You can commit a sin, you can repent a sin, you can replace a sin by a virtue, by a virtuous act – but it will not be of any meaning for the Upanishads if you remain the same. So just to go on changing your acts will not lead you anywhere. If the consciousness is set right, your acts will follow. If something is wrong with the consciousness, your acts will go wrong. Your acts are irrelevant because they are not central in the center is your consciousness. Ignorance is sin and awareness is virtue. The act can become a sin only because the doer is ignorant, unaware, unconscious, is living in a state of sleep. Because of this ignorance, his acts become sins. So what will it mean to call a man a sinner? We mean that he is ignorant, unaware of his own self. It is not the doing but the being itself that is significant. What you do is irrelevant what you are is the point. To the Upanishads, it is not related to the doing at all. What you do may be a sin, or it may not be a sin it may be a virtue but it is related to your doing. The concept of sin in Christianity, in The Bible, is related to your acts – to what you do. To the biblical religions – to Jews, Christians, and even Mohammedans – the concept of sin is totally different than it is to the Hindus and Buddhists. And also please explain the implications in human life. In this reference, explain the difference between the concept of sin in the Upanishads and in the bible. In the morning you said that one who realizes the Brahman thus destroys sin and is well established in Brahman.
0 kommentar(er)
