Anupalabdhi is introduced to account for our apparent direct awareness of something being absent, as when we recognise “there is no pot on the floor.” Proponents argue that such awareness cannot be fully reduced to other pramāṇas like perception or inference and therefore deserves separate acknowledgment. The cognition is triggered by appropriate non perception under suitable conditions and is said to present absence as its own kind of object.
Option A:
Option A wrongly limits anupalabdhi to universals; absence can concern particular items like “this pot” as well as general states.
Option B:
Option B focuses on substances rather than their non existence; anupalabdhi concerns knowing that a substance is not present in a locus.
Option C:
Option C correctly states that the pramāṇa is meant to deliver immediate awareness of absence or non existence in a specified place and time.
Option D:
Option D ties the cognition exclusively to scripture, whereas anupalabdhi is usually discussed in perceptual contexts, such as seeing an empty ground and cognising lack.
Comment Your Answer
Please login to comment your answer.
Sign In
Sign Up
Answers commented by others
No answers commented yet. Be the first to comment!