UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Nyāya differentiates between svārthānumāna, inference for oneself, and parārthānumāna, inference stated for the benefit of others. Parārthānumāna is typically presented in the full five membered form, making each step explicit to the listener. Its purpose is communicative and instructional: to lead another person from accepted premises to a conclusion through transparent reasoning.

Option A:
Option A describes svārthānumāna, the inner inferential process that need not be linguistically articulated.

Option B:
Option B rightly identifies parārthānumāna as outwardly expressed inference aimed at persuading or teaching someone else.

Option C:
Option C confuses the issue with scriptural evidence; dependence on scripture concerns śabda rather than the distinction between self addressed and other addressed inference.

Option D:
Option D associates parārthānumāna with a special class of objects, whereas the term is defined by its audience and function, not by subject matter.

Nyāya differentiates inference by its audience. Svārthānumāna is the inner inferential process by which an individual arrives at a conclusion for themselves, without needing to articulate each step. Parārthānumāna is the outward, usually five-membered, presentation of an inference intended to lead another person to the same conclusion. The difference is communicative, not structural.

Option A:
Option A reverses the usual pattern; parārthānumāna is typically the fully verbalised form for others, whereas svārthānumāna can remain unexpressed.

Option B:
Option B correctly states that svārthānumāna is for oneself and parārthānumāna is for another, which is the standard Nyāya distinction.

Option C:
Option C incorrectly ties the distinction to different pramāṇas (perception vs testimony); both forms rely on the same inferential pramāṇa.

Option D:
Option D absurdly links the distinction to truth and falsity; both forms can be valid or invalid depending on the hetu and vyāpti.