K School – Adults Discussion 3, Brockwood Park, 8 October 1975

Announcement: This is a meeting between Mr J. Krishnamurti and the staff only at Brockwood Park on October 8, 1975.

Krishnamurti: I think last time we met here we talked about a nucleus of people, didn’t we, who would carry on in spite of… if I die — which probably will take place in about ten years, I hope, or longer — a group of people that would carry on. If that is settled more or less in our minds that there is a group of people here, then we can talk about something entirely different, shall we? I think we have reached probably the lowest low of human being… human society. I don’t know if Mr Joe was telling you about it that they were showing a picture, a film, in New York.

Joe Zorskie: Eight of them; they have eight films.

K: Eight films.

JZ: (Inaudible).

K: Of people being murdered, raped, taken. You…? So we have probably reached the lowest point of human degradation; and also what is happening in India, though they say trains are running perfectly… punctually; there are no strikes; they have better food, but the real thing is denied to them, like Mussolini and all the rest of it. So everywhere there is such chaos.

Can we here that Brockwood create an oasis of something entirely different? Everybody that comes here, doesn’t matter who it is, feels an extraordinary atmosphere. I’ve been assured of that every time I see… meet a person, a stranger, he says, ‘What an extraordinary place you have.’ An Indian who was here during the gathering, he said to me, ‘Sir, do you know, I feel like going to a temple’ — he is used to temples, and he said, ‘When I come here I feel exactly as though I was entering a temple,’ and I was wondering if we can not only create an atmosphere of that kind, which we probably are doing, but also whether we can actually uncondition these students so that they are entirely different human beings. Can we do that here? If that is our intention, how shall we set about it?

Ted Cartee: It seems that setting about to do that, actually setting about to do that, if a person sees, clearly sees, in the relationship with a student where the problem or the mistake where the conditioning is taking place that you, by actually moving to bring that clearly into the… so that the person is facing it, that that in itself is a completely different action than they find any place else.

K: How, Ted… my… our problem is — our problem, all ours — we’ve got here fifty students or fifty-five, whatever they are, from different parts of the world, eighteen nationalities, each with their own temperament, with their own peculiarities, with their own urges, desires, and all the rest of it; they have already been shaped; they have already been conditioned, and here they come. How will you break down all that and not re-form another conditioning?

TC: Right. Now, what I’m getting at is that the thing that has not taken place in their life is unconditioned relationship, so that when that kind of thing happen… they don’t quite know why it’s different but…

K: No, no, leave them alone; leave them alone. We as the staff, as responsible for those students, we, responsible not only for the students, to their parents, to society, all that; how do we uncondition or change or break…?

TC: That’s what I’m getting at, with… by virtue of unconditioned action ourselves.

K: No, no; ah, no, wait a minute, sir; don’t reduce it so quickly. How am I… take… I want… I’ve been watching them at meal time, and I see them occasionally walking and so on, playing games, and doing other things, passing them in corridor; how do I help.. how do I bring about in them a totally different outlook on life? I mean, I feel we can create geniuses here — sorry to use such a big word — I think we can do it; genius, not in mathematics or in physics, but religiously in the deep sense of that word, inwardly.

Now, how am I going to break down their heavy conditioning? That’s my concern. You follow? If I was here, as you are for… in contact all the time with them, that would be my concern. I want to find out what to do. The ‘what’ is a fluidic thing, not just static, systematised activity, but a movement in which this unconditioning is taking place. What am I… how am I to set about it – in the classroom, at meals, in talking to them, in playing… it would be my deep, real, sacred, if I can use that word, concern. How would you do it?

Doris Pratt: You see, the question arises at once something… (inaudible) same style as a student who say, ‘How am I to meet the multitudinous number of different people around me; the question is with what am I meeting them; with what?’ Not how to meet them, because we are established personalities and to meet each other and the students with that established personality seems to be fatal. So the question is…

K: Ah, no, you are missing my point. Sorry, forgive me, Miss Pratt; just a minute; just a minute. I am concerned if I am one of the staff and I remain here with them, in contact with them, teaching, playing, my chief concern would be this unconditioning; not how to meet them or what I shall do; my concern is that. That concern will dictate what to do. I don’t know if I am…

Questioner: If that concern is deep enough… (inaudible)…

K: Ah, no, no, no; not ‘if’. I don’t like to… ‘if’ — that’s just a condition; it means nothing. If I am blind I will do… but that… The ‘if’ is never an answer. Now, is it our concern? To put it more definitely: is it our concern?

Q: Well, there would be no point in having the school if it wasn’t.

K: No, is it our concern — not the student; leave the student alone for the moment — is it our concern, our responsibility, our sacred duty, sacred… you know, it has to be done — is it our concern? Or are we generally slipping along, gliding? You follow what I mean? We don’t want to waste our life or waste the life of the student; I certainly don’t want to waste my life just talking, I don’t see point of it, but I do feel as I talk that my chief intense passionate responsibility is to see, for God’s sake, look, change, do something radical inwardly, not just scratch on the surface everlastingly.

JZ: Now, can you help us… no, can you… — I don’t know what the quick word would be — but can you, in terms of what you just said, look at with us or point out things to us about just scratching on the surface because that… I think that is the…?

K: I don’t think I can do that. How can I?

JZ: Yes, but I see there’s a hint right there when you…

K: Yes, but what I am saying is…

JZ: I’m not saying a hint on…

K: Somebody wants to come in.

JZ: No, they… (inaudible). I’m not saying that the how or the what, but more knocking or indicating at this tendency to just scratch at…

K: On the surface.

JZ: … the surface of it.

K: I… I…

JZ: But… (inaudible) isn’t that the thrust of what your…? I… just to reflect on that is… I mean, we’ve been talking with David Bohm, almost all of us, and he has been coming back again and again to a certain point of self-deception.

K: Self-deception; quite right.

Q: (Inaudible).

JZ: I hear you asking me am I concerned, and, you know, I see how quickly I would like to say I am concerned, I am concerned, but then, you know, then I find myself thinking, well then, what does a concerned person do, which is merely just some action of thought and so I could find myself nearly acting out the role of a concerned person, which, of course… (inaudible).

K: (Laughs) yes, oh, that would be… of course, that would…

JZ: Right; so what can you do, I think is what Ted is asking, to show me, you know, where I’m not really being concerned and just thinking I am. That’s not the way to put it… (inaudible).

K: Yes, I understand; I understand.

JZ: I mean, I’m certain that all of us feel that we are concerned; there’s no doubt in my mind; that’s it; but I could be deceiving myself.

K: All right, sir. That one has to watch out for that.

JZ: Right; now, what is that watching out?

(Some background noise)

K: It doesn’t matter, sir, because otherwise you’ll stop their work (laughs).

Q: No, but they can go round.

DP: No, it’s not necessary.

Q: (Inaudible).

Q: It’s all right.

DP: It’s not necessary to shut it.

K: Are you saying it is possible to deceive oneself? What are the indications or what are the symptoms of deception — is that it? I think I am concerned and I may be deceiving myself. How does that deception show?

JZ: In a sense, yes, because if I always require you to tell me, then that’s no good.

K: Then we are totally amiss. Sir, I am vulgar, suppose I am vulgar in the sense I want to show off, I want to be very friends… and all the vulgarity of human beings; suppose I am vulgar. How am I to discover it? I’m putting the same thing in different (inaudible). How am I to… you tell me, you say, ‘For God’s sake, don’t be vulgar.’ I don’t like it but… to be told and I feel hurt and all the rest of it. I might shed tears if I am sentimental and all that, but how am I to transform my vulgarity and be truthful about it, not just ‘I am vulgar; yes, I’ll change and I’ll put on better clothes or…’ but inwardly I’m vulgar, how am I to change… how am I to completely change that? That is the problem in a different way.

Brian Jenkins: Do I put my vulgarity on the carpet, as it were?

K: Yes, you can do it; for others to examine, you mean?

BJ: (Inaudible)

K: For others to examine?

BJ: No, to examine myself.

K: Yes, can you do it, which means tremendous… you know, honesty. I mean, you can’t just play around this. Can I find out if I am vulgar without being told, without… — you follow? — or you might indicate and casually, ‘Look, for God’s sake, don’t be vulgar,’ and forget about it. It has penetrated in me what you have said, and can I put it out and work at it to see if I am vulgar?

BJ: Perhaps, Krishnaji, it might be worth just considering that vulgar also means common.

K: Vulgar means common, mediocre, bad taste, trying to be superficially pleasant, appealing — you know? — trying to be friendly, all that; you know what is vulgarity is; trying to accommodate myself to others, trying to… you know, the whole (laughs) vocabulary of vulgarity. I mean, if anything is pointed out to me personally, as it has been done all through my life, I accept… I look at it, take it in; I swallow it, and I work at it; I’m not… I don’t let it go a single minute during the day; and I look at it, watch it, come back to it — you know? — play with it, find out if it is true, false, if it is actual, so that I am terribly honest, ruthless with myself. You follow?

So can we, to come back to, can we as a group bring about a different quality of student? Or — I’m just exploring — or are there students here who have something special? Not the ordinary run of the… but some quality, some outlook, some feeling, some kind of inward groping, and get hold of those students and say, look, let’s spend some time with them without creating jealousy — you follow? — is that possible? I just had a letter yesterday from Pupul Jayakar and Balasundaram. Apparently… you know, I’ve been talking to Balasundaram day after day for three weeks; he has gone back; and apparently there are two or three boys at Rishi Valley who are remarkable, at least they say so, both Mrs Jayakar and Balasundaram; and they say he’s so extraordinary we are going to watch him, cultivate him, see what he… and not destroy him.

Q: One boy?

K: One or two; doesn’t matter. One — that’s good enough. Is there somebody? Or can we create somebody like that? One, two?

JZ: The danger is obvious; in all systems people try to cultivate and create and shape people to fit into their organisation and structure.

K: I know, sir, I know; I know the danger of it.

Shakuntala Narayan: What do you mean by *cultivate*, sir? I don’t think you mean *cultivate* in the sense…

K: In a sense… give him opportunity. You know what I mean? I’m using the word *cultivate*, not… All right, let’s be much more accurate.

SN: You don’t mean *shape* in the sense… (inaudible)

K: Oh, no, no, no, no; no. You find a boy or a girl here, or half a dozen boys or girls, or whoever it is, who have some quality, a feeling about them which is totally different from the others, what will you do with them? Come on, sir. What will you actually do with them who have this… — you know? — they may be sensitive, alert, or feeling… you know, the… you understand what I’m…?

TC: Well, certainly you can in some cases give the person the freedom or the room within living here to go on, but at the same time you can also see things within the circumstances of living here that you could prevent from…

K: Spoiling them.

TC: Spoiling, yes.

JZ: It seems that by spoiling we essentially come down to something… (inaudible) that means limiting, that we somehow put limits on people and that one thing we can do is not to limit them, not to put a limit on their interaction or participation…

K: Mr Joe, I was reading the other day K’s biography. They found that boy. One or two things, basic things were established that he must have complete freedom; though they have tried to condition him, the feeling that this boy is going to be you, etc., etc., etc., and therefore they must never be imposed upon; and complete security. You…? The two basic things that struck me as I read it, though they tried to do all kinds of silly things — you follow? — that’s irrelevant. Freedom and security. If you gave them complete freedom, they will misuse it here because they don’t know what it means. They would react, they would do all kind of extravagant, foolish — you know? — absurd things; and if you give them complete security, you might destroy them. You…?

SN: Do you mean in the sense that they’d become lazy and…?

K: Lazy, slack…

JZ: But for selected people…

K: Ah?

JZ: But for selected people, you seem to be saying that it would be something to consider.

K: No, no.

JZ: No?

K: Look, Mr. Joe, look; they found that boy and they gave these two basic things: freedom and security; and of course the boy was unconditioned and so on and so on; leave all that; so he behaved rightly right through. I don’t know if you have been reading something about whales; *Mind In The Water* — did you read that book?

JZ: I hear people talk about it.

K: Did you ever read that book, any of you, *Mind In The Water*? They said these whales have developed an extraordinary brain because they were completely secure. Nothing could attack them, except man comes along, destroys them, but…

Dorothy Simmons: But that’s not to be secure.

K: Ah?

DS: That is not to be secure; and that maybe it was the spark that gave them something to pit themselves… to keep them awake.

K: No, no, I’m just… Wait, wait. This enormous animals or fish or whatever you like to call them, they have a great brain and that brain, according to these experts, was developed because they were completely secure. Nothing could destroy them.

Ds: I question that, Krishnaji.

K: No, no, you are misunderstanding what I’m saying. You’re reacting to what I am saying.

DS: It sounds to me not a healthy state to be in.

