PadmaVonSamba wrote: PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Again, if you want to critique Spinoza, first you must understand what he is asserting.
If you want to create fictional strawman's in order to validate Buddhist metaphysics, well, that's your prerogative. But I can't think of anything more futile.
I'll tell you what. If i get some time to read, and I can pick up some of his stuff at a local bookstore, I will look into that.
But remember, I did
say to correct me if I am wrong. I am
open to that.
Anyway, I was only responding to the inclusion of "God" that might pop up in in any philosophical equation.
Whether Spinoza, Solway, or anybody else does it doesn't alter my suggestion that the very inclusion of "God"
is in fact an assertion of the intrinsic reality of "things"
, the very thing that Buddhism refutes.
I get where you're coming from ~ but it is somewhat akin to a person who reads a bit about Buddhism, and sees the translation for shunyata
as emptiness, and assumes
that it means nothingness.
Then proceeds to refute Buddhism on the grounds that it is a nihilistic philosophy.
We've all been there right? What can one say about that refutation? - It's premised on a categorical misunderstanding; one really ought to investigate further, think more carefully about what shunyata
actually means etc, etc.
And what do you say when that person just keeps retorting: "But emptiness is nothingness! But emptiness is nothingness! Look, it says so right here. Why do I need to read any further?"
To which the only responsible response is: "Because you have not actually understood the meaning of shunyata
And as for the last bit ~ that's generous of you, but unfortunately I do not really know Spinoza well enough to be pontificating.
All I'm doing here is promoting and defending an epistemic humility, on matters we do not know adequately.