there's no "transformation" to unenlighten being, as wave
is already a part of the ocean. water is the Buddha-nature that
both wave and ocean have originally.
A: I understand the Primordial Buddha, also
known as Buddha Samantabhadra, to be the ultimate reality, the
realm of the Dharmakaya-- the space of emptiness--where all
phenomena, pure and impure, are dissolved. This is the explanation
taught by the Sutras and Tantras. However, in the context of your
question, the tantric tradition is the only one which explains the
Dharmakaya in terms of Inherent clear light, the essential nature
of the mind; this would seem imply that all phenomena, samsara and
nirvana, arise from this clear and luminous source. Even the New
School of Translation came to the conclusion that the "state of
rest" of a practitioner of the Great Yoga--Great Yoga implies here
the state of the practitioner who has reached a stage in meditation
where the most subtle experience of clear light has been
realized--that for as long as the practitioner remains in this
ultimate sphere he or she remains totally free of any sort of veil
obscuring the mind, and is immersed in a state of great bliss.
We can say, therefore, that this ultimate source, clear light,
is close to the notion of a Creator, since all phenomena, whether
they belong to samsara or nirvana, originate therein. But we must
be careful in speaking of this source, we must not be led into
error. I do not mean chat there exists somewhere, there, a sort of
collective clear light, analogous to the non-Buddhist concept of
Brahma as a substratum. We must not be inclined to deify this
luminous space. We must understand that when we speak of ultimate
or inherent clear light, we are speaking on an individual
level.
Likewise, when we speak of karma as the cause of the universe we
eliminate the notion of a unique entity called karma existing
totally independently. Rather, collective karmic impressions,
accumulated individually, are at the origin of the creation of a
world. When, in the tantric context, we say that all worlds appear
out of clear light, we do not visualize this source as a unique
entity, but as the ultimate clear light of each being. We can also,
on the basis of its pure essence, understand this clear light to be
the Primordial Buddha. All the stages which make up the life of
each living being--death, the intermediate state, and
rebirth--represent nothing more than the various manifestations of
the potential of clear light. It is both the most subtle
consciousness and energy. The more clear light loses its subtlety,
the more your experiences take shape.
In this way, death and the intermediate state are moments where
the gross manifestations emanating from clear light are reabsorbed.
At death we return to that original source, and from there a
slightly more gross state emerges to form the intermediate state
preceding rebirth. At the stage of rebirth, clear light is apparent
in a physical incarnation. At death we return to this source. And
so on. The ability to recognize subtle clear light, also called the
Primordial Buddha, is equivalent to realizing nirvana, whereas
ignorance of the nature of clear light leaves us to wander in the
different realms of samsaric existence.
This is how I understand the concept of the Primordial Buddha.
It would be a grave error to conceive of it as an independent and
autonomous existence from beginningless time. If we had to accept
the idea of an independent creator, the explanations given in the
Pramanavartika, the "Compendium of Valid Knowledge"
written by Dharmakirti, and in the ninth chapter of the text by
Shantideva, which completely refutes the existence per se of all
phenomena, would be negated. This, in turn, would refute the notion
of the Primordial Buddha. The Buddhist point of view does not
accept the validity of affirmations which do not stand up to
logical examination. If a sutra describes the Primordial Buddha as
an autonomous entity, we must be able to interpret this assertion
without taking it literally. We call this type of sutra an
"interpretable" sutra.
Dalai Lama's answer.
ps: we and Buddhas sits at equal level. unlike you all always
sit under God. Buddhism is
more into democracy already, while u all are still into
imperialism.
1. It is incoherent and irrational to speak of the wave
realising that it is water, just as to say that a rock realising
that it is rock. These are inanimate objects. Self-consciousness or
self-awareness are not part of their make-up.
2. I think the question is not over the difference between a
primordial Buddha and a Creator God. The question is whether there
is a Creator God.