Spinoza and Vedanta .....

[Guest guest]

Respected Advaitins!

 

i came across this wonderful article on Benedict Spinoza at my

favorite web site ...

 

http://www.swami-krishnanada.org/com/com_spina.html

 

( i hope i have the url right)

 

in this wonderful artcle 'Studies in comparative philosophy', ,

Swamiji goes at great length to explain what Spinoza's basic

philosophy is and also emphasises that there are basic differences

in Spinoza's concept of 'God' and the 'Ishwara' in vedanta .

 

Swamiji observes :

 

" Ishvara is above space and time, for He is prior to the creation of

the visible universe. Extension is divisibility and divisibility

admits of change. Not only this; extension is an object of sense-

perception. But Ishvara, or God, is not an object of the senses. When

we attribute the characteristics of the temporal universe to Ishvara,

we do not make Him an object of the senses, for He is infinite in

nature. There is a great difference between the conception of Ishvara

in the Vedanta and that of God in the system of Spinoza. Ishvara in

the Vedanta is merely the objective counterpart of the individual's

perceptions and experiences, logically deducted and accepted on the

ground of the necessity of positing Brahman, or the Absolute, on the

one side, and of taking for granted the visible universe of physical

bodies on the other. The nature of Ishvara, therefore, is determined

by the logical necessities arising from individual experience in the

relative universe. What is experienced in individual perception is

not necessarily a part of the Cosmic Reality, but the need for a

satisfactory explanation of the implications of individual experience

necessitates a transference of the contents of individual experience

to the constitution of the Cosmic Reality. This transference, of

course, is purely the result of individual necessity. Thought and

extension are not considered to be essential aspects of Ishvara, but

they are posited as necessary characteristics of His constitution

merely to offer an explanation of the implications of human

experience. It does not, however, mean that there is an 'objective'

Ishvara absolutely independent of Brahman, mediating between the

Jiva, or the individual, and Brahman, the Absolute. Else, the

immediate salvation of the individual on the rise of perfect

knowledge would be impossible and it would become necessary for every

individual to get lodged in the state of Ishvara. Ishvara is Brahman

itself visualised from the point of view of individual experiences.

If there are no individuals, there cannot be an Ishvara, too; there

would be only Brahman. But Spinoza's God has thought and extension as

His necessary attributes. This God, thus, would be subject to spatial

divisibility and become finite."

 

snip> snip> snip>

 

But , what Swamiji says in coclusion appeals to my 'simplistic mind.'

 

Swamiji says

 

"Like Aristotle, Spinoza identifies the highest good of the

individual with the highest good of the universe. And this highest

good is the intuitive knowledge of God. Individualism and altruism,

here, coalesce; selfishness is rooted out, for the one good of all is

the love of God and the knowledge of God. In all these, Spinoza and

the Vedanta are one."

 

Wow ! Love of God and and Knowledge of GOD- do we really need

anything else ?

 

Taittiriya Upanisad says:

 

raso vai sah

rasam hy evayam labdhvanandi bhavati

ko hy evanyat kah pranyat

yad esa akasa anando na syat

esa hy evanandayati (2.7)

 

The supreme truth is rasa. The jiva becomes blissful on attaining

this rasa. Who would work with body and prana, if this blissful,

complete form did not exist. He gives bliss to all.

 

a Rasika-situated in raga-anuraga Krishna-Prema

 

Hari Aum !

[Guest guest]

Dear AdiMa,

 

Even though your post is not addressed to me, I hope you will not

mind if I reply to it. Since I brought up the topic of affinity

between Spinoza and Vedanta, I feel obliged to say a few words here.

 

 

advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16>

wrote:

> in this wonderful artcle 'Studies in comparative philosophy',

> Swamiji goes at great length to explain what Spinoza's basic

> philosophy is and also emphasises that there are basic

> differences in Spinoza's concept of 'God' and the 'Ishwara'

> in vedanta .

 

I'm afraid the Swamiji is mistaken. He is looking at Spinoza through

the lens of Advaita. If the Swamiji is comparing Spinoza and Vedanta,

then he should be taking the Vishistadvaita interpretation of Vedanta

for the purpose of comparision because it is Vishistadvaita, rather

than Advaita, that has resonance with Spinoza.

