I have encountered ‘uttarapakṣa’ in two different senses:

(1) in the sense Dan gives, i.e. as a synonym of 'siddhānta'
(2) to refer to an intermediate position between the pūrvapakṣa and the siddhānta: a way to answer the pūrvapakṣa that is not actually the way of the siddhāntin.  The uttarapakṣa, in this sense, is closer to the siddhānta than the pūrvapakṣa, but still not the 'correct' view, i.e. the view of the author.
 
 Do people find 'uttarapakṣa' to be more commonly used in sense (1) or (2)?

Yours
Alex

On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 6:45 PM Dan Lusthaus <lusthaus@g.harvard.edu> wrote:
Pūrvapakṣa is the opponent’s position — their objections to one’s own position or their position(s) that precipitates the debate. The refutation and victorious defeat of the opponent’s argument is called uttarapakṣa.
Dan

On Jan 4, 2023, at 7:50 AM, Nagaraj Paturi via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:

Yes, your understanding is correct, Prof. Howard Resnick. 

Shaastraartha or Vaakyaartha or Vaada may represent the argumentative approach from both sides in a better way. 

On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 6:04 PM Howard Resnick <hr@ivs.edu> wrote:
Dear Scholars,

Some friends of mine plan to publish a journal on Vaiṣṇava polemics and apologetics, both internal and external, and they want to name the journal Pūrva-pakṣa, which MW renders as "the first objection to an assertion in any discussion, the prima facie view or argument in any question.”

Since these scholars want to refute, or at least problematize, philosophical and theological objections to their own traditional doctrines, I thought the title inappropriate. My view has been that pūrva-pakṣa simply refers to a view or argument that one hopes to refute. It does not refer both to the opposing view, and also to one’s refutation of that view.

Have I understood this correctly?

Many thanks,
Howard

--
Alex Watson
Professor of Indian Philosophy
Ashoka University