The Experiential Grounding of Theosophy
April 15, 2008 by Govert
This post is intended to be an extended philosophical meditation/discussion on the possibility of grounding Theosophy in non-theoretical, non-metaphysical experiential terms.
The question started as comment no. 8 in the post “sort of perplexing” by Latebrake. I invite my first and only discussion partner Pablo to re-submit his comment, then I’ll do mine, etc. till we are updated.
Govert
Original question:
What are the tools, if any, that we have to settle these metaphysical points about the nature of the (not-)self, consciousness, skandas, etc.?
Even if we extract, in a correct comparitive theosophical way, the congruence between Vedanta, HPB and Trikaya Buddhism (if that’s its proper name), how do we verify these statements for ourselves?
What is our criterion of truth?
Do we fall back on authority (HPB/Buddha says so)? If so, why? Or is it a question of adhering to the most plausible hypothesis? If so, what do we mean by that? Or is it a question of having slipped into a paradigmatic, interpretative framework that somehow seems satisfactory, but can not be tested, because one can not step outside of the framework (or only by converting to another framework)? Or is this speculative metaphysical chatter a reflection of a ‘false’ consciousness that has to be deconstructed through a so-named ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’ in the mold of a Marx, Freud or Nietzsche? Or is it an exercise in evading the depravity of the ego, which we are, as per Krishnamurti?
So, in short, the question is about the possibility and nature of an experiential radical zero-point on which we can meet. It’s an old philosophical question with answers galore, but every so now and then we just have to allow ourself to be seized by the question to work out a new answer appropriate to the unique situation we find ourselves in.
Chris
Govert
Pablo
katinkaspiritual
latebrake
mitdyob
Interesting questions Govert.
But I’d like to answer with another question… (yes, the old trick!): Since our senses are so limited, and so is our field of direct experience, should we limit our universe just to what we can perceive? And since what we perceive is not even the real thing but an interpretation our nervous system creates, should we become agnostics (in the sense of “knowledge cannot be gained”)?
Let’s think about these two options (postulating things that are beyond our direct experience or becoming strict agnostics). Later on I’ll give you my perspective about your questions.
Pablo, your questioning answer deserves a similar questioning answer, and my ‘trick’ will be to partially answer it myself:
Why limit the field to two options? What’s the operative assumption guiding you here?
Me thinks your guiding assumption is an a priori critical materialist position on perception and experience along the lines of Immanuel Kant with his dichotomy between the thing-as-experienced (phenomenon) and the thing-in-itself (noumenon), and the alleged impossibility of the senses to go beyond the material, for the senses themselves are bound to that realm.
Or will you develop a new position going beyond this one and your Kantian position is just a straw man to be tossed?
Mind you, what I’m asking for is an experiential philosophy of experience that can provide an inter-subjective grounding for the relevant inter-related experiences upon which we could base a more experience-oriented discussion about so-called metaphysical issues. I’m not looking for a scientific or metaphysical theory from which to deduce explanations. I want to break open our interpretation of the nature of experience itself with the possibility to re-integrate theosophy experientially into our lives in a possibly whole new way. For this to occur we will first have to understand and suspend the myriad scientific-materialist and speculative-metaphysical (including theosophical) assumptions regarding the nature of perception, experience, language and evidence, including the very sophisticated Kantian position.
Govert - I have no idea what you just said. And I do know who Kant is (haven’t read the man, have read and studied about the man a bit).
Are you just saying - in plain Krishnamurtian/psychological English - that ultimately we have to regroup every once in a while and turn to our own experience of our lives in order to find out what our own truth is - and what ‘theosophy’ means in that lived reality?
Govert, if I understood correctly you message, what you said was the point I wanted to make.
We tend to dismiss any intuitional knowledge (not in the Kantian sense, but in the theosophical one) saying that it is subjective. Usually, only the knowledge derived form our senses or logical reasoning is regarded as valid. If we want to speak about spiritual things, however, we cannot limit our knowledge to those avenues. So, it is an epistemological question.
I believe the intuitive knowledge (that one derived from buddhi-manas, to be more precise) is the real one when talking about spiritual things. Of course, intellectual knowledge may help, our sensory perception may help, and even faith may help, but they will not produce an experiential knowledge of the spiritual reality.
So, when you ask: “What are the tools, if any, that we have to settle these metaphysical points about the nature of the (not-)self, consciousness, skandas, etc.?” I would say:
“The intellectual (logical, metaphysical) knowledge based on my intuitive perception.”
Of course, the intuitive knowledge (in our stage, at any rate) may be wrong. But that is the case of any other avenue of knowledge.
Now, how do we obtain an intuitive knowledge? How do recognize it?
Katinka questioned whether I mean that
“ultimately we have to regroup every once in a while and turn to our own experience of our lives in order to find out what our own truth is - and what ‘theosophy’ means in that lived reality?”
Yes and no. Paraphrasing you I’d say:
It’s high time that a collective effort is mounted by a sub-group of students of Theosophy and turn to the radically new concepts of experience as developed by the phenomenological-existential school of philosophy in order to find a more fundamental grounding of Theosophy as a metaphysical doctrine - and Theosophy as a lived ethical attitude.
In a following comment I will reproduce the six reasons I previously developed why phenomenology is relevant to Theosophy and in another comment I will elaborate additional reasons.
The following six reasons are a shortened version of a paper titled “The Relevance of Phenomenology for Theosophy” at http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/philosophy/phen&theos.htm
1) The need of a critical evaluation and appropriation of post-Blavatskyan Western thought, especially phenomenology in its many variations, because with its rich and fruitful insights and methods phenomenology can be important for a deeper understanding of relevant theosophical themes.
2) Phenomenological philosophy can bring to Theosophy a deeper philosophical self-understanding by helping it towards understanding and re-experiencing its own roots and origin of its meaning.
3) Theosophy should present its own spiritualized interpretation of phenomenology. Or, as one Master said: “The crest wave of intellectual advancement must be taken hold of and guided into spirituality.”
4) Phenomenology does explicate, develop and apply a special power, which should be further explored as asked for in the third object of the Theosophical Society. It is the power of having philosophical insights or ‘intuiting essences,’ but now in a way in which ‘having an insight’ has come, within western philosophy, to an unprecedented level of self-evident self-understanding.
5) There are five specific reasons why Phenomenology and Krishnamurti are relevant to each other, and in their relationship are relevant to Theosophy.
6) Western and Asian scholars point out and/or fruitfully use phenomenology as a tool for a deeper understanding of Asian philosophy and religious experiences. As Theosophy intends to make the rich heritage of eastern thought available to the West, phenomenology can be of great help in facilitating that agenda.
Pablo,
Good, we agree to try to go beyond Kant and you propose to look into something you call “intuitive knowledge” based on “intuitive perception,” which is somehow derived from “buddhi-manas”. Of course I recognize that as quite TC (Theosophically Correct), but my quest is for those concept-originating experiences that comprise the basis to give terms like “intuition”, “buddhi” and “manas” some kind of experiential anchorage. I think your question of “how do we obtain an intuitive knowledge?” already assumes too much. Therefore, can you explicate, describe, interpret your own unique personal experiences of “intuitive perception” without using the metaphysical terms that we try to anchor? And if you can not, what kind of problem then do we have?
I’m not sure if I got your question.
A typical intuitive knowledge, for example, is a subtle, gentle, feeling that life has an order. That feeling cannot be shaken by contrary arguments, because is not concept-based (although you also have the concept). That feeling gives you strength to go through difficult situations accepting them, with no resistance as an spontaneous response. The deeper the intuitive knowledge, the more “solid” the attitude. That is only one example of what I consider an intuitive knowledge.
A different kind of intuitive knowledge is what we could call “insight”, that is, a sudden realization of something. It can be of two kinds.
The first one can appear at any given moment with or without an apparent external cause (may be the sound of a bell, a simple movement or activity, or nothing in particular). Those flashes usually make us realize something about life, our person, our relationships, etc. Thinking on that subject before the insight is not a requirement at all, although some times there is a connection.
The second kind can be preceded by analysis, but it is more frequently the result of an alert and silent observation of a psychological process. It is not a conclusion after a process of reasoning. It is a kind of force that comes “from outside” and produces a more or less deep change in our psychological activity. It has the power to vanish anger, fear, etc., in a second.
Govert, you wrote: “Mind you, what I’m asking for is an experiential philosophy of experience that can provide an inter-subjective grounding for the relevant inter-related experiences upon which we could base a more experience-oriented discussion about so-called metaphysical issues. I’m not looking for a scientific or metaphysical theory from which to deduce explanations. I want to break open our interpretation of the nature of experience itself with the possibility to re-integrate theosophy experientially into our lives in a possibly whole new way. For this to occur we will first have to understand and suspend the myriad scientific-materialist and speculative-metaphysical (including theosophical) assumptions regarding the nature of perception, experience, language and evidence, including the very sophisticated Kantian position.”
First, I’m not sure I would concede that we can escape having a metaphysical theory from which to deduce explanations. Aren’t we always-already in a worldview? We can excavate this view and uncover its various layers, but the very notion that we can suspend our assumptions is itself symptomatic of a worldview that claims such objectivity is possible (I think this is where our personal Husserlian/Heideggerian dispositions reveals themselves).
If we are to take you admonitions seriously, how do we begin? How do we even choose what to examine among the blooming, buzzing confusion of our experiences unless we’re already using a metaphysical assumption to guide our selection?
Still, if I am hearing your call correctly, there is something to be done. And even rendering heretofore undisclosed perspectives transparent is a step in the right direction.
Let’s begin with your quest to find “for those concept-originating experiences that comprise the basis to give terms like “intuition”, “buddhi” and “manas” some kind of experiential anchorage.”
I think the experiences that get labeled ‘buddhi’ are an excellent place to start as they indicate a domain, as understood in theosophical discourse, that is outside of conventional manasic experience.
To provide a starting point:
Intuition is an attainment of knowledge through impersonal means.
I offer this abbreviated description of my personal experience not as a final statement, but as entrance into the hermeneutic circle. Allow me to unpack it.
An expanded articulation would be: there is a class of experiences that are structurally similar to cognitive experiences such as learning, but are distinct in that their defining feature, how that stand forth, is that they present themselves as self-evident and as having an origin outside of myself.
An example. I read in a book that many mystics say “we are all one”. Contemplating this, I refer this claim back to my understanding of material reality, that everything is composed of the same essential matter. Dwelling on this, I agree that “we are all one”. I have arrived at this understanding through a combination of processes with alternating periods of belief and skepticism and varying intellectual interpretations of what the claims means.
Then one day I am walking down the street, and as sunlight reflects off a wave in the river, suddenly I know “all is one”. The experience presents itself to me as a given, requiring no argument, no consent. it doesn’t depend on anything I have read or thought about and transcends any articulation. Later intellectual engagement with the experience may change my relation to it, but doesn’t change the nature of the experience. It is this very inviolability that imbues the experience with a sense of alterity, of impersonal otherness.
This latter experience I label intuition.
Obviously, this raises a host of questions.
Govert, you’ve asked for a “more experience-oriented discussion about so-called metaphysical issues.” I think I’ve done something like that in my two articles “The Secret Doctrine as Spiritual Practice” and “Meditating on the Secret Doctrine”. Have you read them? You can find them on my website http://pasender.tripod.com/
I’d like to know your reactions.
Chris and Pablo,
Good stuff. And enough there for both a theosophical appreciation and a philosophical deconstruction.
On the appreciative side I’d say that both discourses–and because of the depth, Pablo’s articles in exemplary mode–are great pieces to engender at least one Theosophical insight in others, which might just be the opening necessary for further thinking, contemplation and meditation.
On the deconstructive side–which is not to be equated with destruction or refutation–I’d like to further zoom into this pivotal kind of experience of ‘having a Theosophical insight.’ Here I think Chris is on the right track in trying to philosophically (not Theosophically) elucidate more the ‘how’ of such experience than the ‘what.’
But to bring the structure and dynamics of the ‘how’ of spiritual insights we first need an introduction into philosophy proper through engendering the experience of philosophical insight.
More to come
Govert
Regarding the “how to”, I think those experiences are, by definition, beyond our direct effort. It doesn’t mean, however, that we don’t have anything to do with them. We have to “prepare the ground” as Krishnamurti used to say, and then those sudden flashes could come. But we do not cause them.
One important thing to open the door is attention. A silent, impersonal, non-reactive awareness of whatever content is in our consciousness.
There are other conditions, but I leave here for the time being, so we can discuss it.
The following is imo a pivotal point in order to clarify what I am aiming at in differentiating between Theosophy and philosophy–with the example of having the experience of intuiting a spiritual truth–and how that fits in the proposal on deepening the experiential grounding of Theosophy:
1.) There is a difference between a) the Theosophical ‘how to’ of theosophical insights and b) the philosophical ‘how’ of the same.
1.a) The theosophical ‘how to’ would investigate the contingent and sufficient possibility conditions to engender such an insight. Chris indicated that his preliminary work was done through the differing attitudes of belief, skepticism and varying interpretations. Pablo indicated attention and non-reactive awareness as a condition. Personally I would add intensity, questioning and detachment. I would name these, for now, generative possibility conditions. Every spiritual tradition has its own understanding of its own hows and whys of deepening their own metaphysics through such experiences.
1.b.) The philosophical ‘how’ would investigate the necessary intentional structure particular to the experience itself. For such an investigation to start fruitfully one has to have had at least one experience of philosophical insight relatively free from any theological, scientific or mundane overlays or super-impositions.
a.) In phenomenology 101 the entry insight would be the philosophical realization that consciousness is always already structured as ‘consciousness OF …’ In hearing we are conscious OF a sound, in speaking we’re conscious OF the expressed, in mysticism we are conscious OF inclusive unity, etc. This structure is called ‘intentionality’ or in more Heideggerese the property of ‘directing-itself-towards.’
b.) Then phenomenology is interested not in the object of experience itself–that’s for science or metaphysics or other disciplines–but is interested in the object as experienced, or the object as far as it is FOR consciousness. It asks after the essential structure of experiencing, for example, the experience of a material thing in its thinghood.
c.) Thirdly, this structure is always already the correlated belonging-together of a specific object and the how of its being-intended or way of fulfillment. We HEAR a sound, we SEE something visual, we JUDGE a state of affairs, we THINK a thought, etc.
d.) Further, intentionality has 3 phases: it starts with ‘empty intending’ or ‘fore-understanding,’ then goes through ‘fulfillment,’ out of which might arise ‘identity.’ So, one might start with ‘EMPTILY intending’ the claim ‘all is one,’ then ‘FULFILL’ the experience in possibly different manners (intellectual, scientific, intuitive, mystical), after which the content of the experience might abide in different manners as a kind of IDENTITY (echoing from the past, interpreted within one’s paradigm, appropriated through self-transformation, memorized).
These are some of the basic claims of phenomenology, which by necessity are still only emptily intended by most people. To philosophically intuit or ‘fulfill’ these claims is to have a philosophical insight, which, if sufficiently stabilized, will constitute the basis for investigating spiritual experiences philosophically.
2.) So, what I’m calling for is that we work on engendering in each other at least one, and preferably more, spiritual insight, one philosophical insight and one scientific insight, so we can work at their difference, overlap, reciprocal illumination and possible synthesis. This then would be an important part of a deepening self-understanding and updating of Theosophy. for further calrification I will work on a triple-column, triple-row presentation. Stay tuned.
Govert
P.S.: For the class on ‘Existential Intuition’ that Chris and I facilitated a acouple of years ago we used the following two hand-outs to make this structure a little more clear:
Structure of Intentionality
Flow Chart of Intentionality in different Experiences
I also wrote a while ago a little essay with my thoughts regarding the difference, overlap and possible mutual fructification of phenomenology and spirituality.
Phenomenology and Spirituality
(BTW, we will be discussing this text Monday May 5 at our discussion group at the TSA)
[...] Experiential Grounding of Theosophy [...]