We met at the Gorge Park Pavilion, where Hilary Rodrigues gave an introductory talk on Advaita Vedanta that gradually unfolded into a shared discussion. The exploration focused on the similarities and differences between the teachings of Jiddu Krishnamurti and the non-dual traditions of Advaita, particularly the idea that beneath the apparent diversity of life there is “one underlying essence.”
Hilary shared several stories from the Upanishads, ancient Indian texts that form the basis of Vedanta philosophy. Through various metaphors, the ancient teachings point toward one indivisible reality – Brahman. One story described a father guiding his son toward understanding this through simple examples drawn from ordinary life. Salt dissolved in water could no longer be seen, yet its presence remained everywhere in the water. In the same way, the father suggests that the underlying essence of life may not be visible to the senses, yet it permeates everything. Hilary also spoke about the influence of the philosopher Shankara, whose Advaita interpretations emphasized that the apparent multiplicity of the world is ultimately an expression of one reality. The famous Advaita image of mistaking a rope for a snake in dim light was also explored as a way of understanding how thought and conditioning shape perception. What appears frightening or separate may in fact be projection, created by memory, fear, and conditioning.
While Advaita often points directly toward an ultimate oneness or absolute reality, Krishnamurti seemed more concerned with observing “what is” – the actual movement of conditioning as it arises in daily life. It was suggested that beginning with ideas about enlightenment or “the absolute” can easily become another form of spiritual ambition.
One participant reflected that hearing about enlightenment or permanent peace can create inner conflict, because the mind immediately wants to attain it. In contrast, Krishnamurti’s notion of “choiceless awareness” felt more accessible.
The theme of negation arose through the Advaita “neti, neti” – “not this, not this.” Anything you can perceive or think is not the ultimate Self . So you negate all objects of identification until only pure awareness remains. Even ideas such as “oneness” or “emptiness” may become obstacles if held psychologically.
At one point the discussion moved into the distinction between phenomenon and noumenon – between what can be perceived through the senses and something possibly beyond perception itself. The question arose whether Krishnamurti’s phrase “what is” refers only to observable experience, or whether it also points to something beyond thought and sensation. Hillary clarified that for most of us “what-is” is the movement of our conditioned consciousness.
Related to this was Krishnamurti’s statement that “the observer is the observed.” Hillary explained that the separation between “observer” and “observed” is not fixed or real in itself, but created through thought. Whenever the mind identifies something – for example, “I see a tree” – it automatically creates two things at once: a “tree” as something separate, and a “me” who is seeing it. In this movement of naming and conceptualizing, both the observer and the observed arise together as part of the same process. So “the observer is the observed” means that what we call the observer is not independent – it is shaped and constructed in relation to what is being perceived. The sense of a separate “me” exists only through this ongoing act of division created by thought.
Toward the end, participants reflected on moments of deep absorption playing music, creating art, or being fully attentive, where the sense of a separate self temporarily fades. In such moments, as one participant described, “there is simply the movement itself,” without division between observer and observed.
Self-Inquiry with Hillary Rodrigues, May 31, 2026
/in Event Summaries /by Anastasia ShtaminaThis was our final dialogue with Hillary. We met at Swanwick Centre. The meeting began with an informal discussion of Hillary’s research and forthcoming book on Durga, the Hindu goddess. Participants explored how different religious traditions attempt to express humanity’s relationship with the sacred.
The dialogue then shifted to a question posed by Hillary: What does Krishnamurti mean when he invites us to “stay with what is”? Is he simply asking us to observe whatever is taking place within ourselves, or is there something more implied in that observation?
Participants reflected on the many divisions that exist within consciousness. It was suggested that the fragmentation we see in society may be a reflection of the fragmentation within each of us.
This raised an important question: Are healing and going beyond the self the same movement? Some felt that psychological healing is necessary before a deeper transformation can take place. Others questioned whether healing is a gradual process at all, or whether the direct perception of fragmentation itself is the transformative action. The dialogue explored whether there is a distinction between becoming whole and seeing through the very structure of the self that creates division.
The inquiry eventually turned toward enlightenment, freedom, and the state of mind to which Krishnamurti may have been pointing. Participants considered whether enlightenment is a particular event, a permanent state, or something that is discovered anew from moment to moment. There was a tendency to imagine that Krishnamurti and other enlightened teachers lived in a fundamentally different state of consciousness from ordinary people. Hillary questioned this assumption, suggesting that thought often creates an attractive image of enlightenment and then measures itself against that image.
The dialogue concluded with an exploration of whether this projection is itself an obstacle to freedom. The mind creates an idealized picture of what liberation should look like and then spends its energy pursuing it. In seeing this movement of projection, comparison, and becoming, there may be the beginning of freedom from it. Reflecting on the truth of this insight, one participant expressed genuine appreciation for Hillary’s pointings, and we ended this series on that note.
Self-Inquiry with Hillary Rodrigues, May 28, 2026
/in Event Summaries /by Anastasia ShtaminaOur dialogue at Esquimault Park Pavilion began with the central question: What does Krishnamurti mean by « Consciousness is its content?” We watched a short video in which Krishnamurti explored the idea — fears, beliefs, memories, attachments, desires, hurts, pleasures, and conditioning are themselves the structure of consciousness. One participant shared that in other passages Krishnamurti said that in understanding the whole movement of conditioning consciousness itself undergoes a transformation.
Several participants reflected on the distinction between functional thought and psychological thought. Functional thought helps us navigate practical life, while psychological thought creates the sense of “me” through attachment, comparison, fear, and desire.
The dialogue then moved into themes of attachment and preference. One participant remarked, “I’d rather taste chocolate than be chocolate,” which opened a lively exploration of duality and non-duality. Some questioned whether there is a state beyond the observer and observed — a pure awareness without division — while others pointed out that even the desire for such a state may itself be another subtle form of acquisitiveness. We reflected on how beauty can be perceived directly, but the moment thought says “I want this,” suffering begins.
Fear became another central topic. One participant spoke openly about living with recurring fear and the impulse to escape from it. Others explored Krishnamurti’s suggestion that fear is closely connected to thought and psychological time — the movement of memory and projection into the future. We discussed whether fear can be observed without immediately naming, resisting, or escaping it. It was suggested that direct observation of fear, without the interference of the observer, may allow the feeling to unfold and dissolve naturally rather than becoming psychologically sustained through thought.
Throughout the dialogue there was a strong sense that inquiry itself mattered more than arriving at fixed conclusions. Different perspectives were welcomed and explored without the pressure to agree. Humor, friendship, and shared history gave warmth to the conversation, as participants reflected on decades of connection through Krishnamurti’s teachings, the school, and the centre. Stories about travel, old photographs, Nepal treks, and life experiences blended naturally with philosophical inquiry.
Self-Inquiry with Hillary Rodrigues, May 24, 2026
/in Event Summaries /by Anastasia ShtaminaWe met at Swanwick Centre for another open dialogue gathering exploring awareness, thought, conditioning, and self understanding in the spirit of Krishnamurti’s teachings. After introductions and reflections on the history of the Centre, the inquiry moved into the meaning of choiceless awareness, a phrase many felt drawn to yet uncertain about. Participants explored whether it might mean awareness without judgment, awareness without resistance, or simply observing thoughts and reactions without immediately trying to change them.
The dialogue explored how reactions often create further reactions and whether it is possible to simply notice these movements without becoming entangled in them. Several participants reflected on how the movement of memory can create a layer between direct perception and what is actually being seen. The question arose whether psychological struggle continues because uncomfortable feelings are suppressed rather than carefully observed.
The dialogue also explored action, choice, and intelligence. Can there be action without psychological choice? Can seeing clearly itself be action? Some reflected that when something harmful is deeply seen, change may happen naturally without effort or willpower.
Examples from daily life grounded the inquiry. Cleaning a table, noticing a memory triggered by a familiar object, observing judgment arise, or seeing nature freshly without accumulated mental images. Participants reflected on how thought continually creates identities, ideals, and goals, even turning spirituality into another form of striving.
The gathering closed by returning to a central invitation within Krishnamurti’s teachings – to observe directly what is happening inwardly now. Snacks and informal conversation continued afterward in the Gate House.
Self-Inquiry with Hillary Rodrigues, May 21, 2026
/in Event Summaries /by Anastasia ShtaminaWe met at Gorge Park Pavilion. The discussion began by returning to the question of fear and its relationship to thought. Participants explored whether fear is simply one human condition among many, like anger, jealousy, loneliness, or desire, or whether it occupies a more central place in psychological transformation. A distinction emerged between biological fear and psychological fear.
The inquiry then turned toward Krishnamurti’s suggestion of beginning with “what is” — observing anger, fear, thought, or any inner movement without escape. Participants explored whether sustained observation reveals that the self is constantly being created through thought and memory. Fear may arise when this psychological structure begins to weaken, which echoes mystical traditions that speak about “dying before you die” or continually dying to the past.
Meditation and silent retreat experiences became another focus. Observations from Vipassana retreats were shared, describing how difficult it is for thought to quiet and how persistent mental movement often prevents deeper contact with underlying fears. Some reflected on powerful moments of silence, existential fear, and the challenge of remaining present without escaping into distraction, conclusions, or new forms of self-construction.
The group also explored the importance of inquiry itself. Questions such as “Who dies?” or “Who am I without thought?” were seen not as problems to solve intellectually but as openings into deeper observation. Krishnamurti’s invitation to remain with a question without immediately seeking answers became a central theme.
Toward the end, the discussion returned to memory, identity, and aging. Reflections on dementia highlighted how much our sense of self depends on memory and accumulated experience. The conversation concluded by returning to Krishnamurti’s notion of “freedom from the known,” recognizing both its depth and the unsettling uncertainty that such freedom may reveal.
Self-Inquiry with Hillary Rodrigues, May 17, 2026
/in Event Summaries /by Anastasia ShtaminaWe met on the lawn at Swanwick Centre and began with the question: What is “what-is?” There seems to be different levels of “what-is?” What-is 1: The word, the reaction, the conditioning etc. What-is 2: Looking at the word/reaction choicelessly where “what-is” flowers and dies. What-is 3: Choiceless awareness of “what-is” new, and having an insight. Are there different levels of awareness?
“What-is” is often some aspect of conditioned consciousness. Krishnamurti says, start there. If there is an awareness choicelessly of that, it morphs, it doesn’t remain static. Thought introduces the idea that we need to be doing something other than being aware without conflict. Thought is itself conflict. Choicefulness introduces resistance. Why do we do that? So we can project an idea of what will make us happy in the future? The notion that if we don’t choose right I won’t be happy in the future creates tension and effort. The mind almost always has something to say about what comes in.
For example, looking at a tree with the past knowledge of the tree, we don’t see the tree. There is a subtle fear when looking at the tree through knowledge. The tree is unique in the moment but when we see our reaction to the tree, and then comment on that reaction, we are living in the past. We are naturally afraid because we can’t see the moment. Is this blindness part of fear? Are we afraid because we are missing out on the new? Yet, if we lost our vision suddenly, we would wish to see the tree, and see it afresh if we regained sight.
Can we bring this quality of freshness to the perception of a tree or a thought, a beautiful flower or a beautifully flowering thought? Can we enter a field of curiosity with what is around us? Why might we still think, “I don’t yet have the awareness that I need?” Do we need to have a quiet mind for choiceless awareness? Why the violence and conflict? If nature is so wow, what makes it interesting to attack others? If “what-is” is so cool, why are we moving away from it? Is it the fear of the unknown?
If we are thinking all the time, do we have the energy or space for awareness/insight? Does this wasting of energy in constant thought keep us stuck in conditioned thought, and is this stuckness part of fear? Why is the me there when it’s not needed? Are we caught in the thought-based “what-is” so that we are not sensitive to the “WHAT-IS?” Are we afraid of the unknown or is it that we are not sensitive to the unknown? “I need this thought to keep me comfortable because of fear of the unknown because I don’t know what is coming next.” Can we be afraid of the unknown when we don’t know what it is? Can we live with a quality of sensitivity? Can we ponder the fear of the self vanishing? If there was no more me, would we being doing something differently? What-is is that.
Self-Inquiry with Hillary Rodrigues, May 14, 2026
/in Event Summaries /by Anastasia ShtaminaWe met at the Pavilion at Gorge Park for another open dialogue gathering with Hillary. After a short period of silence, he invited everyone to listen carefully to one another and also to observe their own inner reactions as the dialogue unfolded.
One participant brought up the question of seeking and change, as Krishnamurti suggested that people may not actually want fundamental change, even while seeking it through spiritual practices, books, retreats, or experiences. This opened a long inquiry into the nature of seeking itself. Are we genuinely searching for the unknown, or simply moving from one familiar comfort to another in the hope of feeling better? Krishnamurti’s invitation to “stay with what is” was mentioned again. As Hillary noted, “The moment you want to move towards better, you’re already caught in psychological time.”
One participant spoke openly about years of self-criticism and the painful inner voices that remained long after receiving judgments from family members. The dialogue then moved into questions of conditioning, self-image, and attack thoughts. The conversation explored the possibility of simply observing them as they appear, without resistance or condemnation, but rather with curiosity.
Several participants shared practical experiences of this kind of observation. One person described noticing an inner voice urging them to “focus” and “pull yourself together,” then suddenly asking, “Who is speaking?” In that brief moment, the usual psychological veil seemed to fall away, leaving only direct perception and a sense of spaciousness. Someone shared an experience from attending a silent Vipassana retreat and gradually seeing how thoughts, bodily sensations, judgments, and reactions are all interconnected. Through silent observation, irritation toward another retreat participant unexpectedly transformed into compassion.
Another participant reflected on time spent in Buddhist monasteries, noting that even spiritual environments are still deeply human, shaped by hierarchy, personality, and struggle. The image of enlightenment as a perfect or permanent state was questioned repeatedly throughout the afternoon.
Toward the end, the atmosphere became lighter again, moving between humour and reflection. There was discussion of impermanence on a cosmic scale — the eventual death of the sun, colliding galaxies, and the vastness of the universe — which brought laughter as well as perspective on the seriousness of our personal dramas.
The gathering closed warmly, with gratitude for the openness of the dialogue and encouragement to continue observing the movement of thought, feeling, and conditioning in daily life.
Presentation and Inquiry with Hillary Rodrigues, May 10, 2026
/in Event Summaries /by Anastasia ShtaminaWe met outside on the lawn at the Swanwick Centre, where Hillary opened the dialogue by exploring the relationship between Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, and Krishnamurti’s teachings. The conversation moved naturally between philosophy, personal stories, conditioning, mystical insight, and the mystery of human transformation.
Hillary described Buddhism as a “highly realistic” teaching because it attempts to understand “what truly is, as opposed to what is not… your thoughts are something, but not necessarily referring to realities.” Suffering, he suggested, comes through grasping after ideas and illusions – especially permanence, certainty, and a fixed self. Both Buddhism and Advaita agree that the ordinary psychological self is conditioned and unstable, but Advaita proposes that beneath it lies a deeper reality – Atman or Brahman – while Buddhism generally avoids asserting any eternal essence. Hillary illustrated the Buddhist view with the image of a candle flame: “A candle flame looks like it’s an entity… but it really is more of a dynamic process.” Rebirth, can be seen not only as physical reincarnation, but as the constant psychological birth and death of identities within daily life.
The dialogue repeatedly returned to the paradox of awakening – that “nothing has changed, and everything has changed.” Enlightenment was described less as becoming special and more as the ending of psychological movement away from the present moment. Hillary suggested that mystical realization often feels more like grace than personal achievement, because “the ‘you’ striving for it is the very obstacle.”
The group also reflected on serendipity, karma, and interconnectedness. Hillary shared the story of his father observing a lone peach tree unexpectedly become pollinated by passing bees and later produce abundant fruit. Participants reflected on how many countless encounters and conditions are required for even one human life to exist. Human beings often feel isolated, yet our existence depends completely on everything around us – relationships, history, biology, nature, and invisible forces constantly interacting.
Another important theme was resonance and the role of spiritual teachings. One participant described reading Krishnamurti for the first time and feeling “a deep resonance.” Hillary suggested that a true teacher does not give followers a belief system, but points them toward something already alive within themselves: “A good teacher… points us toward that possibility.”
The dialogue ended not with conclusions, but with shared inquiry, humour, and wonder at the mystery of being alive.
Presentation and Inquiry with Hillary Rodrigues, May 7, 2026
/in Event Summaries /by Anastasia ShtaminaWe met at the Gorge Park Pavilion, where Hilary Rodrigues gave an introductory talk on Advaita Vedanta that gradually unfolded into a shared discussion. The exploration focused on the similarities and differences between the teachings of Jiddu Krishnamurti and the non-dual traditions of Advaita, particularly the idea that beneath the apparent diversity of life there is “one underlying essence.”
Hilary shared several stories from the Upanishads, ancient Indian texts that form the basis of Vedanta philosophy. Through various metaphors, the ancient teachings point toward one indivisible reality – Brahman. One story described a father guiding his son toward understanding this through simple examples drawn from ordinary life. Salt dissolved in water could no longer be seen, yet its presence remained everywhere in the water. In the same way, the father suggests that the underlying essence of life may not be visible to the senses, yet it permeates everything. Hilary also spoke about the influence of the philosopher Shankara, whose Advaita interpretations emphasized that the apparent multiplicity of the world is ultimately an expression of one reality. The famous Advaita image of mistaking a rope for a snake in dim light was also explored as a way of understanding how thought and conditioning shape perception. What appears frightening or separate may in fact be projection, created by memory, fear, and conditioning.
While Advaita often points directly toward an ultimate oneness or absolute reality, Krishnamurti seemed more concerned with observing “what is” – the actual movement of conditioning as it arises in daily life. It was suggested that beginning with ideas about enlightenment or “the absolute” can easily become another form of spiritual ambition.
One participant reflected that hearing about enlightenment or permanent peace can create inner conflict, because the mind immediately wants to attain it. In contrast, Krishnamurti’s notion of “choiceless awareness” felt more accessible.
The theme of negation arose through the Advaita “neti, neti” – “not this, not this.” Anything you can perceive or think is not the ultimate Self . So you negate all objects of identification until only pure awareness remains. Even ideas such as “oneness” or “emptiness” may become obstacles if held psychologically.
At one point the discussion moved into the distinction between phenomenon and noumenon – between what can be perceived through the senses and something possibly beyond perception itself. The question arose whether Krishnamurti’s phrase “what is” refers only to observable experience, or whether it also points to something beyond thought and sensation. Hillary clarified that for most of us “what-is” is the movement of our conditioned consciousness.
Related to this was Krishnamurti’s statement that “the observer is the observed.” Hillary explained that the separation between “observer” and “observed” is not fixed or real in itself, but created through thought. Whenever the mind identifies something – for example, “I see a tree” – it automatically creates two things at once: a “tree” as something separate, and a “me” who is seeing it. In this movement of naming and conceptualizing, both the observer and the observed arise together as part of the same process. So “the observer is the observed” means that what we call the observer is not independent – it is shaped and constructed in relation to what is being perceived. The sense of a separate “me” exists only through this ongoing act of division created by thought.
Toward the end, participants reflected on moments of deep absorption playing music, creating art, or being fully attentive, where the sense of a separate self temporarily fades. In such moments, as one participant described, “there is simply the movement itself,” without division between observer and observed.
Presentation and Inquiry with Hillary Rodrigues, May 3, 2026
/in Event Summaries /by Anastasia ShtaminaWe met at the Swanwick Centre, outside on the lawn. Hillary Rodrigues, our facilitator for May, began the gathering with a short talk on the similarities and differences between Krishnamurti’s teachings and those of the Buddha, setting the ground for a shared inquiry rather than a formal presentation. Hillary introduced the Four Noble Truths, beginning with the simple observation that “we all experience sorrow,” something inseparable from being alive. Similarly, Krishnamurti often spoke about the sorrow of humanity, asking, “Why is humanity in so much conflict?”
The reasons for suffering were explored through both perspectives. In the Buddha’s teaching, desire is central, while in Krishnamurti’s teaching, thought plays a key role. Hillary pointed to the movement of conflicting identities being constantly reborn in us. Simple examples revealed the subtlety of this process. The movement of saying, “I am impatient, I should be patient,” was seen as creating an inner division. Instead of observing what is present, there is an immediate movement toward becoming something else.
When it was said, “there is no now,” it pointed to how easily the mind turns concepts into something to grasp. Even phrases like “be here now” can become something we try to achieve. And so the question of a path to liberation then came into focus. Buddhism offers structured paths toward liberation, while Krishnamurti states that “truth is a pathless land.” This raised a natural tension. Is any path already based on the assumption of a self moving toward a goal? And yet, without a path, how do we proceed? It was observed that “a path implies movement away from what is,” while at the same time, even the idea of “no path” can become another concept to hold onto.
By the end, the sense remained that both the Buddha and Krishnamurti are pointing to something that cannot be approached through method or time, but only seen directly. Whether in silence or in dialogue, the question stayed alive: can there be a simple, choiceless awareness of what is, in which conflict naturally comes to an end?
Online Workshop with Jackie McInley “Is there a new kind of learning?”, March 25-29, 2026
/in Event Summaries /by Anastasia ShtaminaWe began our 5-day workshop by asking what our motive is behind learning itself. We wondered whether we usually learn about ourselves and the world around us, in order to be secure, safe and in order to know how to behave, act, think or feel. Learning, we realised in our societies, is to know better and to understand more. In fact how much we learn – the group commented – is a proof of intelligence and an indication of recognition and status. We asked ourselves as the workshop progressed, whether there could be a conscious learning that does not involve an attachment to knowledge and the accumulation of memory.
We came to the question of whether there might be a new kind of learning that does not come to conclusions, but that stays open and discovers something new. Is there a learning in observation that realises that the mind is constantly seeking “to know”? Is there a state of mind that consciously notices choosing and identifying as part of its process? Is there a learning that questions the solid sense of “me” preceding experience? We were discovering in the workshop that there was a kind of listening to each other, that came to conclusions and confirmed what we already knew: that confirmed in fact, our very sense of self. We began experimenting in real time – a listening to one another – where learning was taking place in the listening itself. We wondered as our workshop drew to a close whether there is a learning that listens and observes directly: allowing whatever takes place now to unfold, inform and empty?
In this workshop we had not been pursuing an ideal of learning. We were not replacing the “old” learning with ideas of newness inspired by Krishnamurti, yet intrinsically emerging from the same “old” mind. We were discovering the nature and structure of this mind, as we were exchanging and inquiring in group dialogue. Whilst we were actually learning together.