Robinson 1

Spinoza vs Hinduism

Baruch Spinoza is one of the greatest philosophers of all time. Born in 1632 in
Amsterdam to a Portuguese Jewish family, Spinoza was a gifted mind since childhood (Nadler,
2013, 2). His philosophical theories would eventually come to get him excommunicated from the
Jewish community in 1656 (Nadler, 2013, 2). His philosophy was grounded in a naturalistic view
point on God that came to have a significant effect on his view of humans and ethics (Nadler,
2013, 2). His viewpoint has interesting similarities to eastern traditions of philosophical thought.
The specific variety of Eastern thought that Spinoza will be compared to in this essay are
Hinduism. Hinduism is a religious movement that originated in India approximately 5000 years
ago (Charing and Wilkinson, 2004, 28). Both systems seem to be similar in their conceptions of
God. The basis for why Spinozas logic and Hinduism seem to be compatible is that, as we will
see, both of them appear to be pantheistic with regard to their concept of God. Pantheism is the
belief that God encompasses all of reality (Rocca, 2008, 312). This gives the impression that
both of these mindsets are compatible. What I mean by this is that one could believe in both
without contradiction. I would argue however that it is their respective beliefs concerning God
that make them incompatible with one another. I will start with comparing how they view God
then list examples of areas in philosophy that differ on account of their concept of God.
The first place to start is with Spinozas general view of the world. Spinoza was a monist
(Newlands, 2013, 2). Monism is the reduction of a given target to oneness (Schaffer, 2014, 1).
The type of monism that Spinoza believed in is known as substance monism (Newlands, 2013,
2). Substance monism is the belief that all objects can be reduced to one highest type (Schaffer,
2014, 3). In Spinoza version of substance monism God is the only substance that exists and that

Robinson 2
all other things are a subcategory thereof (Newlands, 2013, 2). This substance according to
Spinoza is infinite (Shein, 2013, 3). Spinozas philosophy was naturalistic in nature (Nadler,
2013, 2). A precise definition for the word naturalism is virtually impossible to acquire but
Spinozas take on the word can be pinned down (Rocca, 2008, 5). He defined the term as
meaning that every aspect of our world is governed by the same set of rules ( Rocca, 2008, 5).
The central philosophical belief that binds the many sects of Hinduism together is the
concept of Brahman (Chaudhuri, 1954, 47). Brahman is the higher principle upon which reality
is grounded (Chaudhuri, 1954, 47). Brahman is infinite, eternal and unchanging (Chaudhuri,
1954, 50). Everything in existence are all part of Brahman is but Brahman is not entirely
composed of these elements but rather transcends them all (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 55). This
makes Hinduism a firmly monistic worldview. Said worldview goes beyond being monistic in its
orientation towards the nature of reality but also in the sense that there is no plurality within the
nature of Brahman (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 56). Brahman is also described as having infinite
consciousness and bliss (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 56). It should also be noted that Brahman is
not an omnipotent of omniscient interventionist deity but rather an indeterminate and
characterless entity (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 58). The best overarching way to describe
Brahman in terms of its infinite consciousness and indeterminacy is that Brahman is an
impersonal consciousness.
As one can see there are many similarities between the two belief systems. One is that
they both view reality as an extension of God. This of course means that they are both monistic
ideologies. They also both agree with the idea that god is not an interventionist creator of the
world but rather an impersonal entity. However more significant differences can be seen as well.

