Creator God or Creator Figure?

Creator God or Creator Figure?

Dan Martin,

January 2003

While leafing through the 821 separately titled texts contained in the recent twelve-volume publication of the collected works of Jigten Gonpo ('Jig-rten-mgon-po, 1143-1217 ce), eminent founder of the prominent Drigung ('Bri-gung) sub-lineage of the Kagyupa (Bka'-brgyud-pa) school, I happened across a brief text which caught my attention for basically two reasons.  Thinking that others may also find it stimulating, I thought it might prove worthwhile to write this brief note, dispensing with footnotes and minimizing the bibliographic references.

The two reasons are these.  Firstly, although this is a matter that will not be dwelt upon at length here, there are close echoes of ideas for which a somehow and somewhat controversial scripture is famous.  By this I mean the All Creating King (Kun-byed Rgyal-po), a very important scripture for the Great Perfectedness (Rdzogs-chen) current that belongs to the 'Mental Class' (Sems-sde) of the Atiyoga Vehicle of the Nyingmapa (Rnying-ma-pa) school.  Secondly, there is one significant thing that Jigten Gonpo's text has in common with the first chapter — one largely devoted to the significance for cosmogony of a divine genealogy — of the Innermost Treasury of Existence (Srid-pa'i Mdzod-phug), a scripture belonging to the 'sūtra section' (mdo-sde) of the Bon scriptural collection often referred to as the 'Bon Kanjur.'  Recognizing these connections leads to further thoughts about [1] where Jigten Gonpo really meant to go with his apparent recognition of an all-creating force or being in the universe, and [2] the possibility that, lurking in the shadowy Tibetan past, there might have been the concept of a creator deity similar to that known to Judaic / Christian / Islamic traditions.  Of course, this last possibility is one that will for obvious reasons alert the attention of missionaries (rest assured that I am not among them; the longest treatment on Tibetan creator gods known to me is by a missionary/scholar: Matthias Hermanns, Shamanen, Pseudoschamanen, Erlöser und Heilbringer, Steiner, Wiesbaden, 1970), but it may interest others as well, for reasons of their own.

But before briefly considering these questions, I will simply transcribe and make a translation of the text.  Its title, which was very likely invented for the text by the modern editors based on its subject-matter, is:

"One's Own Awareness is Brahma, the Creator of All Worlds"  (Rang-gi Rig-pa 'Jig-rten Thams-cad-kyi Byed-po Tshangs-pa Yin zhes-pa).

"Om svāsti! 

"Homage to the Lama, [identical to] Vajradhāra. (bla ma rdo rje 'chang la phyag 'tshal lo //)

"The one called Srid-pa Dkor-rje Drang-dkar is claimed to be Tshangs-pa (Brahma), the creator of all worlds, who is very difficult to subdue.  This creator of all worlds, however much one may try to overcome, destroy or annihilate it/him, it will be as if one has done the same to oneself (or, to one's self).  (srid pa dkor rje drang dkar zhes bya ba de / 'jig rten thams cad kyi byed pa po tshangs pa / gdul bar shin tu dka' bar 'dod pa yin / 'jig rten thams cad kyi byed pa po de / bcom pa dang / brlag pa dang / tshar gcad par ci tsam du 'bad kyang / rang nyid la de ltar byas par 'gyur ba yin /)

"The reason for this is as follows.  One's own awareness (rang gi rig pa) is Brahma[n?], creator of all worlds.  When one realizes that it/he is unproduced and immaculate in its/his very nature, this Brahma is [none other than] the Dharma Body, creator of all benefit and comfort; [Brahma] is the Transcendent Insight (Prajñā).  Since the side that is in opposition to this is the 'I' and narcissism, one must leave them behind.  The way to leave them behind?  They are left behind [first] through the [generation of] Bodhicitta (thought of Enlightenment), the idea of skilful means, and subsequently by the accumulations [of merit and Full Knowledge] of the Kusāli (person of ethical accomplishment). (de'i rgyu mtshan yang rang gi rig pa 'jig rten thams cad kyi byed pa po tshangs pa yin / de skye ba med cing rang bzhin gyi rnam par dag par rtogs pa'i dus su / tshangs pa chos kyi sku phan pa dang bde ba thams cad kyi byed pa po / shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa yin / de'i mi mthun pa'i phyogs nga dang bdag tu 'dzin pa yin pas de spong dgos / de spang ba la [435] thabs mkhas pa'i bsam pa byang chub kyi sems dang / de'i rjes su 'brangs pa ku sā li'i tshogs gsog gis bdag 'dzin spong ba /)

"Self and other, environmental and vital worlds...  When all have been left behind, it makes one into a Buddha.  After three, seven, twenty-one lives, the body melts into nectar, and self and other, environmental and vital worlds, are purified of the stains of faults, whereupon one becomes Buddha.  This is easily understood.  When one does the spiritual practice of transforming oneself into a divine form of high aspiration, one becomes Buddha.  This also is easily understood.  (rang gzhan snod bcud thams cad spangs nas sangs rgyas su byed pa 'di / lan gsum mam / bdun nam / nyi shu rtsa gcig byas pa'i 'og tu lus bdud rtsir zhu bas / rang gzhan snod bcud nyes pa'i dri ma sbyangs nas / sangs rgyas su gyur pas kyang blo bde / rang yi dam gyi lha gcig tu bsgrubs pas sangs rgyas su gyur pas kyang blo bde /)

"Mind Proper, pure by its very nature, beyond all speech, thought and expression, naturally arrived-at and unchanging...  This also is easily understood.  In general it doesn't have even the least needle of a body.  There isn't the least hair of something it has left unlearned.  It has never separated from the suchness that is immaculate in the range of [glacier] mountains, continuing without any break in its flow.  [These qualities] are none other than those of the Buddhas of all time, and needless to say those that we ought to pursue.  This is precisely what we need to put into practice experientially.  Onward, onward, onward! [?? I believe the syllable ang as a sentence-ending particle, is repeated here to give a sense of encouragement or urging.] (sems nyid rang bzhin gyi rnam par dag pa smra bsam brjod 'das lhun gyis grub cing 'gyur ba med pas kyang blo bde / phyir lus pa ni khab tsam yang med / ma nyan pa ni spu tsam yang mi 'dug / rgyun chad med par ri bo'i khrod du rnam par dag pa'i de kho na nyid dang ma 'bral ba 'di las / dus gsum gyi sangs rgyas la yang gzhan mi mnga' na / nged rjes su [436] 'jug pa lta smos kyang ci dgos pas / 'di kho na nyams su blang / ang ang ang /)

"'In just this way, the reality of the Buddhas of all time,

the jewel-like lord of the triple universe, in the evening,

through the contemplative absorption of primordial great love,

transformed the maṇḍala of delusions.'

"This just-given quote makes it clear."

(de yang dus gsum sangs rgyas kun gyi dngos //

'jig rten gsum mgon rin chen gyis //

gnyug ma byams chen ting 'dzin gyis //

srod la bdud kyi dkyil 'khor btul // zhes pas mngon no //) 

(Note that the term 'maṇḍala of delusions' appears in some Mahāyāna sūtras; Jigten Gonpo didn't make it up.  Note also that Jigten Gonpo's own name [meaning 'lord of the universe,' which is in turn a name he used for his teacher Phagmodrupa, although here it is also an epithet for the historical Buddha, as well as the 'Buddhas of all time'] is 'hidden' in the concluding verse.)

"May [all beings] attain complete awakening." (rdzogs pa'i byang chub thob par gyur cig //  //)

Now the reader might easily take the words 'easily understood' (blo bde, words that might just as well have been translated 'worry-free') as a kind of jest, but I believe what Jigten Gonpo means is simply that these things are general knowledge within particular realms of Buddhist learning.  With each of the three repetitions of the words 'easily understood' he moves from general Mahāyāna, to Vajrayāna visualization practice, to ultimatist (goal-actualized) understanding of Mahāmudrā (and, we would add, Rdzogs-chen).  On each of these levels a different way of using the creative (or transformative) possibilities of the mind is emphasized, each one adding something to the previous.  In general Mahāyāna, this means the transformations effected through bodhisattva vows (the thought to attain Enlightenment for the sake of all beings who are suffering); in Vajrayāna, the special practices of visualizing and identifying with the Buddha as a 'divine form of high aspiration' (yi-dam-gyi lha).  In Mahāmudrā it is the mind coming to that apparently absurdly impossible confrontation with its own true nature.  Isn't this part of the Devil's Dictionary's (Ambrose Bierce, Oxford University Press, 2002, 1st published in 1906) entry for the word 'mind'?

"... it's chief activity consists in the endeavor to ascertain its own nature, the futility of the attempt being due to the fact that it has nothing but itself to know itself with." 

Mahāmudrā, while acknowledging that the attempt is almost certain to be futile, at the same time recognizes that it is just what needs to be done. The mind knowing its true nature, or 'reflexive awareness' (a way of translating Jigten Gonpo's term rang-gi rig-pa), may finally take place, even with all the odds stacked against it, because it has always been taking place without our knowing it...  But let's go back to the beginning.

Without initially defining what he means by 'Brahma,' Jigten Gonpo starts by emphasizing how impossible it is to do away with the idea of the creator.  'It would be as if one did away with oneself.'  (Jigten Gonpo often throws out these sorts of radically destabilizing notions, which catch us off guard, before going on to say what he really means by them; in fact, this is the form and style that predominates in the Single Intention [Dgongs-gcig] school developed by his disciples.)  What is it about the god Brahma that makes him so impossible to overcome?  The answer can be long and complex, or simple (and perhaps therefore more perplexing), but let's keep it relatively simple.  The original 'error' of Brahma, according to Buddhist scriptures, was to believe himself, and then make others believe, that he was the creator of everything.  (This much is clear from the 'Brahma Trap' [Brahmajāla] Sutta and other scriptures in the Pāli and Tibetan canons.)  Doing away with this primordial misconception would be the equivalent of doing away with the misconception of 'self' and its misconceptions.  Hence the equation of 'mind' with Brahma, which Jigten Gonpo, very much like the All Creating King scripture (with the words 'all-creating' or 'all-doing/making' [kun-byed] it purposefully recalls an epithet of Brahma), goes on to play with.  (I will not go further into this here, but instead refer to the suggested readings listed at the end of this essay.  I would suggest that one reason so much scholarly attention has been paid to this scripture is precisely it's apparent creationist language.)

But let's leave all these problems behind, interesting as they surely are, and deal with what at first blush ought to be a much smaller issue provoked by Jigten Gonpo's text.  At the very beginning he mentions a Tibetan name of a creator that is believed, by someone, to be the equivalent of the Indic Brahma: Srid-pa Dkor-rje Drang-dkar.  The name in this form might be translated something like 'Lord of the Wealth of Existence, White Straight' (or 'White Sage'?  It is explained as meaning 'White Staff' in Namkhai Norbu, Drung, Deu and Bön, Library of Tibetan Works & Archives, Dharamsala, 1995, p. 148).  Where does that come from?  One might think, and it may be true, that he is referring to a creator god known to popular mythology.  But having no clear mode of access to the popular mythologies of his time, we are compelled to turn to a text, the aforementioned Bon scripture Innermost Treasury of Existence, chapter one.  (Revealed in 1017 ce by Gshen-chen Klu-dga'; for details, see my 'Comparing Treasuries,' contained in:  S. G. Karmay & Y. Nagano, eds., New Horizons in Bon Studies, National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka, 2000, pp. 21-88.)  We know that Jigten Gonpo was born to a Bonpo mother, which might seem significant in this regard, but his mother died in his youth, and he was never educated in Bon (making it doubtful he ever personally inspected the Innermost Treasury or any other Bon scripture), and we find mainly dismissive words about Bon being a waste of time in his collected writings (but liberal sentiments do crop up here and there).  To translate from the original text (based on a comparative edition of several available texts), which we have in both Zhang-zhung and Tibetan, we find that it says, immediately after the account of the formation of the environmental universe 'from below,' the account of the formation of its vital (bcud) inhabitants (apparently, although not explicitly in this context, 'from above'): 

"From the vital essence of the five causes two eggs came into existence.  The white one popped open from the lights and rays.  It appeared as a king of existence in the realm of being.  The black one popped open from the darkness and shadows, appearing as the king of void in the realm of nonbeing.  It delighted in its nonbeing and did not apply itself to existence.  It was Sangs-po, the Father, who applied himself to existence.  A blue turquoise lake came into existence from the coiled potentiality (or, 'dynamic center,' or 'vortex,' klong).  In the center of the lake a Female came into existence, the Mother of Existence Chu-lcam Rgyal-mo.  When Sangs-po and Chu-lcam had come into existence, the nine brothers and nine sisters, altogether 18, were born.  Their magical apparitions [also?] split off into two groups of nine making 18.  The eldest was Srid-rje 'Brang-dkar, his younger brother was Rkos-rje Drang-dkar, his younger brother Phya-rje Ring-dkar..." 

