Mindreading and Suffering

[Guest guest]

Another possible answer to these questions occurred to me, namely that we do

not know the thoughts and feelings of the characters in the dreams we have

had - nor would we be particularly interested. So why should we expect that

the Sage would be able to read our mind?

 

Unfortunately, though this metaphor is often used in Advaita, it does not

seem to stand up to close examination. We are not able to confront the dream

characters in our waking state and hold conversations (even dream

conversations) with them, whereas we may talk to the Sage and, apparently,

vice versa.

 

I accept Anand Natarajan's point that (in reality) everything I perceive is

a product of my own mind and that there are no others but the question is at

the level of vyavahaara and therefore the answer must be likewise. As

Sadananda points out, while we believe ourselves to be a separate entity, we

could not experience the thoughts of others but the Sage is not in this

position. If I interpret his other comments correctly, once I am established

in the Self, I know that there are no others, except in the sense of

different names and forms only. All the names and forms are within Me. The

thoughts, feelings, sufferings etc. of the apparent individuals arises from

their identification with these names and forms. I'm having difficulty

formulating my precise concerns here. I guess what I am trying to say is

that since, to the Sage there are no others, how and why could he have any

concern for their imagined suffering?

 

Murthy-ji says: "If you love someone deeply and feel unision with that

entity, the pains and feelings of one are indeed the pains and feelings of

the other." I cannot agree with this. If a loved one has an injury and is in

pain, yes we may well feel a sympathetic emotional distress as a result but

this will clearly not be the shooting pain in the leg or whatever the injury

might be. Also I do not think there are many scientifically validated

instances (however many anecdotal cases there might be) of people reading

the thoughts of another, however loved the other might be.

 

In conclusion, I guess I am still confused. It is also difficult to carry on

thinking about such subject at this time. I find myself fervently (and

selfishly) hoping that Greg, in New York, and Sadananda, in Washington,

(being just those I know about) are both ok after the truly terrible events

of yesterday. How can one stay a detached, objective observer and maintain

the view of the illusory nature of the world in the midst of such carnage?

 

Dennis