> I react against the word "sinful". To me, "sin" is a
> theistic concept, meaning to act against the will of
> God, and therefore not usable in connection with a
> non-theistic doctrine.

I see your point, but what do you propose as a better
alternative? Unprofitable, unskillful, unwholesome,
evil, akusala (in the same way dukkha and nibbana are
made into english words), ... using any one of those
would also have their disadvantages.

and then there is the matter of consistency. If we
decide on "evil" for example, would we consistently
use that everywhere, or use different translations
depending on context? I personally like "unskillful",
but it doesn't capture the moral efficacy of action
very well. The nice thing about "sin" is that it makes
the heart race as soon as we see the word, and conveys
a great sense of danger and captures a moral aspect of
kamma that we could easily shrug off and underestimate
with a translation such as "unprofitable" or
"unskilful". One of the key teachings that the Buddha
frequently asked his disciples to practice was "seeing
the danger in the slightest fault." I like how "sin"
evokes an emotional red alert response from what
otherwise would be shrugged off as relatively harmless
"unskillful actions", and warns us to deeply
investigate the inherent danger lurking behind, no
matter how trivial an action may seem on the surface.

There isn't a perfect solution to the problem, each
term has their up and downside.

-fk


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com