불교철학과 화이트헤드의 과정철학은 어디서부터 갈라지는가?-불교의 4대 학파와 화이트헤드 과정철학 간의 범주적 차이 문제

Abstract

This paper discusses the differences of philosophical categorization between Whitehead's process philosophy and Buddhist philosophy. This article focuses on the four major Buddhist schools―①Sarvāstivāda(說一切有部), ②Sautrāntika(經量部), ③Yogācāra(瑜伽行派), ④Mādhyamika(中觀學派)― during Abhidharma Buddhism period, which was before the birth of the Mahāyāna Buddhism. Here, Yogācāra and Mādhyamika are the two core pillars of Mahāyāna Buddhism. However, they do not accept the reality of the external world. On the other hand, Whitehead's process philosophy is metaphysical atomism that accepts the reality of the external world, like Sarvāstivāda and Sautrāntika. Whitehead argued that “the ultimate metaphysical truth is atomism,” and there is a theory of paramāṇu(極微) in Sarvāstivāda and Sautrāntika, but not in Mahāyāna Buddhism. In this regard, Whitehead's process philosophy is categorically far from Mahāyāna Buddhism and closer to Sarvāstivāda and Sautrāntika. Also, the atomistic reality in whitehead philosophy has irreducible uniqueness, and it is non-substantial and relational. He called it “actual entity” or “actual occasion.” In whitehead philosophy, actual entities are merely becoming and perishing, and do not change. Therefore, this does not belong to the concept of substantialistic self-nature(自性) that Mādhyamika criticizes. And Vasubandhu(世親) of Yogācāra assumed that the paramāṇu(極微) would be infinitely divided. This is similar to Zeno's paradox, who assumes time and space can be divided indefinitely. According to Whitehead's claim, Zeno illegitimately assumes this infinite series of acts of becoming can never be exhausted. But Whitehead said, there is no need to assume that an infinite series of acts of becoming, and saw it as nothing but a mathematical error. Nāgārjuna(龍樹) of the Mādhyamika never considered self-nature(自性) as only becoming and perishing, and Vasubandhu had no doubt about his own assumptions that paramāṇu(極微) would be infinitely divided. Among Sarvāstivāda and Sautrāntika that accepted the reality of the external world, I think, Whitehead's process philosophy is closer to Sautrāntika, because paramāṇu(極微) of Sautrāntika, like Whitehead, only becoming and perishing. But Sautrāntika is still an untrodden area. In conclusion, Sautrāntika is categorically the most similar to Whitehead's process philosophy. However, Buddhism is still in the making.