О всеведении Будды

[Ассаджи]

По поводу всеведения Будды:

AN 4.24:

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.

SN 6.1:

Then the Blessed One, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of compassion for beings, surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As he did so, he saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much, those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard, some of them seeing disgrace and danger in the other world.

SN 56.31:

"[T]hose things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]."

Примечание Бхиккху Бодхи в его переводе Мадджхима Никаи:

[Note 714]: "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 Theravāda exegetical 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 cognized. This is understood by the Theravāda commentators as an assertion of omniscience in the qualified sense. See too in this connection Miln 102–7."

Из его же примечания к переводу Ангуттара Никаи:

662 Mp: "By these terms (jānāmi, abbhaññāsiṃ, viditaṃ) the plane of omniscience (sabbaññutabhūmi) is indicated." In the History of Buddhism, as well as in modern scholarship, the question of whether the Buddha claimed omniscience has been the subject of debate. The Buddha certainly rejected the claim that one could know everything all the time (see MN 71.5, I 482, 4–18) as well as the claim that one could know everything simultaneously (see MN 90.8, II 127, 28–30). But he also says that to hold that he totally rejects the possibility of omniscience is to misrepresent him MN 90.5, II 126, 31–27, 11).Thus is seems to follow that what the Buddha rejected is the possibility of continuous and simultaneous knowledge of everything, but not discrete and intentional knowledge of whatever can be known (which would exclude much of the future, since it is not predetermined).

Из его перевода комментария к Брахмаджала сутте (стр. 128):

Because it takes a multiplicity of objects... It knows the entire past, thus it is knowledge of omniscience, thus it is the unobstructed knowledge, etc (Pts I.1.73). Therefore, because it is associated with multiple classes of consciousness, and because it takes a multiplicity of objects on the successive occasions of its arising, it is described in the plural.

There is a discussion in the Subco. :Query: If this is so, how is it possible for a single, limited type of knowledge to penetrate without omission the entire range of the knowable with its inconceivable, immeasurable subdivisions?

Reply: Who says the Buddha-knowledge is limited?.... With the abandoning of the entire obstruction of the knowable, the Exalted One gained unobstructed knowledge which occurs subject to his wish and is capable of comprehending all dhammas in all their modes. By means of this knowledge the Exalted One was capable of penetrating all dhammas in continuous succession (santanena); therefore he was omniscient or all-knowing in the way fire is called "all-consuming" through its ability to burn all its fuel in continuous succession. He was not, however, omniscient in the sense that he could comprehend all dhammas simultaneously.

[Limemill]

http://dhamma.ru/canon/mn/mn67.htm

Вот мне всегда было интересно, как трактуются такие (множественные) случаи из Канона, где Будда спрашивает у учеников, что происходит ("Тут Бхагаван окликнул Ананду: "Что за шум, что за галдеж, Ананда? Рыбаки, что ли, сеть вытащили?""), при декларированном всеведении. В чем смысл подобных вопросов вообще?

[Ассаджи]

http://dhamma.ru/canon/mn/mn67.htm

Вот мне всегда было интересно, как трактуются такие (множественные) случаи из Канона, где Будда спрашивает у учеников, что происходит ("Тут Бхагаван окликнул Ананду: "Что за шум, что за галдеж, Ананда? Рыбаки, что ли, сеть вытащили?""), при декларированном всеведении. В чем смысл подобных вопросов вообще?

"Всеведение" (саббаннюта) совсем не означает знания чего угодно в любой момент.

[Limemill]

"Всеведение" (саббаннюта) совсем не означает знания чего угодно в любой момент.

Да, но, насколько я понимаю из сутт, то, на что Будда направляет внимание в данный момент становится для него доступно (в соответствии с той же метафорой о всепоглощающем огне, который может сожрать все, но по очереди, перекидываясь с одного предмета на другой). 

