"This, then, is the end for which I strive..."

After our hopefully interesting side trip to behold a cameo appearance here by one of my most beloved souls and purveyors of the real truth, J. Krishnamurti, we return to the text of TEI.  I've gotten behind in my blog posts, relative to our "creative conversations" phone conference, so I am playing catch up.  Our meeting takes place on Thursday evenings, 5:30 PM PDT.  Please join us, won't you?  Okay, back to TEI...

==========

[14] (1) This, then, is the end for which I strive, to attain to

such a character myself, and to endeavor that many should attain to

it with me. (2) In other words, it is part of my happiness to lend

a helping hand, that many others may understand even as I do, so

that their understanding and desire may entirely agree with my own.

(3) In order to bring this about, it is necessary to understand as much of nature as will enable us to attain to the aforesaid character,

and also to form a social order such as is most conducive to the

attainment of this character by the greatest number with the least

difficulty and danger.

==========

The first two sentences above can't be argued with to the extent that

Spinoza is offering a recap and development of his personal aims.

These aims are being fulfilled still, since some among us have more than

a sense that Spinoza's ideas are vitally important, and we wish to

understand just as he does.  Clearly, this is different from merely

being able to assimilate his philosophy logically/ intellectually.

It includes study of our own nature, and the nature of our relationship

with Cosmic Consciousness and with each other. Observation

through what Krishnamurti called "choiceless awareness," as

distinguished from analysis, is the most vital activity in living what

Spinoza is trying to impart.  I'm most thankful for having a small

but persevering group of friends (including my wife, Jeneth) who are

meeting by phone to see what we can do to understand as Spinoza does.

Already, some of us are noticing distinct changes in our experience of life

as our minds become sensitized to the qualities of the ideas which comprise

the content of our consciousness.

With regard to the first two sentences (expressing sentiments not 

generally found in Western philosophy): in order to discern the value

of Spinoza as distinguished from your run-of-the-mill televangelist

or perhaps very skilled and charismatic purveyor/orator of this or

that "road to salvation," (perhaps on "educational" TV, LOL...) we

must discriminate accurately between the properties of the truly

pious and those of  the merely ambitious. Real piety is a rarity in the

sense that Spinoza uses the word.  It is operative as the expression of

desires which Spinoza is here expressing.  Piety cannot be expressed by

someone without true knowledge.  And, when someone is blessed with such

knowledge, it comes with a high-minded compassion that renders it necessary

that those so blessed will reach out a hand to help pull us up.  It strikes me that this reaching out was painted by the remarkable Michelangelo on the ceiling of

the Sistine Chapel.  Jesus said, "My cup runneth over..."  Fortunate are those

who can strip away all the superstition and theology in order to pay attention

solely to the sayings attributed to Jesus.  The ideas contained in these sayings may be judged on their merits by the discriminative intelligence, which can become highly developed in people with a strong sense of their own essence, and once developed, can  recognize the essence of what all the great spiritual masters have placed into "vessels" of one sort or another to be transmitted to the spiritually thirsty down through the ages. In the Bhagavad Gita it is said that Yoga has existed since the origination of the universe.  In Silence, let us ponder the meaning of this...

With ambition, we have daily experience.  "People pleasing" is part of it. What Spinoza means by "ambition" needs to be studied and understood, then compared with the content of our consciousness as we continue in life.  Everyone likes to feel that they are the cause of someone else's  happiness (or misery in the case of an enemy).  It is explained in Spinoza's Ethics that ambition and piety are both outcomes of the same appetite.  However,in the case of true piety, the high-minded person has true ideas which are shared for the well-being of the other.  Ambition, on the other hand, involves inadequate ideas, which the purveyor feels empowered by when others seem to affirm them, producing an egoistic illusion of leadership and superiority.I think it is especially important  to understand the definition of ambition (E3P30, and others in that part of the Ethics, inc. P37) because it is such a pervasive influence in our moment to moment imaginings with regard to other people. I don't think it is easy to observe this comprehensively in our thoughts/images/ feelings, because the mind has a desire to keep this power, not realizing that the machinations of ambition are stifling to the perception of the Real.

