Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00103)

> 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.>>

Aryel responded:

> 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.

Govert again:

There is no one claiming that K was a phenomenologist, only that what he was
doing in his
talks resembles some of the more recognizable procedures which can be found in
P, which is quite similar to your recognition of kinship between K and P as you
yourself stated on p.144 in your book, which I'll reproduce in a seperate
e-mail.

As for the possibility of K advocating a method I'd like to come back to the
quote reproduced in my previous e-mail:

"We are going to explore together very slowly, patiently,
hesitantly, to find out. It is like good scientists looking through a microscope
and seeing exactly the same thing. Because if you are a scientist in the
laboratory using a microscope, you must show what you see to another scientist,
so both of you see exactly what is."

K is, on first reading, clearly comparing here, in a positive way, his mode of
exploration with the scientific method. He is of course not saying that what he
does is the same as the scientific method, but nevertheless he makes an appeal
to our understanding of scientific method in order for us to understand better
what K tries to show as his way of exploration. For me this implies that somehow
a 'mode' or 'way' or 'method' is involved in what K is trying to do.

Against this interpretation it could be argued that K's comparrison of science
and what he himself does, does not apply to that element of the scientific
procedure called method, but to another element called intersubjectivity, i.e.
the problem of communicating scientific results, or in K's words "show what you
see ... so both of you see exactly what is." So, it's not so much a matter of
procedure or method with which K is concerned here, but of sharing results,
which in K's case are actually not results, in the sense of a final product of a
procedure, but a shared clear view of what is.

As a formerly purist Krishnamurtian I might have been satisfied with this last
formula, but now, after not believing anymore in the complete enlightenment of
K, nor believing anymore in the infallibility of his statements, nor believing
anymore in his status as the telephone for the Masters, I feel compelled to
submit K's teachings to a variety of investigations to sort out truth from
error, both in K's teachings itself and also in the various criticisms leveled
against him. At this point in time I find that the tools and insights provided
by different thinkers belonging to the phenomenological movement are looking
most promising to explicate more fully the meaning of K's teachings and what
kind of new sedimentation of habits takes place when one reconstitutes one's
framework of understanding according to K's teachings.

Having said that and coming back to K's quote under consideration, I like to
present some more reasons for my statement that somehow a method is involved in
K's teachings, though he might never have explicitly said so, even repudiated
the whole concept of method. First there is his directive that the exploring
will be done in a certain way, i.e. "very slowly, patiently, hesitantly."
Secondly these three terms imply time as the necessary temporal space in which
something has to happen--i.e. a process, unfoldment, creation, or, to boil it
down to one term: change--in order "to find out." Thirdly, the use of language
itself as a means of communicating truth has to be executed according to certain
rules and is a phenomenon needing time in order to exist at all. Ergo, K's
teachings incorporate implicitly a language-based temporal method to change the
awareness of his audiance. Of course I'm well aware that the final goal of K is
to have his audiance transcend any method, language and even time itself. Having
so conceded I think it is quite clear that a certain groundwork has to be done
before anybody can execute this transcendance. Just to tell someone to stop
thinking won't do. And K knew that, for he put a lot of thought in sharing his
insights, describing his own state of mind, and clarifying the conditions to get
there. Unfortunately, as a Master pointed out "Krishnamurti is endowed with
Parsifal-like simplicity. Because he has reached a certain state of
consciousness and evolution, in his modesty he fails to see that others have not
reached it likewise. Therefore he prescribes for others what is only suitable
for himself."

Namaste

Govert




====================
Alpheus' homepage:
www.alpheus.org
Background on Cyril Scott:
www.alpheus.org/tame.htm
====================


-- 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.