Online series with Jackie McInley, January 17, 2026

/in /by
Three new friends joined our dialogue meeting: they were asked if they would open the session with possible questions to the group. In turn the group then expressed what they felt was the general approach in this group. It emerged that we were understanding Krishnamurti but also experimenting with direct observation that might reveal itself as shared in the group. We are attempting to expose the mind as it is: see things about ourselves anew. This is a challenge to minds that are very much rooted in the “old”: rooted in time and thought. 
 
One participant wondered if we had a sense of being of a shared mind (a collective consciousness); or whether we saw ourselves as separate from each other. If so they also asked what was creating this strong sense of separateness. Two others noticed that agreeing or disagreeing might be a factor of separateness. Another participant highlighted the tremendous difference in perception between perceiving a thought happening directly and being driven by that thought. Yet another friend found it difficult to have any sense of a collective consciousness since our identification with our own individual content is so strong. 
 
One of the newcomers to the group expressed a dissatisfaction that we seemed to be discussing dialogue itself, rather than using dialogue to explore our topic. Discussing the way the dialogue is unfolding might be a means to examine our relationships with each other and with our own thoughts and feelings. What is inhibiting our thinking together? Does identification with our own thoughts and feelings narrow perception down to individual conclusions and does this make “thinking together” almost impossible? We are often not sensitive to this identification process and so we might miss how our very exploration is “en-darkened” by a believed separation between us. 
 
We ended the session with one friend asking whether Krishnamurti referred directly to consciousness being one, or did he underline that we are fundamentally separate within thought and time? 
  

Our consciousness is not actually yours or mine; it is the consciousness of man, evolved, grown, accumulated through many, many centuries. In that consciousness is the faith, the gods, all the rituals man has invented. It is really an activity of thought; it is thought that has made the content – behaviour, action, culture, aspiration; the whole activity of man is the activity of thought. And this consciousness is the self, is the ‘me’, the I, the ego, the personality and so on. I think it is necessary to understand this very deeply, not merely argumentatively, logically but deeply, as blood is in all of us, is part of us, is the essence, the natural process of all human beings. When one realises this, our responsibility becomes extraordinarily important. We are responsible for everything that is happening in the world as long as the content of our consciousness continues. As long as fear, nationalities, the urge for success, you know the whole business of it – as long as that exists we are part of humanity, part of the human movement.

Krishnamurti to Himself 

 

  • Jackie McInley 

Online series The Urgency of Change with Javier Gómez Rodríguez, January 4, 2026

/in /by

In this first session of the six-part series on The Urgency of Change (1970), we took up the theme of ‘How to Live in this World’, which covered the chapter of that title and the related chapters ‘Conflict’, ‘The Individual and the Community’, ‘Suicide’ and ‘Order’.

How to live in this world is a question humanity has posed itself from the beginning. In inquiring into it, such key issues as conflict, individual versus society, order and the isolating nature of the self are involved. The topic of suicide might not seem to belong in this section, but K treats it as the act of despair to which the self-enclosing activity of the self can lead us and which signifies the ultimate meaninglessness of the way we live. For K this is not intelligent because intelligence involves seeing what is and acting immediately, the point being to live intelligently with love and sensitivity, which requires transcending the self and its time. Order is a natural aspect of this reflection, not a mechanical order but the dynamic, creative order of relationship, which is what both living and world are about.

This reflection involved a consideration of the sacredness of life and the importance of living in constant contact with ‘what is’. Being aware of ‘what is’ without distortion implies observing without the limitation of past experiences or preconceived notions, to see things afresh with eyes free from time. For K this was the way of order and relationship and suggested being choicelessly aware throughout the day and reviewing the day’s experiences objectively before going to sleep so there is deep rest and the renewal of the brain, so that on waking we do not begin with thought and pleasure, the known, but with the unknown of intelligence and love.

In the Q&A section we raised the question of life being sacred, not only human life but the life of animals. We considered that while from a scientific point of view life might be a random biological phenomenon, certain states of consciousness hint at a deeper, transcendent quality of being that could be considered sacred. This timeless dimension is life itself and involves the relation of the all with the all, which wholeness has the feeling of the sacred. We pointed out the importance of both mind and heart in understanding, acknowledging the difficulty of conveying it in words, as it has to be a living discovery rather than a concept.

The discussion then focused on the nature of order and identity. We contrasted the mechanical scientific order of the universe governed by necessity with the living order of relationship that requires freedom from the known. Our self-identifications and past experiences create divisions between individuals, preventing genuine connection, so K maintains that love and freedom come from emptying oneself of self-identity. K presents us with two divergent possibilities: to be nobody and live in joy or relate from the self and live in conflict and sorrow. This  involves being highly sensitive and intelligent, which relates to the state of unknowing.

The group then discussed the nature of self-awareness and intimacy, which led to the discovery that true inwardness involves the dissolution of the self. We explored further how awareness of ‘what is’ can lead to its dissolution, how undivided attention can transform potentially destructive psychological processes. We might explore this further when we meet again in two weeks, when we will be inquiring into the meaning of awareness, perception and learning.

  • Javier Gómez Rodríguez

Online series with Jackie McInley, January 3, 2026

/in /by
The overall theme of our dialogue session was the duality of consciousness.  What exactly is that duality and one of the group asked whether the separation between observer and observed is real. Is the understanding of this duality an abstraction of the mind: in other words a mental description of duality; or, can the nature of duality be directly perceived? One friend amongst us noted that to remain in an abstraction might be synonymous with remaining caught in the web of an ideal rather than what is actually happening.
 
Another friend asked for a concrete example of what we were discussing since they felt the dialogue was “too abstract”. This comment was appreciated for its honesty and straightforwardness, so very necessary in the dialogue process. The group wondered whether it were possible for there to be an immediacy of perception without actually needing to find examples. Are we aware of a tendency in our thinking to yearn for an example; might this be a habit of mind that betrays a subtle avoidance of the question asked? “I do not understand the question so I need an example”. We wondered if the total impact of a question is being allowed its full force of challenge to our assumptions and states of mind.
 
Usually our relationships have no immediacy. Are our daily relationships held in the “delay” of thought and time which separates us from others? Is there usually a subtle distance created through the prism of memory and the sense of a separate self? Are our relationships a memorisation that is conditioned to appear as happening in the present moment?
 
So what is immediacy in observation and perception? Illustrating this, participants noticed in themselves an impulse to answer questions rather than face the more immediate sensation of loss, created out of not having an answer. Is there sorrow present in the loss? What is this sorrow: is it met in the immediacy of perception or is this very sorrow itself avoided? The session ended with the observation that an immediacy of observation might point to a state of mind that has no opposite: it simply is.
 
  • Jackie McInley

Exploring Ourselves with Jackie McInley

/in /by

Saturday 6th December 2025

We began today’s session by asking: can there be a newness in life? Or are we condemned to a time and knowledge based existence; which implies an old mind. Can there be a new mind?

We began exchanging around various observations, without there being any particular unifying questioning happening. Apart from the usual exchanges  where thinking is being stimulated, were there any questions being asked that would stop us in our tracks as it were?

One participant asked how we would know if something were new? Another, whether newness was a feeling? Is newness a fact? Or is newness another state I strive for? Moving away from conjecture around what is new and not new; we asked whether a reaction of mild anxiety is left exposed or whether it is quickly turned into a state I recognise. Can I look at my mild anxiety as something I don’t know anything about?

Is there another kind of learning about this anxiety through the immediacy of a direct seeing? Can I learn through the anxiety unfolding and exposing its active presence? Nothing is being done, applied or memorised. Is this learning revelatory and not based of knowledge?

Is this learning new and does it generate newness?

Jackie McInley

Self-Inquiry with Joel Kroeker, November 30, 2025

/in /by

We began with the directive to stay within the fertile realm of self inquiry (and resist drifting toward group therapy or therapeutic interventions on each other). We did this by reminding ourselves: “Whenever any of us feel tempted to do an intervention on another participant (such as inviting them to consider something OUR way instead of THEIR way), let’s suppress that urge and instead in the silence of our own mind perhaps we could instead ask ourselves: “why might I need them to see it my way right now?” Or “why do I need them to know what I seem to know about this?”

We agreed to do this in order to resist the seductive pull of settling into dualistic positions which tends to take us away from self-inquiry.

The group began exploring the potential value (or lack of value) of human language (and the use of words in particular). Some wondered if perhaps words are undervalued and others felt perhaps they are overvalued regarding the potential encounter with something real beyond the words (or communicative intentions) themselves.

The discussion then turned to “the stories we hold onto or rely upon regarding identity” and how we tend to manage psychological anxiety through curating specific stories that reinforce our preferred identity markers. I am this…or I am not this.

Eventually the group explored what might be beyond the stories we construct about ourselves and the various aspects of the world(s) we inhabit. For example, “what is a tree beyond our notion of ‘tree’?”

And ended with an open question about whether we might manage to drop the tendency to take refuge in identity stories and instead encounter something beyond these small self stories.

This being the final onsite meeting of the year, most of us then followed up with informal dialogues and sharings over an enjoyable dinner at the local restaurant.

  • Joel Kroeker

Online series with Jackie McInley, November 15, 2025

/in /by

The dialogue session began with questions around being watched by others which includes an impression of self-consciousness. This led us to consider the difference between self-consciousness and self-awareness. When we say we are watching ourselves or others, is there a sense of a “watcher” present? Are we judging ourselves or are we attempting to figure out how to be better than what we are? Pushing our questioning further: is there a fear of somehow getting it wrong or “contaminating” our observation with our conditioned mind?

Do we have an invisible or unconscious drive towards wholeness, perhaps without an acknowledgment of our innate fragmentation? If this is innate, then how can there be freedom from this deeply conditioned state? Is our immediate attention whole? Is there an interest in noticing our inattention? Can there be complete attention to whatever psychological movement occurs?

The usual state of the mind is inattentive, and yet this mind appears to be in a state of knowing. Is attention then, a state of not knowing?

 

  • Jackie McInley

Online series with Jackie McInley
, November 1, 2025

/in /by

This was the first dialogue of our online series and we began, not by introducing ourselves, but by introducing our possible overall intentions for the series.

Why do we want to “explore ourselves”; and what drew us to this title? One participant put forward that our intention was to know the truth about ourselves which would set us free. Another wondered, what this “self” actually is? Another friend wished to be free of this programming and no longer live under the weight of “illusion”. One participant wondered how there could be an opening to discovering ourselves in dialogue?

Can we understand ourselves more? Is there a goal we are moving towards? Can we learn about our conditioning and then understand how to live our lives better and with greater freedom? Someone suggested that we are driven by many different and complex processes; most of which lie in the unconscious and therefore outside of conscious awareness.

So how do we approach all this exploration of ourselves?

  • Jackie McInley

Self-Inquiry with Joel Kroeker, November 23, 2025

/in /by
We began by asking about sorrow and its relationship to love and suffering. Some wondered if life was intrinsically flavoured with suffering or if these were perhaps not intrinsically linked. A differentiation was made between suffering (as unnecessary) and pain (which is inevitable). K’s notion of psychological suffering versus other types was explored. It was stated that “sorrow can come to an end”. But it wasn’t clear if this was temporary or “permanent.”
Some members reported being able to accept “things as they are” without fighting against this in any way. Others felt otherwise stating that perhaps human suffering was not something to attempt to avoid or transcend but rather a part of natural life on the relative level. Meanwhile, from an absolute level, it was imagined that basic acceptance of things as they are would be an ideal attitude, but it was not fully clear why this would be any better than any other attitude in particular. The notion of “determinism” came up in relation to fate and whether humans have any agency or autonomy or influence. A question regarding how to best inhabit this realm of human agency arose, while some in the group felt this question was fraught as it is best to “accept things as they are” without evaluating (or reflecting apres coup in retrospect) as that was seen as futile. 
– Joel Kroeker

Self-Inquiry with Joel Kroeker, November 16, 2025

/in /by
We began by discussing the various aspects that reinforce the illusion of our apparent continuation of self in relation to “choiceless awareness”. A question arose about human will and “determination” in regard to the freedom to do or not do something. We explored through personal experience how this creates a resistance or a tension, which we sometimes tend to escape through numbing ourself from a core “urgency”.
We explored a potential differentiation between a sense of self-oriented urgency (to maintain a solid sense of self) versus a kind of core urgency that seems to be Nature itself. We wondered if perhaps we anesthetize ourselves (ie through a distancing numbness) from experiencing this core urgency on an ongoing basis. 
We explored various ways to instead encounter this core urgency directly without escaping from it and what that feels like in daily life. 
– Joel Kroeker

Self-Inquiry with David Stuss, November 9, 2025

/in /by
Today’s dialogue was well-attended (with 13 participants) and included both regular and new participants. After introductions around the circle, the dialogue began with the Nov 9 quote from Krishnamurti’s Book of Life. The quotation surrounded the question of what might one do if one learned one had but an hour of life left to live. Several participants found some parts of the quotation quite disagreeable (notably those around forgiveness) and a lively discussion ensued.
Much of the early dialogue focused on questions around how to practice being attentive, and the influence of fear.  In the later parts of the dialogue the meaning of choiceless awareness and its relationship to sensory perception was explored. Some moments of attentive stillness and an expansive spaciousness were shared.
– David Stuss