If celestial buddhas lack inherent existence from the perspective of ultimate truth, the claim that vast numbers 'presently exist' conflates conventional designation with ontological presence.

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

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Celestial buddhas(as used in Buddhist philosophy): In Buddhism, enlightened beings who exist in heavenly realms and are believed to help people on the path to enlightenment; they're part of Mahayana Buddhist cosmology.
Conflates(in argumentation and logic): Treats two different things as if they're the same thing, or mixes them up in a way that causes confusion.
Conventional designation(as used in philosophy of language): A name or label we've all agreed to use for something, based on shared human agreement rather than laws of nature—like how we call the furry animal a 'dog' because that's what we decided to call it.
Inherent existence(as the thing being denied in ultimate reality): The idea that things have a fixed, independent, unchanging essence or nature all by themselves—a concept Buddhist philosophers argue against.

Based on where you are in your exploration