Krishnamurti once said you must begin with doubt, but that doubt must be kept on a leash. How do you find the proper balance between doubt and a "positive disposition" in investigating his proposals, so as to neither tie yourself up in knots, nor to blindly believe?

What does one need to doubt? Surely not K or anything else in the world. Doubt is something that refers to one's own self. Doubt is the action of suspension of identification. It lies in the space between the event and the reaction to it.

Doubt is the positive factor that questions what I am going to do next. To doubt another is already the reaction.

Do you ever feel that you have been conditioned by Krishnamurti's teachings?

I see something called 'influence' come and go. K himself said that he had never allowed himself to be pressured once in his life (interview with Bernard Levin).

Personally, I can see no Konditioning in myself at all . . . but I would say that, wouldn't I?

I think that if one is serious enough one does not accept anything K says as a fixed formulation of the truth. Was it Goebels who said, 'a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.'? And formulations repeated without understanding become slogans and propaganda.

My feeling is that when I have found myself doing K propaganda there has been a voice inside that has told me so and, eventually, I have listened to it and stopped. And this has been a lesson in respect of my whole life, not just about K's words.

Although I can say I have not been conditioned, I am open (somewhat) to the opposite being proven.

Does the phrase "living the teachings" have any meaning to you?

Yes. If it is not lived, it dies. Unfortunately we are full of such dead stuff already. But self-observation has a different and cleansing action. K helps in this.

Do you think it is possible to make Krishnamurti more "practicable" than what he himself seems to have allowed for?

Is it a question of making K more practical or of finding practical ways to investigate what he said? K is K.

I think what is involved here is the question of what one actually does with the teaching. And so it is also a question of how one approaches life, either partially or completely. K was a practical man, an emotional man and an intellectual man. He was quite balanced. We do not need to rebalance anything else but ourselves.

If you had to sum up what Krishnamurti is all about in just a few words of your own, what would they be?

K points to the possibility for humankind's future evolution. He lays down the psychological landscape that has to be traversed. He points that the journey is ours, alone.

How do you personally go about exploring the Krishnamurti's teachings (through personal study, dialogues, dvds)?

Personal study, dialogues, DVD's? Yes, all of that. But, exploration of the teachings is not the same as reading K.

Reading books of K is the exploration of the ideas of K. The exploration of the book of oneself is an inner journey, made in relationship to one's life.

To explore this teaching is to explore that mysterious landscape called 'oneself,' which is to explore the world.

How important do you consider group dialogue to be in understanding the more subtle points of Krishnamurti's message?

Dialogue can work somewhat but usually it helps little. People come to dialogue with their ideas and seldom move much. We bring that stale, old world in with us.

But, there are moments in which something 'other' happens and I have found that sometimes the whole circle can move on a single word. I think effective dialogue depends on skills we do not have and so it is often random. That could change.

Are there any aspects of Krishnamurti's teaching that you find implausible or difficult to accept?

Why do I need to 'accept' anything. This wholly misses the point.

It is like I have been invited to comment, 'well, this bit seems possible but I don't go for that bit.'

The actual movement inside me may be quite different than that. For me, I do not reject any of it.

What future do you foresee for Krishnamurti's works? Do you think they will grow in importance or will they just gradually die away?

Truth cannot die but any particular expression of truth is in time and anything in time comes into existence and then passes away. Please don;t ask me to erect any false idols.

It seems that since the man's passing, and since the demise of many rich folk who knew him the particular ventures are becoming harder to sustain. The move onto web-based info is a welcome relief. Maybe 'centres' will be replaced by less permanent structures and virtual centres such as this one.

Statements such as 'you are the world' become advertisement slogans for soft drinks and soft fashion while others such as 'the observer is the observed' become accepted principles of science. Concentrated teachings have always tended to become influences in life.

In the end even the fact of books and DVD's, the literal history, will not protect the teaching.

Things die and are reborn.

Do you think Krishnamurti was exceptional, or is the transformation he spoke of universally accessible?

Of course he was extraordinary and an exception to the rule . . . but not unique in the sense of a messiah.

The transformation he spoke of he also lived. How could it be universally accessible? Few will even consider it.

An oak tree sheds millions of acorns. How many will become oak trees and how many will be fed to the pigs? Of course, all acorns 'could' become oak trees but 'all acorns' cannot.

Has coming into contact with Krishnamurti and his teachings had any perceptible effect on your life and/or relationships?

Yes, it has been part of a process of turning my life and relationships around.

Do you think it advisable to introduce Krishnamurti to people you know? Have you ever done it and if yes, what are your experiences?

Of course one introduces K. But if I have really changed, my friends come to me and ask, 'how.' All other efforts are propaganda and seen as such.

Can dialogue - in the sense of sincere inquiry - be organized or can it only come about spontaneously, unprompted?

Only chaos is spontaneous in human affairs. The rest has to be conscious.

No, please, no prompts!

Dialogue has to be organized, but what does this mean? Bu whom? According to what principles and methods?

I would say that for dialogue to be actual, rather than a mere exercise of the word, it would have to be conscious. There has to be emotional contact with the desire to really commune with one another and there has to be the utmost seriousness and presence.