was the buddha omniscient2

8/12/2019 Was the Buddha Omniscient2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/was-the-buddha-omniscient2 1/15

Was the Buddha Omniscient?

Dharmacāri Nāgapriya

Introduction

Did the Buddha know everything? What, anyway, can it mean to know everything? The precisescope of the Buddha s rea!isation is an important "ut difficu!t #uestion to determine$ Did he knowa!! facts or was his know!edge more principia!? Without direct access to the Buddha s mind it wou!dseem impossi"!e to "e certain as to the precise range of his know!edge and powers and yet, if we areto engage imaginative!y with %n!ightenment as a meaningfu! goa!, it seems important to try$ &fter

a!!, what marks out the Buddha as e'emp!ary, as worthy of emu!ation, is the fact that he was ahuman "eing$ (e !ived, "reathed, ta!ked, ate, and died !ike the rest of us whi!e at the same time hewas )%n!ightened $

(ere, I argue that one of the centra! disputes regarding the content of the Buddha s rea!isation arisesfrom an e#uivocation over the meanings of the terms )know!edge and )omniscience as we!! as anunhe!pfu! "orrowing of voca"u!ary from e'isting Indian re!igious traditions*+$ I wi!! !ook at thetraditiona! c!aims made on "eha!f of the Buddha in the !ight of simi!ar c!aims made on "eha!f of hisriva!s and see to what e'tent the -ā!i suttas support them$ In doing so, I wi!! c!arify what the Buddhahimse!f is reported to have c!aimed to know and comment upon why it is so important that we makean accurate assessment of his powers$

The .eaning of Omniscience

Before investigating the Buddha more specifica!!y, it wi!! "e we!! to c!arify what precise!y the term)omniscience means$ &ccording to /o!!ins Dictionary, omniscience means, first, 0infiniteknow!edge or understanding1 and, second, 0very great, or seeming!y infinite know!edge1 2myita!ics3$ If we adopt the second definition, it wi!! "e much easier to defend the c!aim that the Buddhawas omniscient than if we adopt the first$ On this reading, the Buddha had such Insight, suchwisdom, that it seemed as though he knew everything, as though his know!edge was drawn from a"ottom!ess we!!$

In this connection, we may reca!! the Buddha s ana!ogy of the si4sapā !eaves 25a4yutta Nikāya67,8+3$ The Buddha once was staying at 9osam"i, in a si4sapā forest$ :eaching down, he scooped



up a handfu! of !eaves and he!d them out in the pa!m of his hand$ Of the "hikkhus who wereaccompanying him, the Buddha asked,

Which are more numerous, the few si4sapā !eaves in my hand or those overhead in the

si4sapā forest?; Not surprising!y, the "hikkhus rep!ied that, in comparison to the !eaves inthe entire forest, the !eaves in the Buddha s hand were "ut few$

In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct know!edge "ut havenot taught are far more numerous *than what I have taught $ &nd why haven<t I taughtthem? Because they are not connected with the goa!, do not re!ate to the rudiments of theho!y !ife, and do not !ead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to ca!m, todirect know!edge, to se!f=awakening, to >n"inding$ That is why I have not taught them$

*

Omniscience in the -ā!i /anon

In the -ā!i te'ts, two differing versions of omniscience are discerni"!e and it wi!! soon "ecome c!earthat the connotations of the -ā!i term common!y rendered )omniscience are #uite different fromthose of the %ng!ish word$ In the Tevi@@avacchagotta 5utta 2.a@@hima Nikāya, 5utta A+3, the asceacchagotta approaches the Buddha$ (e wants to c!arify the precise scope of the Buddha s

know!edge and so #uestions him$

enera"!e 5ir, I have heard thisC 0The rec!use otama c!aims to "e omniscient*sa""aEEF and a!!=seeing *sa""adassāvG , to have comp!ete know!edge and vision thusC0Whether I am wa!king or standing or s!eeping or awake, know!edge and vision arecontinuous!y and uninterrupted!y present to me$1 enera"!e sir, do those who speak thussay what has "een said "y the B!essed One, and not misrepresent him with what iscontrary to fact?*8

&ccording to the commentaria! tradition, this statement encompasses two different scopes of omniscience$ Bhikkhu Bodhi writes,

&ccording to the e'egetica! Theravāda tradition the Buddha is omniscient in the sense that a!!knowa"!e things are potentia!!y accessi"!e to him$ (e cannot, however, know everything

simu!taneous!y and must advert to what he wishes to know$*H



The .i!indapaEha 2 uestions of 9ing .i!inda3 = a post=canonica! -ā!i work that dea!s with manypuJJ!ing #uestions a"out the Buddha s !ife and teaching = seems to @ustify this interpretation$Nāgasena, a Buddhist monk, points out to the king that,

The omniscience of the B!essed One was dependent on ref!ection$ But if he did ref!ect heknew whatever he wanted to know$*6

The more far=reaching version of omniscience is apparent!y c!aimed "y = among others K NigaLMhaNātaputta, the !eader of what is now known as the ain sect$ 5uch a c!aim is attri"uted to him in the/u!adukkhakkhandha 5utta 2.a@@hima Nikāya, 5utta +H3$ In this sutta, .ahānama the 5akyanreports c!aims made "y Nātaputta to his own fo!!owers regarding his more comprehensive versionof omniscienceC

riend, the NigaLMha Nātaputta is omniscient *sa""aEEF and a!!=seeing *sa""adassāvGand c!aims to have comp!ete know!edge *aparisesa EāLadassana paMi@ānāti thusC0Whether I am wa!king or standing or as!eep or awake, know!edge and vision*EāLadassana are continuous!y *satata and uninterrupted!y *samita4 present in me$1*7

In more technica! terms, .ahāvGra s omniscience was termed keva!a=@Eāna, a state in which the sou!2ātman3, 0"eing tota!!y independent of the senses and the mind, wi!!, without any conscious effort

whatsoever, direct!y and simu!taneous!y mirror the who!e range of knowa"!es 2sarva4 @Eeya431$*A5eeming!y, a!! freed sou!s attain to omniscience according to this system$ The )&!! 2sarva3 that theomniscient come to know was understood to comprise the si' su"stances 2dravyas3 with theirinfinite modes 2paryāyas3*P$ We wi!! see that the transference of the voca"u!ary of the )&!! 2sa""ain -ā!i3 into Buddhism !ed to am"iguity and hence a !ong=running de"ate a"out its meaning$

Important!y, at !east according to the .a@@hima Nikāya 2.N A73, Nātaputta is not a"!e to !ive up tohis !ofty c!aim and his "ragging is ridicu!ed "y QnandaC

(ere, 5andaka, some teacher c!aims to "e omniscient and a!!=seeing, to have comp!eteknow!edge and vision thusC )Whether I am wa!king or standing or s!eeping or awake,know!edge and vision are continuous!y and uninterrupted!y present to me$ (e enters anempty house, he gets no a!msfood, a dog "ites him, he meets with a wi!d e!ephant, a wi!dhorse, a wi!d "u!!, R he asks the name of a vi!!age or a town, and the way to go there$When he is #uestionedC )(ow is this? he rep!iesC )I had to enter an empty house, that iswhy I entered it$ I had to get no a!msfoodR*S

Qnanda points out that if it is true that Nātaputta is omniscient why does he need to ask directions?



Why does he meet with misfortune 2which his omniscience shou!d presuma"!y a!!ow him to foreseeand so avoid3? Nātaputta s defence is some version of determinism that is, he cou!d foresee thesethings "ut they were going to happen anyway$

The de"unking of Nātaputta s c!aim to omniscience is taken further in the /FUasaku!udāyi sutta2.a@@hima Nikāya, 5utta AS3$ In speaking a"out a meeting with Nātaputta, 5aku!ud+yi reports to theBuddhaC

When I asked him a #uestion a"out the past, he prevaricated, !ed the ta!k aside, andshowed anger, hate, and "itterness$*+V

This passage is c!ear!y intended not on!y to discredit Nātaputta s c!aims "ut to show that such

c!aims are ridicu!ous$

Whi!e decisive!y re@ecting the "roader version of omniscience c!aimed "y NigaLMha Nātaputta andother wanderers, the Theravāda schoo! maintained that the Buddha was omniscient in the sense that0a!! knowa"!e things are potentia!!y accessi"!e to him$1 (owever, a straightforward reading of theBuddha s rep!y to acchagotta K #uoted a"ove K wou!d seem to contradict this c!aim$

In his rep!y, the Buddha says nothing a"out having omniscience, he simp!y asserts that he has thethree know!edges 2tevi@@ā3, that isC he is a"!e to reco!!ect his manifo!d past !ives 2pu""enāvāsānussati=EāLa3 he is a"!e = with his divine eye = to see the passing away and reappearing of "eings and he understands how "eings pass on according to their actions 2di""a=cakkhu=EāLa3 andfina!!y, having rea!ised for himse!f with direct know!edge 2a"hiEnā3, he knows that he has destroyedthe taints 2āsava=kkhaya=EāLa3$ One wou!d have thought that these powers were remarka"!e enoughin themse!ves The .a@@hima Nikāya, in particu!ar, focuses on this formu!a of the three know!edgesin order to descri"e the content of the Buddha s achievement and does not e'p!icit!y c!aim more

