Can you show me a living Buddhist tradition where the view of an ultimate ground, a creator source is taught? It is neither Yogacara nor Zhentong.Son of Buddha wrote:Yes ultimate/true/real/ existance is taught in the third turning Buddha Nature sutras,so this view is upheld by the Sutras.this view is upheld by Zhentong practitioners
And Buddhists all across Taiwan and China.look on the Yogacara vs Dzoghen thread on this forum,you will see a Yogacara practioner from Taiwan upholding this view.
Any tradition that upholds the Third Turning as definite upholds this teaching in their traditions.
Here it is from the Cheng weishi lun by Xuanzang, the primary work of East Asian Yogacara, refuting such erroneous views:
According to one doctrine, there is a great, self - existent deity whose substance is real and who is all- pervading, eternal, and the producer of all dharmas. This doctrine is unreasonable. If something produces something, it is not eternal, the noneternal is not all - pervading, and what is not all- pervading is not real. If the deity's substance is all- pervading and eternal, it must contain all powers and be able to produce all dharmas everywhere, at all times, and simultaneously. If he produces dharmas when a desire arises, or according to conditions, this contradicts the doctrine of a single cause. Or else, desires and conditions would arise spontaneously, since the cause [i.e., the deity] is eternal.
Other doctrines claim that there is a great Brahma, a Time, a Space, a Starting Point, a Nature, an Ether, a Self, etc., that is eternal and really exists, is endowed with all powers, and is able to produce all dharmas. We refute all these in the same way we did the concept of a Great Lord.
(Three Texts on Consciousness Only, p. 20-21)
And from the Mahayanasutralamkara (ch. 6, v. 2, 4) by Maitreya, a cardinal work in Yogacara and Zhentong:
The self-notion itself does not have the identity of a self, nor
does the (selfish being's) deforming habit; their natures are different.
Apart from these two there is no other (self), so it arises only
as an error; liberation is therefore the termination of a mere error.
How is it that beings, directly aware of the relativistic origin of
things, still resort to some other creator? What kind of darkness is
this through which the existent goes unseen and the nonexistent is
(The Universal Vehicle Discourse Literature, p. 50)