A very important question — how could be know? People are going to have various ways of categorizing new material, but whatever the so called ‘gold’ standard, it will be automatically folded into previous context in such a way that makes seeming sense. and if the experience is pleasurable and new, there is a tendency to just go with it, as, plain and simple, people want to feel good. Well, how about other people? What if it does not result in them feeling good? Again, plain and simple, they aren’t here right now, or if they are, there is disagreement, even war, though if we are in some kind of family/tribe/social system which helps us survive, we would tend to keep that system in mind, but still, it is a subjective muddle which may seem to be working but from several different angles is breaking down. We can appropriately call this pattern “nature”. On a localized simplistic level it may seem seem to be working, but that is an illusion, which is easy enough to point out. Krishnamurti did say (again and again and again) that people are not really happy and there is war, and when we hear this it makes sense, but doesn’t comprehensively factor in; he created an enhancement of sensation (by so-called letting go) which sensory experience people understandably cling to, as by nature and for practical reasons from that angle, this is how the brain works.
There is a Biblical saying, “Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.” So what is new wine? If, by the device of neti neti, not this, not this, we take away our previous way of thinking, if that is even possible, is what we come to new wine? And is beauty new wine, such as, for example, Krishnamurti harped on a tree or sunset being beautiful though he did try to qualify — don’t get stuck on that. People, and I include myself, are suckers for the short cut, and, again, this is how the brain works. by taking away so-called seemingly unnecessary (in a particular context) information. Interestingly any kind of transformation is affected by making various correlations, which process could be called thought, and this place of correlation, where two things come together, in some way correspond. is where it is so easy to get stuck, get caught. I would call this the golden cow, but then there is something looked at by some people as the holy cow. Is the golden cow the same as the holy cow? I am seeing the holy cow (co) as a realm of possibility in that ultimately we are all interconnected, so thinking from this angle, consciously using the correlation factor rather then unconsciously being used by it, can open a door.
In terms of the actual measurement of value, there is a way to test for real gold. So …. from a psychological perspective, what is real gold? Under various conditions it does not turn into gross metal, such as lead in that for me one day the sun was shining and what Krishnamurti was saying seemed to really make sense, but then when someone was rude to me I got angry and the entire scenario degraded. I believed in what he was saying as a viable approach because I got certain results which at the time felt like gold, but in actuality was not gold. Krishnamurti knew his approach did not really work. There is plenty evidence that he was aware of this well before the end of his life, but did he ever experiment with his approach, try to test it or even fine-tune it? The answer is no, which is very sad, and his situation is the human situation. It is how the brain works. So where can we go with this material? Is it possible to consciously use it? What could be actual new wine?
Deconstructing Krishnamurti 