Did Kant Draw from the Geeta? A Curiosity of an Imperfect Reader

An outstanding western Philosopher Immanuel Kant’s contribution to the realm of philosophy and literature remains unparalleled and unfathomable to the date. As a thinker, he appears to spread his horizon of knowledge in the far-reaching dimension of worldly phenomena. Therefore, a few drops of ink cannot even depict his name in orderly way, let us leave alone searching him with such an endeavor. However, some interesting mentions made by Kant in his writings seem to match with one of the greatest source of eastern philosophy, the Geeta’s verses and their themes, availing some ground to make speculations that he drew something from this source as well in the course of giving fragrance to the bloom of his philosophy.

The first premise of the Geeta philosophy and Kant’s philosophy prioritize duty.

One of the mother sources of eastern philosophy, the Geeta, superimposes duty and the entire verses in this mythology are nothing more than an endeavor of the lord to sensitize dejected and distressed warrior to his duty. Along with several verses in the Geeta, the verse 18: 6 emphasizes that “the assigned duties must not be abandoned. All the actions must be performed without being attached to their fruits”. So actions are the results of duties assigned to mortal being by the heavenly deity with some intensions and therefore calculation of fruits before performing actions shifts man’s duties from the original intentions. When someone subjected to some specific duty to serve the end of original intentions shifts from his/her action, the consequence fetched by such an action gets in interference with someone else giving rise to conflict and chaos as the one we mortals at the present world are facing.

Another of the premises intervened by these two philosophies: the Geeta’s and Kant’s is the nature.

To believe the Geeta, the heavenly deity remains above entire nature and the nature comes into being and functioning according to His will. In the verse 9:4, lord Krishna is found to proclaim “whole universe is permeated by Me and all beings rest on the idea within Me”.

Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals begins with distinguishing between things that are “good without qualification” or “unconditionally good” and conditionally good things. Such conditional good things need to undergo some qualification under some conditions. He plainly claims that the one thing that is good without qualification is a good will. Indeed, he claims, a good will is the only thing we can even imagine is good without qualification — everything else being at best good only with qualification. In the process of validating his claim on these “goods”, he turns to the explanation of duty. His logic on good will brings forth the difference between ‘a person (merely) doing his duty and his doing it because it is his duty’. Kant concludes that a good will finds its expression only in the latter case. Like in the Geeta which emphasizes the action itself rather than the consequences fetched by these actions, Kant points out that good will is unconditionally good and its value cannot depend upon its having good effects. The inference behind this notation drives us to the conclusion that if a good will is assigned to value and effect based evaluation, the action no longer remains ‘a good will’; it turns out to become a conditionally good thing or action.

Since ‘good will’ has been dealt in detail without its reference to the Geeta, a link appears missing. However, it is not so. Kant’s good will is nearer to one of the three modes of nature giving the qualities to actions, the mode of goodness (Satt-guna); being other two qualities- mode of passion (Rajo-guna) and mode of ignorance (Tamo-guna). The mode of goodness commands the action according to the intension of the deity and bears the most superior quality as that of Kant’s ‘good will’ whereas the other two modes passion and ignorance are context bound requiring to undergo some qualification under conditions like the one pointed out by Kant. Going still further, these two actions as pointed out by Kant as ‘unconditional’ things and ‘conditional’ things in term of their goodness can be linked to the reference of human nature made by the Geeta as divine human nature and demonic human nature as well. Actions originated from divine human nature are the best examples of a ‘good will’ and actions from demonic human nature are devoid of cleanliness, truthfulness and just behavior, therefore, need to undergo qualification. This provides me a platform to stand on and make a remark that Kant must have drawn from the Geeta philosophy or at least had some influence from it.

In term of relationship of an action with its fruit, as aforementioned, the Geeta states that the fruit oriented actions cannot be termed as the actions of superior quality for the reason that man comes with some assigned duty and he is bound to complete it irrespective of its fruit (consequence or result). Similarly, Kant claims that the value of the action a person performs, insofar as it is an expression of good will, finds its value or worth “not in the purpose that is to be attained by it” (i.e., not in the consequences it might produce) but in the “maxim according to which the action is determined” (i.e., in the reason the agent had for acting in that way — the recognition that so acting was at least compatible with duty). (399-400 as in McCord).

Kant, as the Geeta does, sets his feet in the nature to justify that our indulgence in a fruit oriented action by means of reasoning to satisfy our desires or make ourselves happy appears to be extreme nonsense. Therefore, he claims if nature’s purpose in giving us reason was to help us satisfy our inclinations or desires or preferences or to make us happy, it would have made a big mistake. Reason is ill suited to the task. In any case, the best way to show that the idea is not nonsense is to develop it in a way that might make it intelligible and Kant sets about doing just that. (395-396)

But if the value of an action done from duty is found not in the consequences it produces but in the respect for duty it expresses then one’s duty must be to express that respect rather than to produce any particular effects. Doing one’s duty because it is one’s duty must then be a matter not of trying to achieve some effect but of conforming one’s will to a principle of duty (law) that commands respect. (400-401as in McCord). By the end of the Geeta, so does the warrior being convinced of trying to avoid the war against his kin he was trying to shift from is real duty. Then, to find out whether it is mare coincident or Kant really had drawn from the Geeta, a research work can be the tool.

As a dessert, putting it into postmodern thought which claims obsolete nature of all reality, discarding their absoluteness, both philosophies emphasize on identifying our inborn natural quality in the process of assuming our duty so as to achieve our highest good, though there is a room for nurture to exercise its dominance.

• §§