For Nyāya, sapakṣa denotes those instances where the probandum (sādhya) is known to be present, such as other fiery places when proving “the hill is fiery.” Vipakṣa denotes instances where the sādhya is known to be absent, like a lake where fire is absent. Examining whether the hetu occurs in sapakṣa and is absent in vipakṣa helps establish vyāpti. Thus, the distinction is drawn using the presence or absence of the sādhya, not of the hetu.
Option A:
Option A reverses the intuitive description and treats sapakṣa as dissimilar and vipakṣa as similar, which is not how these terms are technically defined.
Option B:
Option B correctly states that sapakṣa are sādhya positive cases and vipakṣa are sādhya negative cases, the very basis for testing the reliability of the hetu.
Option C:
Option C misclassifies the sets in terms of the hetu and also reverses presence and absence; Nyāya’s formal definitions do not use this pattern.
Option D:
Option D introduces a different distinction based on scriptural versus empirical examples, which is not built into the technical meaning of sapakṣa and vipakṣa.
Comment Your Answer
Please login to comment your answer.
Sign In
Sign Up