Journal of Indian and Vol. 43, No. 2, March 1995 (33)

Nagarjuna and Spinoza on Truth

•\ A Study in Comparative Philosophy•\

Tadashi KASAI

Nagarjuna (—´Ž÷C. 150-250) and Spinoza (1632-1677) are two great philoso- phers who lived with different philosophical views in different times.

Even so, here in this brief treatise, the author will make a comparative study of these two philosophers, believing that it is highly meaningful

to clarify the distinguishing features of the two with a to promot-

ing a better understanding between East and West.

Below the author will focus on Nagarjuna's concept of truth by analyz- ing "Madhyamakakarika,"1) which is said to be his most important work.

The author will begin the analysis by referring to the `',

Candrakirti's commentary.

At the beginning of "Madhyamakakarika" Nagarjuna states as follows.2) "I salute him , the fully enlightened, the best of speakers, who preached the

non-ceasing and the non-arising, the non-annihilation and the non-permanence,

the non-identity and the non-diffenence, the non-appearance and the non-disap-

pearance, the depdndent arising, the appeasement of obsessions and the auspicious." `Pratityasamutpada' , which is the main idea of this first verse, is the fundamental principle of "Madhyamakakarika." The last verse of this "Madhyamakakarika" goes as follows .3) "I re verently bow to Gautama who, out of compassion, has taught the true

doctrine in order to relinquish all views."

In the verse above the true doctrine is, as seen in Candrakirti's com- mentary, `Pratityasamutpada.' That is to say, the focus of "Madhyama- kakarika" is to clarify the essence of `pratityasamutpada' in terms of the ultimate truth. Then what is the true meaning of `pratityasamutpada' described in "Madhyamakakarika?" Out of the 27 chapters of "Madhya-

-1020- (34) Nagarjuna and Spinoza on Truth (T. KASAI) makakarika," 25 chapters focus on `,' and the last two chapters on `.' The `pratityasamutpada' addressed in "Madhyamakakarika" may be what is meant by `mutual relation' or `interdependence.' In the 'Thera- vada' `pratityasamutpada' is described as things arising from causation; that is' things arising from chronological occurrence of phenomena . However, in the `madhyamika' it is described as things in logical reci- procity. The relation between purity and impurity, for instance, will be discussed below. "We provisionally assert that impurity cannot exist without being mutually dependent on purity and that, in turn, purity exists only as related to impurity. Therefore, purity per se is not possible." (23.10) Furthermore, "we provisionally assert that purity cannot exist without being mutually dependent on impurity and that, in turn, impurity exists only as related to purity. Therefore, impurity per se does not exist." (23.11) Chapter 26 of "Madhyamakakarika" describes what `the twelve causa- tion' are, clarifying the conditions of perpetual repetition of birth and death of sentient beings, or what is meant by the worldly truth. To know that the twelve causation are `sunya' is the truth of the first principle. Below is a verse from "Madhyamakakarika," which notes that `pratitya- samutpada' means `not arising' :"At nowhere and at no time can entities ever exist by originating out of themselves, from others, from both (self-other), or from the lack of causes." (1-1) It is by and large consi- dered to be appropriate that things `arise from causation,' but things cannot exist by `arising' from themselves. In terms of phenomenal exist- ences, things are assumed to be `arising and perishing,' but the real truth is that things can neither be arising nor perishing. The self, which cannot independently exist separated from the five aggregates, can only be produced by causation through the five aggre- gates. From the verse (the first half of 22-3) "He who is dependent upon other would appropriately be without self", it follows that