K: No, no. It is not a question of healthy state. Please, look at the whale, not what you and I… The whale had, being so secure, it had developed other qualities. It played, it had… you know, all the rest of it; you read the book. I am probably conveying it wrongly.

BJ: Krishnaji, what do you mean by *secure*? I mean, we give the children physical security.

K: Oh, my lord (laughs).

Ds: See, Krishnaji, if you say complete security, it has a sort of static quality to it.

K: No, no.

BJ: What do you mean by *secure*?

K: Jesus, I…

(Laughter)

JZ: I mean, certainly some… (inaudible).

Questioner: (Inaudible)… question would be how is this security threatened.

Q: No, because if they didn’t have a feeling of well-being and security they couldn’t absorb… (inaudible); they’d be nervously frightened all the time, not knowing that they could be killed by men.

DS: I mean, you hadn’t security; you threw your very security away.

K: What?

DS: You threw your very security away in order to get yourself security. The security… (inaudible).

K: Am I talking Greek?

DS: You can’t give people security.

K: How shall I put it? I mean by the word *security* — let’s be clear — I’m talking about that boy (laughs) K.

DS: If there are few more like that walking around, we wouldn’t be talking here.

K: Ah?

DS: If there are few more like that walking around we wouldn’t be talking like this now.

K: I know. He had affection, unquestioned affection. They respected him; already at the age of thirteen, fifteen — from what I have read, please; this is not first-hand memory, it’s a third-hand memory, third-hand statement; they respected him, they had affection; they didn’t impose something… they tried to impose but it didn’t penetrate as there was a quality of certain aloofness, certain vagueness, moronic (laughs) state, because they said a great teacher was going to… etc., etc., therefore let’s preserve him. They won’t let him get hurt physically. I wanted to ski (laughs) they said don’t, only you are allowed to play golf because that’s the safest game, and so on and so on and so on. He could have misused the whole thing. You follow? Isn’t there in that ambience, in that nuance a feeling of safety? Not safety in the sense sit back and say, ‘Well, I am comfortable, everything is given to me and I am mighty…’ you know, all that kind of nonsense, but…

JZ: How do you think that boy would have felt if he knew that when he reach a certain age, sixteen or seventeen, that his schooling was then over and he must leave? I mean, in a sense, except for one student, most of our students have that feeling; they ‘re here for a limited time, this is a limited engagement; this is, ‘I’m here for one year or two years and then I leave and I am gone.’

K: I understand that, sir.

JZ: I mean, are you suggesting — which may not be a bad idea — that the organisation here has to be capable of not automatically… (inaudible)…

K: Pushing him out.

JZ: Right, but they have to feel that if they do make that commitment, it’s not going to be…

K: You see, I’ll tell you something. When Balasundaram was here, we discussed a great deal; out of that came this. They have now about three hundred and ten, fifteen, thirty students. We said reduce it to two-fifty, two-thirty — that’s a hundred down. There are three grades — one from six to twelve, no examinations, no classes — you follow? — play with them, have them happy, grow nice — you follow? — behave, and all the rest of that; no competition, no sense of me better than you; from six to twelve, if it can be done. That means proper teacher, proper… — you follow? — all that. From twelve to eighteen, take all the subjects academically and those who want to go out push them out. And the third category is have about twenty, thirty, forty boys, girls out of this group who will look after the whole valley; they will be eighteen and so… who will look after not only the school but the villages all round; they will be responsible; and out of that thirty or forty, many of them will leave; therefore there will be a nucleus of ten at least who will be the future teachers — you follow? — the whole of that. I don’t know if I am conveying anything. Now, can we here, out of this fifty, have few students who will be, you know, the third category?

Q: It’s not enough that they be the teachers.

K: Ah?

Q: It’s not enough what you describe. What if those ten stay on at Rishi Valley, let’s say, and become the next teachers and then by the time… they are ten already; they…,where are the people who are going out and making an effect on the rest of the world in the sense of their presence being… people being aware that that…(inaudible)?

K: Am I conveying what I want… am I…?

TC: It seems like that both factors, one, what you are stressing and two, this other position that some people naturally may go into the world and carry out… (inaudible).

K: Sir, those who leave, we are not concerned…

TC: Well, that’s not what we’re looking at now…

K: …pass exams, they say… they’ll go, but what I’m trying to say is can we have a group of students — it might be five, two, ten, or three, it doesn’t matter — a group of students who will be something different? Am I…? This is simple.

