Theos-Talk Archives (June 2000 Message tt00015)

In a message dated 5/9/00 6:07:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
schuller@prodigy.net writes:

<< > 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.
 
 Aryel wrote [with my remarks]:
 
 > 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.
 
 [Before presenting a third alternative of characterizing those who see and
 investigate similarities between K(rishnamurti) and P(henomenology), it has 
to
 be pointed out that these
 'investigators' (Agarwal, Gunturu, myself [as a beginner]) do not identify "K
 unqualifiedly with
 phenomenlogy." On the contrary. Gunturu makes a carefull comparisson, and 
points
 out the subtle similarities and differences between the two, in order to
 contribute to a better understanding of K. Agarwal uses K's and Sartre's
 thought to better understand fragmentation and consciousness. >>

Dear Govert,

Please note the following:
You say that "K in his many expositions applied a very pure, though somehow 
"naive," phenomenological method in describing the human condition, the 
constitution of the empirical ego and the transformative effect of 
presuppositionless awareness."
Your statement says (among other things) that it is proper & correct to 
characterize K as a phenomenologist.  To do that is to state unqualifiedly 
that K WAS a phenomenologist.  This strikes me as being grossly incorrect.  A 
PHENOMENOLOGIST might look at what K was doing, and say to herself:  "Gee, 
that looks a lot like what I try to do & promote."  But to go from that 
"a-ha!" experience to stating unequivocally that K was "a phenomenologist" is 
to take an unwarranted step, even from a logical point of view (I mean, if 
you symbolize it logically, it becomes obvious that the claim is flatly 
false).
As I suggested in my message, it is eminently more appropriate to go the 
other way.  That is, K points out to me that the analytical mind is wreaking 
havoc with my life.  I listen to that observation.  I look into the dynamics 
of daily life, & I come to a point in which I have an "a-ha!" of my own, 
which might be put into words something like this:
"By Jove!  Look at what the analytical mind is doing!  I AM creating all 
these images based on my conditioning.  I AM responding to others & to WHAT 
IS as if it all were but a series of images predetermined by that 
conditioning.  The analytical mind IS organizing all of it so that there is 
the (false) impression that "I" am moving from here (wherever "here" is, 
psychologically), to "there."  That is, I see that I am degenerating in 
various ways, & the analytical mind tells me I can "fix" that by "doing X," 
which will bring "nirvana" or some such result at the end of that tunnel.
Seeing that -- & much more along those lines -- awareness is no longer swayed 
so easily by the analytical mind.  In that process, there is, among many 
others, the "a-ha!" that what "I" thought was "my" consciousness, is really 
the consciousness of humanity, and that the transformation of that 
consciousness is, in fact, the transformation of the whole field of human 
consciousness.  By Jove!" I say, "what a revolutionarily different way to be 
this is!"
Now, the moment you begin to analyze that whole process, to put it into more 
or less "neat" categories, the analytical mind is back firmly on the saddle.  
That, precisely, is what phenomenology does.  Please look at yourself, in the 
passage quoted above, doing just that.  As you say, "Gunturu makes a careful 
comparison, and points out the subtle similarities and differences between 
the two, in order to contribute to a better understanding of K."
Such comparisons can only come from the analytical mind.  They leave our 
lives exactly as they were before making them.  There is no transformation 
here.  Humanity is still going down the toilet, while these otherwise "neat" 
comparisons are being made.  (I hope you don't mind my having made a 
phenomenological description of what is involved in these two very different 
processes!  Remember:  We're just talking here.  We're in the wolf's den, the 
turf of the analytical mind, whenever we use words, whenever we try to 
persuade each other.  This process of talking or writing may have a place.  
But it's not what really matters.)
A major problem here, as I see it, is that what I perceive to be the grossly 
mistaken assumption is being made, that K was "a philosopher" in the academic 
sense.  That is, it is assumed that K had "a position" just like any other 
thinker whose thought has been conditioned by her upbringing, genes, Kantian 
categories, etc.  That is a gross misrepresentation of K, & only someone who 
deeply misunderstands him, could engage in this little analytical game.
This will NEVER lead "to a better understanding of K," as you suggest.  Au 
contraire!  The ONLY relevant way of "understanding K" that I am aware of, is 
to ENGAGE in the process of cleaning up one's own house, which is always 
quite in need of such cleaning.  There is no other way, my friend.
I realize that the analytical mind is all-engrossing, deeply mesmerizing.  
One can think of many reasons why this is so.  In a way, one could say we all 
are sort-of "hard-wired" with conditioning, at many levels.  The analytical 
mind provides "soothing" explanations & palliatives that make it seem as if 
"things are better" when there is an acceptance of its most tempting 
offerings.  Perhaps the analytical mind is, at bottom, what is behind the 
multidimensional human penchant for being drugged, at various levels.  We as 
a species have accepted "religion" even when it became obvious that it was no 
longer delivering the goods.  We have accepted philosophical systems 
(including phenomenology) even though we continue seeing that they need 
revision, eventually to the point of having to put them completely aside -- 
and CHOOSING a new one! (didn't we learn ANYTHING from seeing that such 
systems DO NOT WORK, that is, they do not do what they claim they can do?) 
That failing, we use chemicals, drugs, to soothe our pain.
ALL of those alternatives -- & many others we seek after, in our seemingly 
never-ending quest for escaping from our actual daily responsibility -- 
strike me as coming from the analytical mind.  They all follow, like the 
analytical mind, an algorithm, a certain pattern, which always looks 
(suspiciously, I may add) like an argument of two-valued logic:  "If I do X 
(premise), I'll be OK (conclusion)."  Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I'm still 
confused, unable to relate wholesomely with others or with the environment, 
generating conflict -- degenerating.
You may see some good points in phenomenology if you look at its various 
ever-changing "schools" from what the analytical mind might (erroneously) 
conceive as "the Krishnamurti perspective."  There may some good, TEMPORARY, 
LIMITED use of making such an analysis, for those still mesmerized by the 
drug-like addictions generated by the analytical mind.  But at some point, 
dear Govert, an "a-ha!" into all this comes about, & the wrongful use of the 
analytical mind (that is, using it to inquire into "deeper" matters) is 
dropped.  When that moment comes, it happens with the casualness with which 
one puts in the garbage can a Kleenex one has just used to its maximum 
purpose, not with the pomp & circumstance surrounding the king's death.
Its epitaph need not be "Rest in Peace."  That's too formal, & gives it far 
more importance & is far more analytical than is required.  Perhaps a more 
proper epitaph for the (improperly used) analytical mind might be something 
like:  "Good riddance!  Boy, what a PEST that was!  Smelled to high heaven, 
too!"
With much affection,
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.