Sherab wrote:Here's a summary of what I see to be a problem:
If "the All" is confined only to whatever we can experience directly with our five senses and indirectly by the mind through the five senses (eg magnetic fields),[...]
I don't understand your way of thought.
The All is not confined only to whatever we can experience directly with our five senses and indirectly by the mind through the five senses. This is your understanding but not what the Buddha taught.
The All is the six senses and their corresponding objects. It seems to me that you think you know another "All" which comprises more than the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. Otherwise I don't know why you phrased it "is confined only to", which implies that you think there is more than what is defined as "the All" by the Buddha. Remember SN35.23:
Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain [...] Why? Because it lies beyond range.
So I ask you, do you describe another All? If yes and you think you're able to explain, what exactly may be the grounds for your statement?
Sherab wrote:[...] then "the All" is confined to only the present experiences since the past is no longer there to be experienced and the future has not arrived as yet to be experienced. Thus, the Buddha's claim of being enlightened in regard of all things excludes the past and the future.
I think it's a logical and linguistical problem. It's not easy to understand what I'm trying to explain now, because of a lack of words.
You yourself said that the past is no longer there to be experienced and the future has not arrived as yet to be experienced. But this statement originates from an assumption which is usually made without any doubt and is taken for granted. Namely that a "real past" and a "real future" is existing independently from experience. The assumed, from experience independently existing "real past" and "real future" actually only exist in the present experience
as an idea of a "real past" and "real future" independently existing from experience, which is a wrong idea, because the idea itself is in fact experienced. Whether there is or is not such a "real past" and "real future" existing independently from experience, lies beyond range. We are only able to talk about the idea, the concept of past and future existing within the present, namely within the present experience which is the only sphere where experience can be made and therefore also the only ground to make any statement about something.
The only existing past and future we are able to know from experience is the idea, the concept, the imagination of past and future in the present. Thus the Buddha doesn't exclude the past and the future in regard of all things. The assumed "real past" and "real future" existing independently from experience is excluded, because they lie beyond range.
I never came across a Sutta in the Palicanon where Buddha dealt with this issue. If someone else knows more I would be happy to read about it. But I guess there isn't something to be found, because the Buddha was concerned much more with suffering and the ending of suffering.
Sherab wrote:If so, the Buddha's ability to see the past and the future is false. If the Buddha's ability to see the past and future is true, then the definition/interpretation of "the All" is called into question.
When you understand what I wrote above, these problems you see do not occur. If you think I'm wrong and you know anything about a "real past" and/or a "real future" existing independently from experience I have to ask what exactly may be the grounds for your statement?
Sherab wrote:And the above have not even touch on where the consciousness without surface brought up by kirk5a resides within "the All".
The consciousness without surface doesn't reside within "the All". That's why it's "without surface" (anidassanaṃ) (see MN49). Which doesn't mean that it resides outside or in between "the All".
This is the reason why I don't dare taking a position on "consciousness without surface". I just repeat what is stated in the Sutta.
best wishes, acinteyyo