In Buddha’s life story, we learned about his clairvoyance—how he could locate people who needed his teachings and make his way there without directions. When people came to him with questions, the dialogues often suggest that he could read minds and skillfully guide the questioner to discover the Dharma for themselves. Buddha was also reputed to know the causes of people’s suffering, often tracing them back to the original actions that gave rise to their pain. All of these abilities paint the impression of an omniscient being.

Now here’s the question: if Buddha was all-knowing, why did he allow Devadatta to join the monastic order and cause the worst schism? Shouldn’t he have known that Devadatta would be a problem?

And another question—why didn’t Buddha warn humanity about the problems of plastic? Is it unreasonable to expect that?

Back to the first question. Early commentators on such doubts came up with a theory: that all the main characters in Buddha’s time were actually Bodhisattvas or Buddhas incarnated, acting out a great drama to educate unenlightened beings. Do you believe that?

Personally, I think the answer is far simpler—free will. Nothing is predestined, therefore nothing is predictable. The law of karma states that whatever we do today shapes our tomorrow. In this sense, Devadatta had the opportunity to correct his mind and walk the right path. Unfortunately, he failed himself.

This conclusion only makes sense if we look at Buddha and enlightened beings with the right perspective. Unfortunately, many people invent religious notions based on imagination rather than wisdom. Without truly understanding Nirvana, one may mistake it for the highest form of divinity. After all, isn’t Buddha called the teacher of gods?

When we talk about the divine, most of it is based on human imagination. And when we project that kind of fantasy on Buddha and enlightened masters, hardcore Buddhists find themselves pressed for an explanation that they don’t have. Because their basic assumptions were faulted from the start,

Therefore, if we think Buddha is like an all-knowing God, then how could he not foresee problems in his Sangha? And if he did know, why did he allow them to happen? When we think this way, we’re forced to invent complicated explanations. That’s why some schools of Buddhism claimed that all the figures in Buddha’s circle were already enlightened, merely “acting out” events on earth as a teaching drama.

Yet if we stick to the basic Buddhist teachings, things become clearer. Karma is a natural law: causes lead to results. When Devadatta was accepted into the Sangha, he had the freedom to be humble, to listen, and to practice sincerely. But he chose otherwise. Had he decided differently, he could have become another great noble figure in Buddhist history.

This is what makes Buddhism beautiful: each of us has the freedom to shape our own future. There is no higher being deciding who we must be.

In the same way, an enlightened master today can have many disciples—but being accepted as a disciple doesn’t guarantee spiritual attainment. If we are not careful with ourselves, we can still end up becoming another Devadatta or worse.

Therefore, when some Buddhists commit wrong actions, we shouldn’t cast doubt on the Buddha or their teachers. The Dharma remains the same. It is individuals who choose to follow—or to go against—it.

As for plastic? It is a very practical invention that mankind chose to exploit and take for granted.

May all be well and happy.