Non-apprehension and God

As we have already noted Udayana takes up for discussion the third contradictory notion in the third stavaka. It is argued by the opponent that there are Proofs which establish the absence of God. Udayana discusses the nature of pramāṇas as admitted by not only Nyāya but also by the other systems and shows that none of them can prove the absence of God. Though it is not directly connected with the subject matter of his discussion, Udayana criticises the views of others on the nature and number of pramāṇas and establishes the Nyāya position that there are only four pramāṇas.^[1]

According to the Bauddha, the absence of a thing is proved by non-apprehension (anupalabdhi).^[2] If a thing is not apprehended at a particular place, it is ascertained that it does not exist there, for example, the absence of a jar on the ground, God is nowhere apprehended by anybody. Therefore, God does not exist. But it may be objected that the matter is not so simple. Absence of apprehension does not always prove the absence of a thing. There are things which can be apprehended by senses. There are also things which are not so. In the case of the former we say that absence of apprehension proves its absence. But in the case of the latter it cannot be concluded that the thing is not there. God cannot be apprehended by any sense. Therefore non apprehension cannot establish God’s absence. The Bauddha says that such a defence is not possible. If such a position is accepted, it will not be possible to establish the absence of a hare’s horn also. It cannot be said that such a thing does not exist, because it is never apprehended due to the fact that such a horn is never apprehended by anybody. Actually the rule should be simply whatever is not apprehended does not exist. God is not apprehended, therefore God is non-existent.^[3] Refuting the above Udayana says that nonapprehension simply cannot be accepted as proving absence. The rule should be that whatever is perceptible, but is not perceived, will be treated as absent. Even the Bauddha has to accept it. Like Nyāya and others the Bauddha also admit the unseen result of actions. He also believes in the law of Karman. But the results of actions are not apprehended by anybody. Still, their existence is not denied. Similar will be the case with God. Even if this position is accepted there will be no problem in establishing the absence of a hare’s horn. When one says that a hare’s horn does not exist what is actually meant is that the thing known as a horn does not exist in a thing called the hare. Both a horn and a hare are things which actually exist and can be apprehended by a sense. But a horn as present in a hare is never apprehended. So it does not exist. Moreover, it may also mean that there is no pramāṇa which can establish the presence of a horn in a hare. But Udayana claims that there are pramāṇas which establish God definitely.^[4] (He will discuss them in the fifth stavaka).