I-Ching

Originally Posted by I-Ching

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.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

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.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

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.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

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.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

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.

Originally Posted by LIFE

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!

Originally Posted by Topology

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

Originally Posted by Topology

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.

Originally Posted by Topology

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.

Originally Posted by Topology

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.

Originally Posted by Topology

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.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

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.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

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.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

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?

Originally Posted by I-Ching

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.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

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?)

Originally Posted by I-Ching

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.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

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.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Topology

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.

Originally Posted by Topology

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.

Originally Posted by Topology

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.

Originally Posted by Topology

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.

Originally Posted by Topology

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.

Originally Posted by Topology

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.

Originally Posted by Topology

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.

Originally Posted by Topology

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!!

Originally Posted by LIFE

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

Originally Posted by LIFE

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.

Originally Posted by LIFE

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!!

Originally Posted by LIFE

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.

Originally Posted by LIFE

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!!

Originally Posted by LIFE

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.

Originally Posted by LIFE

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.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

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.

Originally Posted by Topology

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...