Some Observations on the Buddhist study of Thome H. Fang

上海交通大學哲學系杜保瑞 

[ 向上 ]

[ 功夫境界世界觀釋義 ] [ 功夫理論與境界哲學 ] [ 現代中國哲學在台灣的創造與發展 ] [ 中國哲學的基本哲學問題意識反省 ] [ 當代老學道論研究的基本哲學問題解析 ] [ 當代新儒家哲學在台灣的影響與理論反省 ] [ 從當代儒佛辯諍談中國哲學研究視野 ] [ 當代儒佛辯爭的一趟誤解之旅 ] [ 對梁漱溟東西文化與哲學比較觀點之反省 ] [ 熊十力新唯識論的問題意識與思想立場 ] [ 對傅偉勳談中國哲學工作方法及方法論觀點之評析 ] [ 馮友蘭對中國形上學論辯的方法論解析 ] [ 馮友蘭新理學建構的理論反省 ] [ 馮友蘭此在世界道德精神重建儒學的理論建構 ] [ 馮友蘭《貞元六書》中的工夫理論與境界哲學 ] [ 馮友蘭《貞元六書》對中國人生哲學精神的比較觀點 ] [ 對牟宗三佛學詮釋的方法論反省 ] [ 對牟宗三佛學詮釋基本立場的反思 ] [ 對牟宗三佛教般若學詮釋之方法論反思 ] [ 對牟宗三詮釋佛性概念之方法論反思 ] [ 對牟宗三詮釋楞伽經與起信論的方法論反思 ] [ 牟宗三對華嚴宗詮釋的方法論反思 ] [ 論牟宗三談法華經之性格與天台宗原初之洞見 ] [ 對牟宗三詮釋天臺宗五時八教觀對比華嚴宗的反思 ] [ 對牟宗三道家詮釋的方法論反省 ] [ 對牟宗三由道家詮釋而建構儒學的方法論反思 ] [ 從《四因說演講錄》和《圓善論》論牟宗三先生的道家詮釋 ] [ 對牟宗三談宋明儒學之所以為新儒學意見的方法論反省 ] [ 對牟宗三談宋明儒學之課題與分系的方法論反省 ] [ 對牟宗三詮釋周濂溪的方法論反省 ] [ 對牟宗三談張載道體性體心體義的方法論反省 ] [ 牟宗三對程顥哲學詮釋的方法論反省 ] [ 試論牟宗三哲學的儒佛會通 ] [ 從牟宗三哲學談儒佛會通的方法論探究 ] [ 對牟宗三在《圓善論》中建構儒家「德福一致」說的方法論反思 ] [ 對牟宗三宋明儒學詮釋體系的方法論反省 ] [ 對牟宗三詮釋程頤理氣篇的方法論反思 ] [ ＜對牟宗三透過胡宏詮釋建立的境界形上學之方法論反思＞ ] [ 對牟宗三批評朱熹與程頤之大學詮釋的綱領性意見之反省 ] [ 對牟宗三詮釋朱熹以《大學》為規模的方法論反省 ] [ 對牟宗三詮釋朱子中和說的方法論反省 ] [ 對牟宗三詮釋朱子仁說的方法論反省 ] [ 對牟宗三朱熹詮釋的方法論反省 ] [ 對牟宗三談朱熹孟子詮釋的方法論平議 ] [ 對牟宗三詮釋朱熹心性情理氣論的方法論反思 ] [ 對牟宗三詮釋陸象山的方法論反省 ] [ 對牟宗三談朱陸之爭的方法論反思 ] [ 對牟宗三以「覺悟說」詮釋朱陸之爭的方法論反思 ] [ 對牟宗三詮釋王陽明哲學的方法論反省 ] [ 對牟宗三詮釋劉蕺山以心著性的方法論反思 ] [ 當代宋明儒學研究與中國形上學問題意識 ] [ 中國哲學的真理觀問題 ] [ The question of the view of truth in Chinese Philosophy ] [ 對勞思光先生宋明儒學詮釋體系的方法論反省 ] [ 對勞思光朱熹詮釋的方法論反思 ] [ 對勞思光先生道佛詮釋的方法論反省 ] [ 對勞思光詮釋象山陽明龍溪的方法論反思 ] [ 對方東美朱熹詮釋的反思 ] [ 對方東美陸王心學詮釋的反思 ] [ 對方東美道家詮釋的方法論反思 ] [ 對方東美論中國形上學的方法論反省 ] [ Some Observations on the Buddhist study of Thome H. Fang ] [ 方東美對中國大乘佛教亦宗教亦哲學的基本立場 ] [ 方東美對大乘佛學中國化的詮釋立場 ] [ 論方東美對西方哲學二元分立的評定 ] [ 對方東美論三論、唯識及起信論的方法論反思 ] [ 對方東美論印度哲學及大般涅槃經的方法論反思 ] [ 方東美對華嚴宗詮釋的方法論反省 ] [ 對唐君毅高舉儒學的方法論反省 ] [ 對唐君毅華嚴宗詮釋的反思 ] [ 對唐君毅詮釋朱熹太極理氣說的反思 ] [ 對唐君毅談朱陸異同源流之反思 ] [ 對唐君毅以宇宙論心性論工夫論談朱陸異同之反思 ] [ 對唐君毅平議朱熹與王陽明的反思 ] [ 對印順導師談大乘起信論的方法論反思 ] [ 湯一介先生概念範疇進路的方法論反思 ]

檔案下載

Some Observations on the Buddhist study of Thome H. Fang[1]

Duh Bau-Ruei

Associate Professor

Philosophy Department

National Taiwan University

Foreword

This article is going to observe the Buddhist study by one of the Modern Chinese philosophers whose name is Thome H. Fang. He is frequently announced to be a modern Neo Confucianism as well as Neo Taoism.[2] But he is also a highly respected Buddhist scholar in the Buddhist society at Taiwan[3]. Actually, he got his doctor degree at Wisconsin University with the study of western philosophy. The title of his doctoral dissertation is “a comparative Study of the British and American Neo-Realism”.[4] Thus he does have a widespread scholastic achievement in not only western and eastern philosophy but also among the three main Chinese philosophical schools as Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism. To define his scholastic characteristic is however not an easy job. To tell his Buddhist philosophy is therefore even difficult ether. At the beginning of 20^th century, China faced a huge difficulty of its country development. Intellectuals make unremitting efforts to help their country recover from the predicament. As a result, in Thome H. Fang’s philosophical effort, an attempt to highly evaluate Chinese philosophy as a better one than its western companion seems to be his unavoidable mission. Accordingly, all the Chinese philosophical schools share a common metaphysical excellent position. Thus, on the one hand, the Chinese Mahayana Buddhism absorbs some outstanding elements from the Taoism school, and the other hand, it overcomes some shortages in the western philosophical tradition as a metaphysical system. What on purpose his opinion about Buddhist philosophy is becomes an interesting problem. How could he stress Chinese Buddhist philosophy as a discipline of the Chinese philosophical schools, meanwhile, constructs it as a better metaphysical system than western metaphysical theories from Plato to modern philosophies! This is exactly what will be observed here in the article.

Buddhist study in his Life

Thome H. Fang starts his Buddhist study very late in his scholastic careers. As a descendant of a notable family that possess an excellent authority in classical literature at the late Ching dynasty, Thome H. Fang was strictly trained in the learning of all the traditional texts of the Chinese thought, mainly in the Confucian background.[5] No obvious proof could show there including Buddhist scriptures. At his 18 years old, he attended college, majored philosophy, at 22, became a graduate student of the Wisconsin University, and then got his doctor degree at 25 years old. Since 1925, 25 years old, he started to be a professor teaching philosophy, and this became his whole life career for 50 years. In his early stages, western philosophy is his mainly course. But almost at the same time, he also does lots of comparative study in between the western and eastern philosophy. For his study of the Buddhism, seems still an under table affairs at this moment. He has once discussed with one of the most famous Modern Neo-Confucian philosopher Xiong Shili, who was also skillful in the Buddhist philosophy, about some Buddhist problems. Xiong Shili at first looked down to his Buddhist ability, but soon after was offended by his plentiful knowledge.[6] Thome H. Fang even though has been bent on the Buddhism study, he still keep quiet in this field.