-1019- Nagarjuna and Spinoza on Truth (T. KASAI) (35) `pratitya -samutpada' means 'non-self .' The self as in 'non-self' means `substance ,' and therefore, non-self is non-substantiality, and eventually the non-self is `pratityasamutpada.' In "Madhyamakakarika" the three concepts of 'pratitya-samutpada,' `nihsvabhava ,' and `sunyata' are one and the same in meaning. `Pratitya- samutpada' is `nihsvabhava,' `nihsvabhava' is `sunyata,' and `sunyata' is `pratitya-samutpada.' It is reasoned that non-substantiality is logically reduced from 'pratitya-samutpada,' which is fundamental, and `nihsvab- hava' is reduced from non-substantiality. According to Nagarjuna, 'pratitya-samutpada' is `madhyama pratipad.' Below is a verse from "Madhyamakakarika," which teaches as follows: "We state that whatever is dependent arising , that is . That is dependent upon convention. That itself is the middle path." (24-18) `Sunyata' is ` madhyama pratipad' beyond the two extremes of existence and non-existence. `Madhyama pratipad' means `neither existence nor non-existence." `Existence' and `non-existence,' which cannot exist in- dependently of each other, are two concepts that assume each other in their origination. There is a relation of interdependence at the bedrock of the `opposition of `existence' to `non-existence.' Thus, it is reasoned that `to be beyond opposition' is `madhyamapratipad.' Below are two verses which describe Nagarjuna's view of : "When he is empty in terms of self -nature , the thought that the Buddha exists or does not exist after death is not appropriate." (22-14) Nagarjuna rejects any views spoiled with meaningless arguments. All things and `tathagata' are not different, but one and the same in the end. `Tathagata' described in "Madhyamakakarika" , judging from various commentaries, means `-kaya.' "Dharma-kaya.' of this tathagata' is `tathata ,' "nihsvabhava,' and "pratitya-samutpada.' Thus, it is stated that one who comprehends the law of 'pratitya-samutpada' can immediately be a Buddha (perfect Enlightened One). The author will here focus on Nagarjuna's thought of `.' "The teacher has spoken of relinquishing both becoming and other-becoming.

-1018- (36) Nagarjuna and Spinoza on Truth (T. KASAI)

Therefore, it is proper to assume that `nirvana' is neither existence nor non-existence." (25-10) It is reasoned that `nirvana' is `neither existence nor non-existence.' The concept of `nirvana' is on the premise that `existence' and . `non-existence' are in a mutual relation. It also states that `nirvana' is non-annihilation, non -permanence,' 'non-ceasing,' and 'non -arising .' Furthermore, it states that there is no distinction between `samsara' and `nirvana .' One who grasps 'pratitya-samutpada' in terms of `' will percei ve the view of `nirvana', thus attaining enlightenment to be 'advaita' with 'pratitya-samutpada.' A verse (24-40) states that "one who perceives 'pratitya-samutpada' also perceives , the cause of suffering, the extinction of suffering and the path to `nirvana.' 'Pratitya-samutpada' and `catvary aryasatyani' (suffering, the cause of suffering, the extinction of suffering and the path to `nirvana') are identical, but the `modus essendi' of 'Pratitya-samutpada' is different from that of `catvary aryasatyani.' 'Pratity-samutpada' and `catvary aryasatyani' are traditionally believed to be the 'law'; that is , the `truth.' 'Pratitya-samutpada,' which is the fundamental principle, is the ultimate truth, while the `catvary aryasatyani' is the contents of 'pratitya -samutpada' in instruction . For Spinoza the ultimate truth is God. In his first philosophical work, which is written in Dutch, Spinoza states that "God de Waarhijd, of de Waarhijd God is",4) meaning that God is the truth, or the truth is God. In order to discover the best method for finding out the truth, Spinoza states, "there is no need of another method for discovering such method."5) For Spinoza it is evident that, for the certitude of truth, no further sign is necessary beyond the possession of a true idea. Method is nothing else than reflective knowledge, or the idea of an idea. Spinoza continues, the good method is that which teaches us to direct our mind according to the standard of the given true idea. "Per Deum intelligo ens infinitum , hoc est, substantiam con- stantem infinitis attributis, quorum unumquodque acternam, & infinitam essentiam exprimit."6)

-1017- Nagarjuna and Spinoza on Truth (T. KASAI) (37) "By God , I mean a being absolutely infinite•\that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality." This definition of God by Spinoza is one and the same with that of God in the terminology of a scholastic philosophy.

Here, by substance, Spinoza means "that which is in itself, and is con- ceived through itself." 'Causa sui' is defined as that of which the essence involves existence. God is 'causa sui' and 'substantia.' Spinoza's 'Ethica' develops based on his eight `definitio essentialis.' By that which `in se else,' Spinoza means the one which exists inde- pendently by the necessity of its own nature, and of which the action is determined by itself alone. Substance not only exists through the universe but also shows its existence even in minute particles of matter, thus existing in a `hen kai pan' manner. `Per se concipi' describes the non-dependency of the conceived substance as `that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception.' "Substance is prior to all things, as described in "substance is by nature prior to its modifications." Furthermore, "in Nature there is nothing but substances and their modifications," and "by mode," Spinoza means, "the modfications of substance." "Besides God no substance can be granted or conceived ." (Eth. I. Prop. 14), states Spinoza. What is clearly shown in this statement is Judaism, in which no substance is required except God, the only substance. Thus, "whatever is , is in God, and nothing can either be granted or be conceived without God" (Eth. I. Prop. 15). Spinoza states this, most probably because he is a Jewish with an intellectual love of mind toward God. For Spinoza it is not necessary to demonstrate the existence of God, because "existence" is God. "Substantia live deus, sive natura." For Spinoza God is not the one separated from nature. What he believes in is a typical pantheism. And Gcd is 'causa efficiens.' In other words, God is not 'causa per accidens,' but 'causa per se.' "Outside God nothing can exist which is in itself ," and therefore, "God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things," states

