Schuon on sin:
Sin: By “sin” must be understood our separation from the Divine Center insofar as this shows itself in attitudes or acts; the essence of sin is a forgetting of the Absolute, which is at the same time the Infinite and the Perfect, and this forgetting coincides with centrifugal passion and at the same time with egoistic hardening.
[TM, Usurpations of Religious Feeling]
Schuon on karma:
Karma-Marga:
The path of action (the Hindu karma-marga) refers to the Divinity’s aspect of Rigor, whence the connection between this path and “fear” (the makhafah of Sufism): this aspect is manifested for us by the indefinity and ineluctability of cosmic vicissitudes; the goal of the path of action is liberation from these vicissitudes, and not from Existence itself, as in the case for the path of knowledge.
But this liberation through action is nonetheless a deliverance, namely, from the cosmos of suffering; and if it is action which here plays the part of support, this is because it is by action that we situate ourselves in time which, as the destroyer of beings and things, is precisely a manifestation of the divine Rigor . . . What confers on action its liberating quality, is its sacrificial character: action must be envisaged as the accomplishment of the dharma, or “duty of state,” which results from the nature of the individual, and it must consequently be accomplished, not only to perfection, but also without attachment to its fruits (nishkama-karma).
[EH, Modes of Spiritual Realization]
+++
In the above I think we can define sin as an 'attitude', I would say a moral disposition, which gives rise to karma - action - its consequence and its effect.
+++
More Schuon on sin:
If we wish to give the word “sin” its broadest or deepest meaning, we would say that it expresses above all an attitude of the heart; hence a “being” and not a simple “doing” or “not doing” . . .
According to the Bible, the forbidden tree was that of the discernment between “good” and “evil”; now this discernment, or this difference, pertains to the very nature of Being; consequently, its source could not be in the creature; to claim it for oneself is to wish to be equal to the Creator, and that is the very essence of sin; of all sin. Indeed, the sinner decides what is good, counter to the objective nature of things; he willingly deludes himself about things and about himself, whence the fall, which is nothing other than the reaction of reality.
[PM, Delineations of Original Sin]
“Sin” is thus defined as an act which, firstly, is opposed to the divine Nature in one or another of its forms or modes (the reference here is to the Divine Qualities and the intrinsic virtues which reflect them) and which, secondly, engenders in principle posthumous suffering; it does so “in principle”, but not always in fact, for repentance and positive acts on the one hand and the divine Mercy on the other efface sins, or can efface them.
[LAW, In the Wake of the Fall]
Sin (by omission):
According to the Apostle James, he who knows to do good and does not do it, commits a sin; this is the very definition of sin by omission, but at the same time it goes beyond the framework of a formalistic and exoteric morality.
[PM, Delineations of Original Sin]
+++
Again, in every case, sin is that which gives rise to that which is called karma.
+++
To offer an answer directly:
You asked if I believe in the forgiveness of sins. I most certainly do not. This is the difference between sin and karma. There is no such thing as escaping bad karma. It cannot be "forgiven".
Matthew 9:2
"And behold they brought to him one sick of the palsy lying in a bed. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the man sick of the palsy: Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee."
In healing the man by forgiving his sin, Christ evidences the ontological relationship between sin and karma. He forgives the sin, and the palsy, 'bad karma' is 'healed'.
Isaias 44:24
"Thus saith the Lord thy redeemer, and thy maker, from the womb: I am the Lord, that make all things, that alone stretch out the heavens, that established the earth, and there is none with me."
Apocalypse 21:5
"And he that sat on the throne, said: Behold, I make all things new."
Yes, this discussion is going very well. There has been a certain blending of sin and karma. I am only too happy to un-blend them.
So am I.
If the Son/Logos is limited to the cosmological sphere, then sin cannot be forgiven, sin is an offence against the Absolute, and consequently karma cannot be undone.
But if the Son is in the Absolute, then He can.
You are quite correct to point out the contradiction of the Absolute "limiting" a part of Itself. My explanation suffers from anthropomorphization.
All religion suffers this.
Quite frankly, I do not know what the Absolute is. However, as stated before, there is no way humans can understand the Absolute — no way the Absolute can be described. I have sat through discussion groups where people try to come up with characteristics to describe the Absolute. It cannot be done.
I would suggest discussion groups is the wrong place to look ... or their definition is at fault. The Absolute as absolute can be comprehended through the teachings of the Great Traditions – Moses and the Kabbala; the Christian mystics (notably Eckhart) and monasticism; the Sufi – Ibn 'Arabi; the Hindu – Shankara; and Buddhism – explicitly in Zen.
There is the Absolute of the apophatic or negative way, which stresses utter negation, the 'neti-neti' (not this-not that) of the Hindus, the Void of Buddhism, the Ground of Eckhart; and there is the Absolute of the cataphatic or positive way, in the Greaty Chain of Being, Divine Plenitude ... it must comprise both ways to be itself Absolute – the 'Void' is not a vacuum in the sense that it is positive in itself, it is not 'nothing', but rather a place beyond 'thing' or 'beyond-being' ...
Eriugena wrote about the Absolute as 'not created and does not create' as one of the Four Divisions of Nature (he used the term natura is a very specific metaphysical sense to encompass the Supernatural also) and in that sense it is impossible to describe, because it does not create, there is nothing for the senses to register ... the intellect arrives at a darkness it cannot illuminate, the Void, or the 'Superessential Darkness' of the Areopagite ... a darkness which means either there is nothing there, everything is meaningless, or a darkness of 'Superabundant Radiance' that is, in effect, a positive register 'off the plot', that which transcends the limits of the intellect ...
"This is key to the difference, in your philosophy you define the Son cosmologically, in hierarchical degrees and modes of manifestation, the Son is 'caused' by the Absolute."
You have described it perfectly.
In ours the Son is in the Absolute, and the Absolute is in the Son.
"Monism and Emanationism is rejected by the Abrahamics...."
The beauty of religious pluralism is our ability to appreciate our differences. By Monism are you referring to the Monad?
Not in that sense. Monism defines the Kosmos as a mode of the absolute (pantheism) and as such in a sense is defined and limited thereby (such a God must by necessity be a Kosmos – else it cannot be considered absolute – unless we accept the Demiurge, which introduces a whole raft of metaphysical paradox and contradiction). The Christian monad is the Absolute as such, and is metakosmic, it does not need a Creation. Creation is theophanic, and Divine in origin, but not Divine as such – it is not God.
The Abrahamic outlook preserves the 'absolute' integrity of its Monotheism by showing God as having no need, necessity nor dependency upon the cosmological. That is the Abrahamic Monad.
"The fall in Christianity is seen as a moral fault...."
--> This is a key difference between your and my belief systems.
OK.
"The Abrahamic Traditions view the Kosmos as a Divine Good – a Theophany – marred by this human moral fault."
That is a fascinating statement. So everything in the universe is good — except humanity?
No. Everything in the universe is essentially good, but brought down by humanity, because humanity is the intermediary between Creator and creation ... he is the Kosmic gardener, his raison d'etre in Genesis:
"And the Lord God took man, and put him into the paradise of pleasure, to dress it, and to keep it." (2:15)
But the gardener introduced something alien into the garden, and desecrated it.
Romans 8:22-23
"For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only [they], but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body."
"...the Theosophical mis-understanding of Christian doctrine...."
--> Oh, we understand it all right, we just do not agree with it. Theosophy offers an explanation of the Trinity, but not a Christian explanation. Theosophy gets its idea of the Trinity from Theosophy, not from Christianity.
That is what I'm suggesting, its not the Christian Trinity – the metaphysical data you are working with doesn't come from Christianity.
"That is a cosmological triune, but not the Christian Trinity, nor anywhere near it."
--> I never said it was. We have finally established the idea that other people besides Christians teach the idea of the Trinity. Also, I like your wording of Trinity as a cosmological triune — that describes the Theosophical idea nicely.
Which only serves the point I have been labouring, perhas too hard.
In such cases I would use trinity with a lower case 't'. This is generally accepted practice in metaphysical circles. Trinity implies the Christian doctrine, trinity as such is indeterminate, qualified by whatever doctrine it refers to, such as Egyptian tritheism, or triunes in Hindu polytheism and metaphysics, or Theosophy, or Anthroposophy. Likewise prophet is indeterminate, whereas by the Prophet with a capital 'P' is understood Mohammed (PBUH) the 'Seal of Prophecy' in the Tradition of Islam. I think the practice originated with the Perennial Philosophy as a mark of respect.
Trinity with a capital 'T' describes the metacosmic Principle to Itself, prior to Creation, prior to cosmology. So I would still say that many doctrines teach the idea of trinity as a relative mode of divine manifestation, but only Christianity teaches a Trinity as Person, prior to and the principle of, manifestation.
If I may paraphrase your words:
The beauty of religious pluralism is our ability to appreciate our differences ... There has been a certain blending of trinity and Trinity. I am only too happy to un-blend them.
Thomas
