The true meaning of Omniscience.

[Ibn Sina]

Bhikku Bodhi gave a great definition of Omniscience which is often associated with Enlightened beings.
Omniscience doesn't literally mean 'Knowing everything' like knowing how to do everything from cardiothoracic surgery to developing an operating system.

It means knowing everything that one needs to know.
Once you are enlightened , you now know everything that you need to know, now you don't have the need to know anything else.  All those need ceases, you have attained the ultimate knowledge and now there's no need of any other knowledge. This is Omniscience.

Edited September 16, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Truth Addict]

While I think that that's true, I also think that it's partial. There are orders of magnitude for omniscience, the one you mentioned may be the simplest, most basic one.

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, Ibn Sina said:

Omniscience doesn't literally mean 'Knowing everything' like knowing how to do everything from cardiothoracic surgery to developing an operating system.

I like that point. I would add in it doesn't mean knowing every fact, like knowing the winning numbers of every lottery that has over occurred or will occur.

2 hours ago, Ibn Sina said:

It means knowing everything that one needs to know.
Once you are enlightened , you now know everything that you need to know, now you don't have the need to know anything else.  All those need ceases, you have attained the ultimate knowledge and now there's no need of any other knowledge. This is Omniscience.

I think there is too much emphasis on "you" and "need". With omniscience, the "you" dissolves. The illusion of "you" has no more relevance than a crayon that got flushed down the toilet on the other side of the world. So, I think it's misleading to associate omniscience with an illusory personality construct. Similarly, "need" doesn't quite fit for me either. For example, one may know the essence of being of an ant. This has nothing to do with "my" "needs". . . This is unpalatable to the ego, which is always focused on "what's in it for me? Omnicience will grant *me* the ability to know *my needs*? Sign me up!" Yet ime, the ego is the biggest loser here - the ego gets nothing.

Assigning a definition, based on direct experience, is really difficult. I would say "knowing prior to knowledge" captures a portion of the truth. Yet I cannot capture it all. 

2 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

There are orders of magnitude for omniscience, the one you mentioned may be the simplest, most basic one.

I agree with this.

[Nahm]

@Ibn Sina Knowledge as finite is reframed as infinity. If you make a fist with your left hand, and cover it with your right hand, then remove the left fist...the emptiness where your fist was, is inner being, pure consciousness. The right hand is all the world appearing.  If you also remove the right hand too, that - the empty infinity (the room), is you / truth.  Just as a handy analogy of course. Now move the right hand in and out of the picture, and notice nothings changing. The empty space (nothing) and the hand (everything) are the same. Notice this is the case in direct experience, without entertaining a single thought about ‘it’. 

[zeroISinfinity]

@Ibn Sina Your hand is Formless same as That Empty space. They are ONE. 

Investigate be curious What for example  "physical borders" really are. 

Hope it helps. Good luck. 

Omniscience..... Are You everything right now. 

OK lets put it this way. Is Awareness concious of everything right now. Is there anything outside your Awareness. 

Edited September 17, 2019 by zeroISinfinity

[Truth Addict]

@Nahm

Infinity is probably the one thing you guys talk about and I can't relate to, yet.

[zeroISinfinity]

@Truth Addict Take one object in your direct experience. Observe it. Forget That You are limited with body. How far Will your Awareness Will be able to zoom into object. 

Try That  tought experiment. 

[Truth Addict]

@zeroISinfinity

I've tried it many times, all I find in my direct experience is one awareness and different appearances, not infinity.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Truth Addict

[zeroISinfinity]

OK Try this. 

Most of your life You compared objects btw each other relative by they size. But What is the size of Awareness that holds it all. 

Really ponder this. When You finally get this. 

Observe any object and see how really big it is. 

[DrewNows]

@Truth Addict how many appearances, perhaps an infinite amount? 

[Truth Addict]

Just now, DrewNows said:

@Truth Addict how many appearances, perhaps an infinite amount? 

The appearances are not different from the one awareness. It's like the inside of a Christmas ornament.

[Truth Addict]

6 minutes ago, zeroISinfinity said:

OK Try this. 

