This paper was written by a student at the University of Hawaii as part of an Infinity Foundation sponsored project.
This paper attempts to answer the above question by investigating
Paul Griffiths's argument against the cessation state (C-state). The first part
of this paper concludes that Yogacarin Buddhist's belief in the .layavijn.na
(store-house of consciousness) may not be the best explanation for the C-state
because the .layavijn.na is an ad-hoc belief that was conjured up in order to
preserve their underlying belief in anti-substantivism (adravyasat). The second
part of this paper is a reply to Griffiths's charge of ad-hocness by
concluding that Yogacarin Buddhists are within their epistemic rights to believe
in anti-substantivism since no convincing requirements have been established
for properly basic beliefs (basicality) that rule out the possibility of anti-substantivism
as a candidate for basicality. Therefore, in the end, the belief in the C-state
is not an unjustified belief. The third part of this paper investigates the
"common sense" criteria or the "innocent-until-proven-guilty"
principle of rationality that allow the Yogacarin Buddhists to responsibly hold
anti-substantivism as a properly basic belief. Lastly, I examine a possible
argument against common sense as criteria for basicality due to its detriment
in performing positive apologetics.
To download this paper is available as a .pdf file, please click here.
To download a free copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader to view these files, please click here.