We gathered for an open dialogue on the lawn. After introductions, the dialogue opened with a question about Krishnamurti’s understanding of psychological change. Does transformation require time and gradual progress, or can insight arise immediately, regardless of our stage of development? The distinction between states and stages of consciousness raised questions about the relationship between the brain’s biological evolution and the possibility of psychological freedom.

This led to an exploration of awareness and the nature of the observer. What does it mean to watch ourselves without the interference of conditioning, accumulated experience, and preconceived ideas? As we observe the world through our identities and beliefs, do we see things as they are, or merely our own projections? The discussion also touched on how spiritual practices and experiences can become new identities, creating a sense of having arrived and diminishing the curiosity and openness essential to inquiry.

The conversation then turned to discontent and suffering. Is there a fundamental discontent that goes beyond personal dissatisfaction and the desire to achieve, possess, or become something? Participants explored whether remaining sensitive to the disorder and violence in human life could awaken a deeper inquiry rather than lead us towards comforting explanations. As Javier suggested, perhaps this discontent can illuminate what is false and bring about a different quality of understanding.

Finally, the dialogue considered humanity’s technological progress alongside its continuing psychological fragmentation. Artificial intelligence became a point of inquiry into the limits of accumulated knowledge and the dangers of technology serving a divisive, self-centred consciousness. The discussion returned to the urgency of understanding ourselves, recognising that meaningful change begins with each of us. The Centre’s vision of an “oasis for mankind” offered a reminder of the possibility of living and relating differently.

• Anastasia Shtamina

We gathered for a dialogue with Javier Gómez Rodríguez, exploring the nature of dialogue, psychological conditioning, and the possibility of fundamental change in ourselves and society.

Javier began by discussing David Bohm’s proposal for dialogue in the context of J. Krishnamurti’s teachings. Krishnamurti saw himself not as an authority but as a mirror reflecting what is, which each person must see for themselves. Bohm explored how people could continue this inquiry together, recognizing that although we feel separate, we share in the consciousness of humanity. Dialogue offers an opportunity to examine our common patterns and responsibility for the world.

The conversation turned to the question of repetition and psychological stagnation. While repetition and structure are necessary for practical life, psychological patterns can trap us in the past, sustaining familiar identities, fears, and desires. The group questioned whether we can distinguish functional habits from mechanical responses that prevent us from seeing what is actually happening. One participant described pausing before speaking to examine the intention behind their words, rather than reacting automatically.

This led to an exploration of conditioning: how associations, cultural expectations, advertising, and childhood experiences shape our responses, often without our awareness. Javier illustrated this through Pavlov’s experiments, in which a dog learns to associate a bell with food. Similarly, we may react to symbols and ideas rather than to the reality before us. The group also considered how deeply rooted beliefs about ourselves can persist long after their origins are forgotten.

Throughout the dialogue, participants questioned whether thought alone can free us from these patterns, given that thought itself is conditioned by the past. The inquiry remained open: can we become aware of our psychological habits without immediately trying to change or replace them? Such attention, shared through dialogue, may help us recognize the patterns that shape our relationships and our lives.

• Anastasia Shtamina

We met at the Centre on another beautiful day for our first Sunday dialogue with Javier Rodriguez, who will be facilitating the gatherings in October and November.

We began with an overview of Javier’s Overview of the Dialogue, a booklet he wrote based on Krishnamurti’s and David Bohm’s ideas about dialogue, as well as his own understanding.

We started with a question: “What is the self?” Some participants explored the possibility that the self isn’t real, as well as the possibility of communicating through the heart and through telepathy.

Javier encouraged us to look carefully at what is actually happening rather than moving too quickly toward ideas of harmony. He suggested that although we naturally want harmony, it is often through staying with conflict and contradiction that we begin to see our conditioning, attachments and assumptions.

Javier pointed out that in the “Book of Oneself,” the first chapter we encounter is Conflict. This led to a deeper exploration of whether freedom and wholeness can emerge through directly facing conflict rather than trying to move away from it. We also considered whether the conflict we see in the world begins with the contradictions we experience within ourselves. Javier offered the insight: “If there is a contradiction, the Self is active.”

Toward the end, we discussed whether dialogue itself can have an influence beyond the group. A participant suggested that attentive listening, noticing our own reactions and questioning our assumptions can create a different quality of relationship.

• Anastasia Shtamina

We met at the Centre on the lawn, sitting in the sun on one of the last warm days of the year. Our facilitator, Victoria resident Lee Tuley, took the place of James Tousignant, who was unable to attend. She began with a few moments of silence, inviting everyone to arrive fully in the space. The conversation soon opened into a wide-ranging exploration of heart coherence and the relationship between bodily awareness and the knowledge of the brain.

We explored bodily responses that seem to arise before thought – particularly goosebumps. Can these sensations arise not only from fear or cold, but also from beauty, joy, recognition, or something we cannot immediately explain? Several people shared personal experiences of powerful physical sensations that seemed to occur before thought stepped in.

This raised a deeper question: are we relying too heavily on the brain as the sole source of knowledge? Perhaps the body is constantly responding to the world in ways that never reach conscious thought. It was mentioned that “The heart sends more information to the brain than the brain sends to the heart.”

The discussion then turned toward suffering, fear, conditioning, and acceptance. One participant spoke openly about a period of intense personal suffering that led him to discover silence, solitude, and Krishnamurti’s teachings. He described how fear had affected his life and how simply staying with suffering, rather than immediately trying to escape or solve it, had changed his relationship to it. This led to a lively exploration of whether accepting something means approving of it. In particular, can we acknowledge suffering in the world without accepting or condoning it? Perhaps seeing clearly what is happening is different from agreeing with it.

Rather than trying to solve every problem, could we respond to what is directly in front of us with intelligence? One suggestion was that genuine action does not always come from planning or obligation. Sometimes something beneficial can happen through us without our intending it. Our presence itself may become useful to another, as when a dog finds shade in our shadow. There is no plan or deliberate action, yet something intelligent and life – supporting is taking place. There may be no sense of choice involved. Perhaps choiceless awareness is about being able to meet whatever arises without immediately resisting or trying to change it.

• Anastasia Shtamina