Theos-Talk Archives (April 2000 Message tt00102)

In a message dated 4/3/00 12:50:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
schuller@prodigy.net writes:
<< As I see it now, Krishnamurti in his many expositions applied a very pure, 
though somehow 'naive,' phenomenological method in describing the human 
condition, the constitution of the emperical ego and the transformative 
effect of pre-supposition-less awareness. Though he was not trained in 
methodological phenomenology and probably never read anything in that area, 
there are some researchers agreeing that what he did was executing the 
phenomenological reduction and the transcedental reduction just by the power 
of his sincerity, authenticity and observational acumen.>>
Dear Govert,
Anyone who identifies K unqualifiedly with phenomenlogy (P) has either not 
understood at all his work, or has reasons for wanting to thus misrepresent 
him.  P was initially developed by Edmund Husserl with the specific intention 
that it be A TOOL to be used in SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.  That is, P is A METHOD 
of research.  K was intensely and relentlessly interested in helping to bring 
about a transformation in human consciousness, and such a mutation is 
impossible, so long as methods are a part of one's daily life (in 
psychological and "spiritual" areas).  Anyone who has read K, even 
superficially, knows that methods have absolutely no place in anything he 
ever said.  There are excellent "reasons" for this -- if one wants to ANALYZE 
it, and therefore distort it somewhat.  A method, any method, implies the use 
of algorithms, of mechanical approaches to whatever it is one is attempting 
to discover or understand.  Methods are eminently useful for situations that 
call for making pragmatic decisions:  "Should I make a right turn, or go 
on?"; "should I push the 'detonate' button, or not?"; "should I consume 
hydrogenated oil, or not?" (note the presence of CHOICE, which cannot be in 
CHOICELESS AWARENESS).  A method ALWAYS implies the acceptance of a LANGUAGE 
GAME, of FORMS OF LIFE (to use expressions employed by Wittgenstein), that 
is, before one even thinks of using a method, one already has a point of 
view, a presupposition about the investigation to be made.  (This, 
incidentally, is a major flaw in P, and a major reason why it's not possible 
to say exactly what P is, since every new author gives us a "new & improved" 
form of it.  P, in all versions I'm acquainted with, tells us there MUST be A 
METHOD to make investigations into THAT WHICH IS.  It also tells us there 
MUST be total PRESUPPOSITIONLESSNESS.  But these two are mutually exclusive.  
A method ALWAYS implies presuppositions.)  K is the only person in history 
that I am aware of, who explored without presuppositions.  So, if anything, 
P-ists need to be looked at from K's perspective, not the other way around.
The method, whatever it may be, NEVER starts truly at the beginning.  It 
ALWAYS implies the existence of an ANALYZER, of a "someone" who is making the 
assumption that she is justified in blindly accepting the preconditions of 
the ANALYSIS-WORLD she is coming from.  If the analyzer is a Saxon trying to 
understand an issue in the year 1251, his analysis will look profoundly 
different from that of a similar analyzer (even the same fellow, 
reincarnated) trying to understand "the same" issue in Oak Park IL, in the 
year 2000.  In other words, THE ANALYZER IS THE ANALYZED.  So long as one 
puts one's BLIND FAITH in the efficacy of ANALYSIS, there is absolutely no 
escape from that.  And so long as the analyzer is a central factor in our 
lives, THERE WILL BE confusion, conflict, division.  There is no escape from 
that, either.  One "reason" for this:  the analyzer is, intrinsically, 
adversarial.  The analyzer, who acts ALWAYS from his conditioning, will 
always be in opposition to anyone else who does not agree with that 
conditioning.  He'll fight to the death, if necessary, to make sure he "ends 
up on top."  He's done this, innumerable times.  All the human misery we know 
of, comes from the blind acceptance of the analyzer.  Legislation will not 
transform the analyzer.  A new set of rules will not transform the analyzer.  
The analyzer THRIVES on rules, on algorithms.  So he will always welcome 
rules, whether "old" or "new."  He'd rather "convert," than give up analysis 
altogether (and therefore cease to be).  The analyzer thrives on AUTHORITY, 
which is the source for all the rules.  And these, let's not forget, are not 
"rules" in any "universal" sense of the term.  The rules the analyzer thrives 
on are the result of analysis based on conditioning.  The analyzer always 
makes the unwarranted assumption that his particular brand of analysis IS 
"universal," applicable to all.  But the history of philosophy & religion -- 
the history of humanity -- has shown all of us, over & over, that these 
various presumably "universal" analyses are but concoctions of the confused, 
adversarial brains of conditioned people.  The only way there seems to be to 
find out if there are any "universal" rules, is first to transcend the 
analyzer altogether.  If that is not done, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have any rules 
but those created by analysis -- and therefore unmitigated human misery, 
conflict, confusion.  (That is part of why, incidentally, there can be no 
theosophy in the life os someone who is not engaging in the daily process of 
initiation, transformation.)  All this, & much more along the same lines, is 
implicit in following a method.  Anyone who CLAIMS, FALSELY, that K was a 
phenomenologist needs to give at least one item of evidence for such a 
preposterous claim.  The evidence MUST consist of showing at least one item 
from K's work in which he unequivocally is advocating a method, since that is 
what P is.  If no such evidence exists, as I say there isn't, we need to move 
on, and not waste any more time on this dead end.
Blessings,
Aryel

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.