Getting more real about Buddhism

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Bong

j

The founder god of the practice can divid his own energy into brick form of thousand of his dark energy. The energy seem to be white outside but when I try to burn it turns to dark smoke. Only I can reveal the secret by my subtle dharma. He can control the person who practice it or correct energy from him/them. This after processed energy is different from the original one.

Ok so kind of like multiply itself from the original form as the foundation of its beginning?

So what created this founder god to begin with?

So you have a vision of this with white outside. Why do you try to burn this?

And what do you believe the dark smoke represents when you do this?


If you hold the secret through subtle dharma what part of this is shrouded in secrecy that has become this way? And what part of your subtle dharma can awaken through this process?

I am not sure about the last bit you shared, but I gather that this figure head has some measure of control over the process itself that you describe?

[bees]

For anyone actually serious, I would imagine that practice is necessary.

http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/region.php?region_id=1

[Jeremy Bong]

[quote][naturesflow]

[Ok so kind of like multiply itself from the original form as the foundation of its beginning?

So what created this founder god to begin with?

So you have a vision of this with white outside. Why do you try to burn this?

And what do you believe the dark smoke represents when you do this?


If you hold the secret through subtle dharma what part of this is shrouded in secrecy that has become this way? And what part of your subtle dharma can awaken through this process?

I am not sure about the last bit you shared, but I gather that this figure head has some measure of control over the process itself that you describe?][quote]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to explain my ability of understandings about dharma of spirit: it's natural at my current state with high level of mindset awareness. I can see through things by mind power or transparent view perception. It's automatically sustainable in my mind/case.

I don't know how/where that I can get this ability but it's better than any God so far I know. That's why my friend Gods also ask me many questions about my dharma techniques which they never see and think of.

I never learn and never see before then I have more than 100,000 types of high level of dharma techniques. Most of the Gods only have a few of higher dharma and have to practice for hundred of years to posses them.

It's true when I apply my dharma in different warfares. Whatever method I used is out of my enemies expectations.

Is it true as human? Maybe I don't know yet how much of their differences. So how I know the secret? It's always in my mind or my intuition tell or with my range of understandable ability. And in this case my friend Gods also told me the same truth as I see.

My energy can judge any energy or god whether they are evil or not. One year ago I still asked God/creator to conform my judgment but after that is perfect for almost every case.

I burned it because I knew it's evil and I gathered them and threw them to the sun after I put them in a container. I threw them one by one and saw that dark smoke when the outside of the brick is disappeared. The content of the brick energy is dark smoky energy.

Every god can invent his own way of practicing different dharma/energy. Why/how he wanted to practice may be it's his secret and after that he taught apprentice and tried to control them. When he can control others then his heart beginning to get with bigger agenda than before.....

As for me I can do whatever I want including to control others/bewitch others but that's not my nature and that's the reason so many good Gods helping me including transferred all their energy or dharma or wisdom to me. So my judgement is always right. What I want to do is equal to what they want to do. Our mindset is the same, they feel safe to have their energy/dharma/wisdom transferring to me willingly.

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by beesliketoplay

For anyone actually serious, I would imagine that practice is necessary.

http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/region.php?region_id=1

Do you feel that the teachings of Buddhism can reflect in the realization journey itself in other ways? So in fact you can be aware of teachings without practice but be living the practice and teachings in ways where real life opens the awareness or Buddhist views?


What is with the directory?

[RyanWind]

Don't use Buddhism to become a Buddhist.
Use Buddhism to become better at whatever else in your life you are doing-Dalai Lama

He has often said he does not consider himself a Buddhist or the Dalai Lama or anything. He said to think of himself as these things would be like living in a prison.

Really, if you carry an idea around with you, like I am this or that, you are not following what Buddha taught.

It truly is a letting go of everything in the present moment. Everything. A lot of people can't grasp what everything means so they always say..... well yea but you need a teacher.... you need the sutras.... etc. If you have thrown away everything, EVERYTHING, there is no one there to need a teacher or sutras or anything. You become a consciousness not defined by its content. An empty consciousness that is fully there and awake and alert, (both required to put away everything) and living in another dimension than where normal people do. Everything becomes different, yet it is the same. So words like emptiness are used...

[firstandlast]

Originally Posted by RyanWind

It truly is a letting go of everything in the present moment. Everything. A lot of people can't grasp what everything means so they always say..... well yea but you need a teacher.... you need the sutras.... etc. If you have thrown away everything, EVERYTHING, there is no one there to need a teacher or sutras or anything. You become a consciousness not defined by its content. An empty consciousness that is fully there and awake and alert, (both required to put away everything) and living in another dimension than where normal people do. Everything becomes different, yet it is the same. So words like emptiness are used...

The thing with this, that would probably be confusing; is that as long as there appears to be two different worlds, or that you must understand one as appearing than the other and interact-- Like as long as there is interaction, between the two worlds, than the one world that is, is distorted by the two worlds it must be understood as--

that is, by there being more than one thing; means you must conceptualize to understand it-- The spirit world is when one has vivified their imagination, but has not reconciled their fantasy and reality; which are one in the same--

[RyanWind]

Originally Posted by firstandlast

by there being more than one thing; means you must conceptualize to understand it-- -

You don't have to conceptualize an apple after you have eaten one. You know it on a experiential level.

[RyanWind]

Originally Posted by firstandlast

The spirit world is when one has vivified their imagination, but has not reconciled their fantasy and reality; which are one in the same--

I did not mean another dimension in the sense of another place. It is the exact same place. But you are seeing it and experiencing it from a different perspective. It is experienced as a totally different place because you are a totally different consciousness. It's similar to how you can be in your kitchen in a dream or as waking consciousness. It feels different. It is different.

[firstandlast]

Originally Posted by RyanWind

You don't have to conceptualize an apple after you have eaten one. You know it on a experiential level.

For me the experiential knowledge cannot be recalled, because recalling it is to mistake the form for anything but a concept--

That is, the moment I recall experience knowledge, if I were to remember the joy of the apple taste; and that I thought it was the taste of this apple that was the cause of joy, that I have a concept-- *Anytime you are dealing with relationships of form, you are dealing with conceptual reality, which includes those things often considered formless--

Like experiential knowledge is as meaningful as any other knowledge, because it acts in the same nature even if it has found a different axiom in which seems more all encompassing-- But all encompassing, ignores that which all encompasses--

So, to me, if your knowledge of an apple is based on experience; that your knowledge may lead you to another apple, but your experiential knowledge will lead you on a journey to an apple, to bring those same “relationships” of form together.. Thinking that the forms of the relationships were the relationships to be knowledgeable in the first place.. So you may go looking for another apple, and I will go on to relate to what's in front of me in normal discussion till I take a bite into something that feels like it gives me great joy, and a sweet lingering taste in my mouth; because nothing else is necessary but the relationships I experienced expressed in form, and that I cannot understand these relationships through the relation of form and expect it to work the same as it did last time, since everything else would not be in the same form around it to define it the same-- And so if everything is changing definition based on the things going on around it, experiential knowledge when disconnected from conceptual knowledge acts to the same effect--

[firstandlast]

Originally Posted by RyanWind

I did not mean another dimension in the sense of another place. It is the exact same place. But you are seeing it and experiencing it from a different perspective. It is experienced as a totally different place because you are a totally different consciousness. It's similar to how you can be in your kitchen in a dream or as waking consciousness. It feels different. It is different.

I get what you mean; but I don't see such a thing as a change-- Like only such a thing would mean change to me, if the thing I was viewing is changed-- that is if I view something from one perspective in an entirely different manner in another perspective, if the thing has stayed the same in my eyes; than I am not understanding the change in relationships happening in front of me-- And that if I do not understand the relationships happening in front of me, I might mistake its similarities to not be different, so that when I approach something different; I might not see how it is the same-- You must know differences to know what is the same, and you must know what is the same to know the differences-- And how each other these things are just a different form of the same thing--

Like this, if I go into one state of being into another that is experienced as totally different the same thing in front of me, than I think I have changed; when really everything in front of me has changed and I mistake that for myself--

I do not have different states of existence, that is I am not conscious of unconscious, I am not in timelessness or eternity, I am not realized or unrealized-- But that I am always in every state, acting it from every state; but not aligned with every state, because each state views itself as separate from the whole, because it thought it changed when the form changed--

So any time I experience a change in the sense of self, if I don't recognize it as part of who I have always been; It will not allow it to begin working with other aspects of myself in my view because it is not coming to understand that the forms arise out of relationship to each other, and that the only change in reality is how we relate to it-- But how can it know how to relate itself, if it thinks of itself as the forms it creates; and that ones understanding is not how relationships give form to our life, and not how we relate to these forms defining out experience, but that our understanding is rooted into the experience of the forms and our relationship between forms, instead of the relationship between everything expressing themselves as forms--