Buddha as Divine

[InvestigateTruth]

Before I describe this thread, I want to say, this thread is not to prove Buddha is God, or if divine, or even He existed or not. It is about how Buddha described Himself according to the scriptures.
This thread is to understand specially Buddhists view on Buddha's station.
From my observation, many of those who are Buddhists, have chosen Buddhism, at least because, they do not believe in God. And since Buddha at least according the scriptures, did not speak of a God in Heaven explicitly, they are comfortable with it.
But, who is God? God, in Abrahamic Religions, is Omniscient and Omnipotent.
However, when we look at scriptures in Buddhism, we see, in many instances Buddha Himself claims to be Omniscient and Omnipotent.
So, if you are a Buddhist who have a problem with believing in a God, why don't you have problem in believing that Buddha was Omniscient and Omnipotent, which is just an indirect way of claiming to be God?


Here is a reference where Buddha says, He is Omniscient:

"At that time Mañjuśrī addressed the Buddha: World-honored One, in the future those of false views will revile the Buddha, saying “If the Tathāgata is omniscient, why must he wait for sentient beings to commit transgressions before admonishing them?”
The Buddha told Mañjuśrī:
This is actually a characteristic of my omniscience. If I were to admonish people in order to prevent them from committing transgressions, they would be right to revile me....

....
I do not preach that the body is composed of existent form. Why?
Because all the buddhas are equivalent to space. This is because both buddhas and space are omnipresent,....

That I have “achieved the ten powers” means that I have achieved
divine powers according to the Dharma. If one were to calculate the
power of the Buddha it would exceed the power of all sentient beings
by a hundred times, a thousand times, a hundred thousand ten-thousand–hundred-million times. The power of the Buddha is inconceivable and incalculable. The Buddha has achieved unlimited power; "

Selected from The Sutra of Mañjuśrī’s Questions

 

[Twilight Hue]

Thus I have seen.....

 

[wizanda]

And since Buddha at least according the scriptures, did not speak of a God in Heaven explicitly, they are comfortable with it.

Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra calls God the Universal Mind.

In my opinion.

 

[Wu Wei]

I'm not exactly sure referring to oneself as omniscient or omnipresent is the same as being divine or God. Actually I do not think they are the same at all.

Omniscient: knowing everything
Omnipresent: widely or constantly encountered; common or widespread.
Divine: of, from, or like God or a god.
God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

God can be said to be omniscient and omnipresent, but those would be only 2 parts of what God would be. There is, at least to my understanding, more to God that omniscience and omnipresence

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I'm not exactly sure referring to oneself as omniscient or omnipresent is the same as being divine or God. Actually I do not think they are the same at all.

Omniscient: knowing everything
Omnipresent: widely or constantly encountered; common or widespread.
Divine: of, from, or like God or a god.
God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

God can be said to be omniscient and omnipresent, but those would be only 2 parts of what God would be. There is, at least to my understanding, more to God that omniscience and omnipresence

He also, said, He has infinite power. That is Omnipotent, isn't it? Did you see that part in OP?
If a person has unlimited power, and is All-knowing, it means, He can create the universe, because He knows how to, and is able.
But, why would one have no problem believing a Person can be All-knowing, and All-powerful? But having problem of existing of God? Why would one can accept the former and unable to accept the latter?

 

[wandering peacefully]

Before I describe this thread, I want to say, this thread is not to prove Buddha is God, or if divine, or even He existed or not. It is about how Buddha described Himself according to the scriptures.
This thread is to understand specially Buddhists view on Buddha's station.
From my observation, many of those who are Buddhists, have chosen Buddhism, at least because, they do not believe in God. And since Buddha at least according the scriptures, did not speak of a God in Heaven explicitly, they are comfortable with it.
But, who is God? God, in Abrahamic Religions, is Omniscient and Omnipotent.
However, when we look at scriptures in Buddhism, we see, in many instances Buddha Himself claims to be Omniscient and Omnipotent.
So, if you are a Buddhist who have a problem with believing in a God, why don't you have problem in believing that Buddha was Omniscient and Omnipotent, which is just an indirect way of claiming to be God?


