Al
vaker heb ik hierover blogs gehad [zie onder de links erheen]. Onlangs kwam ik enige
recente teksten tegen die ik hieraan graag toevoeg.
Abstract: Philosophers
from traditions that are not only entirely different but apparently
uninfluenced by each other sometimes show remarkable similarities. In the case
of Spinoza and Shankara such similarities include the dual-aspect model
according to which the apparent pluralism of the world rests on an inadequate
perception of its one-ness, and the way the overcoming of that inadequacy is
conceived as a liberation from the passions and an achievement of immortali-ty.
A significant difference between the two, however, is that Spino-za's
explanations are epistemologically conceived while Shankara's are conceived
ontologically. Not that Spinoza lacked an ontology or Shankara an epistemology,
but rather their explanatory approach-es emphasize the differences of the
worlds within which they wrote.
● Noah Forslund, “Spinoza the Hindu: Advaita
Interpretations of The Ethics.” In: Dianoia:
The Undergraduate Philosophy Journal of Boston College, Issue V - Spring
2018 - PDF. Ik breng hier de eerste alinea
Dutch
philosopher Baruch Spinoza holds a distinctive, if enigmatic, place in
the Western philosophical canon.
Although usually considered as a Cartesian
rationalist, Spinoza’s metaphysical
and epistemological views continue to be
considered somewhat anomalous within
the Occidental tradition.1 Arguably, in fact,
much of his influential Ethics espouses a substantively
non-“Western” philosophical
doctrine beneath orthodox
rationalist terminology and organization. I contend
that, although it employs decidedly
Western-rationalist methods of inquiry, The
Ethics actually proposes a system
strikingly similar to the ontological-philosophical
worldview found in Advaita Vedanta
Hinduism. Core similarities between the schools
include their (1) non-dualist,
monistic metaphysical systems, (2) a strong relationship
between humans and the divine, and
(3) a potential for living liberation. This paper
will consist of comparative analyses
of metaphysical and epistemological facets of
both the Advaita and Spinozistic
philosophical traditions, including overviews of
both schools, and concluding with a
suggestion that these similarities might prompt
a reexamination and critique of the
oft-cited East-West dichotomy.
● Gordon F. Davis & Mary D. Renaud, "Spinoza
Through the Prism of Later ‘East-West’ Exchanges: Analogues of Buddhist Themes
in the Ethics and the Works of Early
Spinozists." Chapter 5 in Gordon F. Davis (Ed.), Ethics without Self, Dharma without Atman: Western and Buddhist
Philosophical Traditions in Dialogue. Springer,
2018, p. 107 – 130 – books.google- cf. PDF bij bookSC.
De eerste twee alinea’s:
In the late
seventeenth century and early eighteenth century, one sees the first
significant contact between European philosophers and the world of Buddhist and
other Asian philosophical traditions. As we shall see, however, this contact
was limited in many ways, especially during the lifetime of Baruch Spinoza
(1632–77), our main focus in this chapter. Our chapter falls into the
‘pre-contact’ part of this volume, because for almost all the figures we
discuss here, the primary sources of Asian philosophy – and especially
Buddhism – remained largely unavailable. The sort of direct inspiration for
which Schopenhauer is famous was still a long way off, whether we are speaking
of Spinoza’s own time and place, or of those, almost a century later, who began
to see the putatively ‘Asiatic’ resonance of his philosophy as a positive
rather than a negative feature. Our aim here is not merely historical, though.
Besides noting such episodes as the ‘Chinese Rites Controversy’ in Spinoza’s
time, we will approach Spinoza on his own terms, before asking how his ideas
compare to those of Buddhist ethics. And in addition to considering Chinese
forms of Buddhism, we consider the Indo-Tibetan ones (and some Hindu themes)
that came to be familiar only in the late eighteenth century – the time when
Spinozist ideas were taken more seriously than ever before, albeit newly
inflected with currents of thought deriving partly from Asian sources.
Some
Spinoza scholars might still be intrigued by the suggestion Lewis Maverick made
many years ago, to the effect that Spinoza himself may have been influenced by
early reports of Chinese philosophical ideas, those relayed by Jesuits in the
early 1600s.1 Other
Spinoza scholars might dismiss such speculation, and refrain from direct
comparisons, and might instead scrutinize the motivations and biases of writers
who have explored such comparisons, bolstering a scepticism about the various
books that have trumpeted a convergence of Spinozist and Buddhist thought,
ranging from Melamed’s Spinoza and Buddha (1933) to kindred explorations by Jon
Wetlesen (1979)
and Arne Naess (2008).2 We will not be pursuing either of
those historical investigations here. Rather, our concern is to reconsider the
question that these writers were asking in the first place, the question of how
much of Spinoza’s thought was prefigured in Buddhist doctrine. To that extent,
we ourselves risk getting entangled in something akin to an ‘Orientalizing’
tendency, which is one way to describe the early modern interest in Asian
philosophy, with its widespread use of the term ‘oriental’ in European
languages, and its risk of imposing additional distorting lenses where an
initial hermeneutic prism is already ipso facto present.3 Be that as it may, another of our
aims, occupying the second half of the chapter, is to chart the development of
a Spinozist ethic that inspired a few French and German writers who were also
open to the insights of Asian philosophical traditions. In light of this, we
consider, finally, the impact of this ethic on the social and political context
of both rationalist and romantic phases of the European Enlightenment.
