What the Buddha got wrong?

[dougsmith]

@sujato

@Khemarato.bhikkhu

Four phases of matter? Solid, liquid, gas, plasma?

Right! I actually discussed this with a plasma physicist recently. It’s actually amazingly accurate.

The four “classical elements” (with perhaps one or two occasional additions) were part of many ancient systems of knowledge, they certainly weren’t original to the Buddha. And I’m not sure that the Buddha’s understanding of them was particularly different or unusual.

It would be useful to look at the Wiki on the classical elements. For example:

The most commonly observed states of solid, liquid, gas, and plasma share many attributes with the classical elements of earth, water, air, and fire, respectively, but these states are due to similar behavior of different types of atoms at similar energy levels, and not due to containing a certain type of atom or a certain type of substance.

Additionally, the Buddha believed that all material objects were made up of amalgamations of these four elements, and indeed human bodies were as well. I don’t believe that there are any parts of a human body hot enough to be in a state of plasma. (Nor are there in most objects that surround us in daily life). Therefore the fire element is more akin to “heat” in a general sense than plasma in particular.

[llt]

@stu

I didn’t know if this was something the buddha said or a later addition. I still don’t know the answer to this one. Anyone know of a sutta reference?

SA 474, SN 36.11, and SN 36.15 have this. The SA 474 passage is below:

佛告阿難：「初禪正受時，言語寂滅，第二禪正受時，覺觀寂滅，第三禪正受時，喜心寂滅，第四禪正受時，出入息寂滅；空入處正受時，色想寂滅，識入處正受時，空入處想寂滅，無所有入處正受時，識入處想寂滅，非想非非想入處正受時，無所有入處想寂滅，想受滅正受時，想受寂滅，是名漸次諸行寂滅。」 (T 99, 2: 121b2–121b9)

The Buddha told Ānanda, “When in the First Dhyāna, words and speech are extinguished. When in the Second Dhyāna, vitarka and vicāra are extinguished. When in the Third Dhyāna, mental joy is extinguished. When in the Fourth Dhyāna, inhalation and exhalation are extinguished. When in the realm of infinite space, the appearance of form is extinguished. When in the realm of infinite consciousness, the appearance of the realm of infinite space is extinguished. When in the realm of nothingness, the realm of infinite consciousness is extinguished. When in the realm of neither perception nor non-perception, the realm of nothingness is extinguished. With the extinction of perceptions and sensations, then perceptions and sensations have been extinguished. This is called the gradual extinction of formations.”

SA 568 and SN 41.6 also gives a discourse by a monk named Kamabhu, that does not mention the dhyanas, but is much along the same lines. MN 44 has a similar passage. Some notes about SN 41.6:

Citta the householder asks Venerable Kāmabhū about the meditative state of the cessation of perception and feeling (saññā-vedayita-nirodha), also called the Nirodha Samāpatti. Kāmabhū tells Citta that when entering the cessation of perception and feeling, first comes the cessation of verbal formations (vacī-saṅkhāra), then bodily formations (kāya-saṅkhāra), and finally mental formations (citta-saṅkhāra). When emerging from this state, the process is simply reversed. Verbal formations are associated with vitakka and vicāra. Bodily formations are associated with the in-breath and out-breath (assāsa-passāsa). Mental formations are associated with perceptions and sensations (saññā-vedayita). From this we can see a progression into this samādhi that first eliminates thought, then breathing, and finally all fine mental activity.

The Sarvastivada dhyana tradition held that in the Fourth Dhyana, in the four formless attainments, and in the Nirodha Samapatti, there is no breathing.

@stu

I also thought that there’s been a lot of scientific research into meditators now and I probably would’ve heard if someone had actually stopped breathing in one of those experiments, but maybe not. So I did a bit of research and this came up in my Google search:

There were a number of studies, starting in the 1980’s, that noticed that for people practicing Transcendental Meditation, their reports of states of “pure consciousness” roughly corresponded to periods of meditation in which their breath was suspended. Breath suspension is one possible interpretation of passages in which the breath is said to “cease”.

[arturovm]

You won’t believe this, but I just saw this on my Twitter feed. What an incredible coincidence! Now, whether ventilation through the butt is enough to replace good, old-fashioned lung breathing during the Fourth Jhāna, I think that’s something that would still be up for debate/research.

https://www.cell.com/med/fulltext/S2666-6340(21)00153-7

[DhammaWiki]

@llt

meat

In Ven. Dhammika’s book To Eat or Not to Eat Meat, he writes:

THE LAST LINK IN THE CHAIN
Here is a quandary for you. We saw before that a causal link can be discerned between eating meat and animals being killed. Nowadays there are many persons between these two points - the slaughter man, the meat packers, the distributors, etc. but in either its simplest or its most complex form the three key participants are (1) the slaughter man, the one who actually draws the knife across the animals throat; (2) the middleman who sells the meat and (3) the customer, the person who buys and consumes the meat. The existence of these three depends on each other. Now it is obvious why the Buddha mentioned slaughter men, hunters, deer stalkers, fishermen, executioners, etc. as those who do not practice Dhamma (Samyutta Nikaya II,256). It is also clear enough why he described people who sell meat as failing to practice Right Livelihood (Anguttara Nikaya III,208). But interestingly, nowhere does the Buddha complete what seems to be the logical sequence by mentioning the third and last link in the chain, the buyer/eater. Why is this? If killing an animal is wrong and selling its meat is wrong, why isn’t buying meat wrong too? Here is another quandary for you. The Buddha said that his lay disciples should avoid making their living by five trades (vanijja); these being trade in weapons (sattha), in human beings (satta), in meat (mamsa), in alcohol (majja) and in poisons (visa, Anguttara Nikaya III.208). Although this seems clear enough, looking at it a little more carefully might reveal something relevant to the question of meat eating. Why are these trades wrong, unwholesome or kammicly negative? Let’s have a look at arms dealing. While the blacksmith is forging steel to make a sword he is unlikely to have any evil intentions, he is probably preoccupied with forging his steel and he certainly does not kill anyone. The arms dealer who sells the sword does not kill anyone either. He’s just selling a commodity. So why did the Buddha consider arms trading to be a wrong means of livelihood? Obviously because weapons, like poisons make killing possible. Their main purpose, indeed their only purpose, is to kill. The arms dealer is centrally situated in a chain that could lead to someone being killed, even though he himself does not kill anyone. A, arms manufacturer - B, arms dealer = C, purchaser and killing. Now if we reverse this sequence and apply it to meat eating then surely the same conclusion would have to be drawn; C - eating meat - B, meat seller = A, slaughter man and killing. Why in both these cases has the Buddha left out one or two of the key links in these chains?

I agree with Ven. Dhammika, why didn’t the Buddha just come out and say lay people should not purchase or consume meat? We know the reasons monastics must accept what is in the dana bowl, but lay people can make a choice and the Buddha obviously knew the drawbacks of slaughterhouses and butchers.

[sujato]

@dougsmith

I don’t believe that there are any parts of a human body hot enough to be in a state of plasma. (Nor are there in most objects that surround us in daily life). Therefore the fire element is more akin to “heat” in a general sense than plasma in particular.

Good point.

@arturovm

Now, whether ventilation through the butt is enough to replace good, old-fashioned lung breathing during the Fourth Jhāna, I think that’s something that would still be up for debate/research.

Hah ha, indeed, we should absolutely get on to that!

@DhammaWiki

why didn’t the Buddha just come out and say lay people should not purchase or consume meat?

I think one way of reframing it is to think of ethics in terms of aspiration rather than prohibition.

At the minimal level, ethical precepts ward us off from some of the most severe transgressions. But this prohibition is often taken to be a complete description of moral life. If you keep precepts, you’re good.

But it was never meant to be that simple. The expanded version of the first precept says that “one lives full of compassion for all sentient beings”. This is clearly calling us out to a higher standard than simply, “not personally sticking the knife in.”

From this perspective, we can ask ourselves, “How can we live in a way that will manifest compassion more fully, to enable and encourage the reduction of harm and promotion of welfare of all sentient beings?”

It is tragically obvious that our modern systems of factory farms and systematic abuse and exploitation of animals creates incomprehensible harm to the animals directly, and indirectly is a major contributor to pollution and global heating.

Aspiring to live the best we can, should we not act in a way to promote the welfare of all beings by not eating meat?

[Brahmali]

@Snowbird

So, coming from a much more traditional background I’m not really keen on the framing of this thread but I understand that it is a natural one.

@Nimal

• You are providing ammunitions to those who already doubt the teaching and invite others to do so. I am sure there will be a lot of critics who will say “we knew it, we told you so”. … washing dirty linen in public.

You know, I’ve come to believe the exact opposite. I think it’s spiritually rewarding to accept that the Buddha made mundane mistakes.

The Buddha’s insights were in the spiritual realm. He did not anywhere claim omniscience, quite the contrary. To assume that the Buddha had perfect knowledge in all sphere of life - whether in medicine, chemistry, or whatever - distracts us from his real achievement of a comprehensive understanding of human suffering and happiness.

To be able to relate to the Buddha as a teacher, it matters that we view him in the right way. If we put him on the wrong pedestal, or on a pedestal that is too high or too ornate, we may lose the all-important connection to the Buddha’s humanity. It is the fact that he was fully human that equips him so superbly to be a teacher of other humans. For instance, there are a significant number of autobiographical suttas, in which the Buddha teaches the path using his own practice as an example. This only work if the Buddha is “one of us”.

When we recognise that the Buddha made mistakes, we humanise him, which in turn allows us to take him even more seriously as our teacher.

@dougsmith

If for example it’s understood to be entirely phenomenological, that’s a different matter.

I would say this is the predominant view of the suttas. The typical use of this framework is in the four elements meditation. According to MN 28, this can be done by recognising that one’s own body is of the same nature as the external worlds. This is much easier done if we use the four traditional elements than, say, the periodic table. I mean, the teachings are pragmatic.

@arturovm

To be clear, I’m not referring to the teachings on rebirth, or the planes of existence, for example, but, rather, the instances where the Buddha is a little like, “Look at me and my supreme supranormal powers.”

At DN 11, we find the Buddha saying the following:

Seeing this drawback in psychic power, I’m horrified, repelled, and disgusted by demonstrations of psychic power.

@stu

One thing I thought of was breathing stopping in 4th jhana and the mediator ‘breathing’ through the skin.

@suaimhneas

That’s an interesting point. I’ve wondered about that. It just seems physiologically impossible

@arturovm

Yes, I was stumped by that for a while as well.

We can probably all agree that meditation tends to slow down the bodily processes. As the meditation deepens, the breath becomes shallower and less pronounced and the body becomes increasingly still. I would argue that this process comes to its logical conclusion in the fourth jhāna, with the full stop of all metabolism. If the body is not metabolising, then oxygen is no longer required.

[Nimal]

@Brahmali

To assume that the Buddha had perfect knowledge in all sphere of life - whether in medicine, chemistry, or whatever - distracts us from his real achievement of a comprehensive understanding of human suffering and happiness

Bhante, thank you for your response. Yes, the Buddha’s real achievement is his understanding the human suffering and the way for the cessation of suffering. And we should relate to the Buddha from that perspective rather than putting him on a different pedestal as you you have said.

But, as I said in my first post, by discussing the so called mistakes we are doing the exact opposite. I think what we should do is understand the fact that not all scriptures are authentic words of the Buddha because they have come to us through verbal transmission and concentrate on suffering and its cessation. This way, we see the Buddha as a human who can be trusted and for whom we can develop faith.

After all what are we going to gain by discussing them? I think most people who have developed faith in the Buddha because they think the Buddha had some super natural power will lose that faith which is counter productive. Even the others like those who have responded here get distracted from what they are supposed to be doing which is following the path. Can you please say to which factor of the path this discussion fit in?

So IMHO, your intention to humanise him has unintended consequences.
With Metta

[Ficus]

@DhammaWiki

why didn’t the Buddha just come out and say lay people should not purchase or consume meat?

I don’t think one can fault the Buddha for not encouraging refraining from meat as a rule. Our lives are so intermingled with other beings, my head would burst thinking about the suffering I cause to sentient beings on a day to day basis

Meat and factory-farming aside, what would the Buddha have said to our medical system, medications, vaccines, therapies - all founded on cruelty to beings who have no interest in furthering the health and lifespans of humans? When we take medication for an illness, there have been beings that have been tortured/killed in the process. Do we stop doing that too?

There is no end to this…

Reduce the suffering for everyone and get off the samsara bus!

