I-Ching [Archive] - Spiritual Forums

TzuJanLi

21-02-2011, 02:44 AM

TzuJanLi,

Thank you for your post. I can tell you are a humble and wise I-Ching scholar. I like what you wrote and have a greater understanding now.

I have asked this question of the oracle:

"Will the I-Ching teach me more about Tao?"

I received Hexagram 8 - Pi or Unity

Now the water lies on top of the earth, flowing toward other water, forming streams that unite into rivers that flow into seas. All the lines are feminine and yielding except the fifth which holds them all together.
Unity brings good fortune. Water on the earth is the image of holding together.

My changing lines were 1 and 6. Each gives a drastically opposite reading. Which line do I read, one or six. It can't be to read Both as that is totally confusing!

Changing line descriptions:

Line 1

True loyalty is without reproach. When the breast is as full of sincerity as a flowing bowl, good fortune comes from far away.

The whole is greater than the parts. The content of the earthenware bowl is everything. The empty bowl signifies nothingness of form. The truth in a man’s heart speaks louder than his words.
The inner strength of the sincere man will attract unexpected good fortune.

Line 6

There is no great leader, no union. Great misfortune.

No enterprise can succeed without strong leadership. The right moment for unity has passed. Now hesitation will only bring regrets when it is too late.

So how to read this???
The I Ching will not teach you more about Tao, it won't even guide you.. it tells you a stories related to human nature and relationships, and.. if you are clear in your 'toss', and intending 'understanding'.. the result of the toss and hexagrams will be 'stories' that 'can' apply to your situation.. ultimately, all the stories apply, the solution is in your sincerity to understand to situation.. the Life you have lived will find meaning in the hexagrams and the stories.. if you trust that meaning, your intention will naturally follow, but.. if you don't trust the meaning, do not act upon the the result.. better yet, take the time you would have invested in a 'reading', and get still with your understanding of the situation.. the same Universe/Tao/Cosmos that speaks through the I Ching, speaks through You.. it IS you..silence speaks more clearly than words, even the I Ching's words.. you already understand the situation, what you seek is a reason..

Life reveals Tao, in the same way that Tao reveals Life.. through 'you', be still and feel Life..

Be well..

lucky

04-06-2011, 10:27 AM

Sorry...got another question...Does studying the I-Ching bring one closer to the Taoist ideal?

Or is it nothing to do with Tao? I know it is about changelike yin and yang. Is it based on Tao?

The answer is no.... Either you are in the Tao or you are out of it. The I Ching is not going to bring you there.

ravenstar

04-06-2011, 12:22 PM

The I Ching will not teach you more about Tao, it won't even guide you..

The I Ching itself warns that if the person consulting the oracle is not in contact with the Tao, he/she will not receive an intelligent answer.

TzuJanLi

05-06-2011, 06:14 PM

The answer is no.... Either you are in the Tao or you are out of it. The I Ching is not going to bring you there.
You are never 'out of Tao', ****.. there is no Tao.. let go of that notion, it is one more distraction from what it 'is'..

'Tao', means 'way', as in the 'way' things are.. the ancient students of Life chose this so people wouldn't make a big deal about it and turn it into a 'religion' or a philosophy.. oh well..

Be well..

I-Ching

20-06-2011, 10:44 AM

Hi Windwhistle,

I have been using the I-Ching for several years and I recommend the translation by Brain Browne Walker.

I would interpret hex 8 with changing lines 1 and 6 to be a maybe. When asking yes and no question I find that the general mood of the hexagram is more important than the details which can confuse the issue. I interpret the general mood of hex 8 to be neutral changing into hex 42 which is increase which is positive. So you have a neutral changing into a positive which is a maybe.

Basically my understanding is that the I-Ching is universal and it helps us to follow Divine Will. So it does help you to follow Tao but it is also transcendental to Tao, since that is a material label.

Best Wishes

TzuJanLi

20-06-2011, 01:57 PM

I-Ching

20-06-2011, 02:07 PM

Hi Tzu,

I'm not speaking in the context of Tao. My interpretation of the 'Way' is the will of God. Whenever we deviate from the 'Way' we incur karma. For me the I-Ching helps me to live according to God's will. My philosophy is inconceivable oneness and difference with God, similar to the symbol of the Taijitu.

With Truth

TzuJanLi

20-06-2011, 02:16 PM

I-Ching

21-06-2011, 08:59 AM

Every living entity comes from another living entity. Every living being is proof of God. No one has every seen a living entity originating from matter. Even the big "scientists" with all there so-called knowledge can not manufacture one blade of grass. Therefore it only logical to conclude that there is a living being that is source of all others.

The role of a Guide of Guru is to inform us of God's will for our lives. I communicate to my Guide through the I-Ching and in that I know what is God's Will for my life.

The symbol of Taijitu represents the absolute truth. The circle represents oneness and the ying and yang represent difference.

IMHO all ancient knowledge such as the I-Ching and Taijitu are far older than Chinese culture as we know it and are in fact from the ancient world wide Vedic culture.

TzuJanLi

21-06-2011, 09:27 AM

Greetings..

Every living entity comes from another living entity. Every living being is proof of God. No one has every seen a living entity originating from matter. Even the big "scientists" with all there so-called knowledge can not manufacture one blade of grass. Therefore it only logical to conclude that there is a living being that is source of all others.

The role of a Guide of Guru is to inform us of God's will for our lives. I communicate to my Guide through the I-Ching and in that I know what is God's Will for my life.

The symbol of Taijitu represents the absolute truth. The circle represents oneness and the ying and yang represent difference.

IMHO all ancient knowledge such as the I-Ching and Taijitu are far older than Chinese culture as we know it and are in fact from the ancient world wide Vedic culture.
The symbol is an ancient person's insight, an insight into the relationship between One and Many, between the collective whole, and its interconnected dynamic parts.. assigning the relationship a name and personality,'God', is an unnecessary degree of separation.. i do not project an opinion on I Ching or Taijitu, i pay attention, quietly, sincerely..

The Universe evolved from the inherent quality/principle of energy to self-organize.. order emerged from chaos.. Outside of the complete circle of Taijitu is the empty but fertile potential of the Void, see past the symbol..

Be well..

Be well..

I-Ching

21-06-2011, 09:39 AM

The idea that order can emerge from chaos is athiestic and irrational. What proof is there of order ever emerging from chaos. Are cars produced from explosions at BMW? Are CPU produced from explosions at Intel? This creation is clearly incredibly intelligently designed and acts according laws, because there is a Law-maker and a Designer.

There have been many explosions in human history none of them ever produced anything. If there is order there must be an Orderer.

All ancient knowledge is of divine origin, not the speculation of some "ancient person". Like the story that the I-Ching came from some "ancient person" looking at the back of tortoise, what nonsense.

TzuJanLi

27-06-2011, 01:40 PM

Greetings..

The idea that order can emerge from chaos is athiestic and irrational. What proof is there of order ever emerging from chaos. Are cars produced from explosions at BMW? Are CPU produced from explosions at Intel? This creation is clearly incredibly intelligently designed and acts according laws, because there is a Law-maker and a Designer.

There have been many explosions in human history none of them ever produced anything. If there is order there must be an Orderer.

All ancient knowledge is of divine origin, not the speculation of some "ancient person". Like the story that the I-Ching came from some "ancient person" looking at the back of tortoise, what nonsense.
You really can't think in terms of what is real and what is illusion, can you? Order from chaos has naught to do with explosions, a troubled mind is drawn to that sort of imagery.. What you cling to as 'laws' are simply naturally occurring principles of nature.. and, your 'law-maker' is an illusion, a character in your imagination..

Be well..

I-Ching

27-06-2011, 02:59 PM

Order from chaos has naught to do with explosions

I think if you meditate really hard on what an explosion is you will realize that there relation between an explosion and chaos.

'laws' are simply naturally occurring principles of nature

Please explain to me what the difference is between a law of nature and a principle of nature? A PRINCIPLE implies a principle-maker.

If my law-maker is an illusion then please explain to me where all the living entities came from? Did they just emerge from a soup?

TzuJanLi

27-06-2011, 06:24 PM

Greeting..

I think if you meditate really hard on what an explosion is you will realize that there relation between an explosion and chaos.

Please explain to me what the difference is between a law of nature and a principle of nature? A PRINCIPLE implies a principle-maker.

If my law-maker is an illusion then please explain to me where all the living entities came from? Did they just emerge from a soup?
Yes, from soup.. and where did the soup come from, you might ask, so.. it comes from its 'source', and so IS its source.. the source sets a part of itself aside, so the source (the Original One, now many AND One) can experience itself through its own physical evolution, so.. the 'soup' was place on the journey of evolution, and many more 'places' there will be..

A principle does not imply a principle maker, it implies nothing other than an 'existing principle', it is YOU that imagines a 'maker'..

Be well..

I-Ching

28-06-2011, 03:17 PM

the source (the soup) sets a part of itself aside
Wow a sentient soup, that can “experience itself” and “.. the 'soup' was place on the journey of evolution, and many more 'places'” … well I can’t make much sense of what you are trying to say.
If living entities can emerge from matter then where are they? Every living entity that has ever been observed comes from another living entity. Where is your evidence for your claim? There are billions of living entities that are evidence that life comes life.

TzuJanLi

28-06-2011, 04:27 PM

Greetings..

Wow a sentient soup, that can “experience itself” and “.. the 'soup' was place on the journey of evolution, and many more 'places'” … well I can’t make much sense of what you are trying to say.
If living entities can emerge from matter then where are they? Every living entity that has ever been observed comes from another living entity. Where is your evidence for your claim? There are billions of living entities that are evidence that life comes life.
Life is Energy, matter is Energy, it's all energy.. i hope you will take some time to consider the relationships of energy to Life and matter, and even 'soup', it's all energy..

Be well..

LIFE

29-06-2011, 01:59 AM

Every living entity comes from another living entity...Every living being is proof of God...Therefore it only logical to conclude that there is a living being that is source of all others.

Let's follow this logic to it's end. You said that "God" is a living entity, and yet you said that, "every living entity comes from another living entity."

So what being did the living entity know as "God" come from?

IMHO all ancient knowledge such as the I-Ching and Taijitu are far older than Chinese culture as we know it and are in fact from the ancient world wide Vedic culture

Speaking of Vedic culture, you might be interested in the the Atharva Veda of the Kaivalya Upanishad:

"He is the Supreme Brahman, the Self of all. The chief foundation of this world, subtler than the subtle, eternal. That thou art, thou art That."

I-Ching

29-06-2011, 01:42 PM

Life is Energy, matter is Energy, it's all energy.. i hope you will take some
time to consider the relationships of energy to Life and matter, and even
'soup', it's all energy..

It’s all energy … so what. That doesn’t answer my question. If life can originate from matter then where is that living entity that has no father. Must we just have blind faith that such a living entity exists. If living entities can emerge from soup in the past why can’t they now?
Because it all energy does mean that it doesn’t matter if the energy is in a living or a dead condition. How about if I was to try and convert your energy from a living condition to a dead condition? I’m sure you wouldn’t be spouting this nonsense about how it’s all energy then!
If there is energy then there must be an Energetic! Just like sunshine energy comes from the sun. Electrical energy comes from a power station. In same way God is the Energetic source of all energy!

TzuJanLi

29-06-2011, 02:04 PM

Greetings..

It’s all energy … so what. That doesn’t answer my question. If life can originate from matter then where is that living entity that has no father. Must we just have blind faith that such a living entity exists. If living entities can emerge from soup in the past why can’t they now?
Because it all energy does mean that it doesn’t matter if the energy is in a living or a dead condition. How about if I was to try and convert your energy from a living condition to a dead condition? I’m sure you wouldn’t be spouting this nonsense about how it’s all energy then!
If there is energy then there must be an Energetic! Just like sunshine energy comes from the sun. Electrical energy comes from a power station. In same way God is the Energetic source of all energy!
'God' is a belief you have attached to living energy.. this planet has evolved beyond the primordial soup stage, though humans are building new 'soups', and.. new life-forms are evolving at the microscopic levels, but.. you are so blinded by your beliefs you won't look and see, you just preach.. so, at what point do you actually threaten me? it seems so easy behind a keyboard, doesn't it?

Be well..

I-Ching

30-06-2011, 11:43 AM

.. this planet has evolved beyond the primordial soup stage, though humans are building new 'soups', and.. new life-forms are evolving at the microscopic levels but.. you are so blinded by your beliefs you won't look and see, you just preach.. Thank you for giving your authoritative opinion on new life-forms coming from soups. If living entities can be produced from matter then let the big scientists combine some chemicals and create a living entity. Something like one blade of living grass. In fact one cell is so complex that it is beyond their abilities. My “beliefs” are based on sound logic I can “see” that every living entity comes from another. Yet your “belief” that life comes from matter is based on nothing but blind foolish faith. You have no evidence. Despite every living entity that ever been seen coming from another you still “believe” that life can come from matter. I want to “see” such a living entity. Let the scientist produce such a living entity, “seeing” is believing!

at what point do you actually threaten me? it seems so easy behind a keyboard, doesn't it? I was not threatening you I was simply demonstrating how when it comes to your own energy, your not so ambivalent about it living or dead condition. Your emotional response further demonstrates my point! If it all one, what’s the big deal. Your just energy in any condition what are you getting so upset about. All your “energy” will still be there even if it is non-functioning.

LIFE

30-06-2011, 02:35 PM

Every living entity comes from another living entity...Every living being is proof of God...Therefore it only logical to conclude that there is a living being that is source of all others.

I-Ching,

If "God" is a living entity and "every living entity comes from another living entity"...then my question is:

What being did the living entity known as "God" come from?

Topology

30-06-2011, 02:58 PM

I-Ching,

If "God" is a living entity and "every living entity comes from another living entity"...then my question is:

What being did the living entity known as "God" come from?

Your logic is sound. These two statements are inconsistent. God must not be living, or there was some living being that came from something not living, or God had a predecessor and the stacking of turtles goes on forever.

LIFE

30-06-2011, 03:22 PM

the stacking of turtles goes on forever.

Yes, either you invoke a cascade of infinitely regressive causes, or you concede that life can exist uncreated and unbegotten.

That's the curious thing about creationism. One of their assertions is that appearance of life is so improbable that it demands a creator. And yet, in the same breath, they say that the living "God" has always existed (i.e., is uncreated).

They say that since everything is born from something else, than everything must have been born of something, and yet they say that "God" was never born.

Then they postulate an "Orderer" because of the order of the universe.
If there is order there must be an Orderer.
This begs the question, is the "Orderer" ordered? They claim that it is the epitome of order and, once again in the same breath, admit that nothing ordered that. So, once again they must admit that order can exist without external cause or interference.

I would urge I-ching to delve a little deeper into complexity theory and the phenomenon of self-organization. And yes, order does emerge from chaos.
Research is recommended.

"God", as a pre-existent supreme creator being, is completely unnecessary.

Topology

30-06-2011, 03:37 PM

Self-organization. Two disjoint molecules come close enough to have a chemical reaction and then a more complex molecule (more organized) is created.

Emergent behaviour is a very familiar phenomena to computer scientists. A set of simple laws will create a symphony of complex behaviors.

I-Ching

02-07-2011, 07:57 AM

I-Ching,

If "God" is a living entity and "every living entity comes from another living entity"...then my question is:

What being did the living entity known as "God" come from?

When you use the term God you have to understand what it means God is by definition a being that is omnipotent. Therefore he is not subservient to time, and by definition has no beginning or end, for He is the source of time.

In this perverted material world nothingness and darkness are the default condition, but in real Spiritual World light and God are the default.

Topology

02-07-2011, 08:18 AM

When you use the term God you have to understand what it means God is by definition a being that is omnipotent. Therefore he is not subservient to time, and by definition has no beginning or end, for He is the source of time.

In this perverted material world nothingness and darkness are the default condition, but in real Spiritual World light and God are the default.

I have no experience with any entity that meets your description of God. How am I to know that the God you've described actually exists?

I-Ching

03-07-2011, 09:45 AM

I have no experience with any entity that meets your description of God. How am I to know that the God you've described actually exists?
As a human being your senses are very limited so all human beings have a very limited experience of reality. Even quantum physics guesses that there may be 27 dimensions.
Using your intelligence you can know that God exists by seeing that every living entity comes from another. You also know by incredibly intelligent design of this world and there are many other good arguments.
But in terms of have some first hand experience of God you can know by practising the process of bhakti-yoga which consists primarily of chanting the Names of God. You can only really know the taste of honey by tasting it. Similarly if you want know the President then you must serve the President and when he is pleased with your service he will allow you to meet him. Not just anyone can meet the President, certainly not those who are opposed to him.

Topology

03-07-2011, 12:27 PM

As a human being your senses are very limited so all human beings have a very limited experience of reality. Even quantum physics guesses that there may be 27 dimensions.

1. Quantum physicist don't guess. They decide based on mathematical models
2. Just some reasonable fact checking, String Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory) (follow the link), which is liberal with its number of dimensions only has 11 dimensions not 27.

Using your intelligence you can know that God exists by seeing that every living entity comes from another. You also know by incredibly intelligent design of this world and there are many other good arguments.

You are trying to make logical arguments. I am a formal logician. I've studied logic formally, mathematically, and linguistically for the last 12 years. I know its limitations through and through.

1. Logic cannot give you anything more than what you started with. God cannot be derived from non-God using logic.

2. Logic only reveals contradictions between premises it does not tell you which premises are false, only that they do not fit together.

3. The faculty which assigned truth to statements is intuition.

4. Intuition is a product of experience and imagination.

5. Our intuition can be heavily tainted by presumption and fancy until we challenge it and refine it and give it new experiences. Often we have to go outside of ourselves and have others help us find failings with our presumptions.

The decision as to the existence of God cannot come from logic, it must come from intuition. Since I refuse to base what I believe to be true off of imagination, I am left to experience to guide me. This brings the discovery of truth and any transcendental presence to the exploration of consciousness. Seeing truth is a function of Clarity. Clarity is a quality of the state of one's mind and faculties. Logic operates on thoughts which are the shadows cast by Clear Sight. Truth can only be seen for oneself, not conveyed through words. The best approach to seeing Truth for the first time is a retreat from untruth. Drop the things which interfere with your Intuitive Sight. Cultivate a Still Mind.

But in terms of have some first hand experience of God you can know by practising the process of bhakti-yoga which consists primarily of chanting the Names of God. You can only really know the taste of honey by tasting it.

How can I practice Bhakti when the only image, picture, name, concept of God that I have is purely from my imagination?

Similarly if you want know the President then you must serve the President and when he is pleased with your service he will allow you to meet him. Not just anyone can meet the President, certainly not those who are opposed to him.

So I am a dog that must please its master? Is that how you think about yourself and your relationship to your God?

I can see the president, I can't see or experience any God to which you are referring.

How am I to perceive god so that I may experience him and not imagine him?

I-Ching

04-07-2011, 01:10 PM

How can I practice Bhakti when the only image, picture, name, concept of God that I have is purely from my imagination?
There is no need to imagine anything. There is a great deal of information give about God in the Vedic scriptures. We can see God by through our ears by submissively hearing from the Vedas. God’s form, qualities and activities are all described.
So I am a dog that must please its master? Is that how you think about yourself and your relationship to your God?

I can see the president, I can't see or experience any God to which you are referring.

How am I to perceive god so that I may experience him and not imagine him?
It is natural that the lover wants to please the beloved. Our relationship with God is not exploitative, when the hand serves the stomach the whole body is nourished including the hand. If hand wants serve itself then it is simply diseased. In the same way that because we are part and parcel of God, when God is pleased with you then you also experience pleasure. Our constitutional position is that we are servants, if we are in illusion we serve our senses and if we are not we serve God, but in either case our nature is to serve.

By the president analogy I mean that because the President is an important person you cannot meet Him face to face.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta said “Don’t try to see God, act in such a way that God wants to see you.”

Chrysaetos

04-07-2011, 01:34 PM

Sentientno1

04-07-2011, 05:28 PM

Topology..
"Truth can only be seen for oneself, not conveyed through words. The best approach to seeing Truth for the first time is a retreat from untruth."

Bravo!

Gem

04-07-2011, 11:16 PM

There is no Truth. Ironic statement that.

Topology

06-07-2011, 04:47 AM

There is no need to imagine anything. There is a great deal of information give about God in the Vedic scriptures. We can see God by through our ears by submissively hearing from the Vedas. God’s form, qualities and activities are all described.

Without direct experience, all you have is imagination. So without the direct experience of God, I'm left with the imagination that comes up in reading the text. Sorry, experience must be valued before words. How else will you know if you're right or wrong? The experience gives the truth, the words are dead and cast illusions.

It is natural that the lover wants to please the beloved. Our relationship with God is not exploitative, when the hand serves the stomach the whole body is nourished including the hand. If hand wants serve itself then it is simply diseased. In the same way that because we are part and parcel of God, when God is pleased with you then you also experience pleasure. Our constitutional position is that we are servants, if we are in illusion we serve our senses and if we are not we serve God, but in either case our nature is to serve.

The hand can act out of self interest and achieve the same result. In order to nourish itself, the hand must still feed the mouth and the mouth must swallow, and the heart must pump and the lungs must breathe. All of that can function out of self-service, to realize that it is serving the self to act cooperatively.

If I am a servant to anything, I strive to be a servant to truth and weeding out idle speculation or wishful and fanciful thinking.

By the president analogy I mean that because the President is an important person you cannot meet Him face to face.

I might not meet him face to face, but I see pictures of his face. And I don't serve the president, he is supposed to be the servant of the people. My view of the position is that it is ultimately castrated, as is evidenced by the lack of fulfilling on the campaign promises. Many of the promotions of the office do not differ than the prior president. We are still increasing domestic surveillance. Copyright issues are atrocious. There are forces at play stronger than the office of the president.

I don't live my life as if the president played a significant role in it. Who does? So your analogy is weak. Precisely because the president is so far removed from my experience, I have no reason to waste thought, time and energy on him.

Or perhaps your analogy stands up. Because your view of God is so held off from experience there is no reason to waste thought, time and energy on it.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta said “Don’t try to see God, act in such a way that God wants to see you.”

Without the ability to ask God directly what would be pleasing to him, I am left with what would be pleasing to me. And it pleases me that we as humans learn to love and accept each other, to learn to live cooperatively with each other and with the other life on this planet.

I have no need for a narcissistic God that wants people to worship him without interacting with them directly.

I'm more than happy to have a positive and affirming relationship with anything which wants to present itself clearly. I will not sacrifice my integrity to worship imagination and fancy. And if God doesn't find that pleasing, then he needs to renounce his position as a supreme and benevolent being.

LIFE

06-07-2011, 10:52 AM

When you use the term God you have to understand what it means God is by definition a being that is omnipotent. Therefore he is not subservient to time, and by definition has no beginning or end, for He is the source of time.

More tired old nonsense.

I can't have a rational discussion with someone who systematically eschews reason.

I-Ching

06-07-2011, 01:14 PM

More tired old nonsense.

I can't have a rational discussion with someone who systematically eschews reason.

Wow what a convincing counter argument! Since you have such a command of reason perhaps you could actually say what was unreasonable my statement, besides just attacking my character. If atheism is so reasonable then why don't you show me one living entity coming from matter, I can show you billions that come from other living entities!

I-Ching

06-07-2011, 01:15 PM

Without direct experience, all you have is imagination. So without the direct experience of God, I'm left with the imagination that comes up in reading the text. Sorry, experience must be valued before words. How else will you know if you're right or wrong? The experience gives the truth, the words are dead and cast illusions.

By chanting the Hare Krishna mantra you will get experience

The hand can act out of self interest and achieve the same result. In order to nourish itself, the hand must still feed the mouth and the mouth must swallow, and the heart must pump and the lungs must breathe. All of that can function out of self-service, to realize that it is serving the self to act cooperatively.

In materialistic consciousness we are like the hand that does not wish to feed the stomach, but keep the food for itself, in its “handbag” lets say. The hand out of illusion doesn’t understand that he is part parcel of the body and therefore feeding the body is in his own Self-interest. The hand is in illusion as to what is the self.
When we understand that the self is the soul then serving God is in our own Self-interest, but if we think that the body is the self then we think that serving the body is in our self-interest.

I might not meet him face to face, but I see pictures of his face. And I don't serve the president, he is supposed to be the servant of the people. My view of the position is that it is ultimately castrated, as is evidenced by the lack of fulfilling on the campaign promises.

I think you are taking the analogy a bit far. I just basically trying to say that when a small person wants to meet a big person then they should serve that person then naturally the big person will then become indebted and want to reciprocate.

Without the ability to ask God directly what would be pleasing to him, I am left with what would be pleasing to me. And it pleases me that we as humans learn to love and accept each other, to learn to live cooperatively with each other and with the other life on this planet.

God’s will is revealed through Guru and sastra (scripture). Since real Guru are quite rare in this age I use the I-Ching to communicate with my Guru.

I have no need for a narcissistic God that wants people to worship him without interacting with them directly.
God has no desire for our worship. He is independent and self-satisfied. He has no need for anything or anyone. It is out of Love for us that God wants us to reciprocate His Love because he knows that is the only way that we will be happy. To Love God is our natural spiritual position, our current position of being addicted to our senses is artificial and full of suffering.

LIFE

06-07-2011, 05:05 PM

Since you have such a command of reason perhaps you could actually say what was unreasonable my statement, besides just attacking my character.

Where exactly did I attack your character? Saying that I feel that your convictions are not sensible does not constitute an attack of character, sorry.

If atheism is so reasonable then why don't you show me one living entity coming from matter, I can show you billions that come from other living entities!

Asking someone to show you a living entity arising from matter in their lab is asking someone to replicate a process that likely took billions of years with innumerable variables. Just because it can't be shown (i.e, replicated) doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen. Did you study science?

But anyways, do you see what you have done? You established a false-dichotomy? That's a classic logical fallacy.

The false-dichotomy (or false-ultimatum) that you've established is that of this question of life arising in only one of two ways- created by a pre-existent, all powerful creator being or accidentally arising through the chemical reactions of inert matter.

Are these are really the only two possible ways in which life exists, or came to exist?

What if matter is alive?

What if all of life has always existed, and is existing now as people, plants, animals, insects, etc and will continue to transform itself with processes that we can indeed observe?

What if life is self-creating and self-organizing?

Did you ever read about chaos theory and how order can and does emerge from chaos? Have you read about the phenomena of self-organization? I trust you haven't because of your particular convictions.

If you were open to learning about such things, you would quickly see that an creator being is completely unnecessary.

Topology

07-07-2011, 07:16 AM

By chanting the Hare Krishna mantra you will get experience

How should it be chanted, for how long, and what should I expect as a result?

In materialistic consciousness we are like the hand that does not wish to feed the stomach, but keep the food for itself, in its “handbag” lets say. The hand out of illusion doesn’t understand that he is part parcel of the body and therefore feeding the body is in his own Self-interest. The hand is in illusion as to what is the self.

I'm pretty sure most hands realize they're part of a body. Within a church you'll find people supporting each other. Family members help each other out. Social groups help each other out to varying degrees. Everyone participates in selfishness sometimes and selflessness in others. Making a universalized category of material consciousness is completely arbitrary and a straw man argument.

When we understand that the self is the soul then serving God is in our own Self-interest, but if we think that the body is the self then we think that serving the body is in our self-interest.

So many people have performed atrocities under the mantle of serving God. Why do you think science has risen in protest to the control of the church? The church has been vile in the name of God.

I-Ching, when you belittle others and others' perspectives, is that not an atrocities you perform in the name of your God? (If you look at how others are reacting, they experience it as such. How can you truly be serving your God by causing people to be turned off to him?)

I think you are taking the analogy a bit far. I just basically trying to say that when a small person wants to meet a big person then they should serve that person then naturally the big person will then become indebted and want to reciprocate.

So instead of the big person being egalitarian and wanting to see the small person as an equal, the big person will wait to be served before acknowledging their existence? You're saying that someone who is omniscient and omnipotent has no time or energy to treat the little person as an equal? Shouldn't a person's responsibility be proportional to their capability? Thus it is on God to present himself first to have an egalitarian relationship. While I might ask my two sons to get me something from time to time, I serve them far more than they serve me. The little person having to prostrate themselves just goes to show how little that person is valued or recognized by the big person. I have no time or energy to give from the limited time and energy I have to an entity who has infinitely more time and more capability than me and doesn't initiate the relationship.

God’s will is revealed through Guru and sastra (scripture). Since real Guru are quite rare in this age I use the I-Ching to communicate with my Guru.

Quite rare? Or rare only because no one has been able to humble your ego?

Where in the Bhagavad Gita does it say to use the I-Ching as a surrogate between you and God? Do you not understand how divination works? People project into the readings what they want to see. There is no truth to the cards in tarot, there is no truth to the I-ching, there is only what the practitioner projects into the imagery and symbols.

The value of an external real-live guru is to have someone who can confront how you're thinking about things. You do not have anyone to confront you. People try, but your walls are so high and your view of your own rightness so dominant that you are not capable of being confronted, and thus you're not capable of having a real guru.

God has no desire for our worship. He is independent and self-satisfied. He has no need for anything or anyone. It is out of Love for us that God wants us to reciprocate His Love because he knows that is the only way that we will be happy. To Love God is our natural spiritual position, our current position of being addicted to our senses is artificial and full of suffering.

You say God has no desire for worship and yet you say we should worship him. You contradict yourself. Love has no expectation of reciprocation. My sons could hate me and view me as a tyrant, but I would still love them. All I ask of my children is respect. But if I had never been in their lives, I would be in no position to even ask for that. It would be on me to earn their respect.

Neglect is a form of abuse. An absent God is neglectful and abusive. If God wants respect, acknowledgement, worship, its on him to initiate the relationship.

BTW, I'm not an atheist, so don't try to label me and dismiss me as such.

Sentientno1

07-07-2011, 01:15 PM

Topology:
"The value of an external real-live guru is to have someone who can confront how you're thinking about things."

Smack on the nailhead.

A livng guru requires an initiation. Traditionaly it is not possible to have a dead person as a guru.

I-Ching

07-07-2011, 01:56 PM

How should it be chanted, for how long, and what should I expect as a result?
Ideally the chanting should be for two hours per day, preferably in the early morning. We usually chant on a loop of 108 beads. Sastra describes that because God is absolute there is no difference between the Person God and the Name of God. Just like if you are thirsty you can’t just say water, water and your thirst is quenched but God is not relative to time and space and is therefore present. My experience of chanting is that initially there was a lot of mercy in the form of mystic experiences in order to give me faith and then later it is done more out of duty with the occasional taste of bliss. It is especially blissful when chanted out loud in form of music called kirtana. Chanting of Gods names is recommending in all scriptures.
I'm pretty sure most hands realize they're part of a body. Within a church you'll find people supporting each other. Family members help each other out. Social groups help each other out to varying degrees. Everyone participates in selfishness sometimes and selflessness in others. Making a universalized category of material consciousness is completely arbitrary and a straw man argument. Most people including myself do not realize that we are part and parcel of God most of time and therefore we are like the hand that does not serve the body. Service to man is not necessarily service to God. Hitler thought he was doing a great service to man. By serving God we are doing the best service to all mankind. In terms of the analogy service to man is like the hand giving the food the other hand.
So many people have performed atrocities under the mantle of serving God. Why do you think science has risen in protest to the control of the church? The church has been vile in the name of God.
Just because there is one fake coin doesn’t mean that all coins are fake. If you are following a True Guru then all your actions are according to God’s Will and therefore good.
I-Ching, when you belittle others and others' perspectives, is that not an atrocities you perform in the name of your God? (If you look at how others are reacting, they experience it as such. How can you truly be serving your God by causing people to be turned off to him?)
The Gita is spoken on a battlefield. It is about the battle between good and evil. Atheistic perspectives must be crushed. The atheistic have already turned away from God and I am simply making an example of them for the innocent.
the big person will wait to be served before acknowledging their existence? You're saying that someone who is omniscient and omnipotent has no time or energy to treat the little person as an equal? Shouldn't a person's responsibility be proportional to their capability
God and his representative are always coming to this world out of their compassion for us. In the Gita Krishna is driving Arjuna chariot, because God likes to serve his devotees. Our relationship with God is an ever-increasing exchange of Love. Krishna is most everything, including the most humble.
Quite rare? Or rare only because no one has been able to humble your ego?

Where in the Bhagavad Gita does it say to use the I-Ching as a surrogate between you and God? Do you not understand how divination works? People project into the readings what they want to see. There is no truth to the cards in tarot, there is no truth to the I-ching, there is only what the practitioner projects into the imagery and symbols.

The value of an external real-live guru is to have someone who can confront how you're thinking about things. You do not have anyone to confront you. People try, but your walls are so high and your view of your own rightness so dominant that you are not capable of being confronted, and thus you're not capable of having a real guru.
According to sastra this is the most materialistic of the 4 ages, when human beings are particularly faulty. There are a few True Guru’s on this planet but they are so inundated with disciples that they are unable to give quality individual Guidance.
Divination originates in Vedic culture. Jyotish (Vedic/original astrology) is a form of divination that is based on the planets, it also incorporates something called Hora that is similar to the I-Ching. Krishna and Balarama were taught different forms of divination when they went to the ashrama of their guru Sandipani Muni as part of their childhood pastimes. If you accept the principle of Divination then it is by definition Divine and not simply a product of your mind.
My Guru often chastises my through the I-Ching and I feel that I am communicating with a real-live Guru. The fact the He is unembodied means there is no way that He can be materially benefited by my service.
You say God has no desire for worship and yet you say we should worship him. You contradict yourself. Love has no expectation of reciprocation.
God desires us to worship Him for our own benefit, not for his. Loving God is the only way that we can be truly happy.

I'm not an atheist, so don't try to label me and dismiss me as such.
Athato brahma jijnasa, now that you are in the human form of life you should enquire about the Absolute Truth. This is intelligence!!

I-Ching

07-07-2011, 02:21 PM

Where exactly did I attack your character? Saying that I feel that your convictions are not sensible does not constitute an attack of character
I can't have a rational discussion with someone who systematically eschews reason
This is not an attack on my conviction but a personal insult.
Asking someone to show you a living entity arising from matter in their lab is asking someone to replicate a process that likely took billions of years with innumerable variables. Just because it can't be shown (i.e, replicated) doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen. Did you study science?
I’m not asking for a replication of the process I’m asking for the product of the process. Process supposed happened miraculously without any intelligence. But the big scientist are very intelligent so what is so difficult for them to manufacture one blade of grass. One blade of grass is beyond their capabilities. How pathetic!!
What if matter is alive? Why don’t read your high school biology text book and try and understand the difference between a living thing and a dead thing. Even a child can understand this.
What if all of life has always existed, and is existing now as people, plants, animals, insects, etc and will continue to transform itself with processes that we can indeed observe?

This is like trying to believe in perpetual motion machine. Most unscientific!!
What if life is self-creating and self-organizing? It would be nice to believe this but unfortunately there is a principle of thermo dynamics called entropy. It means matter naturally becomes disorganized. It naturally degrades from a more organized state to a less organised state.
Did you ever read about chaos theory and how order can and does emerge from chaos? Have you read about the phenomena of self-organization? I trust you haven't because of your particular convictions. Yes, what convenient THEORIES. Perhaps you could give some examples of something complex that actually self-organized or originated in chaos. Besides your beliefs that is. I don’t see CPU's coming from explosions at Intel. In fact if I were to hold such belief people would consider me a fool and yet so many people believe that something as complex as the brain or even the DNA came about by accident. Foolishness has no limits in this age.

LIFE

07-07-2011, 05:20 PM

If I were to hold such belief people would consider me a fool

Like the belief in an all-powerful creator being?

You've obviously made up your mind and I wish you well. Just keep in mind the honest truth that you may, in fact, be wrong. And if you're absolutely convinced that you are right- so much so that you immediately discount or disregard anything that doesn't align with the comfort zone of your established belief system- then you will effectively inhibit yourself from actually discovering new insights and actually be open to learning the truth, should it differ from your deeply ingrained belief system.

I-Ching, when you belittle others and others' perspectives, is that not an atrocities you perform in the name of your God? (If you look at how others are reacting, they experience it as such. How can you truly be serving your God by causing people to be turned off to him?)

Yeah, you're not a glowing advertisement for your particular "path". You might want to re-evaluate how you interact with people. You present yourself as a rather angry, critical, and defensive individual, which seems to indicate a fair amount of insecurity about your own beliefs. If you hope to attract others to this "path" of yours, your words are certainly proving to be counter-productive.

Any response from me is likely to fall on deaf ears, culminating in nothing but another derisive response, and that is fine.

Wishing you find whatever it is that you are seeking here on spiritual forums.

Signing off...

Topology

07-07-2011, 05:28 PM

Ideally the chanting should be for two hours per day, preferably in the early morning. We usually chant on a loop of 108 beads. Sastra describes that because God is absolute there is no difference between the Person God and the Name of God. Just like if you are thirsty you can’t just say water, water and your thirst is quenched but God is not relative to time and space and is therefore present. My experience of chanting is that initially there was a lot of mercy in the form of mystic experiences in order to give me faith and then later it is done more out of duty with the occasional taste of bliss. It is especially blissful when chanted out loud in form of music called kirtana. Chanting of Gods names is recommending in all scriptures.

Two hours a day is more than I can afford to explore the phenomena with. Form my experience with meditating for that length of time (non-chanting) and chanting AUM for shorter lengths of time, there is definitely a psychological effect where you are lifted out of your normal psychology. Just as when a weight is lifted after you've been carrying it, there is a euphoric effect when you've left your normal heavy psychology.

How do you know that your mystical experience and bliss are not a result of simple psychology? That would also explain the weakening effect as time wears on, no more contrast between the old psychology and the new psychology that you're building up for yourself. Too much of anything and it becomes bland to taste.

Just because there is one fake coin doesn’t mean that all coins are fake. If you are following a True Guru then all your actions are according to God’s Will and therefore good.

I am following a True Guru.

The Gita is spoken on a battlefield. It is about the battle between good and evil. Atheistic perspectives must be crushed. The atheistic have already turned away from God and I am simply making an example of them for the innocent.

You truly do not understand psychology and how Ego's work, do you? All you do by attacking the atheistic perspective is reinforce it. When someone perceives an assault on their beliefs their first impulse is to defend the belief and feel justified in having it because someone else found it worth assaulting. If you want to truly erode atheism then you best chance is to be a witness for Love and kindness. When you tend a man's heart, then he will ask you to tend his mind. When you attack the mind, the walls harden around the heart. Your actions do more to create atheists than to convert them. When an innocent comes to see how you interact with others and sees you being arrogant and self-possessed, do you truly believe that innocent will be attracted to you?

God and his representative are always coming to this world out of their compassion for us. In the Gita Krishna is driving Arjuna chariot, because God likes to serve his devotees. Our relationship with God is an ever-increasing exchange of Love. Krishna is most everything, including the most humble.

If you are trying to demonstrate the character of Krishna, and Krishna's character is most humble, then you are not succeeding at your task.

If you accept the principle of Divination then it is by definition Divine and not simply a product of your mind.

My experience with divination is that all sorts of discordant energies can enter into the divining and pollute the message. One usually has to go through a litany of clearing exercises to clear oneself and the source of the information and ask that it be of the highest purpose and highest truth. Even then, what is given is information that should not be believed blindly but weighed, doubted and tested for its veracity. That is how I have come to understand divination.

My Guru often chastises my through the I-Ching and I feel that I am communicating with a real-live Guru. The fact the He is unembodied means there is no way that He can be materially benefited by my service.

Are you kidding me? Do you know nothing of psychic and energetic parasites? Non-physical entities which siphon off spiritual energy? The greatest vice of any entity that puts itself forward as a guru is to take energetic advantage of their devoted followers. You don't have to have a corporeal body to benefit from non-corporeal energy. Devotion and worship is one of those conduits that channels energy from the devotee to the object of devotion.

God desires us to worship Him for our own benefit, not for his. Loving God is the only way that we can be truly happy.

Maybe its the only way you can be happy. You have no authority to speak for anyone else. In the conversation I had with God, he doesn't care if I worship him and he doesn't care if I witness for him. In fact he'd rather I not speak of him because using the term casts too much illusion in people's mind. What he does want me to do is stand for Truth, and to help each person move forward upon their own path (not upon my path).

Athato brahma jijnasa, now that you are in the human form of life you should enquire about the Absolute Truth. This is intelligence!!

My path to Truth and The Absolute is through retreating from untruth (http://tatfoundation.org/albigen.htm).

Topology

07-07-2011, 05:55 PM

It would be nice to believe this but unfortunately there is a principle of thermo dynamics called entropy. It means matter naturally becomes disorganized. It naturally degrades from a more organized state to a less organised state.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! Entropy is NOT about moving from organization to disorganization. Entropy is the movement from high energy to low energy states with a net increase in heat (unusable energy). (And what has been considered unusable in the past is turning out to be more usable than we thought through the use of heat gradients and one-way ratchets.) The movement from low entropy to high entropy often entails the spontaneous organization and reorganization of matter. Take a carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. The atoms will release potential energy stored in the two bonds between oxygen atoms to develop four bonds between the oxygen and the carbon, forming carbon dioxide. What was two separate entities became a more organized singular entity. This is a spontaneous increase in organization. Pull out a chemistry book and study the chemical reactions that create larger and larger molecules. This increase in organization is a direct result of entropy, the release of potential energy in exothermic reactions.

Yes, what convenient THEORIES. Perhaps you could give some examples of something complex that actually self-organized or originated in chaos. Besides your beliefs that is. I don’t see CPU's coming from explosions at Intel. In fact if I were to hold such belief people would consider me a fool and yet so many people believe that something as complex as the brain or even the DNA came about by accident. Foolishness has no limits in this age.

Is it an accident if the laws of chemistry entail its creation? It takes some serious study of these subjects (many years) to even begin to say yeah or nay as to whether or not it is possible. And from what you demonstrate you have not studied Biology, Physics and Chemistry to any serious extent.

lotusflower

08-07-2011, 02:40 AM

I recently picked up a copy of the I ching.Im waiting for it to come in the mail.Im looking forward also on gaining more knowledge on this.Good luck

I-Ching

08-07-2011, 01:20 PM

You present yourself as rather angry, critical, and defensive individual, which seems to indicate a fair amount of insecurity about your own beliefs.
Again, because you have no counter argument you resort to insults. If you had any character your would admit defeat. You are definitely a good representative of your philosophy.

I-Ching

08-07-2011, 01:56 PM

Two hours a day is more than I can afford to explore the phenomena with.
If you can’t afford 2 hours then why not start with half an hour. The more you chant the more you will want to chant.
How do you know that your mystical experience and bliss are not a result of simple psychology At the end of the day you to have put your faith in it. My faith is not simply based on experience but also on reason. As I have clearly demonstrated on a few hapless atheists :)
I am following a True Guru Who is your Guru?

You truly do not understand psychology and how Ego's work, do you? All you do by attacking the atheistic perspective is reinforce it. When someone perceives an assault on their beliefs their first impulse is to defend the belief and feel justified in having it because someone else found it worth assaulting. If you want to truly erode atheism then you best chance is to be a witness for Love and kindness. When you tend a man's heart, then he will ask you to tend his mind. When you attack the mind, the walls harden around the heart. Your actions do more to create atheists than to convert them. When an innocent comes to see how you interact with others and sees you being arrogant and self-possessed, do you truly believe that innocent will be attracted to you?

The hearts of the atheistic are not worth tending. I do not act out of a desire for honour but as a servant of Krishna. Any intelligent person (a rare species in this age) who reviews my arguments will conclude that they are superior. I am simply speaking from my heart and I have no desire or realization to act in any other way.
If you are trying to demonstrate the character of Krishna, and Krishna's character is most humble, then you are not succeeding at your task. Try not to be envious of Krishna. The word Krishna means the all-attractive because he is the ultimately lovable person. We can only love the people of this world limitedly, if at all, because they are ultimately nor that loveable. Krishna has whatever qualities you find loveable in others to an infinite extent.
Are you kidding me? Do you know nothing of psychic and energetic parasites? Non-physical entities which siphon off spiritual energy? The greatest vice of any entity that puts itself forward as a guru is to take energetic advantage of their devoted followers. You don't have to have a corporeal body to benefit from non-corporeal energy. Devotion and worship is one of those conduits that channels energy from the devotee to the object of devotion. Well I have lots of energy. I was chronically ill for 8 years I cured myself with the I-Ching and Ayurveda. Whenever I stray from the Path the I-Ching tells me. I feel very protected by the I-Ching. There are negative subtle entities but the fact that the I-Ching is helping me to love and serve Krishna, so I know it is good. I been developing a relationship with the personality that I am connecting to with the I-Ching for over a decade now I know He is pure soul by experience.
Maybe its the only way you can be happy. You have no authority to speak for anyone else.
I am not speaking on my own authority I speak on Krishna’s authority and I speak for all souls. The only way the soul will be happy is when it is established in its eternal loving relationship with the Supreme Soul, Krishna. This is the absolute Truth!
Entropy is NOT about moving from organization to disorganization.
“These processes reduce the state of order of the initial systems, and therefore entropy is an expression of disorder or randomness.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
Well perhaps you should argue with the authors of Wikipedia on this point maybe they need to raise their knowledge to your level.

I-Ching

08-07-2011, 02:03 PM

I recently picked up a copy of the I ching.Im waiting for it to come in the mail.Im looking forward also on gaining more knowledge on this.Good luck
Hi Lotus Flower,

That's great! I recommend the translation by Brian Browne Walker. God has given us this tool because he doesn't want us to stumble along in ignorance. Enlightenment is only considered difficult because of a lack Guidance, with the help of the I-Ching it is definitely possible. Why remains stuck in this world of repeated birth and death!! Please message me if you need any help.

LIFE

08-07-2011, 02:23 PM

Again, because you have no counter argument you resort to insults. If you had any character your would admit defeat. You are definitely a good representative of your philosophy.

I called that one didn't I:

Any response from me is likely to fall on deaf ears, culminating in nothing but another derisive response, and that is fine.

I have not resorted to insults. These are observations made in the spirit of constructive criticism. That's why I said, " If you hope to attract others to this "path" of yours, your words are certainly proving to be counter-productive."

On the other hand, your critical remarks just appear to be derisive with little purpose other than intent to belittle (as Topology duly noted). And now you've made a statement that I have no character in addition to a derisively sarcastic statement about "my philosophy"? To call me insulting is a bit hypocritical wouldn't you say? You should really re-read your posts and evaluate the blatantly insulting nature of what you've written- both in tone and words used.

I-Ching, when you belittle others and others' perspectives...

As far as my "counter-argument"...

As Topology noted:

And from what you demonstrate you have not studied Biology, Physics and Chemistry to any serious extent.

I would have to agree, so I'm afraid that my "counter-arguments" are not likely to be appreciated.

Of course, you will almost certainly interpret this as a lack of "counter argument" and likely toss a few more insults my way, maybe calling me "foolish" or "pathetic."

You used sarcasm to belittle me when you wrote, "You are definitely a good representative of your philosophy."

I would pose the question:

Are you a good representative of your "God"?

Just something to think about.

I-Ching

08-07-2011, 02:46 PM

As Topology noted Perhaps you will have noted my reply
“These processes reduce the state of order of the initial systems, and therefore entropy is an expression of disorder or randomness.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

I used the word pathetic in relation to the athiestic scientists and couldn't find the word foolish in my post. Atheism is foolish in my opinion and I have tried my best to prove that.

Just something to think about This conversation is not going anywhere.

"To athiests I come as all devouring death". - Bhagavad-Gita. There's something for you to think about.

LIFE

08-07-2011, 03:00 PM

"To athiests I come as all devouring death". - Bhagavad-Gita. There's something for you to think about.

On the "Personalist Buddhist" thread you stated:
I don’t accept the authority of the “Diamond-Sutra”.

In the same way, I don't accept the authority of the Bhagavad-Gita.

In fact, I don't accept the authority of any book.

hybrid

08-07-2011, 10:23 PM

Atheism is foolish in my opinion and I have tried my best to prove that.
how can not believing in any deity become foolish?

on the other hand, belief in god is the mother of all superstitious beliefs. if you can watch with equanimity what's going on in your inner being, you will be able to see that this is the case, because you will be able to see the whole structure of your belief system and how it runs and controls (guide) your life. .

.

Topology

09-07-2011, 09:12 AM

If you can’t afford 2 hours then why not start with half an hour. The more you chant the more you will want to chant.

I will try half an hour for a week. What specific words should I chant? Spoken or merely internally within my mind? With music playing or in silence?

At the end of the day you to have put your faith in it. My faith is not simply based on experience but also on reason. As I have clearly demonstrated on a few hapless atheists :)

I think the only person that believes you have successfully demonstrated Reason is you. None of those atheists think you have demonstrated reason, I don't. If we put it to a vote, you'd be in the minority.

Who is your Guru?

My guru has no name, no face, no personality, no body.

The hearts of the atheistic are not worth tending. I do not act out of a desire for honour but as a servant of Krishna. Any intelligent person (a rare species in this age) who reviews my arguments will conclude that they are superior. I am simply speaking from my heart and I have no desire or realization to act in any other way.

If you cannot look out upon the world an see Krishna in every aspect of the universe, including in the heart of an atheist, then you do not see Krishna at all. It was because he saw Krishna in his brothers that Arjuna did not want to fight them. You tell me which is better, that those in sin learn the errors of their ways and truly be reformed, or that they be killed to have their intents be reborn in the next incarnation? At least with physical death there is time when sin is not expressed and a chance to reform the intent while it is still within a child. You pretend to slay your enemy. But if you actually look at the effects of your actions, the atheist is neither physically killed, nor have they become reformed. Your victory is purely in your imagination. So unless you plan to become a murderer, I suggest you learn how to tend a man's heart for that is the only way you're going to relieve him of his sinful nature.

Try not to be envious of Krishna. The word Krishna means the all-attractive because he is the ultimately lovable person. We can only love the people of this world limitedly, if at all, because they are ultimately nor that loveable. Krishna has whatever qualities you find loveable in others to an infinite extent.

If you will permit a change of name and a change of Aspect, then you will see that I do worship Krishna. I know him as Truth. But I have no human image, no personality, no body, no face to hold in mind in my worship.

Well I have lots of energy. I was chronically ill for 8 years I cured myself with the I-Ching and Ayurveda. Whenever I stray from the Path the I-Ching tells me. I feel very protected by the I-Ching. There are negative subtle entities but the fact that the I-Ching is helping me to love and serve Krishna, so I know it is good. I been developing a relationship with the personality that I am connecting to with the I-Ching for over a decade now I know He is pure soul by experience.

I am glad that you have found a guide you can trust. I am glad to hear that you are in good health.

I am not speaking on my own authority I speak on Krishna’s authority and I speak for all souls. The only way the soul will be happy is when it is established in its eternal loving relationship with the Supreme Soul, Krishna. This is the absolute Truth!

But Krishna has many aspects and you do not recognize those aspects you are unfamiliar with. You also do not know how to help others on their own path to supreme union. You presume your path will work for all.

“These processes reduce the state of order of the initial systems, and therefore entropy is an expression of disorder or randomness.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
Well perhaps you should argue with the authors of Wikipedia on this point maybe they need to raise their knowledge to your level.

Or maybe you should realize that the information on Wikipedia is highly contextualized and the meaning of terms is very very specific. You have to spend a lot of time studying the subject material before the words on the page are truly understandable. You can't read "order" and "disorder" and think it applies to the complexity of molecules. The use of the term "order" and "disorder" in the context of Entropy on the Wikipedia page is for objects which are not bound to each other and do not become bound to each other. There is no chemical reaction taking place. Look at the pictures on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(order_and_disorder). Order is when the separate entities are all in alignment. Disorder is when there is no alignment in position or motion.

When we're talking about a chemical process creating a molecular bond between two separate atoms, that's reducing the number of free standing entities, so this situation is NOT what is being described by the wikipedia article. With the introduction of the chemical bond, the atoms enter into a fixed relationship with each other, increasing the atomic order. The chemical reaction, while increasing the order of atomic relationship also creates an increase in net entropy. Some of the potential energy prior to the chemical reaction (stored as unpaired electrons occupying higher level orbitals) gets released into the environment as chaotic kinetic energy. Think about two things joining and merging together, they become bonded but there is also a wobble (chaotic kinetic energy) from their joining.

What you think of as order and complexity is molecular order. What entropy is denoting is random kinetic energy of separate objects relative to each other. Entropy is always increasing in free standing molecules because they will tend to disorganization in their relative kinetic movement. But the atoms within a molecule are bonded to each other and they are not able to increase their relative kinetic motion unless the chemical bond is broken.

You can't just look at a Wikipedia page and suddenly think you're an expert at this stuff. Why do you think text books have thousands of pages in them and people are lead through years of courses on the material?

------

It's obvious you want to engage in swordplay. But you bring a wooden stick and fumble around with it. I'm happy enough to engage you and swat your behind with the flat of my sword when you take a wild swing and miss. But the only way you're going to win any battles is to sharpen your mind through education, practice understanding the material, and come to battle with humility. You do not seek understanding, you seek purely the perception of winning a battle.

People stop sparring with you because they're flabbergasted by your claiming victory when all you're doing is flailing around wildly. You claim to be skilled at Reason (Sword Play) but your opponents do not walk limping away. Nor do your opponents ask you to teach them how to become better swordsmen. They simply walk away flabbergasted because you'll take a point when you've swung and missed. A true swordsman studies his opponent and learns to move with him. Once you can move with and not against, then you are free to subtly shift your opponent from within their stance. A true swordsmen will be recognized, honored and respected by his opponents. You are good at boasting, but you lack real skill with the mind.

You have heart, and that is why I'm bothering to engage you.

TzuJanLi

09-07-2011, 11:02 AM

Greetings..

I will try half an hour for a week. What specific words should I chant? Spoken or merely internally within my mind? With music playing or in silence?

I think the only person that believes you have successfully demonstrated Reason is you. None of those atheists think you have demonstrated reason, I don't. If we put it to a vote, you'd be in the minority.

My guru has no name, no face, no personality, no body.

If you cannot look out upon the world an see Krishna in every aspect of the universe, including in the heart of an atheist, then you do not see Krishna at all. It was because he saw Krishna in his brothers that Arjuna did not want to fight them. You tell me which is better, that those in sin learn the errors of their ways and truly be reformed, or that they be killed to have their intents be reborn in the next incarnation? At least with physical death there is time when sin is not expressed and a chance to reform the intent while it is still within a child. You pretend to slay your enemy. But if you actually look at the effects of your actions, the atheist is neither physically killed, nor have they become reformed. Your victory is purely in your imagination. So unless you plan to become a murderer, I suggest you learn how to tend a man's heart for that is the only way you're going to relieve him of his sinful nature.

If you will permit a change of name and a change of Aspect, then you will see that I do worship Krishna. I know him as Truth. But I have no human image, no personality, no body, no face to hold in mind in my worship.

I am glad that you have found a guide you can trust. I am glad to hear that you are in good health.

But Krishna has many aspects and you do not recognize those aspects you are unfamiliar with. You also do not know how to help others on their own path to supreme union. You presume your path will work for all.

Or maybe you should realize that the information on Wikipedia is highly contextualized and the meaning of terms is very very specific. You have to spend a lot of time studying the subject material before the words on the page are truly understandable. You can't read "order" and "disorder" and think it applies to the complexity of molecules. The use of the term "order" and "disorder" in the context of Entropy on the Wikipedia page is for objects which are not bound to each other and do not become bound to each other. There is no chemical reaction taking place. Look at the pictures on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(order_and_disorder). Order is when the separate entities are all in alignment. Disorder is when there is no alignment in position or motion.

When we're talking about a chemical process creating a molecular bond between two separate atoms, that's reducing the number of free standing entities, so this situation is NOT what is being described by the wikipedia article. With the introduction of the chemical bond, the atoms enter into a fixed relationship with each other, increasing the atomic order. The chemical reaction, while increasing the order of atomic relationship also creates an increase in net entropy. Some of the potential energy prior to the chemical reaction (stored as unpaired electrons occupying higher level orbitals) gets released into the environment as chaotic kinetic energy. Think about two things joining and merging together, they become bonded but there is also a wobble (chaotic kinetic energy) from their joining.

What you think of as order and complexity is molecular order. What entropy is denoting is random kinetic energy of separate objects relative to each other. Entropy is always increasing in free standing molecules because they will tend to disorganization in their relative kinetic movement. But the atoms within a molecule are bonded to each other and they are not able to increase their relative kinetic motion unless the chemical bond is broken.

You can't just look at a Wikipedia page and suddenly think you're an expert at this stuff. Why do you think text books have thousands of pages in them and people are lead through years of courses on the material?

------

It's obvious you want to engage in swordplay. But you bring a wooden stick and fumble around with it. I'm happy enough to engage you and swat your behind with the flat of my sword when you take a wild swing and miss. But the only way you're going to win any battles is to sharpen your mind through education, practice understanding the material, and come to battle with humility. You do not seek understanding, you seek purely the perception of winning a battle.

People stop sparring with you because they're flabbergasted by your claiming victory when all you're doing is flailing around wildly. You claim to be skilled at Reason (Sword Play) but your opponents do not walk limping away. Nor do your opponents ask you to teach them how to become better swordsmen. They simply walk away flabbergasted because you'll take a point when you've swung and missed. A true swordsman studies his opponent and learns to move with him. Once you can move with and not against, then you are free to subtly shift your opponent from within their stance. A true swordsmen will be recognized, honored and respected by his opponents. You are good at boasting, but you lack real skill with the mind.

You have heart, and that is why I'm bothering to engage you.
Hi Topology: Your rebuttal verifies your screen-name, very nicely articulated.. since you have agreed to chant, may i suggest, Om (Aum)? draw-out the sound for the length of the exhale, let the breath come from the diaphragm, the sound deep and resonant.. it is the only form of chanting i have found reasonably effective, but i am only one perspective.. generally, i do not favor chanting as it engages the mind, and it is my understanding that meditation is intended to inspire clarity and a direct experience with Life.. so that, if the mind is engaged in the process of making specific sounds, it is not fully engaged with all of Life.. as in your analogy of the swordsman, the execution of a strategy (chanting), limits the options and response time.. listening, understanding and engaging the 'happening' as a 'dance' where the clearer mind (clarity of a still mind) has the advantage of leading by creating the 'music'.. anyway, some odd thoughts to start off the day..

Be well..

Gem

09-07-2011, 11:46 AM

Topology

09-07-2011, 01:27 PM

Greetings..

Hi Topology: Your rebuttal verifies your screen-name, very nicely articulated.. since you have agreed to chant, may i suggest, Om (Aum)? draw-out the sound for the length of the exhale, let the breath come from the diaphragm, the sound deep and resonant.. it is the only form of chanting i have found reasonably effective, but i am only one perspective.. generally, i do not favor chanting as it engages the mind, and it is my understanding that meditation is intended to inspire clarity and a direct experience with Life.. so that, if the mind is engaged in the process of making specific sounds, it is not fully engaged with all of Life.. as in your analogy of the swordsman, the execution of a strategy (chanting), limits the options and response time.. listening, understanding and engaging the 'happening' as a 'dance' where the clearer mind (clarity of a still mind) has the advantage of leading by creating the 'music'.. anyway, some odd thoughts to start off the day..

Be well..

I see you Tzu,

Thank you for the suggestion. I have chanted AUM in the past. I think the effect of a lot of these practices depend on your personality and how you relate to it. I don't have an active practice right now, but when I was exploring different techniques I would explore them through a process of "Tuning". Someone who can tune a guitar by ear plucks the string repeatedly, adjusting the tension on the string. At first there is too much, then too little tension, and so it goes until the guitarist tunes into the clear note he's searching for. I would take something like saying "AUM" and I would experiment with saying it loudly, quietly, standing, sitting, walking, chest and neck relaxed, constricted, etc. Trying to find the clear resonance.

I found this to be much more effective than simply sitting and imitating how someone else says AUM. But this is my personality, inquisitive and oriented to the quality of my experience.

You can pretty much tune any expression for a whole host of different qualities. This isn't anything new, people have been rehearsing their expressions for ages, but I never hear anyone refer to it as tuning.

That's all meditation is to me now, tuning our vibrational resonance. There's no need to tune if what's coming out is a clear note. There is an end to the regular practice of meditation.

I-Ching

09-07-2011, 03:29 PM

how can not believing in any diety become foolish?

on the other hand, belief in god is the mother of all superstitious beliefs. if you can watch with equanimity what's going on in your inner being, you will be able to see that this is the case, because you will be able to see the whole structure of your belief system.

Those who are atheists also have superstitious beliefs like the idea that life can emerge from matter, that consciousness can be produces from a bag of chemicals in the brain, that we know Reality through our puny senses. The belief of atheism also "runs and controls your life". It causes you to become a materialistic rogue.

Sentientno1

09-07-2011, 03:56 PM

One of the reasons for chanting is the mind becomes involved and when the chanting is finished either by choice or reflex, the mind goes with it, leaving that still spacelessness.
The other reason is a mantra ( or chant) is put together to replicate as close as possible, some vibration percieved beyond the sense of hearing.

Of all mantras OM is supposed to be the most basic.

I-Ching

09-07-2011, 04:52 PM

I will try half an hour for a week. What specific words should I chant? Spoken or merely internally within my mind? With music playing or in silence? Sastra recommends hare nama hare nama eva kevalam … . In this age of Kali there is not other way than the chant of the Names of God. The names of God that are specifically recommended is the Hare Krishna Maha-mantra: Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare.
I think the only person that believes you have successfully demonstrated Reason is you. None of those atheists think you have demonstrated reason, I don't. If we put it to a vote, you'd be in the minority. Neither I nor God depends on anyone’s votes. I have no desire for popularity. I am not here to attract cheap followers. Any sincere person will realise I speak the Truth.
My guru has no name, no face, no personality, no body. A Guru is person that can give you personal Guidance so that you can attain Transcendence. Your “guru” doesn’t seem capable of that.

I suggest you learn how to tend a man's heart for that is the only way you're going to relieve him of his sinful nature. Thank you for your advice.

If you will permit a change of name and a change of Aspect, then you will see that I do worship Krishna. I know him as Truth. But I have no human image, no personality, no body, no face to hold in mind in my worship. “no personality, no body, no face” equals no relationship = no love. Pure Love is the goal of the Path, for there to be Love there must be two people.
But Krishna has many aspects and you do not recognize those aspects you are unfamiliar with. You also do not know how to help others on their own path to supreme union. You presume your path will work for all. Bhakti-yoga is the science of linking to Krishna. It is universal, in the same way that you don’t get American or African science. Whether all souls are ready to take to that science is another question? Which is why it is often presented in different ways and at different levels, but it is all essentially the same science.
When we're talking about a chemical process creating a molecular bond between two separate atoms, that's reducing the number of free standing entities, so this situation is NOT what is being described by the wikipedia article. With the introduction of the chemical bond, the atoms enter into a fixed relationship with each other, increasing the atomic order. The chemical reaction, while increasing the order of atomic relationship also creates an increase in net entropy. Some of the potential energy prior to the chemical reaction (stored as unpaired electrons occupying higher level orbitals) gets released into the environment as chaotic kinely tic energy. Think about two things joining and merging together, they become bonded but there is also a wobble (chaotic kinetic energy) from their joining.
“Any fool can make something complicated. It takes great genius to make it simple.” – Einstein.
Your display of mundane “learning” does not impress me. Your so concerned with the pebbles that you do not see the mountain. Entropy is simple principle to understand and you make it unnecessarily complicated. Swami Prabhupada said PHD stands for stool Piled Higher and Deeper. If there were any correlation between PHD’s and intelligence there wouldn’t be so many atheists PHD’s.
I accept the authority of Wikipeadia over your own I am afraid.

LIFE

09-07-2011, 06:52 PM

on the other hand, belief in god is the mother of all superstitious beliefs

Yes, and superstition breeds superstition.

Case in point:Thank you for your recommended readings. I previewed them on google and I will ask the I-Ching if he thinks they are worth reading.

hybrid

10-07-2011, 12:01 AM

Those who are atheists also have superstitious beliefs like the idea that life can emerge from matter, that consciousness can be produces from a bag of chemicals in the brain, that we know Reality through our puny senses. The belief of atheism also "runs and controls your life". It causes you to become a materialistic rogue.
is that not follow.
there are immoral atheists and moral hindis and there are moral atheists and immoral hindis.

atheists would prefer to call them theories and they are quick to discard them when proven otherwise. mystics and atheists are more akin to one another than theists do because they are both here and now and not pursuing some eternal life somewhere at the end of the rainbow, . imo.

hybrid

10-07-2011, 01:19 AM

“Entropy is simple principle to understand and you make it unnecessarily complicated.

no its not.

at any rate, the same intelligence you attribute that appears to defy entropy is the same intelligent process that entropy follows.

and to assign this intelligence to a personal god like krishna /god is quite arbitrary.

.

TzuJanLi

10-07-2011, 01:44 AM

I see you Tzu,

Thank you for the suggestion. I have chanted AUM in the past. I think the effect of a lot of these practices depend on your personality and how you relate to it. I don't have an active practice right now, but when I was exploring different techniques I would explore them through a process of "Tuning". Someone who can tune a guitar by ear plucks the string repeatedly, adjusting the tension on the string. At first there is too much, then too little tension, and so it goes until the guitarist tunes into the clear note he's searching for. I would take something like saying "AUM" and I would experiment with saying it loudly, quietly, standing, sitting, walking, chest and neck relaxed, constricted, etc. Trying to find the clear resonance.

I found this to be much more effective than simply sitting and imitating how someone else says AUM. But this is my personality, inquisitive and oriented to the quality of my experience.

You can pretty much tune any expression for a whole host of different qualities. This isn't anything new, people have been rehearsing their expressions for ages, but I never hear anyone refer to it as tuning.

That's all meditation is to me now, tuning our vibrational resonance. There's no need to tune if what's coming out is a clear note. There is an end to the regular practice of meditation..
Hi Topology: As far as 'tuning', absolutely!.. from deep to high (avoiding 'nasal'), i experience tangible vibration from low viscera to high crown.. one of my mentors uses this in a QiGong (Chi Kung) practice that i find fairly productive for 'energy cultivation' (a slight misnomer).. there is a QiGong used in the Liuhe Bafa (Six Harmonies and Eight Methods Water Boxing) system that structurally/physically adjusts the body to enhance the effects of changing tone.. anyway, you seem to have a refreshing depth not usually associated with someone as youthful as your avatar image suggests..

Yes, there is an end to regular meditation practice.. some fairly famous dude said, "we learn to forget", sometimes referred to as internalizing.. even the 'tuning' becomes more of a 'listening', as the years of practice mature into a natural organic process, and 'clarity' (listening) being the most productive application of that process..

Be well..

Topology

10-07-2011, 04:32 AM

nyway, you seem to have a refreshing depth not usually associated with someone as youthful as your avatar image suggests..

That picture of me is 9 years old. I'm beardless and balder and 100 lbs heavier, but I digress. The picture captures the energy I would like to cultivate, the playful attitude. I've tended to take myself too seriously.

Thank you for the information, I'm going to need to look into Chi Kong, I haven't really explored it.

Topology

10-07-2011, 05:07 AM

“Any fool can make something complicated. It takes great genius to make it simple.” – Einstein.
Your display of mundane “learning” does not impress me. Your so concerned with the pebbles that you do not see the mountain. Entropy is simple principle to understand and you make it unnecessarily complicated. Swami Prabhupada said PHD stands for stool Piled Higher and Deeper. If there were any correlation between PHD’s and intelligence there wouldn’t be so many atheists PHD’s.
I accept the authority of Wikipeadia over your own I am afraid.

Again, you swing and miss and try to take a point. You try to wield quotes of Einstein like a club. Simple is a relative term. I'll let you take the point if you can fully explain Time Dilation in Einstein's theory of relativity using vectors and inertial frames of reference. Einstein had a way of making things simple (for physicists). But the lay-man, which you clearly are, would never call his theories "simple." You're not wanting simple, you're wanting dumb-as-rocks.

If you have no respect for the endeavors of your fellow man, how can you expect any respect in return? Again, you know nothing of the language of the Heart.

I'm not asking you to take me as an authority. I'm asking you to go take the first 3 semesters of basic chemistry, biology and physics from a reputable university. I guarantee your "understanding" of the Wikipedia page will be radically different once you actually understand the concepts being used.

Sastra recommends hare nama hare nama eva kevalam … . In this age of Kali there is not other way than the chant of the Names of God. The names of God that are specifically recommended is the Hare Krishna Maha-mantra: Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare.
Neither I nor God depends on anyone’s votes. I have no desire for popularity. I am not here to attract cheap followers. Any sincere person will realise I speak the Truth.

No, I agree you're not looking for cheap followers, you're looking for gullible followers. Any aware person will see how naive and truly inexperienced you are. I will look into the chant, research it, and practice with it as I have said I would.

A Guru is person that can give you personal Guidance so that you can attain Transcendence. Your “guru” doesn’t seem capable of that.

I have said nothing about my guru other than what he/she/it is not. So unless you presume to be psychic, you can't make claims to knowing what my guru is capable of.

“no personality, no body, no face” equals no relationship = no love. Pure Love is the goal of the Path, for there to be Love there must be two people.

*sigh* If you require another person to be present in order to love, then your love is conditioned and limited. The Love of All is unconditioned.

I-Ching

11-07-2011, 02:16 PM

I'm not asking you to take me as an authority. I'm asking you to go take the first 3 semesters of basic chemistry, biology and physics from a reputable university. I guarantee your "understanding" of the Wikipedia page will be radically different once you actually understand the concepts being used.

I admit that I have not studied entropy in depth, not would I want to. I don't accept the authority of "science". I simply accept whatever "scientific" principles agreed with the Truth of Vedas. According to the Vedas this creation is devolving and this is my interpretation of entropy. The fact that matter decays over time is obvious. My authority is the Vedas not the imperfect speculations of man.

I have said nothing about my guru other than what he/she/it is not. So unless you presume to be psychic, you can't make claims to knowing what my guru is capable of. A Guru by definition is a personality so your "guru" makes no sense.

*sigh* If you require another person to be present in order to love, then your love is conditioned and limited. The Love of All is unconditioned.
The best way to Love everyone is to Love Krishna since everyone is part and parcel of Krishna. Everyone can't reciprocate with your Love. Love if simply sentiment if there is no practical service or sacrifice. How do you serve everyone? "You can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time".

Topology

11-07-2011, 03:21 PM

I admit that I have not studied entropy in depth, not would I want to. I don't accept the authority of "science". I simply accept whatever "scientific" principles agreed with the Truth of Vedas. According to the Vedas this creation is devolving and this is my interpretation of entropy. The fact that matter decays over time is obvious. My authority is the Vedas not the imperfect speculations of man.

Here is the problem you're encountering. By not understanding science but still trying to use scientific principles, you end up using the principles in the wrong way. This not only does a disservice to science, it also does a disservice to your own cause.

1) The scientist will no longer consider anything you say because you misrepresent and disrespect their endeavor.
2) You mislead and misrepresent science to others which causes them to misunderstand and become frustrated with science.
3) By negatively impacting others you are also negatively impacting your own agenda because people are looking to eliminate sources of negativity.

If matter purely decayed over time, then babies would not grow to be men and women. Trees would not grow from seeds. Crystals would not grow. Growth requires increased organization, an increase in order.

I respectfully ask that you refrain from using principles you have not taken the time (and are not willing to take the time) to fully understand.

A Guru by definition is a personality so your "guru" makes no sense.

Then you are operating with a limited definition of what a guru is.

The best way to Love everyone is to Love Krishna since everyone is part and parcel of Krishna. Everyone can't reciprocate with your Love. Love if simply sentiment if there is no practical service or sacrifice. How do you serve everyone? "You can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time".

Service isn't about bringing pleasure. Going to the dentist isn't pleasurable, but he's there to serve you. Disciplining a child isn't pleasurable for the child, but it is in the service of the child to be disciplined in a constructive way. I doubt my interaction with you is pleasurable to you, but I am here to serve your highest purpose.

Love is shown directly. If you can't love people directly, and people are part of Krishna, then the only thing you love is the image or appearance of Krishna, not the depth of who he is as he actually manifests. If you love out of expectation of reciprocation, then your love is really selfishness in disguise.

I-Ching

12-07-2011, 01:45 PM

Then you are operating with a limited definition of what a guru is.

My definition is consistent with the Vedas as well as the dictionary:

gu·ru [goor-oo, goo-roo]
noun
1. Hinduism . a preceptor giving personal religious instruction.
2. an intellectual or spiritual guide or leader.
3. any person who counsels or advises; mentor: The elder senator was her political guru.

You are free to concoct your own meanings to words but that is not going to help you to make Advancement. The Vedas are an authority on spiritual advancement and unless you follow the science of Advancement that they offer you will not attain the goal.

Service isn't about bringing pleasure. Going to the dentist isn't pleasurable, but he's there to serve you. Disciplining a child isn't pleasurable for the child, but it is in the service of the child to be disciplined in a constructive way.

Both of these analogy are false. The displeasure of tooth decay is far worse than the displeasure of going to dentist, so the net effect is that the dentist is giving you pleasure. The child that is disciplined will be happier in the long term than the one who is spoiled so again the net pleasure for the child is greater. "Service" that is not intended to give pleasure is exploitation or worse.

Love is shown directly. If you can't love people directly, and people are part of Krishna, then the only thing you love is the image or appearance of Krishna, not the depth of who he is as he actually manifests. Yes this is correct Krishna appreciates service to His devotees more than he appreciates service to Himself.

If you love out of expectation of reciprocation, then your love is really selfishness in disguise. Yes, love in that sense is more like business. Spiritual Love is unmotivated and uninterrupted. But Krishna still feels indebted and wants to reciprocate with us to express His Love, this is natural.

Topology

12-07-2011, 04:46 PM

My definition is consistent with the Vedas as well as the dictionary:

gu·ru [goor-oo, goo-roo]
noun
1. Hinduism . a preceptor giving personal religious instruction.
2. an intellectual or spiritual guide or leader.
3. any person who counsels or advises; mentor: The elder senator was her political guru.

You are free to concoct your own meanings to words but that is not going to help you to make Advancement. The Vedas are an authority on spiritual advancement and unless you follow the science of Advancement that they offer you will not attain the goal.

Definition #2 makes no requirement that the guru be a person. Infact, as you have stated, your guru is more directly the I-Ching pretending to be the person you imagine it to be.

When I sit on the shore of the pond and a realization or insight comes to me, my guru was there. When I sit with a friend and feel them in their frustration and words come to me to ease the tension on their heart, my guru was there. When I perform a random act of kindness from my perspective but provide what was needed to a stranger when they needed it and create synchronicity in their reality, my guru was there.

Requiring the guru to come in the form of a person places limitations on how the guru can express themselves to you.

Both of these analogy are false. The displeasure of tooth decay is far worse than the displeasure of going to dentist, so the net effect is that the dentist is giving you pleasure.

I invite you to tell that to my wife who was awake for her root canal because the laughing gas was not fully effective in numbing the pain.

The child that is disciplined will be happier in the long term than the one who is spoiled so again the net pleasure for the child is greater. "Service" that is not intended to give pleasure is exploitation or worse.

Again, tell that to the child in the midst of discipline. It is not the discipline which gives pleasure down the road, it is the development of understanding which gives pleasure down the road. The discipline is a Pavlovian behavioral control mechanism until the conditioning can be supplanted with understanding. Until understanding subsumes conditioning, the child will replay the discipline in their mind, which is certainly displeasure. Some children never obtain the understanding which releases them from their displeasure.

Life is not about maximizing pleasure.... or are you now arguing for the materialist or hedonist position? What happened to doing duty for the sake of duty? How are you pleasuring the atheist in the long run by being an annoying gadfly they have to tune out and ignore?

I-Ching

13-07-2011, 01:44 PM

Our argument about entropy began with this post :
What if life is self-creating and self-organizing? He was trying to posit this as some alternative to life either coming from life or from matter. This is clearly not an alternative since this is life coming from matter. Topology has showed me that my entropy argument was invalid but my original argument still stands. I have billions of pieces of evidence in form of living entities coming from other living entities and the atheists have how many living entities emerging from matter? 0 … nothing. How many have they found that have naturally emerged from matter? 0 How many living entities have they managed to produces artificially? 0. Their faith is blind and based on nothing, 0. They have nothing but hypothetical theories.
When I sit on the shore of the pond and a realization or insight comes to me, my guru was there. When I sit with a friend and feel them in their frustration and words come to me to ease the tension on their heart, my guru was there. When I perform a random act of kindness from my perspective but provide what was needed to a stranger when they needed it and create synchronicity in their reality, my guru was there. I don’t think your “guru” is going to help you to attain self-realization, if that is what you desire.
Life is not about maximizing pleasure.... or are you now arguing for the materialist or hedonist position? What happened to doing duty for the sake of duty? .
Aspiring for happiness is the nature of the soul. It is described as ananda-mayi bhaya sat. The problem is that we are not very intelligent in attaining that happiness. The materialist aspires for temporary happiness that is unsatisfying whereas the spiritualist aspires for permanent happiness in Love for God. Our duties are to help us achieve this end. To perform duty simply for duties sake is foolish.

hybrid

13-07-2011, 09:45 PM

Our argument about entropy began with this post :
He was trying to posit this as some alternative to life either coming from life or from matter. This is clearly not an alternative since this is life coming from matter.
it's the best alternative. life comes from an inanimate matter called "seed". is it not? it's that simple. life is inherent in matter.

Topology has showed me that my entropy argument was invalid but my original argument still stands. I have billions of pieces of evidence in form of living entities coming from other living entities and the atheists have how many living entities emerging from matter? 0 … nothing. How many have they found that have naturally emerged from matter?
are you saying human beings did not come naturally from the material universe?

0 How many living entities have they managed to produces artificially? 0.
can you explain why your logic goes ... if atheist can't produce life therefore it must be god?

Their faith is blind and based on nothing, 0. They have nothing but hypothetical theories.
yes. becasue atheists are honest enough to admit that in the final analysis, we really don't know, they don't pretend to be bearers of truths.

and what makes your beliefs different from hypothetical speculation other than you yourself give the authority to your scriptures as divinely inspired. ? in the end it is you who give the power whose god to worship and what book is holy.

.

Topology

14-07-2011, 05:12 AM

Topology has showed me that my entropy argument was invalid but my original argument still stands. I have billions of pieces of evidence in form of living entities coming from other living entities and the atheists have how many living entities emerging from matter? 0 … nothing. How many have they found that have naturally emerged from matter? 0 How many living entities have they managed to produces artificially? 0. Their faith is blind and based on nothing, 0. They have nothing but hypothetical theories.

And you accused me of merely looking at the leaves of the tree and not the whole of the tree.

Just because you see "life emerge from life" on the surface does not mean there is not a material (i.e. made of matter) process behind it. You are looking at the surface and calling it life because it is complex.

I-Ching, you must concede this point: Manipulating the material substrate alters the kind of life that gets expressed. Again you mis-understand what the word "Theory" means in the context of science and how that "Theory" was arrived at through repeated experimentation. With our "Theory" we've altered crops to become insecticide resistant (See Monsanto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto)). As for creating life in the labratory (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article7132299.ece)...

The fact that we can manipulate our world and the structure of how life is expressed to such a degree is a testament to the accuracy of Science's "Theory". If the Theory was inaccurate, we would not have technology that worked and our world today would be a very different place. We wouldn't be able to have this conversation, you and me, as we do not know each other outside of this electronic world.

I don’t think your “guru” is going to help you to attain self-realization, if that is what you desire.

I have already attained self-realization. I am speaking to you from that perspective.

My guru was your guru's guru's guru's .... guru's original guru. Was there life before the Vedas? What did people do for truth before the Vedas? Who was the first guru's Guru? That very same in-human Guru exists today and is available to interact with. His presence is felt as the whispering of the wind. Requiring that he manifest himself in the form of a human personality and expressing itself through a limited interface (the I-Ching) is to limit the depth of his communion with you.

Aspiring for happiness is the nature of the soul. It is described as ananda-mayi bhaya sat. The problem is that we are not very intelligent in attaining that happiness. The materialist aspires for temporary happiness that is unsatisfying whereas the spiritualist aspires for permanent happiness in Love for God. Our duties are to help us achieve this end. To perform duty simply for duties sake is foolish.

Happiness is not pleasure. My body aches. I am in financial ruin living off borrowed money to go to school. My life is full of stress. None of that is pleasurable, but despite all that, I am happy. Permanent happiness comes when we love everything, not just God.

I-Ching

14-07-2011, 02:34 PM

Just because you see "life emerge from life" on the surface does not mean there is not a material (i.e. made of matter) process behind it. You are looking at the surface and calling it life because it is complex.
To distinguish between a living entity and a dead one is common sense. I don't mind using the biological definition of an entity that can reproduce.

I-Ching, you must concede this point: Manipulating the material substrate alters the kind of life that gets expressed.
This is meaningless in term of my argument.

creating life in the labratory (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article7132299.ece)

This article is not well written I already read an article about this in new scientist, which is unfortunately not longer available for free. The new scientist article clearly stated that they had not created life. They are simply tinkering with God's design again and claiming the credit. We should give God the Nobel prize!

"The creation of synthetic life is a goal of scientists working in the fields of synthetic biology or exploring the origin of life.The term has also been used to describe recent experiments [1] that transferred the chemically synthesized copy of a bacterial genome into a different (but closely related) bacterial host cell. However, the term Synthetic Life is usually associated to the creation of a living system "from scratch", that is from isolated building blocks. This has not yet been achieved.".
The Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_life) clarifies the issue.

The fact that we can manipulate our world and the structure of how life is expressed to such a degree is a testament to the accuracy of Science's "Theory". If the Theory was inaccurate, we would not have technology that worked and our world today would be a very different place. We wouldn't be able to have this conversation, you and me, as we do not know each other outside of this electronic world.

Just because scientists have managed to demonstrate some of their theories doesn't mean therefore that all of their theories are true. Until a theory is demonstrated it nothing but that theoretical .... i.e. a belief.

So my argument still stands where is their demonstration that life can emerge matter? Just like Christians are waiting for Jesus, the atheists are waiting their synthetic life.

I have already attained self-realization. I am speaking to you from that perspective.

This is nothing but pride. Krishna defines self-realization in this verse

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O son of Pāṇḍu, he who does not hate illumination, attachment and delusion when they are present or long for them when they disappear; who is unwavering and undisturbed through all these reactions of the material qualities, remaining neutral and transcendental, knowing that the modes alone are active; who is situated in the self and regards alike happiness and distress; who looks upon a lump of earth, a stone and a piece of gold with an equal eye; who is equal toward the desirable and the undesirable; who is steady, situated equally well in praise and blame, honor and dishonor; who treats alike both friend and enemy; and who has renounced all material activities — such a person is said to have transcended the modes of nature." Bhagavad-Gita 14.22-25

Surely even you can admit that you don't have all these qualities. Until we become humble there is no possibility of advancement .

My guru was your guru's guru's guru's .... guru's original guru. Was there life before the Vedas? What did people do for truth before the Vedas? Who was the first guru's Guru? That very same in-human Guru exists today and is available to interact with. His presence is felt as the whispering of the wind. Requiring that he manifest himself in the form of a human personality and expressing itself through a limited interface (the I-Ching) is to limit the depth of his communion with you.

The first created being is called Lord Brahma. The knowledge of Vedas was imparting to Him by Krishna from within the heart. The material universe operates in cycles of creation and destruction so the Vedas like Krishna are eternal.
Part of that knowledge is this:
"Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth." Bg 4.34
Your "guru" clearly doesn't fit this description. In any field of knowledge you need a teacher. Particularly is such a subtle field as spiritual advancement. What if you went to university and defined your professor in the same way you define your "guru"?

Happiness is not pleasure. My body aches. I am in financial ruin living off borrowed money to go to school. My life is full of stress. None of that is pleasurable, but despite all that, I am happy. Permanent happiness comes when we love everything, not just God.

Yes, "happiness is not pleasure". Pleasure is temporary and material happiness is a little less temporary but real Happiness comes from self-realization. Such self-realization is not cheap and is not simply a matter of mental adjustment. Real Happiness is an ocean of bliss and all we can taste in this world is drop. You call yourself "happy" only because you have not tasted Happiness.

I-Ching

14-07-2011, 03:04 PM

it's the best alternative. life comes from an inanimate matter called "seed". is it not? it's that simple. life is inherent in matter.

This statement is insubstantial since you give no evidence.

are you saying human beings did not come naturally from the material universe?
Yes

can you explain why your logic goes ... if atheist can't produce life therefore it must be god?
If life comes from life and not matter then there must be an original living entity God.

yes. becasue atheists are honest enough to admit that in the final analysis, we really don't know, they don't pretend to be bearers of truths.

If you don't know then you should go to someone who does know. By the way an agnostic is someone who claims they don't know, not an atheist. How do you know that nobody knows?

TzuJanLi

14-07-2011, 03:28 PM

Greetings..

I-Ching, You give NO evidence, no peer-reviewed reproducible evidence of 'God', or of the 'book' I-Ching's ability to function as a guru.. you offer only anecdotal evidence which is insufficient.. you present your personal beliefs, that is all..

Be well..

Topology

14-07-2011, 04:50 PM

To distinguish between a living entity and a dead one is common sense. I don't mind using the biological definition of an entity that can reproduce.

Viruses, both material and computer, self-replicate. Crystals and clay break off and start growing again. Prions that generate mad cow disease replicate themselves. Is reproduction a sufficient condition? Then we would have to include the above as being alive, rocks and molecules.

This article is not well written I already read an article about this in new scientist, which is unfortunately not longer available for free. The new scientist article clearly stated that they had not created life. They are simply tinkering with God's design again and claiming the credit. We should give God the Nobel prize!

God is welcome to have it if he would like to come and claim it.

The article indicates that the DNA strand was completely artificially coded and constructed. The next step is to reproduce the proteins and other cellular organelles. I have a suspicion that even if we could manufacture all the parts and put it together from scratch, you would still not accept that as proof.

Just because scientists have managed to demonstrate some of their theories doesn't mean therefore that all of their theories are true. Until a theory is demonstrated it nothing but that theoretical .... i.e. a belief.

You REALLY don't understand what the word Theory means in the context of Science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory A Theory is constructed around empirical data, which means there's already proof. We're constructing the theory to explain what we see. No one accepts a proposal as theory until it is tested and challenged from all directions.

Throw an apple up, watch it come down. Throw a thousand apples up and watch them come down. Hypothesize the Theory of Gravity based on the evidence. It is already proven. That is how science works, test to see what the truth is.

This is nothing but pride. Krishna defines self-realization in this verse

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O son of Pāṇḍu, he who does not hate illumination, attachment and delusion when they are present or long for them when they disappear; who is unwavering and undisturbed through all these reactions of the material qualities, remaining neutral and transcendental, knowing that the modes alone are active; who is situated in the self and regards alike happiness and distress; who looks upon a lump of earth, a stone and a piece of gold with an equal eye; who is equal toward the desirable and the undesirable; who is steady, situated equally well in praise and blame, honor and dishonor; who treats alike both friend and enemy; and who has renounced all material activities — such a person is said to have transcended the modes of nature." Bhagavad-Gita 14.22-25

*shrug* I know what I am. I don't need a text to tell me what to think.

Surely even you can admit that you don't have all these qualities. Until we become humble there is no possibility of advancement .

Stating the truth is part of being humble.

The first created being is called Lord Brahma. The knowledge of Vedas was imparting to Him by Krishna from within the heart. The material universe operates in cycles of creation and destruction so the Vedas like Krishna are eternal.

And you were there for all that?

Part of that knowledge is this:
"Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth." Bg 4.34
Your "guru" clearly doesn't fit this description. In any field of knowledge you need a teacher. Particularly is such a subtle field as spiritual advancement. What if you went to university and defined your professor in the same way you define your "guru"?

I had a teacher, and he had a teacher. But then I saw they were men, just like me. There is only one True Guru, and it is the same guru for all of us, no matter what form he takes.

Yes, "happiness is not pleasure". Pleasure is temporary and material happiness is a little less temporary but real Happiness comes from self-realization. Such self-realization is not cheap and is not simply a matter of mental adjustment. Real Happiness is an ocean of bliss and all we can taste in this world is drop. You call yourself "happy" only because you have not tasted Happiness.

You're welcome to quest after this mythical sublime bliss state all you want. I am fulfilled with being happy.

LIFE

14-07-2011, 06:48 PM

You're welcome to quest after this mythical sublime bliss state all you want. I am fulfilled with being happy.

You seem to have come to the conclusion regarding the nonexistence of this experience of a "sublime bliss state", because you are calling it "mythical".

When others reached such conclusions on the forum regarding other states/experiences, you criticized them for not being open to exploring the possibilities of the existence of such a state.

But you don't appear to be open to exploring the possibility of the existence of a "sublime bliss state".

I don't feel that this is out of context (I've been following the thread). This is not presented with a contentious spirit, so please do not take it that way. I'm just trying to figure out your approach.

Oh and by the way Topology, I agree with you.

Sentientno1

14-07-2011, 11:01 PM

Topology

"I have already attained self-realization. I am speaking to you from that perspective."

Thought i recognised it.

Topology

15-07-2011, 01:54 AM

You seem to have come to the conclusion regarding the nonexistence of this experience of a "sublime bliss state", because you are calling it "mythical".

When others reached such conclusions on the forum regarding other states/experiences, you criticized them for not being open to exploring the possibilities of the existence of such a state.

But you don't appear to be open to exploring the possibility of the existence of a "sublime bliss state".

I don't feel that this is out of context (I've been following the thread). This is not presented with a contentious spirit, so please do not take it that way. I'm just trying to figure out your approach.

Oh and by the way Topology, I agree with you.

LIFE,

Thank you for keeping me honest. Please allow me to explain. If one is not already in bliss, then it is a relative state bound by certain conditions. I have found that when I am not indulging in negative interpretations, my natural state is happy. Even in the thicket of chaos and emotional pain, there is the pure joy and thrill in the celebration of being alive. If I were to seek bliss at this point, it would be no better than seeking a drug induced high.

One of the interesting things about consciousness is that the more you experience an extreme feeling, the less extreme it becomes. A drug addict has to keep upping their dose to get the same original high. If you focus on a single sensation, it bleeds away. Consciousness works off the principle of contrast, and a constant signal gets muted over time.

I have quested and obtained different states of bliss, and they all have fallen away. I find that if I accept life as it is, then there is nothing to interfere with the innate happiness of being alive and free to explore the world. Requiring that life be in a state of bliss and other than it is places a condition on the acceptance of life in the present moment. It is the rejection of God's greatest gift, telling him that "what you give me is not enough, I want more."

Sentientno1

15-07-2011, 03:31 AM

to me bliss is chocolate. However chocolate never produced the shining clarity of completeness.

I-Ching

15-07-2011, 10:11 AM

Then we would have to include the above as being alive, rocks and molecules. For something to be born it must be able to die I don't see how rocks and molecules qualify.

The article indicates that the DNA strand was completely artificially coded and constructed. The next step is to reproduce the proteins and other cellular organelles. I have a suspicion that even if we could manufacture all the parts and put it together from scratch, you would still not accept that as proof.

"the chemically synthesized genome was an almost 1:1 copy of a naturally occurring genome and the recipient cell was a naturally occurring bacterium." Fortunately Wikkipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_life#Mycoplasma_laboratorium_controversy ) gives more objective account of what actually happened. What is point of discussing what they "could" do? This nothing but your belief of what they "could" do. Let them actually do it!

You REALLY don't understand what the word Theory means in the context of Science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory A Theory is constructed around empirical data, which means there's already proof. We're constructing the theory to explain what we see. No one accepts a proposal as theory until it is tested and challenged from all directions.
I don't think you understand the difference between evidence and "proof". Just because there is evidence does mean something is proved because you can often find evidence to contrary.
"A Theory is constructed around empirical data." Exactly this is the problem empirical data is comes from human beings that are subject to 4 defects:
1) Their senses are imperfect and limited
2) They cheat like this bogus article about how they "created Life"
3) They are in illusion
4) They make mistakes
Therefore your empiric data is of little value.

"A scientific theory is a type of inductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms."
And what is an axiom? "In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated" - Wikipedia
All your theories based on the axiom that you can perceive reality through your senses. This axiom is clearly WRONG!!!
Your whole glorious scientific system is fundamentally flawed.

If you want an example of how scientist cheat just look at this book Hidden History of the Human Race (http://www.humanityunitedforum.com/Michael%20A.%20Cremo%20Richard%20l.%20Thompson%20-%20The%20Hidden%20History%20of%20the%20Human%20Rac e%201998.pdf). It documents stacks of evidence that human beings have been on this planet for millennia. Of course such evidence does not agreed the the beliefs of the atheistic scientists so it is simply ignored. "Science" is no more valid or objective than human beings are, which is very little.

I know what I am. I don't need a text to tell me what to think.

What is your qualification when it comes to spiritual subjects such as self-realization? What you think you know is only your mental concoction. What is the authority of what you "know".

"Self-complacent and always impudent, deluded by wealth and false prestige, they sometimes proudly perform sacrifices in name only, without following any rules or regulations." Bg 16.17
This the materialists approach to spirituality ... nothing but their own useless mental speculations.
"He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination." Bg 16.23

And you were there for all that?

Where you there for the "big bang"? Where you there when life emerged from matter? I see through my ears by hearing from scripture and you see by hearing from imperfect human beings.

There is only one True Guru, and it is the same guru for all of us, no matter what form he takes.
No. The majority of "guru's" are false. In your case it sounds like your mind is your Guru. Which means you have your worst enemy as a guru.

"For him who has conquered the mind, the mind is the best of friends; but for one who has failed to do so, his mind will remain the greatest enemy."

You're welcome to quest after this mythical sublime bliss state all you want. I am fulfilled with being happy.
There is not substantial happiness in this world. This is the first noble truth of Buddhism. The truth of suffering.
Krishna also confirms:
"From the highest planet in the material world down to the lowest, all are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But one who attains to My abode, O son of Kuntī, never takes birth again." Bg 8.16

Swami Prabhupada said there are only 2 kinds of happy people in this world the Transcendentalist and the person that is so much in ignorance that they can't even realize that they are suffering.

What does Krishna say about the mentality of the materialist:
"I am the enjoyer. I am perfect, powerful and happy." Bg 16.14
Sound familiar.

I-Ching

15-07-2011, 10:27 AM

I-Ching, You give NO evidence, no peer-reviewed reproducible evidence of 'God', or of the 'book' I-Ching's ability to function as a guru.. you offer only anecdotal evidence which is insufficient.. you present your personal beliefs, that is all..

The fact that there are billions of living entities that comes from other living entities is obvious evidence. Surely you can accept that without it being verified by your "peers". My argument is based more on logical evidence than on empiric evidence.
How can you prove the taste of Honey? Use the I-Ching and you will experience for yourself that it works.
Labeling my arguments as "beliefs" does not disprove them. They are more rational beliefs than the beliefs of the atheists.

Topology

15-07-2011, 11:54 AM

The fact that there are billions of living entities that comes from other living entities is obvious evidence. Surely you can accept that without it being verified by your "peers". My argument is based more on logical evidence than on empiric evidence.
How can you prove the taste of Honey? Use the I-Ching and you will experience for yourself that it works.
Labeling my arguments as "beliefs" does not disprove them. They are more rational beliefs than the beliefs of the atheists.

You do realize you just made an inductive argument, right? You appealed to billions of examples, still empirical evidence. No better than science.

TzuJanLi

15-07-2011, 01:42 PM

Greetings..

The fact that there are billions of living entities that comes from other living entities is obvious evidence. Surely you can accept that without it being verified by your "peers". My argument is based more on logical evidence than on empiric evidence.
How can you prove the taste of Honey? Use the I-Ching and you will experience for yourself that it works.
Labeling my arguments as "beliefs" does not disprove them. They are more rational beliefs than the beliefs of the atheists.
In a Universe of galaxies too numerous to count, each with billions of stars, and as we now know, many with planets.. science has constructed the model of Life emerging from matter that makes much more sense than an 'original creator life'.. i do not reject the possibility of a collective consciousness that originates from a singular consciousness.. but, the 'God' beliefs that i am familiar with are the inventions of man, stories invented to explain the unexplainable.. explain the various beliefs about 'God', the contradictions.. where did this 'original creator life' live, there was no creation, do you suppose a Life just wandering in the void?

I have relied on the I Ching for more than 30 years, not as a 'guru', and not for predicting.. the I Ching is a brilliant study of human nature, learn the nature of humanity, the patterns of behavior, the stimulus and response patterns and you won't have to go through the ritual of 'tossing', you will inherently 'know' how situations unfold.. you will be able, because of understanding behavior, to act in a manner favorable to your intentions.. pretending the I Ching is a guru and preaching to people with Taoist inclinations is inconsistent with any understanding i have of the I Ching's account of beneficial behavior patterns.. what you are doing is projecting your personal beliefs onto the I Ching.. 'you' are 'the man behind the curtain'.. you 'guru' is 'you'..

Be well..

LIFE

15-07-2011, 01:49 PM

Topology:

Thanks for clearing that up. I agree...

Topology

15-07-2011, 01:49 PM

For something to be born it must be able to die I don't see how rocks and molecules qualify.

You said reproduction, not birth.

"the chemically synthesized genome was an almost 1:1 copy of a naturally occurring genome and the recipient cell was a naturally occurring bacterium." Fortunately Wikkipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_life#Mycoplasma_laboratorium_controversy ) gives more objective account of what actually happened. What is point of discussing what they "could" do? This nothing but your belief of what they "could" do. Let them actually do it!

Why aren't you enlightened already? If you can get enlightened then lets see you actually do it. What's that? I caught you in the middle of the process, part way down the path? Will you actually get there? You know, there's no point in discussing your supposed eventual self-realization. I'm not going to believe it until I see it. (just reflecting your attitude back at you).

I don't think you understand the difference between evidence and "proof". Just because there is evidence does mean something is proved because you can often find evidence to contrary.
"A Theory is constructed around empirical data." Exactly this is the problem empirical data is comes from human beings that are subject to 4 defects:
1) Their senses are imperfect and limited
2) They cheat like this bogus article about how they "created Life"
3) They are in illusion
4) They make mistakes
Therefore your empiric data is of little value.

As I noticed in another thread, you've made appeal to empiric evidence yourself, that life comes from life as is evidenced empirically from billions of examples.

It seems that for all your criticism of others, you fail to examine yourself. What was that Jesus said, remove the plank from your own eye before complaining about the mote in another's?

"A scientific theory is a type of inductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms."
And what is an axiom? "In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated" - Wikipedia
All your theories based on the axiom that you can perceive reality through your senses. This axiom is clearly WRONG!!!
Your whole glorious scientific system is fundamentally flawed.

It is? So we're really not communicating in waves of electricity passed between computers with digital circuits?

I am a mathematician and logician, and it breaks my heart to see someone abuse ideas so willfully. Yes, the theory is constructed out of axioms, but the axioms were chosen for their ability to model accurately. If our axioms were wrong, our predictions with them would be inconsistent with the world. When we go to experiment, our experiments would fail, which would tell us that we need to change our axioms.

Within the system of logic, the axioms are axiomatically true. OUTSIDE the system of logic, we choose those axioms over others because they construct models which are more accurate to the phenomena we perceive. So while you are right in one aspect, you are wrong in a more fundamental aspect.

We've been down this road before with Entropy. We eventually came to the agreement you did not originally understand entropy and you thought it implied something it didn't. Here we are again, you are misunderstanding something because you feel the false understanding supports your position. I am more than happy to correct the error in your thinking. Maybe someday you will come to respect and appreciate me for the understanding I have and for the patience I demonstrate in working with you to help you understand these things better.

If you want an example of how scientist cheat just look at this book Hidden History of the Human Race (http://www.humanityunitedforum.com/Michael%20A.%20Cremo%20Richard%20l.%20Thompson%20-%20The%20Hidden%20History%20of%20the%20Human%20Rac e%201998.pdf). It documents stacks of evidence that human beings have been on this planet for millennia. Of course such evidence does not agreed the the beliefs of the atheistic scientists so it is simply ignored. "Science" is no more valid or objective than human beings are, which is very little.

Given that we are coming across a second fundamental misunderstanding of scientific thinking and reasoning, does that not cause you to wonder and doubt about your ability to decide truth from fiction when it comes to scientific argument? Are you just picking the side which appears to support your interpretation of the world?

What is your qualification when it comes to spiritual subjects such as self-realization? What you think you know is only your mental concoction. What is the authority of what you "know".

My qualifications? We dance swords together and I clearly dance circles around you nimbly while you fumble and grope, and you ask me what gives me the right to claim to be a swordsman of skill? While I have a history and have trained with masters, I'll let my skill speak for itself. If you cannot respect me, why should I think you would respect those I have learned from?

"Self-complacent and always impudent, deluded by wealth and false prestige, they sometimes proudly perform sacrifices in name only, without following any rules or regulations." Bg 16.17
This the materialists approach to spirituality ... nothing but their own useless mental speculations.
"He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination." Bg 16.23

Once realization is obtained, the scripture becomes beautiful and inspired poetry; Words to make the soul sing. It's the neophyte that worships scripture as if it were God's law.

Where you there for the "big bang"? Where you there when life emerged from matter? I see through my ears by hearing from scripture and you see by hearing from imperfect human beings.

I never said I believed in the big bang or that life emerged from matter. I have no idea what happened last year, let alone back then. I am content to let mysteries be mysteries. I learn about scientific theory and thought so that I can communicate with (not argue and belittle) those that are interested in such things. By standing with and not standing against, I have access to my fellow man's heart. Through tending his heart, I come to be able to tend his mind.

No. The majority of "guru's" are false. In your case it sounds like your mind is your Guru. Which means you have your worst enemy as a guru.

I see you have to qualify your statement with our own ignorance. At least you are being honest that you're invested in appearance.

"For him who has conquered the mind, the mind is the best of friends; but for one who has failed to do so, his mind will remain the greatest enemy."
[\quote]

Perhaps you should also look into the phenomena of Psychological Projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection). We like to externalize and project onto others that which we fear (and know) about ourselves.

[QUOTE=I-Ching]
There is not substantial happiness in this world. This is the first noble truth of Buddhism. The truth of suffering.
Krishna also confirms:
"From the highest planet in the material world down to the lowest, all are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But one who attains to My abode, O son of Kuntī, never takes birth again." Bg 8.16

you do like to obsess about misery, don't you? Also part of psychological projection, we see the world as a reflection of the condition of our soul.

I-Ching

16-07-2011, 10:05 AM

Why aren't you enlightened already? If you can get enlightened then lets see you actually do it. What's that? I caught you in the middle of the process, part way down the path? Will you actually get there? You know, there's no point in discussing your supposed eventual self-realization. I'm not going to believe it until I see it. (just reflecting your attitude back at you).

I don’t know how this relates to the question of the existence of God. I don’t claim to be enlightened but there are many people who have been recognized as such and therefore they are evidence that enlightenment exists. Even you yourself claim to be self-realized! (I bit difficult to believe since you consider the self a “mystery”) On the other hand there is not one instance of living entity being produces from matter either naturally or artificially.

As I noticed in another thread, you've made appeal to empiric evidence yourself, that life comes from life as is evidenced empirically from billions of examples.

It seems that for all your criticism of others, you fail to examine yourself. What was that Jesus said, remove the plank from your own eye before complaining about the mote in another's?

For there to be a debate there has to be a common frame of reference. Because you accept empiricism therefore I debate on that level. I could just say that Krishna says “I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts.” Bg 10.8
But I doubt that would be a very convincing argument for you .

Yes, the theory is constructed out of axioms, but the axioms were chosen for their ability to model accurately. If our axioms were wrong, our predictions with them would be inconsistent with the world. When we go to experiment, our experiments would fail, which would tell us that we need to change our axioms.

Within the system of logic, the axioms are axiomatically true. OUTSIDE the system of logic, we choose those axioms over others because they construct models which are more accurate to the phenomena we perceive. So while you are right in one aspect, you are wrong in a more fundamental aspect.

I refer specifically to the axiom that you can know reality through your senses. Which I have clearly demonstrated is false. Of course the most gross aspects of reality are accurately perceivable through our senses and therefore science excels in those areas. But in aspects of reality that are more subtle science fails.
Just look at how useless allopathic medicine is when it comes to chronic disease. Many aspects of the bodies functioning as explained by Ayurveda are not grossly perceivable. The scientists after so many years of study do not know how the body works on fundamental level. They only know how to treat symptoms but they don’t know how to make you healthy. This applies to many fields of knowledge, such as history, cosmology, psychology, psychic phenomena, religion etc. Much of what they pass as fact is nothing but speculation.

Given that we are coming across a second fundamental misunderstanding of scientific thinking and reasoning, does that not cause you to wonder and doubt about your ability to decide truth from fiction when it comes to scientific argument? Are you just picking the side which appears to support your interpretation of the world?

My basis of authority is the Vedas not the empiric concoctions of man, therefore whatever evidence happens to be available to support that I accept. The evidence in the Hidden History of the Human Kind is vast and can not be denied.

My qualifications? We dance swords together and I clearly dance circles around you nimbly while you fumble and grope, and you ask me what gives me the right to claim to be a swordsman of skill? While I have a history and have trained with masters, I'll let my skill speak for itself. If you cannot respect me, why should I think you would respect those I have learned from? You may be qualified when it comes to material subject but I suspect when it comes to spiritual topics you have none. If your “masters” haven’t given any faith in God or the soul then they themselves are unqualified.

Once realization is obtained, the scripture becomes beautiful and inspired poetry; Words to make the soul sing. It's the neophyte that worships scripture as if it were God's law. As someone who’s philosophy is a “mystery”, you are not even on the neophyte platform.

I never said I believed in the big bang or that life emerged from matter. I have no idea what happened last year, let alone back then. I am content to let mysteries be mysteries.

Now you contradict yourself. You previously argued how ‘Theories’ are practically fact due to vast amount of ‘proof’ behind them. But now doubt these above stated ‘Holy Theories’ and claim it is all a mystery. I think you are confused. Perhaps you just approach someone who has seen the Truth and they can help you to come out of your mysterious confusion.

you do like to obsess about misery, don't you? Also part of psychological projection, we see the world as a reflection of the condition of our soul.
The Buddha saw suffering as the first of the Four Noble Truths. Perhaps he was conditioned by the concocted theory of ‘psychological projection’. Maybe you could teach him a thing or two.
The fact is that we are all subjected to the threefold miseries:
1) Miseries created by nature. Such as hurricanes, earthquakes etc.
2) Miseries created by other living entities; this due to fact that one living entity is food for another in this world either in a gross form or in subtle form.
3)The miseries inflicted by our body and mind such as fear, anxiety, depression, birth, old age, disease and death.
Of course for the atheist there is no alternative, so the intelligent atheist should just kill themselves. But the theist knows that there is a spiritual world and aspires to go there.

I-Ching

16-07-2011, 10:08 AM

In a Universe of galaxies too numerous to count, each with billions of stars, and as we now know, many with planets.. science has constructed the model of Life emerging from matter that makes much more sense than an 'original creator life' I have clearly demonstrated that their model that life emerges from matter is nothing but a baseless fantasy. I have billions of pieces evidence that life comes life to their nothing. The reason that atheists want to kill God is so that they can continue with materialistic nonsense without fear of consequences. Their concocted ideas will not help them at the time of death.

I have relied on the I Ching for more than 30 years, not as a 'guru', and not for predicting.. the I Ching is a brilliant study of human nature, learn the nature of humanity, the patterns of behavior, the stimulus and response patterns and you won't have to go through the ritual of 'tossing', you will inherently 'know' how situations unfold.. you will be able, because of understanding behavior, to act in a manner favorable to your intentions.. pretending the I Ching is a guru and preaching to people with Taoist inclinations is inconsistent with any understanding i have of the I Ching's account of beneficial behavior patterns.. what you are doing is projecting your personal beliefs onto the I Ching.. 'you' are 'the man behind the curtain'.. you 'guru' is 'you'..\

According to your philosophy the tossing of coins is nothing but a random event, therefore what value do you get from using the I-Ching. You clearly seem confused. Why not just be an honest atheist and abandon this facade of being spiritual. Spiritual life begins when we realize aham brahmasmi I am spirit and therefore I am part of the Parabrahman the Supreme Spirit. Until you realize that the human form of life is meant for self-realization you know little of human nature.

TzuJanLi

16-07-2011, 10:33 AM

Greetings..

I have clearly demonstrated that their model that life emerges from matter is nothing but a baseless fantasy. I have billions of pieces evidence that life comes life to their nothing. The reason that atheists want to kill God is so that they can continue with materialistic nonsense without fear of consequences. Their concocted ideas will not help them at the time of death.
You have demonstrated an uninformed rejection of fact in favor of superstition.. it is this single-minded rejection of actual knowledge and mindless attachment to superstition that plagues this planet with ideological conflict.

According to your philosophy the tossing of coins is nothing but a random event, therefore what value do you get from using the I-Ching. You clearly seem confused. Why not just be an honest atheist and abandon this facade of being spiritual. Spiritual life begins when we realize aham brahmasmi I am spirit and therefore I am part of the Parabrahman the Supreme Spirit. Until you realize that the human form of life is meant for self-realization you know little of human nature.
I realize that human Life and all Life is meant to exist and to experience its Wholeness through its multiplicity.. i realize that narrow-minded perspectives have no understanding of human nature, as you seek to impose your dogma on others..

Be well..

Topology

16-07-2011, 11:38 AM

For there to be a debate there has to be a common frame of reference. Because you accept empiricism therefore I debate on that level. I could just say that Krishna says “I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts.” Bg 10.8
But I doubt that would be a very convincing argument for you .

Let us begin a-new. I will take the position of complete ignorance. I have no belief in X over Y or Y over X. Help me, from a position of ignorance, to learn what the truth is. How shall I proceed in an investigation of truth?

White Rabbit Australia

16-07-2011, 08:08 PM

Hello...

Tao cannot be understood intellectually - it is not found in the realm of reason. Forms, words, abstractions just cover it, obscure it. The I-Ching, as a reflection of Tao is a tool upon which we project our desire for individuation - most of which elements necessary for consciously being Tao remain shrouded until old age if revealed at all.

Truth is a word, a tradition of asking it expresses a desire to singulate the world, reduce it to its irreducible cause - we can do this on some level, for convenience not Gnosis, but are limited greatly in what we can do to appreciate it, by our size, our habit of reason, traditional method of knowledge and the relationship our organism has with the world and us.

As if looking at a hole in the cloud and attempting to describe its contents we must designate the hole by its surroundings - just as consciously our unconscious mind remains beneath our control and understanding because it is irrational or at least, not accessible to *us* the conscious persona. The analogy, the concepts, the abstracts used in any example are all part of Tao, as is the journey and frustration of being defeated in intellectually grasping it. The intellect likes to think it has all the answers - but it does not - intellect finds it troublesome to be subtle or think beyond duality or even recognize it uses abstraction for things that have no name but that we give them. There are more elements involved in that Journey than we can measure and some that we cannot hope to measure. Accepting ignorance has always been the first step - but most people never mean it or ever drop the use of abstraction that surrounds the hole in the cloud.

Tarot, or I-Ching, or even just Contemplation mirror certain aspects, pathways of Tao, and relate the mirror-image of the external journey to the internal journey enabling consciousness of what lay beneath - at least, to the extent we know ourselves or have the archetypal experience to read the symbols or appreciate what Symbolism (any symbolism) is or does. Most of us are too heavily saturated in abstract thought and attachment to meaning in words and concepts to appreciate or consider what lies beneath these crutches developed by humanity to hide tremendous fear.

WR

The saying know yourself could be considered the gateway.

I-Ching

17-07-2011, 01:47 PM

You have demonstrated an uninformed rejection of fact in favor of superstition.. it is this single-minded rejection of actual knowledge and mindless attachment to superstition that plagues this planet with ideological conflict.

I have tried again and again and again to explain to you that the belief that life comes from matter is not a fact. Considering that your “fact” is not based on any tangible evidence you continued assertion that is a fact is clearly irrational. It is you who are superstitious.
su•per•sti•tion (s¡´per-stîsh¹en) noun
1. An irrational belief that an object, an action, or a circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

You irrationally believe that life comes matter although you have no evidence! It is you are clearly irrationally attached to this idea since you give me no reasonable conter-argument.

I realize that human Life and all Life is meant to exist and to experience its Wholeness through its multiplicity
Perhaps you can translate your statement into common sense.

I-Ching

17-07-2011, 01:49 PM

Let us begin a-new. I will take the position of complete ignorance. I have no belief in X over Y or Y over X. Help me, from a position of ignorance, to learn what the truth is. How shall I proceed in an investigation of truth?

Any intelligent human being should be interested in these five subjects Isvara (the Supreme Lord), jiva (the living entity), prakriti (nature), kala (eternal time) and karma (activity).
Which basically means understanding who / what is God? Who / what am I? What is the nature of this world? What is the nature of time and why and I here / what should I do?
These are five topics of the Gita and Krishna systematically addresses these philosophical questions in his dialogue with Arjuna.
The beginning is understand who we are? And this is Krishna’s first instruction to Arjuna:
“Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.” Bg 2.12-13
This body and this world are an illusion they have nothing to do with our eternal identity and the eternal reality.

I-Ching

17-07-2011, 01:50 PM

Tao cannot be understood intellectually - it is not found in the realm of reason. Forms, words, abstractions just cover it, obscure it. The I-Ching, as a reflection of Tao is a tool upon which we project our desire for individuation - most of which elements necessary for consciously being Tao remain shrouded until old age if revealed at all.

In the ultimate sense the Truth is something that we have to experience for ourselves and not simply theorize about, but at the same time God gave human being s intelligence for a reason.
A human being is meant to use his intelligence to understand that he is in a suffering condition and that he should enquire about the Absolute Truth. Intelligence is mean to be used to discriminate Truth from falsity. The person who is ultimately intelligent will come to conclusion that they should practise a process so that they can come to the point of Transcendence. I-Ching offers us Guidance in that process.

TzuJanLi

17-07-2011, 02:14 PM

Greetings..

I have tried again and again and again to explain to you that the belief that life comes from matter is not a fact. Considering that your “fact” is not based on any tangible evidence you continued assertion that is a fact is clearly irrational. It is you who are superstitious.
su•per•sti•tion (s¡´per-stîsh¹en) noun
1. An irrational belief that an object, an action, or a circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

You irrationally believe that life comes matter although you have no evidence! It is you are clearly irrationally attached to this idea since you give me no reasonable conter-argument.
Perhaps you can translate your statement into common sense.
And, so it is.. that the tosser of coins or yarrow sticks seeking guidance from a book, and claiming that supposed guidance to be a 'guru', finds the occasion worthy to invoke the meaning of "superstition" against the sciences.. you are so disconnected from reality as to make further discussion merely entertaining..

Be well..

Topology

17-07-2011, 02:29 PM

Any intelligent human being should be interested in these five subjects Isvara (the Supreme Lord), jiva (the living entity), prakriti (nature), kala (eternal time) and karma (activity).
Which basically means understanding who / what is God? Who / what am I? What is the nature of this world? What is the nature of time and why and I here / what should I do?

I am in a position of complete ignorance. I don't know who or what you are referring to as "God". I don't have an experience of "God". Why should I be investigating something that doesn't have an impact on my experience?

By what method should I begin investigating the other questions?

These are five topics of the Gita and Krishna systematically addresses these philosophical questions in his dialogue with Arjuna.
The beginning is understand who we are? And this is Krishna’s first instruction to Arjuna:
“Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.” Bg 2.12-13
This body and this world are an illusion they have nothing to do with our eternal identity and the eternal reality.

I am ignorant. By what means am I to determine that the Gita is true?

I-Ching

18-07-2011, 07:39 AM

And, so it is.. that the tosser of coins or yarrow sticks seeking guidance from a book, and claiming that supposed guidance to be a 'guru', finds the occasion worthy to invoke the meaning of "superstition" against the sciences.. you are so disconnected from reality as to make further discussion merely entertaining..
I said you were superstitious not the sciences. Again you offer no intelligible response only offensiveness. This is the sign of a blind-following fanatic. I think further discussion with you would be a waste of time. You are clearly offensive towards God and His Scriptures.

I-Ching

18-07-2011, 08:17 AM

I am in a position of complete ignorance. I don't know who or what you are referring to as "God". I don't have an experience of "God". Why should I be investigating something that doesn't have an impact on my experience?
By ignorance I assume you mean a human being in their natural state. I think your idea of ignorance would be an artificial state. Every human being in their nature state before they become subjected to materialistic "education" has some level God-consciousness.
"As fire is covered by smoke, as a mirror is covered by dust, or as the embryo is covered by the womb, the living entity is similarly covered by different degrees of this lust." Bg 3.38
The human being is like the fire covered by smoke, the animal is like the mirror covered by dust and the plant is like the embryo covered by the womb.

A human being in their natural state feels dependent on God.
"All living bodies subsist on food grains, which are produced from rains. Rains are produced by performance of yajña [sacrifice], and yajña is born of prescribed duties." Bg 3.14
It is only because "modern" man's dependence on oil that he no longer feels dependence God.

Of our natural men those that are intellectual would naturally be eager to have further information about the above mentioned topics.

When the souls desires to know the Truth then God makes some arrangement for them. Either He comes Himself or he sends His representative.

I am ignorant. By what means am I to determine that the Gita is true?
The philosophy offered by the Gita is self-evidently true. It is more rational than any other philosophy.

TzuJanLi

18-07-2011, 01:40 PM

Greetings..

The philosophy offered by the Gita is self-evidently true. It is more rational than any other philosophy.
I have read the Bhagavad Gītā, but it is no Veda.. it is a story of riddles, hardly the work of a true 'God'.. no it is not "self-evident", if it were all that have read it would understand it and abide by its supposed wisdom. Stick your hand in the fire, the pain is "self-evident", you only describe your fanatic and hostile beliefs, and.. your displeasure when common sense rejects your claims..

Be well

Topology

18-07-2011, 07:26 PM

By ignorance I assume you mean a human being in their natural state. I think your idea of ignorance would be an artificial state. Every human being in their nature state before they become subjected to materialistic "education" has some level God-consciousness.

By ignorance I am speaking to an honest not knowing who or what to believe because it is not part of my experience. That is what I mean by ignorance. Someone says they have a million dollars in the bank. I don't know it. I haven't seen it for myself. I am ignorant to the truth of the statement.

I am following my God-Consciousness and it has not lead me to conclude as you do. How am I to know that you are correct and that my God-Consciousness is wrong?

Of our natural men those that are intellectual would naturally be eager to have further information about the above mentioned topics.

When the souls desires to know the Truth then God makes some arrangement for them. Either He comes Himself or he sends His representative.

I am actively following my God-Consciousness. It has brought me many people into my life and it brings me into many other people's lives.

The philosophy offered by the Gita is self-evidently true. It is more rational than any other philosophy.

If it was self-evident, you wouldn't have needed to ready a commentary on it to reveal its meaning. Rationality is actually very very subjective. Evidenced by the wide range of things different people find to be rational. It all depends on your fundamental assumptions as to what appears rational.