Why was the Buddha omniscient?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Post Reply
User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Why was the Buddha omniscient?

Post by DarwidHalim »

After I read the link, things become more complicated for me to answer this question: actually what is the view of Theravada? Inside this group, they have various views. Some are Mahayana view, and some are not. We can find Mahayana view inside Pali text, a bit here, a bit there.

Actually what is the general view of Theravada?

According to Mahayana:
Achieving simply liberation is thousand time easier than achieving omniscience.
That is why Arahant can never be the same with Buddha.
From the perspective of liberation: yes, both of them reach same level of liberation, but
From the perspective of omniscience: both of them are very different.

According to the link:

'The minimum period required for fulfilling the Pāramī is four asaṅkheyya and a hundred thousand aeons, and the maximum period is sixteen asaṅkheyya and a hundred thousand aeons, after receiving the definite prophecy of Buddhahood. (Only after fulfilling the Pāramī for such durations can one become a Buddha'.

The link also suggest that it is through boddhisattva path, which is extremely long journey, finally one become a Buddha after they perfecting all their parami.

This is the answer as well why certain Buddha disciplines (Arahant) cannot see exactly how the karma work. They dont have perfection of omniscience. They have perfection of liberation, but it has no use in this specific case. They have no choice unless they asked Buddha.

There are also a group of Theravada who thought now you are Arahant, but after you leave this body you automatically become the Buddha. This is certainly not the case here. You still need to continue you journey for thousand thousand thousand year to perfect you omniscience.

Some also say, it is not necessary to differentiate Buddha with Arahant. How can it not be necessary when we know Arahant still Need thousand thousand thousand years of perfecting all their Parami?

Perfecting omniscience is extremely difficult.

Someone can achieve liberation in this life, but if there is blind man in the street need your both eyes for good reason, can you give your eyes to him without any single dot of hesitation?

Is it necessary to achieve perfection of omniscience?
How can we work to benefit all beings when we don't have a crystal clear knowledge, perfect omniscience that equip us with the super ability to know effectively, precisely, what is the best solution to bring this being into his buddhahood?

Oh Theravada, why your view are so various? :shrug:
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
fabianfred
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:06 am

Re: Why was the Buddha omniscient?

Post by fabianfred »

Arahants have reached Nibbana, the state of Nibbana, but they are not Buddhas.
If I reached the state of Arahant whilst in this human lifetime, I would have attained to the state of Nibbana.
I would still be the same Phra Fred physically but according to the Buddha I would have completed my task, done the work which is necessary to do, finished my journey upon the path.
The Buddha did not teach us all to become Buddhas, but to reach Nibbana.
The state of Nibbana cannot be known or understood by one who has not yet reached it.
Human ego causes us to speculate and think...well Boddisatvas and Buddhas must be superior to mere Arahants...so i want to be one of them.......ego rubbish.
Who are we...yet to reach Arahant and Nibbana... to say what are and what are not the abilities of an Arahant???
Nibbana is unknowable to those yet unattained.
Why do we suppose that once Arahant is reached that we have only saved ourselves.
In my own personal understanding, Nibbana is like being one with all nature, understanding and knowledge flows to us.
Because of his long time spent perfecting the Paramis as a Boddhisatta, a Buddha can know anything he wishes to know, and use this knowledge to teach and help beings reach the goal.
An Arahant migh have reached Nibbana, but without the same Paramis as a Buddha he is much more restricted in his knowledge and understanding.
If I reached Arahant, I would not suddenly, in a flash, understand and know everything, but understanding and knowledge would start to flow to me. In the remainder of this, my final lifetime in Samsara, I would not be able to know all. But once dead from this existence, exisiting in a state unknowable to us, knowlledge of all would then become available to (me?).