@sujato

Aspiring to live the best we can

That’s why I rejoice that the Buddha was the first person who actually did this to the fullest extent possible, and we are here today aspiring to be like that too…

[HSS]

@Viveka

Is teaching contemplation on the repulsiveness of the body wrong? It yields good results for some, but bad results for others.

The teaching is correct. But the people current ability cannot support her/his understanding. We have 7 stages of purification, if one had not successfully graduate from the 1st level do not go for teaching on the 3rd to 7th level, just a waste of time.

If he or she had not even able to control her or his moral conduct than it will be a waste of time to meditate about body repulsiveness.

It is better to control his or her moral conduct, first.

[faujidoc1]

I’m curious.

Why does everyone keep saying that the Buddha was omniscient and so should have got everything right? Especially in light of MN90.

There is no ascetic or brahmin who knows all and sees all simultaneously: that is not possible

The psychic power of reading other people’s minds does not necessarily mean being able to predict outcomes perfectly. The reason is Free Will. An outside operator such as the Buddha can bring together all the underlying factors perfectly, but he still cannot guarantee a particular result. One crucial element for a particular outcome - the Free will of other beings in the present moment - cannot be controlled, not even by the Buddha. This is why he says in MN107

…though extinguishment is present, the path leading to extinguishment is present, and I am present to encourage them, still some of my disciples, instructed and advised like this, achieve the ultimate goal, extinguishment, while some of them fail. What can I do about that, brahmin? The Realized One is the one who shows the way.

Nor did the Buddha claim to be Omnipotent. An enlightened person may, by dint of having a better take on antecedent causes (DO) be better able to tilt the probability of an action towards better outcomes, but cannot ensure a particular outcome. All the underlying factors are after all, not under one’s voluntary control. Does not the Buddha say in SN36.21

Some feelings, Sīvaka, arise here originating from phlegm disorders … originating from wind disorders … originating from an imbalance of the three … produced by change of climate … produced by careless behaviour … caused by assault … produced as the result of kamma: that some feelings arise here produced as the result of kamma one can know for oneself, and that is considered to be true in the world

So, in the absence of the ability to predict specific outcomes or control all underlying conditions so as to obtain a specific result, how are we to judge a particular action as Right or Wrong? (Actually, it might be better to use ‘Wholesome’ and ‘Unwholesome’ as the words Right/Wrong are far too narrow IMO!) If we take up a specific case, eg the eating of Meat we can see from MN55 that the key factor we should consider is Intention.

At that time is that mendicant intending to hurt themselves, hurt others, or hurt both?

Applying this concept to all the examples of ‘mistakes’ which have been listed so far, I personally cannot see any place where the Buddha ever acted out of wrong intentions. And those were all that he could control or predict the results of. Whatever people did with things subsequently and whatever came to be has to be accepted by everyone, including the Buddha. Those consequences are nothing except Anicca, Dukkha and ultimately Anatta.

This has immense ramifications in our personal and work life. We are freed from the tyranny of judging our actions retrospectively, based on outcomes which we never intended and which were beyond our control, yet happened nevertheless! Hindsight is always 20/20 isn’t it? Yet, if one’s intentions were wholesome, one can be free of guilt. One can truly be the owner of one’s Kamma - which is essentially volitional action.

Just my two bits - perhaps something to think about.

[stu]

@Brahmali

We can probably all agree that meditation tends to slow down the bodily processes. As the meditation deepens, the breath becomes shallower and less pronounced and the body becomes increasingly still. I would argue that this process comes to its logical conclusion in the fourth jhāna, with the full stop of all metabolism. If the body is not metabolising, then oxygen is no longer required.

Bhante

That does sound logical, but it surprises me that this argument has not been tested, or at least noted in the now many experiments that have been carried out on meditators.

But on the other hand, I guess that many of the experiments require metabolism to be working to see the effects using the equipment at hand, so the test subjects probably didn’t go so deep as 4th jhana.

It would be nice to get this theory tested.

[Ratana]

This is an interesting story about how jhana is conditioned by oxygen intake

Daniel M. Ingram:
interesting aside: when laying there in the hospital bed getting fluids i was on the monitors and i kept trying to get into something jhanic, as i find them healing, and the alarm on the bed kept going off, as my respriratory rate would go below 3/minute at times and generally stayed around 7, and when it went the lowest was when i was able to get something passable as perhaps weak 3rd jhana, and then the O2 sat monitor would go off as my oxygen sat kept dropping to the high 80% range, which correlated well with the better mindstates, so one more question for the scientific journal: is hypoxia and/or hypercarbia part of the jhanic buzz?

Febrile Illness totally wipes me out - Discussion - www.dharmaoverground.org

[Brahmali]

@stu

That does sound logical, but it surprises me that this argument has not been tested, or at least noted in the now many experiments that have been carried out on meditators.

You have a point, but there are also lots of problems with this. How do we know it’s a real jhāna? Self-reporting is notoriously unreliable. The vast majority of people who think they have jhāna have nothing of the sort. And if you did find a proper jhāna meditator, how would you convince them to take part? They are likely to be utterly uninterested. I once foolishly suggested something of the kind to Ajahn Brahm, getting the dismissal I should have expected. But assuming you are a consummate salesman ( ), would a confirmatory result really convince many people? Those who are already onboard would rejoice, whereas everyone else would say there is a flaw in the experiment or whatever. Just see what’s happening in parapsychology. As the Buddha says of psychic powers in DN 11:

Then someone with faith and confidence sees that mendicant performing those superhuman feats.

They tell someone else who lacks faith and confidence: ‘It’s incredible, it’s amazing! The ascetic has such psychic power and might! I saw him myself, performing all these superhuman feats!’

But the one lacking faith and confidence would say to them: ‘There’s a spell named Gandhārī. Using that a mendicant can perform such superhuman feats.’

I agree with you that it would be cool, but I can’t see it happen.

[khagga]

@Brahmali

Perhaps this from Kd.6:

My goodness, is it just me, or is that whole sutta filled with medical advice that is… well…

On one occasion a certain monk was bitten by a snake.
Tena kho pana samayena aññataro bhikkhu ahinā daṭṭho hoti. Bhagavato etamatthaṁ ārocesuṁ.

“I allow you to give him the four filthy edibles: feces, urine, ash, and clay.”
“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, cattāri mahāvikaṭāni dātuṁ— gūthaṁ, muttaṁ, chārikaṁ, mattikan”ti.

The monks thought,
“Do they need to be received or not?”
Atha kho bhikkhūnaṁ etadahosi—
“appaṭiggahitāni nu kho udāhu paṭiggahetabbānī”ti. Bhagavato etamatthaṁ ārocesuṁ.

“They should be received if there is an attendant. If there isn’t, I allow you to take them yourself and then eat them.”
“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sati kappiyakārake paṭiggahāpetuṁ, asati kappiyakārake sāmaṁ gahetvā paribhuñjitun”ti.

On one occasion a monk had drunk poison.
Tena kho pana samayena aññatarena bhikkhunā visaṁ pītaṁ hoti. Bhagavato etamatthaṁ ārocesuṁ.

“I allow you to give him feces to drink.”
“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, gūthaṁ pāyetun”ti.

[faujidoc1]

@khagga

medical advice that is… well…

That was, unfortunately state-of-the-art medical practice in 2500 BC ! We’ve come a long way haven’t we?

The aim was to induce vomiting (emesis) which was thought to be instrumental in removing the poison from the body. Acharya Charaka and Hippocrates were the luminaries who collected and codified such treatments. BTW, ayurveda still follows these principles!

Kemp (1935) in his writing named “Healing Ritual” has mentioned some vital emetic recipes,
intended to induce vomiting. In the management of snakebite poisoning, emetics were
indicated and it was advised not to sleep after the emesis.

“If we are able to see farther, it is only because we stand on the shoulders of Giants.” - Isaac Newton

[khagga]

@faujidoc1

The aim was to induce vomiting

I guess it would have been doctrinally correct to use another emoji…

[sabbamitta]

There are ordinary emetics and noble emetics:

AN10.109:2.1: Ahañca kho, bhikkhave, ariyaṁ vamanaṁ desessāmi, yaṁ vamanaṁ sampajjatiyeva no vipajjati, yaṁ vamanaṁ āgamma jātidhammā sattā jātiyā parimuccanti, jarādhammā sattā jarāya parimuccanti, maraṇadhammā sattā maraṇena parimuccanti, sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsadhammā sattā sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsehi parimuccanti.
I will teach a noble emetic that works without fail. Relying on that emetic, sentient beings who are liable to rebirth, old age, and death, to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress are freed from all these things.

