can one mind enter another?

[tomschwarz]

hello dear friends,

yes. my mind wrote this. and now this trace of my mind is in yours ))). but can one mind enter another in "real time "? I mean could you read this as I think about it, before I express it with words?

[Grigoris]

Your hand wrote it, not your mind...

[Simon E.]

Let's start at the beginning.

How are you defining 'mind'?

And does it correspond to one of the definitions of 'mind' found in Buddhadharma?

[Anders]

Hi tom,

Can you give a bit of context here? What gave rise to this question?

[DGA]

hello dear friends,

yes. my mind wrote this. and now this trace of my mind is in yours ))). but can one mind enter another in "real time "? I mean could you read this as I think about it, before I express it with words?

I have met Buddhist masters who have the ability to read minds. They don't announce it or anything; it just comes through in their interactions with you that they know what you are thinking and intending, even if they don't speak the same language as you. It is entirely unnerving at first but once you get used to the situation, you find yourself being absolutely honest and straightforward and that's a good way to be.

[Astus]

Direct interaction between minds contradicts karma.

[Vasana]

'Enter' isn't really the right word.

Psychic powers including telepathy are spoken of by the Buddha himself in various sutras.

And what is the miracle of telepathy? There is the case where a certain person reads [another person' thoughts] by means of a sign (vision), [saying,] 'Such is your thinking, here is where your thinking is, thus is your mind.' And however much he may read, that's exactly how it is, and not otherwise.

"Then there is the case where a certain person reads [another person's thoughts], not by means of a sign or vision, but by hearing the voice of human beings, non-human beings, or devas, [saying,] 'Such is your thinking, here is where your thinking is, thus is your mind.' And however much he may read, that's exactly how it is, and not otherwise.

"Then there is the case where a certain person reads [another person's thoughts], not by means of a sign or vision; not by hearing the voice of human beings, non-human beings, or devas; but by hearing the sound of the directed thought & evaluation of a person thinking directed thoughts and evaluating, [saying,] 'Such is your thinking, here is where your thinking is, thus is your mind.' And however much he may read, that's exactly how it is, and not otherwise.

"Then there is the case where a certain person reads [another person's thoughts], not by means of a sign or vision; not by hearing the voice of human beings, non-human beings, or devas; not by hearing the sound of the directed thought & evaluation of a person thinking directed thoughts and evaluating; but by having attained a concentration devoid of directed thought & evaluation, and encompassing the awareness [of the other] with his own awareness, he discerns, 'Given the way the mental fabrications of this venerable person are inclined, the directed thoughts of his mind will immediately think about this.' And however much he may read, that's exactly how it is, and not otherwise.

"This, brahman, is the miracle of telepathy.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[Grigoris]

Direct interaction between minds contradicts karma.

Why?

[Astus]

Direct interaction between minds contradicts karma.

Why?

Mind is a stream of momentary phenomena. If two such streams cross, they become one stream. That's one part. The other part is that if one can connect to another mind directly, that means one person's thought becomes another's, so one's will becomes another's will, hence what one intends is what the other intends. And while it is possible that two people agree on something, and that can be called shared karma, if a mind can take control of another, that violates another's ability to make decisions.

[muni]

Your hand wrote it, not your mind...

A substantial flesh-bone-blood collection writing by itself? Waaah!
Run for life!

[Natan]

What if there's no mind, going, coming, entering or leaving?

[muni]

I think we can say by the thinking mind we are separate, by empty Mind not.

could you read this as I think about it, before I express it with words?

Yes, you could.

What if there's no mind, going, coming, entering or leaving?

Could you explain where is no going, coming, entering or leaving of phenomena like mind/thoughts? I don't mean a place. Thank you.

[Grigoris]

Mind is a stream of momentary phenomena. If two such streams cross, they become one stream. That's one part. The other part is that if one can connect to another mind directly, that means one person's thought becomes another's, so one's will becomes another's will, hence what one intends is what the other intends. And while it is possible that two people agree on something, and that can be called shared karma, if a mind can take control of another, that violates another's ability to make decisions.

I don't think the issue is mind control here, but mind-reading / telepathy.

I think that the Sutta quoted shows the Buddha was aware of its existence and understood that it was the outcome of specific meditational states.

Now the mechanism for this procedure, how it works exactly, is not really touched upon in the Abhidharma (and seems to contradict some of the theory therein) and yet...

Personally I have experienced a phenomenon that can be described as telepathy.

I believe that this idea that we are somehow completely and utterly seperate physically and mentally from our surroundings has been proven false by yogi and scientists alike. So this idea that thoughts exist solely within the confines of your mind (head or brain) is a little misleading. It seems that reality is a little more fluid than that.

[Astus]

Now the mechanism for this procedure, how it works exactly, is not really touched upon in the Abhidharma (and seems to contradict some of the theory therein) and yet...

This itself I find problematic. There is no sensible explanation in (or outside) Buddhism for telepathy.

Personally I have experienced a phenomenon that can be described as telepathy.

I assume most of us have. However, a number of deja-vus don't mean there's a glitch in the Matrix.

I believe that this idea that we are somehow completely and utterly seperate physically and mentally from our surroundings has been proven false by yogi and scientists alike. So this idea that thoughts exist solely within the confines of your mind (head or brain) is a little misleading. It seems that reality is a little more fluid than that.

If it's allowed for minds to mingle, to lose integrity, then it also allows for one mind to manipulate another. However, our experiences are our own, just like our actions. So, we can share thoughts and even organs, but not deeds and perceptions.

[muni]

"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the awareness of other beings.

He knows the awareness of other beings, other individuals, having encompassed it with his own awareness. He discerns a mind with passion as a mind with passion, and a mind without passion as a mind without passion. He discerns a mind with aversion as a mind with aversion, and a mind without aversion as a mind without aversion.

He discerns a mind with delusion as a mind with delusion, and a mind without delusion as a mind without delusion. He discerns a restricted mind as a restricted mind, and a scattered mind as a scattered mind. He discerns an enlarged mind as an enlarged mind, and an unenlarged mind as an unenlarged mind.

He discerns an excelled mind as an excelled mind, and an unexcelled mind as an unexcelled mind. He discerns a concentrated mind as a concentrated mind, and an unconcentrated mind as an unconcentrated mind. He discerns a released mind as a released mind, and an unreleased mind as an unreleased mind.

Just as if a young woman — or man — fond of ornaments, examining the reflection of her own face in a bright mirror or a bowl of clear water would know 'blemished' if it were blemished, or 'unblemished' if it were not. In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge of the awareness of other beings.

He knows the awareness of other beings, other individuals, having encompassed it with his own awareness. He discerns a mind with passion as a mind with passion, and a mind without passion as a mind without passion... a released mind as a released mind, and an unreleased mind as an unreleased mind."

[Grigoris]

This itself I find problematic. There is no sensible explanation in (or outside) Buddhism for telepathy.

Just because there is no sensible explanation doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I assume most of us have. However, a number of deja-vus don't mean there's a glitch in the Matrix.

Didn't say there was. I did not claim that my anecdotal account was anything but anecdotal.

If it's allowed for minds to mingle, to lose integrity, then it also allows for one mind to manipulate another. However, our experiences are our own, just like our actions. So, we can share thoughts and even organs, but not deeds and perceptions.

So, earlier you said that you too have had experiences with telepathy. How do you explain what happened to you?

[Anders]

Now the mechanism for this procedure, how it works exactly, is not really touched upon in the Abhidharma (and seems to contradict some of the theory therein) and yet...

This itself I find problematic. There is no sensible explanation in (or outside) Buddhism for telepathy.

Personally I have experienced a phenomenon that can be described as telepathy.

I assume most of us have. However, a number of deja-vus don't mean there's a glitch in the Matrix.

I believe that this idea that we are somehow completely and utterly seperate physically and mentally from our surroundings has been proven false by yogi and scientists alike. So this idea that thoughts exist solely within the confines of your mind (head or brain) is a little misleading. It seems that reality is a little more fluid than that.

If it's allowed for minds to mingle, to lose integrity, then it also allows for one mind to manipulate another. However, our experiences are our own, just like our actions. So, we can share thoughts and even organs, but not deeds and perceptions.

"Our own"? That doesn't sound very dependently originated. Nothing in Samsara is wholly private.

[Astus]

How do you explain what happened to you?

My approach: Don't question the experience. Question the explanation. That's because of the same reason as what happens on a magic show. It looks real, but you know it's false. If you just believe your eyes, you accept that it's paranormal.

There are various plausible ways to approach telepathy and other abilities like that. The most reliable would be to test if it's even something one can actually do, to rule out coincidence and memory distortion. But I think that's never really happened. So I'd not go that way, and rather say that abilities are something else than what generally people think about them.

[Astus]

"Our own"? That doesn't sound very dependently originated. Nothing in Samsara is wholly private.

Causal consistency. From an apple seed an apple tree grows, not a pear tree. Dependent origination includes that every being experiences the fruits of their own actions, not another's. How is it not wholly private?

[pothigai]

Now the mechanism for this procedure, how it works exactly, is not really touched upon in the Abhidharma (and seems to contradict some of the theory therein) and yet...

This itself I find problematic. There is no sensible explanation in (or outside) Buddhism for telepathy.

My understanding would be that thoughts have in part have a physical basis and are thus not entirely private. The subjective experience of the thoughts is private, but the physical basis for them arising is not, so theoretically it could be accessed by other sentient beings.