Our author now proceeds to define the _upádhi_ or condition,[468] which is used to stop our acquiescence in a universal proposition as laid down by another person;--"that which always accompanies," &c. The meaning of this is that the so-called condition, while it invariably accompanies that which is accepted as the major term, does not thus invariably accompany that which our opponent puts forward as his middle term. [Thus in the false argument, "The mountain has smoke because it has fire," we may advance "wet fuel," or rather "the being produced from wet fuel," as an _upádhi_, since "wet fuel" is necessarily found wherever smoke is, but not always where fire is, as _e.g._, in a red-hot iron ball.] "But," the opponent may suggest, "if this were true, would it not follow that (_a_) in the case of the too wide middle term in the argument, 'This [second] son of Mitrá's, whom I have not seen, must be dark because he is Mitrá's son,' we could not allege 'the being produced from feeding on vegetables'[469] as a 'condition,'--inasmuch as it does not invariably accompany a dark colour, since a dark colour does also reside in things like [unbaked] jars, &c., which have nothing to do with feeding on vegetables? (_b_) Again, in the argument, 'The air must be perceptible to sense[470] because it is the site of touch,' we could not allege the 'possessing proportionate form' as a 'condition;' because perceptibility [to the internal sense] is found in the soul, &c., and yet soul, &c., have no form [and therefore the 'possessing proportionate form' does not invariably accompany perceptibility]. (_c_) Again, in the argument,'Destruction is itself perishable, because it is produced,' we could not allege as a 'condition' the 'being included in some positive category of existence'[471] [destruction being a form of non-existence, called "emergent," _dvaṃśábháva_], inasmuch as perishability is found in antecedent non-existence, and this certainly cannot be said to be included in any positive category of existence."