 

> Swamiji observes: "Ishvara is above space and time, for He

> is prior to the creation of the visible universe. Extension

> is divisibility and divisibility admits of change. Not only

> this; extension is an object of sense-perception. But Ishvara,

> or God, is not an object of the senses.

>From Part I of 'The Ethics' of Spinoza:

 

Proposition 8: "Every substance is necessarily infinite."

 

Proposition 12: "No attribute of substance can be truly conceived

from which it would follow that substance can be divided."

 

Proposition 13: "Absolutely infinite substance is indivisible."

 

Proposition 14: "There can be, or be conceived, no other substance

but God."

 

Either Spinoza is contradicting himself when he says that substance

is indivisible or the Swamiji has not understand Spinoza. Actually, I

believe the Swamiji is mixing up the tattva of substance, or dravya,

with the tattva of attribute, or guna. Attribute has no existential

separation from substance, but it is still not the same tattva as

substance. See Spinoza's definitions of substance and attribute, and

also to which of these he says existence belongs:

 

"By substance I mean that which is in itself and is conceived through

itself; that is, that the conception of which does not require the

conception of another thing from which it has to be formed."

 

"By attribute I mean that which the intellect perceives of substance

as constituting its essence."

 

Proposition 7: "Existence belongs to the nature of substance."

 

Vishistadvaita says that the universe, and all things in the

universe, are the prakara of Brahman. I would like to hear what the

Vishistadvaitins would say if the Swamiji told them that the Brahman

of their darshana is divisible because akasha is an attribute of

Brahman!

 

According to Vedanta, akasha is indivisible even though it is

extended. That is why it is used as an analogy in Advaita for

pointing out the 'relation' between Brahman and individual selves -

by pointing out that Brahman is like the akasha that pervades all

pots, the space in the pot being the same as the space everywhere. So

extension does not necessarily mean divisible.

 

The nature of substance and attribute that Spinoza speaks about

accords also with the siddhanta of Advaita. Sri Shankaracharya says

that attributes are co-terminous with substance. Shankara negates the

relationship of samanvaya, or inherence, that Nyaya posits as the

binding relation between them.

 

> When we attribute the characteristics of the temporal universe

> to Ishvara, we do not make Him an object of the senses, for He

> is infinite in nature.

 

The Infinite is seen through objective characteristics as God in

Spinoza's philosophy just as Ishwara is seen through forms in

Vedanta. Again, just as Vedanta does not mistake the mere object to

be Ishwara, Spinoza does not mistake the mere extended thing to be

God. Was not the Infinite seen through the form of the blue-

complexioned Lord Krishna?

 

> There is a great difference between the conception of Ishvara

> in the Vedanta and that of God in the system of Spinoza. Ishvara

> in the Vedanta is merely the objective counterpart of the

> individual's perceptions and experiences, logically deducted

> and accepted on the ground of the necessity of positing Brahman,

> or the Absolute, on the one side, and of taking for granted the

> visible universe of physical bodies on the other.

 

Ishwara is not merely a logically deducted entity in Vedanta. Ishwara

is not a posit. Ishwara is Brahman revealed when the inclinations of

the mind to posit things are dissolved in favour of seeing things as

they are. Epiphany is revelation, not positing things from the

logical operations of the intellect. The intellect must return to the

heart to see the Truth, for the heart is the cave of the intellect.

The third kind of knowledge in Spinoza's philosophy is essentially

the return of the intellect to its native state of intuition.

 

> The nature of Ishvara, therefore, is determined by the logical

> necessities arising from individual experience in the relative

> universe. What is experienced in individual perception is not

> necessarily a part of the Cosmic Reality, but the need for a

> satisfactory explanation of the implications of individual

> experience necessitates a transference of the contents of

> individual experience to the constitution of the Cosmic Reality.

> This transference, of course, is purely the result of individual

> necessity.

 

No, this 'transference of content' is not merely an individual

necessity. What is experienced in individual perception is still the

nature of Brahman. It is the Kshetra and the Witness that perceives

it is the Kshetrajna. In the Bagavad Gita, Lord Krishna says that He

has two Prakritis, the Higher and the lower, the Para and the apara,

the Kshetrajna and the kshetra. In Vishistadvaita, the Higher Nature

is Lord Vishnu as the substratum, and the lower nature is the prakara

of the Lord. This is also true in Advaita (see Shankara's commentary

on the Gita). The difference between Vishistadvaita and Advaita lies

in the relationship that is posited between the Higher Nature of

Brahman and His lower nature. In Vishistadvaita, it is the

relationship of substance and attribute; in Advaita it is no

relationship because the Higher and Lower together constitute a

relationless non-duality. That is how knowing Brahman in Advaita

darshana is knowing the All.

