We agree on the content of Stone's text, as you can see from what I wrote earlier in this thread. Surely you read the whole thread before jumping to conclusions...rory wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:22 am*sigh* thank you. I include the book and page number and repeatedly say "you can read this over at google books" so that people can inform themselves of the argument and have a thoughtful discussion. If DGA had actually bothered to read the page, he'd see the title as " A Geneaology of Original Enlightenment Thought" and then Indian Yogacara mentioned but a big big discussion of the Chinese apocryphon "The Awakening of Faith", Hua-yen, li and shih , Zongmi and Chengguan on p. 6 and finally the Buddhahood of non-sentient beings or in Japanese somoku jobutsu that's page 8!
But that's the less interesting point. Here's the real crux of the matter:
Based on your extensive reading, would you say that tathagatha-garbha was taught as a central premise of Mahayana Buddhism in India, or do you hold that it was a Chinese development that is absent from Mahayana prior to (or outside the influence of) Zhiyi?