While leafing through the 821 separately tided texts .:ontained in the recent twelve-volume publication of the collected works of Jigten Gonpo ('Jig-rten-mgonpo, 1143-1217 CE), eminent founder of the prominent Drigung ('Bri-gung) sub-lineage of the Kagyupa (Bka'brgyud-pa) school, I happened across, in volume four, 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 md somewhat controversial scripture is famous. By this I mean the All Creating King (Ktm-byed Rgyalpo), 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 rhe significance for cosmogony of a divine genealogy - of the Innermost Treasury of Existence Srid-pa'i Mdzod-phug), a scripture belonging to the

surra section' (mdo-sde) of rhe Bon scripmral collection often referred to as rhe '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 [z] rhe possibility that, lurking in the shadowy Tibetan past, there might have been rhe 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 alerr the attention of missionaries (rest assured char I am nor among them; the longest treatment on Tibetan creator gods known to me is by a mission-

Creator God or Creator Figure?

Dan Martin

sKyob pa 'J1g rten gsum gy1 mgon po (1143-1219). the author of the text d1scussed 1n th1s art1cle (after Pal, Htmalayas).

ary/scholar: Matthias Hermanns, Shamanen, Pseudoschamanen, Erloser und Heilbringer, Steiner, Wiesbaden, 1970), but ir may interest others as well, for reasons of their own.

Bur before briefly considering rhese questions, I will simply transcribe and make a translation of the rexr. It's ride, 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" (Rig-pa 'Jig-rren Thams-cad-kyi Byed-po Tshangs-pa Yin zhes-pa). " Om svasri! "Homage to rhe Lama, [identical to] Vajradhara.

bla rna rdo rje 'chang Ia phyag 'tshal lo I I I

I

"The one called Srid-pa Dkor-rje Drang-dkar is claimed ro be Tshangs-pa (Brahma}, rhe creator of all worlds, who is very difficult to subdue. This creacor of all worlds, however much one may rry ro overcome, desuoy or annihilate ir/him, ir will be as if one has done rhe same to oneself (or, ro one's self).

srid pa dkor rje drang dkar zhes bya ba de I 'jig rren rhams cad kyi byed pa po rshangs pa I gdul bar shin ru dka' bar 'dod pa yin I 'jig nen rhams cad kyi byed pa po de I bcom pa dang I brlag pa dang I rshar gcad par ci rsam du 'bad kyang I rang nyid Ia de lrar byas par 'gyur ba yin I

"The reason for rhis is as follows. One's own awareness (rang gi rig pa} is Brahma[n?], creator of all worlds. When one realizes rhar ir/he is unproduced and immaculate in irs/his very nature, rhis Brahma is [none other rhan] rhe Dharma Body, creacor of all benefit and comfort; [Brahma) is rhe Transcendent Insight (Pmjii!i). Since rhe side rhat is in opposition to rhis is the 'I' and narcissism, one must leave rhem behind. The way co leave rhem behind? They are left behind [first) through rhe [generation of] Bodhicina (rhoughr of Enlighrenmem), rhe idea of skilful means, and subsequenrly by rhe accumulations [of merit and Full Knowledge) of rhe Kusali (person of ethical accomplishment).

de'i rgyu mrshan yang rang gi rig pa 'jig rren rhams cad kyi byed pa po tshangs pa yin I de skye ba med cing rang bzhin gyi rnam par dag par rrogs pa'i dus su I rshangs pa chos kyi sku phan pa dang bde ba rhams cad kyi byed pa po I shes rab kyi pha rol ru phyin pa yin I de'i mi mrhun pa'i phyogs nga dang bdag ru 'dzin pa yin pas de spong dgos I de spang ba Ia [435] rhabs mkhas pa'i bsam pa byang chub kyi sems dang I de'i rjes su ' brangs pa ku sa li'i rshogs gsog gis bdag 'dzin spong ba I

"Self and orher, environmental and viral worlds ... When all have been left behind, ir makes one into a Buddha. Afrer three, seven, rwenry-one lives, rhe body melrs into nectar, and self and orher, environmental and viral worlds, are purified of rhe stains of faults, whereupon one becomes Buddha. This is easily understood. When one does rhe 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 /Ian gsum mam I bdun nam I nyi

shu rrsa gcig byas pa'i 'og ru Ius bdud rrsir zhu bas I rang gzhan snod bcud nyes pa'i dri rna sbyangs nas I sangs rgyas su gyur pas kyang blo bde I rang yi dam gyi lha gcig ru bsgrubs pas sangs rgyas su gyur pas kyang blo bde I

"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 ir doesn't have even rhe leasr needle of a body. There isn't rhe least hair of something it has left unlearned. Ir has never separated from rhe suchness rhar is immaculate in rhe range of [glacier) mounrains, continuing without any break in irs flow. [These qualities) are none orher rhan those of rhe Buddhas of all time, and needless ro say rhose rhat we ought to pursue. This is precisely whar we need to pur inro practice experientially. Onward, onward, onward! [?? I believe rhe syllable ang as a sentenceending panicle, is repeated here to give a sense of encouragemenr or urging.]

sems nyid rang bzhin gyi rnam par dag pa smra bsam brjod 'das !hun gyis grub cing 'gyur ba med pas kyang blo bde I phyir Ius pa ni khab rsam yang med I rna nyan pa ni spu rsam yang mi 'dug I rgyun chad med par ri bo'i khrod du rnam par dag pa'i de kho na nyid dang ma 'bra! ba 'di las I dus gsum gyi sangs rgyas Ia yang gzhan mi mnga' na I nged rjes su [436] 'jug pa Ira smos kyang ci dgos pas I 'di kho na nyams su blang I ang ang ang I

"'In jusr this way, rhe reality of rhe Buddhas of all rime, rhe jewel-like lord of the triple universe, in the evening, through rhe contemplative absorption of primordial great love, transformed the mnYjt.fola of delusions.' "This just-given quote makes ir clear."

de yang dus gsum sangs rgyas kun gyi dngos II 'jig rren gsum mgon rin chen gyis II gnyug rna byams chen ring 'dzin gyis II srod Ia bdud kyi dkyil 'khor brulll zhes pas mngon no II

(Nore rhar rhe rerm 'maufala of delusions' appears in some Mahayana s(mas; Jigren Gonpo didn't make ir up. ore also rhar Jigren Gonpo's own name [meaning 'lord of rhe universe,' which is in rurn a name he used for his reacher Phagmodrupa, although here ir is also an epirher for rhe historical Buddha, as well as rhe 'Buddhas of all rime') is 'hidden' in rhe concluding verse.)

May [all beings) anain complete awakening."

rdzogs pa'i byang chub rhob par gyur cig II II

Now rhe reader might easily rake rhe words 'easily undersrood' (blo bde, words that might just as well have been translated 'worry-free') as a kind of jest, bur I believe what Jigren Gonpo means is simply rhar these things are general knowledge within particular realms of Buddhist learning. With each of the three repetitions of rhe words 'easily undersrood' he moves from general Mahayana, to Vajrayana visualization practice, ro ulrimarisr (goal-actualized) understanding of Mahamudra (and, we would add, Rdzogs-chen). On each of these levels a differenr way of using rhe creative (or rransformarive) possibilities of rhe mind is emphasized, each one adding something to rhe previous. In general Mahayana, rhis means rhe transformations effected through bodhisarrva vows (the rhoughr ro ana in Enlightenment for rhe sake of all beings who are suffering); in Vajrayana, rhe special practices of visualizing and idenrifying with the Buddha as a 'divine form of high aspiration' (yi-dam-gyi 1/Ja). In Mahamudra ir is rhe mind coming to rhar apparenrly absurdly impossible confrontation wirh irs own rrue nature. Isn't this parr of the Devils Dictionary's (Ambrose Bierce, Oxford University Press, 2.002., 1' published in 1906) enrry for rhe word 'mind'?

" ... ir's chief acriviry consists in rhe endeavor ro ascertain irs own nature, rhe furiliry of rhe arrempr being due ro rhe fact rhar it has nothing bur itself ro know irself wirh."

Mahamudra. while acknowledging rhar the anempt is almost cerrain ro be futile, ar rhe same rime recognizes that it is jusr whar needs to be done. The mind knowing irs true nature, or 'reflexive awareness' (a way of translating Jigren Gonpo's term rang-gi rigpa), may finally rake place, even with all the odd stacked against ir, because it has always been raking place wirhour our knowing it ... Bur let's go back ro rhe beginning.

Wirhour initially defining what he means by 'Brahma,' Jigren Gonpo srarrs by emphasizing how impossible it is to do away wirh rhe idea of the creator. 'Jr would be as if one did away with oneself.' Oigren Gonpo often rhrow our rhese sons of radically destabilizing notions, which catch us off guard, before going on to say what he really means by rhem; in fact, rhis is rhe form and sryle rhar predominates in the Single Inrenrion [Dgong:r-gcig) school developed by his disciples.) What i it about the god Brahma rhar makes him

so impossible ro overcome? The answer can be long and complex, or simple (and perhaps therefore more perplexing), bur ler's keep it relatively simple. The original 'error' of Brahma. according ro Buddhist scripwres, was to believe himself, and then make others believe, rhar he was rhe creator of everything. (This much is clear from rhe 'Brahma Trap' [Brahmajila] Surra and other scriptures in rhe Pili and Tibetan canons.) Doing away with this primordial misconception would be the equivalenr of doing away with rhe misconception of 'self' and irs misconceptions. Hence rhe equation of 'mind' wirh Brahma, which Jigren Gonpo, very much like rhe All Creating King scripture (with rhe words 'all-creating' or 'all-doing/making' [kun-byrd] it purposefully recalls an epithet of Brahma), goes on to play with. (I will nor go further into this here, bur instead refer to the suggested readings listed at the end of this essay. I would suggest that one reason so much scholarly arrention has been paid to this scripwre is precisely it's apparent creationist language.)

Bur let's leave all these problems behind, interesting as they surely are, and deal wirh what at first blush ought ro be a much smaller issue provoked by Jigren Gonpo's text. At rhe very beginning he mentions a Tibetan name of a crearor rhar is believed, by someone, ro be the equivalem 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, Whire rraighr' (or 'White Sage'? Ir is explained as meaning 'White Staff' in Namkhai Norbu, Dnmg. Deu and Bon, Library of Tibetan Works & Archives, Dharamsala, 1995, p. 148). Where does rhar come from? One might think, and it may be true, rhar he is referring to a creator god known to popular mythology. But having no clear mode of access to the popular mythologies of his rime, we are compelled ro rum ro a text, rhe aforementioned Bon scripture Innermost 7iramry of E"istrncr, chapter one. (Revealed in 1017 CE by Gshen-chen Klu-dga'; for derails, see my 'Comparing Treasuries,' contained in: S. G. Karmay & Y. Nagano, eds., New Horizons in Bon Studies, 1arional J\,luseum of Ethnology, Osaka, 2.000, pp. 2.1-88.) We know rhar Jigren Gonpo was born to a Bonpo mother, which might seem significant in this regard, bur his mother died in his youth, and he was never educated in Bon (making it doubtful he ever personally inspected rhe Innermost Treasury or any orher Bon scripture). and we find mainly dismissive words about Bon being a waste of rime in his collected writings (bur liberal senrimems do crop up here and there). To translate from the original rexr (based on a comparati\'e edition of se\'eral available rexrs), I

I

which we have in borh Zhang-zhung and Tibetan, we find thar ir says, immediately after the account of rhe formation of rhe environmental universe 'from below,' rhe account of the formation of irs viral (bcud) inhabitants (apparently, although not explicitly in this context, 'from above'):

"From the viral essence of the five causes two eggs carne into existence. The white one popped open from the lights and rays. It appeared as a king of existence in rhe 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 irs nonbeing and did not apply itself ro existence. It was Sangs-po, the Father, who applied himself ro existence. A blue turquoise lake came inro existence from the coiled potentiality (or, 'dynamic center,' or 'vorrex,' klong). In the center of the lake a Female came into existence, the Mother of Existence Chu-lcarn Rgyalmo. When Sangs-po and Chu-lcam had come into existence, the nine brothers and nine sisters, alrogether r8, were born. Their magical apparitions [also?] split off into two groups of nine making r8. The eldest was Sridrje 'Brang-dkar, his younger brother was Rkos-rje Drang-dkar, his younger brother Phya-rje Ring-dkar ... "

Sangs po 'bum khn, ancestral detty of the Bon po tradttton The Bon Relig1on of Tibet).

The chapter goes on and on, naming generation after generation, not only of the descendents of existence, bur 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 ro observe that rhe Tibetan creator mentioned at the opening of Jigren 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 Drangdkar). Hence, we have two widely separated sources, the Bon text very likely to be at least as early as the urh century, the other a Kagyupa text of the early 131h, which attest ro 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 ro govern (or, tO be 'lords' [rje] over) life (srid), ro govern the assignment of tasks (reading skos for rkos), and to govern allormem or fare (phya). Are these crearors? Or are they not rather governors of what was already there? (For different ways of telling rhe myth, compare S. Karmay, The Arrow & the Spindle, pp. 128, 179, Namkhai Norbu, Op. cit., pp. 165-167, and G. Tucci, Religions of Tiber, pp. 214-216; the later Bon hisrories often repeat ir, which at least demonstrates its continuing appeal and relevance.)

Lord Shenrab's father Thod-dkar, like the Tibetan royal dynasty, is sometimes believed ro have been rhe product of rhe intermarriage of two clans, the Dmu and rhe Phy[w]a. Ahhough I may be nearly alone in this belief (see, however, R.A. Stein, "Tiberica Anriqua I I I: A propos du mot gcug-lag et de Ia religion indigene", Bulletin de l'fcole Franc;:aise d'Exrreme Orient, vol. 74 [1985], pp. 83-133 at pp. 104-107), I think that the terms dmu and phy[w]a (along with cerrain orher equally difficult terms like grsug and g.yang) go back ro an ancient mindser, 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. r8, nos. 3-4, 1996, pp. 107-II4), 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 caJl 'prophecy' and 'revelation'; in rhe basic motive ro find our rhe unknown, there is no particularly solid dividing line berween divination and revelation, even as, arguably, there might be none berween shamanism and religion. The dmu (often a Zhangzhung word for 'sky' in the Innermost Treasury, it is also a Tibetan word referring to far boundaries and limitations as well as rhe sky}, belonging in the Innermost Treasury to the lineage of nonexistence, are the limiters- rhe lines in rhe grid - and sometimes even the eliminators, while phya, pertaining to rhe lineage of existence, are the 'lots' (in geomancy, rhe pebbles or other small objects; in scapulimancy, the cracks created by hear) placed within the limitations of rhe grid -rhe situations in which we find ourselves in rhe world including the things aloned to us. The dmu, the sky and mountains, and the phya, rhe vaJleys and lakes, might recall rhe 'divine dyad' of mountain and lake as abodes of (respectively) male and female deities of particular localities, which supposedly goes back to an ancient srrarum 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 rhe language of ecological anthropology, we are placed within a field of limired (dmu) resources, in order to do the tasks allotted (bskos) to us - 'energy expenditure' - which will enricle us ro an allormenr (phya) of those resources - 'energy consum prion'.

Now, ro sum up, leaving a great deal unsaid for now, leaving some knots left to be unrangled, and drawing toward a conclusion all roo swiftly, there are several things about rhis Bon accounr rhar do nor allow us to see ir as 'creation' in a Judaic I Christian I 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. Ir would seem as if these were rwo 'creations' or 'evolutions' coming from opposite directions. (And rhar existence and nonexistence each has irs own separate lineage, would suggest rhar rhe biological world was itself rhe product of rwo 'creations'; in rhis 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 Tiber Society, Bloomington, 1987, pp. 163-174) Next, the being named by Jigren Gonpo is not even the fim in the genealogical line of existence, bur 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 ride of 'originator' more than any of their offspring. Still more, the Bon myth is nor, contrary to what we might be expecting, telling the original origins of things, bur only the beginning of one particular episode in those recurring existence-histories char are the eons (kalpa). The second chapter of rhe Innermost Treasury is entirely devoted to these cycles of kalpas, and kalpas are nor 'made' or 'created' (byas-pa), bur rather 'formed' (chags-pa}. This much is true not only for Bon, bur for Buddhism in general (and, yes, Hinduism roo). Since at the very least a century or rwo before the rime ofJigren Gonpo, Bonpo writers, when they deal with the issue of 'creation,' always reject the idea rhar there was any creator god, affirming thar a (continuing) karmic background is what brings about new kalpas.

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

"If one asks exactly what constitutes a suitable object of prosrrarion, ir is nor, as rhe oursiders say, Phya, Ishvara or Brahma. They are themselves wandering in sangsara, so that they are unable ro assist others. Hence the rrue object of Refuge is the completely perfected Sangs-rgyas [Buddha]."

An earlier Bon scripture perhaps revealed in rhe uh century, rhe Mdo-'dus, says,

"Some have said [things are] made by Phya and deities. Phya and deities do nor create [anything]; this is [due to] rhe power of virtuous and non-virtuous [deeds/karma]." (These examples and others, along with further discussion, may be found in D. Marrin, Unearthing Bon Treasures, E.]. Brill, Leiden 2001.)

So, ro stare the same conclusion more briefly, Jigren Gonpo is nor really, after initial impressions have been left aside, telling us anything abour the erearion of the universe or ourselves. Whar he wants to tell us about, rather, is rhe creative potentials of our minds. Whar at first might seem like ralk of a creator god becomes a figurative expression for rhe creativity of somerhing else. We might, then, be led ro reflect that among the products of this creativity must surely be placed rhe stories we humans have rold about ereanon.

Bur rhis is nor to deny that ancient Tiberans might nor have had ideas about a creator god - and nor just a creator figure, or someone who figures in an illusory process of creation - of some kind or another (perhaps I

phya when named as a Tibetan equivalent w Hindu 'creator' [?] gods Brahma and Ishvara in the just cited sources, among ochers). We do not yet feel secure enough in our archaeology of knowledge about ancient (here meaning pre-S