Philosophy: On Kant/Buddhism and the good life

Last updated on: September 25, 2005 at 11:06 pm by Justin Whitaker

Philosophy: On Kant/Buddhism and the good life 2005-09-25T23:06:00-06:00 Justin Whitaker

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

This is roughly the topic of my MA (Buddhist Studies) dissertation which was due two weeks ago 🙂 and which I have an extension for until the end of October. I am just trying now, after an unsuccessful attempt to start another MA program while working on this, to return myself to this immense topic. I have made some progress, and well, thought it might help me mentally to get some of my thoughts out there (comments welcome, intelligent or otherwise).

Basically Buddhologists have lately been trying to make sense of Buddhist Ethics, mostly concluding that Buddhist Ethics is something similar to Aristotle’s ethics, with emphasis on virtues, character development, and the ‘great man’: the Buddha himself, as the exemplar of these. However, there are discrepancies in trying to match these up, especially in those Buddhist systems that advocate a notion of enlightenment ‘here and now’ (including but not limited to Dzogchen, Ch’an, and Zen).

In fact, Buddhism does not clearly argue for a teleology on any metaphysical level, instead teaching it at the practical level: take these steps, this path to the goal. But the goal is always already there; the steps are the particular ways each person must realize that truth. The steps strip off our desires and aversions, our misconceptions of the world and ourselves.

This turns me to Kant, who, despite the bad reputation, has something quite similar to say. For him, the moral law, by which every worthy person lives, is already there already, just waiting to be realized. It is by turning to reason (Vernunft) and away from the ever-changing winds of desires and inclinations that one realizes this moral law.

For both Kant and Buddhism, their is a process given/prescribed to take the individual away from egotistical life: the ever pressing desires and inclinations, and toward altruistic morality. For Kant it is a three step process: first, think for yourself. To do this you must seriously question all authorities and those who try to lead you this way or that. It is a form of skepticism, but a healthy one, as it uses skepticism as an initial step, activating your critical reasoning abilities. Second, think from the standpoint of everybody else. Yikes, I know. But mainly this just means listen to others, try to get in their shoes, don’t just fall back into solipsism. Here, at least, one must be engaged in the world, in society, in relationships, not off in solitary contemplation or other-worldly philosophizing. Third, always think consistently. Another very tough one, and in fact one that can only be accomplished when the prior two are fully realized. But basically this is the challenge of being able always to do the first two without hesitation, without conflicting emotions or grasping to selfishness coming up. In the whole process you should develop maxims, guidelines to live by, that are automatic, well reasoned and unchallengeable (never kill an innocent person, never take what is not given, never allow yourself to be intoxicated or out of your own control).

These maxims, by the way, are three of the Buddhist ‘precepts’ roughly reworded for current purposes. But the idea is to show that Kant’s process brings one to the same conclusions as are found in Buddhism. And Buddhism too seems to send one toward Kantian reasoning. One famous sutta (Buddhist text) is that of the Advice to the Kalamans, in which the Buddha tells the Kalama people:

Be not led by the authority of religious texts, nor by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances, nor by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the idea; “this is our teacher’. But, O Kalamas, when you know for youselves that certain things are unwholesome (akusala), and wrong, and bad, then give them up … And when you know for youselves that certain things are wholesome (kusala) and good, then accept them and follow them.’

from here

This is very similar reasoning to that mentioned above by Kant. The idea is that one ought not just follow the dictates or actions of others, even those who are admirable or virtuous. Each of us must reason through what we are taught so that we grasp the truth for ourselves, not simply grasping our own truth, nor follow the truths of others hoping one day that we’ll get it (as both Aristotle and Christian Virtue ethicists would argue). Understanding is the prerequisite for right actions, not the other way around. Kant and Buddhist thinkers seem unique in this understanding, and in this logical formulation of morality.

That is not to say that one must be enlightened or fully moral to do good things, but only that the worth of an action is based on the mindset of the actor in carrying it out. One who gives or helps others simply out of the conviction that is the right thing to do (a conviction based on prior reasoning as mentioned above) is and must be morally superior to one who gives out of desire for fame or rewards (even if this person gives much more). Aristotle doesn’t realize this, citing the virtue of magnanimity, of giving greatly, as simply one of those virtues that only rich people can have; similarly he excludes women and slaves from even the capacity to hold some virtues.

Kant and Buddhism alone seem to praise that person who, regardless of how much they give or the particular outcome of their giving, simply gives, out of the conviction that it is the right thing to do. Kant is criticized for his attempt to give concrete examples of his moral law, but for the most part, his underlying realizations survive any attacks. Further, both Buddhism and Kant have been criticized for devaluing the ‘person’ by giving moral worth to that person who seems to lack real choices in the world. That is, Buddhism will put forth the bodhisattva as the moral exemplar, the man who gives all for the sake of others, both in previous lives and his final one as the historical Buddha. I don’t think you could say he knew all along what the consequences of his acts would be, nor that he was pursuing any goal/telos, rather that he discovered within himself a will, a law (the dharma), which was completely other than the desires and inclinations that had driven him through life after life up until this point, and, following this law, found others who had made similar discoveries along with a being who had completely unshackled himself from those desires and inclinations and now, in this very life, lived fully in and through the dharma: Dipankara, the prior Buddha. Recognizing the great man/woman who is to be a guide and inspiration is thus not the beginning of the moral/spiritual process for the Buddhist, but a middle point and an important turning point.

Well… I’ll leave it at that for now… A fun journey for me back into my prior life as a student in Bristol, UK 🙂 , hopefully somewhat entertaining or stimulating for anyone else out there as well.

Much love, smiles, and good will.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

September 25, 2005

Life: Now & the future (next 3 months)

Next Post

September 26, 2005 Life: where I've been, where I'm going

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Academia Activism American Buddhism Art Book review Buddhism Buddhism Today Buddhist Ethics Burma/Myanmar China Christianity Commodification Environment Gender Happiness Health Humor India Interfaith Islam Japanese Buddhism Kant Media / News Meditation mindfulness Photography Poetry Politics quicktakes Running Teaching Technology Thailand Theism/Atheism Theravada Tibet Tibetan Buddhism Travels Uncategorized Unitarian Universalism video Western Philosophy Zen

Select a Month June 2021 January 2021 November 2020 August 2020 July 2020 March 2020 January 2020 October 2019 August 2019 June 2019 May 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 November 2004 September 2004 August 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz