Traditional Views
I can't recollect how early in my childhood the concept of sin was first presented to my mind. I would hazard to say that I spent most of my preadult existence believing, or in fact perhaps a more accurate word would be considering, the idea that sins were some peculiarly bad actions through which one would be condemned to hell. My understanding was that sinners would thus suffer eternal damnation in the underworld once their life would be over. Or at least, such would be their fate, assuming the whole thing wasn't a mere invention of overimaginative religious.
For the purpose of this essay, that's essentially what I would refer to as the traditional Catholic or Christian explanation of the question. In that framework, during the course of their passage on Earth, human beings commit both good and not so good deeds, of which some of the latter are sins. Then, when their time is up, they are judged based on their choices, and those who have sinned are permanently consigned to the nether regions.
Similar notions occur in some of the Buddhist scriptures I have read. For instance, in the Bardo Thodol, better known as the Tibetan Book of the Dead, there are descriptions of the Six Realms of Existence, including the hell realm that comprises several specific hells. Also, in the Dhammapada, there are mentions of evil-doers being reborn in hell as an upshot of their wrongdoing. One fundamental difference with the Christian inferno is that in that particular Eastern cosmology, the denizens are not prisoners of those terrible locations forever, but they can be reincarnated in higher domains once their negative karma is exhausted.
In my opinion, those orthodox ways of approaching the matter don't do much to help individuals improve their experiences. Or in any case, they don't work for everyone. Rather, they raise all sorts of interrogations regarding the actuality of the underworld, and of heaven by the same token, and they hinge on faith, or fear, depending on how one sees the issue. If someone isn't readily convinced that there is an afterlife, those manners of comprehending error seems pointless to me. Why not sin if one is only confronted to the consequences in an hypothetical future that cannot be evidenced and must be taken on trust ? In that context, it is all the more tempting to transgress the rules and to rationalize that there won't be such a place as the netherworld, if there's an hereafter altogether to begin with.
Moreover, those conventional depictions are not just ineffective for the skeptics, they are also potentially misleading for all of us, insofar as they fail to properly describe, or even to simply address, how the present functions. Or at any rate, they don't correspond to what happens in my reality.
Then again, perhaps there are variant interpretations of those ideas of sin, of hell, and of rebirth, which could better serve us.
Sin : Hamartia and Metanoia
In David Bohm's Unfolding Meaning, in one of the dialogues, the following definition of sin and some of the associated terms are evoked :
« Missing the point. Yes, hamartia which meant missing the point,
missing the mark. Now that got translated as sin. And repentance was
metanoia, meaning a transformation of the mind, and got translated as
pain, right? Penitence, repentance. The point is that repentance is
merely to understand that you missed the mark, you see? (laughter)
Therefore evil is missing the mark, basically. It is confusion, right? Its
ultimate source is the kind of confusion I described about thought. »
[source : Unfolding Meaning]
In my view, the above paragraph hints at several interesting insights.
First, it suggests that the original meaning of sin might have evolved from a pragmatic perspective instead of dogmatic one. In other words, presumably, what constitutes error has not been revealed mysteriously by deity to prophet, and transmitted to laypersons, but has rather been learned through an empirical procedure. Possibly, seekers attempting to attain specific objectives discovered that some of their actions weren't conducive to their goals, but caused hindrances that prevented their progress. Maybe, the occurrences compelled them to reassess the question, and to develop a vocabulary to designate those deeds which were wide of the mark, and to document their experiences of getting back on track.
Furthermore, I find this particular way of phrasing the notions introduces relativity in an otherwise rigid model. Whereas, in the traditional Catholic explanation for instance, sins are well delineated, in this alternative reading, they can conceivably be quest-dependent, or quester-dependent. That is to say, while there are probably behaviours that are intrinsically bad for all living beings, regardless of context, most likely as a result of the physiology they have in common, at the same time, it is imaginable that what is off-target for one individual might not be so for all. And it is also entirely admissible that what represents a mistake for someone in one situation, might not be a fault at all for them in another scenario. Then, the idea of an external figure of authority proclaiming what is right and what is not makes very little sense. Only oneself is in position to establish those facts beyond doubt from their own observations.
In addition, the passage intimates what I refer to as the redirection mechanism, which is basically the principle that hamartia triggers metanoia. Or, if you will, missing the mark creates the circumstances that will prompt the wrongdoer to repent, to understand that the mark was missed, and perhaps how exactly it was missed. It enables one to transform their mind accordingly so as to avoid repeating that same sin in the future. It is the assurance that when error is committed, the cosmos will respond with the information required to recognize the mistake, and then to eliminate it. Similarly, it is the guarantee that as long as there is no transgression, there will be no reason for penitence. One's aim won't necessarily be achieved immediately, but there won't be impediments nor deterrents to suffer. The road will remain clear, although there might still be distance left to cover.
