Following prior decision to focus on “Truth” in this week’s dialogue, the group began by reading the quote from The Book of Life (Truth comes in a flash, October 6):

“Truth or understanding comes in a flash, and that flash has no continuity; it is not within the field of time. Do see this for yourself. Understanding is fresh, instantaneous; it is not the continuity of something that has been. What has been cannot bring you understanding. As long as one is seeking a continuity—wanting permanency in relationship, in love, longing to find peace everlasting, and all the rest of it—one is pursuing something which is within the field of time and therefore does not belong to the timeless.”

The group began with a questioning of the sentence, “What has been cannot bring you understanding”. It was observed that, contrary to the quote; an understanding of life’s mistakes, allows one to avoid mistakes in the future.

This led the group to define what is meant by “understanding”. It was noted that there is a belief that we can learn to avoid the pain of mistakes, and that this is doable. This led to observing the consistent creation of “should”s that avoid discomfort.

ie: “I should understand this quote!”

An awareness of a “pressure to understand” was identified in the present moment; which resonated with the group.

The group then swung to address more sweeping questions of the nature of “the ground”/ and Intelligence as a whole; which was noticed as a possible collective avoidance of the discomfort of the aforementioned pressure.

Further exploration of “the pressure” [to understand] led to disclosures about desire to receive“understanding” from a dialogue, and excitement to add something to dialogue, and thereby “build the me”. A group member mentioned the excitement with which K spoke, which was not affiliated with ego, along with his admonishment, to notice that “the house is on fire!”

The two variant views caused a slight opposition. The group then discussed  thought’s reliance upon“agreement”;  including the seeking to resolve discord and seek  equilibrium for safety.

—Vala Kondo-Legan

As previously decided, he group continued with the quote from The Book of Life (Love is dangerous, November 25):

“Love is the most dangerous and uncertain element in life;

and because we do not want to be uncertain,

because we do not want to be in danger, we live in the mind.

A man who loves is dangerous…”

The group began with a strong objection from a group member that the quote had been excerpted from a longer entry in “The Book of Life”. The excerpting was seen to have invalidated the meaning the quote, despite the entries themselves being excerpted from larger speeches.

There was some short discussion of the role of a quote in a dialogue, with emphasis on the living interpretation of a quote vs it’s exact content or context. The role of the editor of a book, as an authority, as well as Krishnamurti as authority was also mentioned.

After the objector was observed as “violent” by another group member; The subject of love becoming conflict , both in the macrocosm of the world as well as the microcosm of the dialogue, was discussed.

Also observed were efforts to divert attention away from the group conflict, due to discomfort.

The group discussed love as an underlying constant, which was challenged as potentially having a conceptual origin. Observation was made that in spite of a possible larger field of love, daily life that may not include love. Attention was put on the energy in the room, and it was observed that there was “not much!” [love] in the present moment!

Also discussed was the assumption by thought that it “knows love”.

The group discussed continuity of love in light of Krishnamurti’s comments about “dying every day”; and there was comment that the “alive-ness” of love, lies in “dying”.

—Vala Kondo-Legan

The Wednesday group is also working on a single quote for August from The Book of Life (Love is dangerous, November 25):

“Love is the most dangerous and uncertain element in life;

and because we do not want to be uncertain,

because we do not want to be in danger, we live in the mind.

A man who loves is dangerous.”

The group started by acknowledging the many forms of “love” and played with definitions; including “openness” and “acceptance.”

A distinction was made between thought based love and a deeper dimension of love.

Thought based love was discussed as operating as a “tool” to avoid loneliness.

and fill a “void” that was characterized as “uncertainty”/ “the unknown”.

Love was observed to “add to the ego” .

Associations were made to Jesus’s embodiment of love and threat/ danger to system.

The group looked at thought’s belief that it “knows love” and society’s commoditization of love.

Thought’s deep question, “Am I lovable?” was discussed and linked to sorrow, which may spring from our vast separation from love.

A swing occurred in the group from sorrow to the subject of joy, And it was contemplated whether the swing was a manifestation of love avoiding sorrow, as had been previously discussed. The group ended with associations between “danger” and the pain that seems linked to love.

—Vala Kondo-Legan

Passion, Fantasy, and the Gift of Impermanence

In this final session, participants continued exploring the source of authentic passion for awakening—that quality present in childhood before conditioning domesticates it. Mukesh observed how we live in “a fantasy of the mind” with its stories and beliefs, and examined what stops us from stepping out: the belief that the fantasy is both real and better than direct living with what is. “What if there is no hope? There is no future?” he asked, pointing to the truth of impermanence. A white bird flying across the water during this moment seemed to embody the openness that was being described. The dialogue touched on the mind’s need to fill emptiness with meaning, the futility of trying to fix ourselves or others. The session ended with seeing the beauty of simply being present together without any motive.

Gist: The dialogue explored the source of unconditioned passion, the seductive nature of mental fantasy, hope as limitation, and the freedom that comes from embracing impermanence and meaninglessness with presence and love.

By Joost De Wulf, Belgium

Individual Transformation and Collective Change

Opening with Krishnamurti’s observation that humanity hasn’t evolved psychologically despite technological progress, Mukesh invited inquiry into what constitutes genuine inner flowering. Participants shared experiences ranging from international students reverting to tribal loyalties during conflicts to personal insights about attachment and identity. The dialogue explored how institutions emerge from individuals, making personal transformation the foundation for societal change. Stories of diagnosis and aging revealed how mind projects fears into the future, while insights about the suddenness of real change challenged gradual approaches. “Insight can happen instantly,” Mukesh noted, “but the action of that insight can take time to translate.”

Gist: The group explored the relationship between individual psychological transformation and collective change, emphasizing the sudden nature of genuine insight versus gradual self-improvement, and the importance of questioning false identities at their root.

By Joost De Wulf, Belgium