Philosophy: On Kant/Buddhism and the good life

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.’

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.