Inquiry with Zeenat Patel, August 30, 2026

/in /by

We met at the Centre for our final dialogue with Zeenat. After a few moments of silence, we began by appreciating the generosity and presence of our facilitator Zeenat, and the group chose gratitude as the theme. What allows gratitude to arise, and what prevents it?

The group explored how busyness, stress, anxiety, expectation, entitlement, judgment, and the feeling that something is missing can obscure gratitude. In stillness, however, gratitude seemed to arise naturally – not as something we deliberately produce, but as something already present. One participant described discovering gratitude simply by noticing what was genuinely and authentically appreciated, while another spoke of the quiet satisfaction of each breath.

Zeenat brought a question: Is gratitude different from appreciation? Appreciation was described as more directional and specific – gratitude for a person, object, experience, or circumstance – while gratitude itself seemed more spacious, holistic, and without an object. Could gratitude exist without being grateful for something? Could it be a quality of being rather than a response to what happens?

The dialogue then moved toward the idea of radical acceptance—an enthusiastic acceptance of whatever is, without separating life into what we want and what we resist. Several participants felt that gratitude might arise when the sense of a separate self relaxes and life is no longer experienced as something apart from oneself. In that openness, gratitude seemed closely related to joy, grace, freedom, and the feeling of being in communion with life.

We also explored whether gratitude might be something spontaneous, directionless, and beyond thought. Krishnamurti’s words about having “great feelings” – being deeply sensitive to a bird singing, a leaf moving, a sunset, or another person’s sorrow – were read aloud by one of the participants from ” The Book of Life. May 7th. This opened the possibility that gratitude is connected not to sentiment or emotion, but to sensitivity: a state in which nothing is taken for granted.

The dialogue ended by considering gratitude as the recognition of the wholeness and wonder of life itself. From the earth beneath us and the breath within us to the unexpected and even difficult experiences of life, everything belongs to the same movement. Perhaps gratitude is not something we achieve or practice, but something that becomes visible when the distractions, divisions, and stories fall quiet.

  • Anastasia Shtamina

Inquiry with Zeenat Patel, August 27, 2026

/in /by

We met at the Pavilion. The dialogue explored truth and contradiction, beginning with Krishnamurti’s quote: 

“You listen to this because it is the truth. And if you don’t live it, the truth becomes a poison.” 

The group considered what it means to hear something deeply true and then neglect or move away from it, creating contradiction and inner conflict. 

A central question was what truth actually is. Is truth something fixed and universal, or does it arise differently according to each person’s perception and experience? The group distinguished between facts, beliefs, personal truths, and something deeper that may lie beneath our individual ways of seeing. Several participants described truth as something alive and changing – something encountered directly in the present rather than something that can be captured in an idea.

The discussion then turned toward deception and the difficulty of seeing clearly. Participants explored how we may cling to identities, beliefs, expectations, and familiar stories because facing something more deeply can be uncomfortable. Yet there may be an immediate sense when something is not quite right: fear, contraction, unease, or a loss of flow. Could these sensations reveal contradiction? And if we genuinely see something clearly, is it possible to turn away from it or does turning away suggest that the seeing was only partial?

The group also explored the danger of turning truth into another belief system. Once truth becomes an idea something to possess, defend, or live up to it can create another contradiction: I am this, but I should be that. The group returned repeatedly to the possibility of simply observing without judgement, without trying to fix, hold, or idealize what is happening. In this sense, awareness might be less about concentrated effort and more about an open, alert attention that moves with life.

Finally, the group returned to Krishnamurti’s striking instruction: “Either listen with your heart and your complete mind, or don’t listen at all.” Perhaps the warning is not a punishment but a recognition that partial listening can become another form of conditioning. True listening may mean that there is no separate “me” trying to understand, improve, or become something. There is simply listening – fully present, sensitive to what is arising, and willing to meet each moment without turning it into a fixed conclusion.

The dialogue closed with a sense that truth may not be something we can finally define or possess. It may instead be something encountered in flashes of clarity, alive only in the moment in which it is seen, but also leaving a change that cannot be forgotten.

  • Anastasia Shtamina

Inquiry with Zeenat Patel, August 23, 2026

/in /by

We met at the Swanwick Centre. The dialogue opened with a question about whether dialogue itself can become a refuge from direct experience: “Are we using this to, in some way, escape back into concepts or intellectual notions and cutting ourselves off from the whole field of sensitivity?”

