to be sure, but he deftly  turned  these  into  words
　　   with different contextual meaning; he also went ahead
　　   to  use  seemingly  illogical  terms  or, in  a  very
　　   dramatic  way,  he  turned  the  old  familiar  terms
　　   literally   up-side-down.   Such  terms  as  anaatman
　　   (nonself), in contradistinction to the accepted term,
　　   aatman  (self), or anitya (impermanence), instead  of
　　   nitya   (permanence) ,  are   indeed   difficult   to
　　   understand, much  less  accept, in  a tradition-bound
　　   culture.  But the insight  of the Buddha proved to be
　　   fruitful  and enduring, as history  has attested.  We
　　   must  now  attempt   to  see  where  the  Buddha  and
　　   Whitehead  converge in the discourse on the nature of
　　   ultimate reality.
　　　　 In the search for a common  ground  and perspective
　　   the  most  natural  and  fruitful  area  on which  to
　　   concentrate  would  be man's  nature.  Both  men were
　　   intensely concerned with its ultimate status, and the
　　   Buddha,  even  without  the  benefits  of  scientific
　　   methodology  and  technique, was  able  to present  a
　　   remarkably sound view.  Thus the dialogue between the
　　   two should be meaningful  and significant  only as we
　　   comprehend  the  similar  strains  in their  ways  of
　　   thinking.  Obviously  the dialogue cannot be a strict
　　   one-to-one  comparison  of details or minutiae in the
　　   Buddha's  and Whitehead's  complete concepts  of man.
　　   That  would  be an impossible  task  not only  on the
　　   historical   count  but  also  with  respect  to  the
　　   cultural  differences  which ultimately  dictate  the
　　   type of meaning specifically conveyed by the terms in
　　   use.  Moreover, it should be noted at the outset that
　　   the aim or goal  of man  in the two concepts  differs
　　   quite   drastically,  especially   in  the  realm  of
　　   religious   experience,  so  that  some   comparative
　　   analysis  would have to be left out.  However, if the
　　   more basic points are focused  on the results  should
　　   be rewarding.

　　　　 The  paper  will  then  concentrate  on Whitehead's
　　   concept of an actual entity (or actual occasion) as a
　　   basis  for comparison  with the Buddhist  concept  of
　　   anaatman  (the  nonbifurcated-bifurcating "self").(2)
　　   These concepts are seemingly
　　   ____________________________

　　   2. I have now come to understand the anaatman concept
　　　　 as a nonbifurcated-bifurcating "self"  because  in