SuttaCentral
I think the issue with this is that the Buddha (although the linked sutta is Bhante Sariputta) would sometimes find himself in the city to early to collect alms (pindapat). So is the problem that someone with psychic powers would know when to leave the monastery so they entered the town at the right time? That having omniscience gives you perfect time management skills?
Personally I can think of lots of reasons, but the mind of someone with psychic powers is beyond what I can judge.
Didn’t the Buddha have to sort of apologize to his father for ordaining Rahula without asking anyone and hence cutting off succession to the throne? I recall he made a new rule concerning parental permission for ordaining minors after that.
I see now. Thanks.
I think for the topic to make sense (to me), we need to first think of Buddha as a historical figure - i.e. if someone in history does X, you would think that person made a mistake.
SN54.9 the first part - I always feel horrified when I think about this - even if the historical Buddha were to be your teacher, if you are practicing meditation when he is in retreat, you could end up in the wrong spot! That is one of the reasons that I keep reading about meditation, but never actually tried practicing meditation.
The text as translated by Bhante Sujato:
"So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Vesālī, at the Great Wood, in the hall with the peaked roof. Now at that time the Buddha spoke in many ways to the mendicants about the meditation on ugliness. He praised the meditation on ugliness and its development.
Then the Buddha said to the mendicants, “Mendicants, I wish to go on retreat for a fortnight. No-one should approach me, except for the one who brings my alms-food.”
“Yes, sir,” replied those mendicants. And no-one approached him, except for the one who brought the alms-food.
Then those mendicants thought, “The Buddha spoke in many ways about the meditation on ugliness. He praised the meditation on ugliness and its development.” They committed themselves to developing the many different facets of the meditation on ugliness. Becoming horrified, repelled, and disgusted with this body, they looked for someone to slit their wrists. Each day ten, twenty, or thirty mendicants slit their wrists.
Then after a fortnight had passed, the Buddha came out of retreat and addressed Ānanda, “Ānanda, why does the mendicant Saṅgha seem so diminished?”
Ānanda told the Buddha all that had happened, and said, “Sir, please explain another way for the mendicant Saṅgha to get enlightened.”
“Well then, Ānanda, gather all the mendicants staying in the vicinity of Vesālī together in the assembly hall.”
MN 97 - amazing sutta which I didn’t know before, thank you for bringing it up. 
btw. here is the reffered fragment:
“Which do you think is better: the Gods Who Control the Creations of Others or the Brahmā realm?”
“Master Sāriputta speaks of the Brahmā realm! Master Sāriputta speaks of the Brahmā realm!”
Then Sāriputta thought:
“These brahmins are devoted to the Brahmā realm. Why don’t I teach him a path to the company of Brahmā?”
“Dhanañjāni, I shall teach you a path to the company of Brahmā. Listen and pay close attention, I will speak.”
“Yes, sir,” replied Dhanañjāni. Venerable Sāriputta said this:
“And what is a path to companionship with Brahmā? Firstly, a mendicant meditates spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of love to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will. This is a path to companionship with Brahmā.
Furthermore, a mendicant meditates spreading a heart full of compassion …
They meditate spreading a heart full of rejoicing …
They meditate spreading a heart full of equanimity to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of equanimity to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will. This is a path to companionship with Brahmā.”
“Well then, Master Sāriputta, in my name bow with your head to the Buddha’s feet. Say to him: ‘Sir, the brahmin Dhanañjāni is sick, suffering, gravely ill. He bows with his head to your feet.’” Then Sāriputta, after establishing Dhanañjāni in the inferior Brahmā realm, got up from his seat and left while there was still more left to do. Not long after Sāriputta had departed, Dhanañjāni passed away and was reborn in the Brahmā realm.
Then the Buddha said to the mendicants, “Mendicants, Sāriputta, after establishing Dhanañjāni in the inferior Brahmā realm, got up from his seat and left while there was still more left to do.”
Then Sāriputta went to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said, “Sir, the brahmin Dhanañjāni is sick, suffering, gravely ill. He bows with his head to your feet.”
“But Sāriputta, after establishing Dhanañjāni in the inferior Brahmā realm, why did you get up from your seat and leave while there was still more left to do?”
“Sir, I thought: ‘These brahmins are devoted to the Brahmā realm. Why don’t I teach him a path to the company of Brahmā?’”
“And Sāriputta, the brahmin Dhanañjāni has passed away and been reborn in the Brahmā realm.”
This sutta thou is actually an another example what Buddha did right. Because he taught there that when someone has potential they should strive towards full liberation instead of going to heavenly realms, even when they have particular affinity towards them. And is was also yet another teaching for Sariputta, to make this great disciple even better.