 

> Thought and extension are not considered to be essential

> aspects of Ishvara, but they are posited as necessary

> characteristics of His constitution merely to offer an

> explanation of the implications of human experience.

 

Thought and extension belong to the lower nature of Brahman in

Vishistadvaita in like manner to what is spoken of by Spinoza.

 

> It does not, however, mean that there is an 'objective'

> Ishvara absolutely independent of Brahman, mediating between

> the Jiva, or the individual, and Brahman, the Absolute.

 

Spinoza does not say that there is an 'objective' God mediating

between the individual and the Absolute. The individual, in Spinoza,

is God seen under the attribute of the individual being as

constituted in the essence of God.

 

> Else, the immediate salvation of the individual on the rise

> of perfect knowledge would be impossible and it would become

> necessary for every individual to get lodged in the state of

> Ishvara.

 

An individual being 'lodged' in the 'state' of Ishwara is also

considered to be salvation in the sense that the individual being

does not return again ever to samsara. In Advaita, this is the path

of the Lower Brahman. See what Sri Shankaracharya says in the bhashya:

 

"The idea conveyed is that when the time for the final dissolution of

the world of the Lower Brahman is imminent, the aspirants who have

acquired full realisation there attain thereafter, alongwith

Hiranyagarbha, the ruler of the world, the supreme state of Vishnu

which is absolutely pure. This kind of liberation by stages has to be

admitted on the strength of the Upanishadic texts speaking of non-

return etc. But we have established earlier that it is

incomprehensible that the Supreme (Higher) Brahman should be reached

by any process of moving forward." (BSB.IV.iii.5.10)

 

The last sentence pertains to realisation as obtained through the

path of Advaita, but Shankara does not deny that the path of the

Lower Brahman also leads to salvation.

 

> Ishvara is Brahman itself visualised from the point of view of

> individual experiences.

 

What does Spinoza say?

 

Proposition 15: "Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can be or be

conceived without God."

 

I go with Spinoza's perspective because I think it accords better

with Advaita. The visualisation from the point of view of individual

experience is also in the Nature of Brahman in so far as it is in the

Lower Nature of Brahman. Who is it that drives the mind of the

individual to perceive Brahman as Ishwara? Does not the Kena

Upanishad say that it is Ishwara Himself? Does Ishwara then drive the

mind of the individual being to see something that does not exist in

Brahman's Nature? Ishwara that is seen by the individual is

constituted in the very Nature of Brahman. Therefore, Ishwara is

Brahman visualised from a point of view that already exists in

Brahman because it is never possible for an individual to generate

something - even a form seen in an illusion - without that form being

in the (lower) Nature of Brahman. But yes, the points of view of

individual beings can never grasp the full extent of Brahman's power

and grandeur.

 

> If there are no individuals, there cannot be an Ishvara, too;

> there would be only Brahman.

 

There is a play of language involved here. The condition 'if' is

valid only for contingent things. Irrespective of the contingency

imposed by the mind, Ishwara is not contingent. When we are

participating in the creation of Ishwara, Ishwara is correctly

conceived of as being prior to creation which would make Ishwara

existent even when there is no creation. For a jnani, Ishwara is

still existent being none other than Brahman.

 

> But Spinoza's God has thought and extension as His

> necessary attributes. This God, thus, would be subject

> to spatial divisibility and become finite."

 

As already pointed out, this statement is not correct as it is based

on a misunderstanding of Spinoza.

 

 

AdiMa, I mean no disrespect to the Swamiji. I speak from my

convictions, but I am open to be corrected. If you feel offended by

my words, please feel free to ignore them.

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Irrespective of the contingency

imposed by the mind, Ishwara is not contingent. When we are

participating in the creation of Ishwara, Ishwara is correctly

conceived of as being prior to creation which would make Ishwara

existent even when there is no creation. For a jnani, Ishwara is

still existent being none other than Brahman.

