[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Science, technology and education](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science) › [Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021) › c8.s7.6 # Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c8.s7.6 Vāda in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c8.s7.6 - **Language:** English ### [c8.s7.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.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\*. - [Previous: c8.s7.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c8.s7.5) - [Next: c8.s7.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c8.s7.7) - [Up: c8.s7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c8.s7) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c8.s7.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c8.s7.6) · Pramāṇa