An inquiry with John Duncan, July 26, 2026

We met outside the main house and sat in a circle as a few raindrops fell. A piece from Krishnamurti was shared:

What is it that joins moment to moment, as the thread joins the beads in a necklace? The moment is the new, but the new is absorbed into the old and so the chain of continuity is formed. Is there ever the new, or only recognition of the new by the old? If the old recognizes the new, is it the new? The old can recognize only its own projection; it may call it the new, but it is not. The new is not recognizable; it is a state of non-recognition, non-association. The old gives itself continuity through its own projections; it can never know the new. The new may be translated into the old, but the new cannot be with the old. The experiencing of the new is the absence of the old. The experience and its expression is thought, idea; thought translates the new in terms of the old. It is the old that gives continuity; the old is memory, the word, which is time.

There was some difficulty with the group’s ability to stay with the topic and fully take in what is referred to as “a state of non-recognition, non-association.” When the subject of death came up in reference to what may be required to exist in such a state and our resistance to dying, there was a confusion as to whether we were referring to a fear of physical death or a psychological death. It was pointed out that they do share one and the same fear and resistance, but that we are truly referring to the cause of conflict and fear in us, which is the division of consciousness, the entity put together by thought, the ending of psychological self.

There was sharing of certain people in our lives who have had strokes or who have dementia, and how they are more carefree than ever. This received some pushback as to whether we can meet this challenge before we suffer from illness and disease.

There was also some question as to what we are sharing in dialogue. Is it several different perspectives, all of equal interest, or is it thinking with one mind, moving together rather than bouncing off each other? The intimacy of the former, with its collapsing of the space between us, was lauded.

It all seems to refer back to the quotation from above. While the new is desirable in a philosophical context, it is resisted by our brains and perhaps even our bodies. The absence of the old is an affront to the body’s survival instinct in this case, a threat to the psychological continuity as much as the physical continuity of the body. Several examples were shared of how to get the mind to accept that what we perceive as the old, the known, is actually the new without thought’s recognition and emphasis.

Only when the old is ready to stop seeking security in every moment, to be vulnerable while listening, being attentive, will there be any significant change.

 

• John Duncan