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:
- 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:
- 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
- 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
- “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
- 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.
- “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.
- “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.
- “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.”
- “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."
Posts