Here is a reference where Buddha says, He is Omniscient:

"At that time Mañjuśrī addressed the Buddha: World-honored One, in the future those of false views will revile the Buddha, saying “If the Tathāgata is omniscient, why must he wait for sentient beings to commit transgressions before admonishing them?”
The Buddha told Mañjuśrī:
This is actually a characteristic of my omniscience. If I were to admonish people in order to prevent them from committing transgressions, they would be right to revile me....

....
I do not preach that the body is composed of existent form. Why?
Because all the buddhas are equivalent to space. This is because both buddhas and space are omnipresent,....

That I have “achieved the ten powers” means that I have achieved
divine powers according to the Dharma. If one were to calculate the
power of the Buddha it would exceed the power of all sentient beings
by a hundred times, a thousand times, a hundred thousand ten-thousand–hundred-million times. The power of the Buddha is inconceivable and incalculable. The Buddha has achieved unlimited power; "

Selected from The Sutra of Mañjuśrī’s Questions

The Sutra That Expounds the Descent of Maitreya Buddha and His Enlightenment and The Sutra of Mañjuśrī’s Questions | BDK America

In a single volume, here are two fascinating works that each in its own way serves as a window into a unique development in Indian Buddhism. The Sutra That Expounds the Descent of Maitreya Buddha and His Enlightenment is an important representation of a number of texts on Maitreya Buddha, the Buddha who is predicted to appear in a distant future. The Sutra of Mañjuśrī’s Questionsbrings multiple topics to sharp focus, giving voice to key issues among the students of Buddha’s teaching.

 

[crossfire]

Regarding what Buddha said about omniscience from the Pali: A brahman had already misrepresented what he said about it during Buddha's own lifetime:

Kannakatthala Sutta

Then King Pasenadi Kosala said to the Blessed One, "Lord, I have heard that 'Gotama the contemplative says this: "It is not possible that a brahman or contemplative would claim a knowledge and vision that is all-knowing and all-seeing without exception."' Those who say this: are they speaking in line with what the Blessed One has said? Are they not misrepresenting the Blessed One with what is unfactual? Are they answering in line with the Dhamma, so that no one whose thinking is in line with the Dhamma would have grounds for criticizing them?"

"Great king, those who say that are not speaking in line with what I have said, and are misrepresenting me with what is untrue and unfactual."

Then King Pasenadi Kosala turned to General Vidudabha: "General, who brought this topic into the palace?"

"Sañjaya, the brahman of the Akasa clan, great king."

So King Pasenadi turned to one of his men, "Come, my good man. Summon Sañjaya the brahman of the Akasa clan, saying, 'King Pasenadi Kosala summons you.'"

Responding, "As you say, sire," the man went to Sañjaya the brahman of the Akasa clan and on arrival said to him, "King Pasenadi Kosala summons you."

Then King Pasenadi Kosala said to the Blessed One, "Could it be that something was said by the Blessed One in reference to something else, which a person could have misunderstood? In what way does the Blessed One recall having said [such] a statement?"

"Great king, I recall having said, 'It is not possible that a brahman or contemplative could know everything and see everything all at once.'"

"What the Blessed One says, lord, seems reasonable. What the Blessed One says seems logical: 'It is not possible that a brahman or contemplative could know everything and see everything all at once.'

​

​

​

​

 

[crossfire]

Perhaps some clarity might be obtained by understanding what Buddha meant by "The All" (As contrasted to what the prefix Omni- means.) Buddha taught that "The All" refers to all that is within range, not that which is outside of range.

Sabba Sutta: The All

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] 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, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."​

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Perhaps some clarity might be obtained by understanding what Buddha meant by "The All" (As contrasted to what the prefix Omni- means.) Buddha taught that "The All" refers to all that is within range, not that which is outside of range.

