Methods Of Marx, Kant And Buddha
(Text of a
speech given by Dr. Vickramabahu Karunarathne at seminar room, Faculty
of Arts, Peradeniya University on June 26, 2003)
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.
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.
Karl Marx
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.