4

Spinoza's philosophy speaks about oneness of the universe. Is it the same as advaita or vishistadvaita which also speaks about untiy.

As per wiki Article:

After stating his proof for God’s existence, Spinoza addresses who “God” is. Spinoza believed that God is “the sum of the natural and physical laws of the universe and certainly not an individual entity or creator”.[5] Spinoza attempts to prove that God is just the substance of the universe by first stating that substances do not share attributes or essences, and then demonstrating that God is a “substance” with an infinite number of attributes, thus the attributes possessed by any other substances must also be possessed by God. Therefore, God is just the sum of all the substances of the universe.[6] God is the only substance in the universe, and everything is a part of God. “Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can be or be conceived without God”.[3]

8
  • 1
    better question would be - is Spinoza's philosophy same as Advaita
    – ram
    Commented May 27, 2022 at 4:02
  • 1
    @mar what is the difference? Commented May 27, 2022 at 4:30
  • vishistadvaita comes under big umbrella i.e. Advaita. So.
    – TheLittleNaruto
    Commented May 27, 2022 at 10:07
  • Have added a snippet from wiki article. It'll help users to address the question properly.
    – TheLittleNaruto
    Commented May 27, 2022 at 10:17
  • 1
    @ShyamMukundan - is it better to ask "is Sachin Tendulkar's batting style similar to my friend Ramesh", or to ask "is my friend Ramesh's batting style similar to Sachin Tendulkar?"
    – ram
    Commented May 27, 2022 at 16:01

1 Answer 1

0

Prof Muller in 3 Lectures on Vedanta Philosophy, page 123 writes,

Strange as this Vedanta philosophy must appear at first sight to most of us, you can hardly have failed to discover some striking similarities which it presents with the great systems of European philosophy. Thus the Brahman, as conceived in the Upanishads and defined by Sankara, is clearly the same as Spinoza’s 'Substantia'. Spinoza defines it as that which is in itself and is conceived by itself (in se est and per se concipitur). It is according to him infinite, indivisible, one, free and eternal, just as Sankara’s Brahman is called in the Upanishads ‘unborn, undecaying, undying, without parts, without action, tranquil, without fault or taint.’ But while with Spinoza this Substantia simply takes the place of God ,Sankara, when asked whether Brahman is God, would have to answer both Yes and No. No doubt, he defines Brahman as the omniscient and omnipotent cause of the origin, the permanence, and the disappearance of the world ; ' but as he distinguishes between a phenomenal and a real world, he distinguishes likewise between a phenomenal and a real God. This is a very important distinction. There is, he says, a lower and a higher Brahman. Even the lower one is adorned with the highest predicates which human language has to bestow; but the higher one is above all praise and all predicates ; even the highest which other religions have bestowed on the Deity are unworthy of Brahman. According to Sankara God, as conceived by the many, as an historical person, who some hundreds or some thousands of years ago created the world and remained its permanent ruler, is phenomenal only, that is to say, he is the real Brahman, but hidden behind the veil of human Nescience or Avidya.

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .