Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Candrakīrti's Prasannapadā demonstrates that mind-only do... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The Yogācāra idealist thesis is logically untenable.

    Candrakīrti's Prasannapadā demonstrates that mind-only doctrines cannot coherently distinguish veridical from non-veridical experience without invoking an external standard, making idealism self-undermining.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Mind-only systems must explain why some mental states reliably co-occur while others don't, requiring standards beyond subjective appearance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Dreams and perceptions are phenomenologically identical, yet we distinguish them; this distinction demands criteria external to mind alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without external verification, idealism cannot account for why all minds converge on shared perceptual content rather than diverging arbitrarily.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Idealists can invoke internal criteria (causal coherence, stability, intersubjective agreement) without positing external reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Candrakīrti's critique targets realist externalism but doesn't foreclose idealist responses using mind-immanent distinctions between appearances.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim assumes distinguishing veridical from non-veridical experience requires metaphysical externality, not merely functional or epistemic standards.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Key Terms

    Candrakīrti(as the main philosopher being discussed)
    An Indian Buddhist philosopher from around the 600s CE who wrote detailed commentaries on Buddhist logic and metaphysics, particularly focusing on the idea that nothing has a permanent, independent essence.
    Coherently(as describing how these functions work together)
    In a way that is logically consistent and doesn't contradict itself.
    External standard(as used in epistemology and metaphysics)
    An independent measure or rule outside yourself that you can use to check whether something is true or false.
    Mind-only doctrines(The theory being criticized in the statement)
    A philosophical view that argues only the mind and its thoughts truly exist, and that the physical world outside our minds might be an illusion or mental creation.
    Non-veridical experience(contrasted with veridical experience)
    An experience that doesn't match reality, like when you have a false belief, a hallucination, or a dream.
    Prasannapadā(as the specific work being discussed)
    The title of a famous commentary (literally 'Clear Words') that Candrakīrti wrote to explain Buddhist philosophy, particularly the idea that everything depends on other things to exist.
    Self-undermining(in logic and argument)
    When an idea or rule contradicts itself or destroys the very thing it's trying to achieve.
    idealism(Presented as a consequence of the coherence theory of truth, but not exclusive to it)
    The view that one's beliefs constitute the world
    veridical experience(Used to argue that two observers representing a tomato's motion differently can both perceive correctly)
    A perceptual experience that accurately represents its object; a perception is veridical if it correctly captures some true relational property of the perceived object, even if that property differs from the relational property captured by another observer's veridical experience

    Connections

    2 topics

    Consciousness & Mind1 linkedPerception1 linked

    Related

    Candrakīrti's critique targets realist externalism but doesn't foreclose idealis...Dreams and perceptions are phenomenologically identical, yet we distinguish them...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit
    Idealists can invoke internal criteria (causal coherence, stability, intersubjec...
    Mind-only systems must explain why some mental states reliably co-occur while ot...
    +3 moreShow less
    The Yogācāra idealist thesis is logically untenable.The claim assumes distinguishing veridical from non-veridical experience require...Without external verification, idealism cannot account for why all minds converg...