Paap ≠ Sin Posted in: The Spiritual Journey

I find everywhere the sanskrit word paap (pāpa) routinely translated as sin. I’m not happy about this because the word sin, especially for westerners, carries baggage of the Abrahamic tradition. Unlike Abrahamic sin, paap is not at all an absolute, not-contextual punishable something. Nor a transgression of some God-decreed law of acceptable behaviour. In the Dharmic tradition there is no such law. In the Dharmic tradition the divinity of the soul is celebrated always, rather than being dependent on the degree of submission to a prescribed code of conduct.

I am suggesting paap be understood more along the lines of thoughts, words and deeds unhelpful to realising the goals that you, as a divine being, set for yourself. I wish Rajiv Malhotra had included paap in his excellent book Sanskrit Non-translatables.

Oh well.

I propose that in the Dharmic tradition the emphasis is more on contextual recommendations in terms of things favourable (niyama) vs unfavourable (yama) to realisation of a particular goal. For example, if one wishes to advance in bhakti yoga, Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī’s Upadeśāmṛta states that one should avoid such things as close association of materially minded people, over-endeavouring for material things, etc. (Text 2), and one should accept things favourable such as being enthusiastic, endeavouring with confidence, being patient and so on (Text 3).

Text 2 in full …

atyāhāraḥ prayāsaś ca
prajalpo niyamāgrahaḥ
jana-saṅgaś ca laulyaṁ ca
ṣaḍbhir bhaktir vinaśyati

One’s devotional service is spoiled when he becomes too entangled in the following six activities: (1) eating more than necessary or collecting more funds than required; (2) over-endeavoring for mundane things that are very difficult to obtain; (3) talking unnecessarily about mundane subject matters; (4) practicing the scriptural rules and regulations only for the sake of following them and not for the sake of spiritual advancement, or rejecting the rules and regulations of the scriptures and working independently or whimsically; (5) associating with worldly-minded persons who are not interested in Kṛṣṇa consciousness; and (6) being greedy for mundane achievements.

Text 3 in full …

utsāhān niścayād dhairyāt
tat-tat-karma-pravartanāt
saṅga-tyāgāt sato vṛtteḥ
ṣaḍbhir bhaktiḥ prasidhyati

There are six principles favourable to the execution of pure devotional service: (1) being enthusiastic, (2) endeavoring with confidence, (3) being patient, (4) acting according to regulative principles [such as śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ smaraṇam – hearing, chanting and remembering Kṛṣṇa], (5) abandoning the association of nondevotees, and (6) following in the footsteps of the previous ācāryas. These six principles undoubtedly assure the complete success of pure devotional service.

Having decided one wishes to progress in bhakti yoga (the context) to then reject things favourable, and/or embrace things unfavourable one might designate such choice as pāpa. Unhelpful. Indeed I have heard pronouncements that it is serious pāpa to not observe certain fasts, or celebrate the appearance day of a particular guru. OK. it may be that it is true for subscribers to that particular tradition, but for one who has no such aspiration, it would be hard to justify designating their life choices pāpa.

In other words pāpa is contextual, and a very different concept from the Abrahamic idea of sin. If sin and pāpa where identical, the bhakti yoga practitioner would then have to call everyone who did not embrace the quest for progress in bhakti yoga sinful.

Let’s stop translating pāpa as sin!

Let’s celebrate the divinity of the soul, and let the individual decide what is helpful and unhelpful to their chosen exploration and expression of divinity. Even if they presently find the idea of a personal God implausible.