One can hardly imagine a more decisive dismissal of mysticism than the few sentences in Kant’s late essay “The End of All Things” (1794), in which he lampoons the Chinese philosopher Lao Tse. He was the author, according to Kant, of that

In light of this critique, it is remarkable that a few years later, Schelling began developing Kantian insights into a broad tapestry that each year appeared progressively more Oriental in outlook. Indeed, Schopenhauer followed by making the move completely explicit, promulgating his own project as a synthesis of Kantian philosophy and Buddhist wisdom.

What, if anything, did Kant himself contribute to these developments? Was Schopenhauer really right in suggesting that Kant’s reduction of objective existence to sheer phenomenality was the same as the claim of the ancient Indian sages that everything is Maya, the illusion of difference that pours forth from the One, but only in order, after being cleansed by the sufferings imposed by time, to be resolved back into it?

The answer, curiously enough, may lie in the project of Kant’s old age, that of interpreting Christianity in the light of “reason alone.” Kant’s attempt clashed with Christianity’s reliance upon a highly specific and historically limited revelation, one that culminated in the absolutely unique person of Jesus Christ.