Postscript - In Retrospection

	To complete the presentation of this thesis I would like to add the following observations and comments.

	Firstly, the nature of my topic prevents me from giving to it a definite and definitive conclusion. A number of other aspects continue to beckon my interest which demand, and deserve, my further research and reflection. However, various constraints, primarily time and other restrictions placed upon the writing of a thesis, have prevented me from doing justice to these additional pursuits. Two areas in particular have been neglected in this regard and can here be only noted, namely, a more thorough investigation into the nature of negation as entailed in the use of the via negativa and how these two traditions came to perceive this subject, and, an investigation into the nature of associated ritualism in the hope that we might better explore the experiential significance that negative theology might have in the context of this type of absolute philosophy.
	Secondly, although this thesis was conceived and written with an independence between its chapters these monographs or essays correctly form, collectively, both a linear progression and a circular progression. In the former an endeepening of our insight is aimed for through an investigation of deeper levels of meaning revealing and delineating in the process the essential outline of such phenomenal structures. In the latter the topic of illusionism remains in the background and through it we come to ask what is the relationship between negative theology and the qualified use of metaphors of illusion, besides casting further light on the role played by the via negativa in the context of an absolute philosophy. These two approaches must also be seen to compliment each other continually redefining the nature of our quest, enriching the formulation of the various questions that are posed in the body of this thesis. Moreover, through the interaction of these two directions our topic is given a certain degree of systematization that illuminates, in turn, the systematic nature of absolute philosophy. 
	Thirdly, in defense of my intuition of a general historical precedence with the Buddhist Tradition in the formulation of an absolute philosophy I would like the reader to note that as this thesis is conducted as a philosophical exercise I have avoided, where possible, following up the historical dimension to this controversy. In this regard an interesting question can be posed as to what might constitute acceptable proof that such a relationship, directly or indirectly, was in existence between these two worlds and their associated traditions?
	History is a discipline that deals with the retrospective interpretation of miscellaneous historical deposits complicated by the fact that such historical data are more often than not themselves deposits of deposits and/or inter-pretations of interpretations, etc. In the final analysis it would appear that the pursuit of historical understanding is more a matter of aesthetics, an attempt to blend and harmonize the dating and deciphering of various complex depositions and complex interpretations of the same through the interaction of these two ideal polarities (between deposition and interpretation). It is my belief that the final account that is brought forward for presentation, although correctly provisional, can on the whole still paint an essential picture. That this task of historical appreciation is attempted is in itself proof that such attempts in historical construction, or rather, reconstruction, are generally considered to be intellectual exercises that can be insightful and fruitfully rewarding. However, a deterministic model must not be brought in to play a primary role in the delivery of such a reconstruction because the existential richness of the historical process in its phase-like changes in state cannot be explained through such naivete. To explain a certain change in state in some reconstructed historical process through recourse to the influence of some other similar external historical process is of itself not to adequately explain either the grounds for such an interaction or the grounds for the pre-occurrence of this type of historical process. As to what constitutes evidence in the first place for such influential interaction must beg some selective sedimentation in the depositional and interpretational nature of the historical reconstruction. For all that however, history treated as a historical phenomenology, is productive of sets of reasonable conclusions that can consolidate to form a ground of consensus that not only appears to possess a provisional utility but which also possesses a temporal self-reflective criticality in the further appreciation and influential progression of that historical ground. In this synthetic appreciation the historian has a role to play much in the manner of a judge who vicariously attempts to harmonize the conflicting accounts presented before them in the course of some trial. In relation to this controversy we must ask ourselves if we possess any acceptable accounts from eye-witnesses to this transmission of new ideas, or failing this, just what would constitute adequate circumstantial evidence for the same? It may well be that we already possess vital information, for or against such a supposition, but that this testimony is not recognized as such through the faulty interpretational treatment of relevant deposited material already to hand but inadequately grasped? Perhaps a deeper philosophical appreciation of this controversial topic may, in time, better assist us in this task of historical evaluation? 
	Relatively non-controversial are the following observations, namely, that both Traditions had some knowledge of each other's political and religious environments, involved themselves directly or indirectly in intensive East-West economic trade relationships, both spheres of influence possessed academic-like institutions capable of critically reflecting upon their own traditions? Moreover a bias is introduced into this complex interaction with the greater dependence of the West on eastern trade items (e.g. silk), the revolutionary consequences of contemporary Buddhist innovations in critical dialectical argumentation and the presence of a general admiration of the East by western philosophers and religious leaders. Lastly tangible evidence of this interaction is visible, or can be detected, in artistic borrowings (e.g. the Graeco-Roman influences in Gandharan sculpture), linguistic uptake of new semantic concepts (e.g. the adoption of the mathematical concept of zero) and the parallelization of similar philosophical structures as examined by this thesis. Although such evidence might be considered circumstantial there are, on a prima facie basis, sufficient grounds for this controversial topic to be seriously considered and not merely dismissed. Hopefully this thesis has clarified some of the ground work necessary for such a comparative examination that needs to be conducted on an historical basis, i.e. primarily in historical terms of reference.

						Noël Tointon,
						Macquarie University, 6/5/89.