Evolution, Big Bang

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths. What can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 3966
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Evolution, Big Bang

Post by Sam Vara » Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:30 pm

dylanj wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:07 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:54 pm
salayatananirodha wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:41 pm
I'm quite surprised by the responses thus far.

[1] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
It might be the case that the Tathagata did not utter words which he knew to be unfactual. He might have uttered words which he believed to be factual, but which nevertheless were not in accordance with modern scientific knowledge. The Abhaya Sutta seems to be more about the Buddha's intentions than his knowledge.
From the night when a Realized One understands the supreme perfect awakening until the night he becomes fully extinguished—through the natural principle of extinguishment, without anything left over—everything he speaks, says, and expresses is real, not otherwise. That’s why he’s called the ‘Realized One’.
AN 4.23
Indeed, but there are two reasons why the AN 4.23 quote might be perfectly compatible with my earlier point. The first is that a claim that utterances are "real" is not the same as claiming that utterances are an accurate picture of something. The Buddha may not have not been referring to omniscience here, and the claim that the reality of his utterances is evidence of him being "Realised" seems to support that.

Secondly, if the Buddha didn't have the benefit of our scientific knowledge, then his claim in AN 4.23 has no more support than his earlier claim in the Abhaya Sutta. He could be uttering what he believes to be the truth, even though we know it to be lacking. That is, he is stating the truth about his intentions, rather than the truth about the external world.

User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: Evolution, Big Bang

Post by dylanj » Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:46 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:30 pm
dylanj wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:07 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:54 pm


It might be the case that the Tathagata did not utter words which he knew to be unfactual. He might have uttered words which he believed to be factual, but which nevertheless were not in accordance with modern scientific knowledge. The Abhaya Sutta seems to be more about the Buddha's intentions than his knowledge.
From the night when a Realized One understands the supreme perfect awakening until the night he becomes fully extinguished—through the natural principle of extinguishment, without anything left over—everything he speaks, says, and expresses is real, not otherwise. That’s why he’s called the ‘Realized One’.
AN 4.23
Indeed, but there are two reasons why the AN 4.23 quote might be perfectly compatible with my earlier point. The first is that a claim that utterances are "real" is not the same as claiming that utterances are an accurate picture of something. The Buddha may not have not been referring to omniscience here, and the claim that the reality of his utterances is evidence of him being "Realised" seems to support that.

Secondly, if the Buddha didn't have the benefit of our scientific knowledge, then his claim in AN 4.23 has no more support than his earlier claim in the Abhaya Sutta. He could be uttering what he believes to be the truth, even though we know it to be lacking. That is, he is stating the truth about his intentions, rather than the truth about the external world.
"...Are there in this venerable one any such ideas, whereby his mind being obsessed he might, not knowing, say 'I know,' unseeing, say 'I see,' or to get others to do likewise, which would be long for their harm and suffering?" While thus testing him he comes to find that there are no such ideas in him, and he finds that, "The bodily and verbal behavior of that venerable one are not those of one affected by lust or hate or delusion. But the True Idea that this venerable one teaches is profound, hard to see and discover; yet it is the most peaceful and superior of all, out of reach of logical ratiocination, subtle, for the wise to experience; such a True Idea cannot be taught by one affected by lust or hate or delusion."
MN 95
susukhaṁ vata nibbānaṁ,
sammā­sambud­dha­desitaṁ;
asokaṁ virajaṁ khemaṁ,
yattha dukkhaṁ nirujjhatī


Oh! extinction is so very blissful,
As taught by the One Rightly Self-Awakened:
Sorrowless, stainless, secure;
Where suffering all ceases


etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭi nissaggo taṇhakkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṁ

This is peaceful, this is excellent, that is: the stilling of all preparations, the relinquishment of all attachments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation, extinction.

User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: Evolution, Big Bang

Post by dylanj » Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:49 pm

"Monks, whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & brahmans royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That do I know. Whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & brahmans, their royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That I directly know. That has been realized by the Tathagata, but in the Tathagata it has not been established."
AN 4.24
susukhaṁ vata nibbānaṁ,
sammā­sambud­dha­desitaṁ;
asokaṁ virajaṁ khemaṁ,
yattha dukkhaṁ nirujjhatī


Oh! extinction is so very blissful,
As taught by the One Rightly Self-Awakened:
Sorrowless, stainless, secure;
Where suffering all ceases


etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭi nissaggo taṇhakkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṁ

This is peaceful, this is excellent, that is: the stilling of all preparations, the relinquishment of all attachments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation, extinction.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 3966
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Evolution, Big Bang

Post by Sam Vara » Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:50 pm

dylanj wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:46 pm
"...Are there in this venerable one any such ideas, whereby his mind being obsessed he might not knowing, say 'I know,' unseeing, say 'I see,' or to get others to do likewise, which would be long for their harm and suffering?" While thus testing him he comes to find that there are no such ideas in him, and he finds that, "The bodily and verbal behavior of that venerable one are not those of one affected by lust or hate or delusion. But the True Idea that this venerable one teaches is profound, hard to see and discover; yet it is the most peaceful and superior of all, out of reach of logical ratiocination, subtle, for the wise to experience; such a True Idea cannot be taught by one affected by lust or hate or delusion."
MN 95
Sorry, I can't follow you here; I can't see how the MN 95 quote relates to my points. It might help if you explained it, rather than just quoting suttas.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 3966
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Evolution, Big Bang

Post by Sam Vara » Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:57 pm

dylanj wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:49 pm
"Monks, whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & brahmans royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That do I know. Whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & brahmans, their royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That I directly know. That has been realized by the Tathagata, but in the Tathagata it has not been established."
AN 4.24
Again, it would help if you explained the relevance of this rather than just quoted it, but if you mean that the Buddha is claiming realisation based on what he knows to be real, then my second point above applies. His claim to a particular knowledge is just that: a claim. If he has less knowledge of a particular aspect of reality than we do, then a claim about that knowledge would be subject to the same constraints as the knowledge.

User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: Evolution, Big Bang

Post by dylanj » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:03 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:50 pm
dylanj wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:46 pm
"...Are there in this venerable one any such ideas, whereby his mind being obsessed he might not knowing, say 'I know,' unseeing, say 'I see,' or to get others to do likewise, which would be long for their harm and suffering?" While thus testing him he comes to find that there are no such ideas in him, and he finds that, "The bodily and verbal behavior of that venerable one are not those of one affected by lust or hate or delusion. But the True Idea that this venerable one teaches is profound, hard to see and discover; yet it is the most peaceful and superior of all, out of reach of logical ratiocination, subtle, for the wise to experience; such a True Idea cannot be taught by one affected by lust or hate or delusion."
MN 95
Sorry, I can't follow you here; I can't see how the MN 95 quote relates to my points. It might help if you explained it, rather than just quoting suttas.
You suggested that the Buddha declared what he "believed" but did not truly know & was actually false. This quote shows the impossibility of him doing such a thing.
susukhaṁ vata nibbānaṁ,
sammā­sambud­dha­desitaṁ;
asokaṁ virajaṁ khemaṁ,
yattha dukkhaṁ nirujjhatī


Oh! extinction is so very blissful,
As taught by the One Rightly Self-Awakened:
Sorrowless, stainless, secure;
Where suffering all ceases


etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭi nissaggo taṇhakkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṁ

This is peaceful, this is excellent, that is: the stilling of all preparations, the relinquishment of all attachments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation, extinction.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 3966
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Evolution, Big Bang

Post by Sam Vara » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:20 pm

dylanj wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:03 pm
You suggested that the Buddha declared what he "believed" but did not truly know & was actually false. This quote shows the impossibility of him doing such a thing.
No, as the Buddha was the one who uttered the words, it merely shows his belief in the impossibility of such a thing. As I said earlier, if his knowledge was limited, then the same limitations apply to his reflexive beliefs about that knowledge.

User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am

Re: Evolution, Big Bang

Post by salayatananirodha » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:26 pm

AN 4.24 does well in defense of the Buddha's knowledge. Also the range of the tathāgata's knowledge in acintita sutta is unconjecturable, so I don't take it to have a limit. He knew everything every scientist could ever see or think or sense.

"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."

Then from DN 1:

"There are, bhikkhus, other dhammas, deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, peaceful and sublime, beyond the sphere of reasoning, subtle, comprehensible only to the wise, which the Tathāgata, having realized for himself with direct knowledge, propounds to others; and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tathāgata in accordance with reality would speak.