Many: (Inaudible).

TC: Part of the, as you know, the difficulties in this school is the financial one. A student, when he gets to a certain age, unless he has…

K: Leave the finances. We will try to arrange all that but leave the finances. If we…

DS: That will answered if we get the other part going.

Q: Yes.

K: Let us find out, sir, how to create a few of them – not create – how to…

TC: Make it possible.

K: No, they may not be… you want something else in them. A few students, who will say, ‘Well, this my life.’

Q: What, living in the oasis?

K: Ah?

Q: Living in the oasis is their life?

K: Living in the oasis.

Q: Well, I don’t see why we bother. What’s the point in having a group of thirty or forty people, they just stay in their oasis.

K: Ah, no, no, no, no; you are misunderstanding. No, I don’t have to explain all this.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: All right. You have fifty-five students here. Out of that, forty students will go out, forty, forty-five or even fifty. Five students out of that will be the future nucleus.

Q: Of the unconditioned?

K: Hm?

Q: Of a transformed individual.

K: Yes; who will look… who will be concerned with all this. Can we bring that about?

Q: Krishnaji, it seems that the students are not what is in question but more this group right here and that, it seems to me, if something changes in this group…

K: That’s what I’m trying to drive at; I can’t (laughs)…. I don’t want to say change; you change first and then this will happen.

Q: Yes.

K: That never happens — you change first. It happens in cooperation with each other. It’s like cooking a lot of vegetables together. You understand what I’m trying to convey or not at all? Sir, this is an oasis — right? — in a mad world, and has the oasis enough water to nourish the people who come here and the people who leave here? You know what… have you ever seen an oasis in a desert? I saw one in… — what do you call that place? — Egypt, miles of….

Montague Simmons: I mean, some people have got the idea of an oasis as being sort of enclosed prison.

K: Oh, no.

MS: But an oasis is a place where you go to drink water.

K: Yes. There the camels came; men came, put up for a night or for a few hours, drank, and went on. It wasn’t a place where everybody stagnated (laughs).

Q: An oasis has a spring, fresh…

K: Have we… That’s all, sir. Has Brockwood got a spring, water, living water? And what shall we do to bring about that water that comes from deep well, inexhaustible well? That is an oasis. And therefore, you know what… that oasis is protected by the — you follow? — they never destroy it. I wonder if… because it’s the only water miles around and so they are very careful. I don’t know if I’m conveying. Money is not the problem; sorry. When we started this place, sir, Dr Bohm said, ‘You cannot have a school unless you have two hundred and fifty thousand pounds.’ Right?

DS: Correct.

K: And we said, sir, where the… (inaudible) going to get two hundred and fifty thousand pounds.

Q: Krishnaji, are we not the problem and also the spring?

K: It’s… I am putting it to you; you have to find out. I must say, it was an extraordinary thing, sir, seeing that oasis in the midst of this desert in Egypt or… — forgotten where it was — miles around they came and they treated it, you know, like a jewel, like something you cannot destroy. The camels were kept carefully away, only allowed to drink, not make mess. You follow?

MS: But the difference between a natural oasis and this one is that you have to make this one.

K: Yes.

MS: Reflected in Cecil Day Lewis’s poems to his children: ‘More… (inaudible), my son, my daughter, be metal to bore through the permeable plane and… (inaudible) the living water.’

K: Quite, sir. Did you see, sir, in the New York Herald Tribune, transcendental meditation has become twenty million dollar institution… no, industry, as they call it?

Q: Yes.

DS: So money can be the problem.

K: No, no, the idea transcendental meditation becoming an industry.

DS: I know.

K: Just think of it.

JZ: That’s like selling little bottles of water.

(Pause)

BJ: Krishnaji, we have said before that we should be as mothers and fathers to these children. Is that in line with what you’ve just been saying… (inaudible)?

