regarding the idea of "Primordial ", here's an Interesting
article:
Dalai Lama's answer Philosophical questions on Creation:
Q: You have said that according
to Buddhist philosophy there is no Creator, no God of creation, and
this may initially put off many people who believe in a divine
principle. Can you explain the difference between the Vajrayana
Primordial Buddha and a Creator God?
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.
/\
