Continuity and Novelty: A Contribution to the Dialogue between Buddhism and Process Thought

Abstract

The observation that Buddhism and process philosophy have parallels is, of course, not a new one. Indeed, Whitehead himself noted that his own philosophy may have more obvious parallels with Indian or Chinese ways of thinking than Western.¹ In his references specifically to Buddhism, however, Whitehead is largely negative.² Hartshorne has seen the relationship more positively and has noted points of affinity as well as difference. This paper will look at these points and focus on two key differences. The work of two other process thinkers, John Cobb and David Griffin, who more fully discuss the relationship between Buddhism and process thought will also be summarized to clarify these differences. One difference centers upon the process intuition that sees both change and continuity as basic to a conceptuality of reality. They fault Buddhism with an over-emphasis on change, and where the tradition does address this issue, it results in a substantialization of reality and a philosophy of being rather than of becoming. The second centers on the source of novelty in the process of coming to be. In process thought, it is with God that novelty is introduced into the act of coming to be. If I am reading Hartshorne correctly here, however, he does not seem to emphasize this point as much as Cobb or Griffin His perspective suggests a way in which novelty can be discussed without resorting to God. Thus, the two basic criticisms of process thought made against the Buddhist conceptuality of reality are the problems of continuity and novelty. In regard to the problem of continuity within change, a detailed look at the Sarvāstivāda conceptuality of dharma or moment of existence may clarify the Buddhist position and deflect much of the criticism that Hartshorne and others have levelled against Buddhism. As to the notion of novelty being introduced by God in the process of coming to be, as noted above, Hartshorne himself suggests a way that need not demand God. This will be explored in the larger context of a discussion of the lack of a source of novelty in the Buddhist conceptuality of reality.