An aside on sabbe dhammā nālaṁ abhinivesāyā

The Watercooler
1

“Sir, I have heard this:
“sutaṁ metaṁ, bhante:

‘The ascetic Gotama claims to be all-knowing and all-seeing, to know and see everything without exception.
‘samaṇo gotamo sabbaññū sabbadassāvī, aparisesaṁ ñāṇadassanaṁ.

…

I trust that those who say this repeat what the Buddha has said, and do not misrepresent him with an untruth? Is their explanation in line with the teaching? Are there any legitimate grounds for rebuttal and criticism?”
Ye te, bhante, evamāhaṁsu: ‘samaṇo gotamo sabbaññū sabbadassāvī, aparisesaṁ ñāṇadassanaṁ paṭijānāti, carato ca me tiṭṭhato ca suttassa ca jāgarassa ca satataṁ samitaṁ ñāṇadassanaṁ paccupaṭṭhitan’ti, kacci te, bhante, bhagavato vuttavādino, na ca bhagavantaṁ abhūtena abbhācikkhanti, dhammassa cānudhammaṁ byākaronti, na ca koci sahadhammiko vādānuvādo gārayhaṁ ṭhānaṁ āgacchatī”ti?

“Vaccha, those who say this do not repeat what I have said. They misrepresent me with what is false and untrue.”
“Ye te, vaccha, evamāhaṁsu: ‘samaṇo gotamo sabbaññū sabbadassāvī, aparisesaṁ ñāṇadassanaṁ paṭijānāti, carato ca me tiṭṭhato ca suttassa ca jāgarassa ca satataṁ samitaṁ ñāṇadassanaṁ paccupaṭṭhitan’ti, na me te vuttavādino, abbhācikkhanti ca pana maṁ asatā abhūtenā”ti.
MN71

“where did you hear that Vaccha? Who misrepresents me thus?”

“Well, I read it at MN37, SN35.80 and AN7.61, where it says;”

‘Nothing is worth insisting on.’
‘sabbe dhammā nālaṁ abhinivesāyā’ti.

When a mendicant has heard that
Evañcetaṁ, devānaminda, bhikkhuno sutaṁ hoti:

nothing is worth insisting on,
‘sabbe dhammā nālaṁ abhinivesāyā’ti.

they directly know all things. Directly knowing all things, they completely understand all things.
So sabbaṁ dhammaṁ abhijānāti; sabbaṁ dhammaṁ abhiññāya sabbaṁ dhammaṁ parijānāti;
MN37 etc

“If this is a misrepresentation, what is the correct, traditional answer to this question?”

“‘The ascetic Gotama has the three knowledges.’ Answering like this you would repeat what I have said, and not misrepresent me with an untruth. You would explain in line with my teaching, and there would be no legitimate grounds for rebuttal and criticism.
“‘Tevijjo samaṇo gotamo’ti kho, vaccha, byākaramāno vuttavādī ceva me assa, na ca maṁ abhūtena abbhācikkheyya, dhammassa cānudhammaṁ byākareyya, na ca koci sahadhammiko vādānuvādo gārayhaṁ ṭhānaṁ āgaccheyya.

For, Vaccha, whenever I want, 1. I recollect my many kinds of past lives.
Ahañhi, vaccha, yāvadeva ākaṅkhāmi anekavihitaṁ pubbenivāsaṁ anussarāmi,

…

And whenever I want, with clairvoyance that is purified and superhuman, 2. I see sentient beings passing away and being reborn—inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, in a good place or a bad place. I understand how sentient beings are reborn according to their deeds.
Ahañhi, vaccha, yāvadeva ākaṅkhāmi dibbena cakkhunā visuddhena atikkantamānusakena satte passāmi cavamāne upapajjamāne hīne paṇīte suvaṇṇe dubbaṇṇe sugate duggate …pe… yathākammūpage satte pajānāmi.

And 3. I have realized the undefiled freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom in this very life. I live having realized it with my own insight due to the ending of defilements.
Ahañhi, vaccha, āsavānaṁ khayā anāsavaṁ cetovimuttiṁ paññāvimuttiṁ diṭṭheva dhamme sayaṁ abhiññā sacchikatvā upasampajja viharāmi.

‘The ascetic Gotama has the three knowledges.’ Answering like this you would repeat what I have said, and not misrepresent me with an untruth. You would explain in line with my teaching, and there would be no legitimate grounds for rebuttal and criticism.”
‘Tevijjo samaṇo gotamo’ti kho, vaccha, byākaramāno vuttavādī ceva me assa, na ca maṁ abhūtena abbhācikkheyya, dhammassa cānudhammaṁ byākareyya, na ca koci sahadhammiko vādānuvādo gārayhaṁ ṭhānaṁ āgaccheyyā”ti.
MN71 again.

Food for thought.

2 Likes
2

It would be great if all the contradictions in the pali canon were presented together in one topic.

3

This reads to mean to know all dhammas that need to be known. The translation of ‘things’ reads inaccurate. ‘Principles’ is possibly a more accurate translation.

“In the same way, there is much more that I have directly known but have not explained to you. What I have explained is a tiny amount.

“Evameva kho, bhikkhave, etadeva bahutaraṁ yaṁ vo mayā abhiññāya anakkhātaṁ.

And why haven’t I explained it?

Kasmā cetaṁ, bhikkhave, mayā anakkhātaṁ?[

Because it’s not beneficial or relevant to the fundamentals of the spiritual life. It doesn’t lead to disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and extinguishment.

Na hetaṁ, bhikkhave, atthasaṁhitaṁ nādibrahmacariyakaṁ na nibbidāya na virāgāya na nirodhāya na upasamāya na abhiññāya na sambodhāya na nibbānāya saṁvattati;

I have explained: ‘This is suffering’ … ‘This is the origin of suffering’ … ‘This is the cessation of suffering’ … ‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering’.

‘Idaṁ dukkhan’ti, bhikkhave, mayā akkhātaṁ, ‘ayaṁ dukkhasamudayo’ti mayā akkhātaṁ, ‘ayaṁ dukkhanirodho’ti mayā akkhātaṁ, ‘ayaṁ dukkhanirodhagāminī paṭipadā’ti mayā akkhātaṁ.

SN 56.31

There reads to be no contradiction.

4

can you explain how this reads the way you want it to read?

what pali words are you rendering with “need to be known”?

So sabbaṁ dhammaṁ abhijānāti; sabbaṁ dhammaṁ abhiññāya sabbaṁ dhammaṁ parijānāti;

So - he
sabbaṁ - all
dhammaṁ - phenomena, things, principles
abhijānāti - directly knows, understands thoroughly

sabbaṁ - all
dhammaṁ - phenomena, things, principles
abhiññāya - having directly known

sabbaṁ - all
dhammaṁ - phenomena, things, principles
parijānāti - knows for certain; comprehends; knows accurately

There doesn’t seem to be anything even remotely like what you are claiming is there, you can’t just “reads to be” and then put whatever words you want to be there there, thats not scholarship, it’s wishful thinking.

sabbaṁ dhammaṁ abhijānāti appears to contradict the negation of sabbaññū sabbadassāvī so there does “reads to be” a contradiction.

If your claim rests on the idea that the “all-knower” of sabbaññū definitionally claims to know more than merely “principles” but rather knows all “things” then you have to explain how and why in the only other context we have the phrase sabbe dhammā, i.e sabbe dhammā anattā it does mean “all things are without self” and not “the principles that need to be known are without self” as your rendering would have it.

“need to be known” isn’t there.

“principles” makes no difference to the argument.

There is an apparent contradiction here.

1 Like
5

This refers to knowing things like exactly the name of all the actress who’s going to star in the next avengers movies, and her exact life details, her phone numbers etc. How the exact way people are planning for torture for some war prisoner or spy which are captured, etc. Obviously, those are too far into the future and not related to the path for the Buddha to ever want to know it.

This directly know all things certainly doesn’t refer to knowing the exact form of the string theory or the real equation for quantum gravity, or the exact number of people who’s cheating on their partner in the whole earth during a certain date or time.

This refers to the all. SuttaCentral

The 6 sense bases and their objects. The all is directly seen. By not insisting on, it means not clinging, not clinging, one doesn’t distort perception with craving or attachment. Having the hindrances gone, one can see the impermanent, suffering and not self nature of the all directly. That’s directly knowing, understanding the all. sn35.25

The eye should be given up by direct knowledge and complete understanding. Sights should be given up by direct knowledge and complete understanding. Eye consciousness should be given up by direct knowledge and complete understanding. Eye contact should be given up by direct knowledge and complete understanding. The painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises conditioned by eye contact should be given up by direct knowledge and complete understanding.

PS. It’s like this website: zagxnehoaafau.yx o 181
The point of knowing all in the first sense seems like to refer to know all possible pages of this systematic combination of some symbols on a page. Or pixels to form an image. Most of the combination will be gibberish, but all possible pages of a certain size all the tipitaka, all of this forum is somewhere in that library of babel.

Doesn’t mean one knows them all for MN37 reference. It’s that the principle of how they arise is known, their nature of being impermanent, suffering and not self are known.

In principle, we know the library of babel when we know that it’s just letter by letter combining all possible letters for a certain finite character in a page.

All pictures are just pixel by pixel of certain colours in some finite combination of pixels for one picture.

1 Like
6

Hi Joseph,

Just wanted to say, that there are a couple of suttas where the Buddha explains in which way he is “all-knowing” – he simply knows the 4 Noble Truth and knows how to make anyone understand them (so it’s “all important things”).

1 Like
7

Hi! Can you provide links or sutta numbers for these? Thanks!

8

MN71 you’ve quoted? It does directly point to it so I don’t know what you’re asking :slight_smile:

“Sir, I have heard this: ‘The ascetic Gotama claims to be all-knowing and all-seeing, to know and see everything without exception, thus: “Knowledge and vision are constantly and continually present to me, while walking, standing, sleeping, and waking.”’ I trust that those who say this repeat what the Buddha has said, and do not misrepresent him with an untruth? Is their explanation in line with the teaching? Are there any legitimate grounds for rebuttal and criticism?”

“Vaccha, those who say this do not repeat what I have said. They misrepresent me with what is false and untrue.”

“So how should we answer so as to repeat what the Buddha has said, and not misrepresent him with an untruth? How should we explain in line with his teaching, with no legitimate grounds for rebuttal and criticism?”

“‘The ascetic Gotama has the three knowledges.’ Answering like this you would repeat what I have said, and not misrepresent me with an untruth. You would explain in line with my teaching, and there would be no legitimate grounds for rebuttal and criticism.

There’s some parts in DN that I remember listening about Buddha refuting being omniscient as well, but I can’t readily find now.

But note, suttas are not consistent on this sabbaññū quality of Buddha.

For example, SN1.45 has a Deva praising Buddha with sabbavidū:

the all-knower, so very intelligent,
the great seer treading the noble road.

Especially in KN collections, farther we get from Nikayas, more fantastic and omniscient Buddha gets (to the point of complete godhood and omega omniscience in some Mahayana doctrines).

So yeah, it’s a tangled topic with some inconsistencies. Generally though, whenever Buddha is referred as all-seing, it’s someone else, and he often claims only to know suffering and end of suffering, or three knowledges, or such stuff.

9

None. However, SN 56.31 literally reads there are things that must be known and other things not needed to be known.

There are other suttas like this, such as MN 79:

Nevertheless, Udāyī, leave aside the past and the future.

Api ca, udāyi, tiṭṭhatu pubbanto, tiṭṭhatu aparanto

I shall teach you the Dhamma:

Dhammaṁ te desessāmi—

MN 79

Therefore, when MN 37 says “knows all things”, this reads to mean “knows all things [that must be known]”.

There is no contradiction. If the @sujato that posts here is the same Sujato that is the translator, you can consider asking @sujato to reconsider their translation of MN 37. To translate MN 37 as “knowing all things”, such as knowing the laws of physics & chemistry, is obviously not the purpose of MN 37, because MN 37 is only emphasising ONE THING, which is the destruction of craving. :grinning: MN 37 reads to mean “knows all principles of Dhamma”. I recall reading a sutta that says: “all dhammas are contained in the Four Noble Truths”.

“The footprints of all creatures that walk can fit inside an elephant’s footprint, so an elephant’s footprint is said to be the biggest of them all.

“Seyyathāpi, āvuso, yāni kānici jaṅgalānaṁ pāṇānaṁ padajātāni sabbāni tāni hatthipade samodhānaṁ gacchanti, hatthipadaṁ tesaṁ aggamakkhāyati yadidaṁ mahantattena;

In the same way, all skillful qualities are included in the four noble truths.

evameva kho, āvuso, ye keci kusalā dhammā sabbete catūsu ariyasaccesu saṅgahaṁ gacchanti.

MN 28

Therefore, the phrase: “all dhammas” in MN 37 could mean:

  • All principles

  • All skilful qualities.

Obviously the translation of “all things” is not accurate. Why would the Buddha say not attaching to anything leads to omniscience? :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

SN 56.31 & MN 79 for starters.

This reads to be the Deva’s view but not the Buddha’s view.

10

In this sutta the Buddha rejects the claim that he is all knowing.

And more to the point there is a major sutta with mogallana the accountant where the buddha also denies this idea so i would l9ve to see the sutta refrence @Sphairos has in mind for this.

And again here I dont understand what argument is being made - the Buddha says, after Vaccha asks if the people who say he is all knowing says:

He doesnt say, yes! I am all knowing, but what i mean by all knowing is knowing 3 things.

So i was asking for the suttas that backed up that claim, which MN71 categorivally does not.

1 Like
11

I’ll give the references to the suttas in the evening , now at work.

12

Here, another way of translating this is, “nothing is worth holding to”

When nothing is held or clung to- feelings, etc., with this relinquishment there is a full understanding.
(The understanding about ‘the way it is’, the relinquishment of ideas about ‘I, me, mine’ )

What is the ‘full understanding’?
Dependent origination, Impermanence, fading away, cessation.

This is similar to Assaji’s famous verse to Sariputta, causing stream-entry.
(Cause and cessation).

13

It seems I was mistaken: there are no such suttas (at least I can’t find them).

The closest I find, which is also in line with ‘sabbe dhammā nālaṁ abhinivesāyā’ti., is :

It 1.7 at It 3,28: “Monks, not understanding and fully knowing all … it is impossible
to destroy duḥkha”, sabbaṃ, bhikkhave, anabhijānaṃ aparijānaṃ … abhabbo dukkhakkhayāya. T 765 at T XVII 670a24: “Monks, you should know, without understanding all as it really is, without rightly having full knowledge of it … it is impossible to awaken, it is impossible [to attain] Nirvāṇa, it is impossible to realize the supreme peace”, 苾芻當知, 若於一切未如實知, 未正遍知 … 不能等覺, 不能涅槃, 不能 證得無上安樂. As Katz 1982/1989: 132 points out, regarding the Buddha being “‘all knowing regarding spiritual matters’ … in this restricted sense, the arahant is equally accomplished.”

2 Likes
14

I think i lean to reading it as “nothing is worth inclining towards”.

I am reading jayatalike, and i think he makes a good case for taking it that the “sabbe” crowds are lokāyatika types.

So i read it as “there is no sabbe worth inclining (ones mind) towards”_, as to do this is to have a definitially unbalanced (inclined) mind.

I think this includes the sabbe dhamma annata crowd. Which i take to be a lateish intrusion of lokāyatika type thinking into Buddhist metaphysics during the compilation of S by the settled urban monastic specialists in memorisation and pedagogy.

I think the actual ideas better served by more nuanced expression like the abyakata and nisaranca teachings that i take to occur in an earlier layer of the prose in D and M.

I am still working out weather i think that this sabbe also falls into a lokāyatika type fallacy, but it maybe hinges on grammer?

Can the prase be read as "no ‘sabbe (dhamma)’ is worth insisting on? Ala no lokāyatika position is worth insisting on?

15

I have read the words abhinivesā & nivesā in many places. Its reads to literally mean “settling in/on” or “dwelling in”.

And how is one a migrant with no shelter?

Kathañca, gahapati, anokasārī hoti? 5.2

The Realized One has given up any desire, greed, relishing, and craving for the form element; any attraction, grasping, mental fixation, insistence, and underlying tendencies. He has cut it off at the root, made it like a palm stump, obliterated it, so it’s unable to arise in the future.

Rūpadhātuyā kho, gahapati, yo chando yo rāgo yā nandī yā taṇhā ye upayupādānā cetaso adhiṭṭhānābhinivesānusayā te tathāgatassa pahīnā ucchinnamūlā tālāvatthukatā anabhāvaṅkatā āyatiṁ anuppādadhammā. 5.3

That’s why the Realized One is called a migrant with no shelter.

Tasmā tathāgato ‘anokasārī’ti vuccati.

SN 22.3

Gahapati

the possessor of a house

Anoka
neuter
houselessness

searching for the house-builder;
Gahakāraṁ gavesanto,
painful is birth again and again.
dukkhā jāti punappunaṁ.

I’ve seen you, house-builder!
Gahakāraka diṭṭhosi,
You won’t build a house again!
puna gehaṁ na kāhasi;

Dhp 146

I read the word nivesā literally means ‘home’. ‘Inclining towards’ does not read to be accurate because SN 22.3 reads to say ābhinivesā leads to believing one has a home or shelter (oka).

In my father’s home, lotus ponds were made just for me.

Mama sudaṁ, bhikkhave, pitu nivesane pokkharaṇiyo kāritā honti.

AN 3.39

I read in SN 22.79, nivesa refers to possessive self belief.

“Mendicants, whatever ascetics and brahmins recollect many kinds of past lives, all recollect the five grasping aggregates, or one of them.

“Ye hi keci, bhikkhave, samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā anekavihitaṁ pubbenivāsaṁ anussaramānā anussaranti sabbete pañcupādānakkhandhe anussaranti etesaṁ vā aññataraṁ. 1.3

What five?

Katame pañca? 1.4

‘I had such form in the past.’

‘Evaṁrūpo ahosiṁ atītamaddhānan’ti—

Recollecting thus, it’s only form that they recollect.

iti vā hi, bhikkhave, anussaramāno rūpaṁyeva anussarati.

SN 22.79

It reads that abhinivesa must be a type of possessive self grasping.

When a mendicant has heard that nothing is worth abhinivesa… they don’t grasp at (anupādiyaṁ) anything in the world… they personally become extinguished.

MN 37

A ‘self’ that has no inclination cannot be the attaining of Nibbana. To attain Nibbana, self must be extinguished. Therefore, abhinivesā cannot mean ‘inclining towards’.

1 Like
16

This 3 part compound is interesting as it shows a obstinate predilection towards a view.
(Of a fixed, permanent self that is in charge)

1 Like
17

This essay will help clarify the issue.
With Metta

1 Like