K: These mother and fathers, they have got enough of them; they say, ‘Hell with all that stuff.’ But, sir… you know, as things are in India – I don’t know if you have read about it or heard or… – it is becoming… it was nearly dying and probably the death blow has been given to India by this filthy politicians; and one of them has said to me, he said, ‘You may never be able to go back to India’ — you know? — in the… I’ll go back, but in the old sense, talk and all… it may not be possible; and the people who are concerned, they say this is… — you follow? — a despair. Suppose — God forbid — suppose I can’t back here, what will you do? You know this problem is in India — you understand, sir? — somebody has written to me just now, two days ago, saying, ‘What are we going to do if you never come back?’ You follow, sir? ‘We have lost everything, all the gurus, all the… we touched… we won’t go near them; at least you have given us something, but if you don’t come, at least…’ You follow? Now, if I don’t come back here – please, I don’t want that to happen – what will you all do? It’s your responsibility. What will you all do? Start it from there, sir.

Q: It feels the same as when we talked about the core of people here.

K: That’s it. What will you all do? Just disintegrate? Can we work from that void? You understand, Ted? Will you dig and create the spring? The spring is there all right but you have to dig. Or will you say, ‘Well, I’m sorry, I don’t like that person to be the head or I don’t want that, I am leaving; I have got…’ You follow? Buzz, out.

TC: If you didn’t return, I think…

K: You understand, sir, if I don’t return, people will say, ‘Oh, well…’ You know.

TC: Well, we can take several attitudes but one might be that…

K: Not several attitudes (laughs).

TC: I’m just looking at them. We could say that somebody else is going to take care of it; Dorothy or David Bohm or the board of directors, they will take care of it and tell us what to do.

K: Oh no.

TC: But that would seem to be an obvious mistake.

K: That will destroy it.

TC: So, in some sense, we have to recognise that we would have to hold some meeting like this…

K: Sir, what will you do if I don’t come back here? You understand what’s going to happen? That’s what they are facing in India, sir; you don’t quite realise all this. They are going to face it; they haven’t realize the whole meaning of it yet. Because it’s been associated with K it has certain… — you follow? — and here it has been associated with K, therefore they are giving money, they are coming here, they are…– you follow? — camps, the gathering, meeting, discussions; all that will suddenly… You follow? And can you build this thing; all of you? Not say, ‘Well, Dr Bohm will be here, he will help us, and…’ You follow? That’s why I feel it’s a tremendous responsibility.

You have heard of the Theosophical Society, some of you? It was really built by Dr Besant. She was… I don’t know if you have read her autobiography; she was an extraordinary person. She was the first woman to talk about birth control; first woman to lead a strike — you understand? — Victorian divorce, leaving the husband — you follow? — because she didn’t believe in God, and all the rest of it; fought like hell; became a socialist; as Bernard Shaw said if she had not gone to India and become a Theosophist, she would be like Trotsky and Lenin mixed together, put together; she built this society; you have no idea of what it was like at one time. As she died, it has become something like boy scout movement. And also there has been a history; a man went into the whole question of organisations and wrote a book about it, which I have never read, but I have been told by Aldous Huxley that it starts with one or two people and then when they died it last for twenty, thirty years; afterwards gone. Every organisation has been like this.

DS: (Inaudible), Krishnaji, there is a difference here.

K: Ah?

DS: There is a difference here because even Annie Besant built her whole structure on hierarchical…

K: Of course…

DS: And we are not, and that is a very, very fundamental difference.

K: Ah… please; of course she was an authoritarian, she was… (laughs); she should have been a general.

DS: But that is the difference; that is where some of the rock that overlays has been pushed aside.

K: Of course, of course; I’m… please; I’m only… I’m not saying Dr Besant… I’m only pointing out how organisations come to an end when there is… You follow? But here we have no leaders but it is a cooperative, communal, a non-authoritarian, democratic association of people. But you see, even then, she, Annie Besant, she said, ‘You are the teacher; I follow you.’ You follow? She had that quality, but she was too old; she couldn’t do it. But that’s not the point. I’m saying can we all, if I don’t… if I drop dead tomorrow, will you carry on? Not just ordinary stupid school, but something… real oasis where there is spring water; and that can only be done if one has, Mr Simmons was pointing out, there is no daughter, no husband, no child, my, yours, and my idiosyncrasy, my… all that’s gone and you’re working. This is not a pep talk, please (laughs).

JZ: Certainly organisations like the Catholic church and others have survived thousands of years even in the face of determined efforts… (inaudible).

K: Do you know why they survived thousands of years?

JZ: Well, they have a process whereby they… (inaudible).

K: They change, but they keep on changing. One century they tortured people, next century say, ‘Oh, that’s… mustn’t do that…’ — you follow? — but the basic thing was belief, ritual — you know all the rest of it — that they continue. Like the communists, they have a theory — what is it? I used to know it — the principle never changes but the periphery changes all the time; what is that called? What do they call it? I’ve forgotten now.

Q: The cell?

K: Not the cell, no.

Q: The manifesto?

K: No, not… What’s it called, sir? The… they have special…

Q: The dialectic?

K: No. The…

Q: Creed?

K: Creed? No. They have got special word for it, which is a right word.

Q: The principle never changes but the periphery is changing?

K: The tactics change — I’m getting it; I’ll get it — the tactics change but the core… — I don’t know whatever is that word, I haven’t got it yet — never changes. That’s why you can see they are playing… you know, tactics, sir.

Q: Mm, Chinese.

SN: But, also, most of these organisations lose… have lost their vitality centuries ago.

K: I know, I know, but they just live on that.

SN: Exactly.

TC: I look at your… I look at what we’re asking each other now and I hear, for example, Kathy’s response, which you may recall was that in order to proceed to say something to you about it, it seems that it comes back that what is this being going to do. What is… it’s up to each…

K: No, Ted, are you saying…? Look Ted, suppose I don’t come back, will you, Ted, have enough energy, vitality, perception, simplicity, and depth to hold the waters, create, dig — you follow — be totally responsible for it? The other day some bishop in Norwich or… some bishop, he said we are going through terrible times. It was like the 15th century where there were great changes and went on about what is happening in the world, but we remain… You follow? (Laughs). He didn’t say so but…

Scott Forbes: Sir, are you asking are we talking about two commitments; one commitment to be intelligent and another commitment to spread this intelligence…

K: No, sir, no…

SF: …or to…(inaudible).

K: Sir, look, bees come where there is nectar; where you have the fountain, people will come to drink, and this place is meant for that, with the school. Will you have that nectar? Put it in ten different ways.

I was in an ashrama many years ago where they did certain things: meditation from six o’clock — was it six o’clock? I think it was; I’ve forgotten; it doesn’t matter — from seven to eight in a dark room with steps going down. From eight to nine, cook breakfast, wash dishes, all that. From ten or nine they had somebody, professors, other people come and talk to them about various philosophies, various… From eleven to twelve, meditation, sitting down in that dark room, somebody read a phrase or a passage and you meditated. From one to two, lunch and wash dishes; two to five you kept to yourself or help in the garden, looked after. From five to six, meditation; no talking after that till the next morning. I was there for a week and people came to me and said to me, ‘Won’t you talk here?’ The chief boss of it said, ‘Won’t you…?’ I said, sorry, I won’t. He said, ‘Why not?’ He said perhaps I’ll upset the whole applecart. I said, ‘No, no…’ I said, ‘Please, I won’t.’ Within a year the whole thing went to pieces. You follow, sir? We don’t have that here, fortunately; but you can’t bring fresh waters through compulsion, through dedication, through belief — you know? — they have all tried, all this have been tried. They have never tried this, in which there is no belief, no compulsion, no authority, no… — you follow? — no discipline, no… It is because you see the thing it is right and therefore you are together. I don’t know if I am making myself….

DP: But you do live… you do find yourself living a very ordered life, don’t you?

K: Me?

DP: Yes.

K: Oh, of course. I don’t know why you asked that question.

DP: Well, because it has the same effect; I mean, going to the monastery, you did things for certain hours.

K: Naturally.

DP: And worked for certain hours… (inaudible).

K: I mean, I do certain… breakfast certain time; this is…

DP: That’s the natural result, is it?

K: I wouldn’t call that… that’s… you know, convenience.

BJ: But this other was imposed on people.

K: Oh, no, they imposed it on themselves for the love of Jesus, for the love of truth, for the love of God, for the love of light, or whatever it was. They never said, ‘Look, let’s see the thing together clearly.’ Because you see a thing clearly, we are together, and that has much more vitality, that lives; that doesn’t ever die. (Inaudible). Is that enough this morning?

Q: Are you at all considering going to India just…

K: Ah?

Q: …to talk publicly, or just to talk to the people at the various schools to see what is going to happen?

Q: In India.

Q: Are you thinking of going to India not to talk publicly but to talk to, as you said, Dr Balasundaram?

K: I don’t quite follow this.

Q: Excuse me?

K: I don’t quite follow what you’re saying.

DP: She says are you going to India, nevertheless, not to talk publicly but to talk to the…

K: I might. I have said I will not come if I’m not allowed to talk publicly, as I used to, say what I like, criticise the government, which I did, talk about filthy… you know (laughs). You must have freedom, you must criticise, you must have… — you know? — all that. If they say, ‘You can’t do that. If you do come and if you would say all those things, you might go to prison,’ and it would be a waste of time to go to prison. I’m not frightened going to prison; it would be a waste of time; so I said under… And they said, ‘Under these circumstances, please go to Ojai.’

Q: So, I understand that; I mean, as feeling responsible for the starting of the schools there, whether you will go just to have a private discussion with the people involved in each school… (inaudible).

K: You will find out what to do. If you have the nectar, bees come; or an oasis where there is water, fresh, sparkling, alive.

JZ: We’re not interested in making the organisation that merely perpetuates itself.

K: No, of course (inaudible).

JZ: So, then, you know, what are we doing? I mean, that is… I mean, if our energy is going to be put into creating a situation of security and… (inaudible).

K: That is necessary, isn’t it? You must have…

JZ: That’s necessary, but then if we only get ten or five or whatever people who fit into the organisation to maintain the organisation…

K: No, no, no. Then you are… then it’s dying.

JZ: It’s dying, exactly. So, in a sense, is it helpful to ask ourselves what are we doing?

K: No…

JZ: Not to hope that we all know what that is.

K: Ah, no, no.

JZ: Not to hope that we agreed, but what are we doing? What is it in fact that we think we’re doing here, or that we are doing?

K: It’s for you to find out. How can I tell you? Sir, would you put it this way? Are we together, or singly and therefore together, merely building a house and putting the furniture and all the rest of it, or we have something — you follow? — inwardly, and that builds; that will have a house, that will have furniture — you follow what I mean? — that will be orderly, that will be beautiful, but it is from perception, from deep… from the depth of one’s excellence?

(Pause)

JZ: Obviously the buildings are not Brockwood. It must be the… I mean, when you really look at it, it seems to me it’s the connections, the relationships between the staff and students which are Brockwood, and I think it seems that we have to look at those relationships and see if in fact we have relationships; do we have a relationship with each other or do we really think that we have a relationship…?

K: (Inaudible).

JZ: Or are we connected by all of us believing that there should be relationships?

K: Yes, sir; the actual and the thought about the actual. Right?

JZ: And do we…?

K: (Inaudible)… do I have relationship with you actually or I think I have relationship with you? Which are two different things, obviously.

(Pause)

Have you heard the tapes of the discussions with Bohm and K?

BJ: You mean in Saanen, Krishnaji?

K: Ah?

BJ: The ones in Saanen?

K: No, no; no.

BJ: The recent ones?

K: Yes.

TC: We haven’t heard those; but those were Saanen, I thought.

BJ: We had a… (inaudible).

DS: (Inaudible)… the sequence… (inaudible) talk ten now… (inaudible).

Francis McCann: (Inaudible)… but we heard the 7th the other day… (inaudible)

DS: It’s now on the 10th; the 11th is this coming…

K: 12th.

DS: 12th, is it? Yes, the 12th.

K: Yes, I believe 12th.

JZ: We’re up to seven.

K: Ah?

JZ: We’ve heard up to seven.

K: Oh, you have heard it?

JZ: We heard the seventh one.

BJ: Which was in Saanen. That one was in Saanen.

FM: Yes… (inaudible).

K: Oh, that may be; I don’t know.

DP: What do you feel about those talks?

K: I don’t know.

DP: Why did you… (inaudible).

K: There was a discussion because… I was wondering if you have heard it what your reactions were and so on.

JZ: Well, in the last one you mentioned something that’s quite amazing.

Q: The last one you heard.

JZ: The last one we heard, which was the first one that you had with David Bohm in Saanen.

K: What’s the last…?

JZ: And you mentioned that you felt that throughout your life that there was something that you couldn’t really describe well, that there might have been… you thought it was no accident; your life was no accident.

K: Ah, don’t enter into that (laughs). To go into it, sir, really, one has to go right from the beginning; it would take too long. We’d better stop… (inaudible) minutes to one.