The chapter goes on and on, naming generation after generation, not only of the descendents of existence, but those of nonexistence as well.  The chapter ends with a brief note about causations, including the 'five causes' mentioned in our quotation (actually, four root causes and one accidental one; they are explained rather obscurely in the commentaries, and the discussion would lead us too far afield).  For the moment, it is crucial to observe that the Tibetan creator mentioned at the opening of Jigten Gonpo's text simply must be the 'same' as the Srid-rje 'Brang-dkar mentioned here (or perhaps his name was slightly mixed with that of his younger brother Rkos-rje Drang-dkar).  Hence, we have two widely separated sources, the Bon text very likely to be at least as early as the 11th century, the other a Kagyupa text of the early 13th, which attest to a being by the 'same' name playing a 'creative' role in cosmogony.  But what kind of creative role?  We may infer from the names of the first three sons that their tasks were to govern (or, to be 'lords' [rje] over) life (srid), to govern the assignment of tasks (reading skos for rkos), and to govern allotment or fate (phya).  Are these creators?  Or are they not rather governors of what was already there?  (For different ways of telling the myth, compare S. Karmay, The Arrow & the Spindle, pp. 128, 179, Namkhai Norbu, Op. cit., pp. 165-167, and G. Tucci, Religions of Tibet, pp. 214-216; the later Bon histories often repeat it, which at least demonstrates its continuing appeal and relevance.)

Lord Shenrab's father Thod-dkar, like the Tibetan royal dynasty, is sometimes believed to have been the product of the intermarriage of two clans, the Dmu and the Phy[w]a.  Although I may be nearly alone in this belief (see, however, R.A. Stein, Tibetica Antiqua III: A propos du mot gcug-lag et de la religion indigéne, Bulletin de l'École Française d'Extrême Orient, vol. 74 [1985], pp. 83-133 at pp. 104-107), I think that the terms dmu and phy[w]a (along with certain other equally difficult terms like gtsug and g.yang) go back to an ancient mindset, a kind of 'shamanic existentialism' if you will permit me the term, founded on, and/or reflected in, divination techniques, probably geomancy (or scapulimancy, which works on very similar principles; see M. Walter, Scapula Cosmography and Divination in Tibet, Kailash, vol. 18, nos. 3-4, 1996, pp. 107-114), in which the world is represented by a kind of grid.  Now, divination means deliberate techniques for omen-seeking, done by people who at the same time believe in signs that occur more 'naturally' in the world at large.  Later, apparently more sophisticated, religions have their more complex methods of divining divine intentions that they call 'prophecy' and 'revelation'; in the basic motive to find out the unknown, there is no particularly solid dividing line between divination and revelation, even as, arguably, there might be none between shamanism and religion.  The dmu (often a Zhang-zhung word for 'sky' in the Innermost Treasury, it is also a Tibetan word referring to far boundaries and limitations as well as the sky), belonging in the Innermost Treasury to the lineage of nonexistence, are the limiters — the lines in the grid — and sometimes even the eliminators, while phya, pertaining to the lineage of existence, are the 'lots' (in geomancy, the pebbles or other small objects; in scapulimancy, the cracks created by heat) placed within the limitations of the grid — the situations in which we find ourselves in the world including the things alotted to us.  The dmu, the sky and mountains, and the phya, the valleys and lakes, might recall the 'divine dyad' of mountain and lake as abodes of (respectively) male and female deities of particular localities, which supposedly goes back to an ancient stratum of Tibetan belief (see John Bellezza, Divine Dyads: Ancient Civilisation in Tibet, Library of Tibetan Works & Archives, Dharamsala, 1997).  Or, if we might warily clothe this in the language of ecological anthropology, we are placed within a field of limited (dmu) resources, in order to do the tasks allotted (bskos) to us — 'energy expenditure' — which will entitle us to an allotment (phya) of those resources — 'energy consumption'.

Now, to sum up, leaving a great deal unsaid for now, leaving some knots left to be untangled, and drawing toward a conclusion all too swiftly, there are several things about this Bon account that do not allow us to see it as 'creation' in a Judaic / Christian / Islamic sense of the word.  First of all, the origins of the environmental world are explained separately, apart from the origins of the biological world.  It would seem as if these were two 'creations' or 'evolutions' coming from opposite directions.  (And that existence and nonexistence each has its own separate lineage, would suggest that the biological world was itself the product of two 'creations'; in this some have seen Persian or even Manichaean dualism, although strong doubts have been expressed on this point by Per Kvaerne, 'Dualism in Tibetan Cosmogonic Myths and the Question of Iranian Influence,' in: C. Beckwith, ed., Silver on Lapis, The Tibet Society, Bloomington, 1987, pp. 163-174.)  Next, the being named by Jigten Gonpo is not even the first in the genealogical line of existence, but belongs to the second generation.  Surely the Father Sangs-po (who in other contexts as well may indeed find correspondences with Brahma) and/or the Mother Chu-lcam ('Liquid Lady' or, in variant readings, Chu-lcags, 'Water Metal') would merit the title of 'originator' more than any of their offspring.  Still more, the Bon myth is not, contrary to what we might be expecting, telling the original origins of things, but only the beginning of one particular episode in those recurring existence-histories that are the eons (kalpa).  The second chapter of the Innermost Treasury is entirely devoted to these cycles of kalpas, and kalpas are not 'made' or 'created' (byas-pa), but rather 'formed' (chags-pa).  This much is true not only for Bon, but for Buddhism in general (and, yes, Hinduism too).  Since at the very least a century or two before the time of Jigten Gonpo, Bonpo writers, when they deal with the issue of 'creation,' always reject the idea that there was any creator god, affirming that a (continuing) karmic background is what brings about new kalpas.

Here are a few examples of what Bon texts have to say about creator figures, which I have already given elsewhere.  The Bonpo intellectual 'A-zha Blo-gros-rgyal-mtshan's (1198-1263 CE) could say:

"If one asks exactly what constitutes a suitable object of prostration, it is not, as the outsiders say, Phya, Ishvara or Brahma. They are themselves wandering in sangsara, so that they are unable to assist others. Hence the true object of Refuge is the completely perfected Sangs-rgyas [Buddha]."

An earlier Bon scripture perhaps revealed in the 11th century, the Mdo-'dus, says,

"Some have said [things are] made by Phya and deities. Phya and deities do not create [anything]; this is [due to] the power of virtuous and non-virtuous [deeds/karma]."

(These examples and others, along with further discussion, may be found in D. Martin, Unearthing Bon Treasures, E.J. Brill, Leiden 2001.) 

So, to state the same conclusion more briefly, Jigten Gonpo is not really, after initial impressions have been left aside, telling us anything about the creation of the universe or ourselves.  What he wants to tell us about, rather, is the creative potentials of our minds.  What at first might seem like talk of a creator god becomes a figurative expression for the creativity of something else.  We might, then, be led to reflect that among the products of this creativity must surely be placed the stories we humans have told about creation.

But this is not to deny that ancient Tibetans might not have had ideas about a creator god — and not just a creator figure, or someone who figures in an illusory process of creation — of some kind or another (perhaps phya when named as a Tibetan equivalent to Hindu 'creator' [?] gods Brahma and Ishvara in the just cited sources, among others).  We do not yet feel secure enough in our archaeology of knowledge about ancient (here meaning pre-8th century) Tibet to say one way or the other.  However, our two Tibetan literary sources, Jigten Gonpo's text and the Innermost Treasury, finally agree in not even raising the least possibility of accepting — as anything more than a fundamental delusion — a one-time creation of the world out of nothingness of the nihilistic kind.

Note: The Tibetan text translated at the beginning may be located at volume 4, pp. 434-436, in the following publication:  The Collected Works (Bka'-'bum) of Khams-gsum Chos-kyi Rgyal-po Thub-dbang Ratna-srî (Skyob-pa 'Jig-rten-gsum-mgon).  Tibetan title page:  Khams-gsum Chos-kyi Rgyal-po Thub-dbang Ratna-shrî'i Phyi-yi Bka'-'bum Nor-bu'i Bang-mdzod, H.H. Drikung Kyabgon Chetsang Rinpoche, Drikung Kagyu Institute (Dehradun 2001), in 12 volumes.

Recommended readings on the  All Creating King:

Chögyal Namkhai Norbu & Adriano Clemente, The Supreme Source: The Fundamental Tantra of the Dzogchen Semde Kunjed Gyalpo, Snow Lion, Ithaca, 1999, translated from Italian by Andrew Lukianowicz.

Dargyay, Eva K., A Rnying-ma Text: The Kun byed rgyal po'i mdo,  contained in: Barbara Aziz & Matthew Kapstein, eds., Soundings in Tibetan Civilization, Manohar Publications, Delhi, 1985, pp. 283-293.

Dargyay, Eva K., The Concept of a 'Creator God' in Tantric Buddhism, Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, vol. 8, 1985, pp. 31-47.

Lipman, Kennard, & Merril Peterson,  You are the Eyes of the World, Lotsawa, Novato, 1987.  Translation of Klong-chen-pa's commentary on the Kun-byed Rgyal-po.

Neumaier-Dargyay, Eva K., The Sovereign All-Creating Mind the Motherly Buddha: A Translation of the Kun byed rgyal po'i mdo, Sri Satguru Publications, Delhi, 1992.

Reynolds, John Myrdhin, Kun-byed Rgyal-po: The Principal Dzogchen Tantra, contained in: idem., The Golden Letters: The Three Statements of Garab Dorje, the First Teacher of Dzogchen, together with a Commentary by Dza Patrul Rinpoche Entitled, “The Special Teaching of the Wise and Glorious King,” Snow Lion, Ithaca, 1996.