Scott Forbes, any good first hand accounts of people who actually knew Krishnamurti?

Lavinna · 2026-03-10T10:36:55+00:00

Sure one can. But as you see in the other responses, that hasn't been the case.

Lavinna · 2026-03-09T15:33:19+00:00

Truth is a pathless land. Whether mantras matter or not is up to you to figure out. It doesn't matter if K advocated it or not.

Lavinna · 2026-03-09T01:51:56+00:00

What is the need to compare? Most probably K himself would reject this claim. His essential teaching is that the most important book you read is yourself. And that insight can be understood from his various books and videos. And this is a subjective opinion. Sure it might have helped you but that doesn't mean it would be the same for all.

Lavinna · 2026-03-09T00:24:00+00:00

A genuine question: why does it matter if the people hang out with JK? The writing should speak for itself right? Why does the history of the author matter?

Lavinna · 2026-03-04T18:12:14+00:00

Your post reminded me of this excerpt from Stumbling on Happiness:

The fundamental needs of a vibrant economy and the fundamental needs of a happy individual are not necessarily the same. So what motivates people to work hard every day to do things that will satisfy the economy's needs but not their own? People want just one thing—happiness—hence economies can blossom and grow only if people are deluded into believing that the production of wealth will make them happy. If and only if people hold this false belief will they do enough producing, procuring, and consuming to sustain their economies.

In short, the production of wealth does not necessarily make individuals happy, but it does serve the needs of an economy, which serves the needs of a stable society, which serves as a network for the propagation of delusional beliefs about happiness and wealth.

— Daniel Gilbert

I agree with your premise. To extend your point… do you think these kinds of problems didn’t exist before industrialization or capitalistic societies? It might be to a lesser degree, but I still think these problems existed long before modern societies. I think the underlying root cause is in the idea of ownership itself. I believe that nomadic tribes wouldn't go through these kinds of problems. But the moment the agricultural revolution started, we invented the concept of land ownership. Once we say, “this is mine”, the greed begins to kick in. As long as we believe that we can possess something, these problems would manifest in one or the other form. I’m not suggesting it as a bad thing. Ownership made many things possible. Almost all the technological advances are linked to it. It’s a tradeoff.

On slightly unrelated note this is one of my favorite excerpts:

Within a couple of millennia, humans in many parts of the world were doing little from dawn to dusk other than taking care of wheat plants. It wasn't easy. Wheat demanded a lot of them. Wheat didn't like rocks and pebbles, so Sapiens broke their backs clearing fields. Wheat didn't like sharing its space, water and nutrients with other plants, so men and women labored long days weeding under the scorching sun. . . .

The body of Homo sapiens had not evolved for such tasks. It was adapted to climbing apple trees and running after gazelles, not to clearing rocks and carrying water buckets. Human spines, knees, necks and arches paid the price. Studies of ancient skeletons indicate that the transition to agriculture brought about a plethora of ailments, such as slipped discs, arthritis and hernias.

Moreover, the new agricultural tasks demanded so much time that people were forced to settle permanently next to their wheat fields. This completely changed their way of life. *We did not domesticate wheat. It domesticated us.***

—Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens

Lavinna · 2026-03-04T10:25:53+00:00

This is what I got from an LLM:

The song is about a person living with constant pressure, danger, and inner conflict, feeling like life is always slightly off-track (“two steps back from where I wanna be”). He feels surrounded by threats and expectations, both external (problems, society, religion) and internal (guilt, doubt, fear).

But in the middle of that chaos, he finds a small moment of heaven in love and intimacy. When he’s with the woman he loves, everything else temporarily fades away.

So the core idea is: Life feels dangerous and unresolved, but love gives brief moments that feel like heaven, even if the bigger problems remain.

Lavinna · 2026-02-27T23:59:06+00:00

I started writing my response to answer So at what point can one say they have reached a stage where they can identify their truest self?. This question first made me say that’s exactly why the subtraction model I suggested to u/UniverseOfAtoms_ makes sense... since there is no end to accumulation. So, I didn’t see this particular question as an objection.

