The Mīmāṃsaka and Buddhist critics who invoke collective agency cannot account for the lawlike regularity of adṛṣṭa (unseen potentials) without a single superintending intelligence to organize their activation.

?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.

Adṛṣṭa(as a concept in Indian philosophy): A Sanskrit term meaning 'unseen' or 'invisible'—in Hindu philosophy, it refers to hidden forces or potential consequences that carry forward from past actions to produce future results.
Buddhist critics(as philosophical opponents): Philosophers from the Buddhist tradition who disagreed with other schools of thought and challenged their ideas through logical debate.
Lawlike regularity(the background assumption needed to make sense of past observations): The assumption that nature follows consistent, predictable patterns or laws that will continue to hold in the future the way they have in the past.
Mīmāṃsaka(as the source of the objection being discussed): A follower of Mīmāṃsā, an ancient Indian school of philosophy that focused on interpreting religious texts and determining what counts as reliable knowledge.

Based on where you are in your exploration