Peter Eastman

The acclaim accorded Jiddu ‘Krishnamurti’ (1895-1986) – as an apparently major figure in our modern understanding of all things spiritual – shows just how shallow western popular culture is when it tries to extend its reach beyond science, materialism and celebrity. Krishnamurti liked to portray himself as a wholly independent thinker, and as someone who encouraged similar independence of thought in others, yet he milked the role of an oriental guru tirelessly, discoursing from on high in an autocratic and commanding manner. At best his vast body of transcribed teachings is diverting nonsense; at worst he’s wasting our time. keywords: criticism critical analysis critique Jiddu Krishnamurti assessment evaluation appraisal

Satori Zen is of immense interest to anyone pursuing authentic metaphysical knowledge because it claims to offer an astonishingly straightforward path to full Spiritual Enlightenment. And in terms of outright simplicity and immediate applicability, there is no other spiritual technique quite like it, in any other tradition anywhere. But does it do what it claims to do ? Can you really ‘power your way into heaven’ by brute meditative force ? And does this then mean that satori is equivalent to Supreme Spiritual Enlightenment ? This essay will examine the key elements and claims of Satori Zen in the light of independent and objective metaphysical knowledge.

‘Metaphysics’ is the quest to find the ultimate meaning and purpose of existence. It is about trying to find a decisive and conclusive resolution to the human condition, such that the human condition is fulfilled in some absolute way, and no longer at the mercy of meaningless suffering, or a dreadful sense of uncertainty. All other definitions and determinations of metaphysics are trivial, and irrelevant; and, given the critical importance of the quest for human fulfilment – our lives are not infinite, after all – really quite bewildering. Western philosophy has never understood this, and its entire intellectual history has been characterised by a persistent debasing of any simple, straightforward and direct quest for objective metaphysical self-knowledge, preferring instead always to indulge either in pedantic squabbling over definitions, distinctions and conceptual manoeuvrings, or in flatulent ‘system building’.

Abstract: Eckhart proposed that the ultimate of ultimates was not a perceptible God reachable through mystical experience, but an inconceivable and unfathomable ‘something’ beyond all human possibility. His proposition rests on an important distinction between the mutually exclusive paths of mysticism and spiritual knowledge. Eckhart’s teaching is analysed as if it were an independent metaphysical proposition, detached from its historical and scholarly context. The overall explanatory perspective is that of a dedicated interest in metaphysical gnosis, as part of a quest for the resolution of the human condition. Eckhart provides some valuable assistance in this regard, identifying the ‘Intellect’ – the principial force behind ordinary intellection - as a crucial spiritual capacity. Eckhart is likely to remain misunderstood and misinterpreted because those who are attracted to his teachings have no authentic metaphysical grounding of their own, and are therefore unable to recognise and appreciate – let alone elucidate - the key features of a spirituality that extends beyond mystical experientialism.

Abstract: Philosophy appears unwilling, or unable, to apprehend and elucidate the human metaphysical condition, especially in its primordial aspect as the human metaphysical predicament. This predicament is our ontological dissatisfaction, and ontological lack of knowledge as to how we might set about resolving our primordial predicament. Philosophy prefers to lose itself in secondary considerations and has nothing to say on the subject. This is partly due to the demands of metaphysical exploration, and partly due to philosophical ineptitude and self-mystification. Academic philosophy should restrict itself to the methodology of critical thinking, and force other theoretical disciplines to justify themselves on their own terms, and not pretend they partake of a mystical resource called ‘philosophy’, which does not in fact exist. Metaphysics is the discipline primarily concerned with ultimate human fulfilment, and all other metaphysical considerations are secondary.

The science of psychology is believed to consist of objective and meaningful knowledge about a realm of our own direct experiencing with which we are all intimate and familiar, yet about which we also feel we have very little understanding, and no real insight, and so feel inclined to submit to psychology as if it were revelatory and definitive. Society’s default attitude to psychology is one of deferential, if occasionally grudging, respect. The quasi-medical arm of psychology – psychotherapy - is accorded a similar authority even when it appears to employ questionable methods and dubious reasoning. Yet our submissive, compliant attitude to these disciplines is deeply counterproductive to any serious quest for authentic metaphysical knowledge and self-fulfilment, because it effectively neutralises sceptical enquiry and intellectual self-reliance, both of which are essential precursors to, and indispensable features of, any meaningful commitment to metaphysical gnosis. And if one is to achieve clarity of thought and observational accuracy, it is especially important to approach one’s psychological capacities directly – without intermediary - in an independent and self-reliant spirit, free of the misguided and inappropriate interventions of psychology and psychotherapy, however well intended they might be. One should never allow one’s judgement to be distorted by specious theories formulated by people who can never know more about you than you can know about yourself.

The purpose of this article is to sketch out a contrast between the kind of ‘philosophising’ practiced by the likes of Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) and those of a similar mindset; and ‘philosophising’ in the pursuit of an accurate understanding of one’s ordinary experiential existence, specifically with a view to achieving an insight into it, such that one might proceed in the direction of resolving the mystery at the core of our experience. (Whether or not this latter approach is any way ‘meaningful’ or ‘sensical’ or ‘practicable’ etc will not be discussed here, but left for elsewhere.)

A study in the ontology of perceptual ‘meaning’, especially with regard to the fact that any particular meaning is always potentially replaceable by its polar opposite. We’re picking up a thread here from where we left off in the previous article (Spiritual metaphysics #1) and taking another look at an aspect of the features of any basic perception. Disregarding (for now) the fact that all perceptions (of whatever kind; mental or sense perceptual) are always, as it were, ‘illumined’ by their knowability, there is another remarkable (not to say astonishing!) ability inherent to perception which, though we are all well aware of it, yet we strangely refuse to entertain and explore its implications seriously. This prevents us from reaching a stage (in our thinking) where a kind of ‘transformative insight’ might occur. We seem to prefer instead to remain in a blinkered ‘mode of thought’ — a way of thinking and conceiving — which condemns us to remain in a type of straightened normality and ordinariness which, with a bit of sustained exploration and inquiry and intellectual analysis, we can actually ‘transcend’. Whether or not this is something we would want to do, is a question for each individual. It should be stressed again and again, however, that this supposed ‘transcendence’ has nothing whatsoever to do with meditation, mindfulness or any altered state of consciousness: it is wholly and purely a matter of coming to a ‘mental’ (meaning intellectual) insight.

It shouldn’t be beyond the wit of human beings to come up with a few clear thoughts on this topic. If nothing else, we can treat this as a basic exercise in sceptical spiritual exploration. But how exactly do we ‘take a look’? What ‘capacity’ do we use to do this? In other words, and to put it more crudely, which of our organs do we deploy in this (presumably important) quest for (presumably important) facts and answers? Do we use our hearts, or our minds, or some other capacity? If not our hearts, or our minds, then which ‘bit’ of ourselves? Maybe something we haven’t yet thought of? Invariably, in a discussion like this, there are going to be a number of twists, turns, dead-ends and open-ended question marks along the way, but as far as can be intuited right now, they’re all going to have ‘good value’.

What follows is going to be an exercise in elemental metaphysical observation and reflection. No special mystical, devotional or intellectual powers will be required: merely the ability to think slowly and carefully and clearly. This short series is for anyone who wants to explore some simple lines of thought based in objective and sceptical self-observation at the most elemental level possible. Some paragraphs might occasionally be written in formal philosophical language, but if so these will always be followed by explanations in the plainest of everyday terms such that anyone with an interest in the subject will be able to understand them.