And last but not least, the terminology implies that there is a mark. Stated differently, it entails that there is something as having chosen the perfect path, and heading towards the perfect destination. In turn, this opens up the prospect of employing this course-correction automatism to navigate to a definite outcome. Actually, advancing in such a manner towards one predetermined fate is potentially all we do during our existence. Or it could be that we are allowed to rely on the indications of a benevolent universe to accomplish the purposes we have selected of freewill.
Hell : Setbacks and Deterrents
In the conventional Christian view, Inferno is described as a fiery place full of demons who torment the poor souls sentenced to dwell therein. For their part, the Buddhist Narakas seem more varied, and include both cold and hot hells. They each feature a specific means of torture, such as the screaming hell, the piercing hell, and the crushing hell, and the duration of the lives of the evil-doers in each of them is precisely stipulated.
But manifestly, or inasmuch as I can extrapolate from my own adventures in any case, those nether regions are most probably symbolic depictions of painful occurrences.
Possibly, a more general description of hell would be an experience of being where one doesn't want to be, doing what they don't want to do, or undergoing what they don't want to go through, all the while feeling aversion for what they consider to be adverse conditions.
In contrast, a more day-to-day explanation of heaven would be an experience of doing a desirable activity in an agreeable context, in an appreciative mood.
Then, on the basis of these two representations, it is evident that both heaven and hell can indeed be visited not just at the end of one's life, but during one's earthly passage also. And obviously, one doesn't even need to move for that to happen.
Moreover, the process of liberation, or of ridding oneself of error, can now be outlined as recurrent downfalls from heaven into hell, followed by as many ascents as one finds their way back up to the higher domain.
While in paradise, when a mistake is made, the individual is confronted to nuisances. In a more chronologically plausible sequence, or it is for me anyhow, deterrents or setbacks are first encountered in the temporary inferno of annoyances, prompting one to acknowledge they are not in day-to-day heaven anymore, and that a fault has been committed earlier.
So, in those descents from the state where all is fine and enjoyable progress is steady, there lie the opportunities to recognize that there have been transgressions, and perhaps to understand the nature of the associated wrongdoing at the same time.
Having to face a deterrent, that is to say, questioning what was previously trusted in the light of contradictory feedback from the cosmos, might indicate that a minor error was made.
Having to suffer a setback, and thus a repetition of some sort while what has been lost is recreated, might point to a major mistake. Or maybe is it the result of an accumulation of lesser sins of which the impacts were unwittingly or systematically ignored.
As far as I am concerned, some of those disheartening incidents have no local effects, but rather have repercussions in the world at large. For instance, as a consequence of a fault, I might become aware that someone who defends the same values as I will be embroiled in a scandal, or that a revered inspiring figure has died.
Arguably, a setback can be thought of as a deterrent accompanied by a manifestation in the immediate physical sphere of the seeker. Or, phrased alternatively, a deterrent can be seen as a setback with only a psychological component, wherein doubt momentarily assails the mental structure cultivated up until then.
All the same, in those occurrences reside the assurance that something one has done has caused day-to-day heaven to vanish, and temporary hell to take its place. In other words, as an upshot of missing the mark, an occasion for repentance has been conjured up. While disappointment might appear to be the appropriate reaction, the wiser attitude consists in taking heed and resuming forward motion.
This articulates the cornerstone of the redirection principle wherein the experience that entails from transgression inherently harbours the course-correcting incentive. Without this mechanism, wrongdoing would remain unidentified and thus potentially replicated, which would ultimately translate in never reaching the intended destination, always advancing in a slightly off-target manner instead.
A possibly useful way of viewing the phenomenon would be to regard paradise as the basic condition, and infernos as merely transitory sideroads that one mistakenly takes, with the guarantee that the detour will provide the lesson needed to avoid committing the error again.
The observation also applies to faulty thought processes. In some circles, this is known as alignment. According to this terminology, one is in alignment when their actions, feelings, and thoughts are in harmony with respect to one another. That is to say, if what one thinks in relation to a particular matter doesn't mirror how they feel about it, then this is hamartia. This missing the mark gives rise to a disagreeable impression of dissonance. The unpleasant upsurge happens for the simple purpose of inciting the thinker to reconsider their thoughts. So here too, hamartia provokes metanoia, the change of mind that will allow the individual to rematch their ruminations to their feelings, as this is the one of the two factors on which they have a certain degree of control. In this fashion, as soon as the divergence is resolved, the associated influence is silenced. The thinker is back on track, and gloom and doom are nowhere in sight.
This constatation implies that what one feels should be trusted over what one thinks, suggesting that truth is continuously reflected in one's feelings. In contrast, whereas thought has evidently also access to truth at times, in my opinion it is generally too mercurial to be relied upon systematically.
To sum up, in this perspective, every instance of setback and deterrence is the response of the cosmos to missing the mark in some way or another. If painful, they nonetheless carry information on how to accurately hit the bullseye at the next opportunity. And conversely, as long as there are no transgressions, there is no penitence to undergo. The adage, see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, is verified. While one refrains from evil, they suffer no evils. In the absence of sin, there is no retribution, but only steady improvement. If there is no hamartia, there is no metanoia either, and thus no compulsion to adjust one's mind.
