• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creator vs. Uncreator

buddhist

Well-Known Member
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. ;)

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.

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.

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

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. :innocent:
Thanks for sharing ... your post sounds like you are an advocate for many Mahayana dogmas?
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
your post sounds like you are an advocate for many Mahayana dogmas?
I'm no specific school of thought; more just trying to understand what is being stated by Buddha, and justify it with my own first hand experience of the Divine. :innocent:
 

buddhist

Well-Known Member
I'm no specific school of thought; more just trying to understand what is being stated by Buddha, and justify it with my own first hand experience of the Divine. :innocent:
Gotcha ... I cannot say I have direct knowledge or experience of Mahayanist dogma; I speak from my personal experiences and direct knowledge which accords far more closely with the standpoint of early Buddhism instead.
 
Last edited:

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
standpoint of early Buddhism instead.
Having looked through quite a few Sutras, lots weren't as intelligent as the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra... Would really recommend it, if you've not read it. :)

My knowledge isn't from dogma, and tho will look at all religious texts, to understand where people are confused; my own personal experience having had a NDE, etc, is vastly more advanced. :innocent:
 

buddhist

Well-Known Member
Having looked through quite a few Sutras, lots weren't as intelligent as the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra... Would really recommend it, if you've not read it. :)
I find it ornately loquacious, but irrelevant. It speaks of savior figures, blind faith, etc. - things which do not accord with my personal experience.

My knowledge isn't from dogma, and tho will look at all religious texts, to understand where people are confused; my own personal experience having had a NDE, etc, is vastly more advanced. :innocent:
Yes, we can only follow our own experience ... my experiences are mainly through jhana.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
What part of the OP sounded like dying?
These parts...

...the cessation of stressful qualities, the stilling of fabrications...

...severed all links, destroyed all causes (for karma, good and evil), and thrown out all desires...

...Cut off the stream (of craving), and discard sense desires...

...reversing the process of creation, or, rolling back our consciousness to its source...
...but like I said, I am probably missing something. But when David T mentioned Clement's phoenix that certainly IS about death so I was picking up on that line of thought which is why I replied to his post and not the OP directly

We do not meditate on changeless non-existence.
No, I never said you did, I was talking about my own experience - nothing to do with Buddhism at all, but relating my own experience to your question where you asked us to choose between creator and uncreator.
 
What part of the OP sounded like dying?

We do not meditate on changeless non-existence.

Correct on both accounts. The OP didn't say anything about dying. Somehow people are confusing dying with the uncreate, but in the uncreate there is neither life nor death. The uncreate is simply the essential nature of all things. It's the world as it is without discriminating it is this or it is that.

Impermanence is one of the most important concepts in Buddhism--the idea that everything is constantly changing. When there is nothing that lasts for more than an instant, there can be neither self nor other nor things. Ideas of self, other and things are just mental conceptions.
 

psychoslice

Veteran Member
I personally don't believe there was ever any creation, nothing is created, for it is continuing on and on, to create something is to end its life.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
The uncreate is simply the essential nature of all things. It's the world as it is without discriminating it is this or it is that.
Yeah right - so everything is no-thing! I get what you mean, but I don't agree.
Impermanence is one of the most important concepts in Buddhism--the idea that everything is constantly changing.
Yes that's right - everything is constantly changing but that doesn't mean that...
When there is nothing that lasts for more than an instant, there can be neither self nor other nor things. Ideas of self, other and things are just mental conceptions.
Rather it means that self, other and things are real, constantly changing processes - creations, not un-creations.
 

GCVP

New Member
It's My Birthday!
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 unbornunbecomeunmadeunfabricated. (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)
 

GCVP

New Member
It's My Birthday!
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 unbornunbecomeunmadeunfabricated. (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)
 

GCVP

New Member
It's My Birthday!
There was man called Qoheleth, the Preacher, in the book of Ecclesiastes, in the Old Testament He was extremely wise, and he too, came to the conclusion that all creation is meaningless, likewise, his efforts to seek pleasure or to solve the problem of suffering. But, in the end, instead of deconstructing his own existence, or seeking to 'uncreate' himself, he sought the presence of the 'Uncreated One' for relief from his woe.
 

buddhist

Well-Known Member
There was man called Qoheleth, the Preacher, in the book of Ecclesiastes, in the Old Testament He was extremely wise, and he too, came to the conclusion that all creation is meaningless, likewise, his efforts to seek pleasure or to solve the problem of suffering. But, in the end, instead of deconstructing his own existence, or seeking to 'uncreate' himself, he sought the presence of the 'Uncreated One' for relief from his woe.
Thanks for sharing. I think a key difference between us is that we seek to become the uncreated, not gain the presence of the "uncreated one".
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Which is superior?

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

Seems to me the creator and the uncreator are the same thing. The creator/destroyer etc...

When you create one thing another is destroyed. As you destroy something, something else gets created. Can't have one without the other can you? So how could either be superior?
 

buddhist

Well-Known Member
Seems to me the creator and the uncreator are the same thing. The creator/destroyer etc...

When you create one thing another is destroyed. As you destroy something, something else gets created. Can't have one without the other can you? So how could either be superior?
IMO one is superior for the simple fact that it brings cessation from suffering.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
IMO one is superior for the simple fact that it brings cessation from suffering.

Suffering, life, existence ain't so bad actually. There's pain but there is also joy to be had. Kind of like being scared to death while on a roller coaster but as soon as the ride ends you want to get right back on.

It's bad I suppose when it seems you have no choice but to suffer. But, if you could choose to suffer or not, would it still be so scary?
 

buddhist

Well-Known Member
Suffering, life, existence ain't so bad actually. There's pain but there is also joy to be had. Kind of like being scared to death while on a roller coaster but as soon as the ride ends you want to get right back on.

It's bad I suppose when it seems you have no choice but to suffer. But, if you could choose to suffer or not, would it still be so scary?
Well, the exact issue is "dukkha" from the Buddhist perspective, and dukkha can be translated as suffering, dissatisfaction, stress, pain, etc.

Nothing in creation is fully satisfying, which is why we flit from one indulgence to the next.

We experience the dukkha of sleepiness, so we go to sleep. We experience the dukkha of being in bed too long, so we wake & get up. We experience the dukkha of hunger, so we eat. We experience the dukkha of eating too much, so we stop eating. We experience the dukkha of some lack, so we work. We experience dukkha from too much work, so we take breaks and vacations. We experience dukkha from boredom, so we turn on some entertainment, read a book, or play games. We experience dukkha from too much entertainment of one sort, so we find another. Etc.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
Well, the exact issue is "dukkha" from the Buddhist perspective, and dukkha can be translated as suffering, dissatisfaction, stress, pain, etc.

Nothing in creation is fully satisfying, which is why we flit from one indulgence to the next.

We experience the dukkha of sleepiness, so we go to sleep. We experience the dukkha of being in bed too long, so we wake & get up. We experience the dukkha of hunger, so we eat. We experience the dukkha of eating too much, so we stop eating. We experience the dukkha of some lack, so we work. We experience dukkha from too much work, so we take breaks and vacations. We experience dukkha from boredom, so we turn on some entertainment, read a book, or play games. We experience dukkha from too much entertainment of one sort, so we find another. Etc.
Yes - that's right and that recognition was (I think) the Buddha's genius. Most of the rest of humanity - now as then - imagine that the the dukkha will eventually lead to satisfaction and the Buddha rightly denied this. The striving of reality can never, ever be satisfied except by the cessation of that striving. I agree with that. But I think that comes naturally with death, especially if we have engaged with the striving, engaged in the striving, with the rest of reality and made our peace with it. Maybe its just different for everyone (that cares to think about it), but for me, I don't think 'opting out' of the struggle (even momentarily) is genuinely enlightening - restful perhaps, but not enlightening. I prefer the idea of making a pact with the struggle - acknowledging its creativeness and doing whatever little I can to help others achieve peace within their struggle (especially my own kith and kin) - and then I'll leave the struggle knowing no more about it, but happy, in my final strivings, that I have at least contributed a little to the creation by my own transitory role in it.
 

buddhist

Well-Known Member
Yes - that's right and that recognition was (I think) the Buddha's genius. Most of the rest of humanity - now as then - imagine that the the dukkha will eventually lead to satisfaction and the Buddha rightly denied this. The striving of reality can never, ever be satisfied except by the cessation of that striving. I agree with that. But I think that comes naturally with death, especially if we have engaged with the striving, engaged in the striving, with the rest of reality and made our peace with it. Maybe its just different for everyone (that cares to think about it), but for me, I don't think 'opting out' of the struggle (even momentarily) is genuinely enlightening - restful perhaps, but not enlightening. I prefer the idea of making a pact with the struggle - acknowledging its creativeness and doing whatever little I can to help others achieve peace within their struggle (especially my own kith and kin) - and then I'll leave the struggle knowing no more about it, but happy, in my final strivings, that I have at least contributed a little to the creation by my own transitory role in it.
If the Law of Kamma is true, then that striving does not end with physical death (unless one has achieved nibbana).

I wouldn't call the Eightfold Path a way to "opt out" of the struggle. I'd rather see it as "opting in" to our rightful heritage. Following the Path elevates the consciousness to spheres of bliss that cannot be equaled on the ordinary human plane. I believe it is actually the correct, natural course for all individuals, but few traverse it.
 
Top