The Supreme Source
seems Dzogchen to me. It even has a maker of sorts.
"The supreme source, pure and total consciousness, explained:
Listen, great being, to the reason. I, the supreme source, am the sole maker, and no other agent exists in the world. The nature of phenomena is created through me, the three teachers manifest from me and the three classes of disciples arise from me. The very manifestation of existence itself depends on me" (The Supreme Source) http://goo.gl/xkFkp
Asunthatneversets posted this before on here:
"The pure mind, the ubiquitous essence -
it is spontaneously, originally, perfect;
so strenuous engagement with the ten techniques
is unnecessary, superfluous.
...I am inscrutable and cannot be cultivated.
All the ten techniques are likewise transcended,
so nothing can be done to affect me.
Those who try to approach me on a causal path,
desirous of catching a glimpse of my face,
seeking me through the ten techniques,
fall straight to earth like a tenderfoot sky-walker,
tumbling down due to deliberate effort.
I, the supreme source, I am the revelation,
and transcend every sphere of activity,
so a view of me cannot be cultivated,
and the ten techniques are meaningless.
If you still think that the ten techniques have purpose,
look at me, and finding nothing to see,
taking no view, remain at that zero-point.
Nothing ever separates us from unoriginated simplicity,
so vows and discipline are redundant;
the essence is always spontaneously present,
so any effort to find it is always superfluous;
self-sprung awareness has never been obscured,
so gnostic awareness cannot be generated;
everybody already lives on my level,
so there is no place to reach through purification;
I embrace all and everything,
so there can be no path that leads to me;
I am forever incapable of dualization,
so there is never anything to be labeled 'subtle';
my form embraces everything,
so there has never been any 'duality';
I am self-sprung awareness from the very beginning,
so I can never be nailed down;
since I am the heart of total presence,
there is no other source of secret precepts."
People have tried on here to assert this as some sort of eternalism/theism. This is what loppon Namdrol/Malcolm said in response:
This is not a sort of Buddhist theism.
Bodhicitta aka Kun byed rgyal po gives rise to everything when it is not recognized for what it actually is i.e. the nature of one's mind. Very similar statements are found in Mahāmudra literature.http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=6772&start=40
This person has confused the Trika non-dual view with Dzogchen.
The mind that is the all-creating king, as Norbu Rinpoche makes clear, is the mind that does not recognize itself, and so enters into samsara, creating its own experience of samsara.
All conditioned phenomena are a product of ignorance, according to Dzogchen view, and so therefore, everything is not real. The basis of that ignorance is the basis, which is also not established as real.
In Dzogchen, everything is unreal, from top to bottom. The basis, in Dzogchen, is described as being "empty not established in any way at all". If the basis is not real, then whatever arises from that basis is not real.
In Dzoghen, dependent origination begins from the non-recognition of the state of the basis, when this happens, one enters into grasping self and other, and then the chain of dependent origination begins.http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=5370&p=58228
One: bodhicitta in sems sde is not something that is considered real; cit is sat i.e. real in Advaita.
Two: there are two basic ways the term "non-dual" is used in Buddhism: free from subject and object perception (trivial) and free from ontic extremes (non-trivial).
Three, sometimes the word "non-dual" in translation is misleading. Here is an example from sem sde. This:
rgyu dang 'bras bu gnyis las 'das
sems can sangs rgyas gnyis med pas
sangs rgyas sems kyis sgrub ma byed
It might be translated as:
Beyond the duality of cause and result,
since sentient beings and buddhas are non-dual,
buddhahood is not accomplished with the mind.
But that translation would be a little wrong.
A better way to render it would be:
Beyond both cause and result,
since both sentient beings and buddhas to do not exist
buddhahood is not accomplished with the mind.
What is the difference you ask? Here there is a pair, a cause and a result i.e. sentient being are a cause, buddhas are a result. But since neither exist, therefore, buddhahood cannot be accomplished with mind.
These issues are often quite subtle.
Malcolm has also explained how the universe arises from the basis:
Malcolm wrote:...According to Garab Dorje, prior to the arising of the basis which is latent during the dark eon interval, nevertheless there are traces of affliction and action remaining from the previous eon. Because of these traces, the basis is stirred, the five lights appear and so on (this is why the Dzogcgen doctrine of two different kinds of Buddhahood is critical -- the first, the buddhahood that reverts the basis is the buddhahood asserted by all lower vehicles. The buddhahood that does not revert to the basis is the preserve of only Dzogchen).
The Gongpa Zangthal cycle supplies that during the arising of basis there is a neutral awareness (shes pa lung ma bstan) in the basis that does not recognize itself. This non-recognition is the innate ignorance. When this neutral awareness cognizes the five lights there is a dividing line between nirvana and samsara. When a neutral awareness recognizes the appearance of the basis as its own appearances it is is prajñā and is immediately liberated. That is Samantabhadra. A neutral awareness that does not recognize appearances as its own appearances immediately is the imputing ignorance, and samsara begins (again) because subject and object is imputed. This is all very clearly explained in detail in the eleven topics of Dzogchen Nyinthig. This is also clearly explained by Khenpo Ngawang Palzang.
Key point: innate enlightenment arises simultaneously with innate ignorance.
After the basis arises, innate ignorance is first and even Samantabhadra has it. There is period where a neutral awareness does not recognize itself in anyway. That is the innate ignorance. It (the neutral awareness) can only recognize itself through the display of five lights. When it recognizes that display as its own display, then this is the liberation of Samantabhadra without the performance of an iota of virtue. We on the other hand did not recognize these five lights as our own display, and for us, samsara began, without even an particle of non-virtue having been done.
According to Dzogchen teachings, all sentient being attain Buddhahood by the end of the eon -- this is very clearly stated by Garab Dorje in the commentary above. But there are two kinds of Buddhahood, and as I said above, there is only Buddhahood that does not revert to the basis, and that is the Buddhahood attained through Dzogchen methods. The Buddhahood of other vehicles reverts to the basis, without the corresponding result.
Now then, the reason why we cannot take these metaphors in Uttaratantra literally is that the basis is not Buddhahood. If the basis were Buddhahood, there would be no need for any kind of recognition.
In Dzogchen, there is a difference between the basis and the result. The difference is simply vidyā and avidyā and the recognition and non-recognition that comes from those.
Further, it is not enough merely to understand the general original basis. One must also understand the human body as a basis.....
....What happens is, the best I understand is, is that while their consciousnesses are liberated, they have not completely eradicated all traces from the elements, and therefore, this unresolved contamination causes the latent awareness in the basis to arise from the movement of vāyu in the basis. When this neutral awareness recognizes its own state, it becomes prajñā, when it does not, it becomes ignorance. Just to be clear, this latent awareness of the basis is not a unified field, it is relative and differentiated. Thus, even though all sentient beings acheive liberation, sentient beings are not somehow newly created.
Sentient beings are just nexus of affliction, nothing more.
All these sorts of issues with Buddhism's stance on any sort of eternalist/realist theme has already been brought up on this board. Just do a search and you'll find a thread that has already addressed it in some form.