2. Philosophy - Stefano Franchi

4
P RELUDE
that a writer’s or scientist’s work becomes interesting when it goes beyond such a common
situation rather than when it presents yet another exposition of the unavoidable limits of
representation. Such a theme, he concluded, is so banal that it might be rightly called the
“triviality of modernity.” In a text written around the same time that treats of the difficulties
encountered by the Indian philosopher Nagarjuna in his teaching of the doctrine of the void,
1
Agamben describes more precisely what he means by such a term. Indeed, several among
Nagarjuna’s disciples—even Candrakirti, the most faithful—misunderstood his doctrine on
an essential point, a point so subtle that even he, at times, could not grasp it. The difference
between the two interpretations was infinitesimal, but incommensurable: his doctrine
taught the vacuity of representation whereas his disciples “treated the void as a thing, they
would form a representation of the vacuity of representation. But the realization of the void-
ness of representation—continued Nagarjuna—is not, in turn, a representation: it is the end
of representation.” Those who believe that “even the void is an opinion and that the irrep-
resentable is a representation” fall into the trap of nihilism and miss the most important
point of his teachings: “that the empty image is not an image of anything. The word, of its
2
vacuity, is perfectly full.”
The following pages explore a possible interpretation of the difference between the
doctrine of Nagarjuna and the misunderstanding of Candrakirti, between the doctrine of the
void and the triviality of modernity, by reading a text by Italo Calvino, the author Agamben
was referring to on both occasions. In the first section I will show that the unity and differ-
ence of the two doctrines are portrayed by Mr. Palomar with a rare rigor and clarity and I
will show how the enigmatic conclusion of the book is ideally suited to reflection. In short,
1. See, respectively, Beppe Cottafavi, Maurizio Magri, eds., I narratori dell’invisibile (Modena: Mucchi,
1987) 156 and Giorgio Agamben, Idea della Prosa (Milano: Feltrinelli, 1985) 98-101. Engl. tr. Idea of
the Prose (Minneapolis: Minnesota UP, 1995)131-133. The latter text—’Idea del risveglio’ or “The
idea of awakening—proposes a short but extremely interesting interpretation of the doctrine of voidness.
The doctrine was developed by the Indian philosopher Nagarjuna in the second century A.D. and
reinterpreted four centuries later by the philosopher Candrakirti in the school founded by Nagarjuna.
The text is dedicated to Italo Calvino. It may be worth noting that every reference to the doctrines of
Nagarjuna and Candrakirti in what follows is to be intended as a reference to Agamben’s text and not
as a reference to the historical thinkers without which, perhaps, it cannot be understood.
2. Giorgio Agamben, Idea della Prosa…,
100; Engl tr. 133, Translation modified.