Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c7.s2.21

c7.s2.21

Caraka has added two more categories — *sthāpanā* and *pratiṣṭhāpanā* — after *pratijñā* (proposition). The statement of probandum is *pratijñā*. *Sthāpanā* involves the other four categories of the five-member syllogism for substantiating the *pratijñā*. *Pratiṣṭhāpanā* is the counter-proposition reversing the proposition of the opponent. Caraka has reformulated the concept of *hetu* (probans). That which leads to the attainment of the probandum is *hetu*, and it is a resultant of four *pramāṇas* — *pratyakṣa*, *anumāna*, *aitihya* and *upamāna*.⁵¹ There is slight difference in his concept of *dṛṣṭānta*, *upanaya* and *nigamana* also. A *dṛṣṭānta* should be intelligible to fools and scholars alike, and *upanaya* as well as *nigamana* are to be seen in the context of *sthāpanā* and *pratiṣṭhāpanā*.⁵² *Uttara* is a rejoinder. If the proponent explains *hetu* on the basis of similarities, the opponent would explain the same on the basis of dissimilarities. For example, if a patient is suffering from *śītavyādhi* (flu), the proponent would say that the causes of this disease are contact with chill air in winter. The opponent would reply — the same causes, i.e. the contact with chill air, etc. would function as favourable when one is suffering from heat.⁵³ In Gautama’s system, this category is incorporated in the treatment on *jāti*.