The definition of sin as missing the mark is erroneous, or rather, of shortened vision. One cannot miss the mark. The Mark is everywhere. Sin is separation, separation from the Source -- from the One, thus from Intelligence and from Soul, to use Plotinus's terms. One has isolated oneself from the Current, from the Flow. One has made oneself a separate god, a false image, an untrue idol. Sin is not a physical action. Sin is an attitude.
There is no mark out there (or in here) that one is trying to hit, no X marks the spot, no bulls-eye. You are not missing the mark. You are missing Soul.
We could dispense of the concept of sin altogether and speak instead of losing Soul. We shift instantly from living or not living up to a code of moralistic standards (the law dead without spirit) to the embodying or disembodying of Soul itself, the life force or current ever flowing from the One, the current that we are, without which we do not exist.
It is not that we are "full of sin." It is not that we are "missing the mark." It is that we are not living with Soul.
Can one really live without soul? From my experience soul is pretty tenacious and likely to assert itself - even if it is the more negative side of it's manifesting, the soul is there.
ReplyDeleteThis is a tough one, George, as you know. The word "soul" carries a lot of theological baggage as well, even going back to Plotinus. I still prefer the definition of "sin" you cited early on, about separation from the source. The concept of separation from the Source and all the evils that can follow (untrue idols, etc.) causes me less consternation that "losing Soul." But, as always, you've posed a provocative question that I'll be pondering for some time. Thank you, George!
ReplyDeletebrilliant
ReplyDelete