Help for people with problems with ghosts, demons, spells, a curse or a bad karmic situation.

[thetaoiseasy]

Edited May 28, 2014 by thetaoiseasy

[Unseen_Abilities]

Turn an "Evil, Demonic Entity" that's trying to possess you into a Petty Little Bitch that's trying to annoy you (turn a Frog into a Prince...) as you go about your Life and you're able to deal with it far more easily. I've never had anything fully possess me (something tried to, though - his kamuppets should be arriving any time from now actually...) but I think demystifying these things by adopting a more practical model of reality (though not always easy at first) and interpreting them that way is going to be a bigger help than getting caught up in the Perverse Grandeur of such notions as "Legions of Demons" who are hell bent on torturing the Hearts & Souls of mankind for all eternity...that idea gives those things power.

 

I've encountered more Black Magic in my life so far than anyone ever should - I tried many different things to get me out of where I was and, sure, I picked up a few useful things that have helped me out, but it was actually my own work that did it in the end...

 

$30,000? Not a chance in Hell!

 

Unseen_Abilities

Edited May 28, 2014 by Unseen_Abilities

[Yascra]

you have obviously mixed with the wrong crowd who labelled themselves 'Vajrayana'.

 

There are obvious differences between authentic masters and self-proclaimed pseudo-gurus. Just because you had an unpleasant past experience and cant seem to resolve it is no reason to wish that that path as a whole meets a timely demise.

 

Anyway, i digress. Your comment is off topic anyhow.

That was not "one case", and I'm not talking about self-proclaimed pseudo-gurus.

 

Anyway you're right in that it's OT. And yes, I admit that a lot of what's transported publicly over here fits some general ethical requirements in the west. But if you ask me, that's not because Vajrayana is great, but because they have to adjust their teachings to a Western idea of ethical conduct if they want to sell their dharma here.

 

Edit: And to be clear about it, I absolutely think that Vajrayana can work, to some degree at least, if it's a story of a realized master teaching personal disciples. But let's be honest, realized masters are extremely rare, and if it's about the crowd you can be happy if what is done in monasteries and centers is not Vajrayana. It's not fit for masses, and even for talented people there are better ways.

Better than nothing, yes. But actually all that magic ans siddhi stuff tends to spoil people on more than one level.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Yascra

[johndoe2012]

Karma is endless which is why you can't clear it all.

 

We need to look at the 'I' and its stories to get to the end.

 

Getting to the end is difficult because of that primal fear / contraction which is why very few get 'enlightened'.

[C T]

Karma is endless which is why you can't clear it all.

 

We need to look at the 'I' and its stories to get to the end.

 

Getting to the end is difficult because of that primal fear / contraction which is why very few get 'enlightened'.

Which is why any third-party claims that it can be done sounds dubious and border on the ridiculous.

 

The focus on attempts to unbend the past is misdirected. The correct focus should be to bring more awareness to what is being thought, being said, and being acted out, now, in this present time. Its been said, if you want to know your past, simply see where you are now, and if you want to know whats in store tomorrow, simply see where you are now.

 

People who claim to be able to correct the past are as delusional as those who claim the past is real.

 

Nothing ever happened in the past.

[3bob]

A true master has no choice when the Spirit works but to work with It,

in healing or otherwise.

 

(along with Spirits wisdom that is beyond human reckoning in how the prices will be paid)

[Yascra]

People who claim to be able to correct the past are as delusional as those who claim the past is real.

 

Nothing ever happened in the past.

 

Well, nothing ever happens now, still few babies will stop crying when hungry if you tell them.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Yascra

[johndoe2012]

Yes, if you are hungry you eat it is that simple.

 

You don't sit there and think I shouldn't be hungry or I don't have a body which is non spontaneous and not natural.

 

So there's no choice in working with that which is.

[GrandmasterP]

" The girl that once I was, lives on in me. Where else would she go?"

( Camille Paglia).

Edited May 28, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[C T]

Well, nothing ever happens now, still few babies will stop crying when hungry if you tell them.

There are 2 nows. One is perceived, the other is real. Nothing happens in both. Nonetheless, things arise and manifest in dependence of conditions, and transforms into something else when conditions change. There are only infinite overlaps of energetic displays seemingly brought to life by apperceptions. How these movements of energy are apprehended, usually by attaching labels to them, creates a basis for interpretation which exclusively depends on a being's disposition. You see a hungry, crying baby. The baby does not see a hungry baby. It does not care for anything else. The cry is merely a response to an immediate need. All the baby wants is to be satiated. After being fed, there is no more hungry, crying baby. In the interim, your neighbour, hearing the cries, will interpret differently again. He or she, fearing the worst, might even ring the cops. Sometimes, a rope is seen as a snake.

[Yascra]

After being fed, there is no more hungry, crying baby.

Well, after not being fed for some definite amount of time, there might not be a crying baby any more as well, nor a hungry one.

Considering that nothing ever happens in both cases that lead to the non-existence of a crying baby, would the way how this state is achieved still matter or not, and why should it or why should it not matter?

Edited May 28, 2014 by Yascra

[Brian]

Matters to the baby...

[Yascra]

Matters to the baby...

Hey, it's about emptiness. Why would anybody care what matters to the baby? Hungry baby is a transient state anyway, isn't it?

Somewhere you have to set priorities.

...

Edited May 28, 2014 by Yascra

[Jetsun]

It takes a huge amount of aggressive resistance against the spontaneous natural reaction of a persons heart for them to not feed a hungry baby. Emptiness isn't empty, that is the minds projection onto what is going on spontaneously in the moment.

[GrandmasterP]

The baby's parents care.

Deeply.

Edited May 28, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Yascra]

It takes a huge amount of aggressive resistance against the spontaneous natural reaction of a persons heart for them to not feed a hungry baby.

Hm, yes.

Jetsun, that discussion wasn't set up for persons like you

[johndoe2012]

There are 2 nows. One is perceived, the other is real. Nothing happens in both. Nonetheless, things arise and manifest in dependence of conditions, and transforms into something else when conditions change. There are only infinite overlaps of energetic displays seemingly brought to life by apperceptions. How these movements of energy are apprehended, usually by attaching labels to them, creates a basis for interpretation which exclusively depends on a being's disposition. You see a hungry, crying baby. The baby does not see a hungry baby. It does not care for anything else. The cry is merely a response to an immediate need. All the baby wants is to be satiated. After being fed, there is no more hungry, crying baby. In the interim, your neighbour, hearing the cries, will interpret differently again. He or she, fearing the worst, might even ring the cops. Sometimes, a rope is seen as a snake.

 

This is too conceptual.

[GrandmasterP]

Aye, some folks see rope and think "snake".

That's a stone fact.

Edited May 28, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[C T]

This is too conceptual.

Thats only your perception, based on your individual conditioning.

[Brian]

Hey, it's about emptiness. Why would anybody care what matters to the baby? Hungry baby is a transient state anyway, isn't it?

Somewhere you have to set priorities.

...

Guess it depends on whether one views a baby as a vibrant being of Light or a philosophical construct. Edited May 29, 2014 by Brian

[Yascra]

Guess it depends on whether one views a baby as a vibrant being of Light or a philosophical construct.

I guess with that you've qualified to update C T's individual conditioning regarding that matter

 

It wont work because its not a being's real nature. As an analogy, most People think they are the film reel, when in fact they are the light behind the projector. So there is confusion. Caught up in confusion and not being able to see their own nature, they think the movie on the screen is their real life. This is where all the dramas unfold and where karma is thought to accumulate on a basically empty piece of cloth.

 

Phantastical stories of ghosts and demons, dark, hidden recesses where the past lurks, deep, unrequited desires fuel hidden emotions, and anything, good or bad, can happen on screen, bringing to birth a plethora of phobias and neurotic tendencies. Its no wonder people turn to healers and exorcists, to create contrast and add layers to an otherwise dream-like existence, mistaking it for reality.

"You are mistaking a dream-like state for reality" is an appropriate answer only in extremely few cases of suffering.

The problem about standing besides a crying baby and discussing the emptiness of it's state instead of just feeding it out of compassion is a problem few persons might have if not having been in contact with buddhist reasoning. After the latter has taken place, arrogance and pride assist pure heart-less-ness in decisions against doing the right thing.

And one core of that problem is the simple fact that thinking about the empty nature of the person in need is a way to deal with the theory of emptiness, while acting out of compassion is it's practice.

Unfortunately few buddhists seem to get the latter part.

 

You can hardly helpnanyone who has fallen into the trap to think s/he is a "higher", "knowing" being now, the elite of humanity who knows that the hungry baby is an empty state, and thereby leaves the feeding to those lower beings who are still "stuck" in what you thrn have to call "dream like states".

 

And that's not even Vajrayana. That's just the relatively more harmless buddhist concept of emptiness and it's effect on those who are deluded and/or lack virtue. Those teachings are not fit for persons who lack wisdom. And that's exactly why in many cases it will do more harm than good to publicly proclaim such things.

By the way, one good thing about Vajrayana is that in most of its systems it is breaking a vow to teach emptiness to those who are not qualified, and it also is breaking vows to show a lack of compassion. Those vows are really not great, special or high-level, just an absolutely basic, necessary foundation for ALL persons or beings. Still, although people seem to tend to regard themselves as the ultimate and great practicioners if they were given "vows", maybe in a nice ceremony, they don't even seem to understand the most simple concepts.

 

Directly speaking, C T, if you want to take sides of Vajrayana and defend that system, I'd suggest you engage in the basic concepts of it first. I'm not criticizing that thing to take revenge or s.thing. It's just that detrimental effects are too obvious - and arguing against the idea and concept of healing and directly, actively helping people is one of the worst traps you can get into in that system.

As Jetsun mentioned, few or no persons at all who act in a natural way would leave that baby crying. I feel quite some buddhists would, trying to forcefully act in a way that accords to their little, rational understanding of "emptiness".

 

I've offered some opportunities to you to demonstrate that your level of understanding is deep enough to qualify that first post of yours, and though you argued that it's some crowd far away that makes me criticize Vajrayana, you left out quite some possibilities to demonstrate that you're better than them.

In your interest I hope that although you're obviously confused about the real nature of emptiness, you're still able to do good, or in other words, feed the baby. You should be aware that anything else, and every argumentation against that deed, is transgressing vows, not in theory, but in practice.

 

Most stupid beings know you have to feed a crying baby. To a buddhist you have to explain why, and why s/he's not making her-/himself a Shravaka, namely, practicioner of a "lower way" by doing so. How could anybody safe such a system.

 

Karma still exists, and will continue to exist. Don't think it is so easy.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Yascra

[C T]

 

 

Karma still exists, and will continue to exist. Don't think it is so easy.

It exists because of mental states like yours.

 

As for the rest of the snipped post, again, its off topic. If you want to chase the issue, feel free to open a new thread.

[Yascra]

It exists because of mental states like yours.

 

As for the rest of the snipped post, again, its off topic. If you want to chase the issue, feel free to open a new thread.

 

Well, you started that OT by calling healers persons who act out of a wrong understanding of the world, so I'll hardly be more or less OT than you by showing that this argument is basically completely wrong and a result of deluded forms of belief, or "religious logic/reasoning"

 

No, thanks, may anyone else waste their time. As I mentioned, I found such ignorant attitudes like yours are common amongst buddhists, and it's really not my task to save that religion.

Have fun with it anyways.

 

As to your own argumentation, "mental states", no matter whether mine or yours, don't have substance. How could something that has no substance bring things into existence, e.g. karma. How would one particular state of mine bring the principle of cause and effect into existence.

Hence, just another buddhist who has never heard about the fundamental identity of samsara and nirvana, and still wants to lecture others about emptiness. Ridiculous. I'd ask you to go ask your teachers next time before posting such non-compassionate stuff, yet, I wouldn't expect any official teachers nowadays to be real masters. So better don't ask, might make things worse.

 

The topic is advertisement anyway, but well, might that OT be stopped. Maybe just keep your unhealthy buddhist beliefs in some buddhist forum next time

Edited May 29, 2014 by Yascra

[3bob]

What is strange to me is Buddhists breaking the historic Buddha's dharma teachings as listed in the Noble Eight fold path.. but so goes the permutations.

 

(OT or not)

[GrandmasterP]

What is strange to me is Buddhists breaking the historic Buddha's dharma teachings as listed in the Noble Eight fold path.. but so goes the permutations.

 

(OT or not)

Boddhisatvas apart, that has to happen each and every day for every Buddhist same as it does for the rest of us.

If anyone tells me they are bang on with every single one of those eight 'rights' on that eightfold path 24/7 I'd wonder why they were trying to convince me with that dubious claim.

Pobody's nerfect.

Edited May 29, 2014 by GrandmasterP