Theos-Talk Archives (July 2010 Message tt00043)

Spinoza's philosophy has recently been raised by others and I came across what I 
found was to be perplexing and so would ask from interpretations from anyone who 
feels so inclined.

Spinoza seems to be suggesting that 
Âthat god is personalized, not as a deity with a long beard overseeing the 
world, but through its manifestation in what we call Reality but is in fact a 
god-created Maya-illusion (creative illusion) which by necessity would require 
its own set of laws, and through the workings of nature in time, and space, 
natural laws etc, we should recognize godness? But I am no expert and may pose 
this question to others who are more advanced than I am.
Cass
Back up documentation:Epicuras concluded that the Universe which is infinite 
could not be the product of divine action, since the existence of evil cannot be 
accounted for. Notwithstanding this, and though disbelieving in a God as an 
intelligent Principle, he admitted the existence of both a Supreme Being and 
gods or Spirits, living and immortal beings, of human shape but colossal 
proportions.
On the other hand, Spinoza was a recognized âsystematic Atheistâ as Bayle brands 
him;* against whom was pronounced the terrific Anathema Maranatha, and whose 
system of negation Malebranche terms a chimera both ridiculous and terrible. And 
yet, no more refined, spiritual nature than Spinozaâs ever breathed upon earth. 
If by Epicurus abstract ideas were continually transformed into the gross 
concrete forms of a material Universe; by Spinoza the material conceptions of 
Science, from the Solar system down to the molecular structure of a leaflet, 
were mellowed down to the most Raphaelic hues, and the grossest substances 
assumed the shadowy, ethereal outlines of an ideal world. 

Â
So much did this martyr of transcendent Theosophy impress himself upon the 
subsequent generations of thinkers that Schleiermacher speaking of âthe holy but 
proscribed Spinozaâ reaches the most touching pathos. âThe Divine Spirit 
transfuses him,â he says. âThe infinite was his beginning and end, the universe 
was his only and everlasting love. In holy innocence and deep humility he 
mirrored himself in the eternal world, and saw also how he was its noblest 
mirror. Full of religion was he, and full of a holy spirit, and therefore he 
stands alone and unrivalled, master of his art, but exhalted above profane 
Society, without disciples and without even citizenship!ââ

The conceptions of this âatheisticalâ Theosophist, about God are among the most 
original. Iron-bound as they are by the law of necessity reigning everywhere in 
physical nature, we find him solving the most abstract ideas by rigidly 
geometrical definitions. His is a system of metaphysical ideas from which evolve 
a series of theoremsâa demonstration from the eight definitions and seven axioms 
of the first book of the Ethica.* 

Â
âââââââ
* [See Bayle en Spinoza . . . Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1961; also Latin ed. of 
Pierre Poiret: Cogitationum Rationalium . . . pp. 80, 87, 304-305. Joannem 
Pauli, Amsterdam, 1715.]
â [Schleiermacher, Friedrich, Speech 2 (âNature of Religionâ) in his work On 
Religion, N.Y., Harper Bros., 1958, p. 40 of Eng. repr.] 

âââââââ
Â

One acquainted with the Hindu philosophy would be singularly reminded of both 
the Vedanta and that extreme Buddhist system known as the school of the 
SvÃbhÃvikas. According to his ideas God is âa Substance consisting of infinite 
attributes each of which expresses an absolutely infinite and eternal essence.â 
It follows that this Substanceânecessary and infinite, one and indivisible, is 
God, the only Self-existence, All-Perfection and absolute Infinitude. Take away 
the name of the Diety, and you have here the abstract ideas about the only 
creative Power of the World, of the SvÃbhÃvikas. 

Â
âNothing exists in the Universe but Substanceâor Nature,â say the latter. âThis 
Substance exists by, and through itself (Svabhavat) having never been either 
created or had a Creator.â âNoââechoes unconsciously Spinoza, ânothing exists in 
this world but Substance, and the modes of its attributes; and, as Substance 
cannot produce Substance there is no such thing as Creation.â This is the claim 
of most of the Hindu philosophies. And again . . . . . It (creation)âsays 
Spinoza, has no beginning and no end, but all things have to proceed or emanate 
from the Infinite One and will so proceed eternally. According to his 
philosophy, only two out of the innumerable infinite attributes of the Deity are 
known to usâextension and thought, the objective and the subjective of which He 
(the Infinite) is the identity. God is the only free Cause (causa libera), all 
other beings having neither free will nor contingency are moved by fixed laws of 
causation. The Deity is âThe causa immanens omnium, not existing apart from the 
Universe,â but manifested and expressed in it, as in a living garment.â
Â
The VedÃntin believes that it (the world) was nothing and is nothing apart from 
the One absolute BeingâGod.â* It is only when the Jewish philosopher speaks of 
the âattributesâ of Godâhowever infinite, that he differs from the Vedanta; for 
the latter allows man alone to call his consciousness an attribute of his soul 
âbecause it varies, whilst the consciousness (chaitanya) of God is one and 
unchangeable, hence no such distinction of substance and attribute holds with 
Him.â 

As to Spinozaâs Deityânatura naturansâconceived in his attributes simply and 
alone; and the same Deityâas natura naturata or as conceived in the endless 
series of modifications or correlations, the direct outflowing results from the 
properties of these attributes, it is the Vedantic Deity pure and simple. The 
same subtle metaphysical distinction is found in the mystery by which the 
impersonal BrahmaâOne and Indivisible, the Absolute âconsciousnessââunconscious 
of the Universe, becomes through sheer metaphysical necessity IÅvara, the 
personal God, and brings himself into direct relation to the Universeâof which 
it is the Creatorâ respectively under the definitions of MÃyà (illusion), Åakti 
(power) and Prakriti (nature). 

Â
Cass: This seems to be suggesting that god is personalized, not as a deity with 
a long beard overseeing the world, but through its manifestation in what we call 
Reality but is in fact a god-created Maya-illusion (creative illusion) which by 
necessity would require its own set of laws, and through the workings of nature 
in time, and space, natural laws etc, we should recognize godness? But I am no 
expert and may pose this question to others who are more advanced than I am.

So pre-eminent is the Vedantic BrahmÃ-IÃvara in Spinozaâs philosophy that we 
find this idea strongly colouring the subsequent views of Hegel, one of the 
philosophers who was the most influenced by the Jewish idealist. In the Hegelian 
scheme the Absolute asserts its rights to the fullest extent. Hegel declares 
that he would rather deny the existence of the material universe than to 
identify God with it. 

Fichte whose transcendental idealism was originally intended to amplify that of 
Kant, and served as a basis for Schellingâs Nature-philosophy had gone still 
further than Hegel in that direction. Unable to free human will from subjection 
to the iron laws ruling despotically all over physical nature, he denied the 
reality of both nature and law and denounced them as the product of his own 
mindâ(mÃyÃ?). Hence he denied God, for in his philosophy the Deity is not an 
individual being but merely a manifestation of Supreme laws, the necessary and 
logical order of things, the ordo ordinans of the Universe. If we take in 
consideration that by a peculiar modification of language, that which the 
ancients called âSubstance,â modern philosophy terms as the Absolute, or the 
Ego, we will find still more striking similarities between the pantheistical 
mysticism of the ancients and the extreme transcendentalism of today, whether in 
physical or spiritual sciences.