Robinson 1

Descartes vs Buddhism
Descartes is one of the worlds greatest philosophers as he is often
seen as the father of modern philosophy (Scruton, 1995, 12). This is an
exaggeration however as he is instead rather the founder of modern
Western philosophy. This is important as other regions have their own
intellectual traditions like Buddhism in the East. Buddhism is the religious
movement centered on the teachings of its leader, the Buddha or
enlightened one (Wilkinson, Charing, 2004, 54). Said teachings have also
been depicted as psychological, philosophical and socio-economic to name a
few (Nandan, Jangubhai, 2013, 28). Buddhism had spread across Asia and
then the world (Wilkinson, Charing, 2004, 54). From an epistemological
standpoint Descartes and the Buddha are polar opposites in that Descartes
is rationalistic and foundationalistic whilst the Buddha is empiricistic and
anti-foundationalistic . Rationalism posits that reason is the route to
acquiring knowledge (Hjrland, 2004, 130). The Buddha can be said to be
an empiricist in the sense of basing knowledge on experiences rather than
in the western sense of knowledge only being based on sense experience
(Holder, 2013, 225). Foundationalism is the placing all knowledge in a
framework that is built upon one or more unshakable first principles
(Newman, 2014, 13-14). I will argue that both the epistemology of
Descartes and the Buddha are deeply flawed due to their respective
extremist positions on the rationalist verses empiricism debate as well on
foundationalism.

Robinson 2

The first step is to compare their worldviews. Descartes produced a

vision of the world being governed by a few fundamental principles whose
interactions are driven by a few universal laws, the mind and body are
separate entities and Gods existence is metaphysically verifiable (Hatfield,
2015, 1). Cartesian epistemology is designed to accomplish two goals. The
first is to organize knowledge to determine the basis of a general account
for the natural world (Hatfield, 2006, 123). Secondly Descartes wrote the
meditations in order to counter the ideas of Scholastic Aristotileanism, the
catholic or protestant interpretations of Aristotles philosophy, as their
perspective was popular at the time (Hatfield, 2006, 124). He opposed them
because they held the view that knowledge comes directly from the senses
(Hatfield, 2015, 21). He argues instead rather that it is really the intellect
that constitutes the source of knowledge (Descartes, 1911, 11). Cartesian
epistemology is ego centric in that reality and knowledge are personal in
nature (Bewaji, 2007, 13).
The sole goal of the Buddhas teachings is about the escape from
suffering (Wilkinson, Charing, 2004, 54). This suffering is suffering in the
existential sense rather than everyday pain (Siderits, 2015, 6).
Existentialism is the philosophical pursuit of the authentic understanding of
the human experience (Crowell, 2015, 3). He pursued this goal by lashing
out against the speculative metaphysical, Brahmanistic religious teachings
of his day (Holder, 2013, 223). ). Brahmanism is the belief that all things,
like gods and men, are an extension of Brahman, the eternal and

Robinson 3

fundamental basis of reality (Wright, 1922, 73-74). In Brahmanism the soul

is known as Atman which is an extension of Brahman (Wright, 1922, 74).
Brahmanists also states that the Atman is a permanent and stable identity
goes through a cycle of rebirths (Bartley, 2011, 2-3).
Buddhisms key philosophical tenant, pratityasamutpada, otherwise
known as dependent origination, is the belief that all mental and physical
events, things and processes arise from, are perpetuated by and expire
upon the termination of certain conditions with the only independent thing
being nirvana or nibbana, the end of pratityasamutpada (Harvey, 2013, 4647). Reality is made of non-substantial moments, no two of which are the
same (Collender, 2000, 34-35). These moments are described as being
psycho-physical particles (Siderits, 2015, 4) This view invalidates the
epistemic value of the transcendental metaphysics or grand, rationalistic,
speculative cosmological assertions as either the source or goal of
knowledge (Holder, 2013, 223). The Buddhist alternative to this is its three
key epistemic claims: Knowledge is derived from human experience, the
purpose of pursuing knowledge is to put an end to the experience of
suffering and the suffering is derived from a complex psychological
mechanism (Holder, 2013, 224). As one can see Descartes is a
foundationalist in that his depiction affirms the need for lasting realities as
first principles but the Buddhas mindset rejects this notion.

Robinson 4

Now that both philosophies have been summarized the second step is
to see what drove each philosopher to reject the philosophical status quo. I
will start with Descartes by looking at his book the meditations which shows
that his desire to construct an epistemology is the result of intellectual
dissatisfaction. He starts by stating the need to erase his former
assumptions and rebuild knowledge from scratch (Descartes, 1911, 7). This
rejection of all prior knowledge in order to rebuild knowledge from scratch
is known as the method of doubt (Newman, 2014, 16-17). This method is
necessary as although knowledge from the senses is largely reliable,
assuming that one isnt insane, they are lacking for two reasons: they fail
when it comes to very distant or very small objects and they cant tell you if
you are dreaming or not (Descartes, 1911, 7). This is because sensual
experiences are ideas that represent objects but dont truly correspond to
them (Descartes, 1911, 13). There are three categories of ideas: innate,
adventitious or from outside ourselves and self-generated (Descartes, 1911,
14). Consequently Descartes sets the tone for the book by arguing that an
evil demon is trying to deceive him about everything he knows so he should
reject all former knowledge in order to avoid deception (Descartes, 1911, 78).
The Buddha on the other hand was driven to reject the status quo
because of his existential experience. It is therefore prudent to delve into
what existentialism entails in terms of authenticity. Authenticity is being in
touch with ones true sense of ones true identity and acting upon it

Robinson 5

(Steirner, Resinger, 2006, 300). In order to acquire authenticity one must

escape from alienation (Crowell, 2015, 20). Alienation is the sense of
estrangement from ones self and the world resulting from seeing ones self
and the world through and thus acting on the perspective of others
(Crowell, 2015, 17). In order to escape from alienation one must experience
a state of dread or anxiety, wherein one faces up to ones own humanity as a
being with free will which then leads to one understanding and acting on
the idea that personal identity is the result of self making (Bewaji, 2012,
294).
This existential experience started from the Buddhas earliest days,
assuming that the account of his life is true for the sake of the argument.
He was born as the prince Siddhattha Gotama (Thera, 1982, 7). Shortly
after Siddhatthas birth his father, king Suddhodana, was informed that his
son would either become a mighty king or shun the world to become a great
sage and that he would venture out to seek truth and become that sage
(Thera, 1982, 7-8). This troubled Suddhodana who, wanting him to be king,
kept Siddhattha locked up in the palace and spoiled with the finest luxuries
(Thera, 1982, 7-8).
Siddhattha eventually left the palace as a young man, was shocked at
seeing the suffering of old age, disease and death for the first time, and
decided to renounce his royal life in favor of finding the answer to suffering
(Thera, 1982, 10-13). He then joined the ascetic sramanas sages, deemed

Robinson 6

them to be unsatisfactory, then attained enlightenment on his own via

insight and meditation (Siderits, 2015, 2). This is clearly an existential
experience as he was alienated into thinking like his father by his father
then experienced existential dread upon encountering suffering and finally
attained authenticity upon becoming enlightened.
Step three entails looking their basic arguments. Descartes uses two
pillars to form the basis of his epistemology. The first is his assumption that
being is divided into a three tiered spectrum of substance, attribute and
mode which ranges from substance being the most real to modes being the
least real (Smith, 2014, 2). A substance is a thing that does not rely on
anything else for its existence (Chappell, 2008,252). An attribute is a
property of a substance and a mode is a variation of an attribute (Smith,
2014, 2). A principle attribute is the defining feature of a substance (Smith,
2014, 2). In the case of the mind its principle attribute is thought and the
mode is an idea (Smith, 2014, 2). A bodys principle attribute is extension
(Smith, 2014, 2). Extension according to Descartes is the ability to take up
space and is matters principle attribute (Descartes, 1911, 9). The mode of
extension is how a body takes up space like its shape for example (Smith,
2014, 2).
The second pillar is the first argument he uses in the second
meditation. This is known as the cogito argument and it states that in order
for one to think one must first exist (Hatfield, 2015, 22). The significance of

