No creator in Buddhism?

[Tibetan_Ice]

It has been repeated time and time again that there is no creator in Buddhism.

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/

So why does it say that there is a creator in this book?



.???.

Edited April 20, 2014 by Tibetan_Ice

[Dragon X]

And the name of the book is:

[Tibetan_Ice]

And the name of the book is:

 

At the top of the picture..."The Marvelous Primordial State".

 

http://www.amazon.com/Marvelous-Primordial-State-Elio-Guarisco/dp/8878341290/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Well, clearly the primordial state is being anthropomorphised as the 'creator' of samsara and nirvana. It's the same symbolism as in the all-creating king tantra.

[Anderson]

The creator refers to the primordial state.

Also one has to understand the context from which this is seen.

The first paragraph lays out this context where it says the phenomena are primordially pure and conditioned phenomena have never existed.This is valid for any individual who has discovered their primordial nature .

[forestofclarity]

According to the suttas, there is a creator god, but he doesn't create, he only thinks he does:

 

Brahmajala Sutta

[GrandmasterP]

"One day a man called Malunkyaputta approached the Master and demanded that He explain the origin of the Universe to him. He even threatened to cease to be His follow if the Buddha's answer was not satisfactory. The Buddha calmly retorted that it was of no consequence to Him whether or not Malunkyaputta followed Him, because the Truth did not need anyone's support. Then the Buddha said that He would not go into a discussion of the origin of the Universe. To Him, gaining knowledge about such matters was a waste of time because a man's task was to liberate himself from the present, not the past or the future. To illustrate this, the Enlightened One related the parable of a man who was shot by a poisoned arrow. This foolish man refused to have the arrow removed until he found out all about the person who shot the arrow. By the time his attendants discovered these unnecessary details, the man was dead. Similarly, our immediate task is to attain Nibbana, not to worry about our beginnings."

 

From.... http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/297.htm

Edited April 17, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Taiji Bum]

There are more types of Buddhism than there are types of Christianity. There are places where Buddhists pray and sacrifice to gods and there are places where Buddhists are atheists.

[deci belle]

That there is no creator has never been dependent on buddhism.

 

Awakened mind; whether one sees this or not is not created.

 

What does this have to do with buddhism?

 

Nice comments by the bums!

 

he only thinks he does

 

And that is as far as he goes. This is the god made in man's image. hahahha!!

 

 

As for the many buddhist permutations, these are recognized and established as provisional teachings set up for times and locales of human mental capacities (assuming that people are actually authentically practicing correct understanding of provisional teachings).

 

What is being portrayed in Taiji Bum's comment as buddhism in these instances is something other than buddhist teaching implicit in an underlying cultural fabric.

 

Atheism has no validity in buddhist practice as not believing that there is no original creator is the basis of theistic logic— being there is nothing posited in any mind-only teaching to require denial of an original creator, so there is no presupposition otherwise extent in the mind-only schools to require abrogation or upholding in terms of any form of creationism, much less monotheism.

 

In other words, the subject of the OP is a non-issue in buddhist terms.

 

The highest teaching is the self-realization of nonorigination, which is the basis of the mind-only schools in the first place.

 

 

 

 

ed note: add quote and the following text.

Edited April 17, 2014 by deci belle

[xabir2005]

http://www.atikosha.org/2010/11/rigpa-ii.html

Malcolm Smith:

2. 
   Malcolm SmithDecember 17, 2010 at 11:01 AM

   This person has confused the Trika non-dual view with Dzogchen.
   
   The mind that is the all-creating king, as Norbu Rinpoche makes clear, is the mind that does not recognize itself, and so enters into samsara, creating its own experience of samsara.
   
   All conditioned phenomena are a product of ignorance, according to Dzogchen view, and so therefore, everything is not real. The basis of that ignorance is the basis, which is also not established as real.
   
   In Dzogchen, everything is unreal, from top to bottom. The basis, in Dzogchen, is described as being "empty not established in any way at all". If the basis is not real, then whatever arises from that basis is not real.
   
   In Dzoghen, dependent origination begins from the non-recognition of the state of the basis, when this happens, one enters into grasping self and other, and then the chain of dependent origination begins.

   Reply

[Tibetan_Ice]

Well, clearly the primordial state is being anthropomorphised as the 'creator' of samsara and nirvana. It's the same symbolism as in the all-creating king tantra.

