Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Vasubandhu's Abhidharma analysis distinguishes dharmas by their causal roles, requiring causes to precede effects by at least one moment.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Atomic moments may be too small to measure causation; no empirical threshold distinguishes one-moment gaps from zero.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Some phenomena appear simultaneous (e.g., heat and light); mandatory temporal gaps conflict with observable co-occurrence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Defining dharmas purely by causal roles may be circular: we identify causes by effects, effects by causes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Causal sequences require temporal order to avoid circular dependence and logical contradiction.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Vasubandhu's moment-by-moment analysis preserves empirical observation of sequential change in experience.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Defining dharmas by causal roles rather than substances avoids essentialist metaphysics while explaining phenomena.
?
How convincing is this?
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.