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 Śāntideva and the Yogācāra tradition hold that buddha-nature (tathāgatagarbha) is already immanent within all sentient beings.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Early Buddhist texts reject permanent essences (ātman); Buddha-nature as intrinsic immanent essence contradicts foundational anātman doctrine.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If Buddha-nature is already immanent, liberation becomes inevitable manifestation, not contingent ethical achievement requiring cultivation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Tathāgatagarbha appears in later Mahāyāna texts with unclear lineage; its attribution to early Yogācāra misrepresents historical development.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Śāntideva's bodhisattva ethics presupposes all beings can achieve Buddhahood, which requires latent Buddha-nature to be universally present.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Yogācāra idealism treats consciousness as fundamental; Buddha-nature as immanent mind-essence follows logically from this ontology.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Tathāgatagarbha doctrine explains why ordinary beings possess Buddha-potential despite current delusion—the seed is intrinsic, not external.
?
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.