Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Does Enlightenment Imply Omniscience and Infallibility?
compassionate_warrior
Veteran
Was the Buddha omniscient after reaching Enlightenment, or did he make, or could he have still made, mistakes? Does anyone who reaches Enlightenment automatically become omniscient or clairvoyant?
0
Comments
I think we need to define what omniscience is: Is it knowing everything? Or is it the capacity to know whatever one puts one's mind to knowing? Or something else?
Metta,
Guy
lol
siddhi is an inherent capacity of some (but not all) human beings that is awakened by advanced meditation or simply occurs naturally
many fully enlightened beings did/do not have siddhis and many, such as the Buddha, did/do
:hair:
:bawl:
Watch your mouth.
There is absolutely no need whatsoever to use foul language on a Buddhist forum.
http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol4/was_the_buddha_omniscient.html
Metta to all sentient beings
"The Therav1da tradition exhibits this mistake when it appears to claim that the Buddha could know all possible facts. This claim is not only highly doubtful but obfuscating. Its doubtful nature can be shown by considering some improbable scenarios. For example, could the Buddha, even if he gave his full attention to it, know how many hairs there are on my head? This seems extremely unlikely. Could he, then, know how to operate Word 7 (the word processing package I am using to type this essay) without instruction. I doubt it. Did the Buddha know that the Earth orbited the sun? There is certainly no evidence to suggest that he did. Did he understand the workings of the internal combustion engine? While, for sure, it is impossible to prove that the Buddha could not have known such things it seems unreasonable to suggest that he may have done since there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. After all, why would he? Moreover, what, anyway would be the value of such knowledge in relation to the Buddha’s aims?
The Buddha claimed to see into the real nature of experience and phenomena, he did not claim to be some sort of transcendental know-all. Such a claim obscures the spiritual significance and orientation of his insight. It arises from a conflation of two different orders of knowledge; the Buddha’s knowledge was of spiritual principles, even laws, not of mundane facts. There is no reason to believe that his mastery of the principle of Dependent Origination should also give him access to the total range of mundane facts. The two kinds of knowledge are of a different nature. The claim that the Buddha could potentially know everything obscures the spiritual profundity of his attainment and reduces him to some sort of human encyclopedia."
Metta to all sentient beings
"Testing the Buddha’s omniscience
One way to refute the claim that the Buddha was omniscient would be to find examples in the Pali Canon that clearly demonstrate a lack of knowledge on his part. In other words, we can test the claim to omniscience by attempting to falsify it. I have selected several incidents that appear to show that, at least with regard to the question at hand, the Buddha lacked knowledge.
1 Caatumaa Sutta (Majjhima Nikaaya Sutta 67)
Here the Buddha is staying at Catumaa in a myrobalan grove. A large group of monks headed by S1riputta and Mah1 Moggallaana have come to Caatumaa to see the Buddha. However, while the visiting monks exchange greetings with the Buddha’s own retinue, they are very noisy and boisterous.
Seemingly rather annoyed, the Buddha demands of AAnanda:
Who are these loud noisy people? One would think they were fishermen hawking fish.[23]
Interestingly, the Buddha does not seem to know who the bhikkhus are, even though two of them are his leading disciples. AAnanda then informs the Buddha as to the monks’ identities and the Buddha summons them to him. The Buddha then dismisses them from his company and they go.
However, hearing of this, the local Sakyans undertake to visit the Buddha to “restore his confidence.” Their appeal to him is quite instructive:
Venerable sir, let the Blessed One delight in the Sangha of bhikkhus; venerable sir, let the Blessed One welcome the Sangha of bhikkhus; venerable sir, let the Blessed One help the Sangha of bhikkhus now as he used to help it in the past. Venerable sir, there are new bhikkhus here, just gone forth, recently come to this Dhamma and Discipline. If they get no opportunity to see the Blessed One, there may take place in them some change or alteration [i.e. they may lose their inspiration and fall back].[24]
It seems almost as though the Sakyans think that the Buddha’s behaviour shows a lack of compassion and, later in the sutta, there is no evidence that he upbraids them for this apparent presumption. In addition, the Sakyans bring a consideration to the Buddha’s attention that he has quite clearly not thought of. He is not aware that there are new bhikkhus who, not being able to see the Buddha, might lose inspiration or, if he is aware of it, he has chosen not to weigh it with any importance.