 

praNAms Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Kindly bear with my intrusion....If possible, please guide me to the

bhAshya vAkya of shankara with regard to above observation. Not for

further deliberations...just curious about it. Thanks in advance.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji,

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> > Irrespective of the contingency imposed by the mind,

> > Ishwara is not contingent. When we are participating

> > in the creation of Ishwara, Ishwara is correctly

> > conceived of as being prior to creation which would

> > make Ishwara existent even when there is no creation.

> > For a jnani, Ishwara is still existent being none other

> > than Brahman.

>

> praNAms Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

> Kindly bear with my intrusion....If possible, please guide me

> to the bhAshya vAkya of shankara with regard to above observation.

> Not for further deliberations...just curious about it. Thanks

> in advance.

 

 

The bhashya references are as follows:

 

1. Brahadaranyaka Upanishad bhashya, I,ii

 

2. Chandogya Upanishad bhashya, VI.ii.3

 

3. Brahma Sutra bhashya I,i,3

 

I trust that we will not further deliberate (debate) on these bhashya

vakhyas.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

1. Brahadaranyaka Upanishad bhashya, I,ii

 

2. Chandogya Upanishad bhashya, VI.ii.3

 

3. Brahma Sutra bhashya I,i,3

 

praNAms Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Thanks for the immediate clarification. Would it be possible for you to

give me the maNtra bhAga of these references (1 & 2) ...coz. numbering of

the maNtra-s some time differs in the printed versions ..I think sUtra is

*shAstra yOnitvAt* right??

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji,

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

 

> praNAms Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

> Thanks for the immediate clarification. Would it be possible

> for you to give me the maNtra bhAga of these references (1 &

> 2) ...coz. numbering of the maNtra-s some time differs in the

> printed versions ..I think sUtra is *shAstra yOnitvAt* right??

 

 

1. Brahadaranyaka Upanishad bhashya, I,ii

 

"There was nothing whatsoever here in the beginning. It was covered

only by Death (Hiranyagarbha), or Hunger, for hunger is death...."

 

 

2. Chandogya Upanishad bhashya, VI.ii.3

 

 

"That (Existence) saw, 'I shall become many. I shall be born'. That

created fire...."

 

 

3. Brahma Sutra bhashya I,i,3

 

"(Brahman is omniscient) because of (Its) being the source of the

scriptures"

 

to be seen in conjunction with BSB I,i,2

 

"That (is Brahman) from which (are derived) the birth etc., of this

universe."

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

The discussions on Spinoza and Vedanta is not new to the list. For more

discussions related to Spinoza and Vedanta, I suggest members to refer

to List archives during August 2000 and September 2000 on the thread

title – Doing me or God starting from message # 5908, #5911, #5913,

# etc.

 

Harih Om!

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji,

>

> advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

>

>

> > praNAms Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji

> > Hare Krishna

> > Thanks for the immediate clarification. Would it be possible

> > for you to give me the maNtra bhAga of these references (1 &

> > 2) ...coz. numbering of the maNtra-s some time differs in the

> > printed versions ..I think sUtra is *shAstra yOnitvAt* right??

>

>

> 1. Brahadaranyaka Upanishad bhashya, I,ii

>

> "There was nothing whatsoever here in the beginning. It was

covered

> only by Death (Hiranyagarbha), or Hunger, for hunger is death...."

 

Namaste All,

 

I remember reading Spinoza many years ago and the impression that I

get about his ideas on 'God', is that he was in tune with the

Kabbalists.

 

Their idea of a Transcendent God was similar also to the Christian

idea of a God transcending but at the same time having some

attributes.

 

Ein Sof was the term used.

 

This generally wasn't the same thing as Saguna Brahman. Although

their idea of God Immanent is somewhat analogous to Ishvara. Isvara

being the sum total of all the Jivas as trees in a forest.

 

They didn't appear to have the concept of NirGuna Brahman at all,

never mind AjataVada........So we are talking in the area of

probably Visishtadvaita as opposed to Advaita with Spinoza and the

Kabbalists................ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Dear Chitta :

 

Thank you so much for your detailed commentary on Swamiji's article.

However, i would encourage you to read the entire Two page article

where Swamiji clearly disagrees with many of the tenets of Spinoza's

philosophy. Take a Look! Chitta!!

