영성, 몸-마음, 젠더, 생태, 평화 Scapbook

2021/03/03

The Universal Christ: How a Forgotten Reality Can Change Everything We See, Hope For and Believe - Kindle edition by Rohr, Richard. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

The Universal Christ: How a Forgotten Reality Can Change Everything We See, Hope For and Believe by [Richard Rohr]

Follow the Author

Richard Rohr

'I cannot put this book down'– Bono

In his decades as a globally recognized teacher, Richard Rohr has helped millions realize what is at stake in matters of faith and spirituality. Yet Rohr has never written on the most perennially talked about topic in Christianity: Jesus. Most know who Jesus was, but who was Christ? Is the word simply Jesus’ last name? Too often, Rohr writes, our understanding has been limited by culture, religious squabbling, and the human tendency to put ourselves at the centre.

Drawing on scripture, history and spiritual practice, Rohr articulates a transformative view of Jesus Christ as a portrait of God’s constant, unfolding work in the world. ‘God loves things by becoming them,' he writes, and Jesus’ life was meant to declare that humanity has never been separate from God – except by its own negative choice. When we recover this fundamental truth, faith becomes less about proving Jesus was God, and more about learning to recognize the Creator’s presence all around us and in everyone we meet.

Thought-provoking, practical and full of deep hope and vision, The Universal Christ is a landmark book from one of our most beloved spiritual writers, and an invitation to contemplate how God liberates and loves all that is.

Read less

Print length

274 pages

Language

English

Publisher

SPCK

Customers who viewed this item also viewedPage 1 of 3Page 1 of 3

The Wisdom Pattern: Order, Chaos, Reorder

Richard RohrRichard Rohr

4.8 out of 5 stars 374

Kindle Edition

1 offer from $8.49

Falling Upward: A Spirituality for the Two Halves of Life

Richard RohrRichard Rohr

4.6 out of 5 stars 2,364

Kindle Edition

1 offer from $12.00

Yes, and...: Daily Meditations

Richard RohrRichard Rohr

4.6 out of 5 stars 560

Kindle Edition

1 offer from $8.49

What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?

The Wisdom Pattern: Order, Chaos, Reorder

Richard RohrRichard Rohr

4.8 out of 5 stars 374

Kindle Edition

1 offer from $8.49

Falling Upward: A Spirituality for the Two Halves of Life

Richard RohrRichard Rohr

4.6 out of 5 stars 2,364

Kindle Edition

1 offer from $12.00

Amazon Business : For business-only pricing, quantity discounts and FREE Shipping. Register a free business account

Editorial Reviews

Review

“Fr. Richard challenges us to search beneath the surface of our faith and see what is sacred in everyone and everything. Anyone who strives to put their faith into action will find encouragement and inspiration in the pages of this book.”

-Melinda Gates, author of The Moment of Lift

"Rohr sees the Christ everywhere, and not just in people. He reminds us that the first incarnation of God is in Creation itself, and he tells us that 'God loves things by becoming them.' Just for that sentence, and there are so many more, I cannot put this book down."

-Bono

“Here Fr. Richard helps us to see and hear Jesus of Nazareth in what he taught, what he did and who he is—the loving, liberating and life giving expression and presence of God. In so doing he is helping Christianity to reclaim its soul anew.”

-Michael Curry, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in America

"A major shift in our culture is needed, and Richard Rohr's unpacking of The Universal Christ is a critical step in the right direction. Remembering our connection to "every thing" has implications for our religious traditions, society—and dare I say it—even our politics."

-Kirsten Powers, CNN political analyst and USA Today columnist

"[Rohr] invitingly asks Christian readers to bring together their thinking about Jesus (the historical person) and Christ (the savior) in order to recognize God in the world around them . . . Rohr’s innovative reflections will inspire believing readers to think deeply about the nature of God."

-Publishers Weekly

“Anyone who has made a confession of faith in Jesus Christ should read this book to grasp more fully the vast and startling implications of this belief. This is Richard Rohr at his best, providing an overall summation of his theological insights that have been life-changing for so many.”

-Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, General Secretary emeritus of the Reformed Church in America

"Here, Christianity finds its root and its destiny in all things, in all matter, in all creation. and here, we find our connection to universal belonging, to universal trust, and to universal love. This book will change religion and make it tender and gentle and transformational."

-Timothy Shriver, Chairman of the Special Olympics --This text refers to an alternate kindle_edition edition.

Christ Is Not Jesus’s Last Name

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

—Genesis 1:1–3

Across the thirty thousand or so varieties of Christianity, believers love Jesus and (at least in theory) seem to have no trouble accepting his full humanity and his full divinity. Many express a personal relationship with Jesus--perhaps a flash of inspiration of his intimate presence in their lives, perhaps a fear of his judgment or wrath. Others trust in his compassion, and often see him as a justification for their worldviews and politics. But how might the notion of Christ change the whole equation? Is Christ simply Jesus’s last name? Or is it a revealing title that deserves our full attention? How is Christ’s function or role different from Jesus’s? What does Scripture mean when Peter says in his very first address to the crowds after Pentecost that “God has made this Jesus . . . both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36)? Weren’t they always one and the same, starting at Jesus’s birth?

To answer these questions, we must go back and ask, What was God up to in those first moments of creation? Was God totally invisible before the universe began? Or is there even such a thing as “before”? Why did God create at all? What was God’s purpose in creating? Is the universe itself eternal? Or is the universe a creation in time as we know it--like Jesus himself?

Let’s admit that we will probably never know the “how” or even the “when” of creation. But the question that religion tries to answer is mostly the “why.” Is there any evidence for why God created the heavens and the earth? What was God up to? Was there any divine intention or goal? Or do we even need a creator “God” to explain the universe?

Most of the perennial traditions have offered explanations, and they usually go something like this: Everything that exists in material form is the offspring of some Primal Source, which originally existed only as Spirit. This Infinite Primal Source somehow poured itself into finite, visible forms, creating everything from rocks to water, plants, organisms, animals, and human beings--everything that we see with our eyes. This self-disclosure of whomever you call God into physical creation was the first Incarnation (the general term for any enfleshment of spirit), long before the personal, second Incarnation that Christians believe happened with Jesus. To put this idea in Franciscan language, creation is the First Bible, and it existed for 13.7 billion years before the second Bible was written.*

When Christians hear the word “incarnation,” most of us think about the birth of Jesus, who personally demonstrated God’s radical unity with humanity. But in this book, I want to suggest that the first incarnation was the moment described in Genesis 1, when God joined in unity with the physical universe and became the light inside of everything. (This, I believe, is why light is the subject of the first day of creation, and its speed is now recognized as the one universal constant.) The incarnation, then, is not only “God becoming Jesus.” It is a much broader event, which is why John first describes God’s presence in the general word “flesh” (John 1:14). John is speaking of the ubiquitous Christ that Caryll Houselander so vividly encountered, the Christ that the rest of us continue to encounter in other human beings, a mountain, a blade of grass, or a starling.

Everything visible, without exception, is the outpouring of God. What else could it really be? “Christ” is a word for the Primordial Template (“Logos”) through whom “all things came into being, and not one thing had its being except through him” (John 1:3). Seeing in this way has reframed, reenergized, and broadened my own religious belief, and I believe it could be Christianity’s unique contribution among the world religions.*

If you can overlook how John uses a masculine pronoun to describe something that is clearly beyond gender, you can see that he is giving us a sacred cosmology in his Prologue (1:1–18), and not just a theology. Long before Jesus’s personal incarnation, Christ was deeply embedded in all things--as all things! The first lines of the Bible say that “the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters,” or the “formless void,” and immediately the material universe became fully visible in its depths and meaning (Genesis 1:1ff.). Time, of course, has no meaning at this point. The Christ Mystery is the New Testament’s attempt to name this visibility or see-ability that occurred on the first day.

Remember, light is not so much what you directly see as that by which you see everything else. This is why in John’s Gospel, Jesus Christ makes the almost boastful statement “I am the Light of the world” (John 8:12). Jesus Christ is the amalgam of matter and spirit put together in one place, so we ourselves can put it together in all places, and enjoy things in their fullness. It can even enable us to see as God sees, if that is not expecting too much.

Scientists have discovered that what looks like darkness to the human eye is actually filled with tiny particles called “neutrinos,” slivers of light that pass through the entire universe. Apparently there is no such thing as total darkness anywhere, even though the human eye thinks there is. John’s Gospel was more accurate than we realized when it described Christ as “a light that darkness cannot overcome” (1:5). Knowing that the inner light of things cannot be eliminated or destroyed is deeply hopeful. And as if that is not enough, John’s choice of an active verb (“The true light . . . was coming into the world,” 1:9) shows us that the Christ Mystery is not a one-time event, but an ongoing process throughout time--as constant as the light that fills the universe. And “God saw that light was good” (Genesis 1:3). Hold on to that!

But the symbolism deepens and tightens. Christians believe that this universal presence was later “born of a woman under the law” (Galatians 4:4) in a moment of chronological time. This is the great Christian leap of faith, which not everyone is willing to make. We daringly believe that God’s presence was poured into a single human being, so that humanity and divinity can be seen to be operating as one in him--and therefore in us! But instead of saying that God came into the world through Jesus, maybe it would be better to say that Jesus came out of an already Christ-soaked world. The second incarnation flowed out of the first, out of God’s loving union with physical creation. If that still sounds strange to you, just trust me for a bit. I promise you it will only deepen and broaden your faith in both Jesus and the Christ. This is an important reframing of who God might be and what such a God is doing, and a God we might need if we want to find a better response to the questions that opened this chapter.

My point is this: When I know that the world around me is both the hiding place and the revelation of God, I can no longer make a significant distinction between the natural and the supernatural, between the holy and the profane. (A divine “voice” makes this exactly clear to a very resistant Peter in Acts 10.) Everything I see and know is indeed one “uni-verse,” revolving around one coherent center. This Divine Presence seeks connection and communion, not separation or division--except for the sake of an even deeper future union.

What a difference this makes in the way I walk through the world, in how I encounter every person I see in the course of my day! It is as though everything that seemed disappointing and “fallen,” all the major pushbacks against the flow of history, can now be seen as one whole movement, still enchanted and made use of by God’s love. All of it must somehow be usable and filled with potency, even the things that appear as betrayals or crucifixions. Why else and how else could we love this world? Nothing, and no one, needs to be excluded.

The kind of wholeness I’m describing is something that our postmodern world no longer enjoys, and even vigorously denies. I always wonder why, after the triumph of rationalism in the Enlightenment, we would prefer such incoherence. I thought we had agreed that coherence, pattern, and some final meaning were good. But intellectuals in the last century have denied the existence and power of such great wholeness--and in Christianity, we have made the mistake of limiting the Creator’s presence to just one human manifestation, Jesus. The implications of our very selective seeing have been massively destructive for history and humanity. Creation was deemed profane, a pretty accident, a mere backdrop for the real drama of God’s concern--which is always and only us. (Or, even more troublesome, him!) It is impossible to make individuals feel sacred inside of a profane, empty, or accidental universe. This way of seeing makes us feel separate and competitive, striving to be superior instead of deeply connected, seeking ever-larger circles of union.

But God loves things by becoming them.

God loves things by uniting with them, not by excluding them.

Through the act of creation, God manifested the eternally outflowing Divine Presence into the physical and material world.* Ordinary matter is the hiding place for Spirit, and thus the very Body of God. Honestly, what else could it be, if we believe--as orthodox Jews, Christians, and Muslims do--that “one God created all things”? Since the very beginning of time, God’s Spirit has been revealing its glory and goodness through the physical creation. So many of the Psalms already assert this, speaking of “rivers clapping their hands” and “mountains singing for joy.” When Paul wrote, “There is only Christ. He is everything and he is in everything” (Colossians 3:11), was he a naïve pantheist, or did he really understand the full implication of the Gospel of Incarnation?

God seems to have chosen to manifest the invisible in what we call the “visible,” so that all things visible are the revelation of God’s endlessly diffusive spiritual energy. Once a person recognizes that, it is hard to ever be lonely in this world again.

A Universal and Personal God

Numerous Scriptures make it very clear that this Christ has existed “from the beginning” (John 1:1–18, Colossians 1:15–20, and Ephesians 1:3–14 being primary sources), so the Christ cannot be coterminous with Jesus. But by attaching the word “Christ” to Jesus as if it were his last name, instead of a means by which God’s presence has enchanted all matter throughout all of history, Christians got pretty sloppy in their thinking. Our faith became a competitive theology with various parochial theories of salvation, instead of a universal cosmology inside of which all can live with an inherent dignity.

Right now, perhaps more than ever, we need a God as big as the still-expanding universe, or educated people will continue to think of God as a mere add-on to a world that is already awesome, beautiful, and worthy of praise in itself. If Jesus is not also presented as Christ, I predict more and more people will not so much actively rebel against Christianity as just gradually lose interest in it. Many research scientists, biologists, and social workers have honored the Christ Mystery without needing any specific Jesus language at all. The Divine has never seemed very worried about us getting his or her exact name right (see Exodus 3:14). As Jesus himself says, “Do not believe those who say ‘Lord, Lord’ ” (Matthew 7:21, Luke 6:46, italics added). He says it is those who “do it right” that matter, not those who “say it right.” Yet verbal orthodoxy has been Christianity’s preoccupation, at times even allowing us to burn people at the stake for not “saying it right.”

This is what happens when we focus solely on an exclusive Jesus, on having a “personal relationship” with him, and on what he can do to save you and me from some eternal, fiery torment. For the first two thousand years of Christianity, we framed our faith in terms of a problem and a threat. But if you believe Jesus’s main purpose is to provide a means of personal, individual salvation, it is all too easy to think that he doesn’t have anything to do with human history--with war or injustice, or destruction of nature, or anything that contradicts our egos’ desires or our cultural biases. We ended up spreading our national cultures under the rubric of Jesus, instead of a universally liberating message under the name of Christ.

Without a sense of the inherent sacredness of the world--of every tiny bit of life and death--we struggle to see God in our own reality, let alone to respect reality, protect it, or love it. The consequences of this ignorance are all around us, seen in the way we have exploited and damaged our fellow human beings, the dear animals, the web of growing things, the land, the waters, and the very air. It took until the twenty-first century for a Pope to clearly say this, in Pope Francis’s prophetic document Laudato Si. May it not be too late, and may the unnecessary gap between practical seeing (science) and holistic seeing (religion) be fully overcome. They still need each other.

What I am calling in this book an incarnational worldview is the profound recognition of the presence of the divine in literally “every thing” and “every one.” It is the key to mental and spiritual health, as well as to a kind of basic contentment and happiness. An incarnational worldview is the only way we can reconcile our inner worlds with the outer one, unity with diversity, physical with spiritual, individual with corporate, and divine with human.

*Romans 1:20 says the same, in case you’re wondering how this self-critique shows up in the Bible itself.

*This is why the title for part one of this book says “Every Thing,” instead of “Everything,” because I believe the Christ Mystery specifically applies to thingness, materiality, physicality. I do not think of concepts and ideas as Christ. They might well communicate the Christ Mystery, as I will try to do here, but “Christ” for me refers to ideas that have specifically “become flesh” (John 1:14). You are surely free to disagree with me on that, but at least you know where I am coming from in my use of the word “Christ” in this book.

*See both Romans 8:19ff. and 1 Corinthians 11:17ff., where Paul makes his expansive notion of incarnation clear, and for me compelling. Most of us just never heard it that way.

--This text refers to an alternate kindle_edition edition.

Product details

ASIN : B07NPGJ2NB

Publisher : SPCK (March 5, 2019)

Publication date : March 5, 2019

Language : English

File size : 408 KB

Text-to-Speech : Enabled

Enhanced typesetting : Enabled

X-Ray : Enabled

Word Wise : Enabled

Print length : 274 pages

Lending : Not Enabled

Best Sellers Rank: #289,498 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)

#2,070 in Christian Theology (Kindle Store)

#2,113 in Christian Spiritual Growth (Kindle Store)

#3,830 in Religion & Spirituality (Kindle Store)

Customer Reviews: 4.7 out of 5 stars 2,402 ratings

Videos

Help others learn more about this product by uploading a video!

Upload video

More about the author

› Visit Amazon's Richard Rohr Page

Richard Rohr

Biography

Fr. Richard Rohr is a globally recognized ecumenical teacher bearing witness to the universal awakening within Christian mysticism and the Perennial Tradition. He is a Franciscan priest of the New Mexico Province and founder of the Center for Action and Contemplation (www.cac.org) in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where he also serves as Academic Dean of the Living School for Action and Contemplation. Fr. Richard's teaching is grounded in the Franciscan alternative orthodoxy--practices of contemplation and self-emptying, expressing itself in radical compassion, particularly for the socially marginalized.

Fr. Richard is author of numerous books, including Everything Belongs, Adam's Return, The Naked Now, Breathing Under Water, Falling Upward, Immortal Diamond, and Eager to Love.

He has been a featured essayist on NPR's "This I Believe," a guest of Mehmet Oz on the Oprah and Friends radio show, and a guest of Oprah Winfrey on Super Soul Sunday. Fr. Richard was one of several spiritual leaders featured in the 2006 documentary film ONE: The Movie and was included in Watkins' Spiritual 100 List for 2013. He has given presentations with spiritual leaders such as Rob Bell, Cynthia Bourgeault, Joan Chittister, Shane Claiborne, James Finley, Laurence Freeman, Thomas Keating, Ronald Rolheiser, Jim Wallis, and the Dalai Lama.

How would you rate your experience shopping for books on Amazon today

Very poor Neutral Great

Customer reviews

4.7 out of 5 stars

4.7 out of 5

2,402 global ratings

5 star

83%

4 star

11%

3 star

2 star

1 star

How are ratings calculated?

Review this product

Share your thoughts with other customers

Write a customer review

열 살 차이 오빠의 성추행 덮어준 부모가 원망스러워요

오은영의 화해

열 살 차이 오빠의 성추행 덮어준 부모가 원망스러워요

입력 2021.03.01 04:30

140 3

편집자주

‘오은영의 화해’는 정신건강의학과 전문의인 오은영 박사가 <한국일보>와 함께 진행하는 정신 상담 코너입니다

일러스트=박구원 기자

제겐 어릴 적 잊기 힘든 상처가 있습니다. 저는 일곱살 때 열살 차이인 오빠에게 성추행을 당했습니다. 당시에는 어려서 몰랐지만 학교에 들어가 성교육을 받고 제가 당한 일이 무엇인지 알게 된 후 수치스러워 죽고 싶었습니다. 혼자 힘들어하다 고등학생 때 그 사실을 부모님께 알렸습니다. 하지만 아버지는 아무 말씀도 하지 않으셨고, 어머니는 제 손을 잡고 “오빠니까 네가 한번만 이해해주면 안 되겠냐”고 저를 설득하셨어요. 두 분은 제게 힘들지 않았는지, 괜찮은지는 묻지 않으셨어요. 그때 제 안에서 뭔가 끊어진 것 같은 기분이 들었고, 아무도 제게 용서를 구하지 않았지만 저는 오빠를 용서해야 했어요.

제 가족들의 관계는 겉으로는 좋아 보이지만 속은 곪아 있습니다. 제가 태어날 무렵 집안 형편이 급격하게 안 좋아졌습니다. 가난한 형편에 부모님 두 분의 사이는 안 좋았고, 제 유년시절은 가족들에게 폭언과 폭력을 일삼는 아버지와 어머니를 때리는 아버지를 막는 기억뿐입니다. 평상시에는 괜찮다가도 술만 마시면 아버지는 난폭해졌습니다. 아버지에게는 저항하지 못하고, 오빠에게도 아무런 말도 하지 않으면서 어머니는 기분이 안 좋거나 화가 날 때면 늘 저에게 화풀이를 했습니다. 그런 어머니가 원망스럽고 배신감이 들면서도 한편으론 안쓰럽고 불쌍했어요.

그렇게 상처가 아물지 않은 채 성인이 됐습니다. 한 집에 살지만 오빠와는 되도록 피하고, 부모님과는 그래도 잘 지내는 편이었습니다. 하지만 몇 달 전 오빠에게 있던 1,000만원 가량의 빚을 어머니가 갚아준 사실을 알게 됐습니다. 그 당시에 저는 하고 싶었던 공부가 있었는데, 몇십만원이 부족한 상황이었어요. 어머니에게 금방 갚을 테니 빌려달라고 부탁했습니다. 그러자 어머니는 제게 “부모한테 용돈은 못 줄 망정 돈을 달라고 하냐”며 화를 내셨어요. 저도 좀 미안해서 공부를 잠시 미루고 돈부터 벌어야겠다고 생각했어요. 그런데 오빠의 빚을 대신 갚아준 사실을 알고 너무 화가 났습니다. 정말 집을 다 뒤집어버리고, 가족들을 다 죽여버리고 싶다는 생각마저 났어요. 어릴 적 오빠의 성추행을 용서하라는 어머니의 말까지 생각나면서 부모님이 자꾸 원망스러워졌어요. 그 동안은 어머니 혼자 남기고 저만 도망가는 것 같아 죄책감이 들었지만, 이 일 이후로 집을 나가야겠단 생각이 들었어요.

이런 식으로 집에서 저에게 불이익이 오는 일이 터지면 그때 일이 자꾸만 생각나서 모두가 원망스럽고, 그런 제 모습에 스스로도 당황스럽습니다. 그리고 부모님이 원망스러울 때마다 제가 못된 딸이고, 죄를 짓는 것 같아서 괴롭습니다. 제가 어떻게 해야 할까요.

이지선(가명ㆍ25ㆍ동물병원 간호사)

지선씨, 성추행과 성폭행은 몇살에 겪었든 한 사람의 존엄성과 정체성을 훼손하는 매우 중대한 범죄입니다. 피해자는 한 사람의 영혼이 말살되는 것에 비견될 정도의 엄청난 트라우마를 겪습니다. 특히 서로 보호하고 도와줘야 할 가족에게 당했을 때는 헤어나오기 힘든 상처가 됩니다. 그렇기 때문에 어떤 이유에서도 설명할 수 없는 명백한 범죄이고, 당연히 처벌을 받아야 합니다. 그래서 저는 그 사건보다 그 사건 이후의 당신의 성장 과정을 살펴보고, 당신의 마음을 따라가보려고 해요. 그래야 당신에게 조금이나마 도움을 줄 수 있을 것 같아요.

어린 나이였다 해도 오빠가 성추행한 사실을 알았을 때 당신은 얼마나 고통스럽고 힘들었을까요. 당장 경찰에 신고해서 처벌받게 하고 싶은 마음이 왜 없었겠습니까. 하지만 가족이기 때문에 어린 당신은 부모에게 도움을 요청했어요. 당시에 부모에게 사실을 알린 것은 ‘오빠를 감옥에 보내달라’는 얘기는 아니었을 거예요. 오빠가 했던 행동이 정말 나쁜 짓이라는 분명한 선언과 충분하지 않더라도 가족 내에서 합당한 처벌과 사과, 그리고 보호와 위로를 원해서 그랬을 겁니다. 그런데 지선씨의 부모는 ‘네가 한번 참아라’라고 너무 쉽게 덮어버렸죠. 부모님도 놀라고 당황스럽고 마음이 힘드셨겠죠. 그러나 당신이 받은 끔찍한 고통에 비해 부모의 대응이 너무 가볍고 미숙했습니다.

오빠의 성추행과 그 이후 부모의 반응을 통해 지선씨는 가족의 고려 대상에서 당신이 우선 순위가 아니라는 생각이 들었을 거예요. 아버지가 오빠를 처벌하지 않았다면, 어머니라도 따뜻하게 당신을 감싸주었어야 했는데, 가족 중 그 누구도 당신을 보호하고 고려하지 않았어요. 그리고 당신을 무력하게 만들었을 거예요. 사건 당시 당신은 너무 어렸고, 넘어갈 만한 사안이어서 그런 게 아니라 가족이어서 어쩔 수 없이 넘어가버렸죠. 당신이 넘길 수밖에 없었던 것은 용서해서도 아니고, 가족이 애틋해서 그런 것도 아니었습니다. 당신이 할 수 있는 게 아무것도 없다고 느꼈기 때문이었을 거예요. 그렇게 세월이 흘러버렸어요.

게티이미지뱅크

사건 이후로도 당신의 삶은 스스로가 어떻게 할 수 없는 무력한 상황의 연속이었어요. 집안 형편이 그랬고, 아버지가 술을 마시는 것도, 술을 마시고 어머니를 폭행했을 때도, 그런 어머니가 당신을 화풀이 대상으로 삼았을 때도 당신 입장에서는 할 수 있는 게 하나도 없었을 거예요. 당신이 스스로 보호하기 위해서 할 수 있었던 것은 숨 한번 제대로 못 쉰 채 그 집에서 살아내는 일뿐이었을 겁니다. 그런 상황들 때문에 당신은 당신의 성장 과정에서 중요한 순간에 단 한번도 마음 편하게 스스로 일을 결정하고, 처리하고, 해결한 경험이 없었던 것 같아요.

그런 경험이 부족했기 때문에 몸은 성인이 됐지만 나이에 맞게 스스로 헤쳐 나갈 수 있는 내면의 힘을 충분히 기르지 못했던 것 같아요. 어떤 사람들은 ‘아니 그렇게 취급하는 가족에게서 따로 떨어져서 살지, 왜 그렇게 같이 살아’라고 말할지 모릅니다. 당신도 독립을 전혀 고려하지 않은 건 아닐 거예요. 다만 그걸 할 수 있는 내면의 힘이 부족했을 겁니다.

그리고 부모에 대한 연민, 당신 혼자만 살 길을 찾는 데 대한 어머니에게 미안한 마음이 당신의 발목을 잡았을 거예요. 저는 당신이 굉장히 따뜻하고 심성이 착한 사람이라는 생각이 들어요. 당신을 배려하지 않은 어머니에 대해 연민을 느끼는 점도 그렇고, 동물을 돌보는 일도 당신의 그런 면면들을 잘 설명해주는 것 같아요. 물론 성장 과정에서 스스로 가족을 떠날 내면의 힘도 없었겠지만, 이타심이 많고 따뜻한 당신의 성향을 고려해봤을 때, 당신이 쉽게 가족으로부터 떨어져 나오기도 힘들었을 것 같아요.

게티이미지뱅크

하지만 몇 달 전 어머니가 오빠에겐 거액의 빚을 갚아주면서, 당신에게는 몇십만원도 빌려주지 않은 게 당신 안의 억눌러져 있던 분노를 폭발시킨 도화선이 됐던 것 같아요. 차라리 가정 형편이 너무 어려워서 오빠나 지선씨 둘 다 도와주지 못했다면 당신은 부모를 이해했을 거예요. 그런데 경제적 여력이 있었는데도 불구하고, 동생에게 못된 짓을 한 아들을 돕느라 딸의 교육비 몇십만원도 지원해주지 않았어요. 그 사실을 알았을 때 당신은 엄청난 배신감과 부모로부터 다시 버려진 느낌이 들었을 거예요. 오랜 시간 감당할 수 없어서 억압하고 억제해 왔던 절망감과 살인 충동을 느낄 정도의 강한 분노가 이 일을 계기로 다시 활성화된 거지요. 경제적으로 빠듯한 상황에서 동생을 성추행한 아들에게 빚을 갚아주면서도 피해자인 딸에게는 조금의 지원과 도움도 주지 않는 상황, 지선씨가 우선 순위에서 중요하게 고려되지 않는 상황을 어떻게 받아들일 수 있겠습니까. 가족 내에서 중요한 결정을 할 때마다 언제나 가장 소중한 대상으로 고려되지 않는다는 것을 다시 한 번 느끼면서 무력감과 절망감이 밀려들었겠지요.

성추행 당시, 형법으로 처벌을 받게 하지 못했더라도 가정 내에서 나름대로 아들에 대해 단죄하고 아들을 무릎 꿇려 용서를 구하게 했더라면 지선씨가 그 일에 그렇게 분노하지 않았을 겁니다. 하지만 그런 과정들이 쏙 빠졌고, 그냥 너무나 가볍게 넘어가버렸기 때문에 그 동안 당신이 꾹꾹 누르고 있던 분노가 한번에 터져버릴 수밖에 없었을 거예요. 당신이 느꼈을 가족에 대한 적개심과 분노는 의식으로 떠오르면 감당을 할 수 없기 때문에 마치 수면 아래 깊숙이 있는 거대한 빙산처럼 가라앉혀 놓았던 거지요. 그 동안은 수면 아래로 분노를 억압해놓고, 가족에 대한 연민으로 그 빙산의 밑면을 감추고 있었을 거예요. 하지만 그 사건을 계기로 수면 아래에 있던 분노가 수면 위로 떠오르면서 당신 스스로도 ‘아, 이제 더 이상 버티기 어렵겠구나’라는 생각이 들면서 독립을 진지하게 고려하게 됐을 겁니다.

저는 그런 당신의 분노를 심정적으로 깊이 이해합니다. 이제 정말 가족과 분리할 때가 온 거예요. 더 이상 수면 아래에 있는 거대한 분노를 억누르는 것으로는 버틸 수 없어요. 진즉 떠났어야 했지만 그 동안은 내면의 힘이 약했고, 당신 스스로 결단해서 살아본 경험이 없었기 때문에 힘들었겠지요. 하지만 이번 사건이 당신이 가족에게 미안해하지 않고 떠날 수 있는 계기가 돼줄 거라고 저는 생각해요. 앞서 떠났다면 그럴 필요가 전혀 없는데도 불구하고 미안함과 죄책감이 당신을 계속 괴롭혔을 겁니다.

게티이미지뱅크

가족에 대한 연민이나 사랑이 조금이라도 남아있을 때 독립을 하는 게 좋을 것 같아요. 오빠를 평생 미워해도 괜찮습니다. 부모에 대한 원망이 드는 마음도 자책하지 마세요. 저는 당신에게 독립해서 당신만 생각하고 살아도 된다는 얘기를 꼭 해주고 싶어요. 누구의 딸, 누구의 여동생이 아니라 인간 고유한 존재로서 당신 마음 안의 횃불을 절대로 끄지 말고, 호호 불면서 당신이 원하는 삶을 살아가면 좋겠습니다. 어떤 누구도, 심지어 저마저도 당신에게 이래라 저래라 할 수 없어요. 저는 당신이 겪었던 아픔을 누구보다 공감하고, 당신의 삶을 따뜻하게 지지할 겁니다.

정리=강지원 기자 stylo@hankookilbo.com

※해결되지 않는 내면의 고통 때문에 힘겨운 분이라면 누구든 상담을 신청해 보세요. 상담신청서를 작성하신 후 이메일(advice@hankookilbo.com)로 보내주시면 됩니다. 선정되신 분의 사연과 상담 내용은 한국일보에 소개됩니다. ▶상담신청서 내려받기

133

7 공유 기사저장 댓글 쓰기

SPINOZA AND BUDDHA. By S. M. Melamed. 382 pp. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. $3. - The New York Times

SPINOZA AND BUDDHA. By S. M. Melamed. 382 pp. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. $3.

By Odell Shepard
July 8, 1934

Credit...The New York Times Archives
See the article in its original context from
July 8, 1934, Section BR, Page 17Buy Reprints
New York Times subscribers* enjoy full access to TimesMachine—view over 150 years of New York Times journalism, as it originally appeared.
SUBSCRIBE
*Does not include Crossword-only or Cooking-only subscribers.
Full text is unavailable for this digitized archive article. Subscribers may view the full text of this article in its original form through TimesMachine.

THE central idea of this extraordinary book is that two types of religion, the Judaic and the Buddhistic, have contended for mastery in the world since ancient times, and that, upon the whole, the latter has triumphed. Dr. Melamed sees both Jesus and Spinoza throwing the weight of their enormous influence on the side of Buddhism and against the religious traditions of their race. VIEW FULL ARTICLE IN TIMESMACHINE »

Eastern Philosophical Concepts in Spinoza’s Pantheism & Ethics | by Jason Sylvester | Medium

Eastern Philosophical Concepts in Spinoza’s Pantheism & Ethics | by Jason Sylvester | Medium

Eastern Philosophical Concepts in Spinoza’s Pantheism & Ethics

Jason Sylvester

Jun 29, 2020·22 min read

Benedict Spinoza (1632–1677)

There are several Brahmanical and Buddhist elements that parallel many of Spinoza’s philosophical conceptions. Philosophers maintain that it is philosophically irrelevant where an idea came from, and they are not surprised to see the same conceptualizations appear in multiple cultures across time as it is expected that the search for truth would result in similarities or a convergence. Historically, it remains a matter of scholarly interest whether these ideas were transmitted or developed independently. However, this is an interesting aspect of his philosophy that has long been overlooked by many scholars. Indeed, Hongladarom (2015) noted:

A search through the literature on Spinoza and Buddhism provides only very scanty result: one of the earliest works on the topic is Melamed (1933), where only a handful of others — Wienpahl (1971), Wienpahl (1972), and Ziporyn (2012) — explore it in a more contemporary vein. This is rather surprising given the fact that Spinoza aims to give an account of how the best possible life can be achieved, which appears to be Buddhism’s goal, too. For Spinoza, the key to this is achievable only through intellectual understanding, which compares to the Buddhist view that wisdom (or paññā) is necessary for realizing such life. The metaphysics are similar, too: all things are interconnected for Spinoza, since they are modes of either the attribute of body (if they are material things), or of the attribute of the mind (if they are mental entities). In any case, all are parts of the one substance: God. We might thus read Spinoza as claiming that things, whether physical or mental, do not possess independent existence in themselves because the only thing that possesses such an existence is God. In Buddhism, rather similarly, things are also interconnected; and though it is well-known that Buddhist philosophy entertains no conception of a personal God, the Buddhist must surely find some comfort in Spinoza’s conception.

Nadler (1999, pp. 109, 242) cited the influence of Greek Stoicism on Spinoza’s thoughts, based on his education and books found in his personal library. However, to the reader unfamiliar with the Greeks but with a basic understanding of Eastern philosophies, the Buddhist thought in Spinoza is readily apparent; it practically jumps off the page and begs to be acknowledged. Schopenhauer (1909, p. 13 footnote 1) noted the connection: ‘The banks of the sacred Ganges were their [Bruno and Spinoza] spiritual home; there they would have led a peaceful and honoured life among men of like mind.’ Amsterdam being a trading hub, it is not outside the realm of possibility that Spinoza had some exposure to Buddhist thought coming back on the trading ships from the Far East, especially given that his family were merchants and he worked in the business as a young man. Perhaps future scholarship will uncover documentary evidence of such a link, just as Revah found the reasons for Spinoza’s excommunication in the Inquisition archives only in the 1950s.

Greco-Indian Cultural Diffusion

There are many aspects of Greek and Indian philosophy that overlap. Scholars debate the exact nature of possible cross-pollination, as ideas from each culture are thought to have influenced the other. For example, McEvilley (2002, p. 649) asserted that the monistic concept influenced the Greeks; and the Greeks brought formalized logic and dialectic to Indian philosophy. Both McEvilley and Beckwith commented on the nature of these shared ideas. Anthropologists have long noted this curious tendency, and Campbell (1988, pp. 51–2) discussed the two possible origins: cultural diffusion, or independent development which Jung characterized as archetypes of the collective unconscious. McEvilley (2002, p. 59) wondered if the Jungian archetypes were at play, but Beckwith (2015, pp. 124; 173) pointed out that, given the trade and diplomatic links that followed Darius I’s conquest of the Indus Valley in 515 BCE and the submission of Ionian Greece by 510, there would be no need to invoke Jasper’s (1951, p. 98) premise of the separate development which characterized the Axial Age — the period around 500 BCE when several spiritual thought leaders (Zoroaster, Buddha, Confucius) emerged contemporaneously from China to Greece and laid the foundations of the several major belief systems which still dominate the world today

There is a link between Greek philosophy and Buddhism, and it comes from the campaigns of Alexander the Great. The founder of what later became the school of Greek Skepticism, Pyrrho, traveled with Alexander’s army and he brought back concepts which were wholly new in Greek thought that influenced, among others, the Stoics. Some similarities between Greek and Indian thought predate Alexander, as Beckwith (2015, p. 40) noted that Pyrrho’s tetralemma, once thought to be based on Buddha’s trilaksana, appeared in the works of Aristotle and Plato. McEvilley (2002, p. 332) also noted that Plato’s (360, para. 86b-c) Timaeus contains an ethic that aligns with the basics of the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism:

Such is the manner in which diseases of the body arise; the disorders of the soul, which depend upon the body, originate as follows. We must acknowledge disease of the mind to be a want of intelligence; and of this there are two kinds; to wit, madness and ignorance. In whatever state a man experiences either of them, that state may be called disease; and excessive pains and pleasures are justly to be regarded as the greatest diseases to which the soul is liable. For a man who is in great joy or in great pain, in his unseasonable eagerness to attain the one and to avoid the other, is not able to see or to hear anything rightly; but he is mad, and is at the time utterly incapable of any participation in reason.

Not a Stoic, but an Epicurean

Beckwith (2015, pp. 154; 201) noted the shared central ethic of Epicureans and Stoics — apatheia (without suffering) and ataraxia (tranquility) — was derived from Pyrrho’s philosophy who brought it back from India where he was exposed to and influenced by the teachings of Early Buddhism. Therefore, the Stoic and Epicurean ethic was ultimately based on Buddhist philosophy; an Indian legacy which Schopenhauer deduced from the obvious parallels. Apatheia and ataraxia are also key features of Spinoza’s Ethics (1677, IV. Appendix 4 & 9), particularly Part IV: Human Bondage, or the Power of the Affects.

Thus in life it is before all things useful to perfect the understanding or reason, as far as we can, and in this alone man’s highest happiness or blessedness consists, indeed blessedness is nothing else but the contentment of spirit, which arises from the intuitive knowledge of God: now, to perfect the understanding is nothing else but to understand God, God’s attributes, and the actions which follow from the necessity of his nature. Wherefore of a man, who is led by reason, the ultimate aim or highest desire, whereby he seeks to govern all his fellows, is that whereby he is brought to the adequate conception of himself and of all things within the scope of his intelligence. . . .

. . . Nothing can be in more harmony with the nature of any given thing than other individuals of the same species; therefore for man in the preservation of his being and the enjoyment of the rational life there is nothing more useful than his fellow-man who is led by reason. Further, as we know not anything among individual things which is more excellent than a man led by reason, no man can better display the power of his skill and disposition, than in so training men, that they come at last to live under the dominion of their own reason.

Though there are surface similarities to Stoic ethics and pantheism in Spinoza, labeling him a Stoic is a miscategorization. Perhaps this mistaken belief arose from the Stoic authors found in his personal library and because a handful of scholars mistakenly attributed a Stoic influence which has held sway, but Spinoza was actually an Epicurean. Like much of Spinoza’s thinking, his admission was neither straightforward nor in his published writings. In Letter 56 to Boxel, he disparaged the three icons of Greek philosophy and cryptically aligned himself to the Epicurean school of thought:

The authority of Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates, does not carry much weight with me. I should have been astonished, if you had brought forward Epicurus, Democritus, Lucretius, or any of the atomists, or upholders of the atomic theory..

Aside from this single enigmatic admission, Vardoulakis (2020, pp. 2–7) notes three other points of alignment between Epicurus and Spinoza that illustrate the influence of the former: the monadic concept of the creation of the universe out of nothing, the authority of the state which rules through fear and superstition, and the utility of people defined by Spinoza as justice and loving-kindness for our neighbors. The connection is apparent in the Letter to Herodotus by Epicurus, to which Spinoza’s thought bears striking similarities.

In opposition to Stoic pantheism which required a creator deity, Epicurus and Spinoza rejected creationism and asserted that the existence of the universe is explained as its being part of nature. Vardoulakis (2020, pp. 15–17; 27–28) notes that in Ethics (1677, IV Proposition 20), Spinoza echoing Letter to Herodotus, asserts that it is impossible for something to come from nothing, the creation ex nihilo of those who believe in a deity, and this substance monism is the proper context for understanding Spinoza’s Epicurean admission in Letter 56. Regarding the second Epicurean theme, authority, Vardoulakis connected the central premise of both Spinoza’s TTP and On the Nature of Things by Lucretius, the later Roman disciple of Epicurus. Vardoulakis (2020, p. 25) pointed out both works open with an attack on superstition driven by fear, just as Epicurus outlined fear as the root of human insecurities, and how this leads people to concede religious and political authority to others.

The third Epicurean theme, utility, has the most bearing on the topic of this section and its origins in Eastern thinking. Vardoulakis (2020, pp. 31–32) points out the connection between the Letter to Menoeceus in which Epicurus connected mind and body to Ethics (1677, II Proposition 11), where Spinoza wrote in the corollary:

Hence it follows, that the human mind is part of the infinite intellect of God; thus when we say, that the human mind perceives this or that, we make the assertion, that God has this or that idea, not in so far as he is infinite, but in so far as he is displayed through the nature of the human mind, or in so far as he constitutes the essence of the human mind; and when we say that God has this or that idea, not only in so far as he constitutes the essence of the human mind, but also in so far as he, simultaneously with the human mind, has the further idea of another thing, we assert that the human mind perceives a thing in part or inadequately.

Tying this to the first Epicurean theme that the universe can be explained through nature, therefore, all knowledge cannot exist outside of nature, or God as Spinoza termed it here. What the Greeks called phronesis, or practical knowledge, equates with Epicurus and Spinoza’s peace of mind (ataraxia/nirvana), that can be achieved by truly understanding nature and our place within it. As both Buddha and Pyrrho rejected the dogmatism of religion and philosophers, Vardoulakis (2020, pp. 13–15; 34) demonstrated that the practical knowledge of Epicurus was a rejection of the Nicomachean Ethics, or theoretical rationalizations, of Aristotle. Just as Buddha sought the harmonious Middle Path, this Epicurean utility was mirrored by Spinoza’s second aspect of true religion — justice and loving-kindness for others — which repeated throughout the TTP and was also a central feature of the humanism in Ethics (1677, IV, Proposition 35):

Therefore, men in so far as they live in obedience to reason, necessarily live always in harmony one with another.

Indian Monadism

A further direct link between Spinoza and Eastern philosophies is the concept of the monad, expanded upon by Epicurus, which played a key role in his ontological (11:1–3) and cosmological (11:4) arguments:

God, or substance, consisting of infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality, necessarily exists.

Proof. (11:1) If this be denied, conceive, if possible, that God does not exist: then his essence does not involve existence. (2) But this is absurd. (3) Therefore God necessarily exists. (1677, I. Proposition 11:1–3).

Another Proof. (11:4) Of everything whatsoever a cause or reason must be assigned, either for its existence, or for its non-existence. (1677, I. Proposition 11:4).

In Greek philosophy, the monad was represented as a circle with a dot in the middle, and represented the divine origin of all things. In terms of modern physics, it would be the Big Bang singularity from which all life emanated, and is tied directly to Spinoza’s concept of an impersonal God indistinguishable from nature.

My opinion concerning God and Nature is far different from the one modern Christians usually defend. I maintain that God is the indwelling cause of all things, not the cause from outside. (Spinoza 2016, Letter 73 to Oldenburg).

A concept he borrowed from Pliny (Pliny 1967, II. v5. pp. 183, 187):

That that supreme being, whate’er it be, pays heed to man’s affairs is a ridiculous notion. Can we believe that it would not be defiled by so gloomy and so multifarious a duty? . . .

. . . Which facts unquestionably demonstrate the power of nature, and prove that it is this that we mean by the word “God.”

Whether monism originated in the East and was transmitted to the West, or if the concept arose in both cultures through separate development, remains a matter of scholarly debate particularly as Parmenides developed his monist concept two hundred years before Pyrrho’s experiences in India. McEvilley devoted the entirety of his second chapter to examples of the monadic development in the late Bronze Age in Egyptian and Sumerian mythologies, the latter which influenced the Indians beginning in the Middle Vedic period, around 1000 BCE. McEvilley (2002, pp. 60–1) asserted that as polytheistic mythologies ran out of explanations for the natural world, they began evolving towards a concept of one, creating a new philosophical monism. Indian writings from the Middle Vedic on began to reflect this new monism, while the Greek literature of Homer and Hesiod maintained its polytheistic hold on Greek mythology for several more centuries. In an example of the two-way transmission of ideas, echoes of Parmenides also appear in the Bhagavad Gita.

McEvilley made some interesting comparisons. One, that monism arrived in Greece via India and permeated ancient Greek philosophical monism, which informed the later ideas of Spinoza and the Germans Leibniz, Hegel, and Heidegger (2002, p. 505). Two, the cosmology of the Stoics resembles Vedantic and Vaishnava basic conceptions of the universe in that the monad/God/prime mover/first creator is manifest in, yet apart, from nature (2002, pp. 540–1). Three, that because the Stoic and Upanishadic cosmologies have such significant congruences, the Stoics can be considered the first Western pantheists (2002, p. 541. Cf. Reale, 1985, p. 214).

McEvilley (2002, p. 542) also noted the Stoic conception of Zeus, who was indistinguishable from the world and whom people were to revere and love, which also resembles the Hindu Ishvara monad. Following this cosmological conception, the Stoic ethic developed along a similar path to the Bhagavad Gita in that we must reconcile ourselves to destiny and the futility of resistance, which culminated in the great Stoic maxim from Cleanthes: ‘Fate leads the willing. The unwilling it drags.’ (McEvilley 2002, pp. 542–3. Cf. Epictetus, Enchiridion, 53; Seneca, Epistles, 107.11)

Ziporyn (2012, pp. 126–8, 134) added to the Eastern conceptions that parallel some of Spinoza’s thought, stating that Spinoza was definitely a monist, but not one who equated existence with perception of the mind as some Buddhist philosophical schools do. Further, he noted that Spinoza distinguished three different types of knowledge: imagination, including perception; rationality; and intuition, specifically regarding the monistic idea of the substance which was the basis of his ontological argument.

This leads to the question: when a mind perceives something, does it occur only in the mind of the individual, or did that something exist in the mind of God? That question is particularly reminiscent of Hindu creation mythology. There is no one consistent creation story given the varying Hindu traditions that grew over the centuries from different sources (Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, that came together in what scholars call the Hindu synthesis) and were merged rather inconsistently with either Shiva, Brahma, Vishnu, or some combination as the creators and known in Hinduism as the Trimurti.

Recumbent Vishnu & the Creation of Brahma

There are a few variations that lend themselves to the cosmogony of Spinoza’s substance. In one story, Vishnu is the sleeping god whose dream is the universe and reality. In the other seemingly intertwined tale, Brahma sits on a lotus growing from Vishnu’s navel and everything that occurs in the universe happens only so long as Brahma is awake and his eyes are open. Once his eyes close, existence disappears again (Campbell 1988, p. 63). In a third variation, Shiva is the creator, and in the Shaiva sect which reveres Shiva as the supreme deity, Brahma is a manifestation of Shiva who creates the universe.

In later vedic texts, Māyā connotes an illusion: that which we perceive as reality is a mirage; it is really the dream of Brahma. A parallel could be drawn to the modern hypothesis that what we perceive as reality is really a complex computer simulation. In Buddhism, Māyā became the mother of Buddha. Beckwith (2015, pp. 12; 161; 167) pointed out the later fictional narratives of Siddhartha Gautama’s origin story were retroactively projected onto his legend. Therefore, it is likely the name of Buddha’s mother drew upon the mysticism of Indian culture. One formulation bringing much of this together is that Brahma is the Creator who dreams the universe into existence; Vishnu, the Preserver, maintains the dream; using Māyā to generate the illusion that we perceive as the world. In all these versions, existence occurs in the mind of God, which relates back to the third kind of knowledge in Spinoza that Ziporyn (2012, p. 129) noted ‘necessarily follows from the existence of God.’

Spinoza (1677, II. Proposition 47) presented his conceptions regarding the thoughts of God:

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. Q.E.D.

Note. Hence we see, that the infinite essence and the eternity of God are known to all. Now as all things are in God, and are conceived through God, we can from this knowledge infer many things, which we may adequately know, and we may form that third kind of knowledge of which we spoke.

Buddhist Metaphysics

Ziporyn’s (2012, p. 138) analysis of Spinoza’s proposition then moves from Hindu cosmogony into the realm of Buddhist meditation: knowing yourself leads to a deeper understanding of existence in the outside world. Ziporyn (2012, p. 139) posited that Spinoza’s conception may possibly be uniquely distinct in the West, but that it shares some fundamental parallels from two other Eastern thinkers, one from Daoism and another from Chinese Buddhism. To overcome the solipsism (the self can only know its own mind), the Daoist philosopher Zhuangzi simply accepted it: one may not be able to see beyond their own perspective, but having a perspective necessitates that others have one, too. Similar to Zoroastrian duality, a perspective cannot exist in a vacuum without another perspective to provide a contrast. Modern psychologists refer to this as theory of mind, and Bering (2012, p. 37) devoted an entire book to this topic and the concept of God’s mental states. Hongladarom (2015) concluded:

. . . [W]e might say there are a number of similarities between the conception of the self within Spinoza and Buddhism. First, they are both unions of mind and matter that are limited by their own kind. This is meant both literally and metaphorically: the self is limited physically by the existence of others; but also recognized as such to the effect of limiting what the self is. This is in line with the idea that selves are not merely inert object, but the seats of subjectivity and the source of thoughts and ideas.

The second example Ziporyn gave, possibly derived from Daoism, comes from Huayan Buddhism: ‘all phenomena are present in each phenomenon,’ and that ‘no phenomenon knows another phenomenon.’ Ziporyn (2012, pp. 139–40) cited a quote in his footnotes from Fazang, one of the Patriarchs of Huayan Buddhism:

One small speck of dust . . . pervades all times and places, and yet this one speck of dust, and all other phenomena do not know each other or see each other. And why? Because each one is the entire perfectly interpenetrating universe, integrating all into itself with no other universe outside of it. Thus they do not need to further know or see each other. Even when we speak of knowing or seeing, all of it is the entire universe knowing and seeing; ultimately there is no additional universe to see or know.

What is intriguing about this conceptualization, is that it seems to intuit quantum entanglement and multiverse theory, joining ranks with the monad and the example of the Big Bang singularity. American scientist Carl Sagan and science writer Dick Teresi have both noted the wisdom of the ancients. Teresi (2002, p. 210) stated that Indian cosmogony was the closest in terms of theorizing quantum physics and the atom, which may have influenced the Greek atomists. Both Teresi (2002, p. 159) and Sagan (Sagan & Malone 1980, Episode 10) noted that of all the creation myths of world religions, only the Hindus approached the actual number, estimating over four billion years. This brings to mind one of Sagan’s (Sagan & Malone 1980, Episode 1) most famous quotes: “We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.”

Ziporyn (2012, p. 140) concluded by observing how interesting it is when we ponder ‘the unusual epistemological resonances between these disparate systems.’ Thus, Spinoza’s conception of nature (God) may then have been built on Brahminical and Buddhist philosophies that had been filtered through the lens of Greek monism, but he seemed to be unaware of the pedigree of these ideas. (McEvilley 2002, p. 547).

Symmetries between Spinoza and Buddhist Enlightenment

While Spinoza’s cosmogony and pantheism have parallels, if not origins, in Indian philosophy, his ethics contain an unmistakably Buddhist character, especially his ideas on the soul and salvation. Spinoza’s assertion that souls die with the body was one of the reasons he was excommunicated in 1656 by the Jewish community, and by 1660 he had codified his thoughts on the topic in his Short Treatise on God, Man and His Well-Being. For Spinoza (1910), the soul was simply our conscious mind (p. 129), which perishes with the body (p. 136):

And since he consists of such a body of which there must necessarily be an Idea in the thinking thing, and the Idea must necessarily be united with the body, therefore we assert without fear that his Soul is nothing else than this Idea of his body in the thinking thing. . . .

. . . From this, then it can easily be seen, that if it is united to the body alone, and that body happens to perish, then it must perish also; for when it is deprived of the body, which is the foundation of its love, it must perish with it.

Spinoza’s conceptualization of the soul as synonymous with consciousness does strongly correlate to the Buddhist idea. Hongladarom (2015) noted:

A basic tenet in Buddhist philosophy in both the Theravada and Mahayana traditions is that the self is regarded as being composed of form (rūpa), feelings (vedanā), perceptions (saññā), thought formations (sankhāra) and consciousness (viññāna). (For an introduction to Buddhist philosophy, see Siderits, 2007 and Gethin, 1998. The analysis of the self as consisting of five elements here is fundamental in all Buddhist schools.) These five elements can be grouped together into physical and mental entities whereby form belongs to the former and the other four aggregates to the latter. The argument is that, as the self is divisible into these five aggregates, it cannot be found as an inherently existing entity because the self dissolves itself by virtue of being so divisible. Any characteristic that is thought to belong to the self, such as having a certain personality, is not found to belong to any of these aggregates. The personality may be thought to belong to perceptions and memories, but these are fleeting and constituted by countless short episodes, so cannot be considered as a candidate for the self that is thought to endure as a source of personality. The same kind of analysis applies when the self is equated with the body. In short, the Buddhist takes up the usual way in which the self is conceived: as existing as a life-giving soul, and finds that it is nothing more than a collection of these five aggregates.

As to what Spinoza (1677, V. Cf. Nadler 1999, pp. 170, 190) meant by salvation, it was something very similar to the Buddhist concept of enlightenment: an awakening of consciousness by becoming self-aware and learning to take control of the ever-changing whims of our emotions and the freedom this entails:

At length I pass to the remaining portion of my Ethics, which is concerned with the way leading to freedom. I shall therefore treat therein of the power of the reason, showing how far the reason can control the emotions, and what is the nature of Mental Freedom or Blessedness. (Preface).

From what has been said we clearly understand, wherein our salvation, or blessedness, or freedom, consists: namely, in the constant and eternal love towards God, or in God’s love towards men. (Proposition 36 note).

Whereas the wise man, in so far as he is regarded as such, 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. (Proposition 42 note).

The Theological-Political Treatise (TTP from the Latin title, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus), contains a few passages with Eastern leanings[emphasis added]:

The true happiness and blessedness of each person consists only in the enjoyment of the good, and not in a self-esteem founded on the fact that he alone enjoys the good, all others being excluded from it. For whoever views himself as more blessed because things are well with him, but not with others, or because he is more blessed and more fortunate than others, does not know true happiness and blessedness. The joy he derives from that comparison comes from envy and a bad heart — if it isn’t mere childishness.

For example, the true happiness and blessedness of man consists only in wisdom and in knowledge of the truth, not at all in the fact that he is wiser than others, or that others lack true knowledge. For their ignorance does not increase his wisdom at all, i.e., his true happiness. So someone who rejoices for that reason rejoices because of an evil occurring to someone else. He is envious and evil, failing to know either true wisdom or the peace of true life. (Spinoza 2016, TTP iii. 1–2).

Finally, almost all the Prophets found it extremely obscure how the order of nature and what happened to men could agree with the concept they had formed concerning God’s providence. But this was always quite clear to the Philosophers, who strive to understand things, not from miracles, but from clear concepts. They locate true happiness only in virtue and peace of mind; they are concerned, not that nature should obey them, but that they should obey nature; they know with certainty that God directs nature as its universal laws require, not as the particular laws of human nature require, and that God takes account, not of the human race only, but of the whole of nature. (Spinoza 2016, TTP vi. 34).

However, the majority of Spinoza’s concepts that parallel Buddhism are in the Short Treatise, Ethics, and in the Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect as demonstrated by Nadler’s (1999, pp. 101–2) citation of its opening paragraph:

After experience had taught me that all the things which regularly occur in ordinary life are empty and futile, and I saw that all things which were the cause or object of my fear had nothing of good or bad in themselves, except insofar as [my] mind was moved by them, I resolved at last to try to find out whether there was anything which would be the true good, capable of communicating itself, and which alone would affect the mind, all others rejected — whether there was something which, once found and acquired would continuously give me the greatest joy, to eternity.

Spinoza’s phrasing of ‘empty and futile’ is evocative of the Buddhist concept of Śūnyatā, or emptiness, encapsulated by:

Here, O Sariputra,
form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form;
emptiness does not differ from form, form does not differ from emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form,
the same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness.
(Heart Sutra)

Photo by Manuel Cosentino on Unsplash

The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas… Intellect-consciousness… Intellect-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on intellect-contact — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.
(Suñña Sutta SN 35:85)

Once again, Spinoza, whether consciously aware of his choices or not, was echoing distinctly Buddhist conceptualizations. As meditation and mindfulness have become increasingly popular in the past few years, it is a tribute to Spinoza’s genius that profound ideas endure and come back around; just like the Wheel of Dharma.

This article has been excerpted from a chapter on Hobbes & Spinoza in my forthcoming book, Dangerous Ideas. For additional text from this chapter, including a breakdown of Spinoza’s ontological argument above, please see my blog.

References

Beckwith, C. I. (2015). Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s encounter with early Buddhism in Central Asia. Princeton University Press.

Bering, J. (2012). The Belief instinct: The Psychology of souls, destiny, and the meaning of life. W. W. Norton & Company.

Campbell, J. (1988). The Power of myth with Bill Moyers. Doubleday.

Hongladarom, S. (2015). Spinoza & Buddhism on the self. The Oxford Philosopher. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2NpUiqk

Jaspers, K. (2015). Way to wisdom: An introduction to philosophy. Yale University Press.

McEvilley, T. C. (2002). The Shape of ancient thought: Comparative studies in Greek and Indian philosophies. Internet Archive. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/37ZrbDB
Cf. Reale, G. (1985). A History of ancient philosophy III: Systems of the Hellenistic age. (J. Catan Trans.) SUNY Press.

Nadler, S. (1999). Spinoza: A life. Cambridge University Press.

Plato. (360 BCE). Timaeus. Infomotions. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3dvyPXB

Pliny the Elder. (1967). Natural history. (H. Rackham Trans.). Internet Archive. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2Vi4AgC

Schopenhauer, A. (1909). The World as will and idea (Vol. 2). (R. B. Haldane and J. Kemp Trans.). Internet Archive. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2Z4V9Co

Spinoza, B. (1677). Ethics. Infomotions. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2CF2oJE

Spinoza, B. (1910). Short treatise on God, man, and his well-being. (A. Wolf Trans. & Ed.). Internet Archive. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/31i0hFI

Spinoza, B. (2016). The Collected works of Spinoza (Vol. 2). (E. Curley Trans. & Ed.). Princeton University Press.

Teresi, D. (2002). Lost Discoveries: The Ancient roots of modern science — from the Babylonians to the Maya. Simon and Schuster.

Vardoulakis, D. (2020). Spinoza, the Epicurean: Authority and utility in materialism. Edinburgh University Press.

Ziporyn, B. (2012). Spinoza and the self-overcoming of solipsism. Comparative and Continental Philosophy, 4(1), 125–140.

~~ Media ~~

Sagan, C., Druyan. A., Soter. S. (Writers), & Malone, A. (Director). (1980, September 28). The shores of the cosmic ocean (Season 1, Episode 1) [TV series episode]. In A. Malone (Executive Producer), Cosmos. KCET.

Sagan, C., Druyan. A., Soter. S. (Writers), & Malone, A. (Director). (1980, November 30). The edge of forever. (Season 1, Episode 10) [TV series episode]. In A. Malone (Executive Producer), Cosmos. KCET.

~~ Websites ~~

Hindu Wisdom. Hindu Cosmology. Retrieved June 15, 2020, from http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Hindu_Cosmology.htm

Spinoza And Buddha Visions Of A Dead God : S.M.Melamed : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Spinoza And Buddha Visions Of A Dead God : S.M.Melamed : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Spinoza And Buddha Visions Of A Dead Godby S.M.Melamed

Publication date 1933Publisher The University Of Chicago PressCollection universallibraryContributor Universal Digital LibraryLanguage English

Addeddate 2006-11-11 16:09:54

The Greatest Philosopher You've Never Heard Of : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

The Greatest Philosopher You've Never Heard Of : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

The Greatest Philosopher You've Never Heard Of

Facebook
Twitter
Flipboard
Email
May 31, 20167:40 AM ET

ADAM FRANK

School of Athens by RaphaelFine Art Images/SuperStock RM/Getty Images

Let's be honest. When most of us talk about philosophy — the hard-core, name-dropping, theory-quoting kind — we're talking about a particular lineage that traces back to the Hellenistic Greeks.

But consider, for a moment, the fact that over the last few thousand years there've been a whole lot of smart people born into a whole lot of highly sophisticated cultures. It is, therefore, kind of silly that we limit "philosophy" to mean "philosophy done by dudes who lived in Europe a long time ago." That gripe was the main point of a very pointed piece in The New York Times last month titled: "If Philosophy Won't Diversify, Let's Call It What It Really Is."

Of course, given how much my field of physics owes to the rich philosophical tradition of "The West," I do count myself as a big fan. From Plato's Doctrine of Ideals to Spinoza's Ethics, Western philosophic perspectives laid bare core issues that were transformed into really good things, like science and democratic political thought. But as The Times piece shows, it doesn't do much good imagining that Europe cornered the market on creative thinking about being human.
Article continues after sponsor message

That's why, today, I want to tell you about Eihei Dogen.

Dogen was a 13th century Japanese Zen teacher who is considered by many to be one of the world's most profoundly subtle and creative thinkers. Now some might object that being a Zen master automatically knocks you off the list of great philosophers. Taking that position, however, misses how closely the history of Western philosophy is tied to the monotheistic religions it grew along with. Also, there is quite a bit of debate about how Buddhism stacks up as a religion to begin with (at least in terms of how we in the West think of the word). Buddhism contains no conception of deity and has a highly evolved monastic tradition that contains at least some elements of empiricism in its emphasis on direct experience and investigation.

But what were Buddhists like Dogen investigating — and what does it have to do with philosophy? For Buddhists, a central concern is the act of being a subject. That means the dynamics of the verb "to be" as a lived experience is often the focus of Buddhist philosophical inquiry.

For Western philosophy, this kind of question usually hinges around debates over the mind-body problem. Buddhist (and Vedic) philosophers had these kinds of debates, too, but they also had something their Western counterparts didn't.

While Western philosophers relied solely on reason and logic to source their arguments, Buddhists attempted to develop refined methods for articulate, focused introspection. The term used today is "contemplative practice." Sometimes the word "meditation" is used, though it doesn't come close to doing the concept justice. Like graduate students working on a Ph.D., aspiring contemplatives spent decades refining their techniques. The big difference, of course, is that for contemplatives the techniques were aimed at the stabilization of attention rather than statistical analysis or genetic manipulation. Once mastered, the stabilized attention is meant to be turned on questions about the nature of awareness. (As a side note, the "mindfulness" many Westerners are being introduced to today is a great start, but pretty much represents the bunny hill of contemplative practice.)

Dogen was a master of "zazen," the particular flavor of contemplative practice developed in Zen. Many of his writings are attempts to help his students understand the importance of, and approach to, this practice. But Dogen also tries to explain what is found, what is discovered, in zazen — and it's here that many find his genius.

The problem with discussions of direct experience is it's notoriously hard to report. How do I communicate my experience of a red apple or the blue sky to you? Words are just signifiers or labels. Most importantly they are clearly something different from my ongoing, happening-right-now, completely vivid experience. Couple that dilemma with the depth of what Dogen claims occurs in stabilized zazen and you can see where the problem begins.

To deal with this dilemma, Dogen deploys language that can be both hauntingly poetic and infuriating at the same time. For example, here is one of the most famous of Dogen quotes. It concerns studying "the Way," which, for Buddhists, is something like what Western philosophers might call essential nature"

"To study the Way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be actualized by myriad things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well as the bodies and minds of others drop away. No trace of enlightenment remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly."

When I first encountered this quote I had no idea what Dogen was talking about. What I did get, however, was a hint of truth in his lyricism. It was a hint originating from my own experience of the way the world's presence can rise before us. It's like how, when I'm on a hike, the "myriad things" of the world can all simultaneously unify into a totality of experience. Suddenly, I'm free of thinking about what I'm seeing and, instead, I'm just seeing.

Later in the same piece of writing, Dogen discusses the relationship between time and substance. Because his emphasis is the world as experience, his description breaks traditional dichotomies:

"Firewood becomes ash, and it does not become firewood again. Yet, do not suppose that the ash is future and the firewood past. You should understand that firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood, which fully includes past and future and is independent of past and future. Ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash, which fully includes future and past. Just as firewood does not become firewood again after it is ash, you do not return to birth after death."

In this quote, you can see the Dogen that can be infuriating when you first encounter it. He often embodies that "up is down, but down is up" kind of Zen-ism. Over the years, and with my own practice, I've come to understand a whole lot more of what these kinds of passages mean. In a sense, Dogen is using language as a kind of game to help unpack the inherently existential problem of the self — the problem of being a self as opposed to thinking about it. If you are looking for a Western analogue of this kind of thing, the phenomenologists Husserl and Heidegger come to mind. Heidegger, in particular, talked about the need to "jump into the circle" when approaching questions of being.

Like Heidegger and Husserl, I have been coming back to Dogen's writing for decades. As I've gotten older, I've come to see experience and its irreducible nature as a central unsolved problem in the overlap between science and philosophy. Dogen is, without a doubt, first and foremost a teacher of Zen Buddhism. But within his self-selected mission of bringing Zen to 13th century Japan, he also laid out an entirely novel approach to central issues of time, action and human being. As much as many of the philosophers in the Western canon, Dogen, too, deserves to be known.

Adam Frank is a co-founder of the 13.7 blog, an astrophysics professor at the University of Rochester, a book author and a self-described "evangelist of science." You can keep up with more of what Adam is thinking on Facebook and Twitter: @adamfrank4.

Spinozism - Wikipedia Comparison to Eastern philosophies

Spinozism - Wikipedia

Comparison to Eastern philosophies

Similarities between Spinoza's philosophy and Eastern philosophical traditions have been discussed by many authorities. The 19th-century German Sanskritist Theodore Goldstücker was one of the early figures to notice the similarities between Spinoza's religious conceptions and the Vedanta tradition of India, writing that Spinoza's thought was "... a western system of philosophy which occupies a foremost rank amongst the philosophies of all nations and ages, and which is so exact a representation of the ideas of the Vedanta, that we might have suspected its founder to have borrowed the fundamental principles of his system from the Hindus, did his biography not satisfy us that he was wholly unacquainted with their doctrines... We mean the philosophy of Spinoza, a man whose very life is a picture of that moral purity and intellectual indifference to the transitory charms of this world, which is the constant longing of the true Vedanta philosopher... comparing the fundamental ideas of both we should have no difficulty in proving that, had Spinoza been a Hindu, his system would in all probability mark a last phase of the Vedanta philosophy."[18][19]

It has been said that Spinozism is similar to the Hindu doctrines of Samkhya and Yoga. Though within the various existing Indian traditions there exist many traditions which astonishingly had such similar doctrines from ages, out of which most similar and well known are the Kashmiri Shaivism and Nath tradition, apart from already existing Samkhya and Yoga.[20]

Max Muller, in his lectures, noted the striking similarities between Vedanta and the system of Spinoza, saying "the Brahman, as conceived in the Upanishads and defined by Sankara, is clearly the same as Spinoza's 'Substantia'."[21] Helena Blavatsky, a founder of the Theosophical Society also compared Spinoza's religious thought to Vedanta, writing in an unfinished essay "As to Spinoza's Deity – natura naturans – conceived in his attributes simply and alone; and the same Deity – as 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."[22]