I hope the Buddha got at least the second one right!

[DhammaWiki]

@Ficus

I don’t think one can fault the Buddha for not encouraging refraining from meat as a rule. Our lives are so intermingled with other beings, my head would burst thinking about the suffering I cause to sentient beings on a day to day basis

Meat and factory-farming aside, what would the Buddha have said to our medical system, medications, vaccines, therapies - all founded on cruelty to beings who have no interest in furthering the health and lifespans of humans? When we take medication for an illness, there have been beings that have been tortured/killed in the process. Do we stop doing that too?

There is no end to this…

Reduce the suffering for everyone and get off the samsara bus!

I see your last sentence here about reducing suffering and I agree with this. And due to that, I don’t think you are saying (as some do) that because we can’t make a perfect world, we can’t have a 100 percent vegetarian world, then we might as well kill. Such a view would fall under the (ironically called) “Nirvana fallacy” also known as the “perfect solution fallacy” that if the perfected condition cannot exist, then we may as well give up on any less than perfect options.

Nirvana fallacy

A move toward vegetarian and more preferably vegan diets does reduce harm, suffering, and killing. It will never eliminate it completely, but does greatly reduce suffering for other sentient beings.

[Puerh]

@faujidoc1

Why does everyone keep saying that the Buddha was omniscient and so should have got everything right? Especially in light of MN90.

other gurus and gods were said to be omniscient. In fact all they were omniscient… until they reached. (Read ie: DN 11 Kevaddha Sutta: What Brahma didn’t know"). A competition on omniscience was implicit like happened with other attributes.

Problem is when some people try to filter that Indian panorama using the christian understanding of Omniscience which it seems contaminates many western minds, scholars and even atheists. It is quite an spectacle seeing an atheist-materialist mind defending positions against Omniscience using Catholic notions. Are like tender efforts to be free of their own god’s shadows.

Inside An 4.36 we find how the Buddha answered to Dina that He was not a human being:

“Are you a human being?”
“No, brahman, I am not a human being.”

The effort to humanize or to divinize the Buddha is not good or bad but it depends of the context.If we talk with people who don’t know Dhamma, normally we would say the Buddha was a human being instead a god. However, in a Dhamma context, the Buddha was not a human being who made mistakes because he ignored the contemporary Science and nasa images. Such depiction of the Buddha try to fit Him into the final authority of this hallucination, with its arising universes, science, human body, perceptions and etc.

At least to me, the Buddha was no more a human being. What Science or the contemporary worldly knowledge says can be important for wordly knowledge, although this is non-relevant for Dhamma knowledge. They are working in that side of an hallucination scheduled to expire.
The Buddha and Dhamma goes beyond that.

At least I don’t believe there is possibility of a successful protestant version for Buddhism. Probably these spaces are available in example for the Semitic religions, because the social normative is a main pillar from the very beginning in order to build a “Religion for society”. However, with Dhamma one start to leave the authority of delusion from the first moment. From the first moment, we learn that we are not just “flesh and blood” but we are aggregates and processes. The “human being” is no longer what it was if there is a cease. Then, What was the Buddha nature?. A “human being”?

Today we think in “human being” in terms conditioned by our culture and worldly knowledge like biology, physiology and etc.

At those old times, it seems it was more common to consider the spiritual condition like the first one to unveil the nature of beings. And the physical appearance was many times in a second place and easier to be deceptive. This is quite the opposite understanding in our modern culture, where we consider the coarse perception and physical appearance like the first one to be considered, and some spiritual nature falls in a second order precisely because today this is a quite invisible dimension, confusing and deceptive. Even non-existent for many people.

Today the human being put more authority in the first sense impressions. Although the issue is to investigate if the Buddhist path is the right place to use that position, even when the whole world can believe such thing

[Ceisiwr]

@faujidoc1

There is no ascetic or brahmin who knows all and sees all simultaneously: that is not possible

The orthodox position is that “simultaneously” was what was wrong here. The Buddha was omniscient in terms of having access to all knowledge when he wanted to, not that he knew it all at once. Think of it as the Buddha having access to a vast library rather than knowing all the texts at once. If he had access to aeons of past lives and had the psychic powers, it’s not so much of an outlandish claim.