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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The perfect nature is the eternal nonexistence of the imaginary nature (subject-object duality) in the dependent nature

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dignāga and Dharmakīrti argue that cognition requires a subject-object structure as a transcendental condition for any experience whatsoever.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If subject-object duality is a necessary condition for dependent-nature cognition, its 'eternal nonexistence' in the dependent nature entails the dependent nature itself is impossible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A perfect nature defined by the negation of a necessary condition of the dependent nature cannot coherently be grounded in that dependent nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Candrakīrti's Mādhyamika critique holds that positing an eternally existent perfect nature (pariniṣpanna) reifies a positive absolute, reinstating the substantialist error Yogācāra claims to dissolve.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim that the imaginary nature's absence is 'eternal' presupposes a permanently subsisting substrate in which that absence obtains, which is itself an imaginary hypostatization.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The perfect nature is defined as the eternal nonexistence of 'as it appears' (the imaginary nature) of 'what appears' (the dependent nature)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The imaginary nature is the unreal conceptual fabrication of subject-object duality
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The dependent nature (representations) appears in cognition as if it contains subject-object duality, but the dependent nature is wholly devoid of such duality
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42