Self-Inquiry with Henry Fischer, April 9, 2025

Self-Inquiry Meeting
On-site Dialogue with Henry Fischer
April 9, 2025

The KECC Krishnamurti dialogue was held at Goward House in Victoria on Wednesday at 4:30-6pm. The dialogue contained four participants. A brief discussion was held about how dialogue related to Krishnamurti’s teachings may be different from other forms of group dialogue. There was an invitation to consider dialogue not about exchanging opinions or seeking conclusions, but rather an exploration directly into truth without the interference of authority. The group seemed to acknowledge this and agree to experimentation with this suggestion.

One of the participants introduced the following excerpt from The Book of Life (J. Krishnamurti) July 26:

Follow the movement of suffering

What is suffering?…What does it mean? What is it that is suffering? Not why there is suffering, not what is the cause of suffering, but what is actually happening? I do not know if you see the difference. Then I am simply aware of suffering, not as apart from me, not as an observer watching suffering—it is part of me, that is, the whole of me is suffering. Then I am able to follow its movement, see where it leads. Surely if I do that, it opens up, does it not? Then I see that I have laid emphasis on the “me”—not on the person whom I love. He only acted to cover me from my misery, from my loneliness, from my misfortune. As I am not something, I hoped he would be that. That has gone; I am left, I am lost, I am lonely. Without him, I am nothing. So I cry. It is not that he is gone but that I am left. I am alone. …There are innumerable people to help me to escape—thousands of so-called religious people, with their beliefs and dogmas, hopes and fantasies—“It is karma, it is God’s will”—you know, all giving me a way out. But if I can stay with it and not put it away from me, not try to circumscribe or deny it, then what happens? What is the state of my mind when it is thus following the movement of suffering?

The group explored the meaning of a direct observation of suffering. There was a suggestion that a personal event we are going through could be a doorway into considering this question actually (rather than simply intellectually). Personal stories were shared and the group immediately looked into the more immediate reality of suffering at this point and the relationship between suffering, images, thinking and the sense of “me”. It was suggested that one could remain with the feeling and this was further questioned to consider if there is a difference between “me” looking at a feeling and a kind of looking that also questions the looking itself.

An excerpt from The Book of Life (J. Krishnamurti) July 27 was brought into the dialogue:

Spontaneous Comprehension

We never say, “Let me see what that thing is that suffers.” You cannot see by enforcement, by discipline. You must look with interest, with spontaneous comprehension. Then you will see that the thing we call suffering, pain, the thing that we avoid, and the discipline, have all gone. As long as I have no relationship to the thing as outside me, the problem is not; the moment I establish a relationship with it outside me, the problem is. As long as I treat suffering as something outside—I suffer because I lost my brother, because I have no money, because of this or that—I establish a relationship to it and that relationship is fictitious. But if I am that thing, if I see the fact, then the whole thing is transformed, it all has a different meaning. Then there is full attention, integrated attention and that which is completely regarded is understood and dissolved, and so there is no fear and therefore the word sorrow is non-existent.

The group initially marvelled at how well the two excerpts fit together. Dialogue ensued once again into the nature of suffering questioning that when suffering is not treated as something separate from the “me” what happens then?

It wasn’t clear to the group if this was my suffering or suffering itself or if the suffering was still being projected “outside” me in some way. One participant suggested that suffering and human sorrow may be different. The group considered this but seemed to remain looking at this felt sense of suffering— what I don’t like and want to get away from. There was some questions about “who” or “what” observing this.

The dialogue ended with a quiet acknowledgment of the depth of the inquiry, and the realization that the essence of the dialogue was not in answers, but in the act of looking together and perhaps questioning the looking itself. The group discussed the opportunity to go on personal or group study retreats at the KECC located in Swanwick.

Henry Fischer