Category Archives: Pantheism

In this particular climate, two facts hold must be considered: a discreet meeting organized on March 25 and 26 in the United States, by the defenders of Francis course; and an anonymous memorandum addressed to the cardinals at the beginning of Lent, which was very severe on the current pontificate. The meeting was explained in the previous article.

An anonymous memorandum against the current pontificate

On March 15, the Vaticanist Sandro Magister published the text of a memorandum on his blog Settimo Cielo, which he presented in these terms: Since the beginning of Lent, the cardinals who will elect the future pope have been passing this memorandum around. Its author, who goes by the name of Demos, people in Greek, is unknown, but shows himself a thorough master of the subject. It cannot be ruled out that he himself is a cardinal.

Here are the most significant excerpts from this document, which is divided into two parts: The Vatican Today and The Next Conclave.

The Vatican Today

Commentators of every school, if for different reasons, with the possible exception of Father Spadaro, SJ, [director of the Jesuit review La Civilt Cattolica, and very close to Francis], agree that this pontificate is a disaster in many or most respects; a catastrophe.

1 - Previously, we said: Roma locuta. Causa finita est [Rome has spoken, the case is closed]. Today we say: Roma loquitur, confusio augetur [Rome speaks, confusion increases].

(A) The German synod speaks on homosexuality, women priests, communion for the divorced [and remarried]. The papacy is silent.

(B) Cardinal Hollerich rejects Christian teaching on sexuality. The papacy is silent.

(C) This silence is emphasized when contrasted with the active persecution of the Traditionalists and the contemplative orders.

2 - The Christocentric dimension of the teaching is being weakened, Christ is being removed from the center. Sometimes Rome even seems to be confused about the importance of strict monotheism, hinting at a wider concept of divinity; not quite pantheism, but like a Hindu pantheism variant. Here Demos denounces the worship of the Pachamama during the synod on the Amazon in 2019.

(C) The Academy for Life is gravely damaged, e.g., some members recently supported assisted suicide. The Pontifical Academies have members and visiting speakers who support abortion.

3 - The lack of respect for the law in the Vatican risks becoming an international scandal. These issues have been crystallized through the present Vatican trial of ten accused of financial malpractices, but the problem is older and wider.

(D) The pope sometimes (often) rules by papal decrees (motu proprio) which eliminate the right to appeal of those affected.

4 - (A) The financial situation of the Vatican is grave. For the past ten years (at least), there have nearly always been financial deficits. Before COVID, these deficits ranged around 20 million annually. For the last three years, they have been around 30-35 million annually.

5 - The political influence of Pope Francis and the Vatican is negligible. Intellectually, Papal writings demonstrate a decline from the standard of St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict. Decisions and policies are often politically correct, but there have been grave failures to support human rights in Venezuela, Hong Kong, mainland China, and now during the Russian invasion.

There has been no public support for the loyal Catholics in China who have been intermittently persecuted for their loyally to the Papacy for more than 70 years. No public Vatican support for the Catholic community in Ukraine, especially the Greek Catholics.

These issues should be revisited by the next Pope. The Vaticans political prestige is now at a low ebb.

6 - The Covid crisis has covered up the large decline in the number of pilgrims attending papal audiences and Masses.

The Holy Father has little support among seminarians and young priests and widespread disaffection exists within the Vatican Curia.

The Next Conclave

1 - The College of Cardinals has been weakened by eccentric nominations and has not been reconvened after the rejection of Cardinal Kaspers views in the 2014 consistory. [February 20, 2014, on the question of communion granted to remarried divorcees, before the double synod on the family of October 2014 and October 2015. Ed]. Many cardinals are unknown to one another, adding a new dimension of unpredictability to the next conclave.

2 - After Vatican II, Catholic authorities have often underestimated the hostile power of secularization, the world, the flesh, and the devil, especially in the Western world and have overestimated the influence and strength of the Catholic Church.

We are weaker than 50 years ago and many factors are beyond our control, in the short term at least, e.g. declining numbers of believers, the frequency of Mass attendance, the demise or extinction of many religious orders.

3 - The Pope does not need to be the worlds best evangelist, nor a political force. The successor of Peter, as head of the College of Bishops, also successors of the Apostles, has a foundational role for unity and doctrine. The new pope must understand that the secret of Christian and Catholic vitality comes from fidelity to the teachings of Christ and Catholic practices. It does not come from adapting to the world or from money.

4. The first tasks of the new pope will be to restore normality, restore doctrinal clarity in faith and morals, restore a proper respect for the law and ensure that the first criterion for the nomination of bishops is acceptance of the apostolic tradition.

5 - If the synod gatherings continue around the world, they will consume much time and money, probably distracting energy from evangelization and service rather than deepening these essential activities.

If the national or continental synods are given doctrinal authority, we will have a new danger to world-wide Church unity, whereby, e.g., the German church holds doctrinal views not shared by other Churches and not compatible with the apostolic tradition.

If there were no Roman correction of such heresy, the Church would be reduced to a loose federation of local Churches, holding different views, probably closer to an Anglican or Protestant model, than an Orthodox model.

An early priority for the next pope must be to remove and prevent such a threatening development, by requiring unity in essentials and not permitting unacceptable doctrinal differences. The morality of homosexual activity will be one such flash point.

7 - Despite the dangerous decline in the West and the inherent fragility and instability in many places, serious consideration should be given to the feasibility of a visitation on the Jesuit order. They are in a situation of catastrophic numerical decline from 36,000 members during the Council to less than 16,000 in 2017 (with probably 20-25% above 75 years of age). In some places, there is catastrophic moral decline.

8 - The disastrous decline in Catholic numbers and Protestant expansion in South America should be addressed. It was scarcely mentioned in the Amazonian Synod.

9. Obviously, a lot of work is needed on the financial reforms in the Vatican, but this should not be the most important criterion in the selection of the next Pope.

The Vatican has no substantial debts but continuing annual deficits will eventually lead to bankruptcy. Obviously, steps will be taken to remedy this, to separate the Vatican from criminal accomplices and balance revenue and expenditure. The Vatican will need to demonstrate competence and integrity to attract substantial donations to help with this problem.

Despite the improved financial procedures and greater clarity, continuing financial pressures represent a major challenge, but they are much less important than the spiritual and doctrinal threats facing the Church, especially in the First World.

At the beginning of the tenth year of his pontificate, Pope Francis is supported by those who want more and more from Vatican II; it is criticized by those who note a development of doctrines incompatible with the apostolic tradition, and who fear seeing the Catholic Church reduced to a loose federation of local Churches, holding different views, probably closer to an Anglican or Protestant model, than an Orthodox model, if there were no Roman correction of such heresy.

On November 21, 1974, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre declared that fidelity to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth necessarily implied the refusal to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.

All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments, to the disappearance of religious life, to a naturalist and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and catechectics; a teaching derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.

In the eyes of some, what he said then seemed an exaggeration. Today it is an observation shared by many. But for this lucid analysis to be effective, we must not stop at the observed facts, we must also go back to their proven causes:

It is impossible, the missionary prelate added, to modify profoundly the lex orandi without modifying the lex credendi. To the Novus Ordo Missae [New Order Mass] correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, new universities, a charismatic Pentecostal Churchall things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church.

View post:
Who Is Defending and Who Is Criticizing the Nine Years of Francis's Pontificate? (2) - FSSPX.News

In order for a question to be authentic, it has to be a concrete historical question, which means that it should take into consideration the governing tendency in the development of the world. The question of the nature of Martin Heideggers philosophy should also be a concrete historical question. It is one thing when a question is asked in a blossoming field and quite the other when it is asked on the brink of the abyss. The concrete historical question is the following: Does Heideggers thought indicate the processes that lead to the destruction of man and nature, and does it offer a possibility to step out from capitalist civilization into a civilization of freedom, where man will live in harmony with nature?

Heideggers philosophy should be given a chance to appear as concrete historical thought in the relation of destruction to life-creation, i.e., destructive mindlessness to life-creating mind. Only relative to the minds libertarian and life-creating potential can a concrete historical meaning of Heideggers philosophy be perceived. Life on Earth is increasingly threatened and everything that possesses a life-creating potential should be included in the fight for survival. The essential criterion to determine whether a thought is reasonable is whether it contributes to the preservation of life on Earth.

A life-creating humanism should become the basis for the minds self-reflextion and, as such, the source of the self-consciouness of man as a life-creating being that, through his life-creating practice, should confront capitalism as a destructive totalitarian order. Guided by the life-creating mind and relying on a combative sociability, man should abolish the consumer society and technical civilisation and create a humane society and a life-creating civilisation, which will be the organic part of nature as a life-creating totality. We are talking about a life-creating pantheism, which creates not only a new life, but a new world.

For Heideggers followers, his philosophy is the only framework within which the question of its essence and meaning is possible. Philosophical legitimacy of any discussion of Heideggers philosophy is acquired by its becoming a self-reflexion of Heideggers philosophy. Fundamental ontology becomes a synthesis of everything valuable that appears in the realm of the mind. It acquires the status of the only true philosophy and as such becomes the criterion used to determine the legitimacy of philosophical thought. Fundamental ontology becomes the other name for true mindfulness.

Bourgeiois theoreticians seek to analyse Heideggers thought departing from philosophy as an objective sphere with a supra-historical character. Thus, Heideggers philosophy becomes an abstract thought. They use Heideggers philosophy to eliminate the visionary mind and, thereby, any possible spaces for the future. Heideggers philosophy heralds the end of history. At the same time, bourgeois philosophers appeal to Heidegger so that, in the shadow of his philosophy, they might obtain philosophical legitimacy for their own writings. They treat Heidegger in the same way Heidegger treats Being (Sein). To be in Heideggers neighbourhood ensures immortality in the world of philosophy.

The most important reason for Heideggers popularity with the bourgeois intelligentsia is that his philosophy enables the preservation of the elitist status of philosophy and thus the elitist status of the academic intelligentsia. His fundamental ontology becomes the philosophical Holy Scripture, whereas his interpretors become the guardians of the keys of wisdom. Bourgeois philosophy turned Heidegger into a myth and made his philosophy one of the key intelllectual pillars of Western civilization.

The production of the myth of Heidegger and other great philosophers serves to create a sectarian single-mindedness and elitist self-sufficiency of the bourgeois intelligentsia. Its members voluntarily accept the ghettoization of the mind at academic faculties and other exclusive intellectual domains, since it gives them freedom and a comfortable life. Such social position releases them from responsibility for the survival of life on the planet and from the risk that a struggle against the ruling order entails.

The representatives of traditional philosophy base their relation to Heideggers philosophy on existential apriorism. By becoming a totalitarian order of destruction, capitalism descredited that point of departure. The insistance on such an approach deprives Heideggers thought of a concrete historical dimension and turns the discussion of Heideggers thought into intellectual gymnastics with an abstract character. The traditional philosophical approach to Heidegger not only sterilizes the life-creating potentials of his thought, but also averts the mind from the basic existential issues currently facing humankind ever more dramatically. Consumer society is the final confrontation with a thought grounded in existential apriorism.

A demystification of Heideggers philosophy involves the emancipation of Heideggers thought from philosophy, which means discarding the philosophical veil under which his thought loses any concrete historical character and becomes abstract thought. Heidegger must be drawn away from the gloominess of philosophical gibberish into the light of history and treated as a concrete social being, whereas his philosophy should be treated as concrete historical thought. Only then can we discover both its limits and its emancipatory potential. At the same time, a concrete historical discussion of Heideggers philosophy is possible only if it does not fall into the trap of his philosophical rhetoric. It is a labyrinth without exit, where, in hopeless wandering, the mind loses its life-creating power.

In addition to ancient Greek philosophy, Heidegger found the source and inspiration for his ideas in the philosophy of St. Augustine, Meister Eckhart, Franz Brentano, Fridrich Schelling, Friedrich Hlderline, Srene Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, Rainer Maria Rilke, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Wilhelm Dilthey, Edmund Husserl, in thaoism and other Far-Easterm religions. In order to grasp the true nature of Heideggers philosophy, we should also bear in mind the ideas and political movements relative to which Heidegger sought to build his philosophy.

Rather than in theory, a concrete historical source of Heideggers thought is to be found in the reality of life in Germany in the first half of the 20th century. Only when Heideggers philosophy is viewed in the context of historical events in which it occurred can we discover its true nature. We are talking about German expansionism; the crisis of capitalism and the First World War; Germanys defeat and the collapse of the German Empire; the Munich Revolution and the development of the communist movement; the founding and fall of the Weimer Republic; the development of German revanchism and the rise of fascism; the thrust toward the East and the collapse of Nazi Germany Heideggers philosophy was only possible on German soil.

There is no denying that Heideggers philosophy has an authenticity reflected not only in its specific parlance, but also in the specific treatment of basic philosophical questions. Essentially, Heidegger sought to answer the question of the future of Germany in the form of a philosophical treatise. That is, most importantly, what makes Heidegger a German philosopher and determines both the self-consciousness of Heideggers philosophy and Heideggers notion of himself as a philosopher. Without such an approach to Heideggers thought, we cannot correctly answer the question of the political essence of his philosophy and, in that context, of the nature of Heideggers relation to Nazism.

Translated from Serbian by Vesna Todorovi (Petrovi), English translation supervisor Mick Collins

Related

More here:
Girls performance in maths starting to add up to boys, says UNESCO - Modern Diplomacy

Have you ever just stood and looked in awe at a sunset? Perhaps youve gone to some spectacular natural vista like the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone or even North Carolinas own Blue Ridge Parkway. Maybe you have just been traveling one of the quite back roads here in Robeson County and been blown away with how pretty tobacco fields framed by pine trees can be.

Have you ever thought about the human body and how it works? It is full of these amazingly complex systems that enable us to live, systems that are upset, sometimes fatally, by the smallest of changes in our physiology. We see these same complex systems at play at the smallest level in the atom all the way up to largest levels, the universe itself.

If this planet was just a little closer or further from the star at the center of our solar system, or it was tilted just a few degrees further one way or the other, life on this planet would not be possible. The moon is one-four hundredth the size of the Sun. It is also one-four hundredth of the distance between the Earth and the Sun. This is what makes perfect solar eclipses possible. If the moon were just slightly larger or smaller or closer or further from Earth, again not only would we not have eclipses the way that we do, but it is very possible that life as we know it would not be possible.

Psalm 19:1 says The heavens declare the glory of God, and the expanse proclaims the work of his hands. In a very real sense, those sunsets, amazing vistas and the intricacies of the human body and the solar system are all there to proclaim Gods glory and that He is the creator. They are all a part of Gods divine plan, His perfect design, that not only allows life to flourish, but also points to Him.

In the prologue to his gospel, John tells us that He [meaning the Word, or Jesus] was in the world, and the world was created through him, and yet the world did not recognize him, (John 1:10). John is testifying to the fact that the very world in which we live was created through Jesus and as such His glory is woven into the very fabric of creation.

This is not to be confused with ideas like pantheism or panentheism that say that the creation itself is God or that God is in the creation. No, I am simply saying that since creation was created through Jesus, that every atom, every sunset, every planet hurtling through space is there to testify to Gods glory and, in fact, His very existence.

The story of creation that we find in the first chapter of Genesis shows us that God created the world by bringing order from chaos. God starts hovering over a formless, empty, and dark world, and over the course of six days brings perfect order and design. When, at the end of the sixth day God saw all that he had made, and it was very good indeed, Genesis 1:31.

When He was done, as we just saw, it was very good. In fact, it was perfect. As part of this great design, God made it so that everything fit together. There was perfect balance and cohesion. There was no headlong sprint into disorder and chaos.

This design is there to tell us about God, to testify to Him, and to expose His glory to all.

Questions to consider:

1) What is the most spectacular thing youve ever seen in creation?

2) Name a time that you saw something that left you in total awe of God and His glory.

3) How do you see Gods design in your own life?

4). Do you think that Gods design is visible even to those that dont know Him? Why or why not?

S. Carter McNeese lives in Fairmont, NC with his wife, son, and various pets. He is pastor at Fairmont First Baptist Church. You can reach him at [emailprotected]

More:
Declaring the glory of God - The Robesonian

Illustration: Eldo Yoshimizu

Eldo Yoshimizu is likely more famous in the art world for his sculpting, but debuted in comics in 2016 with Ryuko, exhibited in a gallery before going into print. That manga, about a young, raven-haired yakuza, was reminiscent of the work of famed Italian comics artist Guido Crepax, particularly his signature character of Valentina, with similar line work (that also evoked the styles of Monkey Punch and Kamimura Kazuo). His latest work, in contrast, explores cosmotheisman older version of pantheism later renamed to avoid affiliation with far-right, nationalist politicians.

Hen Kai Pan (All In One) is a starkly bleak adjudication of humanitys relationship with the Earth. In the book, Earth has five guardian spirits, whose names, like Asura and Pemajugne, are derived from world faiths, primarily priestly figures in Eastern religions. Fed up with humanitys mistreatment of the planet, the guardian spirits decide to carry out an ultimate judgmentonly to discover they have different visions of what this judgment will be, which results in conflict. At the heart of this struggle is Asura, a guardian expected to become the Spirit Of War, but presently subservient to Nila, the most destructive guardian. The results are bleak but staggering.

A

Matoko Tamamuro

Illustration: Eldo Yoshimizu

Though not born of the pandemic, Hen Kai Pans production was already underway during the first COVID-19 outbreak. According to him, Yoshimizu doubted whether the world was in need of such a bleak book butlikely similar to many readersthanks to the halt in capitalist production, during a nature walk one day, he saw a forest less polluted than usual. He realized that life continues without humans; its a perspective echoed in this book, which has no human principal characters. However, not unlike the Endless created by Neil Gaiman, Sam Kieth, and Mike Dringenberg, the guardians do possess human characteristics. The fact that these spiritual guardians display pride, ego, rational thinking, conflict, and manipulationand can still still come to destructive conclusionsserves to reinforce this dire need to ask the uncomfortable question about whether humanity deserves to survive.

It cannot be stressed how truly bleak a work Hen Kai Pan is. The narrative treats atrocitiesthe violence of borders, nuclear crises, bombing campaigns in forested areasas background detail to the larger horror of humanity. Yet it is in its art where the true emptiness lies. Yoshimizus previous books, and general art style, tend to feature hectic and intimate action, intensity lines, and cinematically busy pages. Not so, here.

Illustration: Eldo Yoshimizu

Illustration: Eldo Yoshimizu

Hen Kai Pans pages utilize copious amounts of white space in a manner reminiscent of modern poetry. Skies that should be cloudy are blank, and whole pages are devoted to large, human-less landscapes like tundras. Fans of Yoshimizus work will pick up on the sparse use of SFX in the book, considering his previous heavy application of them. (He discusses his oversight of the translation of SFX in a 2017 interview.) As the apocalyptic narrative unfolds, one might be reminded of the reason the Mesopotamian gods flooded the planet in the Epic Of Gilgamesh: too much noise.

That being said, Hen Kai Pan is not a wholly nihilistic work. Pantheism can be summarized as the belief that reality comprises the divine. If the book seems blas about the eradication of humanity, its only because it subscribes to a view wherein humanity is not central to the universe, but just a repurposed specification of it. Neither is the art without warmth: All the spirits are drawn in moving, human ways, and there are frequent close ups of plant and animal life.

Most striking, however, is Yoshimizus use of water colors. Watercolor is the pervading mode of rendering in Hen Kai Pan, reminiscent of its use in the 1973 animated Japanese classic Belladonna Of Sadness. Though they are used to show the lingering effects of destruction, as with explosions, they are also used to show the wonder of reunification and how reality, being one, seeps into itself. Yoshimizu has created a work of tremendous power, one that, like its inhuman characters, finds value in wiping the slate clean to begin again.

Illustration: Eldo Yoshimizu

Illustration: Eldo Yoshimizu

Read more:
Hen Kai Pan is a comic that finds a bleak but beautiful poetry in humanitys end - The A.V. Club

.. By Gen Raza Muhammad Khan (R)

THE British ruled India for over a century after deposing, displacing or marginalizing Mughal and other Muslim rulers, through exploitation of disunity and dispersion among them, in connivance with Rajput and Maratha Hindu monarchs.

But as descendants of a conquering and ruling people in India for 800 years and adherents of Islam, the Muslims found it difficult to accept British domination and detested Hindu rule that epitomizes caste discrimination and pantheism, as against Islams monotheistic faith.

In 1885, the Indian National Congress was born, which aspired to gain supremacy in a one-man, one-vote democratic dispensation in the whole of India, in the future.

This gave rise to consensus among Muslims that if the Islamic way of life could not be preserved in an all-India set up, it should be salvaged, wherever possible.

This sentiment was accordingly theorized by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan in 1886, who pronounced Muslims and Hindus as two separate nations.

When Bengal was divided in 1905 for administrative reasons by the British, the Congress vehemently opposed it, as it gave preponderance to, and benefited the Muslims.

To protect Muslim interests and enhance their political empowerment in British India, the All India Muslim League (AIML)was born at Dacca in 1906, at the residence of Nawab Salim Ullah, who was appointed as its first VP and Aga Khan III, elected as the First President of AIML, (a position that he ably held for 12 years).

Though Bengals division was undone six years later to appease the Hindus, but it gave impetus to Muslim nationalism and the Two Nations Concept in India.

In 1926, the RSS was secretly established, to fight the Muslims and it grew exponentially on that manifesto.

This led, in 1929, to Quaids Fourteen Points, for constitutional reforms to safeguard the political rights and defence of Muslims in a self-governing India.

Further, in 1930, Iqbal, as president of AIML, envisioned a separate home land for Muslims, through merger of Muslim majority provinces of India.

Eventually these notions were formalized through the AIML Resolution of 23 March 1940.

On this occasion, the Quaid argued: Muslims should have their own separate homeland outside of Hindu-majority India, where Islam is the dominant religion.

Thereafter, this Resolution became the guiding beacon for the Pakistan Movement, till partition of India.

Also, hereafter, the Muslim League, led by the Quaid, developed into a formidable political organization with necessary unity of command, executive structure, communication framework, legal powers, persuasive ability and consistency, for the creation of Pakistan.

In 1944, Gandhi proposed to achieve independence from the British jointly and to settle the issue of Pakistan later, but Jinnah rejected this.

In 1946,when the British Cabinet Mission asked to rationalize the demand for Pakistans creation, the Quaid stated: Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religions, cultures, philosophies, social customs and literature

they derive their inspiration from different sources of history; they have different epics, different heroes, and ways of life.

To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.

Unless there are essential uniting forces how are you to put Muslims together with a majority, whose way of life is so different?

In 1946, the AIML secured most of the Muslim votes in elections for interim government in India, which further legitimized the demand for Pakistan.

To prevent Pakistans creation, Gandhi even offered the post of PM of a united, interim Indian government to the Quaid, but he rejected it.

Ultimately, due to the untiring efforts of the founding fathers,( including Liaquat Ali Khan, Abdur Rab Nishtar, Zafarullah Khan, Khwaja Nazimuddin, Huseyn Suhrawardy, A K Fazlul Huq, Khaliq uz Zaman, Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, Ms.

Fatima Jinnah and others) for over 60 years, Pakistan appeared on the world map. After Pakistans creation, the Quaid called it the premier Islamic State a bulwark of Islam with a feeling of joyful and genuine pride.

He also declared: Our constitution shall be democratic, embodying the essential principles of Islam.

Our decisions in state affairs shall be guided by consultations, as taught by the Almighty.

These matters were enshrined in the constitution, through the Objectives Resolution of 1949 and they remain inviolate since then.

The birth of Pakistan was also accompanied by a cost unprecedented in history, when a million innocent people were killed by Hindu and Sikh mobs and 11 million displaced.

This sacrifice must never go in vain.Did East Pakistanis abandon the Two Nations Theory in 1971?

Not really, as the break-up of Pakistan was abetted by India and a host of pro-Indian, militant, East Pakistani Hindu intellectuals, among 23 percent of Hindu population.

The two nations became three after 1971, which is analogous to two Muslim brothers, deciding to build separate homes without abandoning their religious affinities.

Besides, Bengali nationalism cannot unite Indian Bengal with Bangladesh. Consequently, Bangladesh joined the OIC in 1974 and their masses have never repudiated Islamic nationalism, despite external and internal efforts to secularize the country.

Actually, the Two Nations Theory, has been re-validated by the present Indian rulers, through their policies of discrimination, victimization and Hiduisation, of their Muslim population.

This calls for our deep gratitude to the Almighty and our ancestors, for our freedom, despite resistance by the British, Hindu majority and even some Muslim scholars.

Lets also resolve on this Pakistan Day, to follow the Quaids counsel: We won the battle for Pakistans freedom, but the grimmer war for its preservation and building Pakistan on sounder foundations has to be fought to a successful conclusion.

Muslims must also recognize that major challenges, facing them globally, like Islamophobia, Muslims maltreatment, Kashmir and Palestine could be faced only through pan-Islamic sorority.

The writer is former President NDU.

.. Source

Excerpt from:
Ideology of Pakistan and beyond - Chitral News

By Dr Tauseef Ahmad Parray

The Quran Speaks to You is a helpful guide which provides the life-enriching directives of the Quran--the divine "Guidance Unto Humankind"--in a simple, lucid and coherent manner

ABDUR RAHEEM KIDWAI (b. 1956) is an English Professor by profession and a writer (among others) on Islam, Quranic Studies, and English Translations of the Quran. He has made enormous and significant contribution to this genre of scholarship, in the form of these books: The Quran: Essential Teachings (2005); Bibliography of the Translations of the Meaning of the Glorious Quran into English, 1649-2002 (2007); Daily Wisdom: Selections from the Holy Quran (2011); Translating the Untranslatable: A Critical Guide to 60 English Translations of the Quran (2011); What is in the Quran? Message of the Quran in Simple English (2013); 365 Selections from the Holy Quran (2014); Gods Word, Mans Interpretations (2019); and The Quran Speaks to You (2022).

Many of these works are addressed to Muslims with no or little knowledge of Arabic, to the new Muslims, and/ or to the (non-Muslim) English readership. For example, Kidwai's translation of the Quran, What is in the Quran?, attempts to present in simple, fluent English the paraphrase of the meaning and message of the Quran while striving to retain its original message. It has around 400 explanatory notes on a range of issues with a view to bringing into sharper light the Quranic guidance directed at the entire humanity. His Daily Wisdom: Selections from the Holy Quran (2011) attempts to set out meaning and message of the Quran in simple, understandable English for the general reader, Muslim or non-Muslim alike. Similarly, his 365 Sayings of the Quran (2014) is an anthology or compilation of 365 Quranic verses, proposed and intended to introduce briefly the core contents of the Quran so that to familiarize readers with the basic meaning and message of the Quran in simple, easy to grasp English.

Thus, highlighting and disseminating the universal message of the Quran is one of the major objectives of Kidwai's works related to the Quranand a new addition to this literature is the book under review.

The Quran Speaks to You, as its subtitle reveals clearly, is a collection of 60 Quranic passages (p.2) which illustrates the Quranic belief system, values and way of life. It highlights what the Quran says about God (the Creator), basic/ fundamental beliefs of Islam, purpose of creation, social relations, living a harmonious and peaceful life, gender equality, Islam and other religions/ religious beliefs, morals and manners, and other allied aspects.

Divided into three main parts: What to Believe? (Chapters 1-12) How to Lead Your Life (Chapters 13-53) and The Afterlife (Chapters 54-60)the book is preceded by a Preface (pp. 1-4) and ends with Appendices like Quranic Gems (pp. 185-191), Glossary (pp. 192-203), Further Reading (pp. 204-227), Quranic Passages (p. 228), and Index (pp.229-238). It introduces the Quranic outlook on various aspects of Islam for those who are new to it, and thus helps in shedding light on some misconceptions about Islam or the Quran (p. 3). The book (as mentioned in its back cover description) presents the main ideas which form the pillars of Islam and thus the author shows you how the religion reveals the way to lead a dignified life.

Each passage is accompanied by an explanation to help in understanding the message easily on various topics related to the Quranic belief system, values and way of life which helps a reader in realizing the common ground among all religions, which is needed all the more today when some divisive forces and wicked terrorists have been maligning the image of Islam (p.4). It also helps in clearing up the wrong ideas about the Quran and Islam by outlining Islamic rules for behaviour and the benefits earned for the afterlife for good deeds; and thus, provide an understanding of the core concepts of Islam. To validate these claims and to grasp this message, below is provided a summary of some chapters from each section:

In chapter 1, Who is God? (pp. 7-10), the author quotes Q. 112: 1-5; 2: 255; and 59: 22-24 and in their explanation states: The Quranic concept of God is simple and straightforward. It does not admit any anthropomorphism, deism or pantheism or any metaphysical or philosophical conundrum. He is all in all, and hence in Islam any notion of His partner or associate is totally ruled out (p. 9).

In chapter 9, Who is most honourable in the eyes of God? (pp. 34-35), Kidwai refers to Q. 49: 13 and describes it as remarkable for its universal message and for its concern for God-centeredness. For him, everyone is equal for being the progeny of Adam and Eve and it is our excellent conduct alone which makes us honourable in the eyes of God (pp. 34, 35).

In chapter 20, How to treat fellow human beings? (pp. 70-74), Kidwai, referring to Q. 4: 36 and 46: 15 and 31: 14, states that the first verse presents a summary of both the Islamic faith and practices and through these verses collectively the Quran has presented the ideal of peaceful coexistence and pluralism centuries before these turned out to be the buzzwords in our times (pp. 72-73).

In chapter 26, Do not disrespect other religions (pp. 86-88), Kidwai, referring to Q. 6: 108 states that the Quran recognizes the diversity of religions and it does not approve any coercion in matters of faith (p. 86). With referenced to Q. 2: 256, 109: 6 and 88: 21-22, he validates the claim that the Quran accords much importance to interfaith harmony and understanding (p. 87).

In chapter 44, Treating all life as sacrosanct (pp. 137-141), the author refers to verses like Q. 2: 190-91 and 244, 9: 5-6 and states, among others, that the Quran declares life as sacrosanct and hence forbids violence and killing (p. 137).

Similarly, while highlighting the gender parity in the Sacred Text, the author in chapter 53, What is the Islamic law of inheritance? (pp. 160-61), referring to Q. 4: 7-8 states: The Quranic law of inheritance is one of the many egalitarian steps undertaken by Islam in the seventh century. Islam elated the womans status by granting her a share and recognizing her as a heir (pp. 160-61).

In chapter 54, What is the nature of human life? (pp. 165-67), Kidwai, referring to Q. 57: 20 and 27, deduces that the Quran: (i) asks us to lead a goal-oriented life, with a sense of mission and does not recommend monasticism but denounces it; (ii) warns us about the pitfalls of worldliness and materialism and apathy and neglect towards the next life; and (iii) highlights the illusory, purely temporary nature of our life and this world.

These 60 chapters, under three broad headings, thus, illustrate the Quranic belief system, values and way of life and each chapter is supplemented further with many other Quranic verses on the theme in the Further Reading (pp. 204-227), which is an additional but significant feature of this book. Equally significant in the Appendices is the Quranic Gems (pp. 185-191) which lists certain selected passages which embody "perennial wisdom and profound indights" (p.4) and thus highlight the universal message of the Sacred Text. However, there are certain typos in the book which need to be rectified; for example it mentions that Quran has about 60,000 verses instead of over 6,000 verses.

All in all, Kidwais The Quran Speaks to You is a helpful guide which provides the life-enriching directives of the Quranthe divine Message directed to all of humankindin a lucid, simple, coherent manner and thematically. It is, thus, recommended for everyone (Muslim or non Muslim) interested in knowing and understanding the universal message of the Quran: be it related to the the belief system, social and ethico-moral values, gender parity, pluralistic ethos or way of life.

Follow this link to join our WhatsApp group: Join Now

Be Part of Quality Journalism

Quality journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce and despite all the hardships we still do it. Our reporters and editors are working overtime in Kashmir and beyond to cover what you care about, break big stories, and expose injustices that can change lives. Today more people are reading Kashmir Observer than ever, but only a handful are paying while advertising revenues are falling fast.

CLICK FOR DETAILS

Related

Read more:
Universal Directives of Quran: Introducing 'The Quran Speaks to You' - Kashmir Observer

The Seven Sins for Beginners, Vendread with a new Lady of Lament, and 5 Electric Decks.

