Spinoza’s Ethics (pantheism)

[Michael Paul]

Spinoza was a European philosopher in the 17th century who was one of the first of his time (in his culture) to propose a pantheistic understanding of God or Nature. His magnum opus, Ethics, directly challenged fundamentalist, traditional Judeo-Christian religion (and all religion in general) and tenets of God being an anthropomorphic being with characteristics of man. 

His understanding of God or Nature was that of an all-encompassing, eternal, infinite substance. He denied humans and even God as having free will, as everything is dictated by causes. 

Is anyone familiar with his work? If so, what are your thoughts on this great philosopher? It is my opinion that he had a certain degree of spiritual enlightenment.

[Leo Gura]

That's all fine and good. But are you conscious that you are God?

It's all too easy to get lost in philosophy while missing the truth which is right under your nose.

No book or philosophy can take you where you ultimately want to go.

[remember]

10 hours ago, Michael Paul said:

Spinoza was a European philosopher in the 17th century who was one of the first of his time (in his culture) to propose a pantheistic understanding of God or Nature. His magnum opus, Ethics, directly challenged fundamentalist, traditional Judeo-Christian religion (and all religion in general) and tenets of God being an anthropomorphic being with characteristics of man. 

His understanding of God or Nature was that of an all-encompassing, eternal, infinite substance. He denied humans and even God as having free will, as everything is dictated by causes. 

Is anyone familiar with his work? If so, what are your thoughts on this great philosopher? It is my opinion that he had a certain degree of spiritual enlightenment.

i didn`t read about how he introduced the word pantheism to the world, making it more tangible - but naming something that already exists makes it easier to grasp. recently i rediscovered spinoza in a different way, as i came to the conclusion that "i think therefore i am" does not really fit anymore for me because to really think i need to think with all senses so i wrote down: "i feel therefore i am" and googled it and there was this cool article (from 2003 quite old already) in the new york times that talks about spinoza already being the first one who introduced the bodymind, mindbody but was a little bit forgotten because of descartes mind theory. it`s cool to discover these things. doesn`t matter if he put that into western language first, it`s discoverable in hindu religion and yoga and in the vedas, by experience every god you want to experience you can learn a lot. real pantheism means that you feel into it. and discover for yourself if it suits you.

i feel therefore i am.

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/19/books/i-feel-therefore-i-am.html

as a side note: be  aware that every theory is exploitable and can be used for the wrong reasons, what makes a weapon out of a pen, is not the pen itself it is the motiv/ation.

Edited November 7, 2019 by remember

[Nak Khid]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

That's all fine and good. But are you conscious that you are God?

It's all too easy to get lost in philosophy while missing the truth which is right under your nose.

No book or philosophy can take you where you ultimately want to go.

If you use the Proto-Germanic word God it has strong connotations of Judeo-Christianity in your country,  a connotation of a type of God which is most commonly considered part a Bible based dualistic paradigm as opposed to other words like Brahman or Dharma which have less dualistic connotation
or words that have no religious connotation at all such as  "The Universe", "Everything" , "Existence",  "The All" (perhaps vaguely religious) .

Why of all these other words would you use the word "God" instead of one of these others?   Is it specifically chosen to inspire a religious-ish reverence or to subvert the Judeo-Christian tradition?

 

 

 

[Leo Gura]

49 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

Why of all these other words would you use the word "God" instead of one of these others?   Is it specifically chosen to inspire a religious-ish reverence or to subvert the Judeo-Christian tradition?

God has nothing to do with human language or human culture or human tradition. Humans are unreal. You are not a human. You are just pretending to be a human.

YOU. ARE. GOD.

There is no other more accurate word for your true nature. "The Universe", "The All", "Existence", etc. are all misleading. You prefer such words because you do not want to admit that you are God. You are looking for a safe word which denies your truest nature.

You cannot understand what God is until you realize you are it. And once you do, you'll understand everything I said and why I said it. And until then, you will not.

You cannot understand what God is without awakening.

"What is God?" << Now that's a great question to contemplate. God cannot be explained to you by anyone because you are God and are the only one. If you do not realize what God is, God will forever remain cut off from itself until the day you die. Your death will be the end of your denial.

[Nak Khid]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

 

YOU. ARE. GOD.

There is no other more accurate word for your true nature. "The Universe", "The All", "Existence", etc. are all misleading. You prefer such words because you do not want to admit that you are God. You are looking for a safe word which denies your truest nature.

 

I ADMIT I AM  GOD

I am God, Hitler is God, Pee Wee Herman is God, a piece of dog crap on the street is God. It's all God

However I more commonly go by the name "EVERYTHING" which is more accurate. 
 
