K School – Adults Discussion 6, Rishi Valley, 16 December 1978
*Identification: This is Shri. J. Krishnamurti’s sixth discussion with teachers in Rishi Valley on 16th December, 1978.*
Krishnamurti (K): I am a bit early.
G. Narayan (GN): No, it’s time.
K: What shall we talk over together?
[*Pause*]
May I begin with something and then you can all…? I was wondering why a school of this kind has not produced or not brought about, during all these forty years and more, a few human beings who are not just mediocre, joining the whole social structure, who are flowering deeply and really religiously with very good minds and all that. I have been wondering why a school of this kind has not brought about such human beings, neither here nor at Rajghat, the two oldest schools or colleges, whatever you call them—I don’t like to use the word *institutions* because the word *institution* means that which is firmly fixed, *stare*, Latin and all the rest of it, means to stay put. And generally institutions are—you know what they are—not alive, moving, changing. Therefore I don’t like to use that word *institution* if you don’t mind. Why is it that we haven’t been, we haven’t brought about such human beings?
Questioner (Q): Sir, how can you say that we haven’t?
K: How can you say that we haven’t? I challenge you, sir. That’s my question. Have we, I said. Why haven’t we? You say, how do you know, how do *I* know, that you haven’t brought about such human beings. It’s obvious. If you have done it, they would be like flames in the world. They would be deeply psychological revolutionaries. I mean you can’t hide a light under a bushel. So I am questioning. Can we do this? If we desire to do it, how shall we set about it? Apart from excellent academic business, career, A and O level, can we bring about such human beings? I was talking to Narayan the other day, yesterday or day before, having a small college here. Not with hundreds of students, but a very limited college, so that you have students from the age of five or eight or seven till they are twenty-one, so that you keep them in this environment, in this ambience, in this atmosphere not just when they reach eighteen throw them out to the wolves. We just haven’t had time to go into it, we were just talking about it: having a very small college of very select students, and so on. Now I am asking, if I may—please, I am not trying to impose something on you—I am just saying how important it is for a school of this kind which has existed for so many years. It hasn’t produced one human being. I don’t know, sir. I am just pointing the tragedy of it, that’s all. And if it is our intention, then what shall we do? Otherwise the school has no meaning essentially. Just to turn out B.A.s, and M.A.s, or some kind of business and engineers. Good Lord, the world is full of them. How shall we set about it? If, that is, you also want this. That’s one issue.
The other thing I would like to discuss is, if it is possible to stop all competition here, any sense of competition. I don’t know how you regard competition—as necessary, or an evil thing. And if it can be stopped, how shall we stop it. That’s another thing I would like to discuss today and tomorrow. And also—it’s a rather delicate subject—I would like to ask if I may, if we know what love is. Know—not in the sense I love, the quality of that extraordinary state. I am not generalising, that’s absurd, it would be rather foolish, and very limited. But can one ask, has the Indian mind this quality of affection, love? It doesn’t mean that in England it exists and in America it exists, it exists nowhere practically. I’m not comparing this country with any other country. I am just asking. [*Pause*] So I would like, if I may, to discuss these three things.
First, can we bring about at least a few students out of these three hundred and odd students that we have here, can we, out of that, twenty? Can we? Please, sir, discuss…
T.K. Parchure (TKP): What is the quality of the mind of the teacher which can bring about…
K: Wait, sir, we are coming to that. First let us see if we want this. If all of us, both here, Rajghat there are people…
GN: There is a mosquito near your eye.
*K:* They like me. [*laughter*] I am sweet to them.
…Ms. Ahalyaji, and there’s Upasaniji, and Rajesh from Benares, Rajghat. Can we—first in principle let’s discuss this. Then we’ll work in detail, work it out. Is that what we want? Should we work for that, apart from bringing about a good academic career for everybody? That means A level and O level. You know what those—A level Cambridge, Oxford. A level and O level are accepted in France, in America, in England, so it is practically universal, except perhaps Russia and China. So can we do that?—in principle, let’s discuss it. Not whether the teachers are capable or not, but first in principle, as a thing, do we wish it?
That is, having about twenty, thirty students, grooming them carefully, looking after them, about their bodies, about their mind, you know, the whole thing, which will not create jealousy amongst the others. And are we capable of it, do we want it? If we want something, we have the capacity. If we don’t want it, then we talk about capacity. I wonder if you are following what I am saying, all this. Do we want this here? If we don’t want it, then what’s the function of this school? Just to turn out lot of mediocre students?—perhaps little more polite, little more decent, little more kindly, but always caught in the trap. Won’t you kindly discuss this?
G. Narayan (GN): Sir, you imply that if you want this, you’ll have the capacity. I also feel that there is something like working at something, if you—an academic capacity can be acquired by working at it, knowledge of the subject, teaching methods,…
K: Sir…
GN: …one acquires an excellence after five or six years.
K: Sir, if I want a very good garden, beautiful garden, I study, I enquire, I find out people who have good gardens and invite them, I would discuss with them, go over the land which is barren and say, can they…? The moment there is the intention, the capacity is born out of that intention. I mean if I want to marry somebody—I don’t, God forbid—if I want to marry somebody, then I’d enquire, I’d work, nothing prevents me. So do we want this? Please discuss this with me. Mrs. Major, do you want your children—you’ve got two of them here—to be totally different from the rest of the world?—real human beings, not half baked, childish, immature, for the rest of their life, who are totally developed not only academically but psychologically, all the rest of it. Is that what we want? Come on, sirs.
Q: Sir, we believe that we are here because we want it.
K: Uh?
Q: We believe that we are here because we want it.
K: Do you really want it?
Q: Yes.
K: Then what will you do about it?
Q: I’ll start working for it.
K: Uh?
Q: I’ll start working for it.
K: Have you done it?
Q: Yes.
K: Have you got some students, twenty, thirty, whom you are helping to grow into real, mature human beings?
Q: Not twenty, thirty students, but one person I could help.
K: Beg your pardon, I can’t…
Q: One person I could help, and I haven’t been here…
K: No, in principle, do we want this? Not that you can do it and somebody else can do it. In principle, all of us who are both at Rishi Valley, Rajghat and Bangalore, do we want this? Please see the implications of it, that you cannot, out of three hundred, make all the three hundred into marvellous human beings. If you can, so much the better. That being so, are there promising young boys and girls, without making them feel exclusive, something strange, and therefore the others are jealous, and so become cruel to them—you know the whole series of it. And find twenty or thirty boys and girls, and help them, discuss with them, be with them. In principle, if we agree, not mentally agree, I don’t mean that, that’s—any fool can mentally say yes, marvellous idea, and then just drop it. But if we all put our heart into it. In principle I mean, our minds and our hearts say yes, this is what we want. Then together we can work out details. What do you say, Mr.Krishnan Kutty?
Krishnan Kutty (Kr.Ku): Definitely, sir.
K: In principle, first your heart is in it. Mr. Venkatraman, sir, tell, I don’t have to ask you! You might agree intellectually, theoretically, that is useless. But if you say, this from my heart I want this, for my children. Then the very urge to have it creates extraordinary, brings about quite a different quality and atmosphere. Rajesh, sir, what do you say? Come on, sirs.
Ahalya Chari (Ah.C): We tried this at Rajghat, sir, with about sixteen children with Rajesh, and something beautiful was happening. But as you say, that chain of other people and the whole campus, did bog us down.
K: No, but I want to know—not I, please, but as a human being if I had children here, I’d say please don’t make them into ordinary, stupid, immature, childish grown up people. I trust them to you.
Rajesh Dalal: Sir, there are very deep implications because we ourselves are growing in the same process.
K: Yes, sir, I’ll come to that presently. First I want to find out, one wants to find out, if this school, both Rajghat, here and so on, Bangalore, if this is the foundation, if this is the basis, if it is the intention.
Q: Yes, sir.
K: You are not answering. Until you answer, I can’t go on. Right? What do you say, sir, from Bangalore? The rest are so—are you all tongue-tied or is it all…?
Q: It is our intention to do that.
K: Sir, is the intention intellectual or from the depth of your being? We must be clear on this issue. If it is merely intellectual, you will find all kinds of hindrances, all kinds of barriers, you will put to yourself impossible questions. But if it is from your very depth of your being, you will find the answers coming up, you’ll find the solutions as they arise. You won’t talk, so what am I to do.
Q: Yes, sir, the desire is from the heart.
K: Uh?
Q: The desire *is* from the heart.
K: You have it, lady, perhaps, but the rest, what will you do if they haven’t got it? Bang them on the head? What will you do? [*Whispers*] So dumb!
Q: Is it important that everybody else should also have it?
K: What, sir?
Q: Is it important that everybody else should also have it?
K: If you have it and I haven’t got it, I’ll be jealous of you, I will do something to hurt you, I will prevent you, I will consciously or unconsciously I’ll kind of say, oh, he is superior, he is—all kinds of things arise from it.
Q: No, sir, if we are strong they won’t affect us.
K: Uh?
Q: If we are strong enough, they will not affect us.
K: Not if [*Laughs*]. Are you?
Q: Surely a staff that’s working together is much stronger, and that’s what’s got impact.
Q: It depends on what impact comes from the work.
Ah.C.: That’s exactly what he is asking.
Pramila Rajan (PR): Are we in tune with the principle or not, and none of us has really given him a certain answer.
K: Are you?
PR: Sir, I don’t know how to express it. Well, one wants it.
K: Ah ha. You understand? Merely—I want a good dress, but I won’t…
PR: No, not that way. Not that way. I don’t know how to explain it. I just can’t wear it out into words. Let me think about it little more and I might be able to put it in a…
K: You are pretty good at articulating, so don’t… [*Laughs*]
PR: No, I am not trying to hedge.
K: All Indians are good at arguing, but I am not talking about that. What, Narayan?
GN: What’s the difference—you are saying if it’s intellectual, you will put impossible questions, but if it is from the depth of your being, the answers will get resolved and as you go on.
K: Yes.
GN: I think there is vital difference.
K; Yes, there is tremendous difference.
GN: Yes. If for somebody who starts intellectually, is there some hope that this quality will come into being, or has he necessarily to start from the depths of his being because we are all in a way…
K: You may start, Narayan, intellectually and then…
GN: Yes.
K: …pour it out of your heart. That’s why I am asking [*laughs*] at what level are you answering this question?
Scott Forbes (SF): Sir, is there a factor of seeing the necessity of this? Does seeing the necessity of it change it from being just an intellectual desire?
K: Yes, sir, do you feel it is necessary? I’ve put it in ten different ways—nom de chien!*[^1] Even intellectually do you agree, sir? Uh?
PR: I think we feel it’s necessary, more than just an intellectual agreement…
K: You—necessary, all right. Look, lady, you and I, you feel, I feel it’s absolutely necessary because we are responsible for a new generation. I feel that way for a new generation, not the old, dead body of people called society. So if that is, you and I want that, how shall we set about it? I am asking you, sir, all of you, how shall you, sir, set about it? Mr. Venkataraman?
TKP: It looks a very attractive idea when you describe of a new human being and a new mind to be brought about, and you ask how will you set about, which implies bringing about in another that new mind. Working starts.
K: No, sir, not only that. I see it’s important, and say how shall I do this? I am asking myself. I have got two hundred or three hundred students, how shall I bring this about? [*Pause*] Do you want me to go into it? [*Laughs*]
Q: Sir, if we have an idea about what the child ought to grow into…
K: Aha, aha, I haven’t…
Q: Let me complete, sir. Grow into, and we can formulate, we have lots of things around, but we do not know what the child ought to be like, so we don’t groom somebody *into* something.
K: No. Q: So if we see it for ourselves, then we do not know what comes out of it, but then a new human being *will* emerge. So…
Q: So the most important thing is whether we are accepting the principle.
K: That’s what I am…
Q: Yes. But what kind of answer do you think you would expect from us?
K: I will answer it for myself!
Q: Maybe most of them are not able to say it, sir…
K: …articulate.
Q: …because they feel…
K: Now, all right.
Q: …an answer like ‘yes’ or ‘no’ I don’t think would say much to you.
K: No, no.
Q: Yes.
K: I say if in principle we all agree that it’s the right thing to do, and it is absolutely necessary, in principle…
Q: Yes.
K: …then I ask myself, what shall I do. What are the necessary steps I have to take? What are the circumstances with which I have to deal? The circumstances are, there are three hundred students in a lovely place, and out of those three hundred, are there any students outstanding? That is my first question— not only intellectually, but have affection, kindness, all that—are there any here?
Q: There are some.
K: If you say there are some, you know there are, would all of us agree to that?
Q: Yes, that’s what I think.
K: Ah, go slow, sir.
Q: Yes.
K: It may be your personal like for X, Y, Z.
Q: I am not talking about that.
K: I understand.
GN: We’ll have to be…
Ah.C.: You know it *could* be. Partially it could be.
Q: Governed by subjective…
K: So can we all, putting our personal prejudices, our personal relationships, our sons, idea—my son, your daughter, putting all those aside, can we say this boy is good, or this girl will be something? Can we all agree to that? Not Rajesh chooses, but all of us together say, we all agree, that boy X, Y, Z, A, B, C, all the rest of it, they are the right people. Which can only be brought about when you and I are totally impersonal, unbiased. Can we do that? When you say that boy is good, and she says that girl is good, she is saying it absolutely impersonally and not because it is my son or daughter, or we belong to the Andhra community or some blasted rot. But when you say that boy is good, I accept it because you come from that, your decision is out of a clarity, not out of prejudice. Can we do that? Come on, sirs!
Q: Yes, we can.
K: Uh?
Q: We can, sir.
K: What?
Q: We can.
K: Will you? Not can.
RD: Sir, there is one question in this. To whatever extent one can see one’s personal factors coming in, they can be pushed out, they can be out because you don’t want that.
K: Yes.
RD: But you can never say that is impersonal with a kind of stand.
K: No, sir.
RD: You are not interested in personalities, you are not interested in choosing out of prejudice or choice, or you know, any stupid factors, because you are concerned about something which is impersonal. But you cannot *say* that. How does one say that…
K: Oh yes, sir, you can say very easily. When you know in your heart that you are really impersonal, you can say it. You are fairly intelligent, I mean enough to say, look, I know where my prejudices come in, sorry. Or I’ll discuss with you. I say these are my prejudices—wipe it out. You follow what I mean—because your interest, my interest is to find the right boy and the right girl. Can we do it? Will you do it?
Q: We’ll attempt to do it.
K: No, you understand?, this is a very serious thing what we are undertaking, if we want this. Then that means, you’ll have to explain. What will the other students think of it? You see, you haven’t gone into this. Will they be jealous, antagonistic to these thirty, and so make their life miserable? Or how will you deal with it? I know how I will deal with it. But you see you are not… [*Laughs*]
Q: Sir, we have seen some teachers who have taken some students out and then sort of tried to groom them or talk to them, but that’s isolating them. I call that definite isolation because the other boys do see it, practically see it. And so they generally either feel jealous of them, or they have hatred, or things like that.
K: Quite, sir.
Q: So a lot of people, out of that, that group, also join the rest of the flock.
K: I don’t know, because…
Q: This is a method which I have seen in this place, a method which has brought about a kind of jealousy and so the whole thing fizzled out.
K: And so the students that you have chosen, because they can’t stand by themselves, join the herd. This is a well-known phenomenon.
Q: That’s right.
K: So what will you do?
Q: Especially while dealing with students who are extraordinary, or, not extraordinary, sorry, who do have this kind of…
K: Yes, X quality.
Q: …X quality, I think should not be taken apart, apart from the rest. Probably we may have to see that the others also help them out and then groom them that way.
K: How will you do this, sir? Suppose I have chosen twenty, thirty. I don’t want antagonism arise between them and the rest. I don’t want them—my twenty or thirty—to be swallowed up by them. I don’t want the others to feel that they’re the chosen few and therefore the tremendous sense of antagonism arise in them and so on, so on. What shall I do?
Achyut Patwardhan (AP): Sir, one difficulty is, that in our approach to any such student in relationship, has tended to strengthen or awaken some kind of motivation. Motivation which is a form of communicating to him that we are doing something which is unique, which is quite distinct.
K: How shall I do it?
AP: Now, I want to wipe out this motive.
K: Yes, sir.
AP: I want to ask…
K: I understand…
AP: …how can one go about this.
K: I am asking you.
AP: Because many of the difficulties that arise, perhaps we may be able to cope with them if we know how to deal with it.
K: I am asking you, sir, Achyutji. I have studied very carefully. I can now after talking to those students, I can almost pick them up. And how shall I create this sense of non-isolation? Exclusiveness which brings about all the misery of it. What shall I do?
PR: Find out the child’s interest.
K: Uh?
PR: Find out the child’s interest.
K: What?
PR: Find out the child’s interest.
K: No, no. No, Madame.
PR: Would it help if the child is slightly older?
K: May not.
PR: With a very young child, say around six or seven, you *know*, you can pick him out easily. He is not really biased or…
K: Yes.
Q: …not yet caught up in the whole…
K: Caught up, yes.
PR: But at that stage he is very much part of the herd instinct and he does swerve back to it.
K: Yes, so, you follow all the, take all these complications into account. The seven and eight, they are with you, but they are also with them. If they are thirteen, fourteen, they are already conditioned.
PR: They are in a state of flux.
K: Flux. But the leaning over is towards that, and not towards this. Take all that into account. What will you do?
Q: With regard to the senior students…
K: What?
Q: With regard to the senior students, a student who stands for this has to face a stiff opposition from others.
PR: They are usually ridiculed.
K: Uh?
PR: They are usually open to ridicule, exposed to ridicule.
K: I know, I know—sensitive, open to ridicule, take all those into account. And the other teachers say, look. Encouraging the old—the three hundred, they say, look what they are doing. They are belittling you, they are—so it is, you follow?
GN: If the teachers are sensitive to this, the first part of the battle is over.
K: That’s what I am trying to ask, sir.
GN: I think sometimes the teachers create…
Q: If the…
K: Not if. I won’t accept the word *if*.
GN: Yes. When Krishnan Kutty, let us say, is working with four or five students, goes for a walk with them…
K: The others are…
GN: …meets them, talks with them, there are whispers that he is trying to do that, engage. If that stops, I think we have won the first part of the battle.
PR: But don’t you think, Mr. Narayan, that would stop if Krishnan Kutty Nair took some of us into the thing and told us, look, we are working on this, would you help me to go along with this? …
GN: Quite right. We can do this. I am saying…
PR: I mean…
K: Wait. See what you have said just… Hold, hold, hold, hold. You are all too quick. What would you do.