*++$ .oreover, returning to the /FUasaku!udāyi 5utta, when the wander 5aku!udāyin suggests thatit is in fact the Buddha, rather than .ahāvGra, who is proper!y omniscient the Buddha dismissessuch considerations as irre!evant and offers instead the formu!a of Dependent Origination 2paMicca=samuppāda3C

When this e'ists, that comes to "e with the arising of this, that arises$ When this doesnot e'ist, that does not come to "e with the cessation of this, that ceases$*+

In the 9aLLakattha!a=sutta 2.a@@hima Nikāya, 5utta SV3, however, the Buddha gives a moream"iguous response$ On this occasion, it is 9ing -asenadi of 9osa!a, the Buddha s o!d friend, whocomes to see him and asks a"out omniscience$



enera"!e sir, I have heard thisC )The rec!use otama saysC 0There is no rec!use or"rahmin who is omniscient *sa""aEEF and a!!=seeing *sa""adassāvG , who can c!aim tohave comp!ete know!edge and vision *aparisesa EāLadassana that is not possi"!e$1enera"!e sir, do those who speak thus say what has "een said "y the B!essed One, andnot misrepresent him with what is contrary to fact?*+8

The Buddha denies that he has made this c!aim saying,

I reca!! having actua!!y made the utterance in this way, great kingC 0There is no rec!useor "rahmin who knows a!!, who sees a!!, simu!taneous!y that is not possi"!e$1*+H

/!ear!y, then, he does not here deny that it is possi"!e to know and see a!!, on!y that it is possi"!e toknow and see a!! simu!taneous!y$ In other words, he is denying the kind of omniscience c!aimed "y,and on "eha!f of, the NigaLMha Nātaputta$ Neverthe!ess, without e'p!icit!y denying it, he sti!! doesnot c!aim to know and see a!! himse!f$ &s we have noted, the orthodo' Therav+da position seems to"e that the Buddha cou!d, in princip!e, know and see a!! "ut he needed to give his attention to aparticu!ar o"@ect of know!edge in order to know it$ The principa! support for this c!aim in the -ā!ite'ts is found in the 9āUaka 5utta of the &nguttara Nikāya 2i$ H3$ (ere the Buddha says,

.onks, whatsoever in the wor!d 2!oka3, with its devas R with its hosts of rec!uses and"rahmins, of devas and mankind, K whatsoever is seen heard, sensed, cogniJed, attained,searched into, pondered over "y the mind,K a!! that I do know$ Whatsoever is seen, heardR pondered over "y the mind, K that have I fu!!y comprehendedC a!! that is understood"y the Tathāgata, "ut the Tathāgata is not su"@ect to it$*+6

When the Buddha says, 0I do know1, he is using the -ā!i ver" @ān, which means )to know, to have orgain know!edge of, to "e e'perienced, to "e aware, to find out$ This, then, wou!d seem to confirm

that the Buddha is in fact c!aiming some form of omniscience 2though perhaps @ust one comment inthe entire -ā!i /anon is insufficient to "e sure3$ (owever, the #uestion arises, what does the Buddhamean when he says that he knows a!! that can "e seen etc? Does he know these things as a finiterange of possi"!e facts of which he may gain know!edge or does he know them principia!!y, that is,does he in princip!e know the true nature of a!! things, that is as "eing su"@ect to the threecharacteristics of conditioned e'istenceC unsatisfactoriness 2dukkha, impermanence 2anicca3, anda"sence of permanent identity 2anattā3?

& passage from the sutta immediate!y preceding the one @ust #uoted sheds further !ight on this#uestion$ In )The Wor!d sutta 2&nguttara Nikāya G$ 83, the Buddha makes an identica! c!aim



regarding the scope of his know!edge$ (owever, in this sutta the statement is made in the conte't of a passage where he discusses his know!edge of the wor!d in re!ation to the our No"!e Truths$

.onks, the wor!d is fu!!y comprehended "y a Tathāgata$ rom the wor!d a Tathāgata is

re!eased$ .onks, the arising of the wor!d is fu!!y comprehended "y a Tathāgata thearising of the wor!d is a"andoned "y a Tathāgata, the ending of the wor!d is fu!!ycomprehended "y a Tathāgata the ending of the wor!d is rea!iJed "y a Tathāgata$.onks, the practice going to the ending of the wor!d is fu!!y comprehended "y aTathāgata the practice going to the ending of the wor!d is made to "ecome "y theTathāgata$*+7

This conte't makes the scope of the Buddha s c!aim much c!earer$ (e is not c!aiming to know a!!

facts$ The )wor!d indicated here is c!ear!y the wor!d of the unen!ightened "eing, the "eingimmersed in dukkha 2suffering3$ The Buddha c!aims to know how this wor!d arises and how tomake it come to an end$ In other words, he knows why peop!e suffer, he knows too that sufferingcan "e overcome, he knows how to overcome suffering, and he communicates a means of overcoming it$ (ere, then, the Buddha simp!y reiterates what he c!aims in many other p!aces, that is,that he knows the our No"!e Truths$

The am"iguity regarding the e'act c!aim made "y = or on "eha!f of = the Buddha is shown c!ear!y in

the 5a""apariEEā 5utta 2Itivuttaka, 5utta A3$ (ere the Buddha is reported to say,

Bhikkhus, one who has not direct!y known and fu!!y understood the )&!! 2sa""a3, whohas not detached his mind from it and a"andoned it, is incapa"!e of destroying suffering$But one who has direct!y known 2a"hi@āna3 and fu!!y understood 2pari@āna3 the )&!! , andwho has detached his mind from it and a"andoned it, is capa"!e of destroying suffering$*+A

We noticed ear!ier that for the ains the )&!! meant something very technica! and specific thetota!ity of a!! knowa"!es$ (owever, the current passage suggests that the )&!! is used as a synonymfor sa4sara, the unen!ightened condition$ The aim here is, through direct know!edge 2pariEEā3 of it,to a"andon the )&!! and, in doing so, !i"erate onese!f from suffering$ Other conte'ts make it c!earthat pariEEā is a specia!, higher kind of know!edge = a gnosis = not mere!y a factua! sort$ It isidentica! with the goa! of Buddhism*+P$ 9nowing the )&!! in this sense may "e spoken of insevera! ways, for e'amp!e, insight into the our No"!e Truths 2catāri ariya saccāni3, the Three/haracteristics 2ti=!akkhaLa3 of %'istence, or Dependent Origination$ &ccording!y, then, knowingthe )&!! 2sa""a3 is e#uiva!ent to knowing the nature of the wor!d 2!oka3$ It is a spiritua! insight intothe way things are that !eads to a profound transformation of one s attitude towards it that is



indicated here$

aini specu!ates that 0the word sa""aEEu was an ancient QramaLa technica! term, and was in vogueamong the ainsRat the time of .ahāvGra$1*+S It was, he "e!ieves, taken up "y the Buddhists and

app!ied to their .aster "ut perhaps not fu!!y assimi!ated$ iven the am"iguous meaning of the termsa""a 25anskrit, sarva3, it is not surprising that confusion arose within the Buddhist conte'tregarding what it signified and that, at !east in the minds of some commentators, a more factua!interpretation of sa""aEEuta=EāLa rep!aced a more principia! one$ /onse#uent!y, certain powerswere ascri"ed to the Buddha that are not on!y !itera!!y incredi"!e "ut rather "eside the point$

The Theravāda tradition e'hi"its this mistake when it appears to c!aim that the Buddha cou!d knowa!! possi"!e facts$ This c!aim is not on!y high!y dou"tfu! "ut a!so o"fuscating$ Its dou"tfu! nature can

"e shown "y considering some impro"a"!e scenarios$ or e'amp!e, cou!d the Buddha, even if hegave his fu!! attention to it, know how many hairs there are on my head? This seems e'treme!yun!ike!y$ /ou!d he, then, know how to operate Word A 2the word processing package I am using totype this essay3 without instruction$ I dou"t it$ Did the Buddha know that the %arth or"ited the sun?There is certain!y no evidence to suggest that he did$ Did he understand the workings of the interna!com"ustion engine? Whi!e, for sure, it is impossi"!e to prove that the Buddha cou!d not have knownsuch things it seems unreasona"!e to suggest that he may have done since there is a"so!ute!y noevidence to support this c!aim$ &fter a!!, why wou!d he? .oreover, what, anyway wou!d "e the

va!ue of such know!edge in re!ation to the Buddha s aims?

The Buddha c!aimed to see into the rea! nature of e'perience and phenomena, he did not c!aim to "esome sort of transcendenta! know=a!!$ 5uch a c!aim o"scures the spiritua! significance andorientation of his insight$ It arises from a conf!ation of two different orders of know!edge theBuddha s know!edge was of spiritua! princip!es, even !aws, not of mundane facts$ There is noreason to "e!ieve that his mastery of the princip!e of Dependent Origination shou!d a!so give himaccess to the tota! range of mundane facts$ The two kinds of know!edge are of a different nature$The c!aim that the Buddha cou!d potentia!!y know everything o"scures the spiritua! profundity of his attainment and reduces him to some sort of human encyc!opedia$

This conf!ation of different orders of know!edge appears in one of the de"ates of the canonica!&"hidhammic work the 9athavatthu 2-oints of /ontroversy3$ &n opponent of the Theras, a-u""ase!iya, puts forward the view that an arahant may !ack certain know!edge "ecause he is !ia"!eto get perp!e'ed a"out facts concerning everyday !ife and may "e surpassed in such know!edge "yothers$ The Thera s response is very instructiveC



