Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c8.s7.6

c8.s7.6

Udayana proposed the reality of negation. Abhāva came to accepted as an additional ontological category in later Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika system. Out of his concern with making the theory of *anumāna* perfectly precise, Dharmakīrti dared to disapprove the postulation of Diṅnāga here also (like in the sphere of *pratyakṣa*). Diṅnāga proposed three essential categories for the validity of an *anumāna* — *pakṣa*, *sādhya* and *hetu*. But he also allowed *dṛṣṭānta* to be included for establishing an *anumāna* in a convincing way. Dharmakīrti stood against this practical consideration. *Dṛṣṭānta* not being an essential component has to be discarded from the structure of *anumāna*.