Spinoza and Prabhupada on God

Where I draw attention to Arab philosophy ▪︎ Srila Prabhupada depends on his followers for the content of Western philosophy ▪︎ Did Spinoza believe in God? ▪︎ Garuda das, a disciple of Prabhupada, believes in free choice. ▪︎ Attachment to Krishna and the origin of the soul ▪︎ Prabhupada's determinism.

Is there anywhere in the world where philosophy -that is morality and politics- is taught to Krishna devotees? That development might have been considered desirable by Srila Prabhupada in view of his interest in such discussions, and which is reflected in Dialectic Spiritualism, a book exploring Western philosophers' ideas?

As it is my first blog post about this book, Dialectic Spiritualism, I want to point out this: 

Every time I participate in meetings where philosophy is discussed, whether with karmis or devotees, I feel obliged to reaffirm that Enlightenment in Europe was preceeded by the Enlightenment in Orient, and that philosophy and science, like medicine and mathematics, come to us from the Arab world, so to say (Persians or Iranians were not Arabs). Now, this understanding is more acceptable than before, it may be said, but when I used to express myself in this way, people being much ignorant and unwilling to hear history to be unfold, it often took an unpleasant turn. 

All this to introduce the fact that in Dialectic Spiritualism, no Arab philosopher is mentioned, as stated in the subtitle. It is regrettable and obviously misses the point on history and science. It was published in 1985. In those days, everyone believed that mathematics were invented by Arabs, like algebra or the zero. In the dictionary we can read that the word algorithm comes from the Spanish word alguarismo, which means the art of counting, arithmetic. In fact, alguarismo comes from the Arab name of mathematician Al-Khwarizmi, born in the 8 century in Uzbekistan. His real name was Abdallāh Muhammad ibn Mūsā. 

The Arabs had two sources their knowledge; the Grecs, mainly from Aristotle, and the Indians. In 1048, Al Biruni, an historian from Uzbekistan, traveled to South India, translated the Mahabharata and some Puranas, and gave his commentary on them.

Most of the time, an assembly won't have the patience to undertake all of this. Instead, it prefers to stick to what it is familiar with and defend it with all of its strength.

In 1985, the West still cultivated disdain for Arab-Muslims. We will not find them in magazines or Newspapers to give their opinion. Now, 40 years later, it is different. 

This posture dates back to the Crusades, when the Christians of Europe sought to liberate Jerusalem from their presence; They wanted to recover the tomb of Jesus to make it a holy place for Europe. At that time, the Jews didn't count, the Turks were the problem. (Amin Maalouf)

Now you understand why it is so difficult to set the record straight, no matter the composition of the participants in the meeting, whether they are Christians, Jews, Muslims, or even Indians.

Let's keep in mind, while reading about the context of Dialectic Spiritualism, that It is easy to criticize a philosopher's philosophy when he cannot express himself or one of his students does not represent him.

God is everything, but everything is not God. 

The following is a discussion which took place between Srila Prabhupada and his disciples, Syamasundara and Hayagriva dasa, in Dialectic Spiritualism. I paste a portion of the discussion, and I say a few words. Let's keep in mind, while reading the arguments, that It is easy to criticize a philosopher's philosophy when he cannot express himself or one of his students does not represent him.

Syamasundara dasa: Spinoza says that we can appreciate God by intellectually appreciating all of His creation and therefore understanding that God is the perfect principle behind everything. In this way, we can have an intellectual love for Him. 

When I started listening to Sridhar Maharaj, I realized that he knew the Western philosophers better than Srila Prabhupada did. He cited them much more often. But I cannot say to what extent Sridhar knew the Western philosophers well.

In Dialectic Spiritualism, it appears that Srila Prabhupada is not familiar with these philosophers the book highlights. He is not correcting or criticizing them directly, but he takes over their thoughts through Hayagriva or Syamasundara's understanding, then he brings the Gaudhya perspective. In doing so, pedagogical elements are lost, which reduces or alters the thinking of the philosopher in question.

 In this case, for example, Spinoza does not believe in God, from what I know about him, unless we accept that Nature is God and that there is no Supreme Person independent of it. As a believer, a vaisnava, I don't do that, of course. Nature is Krishna's energy, as said clearly in the Bhagavad-gita.

So, here is Srila Prabhupada response to Syamasundara's explanation about the God of Spinoza (or his pantheism philosophy, to say it better.)

—God is a person, otherwise why are we worshiping the Deity? What is the difference between the Deity and this table? God has a personal form, but this table is not that form. Everything is the manifestation of God’s energy. The Visnu Purana gives the example of fire, which expands as light and heat. Light and heat are nothing but fire, but at the same time, light and heat are not fire. They are simultaneously one and different. God is everything, but everything is not God. This table is God in the sense that it is part of God, but we cannot worship this table.

The last sentence is subject to questions. He said: "This table is God in the sense that it is part of God, but we cannot worship this table."

Note that Shyamasundar explains to Prabhupada that Spinoza believed in God (which is wrong, although most people say it), but he didn't mention that he doesn't not pray Him or worship Him.

It must be pointed out about Spinoza that he hated the Jews and the Old Testament, even though he was one and used to go to the synagogue. When he starts writing, he is already an atheist Pantheist. (I am a Vaishnava Pantheist; therefore one who believes in a personal God and that God is a person, the opposite of an iconoclast, as Spinoza was.)

Like all Orthodox Jews, Spinoza did not believe in another world beyond this one. Likewise, in the universe only the earth is inhabited. Once again, Spinoza is not an impersonalist, but a hundred percent atheist.

The Hebrews did not believe in Pantheism, especially after Moïse. They never thought possible that a table could be somehow or other God, like Spinoza did. Thus, although he thought himself as a Jew, and not a Christian, he did not share their faith. As we have mentioned it, he criticized severely the Jews' doctrines as exposed in the Old Testament, preferring the teaching of the New Testament. It must be remembered that Christians and Protestants hated the Jews throughout their history. All over the world, Jews were persecuted, so in his time it was best to change religious paradigm to avoid prejudice.

Right from the beginning of the discussion, Srila Prabhupada asks: : "If God is nothing but a principle, He has no personal activity. Is it that Spinoza is an impersonalist? [---] According to him, what is man’s position in relationship with God?"

Syamasundara: "For him, God is the absolute universal principle behind everything. God is a thinking thing."

Prabhupada: "If He is thinking, He must be the creator of that machine."

He nails down the point that: "it must also be understood that if God is thinking, He is a person. How can He simply be a principle?" Or a machine, be it organic.

For Spinoza, there is not an external creator to the world. The world itself -is- God. He wrote: "Extension is an attribute of God, in other words, God is an extended thing." Syamasundara should have told that to Prabhupada, but he acts as if he does not understand Prabhupada's questions.

 Syamasundara: "He says that everything is God, and that God is everything."

Prabhupada: "That is logical, but what is his conception of God? Is He a person or not?"

A perfect principle is a castle in the sky, it is just imagination. How can a robot or a computer function by itself? Such principle doesn't not exist.

Syamasundara: "God is identical with the substance of the world, the stuff the world is made of."

Prabhupada: "Yes, you cannot separate the energy from the energetic. That is one fact, but at the same time you cannot say that the sunshine is the same as the sun. It is identical and at the same time different."

Only if... then monarchy is good. 

Syamasundara dasa: Aristotle condemns democracy because in a democracy each person strives for his own self-interest.*

Srila Prabhupada: Yes, that is going on. Monarchy is good if the monarch is trained in such a way that he can rule properly. That was the Vedic system. Even then, the monarch was controlled by great sages. In a proper government, the brahmanas and sages should form an advisory committee. They should not participate in politics. The ksatriyas, who are ambitious to rule, should rule under the guidance of the brahmanas and sages. Maharaja Yudhisthira was very pious, and people were very happy because he acted under the guidance of brahmanas and sages. Formerly, the monarch was guided by priestly, religious, or saintly people. That was very nice. This Krsna consciousness movement can guide society, but presently society is in such a state that it does not even want to consider the importance of this movement. This is unfortunate. 

First postulate: monarchy is good only -if- the king is trained properly. Then, a precision is added: it -was- the Vedic system. It hasn't existed for thousands of years... But even during the time Krishna was on earth, there were so many bad kings! Dhritarashtra was a bad one, so was his wife; they prefer to listen to their son than Vidura, Krishna or Yudhisthira.

Remember, Hayagriva and Prabhupada are speaking about one of the greatest philosophers known of all time, Aristotle. He holds politics for the king of knowledge. It encompasses all other sciences to be fully effective and worthy of the name, while others do not require this level of proficiency, they don't need to be acquainted with politics for success. Moreover, he advocated the study of politics to all citizens wishing to approach ethical perfection.

And third, we understand perfectly well why society does not want the Kṛṣṇas to interfere in the affairs of the State. Devotees cannot guide correctly a society like ISKCON, what to speak of America or India…

The question is to know if it is possible for a society like ISKCON, whose members become all brahmanas, to be able to fonction without politics.

* What is the difference? Monarch were also striving for their self-interest. Their nepotism and mega ego was so damaging for the nation that the people considered better to get rid of this system. It was a long time since kings were not fit to be the represent of God.

The same goes for the gurus. The positive effect of these tradition faded away a long time ago. Our idealism prevents us from seeing things as they are.

My personal notes on Spinoza, his life and philosophy, and related subject. 

Spinoza is a Jew, a Jew who has existential problems with his Jewishness.* However, he’s a Jew who doesn’t believe in the Jewish God, nor in the God of Christians. He invented his own God. It is the characteristic of philosophers to be creators of concepts and to distinguish themselves from other philosophers. He believes that the eternal world is not distinct from the Universal Form whose substance is matter, and which he calls it God. Unlike his co-religionists and the tradition from which he stands out, for him there is no God independent of the Universe; there is no God who thinks with a brain, so to say. God is the Universe. It is a materialistic pantheism. Vaishnava Hindus also believe in the Universe as God. For them, though, following Krishna's teaching in the Bhagavad-gita, the Universe does not exist by itself. God is -also- external to his creation, and the Universe with all his planets is inferior to the divine substance, Brahman. It is called spiritual pantheism. According to Krishna, there is not one Universe, but an infinity of billions! The Srimad-Bhagavatam talks also at length about this Universal Form.

* To put history in its context, and take the right measure of things, it is not without importance to know that Baruch Spinoza, one of the greatest influencers in philosophy, was an alarming antisemite, which was evident from his writings. He was ashamed to be born Jewish. (Henry Mechoulan)

☆

In the beginning of Ethics, Spinoza explains, with a rough speculative tour de force, what the soul and God are. Then, he makes this comment which sounds like a warning disguised as an encouragement: "Here, the readers will without a doubt be stopped, and a thousand things will come to their memory which will prevent them from moving forward; This is why I ask them to continue their journey slowly with me, and to suspend their judgment until they have read everything." (My translation) 

☆

Graham M. Schweig (Garuda das) says that at every moment we have the freedom to determine where to stand. I don't go for this kind of belief. Baruch Spinoza made a strong argument against this free choice.* I think that determinism is much more realistic as a philosophy. For example, many children in ISKCON had no choice but to go to a gurukula, far away from their parents. Or the Palestinians, they have no choice than to live their whole life in Gaza, which is an open-air prison. And to keep in line with Garuda's idea of an original plane, where from the soul originated, tatastha, I propose a comment from Srila Prabhupada's books. We are told that in devotional service, attachment is antinomic to freedom: "By this bona fide hearing process, the neophyte devotee becomes cleansed of all material rubbish, and thus he becomes attached to one of the many transcendental forms of the Lord, as described in the Vedas. This attachment of the devotee to a particular form of the Lord is due to natural inclination. Each and every living entity is originally attached to a particular type of transcendental service because he is eternally the servitor of the Lord." SB. 3.9.11

* “Nothing in the universe is contingent, but all things are conditioned to exist and operate in a particular manner by the necessity of the divine nature."

Is this Muslim belief in pantheism the same that Spinoza wrote about or it is tainted with atheism, the notion of a person, an independent Supersoul being absent? One thing is clear: Muslims and Christians say to believe in one God, as intelligent and loving, with whom you can have a personal relationship while praying to Him.