A tiger would not be sinning if he eats up a goat. It is not fair to call serpent a sinner when a man dies of snake-bite. When a beast gulps down her own new born baby out of sheer hunger, she is not a cruel mother at all. There is no word called Sin in the Nature's dictionary. In the Nature's kingdom truth prevails. There is no king in the jungle. A lion has nothing to do with the false stories rumored by men. When a lion hunts a deer, he too is acting as per his nature. In the jungle everything goes on as natural. In the Nature's world sin can not be. Sin is the product of 'culture' and is born only after the Nature is relinquished.
For sin to exist man's being is essential. Man is the youngest child of Mother Nature. As the Nature's influence lessened, culture is developed. And disorders come hand in hand with cultures. It is the cultured and learned man who has to save himself of sin. In the jungle there is no place for sin or benefaction. Benefaction is invented only after sin is born.
Donation earned importance only after tendency to possess grew. Infatuation grew, so non-attachment got significance. Greed has made the act of giving up something great. People carry out good deeds as a remedy to soothe themselves of possible wounds of their misdeeds. As a result a builder or a politician is not reluctant to carrying out corrupt deeds. Their donation saves them of feeling of guilt arising from badly earned money. Black money thus goes the way of donation and is said to be the act of benefaction.
Some philosopher has said: You have got to do something out-of-the-way to commit a sin; but to commit a good deed you just have to act naturally. Africa's jungle dwellers do not do the acts of benefaction. They act naturally. Their violence is not unnatural if they are non-vegetarians. They do not know sin. Where there is no sin, the need for benefaction is inexistent. Breastfeeding a child is not an act of benefaction, because the act is a part of mother's being. There is no need of a priest to teach this natural act.
Without knowing the Nature all the philosophy is incomplete. The gist of all the religions also lies in being natural.
This article was originally written by the Gujarati-language writer Gunvant Shah. Translated into English by Darhan Chande.
For sin to exist man's being is essential. Man is the youngest child of Mother Nature. As the Nature's influence lessened, culture is developed. And disorders come hand in hand with cultures. It is the cultured and learned man who has to save himself of sin. In the jungle there is no place for sin or benefaction. Benefaction is invented only after sin is born.
Donation earned importance only after tendency to possess grew. Infatuation grew, so non-attachment got significance. Greed has made the act of giving up something great. People carry out good deeds as a remedy to soothe themselves of possible wounds of their misdeeds. As a result a builder or a politician is not reluctant to carrying out corrupt deeds. Their donation saves them of feeling of guilt arising from badly earned money. Black money thus goes the way of donation and is said to be the act of benefaction.
Some philosopher has said: You have got to do something out-of-the-way to commit a sin; but to commit a good deed you just have to act naturally. Africa's jungle dwellers do not do the acts of benefaction. They act naturally. Their violence is not unnatural if they are non-vegetarians. They do not know sin. Where there is no sin, the need for benefaction is inexistent. Breastfeeding a child is not an act of benefaction, because the act is a part of mother's being. There is no need of a priest to teach this natural act.
Without knowing the Nature all the philosophy is incomplete. The gist of all the religions also lies in being natural.
This article was originally written by the Gujarati-language writer Gunvant Shah. Translated into English by Darhan Chande.
Hey Darshan, i loved reading it!!! yes its true that nature has nothing called sin. Survival of the fittest is what we call it right? Yes, there is no sin in animal o jungle world. I guess society should learn form the nature.
ReplyDeleteCheers bro!!!!
Very insightful. Sin is indeed a product of civilization and culture. But somehow, it's worth it. While the world may be a safer place without sins, the sheer lack of acts of benefaction will make it(our world) very very dull. It's a price we must pay, and in return, discover humanity. Nice article.
ReplyDeleteIn a way the author is right. On one hand we can take a rigid view to designate acts looked at in isoltation itself as sinning. For instance, some might consider murder itself as sinning, but next question would be - if it was wanton cruelty or self-defense.
ReplyDeleteSo, sinning is determined by motivations, & in case of humans, options available. To give another example, if a police troop has the option of controlling a mob by using tear gas shells, their doing so by rampant firing would constitute sinning.
But let me give another analogy, here (something I have said before). Amphibians, reptiles, insects, etc., produce progeny in such large numbers that they do not care about them. There is no concept of nurture. In comparison with them, a mother elephant bearing more than a year's gestation is pure torture. But the mother elephant still nurses her young one, & may even die in the process of protecting it (happens with more vulnerable lower animals). So in relation to insects, elephants are quite aberrant in showing such obsession with their young ones. But it does not mean their instincts are not natural.
Likewise, young ones of tigers learn hunting under mother's supervision. If not for mother they would indeed struggle learning to hunt.
So just like the trait of nurture, starting with humans, structured learning is a new trait brought about by the same process of evolution. There is nothing unnatural about structured learning.
If a tribal cannibal man does not know agriculture and goes about eating animals/humans, one might term it not sinning, but on closer examination, had he learned agriculture all this would become sinning. So to say that agriculture is responsible for sinning because it provides options for not sinning is not an ingenious thing to say.
And lastly, sinning is something invented by religionists. There's nothing sinful about eating an apple on being goaded by a serpent. This religionists had done to exploit people less clever than themselves.
In every context there are appropriate and inappropriate acts depending upon whether they lead us to desired goals or not. And whether those goals are appropriate or inappropriate, and what should be the bases to term them so, is a much larger question that is being so fiercely debated, isn't it? :) ...
ineressting
ReplyDeletebut i think there is no sin in jungle coz animals hav rational for whatever they do and this rational is not born by false ego
but in mankind things are different..
we dont commit sin as a part of something natural but it comes out of an ego which has a sole motive to establish ourselves as the winners..
Succinct and insightful.
ReplyDeleteOver a period of time the word 'sin' has been used in a variety of ways... and has become a tool in the hands of powerful vested interests... who have only furthered their own agenda.
Interesting and thought provoking post indeed!
ReplyDeleteThe quotation is really nice. Thanks for translating such a wonderful article. :)
i think a clearer definition of sin was needed before the article...
ReplyDeleteThat is why humans in that we were created to be of higher intelligence than animals. Simple as that.
ReplyDeleteWe were given the ability to think about our actions, and decide if our actions are right or wrong.
Am reminded of Kahlil Gibran on Eating and Drinking. He writes: When you kill a beast say to him in your heart, " By the same power that slays you, I too am slain; and I too shall be consumed. For the law that delivered you into my hand shall deliver me into a mightier hand. Your blood and my blood is naught but the sap that feeds the tree of heaven."
ReplyDelete