Search by property

This page provides a simple browsing interface for finding entities described by a property and a named value. Other available search interfaces include the page property search, and the ask query builder.

List of results

• Atiśa  + (He uses it as a support for his position on a single vehicle and describe it is a disposition which is a causal potential for buddhahood.)

• Kamalaśīla  + (In the sense that all beings have the potential to achieve Buddhahood.)
• Ngok Lotsāwa Loden Sherab  + ("...both Ngok and Chapa argue that sentien … "...both Ngok and Chapa argue that sentient beings do not have tathāgata-essence on the basis of the first reason because they do not have the purified enlightened body of a buddha, rather they have the potential to achieve an enlightened state. However, they agree that sentient beings have the tathāgata-essence from the perspective of the second reason, which is that such-ness is indivisible or nondual. As Ngok states, 'That both a tathāgata and ordinary beings have tathāgata-essence is actually the case.' The first reason is true only for enlightened beings, but only designated for ordinary beings; the second reason applies to both enlightened beings and sentient beings. Therefore, the two Kadam masters argue that sentient beings do not have the tathāgata-essence from the perspective of either the first reason of the resultant essence or the third reason of the causal essence. Rather it is the second reason that becomes the central point for establishing the link between enlightenment and sentient beings. It is the middle reason that shows that sentient beings and tathāgatas are the same in their ultimate nature. In other words, the only thing that sentient beings have in common with enlightened beings is the ultimate nature of their minds."gs is the ultimate nature of their minds.")
• Chapa Chökyi Senge  + ("...both Ngok and Chapa argue that sentien … "...both Ngok and Chapa argue that sentient beings do not have tathāgata-essence on the basis of the first reason because they do not have the purified enlightened body of a buddha, rather they have the potential to achieve an enlightened state. However, they agree that sentient beings have the tathāgata-essence from the perspective of the second reason, which is that such-ness is indivisible or nondual. As Ngok states, 'That both a tathāgata and ordinary beings have [tathāgata] essence is actually the case.' The first reason is true only for enlightened beings, but only designated for ordinary beings; the second reason applies to both enlightened beings and sentient beings. Therefore, the two Kadam masters argue that sentient beings do not have the tathāgata-essence from the perspective of either the first reason of the resultant essence or the third reason of the causal essence. Rather it is the second reason that becomes the central point for establishing the link between enlightenment and sentient beings. It is the middle reason that shows that sentient beings and tathāgatas are the same in their ultimate nature. In other words, the only thing that sentient beings have in common with enlightened beings is the ultimate nature of their minds."gs is the ultimate nature of their minds.")
• Gyaltsap Je Dharma Rinchen  + ("Gyeltsap thus shows that ultimately both … "Gyeltsap thus shows that ultimately both buddhas and sentient beings share the same suchness of mind which is the ultimate nature of mind that is free from natural defilements. Because of this he argues that all sentient beings have tathāgata-essence, and it is through this that he establishes the connection between tathāgata-essence and the concept of one-vehicle, the notion that ultimately there is only the final goal of buddhahood."ere is only the final goal of buddhahood.")
• Tanak Rinchen Yeshe  + ( *"Rinchen Yeshé quotes from these last-wh … </br>*"Rinchen Yeshé quotes from these last-wheel sutras to show that the tathāgata-essence endowed with the marks and signs of a buddha (''sangs rgyas kyi mtshan dang dpe byad'') naturally exists in all sentient beings."</br>*"Therefore, for Rinchen Yeshé, buddha-nature is not simply a causal potential to achieve enlightenment; rather it is endowed with an inherent enlightened entity that is naturally free from all delusions, but temporarily covered by adventitious defilements."</br>arily covered by adventitious defilements." )
• Atiśa  +
• Sakya Paṇḍita  + (There is some discrepancy between Sapen's … There is some discrepancy between Sapen's use of the term tathāgata-essence and buddha-nature and other thinkers that use these terms synonymously. In Sapen's view, sentient beings do not possess the former, but do possess a more general form of the latter. So while the answer is a qualified "no" in terms of the more general debate on this issue and the way others have addressed it and asserted Sapen's position, strictly speaking from Sapen's view the answer could more accurately be a qualified "yes" as he does state all beings have a basic "inherent" buddha-nature, though this does not correspond to an essence that is endowed with enlightened qualities. The tricky issue being the equivalency of these terms tathāgata-essence and buddha-nature and the perception of the Sakya position by later authors.on of the Sakya position by later authors.)