Creator vs. Uncreator

Which is superior?

As a Buddhist, I cast my vote for the Uncreator.

Creation is a mass of suffering, as the Buddha explained, and it originates from ignorance. No matter the endless number of wonders we might discover throughout creation/samsara, it doesn't belie the fact that our experience of it all is inconstant, impermanent, and that none of it is ultimately satisfying. Therefore, anyone who is a "Creator" creates out of ignorance:


There are those (like myself) who perceive Buddhism as the practice of uncreation. By following the Eightfold Path, and more specifically, stilling the impulses for craving and creation by practicing progressive detachment from every level of samsaric existence through jhanic meditation and vipassana, we are essentially reversing the process of creation, or, rolling back our consciousness to its source (nibbana), so to speak. In that sense, I would call the Buddha in a sense the "Uncreator" (likewise with all arahant disciples):

I always like inversions they make us look at what we believe in a different way. It's interesting in early early early Christianity the pheonix was understood to be a terrific symbol for christianity. That was lost in time. Life and death were not a separate and to separate is in a very real sense what they understood sin to be to be separate to separate split apart. So your uncreate is rather close to there understanding of death!!! Very cool way of putting your view forward

buddhist said:

Which is superior?

As a Buddhist, I cast my vote for the Uncreator.

Creation is a mass of suffering, as the Buddha explained, and it originates from ignorance. No matter the endless number of wonders we might discover throughout creation/samsara, it doesn't belie the fact that our experience of it all is inconstant, impermanent, and that none of it is ultimately satisfying. Therefore, anyone who is a "Creator" creates out of ignorance:

"And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming (creating). From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering." (Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta, SN 12.2)​

There are those (like myself) who perceive Buddhism as the practice of uncreation. By following the Eightfold Path, and more specifically, stilling the impulses for craving and creation by practicing progressive detachment from every level of samsaric existence through jhanic meditation and vipassana, we are essentially reversing the process of creation, or, rolling back our consciousness to its source (nibbana), so to speak. In that sense, I would call the Buddha in a sense the "Uncreator" (likewise with all arahant disciples):

There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. (Ud 8.3)

The born, become, produced, made, fabricated, impermanent, composed of aging & death, a nest of illnesses, perishing, come from nourishment and the guide [that is craving] — is unfit for delight. The escape from that is calm, permanent, beyond inference, unborn, unproduced, the sorrowless, stainless state, the cessation of stressful qualities, the stilling of fabrications, bliss. (Iti 2.6)

The man who is without blind faith, who knows the Uncreated, who has severed all links, destroyed all causes (for karma, good and evil), and thrown out all desires — he, truly, is the most excellent of men. (Dhammapada 97)

Exert yourself, O holy man! Cut off the stream (of craving), and discard sense desires. Knowing the destruction of all the conditioned things, become, O holy man, the knower of the Uncreated (Nibbana)! (Dhammapada 383)​

Click to expand...

It is abdundantly clear to me that in referring to the 'Uncreated' Buddha He meant God.

David T said:

I always like inversions they make us look at what we believe in a different way. It's interesting in early early early Christianity the pheonix was understood to be a terrific symbol for christianity. That was lost in time. Life and death were not a separate and to separate is in a very real sense what they understood sin to be to be separate to separate split apart. So your uncreate is rather close to there understanding of death!!! Very cool way of putting your view forward

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing! I didn't know about the phoenix and Christianity.

loverofhumanity said:

It is abdundantly clear to me that in referring to the 'Uncreated' Buddha He meant God.

Click to expand...

Does the Bahai God engage in creative activity?

buddhist said:

Thanks for sharing! I didn't know about the phoenix and Christianity.

Click to expand...

Pope Clement (he wasn't the pope like we understand the pope today) in 80 ad gave a sermon on this interestingly. There is a curious "emperical fact" as to why exactly the pheonix did not become the major symbolism of Christianity. Early scientific empericicsm was at work!!!! The reason the pheonix never became symbolic was because there is no emperical proof that pheonixes exist!!! There was emperical proof that angels existed though!!! Their source was none other than what they were relying on as scientific proof and scientific non proof, the bible. Much as how Christianity developed looking at the bible that slowly shifted to how western culture looked at nature.

buddhist said:

Does the Bahai God engage in creative activity?

Click to expand...

A Primal Will operates throughout existence.

loverofhumanity said:

A Primal Will operates throughout existence.

Click to expand...

It sounds to me that the "Uncreated" of the Buddha cannot be the Bahai deity then.

The Buddha referred countless times in the Scriptures to "Nibbana" - not god - as the "Uncreated", and that there is no will, no intention, no activity associated with nibbana:

Nibban is described as "consciousness without feature ... cessation of the activity of consciousness" (DN11), and there, "all that is sensed, not being relished, will grow cold" (MN 140, Iti 2.17), & "there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving" (Ud 8.01).

buddhist said:

It sounds to me that the "Uncreated" of the Buddha cannot be the Bahai deity then.

The Buddha referred countless times in the Scriptures to "Nibbana" - not god - as the "Uncreated", and that there is no will, no intention, no activity associated with nibbana:

Nibban is described as "consciousness without feature ... cessation of the activity of consciousness" (DN11), and there, "all that is sensed, not being relished, will grow cold" (MN 140, Iti 2.17), & "there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving" (Ud 8.01).

Click to expand...

Bahá'u'lláh similarly speaks of an entity, an Unknowable Essence, of which nothing can be predicated: "To every discerning and illumined heart it is evident that God, the unknowable Essence, the divine Being, is immensely exalted beyond every human attribute, such as corporeal existence, ascent and descent, egress and regress . . . He standeth exalted beyond and above all separation and union, all proximity and remoteness. No sign can indicate His presence or His absence" (KI 98). Such passages in the writings of Bahá'u'lláh correlate strongly with the writings of Nagarjuna where he argues for the emptiness of all dogmatic positions (shunyata of drishti, see Murti 140-142).

loverofhumanity said:

Bahá'u'lláh similarly speaks of an entity, an Unknowable Essence, of which nothing can be predicated: "To every discerning and illumined heart it is evident that God, the unknowable Essence, the divine Being, is immensely exalted beyond every human attribute, such as corporeal existence, ascent and descent, egress and regress . . . He standeth exalted beyond and above all separation and union, all proximity and remoteness. No sign can indicate His presence or His absence" (KI 98).

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing; yet, your deity has a will, and creates, as you indicated. Everything in the Buddhist path leads to the opposite, denoting the absence of creative will or intention (absence of kamma) as the pinnacle of achievement and the highest state. Syncretism is not possible, in my view.

Such passages in the writings of Bahá'u'lláh correlate strongly with the writings of Nagarjuna where he argues for the emptiness of all dogmatic positions (shunyata of drishti, see Murti 140-142).

Click to expand...

Thanks, but Nagarjuna belongs to the Mahayanists, but he is not recognized in early Buddhism, the latter of which I practice.

David T said:

I always like inversions they make us look at what we believe in a different way. It's interesting in early early early Christianity the pheonix was understood to be a terrific symbol for christianity. That was lost in time. Life and death were not a separate and to separate is in a very real sense what they understood sin to be to be separate to separate split apart. So your uncreate is rather close to there understanding of death!!! Very cool way of putting your view forward

Click to expand...

I wanted to say the descriptions in the OP sounded like dying - but I thought I must be missing something. I remember reading Clement's passage about the phoenix and thinking it made some kind of sense as a metaphor for understanding the inevitable cycle of death and life. But I think you're right - thinking about death (or uncreation, or un-becoming - perhaps) probably helps us to understand what we believe about life more than just thinking about life. But I'm still not sure how the 'unreality' of changelessness can be the 'source' of consciousness. For me, when I meditate on the thought of changeless non-existence, I feel neither enlightened nor at peace, but profoundly disturbed - like I am standing unsteadily on the edge of the abyss with nothing beneath my feet. For me, the struggle of creation IS the source of consciousness. I can make peace with that and be delighted by its fretful inventiveness. So I guess I am voting for the creator. For the trials of life while I still have it and for becoming the best seed I can for something novel and creative when its all over for my real, suffering and ephemeral 'self'.

buddhist said:

Thanks for sharing; yet, your deity has a will, and creates, as you indicated. Everything in the Buddhist path leads to the opposite, denoting the absence of creative will or intention (absence of kamma) as the pinnacle of achievement and the highest state. Syncretism is not possible, in my view.

Thanks, but Nagarjuna belongs to the Mahayanists, but he is not recognized in early Buddhism, the latter of which I practice.

Click to expand...

Buddha said His doctrine would eventually decay as all things in this world do. Nothing in this world is spared not even the original teachings of Buddha. In fact the Buddha said that a counterfeit Dhamma would arise in the world.

English translation of SN 16.13, “The Counterfeit of the True Dhamma”

We believe that originally Buddha did teach about God but it has all been lost and decayed.

"The founder of Buddhism was a wonderful soul. He established the Oneness of God, but later the original principles of His doctrines gradually disappeared, and ignorant customs and ceremonials arose and increased until they finally ended in the worship of statues and images...So it is with religions; through the passing of time they change from their original foundation, the truth of the Religion of God entirely departs, and the spirit of it does not stay; heresies appear, and it becomes a body without a soul. That is why it is renewed. The meaning is that the Buddhists and Confucianists now worship images and statues. They are entirely heedless of the Oneness of God and believe in imaginary gods like the ancient Greeks. But in the beginning it was not so; there were different principles and other ordinances."
Abdul-Baha

loverofhumanity said:

We believe that originally Buddha did teach about God but it has all been lost and decayed.

Click to expand...

If the original has all been lost, how does anyone know what it said? And if, as Abdul-Baha says Buddha originally taught the truth about the 'Oneness of God', why didn't the 'Oneness of God' simply revitalize original Buddhism in the 19th century instead of inventing an entirely new religion?

loverofhumanity said:

Buddha said His doctrine would eventually decay as all things in this world do. Nothing in this world is spared not even the original teachings of Buddha. In fact the Buddha said that a counterfeit Dhamma would arise in the world.

English translation of SN 16.13, “The Counterfeit of the True Dhamma”

We believe that originally Buddha did teach about God but it has all been lost and decayed.

"The founder of Buddhism was a wonderful soul. He established the Oneness of God, but later the original principles of His doctrines gradually disappeared, and ignorant customs and ceremonials arose and increased until they finally ended in the worship of statues and images...So it is with religions; through the passing of time they change from their original foundation, the truth of the Religion of God entirely departs, and the spirit of it does not stay; heresies appear, and it becomes a body without a soul. That is why it is renewed. The meaning is that the Buddhists and Confucianists now worship images and statues. They are entirely heedless of the Oneness of God and believe in imaginary gods like the ancient Greeks. But in the beginning it was not so; there were different principles and other ordinances."
Abdul-Baha

Click to expand...

IMO the counterfeit is Mahayana, especially its major incarnations which substituted faith in savior figures instead of personal practice & personal knowledge.

The idea that the Buddha taught about an Almighty God is beyond unimaginable to me, considering the multiplicity of references in the existing Buddhist scriptures against blind faith, against God, against savior figures, against worship, against "Oneness".

If the existing early Buddhist scriptures are "counterfeit", then I'd still choose the "counterfeit" for its inherent transcendence and sensibility, over the alleged genuine.

siti said:

If the original has all been lost, how does anyone know what it said? And if, as Abdul-Baha says Buddha originally taught the truth about the 'Oneness of God', why didn't the 'Oneness of God' simply revitalize original Buddhism in the 19th century instead of inventing an entirely new religion?

Click to expand...

The key here is verification. The only way to verify and distinguish the words that came from Buddha are through the appearance of another Buddha.

If a Buddha appears, He can clarify and sort it all out. There are different sects of Buddhism. All have some truth in them. As do all the Faiths. But over time truth has been distorted, twisted, laws have been watered down to suit personal, political or other agendas etc.

Only the appearance of another Buddha can tell us these things, like Christ said to His disciples, the Spirit of Truth when He came would guide them into all truth.

We believe another such Buddha appeared last century - Baha'u'llah. If we are wrong well then we are misguided and false people. But we are taught to believe and accept Buddha and Christ and all the great Teachers as true so Baha'u'llah teaches us that Buddha is true and we cannot become Bahá'í's without also accepting Buddha.

Baha'u'llah is known to us as the Fifth Buddha, Maitreya, prophesied by Buddha and confirmed by Baha'u'llah that He is the Oromised One of all religions. So we understand that as He teaches God that Buddha also taught God.

The only real way to verify this is to test Baha'u'llah as to Who He really is. Not to judge Him by whether He taught what current Buddhism teaches but just by His Own Teachings, Words and deeds.

siti said:

I wanted to say the descriptions in the OP sounded like dying - but I thought I must be missing something. I remember reading Clement's passage about the phoenix and thinking it made some kind of sense as a metaphor for understanding the inevitable cycle of death and life. But I think you're right - thinking about death (or uncreation, or un-becoming - perhaps) probably helps us to understand what we believe about life more than just thinking about life. But I'm still not sure how the 'unreality' of changelessness can be the 'source' of consciousness.