Beginner Deck: Number 77: The Seven Sins Deck

3 Raidraptor Last Strix2 Astral Kuriboh3 Tour Guide From the Underworld3 D/D Nighthowl2 Alice, Lady of Lament2 Lilith, Lady of Lament1 Scarm, Malebranche of the Burning Abyss1 Edge Imp Sabres2 Lord of the Heavenly Prison2 Tragoedia

3 Xyz Import2 Overlay Network2 Stoic Challenge2 Galaxy Queens Light1 One for One1 Pot of Avarice1 Raigeki1 Harpies Feather Duster

2 Xyz Soul2 Soul of the Supreme King2 Mirror Force2 Fiend Griefing

1 Divine Arsenal AA-ZEUS Sky Thunder3 Number 77: The Seven Sins2 Raidraptor Ultimate Falcon1 Number 35: Ravenous Tarantula2 D/D/D Deviser King Deus Machinex2 D/D/D Stone King Darius1 Number 71: Rebarian Shark2 Supreme King Z-ARC1 Wee Witchs Apprentice

Vendread Deck Featuring Loris, Lady of Lament

Activate Vendread Reorigin endlessly!

3 Loris, Lady of Lament1 Revendread Executor3 Revendread Slayer1 Vendread Revenants2 Vendread Houndhorde1 Vendread Striges1 Vendread Core1 Vendread Anima2 Uni-Zombie1 Mad Murder

1 Foolish Burial1 Vendread Nights1 Vendread Charge3 Revendread Origin3 Pre-Preparation of Rites3 Preparation of Rites

3 Vendread Reorigin2 Vendread Reunion2 Vendread Revolution2 Ritual Buster3 Trap Trick

1 Swordsoul Supreme Sovereign Chengying1 Red-Eyes Zombie Dragon Lord1 Decayed Dragon Lord Felgrand1 PSY-Framelord Omega1 Immortal Dragon1 The Zombie Vampire1 Dhampir Vampire Sheridan1 Yuki-Onna, the Absolute Zero Mayakashi1 Yuki-Onna, the Icicle Mayakashi1 Vampire Fascinator3 Avendread Savior1 Vampire Sucker1 Crystron Halqifibrax

March 25th is Electric Light Day

Deck 1: Super Quant Deck Featuring EMR

3 Super Quantum Red Layer3 Super Quantum White Layer3 Super Quantum Blue Layer2 Super Quantum Green Layer3 Super Quantal Fairy Alphan3 Therions King Regulus3 Super Quantal Mech Ship Magnacarrier1 Super Quantal Alphan Spike1 Super Quantal Alphancall Appeal1 Terraforming1 Set Rotation1 Chicken Game1 Ritual Sanctuary1 Foolish Burial1 Infernoble Arms Durendal2 Emergency Teleport1 One for One

3 E.M.R.2 Super Quantal Mech Sword Magnaslayer2 Tribe Drive2 Trap Trick

2 Super Quantal Mech King Great Magnus2 Super Quantal Mech Beast Aeroboros2 Super Quantal Mech Beast Grampulse2 Super Quantal Mech Beast Magnaliger2 Super Quantal Mech Beast Lusterrex1 Neo Super Quantal Mech King Blaster Magna1 Infinitrack Fortress Megaclops1 Gravity Controller1 Steel Star Regulator1 Drill Driver Vespenato

Deck 2: Armed Dragon + Monarch Deck

2 Armed Dragon Thunder LV103 Armed Dragon Thunder LV73 Pile Armed Dragon3 Armed Dragon Thunder LV51 Armed Dragon Thunder LV32 Ehther the Heavenly Monarch1 Erebus the Underworld Monarch2 Eidos the Underworld Squire3 Edea the Heavenly Squire2 Artillery Catapult Turtle

3 Tenacity of the Monarchs3 Pantheism of the Monarchs2 Domain of the True Monarchs2 The Monarchs Stormforth1 Return of the Monarchs1 Pot of Avarice1 Reinforcement of the Army1 One for One1 Terraforming

2 The Monarchs Erupt1 The Prime Monarch

Deck 3: Meklord Deck Featuring Thunder Crush

3 Meklord Nucleus Infinity Core3 Meklord Emperor Wisel Synchro Absorption2 Meklord Emperor Wisel2 Meklord Emperor Granel1 Meklord Emperor Skiel3 Meklord Army Deployer Obbligato3 Meklord Army of Skiel2 Meklord Army of Granel2 Meklord Army of Wisel1 Meklord Astro Dragon Triskelion1 Meklord Astro Mekanikle1 Meklord Astro Dragon Asterisk

3 Thunder Crash3 Meklord Assembly2 Boon of the Meklord Emperor2 Meklord Fortress

3 Meklord Astro the Eradicator2 Chaos Infinity1 Mektimed Blast

1 Sylvan Princessprite1 Lyrilusc Ensemblue Robin2 Gear Gigant X1 Number 27: Dreadnought Dreadnoid1 Tornado Dragon1 Daigusto Emeral2 Qliphort Genius1 Dharc the Dark Charmer, Gloomy1 Barricadeborg Blocker1 Knightmare Phoenix1 Knightmare Cerberus1 Platinum Gadget1 Scareclaw Trich Heart

Deck 4: Appliancer Deck

3 Appliancer Socketroll3 Appliancer Copybokkle3 Appliancer Breakerbuncle3 Therions King Regulus1 World Legacy World Lance

3 Appliancer Electrilyrical World3 Therions Ring, the Colosseum Saucer3 Appliancer Conversion2 Appliancer Test3 Appliancer Reuse2 Perpetual Engine Argyro System1 Set Rotation1 Terraforming1 One for One3 Where Arf Thou?3 Machine Duplication2 Jack-In-The-Hand

3 Appliancer Celtopus3 Appliancer Propelion2 Appliancer Vacculephant2 Appliancer Laundry Dragon2 Appliancer Kappa Scale2 Appliancer Dryer Drake1 Sylvan Princessprite

Deck 5: S-Force Deck Featuring Wattkinetic Puppeteer

3 Wattkinetic Puppeteer2 S-Force Pla-Tina1 S-Force Lapcewell3 S-Force Gravitino3 S-Force Dog Tag1 S-Force Edge Razor2 S-Force Orrafist2 S-Force Professor DiGamma3 S-Force Rappa Chiyomaru3 S-Force Retroactive

3 Small World3 S-Force Bridgehead2 S-Force Showdown1 Reinforcement of the Army1 Monster Reborn1 Terraforming

3 S-Force Chase3 S-Force Specimen

1 Relinquished Anima1 Geonator Transverser1 Crusadia Equimax3 S-Force Justify1 Linkuriboh1 I:P Masquerena1 Dharc the Dark Charmer, Gloomy1 Lyna the Light Charmer, Lustrous1 Knightmare Cerberus1 Knightmare Phoenix1 Accesscode Talker1 Underworld Goddess of the Closed World1 Constellar Pleiades

Tournament/Competitive Decks:

[RUSH DUEL] Sea Serpent-Type + Machine-Type DeckFight by fiddling with the cards in the Graveyards!

Master Duel (N/R Festival):

Gadget Deck

Megalith Deck

Majespecter Deck

Metalfoes + True Draco Deck

Rock Deck

Yosenju Deck

Read more from the original source:
The Organization | [Deck Recipes] March 25th, 2022 - YGOrganization

Having visited Rumassala, which we featured last week, we headed towards the coastal fishing town of Weligama, through delightful seaside resorts. The placid bay of Weligama is 30 kilometres from Galle. The seascape is filled with ubiquitous stilt fishermens single poles with a cross bar to catch small fish in chest-deep water on the beach. This is a visual treat and perhaps, one of the most photoworthy sceneries in the world.

Though Weligama is a drowsy small sea town today, in the colonial period it was a highly prosperous centre for foreign trade. The 16th century lace-making craft which was introduced by the Portuguese still remains in some parts of the coastal area of Weligama. We spotted a few old buildings here and there with columns with lattice work as the only remnants of the colonial period in Weligama.

The magnificent ancient Kustarajagala archaeological site is within the hustle and bustle of the Weligama town close to the Aggrabodhi Vihara off the old Colombo road. Urbanisation has engulfed the surrounding of Kustarajagala which is confined to cramped small plot of land today.

The houses are on every side. The Matara-Colombo railway track is behind the site. A playground lies in front of this sacred site where children play cricket and stray cows graze here and there. Although the peace of time has overtaken the sacred place, it still retains its character as a place of peace and tranquility.

Statue of Bodhisattva

The Kustarajagala rock cut statue about 15 feet in height stands on an isolated rock. An intricately carved and elaborately dressed splendid statue of Bodhisattva is set deep into the rock. It lies in the shade of overhanging Bo-tree. When we stepped in to the site, the morning rays of the sunlight were flickering through the branches of the Bo-tree.

Perhaps, a huge rock boulder has been sliced in two to create this work. The other half lies just opposite side, wrapped within the roots of an ancient Bo-tree. Since the statue was carved out into the rock at a higher elevation, we can view it above the eye level about eight feet from the ground. After climbing the opposite rock, we came up to eye level with the statue. From this point, the whole statue seems different and every detail becomes clear. Then, we realised the massive scale of the statue.

Known as Kustaraja, the statue was created between 7-8th century according to the notice board erected by the Department of Archaeology. There are various legends associated with the name and the construction of the statue. An ancient chronicle records that King Aggrabodhi IV (667-683 AD), suffered from an incurable skin disease and had got this sculpture made under his patronage. Since Aggrabodhi IV lived in Ruhuna for a long time he may have constructed this statue.

Looking closely at the details of this rock hewn statue, we came across several features.

The statue is heavily draped in elaborate ornaments and cloths. The head dress too is elaborately designed with four figures of the Buddha carved on three sides of it. Many necklaces adorn the neck.

Parts of the head dress touch the shoulders. Perhaps this, one of the most beautiful and intricately carved statues in Sri Lanka suggests the influence of Mahayana Buddhism in the Country in the 7-8th centuries.

Tragically, someone has attempted to dig out an area between the chest and the waist of the statue removing a piece of rock which contained an elaborately carved ornamental design across the statue.

Several similar marks are found in the head-dress of the Kustarajagala statue which is also believed to represent a Bodhosattva. Avalokitesvara is assigned a higher status than Maitreya by the Mahayanists.

He is identified as Natha Deviyao and is said to represent the influence of Hindu pantheism in Sri Lanka.

The left hand of the statues ring finger and middle finger are bent to touch the palm of the hand. This Mudra (pose) is believed to signify a beckoning to devotees for a blessing.

Nearby, the Aggrabodhi Rajamaha Vihara is the place where one of the first 32 saplings of the Sri Maha Bodhiya at Anuradhapura was planted.

It is also speculated that this Vihara was called Aggrabodhi since it was constructed under the patronage of King Aggrabodhi IV.

Kustarajagala statue

The Kustarajagala statue is said to have been part of this temple at the time, though according to some archaeologists, it was part of an old Avalokitesvara-Natha temple that used to stand on this site.

This tallies with the doctrine of Mahayana Buddhism, as the Avalokitesvara was the saviour of man-kind and the healer of the sick. Kustarajagala may belong to the Mahayana sect, long since defunct here and considered heretic.

In Ruhuna, we found several other Mahayana sites where similar Avalokitesvara Bodhisatva statues exist Situlpahuwa, deep in the Yala National Park, Maligawila at Okkampitiya and Buduruwagala rock carvings at Wellawaya are examples.

The Kustarajagala statue is the most outstanding relic today of a period during which Mahayana and Tantric Buddhism held sway in Sri Lanka. When the statue was completed is not known.

This lack of any detailed history may be due to the statues Mahayana origins.

Veritable war

The competition between Mahayana and Theravada became a veritable war at one point in Sri Lankas history. Finally, the original sect of Theravada prevailed. With time, memories of Mahayanism faded away completely.

Most Sri Lankans today consider Mahayanism is an exclusively foreign sect. However, devotees still come to the Kustarajagala statue to worship and pray for relief from diseases they regard the statue as a Mahayanist Bodhisattva who is considered a healing deity.

In front of the Kustarajagala statue just a few feet away, lays a tomb of a European. Some believe it may belong to an engineer who came to build the railway track. Why this tomb is erected here is not known and mysterious, but its details carved out on a granite plaque are still readable. It says In loving memory of Thomas H.D. Gadder, Born 25 August 1825, Died 10 August 1907, Jesus is our Peace.

If you find some extra time on your hands on a trip to Weligama, do not forget to see the statue.

More:
Homage in rock to Bodhisattva - Sunday Observer

I think God can be everywhere because he can look at everybody from the sky, says Kate.

God has angels everywhere to help him be everywhere, says Emilee, 8.

Friends, I believe youre trying to confine God to the space of his creation. Instead, imagine dipping a cup in the ocean. Let the water in the cup represent the entire universe. Now, compare the water inside the cup to all the water in the ocean. In a feeble way, this illustrates how small the universe is compared to how big God is.

Some people believe they are expressing the immensity or hugeness of God by saying what Chad, 10, says: God is everywhere because he is everything.

Philosophers call this pantheism. Some see pantheism as a polite form of atheism because it sacrifices the idea of a personal God. Pantheism is a fancy way of limiting God because it reduces God to the space of this universe.

Chad, you would be wise to talk to Shelby, 7: God can be everywhere because he is bigger than the world. Katy, 8, says, God is spirit. Kudos to Shelby and Katy! You may be only 7 and 8, but youve expressed Gods immensity more eloquently than many theologians.

Nevertheless, heres a theologian who had some insight. All the spaces in the world do not exhaust the immensity of God, wrote theologian Leonardus Riissenius.

Although God transcends time and space in that hes over and above his creation, hes able to act within the created universe to accomplish his purposes. Similarly, authors are above and beyond their books, yet they reach into their stories to shape plots and characters.

Because were confined to time and space, its hard for us to imagine someone who isnt. As Owen, 9, says, God can be everywhere because, well, hes God. Or as Jake puts it, God can be everywhere because he is God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit and big!

Jake, I dont know if any of the first-century apostles would express it that way, but I think youre making the same point as Owen: God is God. Hes different from us just as wood and metal are different. Refining metal will not produce wood, nor will amplifying the best qualities in people produce God.

Its a good thing God is everywhere because God knows everyone needs him, says Morgan, 10. He is powerful, and he loves us, so he always wants to be around us all the time, says Katherine, 10.

God loves you and watches over you, adds Colton, 7. Also, he wants to be close to us, says Bethany, 7.

Gods desire to be close to us went so far that he entered the world in the form of a man. For 33 years, Jesus Christ experienced the limitations of time and space so that he could die for the sins of the world and rise again to conquer death. Transcendent God was manifest in a human body. The Apostle Paul calls the incarnation the mystery of godliness.

Though we dont fully understand this mystery, its plain that its astonishing news. God can be everywhere because he is a wonderful God! concludes Brooke, 9. And who could disagree with that?

Think about this: Wherever you are, God is always present.

Memorize this truth: I have set the Lord always before me; because He is at my right hand I shall not be moved (Psalm 16:8).

Ask this question: Are you aware of Gods presence?

Kids Talk About God is designed for families to study the Bible together. Research shows that parents who study the Bible with their children give their character, faith and spiritual life a powerful boost. To receive Kids Talk About God three times a week in a free, email subscription, visit http://www.KidsTalkAboutGod.org/email.

Read more:
How can God be everywhere? - Journal Review

17th-century philosopher

Baruch Spinoza

Baruch Espinosa

Main interests

Notable ideas

Baruch (de) Spinoza[b] (24 November 1632 21 February 1677)[17][18][19][20] was a Dutch philosopher of Portuguese Sephardic Jewish origin.[12][18][21] One of the foremost exponents of 17th-century Rationalism and one of the early and seminal thinkers of the Enlightenment[17][22] and modern biblical criticism[23] including modern conceptions of the self and the universe,[24] he came to be considered "one of the most important philosophersand certainly the most radicalof the early modern period."[25][18] Inspired by the groundbreaking ideas of Ren Descartes, Spinoza became a leading philosophical figure of the Dutch Golden Age. Spinoza's given name, which means "Blessed", varies among different languages. In Hebrew, his full name is written . In the Netherlands he used the Portuguese name Bento.[clarification needed] In his works in Latin, he used the name Benedictus de Spinoza.

Spinoza was raised in the Spanish-Portuguese-Jewish community in Amsterdam. He developed highly controversial ideas regarding the authenticity of the Hebrew Bible and the nature of the Divine. Jewish religious authorities issued a herem () against him, causing him to be effectively expelled and shunned by Jewish society at age 23, including by his own family. Shortly after his death his books were added to the Catholic Church's Index of Forbidden Books. He was frequently called an "atheist" by contemporaries, although nowhere in his work does Spinoza argue against the existence of God.

Spinoza lived an outwardly simple life as an optical lens grinder, collaborating on microscope and telescope lens designs with Constantijn and Christiaan Huygens. He turned down rewards and honours throughout his life, including prestigious teaching positions. He died at the age of 44 in 1677 from a lung illness, perhaps tuberculosis or silicosis exacerbated by the inhalation of fine glass dust while grinding lenses. He is buried in the Christian churchyard of Nieuwe Kerk in The Hague.[29]

Spinoza's magnum opus, the Ethics, was published posthumously in the year of his death. The work opposed Descartes' philosophy of mindbody dualism and earned Spinoza recognition as one of Western philosophy's most important thinkers. In it, "Spinoza wrote the last indisputable Latin masterpiece, and one in which the refined conceptions of medieval philosophy are finally turned against themselves and destroyed entirely". Hegel said, "The fact is that Spinoza is made a testing-point in modern philosophy, so that it may really be said: You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all."[31] His philosophical accomplishments and moral character prompted Gilles Deleuze to name him "the 'prince' of philosophers".[32]

Spinoza's ancestors were Marranos descended from Sephardic Jews and were a part of the community of Portuguese Jews that had settled in the city of Amsterdam in the wake of the Portuguese Inquisition (1536), which had resulted in forced conversions and expulsions from the Iberian Peninsula.[33] Attracted by the Decree of Toleration issued in 1579 by the Union of Utrecht, Portuguese converts to Catholicism first sailed to Amsterdam in 1593 and promptly reconverted to Judaism. In 1598, permission was granted to build a synagogue, and in 1615 an ordinance for the admission and government of the Jews was passed. As a community of exiles, the Portuguese Jews of Amsterdam were highly proud of their identity.

Although the Portuguese name "de Espinosa" or "Espinosa", then spelled with a "z", can be confused with the Spanish "de Espinoza" or "Espinoza", there is no evidence in Spinoza's genealogy that his family came from Espinosa de los Monteros, near Burgos, or from Espinosa de Cerrato, near Palencia, both in Northern Castile, Spain. Espinoza was a common Spanish conversos family name. Links do suggest that the Espinoza family probably came from Spain and went to The Netherlands through Portugal. The Spinoza family were expelled from Spain in 1492 and fled to Portugal. Portugal compelled them to convert to Catholicism in 1498, and so they left for the Netherlands.[37]

Spinoza's father was born roughly a century after the forced conversions in the small Portuguese city of Vidigueira, near Beja in Alentejo. When Spinoza's father Miguel (Michael) was still a child, Spinoza's grandfather, Isaac de Spinoza, who was from Lisbon, took his family to Nantes in France. They were expelled in 1615 and moved to Rotterdam, where Isaac died in 1627. Spinoza's father and his uncle Manuel then moved to Amsterdam where they resumed the practice of Judaism. Miguel was a successful merchant and became a warden of the synagogue and of the Amsterdam Jewish school. He buried three wives and three of his six children died before reaching adulthood.

Amsterdam and Rotterdam operated as important cosmopolitan centres where merchant ships from many parts of the world brought people of various customs and beliefs. This flourishing commercial activity encouraged a culture relatively tolerant of the play of new ideas, to a considerable degree sheltered from the censorious hand of ecclesiastical authority (though those considered to have gone "too far" might have been persecuted even in the Netherlands). Not by chance were the philosophical works of both Descartes and Spinoza developed in the cultural and intellectual background of the Dutch Republic in the 17th century.[38] Spinoza may have had access to a circle of friends who were unconventional in terms of social tradition, including members of the Collegiants.[39] One of the people he knew was Niels Stensen, a brilliant Danish student in Leiden; others included Albert Burgh, with whom Spinoza is known to have corresponded.[41]

Baruch Espinosa was born on 24 November 1632 in the Jodenbuurt in Amsterdam, Netherlands. He was the second son of Miguel de Espinoza, a successful, although not wealthy, Portuguese Sephardic Jewish merchant in Amsterdam. His mother, Ana Dbora, Miguel's second wife, died when Baruch was only six years old. Spinoza's mother tongue was Portuguese, although he also knew Hebrew, Spanish, Dutch, perhaps French, and later Latin. Although he wrote in Latin, Spinoza learned the language only late in his youth.

Spinoza had a traditional Jewish upbringing, attending the Keter Torah yeshiva of the Amsterdam Talmud Torah congregation headed by the learned and traditional senior Rabbi Saul Levi Morteira. His teachers also included the less traditional Rabbi Manasseh ben Israel, "a man of wide learning and secular interests, a friend of Vossius, Grotius, and Rembrandt". While presumably a star pupil, and perhaps considered as a potential rabbi, Spinoza never reached the advanced study of the Torah in the upper levels of the curriculum. Instead, at the age of 17, after the death of his elder brother, Isaac, he cut short his formal studies in order to begin working in the family importing business.

The precise date of Spinoza's first studies of Latin with Francis van den Enden (Franciscus van den Enden) is not known. Some state it began as early as 16541655, when Spinoza was 20; others note that the documentary record only attests to his presence in van den Enden's circle around 16571658. Van den Enden was a notorious free thinker, former Jesuit, and radical democrat who likely introduced Spinoza to scholastic and modern philosophy, including that of Descartes. (A decade later, in the early 1660s, Van den Enden was considered to be a Cartesian and atheist,[50] and his books were put on the Catholic Index of Banned Books.)

Spinoza's father, Miguel, died in 1654 when Spinoza was 21. He duly recited Kaddish, the Jewish prayer of mourning, for eleven months as required by Jewish law. When his sister Rebekah disputed his inheritance seeking it for herself, on principle he sued her to seek a court judgment, he won the case, but then renounced claim to the courts judgment in his favour and assigned his inheritance to her.

Spinoza adopted the Latin name Benedictus de Spinoza,[52] began boarding with Van den Enden, and began teaching in his school. Following an anecdote in an early biography by Johannes Colerus[de],[53] he is said to have fallen in love with his teacher's daughter, Clara, but she rejected him for a richer student. (This story has been questioned on the basis that Clara Maria van den Enden was born in 1643 and would have been no more than about 13 years old when Spinoza left Amsterdam. In 1671 she married Dirck Kerckring.)

During this period Spinoza also became acquainted with the Collegiants, an anti-clerical sect of Remonstrants with tendencies towards rationalism, and with the Mennonites who had existed for a century but were close to the Remonstrants. Many of his friends belonged to dissident Christian groups which met regularly as discussion groups and which typically rejected the authority of established churches as well as traditional dogmas.[12]

Spinoza's break with the prevailing dogmas of Judaism, and particularly the insistence on non-Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, was not sudden; rather, it appears to have been the result of a lengthy internal struggle: "If anyone thinks my criticism [regarding the authorship of the Bible] is of too sweeping a nature and lacking sufficient foundation, I would ask him to undertake to show us in these narratives a definite plan such as might legitimately be imitated by historians in their chronicles... If he succeeds, I shall at once admit defeat, and he will be my mighty Apollo. For I confess that all my efforts over a long period have resulted in no such discovery. Indeed, I may add that I write nothing here that is not the fruit of lengthy reflection; and although I have been educated from boyhood in the accepted beliefs concerning Scripture, I have felt bound in the end to embrace the views I here express."[55]

Nevertheless, after he was branded as a heretic, Spinoza's clashes with authority became more pronounced. For example, questioned by two members of his synagogue, Spinoza apparently responded that God has a body and nothing in scripture says otherwise. He was later attacked on the steps of the synagogue by a knife-wielding assailant shouting "Heretic!" He was apparently quite shaken by this attack and for years kept (and wore) his torn cloak, unmended, as a souvenir.

After his father's death in 1654, Spinoza and his younger brother Gabriel (Abraham) ran the family importing business. The business ran into serious financial difficulties, however, perhaps as a result of the First Anglo-Dutch War. In March 1656, Spinoza filed suit with the Amsterdam municipal authorities to be declared an orphan in order to escape his father's business debts and so that he could inherit his mother's estate (which at first was incorporated into his father's estate) without it being subject to his father's creditors. In addition, after having made substantial contributions to the Talmud Torah synagogue in 1654 and 1655, he reduced his December 1655 contribution and his March 1656 pledge to nominal amounts (and the March 1656 pledge was never paid).

Spinoza was eventually able to relinquish responsibility for the business and its debts to his younger brother, Gabriel, and devote himself chiefly to the study of philosophy, especially the system expounded by Descartes, and to optics.

On 27 July 1656, the Talmud Torah congregation of Amsterdam issued a writ of cherem (Hebrew: , a kind of ban, shunning, ostracism, expulsion, or excommunication) against the 23-year-old Spinoza.[58][59] The following document translates the official record of the censure:

The Lords of the ma'amad, having long known of the evil opinions and acts of Baruch de Espinoza, have endeavoured by various means and promises, to turn him from his evil ways. But having failed to make him mend his wicked ways, and, on the contrary, daily receiving more and more serious information about the abominable heresies which he practised and taught and about his monstrous deeds, and having for this numerous trustworthy witnesses who have deposed and borne witness to this effect in the presence of the said Espinoza, they became convinced of the truth of the matter; and after all of this has been investigated in the presence of the honourable chachamim [sages], they have decided, with their consent, that the said Espinoza should be excommunicated and expelled from the people of Israel. By the decree of the angels, and by the command of the holy men, we excommunicate, expel, curse and damn Baruch de Espinoza, with the consent of God, Blessed be He, and with the consent of all the Holy Congregation, in front of these holy Scrolls with the six-hundred-and-thirteen precepts which are written therein, with the excommunication with which Joshua banned Jericho,[61] with the curse with which Elisha cursed the boys[62] and with all the curses which are written in the Book of the Law. Cursed be he by day and cursed be he by night; cursed be he when he lies down, and cursed be he when he rises up; cursed be he when he goes out, and cursed be he when he comes in. The Lord will not spare him; the anger and wrath of the Lord will rage against this man, and bring upon him all the curses which are written in this book, and the Lord will blot out his name from under heaven, and the Lord will separate him to his injury from all the tribes of Israel with all the curses of the covenant, which are written in the Book of the Law. But you who cleave unto the Lord God are all alive this day. We order that no one should communicate with him orally or in writing, or show him any favour, or stay with him under the same roof, or within four ells of him, or read anything composed or written by him.

The Talmud Torah congregation issued censure routinely, on matters great and small, so such an edict was not unusual.[63] The language of Spinoza's censure is unusually harsh, however, and does not appear in any other censure known to have been issued by the Portuguese Jewish community in Amsterdam. The exact reason ("horrendas heregias", abominable heresies) for expelling Spinoza is not stated.[66] The censure refers only to the "abominable heresies that he practised and taught", to his "monstrous deeds", and to the testimony of witnesses "in the presence of the said Espinoza". There is no record of such testimony, but there appear to have been several likely reasons for the issuance of the censure.

First, there were Spinoza's radical theological views that he was apparently expressing in public. As philosopher and Spinoza biographer Steven Nadler puts it: "No doubt he was giving utterance to just those ideas that would soon appear in his philosophical treatises. In those works, Spinoza denies the immortality of the soul; strongly rejects the notion of a providential Godthe God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and claims that the Law was neither literally given by God nor any longer binding on Jews. Can there be any mystery as to why one of history's boldest and most radical thinkers was sanctioned by an orthodox Jewish community?"

Second, the Amsterdam Jewish community was largely composed of Spanish and Portuguese former conversos who had respectively fled from the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisition within the previous century, with their children and grandchildren. This community must have been concerned to protect its reputation from any association with Spinoza lest his controversial views provide the basis for their own possible persecution or expulsion. There is little evidence that the Amsterdam municipal authorities were directly involved in Spinoza's censure itself. But "in 1619, the town council expressly ordered [the Portuguese Jewish community] to regulate their conduct and ensure that the members of the community kept to a strict observance of Jewish law." Other evidence makes it clear that the danger of upsetting the civil authorities was never far from mind, such as bans adopted by the synagogue on public wedding or funeral processions and on discussing religious matters with Christians, lest such activity might "disturb the liberty we enjoy". Thus, the issuance of Spinoza's censure was almost certainly, in part, an exercise in self-censorship by the Portuguese Jewish community in Amsterdam.

Third, it appears likely that Spinoza had already taken the initiative to separate himself from the Talmud Torah congregation and was vocally expressing his hostility to Judaism itself, also through his philosophical works, such as the Part I of Ethics.[72] He had probably stopped attending services at the synagogue, either after the lawsuit with his sister or after the knife attack on its steps. He might already have been voicing the view expressed later in his Theological-Political Treatise that the civil authorities should suppress Judaism as harmful to the Jews themselves. Either for financial or other reasons, he had in any case effectively stopped contributing to the synagogue by March 1656. He had also committed the "monstrous deed", contrary to the regulations of the synagogue and the views of some rabbinical authorities (including Maimonides), of filing suit in a civil court rather than with the synagogue authoritiesto renounce his father's heritage, no less. Upon being notified of the issuance of the censure, he is reported to have said: "Very well; this does not force me to do anything that I would not have done of my own accord, had I not been afraid of a scandal." Thus, unlike most of the censure issued routinely by the Amsterdam congregation to discipline its members, the censure issued against Spinoza did not lead to repentance and so was never withdrawn.

After the censure, Spinoza is said to have addressed an "Apology" (defence), written in Spanish, to the elders of the synagogue, "in which he defended his views as orthodox, and condemned the rabbis for accusing him of 'horrible practices and other enormities' merely because he had neglected ceremonial observances". This "Apology" does not survive, but some of its contents may later have been included in his Theological-Political Treatise. For example, he cited a series of cryptic statements by medieval Biblical commentator Abraham ibn Ezra intimating that some apparently anachronistic passages of the Pentateuch (e.g., "[t]he Canaanite was then in the land", Genesis 12:6, which ibn Ezra called a "mystery" and exhorted those "who understand it [to] keep silent") were not of Mosaic authorship as proof that his own views had valid historical precedent.[55]

The most remarkable aspect of the censure may be not so much its issuance, or even Spinoza's refusal to submit, but the fact that Spinoza's expulsion from the Jewish community did not lead to his conversion to Christianity.[63] Spinoza kept the Latin (and so implicitly Christian) name Benedict de Spinoza, maintained a close association with the Collegiants (a Christian sect of Remonstrants) and Quakers,[75] even moved to a town near the Collegiants' headquarters, and was buried in a Christian Protestant graveyardbut there is no evidence or suggestion that he ever accepted baptism or participated in a Christian mass or Quaker meeting. Hava Tirosh-Samuelson explains "For Spinoza truth is not a property of Scripture, as Jewish philosophers since Philo had maintained, but a characteristic of the method of interpreting Scripture."[76] Neither is there evidence he maintained any sense of Jewish identity. Furthermore, "Spinoza did not envision secular Judaism. To be a secular and assimilated Jew is, in his view, nonsense."

David Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister of the new state of Israel, called Spinoza "the first Zionist of the last 300 years", and in 1953 published an article in praise of the philosopher, renewing discussion about his excommunication. Israeli politicians, rabbis and Jewish press worldwide joined the debate. Some call for the cherem to be reversed. However, none of them had the authority to rescind it; this can only be done by the Amsterdam Talmud Torah congregation.[78]

In September 2012, the Portugees-Isralietische Gemeente te Amsterdam (Portuguese-Israelite commune of Amsterdam) asked the chief rabbi of their community, Haham Pinchas Toledano, to reconsider the cherem after consulting several Spinoza experts. However he declined to remove it, citing Spinoza's "preposterous ideas, where he was tearing apart the very fundamentals of our religion".[79]

In December 2015, the present-day Amsterdam Jewish community organised a symposium to discuss lifting the cherem, inviting scholars from around the world to form an advisory committee at the meeting, including Steven Nadler of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. A debate was held in front of over 500 people, discussing (according to Nadler) "what were Spinoza's philosophical views, what were the historical circumstances of the ban, what might be the advantages of lifting the cherem, and what might be the disadvantages?". Most of the community would have liked to have seen the ban lifted, but the rabbi of the congregation ruled that it should hold, on the basis that he had no greater wisdom than his predecessors, and that Spinoza's views had not become less problematic over time.[78]

In November 2021, Spinoza-scholar Yitzhak Melamed was denied entry into the synagoge of the Portuguese-Israelite community of Amsterdam and declared persona-non-grata by Rabbi Joseph Serfati, after he requested permission to make a movie about the ban in the premises.[80]

Spinoza spent his remaining 21 years writing and studying as a private scholar.[12]

Spinoza believed in a "Philosophy of tolerance and benevolence"[81] and actually lived the life which he preached. He was criticized and ridiculed during his life and afterwards for his alleged atheism. However, even those who were against him "had to admit he lived a saintly life".[81] Besides the religious controversies, nobody really had much bad to say about Spinoza other than, "he sometimes enjoyed watching spiders chase flies".[81]

After the cherem, the Amsterdam municipal authorities expelled Spinoza from Amsterdam, "responding to the appeals of the rabbis, and also of the Calvinist clergy, who had been vicariously offended by the existence of a free thinker in the synagogue". He spent a brief time in or near the village of Ouderkerk aan de Amstel, but returned soon afterwards to Amsterdam and lived there quietly for several years, giving private philosophy lessons and grinding lenses, before leaving the city in 1660 or 1661.

During this time in Amsterdam, Spinoza wrote his Short Treatise on God, Man, and His Well-Being, which he never published in his lifetimeassuming with good reason that it might get suppressed. Two Dutch translations of it survive, discovered about 1810.

In 1660 or 1661, Spinoza moved from Amsterdam to Rijnsburg (near Leiden), the headquarters of the Collegiants. In Rijnsburg, he began work on his Descartes' "Principles of Philosophy" as well as on his masterpiece, the Ethics. In 1663, he returned briefly to Amsterdam, where he finished and published Descartes' "Principles of Philosophy", the only work published in his lifetime under his own name, and then moved the same year to Voorburg.

In Voorburg, Spinoza continued work on the Ethics and corresponded with scientists, philosophers, and theologians throughout Europe. He also wrote and published his Theological-Political Treatise in 1670, in defence of secular and constitutional government, and in support of Jan de Witt, the Grand Pensionary of the Netherlands, against the Stadtholder, the Prince of Orange. Leibniz visited Spinoza and claimed that Spinoza's life was in danger when supporters of the Prince of Orange murdered de Witt in 1672.[85] While published anonymously, the work did not long remain so, and de Witt's enemies characterized it as "forged in Hell by a renegade Jew and the Devil, and issued with the knowledge of Jan de Witt". It was condemned in 1673 by the Synod of the Reformed Church and formally banned in 1674.

Spinoza earned a modest living from lens-grinding and instrument making, yet he was involved in important optical investigations of the day while living in Voorburg, through correspondence and friendships with scientist Christiaan Huygens and mathematician Johannes Hudde, including debate over microscope design with Huygens, favouring small objectives[86] and collaborating on calculations for a prospective 40-foot (12m) focal length telescope which would have been one of the largest in Europe at the time.[87] He was known for making not just lenses but also telescopes and microscopes. The quality of Spinoza's lenses was much praised by Christiaan Huygens, among others. In fact, his technique and instruments were so esteemed that Constantijn Huygens ground a "clear and bright" telescope lens with focal length of 42 feet (13m) in 1687 from one of Spinoza's grinding dishes, ten years after his death.[90] He was said by anatomist Theodor Kerckring to have produced an "excellent" microscope, the quality of which was the foundation of Kerckring's anatomy claims.[91] During his time as a lens and instrument maker, he was also supported by small but regular donations from close friends.[12]

In 1670, Spinoza moved to The Hague where he lived on a small pension from Jan de Witt and a small annuity from the brother of his dead friend, Simon de Vries. He worked on the Ethics, wrote an unfinished Hebrew grammar, began his Political Treatise, wrote two scientific essays ("On the Rainbow" and "On the Calculation of Chances"), and began a Dutch translation of the Bible (which he later destroyed).

Spinoza was offered the chair of philosophy at the University of Heidelberg, but he refused it, perhaps because of the possibility that it might in some way curb his freedom of thought.

Textbooks and encyclopaedias often depict Spinoza as a solitary soul who eked out a living as a lens grinder; in reality, he had many friends but kept his needs to a minimum.[12] He preached a philosophy of tolerance and benevolence. Anthony Gottlieb described him as living "a saintly life".[12] Reviewer M. Stuart Phelps noted, "No one has ever come nearer to the ideal life of the philosopher than Spinoza."[93] Harold Bloom wrote, "As a teacher of reality, he practised his own wisdom, and was surely one of the most exemplary human beings ever to have lived."[94] According to The New York Times: "In outward appearance he was unpretending, but not careless. His way of living was exceedingly modest and retired; often he did not leave his room for many days together. He was likewise almost incredibly frugal; his expenses sometimes amounted only to a few pence a day."[95] Bloom writes of Spinoza, "He appears to have had no sexual life."[94]

Spinoza also corresponded with Peter Serrarius, a radical Protestant and millenarian merchant. Serrarius was a patron to Spinoza after Spinoza left the Jewish community and even had letters sent and received for the philosopher to and from third parties. Spinoza and Serrarius maintained their relationship until Serrarius' death in 1669.[96] By the beginning of the 1660s, Spinoza's name became more widely known. Henry Oldenburg paid him visits and became a correspondent with Spinoza for the rest of his life. In 1676, Leibniz came to the Hague to discuss the Ethics, Spinoza's principal philosophical work which he had completed earlier that year.[98]

Spinoza's health began to fail in 1676, and he died on 21 February 1677 at the age of 44. His premature death was said to be due to lung illness, possibly silicosis as a result of breathing in glass dust from the lenses that he ground. Later, a shrine was made of his home in The Hague.[100]

The writings of Ren Descartes have been described as "Spinoza's starting point".[94] Spinoza's first publication was his 1663 geometric exposition of proofs using Euclid's model with definitions and axioms of Descartes' Principles of Philosophy. Spinoza has been associated with Leibniz and Descartes as "rationalists" in contrast to "empiricists".[101]

Spinoza engaged in correspondence from December 1664 to June 1665 with Willem van Blijenbergh, an amateur Calvinist theologian, who questioned Spinoza on the definition of evil. Later in 1665, Spinoza notified Oldenburg that he had started to work on a new book, the Theologico-Political Treatise, published in 1670. Leibniz disagreed harshly with Spinoza in his own manuscript "Refutation of Spinoza",[102] but he is also known to have met with Spinoza on at least one occasion[101] (as mentioned above), and his own work bears some striking resemblances to specific important parts of Spinoza's philosophy (see: Monadology).

When the public reactions to the anonymously published Theologico-Political Treatise were extremely unfavourable to his brand of Cartesianism, Spinoza was compelled to abstain from publishing more of his works. Wary and independent, he wore a signet ring which he used to mark his letters and which was engraved with the word caute (Latin for "cautiously") underneath a rose, itself a symbol of secrecy. "For, having chosen to write in a language that was so widely intelligible, he was compelled to hide what he had written."

The Ethics and all other works, apart from the Descartes' Principles of Philosophy and the Theologico-Political Treatise, were published after his death in the Opera Posthuma, edited by his friends in secrecy to avoid confiscation and destruction of manuscripts. The Ethics contains many still-unresolved obscurities and is written with a forbidding mathematical structure modelled on Euclid's geometry[12] and has been described as a "superbly cryptic masterwork".[94]

In a letter, written in December 1675 and sent to Albert Burgh, who wanted to defend Catholicism, Spinoza clearly explained his view of both Catholicism and Islam. He stated that both religions are made "to deceive the people and to constrain the minds of men". He also states that Islam far surpasses Catholicism in doing so.[104][105] The Tractatus de Deo, Homine, ejusque Felicitate (Treatise on God, man and his happiness) was one of the last Spinoza's works to be published, between 1851[106] and 1862.[107]

Spinoza's philosophy is considered part of the rationalist school of thought, which means that at its heart is the assumption that ideas correspond to reality perfectly, in the same way that mathematics is supposed to be an exact representation of the world. Following Ren Descartes, he aimed to understand truth through logical deductions from 'clear and distinct ideas', a process which always begins from the 'self-evident truths' of axioms.

These are the fundamental concepts with which Spinoza sets forth a vision of Being, illuminated by his awareness of God. They may seem strange at first sight. To the question "What is?" he replies: "Substance, its attributes, and modes".

Following Maimonides, Spinoza defined substance as "that which is in itself and is conceived through itself", meaning that it can be understood without any reference to anything external.[111] Being conceptually independent also means that the same thing is ontologically independent, depending on nothing else for its existence and being the 'cause of itself' (causa sui).[111] A mode is something which cannot exist independently but rather must do so as part of something else on which it depends, including properties (for example colour), relations (such as size) and individual things.[112] Modes can be further divided into 'finite' and 'infinite' ones, with the latter being evident in every finite mode (he gives the examples of "motion" and "rest"). The traditional understanding of an attribute in philosophy is similar to Spinoza's modes, though he uses that word differently.[112] To him, an attribute is "that which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of substance", and there are possibly an infinite number of them. It is the essential nature which is "attributed" to reality by intellect.

Spinoza defined God as "a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence", and since "no cause or reason" can prevent such a being from existing, it therefore must exist. This is a form of the ontological argument, which is claimed to prove the existence of God, but Spinoza went further in stating that it showed that only God exists.[116] Accordingly, he stated that "Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can exist or be conceived without God".[116] This means that God is identical with the universe, an idea which he encapsulated in the phrase "Deus sive Natura" ('God or Nature'), which has been interpreted by some as atheism or pantheism. God can be known either through the attribute of extension or the attribute of thought. Thought and extension represent giving complete accounts of the world in mental or physical terms. To this end, he says that "the mind and the body are one and the same thing, which is conceived now under the attribute of thought, now under the attribute of extension".

Spinoza argues that "things could not have been produced by God in any other way or in any other order than is the case".[121] Therefore, concepts such as 'freedom' and 'chance' have little meaning. This picture of Spinoza's determinism is illuminated by this famous quote in Ethics: the infant believes that it is by free will that it seeks the breast; the angry boy believes that by free will he wishes vengeance; the timid man thinks it is with free will he seeks flight; the drunkard believes that by a free command of his mind he speaks the things which when sober he wishes he had left unsaid. All believe that they speak by a free command of the mind, whilst, in truth, they have no power to restrain the impulse which they have to speak.[122] In his letter to G. H. Schuller (Letter 58), he wrote: "men are conscious of their desire and unaware of the causes by which [their desires] are determined."[123] He also held that knowledge of true causes of passive emotion can transform it to an active emotion, thus anticipating one of the key ideas of Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis.

According to Professor Eric Schliesser, Spinoza was sceptical regarding the possibility of knowledge of nature and as a consequence at odds with scientists like Galileo and Huygens. [125]

Spinoza shared ethical beliefs with ancient Epicureans, in renouncing ethics beyond the material world, although Epicureans focused more on physical pleasure and Spinoza more on emotional wellbeing.[126] Encapsulated at the start in his Treatise on the Improvement of the Understanding (Tractatus de intellectus emendatione) is the core of Spinoza's ethical philosophy, what he held to be the true and final good. Spinoza held good and evil to be relative concepts, claiming that nothing is intrinsically good or bad except relative to a particularity. Things that had classically been seen as good or evil, Spinoza argued, were simply good or bad for humans. Spinoza believes in a deterministic universe in which "All things in nature proceed from certain [definite] necessity and with the utmost perfection." Nothing happens by chance in Spinoza's world, and nothing is contingent.

Given Spinoza's insistence on a completely ordered world where "necessity" reigns, Good and Evil have no absolute meaning. The world as it exists looks imperfect only because of our limited perception.

Spinoza argued against gender equality. In A Political Treatise, chapter XI, section 4, Spinoza wrote: "But, perhaps, someone will ask, whether women are under men's authority by nature or institution? For if it has been by mere institution, then we had no reason compelling us to exclude women from government. But if we consult experience itself, we shall find that the origin of it is in their weakness. For there has never been a case of men and women reigning together, but wherever on the earth men are found, there we see that men rule, and women are ruled, and that on this plan, both sexes live in harmony."[127][128]

In the universe anything that happens comes from the essential nature of objects, or of God or Nature. According to Spinoza, reality is perfection. If circumstances are seen as unfortunate it is only because of our inadequate conception of reality. While components of the chain of cause and effect are not beyond the understanding of human reason, human grasp of the infinitely complex whole is limited because of the limits of science to empirically take account of the whole sequence. Spinoza also asserted that sense perception, though practical and useful, is inadequate for discovering truth. His concept of "conatus" states that human beings' natural inclination is to strive toward preserving an essential being, and asserts that virtue/human power is defined by success in this preservation of being by the guidance of reason as one's central ethical doctrine. According to Spinoza, the highest virtue is the intellectual love or knowledge of God/Nature/Universe.

Also in the Ethics,[129] Spinoza discusses his beliefs about what he considers to be the three kinds of knowledge that come with perceptions:

In the final part of the Ethics, his concern with the meaning of "true blessedness", and his explanation of how emotions must be detached from external causes in order to master them, foreshadow psychological techniques developed in the 1900s. His concept of three types of knowledgeopinion, reason, intuitionand his assertion that intuitive knowledge provides the greatest satisfaction of mind, led to his proposition that the more we are conscious of ourselves and Nature/Universe, the more perfect and blessed we are (in reality) and that only intuitive knowledge is eternal.

It is a widespread belief that Spinoza equated God with the material universe. He has therefore been called the "prophet"[131] and "prince"[132] and most eminent expounder of pantheism. More specifically, in a letter to Henry Oldenburg he states, "as to the view of certain people that I identify God with Nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken".[133] For Spinoza, the universe (cosmos) is a mode under two attributes of Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in the world.

According to German philosopher Karl Jaspers (18831969), when Spinoza wrote Deus sive Natura (Latin for 'God or Nature'), Spinoza meant God was natura naturans (nature doing what nature does; literally, 'nature naturing'), not natura naturata (nature already created; literally, 'nature natured'). Jaspers believed that Spinoza, in his philosophical system, did not mean to say that God and Nature are interchangeable terms, but rather that God's transcendence was attested by his infinitely many attributes, and that two attributes known by humans, namely Thought and Extension, signified God's immanence.[134] Even God under the attributes of thought and extension cannot be identified strictly with our world. That world is of course "divisible"; it has parts. But Spinoza said, "no attribute of a substance can be truly conceived from which it follows that the substance can be divided", meaning that one cannot conceive an attribute in a way that leads to division of substance. He also said, "a substance which is absolutely infinite is indivisible" (Ethics, Part I, Propositions 12 and 13).[135] Following this logic, our world should be considered as a mode under two attributes of thought and extension. Therefore, according to Jaspers, the pantheist formula "One and All" would apply to Spinoza only if the "One" preserves its transcendence and the "All" were not interpreted as the totality of finite things.[134]

Martial Guroult (18911976) suggested the term "panentheism", rather than "pantheism" to describe Spinoza's view of the relation between God and the world. The world is not God, but it is, in a strong sense, "in" God. Not only do finite things have God as their cause; they cannot be conceived without God.[135] However, American panentheist philosopher Charles Hartshorne (18972000) insisted on the term Classical Pantheism to describe Spinoza's view.[136]

In 1785, Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi published a condemnation of Spinoza's pantheism, after Gotthold Lessing was thought to have confessed on his deathbed to being a "Spinozist", which was the equivalent in his time of being called an atheist. Jacobi claimed that Spinoza's doctrine was pure materialism, because all Nature and God are said to be nothing but extended substance. This, for Jacobi, was the result of Enlightenment rationalism and it would finally end in absolute atheism. Moses Mendelssohn disagreed with Jacobi, saying that there is no actual difference between theism and pantheism. The issue became a major intellectual and religious concern for European civilization at the time.

The attraction of Spinoza's philosophy to late 18th-century Europeans was that it provided an alternative to materialism, atheism, and deism. Three of Spinoza's ideas strongly appealed to them:

By 1879, Spinozas pantheism was praised by many, but was considered by some to be alarming and dangerously inimical.[138]

Spinoza's "God or Nature" (Deus sive Natura) provided a living, natural God, in contrast to Isaac Newton's first cause argument and the dead mechanism of Julien Offray de La Mettrie's (17091751) work, Man a Machine (L'homme machine). Coleridge and Shelley saw in Spinoza's philosophy a religion of nature.[12] Novalis called him the "God-intoxicated man".[94][139] Spinoza inspired the poet Shelley to write his essay "The Necessity of Atheism".[94]

Spinoza was considered to be an atheist because he used the word "God" (Deus) to signify a concept that was different from that of traditional JudeoChristian monotheism. "Spinoza expressly denies personality and consciousness to God; he has neither intelligence, feeling, nor will; he does not act according to purpose, but everything follows necessarily from his nature, according to law...."[140] Thus, Spinoza's cool, indifferent God[141] is the antithesis to the concept of an anthropomorphic, fatherly God who cares about humanity.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spinoza's God is an "infinite intellect" (Ethics 2p11c) all knowing (2p3), and capable of loving both himselfand us, insofar as we are part of his perfection (5p35c). And if the mark of a personal being is that it is one towards which we can entertain personal attitudes, then we should note too that Spinoza recommends amor intellectualis dei (the intellectual love of God) as the supreme good for man (5p33). However, the matter is complex. Spinoza's God does not have free will (1p32c1), he does not have purposes or intentions (1 appendix), and Spinoza insists that "neither intellect nor will pertain to the nature of God" (1p17s1). Moreover, while we may love God, we need to remember that God is really not the kind of being who could ever love us back. "He who loves God cannot strive that God should love him in return", says Spinoza (5p19).[142]

Steven Nadler suggests that settling the question of Spinoza's atheism or pantheism depends on an analysis of attitudes. If pantheism is associated with religiosity, then Spinoza is not a pantheist, since Spinoza believes that the proper stance to take towards God is not one of reverence or religious awe, but instead one of objective study and reason, since taking the religious stance would leave one open to the possibility of error and superstition.

Michael Rosenthal considers Spinoza intolerant toward atheists.[144]

Similarities between Spinoza's philosophy and Eastern philosophical traditions have been discussed by many authors. The 19th-century German Sanskritist Theodor Goldstcker 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.[145][146]

Max Mller, 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'."[147] 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 Deitynatura naturansconceived in his attributes simply and alone; and the same Deityas natura naturata or as conceived in the endless series of modifications or correlations, the direct out-flowing results from the properties of these attributes, it is the Vedantic Deity pure and simple."[148]

Anthony Gottlieb opined in 1999 that "Coleridge and Shelley saw in [Spinoza's Ethics] a religion of nature. George Eliot, who translated some of the Ethics into English, liked Spinoza for his vehement attacks on superstition. Karl Marx liked him for what he took to be his materialistic account of the universe. Goethe could not say exactly what it was that he liked in the Ethics, but he knew he was profoundly moved by something or other" even though Goethe admitted to not always understanding Spinoza.[12]

Nietzsche respected few philosophers, but held Spinoza in high esteem[149][150][151] without reading Spinoza's works; Nietzsche learned about Spinoza from Kuno Fischer's History of Modern Philosophy.[152]

When George Santayana graduated from college, he published an essay, "The Ethical Doctrine of Spinoza", in The Harvard Monthly.[153] Later, he wrote an introduction to Spinoza's Ethics and "De intellectus emendatione".[154] In 1932, Santayana was invited to present an essay (published as "Ultimate Religion")[155] at a meeting at The Hague celebrating the tricentennial of Spinoza's birth. In Santayana's autobiography, he characterized Spinoza as his "master and model" in understanding the naturalistic basis of morality.[156]

Philosophers Louis Althusser, Antonio Negri and tienne Balibar have each drawn upon Spinoza's philosophy from a leftist or Marxist perspective. Gilles Deleuze, in his doctoral thesis (1968), calls Spinoza "the prince of philosophers".[157]

Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein evoked Spinoza with the title (suggested to him by G. E. Moore) of the English translation of his first definitive philosophical work, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, an allusion to Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. Elsewhere, Wittgenstein deliberately borrowed the expression sub specie aeternitatis from Spinoza (Notebooks, 191416, p.83). The structure of his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus does have some structural affinities with Spinoza's Ethics (though, admittedly, not with the latter's own Tractatus) in erecting complex philosophical arguments upon basic logical assertions and principles. Furthermore, in propositions 6.4311 and 6.45 he alludes to a Spinozian understanding of eternity and interpretation of the religious concept of eternal life, stating that "If by eternity is understood not eternal temporal duration, but timelessness, then he lives eternally who lives in the present." (6.4311) "The contemplation of the world sub specie aeterni is its contemplation as a limited whole." (6.45)

Leo Strauss dedicated his first book, Spinoza's Critique of Religion, to an examination of the latter's ideas. In the book, Strauss identified Spinoza as part of the tradition of Enlightenment rationalism that eventually produced Modernity. Moreover, he identifies Spinoza and his works as the beginning of Jewish Modernity.[94] More recently Jonathan Israel argued that, from 1650 to 1750, Spinoza was "the chief challenger of the fundamentals of revealed religion, received ideas, tradition, morality, and what was everywhere regarded, in absolutist and non-absolutist states alike, as divinely constituted political authority."[158]

Spinoza has had influence beyond the confines of philosophy.

Sources

Articles

Links to related articles

Read the original post:
Baruch Spinoza - Wikipedia