Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Nyaya school of Indian philosophy, founded by Gautama, is renowned for its systematic approach to epistemology and logic. Central to Nyaya’s method of valid knowledge (pramana) is the concept of *hetu*, which translates to ‘reason’ or ‘middle term’ in a syllogism. A *hetu* connects the subject (pakshin) with the predicate (sadhya) to establish a valid inference (anumana). However, not every reason is a valid reason. Nyaya propounds five conditions that a *hetu* must satisfy to be considered valid, ensuring the inference is logically sound and leads to reliable knowledge. These conditions are crucial for distinguishing between genuine knowledge and fallacious reasoning.
Conditions of a Valid Hetu
The five conditions of a valid *hetu* are:
1. Pratiyaka (Inherence)
*Pratiyaka* means the *hetu* must be invariably present in the *pakshin* (subject) and absent in things that are not the *pakshin*. It establishes the initial connection between the subject and the reason. For example, if we infer ‘This is a fire because it has smoke’, smoke must be present in all instances of fire and absent in things that are not fire (like water). If smoke is found in things other than fire, *pratiyaka* is violated.
2. Vyapti (Inclusion/Universality)
*Vyapti* is the most crucial condition. It signifies the universal and unconditional relation between the *hetu* and the *sadhya* (predicate). It means the *hetu* is co-extensive with the *sadhya*; wherever the *sadhya* exists, the *hetu* must exist, and vice versa. Continuing the fire example, *vyapti* would mean that smoke is present *only* where fire is present, and fire is present *only* where smoke is present. This is often expressed as an unconditional statement – ‘Wherever there is A, there is B’.
3. Siddha (Established/Proven)
*Siddha* requires that the *hetu* itself must be established as a valid reason through independent proof. The reason cannot be based on another faulty reason. For instance, if we try to prove the existence of a soul based on the body’s ability to think, and then try to prove the body’s ability to think based on the soul, it’s a circular argument and *siddha* is not met. The *hetu* needs independent validation.
4. Avastha (Absence of Counter-Examples)
*Avastha* means that there should be no counter-examples (vyabhichara) to the *vyapti*. Even a single exception can invalidate the inference. If we say ‘All swans are white’, and then discover a black swan, the *avastha* condition is violated, and the inference is no longer valid. This condition reinforces the universality required by *vyapti*.
5. Kuti (Definiteness)
*Kuti* refers to the definiteness or non-ambiguity of the *hetu*. The reason should be clear and unambiguous, not open to multiple interpretations. If the reason is vague or can apply to multiple things, the inference becomes uncertain. For example, saying ‘This is a cow because it is an animal’ is not a valid *hetu* because ‘animal’ is too broad and applies to many things besides cows. The *hetu* must specifically point towards the *sadhya*.
Table Summarizing the Conditions
| Condition | Meaning | Example (Fire & Smoke) |
|---|---|---|
| Pratiyaka | Inherence in the subject | Smoke is present in fire. |
| Vyapti | Universal relation with the predicate | Smoke is present *only* where fire is present. |
| Siddha | Established reason | The connection between fire and smoke is independently verified. |
| Avastha | Absence of counter-examples | Smoke is *never* found without fire. |
| Kuti | Definiteness | Smoke specifically indicates fire, not other phenomena. |
Conclusion
In conclusion, the five conditions of a valid *hetu* – *pratiyaka*, *vyapti*, *siddha*, *avastha*, and *kuti* – are fundamental to the Nyaya school’s logical framework. These conditions ensure that inferences are not based on fallacies but on sound reasoning, leading to reliable knowledge. By meticulously examining the *hetu* against these criteria, Nyaya philosophers aimed to establish a rigorous and objective method for acquiring valid knowledge and avoiding erroneous conclusions. The emphasis on these conditions highlights the Nyaya school’s commitment to logical precision and epistemological certainty.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.