Do you agree that the potential set of all worldly knowledge (all the things that any being in the universe could possibly know about all aspects the cosmos, in all time periods, in their various permutations and combinations) is infinite? I believe this.
In the Majjjhima Nikaya the Buddha says "There is no recluse of brahmin who knows all, who sees all, simultaneously; this is not possible".
Even if we were to grant that the Buddha could know whatever he put his mind to knowing, if the set of potential worldly knowledge is infinite, and it's not possible to know or see everything at once, then it's perfectly logical to state that the Buddha did not know everything about everything.
But do we as Buddhists go to the Buddha for refuge because he could have known "everything about everything", or do we go for refuge in him because he offers a path to the cessation of suffering?
The fact he wouldn't have been able to recite the Bee Gees discography, along with all the chart positions of their singles and albums across different countries is irrelevant to the holy path. I don't care about that - do you? I'm more than happy to cut the Buddha a bit of slack for all he has done.
Note that in the Simsapa Sutta he compares the handful of leaves (his teachings) with respect to a forest (the things he knew)... he did not compare the handful of leaves to the entire cosmos or even a world system or continent.
P.S. What was the significance of the above reference on sammuti-kathaa
? Do you think I have understood something in conventional terms which should be understood in ultimate terms, or vice versa? If so, could you please explain what it was and how you think it should be understood?