Jon J, I would define "sins" as actions which, in a major way, harm the perpetrator, disturbing their peace and harmony and potential spiritual development whether they realise it or not, and also disturb/harm others, either directly or because of the disharmonious vibes of the sinner. As to which actions qualify as sins rather than, say, annoyances or anti-social behaviour, I'll go with the pancasila of my earlier post. Of course, there are gradations within those actions, the crucial thing is volition. Everything starts with the mental volition, and if you're not aware of your volition and have no capacity to control/vary it, then you behave in ignorance. Hence the value of a technique such as Vipassana which develops self-awareness and detachment.

Indeed - the real deadly sins apply to the 'powerful' - can't have that being observed can we?

When there were only Seven Deadly Sins, I was having much trouble deciding which one was my favorite but now it's going to be almost impossible.

Considering that I have eaten shellfish, worked on the Sabbath and even now I'm wearing two different types of cloth, I'm probably hellbound anyway.

This is how religions create the illusion of some sort of inherent morality when it's really only reward and punishment.

But, Faustino, who decides what constitutes my spiritual 'harm'? If it's up to me to decide then that's fine, but I don't see that it's any different from my rationally deciding what I should and shouldn't do. Yes, I have done things I regretted later. No, I wouldn't do them again.

But I reject the notion that any external 'expert', regardless of what colour robes they wear, can reliably tell me what is or is not good for my spirit. I want to see some evidence that they can predict better than I can what will make me approve or regret my own actions later. So far none of them have even come close.

Who can judge how 'self-aware' I am better than me?