“Can dialogue go beyond the verbal?” One participant described, as K suggests, listening not only to another person, but also to oneself – to the reactions, interpretations, and impulses arising while listening.

The moment we say, “That is a bird,” has something been lost? “Is the label a screen?” Naming has practical value, yet the group explored whether we can notice the movement that turns a living experience into something fixed and already known.

From there came another question: “What is happening when we move from something limitless to something limited?” The issue was not whether we should stop using words, knowledge, or images, but whether we become trapped in them. The same inquiry extended to the self: “What is a self-image actually referring to?” The danger may lie not in thought itself, but in mistaking its descriptions for reality.

Fear and emotion brought the discussion closer to the body. “How do we learn to dispatch quickly our imagined fears?” Participants explored the distinction between raw sensation, feeling, and the interpretations thought places upon them. “Does feeling have anything to do with thought?” And can joy, awe, love, or beauty arise before the mind has time to explain them?

Zeenat pointed the group back to vitality. The possibility that life is simpler and more alive when we are not constantly trying to control, categorize, and secure it. “What if joy is not something you are generating, but something you are simply connecting with?” In moments when thought falls silent, what remains? As the dialogue ended, one participant recalled a simple phrase by Mukesh: “It’s a beautiful way to live.”

 

  • Anastasia Shtamina

Inquiry with Zeenat Patel, August 20, 2026

/in /by

We met at the Pavilion to explore the question of fear and the unknown. Zeenat began by reading Krishnamurti’s quote:

“One is never afraid of the unknown. One is afraid of the known coming to an end.”

A central part of the discussion concerned the self-image. Participants explored how our ideas about who we are can provide a sense of stability, even when those images are limiting or painful. One participant described how the fear of rejection had once led him to withdraw and remain silent. Through looking at this movement, he came to see that the self-image is not fixed, but constantly shifts depending on circumstances and relationships. This raised the question: “If these images are so fluid, why do we rely on them as something secure?”

The group also examined whether thought can ever encounter the unknown. Our fears and expectations about the future are shaped by memory, past experience and imagination. As one participant put it, “Maybe the actual illusion is the known.” The discussion suggested that when we project the past into the future, we may be responding not to what is actually happening, but to images and stories created by thought.

Fear was also explored in relation to vulnerability, risk and comfort. Participants questioned whether remaining passive or comfortable is truly safe, recognizing that there may also be a risk in doing nothing. Zeenat suggested “curiosity” as another possible response: rather than trying to stop thought or force ourselves into the unknown, perhaps we can simply observe the movement of thought, fear and self-image as they arise.

Towards the end, the dialogue turned to the possibility that the unknown is not somewhere we must reach, but is already present from moment to moment. The next moment cannot be known with certainty, yet we continually overlay it with expectations in search of security. This left the group with an open question: can there be a direct meeting with life as it is, without allowing the images and conclusions of the past to define what we see?

 

  • Anastasia Shtamina

Inquiry with Zeenat Patel, August 16, 2026

/in /by

The Sunday dialogue began with the question: “Is there something that matters more than survival?” The group explored the relationship between physical and psychological survival, and whether the need for psychological security has become intertwined with our basic instinct to survive. While food, shelter and clothing are necessary, the desire for belonging, approval, status and security can extend far beyond physical needs. Can we seek physical security without also seeking psychological security?

The discussion considered how fear of rejection, the need to belong, self-image and concern about others’ opinions may once have supported survival, yet can also become psychological traps. If there is always something to protect or fear, is psychological security ultimately an illusion? Could freedom begin when we see clearly how the “me” is constructed through images, memories and thought?

The inquiry then turned to surrender. What does it mean to surrender, and what are we surrendering to? Surrender was not seen as passivity or giving up responsibility, but perhaps as letting go of the urge to control while remaining fully responsive. One participant described the difficulty of working within an organization where those in power were causing harm, raising the question of how to act responsibly without becoming consumed by resistance. The image arose of being more like a “colander than a dam”—doing what one can while accepting what lies beyond one’s control.