Sabba Sutta: The All

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] 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, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."​

Interesting. Here the All, is with regards to what Buddha teach, not with regards to His knowledge. It is, due to limited capacity of people, not that He says, there is a limit in his knowledge. Mind you, all other Manifestations said the same. Jesus said I still have many things to tell you but you cannot bear it now.
But in the quote in OP, Buddha likened Himself to a space, and actually, He says, His power is unlimited.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

"Great king, I recall having said, 'It is not possible that a brahman or contemplative could know everything and see everything all at once.'"

"What the Blessed One says, lord, seems reasonable. What the Blessed One says seems logical: 'It is not possible that a brahman or contemplative could know everything and see everything all at once.'

​

A brahman or contemplative could not know everything, not Buddha. Buddha is a different Being than brahman. Since brahman cannot know all things، Buddha did not say all things. The limitation is on brahman, not Buddha. That was easy

 

[Wu Wei]

He also, said, He has infinite power. That is Omnipotent, isn't it? Did you see that part in OP?
If a person has unlimited power, and is All-knowing, it means, He can create the universe, because He knows how to, and is able.
But, why would one have no problem believing a Person can be All-knowing, and All-powerful? But having problem of existing of God? Why would one can accept the former and unable to accept the latter?

Where is this all from, The Pali Canon?

And, Why would one believe one was All knowing and all powerful and require him to be God?

 

[crossfire]

A brahman or contemplative could not know everything, not Buddha. Buddha is a different Being than brahman. Since brahman cannot know all things، Buddha did not say all things. The limitation is on brahman, not Buddha. That was easy

Buddha often referred to himself as a contemplative.

 

[crossfire]

Where is this all from, The Pali Canon?

And, Why would one believe one was All knowing and all powerful and require him to be God?

It looks like it is from a very late 6th C CE text: a thousand years after Buddha lived.
Now Published: Maitreya and Manjusri Sutras | BDK America

 

[sayak83]

It looks like it is from a very late 6th C CE text: a thousand years after Buddha lived.
Now Published: Maitreya and Manjusri Sutras | BDK America

Yes. I told him already in another thread. But to no avail....

 

[crossfire]

Interesting. Here the All, is with regards to what Buddha teach, not with regards to His knowledge. It is, due to limited capacity of people, not that He says, there is a limit in his knowledge. Mind you, all other Manifestations said the same. Jesus said I still have many things to tell you but you cannot bear it now.
But in the quote in OP, Buddha likened Himself to a space, and actually, He says, His power is unlimited.

You can't speculate about Buddha-range or Jhana-range (limits) without showing that you are mad (as in insane.)

Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[2]

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."​

 

[Wu Wei]

It looks like it is from a very late 6th C CE text: a thousand years after Buddha lived.
Now Published: Maitreya and Manjusri Sutras | BDK America

Is it verified in other writing prior to its publishing that were closer to the time of Buddha. If not then it is likely been subject to interpretation and translation errors and was, or currently is, being used to push ones agenda

 

[crossfire]

Is it verified in other writing prior to its publishing that were closer to the time of Buddha. If not then it is likely been subject to interpretation and translation errors and was, or currently is, being used to push ones agenda

Totally agree.

 

[crossfire]

from MN 71 of the Pali cannon: To Vacchagotta on the Three Knowledges

“Come, Blessed One! Welcome, Blessed One! It’s been a long time since you took the opportunity to come here. Please, sir, sit down, this seat is ready.” The Buddha sat on the seat spread out, while Vacchagotta took a low seat and sat to one side. Then Vacchagotta said to the Buddha: “Sir, I have heard this: ‘The ascetic Gotama claims to be all-knowing and all-seeing, to know and see everything without exception, thus: “Knowledge and vision are constantly and continually present to me, while walking, standing, sleeping, and waking.”’ I trust that those who say this repeat what the Buddha has said, and do not misrepresent him with an untruth? Is their explanation in line with the teaching? Are there any legitimate grounds for rebuke and criticism?”

“Vaccha, those who say this do not repeat what I have said. They misrepresent me with what is false and untrue.”​

 

[LuisDantas]

Attempts to present the Buddha, or even the person of Gautama, as divine are just an unwelcome distraction from the Dhamma far as I am concerned.

We should never stray that far.