The contrast is only a matter of conceptualization for the purpose of discussion. The mind conceives of forms as if they were unchanging "creations" yet it is change itself that enables them to exist and to be stabilized.
Sir Mojo I note Spookz's extracts repeat what I've been saying. However as you clearly have no intention of ever reconsidering your fixed opinions or of making any attempt whatsoever to understand what I'm saying I'll retire.
Of course you do. You have a goal of proving that Spinoza is incompatible with Buddhism. Your goal is not to understand what I could be talking about, but only to prove it wrong. Otherwise you would have listened to my response to the extracts of the materialist interpretation of Spinoza. Spinoza is notoriously difficult to read and understand. I already mentioned that virtually every interpretation you read of him is flawed. This interpretation is another example. Spookz found a materialist interpretation, which is quite common, and presented it to us. I demonstrated how this interpretation was flawed wrt Buddhism. You seem to have completely ignored my comments and singlemindedly focused on the flawed interpretation as if it were the only possible one. Do you need to be proven right so badly that you will ignore other possibilities? The only way to study Spinoza properly then is to actually read him. It is fascinating to see you close off all possibilities of a possible resonance between Spinozism and Buddhism and to focus only on illusory distinctions. There is no doubt that you can find a way to interpret Spinoza so as not to resonate with Buddhism. That is easy, just read any interpretation of him at random and chances are you will find an incorrect one IMHO. What is more difficult is to understand Spinoza so it resonates with Buddhism. The main problem is that our meanings of words have subtly been changing. Substance now connotes "matter" so as to inherently foster a materialist interpretation. This is a weak interpretation, however, because Spinoza shows that matter, as we know it, is entirely a consequence of modifications to substance or conditioned being. Also he directly says that matter results from an objective view of reality through the attribute of extension. From http://members.tripod.com/~BDSweb/en/107.htm “What is this underlying reality? Spinoza calls it substance, as literally that which stands beneath. Eight generations have fought voluminous battles over the meaning of this term; we must not be discouraged if we fail to resolve the matter in a paragraph. One error we should guard against: substance does not mean the constituent material of anything, as when we speak of wood as the substance of a chair. We approach Spinoza's use of the word when we speak of "the substance of his remarks." If we go back to the Scholastic philosophers from whom Spinoza took the term, we find that they used it as a translation of the Greek ousia, which is the present participle of einai, to be, and indicates the inner being or essence. Substance then is that which is … that which eternally and unchangeably is, and of which everything else must be a transient form or mode. “ … “But further Spinoza identifies substance with nature and God. After the manner of the Scholastics, he conceives nature under a double aspect: as active and vital process, which Spinoza calls natura naturans— nature begetting, the élan vital and creative evolution of Bergson; and as the passive product of this process, natura naturata— nature begotten, the material and contents of nature, its woods and winds and waters, its hills and fields and myriad external forms. It is in the latter sense that he denies, and in the former sense that he affirms, the identity of nature and substance and God.” Here is a page on Spinoza from a Buddhism site. http://www.euronet.nl/~advaya/spinoza.htm Perhaps this has some interpretations which resonate better with Buddhism? and another http://bystander.homestead.com/spinoza.html ... http://www.hackwriters.com/Nirvana.htm ... http://www.susqu.edu/su_press/bookjacketsinfo/Healing the Mind.htm
If there is such a thing as reincarnation I guess we'll get to watch sir mojo and canute argue for ever.
Mojo You continue to think that I'm knocking Spinoza's ideas and thus fail to see what I'm saying. It doesn't matter what Spinoza said. What matters is that a knowledge of Spinoza's ideas (or anyone else's) is in no way equivalent to a knowledge gained though Buddhist practice. Why I can't get this simple point across I don't know. I've never had to argue about it before.
I agree with you, canute, that they are not ABSOLUTELY equivalent. One reason you think I don't agree with you is that you keep equivocating between absolutism and relativism. One minute you say that yes they have many similarities and the next minute you say that they are in no way equivalent. This is contradictory. I have suggested that you abandon your absolutist stance, but you still continue to confuse the matter through jumping to absolute conclusions even though you know that they have similarities. You know that the world of distinction is not absolute so why make absolute distinctions? To say that some condition of being is in no way equivalent to another, will always be wrong, because there is always a deeper level of reality which unifies them. I am not saying that knowledge gained through Spinoza is the EXACT ABSOLUTE equivalent to knowledge gained through Buddhism, but that they are complimentary. This I have actually experienced and shown directly that there are other Buddhists who feel the same way. Furthermore, you speak out of ignorance of knowledge gained through Spinoza's system. You have never experienced what you are claiming to be "in no way equivalent to Buddhism", yet you are convinced of your absolutist stance. Perhaps you still don't see what an absolutist stance really is? BTW, I don't think you are knocking Spinoza's ideas, because you have never even really addressed them properly. You are simply making an assumption out of ignorance that there is some absolute inequivalence between the two systems. Perhaps it is the term "equivalence" that contains the absolute connotations? If so, then yes the two systems are not equivalent, but they do both arrive at the same basic truth, but through different means, thus the experience is inevitably of a different form though it has very many similarities. You have to thread your way between the two absolute opposites to find the truth. This is basic Buddhism. The two opposites in this case are: 1: They are EXACTLY the same (i.e. equivalent). 2: They are ENTIRELY different. Neither of us are saying either of these two things. Do you agree?
I would rather just accept my inability to commicate and leave it there thanks. This isn't going anywhere. I don't even know what you mean by 'experiencing' Spinoza. Bye for now. Canute
Exactly that was my point. Thus your claim for absolute inequivalence is based in ignorance. If you but admit your ignorance in this matter then you can simply say, "hmm that is an interesting possibility for some sort of complimentarity between the two systems of thought". Many other Buddhists who have also experienced Spinoza have felt the same resonance I am trying to communicate. Admitting ignorance when you are ignorant opens the doors of communication and learning. We are ALL ignorant after-all.
You are a perfect example of taking the finger pointing to be the thing pointed at. The aim of buddhism is to have the experience (thing pointed at) of no-self which is totally ineffable. Spinoza has a metaphysical system (pointing finger) with certain similiarities to buddhism. The thing you can't seem to grasp is that the aim of buddhism is to experince directly what spinoza is using words to point at.
Both Spinoza and Buddhism use words to point at the same thing. That is my point. The text of both systems is but the vehicle to the understanding. Both texts require serious meditation to truely understand. I am simply trying to show that the experience of understanding in either system is comparable. Have you experienced understanding through Spinoza? Do you have any ground on which to compare the two?
"Both Spinoza and Buddhism use words to point at the same thing. That is my point." But that is not the point being argued. The point being argued is that any similiarities between buddhism and spinoza are irrelevant in so far as spinoza is a philosopher that used logic to create a philospohical system which has certain similiarities to buddhism. Buddhism, on the other hand, is a set of practices which leads the practitioner to an enlightment experience which logic can not apprehend and words can not describe. The experience in either system is not comparable. Spinoza requires reading and logical analysis, buddhism requires morality and meditation (which can be described a practice of concentration with the aim of eliminating discursive thought, which, it might be added is required to understand spinoza). READING Spinoza is not the same as PRACTICING Buddhism so quit trying to convince yourself it is.
There are many points being argued and as an arguer I know what points I was arguing, thanks. That is a categorical elitism. You think the similarities are irrelevant, but my point is simply that the similarities exist. Spinozism does the same thing without a prescribed set of practices, but the experience is necessarily different to an extent. Logic does not comprehend anything and it is simply a feature of Buddhism that they ended up at a more superficial level with their words. Both systems use words to point beyond the words to the same ultimate reality. EVERYTHING is comparable. Both systems require reading and logical analysis and morality and meditation. Do you really think Buddhism is free of logic? Then burn all your Buddhist books! You don't need logic and it only gets in the way!!! You are correct as that practice is certainly different from Spinoza, but that is not the aspect of Buddhism that concerns me. Again, I never said that the systems were ABSOLUTELY identical. I have repeatedly said that it is NOT the same thing as practicing Buddhism. Try reading more carefully next time. You have made the same mistake that canute keeps making. You are forcing an absolutist interpretation of what I am saying. I keep saying that they have similarities but are NOT identical and both of you keep assuming that I think they are identical. They have OBVIOUS differences which you pointed out.
Grover - good luck. You might like this, which lies behind what you said so clearly. "So long as the idea of personal doership persists together with a self-identification as a seperate entity, apperception of the functioning element is not possible. Whatever is thought and said by such an entity would necessarily be polluted, and therefore cannot have any metaphysical import, significance or relevance." Wu Wu Wei from Ramesh Balsekar.
