Theos-Talk Archives (June 2000 Message tt00032)

In a message dated 5/11/00 1:48:59 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. 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.  >>

Govert,

I'd put it (most appropriately, I believe) the other way around:  
Phenomenologists are attempting to do, analytically, what K actually does.  
It is phenomenologists who might learn from K, not the other way around.  
Otherwise, it would be exactly like saying that the false coin was invented 
before there was a real one.  What I'm saying is that, like all mimicking, 
this one may be cute or perhaps even funny.  But PLEASE:  Accept no 
substitutes!
Ultimately, what really matters is:  Is there the continuous, never-ending 
process of transformation going on in my daily life?  If not, all this talk 
will not help any, & WILL be pregnant with dangers of all sorts, as pointed 
out in my previous e-mail.  The only reason why it becomes important to refer 
to K is that, as it happens, no one in history has ever presented this urgent 
need for transformation in an as inescapably clear a fashion, as he did.  But 
as he himself said often, he was "only a telephone."  So his "importance" 
consists in this:  We get the phone call, with the message:  "Mutate, boys & 
girls!" The normal thing to do, then, once one has heard the message, is to 
HANG UP THE DARNED PHONE!!  Worshipping the telephone, or engaging in endless 
discussions about it, is sort of silly.  Going back to it to dial that 900 
number again, over & over again, seems kind of addictive, & disconnected from 
our daily lives -- sort of dysfunctional, like everything else that comes 
from the analytical mind, when misapplied by (mis)using it for the purpose of 
exploring into "things that matter."
I had very specific purposes in referring to phenomenology in my book.  In my 
work (not only in The Inner Life) I have sometimes referred to P as closely 
akin to what is required in transformation (whether as expressed in the 
ancient perennial lineage, or in K), since phenomenological research consists 
in part of a repudiation of all metaphysics, & of a PSYCHOLOGICAL 
exploration.  A purpose in making this connection with P is pedagogical:  
People who know of phenomenology, but who might not know as much about K, 
might be tempted to go read K, in order to see for themselves in just what 
ways K would be similar to P.  But once they go to K, my job is, in a way, 
finished.  Now it's up to them, to look into themselves, not as a method 
(since, as we've seen, that is dangerous, & doesn't lead anywhere -- & rather 
slowly, at that), but choicelessly.  "Choicelessly" is not just a word; it's 
not a concept.
This goes to the heart of why I wrote this book.  My main, deeper intention 
was to lead as many human beings as possible to see the urgent necessity for 
transformation.  In a way, all the more or less fascinating material 
regarding K's inner life in it is almost like an upaya (as Buddhists might 
say), a "skillful mean" to lead people to transformation, as much as that is 
possible through merely reading a book.  In this attempt, I tried to leave no 
stone unturned:  I tried to reach as many as possible.  That is why the book 
is chock-full-of references to so very many schools & approaches.
My aim was to get as many of these to see the need for transformation, & 
ENGAGE in it.  That failing, my hope was for the next best thing:  If my 
readers would not get that message directly from me, perhaps they would be 
intrigued enough to go see what the old maestro himself said.
My references to phenomenology had this (& almost exclusively this) purpose 
in mind.
To put it in HPB's terms:  There are "seven keys" that one must turn in order 
to enter the temple of divine wisdom (theosophy).  One of those keys is the 
phenomenological key.  Another is the metaphysical.  Another is the mythical. 
 Another is the astrological.  All of these "seven" keys can lead to entering 
the temple of divine wisdom.  But any & all of them are 100% useless, unless 
the candidate FIRST turns the psychological or mystical key.  That is the key 
of "regeneration," as HPB called it in "The Esoteric Character of the 
Gospels." The most alert candidates, the most serious, would get this, & 
proceed with regeneration, without being ENCUMBERED by the distractions 
implicit in ALL the other keys.  This means that a "very alert candidate" 
might come upon transformation (in the perennial sense) through P, even 
despite the needless allures fraught with danger & shallowness of P itself.  
Unfortunately, such alert candidates have always been rare, very few, & far 
between.  As I see it, it IS possible to come upon transformation through P, 
just as it was possible for Christopher Columbus to come to America in a 
journey fraught with danger & incalculable difficulties.  But then was then.  
We can now fly by jet, in comfort & with minimal dangers.  Since now there is 
"K," why would one want to make such a journey on caravels, & insist that 
EVERYONE MUST use caravels & only caravels to do so?
This is why it became necessary to present the ancient wisdom in this "new" 
way.  This is why the message has perhaps come from Tushita Heaven, from 
whence the Lord Maitreya is said by Tibetan Buddhists (& as quoted by HPB in 
the 1897 edition of the SD) to have delivered the teaching of prajnaparamita 
to Nagarjuna, that no perennial teacher will provide distractions, any more:  
It's TRANSFORMATION, OR BUST.  The problem, perhaps, is that we humans are 
too obtuse, too insensitive, too inalert.  That's perhaps, at bottom, why we 
get so caught up in the "other" keys.
As K put it, most poignantly:  "The tears of all the world have created the 
World Teacher."  Somehow, that does not strike me as idle talk.

Love,

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.