Xou maintain that he *the arahant does *!ack know!edge $ Then you must a!so admit thatthe arahant has ignorance = ignorance as f!ood, "ond, !atent "ias, attack, fetter, hindrance$If you deny this, you cannot say he !acks know!edge$* V

This fa!se dichotomy revea!s that the de"ate founders on a misunderstanding a"out the use of theword know!edge 2here EāLa3$ The Thera is not a"!e to conceive of different orders of know!edge andso must re@ect the c!aim that an arahant !acks know!edge of any sort$ or him, if the arahant !acksknow!edge of any kind it ca!!s into #uestion his transcendence of ignorance$ (owever, thise#uivocation on the word )know!edge mis!eads$ 5ure!y it is possi"!e that the arahant may havefu!!y penetrated the sources of greed, hatred, and de!usion 2and so have know!edge of thedestruction of the taints3 "ut not know how to get to Benares, for e'amp!e$ There seems to "e nonecessary connection "etween the former sort of know!edge and the !atter apart from the fact that"oth are referred to as kinds of )know!edge $

Warder* + specu!ates that part of the reason that the ear!y Buddhist tradition was so keen topromote the Buddha to the status of omniscience was that other contemporary teachers made suchc!aims inc!uding NigaLMha Nātaputta = as we have a!ready noted = "ut a!so .akka!i osa!a, and-urana 9assapa* $ /!ear!y, the redactors of the -ā!i /anon = and the !ater commentators = wou!dwish to set the Buddha a"ove any of his riva!s$ This specu!ation seems p!ausi"!e$ But were theyconsistent? /an we find evidence to contradict the c!aim that the Buddha was omniscient even in

the #ua!ified sense out!ined "y, for e'amp!e, Nāgasena?

Testing the Buddha s omniscience

One way to refute the c!aim that the Buddha was omniscient wou!d "e to find e'amp!es in the -ā!i/anon that c!ear!y demonstrate a !ack of know!edge on his part$ In other words, we can test thec!aim to omniscience "y attempting to fa!sify it$ I have se!ected severa! incidents that appear to

show that, at !east with regard to the #uestion at hand, the Buddha !acked know!edge$

+ /ātumā 5utta 2.a@@hima Nikāya 5utta 7A3

(ere the Buddha is staying at /atumā in a myro"a!an grove$ & !arge group of monks headed "y5āriputta and .ahā.ogga!!āna have come to /ātumā to see the Buddha$ (owever, whi!e thevisiting monks e'change greetings with the Buddha s own retinue, they are very noisy and"oisterous$



5eeming!y rather annoyed, the Buddha demands of QnandaC

Who are these !oud noisy peop!e? One wou!d think they were fishermen hawking fish$* 8

Interesting!y, the Buddha does not seem to know who the "hikkhus are, even though two of themare his !eading discip!es$ Qnanda then informs the Buddha as to the monks identities and theBuddha summons them to him$ The Buddha then dismisses them from his company and they go$

(owever, hearing of this, the !oca! 5akyans undertake to visit the Buddha to 0restore hisconfidence$1 Their appea! to him is #uite instructiveC

enera"!e sir, !et the B!essed One de!ight in the 5angha of "hikkhus venera"!e sir, !etthe B!essed One we!come the 5angha of "hikkhus venera"!e sir, !et the B!essed Onehe!p the 5angha of "hikkhus now as he used to he!p it in the past$ enera"!e sir, there arenew "hikkhus here, @ust gone forth, recent!y come to this Dhamma and Discip!ine$ If they get no opportunity to see the B!essed One, there may take p!ace in them somechange or a!teration *i$e$ they may !ose their inspiration and fa!! "ack $* H

It seems a!most as though the 5akyans think that the Buddha s "ehaviour shows a !ack of compassion and, !ater in the sutta, there is no evidence that he up"raids them for this apparentpresumption$ In addition, the 5akyans "ring a consideration to the Buddha s attention that he has#uite c!ear!y not thought of$ (e is not aware that there are new "hikkhus who, not "eing a"!e to seethe Buddha, might !ose inspiration or, if he is aware of it, he has chosen not to weigh it with anyimportance$

In his response to the 5akyans, the Buddha seems determined$ (e wi!! not change his decision$