PR: Sir, since you don’t like the word *if*, I might be able to tell him that…
K: You have chosen twenty. You don’t want to create all the ugly business round those twenty. That ugly business may arise in spite of you, and you say I am going to prevent it as much as I can. And you, as a single unit, you have done this. You want to convince all the others and also the students. You follow? What will you do? You want all of them to work with you—the students, the teachers and the chosen twenty—all of them together. Say, yes, we won’t touch them, we won’t whisper behind their back, we won’t hurt them, we won’t be jealous. What will you all do?
Q: Sir, doesn’t choosing those few students also require a cooperative effort?
K: What?
Q: Togetherness on part of teachers.
K: What, sir?
Q: Choosing those few students doesn’t it require a little cooperative effort on the part of all of us, or at least most of us?
K: Yes, I said that, sir. We have passed that stage. I said, can we—Sir, look, sir, don’t go back, if I may,. I am not impatient, but I want to go on with this, because—Look, sir, I said, in principle if we all agree that it is absolutely necessary for survival of a school of the right kind, that we put aside all our personal prejudices, biases, my son opposed to his son and daughter, put aside completely all that. And you might choose two, and I trust you that you have done that: put aside all your personal prejudices—I’ll accept it. And you must accept also, because I have really done, I have no prejudice when I have chosen these two, so that we both of us meet on the common ground which is that we have no bias, no motive.
PR: Sir, then what happens to those who are not chosen?
K: I am coming to that, half a minute. Just let me finish. First what shall I do not to create this antagonism? You understand? What shall I do?
Q: Sir, but I am not very sure if you choose some people out of the flock, because I am very sure the moment you choose somebody and pay special attention, there is always bound to be some rivalry from somewhere.
K: Quite right, sir.
Q: So the choosing part of it is something…
K: All right, I won’t choose. But I’ll keep an eye on those… [*Laughs*]
Q: That’s right.
GN: What do you mean? Why do you write off the contact with the…?
K: [*Whispers*] You are not meeting my point.
Q: Group. That’s what I am saying…
GN: Can I say something? I am talking to a student, in fact you don’t know who he is. He comes to me and I talk quite often a great deal. It is not a question of choice in which I am giving him sweets every day. More is demanded of him…
Q: That’s right.
GN: …if he comes to me and talks, more is demanded of him in relationship, in action, in awareness, etc. It is not a special conferment of a favour.
Q: It is not, but you and the student feel it, the students see it.
GN: But you are thinking it is a special favour being conferred.
Q: Definitely not. I am not saying that. I am saying, once you take a group out, say out of three hundred you take twenty out.
GN: Where?
Q: Wherever you want to take.
GN: I am not taking them out anywhere.
Q: Yes.
GN: I get four or five students who are interested in music, let us say.
Q: Yes.
GN: I teach them music.
Q: Yes, sir.
GN: It is a similar situation.
K: Sir, how will you deal with it? That you don’t want to create antagonism, you don’t want to choose, you don’t want to say these are select and you are not select. How will you, who agree in principle, who say out of your heart this *must* be done, how will you deal with it?
Q: I’ll talk to all the students.
K: Uh?
Q: All the students.
K: Will you?
Q: All of them, sure, that’s what we do.
K: Ah, no, you are missing my point. How will you talk to them? What is your approach—please listen, sir—what is *your* approach to the problem, because your approach is going to decide the problem. Right? Right?
Q: That’s the main thing.
K: I am doing it! [*Laughs*] Your approach is going to resolve the problem. What is your approach?
Q: Krishnaji, it seems that the selectors, would then act faster than the students. It seems that there are naturally going to be some students that take to it, and that they are going to be interested. It seems when there is that contact with our any special selection…
K: I understand, but I am asking you what is your approach. You are not answering my question. Forgive me if I insist on it.
RD: As far as students are concerned—I am saying there is not much of a problem because the other children also see that you love them. They see it, and they see that you are demanding something from all of them.
K: Sir, wait, Rajesh, you are saying, which I was also thinking, which is—I won’t come into it yet—I want to ask you, how do you approach this problem which I am putting in front of you? The problem is this: twenty or thirty, no rivalry, no antagonism, no hatred, they are not the chosen few and so make them conceited, and, the whole thing. That’s your problem. What is your—not the, forget the student. What is *your* approach to the problem? How do you approach it?
TKP: If in my mind there is no discrimination, no comparison…
K: Oh, there is! Those boys are better than—don’t, sir, don’t, be factual. This boy is more intelligent, he is awake, he has got that sense, and the other man, he says, oh, all right, oh, that’s…
RD: I have affection for the other also.
K: No, sir, you are missing… How are you approaching the problem?
RD: Sir, I don’t know how to answer this question, but it is happening in my house.
K: Sir, forget your house, what *you* are doing. Help me how to approach the problem correctly. You understand my question? Because my approach to the problem is going to resolve the whole thing.
Q: It is not as though only these few, chosen few, are those that matter, and I write off the rest. My approach is not that.
K: No, no, no. So your approach is, not this group opposed to the rest group. That, I want to be clear—the approach.
Q: Yes, that’s the approach.
K: Wait, wait. Let me get that clear. Let’s all get that clear. Your approach is non-exclusive, which might create rivalry and so on, but your approach is, you want to help *all* the students, *all* of them, but there are a few who can be helped more. And tell me what your other people’s…
Q: I keep an eye on these few, spend time with them. I will always be careful to see that the others don’t think that I am showing them some preferential treatment. Sir, in actual living among the students…
K: I *am* showing preferential treatment. Don’t fool ourselves with words. I *am* showing preferential difference because my son is not bright, your son is bright.
Mary Zimbalist (MZ): But, sir, if it is on the basis that these are special students, more intelligent, more something, you do breed some sense of special favour. If, as Narayan says, certain students study music do the other students feel left out?
K: So, what is your approach?
MZ: If they are selected…
K: No. What is your actual approach to the problem?
MZ: These children are not better in some way but they have a certain capacity.
K: Quality, quality. I won’t use the word *better—*certain quality which the other haven’t got. Why do we quibble over words? What is your approach to this?
Q: Krishnaji, I don’t understand why it is such a problem. It seems that, as Mr. Prasad says, if you are there with all three hundred, some of the students are going to have that quality and they are going to come forward also, and then you are meeting them. And it doesn’t seem that the other students are going to think you are doing a favour to them. It seems much more that they’re going to see that there are some students who have more energy. It seems that it is coming from the students also.