Click to expand...

What part of the OP sounded like dying?

For me, when I meditate on the thought of changeless non-existence, I feel neither enlightened nor at peace, but profoundly disturbed - like I am standing unsteadily on the edge of the abyss with nothing beneath my feet. For me, the struggle of creation IS the source of consciousness. I can make peace with that and be delighted by its fretful inventiveness. So I guess I am voting for the creator. For the trials of life while I still have it and for becoming the best seed I can for something novel and creative when its all over for my real, suffering and ephemeral 'self'.

Click to expand...

We do not meditate on changeless non-existence.

loverofhumanity said:

The key here is verification. The only way to verify and distinguish the words that came from Buddha are through the appearance of another Buddha.

Click to expand...

This is not taught in the early Buddhist scriptures; faith is not involved. We verify the Buddha because we practice and know directly for ourselves that which the Buddha taught.

Because we know for ourselves the enlightened truthfulness of the early Buddhist scriptures through personal experience, we can definitively say that the mind which originated those teachings is "the Enlightened One [Buddha]", whomever that may be.

If the Buddhist scriptures only taught unverifiable dogma, then your argument might stand.

buddhist said:

IMO the counterfeit is Mahayana, especially its major incarnations which substituted faith in savior figures instead of personal practice & personal knowledge.

The idea that the Buddha taught about an Almighty God is beyond unimaginable to me, considering the multiplicity of references in the existing Buddhist scriptures against blind faith, against God, against savior figures, against worship, against "Oneness".

If the existing early Buddhist scriptures are "counterfeit", then I'd still choose the "counterfeit" for its inherent transcendence and sensibility, over the alleged genuine.

Click to expand...

I know it may sound unimaginable to you but 2,500 years is a long time. Also, I am a believer in Buddha so the topic is for me about God or not God but as to the Buddha, He is without a doubt the True One.

buddhist said:

Which is superior?

Click to expand...

This shows a weakness; there isn't a superior, comparison is the start of disease...

There is only comprehension of opposites; if you fight or rise one up as better, this limits the perception.

Going to start a thread on form vs formlessness; as 0neness (Heaven) is a place of formless pure consciousness, where form is something created.

Thus in following a load of form based practises, to remove form based ideas, is not removing boundaries.

buddhist said:

The man who is without blind faith, who knows the Uncreated

Click to expand...

Belief is a weak form of actually knowing.

Thus to the enlightened mind, as explained in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra; when we've become conscious of the universal mind (Brahman without a name), there is no belief of the uncreated, it is experienced.

Lankavatara Sutra said:

There is no cessation of Divine Mind which, in itself, is the abode of Reality and the Womb of Truth.

Click to expand...

The Bodhisattva are those who've gone beyond this realm of consciousness (Tathāgata), then chosen to remain in a world of form, for the benefit of others within the Maya.

Fighting the idea that things are created, in a manifest world isn't understanding; everything is made manifest by the CPU, therefore none of it is real, recognizing that really we're the infinite mind sitting in a place of formlessness, experiencing form for understanding, is the whole point in any of it being here.

It is very hard to learn without us having experiences in a physical form in a linear timeline.

buddhist said:

against "Oneness".

Click to expand...

Listening to Buddha being 'against' everything; shows something that doesn't resemble the enlightened mind.... It is about recognizing the middle line.

Lankavatara Sutra said:

By tranquility is meant Oneness, and Oneness gives birth to the highest Samadhi which is gained by entering into the realm of Noble Wisdom that is realizable only within one’s inmost consciousness.

Click to expand...

Buddha was having to reiterate God without a self, without a form, without a need of being; as it had become tainted by bad wording in Hinduism, that was mainly based on conjecture, and not from first hand experience.

Buddha wasn't saying do away with God; just to become part of it, within its infinite state of formlessness without the need of self.

loverofhumanity said:

I know it may sound unimaginable to you but 2,500 years is a long time. Also, I am a believer in Buddha so the topic is for me about God or not God but as to the Buddha, He is without a doubt the True One.

Click to expand...

I hope your faith serves you well ... I prefer to stick with personal knowledge.