UGCNET Questions

Nyāya presents a five membered structure of inference in which dṛṣṭānta (or udāharaṇa) is the stage where an example is given to show the universal concomitance between hetu (reason) and sādhya (probandum). For instance, citing “the kitchen where there is smoke and fire” illustrates the smoke–fire relation. This concrete case helps establish the vyāpti that underlies the reasoning.

Option A:
Option A, pratijñā, is the proposition or thesis to be proved, not the example.

Option B:
Option B, hetu, is the reason or sign used in inference, such as “there is smoke on the hill.”

Option C:
Option C correctly names dṛṣṭānta as the example that demonstrates the general connection between reason and what is to be proved.

Option D:
Option D, nigamana, is the final conclusion statement that restates the thesis in light of the reason, not the illustrative example.

Nyaya logic describes a five-membered inferential structure consisting of pratijñā (proposition), hetu (reason), udāharaṇa or dṛṣṭānta (example), upanaya (application) and nigamana (conclusion). Pramāṇa, meaning means of valid knowledge, is an important epistemological category in Indian philosophy but is not listed as one of these five components of a single inferential act. Therefore, it does not belong in the avayava sequence.

Option A:
Option A, pratijñā, is indeed the first member, stating the thesis that is to be proved.

Option B:
Option B, hetu, gives the reason or ground for the thesis and is a recognised member of the five-part structure.

Option C:
Option C, dṛṣṭānta, provides a familiar example to illustrate the universal concomitance and is also part of the classical scheme.

Option D:
Option D names a broader notion related to sources of knowledge, not a specific segment of the fivefold inferential form, so it is the one that does not fit.