There’s the Buddha’s first discussion (or one of his first) after he attains awakening, with the ascetic Upaka, where the Buddha seems not to read his audience properly and Upaka shakes his head and leaves. At MN 26.25.
There are also examples such as reproduction from moisture or spontaneous reproduction, said even of “certain humans” in MN 12.32-33.
We might also consider the doctrine of the four elements to be false, depending on how it’s understood. (Within history of science the four elements doctrine is often considered prescientific, and eventually replaced by chemistry and the chemical elements). If for example it’s understood to be entirely phenomenological, that’s a different matter. Though I’m not convinced the doctrine of four elements is intended to be entirely phenomenological.
Sorry for the question but where do we read the Buddha was omsnicient? 
Bhante, I think you are making a big mistake for a number of reasons.
So much of this conversation is going to hinge on the basic principles we use to interpret the meaning of stories. One person (who did not take the Buddha’s perfect knowledge as a give) would clearly see this as an example of the Buddha not knowing what was really going on. For me, the clear meaning is that medical baths should be a last resort.
No, he did not apologize. And Sudhodana’s issue had nothing to do with succession. Do we have any reason to believe that the Sudhodana had no other sons?
So many of the rules laid down had to do with people complaining about things. If we take all of these as things that the Buddha did wrong, then there will be too many to count.
I addressed this above. The only reason this is a problem is if we incorrectly assume that the Buddha could make anyone understand the Dhamma regardless of that person’s own ability.
Reading this post has brought to mind something I thought about often, right at the beginning of my path: Is it possible that the stories about the Buddha’s supranormal powers, conversations with Devas, etc, were added later on by the Saṅgha due to their deep admiration of their teacher?
I think the Buddha’s deep humanity shines through in a lot of instances, and I used to think that it’s possible that he was just an extraordinary guy who discovered the path to true happiness, and who dedicated his life to teaching after that. 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.”
I used to think this, of course, before I read any comparative text studies, or papers by Buddhist scholars. So now, I’m not so sure. But a part of me would still like to believe that the instances where the Buddha speaks about his special powers and so on, were added by the monks to elicit the respect of other schools at the time.
What do other people think about this?
Edit: I just realized that this post is a little off-topic for this thread, so if need be, I’ll move it to a new one.
Mahayana sutras is more mythical imo compared to pali pitakas
Physic power can be done even by arahants heck even evil corrupted monk like devadatta can do physic power
To this, I’ll add that the prohibitions against eating meat are worded in such a passive way that large Buddhist monastic communities still consume meat while externalizing the problem onto others (e.g. blaming the poor butcher).
There is a lack of appreciation for supply and demand, and a very gray area established for the community, that goes back to texts like MN 55.
Mosquitoes?
Four phases of matter? Solid, liquid, gas, plasma?
Perhaps not science as we would word it today, but hardly a “mistake.”
@Gabriel …or maybe the translation is wrong so far therefore we still something is wrong with the teaching.
I have a question regarding the premise of making a judgement of Right versus Wrong, which is a requirement in order to even conceive of something as a mistake.
What are the criteria for making an assessment or judgement? I would propose that the criteria for right/wrong are dependent not only on the aim, but also on the perspective of the viewer.
Eg.
Is teaching contemplation on the repulsiveness of the body wrong? It yields good results for some, but bad results for others. Is it the teaching that is wrong - does it not aid seeing the body as ‘not self’? Note the parajika rule is against killing not against contemplating repulsiveness of the body.
In this case it brings to mind the Sutta where the Buddha is asked whether all those who hear his teachings/directions will attain liberation. (Please forgive me I’ve forgotten the sutta reference, but it is often quoted so I hope it is recognisable) The Buddha replies with a simile. If he gives the same directions to a number of different people of how to get from here to the next city, some will be able to follow the directions and get to the destination but others wont.
Does this mean the directions are right or wrong? Is there a ‘mistake’ because some aren’t capable of following the directions? I’m not arguing a position, but just wish to point out that the premise underpinning this exploration needs further clarification.
Looking at the example of leaving the arguing Monks at Kosambi
From whose perspective is it a failure? Did the Buddha feel he had failed? Did the Monks feel that they had succeeded? Or is it us, reading the suttas thousands of years later who wish to have particular view of the Buddha who feel that he ‘should’ have been able to convince them and thus ask if it was a mistake? 
It is often possible for a single thing to be perceived as either a success or failure depending on who is doing the perceiving.
Even if the Buddha tried to convince the Monks to stop arguing and didn’t succeed - would he have thought it was a failure? I find it hard to imagine that he would given AN6.71
.1“Mendicants, a mendicant with six qualities is incapable of realizing anything that can be realized, in each and every case. 1.2What six? 1.3It’s when a mendicant doesn’t truly understand which qualities make things worse, which keep things steady, which lead to distinction, and which lead to penetration. And they don’t practice carefully or do what’s suitable. 1.4A mendicant with these six qualities is incapable of realizing anything that can be realized, in each and every case.
Of course this is not static, but the monks in question, at that particular time, may not have been capable of realising and acting upon the Buddhas directions. If the exact conditions were a little different (we can never know) it may have been possible - we can never know, it is just speculation.
So in what way can these be considered ‘mistakes’. If it is outside one’s control, then to assume personal responsibility for something as a mistake, would appear to be wrong view? Maybe?
Again, is this a ‘mistake’. What are the criteria that one would use to make a judgement? The underlying premise that the Buddha has the ability to cure all illnesses in all beings? If that is the criteria for getting it ‘right’, then yes the Buddha failed. But is this a reasonable basis upon which to make a judgement? Did he ever claim to be omniscient with regards to illnesses and cures? If he didn’t, then the expectation that he be so, is imposed by us onto the situation.
I think that it is of primary importance to consider what is being measured and judged, by whom, and if there is the expectation of a dichotomous right/wrong result, or if there is a sliding scale of worst to best… all fundamentally important when considering assessments of any kind.
For me the most fundamental message in the way the Buddha taught us to see the world, is to get away from dichotomous judgements - everything is dependently arisen. It is not personal and it is not in our control - we can, however, observe how the processes work. We can also see that x leads to y under the condtions of a.b.c.d.e etc. As such, I personally don’t feel comfortable in making all the assumptions necessary, in this discussion, in order to label something as right or wrong.
Did the Buddha get the measurements wrong?
If all our assumptions about the comparative methods of measurement or labels or descriptions are correct… maybe… but then I ask, what benefit does this point bring to us from the perspective of furthering our practice?
With regards to the point of multiple points of perspective from which to asses success, I think this is a good example
I would suggest that success is in the eye of the beholder Back in my old life, I spent a lot of time developing assessment tools for health/mental health services. There were always a number of stakeholders involved. In this example, success or failure was viewed completely differently depending on whether you were the funding body (government), the service provider, or the user of the service. At first glance there is an assumption that success/failure is based upon some kind of universally agreed criteria. But this is false. Once you really break it down, it becomes obvious that each party has a different objective, and a single outcome may be be viewed in a completely different way by each party. In assessment, it is imperative to match objective with outcome. Each participant has their own perspective and objective, and this is what informs the judgement of right/wrong good/bad.
SO if making assessments about the Buddhas actions/teachings, I would recommend that it is worthwhile to spend some time in defining the criteria for success, for whom, by whom, and in what time frame. 
I agree with @Viveka
Right and wrong can be context, time, culture, what-have-you dependent. Too many variables…
For example, in the Buddha’s time, steam baths may have been prescribed by doctors (Ayurveda still does) for arthritis (who knows what his reasoning was). It’s not like they had ibuprofen or cortisone injections. Expecting this action 2500+ years ago to be categorized as a mistake in 2021 doesn’t make sense to me.
While it interesting to debate this topic, personally I just don’t approach the Dhamma or the Buddha this way. I just see the goal dealing with pain, loss, grief, old age, sickness, death etc.
I just focus on why a Buddha was there for in the first place
Mendicants, I will teach you the origin and ending of suffering.
Dukkhassa, bhikkhave, samudayañca atthaṅgamañca desessāmi
Right! I actually discussed this with a plasma physicist recently. It’s actually amazingly accurate.
I agree, this is an unsatisfactory area of Buddhist ethics, although I’m not exactly sure how far it can be chased back to the Buddha.
My mistake! Well, at least we don’t have to ask the question whether I got anything wrong.
The actual text is MN 71, and I have updated the OP with the correct link.
Curiously enough, that sutta is in fact a discussion of omniscience, and the Buddha there denies being omniscient. I wonder whether the narrative is setting the scene for this conversation, and it was later applied in other contexts?
I think you have made very good points!
I’ve wondered why the Buddha only knew about four oceans.
The mother’s milk that you have drunk as you roamed and wandered through this long course—this alone is more than the water in the four great oceans. SN15.4
Today we recognise the Arctic, Atlantic, Indian, Pacific, and Southern Oceans. Perhaps the Arctic Ocean was the omission? 
That’s so cool. Indeed, I was astounded recently when I learned that scientists still define the liquid state of matter in terms of its ābandhana (cohesion) and the surface tension produced by it. 
Maybe these 4 great oceans already covered all of ocean at that time