In his response to the Sakyans, the Buddha seems determined. He will not change his decision. However, the god Brahm1 Sahampati (famous for requesting the Buddha to teach the Dhamma to humanity), knowing the Buddha’s mind, appears before him and pleads in the same way as the Sakyans have done. As a result of this intercession, the Buddha relents and recalls the banished monks. Whether Brahm1 Sahampati is seen literally as a god or metaphorically as the Buddha’s own conscience reflecting on the issue, it is clear that the Buddha changes his mind. Moreover, he changes his mind because he has begun to weigh seriously circumstances that previously he was either unaware of or had not given importance too. Presumably, if his first decision was correct he should not have changed his mind, while if the second decision is correct, the first must have been wrong. It might be argued that the Buddha’s initial decision to send the bhikkhus away seemed reasonable at the time but unreasonable when new circumstances came to light, so he changed his mind. This seems all very human and reasonable but does not seem reconcilable with the claim that the Buddha was omniscient[25]. After all, he should, presumably, have been able to tell that some of the visiting bhikkhus were just newly gone forth. My own, admittedly somewhat speculative, interpretation of this passage is that initially the Buddha was rather annoyed, so dismissed the visiting bhikkhus heatedly. Later, when he had had time to think the matter through and when persuasive reasons were given for allowing the bhikkhus to stay, he changed his mind and allowed them back in."
The Samyutta Nikaaya[26] records an account of the Buddha teaching a meditation on the unlovely (asubhabhaavana). Having taught this meditation, the Buddha goes into solitary retreat for a month and has contact with no-one except the monk who brings his food. During this time, the monks meditated on the unlovely:
As to this body, they worried about it, felt shame and loathing for it, and sought for a weapon to slay themselves. Nay, as many as ten monks did so in a single day; even twenty, thirty of them slew themselves in a single day.[27]
At the end of the period of solitary retreat, the Buddha enquires of AAnanda why there are less bhikkhus than before. Seemingly, then, he does not know that a number of monks have committed suicide. AAnanda tells him what has happened. The Buddha’s response is simply, “Very well, AAnanda,” and to summon the remaining bhikkhus for a discourse on the mindfulness of breathing. Apart from this, he makes no remark about what has happened.
In this incident, then, the Buddha appears not to know that the bhikkhus have committed suicide until informed of the fact and, moreover, when teaching the meditation on the unlovely in the first place, it seems that he did not foresee that they would commit suicide as a result of practising it. (This would seem to raise questions about the Buddha’s knowledge of the future.)
3 Devadatta’s Entry into the Sangha
One of the many questions raised by King Milinda in his dialogues with Naagasena is the issue of Devadatta’s entry into the Order. Milinda asks Naagasena if the Buddha knew that, if admitted to the order of bhikkhus, Devadatta would cause schism. Naagasena replies that the Buddha did know this. Milinda’s response is astute.
But Naagasena, if that be so, then the statement that the Buddha was kind and pitiful, that he sought after the good of others, that he was the remover of that which works harm, the provider of that which works well to all beings - that statement must be wrong.[28]
In other words, if the Buddha had been properly compassionate he would not have admitted Devadatta to the order knowing the problems he would cause. Naturally, Naagasena denies this interpretation of events claiming that the Buddha knew Devadatta’s karmic inheritance and that, should he not be admitted to the order “he would pass for an endless series of kalpas from torment to torment, and from perdition to perdition.”[29] However, if admitted to the order, then Devadatta’s (bad) karmic inheritance would become limited and so endure only for one kalpa.
While one might admire this response as a clever way to try to get out of a tricky spot it is unconvincing. Since causing schism in the Sangha is one of the five most heinous crimes,[30] would it not have been better for Devadatta never to have entered the Order since he couldn’t then have committed it? It seems more reasonable to suggest that Devadatta’s karmic inheritance would become worse as a result of his membership of the order of bhikkhus rather than better. After all, he became involved in a power struggle with the Buddha and even attempted to kill him (another of the five heinous crimes). What could be worse? If Devadatta had not been a bhikkhu it seems unlikely that he would have wanted to usurp the Buddha in this way.
While admiring Naagasena’s fidelity to the claim that the Buddha was omniscient it seems more reasonable to assume that the Buddha did not in fact foresee the consequences of Devadatta’s membership of the order, given that these consequences were so disastrous.