And what is liberation, if not this uninterrupted experience of progressing towards one chosen goals and keeping from wrongdoing and its consequences ? Or alternatively stated, what is liberation if not the day-to-day heaven ?
Rebirth : Here in this Now Afterlife
In the conventional Catholic explanation, or at least the one which has been imparted to me, the aftermaths of sin are met at the end of one's life. As mentioned earlier, to me this is inexact and thus ineffective let alone potentially misleading. The repercussions of error are indeed encountered in the present existence, or at any rate, they are in mine.
In the Buddhist framework, the timing of the arising of infernal occurrences is function of the exhaustion of karma. In other words, when the karma sustaining the realm one finds themselves in is used up, they are reborn in a different domain, whose nature is determined by the merit one has accumulated on their journey. While being arguably less clear-cut than the Christian view, it has the virtue of actually describing my own universe more precisely.
Then again, if afterlife and rebirth are taken metaphorically, maybe those depictions are not that far apart.
In popular culture, and in science fiction stories in particular, the idea of a hero being either magically or technologically rematerialized in another location and at another epoch to accomplish some world-saving mission is familiar. Movies such as 12 Monkeys and more recently Source Code constitute eloquent examples.
The everyday equivalent to those circumstances would be sleep, or rather, waking up. Generally, unless one has mischievous, or perhaps mean friends, one wakes up in the same place where they laid down. Or I should say, the place they remember having laid down in, as when waking up from slumber, everything that has happened up to that point is a mere mental event. Preoccupations, the impression of continuity, one's own sense of identity, all such considerations are objects of mind. Even observing that something hasn't moved in the surroundings since the last time one was aware is an intellection, impossible to confirm with absolute certainty. Attempting to validate that one has a past through whatever element of the environment is likewise bound to fail because the process is evidently dependent on what can be recollected. Thus, ultimately, there are presumably no empirical distinctions between awakening and being magically or technologically rematerialized elsewhere and elsewhen, except probably for the impression of continuity. Coming to one's senses after anaesthesia would also be a comparable situation.
A similar reflection can be carried out in relation to how we advance from moment to moment. Despite my efforts to remain vigilant and attentive, temporary lapses still disrupt my activities on occasion, typically while in multitasking mode. Then I wonder, what was I doing again ? Or, how did I end up here ? Or, why did I want to go to that web page ? To me, this is akin to waking up from sleep, to the extent that there is sudden consciousness of the setting after a gap in the continuity, and the concerns of the immediate past become rapidly fleeting memories.
What I'm trying to emphasize is that the experience of rebirth, figuratively speaking, is common. Thus, in that perspective, the proposition that the consequences of wrongdoing are encountered in one's upcoming existence simply signifies that they don't necessarily occur at once, and that there might be a delay before they come about. In other words, afterlife can refer to the next day, the next hour, or the next second, and not just to a vague intimation of the time following physical death.
As to why the repercussions are not always faced right away, I suggest that this might be due to accumulation. For instance, for a person who has committed a string of misdeeds, it is conceivable that some of the retributions patiently wait for their turn, while others are currently being dealt with. Stated differently, the individual might have unwittingly created a series of hereafters, or redirections, that they must undergo sequentially to regain access to paradise. In addition, if karma is taken into account, we can imagine how someone who has earned an abundant treasury of merit might be immune to adverse effects for as long as their good works sustain their heavenly domain, and in this fashion witness the ripening of their faults only much later.
Alternative View
So now, through the lenses of those alternative readings, a new picture emerges.
Sin doesn't mean disobedience to a dogmatic code of conduct established by reputed infallible authorities, but instead encompasses the decisions that don't lead to the intended objectives, and that are potentially prompted by confusion regarding the nature of things.
Disagreeable annoyances are in fact the mechanical responses of a benevolent cosmos endeavouring to help one recognize they have missed the mark in some manner or another earlier on, and thus course-correcting them back to their desired path.
Hell is not a permanent destination, but merely a transitory, albeit unpleasant passage thanks to which one can learn their lessons, and as such constitutes the road to recovery.
Rebirth in the netherworld as the result of one's mistakes equates to being offered the information needed in order to understand how transgression has been perpetrated, and to gather incentives to avoid repeating that same error in the future.
Heaven is the enjoyment of tranquil progress towards one's goals.
While remote from what has been imparted to me as a child, the above interpretation has the virtue of actually corresponding to how things unfold in my reality. And I suspect it matches the gist of the traditional religious explanations, if we consider them to be symbolic rather than literal descriptions. Presumably more importantly, it is verifiable empirically by anyone.
The Wheel of the Cart Follows the Foot of the Ox
In the preceding section, I have outlined the what, the where, and the when of sin, in an attempt to better delineate its signification. Based on these unorthodox representations of the core concepts, I have then articulated an unconventional perspective on the whole, one which hopefully provides a more pragmatic and thus more useful approach to the question.
Next, I will propose a look at the role of mind, and at the consequences of wrongdoing on that function.
