Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Good householder,
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.
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?
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
It is not even theoretically possible to give clear evidence of omniscience - not matter how much anyone was able to demonstrate knowledge of.
That's prescience - not omniscience.
Again - knowledge of some things that ordinary people would not have is not evidence of knowledge of all things.
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?
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.
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?
