saiva-decombination-bind-claims

{
 "packet_id": "ip:saiva-decombination-bind",
 "schema_version": 2,
 "artifact_type": "argument_fabric_claim_packet",
 "source": {
  "source_id": "sanskritree:truth:siddhitrayi+tantraloka",
  "title": "Śaiva Decombination Problem — from translated Siddhis and Tantrāloka",
  "author": "Utpaladeva, Abhinavagupta",
  "source_files": [
   "/root/projects/sanskritree/truth/truthtranslation",
   "/root/projects/sanskritree/truth/sambandhasiddhi_translation.md",
   "/root/projects/sanskritree/truth/isvarasiddhi_translation.md"
  ],
  "tradition_scope": "trika_pratyabhijna"
 },
 "target_question_id": "q:perspectival-partition",
 "extracted_by": "codex",
 "extracted_at": "2026-07-28",
 "status": "draft_from_translated_siddhis",
 "claims": [
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:aps-universalization-asserts-not-proves",
   "source_type": "manual_translation",
   "source_id": "truthtranslation:verses-16-17-25",
   "source_span": {
    "file": "/root/projects/sanskritree/truth/truthtranslation",
    "locator": "lines 654-792, 1131-1201",
    "quote": "ubhayo 'py eṣa paryantabhūmiḥ sarvārthasaṃvidām / eka evānusandhānād ato 'nyo nopapadyate //"
   },
   "claim_text": "Ajadapramātṛsiddhi verses 16-17 and 25 attempt the universalization from local synthesis to one universal subject. Verse 17's 'sarvārthasaṃvidām' is ambiguous between 'all cognitions within one stream' and 'all cognitions of every subject.' The argument from synthesis is strongest within one diachronic stream. The move from intra-stream synthesis to trans-stream identity is where the argument breaks. Tantrāloka 16.242 confirms: 'bhogyajñānaṃ nānyadeheṣv anusandhānam arhati' — knowledge enjoyed in one body cannot perform connective synthesis with other bodies. This supports the LOCAL reading of anusandhāna.",
   "targets": [
    {
     "target_id": "cand:siva-decombination",
     "target_type": "candidate_explanation"
    },
    {
     "target_id": "crux:local-to-global-gluing",
     "target_type": "crux"
    }
   ],
   "tradition_scope": "trika_pratyabhijna",
   "paradigm": "trika_pratyabhijna",
   "evidence_dimension": "textual",
   "pramana": "sabda",
   "hetu": "the text claims universal synthesis but the quantifier scope is ambiguous",
   "sadhya": "transpersonal numerical identity is asserted, not demonstrated",
   "vyapti_statement": "If the strongest evidence for universal synthesis (anusandhāna) is qualified as local by Abhinavagupta himself, the universalization claim lacks textual support even within the tradition.",
   "vyapti_confidence": 0.75,
   "log_bayes_factor": 0.55,
   "w_rel": 0.8,
   "w_map": 0.7,
   "w_aux": 0.75,
   "falsifier": {
    "type": "philological",
    "condition": "Show a passage in Abhinavagupta's Vivṛtivimarśinī where anusandhāna is explicitly said to operate across cognitive streams, not just within one.",
    "status": "untested"
   },
   "reasoning": "The three Siddhitrayī texts were supposed to supply the nondual proof. None do. APS asserts universalization but Abhinavagupta's own qualification limits anusandhāna to one body. This is key evidence for the decombination bind."
  },
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:sambandhasiddhi-aikatyma-assumes-framework",
   "source_type": "manual_translation",
   "source_id": "sambandhasiddhi:verse-8",
   "source_span": {
    "file": "/root/projects/sanskritree/truth/sambandhasiddhi_translation.md",
    "locator": "Verse 8 commentary",
    "quote": "evaṃ ca sati vastūnāṃ cinmātravapuṣāṃ satām / māyānirmitabhedānām apy ekatvam adurghaṭam //"
   },
   "claim_text": "Sambandhasiddhi verse 8 states that entities whose essence is pure consciousness (cinmātravapus), though differentiated by Māyā, are not impossible to unify. But this assumes the Pratyabhijñā ontology — it does not argue for it. The verse is cited as a demonstration that relation is real, but it presupposes the very metaphysics that needs to be proved. The text's contribution is the theory of relation as consciousness's self-unifying activity (rūpasaṃśleṣa = aikātm