In this post, we argue that the two ways of characterizing perceived reality change the definition of sin.
As we have discussed in a previous post, perceived reality can be characterized as a cognitive bias if the world is understood using only the mind[1]. We believe that this fundamentally changes how sin is understood.
When perceived reality is not characterized as a cognitive bias, an individual is represented by their physical body[2]. When this happens, we attach emotions to sin, and sin is typically considered to be bad or immoral.
When perceived reality is considered a cognitive bias and the world is understood as an abstraction using only the mind, and an individual is represented by an abstraction, there cannot be any emotions attached to sin; there can only be artifacts of the mind attached to it, i.e., knowledge or the lack of it. Thus, sin is understood as acting in a state of ignorance, or lack of knowledge. This, we believe, is why the Sanskrit word pāpa, when understood from the point of view of Advaita Vedanta, is simply acting in ignorance, which essentially has no emotions attached to it and is defined from the point of view of the mind. We couldn't find an authoritative definition of sin, but here's the best we found[3].
Sin, in Vedantic terms, is essentially ignorance (avidyā) of one's true nature, which leads to inappropriate actions. It's not an inherent flaw or a stain on the person, but rather a misunderstanding that causes mental disturbance and unaligned behavior.
Thus, in this post, we argue why the definition of sin as characterized in Vedantic terms is different from how it is characterized by other religions[4]. We note that our understanding is based on intuition rather than study.
[1] https://m-chaturvedi.github.io/blog/040/
[2] https://m-chaturvedi.github.io/blog/058/
[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20260419112229/https://www.yesvedanta.com/bg/lesson-15/
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin