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

They will suffer, because of above member statement, the same fate as for example, what the Christians made of Mr. J.C. (not that what I say here should be construed in any way as an a support for christianity, for this organized religion). Egos will get involved and create an "organized religion". They are doing it now! So for the next hundred years or so, they will stake their claim. The Bohm dialoguists, the intellectuals, the psychologists, the counsellors, the interpreters, the commentators will eventually rewrite some of K's texts, they will use computer technology to even re-edit K's videos. It is likely and possible, that much of K's words will even be eventually lost. Encouraging member support, the computer, will invite the cobra. Such people would be better off living their lives apart from such activities that would further add to their sorrow. And those who have an agenda will impose on their "victims", on those desperate people an idea of "awakening" or even worse "enlightenment". It would have been better to keep K's texts pure and undiluted. Access to them is good, but facilitating what K would have referred to as a "horror" must be stopped, so as to prevent the growth of K'ism, of an "organized religion" under the umbrella of all K sites.

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

Once the meditation started, the few books I had had were placed on a shelf, and later I sold them. It is good though to see some of the videos. It is like sitting with an old good friend.

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

Meditation is a way of life for me. I have no idea of what is meant by the phrase "living the teachings". That statement appears to suggest applying "the teachings" as a philosophy, as an ideology. Repeating second hand phrases, in an attempt to understand... All that is meaningless and irrelevant. Please understand that K did not "live" the teachings. See how ridiculous such a statement is. Once the meditation begins, x or y or z or k cannot "live the teachings". The person who "created" such a question has not got it! For such a person, the meditation cannot happen.

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

It has never occurred to me to use words like "transformation". Implicit in this a question is the desire to have a result - a "transformation" for example. So the question is a wrong question. Who writes these questions anyways? If a person who is not mediocre listens and reads, the meditation may begin. So it is for everyone. The mediocre person may demand excellence - to excel as a human being. And climbing to the top of the mountain will never be done through talks and discussions.

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

Who is to advise? Who decides/chooses that?

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

Bohmiam dialogue was originally created by Dr. David Bohm. Bohm "also spoke to audiences across Europe and North America on the importance of dialogue as a form of sociotherapy, a concept he borrowed from London psychiatrist and practitioner of Group Analysis Patrick De Mare, and had a series of meetings with the Dalai Lama." (Wikipedia)

"Are you listening to K? Or are you listening to yourself? K is pointing out: listen to yourself, see how conditioned you are, not, I am telling you that you are conditioned but by listening to yourself you learn infinitely more than by listening to a lot of other people, including K. But when you listen to K he is not instructing you. He is putting up a mirror in front of you to see yourself. Right? And when you see yourself very clearly you can break the mirror, and the man who holds up the mirror. Right? So, do we clearly see ourselves? If we depend on relationship, depend, or on dialogue or on associations and institutions to teach us, to help us, to make things clear – what we are – then we depend. And when we depend on others, whether it is on institutions, encounter groups, small groups and so on, what are you learning? And what do you mean by learning? Please this is again a very serious question. Learning, as we know, is accumulating knowledge. I have learned about myself – that I am all this, all the pain, the misery, the confusion, the extraordinary travail of life – I am all that. I have learnt it. That is, somebody has told me, or I have learnt about myself. So, learning, as far as we know now, learning at school, learning about ourselves, is accumulating knowledge about ourselves. Right? And K says, “Knowledge is the very root of disorder”. Go slowly." ... "I am not saying, “You should not discuss, you should not have relationship, you should not have this or that”. All that one is pointing out is that as long as you depend for your understanding yourself on others then you are lost."

Please see: "2nd Question: We can learn more from each other than by listening to K. Why don’t you encourage people to hold group discussions on particular topics and have organized activities to facilitate dialogues and discussions?"
(“The World of Peace”, J. Krishnamurti, Brockwood Park, 2nd Public Question & Answer Meeting, 1st September 1983) for the full answer.

When K says "you are lost"... Lost as in the phrase "lost and confused". Please understand that the etymological meaning of the word damned - it derives from the Latin "damnere", which literally means LOST. So a person who indulges in such chat, and it is chat, is damned, or as K usually says "doomed".

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

That is abomination! The suggestion is to deform, twist, pervert what is in the books so as to accomodate Bohm dialoguism and sociotherapy - i.e. group therapy! And all that is evil.

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

To accept or not to accept is part of psycho-babble nonsense. To agree or disagree is part of intellectualism. Asking such a question involves the solicitation of opinions. Invitations of this sort promote Bohm dialoguism, group sociotherapy.

How do you strike a balance between healthy doubt and ready acceptance in investigating Krishnamurti's proposals?

There is no such thing as a "proper" (correct, accurate) balance between skepticism and mass positive thinking. The question is a wrong question. Again.

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

Truth.

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

The insights have altered/healed, made whole the dna, the mitochondrial dna. Even to point of healing a genetic blood defect, where I no longer require any medical dependence.

Insofar as relationships are concerned, I am related.

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

No. I am not an intellectual. I am a religious woman.

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

Detrimental. Destructive. Additive to the layers of consciousness (whether they are yellow layers, or blue, or any colour). These layers become denser and more opaque the more that knowledge is accumulated. Ugly. Ugly. Ugly. Will you ban me from this site for saying such a thing? (laughs)