UGCNET Questions

The trairūpya or three characteristics of a valid hetu begin with the requirement that the hetu actually qualifies the pakṣa, the subject under consideration. If the subject does not possess the alleged reason, the inference cannot even start, because the reason has no bearing on that case. This condition guarantees relevance of the middle term to the very locus about which something is being proved. It is therefore stated as presence of hetu in the pakṣa.

Option A:
Option A refers to the second condition, presence of hetu in sapakṣa, which concerns other cases where sādhya is known to be present, not the pakṣa itself.

Option B:
Option B correctly identifies the first trairūpya condition, ensuring that the reason genuinely applies to the subject of inference.

Option C:
Option C describes the third condition, absence of hetu in vipakṣa, which is important for excluding counter instances but is distinct from the pakṣa condition.

Option D:
Option D exaggerates the requirement by demanding presence in all possible loci, which is not how trairūpya is formulated; Nyāya focuses on specific similar and dissimilar cases rather than universal omnipresence.

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 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.