怀特黑德过程思想与早期佛教哲学相容吗?

IF 0.1 0 RELIGION Buddhist-Christian Studies Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1353/bcs.2023.a907579
Eric M. Nyberg
{"title":"怀特黑德过程思想与早期佛教哲学相容吗?","authors":"Eric M. Nyberg","doi":"10.1353/bcs.2023.a907579","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"abstract: Numerous authors have compared Process thought as articulated by Alfred North Whitehead and Mahayana Buddhist philosophy, owing to the fact that each of these systems is rooted in the notion that relational action, rather than substance, is meta-physically fundamental and that human life is to be understood as fundamentally experiential. However, despite the fact that the foundational philosophical tenets of Mahayana Buddhism are built on axioms established and rooted in early Buddhism, relatively little has been written comparing Process thought with the philosophy of early Buddhism. In this essay, I first offer a brief comparison and discussion of the foundational metaphysical principles of these systems. The purpose of this essay is to extend the dialogue between Process thought and early Buddhism, highlighting both areas of convergence and points of departure. The first task is to establish how key terms in each system may be understood in terms of the other and to point out ways in which these systems converge around questions of ontology, agency, and the nature of the self. I will then discuss the epistemologies that underwrite these meta-physical commitments. Finally, I will conclude with a brief comparison of the role of aesthetics in human experience and the soteriological project within these two schools of thought.","PeriodicalId":41170,"journal":{"name":"Buddhist-Christian Studies","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is Whiteheadian Process Thought Compatible with Early Buddhist Philosophy?\",\"authors\":\"Eric M. Nyberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/bcs.2023.a907579\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"abstract: Numerous authors have compared Process thought as articulated by Alfred North Whitehead and Mahayana Buddhist philosophy, owing to the fact that each of these systems is rooted in the notion that relational action, rather than substance, is meta-physically fundamental and that human life is to be understood as fundamentally experiential. However, despite the fact that the foundational philosophical tenets of Mahayana Buddhism are built on axioms established and rooted in early Buddhism, relatively little has been written comparing Process thought with the philosophy of early Buddhism. In this essay, I first offer a brief comparison and discussion of the foundational metaphysical principles of these systems. The purpose of this essay is to extend the dialogue between Process thought and early Buddhism, highlighting both areas of convergence and points of departure. The first task is to establish how key terms in each system may be understood in terms of the other and to point out ways in which these systems converge around questions of ontology, agency, and the nature of the self. I will then discuss the epistemologies that underwrite these meta-physical commitments. Finally, I will conclude with a brief comparison of the role of aesthetics in human experience and the soteriological project within these two schools of thought.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41170,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Buddhist-Christian Studies\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Buddhist-Christian Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/bcs.2023.a907579\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Buddhist-Christian Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/bcs.2023.a907579","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

许多作者将怀特黑德(Alfred North Whitehead)所阐述的过程思想与大乘佛教哲学进行了比较,因为这两个体系都根植于这样一种观念,即关系行为,而不是物质,是元物理的基础,人类生活应该从根本上被理解为经验。然而,尽管大乘佛教的基本哲学教义是建立在早期佛教建立和扎根的公理之上的,但是比较过程思想和早期佛教哲学的文献却相对较少。在本文中,我首先对这些系统的基本形而上学原理进行了简要的比较和讨论。这篇文章的目的是扩展过程思想和早期佛教之间的对话,突出两个领域的收敛和出发点。第一个任务是建立如何用其他系统来理解每个系统中的关键术语,并指出这些系统如何围绕本体论、代理和自我本质的问题汇聚在一起。然后我将讨论支撑这些超物理行为的认识论。最后,我将简要比较美学在人类经验中的作用和这两种思想流派的救赎计划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Is Whiteheadian Process Thought Compatible with Early Buddhist Philosophy?
abstract: Numerous authors have compared Process thought as articulated by Alfred North Whitehead and Mahayana Buddhist philosophy, owing to the fact that each of these systems is rooted in the notion that relational action, rather than substance, is meta-physically fundamental and that human life is to be understood as fundamentally experiential. However, despite the fact that the foundational philosophical tenets of Mahayana Buddhism are built on axioms established and rooted in early Buddhism, relatively little has been written comparing Process thought with the philosophy of early Buddhism. In this essay, I first offer a brief comparison and discussion of the foundational metaphysical principles of these systems. The purpose of this essay is to extend the dialogue between Process thought and early Buddhism, highlighting both areas of convergence and points of departure. The first task is to establish how key terms in each system may be understood in terms of the other and to point out ways in which these systems converge around questions of ontology, agency, and the nature of the self. I will then discuss the epistemologies that underwrite these meta-physical commitments. Finally, I will conclude with a brief comparison of the role of aesthetics in human experience and the soteriological project within these two schools of thought.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Buddhist-Christian Studies is a scholarly journal devoted to Buddhism and Christianity and their historical and contemporary interrelationships. The journal presents thoughtful articles, conference reports, and book reviews and includes sections on comparative methodology and historical comparisons, as well as ongoing discussions from two dialogue conferences: the Theological Encounter with Buddhism, and the Japan Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies. Subscription is also available through membership in the Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies .
期刊最新文献
Vietnamese Catholics in the United States and Americanization: A Sociological and Religious Perspective Earthing The Cosmic Christ of Ephesians: The Universe, Trinity, & Zhiyi's Threefold Truth by John P. Keenan (review) Remarks on Getting Saved in America: Taiwanese Immigration and Religious Conversion The Lord's Prayer in the Light of Shin-Buddhist-Christian Comparative Considerations The Journey of The Mind: Zen Meditation and Contemplative Prayer in the Korean Buddhist and Franciscan Traditions; with Special Reference to "Secrets on Cultivating the Mind" (修心訣 수심결, su shim gyol ) by Pojo Chinul (知訥, 1158–1210) and "The Journey of the Mind into God" ( itinerarium mentis in deum ) by Bonaventure of Bagnoregio (1217–1274)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1