Skip to content
buddhavacana

The Evolution of the Buddha, from a man to a mystical, archetypal omniscient being

· 36 min read

Assuming the Buddha was a historical figure and stories about his life are at least partially true, then it is possible to trace the evolution of conceptions of the Buddha, from a man to a cosmic archetype.

The Mahākhandhaka and various suttas depicted the Buddha as a man, before and after awakening. He was born in comfortable surroundings (although whether he was the son of a king, or a rice farmer who at one stage was elected as a tribal leader, or whether his parents had humble and nondescript backgrounds is debatable). It is also debatable whether he was a ksatriya (from the warrior caste) and had Vedic training.

But the stories are clear that whatever his background was, he grew increasingly disenchanted with his life and started speculating whether it was possible to avoid or eliminate suffering, illness, ageing and death. To this end, he abandoned his life, wife and family, and became a wanderer.

It would seem that originally the Buddha practised Jain teachings, as many of his teachings reference Jain concepts such as the cycle of life and rebirth (which are also part of Vedic belief) but in particular the impact of “good” and “bad” actions on kamma. The Jains believed that to gain awakening, one must avoid all bad actions completely, in particular harming other beings. Since even the Jains seem to have realised that we can’t avoid harming other beings with every morsel we eat, every step we take, and every breath we inhale, the Jains believed the only solution was to starve oneself, remain motionless, and even avoid breathing, and hope to gain awakening just before passing away, in a thoughtless and selfless state of consciousness.

The Buddha realised that this was ultimately unachievable, although he tried his best. He then embarked on pursuing an alternate path and eventually developed a radical soteriology (see TL;DR - What the Buddha Taught). This radical soteriology was a middle path between living a worldly life and asceticism, but it was also a middle path between Vedic and Jain beliefs. The Buddha ultimately repudiated both the Vedic belief that the way to ascend to a cosmic union with Brahma was through controlling one’s desires and observing ritual, and the Jain belief that the way to awakening and achieving an eternal self was transcending whilst abandoning everything.

It is clear, to the Buddha and to his initial disciples, he was still a man after awakening. His desire to teach was as a man rather than a deity, and he walked like a man, had thoughts like a man, generally behaved as a man, and still needed to eat, sleep and defecate like all men. He often succumbed to illness, and allegedly died from eating tainted meat.

However, it was clear, even in the Mahākhandhaka, that the Buddha was no ordinary man. He was supposedly capable of psychic powers, such as telepathy, clairvoyance, levitation, and even teleportation. He was able to recollect his past lives, and he was able to see the karmic destinies of others.

In the Sphuṭārthavyākhyā, Yaśomitra’s sub-commentary on the Abhidharmakośabhāsya, we find that the Buddha’s rivals, such as Maskari Gośāla, criticise the Buddha for performing magic and displaying superhuman powers (Fiordalis, 2010). So it seems that regardless of whether the “historical” Buddha actually performed miracles, by the time of the Abhidharma period, the idea that he did so was well established. Moreover, the narratives also suggest that the Buddha succeeds at winning a large following by doing so.

Stories of the Buddha performing miracles appear not just in late devotional texts, but arguably even in the earliest of texts, such as 12. Uruvelapāṭihāriyakathā (The Account of the Miracles at Uruvelā), which is part of the Mahākhandhaka, which is dated to the early Buddhist period, and the story conceivably could have been circulating in the period after the Buddha’s death, and perhaps even during his lifetime. In this story, the Buddha performs various miracles to convince a group of matted hair ascetics to become his followers.

However, in his teachings, he often downplayed these abilities, and discouraged his followers from showing off their psychic powers.

In 6D/11.1 Iddhipāṭihāriya the Buddha says that the miracle of teaching is far superior to demonstrating psychic powers or telepathy:

830. “Kevaṭṭa, there are these three kinds of miracles that I have personally realised and proclaimed. What are these three? The miracle of psychic power, the miracle of mind reading, and the miracle of instruction.

831. And what, Kevaṭṭa, is the miracle of psychic power? Here, Kevaṭṭa, a bhikkhu experiences various kinds of psychic powers: being one, he becomes many; being many, he becomes one. He appears and vanishes; he goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through air. He dives in and out of the earth as if in water. He walks on water without sinking as if on land. He travels through the air cross-legged like a winged bird. He touches and strokes even the moon and sun, so mighty and powerful. He exercises mastery with his body even as far as the Brahma world.

832. Then a certain faithful, confident person sees that bhikkhu experiencing various kinds of psychic power: …

833. Then that faithful, confident person reports this to another person who is faithless and unconfident: ‘Truly, it is a miracle, Bho! Truly, it is amazing, Bho! The samaṇa (wanderer) has great psychic power, great majesty! I saw a bhikkhu experiencing various kinds of psychic power: …’

834. Then that faithless, unconfident person would say to that faithful, confident person: ‘Bho, there is a certain magic spell called Gandhārī. By means of that, the bhikkhu experiences various kinds of psychic power: …’

835. What do you think, Kevaṭṭa, would that faithless, unconfident person say that to the faithful, confident person?” “Yes, Bhante, he would.” “Kevaṭṭa, seeing this danger in the miracle of psychic power, I am vexed by, ashamed of, and disgusted with the miracle of psychic power.

6D/11.2 Ādesanāpāṭihāriya:

836. “And what, Kevaṭṭa, is the miracle of mind reading? Here, Kevaṭṭa, a bhikkhu reveals the minds, mental states, thoughts, and deliberations of other beings and persons — ‘Thus is your mind, thus is your intention, thus is your thought.’

837. Then a certain faithful, confident person sees that bhikkhu revealing the minds, mental states, thoughts, and deliberations of other beings and persons — ‘Thus is your mind, thus is your intention, thus is your thought.’ Then that faithful, confident person reports this to another person who is faithless and unconfident: ‘Truly, it is a miracle, Bho! Truly, it is amazing, Bho! The samaṇa has great psychic power, great majesty! I saw a bhikkhu revealing the minds, mental states, thoughts, and deliberations of other beings and persons — “Thus is your mind, thus is your intention, thus is your thought.”’

838. Then that faithless, unconfident person would say to that faithful, confident person: ‘Bho, there is a certain magic spell called Maṇikā. By means of that, the bhikkhu reveals the minds, mental states, thoughts, and deliberations of other beings and persons — “Thus is your mind, thus is your intention, thus is your thought.”’

839. What do you think, Kevaṭṭa, would that faithless, unconfident person say that to the faithful, confident person?” “Yes, Bhante, he would.” “Kevaṭṭa, seeing this danger in the miracle of mind reading, I am vexed by, ashamed of, and disgusted with the miracle of mind reading.

In 4V/5.1 Khuddakavatthu, the Buddha even goes as far as to rebuke a disciple (Piṇḍola Bhāradvāja) for using superpowers to retrieve a bowl hanging in a carrying net high up on a wooden pole by levitating up to it.

1047. Then the Bhagavā, on this occasion, on this account, having assembled the Saṅgha of bhikkhū, questioned the āyasmā Piṇḍolabhāradvāja:

“Is it true, Bhāradvāja, that you brought down the bowl of the Rājagaha householder?”

“It is true, Bhagavā.”

The Buddha, the Bhagavā, rebuked him:

“This is unseemly, Bhāradvāja, unsuitable, improper, not like a wanderer, inappropriate, not to be done. How, indeed, Bhāradvāja, could you, for the sake of a wretched wooden bowl, display uttari manussadhammaṃ iddhipāṭihāriyaṃ (a superhuman feat of psychic power) to householders?

Just as, Bhāradvāja, a woman for the sake of a paltry coin would display her nakedness; exactly in the same way, Bhāradvāja, for the sake of a wretched wooden bowl, a superhuman feat of psychic power has been displayed by you to householders.

This is not for the conviction of the unconvinced, nor for the further conviction of the convinced.”

Having rebuked him and given a discourse on Dhamma, he addressed the bhikkhū:

“Bhikkhave, a superhuman feat of psychic power should not be displayed to householders. Whoever displays it, incurs an offence of wrong-doing. Break this wooden bowl, Bhikkhave, having made it into splinters, give it to the bhikkhū as material for eye-salve. And, Bhikkhave, a wooden bowl should not be kept. Whoever keeps one, incurs an offence of wrong-doing.”

There are many theories that the original Buddha did not actually perform miracles, and that the various supernatural abilities attributed to him were later additions.

In Anālayo’s The Buddha’s Fire Miracles (Anālayo, 2015), which I have translated in 12. Uruvelapāṭihāriyakathā (The Account of the Miracles at Uruvelā), he argues that depictions of the Buddha performing fire miracles are likely later textual developments rather than original elements. By examining narratives such as Sakka’s visit, a visit to Brahmā, and the Pāṭikaputta challenge, the text demonstrates a pattern where earlier versions lack fire displays, which are then added or amplified in other recensions, suggesting a gradual embellishment over time. The author posits that these miracles may have arisen from a literal interpretation of the fire motif, which was originally used metaphorically in both texts and art to symbolise the power of meditation or the Buddha’s radiance. This conclusion is supported by the observation that the “fire element” in most early discourses refers to the physical experience of bodily heat as a meditative object, not an external manifestation of flames, with the latter usage appearing to be a later innovation.

Similarly, in Levitation in Early Buddhist Discourse (Anālayo, 2016), Anālayo suggests that the concept of levitation evolved from an internal meditative experience to a physical miracle. The author, Anālayo, argues that initial accounts of celestial journeys and rapid terrestrial travel were likely understood as feats performed by a “mind-made body” while the practitioner’s physical body remained stationary in meditation. This view is supported by textual analysis showing that such abilities are tied to advanced meditative states and by specific suttas that explicitly reference a “mind-made body.” Over time, a tendency toward literalism appears to have transformed this concept into the idea of the physical body levitating, a development evidenced by comparing parallel versions of the same story, where some texts describe miraculous flight while others depict ordinary travel, indicating that physical levitation was often a later addition to the narratives.

It is interesting that Anālayo points out in The Luminous Mind in Theravāda and Dharmaguptaka Discourses that often it is the Pāḷi versions of the texts that contain these later additions, while the Chinese Āgama versions tend to make no such references (Anālayo, 2017).

For example, the Buddha boasted that he was able to levitate and release fire in 8D/1.5 Iddhipāṭihāriyakathā - curiously this paragraph is missing from the Chinese Āgama parallel, and is completely inconsistent with the rest of the sutta:

74. Then I, Bhaggava, having instructed, encouraged, inspired, and gladdened that assembly with a Dhamma talk, having freed eighty-four thousand beings from great bondage, having uplifted them from great woe, and having entered the fire component absorption, rose seven palm-trees high into the air, and having created another flame seven palm-trees high, blazed and smoked, and then reappeared in the Gabled Hall in the Great Wood.

Anālayo then points out:

These instances point to a propensity among Theravāda and Dharmaguptaka reciters to improve on early discourse passages by introducing imagery related to fire and luminosity.

Later on, and particularly after his death, he was increasingly deified and worshipped as more than a man. He became an object of reverence, and since he was no longer alive, it became appropriate to revere and worship his remains (“relics”). He became someone one could take refuge in, pay homage to, and pray to. At this stage, he was still regarded as a man, but a man with special abilities - who can recollect past lives, levitate, visit heavenly realms, appear, disappear and clone himself.

He was also an idealised man, a man with 32 marks on his body that were indicators of greatness, that his destiny had always been to either become a great ruler, or a great teacher. Even more so, if we examine stories of his past life, his destiny was evident across many previous lives.

Still later on, the deification of the Buddha was complete. He was regarded as an omniscient being; rays of light would emanate from his body. His manifestation as a man was merely a convenience; he was much more than a man.

The Mahāyānans took the additional step of regarding him not just as a man or even a god, but a metaphysical archetype. He was the personification of an idealised being, someone or something to aspire to. All living beings inherently have the “Buddha nature” within them, and the ultimate goal or aspiration of all living beings is to eventually become the Buddha. All Buddhas are instantiations of ultimately a single entity or concept, very much like the Brahma of Vedic philosophy.

In this way we have come full circle, ultimately the Buddha is Brahma, and it requires the observance of “rituals” (giving alms, gaining merit, observing precepts, meditation) in order to gain cosmic union with the One.

References

Section titled “References”
Anālayo. (2015). The Buddha’s Fire Miracles. Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, 11, 9–42.
Anālayo, B. (2016). Levitation in Early Buddhist Discourse. Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, 10, 11–26.
Anālayo, B. (2017). The Luminous Mind in Theravāda and Dharmaguptaka Discourses. Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, 13, 10–51.
Fiordalis, D. V. (2010). Miracles in Indian Buddhist narratives and doctrine. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 33(1–2), 381–408.

Backlinks