![](\"https:\/\/3.bp.blogspot.com\/_fyeYpxfdjuI\/S51XR370BeI\/AAAAAAAAA8U\/vHOgK2vllYQ\/s1600-h\/Weerasinghe+-+Early+Buddhism+Kant+(0)+cover.JPG\")
<\/a><\/div>\n\u00a0by S.G.M. Weerasinghe<\/div>\nThis is essentially the topic of my doctoral thesis, and here it is, all in 88 pages plus a glossary and index. Sadly though, I can\u2019t really recommend the book. Even though it\u2019s short (usually a plus in my world) and covers topics quite dear to my heart, it also has more than its share of flaws. To start, it\u2019s written from something of a Buddhist triumphalist<\/a> standpoint. Statements like \u201cEarly Buddhist philosophy<\/a> is a royal highway for all those who wish to attain the <\/b>summum bonum<\/b><\/i>. the ideal of human life. It is a remarkable religio-philosophy complete in every respect\u201d <\/b>(p.11) are nice, but they\u2019re a clear sign that scholarly objectivity (an ideal, never actualized) is not going to be present.<\/p>\n On the other hand, the suggestion that \u201cThe perfection of morality cannot be achieved without an innumerable number of rebirths (in sa\u1e43s\u0101ra<\/i>). Thus the idea of rebirth is implied in Kantianism\u201d (p.9) also shows a total lack of sensitivity to the context of Kant\u2019s writing. Particularly\u00a0appalling is the claim, a few pages later that Kant\u2019s \u201ckingdom of ends\u201d is a \u201cfairy tale\u201d from a Buddhist point of view. The Kingdom of Ends is for Kant a sort of heavenly ideal <\/i>\u2013 not a blissed-out happy-go-lucky heaven, but simply one in which all beings treat each other out of respect, i.e. all beings act fully morally.<\/p>\n There are many commendable points though.\u00a0<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n <\/b>The comparison of Kant\u2019s antinomies<\/i> (pairs of opposing propositions that both cannot be true but could not be proved either way) and the Buddha\u2019s silence on certain metaphysical questions is helpful and informative. In Kant\u2019s works these include the propositions that<\/p>\n Discussing Kant\u2019s response, Weerasinghe writes:<\/p>\n Kant shows that both thesis and antithesis in the above \u2018four pairs\u2019 can equally be supported with a (seemingly) valid proof (CPR., A 426 B 454 \u2013 A 463 B 491). Therefore he concludes that they are all pseudo-rational assertions (Ger. vern\u00fcnftelnde Behauptungen<\/i>) appearing to rest on an empty concept (Ger. einen<\/i> leeren Begriff\u00a0<\/i>) (CPR., A 494 B 518). In other words Kant implies that they are all wrong propositions (i.e. judgements) originated from a wrong assumption (i.e. the concept of the world) based on the category of totality (CPR., A 426 B 454 \u2013 A 428 B 456) and consequently are having no validity in themselves. (p.31)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This sounds much like the analyses of Buddha\u2019s response\u00a0to the wanderer\u00a0Vacchagotta \u00a0in\u00a0The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha.<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span>Samyutta Nik\u0101ya<\/span><\/i>. Book III 257-263\u00a0The Vacchagotta section 33. Thread on Not Knowing:<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>A\u00f1\u00f1\u0101n\u0101 Sutta<\/i><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>(1-55). As he points out,\u00a0Vacchagotta posed similar questions to the Buddha out of \u201ccuriosity without any ethical aim\u201d (p.33).<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span> Thus our empirical knowledge, according to Kant, is a reconstruction of what we experience in our daily life. In other words, it is a distortion of the true picture of the external world or, for that matter, anything which is experienced as knowledge. (p.41)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I\u2019ll stop there for tonight. Tomorrow I\u2019ll finish up with the Epistemology and the largest chapter, Ethics. Then, maybe, I\u2019ll get back to Buddhism, Brain, and Mind<\/a>, a thought-stream I started over a week ago and left hanging. Oh, and then there are some Buddha-barn pics to post\u2026 Should be a fun Monday. \ud83d\ude42<\/p>\n\n
<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>
The chapter comparing the Epistemology (theory of knowledge) of Kant and the Buddha also furthers the Kant-bashing and Buddha-loving of previous chapters, while not failing to point out some central ideas of each. \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>
<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>
<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>
<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>
<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
This is well-compared to the Buddha\u2019s concept of ignorance (avijj\u0101<\/i>) giving rise to our perception of the world of compound objects. To see without ignorance is to see the voidness of all things.<\/p>\n