![](\"https:\/\/3.bp.blogspot.com\/_fyeYpxfdjuI\/S51XR370BeI\/AAAAAAAAA8U\/vHOgK2vllYQ\/s1600-h\/Weerasinghe+-+Early+Buddhism+Kant+(0)+cover.JPG\")
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0by S.G.M. Weerasingh<\/div>\nOne of the first things that drew me both to Kantian and Buddhist<\/a> ethics was the notion of a morality that is at once transcendent and imminent. This means that there is a sense in which morality lies beyond our normal conceptions of the world and yet it is accessible to us always. In Buddhism it is beyond our normal conceptions because of egoic ignorance<\/i><\/b>, fed by our clinging to pleasures and pushing away of negative feelings. Insofar as we are unenlightened, we all do this. Moments of awareness help break the habit-cycle.<\/p>\n In Kant\u2019s works we are dominated by heteronomy<\/i>\u00a0\u2013 other (hetero<\/i>) laws (nomos<\/i>). To be ruled by heteronomy<\/i>\u00a0is to be subservient, subservient to our desires for power, addictions, and even moral and political rules set down by others. It is by employment of reason that we begin to untangle ourselves from these laws \u2013 choosing those we follow instead of blindly following.<\/p>\n But hitherto I have seen little or no mention of the P\u0101li term\u00a0papa\u00f1ca <\/i>(Skt. prapa\u00f1ca<\/i>), explained by Weerasinghe here in relation to Kant\u2019s use of \u2018phenomena\u2019:<\/p>\n The Kantian concept of phenomena immediately reminds us at the doctrine olpapa4ca in early Buddhism The word papa\u00f1ca <\/i>(Skt. prapa\u00f1ca<\/i>) derived from pra+\u221apa\u00f1c<\/i>,\u00a0to spread out, conveys the sense of expansion, diffuseness and manifoldness (cf: PTS., Dic. q.v.). In doctrinal use it signifies expansion, diffuseness or manifoldness of the world we perceive with our senses. It may also refer to the \u2018phenomenal world\u2019 in general, and to the \u2018mental attitude of worldliness.\u2019 (p.48)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Keown\u2019s Oxford Dictionary of Buddhism<\/a>\u00a0(Danny Fisher<\/a> informed me in January that \u201cthere\u2019s an App for that\u201d \u2013 you can download the whole thing to your iPhone\/iPod)\u00a0has no entry for\u00a0papa\u00f1ca <\/i>but does have\u00a0prapa\u00f1ca <\/i>on page 220: \u201cTerm meaning \u2018proliferation\u2019, in the sense of the multiplication of erroneous concepts, ideas, and ideologies which obscure the true nature of reality\u2026.\u201d\u00a0NYANATILOKA MAHATHERA\u2019s great Buddhist Dictionary<\/a>\u00a0has a more detailed explanation, including references here:<\/p>\n Dhp. 254: \u201cMankind delights in the diffuseness of the world, the Perfect Ones are free from such diffuseness\u201d(papa\u00f1c\u0101bhirat\u0101 paj\u0101, nippapa\u00f1ca tath\u0101gat\u0101<\/i>).\u00a0\u2013 The 8th of the \u2018thoughts of a great man\u2019\u00a0(mah\u0101-purisa-vitakka<\/i>;\u00a0A. VIII, 30) has: \u201cThis Dhamma is for one who delights in non-diffuseness (the unworldly, Nibb\u0101na<\/i>); it is not for him who delights in worldliness\u00a0(papa\u00f1ca).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So in Buddhism\u00a0<\/b>papa\u00f1ca\u00a0<\/b><\/i>appears\u00a0to have a clearly negative flavor<\/b> not found in Kant\u2019s understanding of phenomena, which in\u00a0Caygill\u2019s\u00a0Kant Dictionary<\/a>\u00a0is given a much more nuanced treatment\u00a0than either Weerasinghe or I have presented. But they are similar in suggesting a \u2018this-world\u2019 (understanding) and a transcendent understanding \u2013 one which is fully in the flow\/flux of reality free from conceptual proliferation.<\/p>\n The opening assertion that the:<\/p>\n Buddhist revolution in ethics consists of the discovery that \u201cone is responsible for ones deeds (kamma<\/i>)\u201d. That is that one is the cause of ones predicament. Hence one is the creator of oneself. So the solution to the problem of suffering is within oneself and not in the hands of a supposed creator-God. (p.58)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Thus we may notice that the Kantian view of ethics is not consistent and systematic in comparison to the moral philosophy of early Buddhism which is consistent, systematic and founded on an ethico-psychological basis. (p.61)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In fact most modern scholars would say the opposite, that Kant is systematic and Early Buddhism is somewhat lacking in clarity (though clearly filled with various \u2018moral\u2019 teachings). Back to Early Buddhism, we find:<\/p>\n (i) Morality needs no religion to support it.\u00a0(ii)\u00a0This idea is well established in EB. which maintains that dhamma or morality is something independent and is discovered by the Buddhas from epoch to epoch. (iii) Morality in EB. [is] atheistic to the core has nothing to do with any divine being. (p.62)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And likewise in both Kant and Buddhism is found a teaching of morality as a discovery<\/i> <\/b>(not an invention, social norm, revelation, etc.). \u201cAccording to Buddhism morality means, inter alia<\/i>,\u00a0to live in accordance with what is implicit in the nature of things\u201d (p.64).<\/p>\n While Weerasinghe goes on to be overly harsh on Kant (and outright wrong in too many places to address) and praising of early Buddhism, his criticism that Kant is missing the applied aspect of ethics seems fair (cf. p.70). Kant was at the same time perhaps too confident in humanities ability to use reason to evaluate motivations and break free from superstition and manipulation<\/b>, as well as pessimistic that one could ever truly do this in this lifetime.<\/p>\n But beyond this, Weerasinghe\u2019s accusations and confusions only continue \u2013 for instance lambasting Kant for his thoughts on human evil (suggesting that Kant painted a \u201cpathetic picture of man\u201d(p.65)), and praising him for his philosophy of the Good will<\/b>, which is by it\u2019s own nature good as \u201ca great teaching apparently unknown to, and unheard of in the then Western philosophy\u201d (p. 77). One assertion, which would be merely amusing if it weren\u2019t in a supposedly academic text is that those aspects of Kant that <\/b>are good and useful <\/b><\/i>are \u201c<\/b>not European, but Indian <\/b><\/i>in spirit\u201d (pp. 85-86 emphasis in original). Sigh.<\/b><\/p>\n As I suggested in my last post<\/a>, it\u2019s a hard book to recommend. The book didn\u2019t make any real splash in the Western academic world, so even academics seem to have ignored it. It has a fair number of typos, is not terribly easy to get ahold of, and sadly hacks up Kantian philosophy<\/b>. \u00a0Between the last comment I quoted and the one starting the book in my last post, \u201cEarly Buddhist philosophy<\/a> is a royal highway\u2026\u201d you should have a pretty good idea of what to expect.<\/p><\/div>\n A comparative study of early Buddhism and Kantian philosophy\u00a0by S.G.M. Weerasingh One of the first things that drew me both to Kantian and Buddhist ethics was the notion of a morality that is at once transcendent and imminent. This means that there is a sense in which morality lies beyond our normal conceptions of the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":118,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-200","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n