FOOTNOTES:
[468] The upádhi is the "condition" which must be supplied to restrict a too general middle term. If the middle term, as thus restricted, is still found in the minor term, the argument is valid; if not, it fails. Thus, in "The mountain has smoke because it has fire" (which rests on the false premise that "all fire is accompanied by smoke"), we must add "wet fuel" as the condition of "fire;" and if the mountain has wet fuel as well as fire, of course it will have smoke. Similarly, the alleged argument that "B is dark because he is Mitrá's son" fails, if we can establish that the dark colour of her former offspring A depended not on his being her son, but on her happening to have fed on vegetables instead of ghee. If we can prove that she still keeps to her old diet, of course our amended middle term will still prove B to be dark, but not otherwise.
[469] The Hindus think that a child's dark colour comes from the mother's living on vegetables, while its fair colour comes from her living on ghee.
[470] By Bháshá-parich. śl. 25, the four elements, earth, water, air, and fire, are sparśavat, but by śl. 27 of these air is neither pratyaksha nor rúpavat.
[471] This condition would imply that we could only argue from this middle term "the being produced" in cases of positive existence, not non-existence.
[472] "Soul," of course, is not external; but our topic was not soul, but air.
[473] As, e.g., the mountain and Mitrá's first son in the two false arguments, "The mountain has smoke because it has fire" (when the fire-possessing red-hot iron ball has no smoke), and "Mitrá's first son A is dark because he is Mitrá's offspring" (when her second son B is fair). These two subjects possess the respective sádhyas or major terms "smoke" and "dark colour," and therefore are respectively the subjects where the conditions "wet fuel" and "the mother's feeding on vegetables" are to be respectively applied.
[474] As, e.g., the red-hot ball of iron and Mitrá's second son; as these, though possessing the respective middle terms "fire" and "the being Mitrá's offspring" do not possess the respective conditions "wet fuel" or "the mother's feeding on vegetables," nor, consequently, the respective major terms (sádhya) "smoke" and "dark colour."
[475] This will exclude the objected case of "dark jars" in (a), as it falls under neither of these two alternatives; for, though they are the sites of the sádhya "dark colour," they do not admit the condition "the feeding on vegetables," nor the middle term "the being Mitrá's son."
[476] I.e., wherever there is fire produced by wet fuel there is smoke. The condition and the major term are "equipollent" in their extension.
[477] Where the hetu is found and not the sádhya (as in the red-hot ball of iron), there the upádhi also is not applicable.
[478] I.e., one which requires no determining fact or mark, such as the three objected arguments required in § 137.
[479] The disputant says, "Fire must be non-hot because it is artificial." "Well," you rejoin, "then it must only be an artificiality which is always found elsewhere than in fire,—i.e., one which will not answer your purpose in trying to prove your point." Here the proposed upádhi "the being always found elsewhere than in fire" answers to the definition, as it does not always accompany the hetu "possessing artificiality," but it does always accompany the sádhya "non-hot," as fire is proved by sense-evidence to be hot.
[480] As in the argument, "The earth, &c., must have had a maker because they have the nature of effects," where the Theist disputes the Atheistic condition "the being produced by one possessing a body." See Kusumáñjali, v. 2.
[481] In fact, it would abolish all disputation at the outset, as each party would produce a condition which from his own point of view would reduce his opponent to silence. In other words, a true condition must be consistent with either party's opinions.