30.11.2016 Views

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!