We met at Krishnamurti Educational Centre. Mukesh emphasized that the purpose of a dialogue is to explore fundamental questions of life from a place of openness, stillness, compassion, and connectedness. Participants were invited to let go of fixed opinions, knowledge, and ideologies, and instead engage in a process of discovery through attentive presence and deep listening. The focus was on the quality of observation rather than finding definitive answers.

One participant described experiencing vivid visions during meditation, including images of unfamiliar people, Rather than interpreting the visions intellectually, Mukesh encouraged appreciating them with wonder and gratitude, especially if they brought feelings of peace, joy, and connectedness. The discussion highlighted the value of remaining with the mystery rather than rushing to explain it.

The conversation then turned to the nature of silence and inquiry. Participants questioned whether silence and asking questions were compatible. Mukesh suggested that true silence is not merely the absence of words but a living, dynamic space from which questions, creativity, and insight can naturally emerge. Questions arising from curiosity and wonder need not disturb silence; instead, they can deepen exploration when approached without a desire for fixed answers.

A major theme of the meeting centered on the nature of the self. Participants explored whether it is possible to live without a self-image—the collection of thoughts, memories, labels, preferences, and conclusions that define who we believe we are. The group examined how the sense of self appears to be continuously recreated through thought, reactions, judgments, and relationships. Several examples illustrated how identity is shaped by conditioning and how easily people become trapped within their personal narratives and worldviews.

The discussion concluded with an exploration of awareness, reaction, and transformation. Participants reflected on everyday habits, emotional reactions, and moments when they observe themselves acting against their better judgment. Mukesh distinguished between simple noticing and a deeper awareness that is free from judgment and control. He suggested that lasting change does not come from forcing transformation but from a profound longing for freedom and a clear awareness of what is happening. Patterns naturally generate suffering, and that suffering can become an invitation to deeper understanding and genuine transformation.

• Kathryn Jefferies

We met at the Swanwick Centre. Mukesh opened with guidance for the dialogue: It is a space to inquire into our daily life, a space not to judge anyone here but to listen, look openly — not a space to debate, offer any opinions, but to bring a quality of not-knowing, love. Though we may be using words, words are incidental. Listening as one consciousness. And then maybe there will be a shift in consciousness.

It’s important we bring one question and continue that thread. Not many questions. It’s’ like digging a well, we may never reach water. So this is an art, meditative self-inquiry.

Q: A participant expressed her desire to look at the sorrow of life, the suffering of life. She quoted K, who said that in love there is no sorrow and where there is sorrow there is no love; sorrow, love, and death are all connected.

Mukesh (M): Why is there suffering in myself and in life? I am humanity.

Let’s take up this question of sorrow and then see if there is a connection to love.

Can we distinguish between physical suffering? But what we are exploring is psychological suffering (although that can come from physical suffering). And there can be suffering from loss and not getting what I want. Suffering is related to wanting: can we see this?

Can we distinguish between pain and sorrow? It is important we don’t stop feeling this pain because it is what makes us human. We have to be careful to explain what we mean by sorrow: it contains self-pity, there is a self in there.

Q: Participants tried to agree on the experience of sorrow, to define it. One participant noted that he experiences a sorrow where beauty and joy come from it.

M: This is a sorrow that creates unity so it is not a problem; whereas there is a sorrow that creates conflict and separation.

Q: A participant observes that making ourselves the central character through the narrative we tell seems to cause the problem.

M: What is the key question now? Because there are endless expressions of it—we have described many of them. Now a question is required that could lead to a breakthrough.

There is one common ground of what we have said so far: we were in the field of thought. The ground of thought is necessary for there to be suffering. In order for suffering to be, there has to be a deviation from the now. There is no other way. We have to go forward or backward in time through thought.

What can I do other than feel the pain fully? I meet that fully: am I resisting it? Do I wish it were different? This creates the suffering. I can go through intense pain — and that is part of being human — but see the optional part of suffering.

Where is life? Is it somewhere other than here?

Q: A participant notices that when he wakes from a terrible dream, for a while his thought sustains it until I realizes it wasn’t real.

M: Suffering is real but what caused it is imaginary. So you see the power of the thought process, the power of imagination.

Q: Someone insists that there is suffering in the world.

M: Yes, we can feel it but not make it into a problem. Ignorance of the mind creates suffering.

