Adherent. But if A be B then (you should have said) C is D.
That B can be affirmed of A but D of C is false.
Hence your first answer is refuted.")
The antecedent of the hypothetical major premiss is termed @thâpanâ, because the opponent's position, A is B, is conditionally established for the purpose of refutation.
The consequent of the hypothetical major premiss is termed pâpanâ because it is got from the antecedent. And the conclusion
158
is termed ropa@na because the regulation is placed on the opponent. Next:
"If D be derived of C. Then B should have been derived of A. But you affirmed B of A. (therefore) That B can be affirmed of A but not of D or C is wrong."
This is the pa@tiloma, inverse or indirect method, as contrasted with the former or direct method, anuloma. In both methods the consequent is derived. But if we reverse the hypothetical major in the latter method we get
"If A is B C is D.
But A is B.
Therefore C is D.
By this indirect method the opponent's second answer is reestablished
[Footnote ref 1]."
The Doctrine of Momentariness.