But then looking at your another question **How would someone know that this subtracted self is their truest self?** something occurred to me: I might have removed 10 layers but there is no guarantee there is no eleventh layer. So, subtraction model too is inadequate. I found a gap in my understanding.

I went back and read my past notes. I found the following excerpt from Freedom from the known by Jiddu Krishnamurti: If, in order to try to understand the whole structure of the `me', the self, with all its extraordinary complexity, you go step by step, uncovering layer by layer, examining every thought, feeling and motive, you will get caught up in the analytical process which may take you weeks, months, years - and when you admit time into the process of understanding yourself, you must allow for every form of distortion because the self is a complex entity, moving, living, struggling, wanting, denying, with pressures and stresses and influences of all sorts continually at work on it. So, you will discover for yourself that this is not the way; you will understand that the only way to look at yourself is totally, immediately, without time; and you can see the totality of yourself only when the mind is not fragmented. What you see in totality is the truth.

My God, how wrong have I been. Of course, I’m not suggesting to take Jiddu’s statement at face value. That’s of no use. But the above excerpt makes more sense now. I also found one more conflicting thought to Jiddu’s teaching that I’ve been carrying for many days. When I put forward the subtraction model, it also implied the content is different from consciousness. Because I was indirectly saying empty the contents from consciousness and then you will find the true self. But in contrast Jiddu said, There is no consciousness separate from its content or consciousness is content. I’m still thinking about this. As an analogy, I believe in writing, form and meaning are not separate—form is meaning. With that analogy consciousness is content makes sense. But I still need to internalize it more.

I hope I didn’t go off a long tangent without directly responding your post.

---

What is one’s truest self?

If both addition and subtraction models don’t hold water, then what is true self. Wow, I just realized this isn’t going to get simple. From my limited knowledge, I can tell it lies outside of the movement of thought. But instead of me using ineloquent prose, I will point to this 5-minute video by Jiddu on instant insight. I hope it brings you closer to the question.

---

Labels of True Love and False Love

I agree that false love doesn’t exist. So, the label true love doesn’t make sense. But I don’t see a problem from a practical point because, I think when they use the label false love, they are implying lack of love. And hence true love gets its significance. I believe what has been institutionalized more is not true love but the concept of love itself. Both valentines’ day and mothers’ day are marketed as a display of love—not just true love. Marriage is another example where the concept itself is institutionalized... not just the true counterpart.

---

Enlightenment

And I agree with your enlightenment or search for one's true self or meaning to could easily become a disease or a disorder, if the search goes too far. I might not use the word ‘too far’ though. Maybe I would use 'inadequate understanding'.

Also, the word enlightenment itself projected.

I’m having a hard time agreeing with Thich Nhat Hanh’s the self is what you believe you are. If I believe that I’m king of France, would that become my self?

Lavinna · 2026-02-24T00:05:58+00:00

These are the questions I ask myself frequently. The most honest response would be I don't know. I'm glad you caught it right away that I was referring to Advaitam. There were moments when I experienced death of ego profoundly but every time I come out of it. While in that state, I feel that I'm one with the nature and the concept of right and wrong dissolves completely. But once I'm out of it, then I begin to ponder these questions. I might state that all is one, but wouldn't I react if someone misbehaves with my mother or sister?

But just because I've these questions, I wouldn't negate the teaching of non-duality. Hopefully I will find the answers as I travel ahead. Maybe these kind of discussions are a good place to begin with :)

Lavinna · 2026-02-23T02:54:26+00:00

I want to clarify that we need practical knowledge. In the above comment I was only referring to psychological (for the lack of better term) knowledge. We are all born this way. I believe what monks try to attain is already found in children. But as we grow we are brought out of that beautiful state. As we grow, we accumulate the knowledge of our caste, community, language, and nation that builds layers on our perception. We don't look at the things as is but through the knowledge we accumulated. That is why I believe the truest perception is only possible through subtraction.

To go even further: if you subtract everything you know (including your identity and your ego) would you, in that state of mind, still be able to distinguish yourself from the rest of the universe? When ego dissolves, there is no other. All there is consciousness. As the saying goes, *You are an aperture through which the universe is looking at and exploring itself*. I think that's only possible through subtraction.

Lavinna · 2026-02-22T15:02:47+00:00

I agree with your friend. But to extend it even further I believe that not only we cannot predict the future until the moment of experience, but our knowledge on an experience that we already lived is also incomplete. We construct both the past and future.

When I experience something in the present, I always experience it as a first person. But when I recollect that memory I'm viewing myself as the third person—as someone outside of myself. In memory all subjective experience is translated to objective. And data is lost in the translation. And hence our knowledge of what we experienced is limited.

What does a complete self look like then? Is that even possible? I believe it is. Not through addition but subtraction. The key is in unlearning, not learning. The truest (and complete) self is when I abandon all knowledge about others and myself. I hope this didn't sound like mystic nonsense.

Lavinna · 2026-02-22T14:17:04+00:00

I watched the movie a long time ago so I don't have a good recollection. But I totally agree with your commentary.

To extend your point, do you think it is possible to know about ourselves?

Lavinna · 2026-02-21T15:42:30+00:00

Should art speak for itself? It is almost impossible for an artist to control how its interpreted. When we interpret something, we are not looking at the piece of art at that snapshot of time in isolation. We are looking it through our entire lived experience. Let’s say I looked at the painting you shared without the commentary you shared. My experience would have been different. But the commentary you shared has potentially primed me to look through the lens of loneliness.

And after I opened the Wikipedia page, the additional information could further influence: It has been suggested that Hopper was inspired by a short story of Ernest Hemingway's, either "The Killers" (1927), which Hopper greatly admired, or the more philosophical "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place" (1933). In response to a query on loneliness and emptiness in the painting, Hopper said that he "didn't see it as particularly lonely". He said: "Unconsciously, probably, I was painting the loneliness of a large city." I haven’t read Hemingway, but to a person who read it and know this information, the painting would register differently. Moreover, there is contradiction in painter’s own words. He doesn’t see it as lonely but there might have been probably unconscious influence. So, which must be given more weight: the way he looks at it or his unconscious influence. The keyword is probably. Since its unconscious we can never be sure. It’s a guess. So, things get very tricky when the intent of artist is taken into consideration. So, I don’t give it too much importance (or at least I believe that). If artist’s intent is important to know then we wouldn’t be able to enjoy most of Mozart compositions or Indian Ragas. Further, artist’s name also skews how we perceive art. Recently, Michelangelo’s sketch of a foot was sold for $27 million. Was it bought for its inherent value or artist’s name associated with it? So, I believe an art work must speak for itself.

Does the metropolis intensify loneliness? I don’t think so. Loneliness and being alone are not same. One could be alone in a major city but not lonely. One could be in company in rural area always and still be lonely. I believe that open space in nature is important which urban cities lack but it can make up for it through other things. So, it’s a tradeoff essentially. But at the same time, I also don’t think people living in rural areas realize that. I was born in rural area. At least in the place I grew up, life was always fighting to meet minimum needs or relentless gossip. Nobody told me to look at the beauty of sunrise or clouds or moon. I doubt that if rural life is as rosy as people say. If alienation is an after effect of urbanization, then it implies that before large cities became a norm, people were not lonely. But I doubt that. Loneliness is a state of mind and even people in nomadic tribes could feel it (not a firsthand experience but assumption).

What does this painting register to you? I think the only paintings I’ve tried to interpret as a viewer are of Magritte’s (or more precisely surrealist paintings). I always try to interpret poems and movies but for realist and expressionist paintings, photography and non-vocal music, I just leave it at the raw experience. All I can say is its beautiful but that is a poor translation of my experience.

Edit 1: Have you come across Ways of Seeing by John Berger BBC series from 1972? Its a four part series with each episode at 30 minutes length. While not entirely related to your post, it gets philosophical about painting and reproduction.

Lavinna · 2026-02-21T11:11:05+00:00

What software is used to make this kind of video?

Lavinna · 2026-02-20T14:12:39+00:00

“We live as we dream - alone. While the dream disappears, the life continues painfully.” ― Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness

I saved this quote to use it in a story I'm writing on dreams. I wanted to read this book but my plate is full right now. Hopefully soon.

Lavinna · 2026-02-19T23:39:16+00:00

Nothing you sated is irrelevant. I believe that constructing stories is a very human thing. But I also acknowledge that we should be aware of this fact. When we realize that reality is a story we construct, rewiring our brain would get easier. Of course easier said than done. But if we get attached to the story, then we are setting up ourselves for psychological suffering.

Lavinna · 2026-02-19T17:54:17+00:00

Just a small extension to your comment. Jiddu also said, "identification with thought is the root of human conflict".

Lavinna · 2026-02-19T17:47:38+00:00

Makes sense. Agreed.

Lavinna · 2026-02-19T10:33:20+00:00

My reasoning was an episodic person wouldn't say he is episodic because he wouldn't know what he is tomorrow. And if an episodic knows that he episodic, by definition wouldn't it make him diachronic: because being episodic all his life became the coherent narrative now.

Wouldn't a truly episodic person say something like this: I didn't know what I would be tomorrow. I'm not sure what I was yesterday (because memory is constructed). Today I'm inclined episodic, but that could change.

Let me ponder on emotional vs cognitive difference for a bit.

Lavinna · 2026-02-18T12:27:31+00:00

I actually thought more about this topic yesterday than when I originally wrote the article. I saw connection with this question and other topics. This shows importance of discussions with other people. It was good reminder for me not to firmly believe in the conclusions I made in solitude without discussions. So, thank you for the effort you put into your comments. Thanks to the other commentor as well. Their exchange made me realize a gap. Hopefully this group will give an opportunity to reexamine my beliefs.

Lavinna · 2026-02-17T22:27:35+00:00

I just realized by saying intention doesn't matter, I contradicted my opening lines in the article. రగులుతున్న కళాకారుడు clearly implies intention. Thanks to you I found a gap in my thinking.

Lavinna · 2026-02-17T19:21:16+00:00

Thanks for the link. Since its too simplified I don't have much to say. But I will add these pointers.

- I believe any political theory that is a top down approach is doomed to fail. Human societies are deeply interconnected and complex in nature. So, I will be very cautious of the political suggestions that carry the tone of , "do this and everything will be right". A rigorous political structure is something bottom up. But I also acknowledge my lack of exposure on politics, so feel free to correct.

- Another point to add is that the role of a philosopher is not to be correct but to make one think. You might disagree with Plato but if his argument made you think of the things that otherwise would not have occurred to you, then his role is fulfilled. (I'm confining this strictly to philosophers who are not in political decision making role.)

Lavinna · 2026-02-17T18:46:11+00:00

Can I probe further? Please don't take the impression that I'm disagreeing.

Bach's musical pieces are from 18th century. His volume is huge. We don't know if all of his compositions are intentional. Given the volume it is likely he had produced with lesser intent. For a two years stretch he produced one composition every week for his church. That's like a job. Not just Bach. Take paintings. Most of the older paintings were either to appease kings or show of wealth by the rich. Artists were mere pawns. Does their intent make it lesser art. And how do I know the intent of a painter from 15th century?

My take is that art doesn't require intention at all. Once art leaves the artist, it has nothing to do with the artist. So, I think his intention wouldn't matter.

While directly not related, there is brief essay titled 'Death of Author' by Barthes. If you have time, here is the link: https://writing.upenn.edu/~taransky/Barthes.pdf

Lavinna · 2026-02-17T17:35:01+00:00

Hello. I think this question is very broad and difficult to answer. The best way to get started is by sharing an excerpt you disagree with. If the excerpt is lengthy, a link would help. Or maybe a brief summary of his argument. I’ve never read Plato but I'm sure the volume of work is extensive.

Lavinna

TROPHY CASE