Dharmak]rti, in his Pramqzavqrttika Chap.II, expounds cittasantqna theory especially concerning to the doctrine of universal momentaritiness ( k2azabhaxga). !r]dhara, commenting on Pra1astapqda's demonstration of qtman by means of pari1e2a@criticize the Buddhist doctrine of k2azabhaxga precisely. At the end of the criticism, he develops an argument against the demonstration of other existences(paralokasiddhi) by the Dharmak]rtian Tradition.
His way@of argumentation is deeply influenced by the later developed epistemological discourse between later Buddhist philosophers - such as Kamala1]la and Dharmottara - and a Lokqyata, Jaryarq1i, the author of Tattvopaplavasi/ha.Jayarq1i, discussing against the kqryqnumqna theory (i.e. inference of fire from smoke) of Dharmak]rti, develops an argument concerning the cittasantqna theory of Dharmak]rti. Kamala1]la and Dharmottara also pertains to this new issue of problem. Their point of issue seems to form the back-ground for the argument of !r]dhara.
The necessary causal concomitance of each moment of cittasantqna seems to be a foundation for establishing the theory of kqryqnumqna in connection with the Buddhist paralokasiddhi, not only in Buddhist / Lokqyata circles but also even for Nyqyavai1e2ikas.
I would like to present the philosophical context of the Buddhist paralokasiddhi found in the statement of !r]dhara, tracing back the changing phases up to Dharmak]rti.