YOU CANNOT POST. OUR WEB HOSTING COMPANY DECIDED TO MOVE THE SERVER TO ANOTHER LOCATION. IN THE MEANTIME, YOU CAN VIEW THIS VERSION WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW POSTING AND WILL NOT SAVE ANYTHING YOU DO ONCE THE OTHER SERVER GOES ONLINE.

Omniscence - Dhamma Wheel

Omniscence

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Omniscence

Postby Cittasanto » Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:36 am



He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.

User avatar
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
Posts: 10648
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact:

Re: Omniscence

Postby David N. Snyder » Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:07 pm

Image




User avatar
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
Posts: 10648
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact:

Re: Omniscence

Postby David N. Snyder » Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:15 pm

I forget if Nagasena talked about it in the Milindapanha, but there are also the Vinaya rules which only came about after there was some issue and there is always story and reason behind each new rule. And the rules were often adjusted and revised as the time called for it.
Image




Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Omniscence

Postby Individual » Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:08 pm

Very interesting. Nice find!
The best things in life aren't things.


User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: Omniscence

Postby kc2dpt » Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:13 pm

It is important to understand what Buddhists mean by "omniscience" as this is substantially different than what Jews and Christians mean by the same word. The Buddha is not said to know everything but rather can know whatever he wishes to know. This is an important distinction for it is limited to what the Buddha would wish, and that is likely limited to things having to do with suffering, the ending of suffering, and teaching this to others.
- Peter


User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Omniscence

Postby Cittasanto » Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:22 pm

Hi
There are more posts on the link I gave the one I quote was the OP and seamed to encompass enough of a view with evidencefor a good/excelent start on the topic.

I remember Ven Dhamanando mentioned (I cant remember if it was his view or not) that there is no evidence that the Sabba in Sabbannu is the same as the Sabba in the sutta of this title in other words knowing the all in terms of the six sense bases as in the Quoted posting whether it is ones own or anothers or if it is the all of everything so he either knows all (know it all seams slightly derogitory :tongue: ) or knows all he turns his attention too, this could be either everything or as in the sabbe sutta.

personally I will go with the sutta definition in regard to what he turns his attention to.


He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Omniscence

Postby Cittasanto » Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:26 pm



He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.

User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8502
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Omniscence

Postby cooran » Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:31 pm

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.

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 ---

Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Omniscence

Postby Individual » Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:54 pm

The best things in life aren't things.


User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Omniscence

Postby Cittasanto » Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:12 pm

Hi Chris & individual
I like those quotes. thanks


He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Omniscence

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:19 am


User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 3521
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Huai Bong, Lamphun

Re: Omniscence

Postby Dhammanando » Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:07 am


Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Omniscence

Postby Individual » Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:47 am

The best things in life aren't things.


User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Omniscence

Postby Cittasanto » Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:27 pm



He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.

User avatar
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
Posts: 10648
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact:

Re: Omniscence

Postby David N. Snyder » Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:09 am

Image




User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 3521
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Huai Bong, Lamphun

Re: Omniscence

Postby Dhammanando » Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:55 am


User avatar
Jason
Posts: 474
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:09 am
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Omniscence

Postby Jason » Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:58 pm

"Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya" ().

(Buddhist-related blog)
(non-Buddhist related blog)

User avatar
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
Posts: 10648
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact:

Re: Omniscence

Postby David N. Snyder » Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:28 pm

Image





Return to “General Theravāda discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 34 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine