UGCNET Questions

Nyāya requires a proper hetu to satisfy three marks: it must qualify the subject (pakṣadharmatā), it must be found in all positive instances where the probandum is known (sapakṣa), and it must be absent in all negative instances where the probandum is absent (vipakṣa). These jointly ensure that the hetu is relevant, positively correlated and free from counter examples. When all three hold, the middle term can reliably support the conclusion.

Option A:
Option A reverses two of the conditions by demanding absence in sapakṣa and presence in vipakṣa, which would destroy the evidential value of the hetu. Such a pattern would actually count against the sādhya.

Option B:
Option B correctly captures the three conditions of trairūpya: presence in pakṣa, universal presence in sapakṣa and universal absence in vipakṣa. This is why it is the formally correct statement.

Option C:
Option C makes the hetu absent in the pakṣa, which automatically yields an asiddha hetu and violates the first condition. It also allows irregular behaviour in other cases.

Option D:
Option D focuses on scriptural examples and ignores empirical cases; trairūpya, however, is a formal logical requirement and not restricted to scriptural contexts.

Pakṣadharmatā literally means that the property functioning as hetu must belong to the pakṣa about which we are trying to prove something. If the subject does not actually possess the middle term, the reason is irrelevant and the inference fails immediately. This is the first of Nyāya’s three conditions for a valid hetu.

Option A:
Option A unrealistically demands presence of the hetu in all possible cases everywhere; trairūpya only requires presence in the pakṣa and appropriate sapakṣa, not universal omnipresence.

Option B:
Option B correctly states that the hetu must qualify the subject of inference, which is exactly what pakṣadharmatā expresses.

Option C:
Option C reverses what is required; the hetu should be present, not absent, in sapakṣa (which are sādhya-positive cases).

Option D:
Option D ties the requirement to scriptural authority, but pakṣadharmatā is about property possession in the subject, independent of the pramāṇa by which it is known.

Nyāya requires that a sound hetu meet three conditions: it must be present in the pakṣa (pakṣadharmatā), present in all sapakṣa where the sādhya is known to be present, and absent from all vipakṣa where the sādhya is known to be absent. Together these ensure relevance, positive support and lack of counter examples.

Option A:
Option A inverts the pattern by demanding absence in sapakṣa and presence in vipakṣa, which would make the hetu useless for proving the sādhya.

Option B:
Option B correctly states the trairūpya pattern: presence in pakṣa and sapakṣa, absence in vipakṣa.

Option C:
Option C starts by saying the hetu is absent in the pakṣa, which already violates pakṣadharmatā and makes it an asiddha hetu.

Option D:
Option D imposes an irrelevant restriction to scriptural examples and excludes empirical instances, which has nothing to do with the formal threefold requirement.