人類未來正確思想的道路

道南書院 魏盛 摘述

方東美與懷德海

——東西方歷程哲學的雙璧

孫智燊教授(方東美研究所所長)

第六屆國際懷德海會議論文

[摘錄]

作為現代中國最偉大的思想家之一,方東美教授研究哲學、活得像個真正的人,與懷德海極為契應。

他將懷德海在哲學宗教方面的卓越見識與觀點帶到中國,在講座與著作中傳授給中國的年輕學者;進而,透過運用雅致、準確、表達生動的懷德海式語言,他成功地將中國形而上學的獨創性及其成就與貢獻的精華部份翻譯得通俗易懂,回饋給西方及全世界。

由此,自五十年代中期以來,方東美教授得以使東方與西方貫通為一。

1、方東美將懷德海喻為《華嚴經》中遍學一切法的善財童子。懷德海說:「在(終極的)普遍的立場上,機體哲學看起來更接近印度或中國的某些思想,而非西亞或歐洲的思想。前者以歷程為究竟,後者以事實為究竟。」(《歷程與實在》)

2、方東美接受(印度文化教育委員會主任)Radharkrishnan博士的挑戰性邀請,擔任各自民族的哲學文化遺產代言人。語言的選擇對於哲學的表達至為重要。方東美精心採用懷德海式語言,恰當地表達了中國(文化)與(印度)佛教兩種觀點。這一明智的選擇源自他的覺察力:綜合考慮來看,中國(文化)與懷德海的緊密聯繫不在於「聲音或符號」,而在於「世界觀」(維特根斯坦語)

3、總的來說,方東美屬於杜威、柏格森、懷德海的(綜合哲學)陣營,也確實有新黑格爾主義的氣息與風格。概括說來,綜合性思想(相對於分析性思想,根據羅素)的突出特點是:(1)整體有機觀,(2)對統一的願望。特別對於我們現在的討論來說,(3)追尋完美,(4)趨向和諧(梵文「無礙」),(5)對美的熱愛,等等。總體來說,這些都是來自於「價值中心觀」,即價值中心的自然哲學。

4、方東美說:「西方本體論依據僵化於靜態本體的形式邏輯。柏拉圖的晚期《對話錄》特別是〈智者篇〉、柏格森的《創造進化論》、懷德海的《歷程與實在》、海德格爾的《存在與時間》是其例外。然而,這些例外始終是東方哲學的原則。」(《人與自然中的創造性》)

5、中國哲學玄妙的天道思想在懷德海著作中找到了對應。特別是《歷程與實在》,始以其「實在的歷程觀」,終於其「上帝的雙面論」——上帝既是最初的又是繼發的。他在《歷程與實在》的結論篇中對於上帝與世界的諸多處理,與儒家《易經》〈繫辭〉相呼應。

6、懷德海最有價值的遺產是他對西方傳統中謬誤的闡述。有些謬誤沿襲自古希臘時期,有些謬誤集中於近三百年。方東美全身心投入到對這些謬誤(尤其是惡性二分法與孤立系統)的駁斥中。正如佛教唯識宗倡導「轉識成智」那樣,歷程哲學家方東美、懷德海等倡導「超謬趨智」。謬誤的最終結果是卓越的愚蠢主義;我們需要共同努力喚醒人類的覺察力,創造趨向智慧的新哲學。

7、運用懷德海式術語,方東美完成了比較哲學的兩大重任。一項是天才地闡述與解釋了《易經》形而上學的原理;另一項是卓有見識地闡明了華嚴哲學的精華。

8、形而上學致力於對普遍觀念建立一種一致的、相互依賴的開放系統。這些普遍觀念可以解釋我們經驗中的種種要素。方東美對中國哲學的懷德海式闡述包括四種原理:(1)生命的原理;(2)創造性演進的原理;(3)普遍聯繫的原理;(4)作為價值實現歷程的創造性生命的原理。

9、任何比較研究都側重發現差異性而非識別共同性。差異性提供對比,而對比是「綜合模式」所不可或缺的。大乘佛學的中國化就是一個例子。中國的天才們以綜合性或創造性會通而圓滿了佛法,同時為世界哲學的綜合指明了道路。

10、在隋慧遠劃時代地提出法界緣起(無盡緣起)之後,杜順將整個華嚴宗哲學歸結為少數重要原理,特別是其法界三觀:(1)真空觀(2)理事無礙觀;(3)周含容觀。

 

尚德按:

題目「人類未來正確思想的道路」,是尚德加上去的,英文全文附後。

二零一四年二月五日

於台灣達摩書院

 

 Thomé H. Fang and Whitehead

-- Two Pillars of Process Throught East and West

Suncrates (President, Thomé H. Fang Institute, Inc.)

Present to the 6th International Whitehead Conference, 2006 .

[Excerpts]

 

  As one of the greatest minds of contemporary China, Fang proves most congenial to the Whiteheadian way in doing philosophy and in living an authentic human life as well.

  He has brought the great Whiteheadian philosophico-religious insights and visions across the Pacific and spread them via his lectures and writings to the tender minds of the younger generation Chinese scholars; moreover, by employing the elegance, precision, and vivid expression of the Whiteheadian language, he has succeeded in rendering a great service to the West and, on that matter, to the whole world as well, by rendering highly intelligible the essentials of Chinese metaphysical ingenuity and its achievements and contributions.

  Fang is thus enabled to serve as really a bridge-builder since the mid-50s linking the East and the West as a Whole.

1.      Whitehead is likened to Sudhana (a character of all-around capabilities”) in the Avatamsaka Sutra [by Fang]. “In this [ultimate] general position the philosophy of organism seems to approximate more to some strains of Indian, or Chinese, thought, than to western Asiatic, or European thought. One side makes process ultimate; the other side makes fact ultimate.” (Alfred N. Whitehead, Process and Reality)

2.      Fang was challenged and invited by Dr. Radharkrishnan (heading the Indian Delegation of Culture and Education) to serve as spokesman for the philosophical and cultural heritage of their nation, respectively. For philosophical expression the choice of language is of decisive importance. Fang’s intentional adoption of a Whiteheadian language, both for adequate expression of Chinese and Buddhist views as well, is a wise choice well grounded on such an awareness: The Chinese-Whiteheadian affinity, if thought through, is more an affinity in “world perspectives” (Weltansichten) than one in “sounds or signs”.

3.      As far as his general position is concerned, Fang belongs to the same grand camp as Dewey, Bergson, and Whitehead, surely not without a Neo-Hegelian tincture and tonality. Generally, the distinguishing marks for the synthetic [opposite to analytic, according to Bertrand Russell] type of minds are (1) the organismic vision of the Whole and (2) the will to unification. But to be added specifically for our present case are (3) the search for Perfection, (4) the drive towards Harmony (“Apratihata” in Sanskrit), and (5) the lure for Beauty, etc. All these can be said to have been derived from a “value-centric outlook” in general, hence a commitment to a value-centric philosophy of Nature.

4.      “Western ontology has been grounded on a formal logic fixed in formulas of static identity. Plato in later dialogues, especially in the Sophists, Bergson in Creative Evolution, Whitehead in Process and Reality, and Heidegger in Being and Time are exceptions. These exceptions, however, prove the rule which always applies in Oriental philosophy.” (Thomé H. Fang, Creativity in Man and Nature)

5.      The wondrous way of Heaven as taught in Chinese philosophy finds its parallels in Whitehead’s works, especially Process and Reality, beginning with his process view of Reality, and culminating in his dipolar theory of God as both Primordial and Consequent. Much of his treatment of God and the world, as found in the concluding chapter of Process and Reality, echoes the Confucian Commentary to the Appendices to the Book of Creativity.

6.      The most valuable Whiteheadian legacy is to be found in his formulation of the fallacies committed in Western tradition, some persistent since the time of ancient Greece, some prominent in the last three hundred years. Fang has endorsed himself almost entirely to the refutation of all these fallacies [in particular, vicious bifurcation and isolated systems]. Just as the Vijñana-Vadian Buddhists call for “the successful transformation of consciousness into wisdom”, similarly process philosophers like Fang and Whitehead call for “the successful transcendence beyond fallacies towards wisdom.” The end-results of fallacies spells stupidism par excellence; conjoint efforts are needed to initialize human awareness so as to create a New Philosophy Towards Wisdom.

7.      In the Whiteheadian terminologies Fang accomplished two Herculean tasks in the world of comparative philosophy. One is his ingenious formulation and interpretation of the metaphysical principles as embodied in The Book of Creativity; the other, his insightful elucidation of the essentials of the Hua Yan (Avatamsaka) philosophy.

8.      Metaphysics is the endeavor to frame a coherent, interdependent, and open system of general ideas in terms of which every element of our experience can be interpreted. Fang’s formulation in the Whiteheadian language the Chinese position in terms of four principles: (1) Principle of Life; (2) Principle of Creative Advance; (3) Principle of Extensive Connection; and (4) Principle of Creative Life as Process of Value-Realization.

9.      In comparative studies of any field, due recognition of similarities is not as important as due appreciation of differences. Difference provides contrasts, and contrasts are indispensable as the “mode of synthesis”. ...Take for example the sinicization of Mahayana Buddhism in China. ...The Chinese genius of synthesis or creative appropriation has helped consummate Buddhism and has charted out a route to the goal of a world philosophical synthesis at the same time.

10. Following Hui Yuan’s epoch-making contribution of the doctrine of Universal Relational Origination (Infinite Relational Origination), Du-Shun summed up the entire Hua Yan philosophy under a few grand principles, particularly, the doctrine of Three Grand Views of (1) the True Void; of (2) the inter-penetration of Reason and Events: and of (3) universal co­prehension.

Full texts: 

http://www.thomehfang.com/suncrates5/Whitehead4.htm