YOU ARE EVERYTHING

There is no other more accurate word for your true nature
although "THE UNIVERSE"  is also pretty good

I only call myself "GOD" when Christians and Jews are around. It has a little more punch to them
(but I have to explain it sometimes, not the dualistic version, not the bearded guy in the clouds, so it can get a little sticky)

[Gili Trawangan]

@Nak Khid Any word might be misleading to others. Everything or the Universe are words that fail to include CONSCIOUSNESS. God is a better word because it is CONSCIOUS (along with other reasons).

[Nak Khid]

5 hours ago, Michael Paul said:

Spinoza was a European philosopher in the 17th century who was one of the first of his time (in his culture) to propose a pantheistic understanding of God or Nature. His magnum opus, Ethics, directly challenged fundamentalist, traditional Judeo-Christian religion (and all religion in general) and tenets of God being an anthropomorphic being with characteristics of man. 

His understanding of God or Nature was that of an all-encompassing, eternal, infinite substance. He denied humans and even God as having free will, as everything is dictated by causes. 

Is anyone familiar with his work? If so, what are your thoughts on this great philosopher? It is my opinion that he had a certain degree of spiritual enlightenment.

QUOTES FROM SPINOZA'S ETHICS

Nothing exists but God

God is one, that is, only one substance can be granted in the universe. [I.14]

Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived. {I.15]

God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things. All things which are, are in God. Besides God there can be no substance, that is, nothing in itself external to God. [I.17]

God is the force preserving things in existence

Although each particular thing be conditioned by another particular thing to exist in a given way, yet the force whereby each particular thing perseveres in existing follows from the eternal necessity of God's nature. [ii.45]

Individual things are expressions of the attributes of God

Individual things are nothing but modifications of the attributes of God, or modes by which the attributes of God are expressed in a fixed and definite manner. [i.25.]

There is no evil

The perfection of things is to be reckoned only from their own nature and power; things are not more or less perfect, according as they delight or offend human senses, or according as they are serviceable or repugnant to mankind. [i. Appendix]

Knowledge of God is the highest good

The intellectual love of the mind towards God is part of the infinite love wherewith God loves himself … The love of God towards men, and the intellectual love of the mind towards God, are identical. [v.36]

The mind's highest good is the knowledge of God, and the mind's highest virtue is to know God. [iv.28]

The human mind has ideas from which it perceives itself and its own body and external bodies as actually existing; therefore it has an adequate knowledge of the eternal and infinite essence of God. [ii.47]

Our highest happiness is in … the knowledge of god … We may thus clearly understand how far astray from a true estimate of virtue are those who expect to be decorated by God with high rewards for their virtue … ; as if virtue and the service of God were not in itself happiness and perfect freedom. [ii.49]

Learning to see God in all things

The mind can bring it about, that all bodily modifications or images of things may be referred to the idea of God. [v.14]

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God. [v.24]

He who clearly and distinctly understands himself and his emotions loves God, and so much the more in proportion as he more understands himself and his emotions. [v.15]

Our mind, in so far as it knows itself and the body under the form of eternity, has to that extent necessarily a knowledge of God, and knows that it is in God, and is conceived through God. [v.30]

Acceptance of destiny

In so far as we understand the causes of pain, to that extent it ceases to be a passion, that is, it ceases to be pain; therefore, in so far as we understand God to be the cause of pain, we to that extent feel pleasure. [v.18]

The wise man … is scarcely at all disturbed in spirit, but, being conscious of himself, and of God, and of things, by a certain eternal necessity, never ceases to be, but always possesses true acquiescence of his spirit. [v.52]

The mind has greater power over the emotions and is less subject thereto, in so far as it understands all things as necessary. Proof: The mind understands all things to be necessary and to be determined to existence and operation by an infinite chain of causes, therefore … it thus far brings it about, that it is less subject to the emotions arising therefrom, and feels less emotion towards the things themselves. [v.6]

Nature does not work with an end in view

Nature does not work with an end in view.For the eternal and infinite Being, which we call God or Nature, acts by the same necessity as that whereby it exists… . Therefore, as he does not exist for the sake of an end, so neither does he act for the sake of an end; of his existence and of his action there is neither origin nor end. [iv. Preface]

God is indifferent to individuals

God is without passions, neither is he affected by any emotion of pleasure or pain . . . Strictly speaking, God does not love anyone. [V.17]

He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return. [V.19]

 

 

 

[Nak Khid]

3 minutes ago, Gili Trawangan said:

@Nak Khid Any word might be misleading to others. Everything or the Universe are words that fail to include CONSCIOUSNESS. God is a better word because it is CONSCIOUS (along with other reasons).

"Everything" or "the Universe" include CONSCIOUSNESS

[Leo Gura]

@Nak Khid You say the word God but you have no idea what is means. It is an empty word for you.

You might as well be talking about space kangaroos. You have a more accurate idea of what a space kangaroo is than what God is.

And yet, you are still God. That's the depth of this problem.

How are you ever going to realize yourself?

[Angelite]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Nak Khid You say the word God but you have no idea what is means. It is an empty word for you.

