Was the Buddha omniscient and was he able to predict the future?

Bhikkhu Anālayo states in The Genesis of the Bodhisattva Ideal, Hamburg University Press 2010 p. 51 that

Gautama’s decease must have created a vacuum that needed to be filled. Bereft of the possibility of having a personal encounter with the living Buddha, for disciples in need of some form of emotional contact with the object of their first refuge, recollecting his marvellous qualities would have been of considerable importance. … The vacuum created by the teacher’s demise would have had its effect not only on the internal level – within the community of disciples – but also on the external level, namely in relation to other contemporary religious groups and practitioners.

Hence there is a need to “authenticate” the Buddha as an eminent spiritual teacher by referencing his noble and spiritual lineage, his mastery of supernatural powers, his omniscience, and ultimately the ability for a devotee to “take refuge” and “receive blessings” from one long departed.

Maitreya - the next Buddha

Let’s examine the Buddha’s supposed prediction of the advent of the “next” Buddha. This is first described in Discourse on an Explanation about the Past (說本經) in the Madhyama-āgama (T I 524b29 to T I 524c14). According to Anālayo in The Genesis of the Bodhisattva Ideal p. 113:

The Buddha thereupon narrates in detail how in a future time, when human lifespan will reach up to eighty thousand years, a wheel-turning king by the name of Śaṅkha will arise, who eventually will go forth and reach liberation. On hearing this description, a monk by the name of Ajita stands up and, with hands held in respectful gesture towards the Buddha, aspires to become the wheel-turning King Śaṅkha at that future time. The Buddha rebukes Ajita for postponing what could already be accomplished now – namely attaining liberation – after which he nevertheless predicts that Ajita will indeed become the wheel-turning King Śaṅkha.

The Buddha continues by describing the Buddha Maitreya under whom Śaṅkha will go forth. Another monk by the same name of Maitreya stands up and, with hands held in respectful gesture towards the Buddha, formulates the aspiration of becoming the future Buddha Maitreya. The Buddha praises him for making such an aspiration, predicts that he will indeed become the future Buddha Maitreya, and bestows a golden coloured robe on him.

It seems odd that the Buddha rebukes Ajita for deferring his liberation and yet praises Maitreya for his aspiration to become the next Buddha. It would have made more sense for Maitreya to become the next Buddha whilst the current Buddha was still alive, allowing for a smooth transition and a succession plan.

In the Tipiṭaka, Maitreya is also stated as the next Buddha in 8D/3.8 Metteyyabuddhuppāda. The placing of the occurrence of the Maitreya episode in parallels of this sutta across the canons of the three major sects show the following variations:

after the description of the wheel-turning king Saṅkha (Cakkavattisutta in the Dīgha Nikāya);
before the description of the wheel-turning king Saṅkha (轉輪聖王修行經 in the Dīrgha Āgama);
not found at all (轉輪王經 in the Madhyama Āgama).

Anālayo theorises that the inclusion of Maitreya seems to be a late addition, as there would be no reason to exclude it. Furthermore, the corresponding paragraph in Cakkavattisutta following where the Maitreya episode has been inserted seems a bit clumsy, and would have been a better transition if it immediately followed the description of King Saṅkha. Therefore:

Compared to these two versions, the Madhyama-āgama discourse appears to testify to a state of the discourse when this addition had not yet happened.

The real issue here is that this presumes the Buddha is able to predict the future, to the precise names and actions of individuals, which presupposes a “deterministic” universe and contradicts the supposed “free will” embodied in Dependent Origination (ie. one has the ability to consciously choose to cease and fade away the links in the chain). According to Anālayo in p. 108:

A problem with the present passage in all versions is that, if taken literally, it presents a precise prediction of the names and actions of individuals at a rather distant time in the future. In the Pāli discourses, the present passage is thus not only the sole reference to the Buddha Maitreya, but also the sole instance where such a type of prediction is given.

From the perspective of the early Buddhist conception of causality, to make precise predictions that at some remote time in the future someone named so-and-so will do such-and-such a thing to some degree conflicts with the notion of dependent arising (pratītya-samutpāda), according to which things are conditioned but not wholly determined. To predict the far away future in such detail would require a strong form of predeterminism. There should not be any free will or choice operating in the lives of the people concerned – in particular in the lives of the two individuals that will become the wheel-turning king and the Buddha in the future – otherwise they might end up doing something that differs from what has been predicted.

In fact, Upāli even questions the Buddha’s prediction in T 452 at T XIV 418c7, and according to Anālayo on p. 127:

Upāli questions the Buddha about the monk who has been predicted as the future Buddha Maitreya. In his query, Upāli expresses his puzzlement about the fact that this monk neither engages in the development of concentration nor eradicates his defilements.

Anālayo then further theorises on p. 125 that the primary purpose for introducing Maitreya as the next Buddha seems to be to address:

… the needs of the faithful in search of a way of compensating for the loss of leadership and inspiration after the demise of the teacher. … The Discourse on an Explanation about the Past more directly addresses the dilemma of the teacher’s disappearance by providing a substitute for the deceased Gautama: the bodhisattva Maitreya who will continue the lineage of Buddhas by becoming the next fully-awakened Buddha.

This tendency to exalt the Buddha as a consequence of the vacuum created by his decease, initiated by an increasing concern with his marvels and with his predecessors and successor(s), eventually blossomed into a claim that the Buddha was in fact omniscient.

Pāsarāsisutta

In 9M/3.6 Pāsarāsisutta we find lo and behold the Buddha indeed claimed to know “all”:

980. I am all-conquering, all-knowing,
Unsullied in all things;
Having abandoned all, liberated through the destruction of craving,
Having directly known by myself, whom should I follow?

Sabbapariññāsutta

Furthermore, this was subsequently expanded to anyone who wishes to reach enlightenment, and in fact it is not possible to attain awakening without understanding and fully knowing “all” in 18It/1.1.7 Sabbapariññāsutta:

33. “Bhikkhave, without directly knowing and completely understanding all, without dispassion for it and giving it up, you can’t end suffering. But by directly knowing and completely understanding all, by having dispassion for it and giving it up, you can end suffering.” That is what the Buddha said. And on that he said:

34. “One who has known all in every way,
And is not attached to any of all;
They are truly one who completely understands all,
They have gone beyond all suffering.”

Limited Omniscience

However, these two passages presumably had an original meaning not of omniscience but that an awakened person truly understanding the phenomenal nature of perceptions of reality. In 15A4/1.3.3 Lokasutta this was clarified to knowing everything within the mind, and not necessarily omniscience regarding extrinsic reality:

154. “Bhikkhave, whatever in the world with its Devas, Māras, and Brahmās, with its renunciants and brahmins, with its gods and humans, is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, and explored by the mind — all that has been directly known by the Tathāgata. That is why he is called the Tathāgata.”

Denial

In fact the Buddha explicitly denied having ever made a claim to omniscience in 10M/3.1 Tevijjavacchasutta, but this sutta seems to have been omitted in other canons, possibly a sign of censorship.

518. Seated to one side, the wanderer Vacchagotta said this to the Bhagavā: “Sir, I have heard this: ‘The renunciant Gotama is all-knowing and all-seeing, he claims knowledge and vision without exception, and for me, walking, standing, sleeping, and waking, knowledge and vision are constantly and continually present.’ Sir, those who said this — ‘The renunciant Gotama is all-knowing and all-seeing, he claims knowledge and vision without exception, and for me, walking, standing, sleeping, and waking, knowledge and vision are constantly and continually present’ — I trust that they are speakers of what the Bhagavā has said, and do not misrepresent the Blessed One with what is false, and explain the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma, and no fellow Dhamma-follower would have legitimate grounds for rebuke or criticism?”

519. “Vaccha, those who said this — ‘The renunciant Gotama is all-knowing and all-seeing, he claims knowledge and vision without exception, and for me, walking, standing, sleeping, and waking, knowledge and vision are constantly and continually present’ — they are not speakers of what I have said. And they misrepresent me with what is not true, with what is false.”

Reflective omniscience

10M/4.10 Kaṇṇakatthalasutta then seems to soften this:

1107. “Thus, Mahārāja, I know this statement has been spoken — ‘There is no renunciant or brahmin who will know all and see all simultaneously: that is not possible.’” “Bhante, the Bhagavā speaks what is reasonable; Bhante, the Bhagavā speaks what is well-reasoned — ‘There is no renunciant or brahmin who will know all and see all simultaneously: that is not possible.’”

So apparently it may be possible to know and see all, just not at once. This paves the way to declare the Buddha as “serially omniscient” in Sabbaññubhāvapañha Mil 5.1.2 PTS 103–107:

567. ‘Venerable Nāgasena, is the Buddha omniscient?’

‘Yes, Mahārāja, the Bhagavā is omniscient, but the insight of knowledge is not always and continually present with him. The omniscience of the Bhagavā is dependent on reflection; having reflected, he knows whatever he wishes.’

But wait, according to Anālayo in The Dawn of Abhidharma p. 120, 一切智 MA 212 at T i 793c6 states: “Counterparts to this statement in the Madhyama-āgama and in the Bhaiṣajyavastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya have the slightly different formulation that there is no other recluse or Brahmin who has omniscient knowledge at once.” So, others are not omniscient, but the Buddha can be.

Full Omniscience

According to Sujato, this paves the way for Buddha’s omniscience to be the standard view in later books:

25Cn/2.1.6 Upasīvamāṇavapucchāniddesa

547. “Explain the object, samantacakkhū (All-seeing One)” means: explain, declare, teach, make known, establish, reveal, analyse, clarify, proclaim the object, the support, the basis, the strong support. “All-seeing One” refers to omniscience. The Bhagavā is endowed with, fully endowed with, attained, fully attained, possessed of, fully possessed of, furnished with that omniscience.

548. Nothing here is unseen by him,
Nor is there anything unknown or unknowable;
He directly knew all that is knowable,
Therefore, the Tathāgata is the All-seeing One.

21Bu/2 Sumedhapatthanākathā

This is a proto-Māhayāna text that portrays Sumedha (who will become the future Gotama Buddha) aspiring for perfection of wisdom.

214. Searching then, I saw
the fourth perfection of wisdom;
practiced and cultivated
by former great sages.

215. ‘This fourth one,
having firmly undertaken,
go to the perfection of wisdom,
if you wish to attain awakening.

216. Just as a monk, going for alms,
among low, high, and middle families;
not avoiding any,
thus obtains sustenance.

217. In the same way, you, at all times,
questioning wise people;
having gone to the perfection of wisdom,
will attain full awakening.’

31Pu/1.6 Chakkauddesa

This extract from the Abhidhamma Puggalapaññatti describes six types of individuals in terms of their mastery over various aspects of the teachings, and includes the attainment of omniscience.

159. Six types of individuals —

160.

Here, a certain individual, having directly known the truths for themselves in teachings unheard before, attains omniscience and mastery over the powers.

Here, a certain individual, having directly known the truths for themselves in teachings unheard before, does not attain omniscience nor mastery over the powers.

Here, a certain individual, not having directly known the truths for themselves in teachings unheard before, becomes one who makes an end of suffering in this very life and attains the perfection of a disciple.

Here, a certain individual, not having directly known the truths for themselves in teachings unheard before, becomes one who makes an end of suffering in this very life, but does not attain the perfection of a disciple.

Here, a certain individual, not having directly known the truths for themselves in teachings unheard before, nor becoming one who makes an end of suffering in this very life, is a non-returner, not returning to this state of existence.

Here, a certain individual, not having directly known the truths for themselves in teachings unheard before, nor becoming one who makes an end of suffering in this very life, is a returner, returning to this state of existence.

32Kv/1.3.1 Balakathā

This extract from the Abhidhamma Kathāvatthu discusses different aspects of special powers shared or not shared between the Buddha and disciples, including omniscience.

Balakathā Kv 3.1 PTS 228–232 5.3, etc.

1082. ✅ Is the Tathāgata’s power common to disciples? Yes. Is the Tathāgata’s power the disciple’s power, and the disciple’s power the Tathāgata’s power? It should not be said so… etc…

1083. ✅ Is the Tathāgata’s power common to disciples? Yes. Is that very power of the Tathāgata the power of the disciple, and that very power of the disciple the power of the Tathāgata? It should not be said so… etc… .

1084. ✅ Is the Tathāgata’s power common to disciples? Yes. Is the disciple’s power of the same kind as the Tathāgata’s power, and the Tathāgata’s power of the same kind as the disciple’s power? It should not be said so… etc… .

1085. ✅ Is the Tathāgata’s power common to disciples? Yes. Is the disciple’s former striving, former conduct, statement of the Dhamma, and teaching of the Dhamma of the same kind as the Tathāgata’s former striving, former conduct, statement of the Dhamma, and teaching of the Dhamma? It should not be said so… etc… .

1086. ✅ Is the Tathāgata’s power common to disciples? Yes. Is the Tathāgata a conqueror, a teacher, a perfectly self-enlightened one, all-knowing, all-seeing, lord of the Dhamma, refuge of the Dhamma? Yes. Is a disciple a conqueror, a teacher, a perfectly self-enlightened one, all-knowing, all-seeing, lord of the Dhamma, refuge of the Dhamma? It should not be said so… etc… .

1087. ✅ Is the Tathāgata’s power common to disciples? Yes. Is the Tathāgata the producer of the unarisen path, the generator of the unoriginated path, the declarer of the undeclared path, the knower of the path, the discoverer of the path, the expert in the path? Yes. Is a disciple the producer of the unarisen path, the generator of the unoriginated path, the declarer of the undeclared path, the knower of the path, the discoverer of the path, the expert in the path? It should not be said so… etc… .

1088. ✅ Is the knowledge of the maturity and immaturity of the faculties of other beings, as it really is, a Tathāgata’s power common to disciples? Yes. Is a disciple all-knowing, all-seeing? It should not be said so… etc… .

1089. ❌ Does a disciple know possible and impossible positions? Yes. If a disciple knows possible and impossible positions, then you should indeed say: “The knowledge of possible and impossible positions, as it really is, is a Tathāgata’s power common to disciples.”

1090. ❌ Does a disciple know the result of actions undertaken in the past, future, and present, according to position and cause? Yes. If a disciple knows the result of actions undertaken in the past, future, and present, according to position and cause, then you should indeed say: “The knowledge of the result of actions undertaken in the past, future, and present, according to position and cause, as it really is, is a Tathāgata’s power common to disciples.”

1091. ❌ Does a disciple know the path leading everywhere? Yes. If a disciple knows the path leading everywhere, then you should indeed say: “The knowledge of the path leading everywhere, as it really is, is a Tathāgata’s power common to disciples.”

1092. ❌ Does a disciple know the world with its many and various elements? Yes. If a disciple knows the world with its many and various elements, then you should indeed say: “The knowledge of the world with its many and various elements, as it really is, is a Tathāgata’s power common to disciples.”

1093. ❌ Does a disciple know the various dispositions of beings? Yes. If a disciple knows the various dispositions of beings, then you should indeed say: “The knowledge of the various dispositions of beings, as it really is, is a Tathāgata’s power common to disciples.”

1094. ❌ Does a disciple know the defilement, cleansing, and emergence regarding the jhānas (mental dispositions), liberations, concentrations, and attainments? Yes. If a disciple knows the defilement, cleansing, and emergence regarding the jhānas, liberations, concentrations, and attainments, then you should indeed say: “The knowledge of the defilement, cleansing, and emergence regarding the jhānas, liberations, concentrations, and attainments, as it really is, is a Tathāgata’s power common to disciples.”

1095. ❌ Does a disciple know the recollection of former abodes? Yes. If a disciple knows the recollection of former abodes, then you should indeed say: “The knowledge of the recollection of former abodes, as it really is, is a Tathāgata’s power common to disciples.”

1096. ❌ Does a disciple know the passing away and rebirth of beings? Yes. If a disciple knows the passing away and rebirth of beings, then you should indeed say: “The knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of beings, as it really is, is a Tathāgata’s power common to disciples.”

1097. ❌ Are not the āsavas (non-optimal flows) of the Tathāgata destroyed, and the āsavas of a disciple also destroyed? Yes. Is there any difference whatsoever between the Tathāgata and a disciple with regard to the destruction of āsavas or the vimutti (liberation) through the destruction of āsavas? There is not. If there is no difference whatsoever between the Tathāgata and a disciple with regard to the destruction of āsavas or the vimutti (liberation) through the destruction of āsavas, then you should indeed say: “The knowledge of the destruction of the āsavas, as it really is, is a Tathāgata’s power common to disciples.”

Conclusion

Anālayo then points out that in Ekottarāgama at T II 787c4: “the Tathāgata … thoroughly understands all in the three times: future, past, and present”, 如來 … 當來, 過去, 現在, 三世皆悉明了; the same statement recurs in T 453 (佛說彌勒下生經) at T XIV 421a8.

Gombrich states in Popperian Vinaya: Conjecture and Refutation in Practice, in Pramāṇakīrtiḥ, Papers Dedicated to Ernst Steinkellner on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday (2007): ”… the idea that the Buddha was omniscient is strikingly at odds with the picture of him presented in every Vinaya tradition”. These “show that the Buddha … occasionally made a false start and found it necessary to reverse a decision. Since omniscience includes knowledge of the future, this is not omniscience.”

Also, one would imagine that the Buddha, if he had been omniscient and could predict the future, would have been able to prevent many things, including the uprising of Devadatta.