(Bodhisattvacaryaa,菩萨行 ).
　　 The essentials of Buddhism we have discussed  so far are
quite   amenable   to  traditional   Chinese   thought.   In
particular, the Confucian  concept of humanity  and constant
mean (中庸), Taoist concepts of the Tao, non-being, non-action,
and the yin-yang  phenomenon  are all  malleable  and fluid.
They easily fit into an organic  metaphysics  of mankind  as
related  to nature.  We simply  do not have the space  to go
into a more detailed  analysis  on how Buddhist  and Chinese
doctrines harmoniously blend with each other.
　　 Here we are concerned more about how Eastern and Western
thought might be able to converge  on metaphysical  grounds.
For, in any East-West  discourse, we must seize  on the most
fruitful and conducive  phase in the enterprise.  This phase
is  metaphysics,  not  epistemology  or  ethics, for  it  is
foundational  to man's  understanding  in such a way that it
underlies  both epistemological  and ethical  deliberations.
Moreover,  metaphysics   is  comparable   to  the  role   of
mathematics  in the sciences, i.e., it forms the basis for a
universal   language  tying  in  all  fields  of  scientific
endeavor.  But  here  we are  not  involved  in  a universal
language dealing with science and technology. Rather, we are
dealing  with  the ultimate  question  of human  nature  and
function, both of which would of course by extension involve
science  and technology  and not the other way around.  That
is, the present  age is so replete  with data on science and
technology  that concern  for human nature and function  are
relegated  to secondary  position  or importance, if at all,
and thus the erosion of the human domain goes on unabated.
   The hope then is for  a revival  and  renewed  effort  on
metaphysical  understanding.  In this  century, the  logical
positivists have done a tremendous
 
　　　　　　　　　　  P.375
 
 
service by presenting us with the clarification  of language
in use and the verifiability  theory  of meaning, but at the
same time, they have clearly marked off the non-metaphysical
areas of thought.  The movement was a logical conclusion  to
the rise of scientific  philosophy  and the adherence to the
traditional  conception  of metaphysics.  The movement  also
revealed  the limitations  of its enterprise, the  principal
one of which is the denial  of metaphysics  in pursuing  its
verifiability   theory   of  meaning.   This   generated   a
paradoxical  situation  in which the empirical  verification
involved  traditional  metaphysics  but which  it set out to
deny in the first place.
   The two great Western metaphysians of human experience are
Immanual Kant and Alfred N. Whitehead. Both are landmarks in
the sense that Kant capped the Newtonian world and Whitehead
the Einsteinian  world.  Kant wrapped up his metaphysics  by
the   three　　 transcendentals--aesthetic,   analytic　　 and
dialectic, but in the process  he left a gaping hole between
the  dialectic  and  the aesthetic  and  analytic.  This  is
permissible  under  the Newtonian  framework  which  sharply
distinguished  between  the realms of man and God, a sort of
an  extension  of the  distinction  between  phenomenon  and
noumenon. Indeed, the distinction was brilliant and original
but  then  it purposely  left  the uncertainties, antinomies
paralogism, alone in order to leave the door open for faith,
as Kant readily admitted.  What started out to be a holistic
metaphysics ended up in disjointedness and alienation.
   Where Kant arrived at a deadend in metaphysics because of
a basic disconnection in experience, Whitehead  fared better
with a world  connected  through  and through.  Unknowingly,
Whitehead,  based  on  Einsteinian  Relativity  Theory,  had
developed  a  cosmology  quite  close  to  Buddhist  Hua-yen