The Kulayaraja tantra?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulayarāja_Tantra

 

Yes it appears that Samantabhadhra is the Creator.

 

How interesting.

 

But why do you say that this is just symbolic? Do you mean the aspect of pretending to be human?

 

It would appear that the primordial state is the creator, whether or not it is personified.

 

Thanks for pointing out that Tantra. That makes two sources now that indicate that our reality is created, one Dzogchen and one Buddhist.

 

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

All is symbol.

 

All is metaphor.

 

And all is real too.

 

Try figurin' dat out.

...

[Anderson]

 

http://www.atikosha.org/2010/11/rigpa-ii.html

 

Malcolm Smith:

 

2. 
   Malcolm SmithDecember 17, 2010 at 11:01 AM

   This person has confused the Trika non-dual view with Dzogchen.

    

   The mind that is the all-creating king, as Norbu Rinpoche makes clear, is the mind that does not recognize itself, and so enters into samsara, creating its own experience of samsara.

    

   All conditioned phenomena are a product of ignorance, according to Dzogchen view, and so therefore, everything is not real. The basis of that ignorance is the basis, which is also not established as real.

    

   In Dzogchen, everything is unreal, from top to bottom. The basis, in Dzogchen, is described as being "empty not established in any way at all". If the basis is not real, then whatever arises from that basis is not real.

    

   In Dzoghen, dependent origination begins from the non-recognition of the state of the basis, when this happens, one enters into grasping self and other, and then the chain of dependent origination begins.

   Reply

 

 

In this thread there is an lengthy discussion wbout the assertion soem people made as to whether KJ refers to Sem and where Malcolm is challenged about his maintaining that KG is ignorance aka mind(sem).

Of course as Kyle maintains in that thread somewhere the confusion arises due to how KG is translated as "All creating king" where one would be led to believe that it refers to sem as opposed to sems nyid or kunzi(basis)

 

http://www.vajracakra.com/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=1050&hilit=sem&start=120

[forestofclarity]

I have come to realize that if it does not arise in experience, then it is just speculation.

 

Because we cannot experience, here and now in the immediate present, whether there is a creator god or the beginning of the universe, then that question belongs to the realm of speculation and will never be settled to any certainty. 99% of discussion, in my mind, falls there.

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

http://www.atikosha.org/2010/11/rigpa-ii.html

 

Malcolm Smith:

 

2. 
   Malcolm SmithDecember 17, 2010 at 11:01 AM

   This person has confused the Trika non-dual view with Dzogchen.

    

   The mind that is the all-creating king, as Norbu Rinpoche makes clear, is the mind that does not recognize itself, and so enters into samsara, creating its own experience of samsara.

    

   All conditioned phenomena are a product of ignorance, according to Dzogchen view, and so therefore, everything is not real. The basis of that ignorance is the basis, which is also not established as real.

    

   In Dzogchen, everything is unreal, from top to bottom. The basis, in Dzogchen, is described as being "empty not established in any way at all". If the basis is not real, then whatever arises from that basis is not real.

    

   In Dzoghen, dependent origination begins from the non-recognition of the state of the basis, when this happens, one enters into grasping self and other, and then the chain of dependent origination begins.

   Reply

Hi Xabir

Long time no see!

I hope you are doing well.

 

I think if Malcolm had thought about that statement (bolded), he wouldn't have said it.

 

In "The Marvelous Primordial State", it starts out by saying "The marvelous primordial state is the real dimension".

 

In my opinion, just because the movie that is projected on the screen is empty and without substance, does not mean that the projector is also without substance.

 

 

The basis and its manifestions are not the same.

 

According to Tenzin Wangyal, the basis (kunzhi) has the following characteristics.. and these characteristics serve to differentiate the real from the illusion. For example, no manifestation or object is permanent. Yet the basis is permanent, everlasting:

 

 

The analogy of the mother is used because all the phenomena of existence are born from the nature of the kunzhi and have their function and liberation in that nature. The mother is the fundamental base of all samsara and nirvana; at the absolute level, it is known as "bodhichitta" and as "the space of the nature of phenomena," because it has the nine qualities of space: 1. boundlessness 2. omnipervasiveness 3. unlimited expansiveness 4. being without top or bottom 5. immeasurableness 6. uncontractedness 7. great vastness 8. everlastingness 9. immutability

 

Tenzin Wangyal. Wonders Of The Natural Mind: The Essense Of Dzogchen In The Native Bon Tradition Of Tibet (Kindle Locations 1193-1197). Kindle Edition.

 

 

Thus, if the basis is real it obviously can manifest things which although they seem to 'real', are impermanent and dependantly origininated, mere appearances. Therefore Malcolm's statement that the basis is not real is not true. So his resulting logic is flawed.

 

 

Edited April 18, 2014 by Tibetan_Ice

[deci belle]

Moved to another thread…❤

Edited April 19, 2014 by deci belle

[asunthatneversets]

The Kulayaraja tantra?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulayarāja_Tantra

 

Yes it appears that Samantabhadhra is the Creator.

 

How interesting.

 

But why do you say that this is just symbolic? Do you mean the aspect of pretending to be human?

 

It would appear that the primordial state is the creator, whether or not it is personified.

 

Thanks for pointing out that Tantra. That makes two sources now that indicate that our reality is created, one Dzogchen and one Buddhist.

 

Neither of those tantras are stating that reality is created. And both the kulayarāja [kun byed rgyal po] and the mejung [byang chub kyi sems rmad du byung ba] are bodhicitta texts belonging to the sems sde series of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo.

 

Samantabhadra is a symbolic personification of the natural state, a literary device, certainly not a creator by any means.

[Kasuku]

When he refers to "I", he refers to the Absolute or the SELF, not to any individual. Beyond time and space, being and non-being, ultimate state to which no words can be attached.. see sri nisargadatta maharaj, ramana maharishi, Robert Adams, .

without long inner exploration of your true nature and a sage to guide one is hard to grasp.

 

Robert Adams - "I-am that. I-am that absolute reality. That was never born and will never cease to exist. I-am pure intelligence. The same yesterday, today and tomorrow. I-am empty space. Nirvana. I-am sat-chit-ananda — being, existence, bliss. I-am bliss consciousness. Water cannot drown me. Fire cannot burn me. I have always been and will always be. This is the truth it is unchanging. Like the chalkboard. No matter what pictures appear it has abso- lutely nothing to do with me. I abide in the Self. The Self is my protection. The Self is my Self. I may appear to have a body, a mind, but this is an untruth. This is hypnosis, mesmerism, illusion, maya. In reality I am not the body or mind. I am not the doer. I am pure con- sciousness, absolute reality, parabrahman. That is the truth."

[asunthatneversets]

Hi Xabir

Long time no see!

I hope you are doing well.

 

I think if Malcolm had thought about that statement (bolded), he wouldn't have said it.

 

In "The Marvelous Primordial State", it starts out by saying "The marvelous primordial state is the real dimension".

 

In my opinion, just because the movie that is projected on the screen is empty and without substance, does not mean that the projector is also without substance.

 

Miracle_of_the_Primordial_State.JPG

 

The basis and its manifestions are not the same.

 

According to Tenzin Wangyal, the basis (kunzhi) has the following characteristics.. and these characteristics serve to differentiate the real from the illusion. For example, no manifestation or object is permanent. Yet the basis is permanent, everlasting:

 

 

 

 

Thus, if the basis is real it obviously can manifest things which although they seem to 'real', are impermanent and dependantly origininated, mere appearances. Therefore Malcolm's statement that the basis is not real is not true. So his resulting logic is flawed.

 

 

Malcolm's logic is correct and sound in his statements regarding the basis [gzhi]. You are misinterpreting the term "real" in the citations you are providing. "Real dimension" means "authentic", "accurate", "veridical", "valid", etc., not real in the sense you are attempting to assert, which is an essentialist view akin to that found in eternalist doctrines.

 

Also, the appearance of the basis [gzhi snang] is precisely the basis [gzhi], the appearances are the nature [rang bzhin] and compassion [thugs rje] aspects of the basis to be exact.

 

The basis is completely illusory and unreal, and so its appearances are equally illusory and unreal. This is what the Tibetan phrase "med par gsal snang" i.e. clearly apparent non-existent, is conveying. Why is that? Because the nature and compassion aspects of the basis are never separate from the aspect of original purity [ka dag], meaning they are non-arisen and free from extremes.

 

In Dzogchen there is no "movie projected onto a screen", this is importing Vedantic notions into Dzogchen.

 

If the basis was "real" meaning "existent" it would be unable to manifest anything due to being fixed and devoid of potentiality for dynamic expression. A "real" basis is completely unintelligible, flawed logic through and through.

[Anderson]

Thus, if the basis is real it obviously can manifest things which although they seem to 'real', are impermanent and dependantly origininated, mere appearances. Therefore Malcolm's statement that the basis is not real is not true. So his resulting logic is flawed.

 

As ASTNS explains the basis is not real in the sense of an existent since for something to exist would be to mean that they would have an essence which by definition is independent and permanent.And this would be incoherent with the meaning of the basis where manifestations occur due to its inner potentiality.

The basis and its manifestations are not the same.

 

 

According to Tenzin Wangyal, the basis (kunzhi) has the following characteristics.. and these characteristics serve to differentiate the real from the illusion. For example, no manifestation or object is permanent. Yet the basis is permanent, everlasting:

 

 

 

Permanent is not a category which can be applied to the basis since "permanent" is one of the 4 conceptual extremes and the basis is beyond any such limitations since permanent can only be posited in reliance and dependency on something which is impermanent.

 

 

The basis and its manifestions are not the same.

 

ASTNS explains this very well above.

They are exactly the same.

The sun rays cannot be thought of independently of the sun

[Seeker of Wisdom]

In "The Marvelous Primordial State", it starts out by saying "The marvelous primordial state is the real dimension".

 

In my opinion, just because the movie that is projected on the screen is empty and without substance, does not mean that the projector is also without substance.

...

Thus, if the basis is real it obviously can manifest things which although they seem to 'real', are impermanent and dependantly origininated, mere appearances...

This commentary on the Uttara Tantra really helped me get an idea of how emptiness and Buddha-nature fit together: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=eDNSU5aBNInDO-TzgcAP&url=http://siddharthasintent.org/community/pdf/UttaratantraDJKR.pdf&cd=4&ved=0CDoQFjAD&usg=AFQjCNEXLYODsHEHEDE9IJGs6-MHTRGcWg&sig2=UoNgSJezW6qujxwdZZo9Kw

 

You see, the basis is empty because it is not a thing in itself, it is simply a property inherent to mind. The basis is to mind as light is to fire, it is not an ontological absolute. Mind is fundamentally empty and luminous, i.e. the basis.

 

The basis is 'permanent' as it always 'exists' so long as mind does, despite the mind constantly changing. It is 'neither one nor many' as one fire only emits its own light, but all light is qualitatively identical.

 

What it 'creates' isn't the external universe, but rather samsara or nirvana as experienced by each individual mindstream, like how the fire can be different colours but must emit light.

[doc benway]

In my opinion, just because the movie that is projected on the screen is empty and without substance, does not mean that the projector is also without substance.

 

And yet, when you look for the projector, there is nothing to find…

 

 

The basis and its manifestions are not the same.

 

And yet they are not 'other.'

They are of one taste.

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

And yet, when you look for the projector, there is nothing to find

 

"All phenomenal existence is explained as being a projection of the original light that resides in the physical heart and manifests through the eyes; this implies that objective concrete reality is merely illusion. "

 

From Tenzin Wangyal's Wonders of the Natural Mind

 

I've found that projector a few times now... I'm not the only one, am I?

 

 

 

[doc benway]

"All phenomenal existence is explained as being a projection of the original light that resides in the physical heart and manifests through the eyes; this implies that objective concrete reality is merely illusion. "

 

From Tenzin Wangyal's Wonders of the Natural Mind

 

I've found that projector a few times now... I'm not the only one, am I?

 

 

 

 

Here is a prayer to the creator -

 

[asunthatneversets]

"All phenomenal existence is explained as being a projection of the original light that resides in the physical heart and manifests through the eyes; this implies that objective concrete reality is merely illusion. "

 

From Tenzin Wangyal's Wonders of the Natural Mind

 

I've found that projector a few times now... I'm not the only one, am I?

 

 

 

Yet all of that is merely conventional description, and doesn't point to anything real. If you think you've found a projector inside you then you haven't understood dzogchen... but how could you anyway without a teacher.