Was the Buddha Omniscient?

Dharmacri Ngapriya Introduction

Did the Buddha know everything? What, anyway, can it mean to know everything? The precise scope of the Buddha s rea!isation is an important "ut difficu!t #uestion to determine$ Did he know a!! facts or was his know!edge more principia!? Without direct access to the Buddha s mind it wou!d seem impossi"!e to "e certain as to the precise range of his know!edge and powers and yet, if we are to 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 a human "eing$ (e !ived, "reathed, ta!ked, ate, and died !ike the rest of us whi!e at the same time he was )%n!ightened $ (ere, I argue that one of the centra! disputes regarding the content of the Buddha s rea!isation arises from an e#uivocation over the meanings of the terms )know!edge and )omniscience as we!! as an unhe!pfu! "orrowing of voca"u!ary from e'isting Indian re!igious traditions*+,$ I wi!! !ook at the traditiona! c!aims made on "eha!f of the Buddha in the !ight of simi!ar c!aims made on "eha!f of his riva!s and see to what e'tent the -!i suttas support them$ In doing so, I wi!! c!arify what the Buddha himse!f is reported to have c!aimed to know and comment upon why it is so important that we make an 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, 0infinite know!edge or understanding1 and, second, 0very great, or seeming!y infinite know!edge1 2my ita!ics3$ If we adopt the second definition, it wi!! "e much easier to defend the c!aim that the Buddha was omniscient than if we adopt the first$ On this reading, the Buddha had such Insight, such wisdom, 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 si4sap !eaves 25a4yutta Nikya 67,8+3$ The Buddha once was staying at 9osam"i, in a si4sap 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 were accompanying him, the Buddha asked, Which are more numerous, the few si4sap !eaves in my hand or those overhead in the si4sap forest?; Not surprising!y, the "hikkhus rep!ied that, in comparison to the !eaves in the 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 have not taught are far more numerous *than what I have taught,$ &nd why haven<t I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goa!, do not re!ate to the rudiments of the ho!y !ife, and do not !ead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to ca!m, to direct know!edge, to se!f=awakening, to >n"inding$ That is why I have not taught them$ *?, Omniscience in the -!i /anon