 

How'd you know? Are you @Nak Khid? 

 

 

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Angelite said:

How'd you know? Are you @Nak Khid?

Actually, I am

[Nak Khid]

32 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Nak Khid You say the word God but you have no idea what is means. It is an empty word for you.

You might as well be talking about space kangaroos. You have a more accurate idea of what a space kangaroo is than what God is.

And yet, you are still God. That's the depth of this problem.

How are you ever going to realize yourself?

It's not empty just common.  It includes kangaroos.
kangaroos are God duct tape is God, jellybeans are God,  fleas are God, air is God etc.
The wold is full of this stuff, not empty. Everything is not empty it's full.

"god" is an English word.  All words are God. So why pick this particular one to be special?
 

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by Nak Khid

[Eph75]

Of course it's just an empty word, all words are empty, they are nothing by themselves, just grunts, you fill it with meaning and it's all subjective. Without YOUR understanding of what YOU include in the word GOD there is no way to determine whether someone else's word GOD is the same.  EXISTENCE, EVERYTHING, ONE, THE SHABANG or whatever word you would choose to insert here can - and in many cases will mean the exact same thing as GOD does for someone else.

Trying to align others with your conceptualization is absolutely unnecessary, enforcing words is trivial, having the similar understanding is enough. Having different understandings is fine too. We're disillusioned all of us regardless of what answers we have found for ourselves, through "insights" or psychedelics or adoption of other peoples concepts. Trolling around this is not helpful. Seems like there's a lot of ego at play. It's what impact our "insights" have on the existence that we experience that matter. The rest is still just "not right".

Edited November 7, 2019 by Eph75

[Nak Khid]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

God has nothing to do with human language or human culture or human tradition. Humans are unreal. You are not a human. You are just pretending to be a human.

YOU. ARE. GOD.

There is no other more accurate word for your true nature. "The Universe", "The All", "Existence", etc. are all misleading. You prefer such words because you do not want to admit that you are God. You are looking for a safe word which denies your truest nature.

You cannot understand what God is until you realize you are it. And once you do, you'll understand everything I said and why I said it. And until then, you will not.

You cannot understand what God is without awakening.

"What is God?" << Now that's a great question to contemplate. God cannot be explained to you by anyone because you are God and are the only one. If you do not realize what God is, God will forever remain cut off from itself until the day you die. Your death will be the end of your denial.

7 minutes ago, Eph75 said:

.  EXISTENCE, EVERYTHING, ONE, THE SHABANG or whatever word you would choose to insert here can - and in many cases will mean the exact same thing as GOD does for someone else.

 

I think most of the world that say they believe in God do not mean it means "everything"

However for those that do, why not use the word "everything" or "consciousness" instead of "God" and with it's capital G has heavy religious connotations.
Why use the word "God" and then have to explain to people you don't mean a separate being that watches over and judges us when if you used another word "nonduality" ,   "everything" ,  "consciousness", "The universe" , "existence"
may not be perfect but do not have the religious baggage attached like the word "God" does? Trying to align others with your conceptualization is absolutely unnecessary, enforcing words is trivial, having the similar understanding is enough.

 

 

 

 

[SpiritualAwakening]

Adonai

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Nak Khid said:

All words are God. So why pick this particular one to be special?

Of course words are arbitrary sounds. That's just how words work. There is nothing special about the letters "God", it's just something we human settled on. I could call it "pineapple" but that would confuse you even more.

The way language works is that we establish a consensus about what difference words point to. Now you're trying to question this consensus and change it around willy-nilly. You can do that, but as soon as you do the entire language structure falls apart and becomes useless. So be careful about being too clever for your own good. Language is a pragmatic tool we use in this work. It can never reach the Absolute but it can point to it. Which is exactly what the word God does. It is a pointer. And it is a damn accurate pointer. Do not assume that this pointer was invented by fools. It was invented by geniuses much wiser than you.

When you actually experience God, you will immediately understand why we call it God and not pineapple.

[remember]

god excludes women

pineapple would probably work better

Edited November 7, 2019 by remember

[Angelite]

Whatever words you're using, there is only one Truth. 

Meaning is what's important. 

When you bastardize a language, you're only deceiving your own people. 

Truth will still be Truth. Whether you're language is bringing others/yourself closer or further away from Truth,

won't change a thing about the Truth. 

Edited November 7, 2019 by Angelite

[Michael Paul]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That's all fine and good. But are you conscious that you are God?

It's all too easy to get lost in philosophy while missing the truth which is right under your nose.

No book or philosophy can take you where you ultimately want to go.

The ultimate truth can be pointed to through language and philosophy, but I agree with you that getting lost in philosophy won’t ultimately lead one to realization. I think it’s good, however, to find people who share common views to you who have a general understanding of how nature works. Even if they’re no longer alive and were from a different time period. Confirmation of knowledge through various sources can prove to be a great way to solidify understanding, in my opinion.