Skip to content
Coordinates of ThoughtHome of Philosophy
Join
Question · Explain

Is Vasubandhu’s doctrine of momentariness the same as modern stage theory?

Nima Tsering Gurung Contributor
· 4 replies · 179 views
Existence & beingAnalyticBuddhistAbhidharmaDharmakīrtiTheodore SiderVasubandhu#exdurantism#momentariness#sautrantika#stage-theory
Follow

I guide trekkers in the Annapurna region and have read about Buddhist philosophy for years, mostly in tea houses. Recently a friend showed me a chart of Western theories of persistence and pointed to one called exdurantism or stage theory: nothing strictly persists, there is a series of momentary stages linked by counterpart relations. He said, "that's just Vasubandhu".

I can see the resemblance. Vasubandhu taught that entities last only an instant, and that what we call a continuing thing is a series of momentary existents, each arising and perishing, with the appearance of continuity coming from their resemblance.

But I am suspicious of "that's just" claims. The Buddhist reasons for momentariness were not the same as the reasons Western metaphysicians give for stage theory. And I am not sure the two views even agree about what exists.

Could someone who knows both sides explain where they meet and where they really differ?

LikeAnswer
Follow4 answers

Members reply here. Reading is always free.

Sign in to reply

4 answers

Accepted answer

  1. Meera Kulkarni

    ✓ Accepted answer Fellow

    Nima, your suspicion is well placed. They meet in one place and differ in at least three.

    Where they meet. Both deny that a single thing is wholly present through time. Both say that what we call persistence is a relation between distinct momentary items: resemblance and causal connection for Vasubandhu, a counterpart relation for stage theorists.

    Difference 1, reasons. Vasubandhu argues that destruction needs no cause: a thing perishes by its own nature, so it perishes as soon as it arises. Later Buddhist logicians such as Dharmakīrti argued from causal efficacy. Sider's reasons are about solving puzzles like temporary intrinsics and fitting relativity. Different engines.

    Difference 2, what exists. Most stage theorists are eternalists: all the stages, past and future, are equally real. In the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya Vasubandhu argues against the Sarvāstivāda view that past and future dharmas exist. His own view is closer to presentism: only the present moment is real. So the two theories have different ontologies of time, even though both cut things into moments.

    Difference 3, purpose. Momentariness serves the teaching of impermanence and non-self. It is meant to loosen attachment. Stage theory is meant to solve a semantic and metaphysical problem.

    So "its nearest Western relative is stage theory" is fair. "Just Vasubandhu" isn't.

    Helpful · 2
    1. Nima Tsering Gurung

      Contributor

      Thank you, Meera. The point about Sarvāstivāda is the one I needed. If the Western stage theorist keeps all the stages, he has kept the thing the Buddhists most wanted to give up.

      Helpful · 1

Other answers

  1. Tomasz Wójcik

    Fellow

    A technical footnote on Meera's second difference: there's a stage theory for presentists too, though it's awkward, because the counterpart relation has to hold between a present stage and stages that don't exist. That's exactly the problem the Buddhist debates about memory and karma had to solve. The parallel is closest at the point where both views are most strained.

    Helpful · 3
  2. Liu Jianguo

    Contributor

    From a Daoist angle: Zhuangzi talks constantly about things transforming into other things, the self into a butterfly, a body into a rat's liver. But he isn't saying nothing persists. He seems to say that "persistence" and "change" are both perspectives on one process of transformation. So there's a third option on that chart, and it isn't there.