Theos-Talk Archives (June 2000 Message tt00072)

Dear Govert,

Thanks for your thoughts here, and also recently, on Phenomenology.  I agree
with much of what you say on this and would like to add a few observations
of my own. But first a quick thought on Krishnamurti.  I have heard him
speak and I've also read and reflected deeply on almost all of his published
talks and Notebooks.  I would say there is a recognisable 'method' in the
way he goes about his explorations with those who meet with him whether as a
group and/or on a 'one to one' basis.  And it would be fair to say that
Krishnamurti invariably reaches the same 'conclusions' (if one dare use that
word with regards to him!) and restates the same principles over and over
again.  However, whether there is a "methodology" in his own direct approach
to "What is" only he can say.

With regards Phenomenology, which has developed in all kinds of directions
since Husserl's time, there are indeed many similarities to Krishnamurti's
approach.  I would add that there are also some differences, to be fair.
I'm not sure, for example, that Krishnamurti would have been interested in
carrying out a full Textural and Structural Analysis of interviews carried
out with research participants on a particular 'experiential' topic.

I am a lifelong (well, so far!) student of HPB, I also have a background in
Transpersonal Psychology and Psychotherapy and have carried out a small
number of Phenomenological Research projects into 'transpersonal' (mainly
mystical) experiences.  I prefer to say that I have used a Phenemenological
*approach* to exploring such experiences and 'states'.  I say "approach"
rather than "method", for the methodology is really only a part of something
much larger.  And of course, the state of mind and awareness one brings to
such explorations is also important. For even in the methodological
analysis, which comes later on in the research, one needs to
intuitively-reflectively enter into the material in order to bring out a
synthesis of meanings and essences of the experience under study.

Interestingly, when using this approach with research participants, people
invariably find themselves accessing the very states of consciousness they
are describing as the descriptive words tend to become merely 'pointers' to
the underlying moment to moment experience that emerges.  Invariably new
meanings and 'essences' arise for the research participants in a way that
'meaning' itself may become something that is 'felt', 'sensed' 'experienced'
as having a 'fabric' and substance of its own that trancends the words and
ideas used, and which brings about its own transformation.  This seems to be
the case whether one is looking at so called negative or so called positive
experiences.

As a psychotherapist working with a Transpersonal (spiritual) perspective, I
also use this approach (phenomenological) to explore the difficulties,
blocks, sufferings and joys that people bring along as part of their story.
Once again I find it is an approach that brings transformation as it allows
(paradoxically) people to both 'enter into' and to 'step back' from their
moment to moment experience.  I wont say any more about this as it is not
the right forum, but for me this seems to touch upon and reflect, to one
degree or another, our essential nature - namely the SELF.  For
paradoxically the SELF is both *in* everything and yet *transcends*
everything, like the ONE circle of the symbol whose center is everywhere and
whose circumference is nowhere.

I would add that whether it is in the therapeutic or the research setting,
whatever transformation that may occur it is not something that can be
*made* to happen, and when it does it is often surprising and unexpected,
'something' the personal ego would not have imagined or anticipated.  And it
is something that affects, though to different extents, both parties ie
therapist and person sharing, or, researcher and research-participant.

There are many other aspects of this approach some of which I have not
mentioned as you have already touched upon them.  Hope the above adds
something useful.

...Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com
> [mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of Govert W. Schuller
> Sent: 06 June 2000 17:35
> To: Theosophy list; Thoesophy Activists List
> Subject: Theos-World Re: method?
> Dear Katinka,
>
> I agree that there is more to K than just method. The element of
> magic and art
> are indeed there. Aryel makes the argument that there is no method at all
> involved in what K is advocating and doing. I' m saying K does
> follow certain
> steps which I recognize from both science and phenomenology. In
> the same way
> phenomenology is neither just a method, but has its own art and
> magic as well.
> So far I can see three important elements involved in both science, K and
> phenomenology:
>
<snip>

> Govert


-- 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.