4 S p i r i t ua l i t y S t u d i e s 8 - 1 S p r i n g 2 0 2 2 duce a certain psychic effect in the reader or listener” (Davidson 1995, 19–20), the discourse should be read as a dialectical process whose methodological tools, including its method of rational and systematic presentation and way of argumentation, are designed to shape the mind and to prepare the novice for a philosophical way of life. The limitation of Hadot’s hermeneutic approach is known: Hadot insisted on including even theorists like Aristotle in his way of reading, assuming that all ancient texts should be understood as spiritual exercises rather than attempts at establishing a metaphysics. Nonetheless, in the case of Krishnamurti, who outspokenly objects to the philosophical project of theory-building (Rodrigues 2001, 29–30, 200), it is reasonable to assume that this type of methodological approach would enable an optimal understanding of the text. Since Krishnamurti’s declared goal as a philosopher – a “philosopher” in the Hadotian sense but not in the contemporary academic sense – is the transformation of the human mind, I read his dialogues as a development of the tradition of the ancient transformative dialogue or simply put, as spiritual exercises: dialectical processes whose methods are employed not for the presentation of ideas but for facilitating an instantaneous and experiential insight. Moreover, I argue that interpreting Krishnamurti’s discourse as a metaphysical presentation, thus departing from his own clear intention, significantly hinders our ability to understand it. But before beginning to delve into the origins of the method, I feel compelled to address one potential criticism of my venture. One may justifiably ask how it is possible to unveil a system behind a process that is founded on the premise that it has no system and moreover, that it is an anti-system [2]. After all, it was Krishnamurti’s profound conviction that whenever he entered into dialogue, he was capable of listening and responding to questions posed by either his interlocutors or himself from a completely fresh state of mind, unencumbered by memory, time, past experience, or prior discussions (Jayakar 1986, 327). Nonetheless, this assertion, which has generally been uncritically accepted by his followers, should be seriously questioned, since, as Hunter (1988, 52–53) correctly observes, “repetition was a key factor in Krishnamurti’s teachings,” so much so that “the essentials of his teaching could certainly be grasped from a careful study of a few series of talks.” In anything repetitive, one can identify hidden but stable patterns – even in a self-recognized anti-system, since a piecemeal negation of all methods is also, in the end, a method. 2 The Birth of a NewMethodology Soon after Jiddu Krishnamurti embarked on his independent teaching career in 1929, he began to develop a unique form of public presentations that were essentially and ethically dialogical. Krishnamurti seemed to position himself primarily as a questioner: every lecture was, in effect, a half-audible dialogue whose fulfilment entirely relied on the hearer’s internal response. His method, as Hunter (1988, 52) points out, was to introduce a series of probing, exploratory questions to his audience, urging them to find an answer within themselves, and to then go on by further developing the questions or by taking a sudden turn to another topic, which would be approached in a similar way. This baffling process of repeated, answerless exploration of questions was designed to lead the listener to an experiential insight. But in addition to this indirect type of dialogue, it is worthwhile to closely inspect the significant development that took place in his teachings during the year 1948. It was then, during his long stay in Bombay, that Krishnamurti seemed to move away from the more traditional, guru-oriented group discussions that he had practiced with his students until then (Jayakar 1986, 117). According to Williams (2015, 671), Krishnamurti’s guru-oriented dialogues were in line with the Indian dialogical tradition that took the form of a brief question and a long answer or discourse. This type of dialogue, which we often find in the Upanishads or in the Pali Canon, was a framework that enabled the student to elicit the direct, oral teachings from the master. The 1948 shift, however, marked a transition to an altogether different form that was closer in structure and spirit to the rapid, dynamic, and analytical exchanges between master and disciple known to us from those Platonic dialogues that seem to capture the Socratic method (Gr. elenchus). My only source for the documentation of this shift is Pupul Jayakar’s J. Krishnamurti: A Biography. Jayakar (1986, 110) mentions that in later years, Krishnamurti was to say that his full mystical awakening came about in India between 1947 and 1948. The fact that the internal shift took place around the same time is, I believe, meaningfully related to his ability to bring forth the new dialogue, since in so many ways, this method was the fully realized expression of the unique position he took after leaving behind his role as a theosophist leader. To begin with, this was the last, and perhaps inevitable, step he felt he had to take in order to withdraw from the authoritative role of the teacher as a knower: placing himself as the questioner within a dynamic dialogical structure (Williams 2015, 666).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=