Inquiry with Zeenat Patel, August 9, 2026
We met at Swanwick, outside near the pool. The dialogue began with an exploration of the quality of togetherness. A participant asked whether, in dialogue, it is possible to speak in a way that is “for everyone,” rather than from a personal opinion or position. This opened the question: What is required for that sense of togetherness? The group explored whether togetherness means simply accepting different opinions, or whether it is possible to look beneath opinions. “What is seeing that despite our different opinions there is togetherness?”
The conversation moved naturally into listening, safety and openness. Zeenat challenged the idea that dialogue necessarily needs to be a “safe space,” asking whether, if dialogue becomes too comfortable, it might simply become an echo chamber. Zeenat asked whether there is a type of listening that can create a sense of safety through listening to the whole of a person “going underneath the words.”
From there, participants examined disturbance, reaction and projection in everyday life. One participant described noticing how easily the mind can anticipate conflict and create a disturbance before anything has actually happened. The question: Where am I coming from when I share something? emerged as an invitation to look at whether our responses come from belief, opinion, fear, or projection. The discussion also touched on compassion and responsibility: Am I my brother’s keeper? If we feel compelled to help another, how do we know what action actually serves the situation?
The dialogue then expanded into questions of boundaries, conflict, and responsibility when opinions become actions that affect others. Zeenat referenced Krishnamurti and questioned whether right action can come from belief or opinion at all. Do we need to find the “right” belief in order to act rightly, or whether something more direct is possible when we see how thought, reaction and separation operate within ourselves?
Toward the end, the dialogue returned to aliveness, simplicity, vulnerability and courage. Participants explored whether it is possible to see a thought simply as a thought, without immediately engaging with it, and whether inquiry can remain light and playful rather than becoming another belief or practice.
The meeting ended in silence, leaving the questions open and alive. It was an engaging and thoughtful gathering, with the spirit of inquiry continuing beyond the meeting and participants looking forward to continuing the dialogue at the Thursday meeting in Victoria.
- Anastasia Shtamina
