Note 479 — ON THE UPÁDHI (cf. supra, pp. 7, 8, 174, 194).

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.