Q: Don't you think Padmasambhava's realization is superior to the Buddha's because it leads to an immortal, indestructible Self? I disagree with the anattā view. After all, for the absence of subject and object to be seen, there must be a formless, limitless Subject—which is YOU—to observe it. Otherwise, who is reporting that experience?

Soh's reply:

Padmasambhava’s realization is the same as Buddha’s. Padmasambhava teaches: “ESTABLISHING THE INNER PERCEIVER AS WELL AS THE INDIVIDUAL SELF TO BE DEVOID OF A SELF-NATURE The Lamrim Yeshe Nyingpo root text says: The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or a self-entity. It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates Nor as identical with these five aggregates. If the first were true, there would exist some other substance. This is not the case, so were the second to be true, That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent. Therefore, based on the five aggregates, The self is a mere imputation by the power of ego-clinging.

Although the outer observed objects possess no true existence, doesn’t the inner observer, the mind, truly exist? No, it doesn’t. The mind has no existence apart from imputing such an existence upon the perpetuating aggregates and holding the belief in an ego, with the thought “I am!” Since the two kinds of self-entity are not separate from that, neither can their existence be established when examined by correct discriminating knowledge. When there is a belief in an “I” or a “self” it follows that its existence cannot be ultimately established, because it neither differs from nor is identical with the five aggregates. If, as in the first case, you could prove that there is a separately existing self, there would have to be a sixth aggregate of a substance different from the other five. Since such a knowable object is impossible, it would be like the name of the son of a barren woman. If the self were identical [with the five aggregates], then it would have to be of identical substance and, since the five aggregates have substantial existence while the belief in an “I” has imputed existence, their substances would be contradictory, like the concrete and inconcrete.

Again, to describe this in an easily understandable way: since the self cannot be observed as being some entity that is separate from the gathering of the five aggregates and also cannot be seen as being identical with them, the existence of the self cannot be established. In the first instance, [it is impossible for] the self to have any existence separate from the aggregates, because an additional sixth aggregate would then have to exist, because ego-clinging applies to nothing other than the aggregates. Moreover, as no concrete thing exists separate from the characteristics of the aggregates and, as an inconcrete thing cannot perform a function, the self cannot be established as existing separate from them.

Though the self does not exist separately in that way, can’t its existence be established, as in the second case, as identical with the aggregates? No, it cannot, because their characteristics are incompatible. In other words, all the aggregates are conditioned and therefore proven to be impermanent. This is contrary to the self, which is held to be permanent, as in the case of assuming that one knows now what one saw earlier. Furthermore, the aggregates are composed of categories with many divisions, such as forms, sensations, and so forth, while the self is believed to be singular, as in thinking “I am!” And finally, the aggregates verifiably depend on arising and perishing, while the self is obviously experienced to be independent, as in the thought “I am!” The Prajnamula describes this: If the self were the aggregates, Then it would arise and perish. But, if the self is different from the aggregates, It would have none of the aggregates’ characteristics.

You may now wonder, “Though the self does not exist, its continuity is permanent and can be proven to exist.” That is also not the case. The Two Truths says: The so-called continuity or instant Is false, just like a chain, an army, and so forth. While in reality possessing not even the slightest existence, the self, the individual, and so forth, are merely imputations made by the power of ego-clinging and are simply based upon the gathering of the five perpetuating aggregates.

Entering the Middle Way teaches: The self does therefore not exist as something other than the aggregates, Because it is not held as anything besides the aggregates.279 And again, in the same text: When uttering such words as “the aggregates are the self,” It refers to the gathering of the aggregates and not to their identity. The word “chariot,” for instance, is merely a label given to the gathering of parts, such as the wheels and the main beam of the chariot, while you find no basis for the characteristics of the chariot that is not the parts but the owner of the parts. In the same way, you cannot prove the basis for the so-called self besides the mere belief that the ego is the gathering of the aggregates. This is described in a sutra: Just as the name “chariot” is given to the gathering of all the parts, Similarly, the name “sentient being” is superficially used for the aggregates. Padmasambhava - The Light of Wisdom VOLUME I - Rangjung Yeshe Publications “ - https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/04/establishing-inner-perceiver-as-well-as.html

In another teaching, he says, partial excerpt: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/self-liberation-through-seeing-with.html

“Then, as for the instruction for exhausting the six extremes and overthrowing them: Even though there exist a great many different views that do not agree among themselves, This "mind" which is your own intrinsic awareness is in fact self-originated primal awareness. And with regard to this, the observer and the process of observing are not two different things. When you look and observe, seeking the one who is looking and observing, since you search for this observer and do not find him, At that time your view is exhausted and overthrown. Thus, even though it is the end of your view, this is the beginning with respect to yourself. The view and the one who is viewing are not found to exist anywhere. Without it¡¯s falling excessively into emptiness and non-existence even at the beginning, At this very moment your own present awareness becomes lucidly clear. Just this is the view (or the way of seeing) of the Great Perfection. Therefore understanding and not understanding are not two different things.”

Since Padmasambhava teaches Dzogchen, I should also mention that I happen to learn Dzogchen from Acarya Malcolm Smith. His teachings, realizations, and the Dzogchen texts he teaches all align and are congruent with Anatman and Emptiness (Shunyata). https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2014/02/clarifications-on-dharmakaya-and-basis_16.htm

So is his student who posts in reddit as Krodha, who clearly realised anatman and emptiness. He also made me an admin of the dzogchen subreddit but I am not very active there.

Q: But the anattā teaching negates complete immortality, which masters like Padmasambhava, Mahavatar Babaji, and Shiva achieved. There is an "I"—not an aggregated I, but the "I" of the Divine, the Divine I. The Dharma path is impossible without Divinity; the cause and effect of Karma is impossible without an overseeing supreme power. Buddha follows Dharma, hence he is not beyond the Hindu Sanātana Dharma or the Eternal Law, which is powered by the Eternal Permanent Supreme Being. Even Buddha was prompted to teach by Brahmā, who is the god of the hindu trinity. So Buddha's teaching, though not negating or proposing a God, exists within the Sanātana Dharma. "No-self" simply means the phenomenal ego isn't the true Self; my Self is the Supreme Being itself looking through this form.

Soh's reply:

Appreciate your sincere reflections. What you wrote is a strong expression of Advaita Vedānta (Divine “I”, Supreme Being, permanence/immortality, karma requiring an overseeing power). But that’s not the Buddhist view. A few clarifications from a Buddhist standpoint:

1. Buddhism does not affirm an immortal, unchanging Self (ātman). In Buddhadharma, even a Buddha’s continuum is beginningless and unceasing, yet momentary and empty of self—there is no permanent substratum or “Divine I.” Buddhas manifest ceaselessly to benefit beings, but this does not imply an unchanging, eternal Self. See:
• “Why Overcome Cyclic Rebirths?” (mindstream of Buddhas is unceasing without implying a Self): https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2025/11/why-overcome-cyclic-rebirths.html
• “Facing Mortality, No-Self & Pure Land” (how unceasing activity and no-self cohere): https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2025/09/facing-mortality-no-self-pure-land.html
2. Causality and karma in Buddhism do not require a supreme overseer. Dependent arising is sufficient; nothing needs to “stand behind” causes and effects as a controller. Karma functions as conditional processes within dependently arisen streams, not by decree of a supreme being. A couple of relevant quotes:
• “Buddhism is nothing but replacing the 'Self' in Hinduism with Condition Arising. Keep the clarity, the presence, the luminosity and eliminate the ultimate 'Self', the controller, the supreme. Still you must taste, sense, eat, hear and see Pure Awareness in every authentication. And every authentication is Bliss.” — John Tan (2004)
• “Understand immense intelligence not as if someone is there to act and direct, rather as total exertion of the universe to make this moment possible; then all appearances are miraculous and marvelous.” — John Tan (2012)
• https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/10/buddha-nature-vs-brahman.html
3. On Buddhahood, omniscience, and “universal awareness.” Buddhism denies a universal, undifferentiated ultimate awareness as a Self. Omniscience is the content of a mind freed from afflictions, not a proof of an eternal Self:
• Malcolm wrote: Omniscience is the content of a mind freed of afflictions. Even the continuum of a Buddha has a relative ground, i.e. a the rosary or string of moments of clarity is beginingless. Origination from self is axiomatically negated in Buddhadharma, Each moment in the continuum of a knowing clarity is neither the same as nor different than the previous moment. Hence the cause of a given instant of a knowing clarity cannot be construed to be itself nor can it be construed to be other than itself. This is the only version of causation which, in the final analysis, Buddhadharma can admit to on a relative level. It is the logical consequence of the Buddha's insight, "When this exists, that exists, with the arising of that, this arose."
• PadmaVonSamba wrote: I am not referring to cognition, rather, the causes of that cognition.
• Malcolm wrote: Cognitions arise based on previous cognitions. That's all. If you suggest anything other than this, you wind up in Hindu La la land. There is no such thing as a universal undifferentiated ultimate awareness in Buddhadharma.
• https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2014/02/clarifications-on-dharmakaya-and-basis_16.html
4. “Buddha follows Dharma” ≠ Buddha under Sanātana Dharma In early Buddhist texts, devas (including Brahmā) honor the Buddha, but they’re not cosmic lawmakers above him. The classic creation claim appears when a brahmā mistakes himself for the supreme creator: after a cosmic re-evolution, the first being to reappear in the Brahmā realm thinks, “I am Brahmā … the Maker and Creator … Father of all that are and are to be,” and assumes others were made by him simply because they appeared after his wish. The Buddha lists this as a wrong view born of ignorance about prior cycles and causes.

When the Buddha personally meets Brahmā Baka (MN 49), Baka proclaims his realm to be permanent and unsurpassed. The Buddha refutes him point-by-point as rooted in delusion—asserting impermanence and dependent conditions even for Brahmā’s attainments. There is no eternal, undifferentiated divine mind standing behind causality.

A second episode underscores the hierarchy: in DN 11 (Kevatta Sutta), a monk goes to Brahmā to ask a profound question; Brahmā postures briefly, then admits he doesn’t know and directs the monk back to the Buddha. This is a literary way of saying that even the “highest god” seeks the Buddha’s insight; he does not legislate Dharma.

So when Brahmā Sahampati appears after the awakening and requests the Buddha to teach (SN 6.1), he is not commissioning the Dhamma; he’s venerating it and urging its proclamation. Causality and karma stand on dependent arising, not on a supreme overseer’s decree.

Buddha also rejected the authority of the Vedas. Buddha’s insights go far beyond the realization of a true Self. He basically went through that during his training under two Samkhya teachers, were confirmed by his teachers to have completed his training and attained to ultimate realization, but Buddha left them unsatisfied and attained a much deeper realization on his own under the bodhi tree.

In Cula-sihanada Sutta (MN 11) -- The Shorter Discourse on the Lion's Roar {M i 63} [Ñanamoli Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi, trans.] - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html , the Buddha declares that only through practicing in accord with the Dhamma can Awakening be realized. His teaching is distinguished from those of other religions and philosophies through its unique rejection of all doctrines of self. [BB] … Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith said, "What you are suggesting is already found in Samkhya system. I.e. the twenty four tattvas are not the self aka purusha. Since this system was well known to the Buddha, if that's all his insight was, then his insight is pretty trivial. But Buddha's teachings were novel. Why where they novel? They were novel in the fifth century BCE because of his teaching of dependent origination and emptiness. The refutation of an ultimate self is just collateral damage."

Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith explains why Dzogchen view and basis is different from that of Advaita Vedanta in this compilation of his writings in this page: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2014/02/clarifications-on-dharmakaya-and-basis_16.html ... Zen teacher Alex Weith said well in his well written writings that I compiled here https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2011/10/a-zen-exploration-of-bahiya-sutta.html : "What I realized also is that authoritative self-realized students of direct students of both Ramana Maharishi and Nisargadatta Maharaj called me a 'Jnani', inviting me to give satsangs and write books, while I had not yet understood the simplest core principles of Buddhism. I realized also that the vast majority of Buddhist teachers, East and West, never went beyond the same initial insights (that Adhyashanti calls "an abiding awakening"), confusing the Atma with the ego, assuming that transcending the ego or self-center (ahamkara in Sanskrit) was identical to what the Buddha had called Anatta (Non-Atma).

It would seem therefore that the Buddha had realized the Self at a certain stage of his acetic years (it is not that difficult after all) and was not yet satisfied. As paradoxical as it may seem, his "divide and conquer strategy" aimed at a systematic deconstruction of the Self (Atma, Atta), reduced to -and divided into- what he then called the five aggregates of clinging and the six sense-spheres, does lead to further and deeper insights into the nature of reality. As far as I can tell, this makes me a Buddhist, not because I find Buddhism cool and trendy, but because I am unable to find other teachings and traditions that provide a complete set of tools and strategies aimed at unlocking these ultimate mysteries, even if mystics from various traditions did stumble on the same stages and insights often unknowingly.

…. This also means that the first step is to disembed from impermanent phenomena until the only thing that feels real is this all pervading uncreated all pervading awareness that feels like the source and substance of phenomena. Holding on to it after this realization can hower become a subtle form of grasping diguised as letting go. The second step is therefore to realize that this brightness, awakeness or luminosity is there very nature of phenomena and then only does the duality between the True Self and the appearences arising and passing within the Self dissolve, revealing the suchness of what is.

The next step that I found very practical is to push the process of deconstruction a step further, realizing that all that is experienced is one of the six consciousness. In other words, there is neither a super Awareness beyond phenomena, not solid material objects, but only six streams of sensory experiences. The seen, the heard, the sensed, the tasted, the smelled and the cognized (including thoughts, emotions, and subtle thougths like absorbtion states, jhanas). At this point it is not difficult to see how relevent the Bahiya Sutta can become.

... Just for the sake of clarification, I would like to make it clear that I never said that "these luminous self-perceiving phenomena which are craving-free and nondual are the Ultimate", if there could still be any ambiguity about that. On the contrary, I said that what I used to take for an eternal, empty, uncreated, nondual, primordial awareness, source and substance of all things, turned out to be nothing more than the luminous nature of phenomena, themselves empty and ungraspable, somehow crystallized in a very subtle witnessing position. The whole topic of this thread is the deconstruction of this Primordial Awareness, One Mind, Cognizing Emptiness, Self, Atman, Luminous Mind, Tathagatgabha, or whatever we may call it, As shocking as it may seem, the Buddha was very clear to say that this pure impersonal objectless nondual awareness (that Vedantists called Atma in Sanskrit, Atta in Pali) is still the aggregate of consciousness and that consciousness, as pure and luminous as it can be, does not stand beyond the aggregates. "Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'" (Anatta-lakkhana Sutta). …."

Another dharma teacher who underwent similar journey from Vedanta realization (confirmed to be deep and profound by his Vedanta teachers and asked to teach) before going into Buddhist realization is Archaya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche, you can read about his bio and articles here: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/search/label/Acharya%20Mahayogi%20Shridhar%20Rana%20Rinpoche

5. How Buddhism reads “no-self.” “No-self” isn’t just “my lower ego isn’t the real Self while a higher Divine I is.” Rather, all phenomena—including subjectivity and awareness—are empty of self-nature. What continues is a stream (santāna) of dependently arisen, luminous knowing, free from a core essence. That is exactly why Buddhas can be unceasingly responsive without being a permanent Self.

In short: your view maps well to Advaita Vedānta. The Buddhist view keeps luminosity, clarity, compassion, and unceasing activity, but without positing a permanent Self or supreme overseer. Dependent arising is enough.

Q: My path was the opposite; I went through Buddhist studies first and found them insufficient, moving on to the deeper teachings of Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism. Buddha is just a man who died; you're elevating him incorrectly. He arose within the Sanātana Dharma, taught by Shiva. The Great Perfection of Padmasambhava is complete physical immortality, which Buddha didn't reach—he died. Buddha even predicted Padmasambhava, saying, "There will be a teacher greater than myself." You haven't addressed Padmasambhava's immortality, which proves the immortal Self. The highest teaching is that everything is the will of Shiva; even liberation is granted by Him, not just by practice. Dependent origination is a limited, incomplete view compared to this.

Soh's reply:

I’ve read and benefited from many Hindu books and texts in the past. They were helpful pointers through the I AM phase of realization, but beyond that I needed different contemplations. I have personally gone through the 7 Thusness Stages of Enlightenment, and I consider Thusness (John Tan) my main teacher and mentor, https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html , even though I also learn Dzogchen from Acarya Malcolm Smith. I understand the Ātman–Brahman view—and also where Buddhism diverges from it. I understand the viewpoint of Hinduism, although I do not agree with the "it's all planned" or granted by Shiva, etc, nor do I agree with "the dependent origination is a limited view".

Last year in Australia (I am from Singapore but I went there to attend his teaching and retreat), Ācārya Malcolm Smith spoke with the two of us—another lady and me—about how the Hindu Ātman–Brahman view differs from Buddhism. He noted that, in many Hindu formulations, the cosmos unfolds as the will or līlā (play) of Brahman; salvation is ultimately a matter of divine grace. In Buddhism, by contrast, there is no creator God directing outcomes. The burden of care falls on practitioners themselves: we cultivate bodhicitta and take responsibility for relieving the suffering of sentient beings.

1. “Buddha is just a man who died.” This is not the Mahāyāna presentation. In Lotus Sūtra ch. 16 (“The Life Span of the Thus Come One”), Śākyamuni reveals that his lifespan is immeasurably long and that his passing is an upāya (skillful display) to rouse beings: “Therefore the Thus Come One, though in truth he does not enter extinction, speaks of passing into extinction.”
   
   Buddhas (Shakyamuni Buddha, Padmasambhava, and so on) do have incalculable lifespans, in the Buddhabalādhānaprātihāryavikurvāṇanirdeśa, Mañjuśrī says: "Moreover, gods, the tathāgatas do not enter parinirvāṇa, because there is no parinirvāṇa of the tathāgatas, nor are their lives ever exhausted. The tathāgatas remain for immeasurable millions of eons, for utterly inexpressible eons. But through their skillful means they display their parinirvāṇa to beings, as well as the disappearance of the noble Dharma. Just as the Tathāgata sees the various beings of an impure nature who are to be converted by means of parinirvāṇa or by relics, who have no faith in the Tathāgata, and who are irreverent toward the master, so in each such case the Tathāgata displays his parinirvāṇa. But in fact, the Tathāgata neither comes nor goes. When the roots of virtue of beings have fully matured, [F.149.a] and they long to look upon the Tathāgata, are worthy of veneration, long to listen to the Dharma, and their longing is like the full moon, at that time, the Tathāgata appears in the world for the benefit and happiness of many beings such as gods and humans, and for the sake of manifesting and propagating the Three Jewels to them.33 But in fact, the Tathāgata is not born, nor does he age or die."

None of this implies an unchanging Self. It describes an unceasing (but momentary) continuum of awakened knowing functioning for beings—consistent with dependent arising, not a permanent soul.

2. “Buddha arose within Sanātana Dharma / needs a Supreme Being to ‘power’ karma.” Early discourses explicitly reject the “Supreme Creator” thesis as a mistake born of ignorance. In DN 1 (Brahmajāla Sutta), the Buddha explains how a lonely brahmā, reborn first after a cosmic contraction, imagines himself the Maker and Lord because others appear later—so both he and they wrongly infer “creation.” It’s classic eternalism the Buddha dismantles.

In MN 49 (Brahma-nimantanika Sutta), the Buddha directly refutes Brahmā Baka’s claim that his realm is permanent/ultimate—the Buddha calls it delusion, showing even Brahmā’s attainments are conditioned. So in Buddhism, causality/karma does not require a divine overseer; dependent arising is enough.

3. “Buddha predicted a teacher greater than himself (Padmasambhava).” That exact line—“There will be a teacher greater than myself”—is not found in early Indian Buddhist canons. Statements that the Buddha foretold Guru Rinpoche come from later Tibetan sources (treasure/terma cycles and hagiographies). Scholarship on the treasure tradition shows how retrospective prophecies function to authorize new revelations and lineages; see Janet Gyatso’s classic study on terma legitimation. Nyingma and devotional materials do claim numerous prophecies, but these are sectarian claims, not passages you will find in the Pāli Nikāyas or securely dated Indian sūtras. (Examples of claims: Padmasambhava.org; other popular summaries repeat them, but they don’t cite a primary canonical verse.)

From a Buddhist standpoint, and especially in Dzogchen, there is no “higher” enlightenment to surpass a Buddha. Nyingma sources themselves present Padmasambhava as a Buddha (often an emanation of Amitābha/ Avalokiteśvara), i.e., equal in realization, not “greater than Śākyamuni.”

4. “Padmasambhava’s physical immortality proves an immortal Self.” Nyingma hagiographies say Guru Rinpoche did not merely “die” but departed to the Copper-Colored Mountain (Zangdok Palri) and continues benefitting beings—this is commonly presented as a pure-land/visionary presence of the Guru, not a proof of an eternal ātman. By contrast, what Buddhism consistently denies—across Nikāya, Mahāyāna, and Dzogchen—is a universal, undifferentiated Self behind phenomena. The Lotus Sūtra’s eternal Buddha and Toh 186’s “no real parinirvāṇa” are upāya teachings about the Buddha’s ongoing liberative activity, not endorsements of an absolute Self. They fit dependent arising: the awakened continuum is beginningless and unceasing without a self-substratum.

Bottom line: Advaita and Kashmir Śaivism affirm a Supreme Self/Being, cosmic will, and grace. Buddhism—while fully affirming luminosity, compassion, and the Buddha’s unceasing activity—does not posit a permanent Self or supreme overseer.

In the Buddhist view, the mindstream of a Buddha (Śākyamuni, Padmasambhava, etc.) is beginningless and unceasing in compassionate activity, yet empty of any unchanging core. That’s why ceaseless responsiveness does not entail an eternal Self. As for Padmasambhava and Śākyamuni: from a Buddhist perspective their realization is equal—Buddhahood—though their displays (upāya) differ according to beings’ needs. Claims that the Buddha said someone “greater than myself” would come are devotional and late; they are not found in the early strata of scripture.

p.s. Interestingly... Regarding the somewhat subversive narrative 'Buddhism is just part of Hindu Sanatana Dharma', Buddhism employs a similar, though distinct, narrative.

As Acarya Malcolm Smith wrote before:

“Indeed, Samantabhadra claims that all vehicles are his vehicles, he then sets out which of those vehicles view keep one trapped in samsara (60), and he then presents the nine vehicles which lead one out of it.

though my vehicles are inconceivable,

they are included in two categories:

samsara and nirvana.

Further, samsara includes: [53/b]

the false view and the eternalist view.

The false vehicle

is held to be 360 beliefs in a self.

The nine vehicles of course, are the vehicles of nirvana.”"

“Ok, first of all. If you were never a Christian, or a Hindu, or never took teachings from such a master, for example, Hatha Yoga, Ayurveda, etc., then there is no need. But if you have taken teachings from such people, then you can carry this into your Ati Guru Yoga.

When we do refuge in the DC -- we generally do not do an elaborate refuge tree visualization, we do the One Jewel Unifies All system, so the principle is still the same.

It is not about including Jesus, Mohammed and so on in some imaginary refuge tree; it is about honoring the sources of all of our spritual knowledge, so the idea is completely different. It is about honoring all of our teachers, no matter what Dharma tradition they come from in the nine yānas. All Yānas belong to Samantabhadra, including the so called samsaric ones. This is the principle that is in play here. The Rigpa Rangshar states:

Though my yānas are inconceivable, when summarized,

they are included in two, samsara and nirvana

This means that all Dharma systems, "Buddhist" and "Non-Buddhist" are vehicles of Samantabhadra. If you have a connection with any of them, you unify them through the principle of Guru Yoga and go beyond limitations.

M”

Acarya Malcolm Smith also wrote elsewhere explaining 'Samantabhadra': "Gautama is an emanation of Samantabbadra."

"Now then, Samantabhadra, of whom Śākyamuni is an emanation, was also an ordinary person, who received teachings, became a buddha as a result, and manifested in this eon as the adibuddha, aka first buddha."