In the Udaana (6,2) there is an incident which appears to reveal the Buddha denying omniscience and, in particular, denying his apparent ability to know the thoughts of others. The Buddha is talking with his friend King Pasenadi when a raggle-taggle group of ascetics wanders by. As they pass, Pasenadi asks the Buddha whether any of them are arahants or on the arahant path. The Buddha’s reply is very interesting:
It is by living with a person that his virtue is to be known, great king, and then only after a long time, not after a short period; and only by considering it, not without consideration; and only by one who is wise, not by a fool. It is by associating with a person that his purity is to be known. … It is in adversity that a person’s fortitude is to be known. … It is by discussion with a person that his wisdom is to be known, great king, and then only after a long time, not after a short period; and only by considering it, not without consideration; and only by one who is wise, not by a fool.[31]
It appears then that the Buddha is suggesting that one cannot know the attainment of another unless one has extended experience of him or her at close quarters. This would seem to undermine the claims made regarding the Buddha’s abilities in other parts of the Pali Canon, in particular the supernormal power of telepathy (parassa cetopariya-ñaa.na) said to be one of the six such powers possessed by the Buddha.
In the episode of the Ja.tila ascetics, Pasenadi later admits to having played a little trick on the Buddha. All of the ascetics are in fact his spies in disguise! At no point does the Buddha claim to have known this fact before Pasenadi reveals it.
I have presented several incidents recorded in the Pali Canon which seem to falsify in a clear and straightforward manner the traditional but somewhat misguided claim to omniscience made on behalf of the Buddha. It is not surprising that on close inspection the Canon is inconsistent on this topic since, given its oral origin, it is unlikely that one editor, or even a team of editors, could have combed through the entire Canon deleting or revising any episodes that might reveal limitations to the Buddha’s sphere of knowledge.
However, the question may arise: why am I so interested in trying to illustrate the Buddha’s apparent lack of omniscience? Is this simply another example of contemporary procrusteanism? Am I trying to cut the Buddha down to size (my size), to show that he had feet of clay? No. My intention is rather the opposite. So long as implausible claims such as omniscience are made on behalf of the Buddha his true significance cannot be fully understood or appreciated. Instead of being respected, venerated, and emulated as a spiritual exemplar he is more likely to be worshipped as some kind of unreachable superman, even a god. The Buddha was a man who achieved a profound spiritual insight, a spiritual insight that - at least according to Buddhism - all human beings can emulate. This is what makes the Buddha so inspiring and so important. Whether he was able to walk through walls or understand quantum theory is irrelevant.
The Buddha’s principal claim was that he had broken the cycle of rebirth and that he had done this by overcoming any tendencies within him towards greed (ta.nhaa), hatred (doha), and delusion (moha). The proper test of the profundity of his realisation, then, is not asking him obscure questions about topics of which he could be expected to know nothing, but in examining his conduct for any evidence that he fell short of his claim. Indeed, this is a test that he himself proposes for the assessment of a sage’s attainment and so of his reliability as a teacher.[32] The primary means of evaluating spiritual integrity then is to examine the ethical purity of the sage not his magical powers (should he have any) or the scope of his mundane knowledge. The Buddha may or may not have had all sorts of magical abilities but these considerations should not obscure what is most fundamentally important about him and what he realised.
The irrelevance of factual omniscience to the real concerns of spiritual life are poignantly summarised by the Mahaayaana Buddhist theologian Dharmakiirti:
People, afraid of being deceived by false teachers
In the matter of directing the ignorant,
Seek out a man with knowledge,
for the sake of realising his teaching.
What is the use of his knowledge
pertaining to the number of insects in the whole world?
Rather, inquire into his knowledge of
that which is to be practised by us.[33]"
Metta to all sentient beings
Our life is short. That one may learn how to end dukkha in another life is mere speculation.
Metta to all sentient beings
Beings with siddhis definitely know alot, if one ever meets one, including about Windows 7.
It's not a big deal, except for we see echoes of this in some Buddhists tending to excuse a Master's behavior, no matter how bizarre or seemingly hurtful to others or himself, as "above mundane morality". Who are we to judge an enlightened Master's actions? So a woman gets abused, or a Master stays addicted to alcohol, because we think they're perfect.
Is it possible the Buddha merely chose to simply experience ordinary life experiences and the benefaction of the giver, with non-attachment?
:sawed:
In my opinion when the sutras talk about supernatural abilities, telepathic abilities etc etc, I see them as a sort of myth, used to get a point across, and not something to be actually taken as fact. The fact that we rely on hearsay when we read the suttras should suggest that there is opportunity for exaggeration when talking about the Buddha.
However, the core teachings of the Buddha can be verified personally through logical reasoning and direct insight if a person can achieve this.
