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
    The Yogācāra idealist thesis is logically untenable. — Carmelics
    Home/Perception
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The Yogācāra idealist thesis is logically untenable.

    Consciousness & MindPerception
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Vasubandhu's vijñaptimātratā collapses under the problem of intersubjective coordination: shared hallucinations require a mind-independent explanatory substrate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Dignāga's attempt to ground object-cognition in svasaṃvedana (self-awareness) generates a vicious regress, as each cognition requires a further cognizing act to be epistemically grounded.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Dharmakīrti's apoha theory, invoked to explain representational content without external objects, presupposes the very referential determinacy it is designed to explain away.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The Yogācāra ālayavijñāna posited to account for causal continuity between mental streams is functionally indistinguishable from a Pudgalavādin substantial self, which Yogācārins themselves reject as ontologically incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.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.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If consciousness does not arise from an external object, the determination of place and time cannot be logically accounted for.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If consciousness does not arise from an external object, the indetermination (non-exclusiveness) with respect to the series of consciousnesses cannot be logically accounted for.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If consciousness does not arise from an external object, the performance of specific causal functions cannot be logically accounted for.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    PerceptionConsciousness & Mind

    Related

    Candrakīrti's Prasannapadā demonstrates that mind-only doctrines cannot coherent...Dharmakīrti's apoha theory, invoked to explain representational content without ...Dignāga's attempt to ground object-cognition in svasaṃvedana (self-awareness) ge...If consciousness does not arise from an external object, the determination of pl...
    +4 moreShow less
    If consciousness does not arise from an external object, the indetermination (no...If consciousness does not arise from an external object, the performance of spec...The Yogācāra ālayavijñāna posited to account for causal continuity between menta...Vasubandhu's vijñaptimātratā collapses under the problem of intersubjective coor...

    Similar

    McTaggart's argument for idealism is not conclusive82%The problem of problematic idealism rests on a false premise.78%Real-Idealism is an inadequate form of idealism.77%A method that cannot overcome one-sidedness cannot justify the superio...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: twotruths-india
    View source passageHide passage
    The core argument in support of the only mind thesis is the impossibility of the existence of external objects. Vasubandhu develops this argument in his Viṃ 1–27 as does Dignāga in his Examination of the Intentional Object (Ālambanaparīkṣāvṛtti, ĀPV 1–8, Tshad ma ce 86a–87b) against the atomists (Naiyāyikas-Vaiśeṣika and Ābhidharmikas[8]). Against the Yogācāra idealist thesis the realist opponents, as Vasubandhu observes, raise three objections:—“If consciousness (does) not (arise) out from an
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit