Are we are born sinners or sufferers? Our existential condition in the light of the Judaeo -Christian Buddha and epistemologies
George S. Garwood (March 22, 2014)
We humans from time immemorial have looked at the condition of ourselves, of the world, and of humanity and many of us have come to the conclusion that there is something that fundamentally ails creation.
Before the development of modern science, evolution, psychology and other naturalistic disciplines, when religious, theological, metaphysical, magical explanations were the main ways of explaining the world and man’s place in it, early humans then, as many modern humans now do, attribute what they see as this planet’s intractable problems, such as wars, diseases, hunger, floods, hate, greed, lies, etc. – disasters of all types (human and natural) - as having origins or causes outside themselves or elsewhere.
Explanations for misfortunes and calamities were to be found in the heavens, the skies, under the earth, in gods, demons, devils, spirits, and in other unseen forces. Still to this day, such ideas abound; and, these ideas have developed into sophisticated systems of thoughts, structures and elaborate, and not so elaborate religious practices.
Attempts to answer the problems of existence, and the desires to reduce, if not to stop the destructive forces of nature are made by appeals to, and, for assistance by divine forces. In our time, in our cultural and geographical space, and with our own cosmologies and cosmogonies we have come to believe that the world and human conduct are in such disastrous disarray because we humans have offended and are offending God or the gods. Such an offence is rendered Sin. Now one such iconic account of Sin is detailed in the Book called ‘Beginnings’ or Genesis found in the Jewish Torah and the Christian Bible.There is in that Book the radical allegorical or symbolic story – judged by many to be actually based on real historical events - that there were two original inhabitants of the earth, Adam and Eve, who were placed on this planet by a Supreme Being, referred to as Yahweh, God, Elohim, or known by some other mysterious name – that these two blissful, if naïve creatures in their pride and disobedience went against the express injunction of their Maker not to eat of a certain fruit in the garden which He declared as forbidden. But those two errant primordial Edenic pair through pride, lust, or some other human foibles defied the Will of God, ate of the fruit; and, by this willful act of disobedience were turned out of paradise forever by their Maker.
Now, many believed and still believe that as a result of Adam and Eve’s reckless and arrogant behavior all the subsequent calamities, including hard work, sickness, old age and death that have plagued the world since that time are as a result of the punishment visited on these two people for their act of betrayal of their Maker.
This psycho-tragic drama is summed up by the term “The Fall”. This is otherwise known as Adam’s Sin. Now, in traditional Christian teaching, original sin affects individuals by separating them from God, and bringing dissatisfaction and guilt into their lives. On a world scale, original sin explains such things as genocide, war, cruelty, exploitation and abuse, and the "presence and universality of sin in human history". Some Christians believe that human beings can't cure themselves of original sin. The only way they can be saved from its consequences is by the grace of God.
That the only way people can receive God's grace is by accepting his love and forgiveness, believing that Jesus Christ died on the cross to redeem their sins, and getting baptised.1
So where the world’s largest and most dominant religion – the repository and conveyor of great art, literature, science and so forth – is concerned, the problem of sin is a condition that affects or even infects the world with a kind of deadly pathogen, called sin.
The question though is: What is sin? The word sin or the act of sinning is surprisingly an extremely difficult word or thing to define. It is indeed a very nebulous term. The word seems just as hard to define as the words love, justice, liberty, poverty, wealth, and so on, but more resistant to definition it would seem than those other terms. Yet the way the word is used, defined or understood by many people seems to make it a given. That is, there is taken-for-granted view that everyone knows the precise meaning of the word sin.
So for instance, generally people will say sin, or the various representations of the word such as sinful, sinfulness, sinning, etc., simply means that something that has been done, is wrong and not right; bad not good, evil not kind, immoral not moral; in short, that some established code of what is considered to be proper behavior has been violated. Such definitions are fairly good working ones about sin.
However, a more precise definition of sin according to one dictionary2 is:
1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
2. To violate a religious or moral law.
3. To commit an offense or violation.
2. In Theology
i) Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
ii)A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
iii)Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.
With this definition of sin (No.2) we notice that there is a religious or theological bias towards it. There is also a broader definition of sin which although it still incorporates a religious dimension also makes it civil, social, legal, etc. in scope. So sin is also:
1.wickedness, wrong, evil, crime, error, trespass, blasphemy, immorality, transgression, iniquity, irreverence, sinfulness, impiety, unrighteousness, ungodliness
2.crime, offence, misdemeanor, error, lapse, wrongdoing, misdeed, transgression, act of evil, guilt
3. transgress, offend, lapse, err, trespass(archaic), fall from grace, go astray, commit a sin, do wrong3
So even at the outset, we begin to encounter several definitions of sin with some of its meanings being denotative while others connotative.
However, in the context of my discussion, I will ascribe a religious or theological meaning to the word sin. I will therefore use the word sin as a strictly theological construction or invention where it is believed to be a willful violation or transgression by a person or persons of some real or imagined law or laws purported to be divine. Such laws may for instance be, The Ten Commandments as found in the Jewish Torah or the Christian Bible.
Furthermore, sin, characterized as this willful transgression of alleged divine injunctions, not only offends a deity, but invites his (ordinarily not her) displeasure. Moreover, in line with the theological definition of sin, I will show that if genuine repentance and sorrow is displayed by the offender, that such an act of penitence on his or her part will stave off divine retribution, and will assuage or mollify the wroth of such a divine personage. This might result in that placated deity offering the transgressor forgiveness, grace and salvation.
In short, I will define sin as a violation of objective and subjective ethical, moral and spiritual demands of God or gods; where such transgressions attract divine opprobrium, condemnation, judgment, and punishment; and where such divine displeasure can only be appeased by the offender being truly being penitential for his or her sins; and, by the transgressor performing prescribed, obligatory and appropriate religious rituals or purification rites to atone or make restitution for his or her transgressions..
However even when attaching religious or theological meanings to sin, various religions have different meanings for the word; they have differing, and even conflicting ideas where the word sin came from, and so forth; and any quick survey of the theological derivatives of sin will yield an array of conflicting even contradictory positions.
For instance,there is a concept of Original sin, also called Ancestral sin, which according to a Christian theological doctrine, is humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man, and not the sin of Adam itself. This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.4
The concept of original sin was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in his controversy (written in Greek) with the dualist Gnostics. Its scriptural foundation is based on the New Testament teaching of Paul the Apostle (Cf. Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22). The concept of original sin was developed by early Christian apologists and fathers and of the Church such as Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose and Ambrosiaster. They considered that mankind shared in Adam's sin, transmitted by human generation or procreation.
For example, Augustine’s formulation of original sin was popular among Reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin who equated original sin with concupiscence, (sex and lust) affirming that it persisted even after baptism and completely destroyed freedom. Within Roman Catholicism, the Jansenist movement, which the Church then declared heretical, also maintained that original sin destroyed freedom of will.
However the doctrine of original sin as taught by some Christian denominations is not
found in Judaism, or in Islam.5
Judaism in contrast to Christianity teaches that human beings are not basically sinful: That we come into the world neither carrying the burden of sin committed by our ancestors nor tainted by it.
Rather, sin, het, is the result of our human inclinations, the yetzer, which must be properly channeled. The early stories in Genesis teach that the "devisings [yetzer] of man's mind are evil from his youth" (Gen. 8:21). This is the source of the rabbinic concept of the yetzer, human instincts, similar to the Freudian id. Later, the rabbis spoke of the yetzer hatov, the good inclination, and the yetzer hara, the evil inclination.6
Islam also does not believe in the theory of original sin. Islamic concept of sin is that one man’s sin cannot be transferred to another; nor can the reward due to a person be transferred either. Every individual is responsible only for his or her actions, for God is never unjust.7
Islam believes that, “The fate of each man We [Allah] have bound about his neck. On the Day of Resurrection We shall confront him with a book spread wide open, saying: ‘Here is your book: read it. Your own soul shall this day call you to account’ He that seeks guidance shall be guided to his own advantage, but he that errs shall err at his own peril. No soul shall bear another’s burden …’ 8 Original Sin is also not accepted by some other Christian religions either, such as The Methodists, founded by John Wesley; and in Article VII—Of Original or Birth Sin we read:
“Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually”.