 

Chitta, you state

 

(If the Swamiji is comparing Spinoza and Vedanta, then he should be

taking the Vishistadvaita interpretation of Vedanta for the purpose

of comparision because it is Vishistadvaita, rather than Advaita,

that has resonance with Spinoza.)

 

Yes! i have seen Spinoza being labelled as a 'Pantheist ...Now,

a 'VISHISTADVAITIN' ... Smile -

 

There is a little bit of 'vishistadwaitin' in all of us! More so, in

me! As long as i live in this 'body'( sarira), Mind ( Chitta)AND

Intellect ( Buddhi), i believe in honoring a personal God just like

Spinoza . Why Spinoza - Even Our beloved Shri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa

Did ....

 

Thakore says ....

 

"He who is attributeless also has attributes.

He who is Brahman is also Shakti. When thought of as inactive,

He is called Brahman, and when thought of as Creator, Preserver,

and Destroyer, He is called the Primordial Energy, KAli."

 

"Brahman and Shakti are identical, like fire and its power to burn.

When we talk of fire we automatically mean also its power to burn.

Again, the fire's power to burn implies the fire itself.

If you accept the one you must accept the other."

 

i am sure, you know the story of Totapuri ( Guru of Shri Ramakrishna).

 

Here it is ...

 

ONE DAY Totapuri flew into a rage when a servant of the temple garden

took a live coal from a holy fire in order to light his tobacco.

Totapuri was about to beat the man for it when Sri Ramakrishna rocked

with laughter and cried, "What a shame! You are explaining to me the

reality of Brahman and the illusoriness of the world; yet now you

have so far forgotten yourself as to be about to beat a man in a fit

of passion." Totapuri was embarrassed.

 

About this time Totapuri was laid up with a severe attack of

dysentery. Because of this miserable illness it was impossible for

him to meditate. One night, when the pain became intense, he became

so incensed that he decided to drown himself. So he walked into the

Ganges and walked across to the other bank. Dumbfounded he looked

back. The trees, the temples, the houses, stood out against the sky.

Suddenly he saw on all sides the Divine Mother in everything as

everything -

 

According to another version there was a sand-bank in the middle of

the river, which one could reach by wading out during the ebb tide,

and it was this sand-bank he reached.

Totapuri returned to Dakshineswar and spent the remaining hours of

the night meditating on the Divine Mother. He now realized why he had

spent eleven months at Dakshineswar and went on his way, enlightened -

more enlightened than when he arrived as an enlightened one.

 

(Source- Kathamrita)

 

So, the point being made is even a BRAHMA Jnani like Toptapuri

realized there is that personal God/ess to be meditated upon.

 

Today is Tuesday, a day dedicated to Worshipping Shri Hanuman !

 

and this is how Hanuman expresses his devotion to Sri Rama

 

bhava-bandha-cchide tasyai

sprhayami na muktaye

bhavan prabhur aham dasa

iti yatra vilupyate

 

"I do not wish to take liberation or to merge in the Brahman

effulgence, where the conception of being a servant of the Lord is

completely lost."

 

(Sri Ram-ji narrated a nice anecdote oN hANUMAN'S atitude towards SRI

RAMA -it is in the archives ... i cannot readily recall - Sriti is

dwindling with age)

 

Finally , now let me quote my favorite verse from Saundarya-Lahiri ,

verse 27! There is a similar one in Sivananda Lahiri, too!

 

Let my every word be a prayer to Thee,

Every movement of my hands a ritual gesture to Thee,

Every step I take a circumambulation of Thy image,

Every morsel I eat a rite of sacrifice to Thee,

Every time I lay down a prostration at Thy feet;

Every act of personal pleasure and all else that I do,

Let it all be a form of worshiping Thee."

 

Salutations to the Divine Mother , Goddess of three Worlds - Sr

Lalita Tripurasundari !

 

Hey chitta , so now from KASHMIR Saivism TO SRI VIDYA UPASANA? ( YOUR

LATEST POST TO ME - BRAHMAN BEING THE GODDESS OF THREE CITIES- that

is what the great scriptural text - Tripura Rahasya says! smile) !

WOW - i call that progress - a great step forward in your spiritual

evolution! Smile !

 

Jai Gurudeva!

 

Jai Maa !