Omnipotence

[Frank87]

Although Theravada Buddhism and probably also Mahayana deny the omnipotence of any being (not exactly a creator god) but simply a being with omnipotence, is it possible to accumulate an infinite amount of merits that could equal or derive omnipotence or very close to omnipotence?

I feel a great paradox, an AI researcher Hugo de Garis believes that artilects (artificial beings that would reach omnipotence by multiplying their intellects to infinity could arise, whether or not this allows it to bend the laws of physics remains to be seen that even a civilization on the cusp of kardashev obtain something similar or equal to omnipotence.


If the Buddha was not omnipotent, how is it that the entity or artilect of Hugo de Garis would be omnipotent (technological singularity).

Do we have an Artilect Adi-buddha here?

[cappuccino]

The sad thing about artificial intelligence is that it lacks artifice and therefore intelligence.

ar·ti·fice
noun
clever or cunning devices or expedients, especially as used to trick or deceive others.

[binocular]

Although Theravada Buddhism and probably also Mahayana deny the omnipotence of any being (not exactly a creator god) but simply a being with omnipotence, is it possible to accumulate an infinite amount of merits that could equal or derive omnipotence or very close to omnipotence?

Meh, omnipotence is overrated. Just say No, and it has the same power.

[NuanceOfSuchness]

Although Theravada Buddhism and probably also Mahayana deny the omnipotence of any being (not exactly a creator god) but simply a being with omnipotence, is it possible to accumulate an infinite amount of merits that could equal or derive omnipotence or very close to omnipotence?

I feel a great paradox, an AI researcher Hugo de Garis believes that artilects (artificial beings that would reach omnipotence by multiplying their intellects to infinity could arise, whether or not this allows it to bend the laws of physics remains to be seen that even a civilization on the cusp of kardashev obtain something similar or equal to omnipotence.


If the Buddha was not omnipotent, how is it that the entity or artilect of Hugo de Garis would be omnipotent (technological singularity).

Do we have an Artilect Adi-buddha here?

Well, your mixing dharma with some heavy intellect here. The two are not compatible. They are usually forced into compatibility using the intellect but this is a sad method of reforming the aggregates around the idea of being an intelligent person.

At a push I could hone in on the word omnipotent using a simple definition of quantum superposition, but it's late and I'm about to rest.

Kind thoughts

[Frank87]

Hugo de Garis is correct in a AI omnipotent, a artilect, this aArtilect with Buddha-nature, a Adi-Buddha or a "super-amitabha", Maitreya. Etc..

[simsapa]

Well, your mixing dharma with some heavy intellect here. The two are not compatible.

Why not?

[simsapa]

I feel a great paradox, an AI researcher Hugo de Garis believes that artilects (artificial beings that would reach omnipotence by multiplying their intellects to infinity could arise, whether or not this allows it to bend the laws of physics remains to be seen that even a civilization on the cusp of kardashev obtain something similar or equal to omnipotence.

I don't see any reason to believe that an "infinite' intellect would be omnipotent. More powerful than we can imagine perhaps, but not truly omnipotent. Omnipotence would include breaking fundamental laws. And how could it do that if its basis obeys them?

If the Buddha was not omnipotent, how is it that the entity or artilect of Hugo de Garis would be omnipotent

You haven't proven that it would be! But here's another point: You could be the most powerful being in the cosmos of cosmoses... and still suffer. The Buddha didn't teach the way of power. He taught the path leading to release.

[santa100]

I feel a great paradox, an AI researcher Hugo de Garis believes that artilects (artificial beings that would reach omnipotence by multiplying their intellects to infinity could arise, whether or not this allows it to bend the laws of physics remains to be seen that even a civilization on the cusp of kardashev obtain something similar or equal to omnipotence.

Well, the problem with artilects' omnipotence is that all their "powers" would disappear by a simple act of unplugging the "power" cord(literally)! The Buddha never claimed to be omnipotence, but He did claim to be omniscient to a certain extent:

For I, Vaccha, whenever I please recollect a variety of former habitations, that is to say: one birth, two births, three births, four births, five births, ten births, twenty births, thirty births, forty births, fifty births, a hundred births, a thousand births, a hundred thousand births, and many an eon of integration and many an eon of disintegration and many an eon of integration-disintegration: ‘Such a one was I by name, having such and such a clan, such and such a colour, so I was nourished, such and such pleasant and painful experiences were mine, so did the span of life end. Passing from this, I came to be in another state where I was such a one by name, having such and such a clan, such and such a colour, so I was nourished, such and such pleasant and painful experiences were mine, so did the span of life end. Passing from this, I arose here.’ Thus I recollect divers former habitations in all their modes and detail.

[Comy.'s note:]MA explains that part of the statement is valid is the assertion that the Buddha is omniscient and all-seeing; the part that is excessive is the assertion that knowledge and vision are continuously present to Him. According to Theravada exegetical tradition, the Buddha is omniscient in the sense that all knowable things are potentially accessible to him. He cannot, however, know evertyhing simultaneously and must advert to whatever he wishes to know. At MN 90.8 the Buddha says that it is possible to know and see all, though not simultaneously, and at AN 4:24/ii.24 He claims to know all that can be seen, heard, sensed, and cognized. This is understood by the Theravada commentators as an assertion of omniscience in the qualified sense. Also see Milindapanha/Miln 102-7.

In computing's lingo, the Buddha was a sequential/single-threadedly omniscient being.

[Frank87]

If the Universe or better said multiverse is unlimited, then the Buddha was not omniscient, because he could not know the principle of samsara, although he has non-simultaneous access to any knowledge, his knowledge and omniscience is even limited. Buddhism is diluted, if an omnipotent cosmic entity arose by natural means, overcoming the fundamental laws of physics, despite the impermanence of all things, such an entity could reverse entropy or repeat all the phenomena of the past. Omnipotence is thus the domain of the entire multiverse and space-time.

