more on previous

   From: "Terry Neff" tneff@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Upanishad (Vedanta)


Hi Ethel and All,

 To view the world through "Jewish", "Christian", "Moslem", "Sufi",
"Hindu", "Buddhist", "Taoists", etc. spectacles is, in terms that
Spinoza used in expressing the Ideas in The Ethics, to merely observe the
operations of our own Imagination as it has been shaped through our senses by our
own particular life experiences and studies. Once Spinoza began to realize
this he could not possibly have thought of his own Essential Nature as being
"Jewish", and it is, after all, our own Essential Nature which he shows
that he is helping us to discover.

 Here are a few things that came to my mind with regard to the
statements you offered:

> Just to add some reality to this.

 If we focus only on the things that our senses and memory present
to us, which is the ordinarily case with nearly everyone, myself included,
then we will think of those things together as "reality". But there is actually
only One Reality according to Spinoza and we know this only to the extent
that we Understand, through Reason or Intuition, not through the confused ideas
of our Imagination. So...

> You do know that Baruch Spinoza had a thorough classical Jewish
> education.  Some of my teachers even think if he had lived around
> 100 BCE he would have been a famous talmudist.

 So did he come out of his human mother's womb and say to himself;
"Let's see, where can I get the best education on this particular planet on
which I find myself being born?" or did he simply receive the education his
parents and the surrounding conditions presented to him and which they (his
parents and those other humans around him) had in turn received and understood
in their own way from those who came before them, etc.? Are the ideas
expressed in The Ethics dependent on, or derived from, "Jewish" ideas or from
simple Ideas common to all people and to all cultures, nations, etc.?

> Can one discuss Spinoza without understanding the role of the
> Talmud Torah (which was dispised by both Constantine and Hitler).

 The ideas expressed in the Ethics remain the same even without
knowing who wrote it and what the author's background was. In a similar manner
one needs to know nothing about Euclid and his background or life in order
to follow and understand the Ideas expressed in The Elements of Geometry.
Spinoza wrote (pay particular attention to the last sentence):

======== TPT07-P48:
...Euclid, who only wrote of matters very simple and easily understood,
can easily be comprehended by anyone in any language; we can follow his
intention perfectly, and be certain of his true meaning, without having
a thorough knowledge of the language in which he wrote; in fact, a quite
rudimentary acquaintance is sufficient. We need make no researches
concerning the life, the pursuits, or the habits of the author; nor
need we inquire in what language, nor when he wrote, nor the vicissitudes of
his book, nor its various readings, nor how, nor by whose advice it has been
received....
========

 Attempting to study the order and connection of Spinoza's
particular life experiences as they were affected by the conditions around him has
nothing to do with the Ideas expressed in the Ethics. The subject
matter and the Ideas expressed in the Ethics remain the same even if the author
had been unknown and the book had been left on the doorstep of a library or
some such.

> Also, in 8/2002 Israel embraced Spinoza by publishing a philosopher's
> stamp saying he was one of the Isralites greatest philosopbers ahead
> of his time.  Also he might have been beyond his time:)

 I do not see what this has to do with understanding the Ideas
Spinoza expressed in the Ethics. The fact that some particular group of folks
condemned Spinoza or hailed him as though he were "God" is irrelevant
to the Ideas he expressed.

> You realize that the curve in global knowledge follows the frequency
> wave and sometimes dips below "zero" IOW goes into a minus
> direction :)

 I realize that Spinoza himself shows that:

======== E2: PROP. 41:
Knowledge of the first kind [Imagination] is the only source of falsity,
knowledge of the second [Reason] and third [Intuition] kinds is necessarily
true.
========

and...

======== E2: PROP. 44, Corollary 2:
--It is in the nature of reason to perceive things under a certain form
of eternity.

Proof.--It is in the nature of reason to regard things, not as contingent,
but as necessary (E2P44). Reason perceives this necessity of things
(E2P41) truly--that is (E1A6), as it is in itself. But (E1P16) this necessity
of things is the very necessity of the eternal nature of God; therefore,
it is in the nature of reason to regard things under this form of eternity.
We may add that the bases of reason are the notions (E2P38), which answer to
things common to all, and which (E2P37) do not answer to the essence of any
particular thing: which must therefore be conceived without any relation to
time, under a certain form of eternity.
========

 Look in particular at the proof he offers above and then think about
what it is that you are referring to as "global knowledge". Is such "global knowledge"
of the First, Second, or Third Kind? (Hint: It can't be the
Second or Third kind if it varies over time which itself belongs to the First kind.)

> So perhaps you should be comparing the Talmud Torah with Indian philosophy. -

 Or perhaps we might begin to Understand the difference between our own
Imagination and Intellect or Understanding, and begin to see that all these various
writings and philosophies are only particular treasure maps to
what their authors thought of as a treasure and which they apparently wanted to
share with their readers. The Actual Treasure itself is not found in or
changed by any particular map, even though some different maps may
refer to the same Actual Treasure. So, comparing one map with another as an
exercise in itself, apart from searching for the Actual Treasure, is of no real
value useless perhaps it leads one to realize that these are only maps, not
the treasure. And to insist that only one map is the true map is
meaningless once one begins to uncover the Actual Treasure within their own Being.

 Anyway, Hans seems to me to have expressed a useful way of thinking about
Spinoza the man when he wrote:
Spinoza was a Buddhist, a Talmudist, a Cabbalist  why not a Sufi (if he had lived in
Baghdad in 1000 "AD"), a shaman 1000 BC, some kind of healer or self-management
guru today?

 Best Regards,
     Terry