01-10-2008:
Boeddhisme, hindoeïsme en interesse in Spinoza
05-06-2009:
Hebben de oosterse en de westerse verlichtingstradities iets met elkaar?
16-04-2010:
Samuel Max Melamed (1885 - 1938) hield zich veel met Spinoza bezig [o.a. over
zijn Spinoza and Buddha. Visions of a
dead God. Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1933]
10-11-2010:
Matteo Ricci (1552 - 1610), Philippo Mignini & Spinoza
08-01-2012:
Bestudeerde Spinoza het werk van Confucius?
04-12-2013:
Jammer dat het non-dualiteitsbegrip gekaapt is en niet meer voor Spinoza is te
gebruiken
07-02-2014:
Spinoza en de Boeddhanatuur naar Masao Abe's uitleg van Dogen Kigen (1200–1253)
07-05-2014: S.
M. Melamed over "Spinoza and Buddha" (nogmaals) [met uitgebreide
1935-recensie W.G. van der Tak, van Melamed’s boek]
10-01-2015: Spinoza
hoeft niet als 'Boeddha van de lage landen' gezien, maar parallellen lijken er
wel te zijn
06-04-2015: Was de naturalist en rationalist Spinoza tegelijk ook een mysticus? [5] de casus Wetlesen
[met daarin een link naar Jon Wetlezen's artikel “Body awareness as a gateway to eternity: a note on the mysticism of Spinoza and its affinity to Buddhist meditation.”]
06-04-2015: Was de naturalist en rationalist Spinoza tegelijk ook een mysticus? [5] de casus Wetlesen
[met daarin een link naar Jon Wetlezen's artikel “Body awareness as a gateway to eternity: a note on the mysticism of Spinoza and its affinity to Buddhist meditation.”]
31-07-2015:
Spinoza en het Boeddhisme over 'het Zelf'
28-09-2016: De filosofie van Spinoza vergeleken met het
neo-confucianisme van Chu Hsi
12-06-2017:
Spinoza veel vergeleken met Shankara
3 oktober 2017:
Wat “sub specie infinitatis” zou kunnen betekenen – in Spinoza’s filosofie
anders dan in die van iemand als de Japanse Kyotoschoolfilosoof Keiji Nishitani
4 december 2017:
Can we avoid the dark night of Spinozism, a night in which all facts appear to
be necessary? [met link naar encyclopedieën]
Tot
slot. In de bibliografie van alle
hier genoemde hoofdstukken en artikelen staat het boek van S. M. Melamed, Spinoza and Buddha (1933). Dat leidt mij
ertoe om - naast de recensie van W.G. van der Tak van Melamed’s boek uit 1935, cf. blog van 07-05-2014 - hier de korte, maar informatieve recensie te brengen van H. B. Robins in:
The Journal of Religion, Vol. 14, No.
2 (Apr., 1934), pp. 249-250.
MELAMED, S. M. Spinoza and Buddha. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1933. xi+391 pages. $3.00.
The author of
this book has employed real learning in the interest of establishing a position
which is at best precarious. Professing a supreme interest in the philosophy of
history, he holds essentially that history is determined by great personalities,
among the greatest of them being Buddha, Moses, Plato, St. Paul, and Spinoza.
Two strains compete for the domination of the West, the one emanating from
Hebraic sources, the other from Indian. Paradoxically enough, Spinoza, instead
of being exponent of the Hebraic, epitomizes the Indian outlook-the world is
explained away, man is a floating atom in the universe, only God remains, and
God is dead. It was Christianity which won the Jew of Amsterdam away from his
heritage; not Christianity as a continuation of Hebraism, but as its
antithesis. Palestine in Jesus' day was overwhelmed by Buddhistic influences.
The Baptist was a Mandaic religionist; Jesus was an Essene; Paul propagated a
diluted Buddhism in the West under the name of Christianity. He was the first
typically Eastern mystic in the Western world. St. Augustine was far more
influenced by him than by Jesus. Through him this dead God who consumes a
living world becomes basic to medieval mysticism. The pantheistic Eckhardt and
Boehme paved way for Spinoza's subjective religiosity. The first and longest
chapter, fluence on modern culture, is the most objective in the book. The
remainder colored by the author's doctrinaire positions. Modern critical
historians of do not support his contentions respecting the Essenes, John the
Baptist, The bulk of sober opinion among historians of religion does not
support Buddhistic invasion of the West prior to or simultaneous with the birth
of movement. Dr. Melamed allows too little room for originality in the West, victim
of the fallacy of post hoc propter hoc. It is too bad that the proof of not
better read.--H. B. ROBINS.
In het bovenvermelde artikel van Kenneth Dorter, THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION IN SPINOZA AND SHANKARA. Symposium, vol. 18 no. 1 (Spring/Printemps 2014), geeft de auteur in note 4 een vergelijkbare of eigenlijk nog scherpere kritiek:
In het bovenvermelde artikel van Kenneth Dorter, THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION IN SPINOZA AND SHANKARA. Symposium, vol. 18 no. 1 (Spring/Printemps 2014), geeft de auteur in note 4 een vergelijkbare of eigenlijk nog scherpere kritiek:
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten