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.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Causal continuity(as what determines whether organisms belong to the same biological group): An unbroken chain of cause-and-effect connections linking one thing to another—like how parents cause their offspring to exist.
Ontologically incoherent(as applied to the idea of creation from nothing): Logically impossible or contradictory in terms of how things actually exist and are structured.
Pudgalavādin(as a Buddhist philosophical school): An ancient Buddhist school that believed in a permanent, unchanging self or person (pudgala) as the basis of personal identity, unlike other Buddhist groups.
Yogācāra(Buddhist philosophy debate with realism): A Buddhist philosophical school that argues against the reality of external objects, here described as mounting defensive arguments against realist challenges
mental streams(as used in Buddhist philosophy): The continuous flow of thoughts, experiences, and consciousness that make up a person's mental life from moment to moment.
substantial self(The conception of selfhood that Nāgārjuna and the Mādhyamika school argue against): A unified, enduring entity distinct from the body and all parts of mental life that serves as the subject underlying all experiences and unifies cognitive life
ālayavijñāna(Yogācāra Buddhist metaphysics): The storehouse consciousness that contains vāsanās in their latent state before they arise to the conscious level.

2 topics