I-Ching

Originally Posted by I-Ching

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?

Originally Posted by I-Ching

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.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

Who is your Guru?

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

Originally Posted by I-Ching

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.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

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.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

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.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

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.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

“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..._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.

Greetings..

Originally Posted by Topology

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..._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]

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

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..

Well Im with you there... so will oddly say... what is already there is more a matter of curiosity...

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

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.

Originally Posted by hybrid

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Topology

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.

Originally Posted by Topology

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.

Originally Posted by Topology

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.

Originally Posted by Topology

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.

Originally Posted by Topology

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.

Originally Posted by Topology

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.

Originally Posted by Topology

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.

Originally Posted by hybrid

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

Yes, and superstition breeds superstition.

Case in point:

Originally Posted by I-Ching

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]

Originally Posted by I-Ching

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]

Originally Posted by I-Ching

“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.

.