Spinoza seems to be an egoist in the sense that he contends that all things try to persevere in their own beings. Many ‘egoists’ express a similar idea, which is that all beings are, ‘by nature,’ selfish, in that their prime motivation is self-preservation and self-satisfaction. But I think that these ideas are fundamentally different. The key to that difference is the question of what, exactly, is that which we call a ‘thing’ or ‘being’ or ‘self.’ If one takes the attitude that what we often refer to as the self, or soul, or ego, is but, in reality, an illusion, and that ‘my’ true not-self is really not separate from ‘other’ true not-selves, in the way we ‘intuitively’ think they are, then my self-preservation is really the preservation of all, or the ‘one’ of which we all are (to put it in Indian terms). In other words, what is good for me is good for all, and what is good for all is good for me since there is no real difference between ‘you’ and ‘me,’ ‘me’ and ‘all,’ the ‘parts’ of ‘the whole.’
For Spinoza, the foundation which determines what is rightly good and true is the ‘preservation of being,’ and that which hinders preservation of being is wrong, illusion, bad. To ‘preservation’ I would add—though it is possibly contained within Spinoza’s idea of ‘preservation’—growth, or development; for, preservation almost implies stagnation, holding the ground you have gained; and I think that growth, or development, better implies process.
Spinoza is consistent with “Buddhadharma” in recognizing that suffering is caused by desire of that which is transitory and impermanent. Indeed, we decide what a thing’s value is (to us), and the quantity of value determines the level of joy or sadness we experience when we do or do not get it. In other words, that the root of suffering is desire.
But I think that Spinoza points out something very important, and that is that it is not desire (or, as he says, ‘love’) itself which is the problem, but rather what we desire. What we desire is the determinant of happiness or suffering. And, to Spinoza, we will ultimately suffer if we desire such transitory and ephemeral things as wealth, honor, and sensual pleasure (the things most valued and pursued in this society); while if we desire that which is infinite and eternal, we will be happy. What is this infinite and eternal thing? Spinoza calls it ‘God.’ I often call it reality, truth, or simply what is, or even, love. It is ultimately irrelevant, though, what we call it, for I think that he and I are speaking of the same thing here.
So, the point is not to eradicate, nor deny, desire, but rather desire for such things as wealth, honor, and sensual pleasure.
This, by the way, is the solution I have been seeking for the issue of desire and its extinction I had found—and not completely understood—in Buddhist thought; that it is not desire that is the problem, but what and how (re: attitude) we desire. The reason the transitory is less valued than the eternal is because it does not contribute to, but rather hinders, the development of true being, and thus of happiness; for happiness is the development and preservation of true being.
.
From my personal notes, 6/13/00