Robinson 3
The first difference is that neither Hinduism nor Spinozianism are pantheistic doctrines.
Hinduisms view of reality, unlike Spinozas, is that the world is encompassed by God but God is
not encompassed by the world. The idea that God encompasses the world but is at the same time
greater than the world is known as panentheism (Clayton, 1999,1). This would mean that
Hinduism is not a pantheistic but rather a panentheistic worldview. Spinozas view on the other
hand should be seen as an atheist mindset towards God rather than pantheistic. This is because
even though he defines God as the substance that encompasses the world he did not attribute any
agency or divinity to his concept of God. This means that Spinoza may as well have not called
the all encompassing substance God to begin with. The second difference is that whilst Spinoza
relegates god to the status of an impersonal force Hinduism portrays Brahman as an entity of
infinite consciousness.
Despite these differences it could perhaps be argued that the view of God within these
two systems may not make any practical difference in terms of other fields of philosophy. For
this reason I will demonstrate that this is not the case by comparing how their beliefs in God
shape their perception of different philosophical fields. The first field to undergo this analysis is
that of how Spinoza and Hinduism justify their respective beliefs in God. The way Spinozianism
and Hinduism rationalize their respective concepts of god is an important point of distinction in
relation to how their different views of God affect their thinking. Spinozas approach will be first
then Hinduisms will be stated. Then each of these approaches will be explained with regard to
their respective beliefs concerning god.
The first step to understanding the logic of Spinoza is to understand his concept of
substance and God. Substance according to Spinoza is defined as anything that can conceive
itself into existence and is therefore independent of any other thing to conceive it into existence

Robinson 4
(Spinoza, 2001,1). He defines God as being an infinite being (Charlton, 1981, 503). Form here
he justified his position concerning substance monism into 14 proposition (Nadler, 2013, 4-6).
This argument can basically be summed up into 4 steps (Charlton, 1981, 503). The first is that no
two substances can share the same characteristics (Charlton, 1981, 503). The second is that it is a
necessary characteristic of a substance to exist (Charlton, 1981, 503). The third is that the
possession of infinite characteristics is a part of what it means to be a substance (Charlton, 1981,
503). The last step is to conclude that no second substance can exist (Charlton, 1981, 503). There
are two important principles that undergird this mindset: the Principle of Sufficient Reason and
the principle.
The principle of sufficient reason states that every fact has to have an explanation this
fact is the case (Melamed and Martin, 2014, 2). Spinozas approach to this principle is strong in
the sense that he is arguing not only must the existence of a given thing be explained but also the
non existence of a given thing as well (Rocca, 2008,4). One reason why the Principle of
Sufficient Reason pushed Spinoza toward his monistic mindset is that there did not seem to be an
adequate reason to be divided in the manner that Decartes did ( Rocca, 2008, 6). Decarte was a
substance dualist (Robinson, 2012, 8 ). Dualism is the belief that there are two fundamental
categories into which a specific domain can be divided (Robinson, 2012, 1). Substance dualism
is the belief that that there are two kinds of substances in the world: mind and matter (Robinson,
2012, 8 ). Spinoza disagreed with this notion as he argued that the laws that governed humans are
the same laws that govern the rest of the natural world and thus there was no sufficient reason to
believe in a second substance ( Rocca, 2008, 6). These could be discerned through the natural
sciences ( Rocca, 2008, 6).

Robinson 5
The second reason for why the principle of sufficient reason drove Spinoza to his overall
conclusion is that definition he used for a substance as a self causing entity is was driven by the
need to explain causation ( Rocca, 2008, 6). The only way explain the causation of the world
without infinitely regression ( Rocca, 2008, 8). The principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles
states that if any two given things have the same characteristics then they are identical to each
other ( Rocca, 2008, 47). This principle is applied in step two of the summarized version of his
14 proposition long argument concerning the existence substance.
The Hindu approach to defending its view on God does not give positive reasons to
justify its perspectives (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 404). The Hindu texts lack the format based on
clearly stated arguments based on reasons when it comes to its philosophical methodology
(Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 404). Its only philosophical approach is through the use of dialogues
composed of questions and answers to guide the skeptic towards belief (Chatterjee & Datta,
1948, 404). The Hindu style of justifying its particular views on God is known as the not-this,
not-this school of argumentation (Das, 1952, 144). This defined as the strict use of arguments to
negate the opposition of alternate beliefs (Das, 1952, 144).
There are three positions that all of the mainstream varieties of Hinduism tackle in
defense of the faith (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 412). The first is that the dualism of God and
reality is false Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 412). The second is the denouncement the idea that
material elements combined themselves to form the world as we understand it today Chatterjee
& Datta, 1948, 412). The third point is that they argue against the spontaneous development of
an unconscious state of nature to the point of generating reality as we know it (Chatterjee &
Datta, 1948, 412).

Robinson 6
The argument that the Hindus bring up against the dualistic notion held by the Saivas that
God created the world is the issue of how spirit leads to the physical realm (Chatterjee & Datta,
1948, 416-417). What is meant by that the idea that God, who is a spiritual entity, can create the
physical world flies in the face of the notion that the only way a spirit can interact with the
physical plain is through a physical body (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 417). The next argument
they have, the one against the idea that materials came together by themselves to form the world,
is that it is impossible(Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 414).This because unconscious matter cannot
come together to form the world in its current state of complexity (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948,
414).
With regard to second position argument goes further with regard to their rival, the
Vaisekia theory (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 414). This theory posits that the world is composed of
unconscious atoms (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 414). Along with the aforementioned argument
concerning against this position it also argued that this rival theory fails to explain how these
atoms began to move towards forming the universe to begin with (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948,
414). This argument is also useful against those third position that the spontaneous development
of an unconscious state of nature to the point of generating reality as we know it(Chatterjee &
Datta, 1948, 412).
Additionally another religious movement that they argue against is Buddhism. Buddhism
rejects the concept that Brahman and the existence of substantial reality (Bartley, 2011, 14).
Buddhism instead argues that the world is composed of the aggregate of momentary elements
(Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 415). The Hindu argument against that position is that such a system
does not allow for the existence of causation (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 415). This is because in
order for causation, otherwise known as the cause and effect mechanism, to work a cause must

Robinson 7
come into existence then act to bring about an effect (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 415). This of
course would mean that said cause would have to exist for more than just a given moment and
thus be contradictory to momentariness (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 415). There is another branch
of Buddhism believes in subjective idealism, the belief that the world is an illusion devised by
the imagination (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 415). One argument that the Hindu schools have
against this notion is that if immediate experience were to be denied then the very existence of
mental states becomes a dubious notion (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 416).
Ultimately the differences between these two systems when comes to justifying their
respective belief systems is epistemological in nature. Epistemology is the field of philosophy
that focuses on answering the broad list of questions concerning the nature of knowledge (Steup,
2005, 1). The particular question that that divides these two philosophies is: what is the source of
knowledge? Spinoza uses a rationalist approach whilst Hinduism uses an anti- rationalistic
approach. Rationalism is the belief that reason is the most important route to acquiring
knowledge (Hjrland, 2004, 130).
Spinoza can clearly be seen to employing rationalism in his arguments in sense that every
one of his assumptions was justified with reasons. Spinoza was, in fact, actually known to be
particularly aggressive with regard to his use of rationalism ( Rocca, 2008, 6). Hinduism is antirationalistic in the sense that it uses reason but to such a limited extent that it does not try to flesh
out a thorough case for its own truth claims. These diametrically opposed mindsets are firmly
grounded in their views of god. For Spinoza, God was nothing more than the sum total of natural
world and thus could be explained in a rational way from the sciences. Hinduism on the other
hand defines God as being absolute and infinite thus rendering it impossible for any collection of
finite beings like ourselves to fully encapsulate it within a rational framework (Das, 1952, 144).

Robinson 8
This means that the only way understand Brahman is to define it in terms of what it is not and it
is for this reason that Hinduism uses the not-this, not-this method (Das, 1952, 144).
The next issue that will be tacked with regard to these two philosophical
world-views is that of enlightenment. By enlightenment I mean the acquisition of the truth of
reality. As we will see both Spinoza and Hinduism employ the concept of enlightenment to mean
that their system is the path to knowledge from a state of ignorance. However that does not by
itself mean that these systems are compatible when it comes to this issue. In order to discover the
degree of compatibility they have at this level one must analyze precisely what each system
means by enlightenment, the methodology required to attain it, and what to what ends it is
achieved.
Spinozas conception of ignorance is that of relying on the raw data that comes into our
mind from our surroundings (Nadler, 2013, 18-19). By raw data he means impressions of reality
given to us by our senses, perceptual data and qualitative feelings like pleasure and pain (Nadler,
2013, 18). The reason for this is that this raw data is imprecise and volatile due to its random
nature (Nadler, 2013, 19). The result is that instead of gaining knowledge, reliance on raw
perceptual data is instead the source grand delusions (Nadler, 2013, 19). The only way to acquire
true knowledge is to go beyond simply wondering what exists but to approach ones beliefs and
observations with the goal of discerning why a given thing exists and how it exists (Nadler,
2013, 19). Only then can one truly acquire knowledge (Nadler, 2013, 19). This knowledge is
what he refers to as adequate knowledge (Nadler, 2013, 20). It is the acquisition of this kind of
knowledge that can be said to be Spinozas idea of enlightenment. The goal of this enlightenment
is, from a logical perspective, the escape from delusional thinking in favor of acquiring true

Robinson 9
knowledge and gravitation to all of the consequences that such a line of thinking would entail
from Spinozas perspective.
Hinduisms perspective of ignorance, as stated earlier, is considered to be the belief that
world is composed of separate substances with their own distinct identities. The result of this
ignorance is that the soul becomes seduced by the pleasures of the mortal realm and thus trapped
in bondage to the body (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 60). This bondage in turn ensnares the soul in
the cycle of rebirth (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 60). The only way to acquire true knowledge is to
study the Vedanta and engage in meditation alongside constant reasoning under the patronage of
a wise sage (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 59). The Vedanta is the system of thought that arises out
of the Upanisads (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 55). The Upanisads are the last work of literature
form the Vedas (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 395). The Vedas are four collections of literature that
were written in norther India from approximately 990-1100 BC (Bartley, 2001, 7). These four
works are considered to be holy books by mainstream Hindus (Bartley, 2001, 7).
The initiate would receive enlightenment upon reaching the firm and enduring truth of
Brahman (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 59). It is at this point that one is said to have gone into a
state called mukti (Chaudhuri, 1954, 54). This is the point of reaching a state of reintegration
with Brahman that is defined by a deep apprehension of said reconnection to an extent that
transcends human rationality (Chaudhuri, 1954, 54). The significance of the achievement is that
it pulls that person out of the reincarnation cycle forever (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 60). It
should be noted that mukti is not a state of heaven after death but rather a worldly experience one
can achieve in his or her own lifetime (Chaudhuri, 1954, 54).

Robinson 10
The distinction between these two ideological perspectives basically boils down to the
same epistemological difference mentioned earlier but taken from a different angle. In the case of
the segment concerning the use of reason to defend the perspectives of Spinoza and Hinduism
the emphasis was on rationalism versus anti-rationalism. In this instance however the focus will
be on mysticism vs anti-mysticism. Mysticism is defined as the broad collection of distinctive
traditions, practices, texts and beliefs whose goal is aimed at human transformation (Jerome,
2014, 1). Mysticism is often associated with theistic beliefs (Jerome, 2014, 1). An important
aspect of mysticism is that what is known as a mystical experience (Jerome, 2014, 2). One way
to define such an experience is as the reported belief in having a sense of acquiring access to
realities or knowledge that exists beyond the ability of the normal means of gaining knowledge
like reason or sense perception (Jerome, 2014, 2).
This definition of mysticism fits the conception of Brahman to perfection. This is because
it was already established that Brahman is beyond the ability of man to encapsulate in any
rationalistic framework. It therefore makes sense that the only way to gain any other access to
the reality of Brahman is via the use of mystical experiences. The process of enlightenment is
clearly a mystical experience in that it is a tradition designed to transform the initiates outlook in
a manner oriented towards achieving what is believed to be unity with Brahman. The actual
achievement of enlightenment, mukti, is also a mystical experience in that it is from the
perspective of Hinduism, a supra-rational and supra-sensual experience. Spinozas system of
God is rationalistic and naturalistic and thus his take on enlightenment is devoid of mystical
experiences.
The next step in this essay is to compare the way in which Spinoza and the Hindu
philosophy converge and diverge on the subject of how the objects in the world are categorized.

Robinson 11
From Spinozas standpoint all of existence can be divided into attributes (Shein, 2013, 1). An
attribute is basically defined as being the essential quality of a given thing (Shein, 2013, 3). With
regard to the phenomena around us the world can be divided into two attributes : Thought and
extension (Shein, 2013, 3).Thought is an attribute of mind in that is an essential aspect of the
mind (Shein, 2013, 3). It is in this sense that the attribute of body is extension (Shein, 2013, 3-4).
The number of attributes is infinite (Shein, 2013, 3). What exactly is meant by infinite attributes
is up for debate (Shein, 2013, 18-20).
Attributes are further divided into modes (Shein, 2013, 3). A mode is something that
exists within another given thing (Charlton, 1981, 509). Modes are further divided into infinite
modes and finite modes (Shein, 2013, 3). Infinite modes are the never-ending steams of things
relating to a given attribute (Shein, 2013, 3). The infinite mode of thought is the never-ending
intellect and in the case of extension it the eternal stream of motion and rest (Shein, 2013, 3).
Finite mode by extension therefore refers anything residing in a finite thing (Shein, 2013, 3). The
finite mode of thought is a mind and the finite mode of extension is a body (Shein, 2013, 3). It is
the accumulation of these finite modes that infinite modes (Shein, 2013, 3). This of course
logically means that a human being is nothing more than a finite mode of thought paired up with
a finite mode of extension. He deems those who do not agree with him but rather see God as a
divine agent as ignorant of the reality of phenomena as being ignorant of the nature of reality
(Nadler, 2013, 12).
The categories of reality that contained within Brahman are unconscious matter and
conscious souls (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 58). As stated earlier we along with all the other
things that make up reality are an extension of Brahman. It is for this reason that the appearance
of the separateness of the identities of us and these entities around us is nonexistent according to

Robinson 12
Hinduism (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 55). This world as it seems is instead rather an illusion
devised by Brahman (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 56).The illusion of the separation of reality into
separate identities is created by a power known as maya (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 56).
However it should be understood that Brahman is not acting in a will-full manner when it
comes to the generation of maya but rather maya is the result of an ignorant misinterpretation of
the reality of Brahmans true nature (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 57). The nature of Brahman can
be divided into two categories based on this ignorance: Saguna Brahman and Nirgurna Brahman
(Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 58). Saguna Brahman is the ignorant view that God is Omnipotent,
omniscient and plays an active role in the world (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 58). Nirgurna
Brahman is the enlightened view that God is the impersonal basis of reality (Chatterjee & Datta,
1948, 58).
One important way in which the concept of Saguna Brahman is applied is when Brahman
takes on the form of a god. There are many expressions of Brahman in the form Gods (Charing
and Wilkinson, 2004, 30). One important example of how Brahman manifests itself in the form
of the gods is that of Brama who creates ,Vishnu, deity of preservation, and Shiva the lord of
destruction and recreation (Charing and Wilkinson, 2004, 30).These three form a team called the
Trimurti (Charing and Wilkinson, 2004, 30). Hinduism has a very large pantheon of gods, each
devoted to a limited sphere of influence (Charing and Wilkinson, 2004, 32). A few more
examples of them are Ganesha the god of wisdom, Yama the god of Death and Karttikeya the
god of war (Charing and Wilkinson, 2004, 33).
There are also an endless variety of goddeses as well like Lakshmi the goddess of wealth
and Sarasvati the goddess of the arts and learning (Charing and Wilkinson, 2004, 34). An

Robinson 13
important role that these goddesses play is that of a consort to a given god (Charing and
Wilkinson, 2004, 35). A good example of this is Khrishna and his consort Rhada (Charing and
Wilkinson, 2004, 35). Gods and their respective consorts are often depicted as appearing to be
couples is a symbolic reference to the idea that each god has a male and female side (Charing
and Wilkinson, 2004, 35). The reason for why I say that these divinities are all representative of
Saguna Brahman is that they all depict Brahman in a personal and active capacity. The reason
why the gods are pictured as having male and female sides is logically meant to emphasize that
gender, as an aspect on finite experience, is derived from and thus transcended by Brahman in its
purest form.
Another important theme concerning the Hindu categorization of reality is the concept of
Atman which is defined as the true self (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 407). Since it was established
earlier that all things are an extension of Braham according to Hindu philosophy any concept of
having a separate identity is an illusion based on ignorance thus generating a perception of maya
that interferes with a true understanding Brahman. Thus instead of the western conception of
ego, atman is the subjective manifestation of Brahman in each of us (Chaudhuri, 1954, 47).
Atman is defined as pure, infinite consciousness (Chatterjee & Datta, 1948, 40-407). Hindus
argue that this is the only aspect of ourselves that is real as the other things that we consider to be
real like pleasure, intellect, the body and our intellect lack the permanence of Atman Chatterjee
& Datta, 1948, 406).
The Spinozian and Hindu interpretations of how to subcategorize the elements that make
up their respective concepts of god have two similarities. First of all they define the common
perception reality is being composed of fundamentally separate substances as an illusion derived
from ignorance. This of course means that they share a similar phenomenology. Phenomenology

Robinson 14
is the analysis of the first person perspective of experience (Smith, 2014, 1). They are similar in
this respect in that they both state that the first person perspective of reality is clouded by the
ignorance of the oneness of reality. Then they go on to say that that all physical and mental
events are a larger part of an infinite stream of mental and physical events that ultimately
emanate from the source.
The differences that arise are an extension of the fact that Spinozas conception of god
lacks the consciousness that is associated with Brahman. The first difference is that Spinozas
god cannot make itself manifest in a personal form as personal traits require consciousness in
order to exist. The second difference is that there is no concept of a true self as an unchanging,
infinite, extension of God in Spinozas ideology since his philosophy is naturalistic and thus
always in a state of flux as the laws of nature governing physical and mental states shape these
states interact with each other.
The next issue to tackle is the mind-body problem. The mind-body problem is the
dilemma concerning how the mind and the body can work together if the body is extension and
the mind is thought (Look, 2014, 26). This would naturally be a problem for dualistic
philosophies as in their cases the mind and body are different substances .These two systems of
thought are monistic and thus conceive of mind and body as being composed of one substance.
The real issue concerns how they differ in terms of their beliefs of how thought and extension
relate to one another.
Spinozas take on the relationship between thought and extension is known as parallelism
(Nadler, 2013, 12). This is the belief that mental and physical states do not interact with each
other at all but nonetheless correlate with one another (Nadler, 2013, 12). The basis for this idea