Two years before the KMT government came to Taiwan, at 1947, he came to Taipei, and one year later, he became the Chair of the Philosophy Department at National Taiwan University, and then taught there till his retirement at 1973. Since 1959 to 1966, he has been invited to the United State for many times as visiting professor and presents many papers and gives lectures about the Chinese Philosophy for the purpose of letting western society understanding the profound characteristic of it.[7] Though he was asked to stay at the States with best condition, concerning the study of Chinese philosophy is still very poor at Taiwan, he came back to Taiwan, with all his strength, started to teach the Chinese philosophy including all the three main schools’ philosophy. Till this moment, his study about the Buddhist philosophy has come to a mature stage.[8] Spending almost 10years, he wrote a huge book in English to illustrate the history of the Chinese Philosophy. The name of it is “Chinese philosophy: Its Spirit and its development”. In this book he discussed four schools in the Chinese Mahayana Buddhism such as the San-Lun School, the Tien-Tai School, the Consciousness-Only School, and the Hua-Yen School. He also taught several courses in Buddhism at both National Taiwan University and Fu Jen Catholic University at his final years. All of his lectures in two of his Buddhist courses have been recorded by his students and wrote down word by word. Thus, the two books of “Chinese Mahayana Buddhism” and “Philosophy of Hua-Yen School” in addition to “Chinese philosophy: Its Spirit and its development” are the direct resources which we can find about the outcome of his Buddhist study.

Characteristic of his Buddhist study

One significant characteristic of Thome H. Fang’s Buddhist study is that he is not only a Buddhist scholar but also a Buddhist disciple. However, as a scholar in the field of philosophy, his relationship with the Buddhist religion was at first through the aspect of philosophy than was religion.[9] Through the philosophical approach to his Buddhist study, the Buddhist philosophy was comprehended by him via a metaphysical aspect at first. Second, the Chinese Mahayana Buddhism is a kind of metaphysical system based on the India religious believe then constructed with the absorption of Taoist elements. Third, compared with the western philosophy, this new Buddhist metaphysical system interpretated and recreated by Thome H. Fang, was announced to go beyond all the created metaphysical system in the western tradition. Forth, he does criticize the Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism for inheriting the Buddhist wisdom at one side, but still argue with Buddhism at the other side. These four weight-bearing philosophical points accompanied with his religious believe make his opinions on the Buddhism become a little complex and that’s what we are going to discuss in this article.

Metaphysical approach and surpass west philosophy

In the foreword of “Chinese philosophy: Its Spirit and its development” Thome H. Fang describes this book is a widespread works of an essay “The world and Individual in Chinese Metaphysics” which he presents at Hawaii University in 1964.[10] In some other occasion, Thome H. Fang clearly emphasizes that, in this book, he will adopt the metaphysical approach in order to go into the core and spirit of Chinese Philosophy.[11] If it was not by his grand knowledge in western philosophy, he may not stress so much importance on the metaphysical issue. That’s because the role of metaphysics plays as the foundation of any philosophical theory in the west. Accordingly, to find out the significance of the Chinese philosophy should at first illustrate its metaphysical aspect; and to compare the difference between west and east philosophy need to catch the characteristic of Chinese metaphysics. In doing so, Thome H. Fang defines Chinese metaphysics as a different kind than it was in the west. Thus the complete picture of Chinese philosophy was not only been illustrated quite clearly but also showing its profound characteristic so as could overcome some shortage in the western metaphysics.

But, just because Thome H. Fang defines the characteristic of Chinese metaphysics with some special aspects that has never found in the western metaphysics, he probably crosses the theoretical line from metaphysics to some practical theories. This is what he says about Chinese metaphysics:

Thus it comes about that we have to take ‘metaphysics’ in its ‘multifarious and fluctuating significations’. …For the time being, my attention is drawn upon three features of metaphysics which will be designated as (1) praeternatural, (2) transcendental, and (3) immanent. …The consequences entailed by the praeternatural metaphysics have led the Chinese to entertain metaphysics ideas of a different type. I shall entitle the transcendental metaphysics as a characteristic Chinese doctrine of reality, whatever it may be….[12]

Another paragraph expresses his attitude toward these kinds of metaphysics:

 (1)A unique type of transcendental-immanent metaphysics is shown in sharp contrast with the praeternatural metaphysics prevalent in the Western philosophical world;[13]

What he means here is that Western philosophy dividing the world into two separate parts as human beings and the outside world, while Chinese philosophy linking the two things as a whole unite. The deepest understanding of the above saying is that Chinese philosophy gives human beings a way to run for a perfect personality based on the knowledge of the world thus the world and the people can not be separately analyzed. Thus it’s a kind of transcendental-immanent metaphysics than can include the transcendental world and human action as a whole. But, if the metaphysics is the theoretical foundation of the reality of the world and the meaning of human life, then the theory of how human beings run for their meaningful life should of course be discussed aside from the metaphysics instead of still been regarded as some characteristic of metaphysics so that still a special kind of metaphysics. They do have innate theoretical connections but not the same thing. However, Thome H. Fang does take the cultivation theory of human life as the characteristic of Chinese philosophy and discusses them in the field of metaphysics. He said:

(2)Three common features among the different systems of Chinese philosophy are borne by…(3) exaltation of human individual into ever higher realms of existence variously conceived; (4) they really belong to different types of men:…(5) …they all tend to take the world as a whole in its ideal regard so as to fit in with their ideals of moral edification, aesthetic flight of creative imagination, or the vehement desire for spiritual enlightenment.[14]

Here the sentences are the evident Thome H. Fang goes beyond the metaphysical discussion into the cultivation theory. No wander he can say that there are multi- styles of metaphysics and the Chinese philosophy can overcome some shortage of that in western philosophy. Since the three main schools of Chinese philosophy are no doubt three different ideals about the styles of human life, so the philosophy reflecting their ideals constructing different metaphysics. And, when the western philosophy focusing on analyzing the reality of the world, the discussion of this issue in the field of metaphysics will not at the same time deal with the problem of ideal life; whereas is the character of ethics. Thus, in short, Chinese philosophy concerns ethics to have priority then containing the metaphysical reflection in it; while western discuss the metaphysical and ethical issue individually and separately. Now, Thome H. Fang insists that the ethics containing metaphysical reflection is a kind of transcendental- immanent metaphysics.

Besides, he treats the tree main Chinese philosophical schools equally at their metaphysical achievement forgetting their historical background as arguing with each other continuously even in the modern Chinese philosophical systems such as the Neo-Confucianism which is still criticizing Taoism and Buddhism.

Absorbing Taoism element and Criticize the Neo-Confucianism

Thome H. Fang accepts there were four basic metaphysical styles in the history of Chinese philosophy such as Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism and Neo-Confucianism. Sees his words:

So far as metaphysics is concerned, the systems of speculation are essentially completed by Confucius, Mencius, and Hsun Tzu for the school of Confucianism and by Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu for the school of Taoism. Any further developments in later times are nothing but the elegant elaborations of the original doctrines. This statement, however, does not hold in the case of Buddhism which was initiated in India and was introduced into China, as well as in the case of Neo-Confucianism which was really a synoptic construction assimilating certain phase of Taoism and Buddhism on the cardinal basis of the primordial Confucianism.[15]

In the above paragraph, Thome H. Fang considers Buddhism has its own orientation that was not stressed in traditional Chinese philosophical school. But, at he other discussion, Thome H. Fang emphasis Buddhist metaphysics inherit from Taoism quite a lot. This means that Chinese Buddhism boasts its background in India culture but constructs its metaphysics based on Taoism wisdom. This is how Thome H. Fang stubbornly connects India Buddhism with Chinese philosophy. Therefore, he takes Buddhist philosophy as a stage of metaphysical development in Chinese philosophical history especially succeeded from Taoism. Like this:

The real revival of the metaphysical contemplation dated from about the middle of the third century (240) when Ho Yen (190-249) and Wang Pi (226-249) came with an attempt to reconcile the differences between Confucius and Lao Tzu by laying importance upon the category of Nothingness for the interpretation of Tao.[16]

The interpretation of Tao through the category of Nothingness is absolutely a new event in the history of Chinese philosophy. This suggests the ultimate reality is nothingness in its existence. It doesn’t tell there is not such as reality but realize it’s just a being in the speculation instead of real world. This could of course be accepted by Confucianism and Taoism but not be able to harmonize the different between Confucianism and Taoism caused by their ambiguous on the understanding of the world and the meaning of human being which is the value of human life. However, Thome H. Fang suggests a viewpoint of historical development about the relationship between Buddhism and Taoism. What he says as the follows:

Such an attempt to restore everything, posited in the realm of Being, to the primordial Nothing explicated in terms of infinite substance evoked three different reactions in the further development of Chinese metaphysical speculation during the next few centuries. (1) There was the negative reaction of Pei Wei and Sun Shen.……(2) There was the mild reaction of Hsiang Shiu and Kuo Hsiang based upon the philosophy of Chuang Tzu.……(3) The third positive reaction was really something more than a mere reaction. It initiated a movement of metaphysical speculation which would reach to the peak comparable in height with the summits of the primordial Confucianism and the primordial Taoism.[17]

The discussion of Tao or Ultimate Substance is just an accompanies of metaphysical construction, whereas the Cosmology plays even more fundamental character, thus the speculative event could only proceed from its cosmological foundation but never tracing other school’s footsteps in any occasion of the historical development. What a pity is that Thome H. Fang seems to confuse the translation mission between two languages in the historical background with the theoretical construction in the basic philosophical problems. Yes, it follows the translation necessity in Taoist literature but not under the theoretical logic in Taoist philosophy. Thus it can not be said that Buddhist philosophical construction is influenced by Taoism. Thome H. Fang even quotes Professor Tang Yung Tung’s word to highlight the historical effects:

Professor Tang Yung Tung in his History of Chinese Buddhism in the Epoch of A.D. 65-580 has produce ample evidences to prove the fact that Buddhism during its early stage of development could have taken its deep root in the Chinese mind only by coming under the dominant influence of Chinese thought. In the light of historical facts, the Chinese Buddhistic metaphysics was evoked and reinforced by the spirit of Taoism and not vice versa.[18]

Chinese Mahayana Buddhism was influenced by the terminology of Taoism is truth but this could never be overemphasized as theoretical inherit. The following paragraph shows Thome H. Fang noticing the theoretical independence of Buddhism while still stressing too much importance on the connection with Taoism in the translational history.

Ho Yen and Wang Pi had put forth the category of fundamental Nothingness in the exposition of the Tao as exhibited in the systems of Confucianism and Taoism alike. Soon afterwards the Taoists claimed the category to be a supreme one in their own system. And the Buddhists like Chih Chien and Kang Senghui followed suit in laying extreme importance upon the category of fundamental Nothingness which they take to be equivalent to the Tathata. ……Considered in the light of the Philosophy of prajna, such a rendering is perhaps too much of a simplification of the Sunyata or the nature of the void. But the Chinese Buddhists really tended to be inclined to the Taoists in the choice of idioms. ……there had been an endeavour to arrange and classify the important Buddhistic concepts to be explained in terms of what were regarded as the Chinese equivalents. ……used such a method ……into a technique known as Ke-I, i.e. the method of giving analogous interpretations to the cardinal Buddhist concepts and principles on the bases of those already in vogue in the original Chinese philosophy,-especially in the school of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. It is only natural for the Buddhists to have adopted this method with a view to initiating the Chinese intellectuals into the mysteries of Buddhism. ……Needless to say, however, the influence of Taoism on the development of Chinese Buddhism is tremendous.[19]