The dialogue also explored the structures of organizations and society, and how fear, competition and conformity can keep us psychologically bound to them. Leaving one system may not solve the problem if the same patterns are simply reproduced elsewhere. Perhaps the deeper question is whether we can understand the fear and conditioning that keep us bound.

This led to reflections on love and connection. Is genuine connection possible while the mind is occupied with strengthening the “me”? The group considered moments when the story of oneself temporarily falls away, leaving a sense of peace and presence.

The dialogue ended by asking whether something beyond thought and conditioning becomes visible when the constant movement of the self comes to an end. The meeting concluded with five minutes of silence.

  • Anastasia Shtamina

Inquiry with Zeenat Patel, August 13, 2026

/in /by

We met at the Esquimalt Gorge Park Pavilion for a dialogue on authority, facilitated by Zeenat. She began by exploring the many forms of authority that surround us—public opinion, ideology, religion, belief systems and social structures—and asked whether, when we reject authority, we simply create its opposite. This became a springboard for looking more closely at how authority operates, both outwardly and within ourselves.

One participant, recalling a reading of Krishnamurti, pointed to the distinction between external authority and the authority we carry within ourselves, describing it as “the authority of a fragment”—a thought, judgement or belief that becomes so powerful that it appears to be unquestionable truth. The group explored how fear, conditioning and unquestioned assumptions can give thought an authority of its own.

One participant suggested that questioning opens space, while conclusions close the door. Zeenat asked, “What is it that is preventing us from staying with that aliveness, from staying with that questioning, from that almost quality of innocence?”

The inquiry then moved toward aloneness. Zeenat asked, “What does it mean to stand alone and why do we seem so afraid to do so?” Participants explored whether aloneness might mean freedom from the constant movement of thought, from the need for reassurance, and from the compulsion to solve every problem or arrive at certainty. Zeenat clarified that this was not about loneliness or physical isolation, but about a quality of being that can exist even when we are together.

This led to a deeper question: “Is it possible to act from a place that is not coming from authority – internal or external?” The group considered whether such action might come from a place of “unknowingness,” without relying on thought, belief or analysis, while still functioning practically in everyday life. The inquiry gradually shifted from trying to find an answer to noticing what is happening in the present moment. Perhaps freedom is not something to arrive at, but something glimpsed when we meet each moment directly, without trying to make it conform to an idea.

The meeting ended with a period of silence and an open question to carry forward: “Is it possible to live in this daily life of ours, without the authority of one storyline, one story that one carries within?

 

  • Anastasia Shtamina 

Inquiry with Zeenat Patel, August 9, 2026

/in /by

We met at Swanwick, outside near the pool. The dialogue began with an exploration of the quality of togetherness. A participant asked whether, in dialogue, it is possible to speak in a way that is “for everyone,” rather than from a personal opinion or position. This opened the question: What is required for that sense of togetherness? The group explored whether togetherness means simply accepting different opinions, or whether it is possible to look beneath opinions. “What is seeing that despite our different opinions there is togetherness?”

The conversation moved naturally into listening, safety and openness. Zeenat challenged the idea that dialogue necessarily needs to be a “safe space,” asking whether, if dialogue becomes too comfortable, it might simply become an echo chamber. Zeenat asked whether there is a type of listening that can create a sense of safety through listening to the whole of a person “going underneath the words.”

From there, participants examined disturbance, reaction and projection in everyday life. One participant described noticing how easily the mind can anticipate conflict and create a disturbance before anything has actually happened. The question: Where am I coming from when I share something? emerged as an invitation to look at whether our responses come from belief, opinion, fear, or projection. The discussion also touched on compassion and responsibility: Am I my brother’s keeper? If we feel compelled to help another, how do we know what action actually serves the situation?

The dialogue then expanded into questions of boundaries, conflict, and responsibility when opinions become actions that affect others. Zeenat referenced Krishnamurti and questioned whether right action can come from belief or opinion at all. Do we need to find the “right” belief in order to act rightly, or whether something more direct is possible when we see how thought, reaction and separation operate within ourselves?

Toward the end, the dialogue returned to aliveness, simplicity, vulnerability and courage. Participants explored whether it is possible to see a thought simply as a thought, without immediately engaging with it, and whether inquiry can remain light and playful rather than becoming another belief or practice.

