I just happened to read MN90 yesterday while reading “The King in the Forest” and came across the original statement as quoted-
Then the king said to the Buddha, “I have heard, sir, that the ascetic Gotama says this: ‘There is no ascetic or brahmin who will claim to be all-knowing and all-seeing, to know and see everything without exception: that is not possible.’ Do those who say this repeat what the Buddha has said, and not misrepresent him with an untruth? Is their explanation in line with the teaching? Are there any legitimate grounds for rebuke and criticism?”
“Great king, those who say this do not repeat what I have said. They misrepresent me with what is false and untrue.”
But then later on in the same sutta there is this-
Then the king said to the Buddha, “Sir, might the Buddha have spoken in reference to one thing, but that person believed it was something else? How then do you recall making this statement?”
“Great king, I recall making this statement: ‘There is no ascetic or brahmin who knows all and sees all simultaneously: that is not possible.’”
“What the Buddha says appears reasonable.
So therefore, from the first statement my takeaway is that Yes, there are ascetics and brahmins who will claim to be all knowing and all seeing
And
In the second statement the Buddha has stated categorically that there are no ascetics or brahmins who actually know all and see all simultaneously.
This doesn’t appear to support the Omniscience of any ascetic or brahmin - that set would include the Buddha too wouldn’t it? Am I missing something here?? 