1
A PARADIGM BEYOND MODERNITY: MADHYAMIKA AND KANT
-ANISH JOHN
………
Introduction
In an article titled “Modern, Postmodern, and the future of the humanity”,
by Paulos Mar Gregorios the sub title read as, Nostalgia for the Unattainable. This stroked the
thought process to explore Buddhist Madhyamika Philosophy while retaining a ground in
Modernity (Kant) and critically evaluate the Post modern condition1. This exploration ushers into
a domain magnanimous and also critical of Post modernity.
Buddhism occupies the central position in the development of Indian Philosophy. And Buddhism
has profoundly influenced the philosophy and religion of India for over thousand years.2
Siddhartha Gautama Buddha is considered to be the most profound “enlightened being” and
Philosopher. Madhyamika philosophy, as T.R.V Murti ventures to appraise it is, “the central
philosophy of Buddhism”. Furthermore, drawing from Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) the central figure in modern philosophy, and one of the earliest prophets of Enlightenment.3 He had asked
1 Borrowed from Jean-Fran ois Lyotard’s ele rated work titled Postmodern Condition, published in 1979. 2 T.R.V. Murti .The Central Philosophy of Buddhism (London: Mandala Books, 1955), P.3.
2
the pertinent question, what is European Enlightenment? And answered it in his article
(Berlinscher Monatsschrift, December 1783), He wrote, “Enlightenment is the coming out of
Man from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the incapacity to serve one’s own understanding without direction from another...Take courage to serve your own understanding!
This is therefore the motto of the Enlightenment”4 .
Madhyamika Philosophy
Madhyamika philosophy stands out as the “central philosophy of Buddhism”5 and is one of the
most widely studied. Madhyamika , a formative school of Mahayana thought which expounds
the main doctrines contained in the Prajnaparamita literature , signifies a doctrinal position: those
who adhere to the middle view(Madhya) devoid of duality or implied contradictions (sunya), and
thereby avoid all possible extremes (madhyama pratipad) in attaining transcendent
comprehension and understanding (prajna) for Enlightenment (Bodhi). The name Madhyamika is
formed from the Sanskrit word madhyama (superlative of madhya meaning “middle, neutral,
non-dual”) and the taddhita suffix ika. As an exposition of the Buddha Dharma from the
Prajnapramita view point, the Madhyamika is also sometimes called Madhyamaka Darsana (the
Middle View) or the Sunyavada (the Teaching or Doctrine of Sunyata).
Madhyamika in India was established by Nagarjuna (ca. 150-250 A.D.) possibly at
Nagarjunikonda in Andhradesa in south and at Nalanda in Magadha in the north, and was
continued by his disciple Aryadeva (ca.170-270 A.D) in Andhradesa as well as at Nalanda,
Patliputra, and elsewhere, and by Nagabodhi (third centuryA.D) and Rahula (bhadra, Third
4 Ibid.,P.216.
3
Century A.D).6 The key texts of the school comprised commentaries to the writings of
Nagarjuna—the works of Nagarjuna most often commented upon are the Mula-madhyamaka-karika (MMK) and Vigraha-vyavartani and a number of other independent works that expanded
on ideas found in Nagarjuna's writings.
The Atma and Anatma doctrine
There are two main currents of Indian Philosophy – one having its source in the atma-doctrine of
the Upanishads and the other in the anatma-doctrine of Buddha. They conceive reality on two
distinct and exclusive patterns. The tradition of conceiving reality on the pattern of an inner core
or soul(atman), immutable and identical amidst an outer region of impermanence and change, to
which it is unrelated or but loosely related. This may be termed the substance-view of reality
(atma-vada).
The other tradition is represented by the Buddhist denial of substance (atman) and all that it
implies. There is no inner and immutable core in things; everything is in flux. Existence for the
Buddhist is momentary (ksanika), unique (svalaksana) and unitary (dharmamatra). It is
discontinuous, discrete and devoid of complexity. The substance was rejected as illusory; it was
but a thought – construction made under the influence of wrong belief (avidya).This may be
taken as the modal view of reality.7
Rationality
Buddhism has since long being portrayed as a rational religion, and such characterization often
4
invites a naive association with philosophical traditions of the West. Indian Philosophical giant Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, for example, goes so far as to say that the Buddha “’wanted to establish a religion within the bounds of pure reason’". Bertrand Russell also makes a similar remark that “Buddhism is a combination of both speculative and scientific philosophy", and that
it “advocates the scientific method and pursues that to a finality that may be called Rationalistic”.
It may thus be said that both Kant and the Buddha resemble each other in the way that both forms of religion are often characterized as being rational.8
Kant and the Madhyamika
Both Madhyamika and Kant initiated the central phase in philosophy in their respective spheres.
They engendered the “Copernican revolution” by a sustained challenge to dogmatism and
speculative metaphysics. They were successful in shifting the centre of philosophical interest
from the object to the knowing mind, to Reason. Both were led to this reflective criticism by the
impasse created principally by two opposed currents in philosophy: by Rationalism and
Empiricism in the case of Kant and by the atma tradition (substance view) and nairatmya
tradition (modal view) in the case of the Madhyamika. These views gave totally conflicting
answers to problems of existence and knowledge. If anything, the opposition between the atma
and the nairatmya points of view was intenser and more sustained and of a longer duration than
the one between Rationalism and Empiricism. Both were led, as a consequence of this, to
8 Koya Matsuo . A Comparative Study of the Epistemology of Immanuel Kant and that of Buddhism. Thailand: An
5 Function of Philosophy
In their conception of the function of philosophy, Kant and the Madhyamika agree. Both address
themselves directly to the criticism of the philosophical consciousness as exemplified in the
different systems of thought, and only indirectly to an investigation of the real. As such, both the
systems may be taken as the philosophy of philosophies –the reflective awareness of the working of philosophy. Reflection is self-consciousness; it is possible only as we become conscious of the
falsity of what we were taking as true; this again implies that closer scrutiny reveals incongruous
elements in what appeared unitary and coherent.
The logical starting point of their philosophy is therefore is the transcendental illusion which
consists in the transcendent or unrestricted use of the ordinary categories of thought- substance,
causality, whole and part etc., beyond their legitimate field of experience. Dogmatism,
speculative philosophy, indulges in imaginatively constructing the real in terms of the empirical
and deludes itself that this is knowledge.
Transcedental Idealism
Immanuel Kant's Transcendental Idealism has also been compared with the Indian philosophical
approach of the Madhyamaka School by scholars such as T. R. V. Murti. Both posit that the
world of experience is in one sense a mere fabrication of our senses and mental faculties. For
Kant and the Madhyamikas, we do not have access to 'things in themselves' because they are
always filtered by our mind's 'interpretative framework'. Thus both worldviews posit that there is
an ultimate reality and that Reason is unable to reach it. Buddhologists like Edward Conze have
6
in that "they are both concerned with whether the world is finite or infinite, etc., and in that they
are both left undecided.
Buddhism occupies the central position in the development of Indian Philosophy. Brahmanical
and Jaina systems grew under the direct stimulus Buddhism. Schools and sub-schools sprang up
without number. Doctrines were systematized and details were worked out under this pressure.
Great attention came to be paid to logic and epistemology. Precise terminology was evolved, and
an immense sastra –literature came into being. Indian Philosophy became critical and richer; it
gained in depth and comprehension. 9
The Post Modern Turn
Modern thought was characterized by a drive for certitude, universality, and perhaps, above all,
mastery. Modernity or the “enlightenment project”, may be understood broadly as the attempt to
bring critical rationality and scientific method to bear not only on the natural world but on
humanity.10 However, Post modern thinkers rejected the idea that “reason” names a neutral and
disinterested perspective from which to pursue truth and justice. Specifically as enumerated by
Kevin J.Vanhoozer, the postmodern theory rejects the following modern postulates:
1) That reason is absolute and universal, 2) that individuals are autonomous, able to transcend
their place in history, class and culture, 3) that universal principles and procedures are objective
whereas preferences are subjective.11
9The Central Philosophy of Buddhism. P.3-4.
7
Kant gave us both the transcendental conditions within which modern epistemology imprisoned
knowledge and he showed us the limitations of that imprisonment. In his first critique Kant
launched a second “Copernican revolution” by supposing that rather than our knowledge
confirming to things, things conform to our knowledge. This meant that we could no longer
know things as they are, but only things as they appear to us and are synthesized into concepts by
us. Universality and absolute claim of modernity is partially overcome in Kantian categories.
Conclusion
The avoidance of both the dogmatism of realism and skepticism of Nihilism , criticism of atma
and anatma theories, non acceptance of extremes are vividly post modern in its approach. The
Kantian space for transcendence, Phenomenal and Noumenal world, categories of the known as
they appear to us also provides room for introspection. A bridging gaps between the Modern and
the Post modern condition. Along, one critically ponders as Mar Gregorios writes, “The whole
Post-modern enterprise is still a child of the Enlightenment” or if Enlightenment was a herald of
Post Modernity. To that extent post modernity remains within the structure of modernity and
vice-a-versa.
The Indian context seeks to renew and explore a more meaningful condition in Philosophy.
Indian thought requires a plunge into more of Asian thought categories it seems before looking
up to the western projects. For Indian Theological pursuit we require a profound and secure
foundation free from the shackles of Western Enlightenment project or even its successors for
that matter. However, drawing immense potential brought forward by likes of Buddhist
8
Bibliography
Ewing, A.C. A short Commentary on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. U.S.A: The University of
Chicago Press, 1938.
George, K.M. E.d. Philosophy East and West. Kottayam: MGF Foundation, 2013.
Kalupahana ,David J. Buddhist Philosophy. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii, 1976.
Klienman, Paul. Philosophy. Massachusetts: Adams Media, 2013.
Murti ,T.R.V.The Central Philosophy of Buddhism. Mandala Books London. 1955
Norris, Christopher. The Truth about Postmodernism. UK: Blackwell Publishing, 1993.
Olson, Carl. Indian Philosophers and Post modern Thinkers. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 2002.
Richard A. Gard. Ed. Buddhism .New York: George Braziller Inc., 1962.
Scruton, Roger. Kant: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.
Thomas. Edward J. The History of Buddhist Thought. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal
Publishers, 1997.
Vanhoozer ,Kevin J. E.d. Post Modern Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.