Creator God or

Creator Figure?

Dan Martin
While leafing through the 821 separately tided texts
.:ontained in the recent twelve-volume publication of
the collected works of Jigten Gonpo ('Jig-rten-mgon
po, 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 Rgyal
po), 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 collec
tion 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-

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 II

"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 under
stood. When one does rhe spiritual practice of trans
forming 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) moun
rains, 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 sentence
ending 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 paIra
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
srodIa 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 [mean
ing '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 conclud
ing verse.)

so impossible ro overcome? The answer can be long and

complex, or simple (and perhaps therefore more per

May [all beings) anain complete awakening."

plexing), bur ler's keep it relatively simple. The original

'error' of Brahma. according ro Buddhist scripwres,

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

was to believe himself, and then make others believe,

rhar he was rhe creator of everything. (This much is

Now rhe reader might easily rake rhe words 'easily

undersrood' (blo bde, words that might just as well

clear from rhe 'Brahma Trap' [Brahmajila] Surra and

have been translated 'worry-free') as a kind of jest, bur

other scriptures in rhe Pili and Tibetan canons.) Doing

I believe what Jigren Gonpo means is simply rhar these

away with this primordial misconception would be the

things are general knowledge within particular realms

equivalenr of doing away with rhe misconception of

of Buddhist learning. With each of the three repeti

'self' and irs misconceptions. Hence rhe equation of

tions of rhe words 'easily undersrood' he moves from

'mind' wirh Brahma, which Jigren Gonpo, very much

general Mahayana, to Vajrayana visualization practice,

like rhe All Creating King scripture (with rhe words

(goal-actualized) understanding of

'all-creating' or 'all-doing/making' [kun-byrd] it pur

Mahamudra (and, we would add, Rdzogs-chen). On

posefully recalls an epithet of Brahma), goes on to play

ro ulrimarisr

each of these levels a differenr way of using rhe creative

with. (I will nor go further into this here, bur instead

(or rransformarive) possibilities of rhe mind is empha

refer to the suggested readings listed at the end of this

sized, each one adding something to rhe previous. In

essay. I would suggest that one reason so much schol

general Mahayana, rhis means rhe transformations

arly arrention has been paid to this scripwre is precise

effected through bodhisarrva vows (the rhoughr ro

ly it's apparent creationist language.)

anain Enlightenment for rhe sake of all beings who are

Bur let's leave all these problems behind, interest

suffering); in Vajrayana, rhe special practices of visual

ing as they surely are, and deal wirh what at first blush

izing and idenrifying with the Buddha as a 'divine

ought ro be a much smaller issue provoked by Jigren

form

(yi-dam-gyi 1/Ja). In

Gonpo's text. At rhe very beginning he mentions a

Mahamudra ir is rhe mind coming to rhar apparenrly

Tibetan name of a crearor rhar is believed, by some

absurdly impossible confrontation wirh irs own rrue

one, ro be the equivalem of the Indic Brahma: Srid-pa

of

high

aspiration'

nature. Isn't this parr of the Devils Dictionary's

Dkor-rje Drang-dkar. The name in this form might be

(Ambrose Bierce, Oxford University Press,

translated something like 'Lord of the Wealth of

2.002.,

1'

published in 1906) enrry for rhe word 'mind'?

"... ir's chief acriviry consists in rhe endeavor ro

Existence, Whire

rraighr' (or 'White Sage'? Ir is

explained as meaning 'White Staff' in Namkhai

ascertain irs own nature, rhe furiliry of rhe arrempr

Norbu, Dnmg. Deu and Bon, Library of Tibetan

being due ro rhe fact rhar it has nothing bur itself ro

know irself wirh."

Works & Archives, Dharamsala, 1995, p. 148). Where

Mahamudra. while acknowledging rhar the

anempt is almost cerrain ro be futile, ar rhe same rime

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

recognizes that it is jusr whar needs to be done. The

mind knowing irs true nature, or 'reflexive awareness'

access to the popular mythologies of his rime, we are

(a way of translating Jigren Gonpo's term rang-gi rig

scripture Innermost 7iramry ofE"istrncr, chapter one.

compelled ro rum ro a text, rhe aforementioned Bon

pa), may finally rake place, even with all the odd

(Revealed in 1017 CE by Gshen-chen Klu-dga'; for

stacked against ir, because it has always been raking

derails, see my 'Comparing Treasuries,' contained in:

place wirhour our knowing it... Bur let's go back ro rhe

S. G. Karmay & Y. Nagano, eds., New Horizons in Bon

beginning.

Studies, 1arional J\,luseum of Ethnology, Osaka, 2.000,

Wirhour initially defining what he means by

pp. 2.1-88.) We know rhar Jigren Gonpo was born to a

'Brahma,' Jigren Gonpo srarrs by emphasizing how

Bonpo mother, which might seem significant in this

impossible it is to do away wirh rhe idea of the creator.

regard, bur his mother died in his youth, and he was

'Jr would be as if one did away with oneself.' Oigren

never educated in Bon (making it doubtful he ever

Gonpo often rhrow our rhese sons of radically desta

bilizing notions, which catch us off guard, before going

orher Bon scripture). and we find mainly dismissive

personally inspected rhe Innermost Treasury or any

on to say what he really means by rhem; in fact, rhis is

words about Bon being a waste of rime in his collect

rhe form and sryle rhar predominates in the Single

ed writings (bur liberal senrimems do crop up here

Inrenrion [Dgong:r-gcig) school developed by his disci

and there). To translate from the original rexr (based

ples.) What i it about the god Brahma rhar makes him

on a comparati\'e edition of se\'eral available rexrs),

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) inhab
itants (apparently, although not explicitly in this con
text, '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 non
being 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 Rgyal
mo. 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 Srid
rje '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 exis
tence, 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 discus
sion would lead us too far afield). For the moment, it
is crucial ro observe that rhe Tibetan creator men
tioned at the opening of Jigren Gonpo's text simply
must be the 'same' as the Srid-rje 'Brang-dkar men
tioned here (or perhaps his name was slightly mixed
with that of his younger brother Rkos-rje Drang
dkar). 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 13 1h,
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 gov
ernors 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 tech
niques, 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, div
ination 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 particu
larly solid dividing line berween divination and revela
tion, even as, arguably, there might be none berween
shamanism and religion. The dmu (often a Zhang
zhung 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 creat
ed 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 par
ticular 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 ecolog
ical anthropology, we are placed within a field of lim
ired (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
consumprion'.
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 exis
tence, 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 read

ings, 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-gros
rgyal-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 wan
dering in sangsara, so that they are unable ro assist oth
ers. 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 dis
cussion, 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 ere
arion 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 ere
anon.
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

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<h century) Tibec to say
one way or the other. However, our rwo Tibetan liter
ary sources, Jigcen Gonpo's text and the Innermost
Treasury, finally agree in nor even raising the leasr pos
sibility of accepting - as anything more than a funda
mental delusion - a one-rime creation of the world ouc
of nothingness of che nihilistic kind.

Recommended readings on the All

Creating King
The Collected Works (Bka' 'bum) of Khams-gsum
Chos-kyi Rgyal-po Thub-dbang Rarna-shri (Skyob-pa
'Jig-rten-gsum-mgon}, H.H. Drikung Kyabgon
Checsang Rinpoche, Drikung Kagyu lnsricuce
(Dehradun 2001), in 12 volumes.

Dargyay, Eva K., "A Rnying-ma Text: The Kun byed

rgyal po'i mdo", conrained in: Barbara Aziz &
Marchew Kapscein, eds., Soundings in Tibetan
Civilimtion, Manohar Publications, Delhi, 1985, pp.
283-293
Dargyay, Eva K., 'The Concept of a 'Creator God' in
Tanuic Buddhism", Journal of che Inrernarional
Association of Buddhist Scudies, vol. 8, 1985, pp. 31-47.
Lipman, Kennard, & Merril Pecerson, You are the Eyes
of the World, Lorsawa, Novato, 1987. Translation of
Klong-chen-pa's commentary on the Kun-byed
Rgyal-po.
Neumaier-Dargyay, Eva K., The Sovereign All-Creating
Mind the Motherly Buddha: A Trans!Jttion of the Kzm
byed rgyal po'i mdo, Sri Satguru Publications, Delhi,
1992.
Reynolds, John Myrdhin, "Kun-byed Rgyal-po: The
Principal Dzogchen Tancra", concained in: idem., The

Supreme Source: The Fundamental Tantra of the

Dzogchen Semde Kzmjed Gyalpo, Snow Lion, Ichaca,

Golden Letters: The Three Statements of Garab Dorje,

the First Teacher of Dzogchen, together with a
Commentary by Dm Patrul Rinpoche Entitled, The
Special Teaching of the Wise and Glorious King, Snow

1999, rranslaced from Icalian by Andrew Lukianowicz.

Lion, Ichaca, 1996.

Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

&

Adriano Clemente, The