Ever heard of the Akashic record...the hall of records.... like a huge library, or in more modern terms a huge data bank...containing every thought and deed performed by every being....since beginningless time.
Some people are able to access these records.....Edgar Cayce did when he was able to examin and diagnose a persons illness and find the treatment, whilst in a trance, and see their past lives. My teacher Luang por Jaran does when he can see a persons past karma, their past lives, and something of their probably future.
Very few beings are able to access the Akashic records, but I would think that one who has reached Nibbana can, especially once freed from rebirth. But Buddhas can whilst still in their final human existence too.
User avatar
Fede
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: The Heart of this "Green & Pleasant Land"...
Contact:

Re: Why was the Buddha omniscient?

Post by Fede »

fabianfred wrote:Arahants have reached Nibbana, the state of Nibbana, but they are not Buddhas.
If I reached the state of Arahant whilst in this human lifetime, I would have attained to the state of Nibbana.
I would still be the same Phra Fred physically but according to the Buddha I would have completed my task, done the work which is necessary to do, finished my journey upon the path.
The Buddha did not teach us all to become Buddhas, but to reach Nibbana.
The state of Nibbana cannot be known or understood by one who has not yet reached it.
Human ego causes us to speculate and think...well Boddisatvas and Buddhas must be superior to mere Arahants...so i want to be one of them.......ego rubbish.
Who are we...yet to reach Arahant and Nibbana... to say what are and what are not the abilities of an Arahant???
Nibbana is unknowable to those yet unattained.
Why do we suppose that once Arahant is reached that we have only saved ourselves.
In my own personal understanding, Nibbana is like being one with all nature, understanding and knowledge flows to us.
Because of his long time spent perfecting the Paramis as a Boddhisatta, a Buddha can know anything he wishes to know, and use this knowledge to teach and help beings reach the goal.
An Arahant migh have reached Nibbana, but without the same Paramis as a Buddha he is much more restricted in his knowledge and understanding.
If I reached Arahant, I would not suddenly, in a flash, understand and know everything, but understanding and knowledge would start to flow to me. In the remainder of this, my final lifetime in Samsara, I would not be able to know all. But once dead from this existence, exisiting in a state unknowable to us, knowlledge of all would then become available to (me?).
i was more-or-less relatively with you up to this point....


...then....
Ever heard of the Akashic record...the hall of records.... like a huge library, or in more modern terms a huge data bank...containing every thought and deed performed by every being....since beginningless time.
Some people are able to access these records.....Edgar Cayce did when he was able to examin and diagnose a persons illness and find the treatment, whilst in a trance, and see their past lives. My teacher Luang por Jaran does when he can see a persons past karma, their past lives, and something of their probably future.
Very few beings are able to access the Akashic records, but I would think that one who has reached Nibbana can, especially once freed from rebirth. But Buddhas can whilst still in their final human existence too.
....

I'm sorry, but even after reading up on it in several places on the net....

Is one allowed to use the word 'codswallop' on here?
I can't get my head around this section, and it seems to me to be nothing more than some fantastic fiction....
"Samsara: The human condition's heartbreaking inability to sustain contentment." Elizabeth Gilbert, 'Eat, Pray, Love'.

Simplify: 17 into 1 WILL go: Mindfulness!

Quieta movere magna merces videbatur. (Sallust, c.86-c.35 BC)
Translation: Just to stir things up seemed a good reward in itself. ;)

I am sooooo happy - How on earth could I be otherwise?! :D


http://www.armchairadvice.co.uk/relationships/forum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
fabianfred
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:06 am

Re: Why was the Buddha omniscient?

Post by fabianfred »

Fede wrote: I can't get my head around this section, and it seems to me to be nothing more than some fantastic fiction....
well.... one's belief in something, or understanding...or the lack of......are not really a measure of the reality of something......just your own perception of it.
Basically, skepticism is good, we don't want to be gullible and believe everything we are told. But to count everything we cannot understand or believe as rubbish...is not wise either. :anjali:
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Why was the Buddha omniscient?

Post by cooran »

Hello all,

Maybe what the Buddha himself said would be of interest?

Buddha's omniscience

Omniscience is 1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight 2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge. Omniscience doesn't mean having psychic powers ~ many beings attain those. The Buddha explains below just what omniscience means in the context of a Sammasambuddha.

You and I, even if we become arahants, will not achieve the same powers of Gotama Buddha. He was a Sammasambuddha ~ the indescribably rare being who comes into the world only when the Dhamma is completely forgotten and absent from the world. Don't mix up the Mahayana view that enlightenment means buddhahood. It is a different use of the same term and causes many misunderstandings.

The omniscience of the Buddha is covered in the suttas ~
Majjhima Nikaya 71 Tevijjavacchagotta Sutta 'To Vacchagotta on the
Threefold True Knowledge'
"Venerable sir, I have heard this: "The recluse Gotaka claims to be
omniscient and all-seeing, to have complete knowledge and vision
thus: "Whether I am walking or standing or sleeping or awake,
knowledge and vision are continuously and uninterruptedly present to
me." Venerable sir, do those who speak thus say what has been said
by the Blessed One, and not misrepresent him with what is contrary to
fact? Do they explain in accordance with the Dhamma in such a way
that nothing which provides a ground for censure can be legitimately
deduced from their assertion?"

"Vaccha, those who say thus do not say what has been said by me, but
misrepresent me with what is untrue and contrary to fact."

note 714 says: MA explains that even though part of the statement is
valid, the Buddha rejects the entire statement because of the portion
that is invalid. The part of the statement that is valid is the
assertion that the Buddha is omniscient and all-seeing; the part that
is excessive is the assertion that knowledge and vision are
continuously present to him. According to the Theravada tradition
the Buddha is omniscient in the sense that all knowable things are
potentially accessible to him. He cannot, however, know everything
simultaneously and must advert to whatever he wishes to know. At MN
90.8 the Buddha says that it is possible to know and see all, though
not simultaneously, and at AN 4.24/ii.24 he claims to know all that
can be seen, heard, sensed, and cognised, which is understood by the
Theravada tradition as an assertion of omniscience in the qualified
sense. See too in this connection Miln 102-7.
--------------------------
Majjhima Nikaya 90 Kannakatthala Sutta 'At Kannakatthala'

5. "Then King Pasenadi of Kosala said to the Blessed One: 'Venerable
sir, I have heard this: 'The recluse Gotama says "There is no recluse
or brahmin who is omniscient and all-seeing, who can claim to have
complete knowledge and vision; that is not possible." 'Venerable
sir, do those who speak thus say what has been said by the Blessed
One, and not misrepresent him with what is contrary to fact? Do they
explain in accordance with the Dhamma in such a way that nothing that
provides a ground for censure can be legitimately deduced from their
assertions?"

"Great King, those who speak thus do not say what has been said by
me, but misrepresent me with what is untrue and contrary to
fact." <<<<<snip>>>>>>

"I recall having actually made the utterance in this way, great
king. 'There is no recluse or brahmin who knows all, who sees all,
simultaneously; that is not possible'.
note 846 says: MA: There is no one who can know and see all - past,
present and future - withone act of mental adverting, with one act of
consciousness; thus this problem is discussed in terms of a single
act of consciousness (ekacitta). On the question of the kind of
omniscience the Theravada tradition attributes to the Buddha, see n.
714 above.
------------------------------------------------
The above post has been extracted out of this thread:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... bbe#p20843" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
Fede
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: The Heart of this "Green & Pleasant Land"...
Contact:

Re: Why was the Buddha omniscient?

Post by Fede »

fabianfred wrote:....But to count everything we cannot understand or believe as rubbish...is not wise either. :anjali:
I don't count 'everything' I cannot understand or believe, as rubbish.

I count this as something simply too far-fetched as being either plausible or credible.

It's extremely easy to place faith and credence on something which is unseen, unheard and declared to be something of wonderment, because some have declared themselves adequately experienced due to having witnessed it somehow for themselves - and we really only have their word for it.

I believe this is akin to some theistic claims, and I regret to say i view them in the same light.
"Samsara: The human condition's heartbreaking inability to sustain contentment." Elizabeth Gilbert, 'Eat, Pray, Love'.

Simplify: 17 into 1 WILL go: Mindfulness!

Quieta movere magna merces videbatur. (Sallust, c.86-c.35 BC)
Translation: Just to stir things up seemed a good reward in itself. ;)

I am sooooo happy - How on earth could I be otherwise?! :D


http://www.armchairadvice.co.uk/relationships/forum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Why was the Buddha omniscient?

Post by Nyana »

cooran wrote:Maybe what the Buddha himself said would be of interest?

Buddha's omniscience

Omniscience is 1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight 2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge. Omniscience doesn't mean having psychic powers ~ many beings attain those. The Buddha explains below just what omniscience means in the context of a Sammasambuddha.

You and I, even if we become arahants, will not achieve the same powers of Gotama Buddha. He was a Sammasambuddha ~ the indescribably rare being who comes into the world only when the Dhamma is completely forgotten and absent from the world. Don't mix up the Mahayana view that enlightenment means buddhahood. It is a different use of the same term and causes many misunderstandings.

The omniscience of the Buddha is covered in the suttas ~
Majjhima Nikaya 71 Tevijjavacchagotta Sutta 'To Vacchagotta on the
Threefold True Knowledge'
"Venerable sir, I have heard this: "The recluse Gotaka claims to be
omniscient and all-seeing, to have complete knowledge and vision
thus: "Whether I am walking or standing or sleeping or awake,
knowledge and vision are continuously and uninterruptedly present to
me." Venerable sir, do those who speak thus say what has been said
by the Blessed One, and not misrepresent him with what is contrary to
fact? Do they explain in accordance with the Dhamma in such a way
that nothing which provides a ground for censure can be legitimately
deduced from their assertion?"

"Vaccha, those who say thus do not say what has been said by me, but
misrepresent me with what is untrue and contrary to fact."

note 714 says: MA explains that even though part of the statement is
valid, the Buddha rejects the entire statement because of the portion
that is invalid. The part of the statement that is valid is the
assertion that the Buddha is omniscient and all-seeing; the part that
is excessive is the assertion that knowledge and vision are
continuously present to him. According to the Theravada tradition
the Buddha is omniscient in the sense that all knowable things are
potentially accessible to him. He cannot, however, know everything
simultaneously and must advert to whatever he wishes to know. At MN
90.8 the Buddha says that it is possible to know and see all, though
not simultaneously, and at AN 4.24/ii.24 he claims to know all that
can be seen, heard, sensed, and cognised, which is understood by the
Theravada tradition as an assertion of omniscience in the qualified
sense. See too in this connection Miln 102-7.
--------------------------
Majjhima Nikaya 90 Kannakatthala Sutta 'At Kannakatthala'

5. "Then King Pasenadi of Kosala said to the Blessed One: 'Venerable
sir, I have heard this: 'The recluse Gotama says "There is no recluse
or brahmin who is omniscient and all-seeing, who can claim to have
complete knowledge and vision; that is not possible." 'Venerable
sir, do those who speak thus say what has been said by the Blessed
One, and not misrepresent him with what is contrary to fact? Do they
explain in accordance with the Dhamma in such a way that nothing that
provides a ground for censure can be legitimately deduced from their
assertions?"

"Great King, those who speak thus do not say what has been said by
me, but misrepresent me with what is untrue and contrary to
fact." <<<<<snip>>>>>>

"I recall having actually made the utterance in this way, great
king. 'There is no recluse or brahmin who knows all, who sees all,
simultaneously; that is not possible'.
note 846 says: MA: There is no one who can know and see all - past,
present and future - withone act of mental adverting, with one act of
consciousness; thus this problem is discussed in terms of a single
act of consciousness (ekacitta). On the question of the kind of
omniscience the Theravada tradition attributes to the Buddha, see n.
714 above.
:goodpost:
Post Reply