Greenberg to take it a bit further, we generally clean our house with the view that it will increase our happiness - IOW the house becomes an extension of one's bodily ego (for instance if we hear that our street got flooded and some houses got swept away we are in great distress - but when we hear that it was the neighbours house we feel a great sense of relief). This is of course a false designation, but it is built primarily on the premise of enjoying separately from god. IOW if we were forced to be conscious of god's presence in our acts of enjoying separately, we wouldn't be able to properly relish our ignorance ("Oh boy here I go again, cleaning my house just to get god out of the picture again") “ there is even a term for this its called mayapahrta jnana - basically it means one who's knowledge is stolen by illusion - it explains why many apparently adroit philosophers, scientists and artists cannot properly enter into the practice of spiritual life probably the first one is more common since it doesn't necessarily entail a detailed description of god
I've reflected on this and found three very blatant examples of humans competing with God: 1. Deifying other people, other beings, things or activities, believing that they are our Alpha and Omega. 2. The desire to be deified, to be considered someone's Alpha and Omega. The desire to be adored, unconditionally submitted to. 3. Deifying oneself, developing the conviction that one can do anything - and that the reasons why one doesn't actually do everything have nothing to do with oneself. These three are easily present in effect, but also in motivation.
No, it's not necessarily a catch 22. If there is such a thing as Truth, Enlightenment or Liberation, then there is an end to desire; if there is such a thing as Truth, Enlightenment or Liberation, then there is a path of desire that leads to the end of desire.
When you stop searching and desiring enlightenment, you become enlightened. There is no realization because there is no self to realize it. There is no problem either.
the first one is kind of a yes and no issue, since there are some persons/paraphernalia etc that is actually sacred - IOW if one treats them like an ordinary mundane object, one procures a result not conducive to spiritual life. Number 2 and 3 are more accurate however - actually developing a sacred aspect of one's existence takes one the other direction - IOW one becomes very humble and very cautious of how one acts in relation to god maintaining all material things is usually done in the spirit that "this has been allotted to me by god and I have a responsibility to maintain it". Further more one sees that result or fruit of that maintenance is somehow connected to the service of god. BG 3.9 Work done as a sacrifice for Visnu has to be performed; otherwise work causes bondage in this material world. Therefore, O son of Kunti, perform your prescribed duties for His satisfaction, and in that way you will always remain free from bondage. For instance, people commonly have altars in their house and try to cultivate the comprehension that the house actually belongs to god (one is born with nothing and dies with nothing) Or a person may keep their body healthy since it is the medium that one uses to perform the activities of liberation etc Of course its a fine line, and so called spiritual practitioners can simply use it as a screen to disguise their material attachments, but its the nature of spiritual life, even if performed in a half hearted way, to pull things into their proper perspective.
I can neither agree nor disagree with it. I do, however, allow for the possibility that someone might be speaking the truth, present the right doctrine - even though they themselves might still be subject to impurity. Just like, for example, a student might write down the right answer to an equation on a math test, even though the student has not arrived at it the right way (ie. not via using the right principles for solving equations). I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence -?
given that you don't know me and its even more unlikely that you know the vedas, its difficult to see how you're offering a fresh angle
and from that issue, you now know me and the entire vedas? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
In that case, are you suggesting agnosticism? And secondly, if there is an answer - how do you suggest to find it, whose or what instructions to follow?
I don't know the answer, and not satisfied with the various answers how atman/soul got messed up with illusionary maya from a pure state.