This refrain is so important it's repeated multiple times https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .bodh.html
I'd like to go back to this point:

[1] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

If the Buddha didn't know what he claimed to know, how can we know if he knew anything? The religion would crumble into pieces if anything he taught without direct knowledge.

Here is another example to illustrate my points:
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading away, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsessions with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."

- MN 72

So, if we're to take the Buddha's word on anything, we have to realize that he did not teach opinion or the result of imperfect thinking. Of course, we could realize for ourselves the truths Lord Buddha spoke about, but it won't help us to cling to such a view in contrast to what the Buddha expressed.
(I hope the colors aren't too obnoxious!)
16. 'In what has the world originated?' — so said the Yakkha Hemavata, — 'with what is the world intimate? by what is the world afflicted, after having grasped at what?' (167)

17. 'In six the world has originated, O Hemavata,' — so said Bhagavat, — 'with six it is intimate, by six the world is afflicted, after having grasped at six.' (168)

- Hemavatasutta


links:
https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/index.htm
http://thaiforestwisdom.org/canonical-texts/
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/
https://www.dhammatalks.org/index.html

User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: Evolution, Big Bang

Post by dylanj » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:34 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:20 pm
dylanj wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:03 pm
You suggested that the Buddha declared what he "believed" but did not truly know & was actually false. This quote shows the impossibility of him doing such a thing.
No, as the Buddha was the one who uttered the words, it merely shows his belief in the impossibility of such a thing. As I said earlier, if his knowledge was limited, then the same limitations apply to his reflexive beliefs about that knowledge.
His knowledge is unlimited.

The Buddha never spoke of having beliefs, he spoke of having knowledge, vision, wisdom.
susukhaṁ vata nibbānaṁ,
sammā­sambud­dha­desitaṁ;
asokaṁ virajaṁ khemaṁ,
yattha dukkhaṁ nirujjhatī


Oh! extinction is so very blissful,
As taught by the One Rightly Self-Awakened:
Sorrowless, stainless, secure;
Where suffering all ceases


etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭi nissaggo taṇhakkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṁ

This is peaceful, this is excellent, that is: the stilling of all preparations, the relinquishment of all attachments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation, extinction.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 3966
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Evolution, Big Bang

Post by Sam Vara » Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:25 pm

dylanj wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:34 pm
His knowledge is unlimited.

The Buddha never spoke of having beliefs, he spoke of having knowledge, vision, wisdom.
That may well be the case. But for us to know that it is true (as opposed, say, to him merely referring to his beliefs as knowledge) would require us to have the same knowledge, which would make redundant all attempts to prove it by means of suttas or other hearsay. Speaking of having knowledge is normally insufficient to convince one's hearers that what one claims to know is true. It's like trying to pick oneself up by one's own bootstraps. An extra factor is needed, I think.

It might be taken on faith or as a (very long term!) working hypothesis, but it is far from being self evidently true, even if it were true.

User avatar
JamesTheGiant
Posts: 408
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 8:41 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Evolution, Big Bang

Post by JamesTheGiant » Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:12 pm

Wait, so the Buddha knows how to debug and flash a custom ROM onto my Samsung phone? He knows how to set high facebook privacy settings? He knows the cure for cancer and how to make the ITER fusion tokamak work?
Nonsense!

User avatar
egon
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 1:15 pm
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Re: Evolution, Big Bang

Post by egon » Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:27 pm

salayatananirodha wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:26 pm
AN 4.24 does well in defense of the Buddha's knowledge. Also the range of the tathāgata's knowledge in acintita sutta is unconjecturable, so I don't take it to have a limit. He knew everything every scientist could ever see or think or sense.
dylanj wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:49 pm
"Monks, whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & brahmans royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That do I know. Whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & brahmans, their royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That I directly know. That has been realized by the Tathagata, but in the Tathagata it has not been established."
AN 4.24
You folks have good and useful knowledge of the suttas which serves your faith well. You have accepted the suttas as the infallible words of the infallible Lord Buddha. I'm happy for you! You're on the path and your scripture-knowledge seems to be helping the path to be less obstructed for you. Very good- and truly, I wish you nothing but freedom from dukka.

There are those of us that don't have the same faith. To us, quoting scripture to prove itself is circular reasoning. for example, a man named, I dunno, George, let's say - says he is the smartest man alive. People believe George for many reasons. Those believers go tell other people that this man is the smartest man alive, and he said that a stomach ache is caused by demons. Some no-good troublemaking skeptic pipes up and the following conversation ensues:

Troublemaking Skeptic: "Hang on there, bubba. Why should I believe this George character? This sounds implausible."
Pious Believer: "Because George said so. He's the smartest man alive. I have it written down right here."
Troublemaking Skeptic: "You have what written down?"
Pious Believer: "That George said he's the smartest man alive, AND that demons are causing your tummy ache."
Troublemaking Skeptic: "So you're telling me that the second thing written down in your book is proved by the first thing written down in your book?"
Pious Believer: "Exactly! I'm glad we see eye to eye."
Troublemaking Skeptic: "So what makes the book true?"
Pious Believer: "The book is the words of the smartest man alive. George. He's fantastic."
Troublemaking Skeptic: "So what you're saying is that I have to accept that George is the smartest man alive because he says he is the smartest man alive, and since he is the smartest man alive that means that he is the smartest man alive because how could the smartest man alive be wrong?"
Pious Beliver: "Exactamundo."
Troublemaking Skeptic: "That doesn't make any sense. Now I have a stomach ache AND a headache."

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 3966
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Evolution, Big Bang

Post by Sam Vara » Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:41 pm

ScottPen wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:27 pm
...
A sound point. I know you dipped out of the "Slandering Buddha" thread, but please take a look at this excellent post there by Polar Bear, which makes a similar point to the one you are making here:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=32213&p=478087#p478081

User avatar
egon
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 1:15 pm
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Re: Evolution, Big Bang

Post by egon » Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:48 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:41 pm
ScottPen wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:27 pm
...
A sound point. I know you dipped out of the "Slandering Buddha" thread, but please take a look at this excellent post there by Polar Bear, which makes a similar point to the one you are making here:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=32213&p=478087#p478081
Thanks Sam. I did see that post. I didn't say I wouldn't lurk on the thread a bit, just that I didn't think I had anything else to add to it. Honestly reading any thread on which rvftw is super active makes me wanna down a pint and go to bed.

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2802
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Evolution, Big Bang

Post by robertk » Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:58 am

Re Omniscience
from scott
http://groups.yahoo....p/message/72473

Tika to Visuddhimagga,
VII,note 7.

"'Is not unobstructed knowledge (anaavara.na-~naana) different from
omniscient knowledge (sabba~n~na-~naana)? Otherwise the words, 'Six
kinds of knowledge unshared [by disciples]' (Ps.i.3) would be
contradicted? [Note: The six kinds are: knowledge of what faculties
prevail in beings, knowledge of the inclinations and tendencies of
beings, knowledge of the Twin Marvel, knowledge of the attainmnent of
the great compassion, omniscient knowledge, and unobstructed knowledge
(see Ps.i.133).] - There is no contradiction, because two ways in
which a single kind of knowledge's objective field occurs are
described for the purpose of showing by means of this difference how
it is not shared by others. It is only one kind of knowledge; but it
is called omniscient knowledge because its objective field consists of
formed, unformed, and conventional (samutti) [i.e. conceptual] dhammas
without remainder, and it is called unobstructed knowledge because of
its unrestricted access to the objective field, because of absence of
obstruction. And it is said accordingly in the Pa.tisambhidaa: 'It
knows all the formed and the unformed without remainder, thus it is
omniscient knowledge. It has no obstruction therein, thus it is
unobstructed knowledge' (Ps.i.131), and so on. So they are not
different kinds of knowledge. And there must be no reservation,
otherwise it would follow that omniscient and unobstructed knowledge
had obstructions and did not make all dhammas its object. There is
not in fact a minimal obstruction to the Blessed One's knowledge: and
if his unobstrcted knowledge had obstructions and did not have all
dhammas as its object, there would be presence of obstruction where it
did not occur, and so it would not be unobstructed.