However man is given free-will to decide to do good or bad but man can’t do good by his own self without God's help for according to: Article VIII— Of Free Will
“The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and works, to faith, and calling upon God; wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will”. (From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church - 2004) Copyright 2004 by The United Methodist Publishing House).9
Likewise, the Seventh-day Adventists do not subscribe to the Augustinian/Calvinistic notion of original sin, taught in terms of original guilt, but hold more to what could be termed the "total depravity" tradition. This is their view. For Article 7. Nature of Man declares:
Man and woman were made in the image of God with individuality, the power and freedom to think and to do …. When our first parents disobeyed God, they denied their dependence upon Him and fell from their high position under God. The image of God in them was marred and they became subject to death. Their descendants share this fallen nature and its consequences. They are born with weaknesses and tendencies to evil. But God in Christ reconciled the world to Himself and by His Spirit restores in penitent mortals the image of their Maker…’. 10
The Adventists, however envisage a time to come when sin will be no more:
For Article 27. Millennium and the End of Sin discloses that:
“The millennium is the thousand-year reign of Christ with His saints in heaven between the first and second resurrections. During this time the wicked dead will be judged; the earth will be utterly desolate, without living human inhabitants, but occupied by Satan and his angels. At its close Christ with His saints and the Holy City will descend from heaven to earth. The unrighteous dead will then be resurrected, and with Satan and his angels will surround the city; but fire from God will consume them and cleanse the earth. The universe will thus be freed of sin and sinners forever”. 11
Likewise, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon Church) does not accept the concept of original sin, and it affirms: “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression”. (See number 2 of their 13 Articles of Faith) 12
Theory of the Fall of Man, and Original Sin
Such theological and religious debates about Sin, although exegetically and hermeneutically tantalizing, do not get us any nearer the truth or falsehood of such claims, and as such, they must remain in the realm of speculation, or to be more accommodating, such views must remain in the domain of belief or 'faith’.
But what is certain is that the prevalence of the beliefs and practices associated with the Fall account still inform the view of many people today that, man is physically, biologically, genetically, and spiritually less endowed than his patriarchal predecessors.
Taken together then, the geo-cosmic, spiritual and theological disfiguration, depreciation and diminution of man’s status seeks re-formation and re-integration back into the divine substance which presumably has been accomplished by the according to the Christian doctrines of Incarnation, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. So although suffering, old age and death remain as physical realities, these existential conditions are the baggage that we humans have to carry around until either we die, or until Christ puts in his predicted Second Appearance, or whichever event comes first.
Buddhist concept of “Sin”
Now the conditions and causes of suffering for the Buddhists are very different from the causes and nature of suffering for Judaeo- Christians. Of course, Buddhists recognize the deleterious effects and ravages that the human condition imposes on man. But they view such human frailties as originating in natural phenomena and not having any celestial or supernatural causes. That the antidote to suffering is not theological or divine panaceas. But they realize that all the trials and tribulations that humans experience is the price we pay for being human; but humans who are seeking an escape from, and a resolution to suffering. But fundamentally suffering for Buddhists arises from and within ourselves, and is our unenlightened state or our ignorance about the causes of suffering why we continue to suffer.
So the essential thing then for Buddhists is that suffering does not come about by some primeval offence or sin that humans have committed against God or gods. If anything, the gods themselves are subject to their own share of misfortunes. The gods themselves are in need of some salvation. For according to some Buddhist scriptures, Buddha after his Enlightenment ascended to Heaven of the Thirty-Three [gods], and while there he preached to his mother the Dharma and also instructed those gods there who had a desire to be saved. After spending some months in heaven he returned to earth at Samkashya (Utter Pradesh) and then travelled over the earth to covert those who were ripe for conversion. 13
Do the Buddhists nonetheless recognize sin has having even any remote connection to suffering?
To a degree they do recognize sin, but this is not the sin that we’ve encountered in the Judeo-Christian ontology, metaphysics or theology, where somehow we have willfully and maliciously offended a loving, benignant Creator God, and thus incurred his anger and are in need of his mercy. Rather the Buddhist idea of sin is this: “‘To abstain from’ – meaning one crushes or forsakes sin”. What this means is: “an abstention which is associated with wholesome thoughts”. In other words, ‘sin is a failure to have wholesome thoughts’.