Robinson 7

this argument is that the ability to think is required to perceive reality or be

deceived (Descartes, 1911,10). This argument is limited in the sense that it
proves that he exists as a thinking thing or a mind in other words
(Descartes, 1911,9). It is from this point that he argues that since he can
clearly and distinctly perceive of himself as a thinking thing clarity and
distinctness should therefore be seen as the standard of truth (Descartes,
1911,12-13).
The Buddhas basic argument is known as the four noble truths:
1. There is suffering.
2. There is the origination of suffering.
3. There is the cessation of suffering.
4. There is a path to the cessation of suffering (Siderits, 2015, 6)
The first noble truth states that a life of trying to cling to anything is
inherently unsatisfying as all things, including the self , are fictitious,
impermanent conditioned entities that make up the larger temporal flow of
reality (Bartley, 2011, 16). The second truth is that the causal chain of
suffering starts with the ignorant belief in the permanent reality of ones
self and others which leads to the formation of compulsive attachments,
hatred and delusion and the continuation of reincarnation (Bartley, 2011,
16). The third truth states that the freedom from rebirth, known as nirvana
or nibbana, will bring an end to suffering and this can only be done by
extinguishing the fires of greed, hatred and delusion (Bartley, 2011, 17).

Robinson 8

The fourth truth states that the path to nirvana is the eightfold path of
meditation and morality (Bartley, 2011, 17). The eightfold path is an eight
step application of the middle way teaching (Bartley, 2011, 17).
The middle way doctrine, derived from the second noble truth, is the
belief that one must avoid the extremes of eternalism and nihilism (Siderits,
2015, 8). Eternalism is the belief in an everlasting soul and nihilism is the
belief in the total destruction of the person after death (Siderits, 2015, 8).
The trick to resolving this problem is to realize that there is no person to
live on or be destroyed after death but rather just another arrangement of
pshyco-physical particles in the temporal stream (Siderits, 2015, 8). In
practice this teaching manifests in the form of avoiding the extremes of
comfort and self denial as the Buddha discovered that the life of a sage to
be just as unsatisfying as that of his former life in comfort (Bartley, 2011,
15).

This concept of the middle way was further expanded upon to create

the two truth theory, the belief in the existence of two types of truth:
conventional and ultimate truth (Siderits, 2015, 8-9). The former refers to
the practical common sense belief that things exist as they really are and
the later is the understanding the reality of things in terms of their temporal
particle makeup (Siderits, 2015, 9).
Another category that we could compare these two on is God and
other metaphysical concepts. Descartes then sets out to prove the existence
of a perfect God in a speculatively metaphysical fashion. His first step,

Robinson 9

proving the existence of god, is to argue that God exists as the idea of God
must be an innate idea put in human minds by God (Descartes, 1911,18). He
starts by arguing that formal reality, or intrinsic existence, is equally shared
by all ideas as modes of thought but their objective reality, the reality of the
ideas as representations of external objects, varies sharply as an ideas
objective reality s equivalent to the formal reality of the object (Descartes,
1911,15). The range of objectivity from lowest to highest is from modes to
finite substances like minds and bodies and finally to God, the infinite
substance (Descartes, 1911,15).Descartes grants that ideas can come from
other ideas but the causal chain will end with an object that has the same
level of formal reality as the first idea in the chain had objective reality
(Descartes, 1911,15).Consequently any idea that has more objective reality
than the formal reality of the mind had to have originated from an outside
source which can only be God as God is an infinite substance (Descartes,
1911,.15-26).
. The reason for the next step, proving that God is perfect, is that
otherwise it could be argued that God is deceitful and thus created him with
a defect to keep him from truly acquiring knowledge (Descartes, 1911,7-8).
He does this by arguing that God implanted the idea of God in us as a
trademark of his creation and is made manifest in the human sense of
imperfection and the aspiration for perfection as this reflects the perfection
of God (Descartes, 1911,19). Therefore God is not deceptive as deception is
a defect and perfection is the exclusion of defects (Descartes, 1911,19).

Robinson 10

The Buddha rejected speculative metaphysical issues like the

existence of God, whether or not the world is eternal of if the world is finite
or not (Holder, 2013, 228). This rejection came in the form the Buddha
refusing to take a stance on any of these questions (Holder, 2013, 228). The
first and most important reason is that these questions do not contribute to
the alleviation of suffering (Holder, 2013, 229). Secondly he believed that
the only beliefs that can be sound are those that are derived from
experience (Holder, 2013, 226). This means that the human scope of
knowledge is limited to experience thus rendering these questions
impossible to answer (Holder, 2013, 229). Thirdly this limitation on human
knowledge means that any attempt to answer theses speculative questions
constitutes an ego-centric overreach that inhibits spiritual growth (Holder,
2013, 229). The Buddha did deny the existence of god in the sense of being
an omnipresent, omnipotent and omnibenevolent creator (Siderits, 2007, 7).
This of course makes sense as such a God would constitute an eternal,
transcendent and speculative metaphysical concept that goes against the
grain of Buddhist thought.
The next thing to look at is phenomenology. To Descartes he believed
that God, due to his perfection, has given us infallible judgment, provided
that we use it correctly (Descartes, 1911,21). We make mistakes as being
finiteness puts us between infinity and nothingness, thus putting our
judgment between those two poles as well, as opposed to God making us
defective (Descartes, 1911,20). This problem of error is made manifest

Robinson 11

when we use our will, our infinite ability to make choices, to make
judgments outside of the range of our knowledge, the limited number of
clear and distinct perceptions we have (Descartes, 1911, 21). Furthermore
God is the guarantor of clear and distinct perceptions (Descartes, 1911,25).
One example of what Descartes considers to be clearly and
distinctly perceptible is math and geometry as these are concepts that can
be discovered via intellect alone (Descartes, 1911,23). Descartes then
applies this idea to say that God exists as the concept of Gods existence is
as inseparable from God as three sidedness is inseparable from the
existence of triangles based on the argument that God has all of the
perfections, existence is a perfection and thus one cant conceive of Gods
non-existence (Descartes, 1911, 23-24).
The final step is to prove that physical bodies exist (Descartes,
1911,26). ). Firstly since mathematics can be clearly and distinctly
understood and that material objects are the subject matter of mathematics
then it means that material objects are likely to exist (Descartes, 1911,26).
The next argument is that our perceptions of ourselves having a body that
can experience things like pleasure or pain in a world full of other bodies
with extension, heat, color etcetera is likely due to the existence of bodies
as the sensations of them are involuntary and more vivid than our
imaginations (Descartes, 1911,27). He proves the existence of his body by
arguing that he can clearly and distinctly perceive of himself as

Robinson 12

fundamentally being a thinking thing and since the body has extension and
the mind has none then the mind and the body are separate and severable
substances (Descartes, 1911,27-28).
Another argument is that since sensory perception is passive there
must be an active cause outside of himself as the only alternative, Gods
deception, has been eliminated (Descartes, 1911, 28-29).It could be argued
that the senses are defective as they are prone to error (Descartes, 1911,
30). He has a body as he can feel pain and hunger, his mind and body
constitute one intermingled unit as his mind feels sensations directly, rather
than in a intellectual fashion like a ships pilot, thus resulting in the faulty
perceptions due to the inability to analyze them in a detached way
(Descartes, 1911, 29). Descartes further refutes this notion by stating that
the senses exist to make reliable approximations and so must be used in
conjunction with reason and memory in order to make sound judgments
(Descartes, 1911, 30-32).
The Buddhas phenomenology reflects his goal to end suffering via the
replacement of speculative metaphysics with empiricism. To understand this
one must first understand how the human is defined in this system.
According to the Buddha each person is composed of five psycho-physical
aggregates: body, feeling, consciousness, disposition to action and
apperception (Holder, 2013, 232). The Buddha each person had six senses
which are the standard five along with the six sense of what he referred to

Robinson 13

as minding (Holder, 2013, 231). The experience of sensation results from

an interdependent process wherein the object and the sense object play an
equal role in creating a feeling of sensation (Holder, 2013, 231). This
experience results from an emergent process wherein contact with the
sense organ triggers a causal chain of mental reaction and reflection that
generates the feeling of sensation (Holder, 2013, 233). The continuity for
said experiences is created by the consciousness aggregate(Holder, 2013,
233).
These sense experiences will never be objective as they will always
be shaped by non-cognitive psychological biases and thus corrupt the
process of knowledge acquisition (Holder, 2013, 234). In order to remove
these corrupting agents one must develop what is known as a mental
culture (Holder, 2013, 236). This comes from meditation which allows for
the development of extrasensory powers that extend the ordinary range of
sensual perception so as to see reality for what it really is (Holder, 2013,
236). This process can be corrupted by however misuse which results in
the false notion of a transcendent, permanent divine reality (Holder, 2013,
237).
The next thing that needs to be done is to look at the positives and
negatives of both philosophies. In the case of Descartes one important
positive of his epistemology is that his method of doubt is an important
epistemological tool in the analysis of what we truly know. It is this method

Robinson 14

of doubt that I believe allowed for Descartes to easily refute the scholastic
Aristotilean claim that knowledge originates from the senses. A particularly
important positive is that Descartes introduced the idea of determining the
scope of human knowledge by analyzing the knower (Hatfield, 2015, 45).
That being said there are problematic elements with the
foundationalism and rationalism. One such weakness from a rational
perspective is that the centering of knowledge and reality on the Cartesian
ego is the cornerstone of the modern elitist West psychology of self-centered
psychology which results in an elitist approach to knowledge (Bewaji, 2011,
12) This is a criticism of the excessive rationalism of Descartes.
The problem with Cartesian foundationalism is the Cartesian
circle. The Cartesian circle states that his belief in the idea that his clear
and distinct perceptions are true is dependent on the existence of God
which is in turn argued to exist on the basis of his clear and distinct
perceptions is circular reasoning (Hatfield, 2006, 130-131). This is a
problem with regard to his foundationalism is that it shows a failure to
expand in a valid manner from his foundational premises.
One attempt to refute this notion, known as the remove the doubt
argument, states that this reasoning is based on the notion that a doubt is
only effective provided that withstand rational scrutiny, which the deceiver
God argument did not withstand (Hatfield, 2006, 137). This is not circular
as no claim has been made that the causal principles are true but rather it

Robinson 15

is a test of rationality (Hatfield, 2006, 137). The problem with this notion is
that is not effective with regard to the defective design argument, which
states that God created us with a mental defect that makes us err, as once a
reasonable argument is made concerning defective origins then one would
actually have to prove that a perfect God exists, thus leading us back to the
circle (Hatfield, 2006, 137).
The Buddhas philosophy has many positive points. Firstly it
represents and effective critique of the ego centric, irrelevant and elitist
nature of western philosophy. Secondly its is phenomenology is very similar
to the modern science of cognition (Holder, 2013, 234). Buddhism however ,
like Cartesianism, comes with its own problems. My first criticism is to
question the necessary connection between immateriality of reality and the
rest of Buddhist reality. What I mean by this is that the belief in an enduring
reality that manifests itself in a transient manner is just as compatible with
the Buddhist existential experience of suffering, reincarnation and the
middle way to the extent of living between comfort and self denial as is an
immaterial reality. This is important as since Buddha has no proof of the
existence of pscycho-physical particles, the alternative theory becomes is
rendered more plausible.
With regard to the Buddhas empiricism it could be argued that his
emistemology requires a rational metaphysical explanation of his ontology
in order to justify the reliable basis of valid reasoning as without it there is

Robinson 16

no reason to believe it outside of fait (Collender, 2000, 34). The reason for
this is that since the theory of dependent origination states that no two
pscho-physical moments are the same then what is the basis of stable
validity (Collender, 2000, 34)? One could counter by arguing that these
moments are similar enough to draw a standard of rationality but that
presupposes that their a rational standard from which to judge them
(Collender, 2000, 34).
As we can see both Descartes and the Buddha can both be
considered to be revolutionary philosophers in their own rights. This is the
case as they both contributed much to our epistemological understanding of
the world in opposing ways with regard to the foundational verses antifoundationalism and the rationalism verses empiricism debate. Upon further
analysis however, one must conclude that the epistemologies of both
Descates and the Buddha were severely weakened by the extremeness of
their respective views on foundationalism and rationalism.