Abstract

This dissertation is a comparative study of the metaphysics of Alfred North Whitehead and Fa-tsang , who was the third patriarch of the Chinese Hua-yen school of Buddhism. Its purpose is threefold. ;First, this dissertation will examine the notions of "actual entities" or "actual occasions" and "dharmas" or "phenomena." Whitehead and Fa-tsang express their views of metaphysics through an examination of the above notions. ;Second, this dissertation will show whether or not Hua-yen metaphysics is deterministic. Since Hua-yen Buddhism has been criticized by some Whiteheadian philosophers as deterministic, one will see, in this dissertation, if Fa-tsang's philosophy is deterministic or not. ;Thirdly, from the perspective of Fa-tsang's metaphysics, this dissertation will search for an idea to contribute to Whitehead's metaphysics. Whitehead's metaphysics attempts to avoid traditional Western metaphysics which emphasizes the enduring substance that neither changes nor requires conditionedness or relatedness to something other than itself. He argues that anything real or actual entities can no longer be viewed as substance but is temporal, conditioned and relative to other entities. Every actual entity is regarded as an entity which has free determination and which is transcendent over others. Free determination is considered freedom. Freedom is, in Whitehead's metaphysics, the ontological principle that every actual entity is in its own nature free and self-determinative, belonging to itself as it is, in itself. His view of freedom reflects in some sense the traditional view of substance which is conceived as unrelated to or separated from something else. Hence, his metaphysics faces the challenge that it might be classified as a traditional metaphysics. Thus, his metaphysics is in some sense inconsistent. ;Fa-tsang attempts to reinterpret traditional Indian Buddhist thought so that it is suitable to the Chinese context. Traditional Buddhist thought is reflected in the doctrine of dependent origination, which emphasizes the interrelatedness of phenomenal things or a sentient being. Yet, although phenomenal things or sentient beings are conditioned by others, it does not mean that there are no individual things or sentient beings. For instance, just as eyes and ears have their unique functions and roles in an organic body, so every sentient being has its uniqueness or roles in society. Further, every sentient being has Buddha-nature. Buddha-nature is considered a potentiality underlying every sentient being to attain Buddhahood, enlightenment, or liberation. Liberation is a soteriological ideal of religious rather than of metaphysical consideration about sentient beings. Buddhahood is not of itself achieved by every sentient being. Instead, Buddhahood is earned by a sentient being's abandonment of self-substantiality and its embracing its relatedness with others. In other words, where an individual sentient being gets rid of individuality, self-substantiality, or self-directness toward itself, he/she experiences liberation. If Whitehead's freedom listens to Fa-tsang's view of liberation, the former would be enriched. Whitehead's traditional Western view in relation to the view of freedom reflected in separateness or unrelatedness can be avoided by Fa-tsang's practice of doctrines which includes the abandonment of self-substantiality and the embracing of relatedness. Through comparing the two metaphysics, I, as an Asian, try to find how an Asian philosophy--Fa-tsang's metaphysics--can contribute to a Western philosophy--Whitehead's metaphysics