MZ: Or there are certain students who are interested in this…
K: Don’t address me, address them. I am out of the rule. I have asked, if I may ask, a simple question. If we don’t see this, it is pointless to discuss it: The approach to the problem is going to resolve the problem. If the approach is not clear, the problem will go on multiplying, confusing, growing bigger and bigger. So I am asking, what is your actual approach to this question which is: there must be no jealousy, no rivalry, no sense of the chosen few—and yet they *are* chosen, don’t fool yourselves round with words—and yet they have got minds, hearts, a sense of innocency the other fellow hasn’t got. Taking all that into account, how do you come to it? After stating that I’ll walk out of the room. So discuss it.
Q: Why can’t it be that the step is made by the student himself? That if we are their staff and we are doing this as Mr. Prasad suggests, then why can’t it seem to the other three hundred that the step is coming from the interested students, and that’s open to all of them if they want to take that step.
MZ: It does not imply any superiority of any kind.
K: I agree all that, Maria, don’t repeat all that. I am just asking you how do you approach this problem. Apparently you don’t see…
Q: If the child can be made aware of its own sensitivity…
K: Beg your pardon, madame?
Q: If the child can be made aware of its own sensitivity, I am sure that is important.
K: Is that your approach?
Q: I feel that when a child is really kind and gentle, he is just given the necessary encouragement. That, I mean that will help him more.
K: Is that your approach? That’s that how you approach the problem? You put the responsibility on the child?
Q: He has…
K: You put the responsibility on the child?
Q: Partially it *is* his responsibility.
K: Is that your approach that you say the child, his response is vital. But the child doesn’t know the problem. You put it to him. Right? [*Laughs*] Forgive me. You are going back to the child. I refuse to move from my position. I want to find out from each one—I am putting this question to each one of us—what is your approach, because the approach matters enormously than the problem.
PR: Sir, just as in academic class, when a child is a little backward or something, we do take extra time with him and help him to come up to the grade. In a similar manner we could bring it out that this child has got a little more to offer than the others. That he will share it with the whole class, and with us.
K: Is that your approach?
Q: I hope to…
K: Your approach, not the child. What is your approach, madame? Shall I hug you, do anything to answer my question!
Q: I’ll love the child, sir.
PR: I will stand by the child and then bring out whatever I feel that it’s important for him and for the rest of the class.
Q: Sir, I see there is only one approach, sir. I mean, as I see it. And that is that I have this enormous love for the whole thing.
K: Have you?
Q: Yes.
K: Don’t say yes, because this is—We are not playing with words. This is a very serious problem. You are just playing around with it. What’s my approach? Narayan, what is our approach?
GN: I would like to say something which happened last night. A very sensitive father came and told me, my son is a very sensitive chap. From what I see and it is so. He said, will you protect him?
K: Huh, strange father!
GN: Yes. I said it will be my first concern to protect him. Because I think there are two—while in some situations, I would say that the responsibility also rests with the child, and in a way he has to meet it.
K: Narayan…
GN: I think it is also the instinct of protecting such a child. That’s my approach. There is a protective care which is an on-going thing, not a…
K: So your approach is—to this problem, I am talking about this problem.
GN: Yes.
K: A protection…
GN: A protective care.
K: Protective care for the whole group of children, for all of them, and out of that protective care for all of them, you say these few I will protect more. Is that your approach?
GN: To some extent, yes.
K: Ah no, no, no, no. You are all hedging.
GN: It is a part.
K: No, I refuse to part and partial.
GN: When I say protective, it is not a favourite situation.
K: Of course not, favouritism and all that nonsense.
GN: If that is cut out, yes.
Q: The very fact that you are going to be protected will intensify the jealousy amongst the others.
GN: That’s right, it’s not a sin. In relationship these problems will come and I will meet it. I have to meet it. Somebody is going to be jealous.
Q: Which means that it could be worse for the child. You won’t be there to protect the child in each and every situation.
Kabir Jaitirtha (KJ): But it depends on what you mean by protection.
GN: Care is not a, is not a…
K: You see how you are squabbling. You see you are off.
Ah.C: Sir, to me the challenge seems to be non-discriminatory about the whole and yet protect…
K: I am discriminating. Don’t use words.
Ah.C: That’s the challenge, sir—to be so completely non-discriminatory about the whole.
Q: Sir, you are not discriminating openly.
K: Oh, oh, oh, oh. Oh!
Q: You keep an eye on the children. It is not as though you take a group out. It is not like that. Keep an eye…
RD: Mr. Madan, you’ve taken a group out, actually.
GN: Supposing I go to a music teacher and I am very keen on music, and he sings with me, helps me more, and I learn more. Would you say it is discrimination?
K: Certainly not. I am not interested in your…
GN: Supposing somebody wants to study and discuss with me, and he is very keenly interested in…
K: …mathematics…
GN: …mathematics, X, whatever it is, and the other person is not interested; is it discrimination?
K: No.
GN: I do a lot of that.
K: No.
(*Number of voices*)
Q: But it’s not at the same level, Mr. Narayan. You just said a child is interested in music, or a child isn’t interested in music. Then it is easy, you see.
GN: No, no, music, discussion, study, various things.
PR: Not our approach to the whole thing, again.
(*GN and two others talk at the same time*)
GN: He comes, I am also interested. He comes, I study, discuss, I do various things with him. Would you call that discrimination? I do it with X, but I don’t do it with Y because Y doesn’t come to me. It looks as though he is not interested in this. And sometimes I go out and find somebody has it, I create opportunities where I meet him and do this. Would you call that discrimination?
K: Certainly not. Of course not.
PR: No.
GN: So it starts that way. All this work starts that way. In fact, I’ll tell you the situation. Krishnan Kutty meets three or four children. He finds they are very receptive to this. He brings them to me and we chat with them. Is that discrimination? We’ve done it, three or four children. And they are interested, they go deeper into this. So that’s the starting point. Then it goes on. Is that discrimination? I don’t, let’s say, ask a twelfth class student who is not interested, but I ask these students to come and discuss with me.
MZ: And if some other child who is not part of this group sees that something he is interested in, is he free to say may I…?
