Deriving the Seven Deadly Sins
The following is not intended as an argument that proves anything. Rather, its a bead of thoughts, where one thought more or less logically follows from the previous, as beads on a necklace.
Imagine a human being as composed of body, emotions, thoughts, and awareness. (Adding intuition, mind, and/or aesthetic sense doesnt materially change the argument.) Body, emotions, and thoughts change constantly. I dont have the same emotional or mental nature or body that I had at the age of five. If anything in me is me, it is something which has remained constant from birth and which is here with me now. Its what my name refers to. What is that me? The only candidate, as far as I can see, is awareness.
A religious person might suggest that soul, not awareness, is our true self. But there are problems with saying that our soul is something entirely different from our awareness. I certainly expect to be aware if, in fact, I find myself in some post-death destination like heaven or hell. So awareness is, at least, part of the soul.

If awareness is not all of the soul, then logically there must be part of soul outside of awareness. But if theres a part of our soul outside of our awareness, then why should be care about it? It may be right now in heaven, or hell, or sitting atop the Eiffel Tower, but Im not aware of it. It seems that either awareness and soul are identical, or awareness contains soul.
Another idea is that our mental nature, our stream of thoughts and feelings, constitutes our real self.
Lets suppose that awareness is our real self and that its aware of an ever-changing stream of physical, emotional, and mental sensations. And lets suppose that a saint or yogi or holy person is someone who has realized their true nature as consciousness itself. Lets suppose, too, that the realization gives them a blissful state of mind with a peace beyond all understanding. A state of mind that, for the sake of argument, well call the supreme achievement open to a human person.
To help other people achieve that state of mind, sages might recommend we realize our identity as awareness itself and become less attached to our physical, emotional, and mental aspects, which become something we have rather than something we are. They might advise that we dwell in consciousness itself more and occupy ourselves less with the particular entities which happen at the moment to be our stream of sensations. In other words, that we move our focus from the ever-moving waves to the still, eternal ocean itself.
What practices might those who are realized and wise recommend to those who seek realization? A practice can be framed positively or negatively, as a do or a dont.
Do try to lessen attachment to the body. Dont commit the bodily sins of lust, sloth, and gluttony, which re-enforce excessive attachment to bodily sensations.
Do lessen attachment to the emotions. Dont commit the emotional sins of lust, pride, envy, anger, or greed. Lust involves both body and emotions, so its listed twice. Pride and envy are emotions; pride gloats over ones high position; envy fumes over ones low position. Anger arises when a desire is frustrated or goes unfulfilled.
Greed, perhaps, is a mental sin which contains the emotional components of pride in ones wealth and envy of those who have more.
So, we arrive at the last bead of our necklace: that lust, sloth, gluttony, pride, envy, anger, and greed are best avoided if someone believes there is a supreme realization and wishes to attain it.
Theistic religion condemns the seven deadly sins of lust, sloth, gluttony, pride, envy, anger, and greed as sins, as something against the will of some God pictures as a person who has likes and dislikes. Weve just derived them in a philosophical/metaphysical way independent of the suppose will of some God.
Imagine a human being as composed of body, emotions, thoughts, and awareness. (Adding intuition, mind, and/or aesthetic sense doesnt materially change the argument.) Body, emotions, and thoughts change constantly. I dont have the same emotional or mental nature or body that I had at the age of five. If anything in me is me, it is something which has remained constant from birth and which is here with me now. Its what my name refers to. What is that me? The only candidate, as far as I can see, is awareness.
A religious person might suggest that soul, not awareness, is our true self. But there are problems with saying that our soul is something entirely different from our awareness. I certainly expect to be aware if, in fact, I find myself in some post-death destination like heaven or hell. So awareness is, at least, part of the soul.

If awareness is not all of the soul, then logically there must be part of soul outside of awareness. But if theres a part of our soul outside of our awareness, then why should be care about it? It may be right now in heaven, or hell, or sitting atop the Eiffel Tower, but Im not aware of it. It seems that either awareness and soul are identical, or awareness contains soul.
Another idea is that our mental nature, our stream of thoughts and feelings, constitutes our real self.
Lets suppose that awareness is our real self and that its aware of an ever-changing stream of physical, emotional, and mental sensations. And lets suppose that a saint or yogi or holy person is someone who has realized their true nature as consciousness itself. Lets suppose, too, that the realization gives them a blissful state of mind with a peace beyond all understanding. A state of mind that, for the sake of argument, well call the supreme achievement open to a human person.
To help other people achieve that state of mind, sages might recommend we realize our identity as awareness itself and become less attached to our physical, emotional, and mental aspects, which become something we have rather than something we are. They might advise that we dwell in consciousness itself more and occupy ourselves less with the particular entities which happen at the moment to be our stream of sensations. In other words, that we move our focus from the ever-moving waves to the still, eternal ocean itself.
What practices might those who are realized and wise recommend to those who seek realization? A practice can be framed positively or negatively, as a do or a dont.
Do try to lessen attachment to the body. Dont commit the bodily sins of lust, sloth, and gluttony, which re-enforce excessive attachment to bodily sensations.
Do lessen attachment to the emotions. Dont commit the emotional sins of lust, pride, envy, anger, or greed. Lust involves both body and emotions, so its listed twice. Pride and envy are emotions; pride gloats over ones high position; envy fumes over ones low position. Anger arises when a desire is frustrated or goes unfulfilled.
Greed, perhaps, is a mental sin which contains the emotional components of pride in ones wealth and envy of those who have more.
So, we arrive at the last bead of our necklace: that lust, sloth, gluttony, pride, envy, anger, and greed are best avoided if someone believes there is a supreme realization and wishes to attain it.
Theistic religion condemns the seven deadly sins of lust, sloth, gluttony, pride, envy, anger, and greed as sins, as something against the will of some God pictures as a person who has likes and dislikes. Weve just derived them in a philosophical/metaphysical way independent of the suppose will of some God.
Comments (9)
I don't feel this is right. If I am reading a good book, or watching a film, or playing a game, my awareness is absorbed in the 'action', to the extent that I lose any awareness of, and temporarily forget, my body sitting in the armchair. This is my experience, that my awareness can be focussed on, and filled with, one thing to the exclusion of others. One hears of sportsmen playing on with broken bones, so absorbed in the game that they do not notice the damage and feel the pain.
And of course the detachment from the body of a rugby player is not the realisation of the adept. On the contrary, the awareness of the holy man is very present and sensitive to the physical world in all its interactions with the body. I suggest that he does not make an identification either as 'pure consciousness' or as body, but makes no identification at all.
Attachment to the body, you have dealt with, but consider the sin of attachment to the mind; the attachment to the idea of oneself as having risen above the mundane world - that is where pride - even pride in one's imagined humility - can imprison awareness in a very small cell.
I'm assuming awareness and the soul exists, and say that soul must be contained in awareness. How would you describe the relationship between awareness and soul?
I would liken awareness to the way vision works; that one is sharply aware of whatever is the centre of attention, that might be part of oneself, a toothache perhaps, or might be (in my case just now) a question one has been asked, and vaguely aware of other things - the sun streaming through the window, the rattle of the keys as I type, a buzzing fly. And beyond that there is a world of things I might turn my attention to, a memory of a job I have to do later, a rumbling stomach because I am ready for lunch, the movement of the trees outside ...
And beyond all that a dark universe of people and things that I can imagine living their lives around me in their own houses, that I am unaware of, along with all the bodily processes that I presume must go on - circulation of blood, tissue repair, digestion, etc. And the soul is also dark to the greatest extent, because I am absorbed in this carnal life, just as within this incarnation, I can be absorbed in a book, or absorbed in the attempt to express something as best I can.
I imagine my soul as inhabiting another realm - call it a 'higher reality', or 'heaven', or the 'spiritual realm', and voluntarily immersing itself in this particular life as an educational, or character-building exercise, or just an entertainment, as one might play an interactive game, or listen to a lecture. A physicalist would explain it simply as 'the unconscious', but they have no more warrant for that than I have for my imaginings. Whereof one is unaware, thereof one can only bullshit.
Doesn't saying awareness is our body's steward imply awareness is separate from the body?
Quoting unenlightened
But can we be aware of our soul, or must we accept its existence on faith? If we can't be aware of our soul, then why should we care about its eternal fate? If we can be aware of our soul, then doesn't that mean that soul can be contained in awareness?
I'm not sure. I think I'm articulating a fairly commonplace conception of soul as having its home in another world, such that "now we see through a glass, darkly", etc. The soul as something that cannot be contained in Earthly form, be that Earthly awareness or Earthly body. I think we can have intimations of something beyond what we are clearly aware of, but I don't have anything solid in the discussion. 'Why should we care?' is a dangerous sort of question. We cannot be aware of the complex activities of our body cells, but we do care that they are maintained and ordered so that -for example voluntary movement can happen. Why should we care about what is beyond our awareness? Because our awareness is limited and small.
I don't see why? I am aware of you, but you are not contained in my awareness.
Its just a figure of speech. In a fully correct definition of body, we are not separate from the body. But, our brain is a bunch of individual brain cells. Those are distinct cells. We exist as a conglomerate. So while there is togetherness, there is also separation. Taken as a whole though, we are all part of the same body.
Another person is not contained in my awareness. So, that person can be in pain or even deceased and I might not know it. But if soul is part of me, then if I can be aware of my soul it must intersect with my awareness. If soul and consciousness do not intersect, then I cannot be aware of my soul so why should I care about what is happening to it?