In the -!i te'ts, two differing versions of omniscience are discerni"!e and it wi!! soon "ecome c!ear that the connotations of the -!i term common!y rendered )omniscience are #uite different from those of the %ng!ish word$ In the Tevi@@avacchagotta 5utta 2.a@@hima Nikya, 5utta A+3, the ascetic Bacchagotta approaches the Buddha$ (e wants to c!arify the precise scope of the Buddha s know!edge and so #uestions him$ Benera"!e 5ir, I have heard thisC 0The rec!use Dotama c!aims to "e omniscient *sa""aEEF, and a!!=seeing *sa""adassvG,, to have comp!ete know!edge and vision thusC 0Whether I am wa!king or standing or s!eeping or awake, know!edge and vision are continuous!y and uninterrupted!y present to me$1 Benera"!e sir, do those who speak thus say what has "een said "y the B!essed One, and not misrepresent him with what is contrary to fact?*8, &ccording to the commentaria! tradition, this statement encompasses two different scopes of omniscience$ Bhikkhu Bodhi writes, &ccording to the e'egetica! Theravda 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 2Iuestions of 9ing .i!inda3 = a post=canonica! -!i work that dea!s with many puJJ!ing #uestions a"out the Buddha s !ife and teaching = seems to @ustify this interpretation$ Ngasena, 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 he knew whatever he wanted to know$*6, The more far=reaching version of omniscience is apparent!y c!aimed "y = among others K NigaLMha Ntaputta, the !eader of what is now known as the Nain sect$ 5uch a c!aim is attri"uted to him in the /u!adukkhakkhandha 5utta 2.a@@hima Nikya, 5utta +H3$ In this sutta, .ahnama the 5akyan reports c!aims made "y Ntaputta to his own fo!!owers regarding his more comprehensive version of omniscienceC Oriend, the NigaLMha Ntaputta is omniscient *sa""aEEF, and a!!=seeing *sa""adassvG, and c!aims to have comp!ete know!edge *aparisesa ELadassana paMi@nti, thusC 0Whether I am wa!king or standing or as!eep or awake, know!edge and vision *ELadassana, are continuous!y *satata, and uninterrupted!y *samita4, present in me$1*7, In more technica! terms, .ahvGra s omniscience was termed keva!a=@Ena, a state in which the sou! 2tman3, 0"eing tota!!y independent of the senses and the mind, wi!!, without any conscious effort whatsoever, direct!y and simu!taneous!y mirror the who!e range of knowa"!es 2sarva4 @Eeya431$*A, 5eeming!y, a!! freed sou!s attain to omniscience according to this system$ The )&!! 2sarva3 that the omniscient come to know was understood to comprise the si' su"stances 2dravyas3 with their infinite modes 2paryyas3*P,$ We wi!! see that the transference of the voca"u!ary of the )&!! 2sa""a in -!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 Nikya 2.N A73, Ntaputta is not a"!e to !ive up to his !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!ete know!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 an empty house, he gets no a!msfood, a dog "ites him, he meets with a wi!d e!ephant, a wi!d horse, 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 is why I entered it$ I had to get no a!msfoodR *S, Qnanda points out that if it is true that Ntaputta 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 foresee and so avoid3? Ntaputta s defence is some version of determinismT that is, he cou!d foresee these things "ut they were going to happen anyway$ The de"unking of Ntaputta s c!aim to omniscience is taken further in the /FUasaku!udyi sutta 2.a@@hima Nikya, 5utta AS3$ In speaking a"out a meeting with Ntaputta, 5aku!ud+yi reports to the BuddhaC When I asked him a #uestion a"out the past, he prevaricated, !ed the ta!k aside, and showed anger, hate, and "itterness$*+V, This passage is c!ear!y intended not on!y to discredit Ntaputta s c!aims "ut to show that such c!aims are ridicu!ous$ Whi!e decisive!y re@ecting the "roader version of omniscience c!aimed "y NigaLMha Ntaputta and other wanderers, the Theravda schoo! maintained that the Buddha was omniscient in the sense that 0a!! knowa"!e things are potentia!!y accessi"!e to him$1 (owever, a straightforward reading of the Buddha s rep!y to Bacchagotta K #uoted a"ove K wou!d seem to contradict this c!aim$ In his rep!y, the Buddha says nothing a"out having omniscience, he simp!y asserts that he has the three know!edges 2tevi@@3, that isC he is a"!e to reco!!ect his manifo!d past !ives 2pu""e nvsnussati=ELa3T 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=ELa3T and fina!!y, having rea!ised for himse!f with direct know!edge 2a"hiEn3, he knows that he has destroyed the taints 2sava=kkhaya=ELa3$ One wou!d have thought that these powers were remarka"!e enough in themse!vesW The .a@@hima Nikya, in particu!ar, focuses on this formu!a of the three know!edges in 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!udyi 5utta, when the wander 5aku!udyin suggests that it is in fact the Buddha, rather than .ahvGra, who is proper!y omniscient the Buddha dismisses such considerations as irre!evant and offers instead the formu!a of Dependent Origination 2 paMicca= samuppda3C When this e'ists, that comes to "eT with the arising of this, that arises$ When this does not e'ist, that does not come to "eT with the cessation of this, that ceases$*+?, In the 9aLLakattha!a=sutta 2.a@@hima Nikya, 5utta SV3, however, the Buddha gives a more am"iguous response$ On this occasion, it is 9ing -asenadi of 9osa!a, the Buddha s o!d friend, who comes to see him and asks a"out omniscience$

Benera"!e sir, I have heard thisC )The rec!use Dotama saysC 0There is no rec!use or "rahmin who is omniscient *sa""aEEF, and a!!=seeing *sa""adassvG,, who can c!aim to have comp!ete know!edge and vision *aparisesa ELadassana,T that is not possi"!e$1 Benera"!e sir, do those who speak thus say what has "een said "y the B!essed One, and not 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!use or "rahmin who knows a!!, who sees a!!, simu!taneous!yT that is not possi"!e$1*+H, /!ear!y, then, he does not here deny that it is possi"!e to know and see a!!, on!y that it is possi"!e to know and see a!! simu!taneous!y$ In other words, he is denying the kind of omniscience c!aimed "y, and on "eha!f of, the NigaLMha Ntaputta$ Neverthe!ess, without e'p!icit!y denying it, he sti!! does not 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 a particu!ar o"@ect of know!edge in order to know it$ The principa! support for this c!aim in the -!i te'ts is found in the 9Uaka 5utta of the &nguttara Nikya 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, heard R pondered over "y the mind, K that have I fu!!y comprehendedC a!! that is understood "y the Tathgata, "ut the Tathgata is not su"@ect to it$*+6, When the Buddha says, 0I do know1, he is using the -!i ver" @n, which means )to know, to have or gain know!edge of, to "e e'perienced, to "e aware, to find out$ This, then, wou!d seem to confirm that the Buddha is in fact c!aiming some form of omniscience 2though perhaps @ust one comment in the entire -!i /anon is insufficient to "e sure3$ (owever, the #uestion arises, what does the Buddha mean when he says that he knows a!! that can "e seen etc? Does he know these things as a finite range 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 three characteristics of conditioned e'istenceC unsatisfactoriness 2dukkha, impermanence 2anicca3, and a"sence of permanent identity 2anatt3? & passage from the sutta immediate!y preceding the one @ust #uoted sheds further !ight on this #uestion$ In )The Wor!d sutta 2&nguttara Nikya 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 Oour No"!e Truths$ .onks, the wor!d is fu!!y comprehended "y a Tathgata$ Orom the wor!d a Tathgata is re!eased$ .onks, the arising of the wor!d is fu!!y comprehended "y a TathgataT the arising of the wor!d is a"andoned "y a Tathgata, the ending of the wor!d is fu!!y comprehended "y a TathgataT the ending of the wor!d is rea!iJed "y a Tathgata$ .onks, the practice going to the ending of the wor!d is fu!!y comprehended "y a TathgataT the practice going to the ending of the wor!d is made to "ecome "y the Tathgata$*+7, This conte't makes the scope of the Buddha s c!aim much c!earer$ (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 "eing immersed in dukkha 2suffering3$ The Buddha c!aims to know how this wor!d arises and how to make it come to an end$ In other words, he knows why peop!e suffer, he knows too that suffering can "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 Oour 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""apariEE 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, who has 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@na3 and fu!!y understood 2pari@na3 the )&!! , and who has detached his mind from it and a"andoned it, is capa"!e of destroying suffering$ *+A, We noticed ear!ier that for the Nains the )&!! meant something very technica! and specificT the tota!ity of a!! knowa"!es$ (owever, the current passage suggests that the )&!! is used as a synonym for sa4sara, the unen!ightened condition$ The aim here is, through direct know!edge 2pariEE3 of it, to a"andon the )&!! and, in doing so, !i"erate onese!f from suffering$ Other conte'ts make it c!ear that pariEE is a specia!, higher kind of know!edge = a gnosis = not mere!y a factua! sort$ It is identica! with the goa! of Buddhism*+P,$ 9nowing the )&!! in this sense may "e spoken of in severa! ways, for e'amp!e, insight into the Oour No"!e Truths 2catri ariya saccni3, the Three /haracteristics 2ti=!akkhaLa3 of %'istence, or Dependent Origination$ &ccording!y, then, knowing the )&!! 2sa""a3 is e#uiva!ent to knowing the nature of the wor!d 2!oka3$ It is a spiritua! insight into the way things are that !eads to a profound transformation of one s attitude towards it that is

indicated here$ Naini specu!ates that 0the word sa""aEEu was an ancient QramaLa technica! term, and was in vogue among the NainsRat the time of .ahvGra$1*+S, It was, he "e!ieves, taken up "y the Buddhists and app!ied to their .aster "ut perhaps not fu!!y assimi!ated$ Diven the am"iguous meaning of the term sa""a 25anskrit, sarva3, it is not surprising that confusion arose within the Buddhist conte't regarding what it signified and that, at !east in the minds of some commentators, a more factua! interpretation of sa""aEEuta=ELa rep!aced a more principia! one$ /onse#uent!y, certain powers were ascri"ed to the Buddha that are not on!y !itera!!y incredi"!e "ut rather "eside the point$ The Theravda tradition e'hi"its this mistake when it appears to c!aim that the Buddha cou!d know a!! 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$ Oor e'amp!e, cou!d the Buddha, even if he gave his fu!! attention to it, know how many hairs there are on my head? This seems e'treme!y un!ike!y$ /ou!d he, then, know how to operate Word A 2the word processing package I am using to type 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 known such things it seems unreasona"!e to suggest that he may have done since there is a"so!ute!y no evidence 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 "e some sort of transcendenta! know=a!!$ 5uch a c!aim o"scures the spiritua! significance and orientation of his insight$ It arises from a conf!ation of two different orders of know!edgeT the Buddha s know!edge was of spiritua! princip!es, even !aws, not of mundane facts$ There is no reason to "e!ieve that his mastery of the princip!e of Dependent Origination shou!d a!so give him access 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"!e to get perp!e'ed a"out facts concerning everyday !ife and may "e surpassed in such know!edge "y others$ The Thera s response is very instructiveC

Xou maintain that he *the arahant, does *!ack know!edge,$ Then you must a!so admit that the arahant has ignorance = ignorance as f!ood, "ond, !atent "ias, attack, fetter, hindrance$ If you deny this, you cannot say he !acks know!edge$*?V, This fa!se dichotomy revea!s that the de"ate founders on a misunderstanding a"out the use of the word know!edge 2here ELa3$ The Thera is not a"!e to conceive of different orders of know!edge and so must re@ect the c!aim that an arahant !acks know!edge of any sort$ Oor him, if the arahant !acks know!edge of any kind it ca!!s into #uestion his transcendence of ignorance$ (owever, this e#uivocation on the word )know!edge mis!eads$ 5ure!y it is possi"!e that the arahant may have fu!!y penetrated the sources of greed, hatred, and de!usion 2and so have know!edge of the destruction of the taints3 "ut not know how to get to Benares, for e'amp!e$ There seems to "e no necessary 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 to promote the Buddha to the status of omniscience was that other contemporary teachers made such c!aims inc!uding NigaLMha Ntaputta = as we have a!ready noted = "ut a!so .akka!i Dosa!a, and -urana 9assapa*??,$ /!ear!y, the redactors of the -!i /anon = and the !ater commentators = wou!d wish to set the Buddha a"ove any of his riva!s$ This specu!ation seems p!ausi"!e$ But were they consistent? /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, Ngasena?

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 -!i /anon that c!ear!y demonstrate a !ack of know!edge on his part$ In other words, we can test the c!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$

+ /tum 5utta 2.a@@hima Nikya 5utta 7A3

(ere the Buddha is staying at /atum in a myro"a!an grove$ & !arge group of monks headed "y 5riputta and .ah.ogga!!na have come to /tum to see the Buddha$ (owever, whi!e the visiting 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 them are his !eading discip!es$ Qnanda 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$ (owever, hearing of this, the !oca! 5akyans undertake to visit the Buddha to 0restore his confidence$1 Their appea! to him is #uite instructiveC Benera"!e sir, !et the B!essed One de!ight in the 5angha of "hikkhusT venera"!e sir, !et the B!essed One we!come the 5angha of "hikkhusT venera"!e sir, !et the B!essed One he!p the 5angha of "hikkhus now as he used to he!p it in the past$ Benera"!e sir, there are new "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 some change or a!teration *i$e$ they may !ose their inspiration and fa!! "ack,$*?H, It seems a!most as though the 5akyans think that the Buddha s "ehaviour shows a !ack of compassion and, !ater in the sutta, there is no evidence that he up"raids them for this apparent presumption$ 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 see the Buddha, might !ose inspiration or, if he is aware of it, he has chosen not to weigh it with any importance$ 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 to humanity3, knowing the Buddha s mind, appears "efore him and p!eads in the same way as the 5akyans have done$ &s a resu!t of this intercession, the Buddha re!ents and reca!!s the "anished monks$ Whether Brahm+ 5ahampati is seen !itera!!y as a god or metaphorica!!y as the Buddha s own conscience ref!ecting on the issue, it is c!ear that the Buddha changes his mind$ .oreover, he changes his mind "ecause he has "egun to weigh serious!y circumstances that previous!y he was either unaware of or had not given importance too$ -resuma"!y, if his first decision was correct he shou!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 seemed reasona"!e at the time "ut unreasona"!e when new circumstances came to !ight, so he changed his mind$ 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 some of 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 the visiting "hikkhus heated!y$ Yater, when he had had time to think the matter through and when persuasive reasons were given for a!!owing the "hikkhus to stay, he changed his mind and a!!owed them "ack in$

? The .onks who /ommit 5uicide

The 5amyutta Nikya*?7, records an account of the Buddha teaching a meditation on the un!ove!y 2asu"ha"hvana3$ (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 monks meditated on the un!ove!yC &s to this "ody, they worried a"out it, fe!t shame and !oathing for it, and sought for a weapon to s!ay themse!ves$ Nay, as many as ten monks did so in a sing!e dayT even twenty, 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 committed suicide$ Qnanda te!!s him what has happened$ The Buddha s response is simp!y, 0Bery 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 suicide unti! informed of the fact and, moreover, when teaching the meditation on the un!ove!y in the first p!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 Ngasena is the issue of Devadatta s entry into the Order$ .i!inda asks Ngasena if the Buddha knew that, if admitted to the order of "hikkhus, Devadatta wou!d cause schism$ Ngasena rep!ies that the Buddha did know this$ .i!inda s response is astute$

But Ngasena, if that "e so, then the statement that the Buddha was kind and pitifu!, that he sought after the good of others, that he was the remover of that which works harm, the provider of that which works we!! to a!! "eings = that statement must "e wrong$*?P, In other words, if the Buddha had "een proper!y compassionate he wou!d not have admitted Devadatta to the order knowing the pro"!ems he wou!d cause$ Natura!!y, Ngasena denies this interpretation 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 torment to torment, and from perdition to perdition$1*?S, (owever, if admitted to the order, then Devadatta s 2"ad3 karmic inheritance wou!d "ecome !imited and so endure on!y for one ka!pa$ Whi!e one might admire this response as a c!ever way to try to get out of a tricky spot it is unconvincing$ 5ince causing schism in the 5angha is one of the five most heinous crimes,*8V, wou!d it not have "een "etter for Devadatta never to have entered the Order since he cou!dn t then have 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 the five heinous crimes3$ What cou!d "e worse? If Devadatta had not "een a "hikkhu it seems un!ike!y that he wou!d have wanted to usurp the Buddha in this way$ Whi!e admiring Ngasena s fide!ity to the c!aim that the Buddha was omniscient it seems more reasona"!e to assume that the Buddha did not in fact foresee the conse#uences of Devadatta s mem"ership of the order, given that these conse#uences were so disastrous$

H The NaMi!a &scetics

In the >dna 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!king with 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 s rep!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 periodT and on!y "y considering it, not without considerationT 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, great king, and then on!y after a !ong time, not after a short periodT and on!y "y considering it, not without considerationT and on!y "y one who is wise, not "y a foo!$*8+, It appears then that the Buddha is suggesting that one cannot know the attainment of another un!ess one has e'tended e'perience of him or her at c!ose #uarters$ This wou!d seem to undermine the c!aims made regarding the Buddha s a"i!ities in other parts of the -!i /anon, in particu!ar the supernorma! power of te!epathy 2parassa cetopariya=ELa3 said to "e one of the si' such powers possessed "y the Buddha$ In the episode of the NaMi!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 disguiseW &t no point does the Buddha c!aim to have known this fact "efore -asenadi revea!s it$

/onc!usion

I have presented severa! incidents recorded in the -!i /anon that seem to fa!sify in a c!ear and straightforward 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 this topic since, given its ora! origin, it is un!ike!y that one editor, or even a team of editors, cou!d have com"ed through the entire /anon de!eting or revising any episodes that might revea! !imitations to the Buddha s sphere of know!edge$

(owever, the #uestion may ariseC why am I so interested in trying to i!!ustrate the Buddha s apparent !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$ .y

intention 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 as some kind of unreacha"!e superman, even a god$ The Buddha was a man who achieved a "eings can emu!ate$ This is what makes the Buddha so inspiring and so important$ Whether he was a"!e to wa!k through wa!!s or understand #uantum theory is irre!evant$

"eing respected, venerated, and emu!ated as a spiritua! e'emp!ar he is more !ike!y to "e worshipped profound spiritua! insight, a spiritua! insight that = at !east according to Buddhism = a!! human

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 2taLh3, hatred 2doha3, and de!usion 2moha3$ 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 conduct for any evidence that he fe!! short of his c!aim$ Indeed, this is a test that he himse!f proposes for the assessment of a sage s attainment and so of his re!ia"i!ity as a teacher$*8?, The primary means of eva!uating spiritua! integrity then is to e'amine the ethica! purity of the sage not his magica! powers 2shou!d he have any3 or the scope of his mundane know!edge$ The Buddha may or may not have had a!! sorts of magica! a"i!ities "ut these considerations shou!d not o"scure what is most fundamenta!!y important a"out him and what he rea!ised$ The irre!evance of factua! omniscience to the rea! concerns of spiritua! !ife are poignant!y summarised "y the .ahyna Buddhist theo!ogian DharmakGrtiC -eop!e, afraid of "eing deceived "y fa!se teachers In 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!edge pertaining to the num"er of insects in the who!e wor!d? :ather, in#uire into his know!edge of that which is to "e practised "y us$*88,

Notes
*+,$

the Buddha in Buddhist 5tudies in (onour of I$B$ (orner, edited "y Y$5$ /ousins et a! 2DordrectC :eide!, +SAH3, pp$A+KSV$
*?,$ *8,$

This !atter point, in particu!ar, is argued "y -$5$ Naini in his )On the 5arva@Eatva of .ahvGra and

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

p$6PA$
*H,$ *6,$ *7,$ *A,$ *P,$ *S,$

I"id$ p$+?A7$ The Iuestions of 9ing .i!inda, trans$ T$W$ :hys Davids, .oti!a! +SPP, vo!$ +, p$+6H$ \Lamo!i, op$cit$ p$+PAKP$ Naini, op$ cit$ p$A6, I"id$ p$A7$ \Lamo!i, op$ /it$ p$7?8KH$ I"id$ p$766$ /!ear!y the formu!a of )three know!edges is intended as an ironic reference to, and criticism of, \Lamo!i, op$cit$ p$766$ Imasmi4 sati, ida4 hoti, imass uppd, ida4 uppa@@atiT imasmi4

*+V,$ *++,$

the "asis of Bedic know!edgeC the three Bedas$

*+?,$

asati, ida4 na hotiT imassa nirodh, ida4 niru@@hati$ 2. ]$8?3

*+8,$ *+H,$ *+6,$ *+7,$ *+A,$

I"id$ p$A86$ I"id$ The Book of the Dradua! 5ayings, vo!$ ] trans$ O$Y$ Woodward, -T5, +SP?, p$?7KA$ I"id$ p$?6$ This sutta is a!so found at Itivuttaka, ++?$ The >dna and the Itivuttaka, trans$ Nohn Ire!and, Buddhist -u"!ications 5ociety, 9andy, p$ 5ee, for e'amp!e, .N i$?6+$ op$ cit$ p$PA$ -oints of /ontroversy, -a!i Te't 5ociety, +S+6, p$++6 25 i$+3$ Indian Buddhism, .oti!a! Banarsidass, +SPV, p$+86ff$ &nguttara Nikya SC8PZiv$H?P=S$ \Lamo!i, op$ /it$ p$67V$ p$67+$

+6S$
*+P,$ *+S,$ *?V,$ *?+,$ *??,$ *?8,$

*?H, I"id$ *?6,

fee"!e response saying that the Buddha changed his mind "ecause he was convinced "y para"!es the Buddha not think the matter through for himse!f?

In The Iuestions of 9ing .i!inda, .i!inda puts this very issue to Ngasena who gives a rather

that he himse!f had previous!y used 2op$ cit$ vo!$ + p$8V+K?3$ The #uestion arises, though, why did

*?7,

considera"!y e!a"orated 2suggesting that it was recorded !ater3$ In the Binaya account, some of the .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 2pr@ika3$
*?A, The *?P, The

This episode is a!so descri"ed in the Binaya, 5uttavi"haLga, ii$+ where the incident is

monks ask a )sham rec!use to ki!! them$ >nder the inf!uence of .ra, the )sham rec!use ,

Book of the 9indred 5ayings, vo!$ 6, -T5, trans$ O$Y$ Woodward, p$?PH$ Iuestions of 9ing .i!inda, op$ cit$ vo!$ i, p$+78$ p$+7H$

*?S, I"id$

*8V, &nguttara Nikya 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!!ed

hisZher father, one who has ki!!ed an arahant, one who == with a corrupted mind == has caused the "!ood of a Tathagata to of he!!, who are in agony and incura"!e$; Thanissro Bhikkhu, op$ cit$ *8+, Ire!and, *8?, 5ee,

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"itants

op$ cit$ pp$PHK6$

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

Then a householder or a householders son goes to [the sage] and investigates him in regard to three kinds of states: in regard to states based on greed, in regard to states based on hate, and in regard to states based on delusion: Are there in this venerable one any states based on greed such that, with his mind obsessed by those states, while not knowing he might say, know,! or while not seeing he might say see,! or he might urge others to act in a way that would lead to their harm and suffering for a long time" #$% i"&'&()*
*88, -ramLavrttika,

I, 8?K8$ Iuoted in Naini, op$ cit$, pp$P7KA$