Can some Buddhist or other monks read minds

[Samana Johann]

If that's what you mean by "reading minds" then I'm OK with that idea...with the caveat that it is always possible to misread them too.

Good householder,
It's a starter for tracing some evidence. As woman know themselves often good, their desires, they are good in observing others mind. Again, it starts with investigation of the own to be able to read others. Of course such skill is limited if not for skillful purpose, limited to the amount only able to read lower till equal mind qualities and there are much other probably not investigated yet.

 

[siti]

Good householder,
It's a starter for tracing some evidence. As woman know themselves often good, their desires, they are good in observing others mind. Again, it starts with investigation of the own to be able to read others. Of course such skill is limited if not for skillful purpose, limited to the amount only able to read lower till equal mind qualities and there are much other probably not investigated yet.

Yes - OK - I agree that it is possible to develop empathy and insight - it is possible to become skillful in observing patterns of behaviour and patterns of speech - but one has to be careful - patterns are patterns and "the map is not the territory" - reading a map is not the same as reading the terrain - no matter how skillful the reader and how detailed the map.

 

[ChristineM]

Remember the time householder eats her beloved meal, for example.
There are no evidences perceive-able for one who approaches things ignorant. Yet also this can be solved by her.
What gets no food dieds away. Both, good and bad.

So! No evidence then, i am surprised

 

[Samana Johann]

So! No evidence then, i am surprised

It not so that my person can see that householder Christiane got the wink with the meal. Is at such time the always again arising anger present or not?

 

[Samana Johann]

reading a map is not the same as reading the terrain - no matter how skillful the reader and how detailed the map.

Yes. And again the terrain with it's various appearing is to get known within ones own mind and insight, vipassana, is the key.Ordinary people don't know their mind at all, don't know when the mind is taken on greed, aversion or delusion. They might assume certain in others even at those stages, and especially then.

 

[ChristineM]

It not so that my person can see that householder Christiane got the wink with the meal. Is at such time the always again arising anger present or not?

No anger involved. Just evidence or lack of it

 

[Samana Johann]

No anger involved. Just evidence or lack of it

That means that the mind lets go of something if seeing something more worthy to give into. If feeding the mind steady with more subtile joy, place for identification, it will sooner or later no more grasp after the low satisfaction. (that does not mean to go after eating much, go after sense pleasures, but that being the reason, is one for overweight). If training the mind toward spheres where if feels confortable, it sticks with it. It's like with drugs. One needs a "replacement drug" and as for anger the best is developing metta, aside from good argumentation if the minds committee of opposition tries to seek after old ways, as long not knowing the happiness in the "replacement drug" (which is one that does not hurt anyone, including oneself, and does not depend on others to gain).
Maybe householder Christine likes to simply try this healthy food.

 

[ChristineM]

That means that the mind lets go of something if seeing something more worthy to give into. If feeding the mind steady with more subtile joy, place for identification, it will sooner or later no more grasp after the low satisfaction. (that does not mean to go after eating much, go after sense pleasures, but that being the reason, is one for overweight). If training the mind toward spheres where if feels confortable, it sticks with it. It's like with drugs. One needs a "replacement drug" and as for anger the best is developing metta, aside from good argumentation if the minds committee of opposition tries to seek after old ways, as long not knowing the happiness in the "replacement drug" (which is one that does not hurt anyone, including oneself, and does not depend on others to gain).
Maybe householder Christine likes to simply try this healthy food.

You are entitled to your opinion, personally i will go by the word of medical, physiological and neurological experts

 

[Samana Johann]

i will go by the word of medical, physiological and neurological experts

As householder thinks that it is well for her, relaying on experiances of success. How ever, just one question: does she think that even one of those experts is him/herself freed of anger, aversion?

 

[ChristineM]

As householder thinks that it is well for her, relaying on experiances of success. How ever, just one question: does she think that even one of those experts is him/herself freed of anger, aversion?

The subject was mind reading, not anger and not aversion, they are your strawmen and nothing to do with the discussion

 

[Vinayaka]

It’s a funny paradox. Many of those who believe in avatars are likely to say things indicating that they could appear in any guise, and that such things are beyond ordinary understanding...yet they are certain that you couldn’t be one of them ! LOL

It's easy for me because I don't believe in avatars at all. But sure, people do say and think and have the right to believe anything that works for them.

And people of all walks can walk around in any guise. If you go to India and see a sadhu, you really have no idea what the guy may be up to.

 

[Samana Johann]

The subject was mind reading, not anger and not aversion, they are your strawmen and nothing to do with the discussion

Is anger a quality of mind? How can one not able to trace ones own minds qualities, when arising, think that other see? People, fore the most say that they relay on evidences but actually, neither have one nor ever successed in their believes. While one can hide up oneself from looking serious on ones mind. One could not hide such from one able to read mind. Deny or not.
Therefore it would be needed that householder tries to learn to read own mind, even a little, to be able to relay on certain evidence that reading mind is possible.
And nothing better as practical, for theory and believe is merely useless.

Though, how ever, to leave the sideeffects of metta-medicine behind, as well independent from others:

“One sleeps easily, wakes easily, dreams no evil dreams. One is dear to human beings, dear to non-human beings. The devas protect one. Neither fire, poison, nor weapons can touch one. One's mind gains concentration quickly. One's complexion is bright. One dies unconfused and — if penetrating no higher — is headed for the Brahma worlds.

And a guidline how to tread.​

 

[ChristineM]

Is anger a quality of mind? How can one not able to trace ones own minds qualities, when arising, think that other see? People, fore the most say that they relay on evidences but actually, neither have one nor ever successed in their believes. While one can hide up oneself from looking serious on ones mind. One could not hide such from one able to read mind. Deny or not.
Therefore it would be needed that householder tries to learn to read own mind, even a little, to be able to relay on certain evidence that reading mind is possible.
And nothing better as practical, for theory and believe is merely useless.

Though, how ever, to leave the sideeffects of metta-medicine behind, as well independent from others:

“One sleeps easily, wakes easily, dreams no evil dreams. One is dear to human beings, dear to non-human beings. The devas protect one. Neither fire, poison, nor weapons can touch one. One's mind gains concentration quickly. One's complexion is bright. One dies unconfused and — if penetrating no higher — is headed for the Brahma worlds.

And a guidline how to tread.​

Again the subject of the thread is reading others minds, not querying your own mind.

As i have stated, intuition is not mind reading, it is simple observation.

 

[Howard Is]

I might get in trouble for this, but what my humorous remark was meant to convey was that my wife is much better at "reading my mind" than I am at "reading" hers. But I think that's because on average, women are just more empathetic than men...and men are more mind-numbingly predictable. Its a hormone thing.

Possibly true. Although from an evolutionary standpoint, in many species the females select their mates from the male suitors. This would imply that the male traits were those the females found desirable.

I might get in trouble for this too ; )

I just scanned the future and read a few minds deciding that was a misogynist comment, lol.

 

[ajay0]

Can some Buddhist or other monks read minds?

Yes, these psychic powers are possible.

But one having such powers need not necessarily be enlightened.

 

[ajay0]

Wow! That is some claim - do you have any evidence? Does that "omniscience" include an intimate knowledge of what it is like to be me (for example) - or how it feels to be utterly ignorant of some subject or another? Because presumably genuine omniscience would have to include all of that, wouldn't it?

I have met enlightened sages who were able to show clear evidences of their omniscience. There was a number of instances where an enlightened sage I knew gave correct and proper answers before the questionnaire asked questions. I know of many beginners who were baffled thus and many experienced ones who were pleasantly thrillled as well. Display of such abilities by enlightened ones is usually done to create faith in religion or spirituality, and to stun people who believe that the material world is the fundamental reality.



The Patanjali Yoga Sutras also elaborates on such psychic abilities....


"When samyama is performed on the three transformations, knowledge of the past and the future ensues." (3.16)

"From ideas, one can attain knowledge of others' minds." (3.19)

 

[siti]

I have met enlightened sages who were able to show clear evidences of their omniscience.

It is not even theoretically possible to give clear evidence of omniscience - not matter how much anyone was able to demonstrate knowledge of.

There was a number of instances where an enlightened sage I knew gave correct and proper answers before the questionnaire asked questions.

That's prescience - not omniscience.

The Patanjali Yoga Sutras also elaborates on such psychic abilities....


"When samyama is performed on the three transformations, knowledge of the past and the future ensues." (3.16)

"From ideas, one can attain knowledge of others' minds." (3.19)

Again - knowledge of some things that ordinary people would not have is not evidence of knowledge of all things.

 

[Vinayaka]

Personally, I've never heard of omniscience as a siddhi.

 

[ajay0]

It is not even theoretically possible to give clear evidence of omniscience - not matter how much anyone was able to demonstrate knowledge of.

Just because modern science and theory does not cover it, does not mean that it is not supposed to exist. The law of gravity existed well before Newton discovered it, and it did not come into existence after modern science justified it theoretically.

That's prescience - not omniscience.

It is both prescience and omniscience, because the master gave accurate replies as well, and not just anticipated the intended question.

Again - knowledge of some things that ordinary people would not have is not evidence of knowledge of all things.

Patanjali's Yoga Sutras also state that omniscience is attainable ...


(3.50). (By performing samyama) on pure consciousness (purusha) and the quality of purity (sattva guna), omnipotence and omniscience is obtained.

The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali

 

[siti]

Just because modern science and theory does not cover it, does not mean that it is not supposed to exist.

No - that is not the basis of my objection - you claimed that you have personally met "enlightened sages" who gave "clear evidence" of omniscience - how could you possibly know that? How could anyone who was anything less than omniscient themselves possibly recognize omniscience? Only the yogi who has mastered the ability to distinguish between subjective and objective 'knowledge' would be able to see things as they really are...right? So how could they give "clear evidence" of that to anyone who was not able to fully and 100% reliably make that distinction? (FWIW - for philosophical reasons I do not agree that this - clear distinction between subjective and objective is even possible - there is no Kantian ding an sich because there is no ding that is not inextricably embedded in the universe of dings - but my point to you is that even according to the Sutra you are referring to, such knowledge would never be accessible to anyone other than a yogi who was at the very penultimate stage before liberation - so how could they give "clear evidence" to anyone else?

It is both prescience and omniscience, because the master gave accurate replies as well, and not just anticipated the intended question.

Knowing the questions in advance is prescience - answering them correctly is intelligence - omniscience is knowing everything - absolutely everything...you and I could not possibly assess whether some entity possessed omniscience unless we were omniscient ourselves.

Patanjali's Yoga Sutras also state that omniscience is attainable ...

(3.50). (By performing samyama) on pure consciousness (purusha) and the quality of purity (sattva guna), omnipotence and omniscience is obtained.

Well I think you need to read that carefully - I am certainly no expert, but that translation seems a little "loose" to me. But in any case, it still only applies to a yogi who is on the point of attaining liberation - so the question remains - even if omniscience were possible, how could it ever be possible to give "clear evidence" of it?