So a person reads Krishnamurti whose very skillful use of language affects the reader’s brain function, causing him to focus in a specific way, due to which there is a very intense quality of experience which is pleasurable. This happens many times, and such a person keeps reading K because, plain and simple, he desires to have this kind of pleasurable experience again, and also because he desires to “be free,” so he continues being manipulated by K’s seductive use of language, but without realizing he is being seduced; rather the conclusion he comes to is that his own new emerging understanding is causing this kind of affect;. so he tries to think in this new way again, but in actuality he is remembering the quality of vivid past experience and recreating it though memory by mental association. For instance, I look at something, anything in the (perceptual) field) with the conscious or unconscious intent to perceive it in the same vivid way I perceived something, anything I was looking at before, tosimply see it without the process of thinking about the problems of my day distracting me and clouding my perception. Obviously when I look at something in this way the experience will be more intense and have a certain clarity to it. This mode of perceiving may even extend to the entire field and I will think that this is what K called meditation, and actually such an experience which has a very flowing and vivid quality, is what he called meditation. Then I will tell myself that this meditation just happened, and as he said, is effortless, (which it kind of is in that this amplified experience was an affect of previous events which mechanically caused it, one thing following after the other which stimulated it, but I do not realize this, Wow! .Of course all of these conclusions are false. Nothing just happens in that the entire world and everything in it functions in some way by cause and effect. How intense and vivid can such an experience be? Very! It is a form of infatuation connected to dopamine receptors in the brain. This is very hard for me to write about as I was hooked into K for so many years….. and then if you read him he goes on from seeing the beauty of a rose or a sunset to talk about love.
So how does the golden cow metaphor fit in here? It is because the picture, name and words of Krishnamurti, as well as any subject relating to Krishnamurti comes to unconsciously represent to oneself this past seductive experience, and so triggers the desire to have such an experience again. It is so simple but I never saw it, as I did not understand my own brain function, so I told myself a false story to make a bridge between my everyday life and this other fantasy world. Of course the impression of a rose is more vivid if you really look at it, but there is a limited functional value to looking at a rose, and eventually we come to the question, what is the functional value of observation, of looking at oneself? K said that if you really look at yourself and understand yourself you will see everything about yourself and then you will be free. Is this really true? Of course it sounds true,and he makes it sound so simple. But oh, he says it is very difficult:-)
Deconstructing Krishnamurti 