The meeting ended in silence, leaving the questions open and alive. It was an engaging and thoughtful gathering, with the spirit of inquiry continuing beyond the meeting and participants looking forward to continuing the dialogue at the Thursday meeting in Victoria.

  • Anastasia Shtamina

Inquiry with Zeenat Patel, August 6, 2026

/in /by

The group met at Esquimault Gorge Park Pavilion. The facilitator started with opening remarks on dialogue, reinforcing that dialogue is not a debate or discussion in which one seeks to assert, defend, or persuade others of our opinions and viewpoints. Instead, it offers an invitation to examine our deeply held beliefs with curiosity and openness, paying close attention to our reactions as they arise. Sometimes these reactions are subtle, while at other times they may be quite strong. Observing these responses can be as important as the specific theme being explored.

We are all conditioned beings, shaped by our experiences, environments, relationships, and assumptions, although the particular nature of that conditioning differs from person to person. These differences can create a sense of separation, misunderstanding, and conflict. Dialogue provides an opportunity to examine both our individual and collective conditioning directly. A challenge was put forth to the dialogue participants to see whether it is possible to listen, observe, and act from an entirely different place that has nothing to do with this conditioning. This may require listening beyond the words themselves to the that which lies beneath the words.

The theme for the dialogue was relationship, a topic chosen because relationship is at the very heart of dialogue and, perhaps, at the heart of life itself. We are constantly in relationship—not only with other people, but with ourselves, our surroundings, nature, and the circumstances of our lives. Even when we attempt to withdraw from others, relationship remains unavoidable. As J. Krishnamurti states: “No one can live without relationship. You may withdraw into the mountains, become a monk, a sannyasi, wander off into the desert by yourself, but you are related. You cannot escape from that absolute fact. You cannot exist in isolation”.

The group explored whether we are actually relating to one another. Do we truly meet another person, or are we meeting the image we have created of that person through memory and past experience. When relationship becomes primarily a collection of memories, conclusions, expectations, and assumptions, it can become mechanical rather than something dynamic and alive. Relating does not require agreement. In the context of dialogue, can we remain connected even when another does not agree with us? Can we listen without any need for defending oneself and trying to change the other. Can we observe what actually happens in our relationships without immediately judging, explaining, or trying to change it? Krishnamurti connects the quality of our individual relationships to the wider human condition. If our relationships are characterized by competition, domination, possession, fear, and separation, then those same patterns inevitably become reflected in society. Transformation in society therefore begins with investigating relationship itself.

 

  • Zeenat Patel

Inquiry with Zeenat Patel, August 2, 2026

/in /by

The group met at the Swanwick Centre. The question brought forward by the group for exploration was how one can engage in society during times when it feels like action is imperative. The group explored the subtle but critically important difference between striving and right action on the one hand and apathy and surrender on the other hand.

The group explored how striving may come from the desire to achieve a particular result, to change society according to a specific idea of what we believe it should be. As a result, striving often requires tremendous effort and can feel exhausting and depleting, sometimes leading to apathy. Apathy may arise when one feels that things are hopeless and itself may be a form of withdrawal born from fear, frustration, or resignation. Surrender on the other hand does not imply apathy or passivity. Nor does surrender necessarily imply approval or that one must tolerate injustice. It is simply seeing something exactly as it is without any resistance.

From the direct observation of seeing things as they are, right action is possible. Krishnamurti often emphasized that when we see something directly and clearly, the action that arises does not require the effort that comes from an idea of what we should do. The group ended with questioning whether we can remain attentive to discover what action is called for in each moment.  Can we engage with society in a manner that neither results in withdrawing from the world nor trying to impose our will upon it but rather responding intelligently and compassionately to what we actually observe?

  • Zeenat Patel

Peace Concert  Musical Event at KECC

/in /by

On July 19, 2026, KECC hosted a special outdoor classical music concert beneath the beautiful oak trees near the main house. A string quartet from Vancouver performed six original compositions by KECC director Chanda Siddoo-Atwal, alongside well-known Bach and Handel favorites.

With lovely weather, delicious refreshments and a peaceful setting, the afternoon offered guests a wonderful opportunity to enjoy music, nature, and one another’s company. Friends gathered and mingled before and after the concert, creating a warm and intimate atmosphere of appreciation and togetherness.