Methods of Marx, Kant and Buddha
Text of the speech given by
Dr. Vickramabahu
Karunarathne
at seminar
room, Faculty of Arts, Peradeniya University on June 26, 2003,
Published on Lanka Daily News, Aug 9, 2003
---o0o---
I have been asked to
compare and contrast the methods of understanding reality as given by
these great thinkers. What do we mean by the methods of understanding
reality? It could mean a technique or instrument that can be used to
investigate and search. On the other hand it could mean an ability or a
principle working within the human mind that enables us to understand
reality.
Karl Marx |
Buddha |
Emmanuel Kant |
These are two ways of
looking at the same problem. Let me start from Marx. He has explained that
there are two ways of looking at reality. Firstly we have the common
understanding of reality. Common sense is the starting point of human
understanding. We all agree that we have a common sense of our
surrounding.
This is an unconscious
agreement. For example we agree that we are participating in a seminar in
this room. This is a three dimensional room with a length, a breadth and a
height. There are windows, tables, chairs and other things. These are
separate and distinct things. Also we have a common sense of time. We get
this flow of time from the change from day to night, and also from
different seasons. These act as natural clocks to give us a sense of time.
We are sure about ordinary things. we agreed to meet here today and we
met. We are most certain that this meeting will be over within few hours
and already we have planned what to do next.
Common sense
understanding begins with separation of things. We categorise the world
into different things. We give identities to each physical entity and even
things we imagine. Separate discrete, distinct, finite things. This is how
we see the world in our common sense. We use the law of identity all the
time to separate one from the other. We can identify when a thing appears
for the second times.
In our eternal sense of
time we expect a thing to be the same. So there is a certain sense of
permanency in this ordinary outlook. The law of identity is the method and
also the principle which is working inside our mind, giving us the common
sense of the world.
We can see that certain
sense of permanence is vital for us to use the law of identity boldly.
Otherwise we cannot get a coherent outlook of life. We also believe that
the common sense world we see is the same for all of us. Hence it is an
objective reality, that exists independent of each of us. How do we come
to this agreement? Is it through our own individual experience? Do we
arrive at this ordinary understanding by an indirect agreement?
Marxism says that there
is a inherent principle of mind which activate the common understanding.
There is a mental space with one to one correspondence with the common
sense of reality. We are born with this endowment to see it that way.
Signals of five senses go to the brain and this activates the logical
principle.
Thus it opens the three
dimensional mental space. Remember, mind is a function of the brain. Then
one could raise the question whether mental perception is different from
reality. What is the connection between perception and common sense
reality? It is through human practice we see the connection of the two.
Our perception does not contradict our practice. Not only day-to-day
things but also all scientific inquiry is based on common sense reality.
We do things, experiment and construct in physical reality with this
ordinary understanding of reality.
In scientific literature
we refer to common sense as logical empirical reality. Some say, correct
world is logical positivism. Because knowledge should be based on positive
data. With scientific progress we have improved both "logical" and
"empirical" sides of this method. In improving our instruments of data
collection and measurement we have made gigantic strides in collecting
data. With new electronic instruments we are enabled to collect most
accurate and precise information. On the other hand, using faster and
faster computers we have improved our range of logical analysis. In fact
some have created the myth that science today is capable of handling any
problem that the human race could confront.
Kant agrees with this
picture of the ordinary working of mind. In fact it is Kant who exposed to
the Western world the inherent logical capacity and the ordering process
taking place in the human mind. Also the ability of human mind to create
mental objects and to construct abstract spaces based on assumptions. 2500
years ago Buddha came to the same conclusion. He also explained that human
understanding is two fold. One is "Anusotha Gami" while other is
"Patisotha Gami". By "Anusotha Gami" it means the common way or common
path. He said we start with the uninitiated mind - "Aviddya".
This raw mind receives
raw signals from senses. Then "Aviddya" leads to "Sankara" - that mean to
logical constructions or the application of logical principle, then -
"Sankara" leads in turn to - "Vignana" - the ordinary knowledge, which in
turn leads to "Nama Rupa", the identities. Thus we arrive at common
understanding of reality.
All these teachers agree
to start with signals coming from five senses. They agree that knowledge
arises due to processing of this information in the brain. Mind is thus a
faculty of brain. This logical empirical method of obtaining knowledge is
the common activity of the human mind. Is there any other way of
understanding reality? Does the human mind have any other ability to
process data and arrive at conclusions? This very important question is
raised by many thinkers including Emanuel Kant. Kant saw that the human
mind is capable of understanding things beyond the logical setup.
He raised the problem of
emotional, moral and ethical experiences that do not come under logical
analysis proper. However apart from indicating "intuition" as a
possibility he could not show any other principle working in the human
mind. This opened the room from Metaphysics and the concept of
communication with God, though Kant did not suggest that. The other
ability of mind to process data, in a different framework, was brought out
by Marx. Marx completed the investigation started by Hegel. The name given
to this in Marxism is Dialectical Materialism. How does the mind process
sense data with this principle? In other words what is this other method
of analysis?
In order to understand
this principle we have to forget discrete things and the continuous space
of common sense. Let us look at this meeting, not as a thing existing from
moment to moment in this three dimensional room but as a condition
arising, being and perishing. A condition that arises then reaches
maturity and perishing to give way for another condition.
We look at reality not as
discrete elements existing at a moment but as conditions going through
periods or stages. You look at me as Bahu whom you may have met 20 years
ago. You believe you know me and have a picture of my character. Then you
would make alterations according to the present experience. But a
different understanding could be obtained by considering Bahu as a
condition going through phases, 60/70 period then 80/90 period, finally
00/10 period. You could observe one character fading into the other in
movement of perishing and arising.
What you could not get
from the discrete picture, you may get from this conditional assessment.
What is the principle that replaces the logical rule? It is the rule or
the principle of conditional arising. Reality should be understood as
conditions interrelated through this principle, both in space and time. As
one moves in time conditions arise, mature and perish. Similarly moving
along any line in space conditions arise mature and give way to other
conditions. In this reality of conditions, A=B or, A is ?Not B" as a rule
has no meaning. Conditions are not discrete nor they are disjoint as
things in common sense space.
This way of looking at
reality is also an intrinsic ability of mind, because it is the other way
the reality exists. In a sense by looking at the reality in this way we by
pass the facade of physicality and arrive closer to the reality itself.
When we look at reality as conditions, there is no continuity in space as
there are breaks and ruptures when one condition gives way to the other.
One condition perishes giving birth to another. Hence impermanence becomes
a basic factor of reality.
This is the very opposite
of common sense reality. Certain permanency is necessary for the
identification of discrete things.
Thomas Kuhn in relation
to development explained the principle of "development as succession of
conditions punctuated by sudden breaks". This is only another way of
explaining the principle of conditional becoming. Buddha explained the
same method of understanding under - "Patisotha Gami" - path against the
current. He explained the conditional becoming in terms of - Utpatha
(becoming - Thiti (Static) - Banga (destruction). Accordingly reality
consist of conditions arising - stationary moment - perishing. He said
what one gets through common sense is only - Vighnana - ordinary
understanding of things which is an illusion. To know things as they are
one has to look through the principle of conditional arising. Buddha used
this principle to explain the ordinary working of the human mind as
follows: raw mind - logical constructions - common sense - identification
- attention - contact - pleasure/pain - desire - self possession -
consumption - conscious living.
In this way he explained
ordinary human self consciousness as arising from sensuous struggle for
private possession and consumption. Thus the objective observer or
onlooker is converted to a subjective participant in reality, objective
logical analyst is reduced to a subjective consumer, a blind participant
in reality.
Marx used this method to
understand human history but others such as Stephan Gould has used the
same principle to explain the pre-history of mankind. One condition of
hominoid existence was negated to create the next developed condition.
Eachbecoming, being and perishing, leads finally to modern humans. Homo
habilis - Homo erectus - Homo sapiens is a development according to the
law of conditional becoming.
Thus both Marx and Buddha
accepted that humans are capable of understanding reality at different
levels. Firstly the logical empirical understanding or common sense,
secondly through the principle of conditional becoming. First comes
naturally while the second needs special effort. Buddha claimed that the
second method gives the reality "as it is" in opposition to the semblance
of permanence created by common sense. Both teachers investigated why the
second type of understanding is difficult to achieve.
Buddha explained that
humans are tied to the sensuous reality of common sense through desire,
thus restricting their ability to apply the law of conditional becoming.
Attachment to physical reality through - Upadana - "private possession"
blocks the mind from thinking in terms of impermanence and sharp change.
Marx explained it differently.
Humans strive to improve
production by technology - a result of logical empirical study of reality.
But this movement leads to estrangement and alienation. Humans become
prisoners of technological reality.
'Thus more the worker by
his labour appropriates the external world, sensuous nature, the more he
deprives himself of means of life in the double respect: First, that the
sensuous external world more and more ceases to be an object belonging to
his labour - to be his labour's means of life, and secondly that it, more
and more, ceases to be means of life in the immediate sense, means for the
physical subsistence of the worker".
To get out of this
situation workers (humans) should be a part of a conscious social
movement, a movement capable of understanding reality as a process in
conditional becoming. On the other hand Buddha explained - "Sangha" - the
community of conscious people as the leadership that will show the masses
the path to detachment and enlightenment.
We have to understand
that these thinkers are separated not only by 2500 years, but also by
different of socio-economic conditions. Buddha was born into a society
where Aryan caste domination was collapsing with the rise of native
Dravidian people, while Marx lived to see the growth of modern capitalism,
with the rise of proletarian movement.
___________________________________
Source:
http://www.buddhistnews.tv
---o0o---
Update: 01-09-2003
