{"id":4422,"date":"2012-06-27T23:13:27","date_gmt":"2012-06-28T03:13:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.gornahoor.net\/?p=4422"},"modified":"2021-09-28T09:24:13","modified_gmt":"2021-09-28T13:24:13","slug":"the-intellectual-love-of-god","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gornahoor.net\/?p=4422","title":{"rendered":"The Intellectual Love of God"},"content":{"rendered":"

\nA common man marvels at uncommon things; a wise man marvels at the commonplace. ~ Confucius<\/strong><\/p>\n

Men employ their reason to defend conclusions arrived at by reason, but conclusions arrived at by the passions are defended by the passions. ~ Benedict de Spinoza<\/strong>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Realizing that the drug culture was no path worth following, I turned to Hindu philosophy and learning meditation and yoga practices. Alan Watts<\/strong> was the bridge to this; the older brother of a friend of mine used to hand out Watts’ The Book: On the Taboo against Knowing Who You Are<\/cite>, which I eventually read. I read all his books, finding I preferred his early books, promoting a sort of Vedantized Christianity. That is where I first encountered the name of \u201cRene Guenon\u201d. However, his books were unavailable and he was otherwise quite obscure. The name was filed away for quite some time.<\/p>\n

Hence, I studied Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, Nisargadatta, Aurobindo, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Paramahansa Yogananda, as well as westerners such as Bubba Free John. I noticed that those around me would adopt Indian ways, such as manner of dress and diet. These superficial aspects were much easier than penetrating into the heart of the Vedanta. This was opposed to my goal of incorporating the metaphysics of the Vedanta into the West. I also reasoned along these lines, since it coincided with the beginning of the Neo-Christian revival. If I were an Indian, I would most likely be unable to distinguish these TV evangelists from the deepest of Western thinkers. So, of all the visiting Gurus, how could I tell the most authentic? I couldn\u2019t go to India to visit these men.<\/p>\n

That is when I turned to Benedict de Spinoza<\/strong>. As someone who had written his 10th<\/sup> grade term paper on Russell\u2019s and Whitehead\u2019s Principia Mathematica<\/cite>, the claim that the foundations of man, God, and the universe could unfold logically from first principles was quite appealing. I spent some time going through the Ethics<\/cite> line by line. This, in itself, was a transformative process. Obviously, no one today can agree on what Spinoza actually meant. As I am writing from memory, I won\u2019t try to defend my own rather mystical interpretation, although it does seem to have its supporters. Rather, the subjective impact is what matters.<\/p>\n

First of all, Spinoza was admirable as a man, so I modeled some of his character. There was his commitment to logic and reasoning, but he didn\u2019t preclude a higher form of knowledge. He worked independently as a lens grinder. So I, too, valued my economic independence and sought a technical career. When a man is forced to deal with the material world, affect it, and transform it, he is usually protected from the airy impractical ideas of the so-called intelligentsia. It appealed to me, too, that Spinoza was described by some as an \u201catheist\u201d, yet by others as a \u201cGod-intoxicated man\u201d. That perhaps is as it should be.<\/p>\n

If I was reading the Vedanta into Spinoza at that time, I probably now read Guenon into him. This is not without justification. Spinoza can be read as one of the early moderns, or else as one of the last medievals, incorporating the rich philosophy of Moorish Spain into his own system, or even a Cabbalist as some claim. The Italian writer, Piero di Vona<\/strong>, whose book Evola Guenon De Giorgio<\/cite> is an invaluable resource, claims that Guenon was influenced by Spinoza in significant ways. That Guenon was familiar with Spinoza is true enough, since he is frequently mentioned, but not in a positive way. Nevertheless, there are points of contact. Unfortunately, I haven\u2019t been able to locate di Vona\u2019s monograph on the topic for a full treatment of the question.<\/p>\n

Stanislaus de Guaita<\/strong> was one of the leaders of the French Hermetic revival and was well known to Guenon. In The Temple of Satan<\/cite>, he wrote:<\/p>\n

\nIt is the High Science<\/strong>, what Spinoza magnificently defined as regarding objects sub specie aeternitatis<\/em> [under the aspect of eternity].\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So we see that that circle regarded Spinoza highly, and \u201cregarding objects sub specie aeternitatis<\/em>\u201d is a fundamental point for Guenon.<\/p>\n

In Spinoza\u2019s teaching, God is the fundamental reality, in which essence and existence coincide; this does not really differ from the Western understanding. God has an indefinite number of attributes, but only two of which — Thought and Extension — are known to us. But what we experience are not the attributes directly, but their modes, or modifications. Oddly, Thought and Extension have no interaction between them. Hence, we can know the world entirely through its material processes, or else through the interplay of ideas. Either would be correct.<\/p>\n

In conformity with Western metaphysics and Tradition, Spinoza recognized three forms of knowledge; opinion<\/em>, or knowledge of sensual things; reason<\/em>; and intuition<\/em>, the direct grasp of things understood from God\u2019s perspective. There are three types of men corresponding to the three ways of knowing:<\/p>\n