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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The Abhidharma Buddhist account of a person as a mere aggregate of experiences cannot adequately account for trans-modality judgements.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The Abhidharma Buddhist holds that a person is nothing more than an aggregate of experiences (visual, tactile, etc.).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Trans-modality judgements comparing the deliverances of different sense-faculties are possible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Such judgements cannot be attributed to any single experiential component within the aggregate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Udayana's Nyāyakusumāñjali argues that cross-modal synthesis requires a single persistent cognizer that 'owns' perceptions across different sense organs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Abhidharma doctrine of momentary mental dharmas (cittā) entails that each sensory event is numerically distinct, with no enduring substrate to bind them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A binding relation between numerically distinct momentary dharmas cannot itself be a further momentary dharma without generating an infinite regress of binding relations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's Critique of Pure Reason establishes that the unity of apperception—'I think' accompanying all representations—is a necessary condition for any comparative judgment across representations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Abhidharma reduction of persons to skandhas explicitly denies any functional analog to transcendental apperception, leaving no locus for the 'accompanying' unification Kant identifies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Vasubandhu's own Abhidharmakośa concedes that manas (the mental sense-faculty) processes outputs of other faculties, but this presupposes a coordinating function that skandha-bundle ontology cannot ground without circularity.
      ?

      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.