Robinson 15
is that thought and extension are two distinct essences and so do not have anything in common
with each other (Nadler, 2013, 11). The mechanism that Spinoza employs for how a given mode
operates is that it is governed by the rules that concerning the infinite stream of modes that make
up the attribute of which it is a part, the nature of said attribute and the interaction of said mode
with any others (Nadler, 2013, 12). In other words an idea is a derivative of the attribute called
thought and is thus ruled by the nature of thought the rules governing thought and its interaction
with any given one or more of the infinite stream of ideas that make up thought on a whole
(Nadler, 2013, 12). This process also applies to extension (Nadler, 2013, 12).
The Hindu approach to defining the relationship between mental and physical events is
known as the Samkhya School (George, Thompson, 2007, 91). This school is a dualistic system
built on the existence of two metaphysical entities: pradhana (primordial nature) and Atman
(George, Thompson, 2007, 91). Pradhana is composed is composed of three qualities known as
gunas. These gunas are tama (inertia or obstruction) ,raja (energy or activity) and sattva
(buoyancy or transparency) (George, Thompson, 2007, 91). These three qualities should not be
seen as building blocks but rather as guiding principles or forces (George, Thompson, 2007, 91).
All phenomena is derived from some combination of these gunas (George, Thompson, 2007, 91).
Two examples of this are organs of perception and the intellect (George, Thompson, 2007, 91).
The Atman does not get involved as it is by its very nature permanent and unchanging and shifts
in mental and physical states would require it to change (George, Thompson, 2007, 91).
The foundational step required to understand the Samkhya Schools doctrine of mental
states is concept of Buddhi or the intellect (George, Thompson, 2007, 92). Its function is to
experience and distinguish objects (George, Thompson, 2007, 92). It contains both the objective
preprocessed data that forms the basis of experience and the predispositions that will subjectively

Robinson 16
shape the understanding of said data (George, Thompson, 2007, 92). Despite being inactive the
self plays a key role in the development of mental states via the metaphorical illumination of
objects so that the intellect can comprehend them (George, Thompson, 2007, 92). The intellect
does so by mirroring its form like the image on a film reel to resemble the Atman (George,
Thompson, 2007, 92). The result is that the false impression is given of the self being directly
involved when it is in fact a bystander nonetheless (George, Thompson, 2007, 92).
The next step involves the roles of the objective and subjective poles of experience
(George, Thompson, 2007, 92). This pole of experience is known as mentation or manas and it
does three jobs (George, Thompson, 2007, 92). It oversees the senses, uses a framework of
memories and expectations to organize sense data and objects and acts in an intermediary
capacity between the senses and the subjective pole of experience (George, Thompson, 2007,
92). The result of this process is that our experience of the world is created (George, Thompson,
2007, 92). The subjective pole of experience is known as the ahamkara or the ego sense (George,
Thompson, 2007, 92). This pole of experience is responsible for the application of our subjective
individuality to the experiences created by the mentation phase, thus creating a sense of
separateness between objects and subject and allowing us to make sense of objects (George,
Thompson, 2007, 92).
When it comes to the mind-body problem these two systems may appear to similar but
are in fact radically different from one another. The difference between the two is that Spinozas
approach splits the self into separate closed systems, mental and physical, that generate
phenomenon whilst Hinduisms approach separates the self form direct action and situates all
phenomenon on the material plane. This is because both of these systems share the assumption
that man is a finite replica of God. What I mean by this is that in Spinozas system both man and

Robinson 17
God are composed of thought and extension but man is finite and God is infinite. In Hinduism
the highest plain of existence for god and Brahman is infinite consciousness but man exists on a
finite scale.
This similarity makes their respective approaches so different because it forces radically
different approaches to the mind body problem in order make them coherent. In the case of
Spinoza his sharp distinction between thought and extension as a part of his vision of god left
him with no other valid alternative that parallelism. In Hindusims case the fact that Atman is the
unchanging subjective manifestation of Brahman there was no other choice than to make the
material realm the basis of all phenomena with Atman only acting as a passive guide.
It is quite clear that Hinduism and Spinozian philosophy are two radically different
systems of thought in every respect that has been be mentioned thus far. The areas in which the
two were compared were in the fields of rationality, enlightenment, categorization of
phenomena, and the mind-body problem. This is because Spinoza has a rational, naturalistic
conception of reality whilst Hinduism has a mystical anti-rationalistic view of reality. In both
instances both of the define reality as being god for all intents and purposes which of course
means that the basis of the radical differences between them is based on their respective views of
god. Therefore one can conclude that Hinduism and Spinozas philosophies are incompatible due
to their respective conceptions of God.

Robinson 18