where  the so-called  self  is taken  to be something
　　   static, structural, and thus is even looked upon as a
　　   lifeless   entity.   This   is  the  realm   of  pure
　　   abstraction or symbolism.  On the other side there is
　　   the  "bifurcating  self"  which, by virtue  of  being
　　   thought   of   in   its   nature   of  isolation   or
　　   independence, continues  the process of fragmentation
　　   or abstractive discrimination  of different realms of
　　   existence.  The  status  of  an  I, an ego, a subject
　　   aloof  from the experiential  process  in which it is
　　   dynamically  involved, is thereby advanced.  Thus the
　　   process only furthers the whole bifurcating series in
　　   the  continuity  of  being.   The  bifurcating   self
　　   necessarily  relies  on the bifurcated  self and thus
　　   keeps  going  the perpetual  quest for discriminative
　　   physical  and mental  realms and their elements.  The
　　   true self or anaatman  is not grasped or achieved  so
　　   long as this quest goes on.  It will be seen later in
　　   the discussion  that the Buddha admonished  those who
　　   indulge  in extremes  (antas) of all  kinds, for they
　　   are not able to experience the middle path (madhyamaa
　　   pratipad).

　　   3. A.  N.  Whitehead, Adventures  of Ideas (New York:
　　　　 Macmillan Co., 1933), p. 41.
　　   4. A. N. Whitehead,  Process  and  Reality (New York:
　　　　 Social Science Book Store, 1941), p.27.

　　　　　　　　　　　　  p.306

　　   Events  or things do not occur in a total vacuum  nor
　　   can they  be definitively  treated  as such.  In this
　　   connection  he repeatedly warned against falling into
　　   the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.(5) He not only
　　   showed what abstractions  are and how they arise but,
　　   more  important, focused  on the  basic  fact  of the
　　   coherent ontological nature of things. In Science and
　　   the Modern World, he clearly asserted:

　　　　 Of course, substance and quality, as well as simple
　　   location, are the most  natural  ideas  for the human
　　   mind.  It is the way in which we think of things, and
　　   without  these ways of thinking  we could not get our
　　   ideas straight for daily use. There is no doubt about
　　   this.  The only  question  is, How concretely  are we
　　   thinking   when  we  consider   nature   under  these
　　   conceptions? My point will be, that we are presenting
　　   ourselves  with  simplified   editions  of  immediate