It is not very distinct that what on purpose Thome H. Fang’s point is. Is he taking the Philosophy of Prajna as a new form of nothingness thus following Taoism philosophy or a new concept which should follow its own philosophical tradition? Honestly to say, Thome H. Fang for sure knows the difference between the two school’s cosmological theories but he seems to take the position of the influence of Taoism towards Buddhism not only in the field of linguistic but even in philosophy. Prajna is considered as a new stage in the speculation of Tao after the stage of nothingness in Neo-Taoism by Buddhist school following the metaphysical development of Chinese philosophy. This is not a good way to understand the meaning of Prajna in the Buddhist theory. Prajna is derived from the cosmological ideas that things origin from condition, thus nothing is eternality. It is not talking about the substance is nothing in its existence. Therefore it is not the next step of the philosophical development of Nothingness in Taoism school but a new concept in a new school. So, historically to say Chinese Buddhism influenced by Taoism is acceptable, nevertheless, philosophically taking Buddhism as a next step of Chinese Taoist tradition is not accepted. Meanwhile, the next school in the Chinese philosophical history named Neo-Confucianism could be taken as the succeeded of Original Confucianism but never the follower of Taoism and Buddhism. However, in Thome H. Fang’s opinion, the critic from Neo-Confucianism to Buddhism, to one’s surprise, is rejected by him. That’s owning to its characteristic is synthesize by Taoism and Buddhism and based on original Confucianism. Thus it should admit its Taoist and Buddhist tradition in stead of critic the other two schools’ defects. This is another example of Thome H. Fang’s mistakes about the definition of theoretical styles in different schools. Historical influence could only happen on the appearance of any particular school but not its theoretical spirit and logic. Neo-Confucianism is not guilty on the critic to Buddhism although it inherits some theoretical forms and terminologies.

Religious believe and equalitarian to other schools

Thome H. Fang is in any case believes in Buddhist religious, this makes him unavoidably accepting the cosmological thinking in Buddhism, nevertheless, there a theoretical contradictory happened. Ordinary, cosmology should decide what the theory of value in this philosophical school is, in other words, the attitude of life is derived from the knowledge of the world in any school. Now, Thome H. Fang once accepts the cosmology of Buddhist but still receive the value of Taoism and Confucianism, this is a contradictory. In his position, he has mentioned about different characteristics of this three main school, such as Confucians is the Time-man, Taoism is the Space-man and Buddhism is the Space-Time-man an alternative sense of forgetting.[20]

Just is this attitude that makes his discussion about the Chinese philosophy as an object of admiring instead of studying; and becomes a culture philosophical discussion but not a systematical philosophical argumentation. He is doing every effort to show how seriously Chinese philosophy is concerning about the Exaltation of the individual, means that to cultivate oneself running for a perfect personality. Thome H. Fang does pay attention to the goal of Chinese philosophy and catches its spirit as a system of promoting human personality, but loose to keep the philosophical approach as a critical and an analytical science. As he mentions bellow:

The world is not taken for what it is in natural regard; it waits to be transmuted into a moral universe for the Confucians, and especially for the Neo-Confucians, into an aesthetic realm for the Taoist, and into a religious domain for the Buddhists. All of these differentiating realms or domains ultimately go into the make-up of the integral universe or the world as a whole which, philosophically considered, should be a transfigured world, taken in its ideal regard. The task of Chinese metaphysics is analysis of facts issuing in an understanding of destiny. The transfigured world is nothing less than a teleological system of axiological importance.[21]

Buddhist Philosophy and its metaphysics is no longer an absolutely truth but only a life choice in a religions dimension while Confucianism is also a kind of truth in moral life and Taoism in aesthetic. Undoubtedly, Thome H. Fang takes Buddha as his religious believing, but not deservedly rejects the other two Chinese philosophical schools Confucianism and Taoism and devaluates their value in the running of human life. On the contradictory, he takes them as playing another role for some other functions which seems still necessarily in human life.

Conclusion

The main ideas of Thome H. Fang’s Buddhism has not yet been illustrated well in this article, where presented here is some observation about his Buddhist study. The metaphysical approach is how Thome H. Fang evaluates western and eastern philosophy through which eastern philosophy can deal with the affairs of both human beings and the whole world thus surpass what in the western philosophy. In the speculation tradition of the metaphysical issue Buddhism succeeds Taoism nothingness by prajna and Neo-Confucianism synthesizes Taoism and Buddhism. The above opinions has been discussed and critic in this article by the saying of the mixture of philosophical problems in ethics and metaphysics, and the confusion of translating necessity and theoretical logic. At the last, his attitude toward Buddhism is a religious object to believe in by Thome H. Fang. As a believing system, Thome H. Fang doesn’t treat it seriously yet still accept Taoism and Confucianism as some other functions what is necessity in the human life. This causes his study much more like culture estimation than theoretical comparison.