hinduism lacks the concept of original sin, that humans are sinful from the beginning. The Hindu concept of sin is sort of an intentional transgression of dharma, at least in my thinking. In Abrahamic religions, sin is something you do against God, but in Hinduism sin is something one does against oneself. A good example is in the BG (I.36-38), where Arjuna is worried about killing his enemies because he thinks he will incur sin. Later, of course, he is told that by performing his duty and fighting evil and injustice, he does not incur any sin.

Just my two cents ...

[harishankar]

Or maybe I dont understand what you mean by mild thoughts, words and actions....

Mild meaning that you retain control. You don't allow that thought to develop a life of its own. In other words, it is a passing feeling or a very idle thought.

For example, if I think very casually or mildly about something bad, that is not negative Karma. However, once that thought gains momentum in my mind and becomes serious that means I am beginning to lose control of that thought and that thought has gained control of my mind.

When a thought becomes really powerful, it becomes an obsession and rules your mind. That is the most dangerous because it reflects in your words and actions even without your own conscious effort.

In the final analysis, it is silly to think that each and every thought in our mind leads to Karma. That's wrong... I believe that only a thought that gains a force greater than a certain level leads to Karma - good or bad.

That's why even idle good thoughts aren't really good Karma. You can keep thinking idly about doing all the good deeds in the world, but it's not going to count to your Karma unless it really takes hold in your subconscious mind and reflects in words and actions without your conscious effort. And the same goes with bad thoughts too... just thinking idly that you're going to kill somebody is not really bad Karma...

[Silverbackman]

How do Hindus define go out of your conscious control? As long as you keep it to yourself it is considered mild right? For example if a hot woman walks by you can look at her but as long as you don't slap her butt or start talking dirty in front of her its alright, right?

Also I'm quite suprised, Hinduism is more conservative than I thought! Another question why was the Kama Sutra invented when Hinduism discourages openess toward sex? I've always thought sex had a greater meaning in life, and Hindus right a religious book about sex that makes lusting a holy thing...........unless it things must be private for it to be holy.

[Agnideva]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

Also I'm quite suprised, Hinduism is more conservative than I thought!

Hinduism can be as conservative or as liberal as you want depending on the path you choose to follow. Most orthodox branches of Hinduism are fairly conservative with regards to sexuality. There are four aims of life in Hinduism: dharma, artha (worldly gain), kama (love, including sex) and moksha (liberation). But dharma is supposed to be the guiding principle for the other three. Regarding sexuality, this means sex only with one’s spouse only within marriage, and only within the householder stage of life. In the epics, for example, men are told to look at all older women as their mothers, all younger women (except one’s wife) as sisters. I am NOT saying all Hindus accept or practice this, but this is the ideal.

Now, there are certain tantric branches called left-handed paths where all the normally discouraged behaviors are encouraged. In these left-handed paths sexuality may be used as a spiritual experience. This is where the idea of tantric sex comes from. Historically, these practices have been looked down upon, and were mostly practiced in secret. Perhaps you were thinking of one of these paths?

Another question why was the Kama Sutra invented when Hinduism discourages openess toward sex? I've always thought sex had a greater meaning in life, and Hindus right a religious book about sex that makes lusting a holy thing...........unless it things must be private for it to be holy.

I don’t know why the Kama Sutra was written, but I can tell you that it is definitely not considered a scripture or a holy book. It is only a book written by a man who was (probably) Hindu. I would say that, in general, Hinduism does not see sex as an unholy or ungodly thing. Sex and sexuality have a purpose and a place in life. Perhaps the kama sutra was written with this in mind.

Overall, Hinduism teaches that every human birth is an opportunity, a unique chance for progress toward God-realization and liberation from samsara. By pursuing thoughts, behaviors and actions that lead to further identification with the body, we only take ourselves off the spiritual path which is the ultimate goal of human life. This is the message of the Hindu masters.

[I am free]

Originally Posted by Agnideva

The concept of sin (paap) and merit (punya) through actions does exist in Hinduism. Alternatively, they may be called vices and virtues. Not every bad action is a sin, it depends on your intention. For example, I know that arson is wrong, but if I burn my neighbor's house down because I hate him, that would be a sinful act. Hating my neighbor or being angry with him are not by themselves sinful, but definitely bad karma and to be avoided But if I burned his house down by mistake (without intention), then is that a sin?

Thankyou Agnideva. Your posts are very educative and I appreciate your presence in this forum.

Yes I am aware of "paapa/punya". But I am reminded of a story...

A great sage was once sitting under a tree in meditation. Just then a few village people came running right in front of him. They seemed to be in great fear and they hid behind some trees and bushes. A few minutes later the reason for their fear became apparent. A group of dacoits came running along brandishing swords searching for the villagers. When they could not figure out where the folks had gone they asked the sage sitting under tree. The wise sage pointed in a direction opposite to where the villagers were hiding. Once the robbers were out of sight the village folks came out and thanked the sage. Then one of them asked him "Why have you committed the sin of lying just to save our lives?" The sage said "A falsehood told for the greater good is not sin. A truth uttered knowing the suffering it will cause is sin".

Sorry I narrate the story poorly, but my understanding is that there is no absolute definition for sin. Like you yourself pointed out ultimately what counts is what is in your heart.

A man may plot murder in his mind, but may not act on his intentions probably because of cold feet. If he had actually committed murder, I agree and I can see now that it would amount to "sin" and that probably amounts to a greater karmic debt. But is this not irrelevant?

Does the fact that he did not commit the act externally reduce his climb up the spiritual ladder?

Regards.

[I am free]

Hi Silver,

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

How do Hindus define go out of your conscious control? As long as you keep it to yourself it is considered mild right? For example if a hot woman walks by you can look at her but as long as you don't slap her butt or start talking dirty in front of her its alright, right?

This made me laugh . Not saying it in a bad way.. just amused that you have been so persistent with this question .

Not sure but I think what you are asking is how Hinduism views indulgence in sexuality. I would say not very different from indulgence in food but Agnideva and harishankar would probably be able to clarify?

[I am free]

Hi All,

Thankyou Silver for starting this thread. It has been very interesting indeed and has made me think some .

We have already discussed that the concept of heaven and hell is not central to Hinduism. It has no practical use in spritual practice. A person does good deeds neither in anticipation of heaven nor in fear of hell.

Can we similarly say that the concept of sin is also not of use in spiritual practice. The basic essence of hinduism is to purify your soul so as to become one with God. Am I right?

As I see it, the hindu has to focus on cleansing his heart and his mind of negative and evil thoughts. A person who habitually thinks negative thoughts but never acts on these will he attain moksha? I would think not.

We have also discussed that an action is not seperate from the intention and by itself cannot be classified as sin. So what use is the definition of sin in hinduism?

Does spiritual practice in hinduism revolve around "avoiding sin"? Does the Hindu then have to dwell on sin? Can he say that "As long as I dont commit sin I'm OK?"

On another note is there any thought in Hinduism which says a sin is an externally manifested action only?

Originally Posted by Agnideva

Sin implies an intentional transgression from the path of righteousness (at least in my definition).

Is it equivalent then to adharma? A man who undresses a woman although mentally, without ever laying a finger on her..... is this an intentional transgression from the path of righteousness?


Regards.

[harishankar]

If by being conservative you mean to ask whether or not Hinduism gives you the license to think, act and speak as you like, then no.

Hinduism definitely does not give any license... in that way it is conservative.

Regarding thoughts:

A thought goes out of your conscious control if it is intense and strong. As I mentioned before, if you have an obsession, then that controls you: you do not control the thought.

Thoughts which occur on the surface of the mind are seldom very powerful and can be easily controlled. Thoughts which gain a foothold so to speak in your subconcsious mind becomes very powerful in the sense that that thought predominates your whole mentality.

We call the predominant thought structure of your mind "personality." A person's personality is determined by what kind of thoughts he thinks on a regular basis. So if a person has predominantly good thoughts most of the time, he gets good Karma. If he has bad thoughts, it becomes negative Karma.

It's very simple really... I hope you can understand this:

"You are what you think!"

That's the basic one-line essence of Hinduism.

The answer to your question whether a thought by itself is a sin is this:

"If the thought you think is very powerful and intense within you and it is essentially a bad thought or a negative emotion, then it leads to bad Karma."

That's all in very simple terms...

[Agnideva]

Hi everyone,

Originally Posted by I am Free

Thankyou Agnideva. Your posts are very educative and I appreciate your presence in this forum.

I’m glad I could be of help. Thanks for the kind words, I am Free. I appreciate your (and everyone else’s) presence and participation in the forum as well. I think it’s enriching all our minds .

A man may plot murder in his mind, but may not act on his intentions probably because of cold feet. If he had actually committed murder, I agree and I can see now that it would amount to "sin" and that probably amounts to a greater karmic debt. But is this not irrelevant?

Here’s my view on it (and I hope I am answering Silver’s question also). There’s varying degrees of karma; not every bad thought can be considered bad karma. You may have a passing bad thought; a bad thought that is persistent in your mind; a bad thought that takes over your mind, emotions and clouds your better judgment; a bad thought that gives you the impetus to perform bad actions, and finally a bad thought that results in a bad action. We can probably place several other intermediate steps in this analogy too. The point is that each one is worse than the previous one and leads to greater karmic debt. On the grand scheme of things, what’s most important, I think, is that we doesn’t allow our bad and evil thoughts to take over to mind to the point where our better judgment is clouded because this may result in bad actions. As we all know, actions begin as thoughts, and if we want to control your actions, we have to control our thoughts as well. Besides, smaller karmas may be worked off, but bigger karmic debts are harder to dissipate.

Does the fact that he did not commit the act externally reduce his climb up the spiritual ladder?

Not as much as if he had actually done the external act!

Can we similarly say that the concept of sin is also not of use in spiritual practice. The basic essence of hinduism is to purify your soul so as to become one with God. Am I right?

Yes, in a nutshell. Sin is not a central concept in Hindu belief, but it is also important to know what is bad karma, sin, etc. so we know what to avoid and control.

A person who habitually thinks negative thoughts but never acts on these will he attain moksha?

Probably not in that lifetime, but we can't say for sure. But like everyone else s/he will attain moksha eventually.

Does spiritual practice in hinduism revolve around "avoiding sin"? Does the Hindu then have to dwell on sin? Can he say that "As long as I dont commit sin I'm OK?"

No, no, and no. Spiritual practice revolves around following dharma. When one follow her/his dharma perfectly, there’s nothing to worry about … not bad karma, not sin.

On another note is there any thought in Hinduism which says a sin is an externally manifested action only?

I generally think of “sin” as action, but I suppose words would also count. Thoughts, I’m not sure … what do you think?

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

if a hot woman walks by you can look at her but as long as you don't slap her butt or start talking dirty in front of her its alright, right?

Silver, realistically speaking, I would say keep the thoughts to yourself and don’t let them take over your mind and emotions. That’s the best thing to do. We can’t really suppress our thoughts, and suppression of our thoughts is not healthy anyway.

Originally Posted by Harishankar

A thought goes out of your conscious control if it is intense and strong. As I mentioned before, if you have an obsession, then that controls you: you do not control the thought.
Thoughts which occur on the surface of the mind are seldom very powerful and can be easily controlled. Thoughts which gain a foothold so to speak in your subconcsious mind becomes very powerful in the sense that that thought predominates your whole mentality.

Very nice description! Thanks Harishankar.