Dharmakīrti's svasaṃvitti leads the reflexivity debate; all three traditions remain live with distinct accounts of self-awareness

{
 "eo_id": "eo:reflexivity-structural-local-v1",
 "schema_version": 2,
 "title": "Dharmakīrti's svasaṃvitti leads the reflexivity debate; all three traditions remain live with distinct accounts of self-awareness",
 "status": "active",
 "question": {
  "question_id": "q:reflexivity-intrinsic-or-constructed",
  "tension_point": "Is reflexive awareness intrinsic to consciousness (Abhinavagupta's vimarśa as svabhāva), structurally constituted through difference-relations (Ñāṇavīra's reflexive presence), or a conditioned feature of cognition (Dharmakīrti's svasaṃvitti as phala)?",
  "why_it_matters": "This is the local crux beneath consciousness-fundamental metaphysics. If reflexivity requires intrinsic self-manifestation, Abhinavagupta's vimarśa argument strengthens. If reflexivity can be explained as a conditioned feature of cognition with a robust self-awareness doctrine, Dharmakīrti's account leads. Ñāṇavīra offers a middle path: structural reflexivity without hidden substance. The graph now shows all three as strong contenders with genuinely balanced support.",
  "resolution_level": "local_argument"
 },
 "syllogism": {
  "pratijna": {
   "proposition": "The reflexivity debate is genuinely three-way: Dharmakīrti leads on net score with svasaṃvitti, Ñāṇavīra has highest raw support but most pressure, Abhinavagupta has nearly equal support but must answer the applicability challenge to the crystal argument.",
   "what_it_claims": "The three traditions each have textual support ranging from 13.02 to 14.40 raw support. The difference is in pressure: Abhinavagupta faces the most (3.82) from the Buddhist response, while Dharmakīrti faces the least (1.10). All three remain live. None is defeated. The bridge difference-apoha is formally proven at the determination level."
  },
  "hetu": {
   "evidence": [
    {
     "claim": "Cognition has two appearances: self-appearance (svābhāsa) and object-appearance (viṣayābhāsa). Self-awareness is the result — cognition is inherently self-manifesting.",
     "pramana": "sabda",
     "source_id": "text:dharmakirti-pv3-svasamvitti",
     "target": "cand:dharmakirti-conditioned-reflexivity"
    },
    {
     "claim": "Without vimarśa, consciousness would be insentient like a crystal — structural determination alone does not entail sentience.",
     "pramana": "anumana",
     "source_id": "text:tantraloka-ahnika4",
     "target": "cand:abh-vimarsa-intrinsic"
    },
    {
     "claim": "Consciousness is the presence of a phenomenon, reflexively given. Eye-consciousness is present reflexively.",
     "pramana": "sabda",
     "source_id": "text:nanavira-vinnana",
     "target": "cand:nanavira-structural-reflexivity"
    },
    {
     "claim": "Difference (viśeṣa) arises within vimarśa, not prior to it. All tattvas are equally Light; without vimarśa there is no differentiation.",
     "pramana": "sabda",
     "source_id": "text:tantraloka-ahnika1",
     "target": "cand:abh-vimarsa-intrinsic"
    },
    {
     "claim": "Self-awareness is the nature (svabhāva) of consciousness, not a result (phala) of cognition. It is not an object of a means of knowledge other than its own self-awareness.",
     "pramana": "sabda",
     "source_id": "text:tantraloka-ahnika1",
     "target": "cand:abh-vimarsa-intrinsic"
    },
    {
     "claim": "Abhinavagupta accepts Dignāga's apoha as a valid cognitive method but recontextualizes it within Pratyabhijñā's progressive manifestation.",
     "pramana": "sabda",
     "source_id": "text:tantraloka-ahnika1",
     "target": "cand:abh-vimarsa-intrinsic"
    },
    {
     "claim": "The difference-apoha bridge is BRIDGES at the determination level — formal extensional equivalence between difference-operation and apoha is proven.",
     "pramana": "anumana",
     "source_id": "text:bridge-mapping-formal-proof",
     "target": "bridge:nanavira-difference-dharmakirti-apoha"
    }
   ],
   "source_ids": [
    "text:dharmakirti-pv3-svasamvitti",
    "text:tantraloka-ahnika1",
    "text:tantraloka-ahnika4",
    "text:nanavira-vinnana",
    "text:bridge-mapping-formal-proof"
   ]
  },
  "udaharana": {
   "examples": [
    {
     "scenario": "Nanavira's difference argument: two terms become determinate through the difference between them, and that difference functions as an operation of transformation or interchange.",
     "what_it_shows": "Identity can be reconstructed as contrastive structure rather than as a self-identical substance or hidden owner."
    },
    {
     "scenario": "Nanavira's duration argument: duration is invariance under transformation, so endurance is level-relative persistence of structure rather than absolute substancehood.",
     "what_it_shows": "Recognition and continuity can be explained by invariant structure across change, which pressures but does not refute intrinsic-manifestness accounts."
    },
    {
     "scenario": "The attempted bridge to Dharmakirti's apoha is accepted only with penalty because semantic exclusion and Nanavira's structural difference are similar but not identical.",
     "what_it_shows": "Cross-tradition convergence must be earned by bridge probes and negative controls, not by shared vocabulary."
    }
   ]
  },
  "upanaya": {
   "application": "The gated Nanavira claims strengthen the structural-reflexivity candidate and weaken the direct move from local reflexivity to universal consciousness. They do not defeat Abhinavagupta, because a structural account may still presuppose manifestness. They also do not merge Nanavira with Dharmakirti, because the apoha bridge remains analogical and capped.",
   "cruxes": [
    "crux:recognition-requires-self-manifestation",
    "crux:constructed-reflexivity-presupposes-manifestness",
    "crux:local-to-universal",
    "crux:no-self-target"
   ]
  },
  "nigamana": {
   "best_current_answer": "Structural reflexivity is locally promising and now better evidenced through Nanavira's argument patterns. Universal consciousness is not entailed by that local result