Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Candrakīrti's Prasannapadā demonstrates that Sarvāstivādi... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Dharmas in post-canonical Abhidharma literature are defined by their svabhāva (intrinsic nature)

    Candrakīrti's Prasannapadā demonstrates that Sarvāstivādin svabhāva-language commits Abhidharmikas to a form of svabhāva-dṛṣṭi (reification) the Buddha explicitly rejected.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Sarvāstivāda posits dharmas possess intrinsic nature (svabhāva) enabling them to perform characteristic functions independently.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Buddha's anatman doctrine explicitly rejects any unchanging essence; Candrakīrti shows Abhidharmikas contradict this core teaching.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Candrakīrti's logical analysis demonstrates svabhāva-language necessitates the reified view (svabhāva-dṛṣṭi) the sutras condemn.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Sarvāstivāda's svabhāva refers to phenomenological distinctness, not ontological essence—a distinction Candrakīrti may conflate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Candrakīrti's Mādhyamika framework assumes emptiness; his critique may beg the question rather than refute Sarvāstivāda on its own terms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Many Abhidharmikas explicitly denied svabhāva implies permanence or independence, limiting Candrakīrti's reification charge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Proof of definition segments1 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Candrakīrti's Mādhyamika framework assumes emptiness; his critique may beg the q...Candrakīrti's logical analysis demonstrates svabhāva-language necessitates the r...Dharmas in post-canonical Abhidharma literature are defined by their svabhāva (i...Many Abhidharmikas explicitly denied svabhāva implies permanence or independence...
    +3 moreShow less
    Sarvāstivāda posits dharmas possess intrinsic nature (svabhāva) enabling them to...Sarvāstivāda's svabhāva refers to phenomenological distinctness, not ontological...The Buddha's anatman doctrine explicitly rejects any unchanging essence; Candrak...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit