q:reflexivity-intrinsic-or-constructed.abh-anupaya-map

{
 "schema_version": 1,
 "artifact_type": "argument_fabric_source_map",
 "question_id": "q:reflexivity-intrinsic-or-constructed",
 "source_packet_id": "ip:abh-anupaya",
 "claim_packet": "content/information-packets/abh-anupaya-claims.json",
 "generated_by": "codex_hermes_loop",
 "source_role": "abh-anupaya",
 "candidate_under_test": "all",
 "central_reading": "TĀ 2 (Anupāya): from the No Means perspective, the two-aspect structure is seen as never having been separate. The entire reflexivity debate — whether the structure is self-grounding, grounded in vimarśa, or groundless — presupposes a separation that doesn't exist from this view.",
 "nnexpr_mappings": [
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:abh-anupaya-meta",
   "source_span_id": "span:abh-anupaya-meta",
   "quoted_anchor": "TĀ 2 (Anupāya/No Means chapter): 'Of what use can any means ",
   "nn_expr": "sambandha(abh_anupaya_meta,target)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "trika_pratyabhijna",
   "evidence_dimension": "textual",
   "pramana": "sabda",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "the reflexivity debate presupposes a sep",
    "hetu": "consciousness is self-luminous and requires no means — the distinction between ground and grounded does not arise at this level",
    "sadhya": "the reflexivity debate presupposes a separation that Anupāya reveals as never having been actual",
    "vyapti": "If consciousness needs no means to itself because it IS self-luminous, then the "
   },
   "argument_role": "support",
   "targets": [
    "cand:abh-vimarsa-intrinsic",
    "cand:self-grounding-structure",
    "cand:groundless-reflexivity"
   ],
   "gate_outcome": "accepted",
   "fallacies_flagged": [],
   "falsifier": "Show that the Anupāya perspective still requires the two-aspect distinction (at least as something to be transcended), making it a position within the debate rather than a dissolution of it."
  }
 ],
 "argument_edges": [
  {
   "edge_id": "edge:abh-anupaya-meta:support:cand-abh-vimarsa-intrinsic",
   "source_node_id": "cl:abh-anupaya-meta",
   "target_node_id": "cand:abh-vimarsa-intrinsic",
   "edge_type": "support",
   "strength": 0.82,
   "relation_rationale": "Provides the deepest level of Abhinavagupta's position — the perspective from which the entire debate dissolves."
  },
  {
   "edge_id": "edge:abh-anupaya-meta:attack:cand-self-grounding-structure",
   "source_node_id": "cl:abh-anupaya-meta",
   "target_node_id": "cand:self-grounding-structure",
   "edge_type": "attack",
   "strength": 0.6,
   "relation_rationale": "The self-grounding question only arises within the separation that Anupāya reveals as illusory."
  },
  {
   "edge_id": "edge:abh-anupaya-meta:attack:cand-groundless-reflexivity",
   "source_node_id": "cl:abh-anupaya-meta",
   "target_node_id": "cand:groundless-reflexivity",
   "edge_type": "attack",
   "strength": 0.45,
   "relation_rationale": "Both 'groundless' and 'Anupāya' reject the question, but differently — Ñāṇavīra via cessation of asmimāna, Abhinavagupta via the realization that separation never occurred."
  }
 ],
 "bridge_probe_logic": {},
 "structural_correspondences": [],
 "directional_critique_pairs": [],
 "state_of_play_delta": {
  "current_best_answer": "TĀ 2 (Anupāya): from the No Means perspective, the two-aspect structure is seen as never having been separate. The entire reflexivity debate — whether the structure is self-grounding, grounded in vimarśa, or groundless — presupposes a separation that doesn't exist from this view.",
  "next_tests": []
 }
}