Theravada atheism proposes a universe in which no entity can attain infinite power, perhaps the doctrine is wrong. For a deistic entity the problem of evil is solved by indifference instead of kamma. The buddha is left in a position that he is not a god, but also not human, let's say super-human (but limited).

[DiamondNgXZ]

If the Universe or better said multiverse is unlimited, then the Buddha was not omniscient, because he could not know the principle of samsara, although he has non-simultaneous access to any knowledge, his knowledge and omniscience is even limited. Buddhism is diluted, if an omnipotent cosmic entity arose by natural means, overcoming the fundamental laws of physics, despite the impermanence of all things, such an entity could reverse entropy or repeat all the phenomena of the past. Omnipotence is thus the domain of the entire multiverse and space-time.

Theravada atheism proposes a universe in which no entity can attain infinite power, perhaps the doctrine is wrong. For a deistic entity the problem of evil is solved by indifference instead of kamma. The buddha is left in a position that he is not a god, but also not human, let's say super-human (but limited).

However you define omnipotence, it's good to review the 2 thousand years of Christian Theology to see how difficult it is to maintain the claim of any being to be omnipotent.

Don't care if there's any potential future AI who can reverse entropy. That's not cool or relevant to the Buddhist claim of no such thing as omnipotent. The most important thing is, can anyone who claims to be omnipotent with a snap of the fingers like Thanos, make all sentient beings everywhere instantly become arahants, freed from all suffering and rebirth forever?

That's the ultimate question. The answer to Buddhists is that Buddha claimed to be the highest, best in the world, with it's gods, Brahmas, Mara, and humans. If he could do that, he would had already. Since he didn't, he couldn't. Since he couldn't do that, he is not omnipotent. Since he's the highest, no other being can be omnipotent. That's the logic of the common Buddhist claim of no such thing as omnipotence. The best the Buddha could do is to teach, the best we could do is to practise, and each person for themselves attain to the deathless.

[Cause_and_Effect]

The Buddha had a limited form of omnicience. There is a sutta passage where he spoke of this. I think this is the context rather than 'omnipotence'.

He said that it is impossible for any being to know everything that exists simultaneously.

But it is possible for a fully enlightened Buddha to know anything which he wanted to know i.e when he wanted some specific knowledge, the corresponding knowledge and vision arose in him.

Wherever he directed his mind, the capability for knowledge of that specific object arose.

[DooDoot]

The Buddha had a limited form of omnicience. There is a sutta passage where he spoke of this. I think this is the context rather than 'omnipotence'.

He said that it is impossible for any being to know everything that exists simultaneously.

While i am not so smart in philosophy, my impression is 'omnipotence' means 'all powerful' rather than 'all knowing'. Anyway, I recall Bhikkhu Buddhadasa mentioned 'omnipotence'.

You have heard that the Lord Buddha, in his Enlightenment, discovered the Dharma. I
would like to talk about that Dharma, that which the Buddha discovered at his
Enlightenment. That Dharma may be called the Law of Idappaccayatā. It is the Law of
Nature or the Natural Law of Cause and Effect.

The term “law” in English is roughly equivalent to the Thai term gote. Thus, in Thai we
say gote Idappaccayatā. However, the Thai term gote means more than just “law.”

Nevertheless, we must use the term “law,” as it is the commonly accepted translation.
This Law of Idappaccayatā is the Supreme Thing. It can be called “God.” The Lord
Buddha was enlightened about this Law. Immediately after that, he worshipped this Law.
He declared that all Buddhas — those in the past as well as those in the future — worship
this Law in the name of the Dharma.

This Natural Law is comprised of six qualifications that all people regard as the
qualifications of God, namely, the qualifications of being the Creator, the Controller and
the Destroyer; of being Omnipotent, Omnipresent , and Omniscient. Anyone having these
six qualifications is called “God.” We Buddhists have this Natural Law as God; we look at
this Law as the God that has, in reality, these six qualifications.

https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books6/Budd ... ddhism.pdf

[Gwi]

Although Theravada Buddhism and probably also Mahayana deny the omnipotence of any being (not exactly a creator god) but simply a being with omnipotence, is it possible to accumulate an infinite amount of merits that could equal or derive omnipotence or very close to omnipotence?

I feel a great paradox, an AI researcher Hugo de Garis believes that artilects (artificial beings that would reach omnipotence by multiplying their intellects to infinity could arise, whether or not this allows it to bend the laws of physics remains to be seen that even a civilization on the cusp of kardashev obtain something similar or equal to omnipotence.


If the Buddha was not omnipotent, how is it that the entity or artilect of Hugo de Garis would be omnipotent (technological singularity).

Do we have an Artilect Adi-buddha here?

Omnipotence??
I have never heard The Buddhå is omnipotent.

Whether The Buddhå exists or not,
The natural law keep valid.

The right one is:
"The Buddha has omniscience (sabbaňňutā)".
Need (min.) 4 Asangkheyyā + 100.000 kappā
To get SABBAŇŇUTĀ when someone
Become Bodhisattå.


Sabbaňňutā = 30 Pāramī 'Perfection'.
Got sabbaňňutā = become perfect human
(Sammāsambuddhå)

[Frank87]

Western philosophy may be very wrong, but simply an omniscient being would in fact be omnipotent as well, simply a being with those qualities, but not a creator God, simply a being capable of doing anything with his personal immortality.

Highly theistic Westerners who believe in Amitabha Buddha actually think that he is omnipotent, despite not stopping the round of samsaric rebirths, but that he can do anything if he wanted, hence the label "omnipotent".