-1016- (38) Nagarjuna and Spinoza on Truth (T. KASAI)

Spinoza. Therefore, Spinoza's God, different from the One in Christianity, exists in all things. "God's power is identical with his essence." (Eth. I. Prop. 34) "By the power of God Hehimself and all things are and act.' Spinoza tries to find out the standard of truth in reason, and God in the realm of reason. It can be said, therefore, that man expresses God, the eternal truth, in himself. Spinoza believes, if it is going to be described as briefly as possible, as follows.7) 'Lex divina' only regards the highest good; in other words, it is a plan of living which only regards the true knowledge of God and love. How did Spinoza see Christ? Spinoza states that Christ was not so much a prophet as 'os Dei,' which means that God made his divine revelations to mankind throuigh the spirit of Christ. for nothing but obedience and piety. Therefore, there is no connection, nor affinity, between philosophy and or theology. However, Spinoza considers the utility and the need for Holy Scripture or Revelation to be very great. In Spinoza a revealed has `raison d' etre' for its ethical excellency. The author believes that the brief analysis above is good enough to clarify the main features of the two philosophical minds on the concept of truth. The following, however, is a summary of the analysis. For Nagarjuna the ultimate truth is the law of 'pratitya-samutpada,' and for Spinoza, the law of God. 'Dharma' for the former is equivalent to 'L ex divina' for the latter. For the former, `Buddha,' i.e., 'tathdgata' is 'dharma -kaya .' For the latter, Jesus Christ is a perfect man, but not God. For the former, `pratitya-samutpada' is `nihsvabhava' (non-substan- tiality) and `sunyata.' `Sunyata' is the middle path to `neither existence norsnon-existence.' One who grasps 'pratitya-samutpada' in terms of `prajna' will perceive the view of `nirvana' , thus attaining enlightenment to be 'advaita' with 'pratitya-samutpada.' God for the latter is impersonal, 'existentia ,' and 'natura.' Man perceives God and individual things through his 'scientia intuitiva,' thus, conversion is obtained. `Pratitya -samutpada' as 'non-substance ,' and God as `substance' in Philosophy, Spinoza states, has no end in view save truth: faith looks

-1015- Nagarjuna nda Spinoza on Truth (T. KASAI) (39) terms of the fundamental truth; this is an essential difference between the two philosophical minds. A reference to the fourth antimony in Kant's pure reason8) shows that `antithesis' is for Nagarjuna, and `thesis' for Spinoza. Thus, the two philosophical minds share the right to exist, showing the two different paths to the '.'

1) Louis de la Vallee Poussin, Mulamadhyamakakarikas de Nagarjuna, avec la

Prasannapada Commentaire de Candrakirti, Bibliotheca Buddhica ‡W, (Reprint)

Bibl io Verlag, Osnabriick, 1970.

2) MKV (Poussin) p. 11.

anirodhamanutpadamanucchedamasasvatam l

anekarthamananarthamanagamamanirgamam ll

yah pratityasamutpadam prapancopasamam sivam l

desayamasa sambuddhastam vande vadatam varam ll 3) MKV (Poussin) p.592. sarvadrstiprahanaya yah saddharmamadesayat anukampamupadaya tam namasyami gautamam ll 4) Korte Verhandeling van God, de Mensch en des zelfs Welstand. Spinoza Opera, im Auftrag der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, berg. von Carl Gebhardt, 1924, p.577. 5) Tractatus de Intellectus Emendatione. Spinoza Opera, II , pp. 13-17. 6) Ethica I Def. M. , Spinoza Opera, II , p.45. 7) Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Cap. 4-5. Spinoza Opera, 11, pp. 43-66. 8) Kant, I., Kritik der reinen Vernunft. B. 480-481.

Nagarjuna, Spinoza, Truth (Professor, Toyo University)

-1014-