Yes, but as I said in previous post, without God realization, no one can really reverse it for themselves, neither in the world.

There is a concept in Hinduism called Purusharta (“object of human pursuit”), which is very similar to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. It postulates that human beings pursue four basic goals in life:

• karma (physical desires / bodily pleasures)
• artha (social success)
• dharma (virtuous way of life)
• moksha (liberation from suffering)

The problem is that without “attaining” moksha, the rest of them cannot be properly directed.

I won’t discuss how karma and artha can go out of hand without a “fixed reference point”, which liberation provides — that should be more than obvious. The real problem comes with dharma before moksha.

The most glaring example of what I’m trying to say are all those super wealthy people, who, after immense social success which gives them the possibility to fully fulfill their physical desires, still feel empty inside and search for another goal. So, they turn to philanthropy.

However, lacking that “fixed point”, they throw (parts of) their huge wealth at problems of this world, convinced that they will solve the human suffering, only to be watch it disappear like a drop in the ocean, without much change on a global level. No wonder, when they don’t see that they are tackling only symptoms. Of course with such philanthropy comes the, “Look at me how virtuous I am,” phenomenon, i.e. a subtle self-aggrandizement of a selfish pleasure of “doing good”.

These super wealthy are just the most obvious example, because you can observe this symptom in all people full of love-power, spiritual values, social justice, religious righteousness, etc., who, however still view the rest to be below them (because they are pursing these lofty goals, or so they think).

All these people fall into that “virtuous ego” trap which is the most insidious of them all because it creates even more damage than traps of sole pursuit of desires and social success. This is the blind leading the blind. And you know where they all end.

Let me illustrate it on a simple example of abortion what kind of ridiculous situations it creates.

Proponents of abortion argue that it’s the right of mother to decide, while anti-abortion folks argue that life starts at inception. Both are virtuous arguments. But both sides, in their righteousness, miss the obvious — yes, life starts at inception (everything that follows already shapes that human), yet, until the birth, mother and child are essentially one organism with only mother being able to make rational decisions (in other words, while the child is in womb, mother is in charge). So, let’s not mince words — abortion is a murder, but the final decision is up to the mother and no one else.

And it’s the same with racism, nationalism, same sex relationships and gender issues, wealth and natural resources distribution, etc.

Well, as I said in the beginning, trying to change the world without realizing one’s true nature creates more damage than good. You know what they say — the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

And the reason why it’s different after liberation is simple — you don’t cling to anything, you don’t identify with anything, you don’t want to be or become something (or someone), or be perceived in any particular way — you have nothing to defend, you want nothing, because you have done all there was to do. Only then you can really observe the world as it is.

I’ll probably start to make T-shirts that would read, “Stop and get enlightened! Or shut up.” :D :D :D