When Spinoza says "it is part of my happiness to lend a helping

hand," we may feel that we can relate; it sounds so perfectly natural

as a statement. But that isn't true, unless someone out there may be

truly pious. Instead, I maintain that we have perhaps only the

faintest glimmer of where he is coming from, and perhaps project our

own inadequate experience of "compassion" by way of trying to explain

Spinoza's motives.   This is the kind of compassion that

compels one who is overcome by it to attempt to rescue a drowning

person, even though the individual is not a strong swimmer themselves

and has no training. Often as not, they become the second fatality -

but our tendency to regard this as more heroic than foolish is what

I'm talking about as "compassion." (Little to do with the Buddhist

meaning of the term, BTW.)  Forgive me if to an extent I use hyperbole

rhetorically in an endeavor to illustrate a point, however, I do not

think I exaggerate. Please see Spinoza's def. of "compassion" in the

Ethics.

As an aside, I want to explain how practical it is to study Spinoza.

For example, if one realizes that we are all ambitious, it is

possible to go far from home and make friends easily, and learn a

great deal into the bargain. If we recognize that an individual

really wants to hear what we have to say, we tend to enjoy sharing

with them things they seem to likewise enjoy hearing about. Hence,

ask a stranger a few sincere questions, then do a great deal of

listening, and friendly people will regard you as a nice new friend

even though you may have said but little through which they might

have become acquainted with you.

==========

[15] (1) We must seek the assistance of Moral Philosophy [d] and

the Theory of Education; further, as health is no insignificant means

for attaining our end, we must also include the whole science of

Medicine, and, as many difficult things are by contrivance rendered

easy, and we can in this way gain much time and convenience, the

science of Mechanics must in no way be despised.

[16] (1) But before all things, a means must be devised for

improving the understanding and purifying it, as far as may be at

the outset, so that it may apprehend things without error, and in

the best possible way. (2) Thus it is apparent to everyone that I

wish to direct all science to one end [e] and aim, so that we may

attain to the supreme human perfection which we have named; and,

therefore, whatsoever in the sciences does not serve to promote

our object will have to be rejected as useless. (3) To sum up the

matter in a word, all our actions and thoughts must be directed to

this one end.

==========

I made comments about p15 and 16 at the outset, especially because

Spinoza says, "we must...etc." I forgot to include the footnotes.

==========

[d] N.B. I do no more here than enumerate the sciences necessary

for our purpose; I lay no stress on their order.

Spinoza and Krishnamurti's "Amma"

About ten years ago, and for several years, Jeneth and I spent every Thursday night in "Dialogue" with Mary Zimbalist and a number of other close associatesof J. Krishnamurti (whom the Dalai Llama called "the greatest philosopherof our age...)  There is much I understood and recognized in the K. teaching, and I went about investigating whether there might be some influence of Spinozaism on the seminal period of K.'s life when he was groomed by the leaders of Theosophy, particularly Annie Besant, for his mission as a new "World Teacher."  I went to research at the   library on the grounds of Krotona in Ojai (a property ownedand lived on by current day Theosophists) where I did certainly discover that Annie Besant, K.'s guardian whom he called "amma" orMother, was a discriminating and devoted Spinozist. 

She wrote:

"Then Pantheism unveiled its all-alluring beauties, and the inter-
cosmic God shone forth dispelling all the clouds of doubt and fear,
and turning into gardens of delight the erstwhile desert sands. Had
it come in its native garb, it would have won all to itself, but to
intellectual Europe the most generally recognised exponent of this
theory was Spinoza, and while his strong thought fascinated and
compelled the intelligence, presented - as it often was by opponents
- without the ethic based on it, it left the spirit starving and the
heart a-cold. The idea got abroad that “Pantheism” was a chill and
stern philosophy, that its God was unconscious, inaccessible - the
“Father” had disappeared. “God is a being absolutely infinite; a
substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses
His eternal and infinite essence” (Ethics, Book 1, Definition 6.). Of
these attributes man knows but two, extension and mind or will. Mr.
Froude in his Short Studies - from which the quotation from Spinoza
is borrowed - says, summarising Spinoza’s views, that God “is not a
personal [Page 226] being, existing apart from the universe; but
Himself in His own reality, He is expressed in the universe, which is
His living garment” (Page 360). All things exist as He willed them to
be, evil is not positive, there is “an infinite gradation in created
things”, “all in their way obedient”. Two things in Spinoza have
repelled the emotional - his steady logical destructive analysis and
calm acceptance of its results, and his theory of necessitarianism.
The latter has been held fatal to morals, the former to devotion. Yet
Spinoza was so far from being incapable of strenuous devotion that he
was described by his enemies as “a God-intoxicated man”, and his
lofty, serene virtue and calm acquiescence in the law of life as he
saw it were in themselves evidences of the fine fibre of his soul."
-Annie Besant

When K. disbanded the Order of the Star in 1929, he told a story:

"You may remember the story of how the devil and a friend of his were
walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down
and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in
his pocket. The friend said to the devil, "What did that man pick
up?" "He picked up a piece of the truth," said the devil. "That is a
very bad business for you, then," said his friend. "Oh, not at all,"
the devil replied, "I am going to help him organize it."
When K. disbanded the Order of the Star in 1929, he told a story:
You may remember the story of how the devil and a friend of his were
walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down
and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in
his pocket. The friend said to the devil, 'What did that man pick
up?' 'He picked up a piece of the truth,' said the devil. 'That is a
very bad business for you, then,' said his friend. 'Oh, not at all,'
the devil replied, 'I am going to help him organize it.'
You may remember the story of how the devil and a friend of his were
walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down
and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in
his pocket. The friend said to the devil, 'What did that man pick
up?' "He picked up a piece of the truth,' said the devil. 'That is a
very bad business for you, then,' said his friend. 'Oh, not at all,'
the devil replied, 'I am going to help him organize it.'"

Love Towards a Thing Eternal....pp.10-13

The work here on the blog has fallen behind as our dialog group has proceeded to meet weekly.  Live dialog is best, however, our conversations on conference call are serviceable  for our ends.  Further:

==========

[10] (1) But love towards a thing eternal and infinite feeds the
mind wholly with joy, and is itself unmingled with any sadness,
wherefore it is greatly to be desired and sought for with all our
strength. (2) Yet it was not at random that I used the words,
"If I could go to the root of the matter," for, though what I have
urged was perfectly clear to my mind, I could not forthwith lay
aside all love of riches, sensual enjoyment, and fame.
==========
The first sentence above seems to implore the reader to undertake
Spinoza's inquiry along with him as he says "with all our strength."  
It's a hard road for most of us, but the only reasonable way once insight
is gained into metaphysical entities.

If the "eternal thing" is unknown, what is to be the object (are we
not accustomed to imagine some end for which we strive?), sought with
all our strength? Whether we are communists, atheists or Buddhists,
whether we subscribe to this or that sect, belief system, etc., don't
we in some way create, or deal with the "God issue," according to our
understanding or ignorance just as it is? Or perhaps we are too busy
to bother with it at all, or we suffer negative emotions so
habitually that our minds are full of sorrows and swirling confusion
never leaving 10 minutes of quietude for pondering in silence.

Just in thinking about "a thing eternal" right now, is there an
image? So do we end up seeking, rejecting or otherwise opining
about, or forgetting, not-thinking about, a projection of something
that is put together out of our conditioning, rather than "a new
principle?" Or perhaps we have had "mystical experiences," and
endeavor to recapture them. But Spinoza tells us that understanding
true ideas has nothing to do with memory. Memory is associative, whereas
the mystic energy and light is unique unto itself.  It can be
"seen" by the impersonal essence of a human being, but not exactly 
"remembered."  

Is it possible to "do" anything about our minds? Because who would be the agent, 
if not ourselves?  Spinoza, in "the Ethics" explains why a conditioned thing cannot
un-condition itself.  In one respect, this seems true, so what is it that has

the power to simplify the mind?  Krishnamurti's utterance upon experiencing

a profound inner transformation was, "I have been made simple."

What does that mean?  "Made simple" by what?  And what was "made simple?"

==========
[11] (1) One thing was evident, namely, that while my mind was
employed with these thoughts it turned away from its former objects
of desire, and seriously considered the search for a new principle;
this state of things was a great comfort to me, for I perceived
that the evils were not such as to resist all remedies. (11:2) Although
these intervals were at first rare, and of very short duration, yet
afterwards, as the true good became more and more discernible to me,
they became more frequent and more lasting; especially after I had
recognized that the acquisition of wealth, sensual pleasure, or fame,
is only a hindrance, so long as they are sought as ends not as means;
if they be sought as means, they will be under restraint, and, far
from being hindrances, will further not a little the end for which
they are sought, as I will show in due time.
==========
I feel that Spinoza would like to be encouraging to his reader in the
above paragraph. If the true, or "real good," affects the mind
singly, to the exclusion of all else, and if a true idea is clear and
simple, it seems a difficulty that it would be relative, that is,
"more and more discernible to me." If it was unknown to begin with,
how would one then know that is was "more and more discernible to
me?" If it were innate...Strictly speaking, we must inquire whether an
idea of the most perfect being, known only through itself and not by any
lesser being, is somehow emergent within us.  We become like divers into
the cold waters where icebergs dwell.  We dive to a depth from which we
may never return, driven by an innate desire to find what is at the very bottom
of all things.

Someone in our discussions inquired about the meaning of a "real good," 

which is distinct in meaning from a "true good."
In p12 below, Spinoza discusses briefly what he means by a "true
good." This notion of a "true good" is, I think, a principle theme
of Ethics.
==========

[12] (1) I will here only briefly state what I mean by true good,
and also what is the nature of the highest good. (2) In order that
this may be rightly understood, we must bear in mind that the terms
good and evil are only applied relatively, so that the same thing
may be called both good and bad according to the relations in view,
in the same way as it may be called perfect or imperfect.
(3) Nothing regarded in its own nature can be called perfect or
imperfect; especially when we are aware that all things which come
to pass, come to pass according to the eternal order and fixed
laws of nature.
[13] (1) However, human weakness cannot attain to this order in its
own thoughts, but meanwhile man conceives a human character much more
stable than his own, and sees that there is no reason why he should
not himself acquire such a character. (2) Thus he is led to seek
for means which will bring him to this pitch of perfection, and
calls everything which will serve as such means a true good.
(13:3) The chief good is that he should arrive, together with other
individuals if possible, at the possession of the aforesaid
character. (4) What that character is we shall show in due time,
namely, that it is the knowledge of the union existing being
the mind and the whole of nature. [c]

footnote[c] These matters are explained more at length elsewhere.
==========
The footnote obviously doesn't say where the further explanation is,
or precisely which "matters" Spinoza means. Sometimes he says this
or that will be explained in "his philosophy," but not here. Perhaps
if Spinoza had finished the treatise, he might have pointed the
reader to specific passages, either in TEI or in "his philosophy."
As it is, this footnote seems vague, and perhaps superfluous. There
are plenty of instances in which more is revealed later, or in other
writings, which do not receive a footnote, so why here especially, I
wonder?

More Response to Stuart's Cogent Remarks

Stuart, a true student of Spinoza remarked before:

> S: Anyway, if we think about the comparison he makes of caution and
cowardice (in the Ethics) where he pretty much talks about them being essentially the same emotion but the former is the response of a rational person, while the latter is the response of an irrational person, the following ratios would be natural: caution/ cowardice::providing for oneself/seeking wealth::being a respected individual/seeking fame and notoriety(or adulation).

>D. As we get deeper into "The Improvement" you could parse your text/ideas and determine what kinds they are according to Spinoza's typology, which will be revealed later. Compare your ideas with these from Spinoza's Ethics.  You seem to be on the right
track.

==========E5P4note"For it must be especially remarked,that the appetite through which a man is said to be active, and that through which he is said to be passive is one and the same. For instance, we have shown that human nature is so constituted, that everyone desires his fellow-men to live after his own fashion (III. xxxi. note) ; in a man, who is not guided by reason, this appetite is a passion which is called ambition, and does not greatly differ from pride ; whereas in a man, who lives by the dictates of reason, it is an activity or virtue which is called piety (IV. xxxvii. note. i. and second proof). In like manner all appetites or desires are only passions, in so far as they spring from inadequate ideas ; the same results are accredited to virtue, when they are aroused or generated by adequate ideas. For all desires, whereby we are determined to any given action, may arise as much from adequate as from inadequate ideas (IV. lix.).E4P64PROP. LIX. To all the actions, whereto we are determined by emotion wherein the mind is passive ; we can be determined without emotion by reason.Proof.-To act rationally, is nothing else (III. iii. and Def.ii.) but to perform those actions, which follow from the necessity, of our nature considered in itself alone. But pain is bad, in so far as it diminishes or checks the power of action(IV. xli.) ; wherefore we cannot by pain be determined to any action, which we should be unable to perform under the guidanceof reason. Again, pleasure is bad only in so far as it hinders a man's capability for action (IV. xli. xliii.) ; therefore to this extent we could not be determined by it to any action, which we could not perform under the guidance of reason. Lastly,pleasure, in so far as it is good, is in harmony with reason (for it consists in the fact that a man's capability for action is increased or aided) ; nor is the mind passive therein, except inso far as a man's power of action is not increased to the extent of affording him an adequate conception of himself and his actions (III. iii., and note).Wherefore, if a man who is pleasurably affected be brought tosuch a state of perfection, that he gains an adequate conception of himself and his own actions, he will be equally, nay more, capable of those actions, to which he is determined by emotion wherein the mind is passive. But all emotions are attributable to pleasure, to pain, or to desire (Def. of the Emotions, iv.explanation) ; and desire (Def. of the Emotions, i.) is nothing else but the attempt to act ; therefore, to all actions, &c.Q.E.D.Another Proof.-A given action is called bad, in so far as it arises from one being affected by hatred or any evil emotion. But no action, considered in itself alone, is either good or bad (as we pointed out in the preface to Pt. IV.), one and the same action being sometimes good, sometimes bad ; wherefore to the action which is sometimes bad, or arises from some evil emotion, we may be led by reason (IV. xix.). Q.E.D.Note.-An example will put this point in a clearer light. The action of striking, in so far as it is considered physically, and in so far as we merely look to the fact that a man raises his arm, clenches his fist, and moves his whole arm violently downwards, is a virtue or excellence which is conceived as proper to the structure of the human body. If, then, a man, moved by anger or hatred, is led to clench his fist or to move his arm, this result takes place (as we showed in Pt. II.), because one and the same action can be associated with various mental images of things ; therefore we may be determined to the performance of one and the same action by confused ideas, or by clear and distinct ideas. Hence it is evident that every desire which springs from emotion, wherein the mind is passive, would become useless, if men could be guided by reason. Let us now see why desire which arises from emotion, wherein the mind is passive, is called by us blind."

More Catching Up With the Notes: [b] P7S3

Spiniza, TEI:

"[7] (1) Further reflection convinced me that if I could really get
to the root of the matter I should be leaving certain evils for a
certain good. (2) I thus perceived that I was in a state of great
peril, and I compelled myself to seek with all my strength for a
remedy, however uncertain it might be; as a sick man struggling with
a deadly disease, when he sees that death will surely be upon him
unless a remedy be found, is compelled to seek a remedy with all his
strength, inasmuch as his whole hope lies therein. (7:3) All the
objects pursued by the multitude not only bring no remedy that tends
to preserve our being, but even act as hindrances, causing the death
not seldom of those who possess them, [b] and always of those who
are possessed by them.

[b] These considerations should be set forth more precisely."
==========

Spinoza does not say here that this clarifying should be done
elsewhere, as he did in the previous note. The subject matter is
closely related. I feel as if Spinoza is saying that this topic in
the treatise could use polishing. I have never heard anyone raise
the subject and speculate upon what more he might have said about
these matters. With a little reflection, I think most of us could
observe hindrances along these lines within ourselves at any given moment.
What objects or ends are being pursued within the content of my own
consciousness? I feel that Spinoza often artfully invites us to
learn as much about our own nature as we can.

Here is a bit of dialogue between Stuart and I a few years ago, slightly
edited to avoid certain difficulties in recalling source material and with
certain additions which I hope shed a bit more light on the subjects at hand:
===============
D:What did S. know of riches and fame?

S: If Spinoza is not a clever fraud, then he appears to be a "spiritual" prodigy
of some sort. And he is pretty confident, since while he does not ..."come out
and say, 'If you want to follow me, this is how it goes,' he does say if you
want to understand certain things more clearly, you will need to think like me
on a few points. I believe the phrase is pretty much something like '...so that
others may understand even as I understand.' Anyway, if we think about the
comparison he makes of caution and cowardice (in the Ethics) where he pretty
much talks about them being essentially the same emotion but the former is the
response of a rational person, while the latter is the response of an irrational
person, the following ratios would be natural: caution/cowardice::providing for
oneself/seeking wealth::being a respected individual/seeking fame and
notoriety(or adulation).

D:Spinoza may have expressed that "Jesus is the best philosopher."

S: Did he actually use that wording? I know in the Tractatus, he says that Jesus
was the last and the greatest of the Jewish prophets. And he unpacks that phrase
with the description of Jesus as one who spoke and thought with the "mind of
God." If I remember correctly.

D: I believe it was expressed in a note to Tschirnhausen, but I am not clear about it.
I am clear that Spinoza said that Jesus understood God by means of a clear idea, a
true idea of the highest order, whereas the Prophets connected with more imagination.
E.g. Moses experienced God as a burning bush, some prophets saw angels, etc.  There is a tremendous difference.  God alone understands God clearly, and that is why it was said that "I am in the Father and the Father is in Me."  So, Christ was human, except for the God Consciousness.  One comes to the point of asking, "Is God synonymous with Reality?" 
Matt. 19:26: But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; 
but with God all things are possible.

S: "Stamp out" ill will, cultivate gratitude, and be prepared for grace.

The Note in Sentence 2, Paragraph 4-Spinoza's View of "The Middle Way"

[4] (1) By sensual pleasure the mind is enthralled to the extent

of quiescence, as if the supreme good were actually attained, so

that it is quite incapable of thinking of any other object; when

such pleasure has been gratified it is followed by extreme

melancholy, whereby the mind, though not enthralled, is disturbed

and dulled. (2) The pursuit of honors and riches is likewise very

absorbing, especially if such objects be sought simply for their

own sake, [a] inasmuch as they are then supposed to constitute the

highest good.

==========

Sorry, I overlooked the note in p4 in s2 so we will need to review 

paragraph 4, in light of the note (a). Here it is:

==========

[a] (1) This might be explained more at large and more clearly:

I mean by distinguishing riches according as they are pursued for

their own sake, in or furtherance of fame, or sensual pleasure,

or the advancement of science and art. (2) But this subject is

reserved to its own place, for it is not here proper to

investigate the matter more accurately.

==========

So, we learn that Spinoza is not dogmatically opposed to the acquisition

of wealth.  However, it should be noted that while Spinoza was not an advocate

of asceticism, a study of his life shows that when he said "the wise man is 

content with little," he practiced what he preached.

The concern here is not with money or property, possessions and so on,

for there is nothing in these that cannot be put to good use.  The difficulty

for the follower of Spinoza's path lies in the emotional identification with

these things, as if they were parts of our body.  So, we experience pain when

there is a modification of loss in our investment portfolio, or discover that someone

has stolen the box of cash we had hidden in a piece of furniture.  We are identified

with the existential first and the spiritual is often lost and forgotten.  This is the

wrong order.  The best illustration of the true order is the crucifixion of Jesus, and 

how unfortunate that his ultimate sacrifice of the existential for the sake of Truth,

has been perverted into superstition for the profit of the priest class and at great cost 

to humanity in general.  Likewise, perhaps, Socrates displayed an indifference to 

death and continued to maintain his ideas to the end.

https://sites.google.com/site/jacqueslouisdavidlifeandworks/the-death-of-socrates

Nature begins with the incorporeal Eternal and Infinite, and our

conceptions of particular things are not objective because we don't understand 

their cause.  The finite mind cannot understand the infinite in essence.

Jesus famously said that a rich man has about as much chance of entering Heaven as
a camel has of passing through the eye of a needle.  However, a

close reading of what comes after reveals the humility of Jesus before God,

indicating that God may accomplish what is inconceivable for man.  As an

aside, it is very interesting that just after this saying, Jesus offers the parable

of the men hired to work in the vineyard. Each receives the same pay, regardless
of the hours they put in, and the last hired may be the first paid.

As Krishnamurti said, and I often repeat it, "It is the truth that frees, not your efforts to be free." K. gave his heart and soul to union with the immeasurable, and while he was educated in fine English
schools and given the trappings of wealth and prestige by his Theosophical "parents" who had

great ambitions for him, he came to see as Spinoza did, that these surroundings were vain and futile.  He divorced himself from the organization that was created for him because he had "been made simple" by

conscious contact with his real creator.  And while his friends always made sure that he was provided for, he actually had very few personal possessions despite the many books of his ideas that attained a certain popularity.  But, again, as Spinoza indicates in the last proposition of the Ethics, we are content with little because of our inner treasure.  In the spiritual paths known generally as "The Fourth Way," we don't renounce our position, family, possessions and so on as monks and certain Yogins and Fakirs may do, and as the Apostles of Christ did.  We merely begin to observe ourselves.  In a sense, this is the end and the beginning, just as the shaman put it: "to see…"

Spinoza writes in TPT that "the arts and sciences...are also entirely necessary to the perfection and blessedness of human nature."  As we can clearly see from the citation below, Spinoza embraces what a Buddhist might well 

describe as "the middle way"  with regard to enjoyment of the sensual aspects of our existential life. The intention is precisely the same, and it would be fair to say generally that Spinoza is more akin to the Shakyamuni Buddha than he is to Locke, Hobbes, Descartes, Leibniz, Hume, Kant,or even Wittgenstein, Heidegger, etc.

