Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The problem of negative facts – how we can know what is *not* the case – is a central concern in epistemology. Both Buddhism and the Nyaya school of Indian philosophy grapple with this issue, though their approaches differ significantly. Nyaya, a realist school, relies on inference to establish the absence of a thing, while Buddhism, particularly the Madhyamaka school, utilizes the concept of emptiness and dependent origination to understand the lack of inherent existence. Understanding their respective methodologies reveals fundamental differences in their metaphysical commitments and how they perceive reality.
Nyaya’s Explanation of Knowledge of Absence
The Nyaya school, founded by Gautama, posits that knowledge of absence (abhava-jnana) is a valid form of knowledge. They distinguish between four types of absence:
- Absolute Absence (pragabhava): The non-existence of a thing that is impossible to exist in a particular place (e.g., a lotus in the sky).
- Antecedent Absence (dristabhava): The non-existence of a thing that has not been previously experienced (e.g., a jar that was never seen on the table).
- Subsequent Absence (drshtabhava): The non-existence of a thing that was previously experienced (e.g., the jar that was previously on the table is now absent).
- Inherent Absence (samanya-abhava): The absence of a characteristic from a thing (e.g., the absence of wetness in fire).
Nyaya explains our knowledge of ‘the absence of the jar on the table’ as drshtabhava. This knowledge arises through inference (anumana). The inference takes the form: “The jar is on the table (positive statement); but it is not perceived (negative evidence); therefore, the jar is not on the table (negative conclusion).” The perception of the table without the jar serves as the negative evidence. The Nyaya school emphasizes the role of a valid reason (hetu) and a universal proposition (vyapti) in establishing this inference. The vyapti would be something like “wherever there is a jar, it is perceived.”
Buddhist Explanation of Knowledge of Absence
Buddhism, particularly the Madhyamaka school founded by Nagarjuna, approaches the question of absence differently. They reject the notion of inherent existence (svabhava) for all phenomena. For Buddhists, things exist dependently (pratītyasamutpāda) – they arise in relation to other things and have no independent, self-sustaining reality. Therefore, the question of ‘absence’ isn’t about the non-existence of a thing with inherent existence, but rather the lack of a thing appearing in a specific context.
Regarding ‘the absence of the jar on the table’, the Buddhist would not say the jar *doesn’t exist* absolutely. Instead, they would say that the conditions for the jar to be present on the table are not met. The perception of the table without the jar doesn’t prove the jar’s non-existence, but rather demonstrates the absence of the specific conditions (cause and effect) that would bring the jar into being on the table. This understanding stems from the concept of sunyata (emptiness), which doesn’t mean nothingness, but rather the lack of inherent existence. The jar exists as a potentiality, but its manifestation on the table depends on a complex web of causes and conditions.
The Yogacara school, another major Buddhist school, explains absence through the concept of vijnaptimatra (mind-only). The perceived absence is a construction of consciousness, a result of the lack of corresponding impressions in the store-consciousness (alayavijnana).
Comparison and Contrast
| Feature | Nyaya | Buddhism (Madhyamaka) |
|---|---|---|
| Metaphysical Basis | Realism – objects have inherent existence | Emptiness (Sunyata) – objects lack inherent existence |
| Epistemological Tool | Inference (Anumana) | Dependent Origination (Pratītyasamutpāda) & Emptiness |
| Nature of Absence | A valid form of knowledge about a real non-existence | Absence of conditions for manifestation, not absolute non-existence |
| Focus | Establishing the non-existence of an object | Understanding the impermanent and conditioned nature of reality |
Conclusion
In conclusion, while both Nyaya and Buddhist philosophies address the knowledge of absence, their approaches are fundamentally different. Nyaya relies on a realist framework and inference to establish the non-existence of objects, treating absence as a valid cognitive category. Buddhism, grounded in the concept of emptiness and dependent origination, views absence not as a negation of existence, but as the lack of specific conditions for manifestation. These contrasting perspectives highlight the divergent metaphysical and epistemological commitments of these two influential schools of Indian thought.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.