There is something related to wanting.

Q: It seems like there’s something beyond wanting, that it’s a need for psychological security and safety that is behind the suffering.

M: Is the fear from not being in control? But then I see that I am not in control, I can not control things, so the fear remains but I do not give up the control.

Can we pause here and ask, what is the true question for me? Is there even a question? To find one, you’d have to go into the past. Seeing what is is enough, otherwise it’s a conclusion.

There is no separation between me and my fear …. If I see it as separate I will try to do something about what is. This doing is coming from the idea that there is a ‘me’ that can do something about it. If I see this, then there is the possibility for what is to transform.

For the mind this is not good news: I am nothing, no one. Seeing the truth of it is a relief. The burden of ‘I’ is released.

M: Sometimes we lose touch with the sensation of fear and stay only with the label and that is part of the problem.

Q: A participant observes that the constant narration in the mind of what’s happening is what keeps us separate from the experience.

M: What is left behind all these words? Do you feel at peace within yourself or a tension to grab or understand? This is the intention of self-inquiry: inner light and lightness. It’s not necessary to live with this burden of heaviness.

 

• Kathryn Jefferies

We met at Swanwick Centre. Mukesh (M) gave an opening talk on the topic of Inner Freedom. He spoke first of the tool of deep listening for finding inner freedom, saying, “In order to listen, there has to be an inner freedom.” He went on to describe observation and attention as additional tools, explaining that ultimately they are all one tool.

A participant suggested that a question which might arise for people is, “I don’t feel the inner freedom so how do I find it?” in response to M pointing out K’s assertion that you have to start with the freedom — it’s not at the end of the journey but rather at the beginning.

M responded with a question he’d “like to drop into that mind,” which is to see if they could “just listen and see with the quality of silence prior to any activity of the mind.”

The mind only can exist within this space so can I listen to this space also —listening and seeing, whatever the mind is telling, is the beginning of freedom —in spite of any belief or story of the mind, there is freedom; these energies or qualities are not coming from the mind. Any sorrow [etc.] can be observed and that is freedom.

A participant pointed out that it seems the default mode is this thinking with only glimpses of freedom.

M: So how can there be a shift —the mind wants to experience freedom, that is part of the problem —mind doesn’t want to believe that there is existence beyond itself (mind = activity of thought) —there is an existence that doesn’t depend on mind. I want to experience freedom, joy, love on my own conditions but there are no conditions. There’s an energy of attention that is available at any moment.

The participant continued that there seems to always be a self that wants to be present, to experience presence. It’s always behind everything.

M poses the question to the group, “When do I experience a state of inattention? Am I aware of it? No, that is the problem.” A participant notices we never experience inattention, only in retrospect.

M gives the example of his own great passion to understand K when he first came open his books, or the example if one wants to learn an instrument then there is a great passion there; but, when it comes from the story of the mind, then that creates effort and a duality. It’s coming from a belief of the mind. “Effort to change oneself comes from the ego and it exhausts one whereas passion fills one with energy.”

A participant offers his observation that, “[F]reedom seems like something I want to have and I need to discharge something, there’s something stuck preventing me from living in that spaciousness and beauty.”

M responds,

You bring all of your attention to that which is sticking, not to escape from it, not to ignore it. Now, this is my teacher. I am not condemning it even though it is not comfortable, but the energy of attention is not judging it. My whole energy is present and then see what happens. Can I be fully present with it without trying to get rid of it? Getting rid of it is mediocre, whereas giving my full attention is the passion.

He cautions that, “it is not a strategy,” and not to be “lukewarm” (indifferent) and suggests the peace will reemerge by itself.

A participant comments that freedom as free of limiting beliefs is a narrow view but it seems like M is pointing to something bigger, like acceptance of life as it comes.

M: There can be a whole spectrum with many dimensions to it. There is a great power in life that doesn’t want to accept anything that is limiting …. Nobody can be happy with something limiting because somewhere there is a knowing … It shows that there is a great inner intelligence …. Listen to the heart where there is a deep knowing, what is not true, what is not freedom.

The good thing is that the deep intelligence of life is always waiting to be heard by us ….

We don’t have to make a big project of it: am I listening to my heart or am I just driven by the story in my head? Listen less and less to it.

​

• Kathryn Jefferies