Can some Buddhist or other monks read minds

siti said:

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?

Click to expand...

Yes, but that does nor require even omniscience. Such is known by one who can read mind.

Vinayaka said:

I didn't think the question had anything to do with RF. I can't see any realised Guru or advanced yogi spending any time on RF. Surely they would have better things to do than come here.

Click to expand...

I think the question originated from an RF interaction. And although I agree that there is a remote possibility of a Self realised roaming the RF grounds — but who knows anything for certainty?

I think internet and the social media can be a very hurtful place. So, at our low level of understanding also, it may be possible to help reduce pain? I do not know, but we may try by not targeting any individual or any group for their sacred feeling.

siti said:

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?

Click to expand...

Siti. I am in the midst of an official transfer and have too many engagements. We may discuss this leisurely sometime.

Samana Johann said:

Yes, but that does nor require even omniscience. Such is known by one who can read mind.

Click to expand...

So I'm guessing you already know I'm wondering why you answered this question and not the ones I addressed to you?

siti said:

... intimate knowledge of what it is like to be me (for example) ... how it feels to be utterly ignorant ...

Click to expand...

Samana Johann said:

Such is known by one who can read mind.

Click to expand...

Interesting, so you are able to be BOTH intimately acquainted with what it is like to be me AND utterly ignorant of what that is like - simultaneously? Do elaborate - you can miss out any rude bits you find in your reading of my mind - I wouldn't want to be banned from RF because of breaking forum rules by proxy.

danieldemol said:

Can some Buddhist or other monks read minds?

Click to expand...

There’s no scientific evidence. People who believe this is so are also more likely to believe in breatharianism, ultrasonic pest repellers, drinking one’s own urine to cure cancer, holy water cures, voodoo, you name it.

danieldemol said:

A test could be devised that I write down what I am thinking but don’t reveal it to a person until after they have had the chance to read the thoughts of me as to what I had written.

Click to expand...

There are many such experiments in the literature, and the literature says they all have problems. The principal problem, as the late Martin Gardiner observed, and as Penn and Teller might agree, is that any evidence for ESP is of itself overwhelming evidence of fraud. A second problem arises if we assume the test is fair and authentic and involves (as surely it must) a written (or &c) record of what the Thinker thought, namely whether the ESP phenomenon demonstrated is telepathy or clairvoyance. A third problem, accordingly much discussed, is suitable protocols for Thinking, Reading, supervising and verifying.

And through all that, I'm not aware that any skeptical enquirer has been persuaded that telepathy exists. Or clairvoyance, telekinesis, &c &c for that matter. Accordingly, my view is that on the present state of the evidence, it's fair to say that there is no objective phenomenon that involves 'paranormal powers'.

On the other hand, as a husband of nontrivial years of experience, I learnt that two people can anticipate each other, finish each other's sentences, have a fair idea of what the other is thinking or will think, within a range of situations, none of which I regard as mysterious.

ChristineM said:

Evidence please

Click to expand...

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.

blü 2 said:

On the other hand, as a husband of nontrivial years of experience, I learnt that two people can anticipate each other, finish each other's sentences, have a fair idea of what the other is thinking or will think, within a range of situations, none of which I regard as mysterious.

Click to expand...

Good Lord! Are you saying your wife's thoughts are not mysterious? Of that claim I am extremely skeptical.

siti said:

my questions are serious

Click to expand...

In that case there would be no worry that they would be raised in proper circumstances, would't there, householder Siti, although also good intentions are not for sure.

Samana Johann said:

In that case there would be no worry that they would be raised in proper circumstances, would't there, householder Siti

Click to expand...

And answered likewise, O Monk.

Samana Johann said:

...although also good intentions are not for sure.

Click to expand...

Indeed! Indeed - that was more or less my point, O Monk.

So - and I am doing you the respect of asking again - how can I - a "worldling" with no power to discern integrity or lack thereof (according to the teaching you have offered me) discern whether your intentions as a teacher are "good" - and especially so if you - as a teacher - are unsure of my intentions? It is a conundrum - isn't it, O Monk? Do you suspect I might be impudently attempting to teach my teacher?

But is it not the case, O Monk, that a teacher who cannot learn from his student is a poor teacher?

How so?

Is it not the case, O Monk, that a teacher who has the ability to discern intentions and integrity, would surely be able to learn more from the questions of his student than the student who has not yet acquired such discernment could possibly learn from the answers (to the student "mere words") of his teacher?

So - to make it easier - I am putting my thoughts, my questions, in words for you...you can fret about intentions - or teach - or perhaps learn - its all up to you, O Monk.

siti said:

Good Lord! Are you saying your wife's thoughts are not mysterious? Of that claim I am extremely skeptical.

Click to expand...

My claim is much more modest ─ that sometimes I got them right; on a good day, perhaps at one fifth of the rate she got mine right.

blü 2 said:

at one fifth of the rate she got mine right.

Click to expand...

Now that I can believe!

Vinayaka said:

We have 'avatars' here, didn't you know?

I still can't get myself around the idea of 'I'm here, I'm here!' just assuming the role of teacher, as if it were the most natural thing in the world. However, it does make me dance lightly ... too easy to insult.

Click to expand...

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

Howard Is said:

things indicating that they could appear in any guise

Click to expand...

That's why it is importand not to deny that there are "big brothers" around. Not only that one can not escape ones kamma. Missing on ot the governing principles, householder Howard. (assuming that he currently does not cross his hands). Here some advices on Avatar and User placements

siti said:

Now that I can believe!

Click to expand...

Easy to catch, if after, if knowing mind while the other doesn't know his.

Samana Johann said:

Easy to catch, if after, if knowing mind while the other doesn't know his.

Click to expand...

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.

siti said:

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.

Click to expand...

It's a "smarter" matter. A smart does not mean not "hormone driven" as well. Introvertive people know their mind often well and go just out for a catch. Just look around here, there are many smart woman arround, yet not really much noticeable. The most bombastic debaters here are no match at all in relation to them. Maybe householder tries to read their mind right now present here.

Here a sample where Ven. Ananda knew the mind of a Nun timely, householder @siti : Bhikkhuni Sutta: The Nun and taught here proper.

It also brings up the matter of right use of conceit: "If those human, not different to me, could gain the skill of reading mind, why shouldn't I be able".

Samana Johann said:

It's a "smarter" matter. A smart does not mean not "hormone driven" as well.

Click to expand...

Empathy comes more naturally to some, bombast to others - one can learn from both - the onus is on the learner...but the process is not necessarily "hormone driven" - it is "hormone mediated" - and it is a complex biochemical feedback loop "carrot and stick" system of stimuli and rewards...of physiological and psychological urges and feel-good pay-offs, suspicions and angst...etc. 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.