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.

Nyāya insists that vyāpti between hetu and sādhya must be grounded in both positive and negative correlated instances. For smoke and fire, this means repeatedly seeing smoke accompanied by fire in similar loci (sapakṣa) like kitchens, and not finding smoke where there is no fire in dissimilar loci (vipakṣa) such as lakes or open spaces. This combined pattern supports the conviction that wherever there is smoke there is fire, establishing invariable concomitance.

Option A:
Option A is too weak, because mere repetition of a single example may be accidental and does not rule out exceptions.

Option B:
Option B confines observation to a single type of positive instance and ignores negative cases, so it cannot eliminate possibilities of smoke without fire elsewhere.

Option C:
Option C captures the need for both anvaya (co-presence) and vyatireka (co-absence), which together underpin robust knowledge of vyāpti in Nyāya epistemology.

Option D:
Option D overstates the role of scripture; while śabda is an accepted pramāṇa, vyāpti for empirical inference like smoke–fire is not usually taken from testimony alone.