The Metaphysical Foundation of Buddhism and Modern Science
The Metaphysical Foundations of Buddhism and Modern Science: Nagarjuna and Alfred North Whitehead
The Metaphysical Foundations of Buddhism and Modern Science: Nagarjuna and Alfred North Whitehead
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
25<br />
include as part <strong>of</strong> its own essence, any other entity, whether another<br />
occasion <strong>of</strong> experience or an entity <strong>of</strong> another type. This term is devoid<br />
<strong>of</strong> suggestion either <strong>of</strong> consciousness or <strong>of</strong> representative perception.<br />
Feelings are the positive type <strong>of</strong> prehension. In positive prehensions the<br />
'datum' is preserved as part <strong>of</strong> the final complex object which 'satisfies'<br />
the process <strong>of</strong> self-formation <strong>and</strong> thereby completes the occasion.<br />
This nomenclatura has been made up to conform to the condition, that, as<br />
a theory develops, its technical phraseology should grow out <strong>of</strong> the<br />
usages <strong>of</strong> the great masters who laid its foundations. <strong>The</strong> immediate<br />
verbal usages at any moment prevalent in any school <strong>of</strong> philosophy are but<br />
a small selection from the total vocabulary <strong>of</strong> the philosophic tradition.<br />
This is rightly the case having regard to the variations <strong>of</strong> doctrine.<br />
<strong>The</strong> current usage can express the doctrine <strong>of</strong> the reigning school <strong>of</strong><br />
thought <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> certain accredited variations from it. <strong>The</strong> dem<strong>and</strong> that an<br />
alternative doctrine with other roots in the historic tradition should<br />
confine itself to this selection <strong>of</strong> terms amounts to the dogmatic claim<br />
that certain preliminary assumptions should never be revised. Only those<br />
schools <strong>of</strong> thought are to be allowed which can be expressed in the<br />
sacred terms. What can reasonably be asked, is that each doctrine<br />
should ground its vocabulary on its own proper tradition. If this<br />
precaution has been taken, an outcry as to neologisms is a measure <strong>of</strong><br />
unconscious dogmatism.<br />
25