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
    Material form experienced in dreams is not distinct from ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Perception
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Phenomena that appear to be real external objects (such as a blue-patch) are not distinct from the phenomenological experience of those objects

    Material form experienced in dreams is not distinct from the dreaming experience itself

    Consciousness & MindPerception
    ?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.

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

    Topics

    PerceptionConsciousness & Mind

    Connections

    1 topic

    Causation2 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Perception
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Phenomena that appear to be real external objects (such as a blue-patch) are not...That which stands in causal relations is mere consciousness onlyWhatever is causally established abides in consciousness

    Similar

    If each perception event constitutes a distinct perceiver, then dream ...79%Retentions must be a distinctive and not commonly recognised form of e...78%Descartes' formulation presupposes only that we do in fact make a dist...78%This formulation is compatible with the conclusion that we cannot reli...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: twotruths-india
    View source passageHide passage
    In terms of the argument, Śāntarakṣita argues “that which is cause and effect is mere consciousness only. And whatever is causally established abides in consciousness.” ([MAK] 91, Dbu ma sa 56a) Therefore phenomena that appear to be real external objects like a blue-patch are not something that is distinct from the nature of the phenomenological experience of blue-patch, even so, as the material form experienced in dreams is not distinct from the dreaming experience ([MAV] 91 Dbu ma sa 79a).

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective