UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Sabda is recognised as a pramana in which valid knowledge is produced by meaningful sentences uttered by a reliable speaker or contained in authoritative texts. It covers a wide range of everyday and scriptural information that individuals cannot verify directly. The reliability of sabda depends on the competence and honesty of the source. Therefore the testimony-based knowledge referred to in the stem is called sabda.

Option A:
Option A is correct because sabda directly names verbal testimony as a distinct means of knowledge in Nyaya. It captures cases where we justifiably believe something on the basis of another's trustworthy report.

Option B:
Option B, upamana, uses comparison to identify new objects and does not primarily involve belief in another's authority beyond the initial description.

Option C:
Option C, arthapatti, is postulation where a new fact is inferred to explain an otherwise inexplicable situation, which is different from simply accepting a statement on trust.

Option D:
Option D, anupalabdhi, is non-perception or absence, accepted as a pramana in some schools like Bhatta Mimamsa, not in classical Nyaya. It involves cognising the non-existence of an object rather than learning from verbal testimony.

Śabda in Nyāya is defined as verbal testimony coming from an āpta, a competent and trustworthy speaker, or from reliable scriptures regarded as composed by such persons. It is not mere language, but language that is free from intention to deceive and error. The truth of the cognition depends on the reliability of the source and the proper understanding of the words used.

Option A:
Option A overgeneralises by including any written text regardless of reliability; Nyāya restricts śabda pramāṇa to trustworthy sources, so unreliable texts cannot generate valid śabda pramā.

Option B:
Option B correctly expresses the Nyāya position by emphasising that the words must come from a trustworthy person or scripture to function as a pramāṇa.

Option C:
Option C reduces verbal testimony to internal reflection, which misses the essential interpersonal and linguistic character of śabda.

Option D:
Option D confines śabda to Vedic ritual mantras; Nyāya also includes secular and ordinary statements by reliable persons as śabda.

Statements A, B, C, E and F correctly sketch key differences between Buddhist logic and Nyaya, while D is false. Buddhist theorists typically reduce śabda to forms of inference rather than treating it as wholly independent. Apoha explains generality via exclusion of others, and the doctrine of momentariness shapes their understanding of causal series and inference. UGC NET may test these contrasts at a conceptual level. Thus A, B, C, E and F only is the correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits F, failing to mention the exam relevance of these doctrinal differences. While A, B, C and E are true, they do not acknowledge how the topic appears in UGC NET. Therefore this option is not fully suitable.

Option B:
Option B is correct since it includes the main historical and theoretical points along with their significance for the syllabus, while excluding D, which misrepresents the status of śabda. It matches the depth usually expected from candidates.

Option C:
Option C is wrong because it includes D, which incorrectly grants verbal testimony independent pramāṇa status in mainstream Buddhist logic. This conflicts with their reductionist approach. Including D makes the combination inconsistent.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect as it omits B and includes only A, C, E and F, thereby leaving out the central apoha theory of meaning. Without B, a major hallmark of Buddhist logic is missing. Hence this option cannot be accepted.

Sabda is the pramana that delivers knowledge through credible verbal statements, such as those found in authentic scriptures or uttered by trustworthy experts. In traditions like Nyaya and Mimamsa, such testimony is considered an independent and irreducible means of valid cognition when certain conditions of reliability are met. Sabda thus covers truths that may not be accessible through direct perception or inference alone. Therefore the testimony-based knowledge described in the stem is called sabda.

Option A:
Option A is correct because sabda emphasises the role of authoritative speech as a channel of knowledge, recognising that much of what we know depends on others' reports. Classical discussions carefully analyse what makes a speaker or text trustworthy.

Option B:
Option B, upamana, as noted, is comparison-based knowledge arising from perceived similarity between a described object and a known one. It does not require dependence on an authoritative speaker beyond the initial description.

Option C:
Option C, arthapatti, is postulation or presumption, a pramana recognised in some schools like Mimamsa, where a new fact is postulated to reconcile apparently conflicting data; it is different from mere testimony.

Option D:
Option D, anumana, refers to inferential knowledge derived from a sign and its vyapti with the probandum, not from accepting a statement on another's authority.