(owever, the god Brahm+ 5ahampati 2famous for re#uesting the Buddha to teach the Dhamma tohumanity3, knowing the Buddha s mind, appears "efore him and p!eads in the same way as the5akyans have done$ &s a resu!t of this intercession, the Buddha re!ents and reca!!s the "anishedmonks$ Whether Brahm+ 5ahampati is seen !itera!!y as a god or metaphorica!!y as the Buddha sown conscience ref!ecting on the issue, it is c!ear that the Buddha changes his mind$ .oreover, hechanges his mind "ecause he has "egun to weigh serious!y circumstances that previous!y he waseither unaware of or had not given importance too$ -resuma"!y, if his first decision was correct heshou!d not have changed his mind, whi!e if the second decision is correct, the first must have "een

wrong$ It might "e argued that the Buddha s initia! decision to send the "hikkhus away seemedreasona"!e at the time "ut unreasona"!e when new circumstances came to !ight, so he changed hismind$ This seems a!! very human and reasona"!e "ut does not seem reconci!a"!e with the c!aim that



the Buddha was omniscient* 6 $ &fter a!!, he shou!d, presuma"!y, have "een a"!e to te!! that someof the visiting "hikkhus were @ust new!y gone forth$ .y own, admitted!y somewhat specu!ative,interpretation of this passage is that initia!!y the Buddha was rather annoyed, so dismissed thevisiting "hikkhus heated!y$ Yater, when he had had time to think the matter through and whenpersuasive reasons were given for a!!owing the "hikkhus to stay, he changed his mind and a!!owedthem "ack in$

The .onks who /ommit 5uicide

The 5amyutta Nikāya* 7 records an account of the Buddha teaching a meditation on the un!ove!y2asu"ha"hāvana3$ (aving taught this meditation, the Buddha goes into so!itary retreat for a month

and has contact with no=one e'cept the monk who "rings his food$ During this time, the monksmeditated on the un!ove!yC

&s to this "ody, they worried a"out it, fe!t shame and !oathing for it, and sought for aweapon to s!ay themse!ves$ Nay, as many as ten monks did so in a sing!e day eventwenty, thirty of them s!ew themse!ves in a sing!e day$* A

&t the end of the period of so!itary retreat, the Buddha en#uires of Qnanda why there are !ess"hikkhus than "efore$ 5eeming!y, then, he does not know that a num"er of monks have committedsuicide$ Qnanda te!!s him what has happened$ The Buddha s response is simp!y, 0 ery we!!,Qnanda,1 and to summon the remaining "hikkhus for a discourse on the mindfu!ness of "reathing$&part from this, he makes no remark a"out what has happened$

In this incident, then, the Buddha appears not to know that the "hikkhus have committed suicideunti! informed of the fact and, moreover, when teaching the meditation on the un!ove!y in the firstp!ace, it seems that he did not foresee that they wou!d commit suicide as a resu!t of practising it$2This wou!d seem to raise #uestions a"out the Buddha s know!edge of the future$3

8 Devadatta s %ntry into the 5angha

One of the many #uestions raised "y 9ing .i!inda in his dia!ogues with Nāgasena is the issue of Devadatta s entry into the Order$ .i!inda asks Nāgasena if the Buddha knew that, if admitted to the

order of "hikkhus, Devadatta wou!d cause schism$ Nāgasena rep!ies that the Buddha did know this$.i!inda s response is astute$



But Nāgasena, if that "e so, then the statement that the Buddha was kind and pitifu!, that hesought after the good of others, that he was the remover of that which works harm, the providerof that which works we!! to a!! "eings = that statement must "e wrong$* P

In other words, if the Buddha had "een proper!y compassionate he wou!d not have admittedDevadatta to the order knowing the pro"!ems he wou!d cause$ Natura!!y, Nāgasena denies thisinterpretation of events c!aiming that the Buddha knew Devadatta s karmic inheritance and that,shou!d he not "e admitted to the order 0he wou!d pass for an end!ess series of ka!pas from tormentto torment, and from perdition to perdition$1* S (owever, if admitted to the order, thenDevadatta s 2"ad3 karmic inheritance wou!d "ecome !imited and so endure on!y for one ka!pa$

Whi!e one might admire this response as a c!ever way to try to get out of a tricky spot it isunconvincing$ 5ince causing schism in the 5angha is one of the five most heinous crimes,*8Vwou!d it not have "een "etter for Devadatta never to have entered the Order since he cou!dn t thenhave committed it? It seems more reasona"!e to suggest that Devadatta s karmic inheritance wou!d"ecome worse as a resu!t of his mem"ership of the order of "hikkhus rather than "etter$ &fter a!!, he"ecame invo!ved in a power strugg!e with the Buddha and even attempted to ki!! him 2another of thefive heinous crimes3$ What cou!d "e worse? If Devadatta had not "een a "hikkhu it seems un!ike!ythat he wou!d have wanted to usurp the Buddha in this way$

Whi!e admiring Nāgasena s fide!ity to the c!aim that the Buddha was omniscient it seems morereasona"!e to assume that the Buddha did not in fact foresee the conse#uences of Devadatta smem"ership of the order, given that these conse#uences were so disastrous$

H The aMi!a &scetics

In the >dāna 27, 3 there is an incident that appears to revea! the Buddha denying omniscience and,in particu!ar, denying his apparent a"i!ity to know the thoughts of others$ The Buddha is ta!kingwith his friend 9ing -asenadi when a ragg!e=tagg!e group of ascetics wanders "y$ &s they pass,-asenadi asks the Buddha whether any of them are arahants or on the arahant path$ The Buddha srep!y is very interestingC

It is "y !iving with a person that his virtue is to "e known, great king, and then on!y after

a !ong time, not after a short period and on!y "y considering it, not withoutconsideration and on!y "y one who is wise, not "y a foo!$ It is "y associating with a



person that his purity is to "e known$ R It is in adversity that a person s fortitude is to"e known$ R It is "y discussion with a person that his wisdom is to "e known, greatking, and then on!y after a !ong time, not after a short period and on!y "y considering it,not without consideration and on!y "y one who is wise, not "y a foo!$*8+

It appears then that the Buddha is suggesting that one cannot know the attainment of another un!essone has e'tended e'perience of him or her at c!ose #uarters$ This wou!d seem to undermine thec!aims made regarding the Buddha s a"i!ities in other parts of the -ā!i /anon, in particu!ar thesupernorma! power of te!epathy 2parassa cetopariya=EāLa3 said to "e one of the si' such powerspossessed "y the Buddha$

In the episode of the aMi!a ascetics, -asenadi !ater admits to having p!ayed a !itt!e trick on the

Buddha$ &!! of the ascetics are in fact his spies in disguise &t no point does the Buddha c!aim tohave known this fact "efore -asenadi revea!s it$

/onc!usion

I have presented severa! incidents recorded in the -ā!i /anon that seem to fa!sify in a c!ear andstraightforward manner the traditiona! "ut somewhat misguided c!aim to omniscience made on"eha!f of the Buddha$ It is not surprising that on c!ose inspection the /anon is inconsistent on thistopic since, given its ora! origin, it is un!ike!y that one editor, or even a team of editors, cou!d havecom"ed through the entire /anon de!eting or revising any episodes that might revea! !imitations tothe Buddha s sphere of know!edge$

(owever, the #uestion may ariseC why am I so interested in trying to i!!ustrate the Buddha sapparent !ack of omniscience? Is this simp!y another e'amp!e of contemporary procrusteanism? &m

I trying to cut the Buddha down to siJe 2my siJe3, to show that he had feet of c!ay? No$ .yintention is rather the opposite$ 5o !ong as imp!ausi"!e c!aims such as omniscience are made on"eha!f of the Buddha his true significance cannot "e fu!!y understood or appreciated$ Instead of "eing respected, venerated, and emu!ated as a spiritua! e'emp!ar he is more !ike!y to "e worshippedas some kind of unreacha"!e superman, even a god$ The Buddha was a man who achieved aprofound spiritua! insight, a spiritua! insight that = at !east according to Buddhism = a!! human"eings can emu!ate$ This is what makes the Buddha so inspiring and so important$ Whether he wasa"!e to wa!k through wa!!s or understand #uantum theory is irre!evant$

The Buddha s principa! c!aim was that he had "roken the cyc!e of re"irth and that he had done this



"y overcoming any tendencies within him towards greed 2taLhā3, hatred 2doha3, and de!usion2moha3$ The proper test of the profundity of his rea!isation, then, is not asking him o"scure#uestions a"out topics of which he cou!d "e e'pected to know nothing, "ut in e'amining his conductfor any evidence that he fe!! short of his c!aim$ Indeed, this is a test that he himse!f proposes for theassessment of a sage s attainment and so of his re!ia"i!ity as a teacher$*8 The primary means of eva!uating spiritua! integrity then is to e'amine the ethica! purity of the sage not his magica! powers2shou!d he have any3 or the scope of his mundane know!edge$ The Buddha may or may not have hada!! sorts of magica! a"i!ities "ut these considerations shou!d not o"scure what is most fundamenta!!yimportant a"out him and what he rea!ised$

The irre!evance of factua! omniscience to the rea! concerns of spiritua! !ife are poignant!ysummarised "y the .ahāyāna Buddhist theo!ogian DharmakGrtiC

-eop!e, afraid of "eing deceived "y fa!se teachersIn the matter of directing the ignorant,5eek out a man with know!edge,for the sake of rea!ising his teaching$ What is the use of his know!edgepertaining to the num"er of insects in the who!e wor!d?