==========

From Ethics Part IV:  Of Human Bondage, or the Strength of the Emotions

Proposition 45 (XLV)….

 Note.-Between derision (which I have in Coroll. I. stated to

be bad) and laughter I recognize a great difference.  For

laughter, as also jocularity, is merely pleasure ; therefore, so

long as it be not excessive, it is in itself good (IV. xli.). 

Assuredly nothing forbids man to enjoy himself, save grim and

gloomy superstition.  For why is it more lawful to satiate one's

hunger and thirst than to drive away one's melancholy? I reason,

and have convinced myself as follows : No deity, nor anyone else,

save the envious, takes pleasure in my infirmity and discomfort,

nor sets down to my virtue the tears, sobs, fear, and the like,

which are signs of infirmity of spirit ; on the contrary, the

greater the pleasure wherewith we are affected, the greater the

perfection whereto we pass ; in other words, the more must we

necessarily partake of the divine nature.  Therefore, to make use

of what comes in our way, and to enjoy it as much as possible

(not to the point of satiety, for that would not be enjoyment) is

the part of a wise man.  I say it is the part of a wise man to

refresh and recreate himself with moderate and pleasant food and

drink, and also with perfumes, with the soft beauty of growing

plants, with dress, with music, with many sports, with theatres,

and the like, such as every man may make use of without injury to

his neighbour.  For the human body is composed of very numerous

parts, of diverse nature, which continually stand in need of

fresh and varied nourishment, so that the whole body may be

equally capable of performing all the actions, which follow from

the necessity of its own nature ; and, consequently, so that the

mind may also be equally capable of understanding many things

simultaneously.  This way of life, then, agrees best with our

principles, and also with general practice ; therefore, if there

be any question of another plan, the plan we have mentioned is

the best, and in every way to be commended.  There is no need for

me to set forth the matter more clearly or in more detail.

The Terror of the Situation/Root of the Matter

     And so, dear friends, we proceed on to the second part of the introductory 
material in which Spinoza reveals to us his inner life at the outset of his amazing adult life, which, while being brought to an end at the tender age of 44 by lung disease, bore such an abundance of philosophical treasures that it is impossible to imagine how anyone could accomplish so much in a couple of decades.  His observations on the intimate details of human nature, with respect to the mind and emotions, and the nature of enlightenment, and his work in the fields of political theory, study of the Bible, theology and other things, seem to many to be some of the grandest works of speculative philosophy extant.  Some, however, such as Goethe, Einstein and other luminaries of Western culture, feel that Spinoza had indeed conceived a "true philosophy," that is, not speculative, as the works of most other Western philosophers are, but actually objective such that the subject and object prove to be one and the same (cf. "Ethics" Proposition 7, Part 2).  In fact, Kant, who came more and more to discover and admire Spinoza, initially denied that the conception of "the true idea" (which is the main task of our work at hand) was a possibility for the mind/body of a human being.  
     If you will close your eyes for a moment, and simply sense your own body, and observe that the mind seems to be something else, even subdivided into a thinker/what is thought, then you begin to realize that you have never felt completely whole, and at one with whatever is the cause of your being as well.  No one can do this for you, nor can you simply read about it.  It requires a paradoxically simultaneous ultimate effort of the mind and its ultimate acquiescence. Perhaps we will speak more about this later, but for now, let us return to the second part of the introductory material. 

[7] (1) Further reflection convinced me that if I could really get
to the root of the matter I should be leaving certain evils for a
certain good. (2) I thus perceived that I was in a state of great
peril, and I compelled myself to seek with all my strength for a
remedy, however uncertain it might be; as a sick man struggling with
a deadly disease, when he sees that death will surely be upon him
unless a remedy be found, is compelled to seek a remedy with all his
strength, inasmuch as his whole hope lies therein. (7:3) All the
objects pursued by the multitude not only bring no remedy that tends
to preserve our being, but even act as hindrances, causing the death
not seldom of those who possess them, [b] and always of those who
are possessed by them.
==========

     Spinoza experienced what Gurdjieff called "The Terror of the
Situation."  I refer to his perception that he "was in a state of great peril."  There are many facets of the Gurdjieff work that seem very much akin to what Spinoza had in mind.  I highly recommend "In Search of the Miraculous" by Ouspensky (sans all the mathematical/physics material, which I can't recommend because I don't understand it very well, if at all) as an introduction to serious attempts to  comprehend the practical aspects of the Spinozist Way. 
     I've been close to quite a few of these deaths that Spinoza mentions (friends lost to obsessive drinking and drugging)…and I believe that, for Spinoza, death can occur to an individual even though they are not rendered a corpse.  When a human being seems to have   irrevocably strayed so far from their essential nature that their being is completely determined by factors external to themselves, regardless of whether they seem "happy" or otherwise, they are devoid of connection to their own soul, hence are organic automata.  For G., these living dead were a fact.  Part of the appeal of vampire stories is that people have a sense that there is something beautiful, perhaps immortal, whose nature requires the acquiescence of the ordinary mortal who previously "occupied" a certain body.  It's interesting how "Nosferatu" has come to be something heroic in today's pop culture, whereas only a generation or two ago it was something monstrous.  I don't know what that signifies for our society, but it seems like something born of desperate alienation and the longing for something like Spinoza's "real good, having power to communicate itself, which would affect the mind singly, to the exclusion of all else."  Something beyond the spinning down of the humdrum of dullness which suffocates the living spirit so effectively in our culture of extroverted glad-handing.  Krishnamurti claimed that we live in a state akin to our house being on fire, but we are failing to even realize it.  Meanwhile, we imagine we are "doing something about it" whereas in truth our efforts are mostly the acting out of passions, a form of pragmatism, whereof the issue is merely another cycle of delusional "reforms" beset with seriously problematic unforeseen consequences.
==========

[8] (1) There are many examples of men who have suffered persecution
even to death for the sake of their riches, and of men who in pursuit
of wealth have exposed themselves to so many dangers, that they have
paid away their life as a penalty for their folly. (2) Examples are
no less numerous of men, who have endured the utmost wretchedness for
the sake of gaining or preserving their reputation. (3) Lastly,
are innumerable cases of men, who have hastened their death through
over-indulgence in sensual pleasure.
==========
So ends the overture, as it were.

==========
[9] (1) All these evils seem to have arisen from the fact, that
happiness or unhappiness is made wholly dependent on the quality
of the object which we love. (2) When a thing is not loved, no
quarrels will arise concerning it - no sadness will be felt if it
perishes-no envy if it is possessed by another-no fear, no hatred, in short,
no disturbances of the mind. (3) All these arise from the love of
what is perishable, such as the objects already mentioned.
==========

Okay, but do I see this in terms of facts, in the content of my own
consciousness, my own life, or do I remain abstract in my thinking, as if Spinoza is merely some scholar, theorizing away?   That is not the case, even though most of the individuals who study Spinoza never make whole- hearted attempts to live by his philosophy, which was his expressed aim..Note well the wording "happiness or unhappiness is made wholly to depend on the quality of the object which WE LOVE."  Spinoza is reaching across the centuries, in the field of the immeasurable, to include us as friends and co-students in this effort to raise our awareness to the level of connection, of  union, with both the cosmic consciousness and the consciousness flowing forth to all humanity.  Everyone at some point must have felt that there was "something more" that was quite close at hand.  So near…Why must we leave the stillness so soon?  What is so important that we cannot spend time in silence, observing ourselves with choiceless awaress, then carrying this attention out into the world.  The Yogis say that reunion with Ishvara ought never to be further away than the timespace of three breaths…Of course, to modern Western philosophers, such pronouncements are incomprehensible  nonsense.
This process of attachment to the temporal is going on. And on and on... What is at the root of it? Another musical image...The Titanic is sinking catastrophically, but never-mind the rising waters, that band still sounds first rate…Actually, the music isn't that great, but it's better than thinking about what is happening.

"After arranging the world in a most beautiful and enlightened
manner, the scholar goes back home at five o'clock in order to forget
his beautiful arrangement."

-Don Juan Matus