Anyway, by removing this quotation from the fragments ascribed to Udbhaṭabhaṭṭa, scholars can focus on what is genuinely attributable to this scholar, contributing to a more meticulous evaluation of his ideas and influence within the broader philosophical discourse developed from the 9th century onwards.

THE END

The point is that it is philosophically challenging, if not impossible, to assert that a C thinker with a Nyāya background would endorse in his writings a characteristic Buddhist doctrine like momentariness.

4. The Innovative Importance of the Study

What, then, is the innovative contribution of this research?

The principal finding is the suggestion to remove Quote 1 from the corpus of source material attributed to the C authors by Ramkrishna Bhattacharya.

The ability of a cause (like the eye) to generate subsequent momentary states similar (to itself, like the next eye-moment) and dissimilar (effects, like a visual cognition of an object) highlights its distinct generative nature.

Now, the fundamental problem here is that this argument, inherently Buddhist and relying on the doctrine of momentariness, is attributed by Vādidevasūri to Udbhaṭabhaṭṭa, who was a C thinker with an apparent affinity toward Nyāya epistemology.

According to this structure, the causal factors are sequences of momentary states capable of producing an outcome (like cognition) only when they are in close proximity (sannidhi).

Arcaṭa's text (Quote 3) defends the idea that a single cause has a nature capable of yielding many effects (anekakāryakriyāsvabhāvatva). This is justified because only one special aspect (ātmātiśaya) of its nature (the one capable of producing cognition) is involved in causing a specific effect (i.e., cognition).

Quotes 1, 2 & 3 discuss the connection between cognition and its underlying causes, such as the object (viṣaya), sense-organs (indriya), and mental engagement (manaskāra). This discussion is framed within the context of the Buddhist doctrine of momentariness (kṣaṇavāda).

What is momentariness? This is a core Buddhist doctrine holding that every single thing is a succession of entities that exist only for a moment (kṣaṇa) before ceasing and giving rise to the next momentary state of that thing.

3. Philosophical Explanation: Why the Attribution is Impossible

To understand the significance of this discovery, we must delve into the philosophical content of the passages.

Indian philosophical traditions debated intensely on causality, i.e., how things come into being. The Buddhist school, to which Arcaṭa belonged, held a specific view on this.

2. The Discovery: Identifying the True Source

A careful textual scrutiny and intertextual comparisons reveal a surprising fact: the quotation attributed to Udbhaṭabhaṭṭa (referred to as Quote 1), along with two other excerpts (Quotes 2 and 3) that immediately follow it in the Syādvādaratnākara, are not from the C tradition.

These passages are, in fact, extracts taken directly from the Hetubinduṭīkā, a commentary written by Arcaṭa (730–790), a Buddhist commentator of Dharmakīrti’s Hetubindu.