Introduction
This piece is a synopsis of an article authored by Noah Forslund, a junior philosophy major at St. Olaf College in Northfield, Minnesota. Forslund demonstrates a commendable grasp of the works of Baruch Spinoza.
Titled Spinoza the Hindu: Advait Interpretations of the Ethics, it is a detailed comparative analysis of the parallels between the pantheism of Spinoza and the Advaita Vedanta of Adi Shankaracharya.
The article provides a thorough description of the core tenets and principles of both philosophies, followed by an examination of the customary hallmarks and stereotypes associated with the East-West dichotomy. Forslund also pinpoints the lack of philosophical literature and the limited scholarly exploration of this topic. Furthermore, he emphasizes the complications that could arise from a reexamination of the gravity of Spinoza's works, which might impact his position as a Western thinker while highlighting the prejudices against Eastern intelligentsia.
Cream
The major similarities he proposes are:
(a) Non-dualism, a monistic metaphysical system
(b) A strong relationship between humans and the divine
(c) A potential for living liberation
An individual well acquainted with both philosophies will certainly recognize the parallels between them at the suprastratum level, as well as the in-depth intricacies and differences. Of course, the differences must be understood, as they originate from distinct geographical contexts. However, the fact that they share some commonalities is fascinating and difficult to deny.
The premises he set as being customarily specified hallmarks of Western philosophy are: (a) a propensity toward rational intellectualization, (b) the promotion of individualism, (c) a rejection of mysticism, and (d) the conception of a personal god.
The common normative hallmarks, according to Forslund, associated with Eastern philosophies are: (a) skepticism toward pure rationalism and the intellect; (b) mystical doctrines; and (c) non-personal deities.
The Advaita school of Vedanta maintains a non-dualist, monist model of reality, where the world is a manifestation of the singularity of Brahman. Brahman is the infinite, independent, and limitless principle, whose boundlessness (ananta) renders any attempt at descriptive language ineffective. Although Brahman cannot be expressed linguistically, it can only be described through negation (Neti, Neti). Humans, like everything else, are merely manifestations of the divine, and the individual selfhood of humans is illusory; that is, as long as an individual considers themselves distinct from existence, they remain in ignorance (avidya).
The cardinal assertion of Vedanta is Tat Tvam Asi ("Thou art That"). However, this realisation (moksha) must be attained through perfect knowledge, which arises from one's own intuition.
By describing the essentials of Advaita, he concludes effectively that Advaita encompasses all three normative hallmarks he mentioned earlier.
Forslund then carefully summarises Spinozism. Concisely, I will present his brief:
Spinoza defines God as "that which is in itself and is conceived through itself; that is, the conception of which does not require the conception of another thing from which it must be formed."
While an individual substance can have various affectations or modes within its being, all are necessarily subsidiary to the substance. Substance is infinite and independent. Ergo, his stance is called pantheistic or panentheistic-monistic philosophy. For Spinoza, God is equal to nature or the universe. However, this God is non-personal and uninterested in human affairs. Being ultimate, all things in God proceed from an eternal necessity and with supreme perfection, concluding that everything is divine and perfect. Thus, Spinoza posits an amoral universe, void of any differentiation between metaphysical good and bad. As he states, "Nature has no fixed goal, and all final causes are but figments of the human imagination. God has acted in all things for the sake of himself and not for the sake of the things to be created."
Regarding humans, Spinoza asserts that we consist of mind and body, where the former lies under the attribute of thought and the latter under the attribute of extension of the supreme substratum. He claims that both are attributes of the singular substance (God) that exists beyond them.
His three forms of knowledge are as follows:
(a) Sensory experiences: These offer only falsities due to the subjectivity of the senses.
(b) Reason: common understandings, unencumbered by subjectivity.
(c) Intuition: perfect knowledge, which arises from the understanding of God.
This asserts that if one understands God, then one understands everything, since God is, according to Spinoza, everything.
Freedom or salvation can be achieved only through intuition, which liberates us from the boundaries of our uncontrollable emotions (agitations of the mind). By understanding God, we can rationalise our way out of emotional disturbances. Through this rational activity, we surpass our emotional boundaries and simultaneously achieve salvation from ignorance. This is the highest level of blessedness, i.e., the intellectual love of God.
By examining the Western philosophical model elucidated earlier, Spinoza fulfills the first indication (the rational nature of the Western canon) but fails at others. These include his rejection of individualism, which stray from the tenets that Forslund asserted. The advocacy for a certain kind of philosophical mysticism by Spinoza also isolates him from Westernism. Lastly, his idea of a non-personal God supports Forslund's suspicion of Spinoza as a customarily Western thinker.
By this, Forslund concludes that the major similarities he purported were not erroneous. Nevertheless, some nuanced differences still remain, such as Advaita being an established school of religio-philosophical thought with followers, unlike Spinozism. Furthermore, the former emphasizes its holy texts, while the latter advocates only for the intellectual love of God.
Spinoza The Hindu