I listened briefly to a Zen broadcast where the teacher talked about Buddhism not acknowledging any creator. She probably wanted to make it clear how it differs from conventional Theistic traditions, which is helpful.
But what is less helpful is maybe to leave it there. Why not also explore the truth in the reversal of that statement? How does Buddhism acknowledge a creator?
When I look into that, I find that Buddhism does indeed (also) acknowledge a creator. It is not a wise old man with bushy beard, nor any entity at all, but just this awake void that everything arises within, to and as.
It didn’t happen (only) sometime in the past, but happens right here now, within this timeless present. Creation is here now, allowing all form to always be utterly fresh and new.
I listened briefly to a zen podcast where they talked about how Buddhism does not acknowledge any creator. And as so often happens, I can understand where they are coming from, but it also seems a little one-sided.
To just talk about one side of it too easily creates a sense of separation. An idea that we have these views, and those other traditions have other views not compatible with this one. But when we look a little closer, it is not quite like that. What is there is also here, in maybe a slightly different flavor, and the other way around.
So we can say that there is no creator, in the sense of a separate being somewhere creating things. But there is also a creator, in the sense of this awake void which all forms happens within, to and as.