'Or alternatively, even if we suppose that they are different, still
it is omniscient knowledge itself that is intended as 'unhindered'
since it is that which occurs unhindered universally. And it is by
his attainment of that that the Blessed One is known as Omniscient,
All-Seer, Fully Enlightened, not because of awareness (avabodha) of
every dhamma at once, simultaneously (see M.ii.127). And it is said
accordingly in the Pa.tisambhidaa: 'This is a name derived from the
final liberation of the Enlightened Ones, the Blessed Ones, together
with the acquisition of omniscient knowledge at the root of the
Enlightenment Tree; this name 'Buddha' is a designation based on
realisation' (Ps.i.174). For the ability in the Blessed One's
continuity to penetrate all dhammas without exception was due to his
having completely attained to knowledge capable of becoming aware of
all dhammas.

'Here it may be asked: But how then? When this knowledge occurs,
does it do so with respect to every field simultaneously, or
successively? For firstly, if it occurs simultaneously with respect
to every objective field, then with the simultaneous appearance of
formed dhammas classed as past, future and present, internal and
external, etc., and of unformed and conventional (conceptual) dhammas,
there would be no awareness of contrast (pa.tibhaaga), as happens in
one who looks at a painted canvas from a distance. That being so, it
follows that all dhammas become the objective field of the Blessed
One's knowledge in an undifferentiated form (aniruupita-ruupana), as
they do through the aspect of not-self to those who are exercising
insight thus 'All dhammas are not-self'...And those do not escape this
difficulty who say that the Enlightened One's knowledge occurs with
the characteristic of presence of all knowable dhammas as its
objective field, devoid of discriminative thinking (vikappa-rahita),
and universal in time (sabba-kaala) and that is why they are called
'All-seeing' and why it is said, 'The Naaga is concentrated walking
and he is concentrated standing'(?). They do not escape the
difficulty since because, by having the characteristic of presence as
its object, past, future, and conventional dhammas, which lact that
characteristic, would be absent. So it is wrong to say that it occurs
simultaneously with respect to every objective field. Then secondly,
if we say that it occurs successively with respect to every objective
field, this is wrong too. For when the knowable, classed in many
different ways according to birth, place, individual essence, etc.,
and direction, place, time, etc., is apprehended successively, then
penetration without remainder is not effected since the knowable is
infinite. And those are wrong too who say that the Blessed One is
All-seeing owing to his doing his defining by taking one part of the
knowable as that actually experienced ( anumaanika) since it is free
from doubt, because it is what is doubtfully discovered that is meant
by inferential knowledge in the world. And they are wrong because
there is no such defining by taking one part of the knowable as that
actually experienced and deciding that the rest is the same because of
the unequivocalness of its meaning, without making all of it actually
experienced. For then that 'rest' is not actually experienced; and if
it were actually experienced, it would no longer be 'the rest'.

'All that is no argument - Why not? - Because this is not a field for
ratiocination; for the Blessed One has said this: 'The objective
field of Enlightened One's is unthinkable, it cannot be thought out;
anyone who tried to think it out would reap madness and frustration'
(A.ii.80). The agreed explanation here is this: What ever the
Blessed One wants to know - either entirely or partially - there his
knowledge occurs as actual experience because it does so without
hindrance. And it has constant concentration because of the absence
of distraction. And it cannot occur in association with wishing of a
kind that is due to absence from the objective field of something that
he wants to know. There can be no exception to this because of the
words, 'All dhammas are available to the adverting of the Enlightened
One, the Blessed One, are available at his wish, are available to his
attention, are available to his thought' (Ps.ii. 195). And the
Blessed One's knowledge that has past and future as its objective
field is entirely actual experience since it is devoid of assumption
based on inference, tradition, or conjecture.

'And yet, even in that case, suppose he wanted to know the whole in
its entirety, then would his knowledge not occur without
differentiation in the whole objective field simultaneously? And so
there would still be no getting out of that difficulty?

"That is not so, because of its purifiedness. Because the Enlightened
One's objective field is purified and it is unthinkable. Otherwise
there would be no unthinkableness in the knowledge of the Enlightened
One, the Blessed One, if it occured in the same way as ordinary
people. So, although it occurs with all dhammas as its object, it
nevertheless does so making those dhammas quite clearly defined, as
though it had a single dhamma as its object. This is what is
unthinkable here. 'There is as much knowledge as there is knowable,
there is as much knowable as there is knowledge; the knowledge is
limited by the knowable, the knowable is limited by the knowledge'
(Ps.ii 195). So he is Fully Enlightened because he has rightly and by
himself discovered all dhammas together and separately, simultaneously
and successively, according to his wish'(Pm.190-91).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Saengnapha and 51 guests