Can some Buddhist or other monks read minds

[ajay0]

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?

As an example, they stated facts in the reply , consisting of even trivial details, which the questionnaire had missed or considered irrevalent. The questionnaire, conversing with me, stated that the details mentioned were correct.

There are many such examples, along with manifestations of other psychic abilities I have witnessed, that I am not skeptical about the whole thing though initially I was.

You can go through the examples of Sri Ramakrishna or Shirdi Sai Baba to gain more insights into these.

How could anyone who was anything less than omniscient themselves possibly recognize omniscience?

The knowledge mentioned can also be mundane details as well.

A friend of mine while visiting and conversing with an enlightened sage, stated to him that she had finished building her new house casually, to which the sage stated that she had not finished completion of a certain particular section in her house, an observation which my friend stated to be correct. She was surprised that the sage could pinpoint out a minor detail which she overlooked casually.

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?

You have not understood the sutras properly. The enlightened one is in full possession of the powers mentioned.

Even in the intermediate and later stages, the sadhaka or yogi can attain such psychic powers. But this focus on powers is normally discouraged by the masters, because such powers can bloat the ego and prevent further progress.

Sri Ramakrishna used to discourage such focus on powers and even removed some of it from his disciples as he felt they were detrimental to their further progress.

The enlightened sage alone is free to use such powers without any issues or detrimental effects as he or she is free from the ego and desires in the form of cravings and aversions.

 

[siti]

The enlightened one is in full possession of the powers mentioned.

The truly enlightened one has no need of "psychic powers" because he sees "things" as they truly are (except that when he sees them as they truly are there are no "things") - reading the minds of unenlightened folks is totally irrelevant to a truly enlightened soul. "Reading minds" is a party trick...I doubt that any truly enlightened one would waste their time on such vain pursuits - but each to his own I suppose.

 

[ajay0]

The truly enlightened one has no need of "psychic powers" because he sees "things" as they truly are (except that when he sees them as they truly are there are no "things")

The enlightened master or Buddha has no need of 'psychic powers' but it is still in his possession as a mark of his victory over prakriti or internal nature.

He uses it for the purpose of instruction or teaching or good based on his wisdom and not for selfish purposes.

- reading the minds of unenlightened folks is totally irrelevant to a truly enlightened soul.

Again, it is relevent for an enlightened master who is interested in teaching. Masters like Ramakrishna were adept in studying a student's mind and unconscious and determining his tendencies, aptitude and potential progress.

Some masters like Shirdi Sai Baba could easily anticipate and figure if the disciples mind is filled with negative emotions at certain circumstances which stimulate them and instruct them or even correct them accordingly. The master's ability in such matters prompt the surprised student to be more faithful, alert and conduct himself properly in the future.

 

[siti]

The master's ability in such matters prompt the surprised student to be more faithful, alert and conduct himself properly in the future.

If the faith of a student has to be bolstered by miraculous signs is it really faith?

But more importantly, I am sure that seeing things as they truly are would not involve reading someone else's mind - someone else's mind does not contribute to that at all - it detracts from it. I reckon if you are reading minds, you're not "enlightened"...if you are "enlightened" there can be no division of Mind. True enlightenment requires no 'psychic' powers, indeed it requires that there are no 'psychic' powers at play actually, and therefore 'psychic' powers cannot possibly constitute evidence of enlightenment. If there is anything genuine in it at all, reading minds only gives evidence of the ability to read minds...and I reckon we can all do that to a certain extent - perfectly naturally.

 

[ajay0]

If the faith of a student has to be bolstered by miraculous signs is it really faith?.

There are varying degrees of faith.

Some have a strong faith in the master and his teachings, while some have in a lesser degree which can be easily influenced or manipulated by adverse circumstances.

Peter, inspite of being a prominent disciple of Jesus, denied Jesus three times during the crucifixion, afraid that he might be crucified himself.

Nisargadatta had faith in his teacher Siddharameshwar , and applying his last teaching rigorously and diligently, attained enlightenment in three years.

But more importantly, I am sure that seeing things as they truly are would not involve reading someone else's mind - someone else's mind does not contribute to that at all - it detracts from it.

You are entitled to your opinions.
I know of enlightened sages who intuit people and their minds without any conversation and state precisely what has to be said. It helps because most enlightened sages love silence and does not enjoy speaking or conversing too much . You state what you have to say, and there it ends. It also helps if there is a long queue of people with problems and helps in saving time and energy.

I reckon if you are reading minds, you're not "enlightened"...if you are "enlightened" there can be no division of Mind.

Enlightened beings act from the state of awareness or no-mind ; there is no dualistic division of mind.

True enlightenment requires no 'psychic' powers, indeed it requires that there are no 'psychic' powers at play actually, and therefore 'psychic' powers cannot possibly constitute evidence of enlightenment.

Why should not psychic powers and abilities follow true enlightenment !

As I stated earlier, it is true that psychic powers does not constitute evidence of enlightenment, but it is also a fact that enlightened ones does have psychic abilties at their disposal, which they are free to use as per their needs or not.

As per yogic philosophy, the unenlightened one is a slave to nature, while the enlightened one through conquest of her internal nature has nature as her slave. ( some masters euphemistically state nature to be a loyal friend instead. )

 

[Darkstorn]

I don't know of Buddhist monks in general, but i'm Buddhist. And i can definitely read minds.

You're all thinking of porn.

 

[siti]

Some have a strong faith in the master and his teachings, while some have in a lesser degree which can be easily influenced or manipulated by adverse circumstances...

...or reports of "miracles"?

Enlightened beings act from the state of awareness or no-mind ; there is no dualistic division of mind.

Then what do they purport to be reading? What you state here is basically what I said - there is no division of Mind - so what is the "sage" reading then? This kind of thing cannot be a product of enlightenment if enlightenment equates to awareness of the 'oneness' of Mind. Can it? So far all you have done is repeat anecdotes - I would rather read an explanation as to how, in approaching 'oneness' it is even possible to be aware of individual minds let alone "read" them...this whole idea is contrary to logic and to my own experience and I can only conclude that it emerges from lack of genuine enlightenment in both the teacher and the audience.

...the unenlightened one is a slave to nature, while the enlightened one through conquest of her internal nature has nature as her slave. ( some masters euphemistically state nature to be a loyal friend instead. )

The "enlightened one" said: "nature is my slave" - and then breathed his last. Nobody has mastery over nature, and anyone who thinks s/he does is not enlightened IMO.

 

[ajay0]

Then what do they purport to be reading? What you state here is basically what I said - there is no division of Mind - so what is the "sage" reading then? This kind of thing cannot be a product of enlightenment if enlightenment equates to awareness of the 'oneness' of Mind.

You have not understood about nonduality or advaita here. You are just projecting your own ideas into the whole thing.

The sage connected with all minds, gains knowledge of an individual and uses it to help him or her in the most effective and efficient manner.

The success of any military operation in itself is dependent on intelligence. It is also said that you should not lie to a doctor or lawyer as all the knowledge that is needed to have a correct course of action is obtained.

Can it? So far all you have done is repeat anecdotes - I would rather read an explanation as to how, in approaching 'oneness' it is even possible to be aware of individual minds let alone "read" them...this whole idea is contrary to logic and to my own experience and I can only conclude that it emerges from lack of genuine enlightenment in both the teacher and the audience.

You can study Patanjali's Yoga Sutras with commentary on them by Swami Vivekananda, the notes of which are available on the internet.

The "enlightened one" said: "nature is my slave" - and then breathed his last. Nobody has mastery over nature, and anyone who thinks s/he does is not enlightened IMO.

These are all just your conditioned ideas based on a very limited understanding of existence and eastern philosophy and psychology.

The best way to learn about such matters is to be with a Buddha or enlightened one. Second best is to study the philosophical or psychological works on the subject or by being with saints or scholars who had been with a Buddha or enlightened sage themselves.

 

[siti]

You have not understood about nonduality or advaita here.

I wasn't purporting to.

You are just projecting your own ideas into the whole thing.

I am indeed. What's wrong with that? Are we not allowed to have our own ideas?

The sage connected with all minds, gains knowledge of an individual and uses it to help him or her in the most effective and efficient manner.

I still disagree with that...I don't see how awareness of nonduality can be fragmented into knowledge of individual minds - and I don't much care what "sages" have put in writing - I also don't believe it is possible to encode a genuine mystical awareness in human language and have it express anything approaching a "true" account of the experience. That is the conundrum any truly enlightened "sage" must battle with - whether to keep it to himself or share with the unenlightened and leave the account open to inevitable misinterpretation by people who were not "there" and almost certainly never will be. Anyway, that also is just my idea - so no need to take it too seriously.

These are all just your conditioned ideas based on a very limited understanding of existence and eastern philosophy and psychology.

Well okey dokey then - its up to you how you take it...but best of luck in your quest for mastery over nature - I'm going to try for reasonable harmony instead - even that's a tough assignment I think.