Most of your life You compared objects btw each other relative by they size. But What is the size of Awareness that holds it all. 

Really ponder this. When You finally get this. 

Observe any object and see how really big it is. 

Hmmm... This seems interesting.

[DrewNows]

2 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

The appearances are not different from the one awareness. It's like the inside of a Christmas ornament.

everything = nothing, yet it gets more profound as you relate to new experiences/points of focus

[Ibn Sina]

@Nahm That's a good exercise for developing non-dual muscle, thanx for  sharing.

[Nahm]

@Ibn Sina ??

[Ibn Sina]

17 hours ago, Truth Addict said:

There are orders of magnitude for omniscience

@Truth Addict

So what are the other orders of magnitude for omniscience?

You might give any other definition of omniscience , but no matter what you say I think it all falls under 'Everything that you need to know', which basically means a complete cessation of suffering in all it's forms, the ego and all.  There can't be any other definition, can there? Unless you are talking about knowing lottery numbers etc. 
Omniscience means having all the knowledge you need beyond which there's no other need of anything else, because all  suffering ceases. 
You may give other definition of it like 'you' ceases, or 'need' ceases, or you become infinity, but it all falls under 'Knowing everything beyond which there's nothing more to know because this is the ultimate knowledge and suffering in all it's form ceases and that's the entire point of Spirituality. 
 

Also be careful about interpreting my language as anything remotely dual, although I use words like 'you', 'need', which suggest the dual, but this is only for communicating the information, and there's no other way to put it other than this way. So although I say things like 'everything you need to know' you need to grasp it's non-dual meaning instead of taking the surfacial dual meaning.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Ibn Sina]

18 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

I think there is too much emphasis on "you" and "need". With omniscience, the "you" dissolves. The illusion of "you" has no more relevance than a crayon that got flushed down the toilet on the other side of the world. So, I think it's misleading to associate omniscience with an illusory personality construct. Similarly, "need" doesn't quite fit for me either. For example, one may know the essence of being of an ant. This has nothing to do with "my" "needs". . . This is unpalatable to the ego, which is always focused on "what's in it for me? Omnicience will grant *me* the ability to know *my needs*? Sign me up!" Yet ime, the ego is the biggest loser here - the ego gets nothing

Whether the 'you' ceases, or 'need' ceases, that doesn't matter, it all falls under 'all you need to know', and here 'you' is not about the ego, 'need' is not about the ego, it's just words to convey the idea, and 'all you need to know' doesn't mean 'you' hasn't dissolved, it has, 'need' hasn't dissolved, it has, although there's no other way to put it then this way.
Omniscience is the experience/knowledge/belief whatever you want to say beyond which there  is  nothing more  to know, there is no need of knowing anything more. You can say, you dissolves, need dissolves etc, which is not wrong, but it all falls under 'everything that you need to know', which has a deeper meaning, a non-dual meaning, you cannot misinterpret saying 'need' dissolves, 'you dissolves', because I am not disagreeing with that at all but the language  I use are dual and hence is forced to look like that when seen superficially.

I am not associating Omniscience with an ego, but the word I used suggested it , but don't fall into the trap of taking the words literally  and thinking I am associating with the ego.
If I say, 'knowing all you need to know' it has nothing to do with ego, or you, or anything, it's just a way of saying it. We all know about ego dissolution so of course I am not associating it with ego although due to language reason I am saying 'you', so the reader should already keep this in mind and not misinterpret what I am saying.

You say-
"Similarly, "need" doesn't quite fit for me either. For example, one may know the essence of being of an ant. This has nothing to do with "my" "needs" '

Knowing the essence of an ant has no relation with Enlightenment or the cessation of suffering. The need I am talking about, is 'ultimate bliss'/ happiness/peace. 
Instead of an ant, if you are talking about the essence of being of who you are, then yes, it does have something to do with your need, which is feeling blissful, peaceful. Do you disagree that Spiritiuality is about attaining blissfulness?

You say "Omnicience will grant *me* the ability to know *my needs*? Sign me up!" "

This is not what I am talking about. It's not 'my needs' like the way you are using here. The way I am saying it is, need = the desire/wish to eliminate all forms of suffering.  ALL forms of suffering.  Which takes the ego and  its 'needs' with it. Ego doesn't come anywhere, like you seem to be suggesting.
 

There are 2 'you's. There's the 'ego you'  which you misinterpreted my 'you' as.
The other you is the 'no you' or 'you ceases, you' or 'God you', which is what I am talking about.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[seeking_brilliance]

Maybe you could say that omniscience= knowing thyself. 

What better way to know yourself than to create trillions upon trillions of yourselves throughout 'all space and time ', and have them do the work for you? You have a special role in the omniscience of God. 

[Truth Addict]

@Ibn Sina

Still no.

Omniscience is total, not partial.

It's possible to know the lottery numbers.

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, Ibn Sina said:

Whether the 'you' ceases, or 'need' ceases, that doesn't matter, it all falls under 'all you need to know', and here 'you' is not about the ego, 'need' is not about the ego, it's just words to convey the idea, and 'all you need to know' doesn't mean 'you' hasn't dissolved, it has, 'need' hasn't dissolved, it has, although there's no other way to put it then this way.

Yea, this gets into territory in which "you" gets slippery and it's very hard to convey. Yet when trying to describe something like omniscience, I think we need to be careful with the term "you". I would consider omniscience a transcendence of this "you". I don't like the term here because of underlying assumptions of personification. 

If you say "you" has dissolved, then who is the "you" in "all you need to know"? If this points to a transcendent "You", I think the statement is misleading. If it does refer to a transcendent "You" it is a very very different contextualization. What does this transcendent You need? Ime, "you" and "need" aren't very good terms to communicate omniscience. My preference would be to try to communicate it without highly personal terms. The essence of omniscience without the "me" and "needs".

2 hours ago, Ibn Sina said:

Omniscience is the experience/knowledge/belief whatever you want to say beyond which there  is  nothing more  to know, there is no need of knowing anything more. 

Then why not say "Omniscience is the experience/knowledge/belief beyond which there is nothing more  to know". Why add in an entity that is an "experiencer" or a "knower"? Why add in an entity that has "needs". That is adding in a contraction. I realize you are saying that there really isn't a "you" or "needs" - then why add that in there?

2 hours ago, Ibn Sina said:

You can say, you dissolves, need dissolves etc, which is not wrong, but it all falls under 'everything that you need to know', which has a deeper meaning, a non-dual meaning, you cannot misinterpret saying 'need' dissolves, 'you dissolves', because I am not disagreeing with that at all but the language  I use are dual and hence is forced to look like that when seen superficially.

It seems like you are trying to use a transcendent form of "You", but to me it doesn't seem like you are using it transcendently. In a nondual sense, there is no "You" because there is no "Not You" to contrast it with. Yes, language is dualistic. We can try to point to nondual with dual pointers. Yet to me, it seems like you are using a pointer to point back on itself. Like @Truth Addict suggested, we can imagine multiple "levels" of omniscience. To me, you seem to be in a transitional zone that is overlapping two levels. 

2 hours ago, Ibn Sina said:

I am not associating Omniscience with an ego, but the word I used suggested it , but don't fall into the trap of taking the words literally  and thinking I am associating with the ego.
If I say, 'knowing all you need to know' it has nothing to do with ego, or you, or anything, it's just a way of saying it. We all know about ego dissolution so of course I am not associating it with ego although due to language reason I am saying 'you', so the reader should already keep this in mind and not misinterpret what I am saying.

This is just my impression: it seems like you are cutting associations between Omniscience and ego, yet I think there are still some associations that can be cut. To me, this seems like a human trying to contextualize what Omniscience might be like, rather than Omniscience trying to contextualize itself in a way humans would understand. These are very different perspectives. Imagine being a child trying to describe what being an Astronaut in outer space would be like. Now imagine being an Astronaut trying to explain what being in outer space is like to a child. These are very different orientations.

2 hours ago, Ibn Sina said:

You say-
"Similarly, "need" doesn't quite fit for me either. For example, one may know the essence of being of an ant. This has nothing to do with "my" "needs" '

Knowing the essence of an ant has no relation with Enlightenment or the cessation of suffering. The need I am talking about, is 'ultimate bliss'/ happiness/peace. 
Instead of an ant, if you are talking about the essence of being of who you are, then yes, it does have something to do with your need, which is feeling blissful, peaceful. Do you disagree that Spiritiuality is about attaining blissfulness?

This is a good reflection of what I am pointing to. Notice there is no identification to the ant, yet there is identification to "me". What you are saying is that "I" am not the ant, "I am me". This is *within* something larger. This is right on the edge of a major consciousness expansion. . . This is one of the most common contractions in spirituality - including highly developed sprititualists. 

It is common for humans to get grounded in concepts such as "enlightenment", "suffering" and "bliss" etc. This can have practical usage as a framework, yet to transcend that, that grounding needs to be let go of. 

Notice how you have made a distinction between the ant and "enlightenment" and the "cessation of suffering". If enlightenment and cessation of suffering is not related to the ant then *who/what* is enlightenment and the cessation of suffering related to? If you add in "me" or "humans", that is a contraction. Categories have now been created. There is nothing wrong with that, yet there is further expansion. It is like someone saying "I am in Paris". There is nothing wrong with that. Yet within that contraction, there will not be awareness of beingness in France and Europe. 

As well, notice the association between enlightenment/spirituality with peace/blissfulness. Again, there are "levels" here. Associating enlightenment/spirituality with peace/blissfulness is super common with people on the spiritual path. Many spiritual teachers focus on this - peace/bliss resonates very strongly with seekers. Seekers are strongly attracted toward peace/bliss and this will create many spiritual teachers that fill this *need* of seekers. Spiritual retreats generally have the theme of peace and bliss. There is nothing wrong with this, yet it goes deeper. For example, would you agree that suffering is peace? That frustration, insecurity and fear is blissfulness? If not, there are still conditions and greater depths to go. There is an unconditional peace that is eternally present Now under all conditions. Absolute peace during meditation, absolute peace laying on a beach, absolute peace during sex, absolute peace while being stabbed with a knife, absolute peace during a panic attack.  

At a more surface level, spirituality is about attaining peace/bliss. Yet if one goes deep enough they will be have to come face-to-face with their construct of peace/bliss. To walk through the next gate, one must surrender that construct. 

2 hours ago, Ibn Sina said:

You say "Omnicience will grant *me* the ability to know *my needs*? Sign me up!" "

This is not what I am talking about. It's not 'my needs' like the way you are using here. The way I am saying it is, need = the desire/wish to eliminate all forms of suffering.  ALL forms of suffering.  Which takes the ego and  its 'needs' with it. Ego doesn't come anywhere, like you seem to be suggesting.

I understand that. To me, it looks like you have broken through more surface levels and are scratching at deeper levels. Like I said earlier, it seems like you are at a transition between two levels and there are components of each. 

When you write "need = the desire/wish to eliminate all forms of suffering". . . from who/what does that desire arise and to who/what is that desire directed to? I think you still have some associations between omniscience/god with person/human. Notice how you are contextualization this like a human would - based on human wants and desires. You can conceptualize that "omniscience/god is beyond ego and human", yet you are within a human mindset. Notice how you earlier made a distinction between an ant and human and contextualized relative to human needs - at a deeper transcendent level there is no difference since omniscience/god is both ant and human. As well, notice how you are grounded in the "cessation of suffering". This is a very strong desire for the person/human. It is very important for humans to end suffering - first to the self, then to humans, then to all beings. Yet this doesn't necessarily mean that this is important at a trans-personal/human level like a human wold want. For example, what if there was a transcendent desire for unconditional peace. This is a greater peace. Yet humans desire relief from what they find uncomfortable. Which do you consider more transcendent: peace under certain conditions or peace under all conditions? (including pain and suffering).

3 hours ago, Ibn Sina said:

There are 2 'you's. There's the 'ego you'  which you misinterpreted my 'you' as.
The other you is the 'no you' or 'you ceases, you' or 'God you', which is what I am talking about.

I understand the 2 "you's". At times, you are conflating the two "you's". In the larger context, you are contextualizing from a personal/human (you) perspective, rather than an omniscient/god (You) perspective.