A mindful Spinoza?

Spinoza thought he could reach solid answers  to philosophical and religious questions.
He finished his treaties with the letters Q. E. D. - (latin for which concludes the proof).
But that was in a time, when philosophy still was important.  It was so important that he didn't want to publish his last book "the Ethics, it was too dangerous to do it.

He thought that God was abstract and impersonal. And that was very controversial at the 1700-century.
He had  a pantheistic view; God is everything. This can be Illustrated by the animated serie La Linea (also on youtube):


If God is the line, sometimes he is the man above, other times someone else. We are all just different attributes of God - the line..

Of course that means that Spinoza was for democracy and respect for other cultures. But in the 1700-century, this was something like romantic dreams in the blue. And his first published book was banned by the church. Also because the pantheistic view of God.

It's easy to understand that Arne Naess was inspired by Spinoza when he introduced the word Ecosophy for an deep ecological thinking - ecologi dipped in visdom. This thinking has also influenced green parties around the world.


If you compare this with the concept of Buddha-nature, you got something similar, but without a God.
In Thich Nhat Hanh's view - the Buddha inside you, means that you behave like the Buddha.
And then you have to practise mindfulness  - which leads to concentration - which leads to insight - which leads to a mindful life and right view.

And what is right view?

In short; all is one in the (ecological) circle of no birth, no death.... everything changes and manifests in different ways, but never dies.







Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cora Diamond on eating animals - with the help of Wittgenstein´s ideas

Image
Cora Diamond is a new name for me, even if she has worked as a professor in Philosophy in the states for a long time and is still  teaching at the university of Virginia, even she is over 80 years old. She has written a lot about Wittgenstein and that has helped her to express her view of the topic. Although she, like Wittgenstein,  has lived in a hut in Norway - and actually brought Tractatus with hes - she seems to be different and for sure more glad than W. Anyways, its W: s writings that interests her and especially his critics of metaphysics and ethics in philosophy. As it is said in Tractacus  : " Whereof one  cannot speak , thereof one must be silent." And of ethics philosophy should not speak - why? Is it like in Buddhism - its better to sit in silence and let know yourself, than to speculate about what will happen when we die? But for sure there ethical guidelines in Buddhism,  but the behaviors is often named skilful, not good (or bad). Another
Read more

I think, therefore I am NOT

Image
So Descartes was wrong. He said that he could doubt everything about himself except that he was thinking. That proved that he existed. The word "I" is the central point here. What does it mean? Perhaps we are sure that we know the answer. Is it the thoughts? In that case - where are you when you aren't thinking? Is it your job, your title? In that case - what happens if you loose your job or change job? Is it your house, your nation? Under my course to be a mindfulness instructor, the teacher, Ola Schenström, made us ask to each other; "Who are you?" After each answer the question was repeated by the questioner.We soon discovered that there were no end to the answers - or maybe an adequate end could be; "I don't know."Or maybe; "It seems I have no essence." Other thinkers have come to the same conclusions; Buddha, Sartre and more recently Damasio and Parfit. Sartre, for instance, has said that we are the sum of our actions. We ha
Read more

Wittgenstein and Buddha -buddies?

Image
Ludwig Wittgenstein, the famous philosopher, reflected in the posthumously published  book "Philosophical Investigations" about the picture above; Is it a hare or duck?  He meant that we make, or must make, a statement what it is. And I suppose he meant that we often or always has to interpret the world around us. But two different interpretations can both be right! Language and thoughts controls what we see.....   You can compare with the picture of a glass. Half empty or half empty?  Who decides? Yes, it's you... And whatever you say is right.  But you can be aware of what you think. That can say more of yourself than of the glass....  You can be aware of that you always do interpretations of things that happens.  If you have a pessimistic or a naive point of view, you can be aware of the view and your statements.  Buddha and Wittgenstein were both aware of that different persons uses different perspectives.  But Buddha spoke about the "right 
Read more