history principles practice stories, books, media discussion forum organizations resources
zenguide.com logo
 
Wednesday Aug 20 2014 08:43AM ET
º login º register º email º guestbook º printer friendly
grey dot
  Posted on Aug.08.2009 @ 10:58PM EDT by chontri
What, monks, is the world? The eye and shapes, the ear and sounds,
the nose and smells, the tongue and tastes, the body and tactile objects,
the mind and mental objects - these... continue...

z
.
e
.
n
menu left history menu spacer principles menu spacer practice menu spacer zen media menu spacer discussion forum menu spacer organization directory menu spacer resources  
login
  STORIES, BOOKS & MEDIA
» koans, stories & words   » zen readings   » recommended books   » book reviews   » art & prints   » audio, videos, DVD's
grey dot

CREATOR & CREATED
the d.o.m.:
When someone observes, contemplates, then says:
"The Creator created every thing & being in this world and hides behind them."
or
When someone else observes, contemplates, then says:
"No mind created mind and hides behind it."

Could either of the statements above be establised?

If every thing & being were the entities that already exist within the Creator,
how could the Creator create them?
If everything & being were the entities that already exist separately from the Creator,
how could the Creator create them?
or
If mind was an entity that already exists within no mind, how could no mind create mind.
If mind was an entity that already exists separately from no mind,
how could no mind create mind?

Lionel:
Hello, good morning, Mr DOM! Have a cup of coffee or tea...?

the d.o.m.:
Mr Lionel,
Time is not compatible.
The d.o.m. is hungry now, he is going to have dinner.
After dinner, he will have a cup of tea.
How's your tea doing?

zen-zen:
Dear Deluded Old Man,
You are a Deluded Old Man.
I wish you the very best.

the d.o.m.:
Mr Zen-Zen,
Thanks for the wish.
You are definitely right, the d.o.m. is really a deluded old man.

Because he is too deluded to know anything, therefore, he has often asked questions about anything he did not know.
Sometimes, he found some answer to some question of his own, he saw that the answer was always there before the question arose. Properly, the answer is already in the question.

shayne:
from the source all things sprung.
even the source.
boink.

Master Zen:
sorry dom, you lost me.

the d.o.m.:
Mr Shayne,
The d.o.m. is too deluded to know what's called the source is. That's why sometimes he might see something [maybe the source! Who knows?] in the road, he immediately picked it up, put it aside, and kept walking at ease.

the d.o.m.:
Mr MZ,
The d.o.m. can't remember if he gained you anywhere.

shayne:
same here.
i noticed.
and this came from?
the response?

Woodsman:
Who farted?

shayne:
simply silly.

Woodsman:
pants check
shoe check

Woodsman:
the dog is beyond claiming guilt, or shame for simply being
I now see why farts stink. thanks

Doreen:
I heard something once on a retreat that helped me to understand the Creator & creation. The speaker said to understand this, think of a dancer and the dance. You cannot have a dance without a dancer; and you cannot be a dancer unless you dance.

the d.o.m.:
Ms Doreen,
The d.o.m. doesn't know how to dance and he never dances, therefore, he is not a dancer. And because he is not a dancer, he doesn't dance. So, the d.o.m. doesn't think he understands Creator & created in the sense of the story you have told.

justin:
When someone observes, contemplates, then says: "The Creator created every thing & being in this world and hides behind them."
These are universal questions and seem to try and box up the un-boxable. (Of course this may just be my limited perception as yet). In my mind there is no hiding, not sure if there is a creator personage, (or at least one we can know as such) but the creation is there, we are able to sense it with our sense capacities. We are also able to sense it with something else (I am not sure what to call this). This thing that thing are all definitions of what is, as is. What created them I don’t know (apart from atoms etc, what created atoms etc, I don’t know, I don’t know much do I) I feel there is no hiding though, as such, I have masked, covered, not thought about, created opinions which categorise and box what is, so if anything I have hidden it from myself. This doesn’t change what is only my perception of it. It seems to me like one grain of sand thinking to itself while nestled amongst a zillion other grains, what are all these other things around me.

‘Could either of the statements above be establised?’
Maybe, Maybe not, Maybe not maybe, Maybe-maybe not.

‘When someone else observes, contemplates, then says: "No mind created mind and hides behind it."’
Nothing created, not created, these are dualisms and opinions (As are these words), only as is.

‘if every thing & being were the entities that already exist within the Creator, how could the Creator create them? If everything & being were the entities that already exist separately from the Creator, how could the Creator create them?’
Maybe you’ll have to ask the creator?

‘If mind was an entity that already exists within no mind, how could no mind create mind. If mind was an entity that already exists separately from no mind, how could no mind create mind?’
Maybe you’ll have to ask mind?

Thankyou for the questions, (this mind still deals in opinionated dualisms yet, until it doesn’t), appreciative me. :)
The opinions expressed here by this party are not necessarily those expressed by this party.
Cheers

Woodsman:
The creator exists with a certain longing to be seen, without anything getting in the way. Therefore, the creator exits everywhere, at all times. If one enjoys the created, one is then with the creator.

Number9:
It is factual and comforting to know that the Creator and the created are one. There is only the Creator, and therefore all creations are of the Creator. But the truth is that the Creator can exist without creation, but creation cannot exist without the Creator.
Good thing you are the Creator or you would really be screwed.
The truth is not dependent on anything.

justin:
'The truth is not dependent on anything.' Wouldn't the truth be dependant upon it being true, truth with a capital 'T' as differant from something i might create as an opinion?
Does this mean there are no truths or have i misunderstood your post?

justin:
Sorry 9, upon reflection i think i misread you.

shayne:
or.
the mind of god ( being everywhere and in everything ) has no mind. so no one thing. hes entityless. doesnt exist.
but with yan comes yin.
life since time, before time existed. there was never a time that god didnt exist.
but god (no mind) created mind. (i).
so god is not the creator....god created the creator.
this is 0 and 1.
or nothing and something.
the creator split and divided existance. so the opposites. to have this existance we must have a split and a divison.
must.
how do i know ???
to i or not to i.
there is no differance.
0 and 1.
and zen is null and void at its heart and the creation is the split and divisions and falsaties that are half true of the whole unsplit reality.
that is WHY we cannot speak the real truth. because it is whole.
opps....said to much.

shayne:
half these things point to the god.
the other half to the creator.
with god....no time.
with the creator...all times.
what else?
ALOT of zen is messed up.
especially if you would rather go to (0) point instead of (1). life begins with 1....not going "home" like i see so many zen masters doing.
but shayne keeps reminding us of life eh? 1.
get it.
the point?
live life.

justin:
Live life is a Truth for sure, however i am not so sure about the O-1 dicotomy. Seems to me a valid concept but...a dicotomy all the same. God does exist all around me, through me, within me. Although using the very word God, puts all that is in a, cultural, geographical, temporal, box! There is no boxing with the all, only delusion with this logic. Nothing is created, nothing destroyed, only as is, waves on the ocean of as is. All else is incomplete doctrine.
Time is invented by delusion, place is invented by delusion, culture is invented by delusion. Zen is delusion, Macrocosm-Microcosm, all delusion. Me talking to you delusion, void is empty so things can be deluded.

zen-zen:
So what is our trust based on then if all is deluded?

Lynn:
trust unquestioned

Doreen:
Dear d.o.m. - I am so sorry you do not know how to dance - you are missing one of the great simple joys of life! I suggest if you would like to try to learn how to dance, ask a 3 or 4 year old to help you...they are wonderful teachers and the joy they would share with you would be well worth the effort. Then maybe you would understand what I said. But if you are not interested, that is okay too.

Dear #9 - regarding your statement: "But the truth is that the Creator can exist without creation, but creation cannot exist without the Creator." I disagree. You cannot be a creator or the Creator without creating. You could be something else, but your would not be the Creator...maybe the Non-Creator? :-)

Woodsman:
Creator goes one way. Destroyer goes another.
One way, I am not.

shayne:
actually i feel the creator and destoyer are one. even we are a reflection.
and yes lynn....trust. unquestioned.
this isn't needed.
delusion is real.
youd be surprised what you see when you see the yin and yang of things.
yeah justin.....thats about it. you nailed it pretty good.
the basis being no basis.
being god...(0) nothing and creating (1) mind.
both needed.
two in one.

the d.o.m.: From Woodsman: The creator exists with a certain longing to be seen, without anything getting in the way. Therefore, the creator exits everywhere, at all times. If one enjoys the created, one is then with the creator.

Mr Woodsman,
Are you sure about what you have said here?

the d.o.m.:
From justin: ..."Nothing created, not created, these are dualisms and opinions (As are these words), only as is."

Mr Justin,
One may start right here for his journey.

the d.o.m.:
From Number9: It is factual and comforting to know that the Creator and the created are one. There is only the Creator, and therefore all creations are of the Creator.

Is that so, Mr Number9?

the d.o.m.:
From shayne: or. the mind of god (being everywhere and in everything) has no mind. so no one thing. he's entityless. doesnt exist.

Is that so, Mr Shayne?

the d.o.m.:
From Doreen: Dear d.o.m. - I am so sorry you do not know how to dance - you are missing one of the great simple joys of life! I suggest if you would like to try to learn how to dance, ask a 3 or 4 year old to help you...they are wonderful teachers and the joy they would share with you would be well worth the effort. Then maybe you would understand what I said. But if you are not interested, that is okay too.

Ms Doreen,
Is that so?

the d.o.m.:
From Lynn: trust unquestioned

Ms Lynn,
It seems that your "trust" fears of questions, right?

the d.o.m.:
From shayne: actually i feel the creator and destoyer are one.

Mr Shayne,
If they are not two (or many), then they should be one. And if they are not one, then they sould be two (or many). Right?

Woodsman:
dom, if the creator did not long to be seen, why would you be reading this? why would we enjoy watching comedy as well as tragedy if the creator had not meant for us to understand manifestation in all things? the creator and created are light, but don't take my word for it. See for yourSelf! now close your eyes, look again without them opening. the creative looks in, as well as out of me. how does this look?

the d.o.m.:
From woodsman: how does this look?

Mr Woodsman,
It looks so dark.

Woodsman:
In the beginning there was darkness.

Lynn:
From the d.o.m.: "it seems your "trust" fears of questions, right?"

I "seem unsure" of myself? How many times do I hear this? once, twice?

shayne:
to i or not to i.
pushing both out and seeing i that attempts to attach to either.
we have choice.
neither.
me is ten times that of i.
but i is a reality.
me sees i and its base insecurity.
only i can ever go insane.
what is me?
it is not this questioning i.
that's for sure.
what's my name?
it is not the questioning i.
that's for sure.
i being part and parcel of reality is real. it is the pointer.
me sees i.
me created i.
i is shayne.
his attention.
me is .......without name and substance and with all name and all substance. emptiness buzzing and filled completely. knowing everything yet no one thing.
me is the life of all.
i is the manifestation.
i look into me.
and me is not shayne.

zen-zen:,br> "I am nothing: is that the reason why we cannot possibly give up the past? Because my existence, my way of thinking, my life, everything, is from the past. And if you say, wipe that out, what have I left?"

- From Jayapur Krishnamurti's discussion with Dr. David Bohm.

Doreen:
From the d.o.m.: Ms Doreen, Is that so? ********

Dear d.o.m.;
That has been my experience. Do not be afraid to dance - and a small child is a perfect teacher to dance and play...they only see the joy, not the limitations of appearing "silly".

Lionel:
From the d.o.m.: Mr Lionel, Time is not compatible. The d.o.m. is hungry now, he is going to have dinner. After dinner, he will have a cup of tea.
How's your tea doing?

Yes, it is. Just like a plant awares when to give out oxygen, when to take in carbon dioxide, when to sip water & when receive sun ray & so forth... yet it is readily serve as tea without conditions... perhaps the 'when' is still conditional... as time is not compatible here.
Very often the tea is getting cold to be served without mutual respect. The mutual relationship is somehow broken, Mr DOM... Now i am having readily made 2 in 1 coffee. Though it is frangrant but i am busy punching the keys' board...
Now i am ready to meet my wife for breakfast...

the d.o.m.:
From Woodsman: In the beginning there was darkness.

Mr Woodsman,
The d.o.m. does not know if there were something called "the beginning". And he just saw the darkness, when you told him close his eyes to look and see.

the d.o.m.: From zen-zen: "I am nothing: is that the reason why we cannot possibly give up the past? Because my existence, my way of thinking, my life, everything, is from the past. And if you say, wipe that out, what have I left?"

Mr Zen-Zen,
Have you wiped that out and seen anything left?

the d.o.m.:
From Lionel: ... Now i am having readily made 2 in 1 coffee. Though it is frangrant but i am busy punching the keys' board...
Now i am ready to meet my wife for breakfast...

Mr Lionel,
The d.o.m. can see how busy you are!

Lionel:
Yes, when one is busy one has no time's gap! Thank you Mr Dom.
The weather is beautiful & i suppose i would like to have a walk. See you around...

zen-zen:
From DOM: "Have you wiped that out and seen anything left?"

- The starting of the sentence tells everything. Some of us pointed their attention to the concept of time which was actually playing intrinsic, supportive part in the quoted sentence up there. The imperative in the sentence is: "I am nothing".
... which is difficult to admit for most of us, humans. Should we look at it from the perspective of time and accumulated knowledge, or use some other approach, it doesn't really matter.
How does one wipe it out then, dear DOM? I can't tell. Darn. Ok, then, well... is there anything left? I can't tell or show it either.

zen-zen:
And dare you play with the "I am" part of the sentence... :)
I see it coming already.

Number9:
From Number9: "It is factual and comforting to know that the Creator and the created are one. There is only the Creator, and therefore all creations are of the Creator."

From the d.o.m.: Is that so, Mr Number9?

Sir, it is factual, and it is true, but it is not the Truth.
The Truth is indescribable and undefinable, so as soon as someone says that something is the truth I start to laugh. That which can be anything is nothing in particular. Even to say that it is 'indescribable' and 'undefinable' is laughable.
Any description is equally true, as is any definition. The point is that words will never fill the bill. It can only be understood through direct experience, as I believe you well know.
Many things are true, have been true, or will be true, but I really can't tell you what the Truth is.

justin:
I use the word Truth as a description of ultimate reality, ultimate princible, not the one i have been hiding behind most of my life. Not my Truth, not his Truth, not their Truth, the Truth. As is. As appose to my delusions, again this is just a word to describe that which is outside or upstream of words.

6-10 Chars:
"...upstream of words." Very, very pretty, justin.

Just a suggestion:
Aren't words themselves the stream?
Aren't we the truth we hide behind?
How can the Truth be deluded?

Woodsman:
dom, who told you to open them?

zen-zen:
Have a sip of tea. Or have an orange. Then try to choose the approach. No truthful approaches available! Just the tea or the orange - if we want to see the full truth. Selecting an approach splits the truth into slices and makes it one-sided. It always happens when using only words, it can't be avoided.
'Truth' is a word also, let's not be deluded by giving it any extra value above the orange or tea.

Number9:
Sounds good to me.
Delusion is the art of the Creator, I think. To create Creations and delude them, and then to experience through them the product of delusion. How else could God enjoy a roller-coaster ride?

zen-zen:
So did you encounter this creator somewhere and experience it? Was it external to you? You sounded like it's something separate from yourself.
By the way - Who got the grande idea to give out a name "god" for something undescribable? Isn't that a mock?

justin:
6-10,:‘Aren't words themselves the stream?’

They would necessarily be part of the stream because nothing has separate existence (there is no other place to be) I meant here that words as an expression of something come second maybe third maybe forth from the source of mind we imagine them after we are mindful of something, to describe the mindful that we are mindful of.

’Aren't we the truth we hide behind?’

Interesting, we are a truth for sure and I guess put that way as there is only one, we must be it.

’How can the Truth be deluded?’
Ah-I was referring to a delusion that I might call truth, and as above if there is only one truth and it is everything, then how it can be deluded, good point! I think here my perception of what is truth is deluded mostly; now this idea is my raft that only serves me until I no longer need it. Maybe if I say you are this and you are that these are truths but only half truths therefore not The Truth, which encompasses the whole nature of your being which is the whole nature of everything. I think this is yet another case of word boxing, when I say I am deluded I am saying this because I am realising it more and more each day, just how many incomplete perceptions of things I have I have some many Ideas.

the d.o.m.:
From Doreen: Dear d.o.m.; That has been my experience. Do not be afraid to dance - and a small child is a perfect teacher to dance and play...they only see the joy, not the limitations of appearing "silly".

Is that so, Ms Doreen?

the d.o.m.:
From Lynn: I "seem unsure" of myself? How many times do I hear this? once, twice?

Ms Lynn,
Have you counted?
If you have not, just remember to count.

the d.o.m.:
From zen-zen: How does one wipe it out then, dear DOM? I can't tell. Darn. Ok, then, well... is there anything left? I can't tell or show it either.

Mr Zen-Zen,
You already tell a lot.

the d.o.m.:
From Number9: ...Many things are true, have been true, or will be true, but I really can't tell you what the Truth is.

Mr Number9,
You already tell a lot.

the d.o.m.:
From Woodsman: dom, who told you to open them?

Mr Woodsman,
The d.o.m.'s eyes have not closed themselves, how could anyone tell them closed or open?

Woodsman:
How could anyone ask or answer that question, dom?

zen-zen:
The DOM is now the finger pointing to the moon - Don't concentrate on the finger, or you'll miss all that heavenly glory!

Lynn:
have you counted? If you have not,just remember to count I can only remember what i have not forgotten. would seem more relaible to count only once.

the d.o.m.:
From Woodsman: How could anyone ask or answer that question, dom?

Mr Woodsman,
You already did.

the d.o.m.:
From zen-zen: The DOM is now the finger pointing to the moon - Don't concentrate on the finger, or you'll miss all that heavenly glory!

Mr Zen-Zen,
You are imaging a little too much.

zen-zen:
Maybe I am, maybe I am.

It was a metaphor anyway, they don't seem to apply here.

Woodsman:
yin and yang me baby!

zen-zen:
I don't want to be in any state, careless words. W - yin, yang. There you go, a couple of words for you. :)

Doreen:
Dear D.O.M.;
May I have this dance?

the d.o.m.:
Ms Doreen,
You already did the dance. Do you like to repeat it?

Doreen:
Would I like to repeat a dance?
I find that no matter how hard you try, no two dances are alike...they may be very similar, but each dance is unique - they change as does the moment.
And dancing with a d.o.m. would definitely be unique!

the d.o.m.:
From Doreen: And dancing with a d.o.m. would definitely be unique!

Ms Doreen,
Who'd like to dance, just dance.
Who'd like to take a nap, just take a nap.
The d.o.m. would like to take nap now.
How'd this sound?

Zorbas:
How come Mr DOM gets all the pretty Girls! He's just a deluded old man!

zen-zen:
He's the bartender, they get the girls because they've got the booze. Buhahaha ;D (no offenfe, dear DOM)

Doreen:
Zorbas :-) I'm sure you have plenty of pretty girls flock about you, with or without booze!

And d.o.m.; if you would rather nap then dance, please do as you wish. I was only trying to help you understand the Creator and creation by having you experience the "dancer and the dance".
But if you do not wish to do so, that is fine too. We all have differing understandings...perhaps you are experiencing the "Napper and the nap"...the Napper only becomes that when he naps...and there is no nap without the napper...
Does that help?

justin:
good one ZZ, and so true, if thats where they are at.

the d.o.m.:
From Zorbas: How come Mr DOM gets all the pretty Girls! Hes just a deluded old man!

Mr Keith,
Be careful! Do not let your eyes or ears...trick you.

the d.o.m.:
Ms Doreen,
If the nap is already within the napper, how could the napper create the nap?
If the nap is separate from the napper, how could the napper create the nap?
or
If the dance is already within the dancer, how could the dancer create the dance?
If the dance is separate from the dancer, how could the dancer create the dance?

Zorbas:
The eyes and ears are always tricking poor Keith. And how would I know not tricking? Really I was just having a little fun.

Zorbas:
Zorbas :-) I'm sure you have plenty of pretty girls flock about you, with or without booze!
Nahh, Just this one thats been hanging around for twenty odd years! Boy, you think she'd smarten up by now ;-)

Doreen:
dear d.o.m.,
I think you are mixing terminologies.

A dancer and a dance both emerge with the intention to dance. This conscious intention links both of them and allows them to exist, since a dancer needs to dance to exist, and a dance needs a dancer to exist. In a way, the dancer and the dance 'create' each other...but first there was the conscious intention.
Who created that?

the d.o.m.:
Ms Doreen,
The d.o.m. is not a terminologist in any sense of the term or trying to use any special term to mix anything. What he has tried to do, so far, is looking into the habit of thinking of human mind through thousands of years now. And when looking into it, if he sees something, he uses some common words to raise some questions to see if there were any answers to the questions, such as the questions in the original post of this thread: creator & created.

Some other questions might be raised about one & many, unity & diversity, identity & difference, etc... In short, if they are not two or many, then they should be one, etc... This is of the habit of thinking, isn't it?
As of right now, another question might be raised as follows:
If the dance is already in the dancer, how could the dance merge with the dancer or vice versa?
If the dance is separate from the dancer, how could the dance merge with the dancer or vice versa?
or in other words,
If the dancer and the dance are one, how could they merge with one another?
If the dancer and the dance are two and separate from each other, how could they merge with one another?
Furthermore, as you said above, if someone who is not a dancer or does not dance, then he does not exist at all, right?>br> Is dancing an only form in which a human being could be considered worth to existing or creating? When he breathes or eats or drinks or walks or stands or lies or sits or works or labours or sleeps, etc..., he does not exist at all. Right?
Who created that?
Thought.
Thought put all of the above together and says: That's a creation!

zen-zen:
Sounds complicated.

Doreen:
the d.o.m. said: As of right now, another question might be raised as follows: If the dance is already in the dancer, how could the dance merge with the dancer or vice versa? If the dance is separate from the dancer, how could the dance merge with the dancer or vice versa? or in other words, If the dancer and the dance are one, how could they merge with one another? If the dancer and the dance are two and separate from each other, how could they merge with one another? **************
The dancer and the dance are not one thing - yet - they are not two...because neither could exist without the other.
Do they merge? - perhaps...but what I sad was that they both emerge or exist with the consious intention to dance.*******
Furthermore, as you said above, if someone who is not a dancer or does not dance, then he does not exist at all, right?******
Is dancing an only form in which a human being could be considered worth to existing or creating?*******
No, a human being has many forms that they can choose to exist as - from moment to moment. But if one chooses to be a dancer - he must dance to be a dancer. If he choose not to dance, that is fine too - he can nap or paint or any of the millions of things we can choose to be...all are equally fine - I just choose dance and the dancer as an example. When he breathes or eats or drinks or walks or stands or lies or sits or works or labours or sleeps, etc..., he does not exist at all. Right? ********
Of course not...why would you say that?********
Who created that? Thought. Thought put all of the above together and says: That's a creation!*******
Hmmm...But where did the creative intention for the thought arise from?
br>

Lynn:
what does >br> mean?

Woodsman:
its a dance move, I think.

Woodsman:
just don't call twinkle toes, dommy. it will really push him off.

the d.o.m.:
From Doreen:
(1)*******The dancer and the dance are not one thing - yet - they are not two...because neither could exist without the other.
Do they merge? - perhaps...but what I sad was that they both emerge or exist with the consious intention to dance.
(2)********No, a human being has many forms that they can choose to exist as - from moment to moment. But if one chooses to be a dancer - he must dance to be a dancer. If he choose not to dance, that is fine too - he can nap or paint or any of the millions of things we can choose to be...all are equally fine - I just choose dance and the dancer as an example.
(3)********When he breathes or eats or drinks or walks or stands or lies or sits or works or labours or sleeps, etc..., he does not exist at all. Right?
*******Of course not...why would you say that?
(4)*******Who created that? Thought. Thought put all of the above together and says: That's a creation!
********Hmmm...But where did the creative intention for the thought arise from?

Ms Doreen,
(1)If they were one thing, how could they create or merge each other.
If they were not one thing, how could they create or merge each other?
If they were two things, how could they create or merge each other.
If they were not two things, how could they create or merge each other.
They seemed so because human mind thought and believed so. They both could not exist by themselves.
They were just some shadows of a human being.

(2)&(3) Maybe a human being may choose to be or to not be an artist, a dancer, a painter...as he'd like to think and do so.
However, a human being cannot choose to breathe or to not breathe when he really needs oxygen to feed his body because his body needs it and he must breathe to survive, to continue his existence. This is not a choice. If he does not do it for a period of time, he will die as soon as the death comes to his body because he did not breathe. Breathing is a necessity to maintain his life as a human being. It is a nesessity to his existence as human being. The same are eating, drinking, toileting, sleeping...
Meanwhile, a human being can exist without dancing or painting or sculpturing,... He won't die if there is no dancing or painting or sculpturing...in his whole lifetime.
(4) What does the word "intention" mean?
It means a plan, a project to an aim or a purpose, doesn't it?
And how was a "plan" or a "project" formed? It was put together by thought, wasn't it?

If so, we are going back to the question and the answer we already have above:
-Who created that?
-Thought. Thought put all of the above together and says: That's a creation!

the d.o.m. & visitors 12/05/2004


 



SUPPORT ZENGUIDE.COM
If you are planning on purchasing any product from amazon.com, you can help us out by using the search box to the right or by clicking on this link to begin shopping.


Purchase posters, art prints, media (music CD & DVD)

buy this SITASAMVARA
by
Puchase this Item
More Art Prints & Media
Zen & Buddhism books
 
 
s
.
t
.
o
.
r
.
i
.
e
.
s
.
,
.

.
b
.
o
.
o
.
k
.
s
.

.
&
.

.
m
.
e
.
d
.
i
.
a
.
Copyright © 1999 - 2014 zenguide.com - All rights reserved. °