Guest guest Posted January 14, 2000 Report Share Posted January 14, 2000 Greetings Max, Greg. Max asked: are you suggesting that Spinoza had no conception of being alienated from the divine nature and acting out of harmony with divine nature? Or that there is no causality separate from the necessity of the divine nature? Does this imply a "universal divine will" concept of causality, such that all that happens is the "will of God?" In a word, yes. God is the sole free cause. (Free but not arbitrary: 'God acts by the same necessity whereby he exists'.) The idea that "all of our thoughts, feelings and actions are thought, felt and acted by God through us" suggests a wonderfully profound intimacy of God with us, but does Spinoza yet see in this some type of relationship between God-as-God and God-in-us-as-us? Spinoza didn't answer this question in the explicit way that Advaita does (he was in enough trouble with the theologians as it was) but he says that (from memory) (i) Human minds are 'ideas in the infinite intellect of God'. (ii) Man's love for God and God's love for man are the same thing both being part of 'the eternal love wherewith God loves himself'. Our 'freedom, salvation or blessedness' lies in 'the constant, unending and eternal love of God or in God's love for man'. (iii) 'He who has clear and distinct knowledge of his emotions loves God and the more so in proportion as his ideas are clear and distinct'. (iv) God and Nature are the same thing ('the infinite and eternal being who is God or Nature') and man is 'part of Nature'. Other statements like this can be culled from Part V of the _Ethics_. (But make sure to look at the *abridged* version first!) Regards Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2000 Report Share Posted January 17, 2000 Greetings Ram > Those who follow Spinoza's ethical laws believe that God is responsible for > everything. Then how do we maintain law and order in such a society? Please be assured that Spinoza does address your questions and at great length; in fact you should know that he is generally regarded in the West as one of the greatest political philosophers. Although his principal concern in the _Ethics_ is with liberation he is after all writing an *Ethics*. (But as you can imagine an Ethics based on the premise that 'all things follow from the necessity of the divine nature' bears little resemblance to the Catholic Catechism and he inevitably ends up trashing the ideas of free will, sin [karma], self-sacrifice and the 'problem of evil'....) Regards, Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2000 Report Share Posted January 17, 2000 Greetings Patrick: I just want to assure you that I have great respect for Spinoza because of his vision about liberation. Just like Spinoza, Shankara is also considered one of the greatest philosophers from the east and this is being recognized by great western thinkers. As you have rightly said in a previous posting, there is little disagreement between Spinoza and Shankara on the absolute awareness (paramarthika level). I am fully agree and endorse your statement, 'all things follow from the necessity of the divine nature.' This statement necessarily implies that ideas of free-will, Karma, self-sacrifice, problem of evil are also produced from the divine nature! God is also responsible for us to think, accept, reject, cherish or trash any thought arises from time to time. regards, Ram Chandran Patrick Kenny wrote: > ........... > > Those who follow Spinoza's ethical laws believe that God is responsible for > > everything. Then how do we maintain law and order in such a society? > > Please be assured that Spinoza does > address your questions and at great > length; >.............. > (But as you can imagine an Ethics based > on the premise that 'all > things follow from the necessity of the > divine nature' bears little resemblance > to > the Catholic Catechism and he inevitably > ends up trashing the ideas of free will, > sin [karma], self-sacrifice and the > 'problem of evil'....) > > Regards, > > Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2000 Report Share Posted January 18, 2000 On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Ram Chandran wrote: > Ram Chandran <chandran > > Greetings Patrick: > > [...] > > western thinkers. As you have rightly said in a previous posting, there is > little disagreement between Spinoza and Shankara on the absolute awareness > (paramarthika level). > > namaste. I am not too sure if such a blanket perfect identity is there between the two philosophers. I do not know much about Spinoza's philosophy, but if what Patrick wrote earlier, is what is Spinoza's ultimate understanding of Truth, then there is a difference between Spinoza's and shri shankara's understanding. So that we know the terminolgy of what we are discussing, I am taking Spinoza's (understanding of) Truth as stated by Patrick in one of his posts and I copy below that post of a few days ago >> pkenny >> Greetins Vijaylakshmi, >> I was forced to resort to this formula in an attempt to summarize >> Spinoza's _Ethics_ >> in 10 words. I can hardly hope to do much better in 10 lines so I would >> urge you >> to get hold of a copy of the *abridged* version of the _Ethics_ if you >> are interested. >> Spinoza (a 16th century excommunicated Dutch Jew of Spanish ancestry) >> is unique among western >> philosophers in that his philosophical project is to trace a path to >> enlightment. >> His method consists in what he calls the 'intellectual love of God'. >> He shows how we can train our minds to see everything >> 'under the form of eternity', as being 'in God and following from the >> necessity >> of the divine nature'. In particular we can bring ourselves to the >> realization >> that all of our thoughts, feelings and actions >> are thought, felt and acted by God through us (so you can see why I >> don't share >> the Vedantist perspective on Karma). For Spinoza, God Nature and >> Man are all the same thing (no dualist he!) >> Regards, >> Patrick This is obviously not shri shankara's (understanding of) Truth, which is stated in various bhAShyAs and advaitic texts. Thus, there is a fundamental and distinct difference in what Spinoza and shri shankara presented as the ABSOLUTE TRUTH, The objective of this post is not to put down any particular understanding or contribution by any philosopher, but simply to point out the difference when there is a difference. > > regards, > > Ram Chandran > Regards Gummuluru Murthy -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2000 Report Share Posted January 18, 2000 > I am fully agree and endorse your statement, 'all things follow from the necessity of the divine nature.' This statement necessarily implies that ideas of free-will, Karma, self-sacrifice, problem of evil are also produced from the divine nature! God is also responsible for us to think, accept, reject, cherish or trash any thought arises from time to time. Yes indeed, Ram. I might add that Krishna 'makes firm the faith of those devotees who worship any form whatever' (!) By the way, I would like to point out that Spinoza is known in the West as a political-legal-ethical philosopher but scarcely anybody knows of his spiritual genius (which goes a long way towards explaining why somebody like me should show up on your doorstep). Regards, Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2000 Report Share Posted January 19, 2000 Greetings Gummuluru There is some confusion here that I'd better clear up. The conclusion about agreement on the paramarthika level was *not* in fact mine (but I'm not surprised by it). It was most likely suggested by my message 12 in Digest 463 (rather than by the post that you quote). My own view, based on my reading of the Crest Jewel but nothing else, is that there are real differences in emphasis between Shankara and Spinoza but that they would thoroughly enjoy each others company and would take pleasure in finding fault with each others arguments. (Certainly Spinoza would never swallow Shankara's statement that 'being conscious of your body is like remembering your own vomit'.) In Shankara's writing the word Brahman seems to occur far more frequently than Atman and the opposite seems to be true of the Gita. My guess is that Spinoza would side with the Gita. Regards, Patrick > On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Ram Chandran wrote and Gummuluru then quoted him: > Ram Chandran <chandran > > Greetings Patrick: > > [...] > > western thinkers. As you have rightly said in a previous posting, there is > little disagreement between Spinoza and Shankara on the absolute awareness > (paramarthika level). > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.