[Ассаджи]

Да, но, насколько я понимаю из сутт, то, на что Будда направляет внимание в данный момент становится для него доступно (в соответствии с той же метафорой о всепоглощающем огне, который может сожрать все, но по очереди, перекидываясь с одного предмета на другой). 

Насколько я понимаю, это не все время. Будде для этого нужно не просто обратить внимание, а посмотреть всевидящим взором (саманта-чаккху).

Из Тевидджа-Ваччхаготта сутты:

"Venerable sir, I have heard this said: The recluse Gotama is all knowing and all seeing and acknowledges remainderless knowledge and vision in this manner, 'while walking, standing, lying or awake, constantly and continually knowledge and vision is established, to me'. Venerable sir, those who say, these words, 'The recluse Gotama is all knowing and all seeing and acknowledges remainderless knowledge and vision:while walking, standing, lying or awake, constantly and continually,' Are they saying the words of good Gotama and are they not blaming the Blessed One falsely? Vaccha, those who say, the recluse Gotama is all knowing and all seeing and acknowledges remainderless knowledge and vision, while walking, standing, lying or awake, constantly and continually. They, do not say my words, they blame me falsely.

Venerable sir, saying how would it be said, correctly not blaming the Blessed One falsely? 'The recluse Gotama knows the three knowledges. Saying it thus they would be saying the right thing, and not blaming me falsely. Vaccha, whenever I desire, I recollect the manifold previous births, such as one birth, two births, with all modes and all details, thus I recall the manifold previous births. Vaccha, when I desire, with the purified heavenly eye beyond human, see beings disappearing and appearing, in unexalted and exalted states, beautiful and ugly, in good and bad states, -- I see beings, according their actions. Vaccha, destroying desires, my mind released and released through wisdom, here and now by myself realising I abide. Vaccha, if it is said, the recluse Gotama knows the three knowledges, saying it thus, you would be saying the right thing and not blaming me falsely'.

Примечание Бхиккху Бодхи в его переводе Мадджхима Никаи:

[Note 714]: "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.

[Ассаджи]

Калака сутта

AN 4.24 AN ii 24 Kāḷaka Translated by Bhikku Bodhi

http://suttacentral.net/an4.24/en

Thus have I heard. [660] On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Sāketa, at Kāḷaka's Park. [661] There the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus: "Bhikkhus!"

"Venerable sir!" those bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:

"Bhikkhus, in this world with its devas, Māra, and Brahmā, among this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its devas and humans, whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by the mind—that I know.

"Bhikkhus, in this world with its devas, Māra, and Brahmā, among this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its devas and humans, whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by the mind—that I have directly known. It has been known by the Tathāgata, [662] but the Tathāgata did not become subservient to it. [663]

"Bhikkhus, if I were to say, 'In this world with its devas ... whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by the mind—that I do not know,' that would be a falsehood on my part.

"Bhikkhus, if I were to say, 'In this world with its devas ... whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by the mind—that I both know and do not know,' that too would be just the same. [664]

"Bhikkhus, if I were to say, 'In this world with its devas ... whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by the mind—that I neither know nor do not know,' that would be a fault on my part. [665]

(1) "So, having seen what can be seen, the Tathāgata does not misconceive the seen, does not misconceive the unseen, does not misconceive what can be seen, does not misconceive one who sees. [666] (2) Having heard what can be heard, he does not misconceive the heard, does not misconceive the unheard, does not misconceive what can be heard, does not misconceive one who hears. (3) Having sensed what can be sensed, he does not misconceive the sensed, does not misconceive the unsensed, does not misconceive what can be sensed, does not misconceive one who senses. (4) Having cognized what can be cognized, he does not misconceive the cognized, does not misconceive the uncognized, does not misconceive what can be cognized, does not misconceive one who cognizes.

"Thus, bhikkhus, being ever stable among things seen, heard, sensed, and cognized, the Tathāgata is a stable one. [667] And, I say, there is no stable one more excellent or sublime than that stable one."

Amid those who are self-constrained, the Stable One would not posit as categorically true or false anything seen, heard, or sensed, clung to and considered truth by others. [668]

Since they have already seen this dart [669] to which people cling and adhere, saying "I know, I see, it is just so," the Tathāgatas cling to nothing.

Notes:

[660] Ce has this in brackets. Be and Ee do not have it at all.

[661] According to Mp, Kāḷaka was a wealthy financier and the father-in-law of Anāthapiṇḍika's daughter Cūḷasubhaddā. At the time of her marriage, he had been a devotee of the naked ascetics and knew nothing about the Buddha or his teaching. Cūḷasubhaddā contrived to get him to invite the Buddha and the monks for a meal offering. After the meal, the Buddha gave a discourse that established him in the fruit of stream-entry. Kāḷaka then built a monastery in his park and donated both monastery and park to the Buddha. One day, when the bhikkhus who were natives of Sāketa were sitting in the meeting hall discussing the Buddha's success in converting Kāḷaka, the Buddha read their minds and knew they were ready for a discourse that would settle them in arahantship. It would also cause the great earth to quake up to its boundaries. Hence he addressed the bhikkhus.

[662] Mp: "By these three terms (jānāmi, abbhaññāsiṃ, viditaṃ) the plane of omniscience (sabbaññutabhūmi) is indicated." In the history of Buddhism, as well as in modern scholarship, the question whether the Buddha claimed omniscience has been a subject of debate. The Buddha certainly rejected the claim that one could know everything all the time (see MN 71.5, I 482,4–18) as well as the claim that one could know everything simultaneously (see MN 90.8, II 127,28–30). But he also says that to hold that he totally rejects the possibility of omniscience is to misrepresent him (MN 90.5, II 126,31–27,11). Thus it seems to follow that what the Buddha rejected is the possibility of continuous and simultaneous knowledge of everything, but not discrete and intentional knowledge of whatever can be known (which would exclude much of the future, since it is not predetermined).

[663] Taṃ tathāgato na upaṭṭhāsi. Mp: "The Tathāgata did not become subservient to any object at the six sense doors, that is, he did not take it up (na upagañchi) through craving or views. For it is said: 'The Blessed One sees a form with the eye, but he has no desire and lust for it; the Blessed One is fully liberated in mind.... The Blessed One cognizes a phenomenon with the mind, but he has no desire and lust for it; the Blessed One is fully liberated in mind' (see SN 35:232, IV 164–65). By this the plane of arahantship (khīṇāsavabhūmi) is indicated."

[664] Taṃ p'assa tādisameva. Mp: "That too would just be false speech."

[665] Taṃ mam'assa kali. Mp: "That statement would be a fault of mine. With the above three statements, the plane of truth (saccabhūmi) is indicated."

[666] Mp: "He does not misconceive (na maññati) visible form by way of craving, conceit, or views; and so for the other objects. By this passage, the plane of emptiness (suññatābhūmi) is explained."

[667] The word tādī, originally a simple referential term meaning "that one," takes on a special sense when used to designate the Buddha or an arahant. Nidd I 114–15 explains that an arahant is called tādī because he has transcended preferences, given up (catto) defilements, crossed (tiṇṇo) the floods, and has a liberated (mutto) mind.

Mp: "Being ever stable ... is a stable one (tādīyeva tādī): 'Stable' means exactly the same (ekasadisatā). The Tathāgata is the same both in gain and loss, fame and obscurity, blame and praise, and pleasure and pain.... By this the plane of the stable one (tādibhūmi) has been explained. As he concluded the teaching with these five planes, on each of the five occasions the earth quaked as testimony."

[668] I paraphrase Mp's explanation of this verse: "He would not take even one claim of the speculative theorists (diṭṭhigatikā)—who are 'self-constrained' (sayasaṃvutesu) in the sense that they are constrained or blocked by their conceptions—to be categorical or supreme and trust it, believe it, fall back on it as true or false (evaṃ saccaṃ musā vāpi paraṃ uttamaṃ katvā na odaheyya, na saddaheyya, na pattiyāyeyya), thinking: 'This alone is true and anything else is false.'" This explanation nicely connects the verse to the prose line, "the Tathāgata did not become subservient to it."

[669] MP identifies the "dart" as the dart of views (diṭṭhisalla). Elsewhere craving is spoken of as the dart, for instance, at MN II 258,27, and SN I 40,7; in still other passages, the dart is sorrow, as at 5:48, 5:50.

[Limemill]

Насколько я понимаю, это не все время. Будде для этого нужно не просто обратить внимание, а посмотреть всевидящим взором (саманта-чаккху).

Из Тевидджа-Ваччхаготта сутты:
[...]

Честно говоря, не совсем понял, откуда следует, что Будда может увидеть все, что можно теоретически познать, включив определенный режим зрения (назовем это так ). Более того, все-таки первая и вторая процитированные сутты как-то не совсем "бьются", по-моему.

В первом случае комментарий вызывает у меня определенные сомнения - выглядит все так, что Будду спрашивают про всеведение, на что он отвечает, что им он не обладает, но зато обладает тремя видами сверхъестественного знания (что, на самом деле, очень немало). Мне кажется, в случае, если бы проблема заключалась всего в двух словах (constantly and continually), гораздо понятнее было бы просто повторить исходный вопрос, слегка его перефразировав (да хотя бы даже и сказать neither constantly nor continually).

Во втором случае формулировки еще туманнее звучат: Будда говорит, что, в действительности, знает все, что видно, слышно, является объектом познания и изучения и т. д. Вопрос: видно, слышно и т. д. кому? Из самой сутты, как мне кажется, следует, что речь о том, что а) либо лично Будде слышно/видно и т. д. - т. е., он ничего не упускает из вида, но, при этом, и не привязывается ни к каким отмеченным им феноменам или же б) либо в принципе доступно восприятию и анализу любым существом -- тогда возникает много вопросов.

[Ассаджи]

В первом случае комментарий вызывает у меня определенные сомнения - выглядит все так, что Будду спрашивают про всеведение, на что он отвечает, что им он не обладает, но зато обладает тремя видами сверхъестественного знания (что, на самом деле, очень немало).

Так эти три вида знания как раз и отражают три аспекта всеведения, - о прошлом (прежде всего своем), о настоящем (прежде всего о закономерностям перерождения), и о прекращении страданий через прекращении влечений (то есть знание обусловленного возникновения и его прекращения). Полного знания будущего нет, поскольку будущее не предопределено полностью.

В Тевидджа-Ваччхаготта сутте Будда говорит, что для познания того, что происходит в настоящем, он использует божественное зрение (дибба-чаккху):

Ahañhi, vaccha, yāvadeva ākaṅkhāmi dibbena cakkhunā visuddhena atik­kanta­mānusa­kena satte passāmi cavamāne upapajjamāne hīne paṇīte suvaṇṇe dubbaṇṇe sugate duggate ... pe ... yathākammūpage satte pajānāmi.

Vaccha, when I desire, with the purified heavenly eye beyond human, see beings disappearing and appearing, in unexalted and exalted states, beautiful and ugly, in good and bad states, -- I see beings, according their actions.

Аналогично и в других суттах упоминается, что в таких случаях Будда "обозревает мир":

atha kho bhagavā brahmuno ca ajjhesanaṃ viditvā sattesu ca kāruññataṃ paṭicca buddhacakkhunā lokaṃ volokesi. Addasā kho bhagavā buddhacakkhunā lokaṃ volokento satte apparajakkhe mahā rajakkhe tikkhindriye mudindriye svākāre dvākāre suviññāpaye duviññāpaye appekacce paralokavajjabhayadassāvino viharante.

Then the Blessed One, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of compassion for beings, surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As he did so, he saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much, those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard, some of them seeing disgrace and danger in the other world.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn06/sn06.001.than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.3.10.than.html

Такого рода случаи описываются в Комментарии к Дхаммападе, например:

As the Teacher surveyed the world at dawn and beheld his kinsmen, he thought to himself, "If I refrain from going to them, these men will destroy each other. It is clearly my duty to go to them." Accordingly he flew through the air quite alone to the spot where his kinsmen were gathered together, and seated himself cross-legged in the air over the middle of the river Rohini.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/burlingame/wheel324.html

Выдающиеся ученики Будды погли познавать разум других людей:

Once on an Uposatha day, the Buddha sat silently throughout the whole night in front of the assembly of monks. When the morning dawned, he only said: "This assembly is impure." Thereupon Moggallana surveyed with his mind the entire assembly from monk to monk and saw that one monk was entirely corrupted.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/hecker/wheel263.html

Но только Будда обладал "зрением Будды" (буддха-чаккху) и "всеобъемлющим зрением" (саманта-чаккху)

The Paali Canon mentions five types of vision that the Buddha has. The first is ma.msacakkhu, the normal human vision consisting of the physical faculty of sight. According to the Lakkha.na Sutta the Buddha possesses a perfect pair of deep blue eyes with long eye lashes, because as a human being fulfilling the perfections requisite for Buddhahood he looked at others with pleasant kind eyes, honest and uncritical eyes.[37] The second type of vision is dibbacakkhu, the divine vision or clairvoyance, the most important function of which is the ability to see the passing away and rebirth of beings according to their respective kamma. The third is pa~n~naacakkhu, the vision of insight, which enabled the Buddha to see things as they really are, the impermanent, unsatisfactory, and non-substantial nature of everything.[38] The fourth is buddhacakkhu, the Buddha vision;[39] when the Buddha surveyed the world with this vision he saw people with a lesser and a greater degree of defilements, people with refined and dull spiritual faculties. The fifth is samantacakkhu, which we venture to translate as pan-vision.[40] It is possible to infer that this vision refers to the ability to see a problem or an issue in its entirety, as samanta means entire or all-round. Moreover, Mahaabrahmaa addresses the Buddha as samantacakkhu when he entreats him in allegorical terms to ascend to the top of the "Dhamma mansion" and behold the suffering mass of humanity.[41] The last two visions are never attributed to arahants and remain the sole province of the Buddha.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/desilva/wheel407.html

Во втором случае формулировки еще туманнее звучат: Будда говорит, что, в действительности, знает все, что видно, слышно, является объектом познания и изучения и т. д. Вопрос: видно, слышно и т. д. кому?

Я предполагаю, что Будда способен познать то, что видно, слышно и т.д. какому-либо существу в данный момент.

[Volovsky]

Исследование дост. Аналайо на предмет всеведения Будды https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/buddha-omniscience.pdf. Так же в конце (со стр. 13) дост. касается вопроса унхисы (ушниши) и ее неканоничности в качестве выпуклости на голове у Будды.

[Ассаджи]

Из Пасадика сутты, о том, что ожидать полного знания будущего глупо:

It may happen, Cunda, that Wanderers who hold other views than ours mav declare: 'Concerning the past Gotama the Recluse reveals an infinite knowledge and insight, but not so concerning the future, as to the what and the why of it.'

[If they were to say so], then those wanderers would fancy, like so many silly fools, that knowledge and insight concerning one kind of thing are to be revealed by knowledge and insight engaged upon another kind of thing.

Concerning the past, Cunda, the Tathāgata has cognition reminiscent of existences.

He can remember as far back as he desires.

And concerning the future there arises in him knowledge born of Enlightenment to this effect: This is the last birth; now is there no more coming to be.

https://suttacentral.net/en/dn29