GN: Yes. They have joined, one or two have joined like that. In some cases they want to come. Sometimes one or two drop out because they say, well, this is boring. So all this process goes on. It is not a…
Q: …permanent show.
GN: …it is not a selection which I make out of my bias. This has happened in the last six months.
PR: Sir, one thing I would like to know, sir. Is there any part of motivation on the part of the child, or is it just pure interest, Mr. Narayan, and pure sensitivity to the whole thing?
GN: I am not going to judge. The only thing I say is, he seems to be meeting the challenge, he is interested, his discussion is valid, he sees something, and that’s all. I don’t even know whether it is something which is going to survive. I don’t know. But I take care to see that I nourish it, not with sweets.
Q: No …
TKP: Perhaps we have forgotten the earlier part in which we said that the moment slightest exclusion occurs, all relational strains develop, of jealousy. If some come to you and others don’t, if they come to know that you are friendly, and not with others, the child is going to go through that whole problem. You may not be discriminating but you are still concerned about the child who should not develop the strain on him of exclusiveness.
MZ: But if the other children are free to join if that’s their interest, then would it be their feeling that this is an exclusive group?
GN: In fact, what has happened is—I did this with twelfth class students for three months—after some time one or two dropped out because they thought it was not what they wanted. One or two I didn’t expect, joined. I think in this situation, it is not a favourite situation at all, but I think what we are discussing is something different from this, something more vital. If you find a child who is very sensitive at the age group of lower, how do you sustain it? There must be some way of sustaining him so that as he grows older, he doesn’t lose this. It is the problem of many educators. They say you must protect the innocence of the child. And sometimes you may do certain things which look like a favouritism. But it may not be. I am not bothered if you think my protective care is being interpreted as favouritism. I don’t mind. I know what I am doing.
Q: Why do you protect children and do not open the challenge to all?
GN: Pardon me?
Q: Why do you protect some, and why don’t we challenge or give this challenge to all? Those who are responding to it will…
GN: Well, if we give the challenge to all—supposing you take a discussion group, thirty. You give the challenge to all of them. Four or five respond, and say can we come and meet you and discuss this further. Right? First we’ve got to—for instance I was doing that work with eleventh class for three months. They were like a wall in the beginning. Just like a wall. I am keeping on at them, they are now opening up. I am presenting it to the whole class, but there are four or five who are more interested in that. So I spend more time with them. Would you call that choosing? It is, but it is right choice. If you are very skilled in tennis and you want to be coached by me and I see if you can run and if you can see and—what is wrong in that kind of choice? Other students don’t feel. Sometimes the teachers who don’t understand, who whisper. Not the students.
PR: It all depends on how you are able to look at the whole thing without any bias or prejudice involved in it.
GN: I think sometimes, you see, I don’t like Krishnan Kutty and he is doing this work. I try to say this and that. It has nothing to do….
PR: But if you could talk to Krishnan Kutty why should you go about talking about it then. Openly talk to him and find out where you differ, and whether he can put you right on your way of thinking, the problem is solved.
GN: We should do that. If there are difficulties, you don’t understand certain situations, you can always go to a person and say, why are you doing this. He might be able to explain it to you. But first you must clear that up and not whisper.
PR: I think the first thing that we have got to do is to open up and be more free with one another rather than, you know, hedge around like this, or whisper around. Since you have said that about whispers, I feel that one way of getting rid of all these trivial things would be to open up and be more close to one another and really share what we are doing.
K: Mrs. Major, have you answered my question?
PR: I haven’t yet, sir, and I really don’t know how I am going to answer it.
K: You have to. [*Laughter*] Have you answered my question: what’s your approach? I’ve answered it for myself.
PR: Sir, I feel that since we look after weaker children in a special way, there should be no feeling of discrimination if we do look after sensitive group.
K: Look, we have gone through all that.
Q: Well, that’s about all I can…
K: Don’t repeat it. Don’t repeat it any more. We are going on repeating it in ten different ways.
RD: Sir, when you use the word *what is your approach*, I really don’t know how to answer this question because I don’t start, it is not an approach—I am sorry I am not quibbling.
K: I will show it to you in a minute, if you will give me time. Do you want me to find out how I approach a problem? This problem? Do you?
RD: Please.
K: [*Laughs*]
RD: I don’t know how to answer this.
K: Come over here. [*Laughs*] How do I approach the problem?
GN: Are you implying that if in the approach there are no complications, then in the result, whatever the result is, there is no regret in it? Are you implying that?
K: Partly.
GN: Apart from that, is there an approach, if you have an approach, can you transmit to me? Not…
K: First of all, what is the problem? First of all, what is the problem? I want to see the problem first. The problem is so complicated, which is, choice—use ten different words, it doesn’t matter. Choice, discrimination, no rivalry, no sense of exclusiveness—that is there in front of me. How do I come to that, resolve this problem which is *so* very complex? It isn’t just one or two, it’s all of us. Right? It’s a complex problem. We agree? Now, how shall I approach a complex problem? Come on, sir, mathematician. Tell me how I—Mathematics is a tremendously complex thing, right? Right, sir? How shall I approach it? You see you have all got opinions! I have no opinion. I mean it. I say I really don’t know. It is such an extraordinary new issue put before me, I can only—first I must look at it, not say well, there are… all the rest of it. I must look at it. Now how do I look at it? Please, we are teaching each other. Don’t say you agree or disagree, we are learning from each other now. First I look at—there is the problem. The problem inevitably gets more and more complex as we go along. So, as it is a very, very complex problem, my approach is, first, I don’t know what to do about it. Right? Do you agree, sir? I don’t know. And I *mean* I don’t know. Which means I have no opinions. I don’t say this should be done, that should be done, I have *absolutely* nothing. I really don’t know. I am not waiting for you to tell me. I actually don’t know. Right? Could we start from that? Are you in that position?
Q: (*Inaudible*)
K: No, not intellectually, actually you don’t know. So what has happened? What has happened to your mind when you say I really don’t know.
Q: Then it is open and alive.
K: Aha, aha! Watch your mind, sir, I am asking *you,* not *when* it is open. I am asking you, as the problem is so very complex, and so far you have offered opinions, right?, which is, your opinion is good, mine or hers, or somebody else’s. So, I put aside all that. So I say I don’t know. I actually don’t know. I don’t pretend I know, or I am expecting to know, I don’t know. Are you like that?
Q: I think we are still caught in the petty little details.
K: I don’t know. Which means what? [*Pause*] Would you tell me? when you don’t know, what is the state of your mind that says I don’t know.
Q: You are ready to find out.
K: Uh?
Q: You are ready to find out.
K: No! I don’t know what to find out. If I say I must find out, it will be prejudice. I have a motive. You follow? So when I say I don’t know, it is right to the bottom of my being—I don’t know. Would you accept that? Are we prepared to say that?—that I don’t know? Rajesh, would you say that.
RD: I am not in that state, sir, now.
K: For God’s sake, what do you mean I am not in that state now? After an hour and a half you are still…? I am asking you. You see what I am trying? You follow it a minute, follow it. If I don’t know, my mind is capable of observing the whole. Does it mean anything to you, this statement? Because that must be dealt not in details, but as a whole issue. I don’t know if you see that.
Q: That’s what I said, sir.
K: No, no, no, no, you didn’t say that!
Q: I said we are still caught in the details.
K: I know. Cut out all the details. I *said* to you. I don’t know. I mean, sir, I am talking seriously. I don’t know. So my mind is incapable of having opinions, judgements, details, at the moment. Right? So being totally not knowing, such a mind is capable of looking at the whole thing, not partially. I wonder if I am making myself clear. Don’t go off into meditation, just watch it.
PR: Sir, does that mean we don’t see the pockets or the conflicts between exclusiveness and things like that. There is no detail.
K: I told you, there is nothing. Nothing. I am seeing the whole of the problem, which is exclusive and all the rest of it. I see the whole problem. I don’t approach it with details, opinions, judgements, what is right, what is exclusiveness. Because when I approach the thing as a whole problem, I see the whole thing.
PR: Sir, then all of us have to see it as a whole.
K: Do *you* see? For god’s—lovely lady, stop all—This is very serious what I am saying. It is not just a plaything. Therefore my approach is, the perception of the whole and I am going to act from the whole. Right? Now what is this whole? All that you have told me—rivalry, this, that, choice. So, I am going to act from this perception of the whole. Right, Narayan? Am I conveying this, anything to anybody? Mr. Prasad, am I communicating with you?
Q: Yes, sir.
K: So, the whole being all the students, all the teachers, right? So I would talk to all the teachers and all the students. I would make them see this, right?, that it is tremendously important, absolutely necessary, that the school should flower as a whole, right? Right? As a whole. Then what? What next? How am I going to help the student who won’t flower, who is already so heavily conditioned, he is insensitive, dull, all the rest of it? I am not being critical of the poor chap. So how shall I deal with three hundred boys and forty or fifty teachers, right?, as a whole? Come on, sir, now you’ve come to me, let’s discuss this. If you understand what I have said, if I have been capable of communicating with you this quality of wholeness, which is what? The quality of wholeness—the quality, what is that quality? Don’t guess, [*Laughs*] don’t offer an opinion. If you haven’t got it, if you don’t see the whole of it, you haven’t got it. You can pretend through words and all that, but if you are—So, the quality—I won’t mention it even, because that becomes trivial. The words make it so ugly. So, I am moving, I am approaching the problem as a whole. Then what takes place?
TKP: First the mind which says that I don’t know only can answer this question.
K: Ah, sir, we’ve gone through that. We’ve gone through that. I asked: do you feel that you don’t know? Somebody says, yes, I think I have captured the meaning of it. That means…
MZ: From saying you don’t know, to seeing the whole, there’s a chasm in the midst of this.
K: Is a chasm, is it? If I use a word to represent the whole, you will all agree. And then you say how do I get at it? Mr. Prasad, is it a chasm to you? Honestly. This demands honesty—not dishonest, I am not saying—when I ask a question of this kind which is very serious, you might say, sorry, I won’t answer you. You are perfectly right, and I won’t feel hurt or disrespected and all the rest of that nonsense. Do you see the problem as a whole.
MZ: Sir, you said, when you came to that yourself and said you see the whole, and you see the rivalry, jealousy and you dismiss, and you disown, those are still the parts, not the whole.
K: No. I am still, when I dealt with the details it is still the whole.
MZ: How is that?
K: Come on…
MZ: No, sir, we see details, we see many, many parts and problems, but where is the whole?
K: Now all right, let me go into it. Let me go into it. The mind that is whole is not broken up into fragments. Right? Right? Right, sir? It is not a fragmentary outlook. Right? Is your mind fragmentary when you look at that problem? Then if it is, your mind has not perceived the wholeness of it. I don’t know if I am communicating. If you are tired, we’ll continue tomorrow. Please, are you tired? Hm?
The whole can accept the part, but the part cannot accept the whole. Right? The many spokes don’t make the whole wheel. So we are, most of us, are discussing about the spokes and so we never meet. But if you are concerned with the whole, that is, your whole mind is observing the totality of the thing, observing the totality of the tree, then you can go to the particular from the whole. Right? Is this Greek still?
MZ: With the tree, one can observe most of the tree by looking at it. You don’t see the roots but you see what is above the ground.
K: Go on, go on, be quick.
MZ: It isn’t like that with a problem. When you talk about the wholeness of a human situation, which this is, you see a lot of spokes.
K: I know that. There are lots of spokes, lots of fragments. My mind has always dealt with fragments and when I look at the whole, when I look at this thing, it is whole. In that there are fragments. My mind isn’t fragmented. If I can use—you see I don’t want to use that word, I keep… I am always dealing from the whole, right? Even though it is fragmentary, it is the whole that is looking at the particular.
MZ: If one has not perceived the whole, how does one move from the whole.
K: Then you are out. Uh?
MZ: How does one move from the whole if one has not perceived…
K: You can’t.
GN: You were stating that ‘I don’t know’ as a valid approach.
K: Absolutely. A scientist who is worth anything, he says, I don’t know, let’s look.
GN: I think the difficulty is, there can’t be a wholeness unless one is in the state actually when he can say I don’t know.
K: Yes, that is why I said, please, right from the beginning, I said, when you say you don’t know, don’t pretend. Don’t say, well, I’ll find out, from you or somebody else. You don’t know. Nobody can answer it. Because the person who is answering it is fragmentary. Right?
GN: Also when you see the limitation of knowledge, you cannot operate here from the field of knowledge.
K: I don’t know.
GN: No, I am saying this.
K: No, see the extraordinary importance of that statement and the feeling behind that statement. Actually not knowing. Don’t describe it by openness, this, [*Laughs*] then those are just words.
PR: Sir, is there a way of moving from the parts to the whole since we are so caught up in the part?
K: There’s no way. You drop the parts. If you have hurt me then I can’t see the whole. Right? I can only see the whole if I drop my hurt and say, look.
RD: There’s one other problem. When one says I don’t know, one has jolly well to know because one has to act and not just keep sitting.
K: I am going to act. But I am acting from the whole.
MZ: Sir, is it that most people saying I don’t know, is not a whole thing.
K: That’s all, that’s all, Maria, I’ve said so.
MZ: When you watch, it, sort of, I don’t know, the mind stops.
RD: Mind is still looking.
K: Yes, I am not looking.
MZ: Or the mind is still in the dark.
K: When I say I don’t know, I mean I don’t know. I am not waiting for an answer. I am not expecting to find an answer. I am not looking from the past to find through memory some answer. I don’t know. The not-knowing state is the whole. Then I can approach it afresh. Right, sir?
RD: Sir, again will you approach it?
K: Uh?
RD: You said I don’t know. And then you are saying that from ‘I don’t know’.
K: I said, that very quality of ‘I don’t know’ is the wholeness.
SF: Sir, could we talk about moving from the wrong kind of ‘I don’t know’ to the right kind of ‘I don’t know’.
K: Yes, we’ll have to put it that way.
SF: Because there is a wrong kind of ‘I don’t know’ that doesn’t lead anywhere. So how can we go from…
K: Ah, you can’t. Aha, that’s all tricks. You can’t move from darkness to light. Darkness must end and then there is light.
(*There appears to be a break in the audio*)
Can fragmentary answers resolve the problem? Your opinion, my opinion, his knowledge, he says I have tried this, and you have tried this, and so on. All that is fragmentary knowledge, right?, fragmentary approach. And through fragmentary approach you are not going to solve a tremendously complex problem. If that is clear, not verbally but actually it’s clear that you cannot solve a very complex human problem through fragmentary approach, then you drop the fragmentary approach: your personal opinion, your judgements, I’ve tried this, I’ve not tried that, let’s all work—those are all fragments.
SF: Are you then saying, sir, that seeing the inadequacy of all the normal approaches and the ‘I don’t know’ that comes from that, is…
K: That is, through the inadequacy, you hope to have the whole.
SF: No, seeing that all the normal approaches *are* inadequate…
K: You drop it.
Q: You drop it and then you come to a state of ‘I don’t know’ and that’s…
K: You drop it. Don’t say—Then, when you drop it you are in a state of ‘I don’t know’. But you don’t come from that to this. Like fear, isn’t the opposite of bravery. If you end fear, you are beyond bravery and all that kind of stuff. I don’t know. Uh?
Q: Sometimes the mind reaches that state when it is thoroughly exhausted…
Q: … I don’t know.
K: [*Laughs*] I am not exhausted. [*Laughter*] Then that is just laziness, tiredness, exhaustion.
GN: What do you mean? Exhausted through looking?
Q: No, then it has no energy even to think.
K: No, because you have employed energy wrongly—through analysis, through discussion, through blah, blah. You know we have employed that extraordinary quality of energy uselessly. And from that state you say, ‘I don’t know’. [*Laughter*]
GN: That is the wrong kind of ‘I don’t know’ Scott was referring to.
Q: Then it is wrong.
PR: Totally inadequate.
K; No, sir, look at it. It’s extraordinary, this. From the whole I am approaching the problem. Right? Narayan? Right?
GN: … Yes.
K: From the whole. The problem demands action. Action must imply the wholeness, right? Therefore, what? You are waiting for me to answer? I know, I’ll give it to you, I’ll give it to you. I’ll go into it. But don’t—you see, you are all expecting. Therefore your mind is not ‘not knowing’. You understand, sir? Rajesh?
RD: Yes.
K: The problem demands action. Not tomorrow, I must do it now. Right? But before action there must be absolute certainty that I am approaching it wholly. Right? Right, sir? I am. So, how shall I deal with it? There are three hundred boys and girls. I wish they were all on the same level with the same sensitivity, with the same beauty, with the same innocency, with the same quality of affection and curiosity and all that. And they are not. That’s a fact. So wholeness implies that I am dealing *only* with facts. Right? Right? Not my opinion and your opinion and judgement. So will you and I deal only with facts? The facts are, that there are boys and girls who are not on the same level, right? Obviously, that’s a fact—biological, genes… [*laughs*] heredity, society, all the rest of it. They are *not* on the same level. And I am only dealing with facts because the moment I move away from the fact, I deal with fragments. Is that…? Right? Follow it? So, the facts are that. Now what is the right action with regard to that fact? You understand, sir? Am I conveying anything? Are you getting tired? Please, just stop if you are getting tired, get up and let’s drop and pick it up tomorrow. Can you follow what I am…? Uh? So, my mind is the whole. Its approach is not fragmentary, therefore it is whole. And that wholeness implies dealing with facts, not with opinions, judgements and so on. The facts are, people are not the same. ‘All children are born innocent’—that means nothing. So, I am dealing with facts. The fact says, they are unequal. Now, how shall I deal with this inequality without any sense of the few and the many? Go on, sir, work it out. I am working. Come on. Have I to work it out? You understand? I am asking myself. There’s the problem—all children, inequality. And I have to act. The right action is, only dealing with facts. No emotion, no sentiment, no romanticism, no idealism, no abstraction, right?, only facts, like mathematics, it’s only facts. And, from the whole what is the action, which must not be fragmented. You understand my…? I wonder if I’m…? The fact cannot be fragmented, right? Right, sir? Come with me. Narayan, have you understood? No, no, don’t say yes or no. Have you got what I am talking about? There is the fact. The fact is inequality. And there must be action from the whole which admits the fact, right?, but its action must be whole. I wonder if we are making that clear. Right? What is that action which is whole with regard to inequality which is a fact? Are you asleep? Are you following this, sirs?
Q: Yes, yes.
K: Rajesh?, somebody, yes? What is that action? It is not dealing with fragments. It is moving from the whole, dealing with the fragment. Right? And the fragment—which is a fact. So what is its action?
(*Recording ends abruptly*)
[^1]: