Shankar on Momentariness (क्षण भंगवाद ) kShaNa bhaMgavaada or TOM is one of the three main pillars of Buddha's philosophy. The other two are Theory of Dependent Origination and shunyata (शून्यता). When examined deeply Shankaracharya and other Hindu acharyas found them to be mutually contradictory. But this thread deals mainly with TOM. Consider Causal chain of 12 links. Antecedent link cannot be the efficient cause of the subsequent link as it is extinguished after a moment BEFORE the moment of subsequent link arises. If it is said that a moment when fully developed becomes the cause of the subsequent moment then it is untenable. It is because that causal efficiency of a moment presupposes a link with the next moment. This repudiates the theory of universal momentariness. Svantantra-Vijanvada claims that the fact of the preceding moment means its causal efficiency. But that too is impossible. No effect can arise without imbibing at least partly the part of the nature of the cause. After all, curd is not fully divested the fundamental nature of milk. If this is admitted that it is HAS to be admitted that the cause is not momentary, as the causal moment continues to reside in the subsequent moment. Are production and destruction of any object its very nature? Or transformation into another state [water into ice]? Or Or are they completely different things? All three are impossible. In the first case, production and destruction would be non different from the object itself, and none of these three can be told apart. If production is beginning, the thing is the middle and destruction is the middle, then a thing spanning three moments cannot be momentary. If production and destruction are different from the thing, then the thing is indecent of production and destruction both and is eternal. This at once violate the Dependent Origination AND the Middle path taught by Buddha. Again if production and destruction are regarded as just perception and non perception, then they are attributes of the perceiving mind not of the thing. Out of site only means out of mind but not out of existence!!! It rather tends to make the thing permanent. Thus here to TOM stands repudiated. If it is said that that things arise without cause, then DO is trashed. However, it would mean that anything can arise out of anything randomly, and if a hare sprouts horns, then you should not be surprised. Again it cannot be said that there is no conscious destruction nor unconscious destruction [natural decay of things]. It is because they can neither relate to a series as in all the series, the members are causally related, in interrupted manner, nor to the members as a it cannot be completely annihilated since it can be recognised in a different state as having a connected existence. If Ignorance is destroyed by Right knowledge then the Buddhist Doctrine that universal destruction goes on without cause is negated. Moreover, if it is destroyed on its own then Buddhist teaching of Dhamma to help destruction of Ignorance is futile. Damnably, it negates the very Dhamma itself. If Atman is momentary [or non existence], then whose bondage whose liberation? Whose Karma, whose fruits? Since Ignorance itself is momentary, why bother about it. Since right knowledge too is momentary why trouble acquiring it? Fact of memory and recognition is a fatal blow to TOM. Since past is recognized in the present, memory CANNOT be momentary. It is permanent till death. A Buddhist cannot deny that he remembers his past and recognizes all the successive cognitions till his death, how can he maintain the TOM? Ps: Buddhist philosophy is a predicate, as also about Shankaracharya.