What is the Buddhist answer to ramanuja’s critique of momentariness

[TaraTarini]

I was reading his commentary on the Brahma sutras and came across his critique of momentariness,wich he says all Buddhist schools hold to(IDK how true this is ):

the gist of his critique is that  the atom or vignana perishes before it’s subsequent descendant arises.if that is the case how can there be a continuity of things he asks?one atom or vignana can’t condition its subsequent atom or vignana?also if this is the case from what permanent source do the atoms arise from?does a thing arise out of nothing ?what is the Buddhist belief regarding this?btw by continuity I mean that say I stand over by the tree the aroma and vijnanas that make up me (or just vignanas if you’re Mahayana )will be at the same location until I Or the next person that makes up my mindstream gets up and leaves.if one momentary Thing cannot condition its subsequent momentary thing how do things arise in a unbroken continuity?and from what?thats the gist of his argumentation.
 

At the surface this sounds like a good and simple critique of momentariness,but I’m sure that Buddhists have a good reply to it so I’m asking here what the Buddhist answer is to ramanuja.
 

im wondering if other systems of momentariness hold that the thing perishes only when it’s descendant arises.there would be confused experience then and you must still answer how something has causal power to create out of nothing(other, wich interestingly ramanuja says the madhyamika  criticized this type of arising in his day)Especially if it doesn’t have volition like a atom or vignana.but it would save the whole accusation that you believe things just pop into existance atleast in its most obvious way(ramanuja says the madhyamika thought otherwise)

Edited December 3, 2020 by TaraTarini

[Mithras]

I’m not exactly Buddhist so sorry for intruding. This seems a bit oddly worded/confusing for me so I’ll have to make some assumptions as to what you’re asking:

 

Nothing actually has it’s own attributes, as the core of a tree isn’t actually hard nor is a hand soft. These things are all decided by a perspective, which also seems to change. Then knowing all these things to be changing, where do all these attributes come from? I reiterate that a tree that is hard for a hobbyist may be soft like butter for a lumber jack. There is no inherent hardness in a tree, nor actually a shared attribute though it seems to be shared. This is a good source of contemplation, though you may enjoy other angles. I wrote somewhere about it though on my personal discussion “On the self” if you’re interested.

 

Otherwise, I remember this particular question in the Diamond Sutra where Sakyamuni Buddha is describing the nature of sound. When sound is there one moment and gone the next, where is the sound? Was it ever there in the first place? What is the nature of memory which retains that sound, which is now gone? If sound can be there one moment and not the next, was it ever there in the first place? Etc. Generally, It’s a bit of an odd chain of questions but the topic is effectively the same as you brought up and I tried to address above. If you’re interested further I’d check out Diamond Sutra, where it is addressed. 

[silent thunder]

2 hours ago, Mithras said:

I’m not exactly Buddhist so sorry for intruding.

You're in good company in this.

 

Buddha was not a Buddhist either... that developed later.