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 Yogācāra idealist thesis is logically untenable.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.