So what does it mean to say that someone is disingenuous? Basically it means that a person is dishonest, but imo not in the sense of presenting a false picture in order to help someone, such as it said that the Buddha sometimes lies; an example of the latter might be telling a child there is a Santa Claus. An example of the former would be to present oneself as having a certain kind or level of understanding and/or character that one knows in ones heart one does not in actuality have. Of course sometimes we tend to tell ourselves stories and deeply believe in them; I am not sure if this would be lying or not.
And what would be the point of asking this kind of question about K? Personally I would not be doing so if I did not perceive there to be a significant functional value, and here we come to the possible approach of inquiring into K or ‘K’ with the intent to use this topic to also speak about something else, such as human brain function. It is natural for people to make a golden cow or false image which they idolize, and K was well aware of this, as again and again he warned people not to make him into an authority; but it would be extremely obvious to anyone who was so smart that saying this, though it might have a minimal effect, would in no way keep a vulnerable person from inadvertently doing the particular thing he was again and again being cautioned not to do. In short, saying not to do something is not the same as building into a certain approach various checks and balances which will actually keep this something from happening.
Deliberately building into a teaching certain kinds of checks and balances could be similar to fighting fire with fire, so, for example, to make an actual golden cow, either object and/or mental image, but instead of encouraging people to literally believe in it, using such an object or image consciously to negate the truth of its perceived being as ultimate, which is, as many readers know, the approach of the Prasangika Madhyamaka (Middle Way Consequence School) of Buddhism, whose main identifying characteristic is its particular approach to the two aspects of truth. So did K deliberately build in such checks and balances or did he (k)not? This is a really interesting question in that what if in some ways and to some degree he did do this, but in other ways he did not? Is it possible to go half way with such an approach, or does going only part of the way negate or weaken the inherent potential to actualize transformation?
Deconstructing Krishnamurti 