Metta to all sentient beings
Metta to all sentient beings
"The Buddha was not a mystic. His awakening was not a shattering insight into a transcendent Truth that revealed to him the mysteries of God. He did not claim to have had an experience that granted him privileged, esoteric knowledge of how the universe ticks. Only as Buddhism became more and more of a religion were such grandiose claims imputed to his awakening. In describing to the five ascetics what his awakening meant, he spoke of having discovered complete freedom of heart and mind from the compulsions of craving."
http://www.arrowriver.ca/dhamma/woBeliefs.html
Anyway I guess I should read this book myself before I can make comment on it.
Metta to all sentient beings
such as to assert the Buddha did not end his defilements and the Buddha had no supernormal psychic powers really does not cut it
but for Westerners who get stuck in comparisons; get stuck in projecting images upon themselves; Stephen can help
like many Westerners cannot simply think: "Wow, how great, the Buddha ended his defilements"
instead, they think: "Buddha is better than me and because my mind has defilements I am bad" or "Buddha cannot be like that because I am not like that"
we do not have such hang ups about sports star like Michael Jordan or Kelly Slater. we are happy to acknowledge them. but when it comes to spiritual superstars, many folks have issues
:sawed:
Also, strictly speaking, I don't think he did assert that. His default position is agnosticism.
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
...
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
Notes
1.
I.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha.
Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html
Hi compassionate warrior
Gautama Buddha said this:
“What do you think, monks? Which are more... the leaves in my hand or those above the sisapa forest?" The Blessed One was staying near Kosambi in the sisapa forest when he picked up a handful of sisapa leaves and posed this question.
"Few are the leaves in your hand, Bhante answered the monks, "compared to the abundant leaves above the sisapa forest."
"It is so indeed, monks," said the Blessed Or "In the same way, vast is the knowledge that I have directly realised but not revealed. But why did not reveal it?" The Buddha explained that it was because such knowledge was not conducive to total liberation from the sufferings pertaining to the endless round of births and deaths. (Sisapavana Sutta, SN 56:31).
__
My impression of what I have read from Batchelor (which is quite limited as encountered on Buddhist forums) is that he speaks, naturally, from his own experiences and insights. But because these are quite constrained (and my sense of him as a person is he quite intellectual) - he then posits that that is all there is to Buddha's teachings. ie he extrapolates his own understandings as represenative of all of Buddhism and Buddhism's boundaries/potentialities.
Fortunately we also have many other good teachers in the traditions whom teach a bit more broadly, including from the Tibetan, Theravadan and Zen/Ch'an Schoo amongst others.
My own experience of Buddha's teachings is that they are not limited in any way and can even touch on that which some might call 'interesting' in a wider sense.
Of course, this is not intended as any disrespect to Batchelor - everyone can and usually does only speak from their own experiences/views, but I would not take his views/theory as representative of the potentialities of Buddhist practice.
Best wishes,
Abu
“[T]hose things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven’t I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.”
Metta to all sentient beings
Metta to all sentient beings
The Blessed One was once living at Kosambi in a wood of simsapa trees. He picked up a few leaves in his hand, and he asked the bhikkhus, ‘How do you conceive this, bhikkhus, which is more, the few leaves that I have picked up in my hand or those on the trees in the wood?
‘The leaves that the Blessed One has picked up in his hand are few, Lord; those in the wood are far more.’
‘So too, bhikkhus, the things that I have known by direct knowledge are more; the things that I have told you are only a few. Why have I not told them? Because they bring no benefit, no advancement in the Holy Life, and because they do not lead to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have not told them. And what have I told you? This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. That is what I have told you. Why have I told it? Because it brings benefit, and advancement in the Holy Life, and because it leads to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. So bhikkhus, let your task be this: This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’
But we know this is not true. How many scientists, let alone regular every day people, have thought about and even studied these "unconjecturables" and not gone mad? In fact, I can't such a scientist who has gone mad.
To me, this still does not suggest that Buddha was omniscient, it suggests that he had direct knowledge of more than just the end of suffering, but not knowledge of everything, or could see the future or had suprenomal powers etc etc.
It would be interesting to know if people think it is important for them to know that Buddha was omniscient ? I mean how will it change a persons practice if they came to conclusion one way or another.
For me, it wont change a thing. I mean speaking personally, I did not decide to become a Buddhist because I thought that Buddha was omniscient, in fact this would have most likely scared me away from Buddhism, as it is much more appealing for me to think that Buddha was not some sort of god or supernormal being, but a man who had a geniune deep spiritual experience; a connection with the universe into the true nature of life, which he subsequently shared.
Anyway I decided to become a Buddhist because, Buddhas core teachings , his insight, made sense and still makes sense to me.
Metta to all sentient beings