:ather, in#uire into his know!edge ofthat which is to "e practised "y us$*88

Notes

*+$ This !atter point, in particu!ar, is argued "y -$5$ aini in his )On the 5arva@Eatva of .ahāvGra andthe Buddha in Buddhist 5tudies in (onour of I$B$ (orner, edited "y Y$5$ /ousins et a! 2DordrectC:eide!, +SAH3, pp$A+KSV$

* $ Trans$ Thanissaro Bhikkhu, httpCZZwor!d$std$comZ[metta$*8$ The .idd!e Yength 5ayings, trans$ "y Bhikkhu \āLamo!i and Bhikkhu Bodhi, Wisdom +SS6,



p$6PA$

*H$ I"id$ p$+ A7$

*6$ The uestions of 9ing .i!inda, trans$ T$W$ :hys Davids, .oti!a! +SPP, vo!$ +, p$+6H$

*7$ \āLamo!i, op$cit$ p$+PAKP$*A$ aini, op$ cit$ p$A6,

*P$ I"id$ p$A7$

*S$ \āLamo!i, op$ /it$ p$7 8KH$

*+V$ I"id$ p$766$

*++$ /!ear!y the formu!a of )three know!edges is intended as an ironic reference to, and criticism of,

the "asis of edic know!edgeC the three edas$*+ $ \āLamo!i, op$cit$ p$766$ Imasmi4 sati, ida4 hoti, imass uppādā, ida4 uppa@@ati imasmi4asati, ida4 na hoti imassa nirodhā, ida4 niru@@hati$ 2. ]$8 3

*+8$ I"id$ p$A86$

*+H$ I"id$

*+6$ The Book of the radua! 5ayings, vo!$ ] trans$ $Y$ Woodward, -T5, +SP , p$ 7KA$

*+7$ I"id$ p$ 6$ This sutta is a!so found at Itivuttaka, ++ $*+A$ The >dāna and the Itivuttaka, trans$ ohn Ire!and, Buddhist -u"!ications 5ociety, 9andy, p$+6S$

*+P$ 5ee, for e'amp!e, .N i$ 6+$

*+S$ op$ cit$ p$PA$

* V$ -oints of /ontroversy, -a!i Te't 5ociety, +S+6, p$++6 25 i$+3$

* + $ Indian Buddhism, .oti!a! Banarsidass, +SPV, p$+86ff$* $ &nguttara Nikāya SC8PZiv$H P=S$

* 8 $ \āLamo!i, op$ /it$ p$67V$

* H I"id$ p$67+$

* 6 In The uestions of 9ing .i!inda, .i!inda puts this very issue to Nāgasena who gives a ratherfee"!e response saying that the Buddha changed his mind "ecause he was convinced "y para"!esthat he himse!f had previous!y used 2op$ cit$ vo!$ + p$8V+K 3$ The #uestion arises, though, why dithe Buddha not think the matter through for himse!f?



* 7 This episode is a!so descri"ed in the inaya, 5uttavi"haLga, ii$+ where the incident isconsidera"!y e!a"orated 2suggesting that it was recorded !ater3$ In the inaya account, some of themonks ask a )sham rec!use to ki!! them$ >nder the inf!uence of .āra, the )sham rec!use ,.iga!aL^ika, !ater goes on a ki!!ing spree, murdering even si'ty monks in a sing!e day$ The incident

is used to point out that intentiona!!y ki!!ing another resu!ts in )defeat 2pārā@ika3$* A The Book of the 9indred 5ayings, vo!$ 6, -T5, trans$ $Y$ Woodward, p$ PH$

* P The uestions of 9ing .i!inda, op$ cit$ vo!$ i, p$+78$

* S I"id$ p$+7H$

*8V &nguttara Nikāya v$+ S, -arikuppa 5utta, )In &gony $ )There are these five inha"itants of the states of deprivation,inha"itants of he!!, who are in agony and incura"!e$ Which five? One who has ki!!ed hisZher mother, one who has ki!!edhisZher father, one who has ki!!ed an arahant, one who == with a corrupted mind == has caused the "!ood of a Tathagata to

f!ow, and one who has caused a sp!it in the 5angha$ These are the five inha"itants of the states of deprivation, inha"itantsof he!!, who are in agony and incura"!e$; Thanissāro Bhikkhu, op$ cit$

*8+ Ire!and, op$ cit$ pp$PHK6$

*8 5ee, for e'amp!e, /ankG 5utta, .idd!e Yength 5ayings, op$ cit$ p$AP+C

Then a householder or a householder’s son goes to [the sage] and investigates him in regard to threekinds of states: in regard to states based on greed, in regard to states based on hate, and in regard tostates based on delusion: ‘Are there in this venerable one any states based on greed such that, withhis mind obsessed by those states, while not knowing he might say, “ know,! or while not seeing hemight say “ see,! or he might urge others to act in a way that would lead to their harm and sufferingfor a long time" #$% i"&'&()*

*88 -ramāLavārttika, I, 8 K8$ uoted in aini, op$ cit$, pp$P7KA$

was the buddha omniscient2

Documents