Mind in the Lead
The opening aphorisms of the Dhammapada quoted in the epigraph, and included again below, eloquently explain the role of the mind :
« Everything has mind in the lead, has mind in the forefront, is made by mind. If one speaks or acts with a corrupt mind, misery will follow as the wheel of a cart follows the foot of the ox.
Everything has mind in the lead, has mind in the forefront, is made by mind. If one speaks or acts with a pure mind, happiness will follow, like a shadow that never leaves. »
[source : Dhammapada: The Sayings of Buddha]
The couplet can be seen as yet another way of describing the principle of hamartia and metanoia. The first verse presents the mind which still entertains error, and asserts that its actions necessarily engender misery, or occasions for repentance if you will. The process of course-correction can thus take place, and as long as there is no abandonment, wrongdoing will eventually be eliminated, leading to the situation depicted in the second verse. The dyad ultimately proposes that the reward of the liberated person is an existence free of sorrows.
But more significantly, the sayings declare the all-importance of the mind. They state that everything is made by mind. Thus, mind is the creation tool using which the individual shapes their experiences.
Of Sand Mouse and Fremen
In the excellent and wholeheartedly recommended novel Dune, there is mention of the Litany Against Fear, a fictional incantation some of the characters resort to when confronting perilous circumstances :
« I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that
brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over
me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye
to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I
will remain. »
[source : Bene Gesserit entry in Wikipedia ]
One phrase stands out from the rest : fear is the mind-killer. While insightful in itself as an observation, the formulation also encapsulates the gist of the entire passage, that hints at the crucial notion which might be thought of as the less desirable, inevitable consequence of the axiom outlined in the previous paragraphs. Namely, if mind produces realities, then killing mind implies that the associated realities won't be brought about. Or if they do, they will only be incomplete variations of the originally minded possibility.
Sin is the Mind-Killer
During those blessed periods of day-to-day heaven when I continuously hit the target, my cosmos emphatically sustains my ideals. Or, at any rate, it doesn't oppose them.
By cosmos I refer to the totality of whatever is not under my direct volitional control. This includes people and objects in my environments, tangible and virtual, and facets of my own body which operate through their own intelligence, such as the cardiovascular system for instance. I reckon this also comprises the aspects of my mind that sense, and that I can't change, although I can obviously block them with layers of intellectualization. I must stress that I take cosmos in its meaning of a universe seen as an ordered, harmonious whole.
On the other hand, at the moment of missing the mark, I ordinarily have doubts, yet I tend to rationalize them and justify my transgression based on how I feel at the time. Then, between hamartia and metanoia, I am usually at peace with my choice. When the metanoia takes place, I once more experience doubts, and I'm soon under the general impression that my cosmos feeds them for a while, before letting me off the hook. Again, some errors seem to have local effects exclusively, that is to say, insofar as I can tell, they have no repercussions beyond my own individual sphere. In contrast, some faults have apparently no unmediated impact on my proximate conditions, but affect me nonetheless because they involve matters or persons that are important to me. In the repenting, I undergo something of an exhaustive revision process whereby I examine the related decisions and events that have led me to the mistake. Ultimately, the painful circumstances subsides and I can resume progress.
From those considerations I propose that one of the aftermaths of sin is mind killing. In other words, wrongdoing conjures up situations that are likely to kill mind.
The positive upshot of this is that the metanoia will attempt to kill the part of the mind that is corrupt. Stated differently, it will remove, or at the very least weaken, the underlying construct from which error has stemmed.
The less agreeable dimension of this mechanism, besides suffering the incertitudes, is that the occurrences contribute to discourage the seeker from pursuing their dream. For one, they typically cause delays and imply that additional efforts will have to be deployed before the goal can be reached. Often, they prevent the seizing of opportunities that vanish instead into oblivion. In the cases of major setbacks, they equate to segments of the road that must be walked anew, or alternatively, sections of the architecture that have to be rebuilt. At those junctures, it is tempting to succumb to the charm of the Cartesian mind if it intervenes and suggests that the entire endeavour isn't worthwhile. Moreover, repeated mind killing might convince the quester that the aim is unachievable, and so that their faith has been unwisely invested in a project they should never have tackled in the first place.
I find this is especially true when one is not aware of the factors in play. But even with knowledge of what's going on, I note that my inclination remains to begin by supposing that no misdeed has been committed, and thus to blame the course-correcting automatism that I temporarily deem unreliable and as such, questionable. Still, as I reevaluate the happening, my stance gets readjusted. I must emphasize that there is an incremental gain following each iteration, and that the revisions become, if not always less deep, at any rate less protracted and less dreadful. In parallel, faith in the framework, and in the cosmos by the same token, gradually grows stronger.
Equanimity is presumably the nearest thing to an assurance of conservation of one's creations that can be wielded in response to such incidents. Or at least, it's the best strategy I know of in dealing with experiences of this kind. Allowing oneself to be carried away by the flow of emotions, in contrast, tends to amplify the devastating consequences of the hamartia and thus to potentially transform minor annoyances into full-blown catastrophes.
Fear constitutes a good illustration of this principle. At its onset an erroneous thought process that brings forth unpleasant impressions by entertaining misaligned and misguided musings, it can actually have unfortunate repercussions if sustained at length. For instance, one might miss totally desirable occasions in trying to protect themselves from hypothetical menaces conceived in the continuity of a fearful reaction to otherwise inviting propositions. Yet, the original upsurge of dissonance could have been a sufficient clue that the distrustful attitude was wide of the mark.
And in the light of those observations, I point out in passing that there is something as compounding sin by misinterpreting the cosmic hints to the effect that divergent progress is already underway.
While painful, becoming suddenly conscious that part of the mind one is nurturing has been killed nonetheless contains helpful information. Such circumstances can be turned into chances of identifying previously unrecognized types of transgressions, possibly of the more subtle variety. This seems especially appropriate when there are no physical manifestations, but merely a mental component of regress triggering a sort of déjà vu and a realization that one's breadth of insight once reached a broader vista, for lack of better terminology. As far as I am concerned, faults related to alimentation often fall under this category.
Sometimes I Get It Wrong
As indicated above, whenever I must undergo mind killing, my habitual reflex is to first deny all insinuations that I have made a mistake, to suspect the redirection mechanism, and to calumniate the cosmos, though that script is receding since I've come to understand that it is also sin. Then I indulge in some degree of despair for a time, albeit while attempting to resist by all means. I eventually accept that the episode has been caused solely as a result of my decisions, and I usually already know what I have done wrong. I fight against choosing to remain deterred for the rest of eternity as I wait for the revisionary wave to draw back. The natural resilience of the underlying structure ultimately kicks in, provoking a counter-wave during which I strengthen my resolve and convince myself that I won't make such a foolish error ever again. Finally, I resume advancing towards the objective. I reckon this corresponds to removing certain of the corrupt elements of the mind, and reprogramming it with a more beneficial strategy.
Ordinarily, I find that the sound aspects of the thus-killed mind, in which is reflected the sought-after experience, can be rekindled pretty soon. However, it appears to depend on the gravity of the bad deed. And I notice that upon their successful rehabilitation, there are frequently pleasant and faith-supporting concomitant occurrences either in my local sphere or in the world at large.
I should stress that this depiction is provided for illustration purposes, and not as the best template to be applied in practice. It can obviously be improved.
What on Earth is Wrong with Me ?
The notion of wrongdoing is presumably universal. The views on the matter differ with cultures, ranging from terse statements of principles to more elaborate systems such as the six hundred and thirteen commandments in Judaism.
In the following sections, as a way of suggesting references using which the interested reader might be able to recognize potential errors in their own endeavours, I will propose a quick outline of what is considered to be sin in the two traditions that are most familiar to me, beginning with Buddhism.
