Comments

Comm. NT: 7.
1. Buddhānussatikathāvaṇṇanā

“Is not unobstructed knowledge (anāvaraṇa-ñāṇa) different from omniscient knowledge (sabbaññuta-ñāṇa)? Otherwise the words “Six kinds of knowledge unshared [by disciples]” (Paṭis I 3) would be contradicted? [Note: The six kinds are: knowledge of what faculties prevail in beings, knowledge of the inclinations and tendencies of beings, knowledge of the Twin Marvel, knowledge of the attainment of the great compassion, omniscient knowledge, and unobstructed knowledge (see Paṭis I 133)].
— There is no contradiction, because two ways in which a single kind of knowledge’s objective field occurs are described for the purpose of showing by means of this difference how it is not shared by others.
It is only one kind of knowledge; but it is called omniscient knowledge because its objective field consists of formed, unformed, and conventional (sammuti) [i.e. conceptual] dhammas without remainder, and it is called unobstructed knowledge because of its unrestricted access to the objective field, because of absence of obstruction.
And it is said accordingly in the Paṭisambhidā: “It knows all the formed and the unformed without remainder, thus it is omniscient knowledge. It has no obstruction therein, thus it is unobstructed knowledge” (Paṭis I 131), and so on.
So they are not different kinds of knowledge. And there must be no reservation,
otherwise it would follow that omniscient and unobstructed knowledge had obstructions and did not make all dhammas its object.
There is not in fact a minimal obstruction to the Blessed One’s knowledge: and if his unobstructed knowledge did not have all dhammas as its object, there would be presence of obstruction where it did not occur, and so it would not be unobstructed.
“Or alternatively, even if we suppose that they are different, still it is omniscient knowledge itself that is intended as ‘unhindered’ since it is that which occurs unhindered universally.
And it is by his attainment of that that the Blessed One is known as Omniscient, All-seer, Fully Enlightened, not because of awareness (avabodha) of every dhamma at once, simultaneously (see M II 127).
And it is said accordingly in the Paṭisambhidā: ‘This is a name derived from the final liberation of the Enlightened Ones, the Blessed Ones, together with the acquisition of omniscient knowledge at the root of the Enlightenment Tree; this name “Buddha” is a designation based on realization’ (Paṭis I 174).
For the ability in the Blessed One’s continuity to penetrate all dhammas without exception was due to his having completely attained to knowledge capable of becoming aware of all dhammas.
“Here it may be asked: But how then? When this knowledge occurs, does it do so with respect to every field simultaneously, or successively?
For firstly, if it occurs simultaneously with respect to every objective field, then with the simultaneous appearance of formed dhammas classed as past, future and present, internal and external, etc., and of unformed and conventional (conceptual) dhammas, there would be no awareness of contrast (paṭibhāga), as happens in one who looks at a painted canvas from a distance. That being so, it follows that all dhammas become the objective field of the Blessed One’s knowledge in an undifferentiated form (anirūpita-rūpana), as they do through the aspect of not-self to those who are exercising insight thus ’All dhammas are not-self’ (Dhp 279; Th 678; M I 230; II 64; S III 132; A I 286; IV 14; Paṭis II 48, 62; Vin I 86. Cf. also A III 444; IV 88, 338; Sn 1076).
And those do not escape this difficulty who say that the Enlightened One’s knowledge occurs with the characteristic of presence of all knowable dhammas as its objective field, devoid of discriminative thinking (vikappa-rahita), and universal in time (sabba-kāla) and that is why they are called ’All-seeing’ and why it is said, ’The Nāga is concentrated walking and he is concentrated standing’ (?). They do not escape the difficulty since the Blessed One’s knowledge would then have only a partial objective field, because, by having the characteristic of presence as its object, past, future and conventional dhammas, which lack that characteristic, would be absent.
So it is wrong to say that it occurs simultaneously with respect to every objective field.
Then secondly, if we say that it occurs successively with respect to every objective field,
that is wrong too.
For when the knowable, classed in the many different ways according to birth, place, individual essence, etc., and direction, place, time, etc., is apprehended successively, then penetration without remainder is not effected since the knowable is infinite.
And those are wrong too who say that the Blessed One is All-seeing owing to his doing his defining by taking one part of the knowable as that actually experienced (paccakkha) and deciding that the rest is the same because of the unequivocalness of its meaning, and that such knowledge is not inferential (anumānika) since it is free from doubt,
because it is what is doubtfully discovered that is meant by inferential knowledge in the world. And they are wrong
because there is no such defining by taking one part of the knowable as that actually experienced and deciding that the rest is the same because of the unequivocalness of its meaning, without making all of it actually experienced. For then that ‘rest’ is not actually experienced;
and if it were actually experienced, it would no longer be ‘the rest.’
“All that is no argument.—
Why not?—
Because this is not a field for ratiocination;
for the Blessed One has said this: ‘The objective field of Enlightened Ones is unthinkable, it cannot be thought out;
anyone who tried to think it out would reap madness and frustration’ (A II 80).
The agreed explanation here is this: Whatever the Blessed One wants to know—either entirely or partially—there his knowledge occurs as actual experience because it does so without hindrance. And it has constant concentration because of the absence of distraction.
And it cannot occur in association with wishing of a kind that is due to absence from the objective field of something that he wants to know. There can be no exception to this because of the words, ‘All dhammas are available to the adverting of the Enlightened One, the Blessed One, are available at his wish, are available to his attention, are available to his thought’ (Paṭis II 195).
And the Blessed One’s knowledge that has the past and future as its objective field is entirely actual experience since it is devoid of assumption based on inference, tradition or conjecture.
“And yet, even in that case, suppose he wanted to know the whole in its entirety, then would his knowledge not occur without differentiation in the whole objective field simultaneously? And so there would still be no getting out of that difficulty?
“That is not so, because of its purifiedness.
Because the Enlightened One’s objective field is purified and it is unthinkable.
Otherwise there would be no unthinkableness in the knowledge of the Enlightened One, the Blessed One, if it occurred in the same way as that of ordinary people.
So, although it occurs with all dhammas as its object, it nevertheless does so making those dhammas quite clearly defined, as though it had a single dhamma as its object. This is what is unthinkable here.
‘ There is as much knowledge as there is knowable,
there is as much knowable as there is knowledge;
the knowledge is limited by the knowable, the knowable is limited by the knowledge’ (Paṭis II l95).
So he is Fully Enlightened because he has rightly and by himself discovered all dhammas together and separately, simultaneously and successively, according to his wish’

пали	Tena vuttaṃ – "sammā sāmañca sabbadhammānaṃ buddhattā pana sammāsambuddho"ti.
khantibalo	Поэтому выше было сказано выше: "Он постигший в совершенстве, потому что в совершенстве (полностью) и самостоятельно постиг все явления".
Nyanamoli thera	Hence it was said above: “He is fully enlightened because he has discovered all things rightly and by himself” (§26). 7