Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Extending soteriological potential to grasses and land conflates ontological participation in suchness with the distinct capacity for liberation.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Some Buddhist traditions teach that all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature; grasses may possess subtle sentience or proto-consciousness we cannot currently detect.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The distinction between 'participation in suchness' and 'capacity for liberation' may itself be a dualistic construct that obscures non-dual reality.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Liberation might not require intentional striving but rather removal of delusion; this is possible for any entity with any form of existence or awareness.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Liberation requires volitional agency and intentional striving; grasses lack the cognitive capacities necessary for soteriological transformation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Participating in being (suchness) is metaphysically universal; soteriological potential requires specific moral and epistemic capacities that are categorically distinct.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Confusing ontological status with soteriological capacity dissolves meaningful ethical distinctions and renders liberation conceptually incoherent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.