Is an enlightened person all-knowing?

[Marble]

And if yes, in what sense?
Only in the sense of knowing all that is of real importance (one's true self), or also in the sense of knowing all (for instance: understanding the M-theory, beeing able to read all hieroglyphs, etc...)?

 

[rsd]

I do not believe that an enlightened person is necessarily all knowing, but an enlightened person can be all knowing. Depends on how you define things. For example, Jesus was enlightened and knew the inner-most secrets of others (read Alan Ames book, "Through the eyes of Jesus). I have read of other divine souls who know everything. But on a more down-to-earth level, there are enlightened people who know what's important, but are not on the level of Jesus, for example. But even for us, that can be perfect enlightenment. If what we know is the will of God, to me that is perfect. If that leads us to awaken our love for God and receive His blessings, then that to me is perfect enlightenment. But we are not God and never will be. But we do have a relationship with Him. That can be perfect.

 

[Marble]

Are you Christian?
Because Jesus does not play a role in Dharmic religions.

But even for us, that can be perfect enlightenment. If what we know is the will of God, to me that is perfect. If that leads us to awaken our love for God and receive His blessings, then that to me is perfect enlightenment. But we are not God and never will be. But we do have a relationship with Him. That can be perfect.

That is perhaps the view of the Bhakti branch of Hinduism.
But what about Advaita, Buddhism, Jainism?
There is no personal god in these traditions.

 

[Onkara]

And if yes, in what sense?
Only in the sense of knowing all that is of real importance (one's true self), or also in the sense of knowing all (for instance: understanding the M-theory, beeing able to read all hieroglyphs, etc...)?

The answer is both yes and no.

Yes.... because omniscience in the dharmic doesn't necessarily depend on factual knowledge. So an enlightened person always knows, it is the knowing which it eternal and full. This is because an attribute of Brahman/God/Shiva is that knowing.

No.... because factual everyday knowledge depends on the material plane (prakriti or lower tattva). To learn a language, we need a brain, a memory, a mouth etc. All of this is relative and consequently limited.

The diversity of nature is born, maintained and dissolved in itself, i.e. in nature. So all factual knowledge, forms and names are contained within the same realm or tattva. Likewise so are the limitations in order for the diversity to exist.

Do you have any further questions or answers yourself?

 

[Breathe]

Agree with Onkara.

 

[Onkara]

Agree with Onkara.

 

[Many Sages One Truth]

And if yes, in what sense?
Only in the sense of knowing all that is of real importance (one's true self), or also in the sense of knowing all (for instance: understanding the M-theory, beeing able to read all hieroglyphs, etc...)?

I don't think an enlightened person is all-knowing, but rather, a person who sees reality as it really is. Like the Buddha for example. Buddha saw the connectedness of all things, and also the inherent emptiness of physical things and sensations as they all dependently arise.

 

[Marble]

No.... because factual everyday knowledge depends on the material plane (prakriti or lower tattva). To learn a language, we need a brain, a memory, a mouth etc. All of this is relative and consequently limited.

But does not a Jnani/Buddha see no difference in limited/unlimited?
When for such a person everything is equal - must he not, for this reason alone, have perfect knowledge of the so-called limited?

 

[Onkara]

But does not a Jnani/Buddha see no difference in limited/unlimited?
When for such a person everything is equal - must he not, for this reason alone, have perfect knowledge of the so-called limited?

What do you have in mind when you say "perfect knowledge of the limited"? Do you mean that they should be able to speak all languages, for example, or that they understand the nature of limitation (and the unlimited)?

 

[Breathe]

:namaste

 

[Marble]

What do you have in mind when you say "perfect knowledge of the limited"? Do you mean that they should be able to speak all languages, for example,

This.

 

[Onkara]

We are all limited to the mind-body-intellect. Whilst we take ourselves to be that limitation of mind-body-intellect we believe we are born, we undergo pain and suffering and we will die and becoming nothingness.

The Jñani knows that this is the limited perpsective. The Jñani also knows that they are not limited to it. They know both and they know the nature of that knowing. That is the perceived difference of a Jñani in contrast to the "normal persons" perspective.

As for learning all languages, for example. That is limited and so the laws of limitation apply. By which I mean, if you want something you have to work for it. Time and space will limit that as will the law of action and reaction. These limits are explained in Dharmic philosophy as Karma and Reincarnation, to explain this at a level which the mind can grasp.

 

[Marble]

As for learning all languages, for example. That is limited and so the laws of limitation apply. By which I mean, if you want something you have to work for it. Time and space will limit that as will the law of action and reaction. These limits are explained in Dharmic philosophy as Karma and Reincarnation, to explain this at a level which the mind can grasp.

Is not a Jnani free from Karma?
So how could limitation restrict him?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

"Suppose a man is struck by a poisoned arrow and the doctor wishes to take out the arrow immediately. Suppose the man does not want the arrow removed until he knows who shot it, his age, his parents, and why he shot it. What would happen? If he were to wait until all these questions have been answered, the man might die first."


Even the Buddha didn't know everything, but he knew what he needed to.

 

[Onkara]

Is not a Jnani free from Karma?
So how could limitation restrict him?

Correct, at least a Jñani is free from future Karma, there is sanchita (Prarabdha) karma which is karma that is still left to be 'resolved'. There are different types of Karma

Because a Jñani still has a body, he is limited physically (but not spiritually).

The Jñani is free from creating new Karma for they understand their true nature which is beyond the subtle and physical body.

Most of this is theoretical until it is perceived in oneself, so the point I was making above is that for "normal people" there are perceived limitations. The Jñani is capable of recognising "normal people" and the perceived limitations, so the Jñani can speak of them, act in respect to them but never forget their true Self.

I am putting "normal people" into speech marks because I do not want to mis-represent a false idea that there are normal people and enlightened Jñani as in reality the distinction is a misunderstanding as there is only Brahman. But it serves for communication to speak of different states or beings.

 

[Marble]

The Jñani is capable of recognising "normal people" and the perceived limitations,

Are you sure?
I think Ramana Maharishi said that a Jnani sees everyone as a Jnani.

 

[Onkara]

Are you sure?
I think Ramana Maharishi said that a Jnani sees everyone as a Jnani.

Yes. There are levels of perception (seeing), to understand Ramana Maharishi's response we must understand the level on which he replies....

1) Prāthibhāsika level where people i.e. body-mind-intellect, move around, eat, sleep, cry, laugh, give birth and die. All of these actions are taken as true and influence "us".

2)Pāramārthika level when everyone is Brahman or lets say "Jñani". This is why I said above that we should not confuse "normal humans" as distinct from "Jñani" as it means we are looking at the world through the Prāthibhāsika level.

The Jñani knows all levels, so do you.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Even if a being was all-knowing, how would they know for sure?

 

[Marble]

I think when you are all-knowing you would know if you are all-knowing or not.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

I think when you are all-knowing you would know if you are all-knowing or not.

My point is that perhaps all-knowingness is a bit of a nonsense concept, as even if one knew all, they could only "know all" within the context of a given "all". And of what is such a being's power of all-knowing a function of? Do they know that too?