Krishnamurti Subtitles home


WO78DSS3 - The arts of listening and learning
Wolf Lake School, Canada - 23 April 1978
Discussion with Staff and Students 3



0:18 Krishnamurti: What shall we talk about? I suppose you have all read some of the things we have... Do you approve of it? Do you think that is right? Some of you, you have not been here before and perhaps some of you may not have heard what we are talking about. May I go over that a little bit? May we? I hope you won't mind.
1:00 Questioner: Do you want the sheet?
1:01 K: No, I don't need the sheet, you can get it.
1:16 First of all, if I may I point out, this is not an institution. The word institution means to stand – stare – it comes from that word, Latin, to stand, to stay where you are. The word institution implies a routine, a hierarchical outlook, a constant referring to some authority – all that is implied in that word 'institution'. And the pressure of institutions, whether it be the democratic pressure or the republican pressure, or the pressure of the labour party, and the liberal party, politically, there is the pressure of all the religions throughout the world, with their beliefs, with their dogmas, with their rituals, with their images and so on – the word institution implies all that. And a school is not an institution, it is a living thing. And a school run on routine, on some ideological, utopian ideas or some principle, will inevitably bring about an institution. If one may point out, there are several schools in India, in England, near Winchester, Hampshire, and there is one at Ojai, and here. And we made it quite clear in all these schools that any form of routine, any form of compulsion, pressure, does make the brain distorted, makes the brain deformed – it is like putting a great pressure on one, of course there is a distortion, deformation and so on. So, a school of this kind should and must inevitably have no pressure of any kind on the students. And is it possible to educate not merely the academic side of a human being but the totality of the human, the wholeness of man? The wholeness of man being not only the technological, academic side, the functional side, but also the psychological nature of man. We seem to neglect entirely the inward, the psychological nature of man and its structure. So, proper kind of education is the cultivation of the wholeness of man, including the psychological as well as physiological and so on, the entirety of man, neglecting neither the one nor the other, nor emphasising the one or the other, so that a human being grows up harmoniously, without any conflict, inward conflict or outward conflict. And this seems to me necessary in a world that is going more and more crazy, more and more immoral, violent, and so on – which all of us know very well. So is it possible to create such a school? Not by a few of us but all of us together. Those who are interested in the school may not have their children here, but to be concerned with the total development of man. That is the problem of the school.
7:21 Is it possible to teach any academic subject without any kind of persuasion, pressure, compulsion? If and when we agree or see together that any form of pressure does distort, then is it possible to cultivate the mind both academically as well as psychologically? I hope you are interested in all this. In teaching any particular subject, what is required is attention. Any subject or self-revealing awareness requires attention, that is obvious. If I want to learn a subject I must attend to it, whether it be a technological subject or psychological investigation into the whole nature of man. That requires a great deal of attention. And most of us are not very attentive. Now, how is it possible, is there a way without persuasion, without compulsion, without any pressure, to bring about this attention so that when there is this attention each one of us listens to the other completely? I hope I am... Am I?
10:04 Well, I will go on, it doesn't matter. Because when there is attention, to attend completely is involved a mind that is capable of complete awareness of the subject or the act or the investigation into any problem. We were discussing this question of attention the other day here. We said attention is only possible when the student, or any of us, look out of the window and the teacher also looks out of the window with the student and doesn't compel him or force him or persuade him to look at the book he is supposed to study. Then both the educator and the student are looking out of the window and asking each other to pay complete attention to what they are looking at out of the window. I wonder if I am conveying something. That is, a student may be looking at an ant crawling across the floor, or a beetle across the wall, and he is supposed to study a particular subject – the teacher is concerned with the subject. Generally what happens is the educator says, don't look out of the window, don't look at that ant or the beetle, pay attention to the book. That is a persuasion, that is a pressure, whereas if the teacher also looks at that ant or the beetle, or out of the window, and asks the student to pay complete attention to what he is looking at, you have already brought about that quality of attention without distraction or pressure. Ça va bien? Am I pointing out something or is it all Greek?
13:00 And any subject, can it be related to the wholeness of man? I don't know if you ever thought about all these matters, and perhaps it is something totally new. And if it is new or if you have already heard, please bear with me. History is not about kings and wars and conquering others and lands and so on – not only that, but history is the story of mankind. The story of mankind is the story of you, who are the mankind. In studying history you are studying actually yourself, because you are the representative of all mankind, not Canadian, not an American or a Russian or Englishman, you are the world. So when you are teaching or informing another about history you are actually studying yourself, and so you can relate history to the person who is studying it. And so there is a greater integration, a greater perception into the whole structure and nature of oneself, not according to some psychologist, whether well known or recent philosopher or psychologist, but in studying yourself you are not studying through the eyes of another, you are studying actually yourself. Is that possible in a school where you have during a year to go through a certain book or a certain – what is it?
15:50 Q: Curriculum.
15:54 K: Curriculum, to go through a certain curriculum – is this possible to do both? Have you time for both? To cultivate, to investigate in the study of oneself and at the same time fulfil the demands of a curriculum. Shall we discuss this? I am not talking by myself. Shall we go into this? Are you interested in all this? What is the function of a teacher, of an educator? After all, we are all educators in one way or another. You may not have a school, you may not have a lot of children around you, or students, but we have children, their parents and so on. So, we are concerned with educating all of us, not one group of people. If I may point out here, in California there is a school concerned with us that involves the parents as well the students. The parents must equally be concerned with what the students are learning, which is the psychological as well as physiological and technological knowledge. So the parents, the teachers and the students are one unit, not separate. We are doing it, it is rather difficult, because the parents say, why should we sacrifice ourselves for the sake of our children? You understand? That is, in that place – no drugs, no smoking, no alcohol, no meat, etc., and those parents who are accustomed to alcohol, drinks and drugs, say, why should we give them up for the sake of our children? So when the children go back to their home there is a conflict between the parent and the student, and their children. And to avoid that, we are trying to bring about a school where the parent, the teacher, the educator, and the students are one unitary body, moving. I don't know how far it will succeed, we are not concerned about success, we are doing it. So we are asking: is it possible to carry out the curriculum and also be concerned with the psychological nature of both the educator as well as the educated? I mean, we are doing it in some of the schools anyhow. It is rather interesting, rather difficult, and one doesn't always agree with each other, because opinions flare up. And opinions are the most awful things that one can have, or one's prejudices – I think so. This is so. So there is a constant struggle. So we are asking if it is possible to do the curriculum and also cultivate the psychological investigation of oneself so that there is actual transformation of the human mind. Probably it has never been tried before. Is this somewhat clear, what we are talking about? Can we discuss this?
21:41 Q: Sir, what you say fits if one can see how you can take the study of the psychological nature of man with subjects like history and literature. It is a little difficult to see how it could be integrated into, shall we say, mathematics and the more purely technical subjects.
22:04 K: If you take mathematics – what is mathematics? Go on, sir, you have studied mathematics probably.
22:20 Q: Measurement.

K: What is mathematics?
22:24 Q: Order.

K: Order, isn't it?
22:27 K: It is a sequence, orderly, logical, sane sequence. Right? Two and two and two make six, not eight or ten or nine. So, mathematics implies, doesn't it, an orderly sequenced way of investigating. Would you see that, would you agree to this? So, in relating mathematics both to the teacher and to the student, they are investigating not only mathematical order but order in their own life. Most of us live in disorder – forgive me if I point out – confused, disorderly, a rather messy life. And surely it is the function of the educator – and I think the educator is the greatest individual on earth because he is bringing up children for the future, therefore they are much more important than the politicians, than the religious leaders and priests, and the business people and all the rest of it. It is a sacred profession, not to be spit on – oh, he is merely a teacher, and then brush him off. So the teacher, in teaching mathematics is also investigating what is order, not only in himself but also in the student. So, in this investigative process the student and the teacher are on the same level, one is not on a platform teaching the other what to do, but rather in teaching mathematics or any another subject, which involves not only factual investigation but also psychological investigation. So the teacher says, I live a disorderly life, I know it, I am not bluffing you, I am being very honest. I know it, I lead a terribly confused life, disorderly, and so do you. So we are meeting on the same level. So in talking it over with the student: what is order, what is disorder, and in that process teach mathematics, it is possible. It is being done in some of our schools.
26:08 Because the world is in disorder, perhaps total, insane disorder. One is preparing for war and talking about peace, divided nationalities, one group against another group, economically, technologically, and a nation against another nation, the Muslim against the Hindu, the Arab against the Jew, the communist against everybody else, and so on – obviously this is insane. And we are so accustomed to this insanity that we accept it. And can one live in this disorder and be creative in the sense, not technological creativity, producing new jets and new implements of war, but creative psychologically, transforming the whole structure and the nature of the brain, which is very, very old, so heavily conditioned by the past. Can that brain transform itself so it is something fresh? Otherwise it will just repeat, repeat, repeat. I don't know if you have gone into this or if you are interested in this question. And it seems to us it is important for the educator to understand all this. And you are also the educator, not the group here, you are part of this educating process throughout one's existence, only here it is more limited, few. And perhaps with all your help and so on, we can grow and bring about a different kind of school.
29:07 The word school implies, has its root in leisure. It is only when you have leisure that you can learn. Leisure is not to be slack, sloppy, but rather leisure implies a mind that is not totally occupied with itself or with something. When it is not occupied there is leisure, and in that state, one can learn. Right? So if a student or the teacher is completely occupied all the time about his subject, about his worries, about his personal affairs, whether he has proper sex, etc., he is not at leisure, he will never learn. And can the student as well as the teacher have leisure? You understand? Or there is so much to do that you have no time to have leisure.
31:26 You see, one of the problems, in a school or a human existence, is that we do things and act and so on with effort, with will, with a conclusion, with a definite purpose. And is it possible to live without effort, without the action of will? Don't think the speaker is crazy – we are investigating whether it is possible to live, act, without this tremendous effort which brings about conflict, not only with each other but inwardly and therefore outwardly throughout the world. And the pressure of the will, the pressure of the ideologies, the pressure of ideals, ideas, and the pressure of knowledge. I wonder if you understand? Is that all right, sir? I am not talking to myself.
33:23 Q: Can I ask you the question: if the educator has to try to open up the child as a whole person, how can he tackle the problem with abstract methods – as we discussed before, mathematics, etc. – if he has to base what he is giving the children on books which are printed by a system which is not the system we are discussing about. What method should he use? Should he let the children read first and then explain to them or shall he introduce them to the window of abstract method and then let them?
34:11 K: Sir, if I may ask, what do you mean by a method?
34:16 Q: When you teach a curriculum you have to tell the child, we are studying today biology or mathematics. Now we are studying, for example, numbers. The child has never heard of numbers before, so it has to be introduced in that. And then will the teacher say, ok, numbers, it is nothing mysterious, it is just order, and all that, or shall he say, first you read the book about numbers and then we will discuss it later on? This is what I call the method.
34:50 K: I understand, but what is the first requirement?
34:57 Q: I am asking you.
35:01 K: Let's have a dialogue. What is the first requirement? Both on the part of the educator and the student – who is going to study biology, mathematics, whatever it is – what is the essential requirement?
35:23 Q: We both are on the same level.
35:25 K: Yes, what is beyond that, what is essential?
35:30 Q: Attention?
35:38 Q: I have no opinion.
35:43 K: I am glad you haven't got an opinion. It is not a question of opinion or conclusions. If I am the teacher and there is the student in front of me, before I tackle the subject, before I say, read this or don't read this, first read it, then afterwards, – what is my relationship with the student? You understand? What is the essential thing that is necessary between us two?
36:27 Q: I would ask an educator to answer this question.
36:30 K: You are the educator.

Q: I am not an educator.
36:32 K: You are the parent.

Q: I am a father.
36:34 K: Ah, good enough!

Q: I am biased.
36:40 Q: I decline – let an educator answer.
36:43 Q: A caring, loving involvement with the other person so that we feel more an enabler...
36:50 K: The lady says loving involvement. I don't quite understand what you mean, loving relationship.
36:59 Q: Or caring then, is another word.
37:01 K: Caring what?
37:02 Q: That sense of caring about the other and allowing them the dignity and respect to be a unique, creative individual, to learn with me.
37:17 K: That is, you are saying madame, aren't you, that if I am the teacher, I allow the student to have his dignity, care, respect, but the student hasn't got it.
37:40 Q: No, it is not in that sense – that we are going to learn together.
37:43 K: No. What happens? They don't care. That is a fact, it is not an opinion. So what shall we do? So I am asking: what is the essential thing before we ask him to look at the book or don't look at the book, look out of the window or not – what is required?
38:17 Q: Sir, this requires a student that has to want to learn.
38:23 K: Which means what, sir?
38:25 Q: The student obviously must have seen something or experienced something...
38:31 K: Yes, but he doesn't want to study, you know them, sir.
38:40 Q: Then you have to wait until he does.
38:47 K: The day is over by then.
38:58 K: May I suggest something?

Q: Sure.
39:06 K: If I am the teacher, I say, I want him to listen. Right? I want him to listen not only to what I am going to say or what should be said but the art of listening. I want to tell him about mathematics or history, whatever the subject. So, I want him to listen. If he knows what it is to listen, this thing is very simple. Right?
39:58 Q: That is right, and then we have to speak.
40:01 K: Wait. To listen first, not to what I am going to say or what you are going to say but the act of listening.
40:14 Q: What if the student doesn't want to listen?
40:17 K: I know, of course, they don't want to listen, that is understood. Some may do, some may not, but as I am the educator, my concern is not the book, the subject, this or that, my chief concern is to help him to listen. Would you agree? Now, how is it possible to help a student to listen? To the bird, to the sea, to the winds and so on, and also, as I am the educator, listen to me. What will help him to listen?
41:21 Q: Trigger the interest in the child.
41:25 K: He is not interested.
41:28 Q: You can trigger it.
41:30 K: Then he is interested in something to which he will listen. But he is not listening. Can one listen? You tell me something – can I listen to it? Or am I already contradicting you, or comparing what you are saying with what I already know? Or twisting what you are saying to suit me. I am listening with prejudice to what you have to say, so I am actually not listening to you at all. And can I listen to you without all that distraction? And it is my job as an educator to help them to listen without all that distraction – it is my responsibility. I will proceed with that. I say, don't bother to listen to me, listen to that bird, listen to your friend when he is saying something, or listen to somebody whom you don't like, don't bring all your reactions into it, muddle it up, but actually listen – which very few grown-up human beings do anyhow. So we have to start from the very beginning: how to listen, the act of listening, the act of seeing, the act of learning. If that is very clear between the educator and myself, between myself and my wife, my girlfriend or whatever it is, there is the act of pure listening. And I will see to it, I will help them. It will take time. I would go into it. So at the end of ten minutes they will understand what I am talking about – the act of listening. So I would think that is the first requirement in the relationship between the educator and the educated, or the one that is being educated. The educator doesn't know how to listen either, nor the student. So we start. I say, I don't know how to listen old boy, or girl, let's both of us find out what it means. So immediately I have a relationship with them. I am no longer the teacher sitting on a platform but I am in relationship with the student because we both are concerned with what it means to listen.
46:10 Can we discuss? And also what does it mean to observe? Do we observe anything at all, or it is always an observation through a curtain of prejudice, a curtain of knowledge, a curtain of conclusion. Do I ever see things as they are? That is, do I look at myself actually as I am, not in my physiological appearance, in a mirror, but inwardly, to see exactly as I am without any distortion. To see myself, not according to Mr Freud or Jung or the latest psychologist, because they are also as confused as we are. So can I look at myself to observe the tree, the mountain and the waters, the rivers, the birds, the whole movement of nature of which I am part, can I look at myself? And what does it mean to learn? Come on, sirs. What does it mean to learn? And what does it mean to be an educator, the teacher? What is he teaching?
48:35 Q: The recognition and understanding of facts.
48:39 K: Which is, he is teaching facts.
48:41 Q: Yes.
48:44 K: What do you mean by facts?
48:47 Q: That which is evident between the educator and the student.
48:51 K: That which is. Right?

Q: Yes.
49:00 K: He is teaching that which is. Is that so? Is history that which is, or it is so coloured by the historians because of their prejudice, their nationalism, their profession, their ambition, their success – they are competing with each other, each historian competing with the other – they never actually tell you the fact, do they? History is written according to the particular country, separate, etc. So what does it mean to learn, not learn about something, not about mathematics or physics, what is learning? Come on, sirs. Probably you are all professionals of some kind or another, so what do we mean by learning? Learning, as most of us understand, is absorbing knowledge, technological and otherwise, storing up in the brain as memory and acting according to that memory. Right? No? Correct me, sir. I learn mathematics from the book, from the teacher, and it will help me to become an engineer, to understand pressure, strain, etc. And that knowledge I have acquired through school, college, university, and I act according to that knowledge, adding to it, taking away from it, modifying it, but it is an action born of knowledge, gathered through experience, through information, through fact stored in the brain. Nobody can object to that.
52:15 Q: Part of you should try to go beyond that into creating new things, not just gathering facts.
52:21 K: Yes. How do you discover new things?
52:24 Q: That is what I wanted to include in the learning, the process. Because the process of learning is more important than the actual...
52:30 K: So, what is the process of learning? What do we mean by the movement of learning? One is: accumulating facts, memorising them and acting from that memory, skilfully or otherwise. The other is: to act, through action learn, experience, acquire knowledge, which is stored up again. So both systems are the same. To act first, experience first, go out in the field and plough, etc., which is, Mao and all that business – and acquire knowledge, and from that knowledge act, adding more, taking away, and so on – modifying constantly. The other is the same, which is, learn from another, from books, from facts and so on, then memorise all that and from memory act – both are the same. And to find out something totally new there must be an abeyance of memory. Memory is the result of experience, knowledge and so on. Which is, there must be total absence for a period or for a second or for ten minutes, whatever it is, the cessation of thought which is the response of memory. If there is the continuance of memory, knowledge, there is no discovery of anything new. Knowledge is always the past, so there is nothing new. Technologically, probably that is what they have done. When the man who discovered the jet, he must have known entirely the whole structure of the internal combustion machine and said, all right, I know that, I must find out something new. There was a gap, a hiatus, an interval between the known and the unknown. Then the unknown becomes the known and he carries on.
55:51 Q: You have to challenge the known.
55:57 K: Do we ever challenge the known, in our life? Not technologically – you can go up to the moon and put your flag up there, who cares! – but do we ever challenge, other than technological movement? Do we ever challenge the whole psychological structure which has created this society in which we live? Not that we must become communist or socialist – they become institutions and therefore we are caught in those institutions. So we are asking: what is learning? It is this eternal process of learning, acquiring knowledge and using that knowledge skilfully or unskilfully.
57:19 Q: Can learning also not be a discarding? As well as an accumulation, can it not also be a discarding of old patterns?
57:29 K: Yes, that is it. Knowledge creates the pattern and you follow that pattern. Thought is the result of memory which is stored up in the brain, memory is experience, knowledge, which is past. The past, passing through the present modifies itself, goes on to the future. This is the constant process in which we live. This is our daily existence – not functional existence but psychological existence. This is what we are doing all the time. So, there is constant movement of the past, modified.
58:28 Q: Can that movement stop?
58:30 K: Ah, that is a different question altogether. Always operating, functioning with the past, the past changing a little bit, modifying itself, and living in the field of the known. And because one realises that, that it becomes rather boring, so one imagines something outside. You become a Catholic or a Protestant or a believer in this, or join a guru, go to a guru – something new, which is eternally the same. You exchange the priest for a guru – they are both the same only the other guru is something new, romantic, and rather more phoney than the other. So the question is: what is learning? Is that all? Can one learn about the new? The new being the absence of the known – can you learn about that?
1:00:22 K: No.

Q: No. You can experience that.
1:00:25 Q: You can only experience that.
1:00:29 K: Ah, wait a minute, sir.
1:00:32 K: What do you mean by the word experience?
1:00:39 Q: A state of mind where you observe without asking any questions.
1:00:45 K: Can you recognise the new?
1:00:50 Q: No.
1:00:51 K: If you recognise, it is the old. Right?
1:01:01 Q: Yes.
1:01:03 K: So in the process of recognition, you experience. Experience is the recognition of something you think is the new – obviously. The moment recognition takes place in experience, it is not at all new, it is something old projected, and recognising that projection and saying, well, that is new. It is like the Hindus with their gods and goddesses, etc., thought has projected the image which they have created, and worshipping that image, as the Christians do, etc. Right? Sorry! So we are asking: what do we mean by learning? Is there a learning which is non-accumulative? You understand my question? Right? Which means, is there an observation which is each time new? Can I look at my wife or my girlfriend as though I have seen her for the first time? Or I have the image about her and she has an image about me and we look at those images and we say, I love you. Right? So we never see anything new. So, come back again to the question: what is new, what is learning? Learning is not the continuity of the old, the known, but the ending of the known and perceiving without the perceiver. This leads to difficulty. The perceiver is the old, isn't he? He is the accumulated memory, knowledge, and he is observing. So he is observing always with the eyes of the past, whether he looks at his wife or his children or his grandmother and so on, the politician – he is observing with the eyes of the past. He is the observer. Is the observer different from that which he is observing? I observe that tree, that – what is it?
1:04:54 Q: Fern.

K: Fern.
1:04:56 K: I observe that fern. I am not that fern. I hope not! I observe the tree, the mountain, the river. The word 'tree' comes out of the past – the word. The word is not that. That is totally different from the word. So is there an observation of that without the word and observe? Look, sir, I will put it round differently: can I observe in my relationship to another, intimate or otherwise, the person, without memory, without the remembrance of all that I have accumulated about that person? Then one asks, if I may: is remembrance love? Right? Won't you tell me? I am asking. I remember an incident with my girl or my wife, and that remembrance is pleasant or exciting, etc., sexual and otherwise, and that remembrance I call love. Is that love? So love is not thought. I am not picking on you, sir – sorry.
1:08:13 Q: Oh, I know that.
1:08:17 Q: They have changed the whole definition of the vocabulary. I have an Oxford at home, I have to throw it away because the definitions are really changing.
1:08:28 K: It is not the definition, it is actual, actuality in one's life. If my so-called love is based on memory, which is experience, knowledge and so on, then that which I call love is a material process, because thought is a material process, because memory is contained in the cells. I am not an expert on brain structure and so on but one has observed it all in oneself – you can see it. So is there a learning about love? That would be monstrous, wouldn't it? Is love sensation? I won't go into all this. You will probably get bored with all this.
1:10:08 Q: The negation will bring us to a solution better, not loving, hating. Can you have hate without having memory? Impossible.
1:10:16 K: What is hate?
1:10:21 Q: Without thoughts, I don't have it.
1:10:23 K: Exactly.
1:10:24 Q: But you say that love can be done with the exclusion of the thoughts.
1:10:29 K: No. Thought has become so tremendously important in life. We live by thought. All the things that we have created are the result of thought: marriage, sex, everything that man is capable of doing or has done is based on thought. Thought is the response of memory. Memory is the mechanical accumulation of knowledge and thought therefore is mechanical, therefore it is limited. So, the thing that is limited thinks it can capture the universe. Technologically it can go to the moon. So, thought – can one realise it is limited? It is a very small corner of a vast field, and that little corner says, I am going to understand the whole field. And because it doesn't understand the whole field, it invents God – I am sorry – or Jesus or Krishna or whatever it is – an outside agency that is going to transform our whole existence. So if thought sees that, thought says, my corner is limited, I will remain there. Then what happens? Is this too much for you? A little bit too much.
1:12:59 Q: But sir, aren't you pointing to a process which will transform existence beyond thought?
1:13:06 K: There is no process. Process implies time. Time is a movement, time is thought. I said, when thought realises it is limited because knowledge is always limited, it remains in its place. Now it says, I can conquer the whole field, and the mischief begins. To see that without prejudices, without conclusion, etc., just to observe the fact that thought is a broken-up piece. And thought has created tremendous mischief in this world, religious mischief, political mischief, etc. So what thought has created is nothing sacred. Right?
1:14:32 Q: How am I going to communicate? You are communicating with thoughts now.
1:14:36 K: Wait, just a minute. We are communicating through words. Words represent thought. Without words you can't communicate very much. You can through gesture a little bit, and so on. Now, how do you listen? Do you listen with thought, or do you just listen?
1:15:17 Q: Very hard.
1:15:21 K: Therefore if you just listen, the words become just a means of communication and you say, all right, that is finished. Say for instance, the speaker says, thought is very limited – is limited. Now, how does one listen to that?
1:15:48 Q: By not thinking.

K: No, listen. No. How do you listen to it? What is your actual act of listening? When you say thought is limited, do you make an abstraction of it? An idea of it? Then you are not listening. Then you are listening. So in that act of listening there is something new taking place. So can one teach all this to your student? Can the parent – I won't even call it the educator – can the parent and the teacher help the children, their children, and the student to understand all this? Not just mathematics, geography, history – I mean, that is a terrible bore. And if I am the teacher and if I am the parent, it is my responsibility, its my urgency to do this. Because there must be transformation in the mind to bring about a different culture, different society, different world. And that is only possible if I can help – you follow? Etc. What time is it?
1:17:51 Q: Twelve something. Twelve twenty-five.
1:17:56 Q: Krishnaji, could we direct this learning right now to this particular school as we are trying to move it, as we are trying to direct it?
1:18:11 K: As we said, sir, can we help the student to listen first, to listen not to what I say, but to listen. The beauty of listening. When you listen to some marvellous music – not the modern noise, sorry – when you listen to real classical music or ancient music, you listen don't you? Then what is learning, knowing that learning is accumulation, knowledge. And knowledge has a place – you must have knowledge – how to drive a car, how to write a letter, how to talk, anything – you must have knowledge. So, can knowledge be put in its right place? And therefore when everything is in order there is freedom – not to do what you like. So, that is one point. The other is: is there a learning which is not a mechanical process? Right? That is, when you have put knowledge in its right place, when thought has said, I realise I am limited, not thought thinks it is limited but actually it is limited, therefore it occupies its own little corner. Then what is learning? One must learn mathematics – must – history, geography, etc. Then what is learning? Learning is to act, isn't it? No? Right? No? I learn mathematics in order to act, not just store it up as a professor or some kind of idiocy, keeping it in my mind, but I learn, knowledge and act. What then is action? Is action – I am talking about what you have said, I am going into it – is action based on the past memories? Then its action is not action, it is conditioned. That act is conditioned by the past. If I act according to the future – utopia, ideals, oh, marvellous things are going to be in the world – then that future is projected from the past. So I am still caught in the past, so it is not action. Action means doing now. Surely that is what the word act means. So, I realise my actions have always been based on the past, or some ideal belief in the future – I should be that or I will be that, and acting according to that, therefore it is not action. And I must learn, there must be a learning about action. Is there an action which is not contaminated by thought, by the past or the future?
1:22:59 Q: Living in the present.
1:23:01 K: No, don't use present – what does that mean? That is just words. I want to live in the present, right? What does it mean? Is there a present, or is the past always modifying itself which says, I am the present? So, is there an action which is action not based on past or the future, not dependent on environmental influence and so on, is there an action unrelated either the past or the future or environment, circumstances and so on? Enquire into this. Is there an action, a looking, observing my wife or my girlfriend as though for the first time looking at her? Or must my observation always be contaminated by the past – past images, past memories, past pleasures, etc. Therefore I am looking at her through my image, through my projection. That is all so silly. So is there an action – act – without the future or the past? I say there is – I must be cuckoo, but there is. That action is born out of insight into the whole thing. That is, when I have an insight, where there is an insight that the past is not action, when there is an insight that the future – the ideal, the utopia, the projection from the past – is not the actual doing, then that perception is insight, that insight is instant action. So I perceive, for example, logic, reason, sanity says, to be a nationalist or belonging to any country is most destructive, I perceive, I see it. I see if I say I am a Hindu, it is the most destructive thing because I am fighting the Muslim who is conditioned in his way, as I am conditioned another way. So when there is an insight into that, I finish with it instantly. From there I can argue how wicked it is. But to see clearly, instantly, the division of people is the most destructive thing, that insight, therefore you don't belong, you are no longer a Hindu – all that rubbish. But you have an Indian passport.
1:27:30 Q: That is a condition that is imposed upon us.
1:27:34 K: No, it is convenience, that is all. Nobody imposes on me.
1:27:41 Q: Sir, what does it mean for planners and policy makers? What does this imply for policy makers and decision makers and planners?
1:27:51 K: They are not interested in this. They don't care two pins about all this. They are interested in power, position, votes, etc. If I am idiotic enough to vote for them then I am responsible for their idiocy. So, is there an action that says... You understand? Therefore there is a learning which is not accumulated. It is not a theory, it is not some vague, mystical rubbish from India. This is a fact. If I see something dangerous, finished. You don't play with a cobra or with a rattler. In the same way, if you see something, that nationalism, all the things that are going on in the world are really most dangerous, dangerous for human survival even, physical survival, it is finished, you don't belong to any group, to any sect, to any institution and so on.
1:29:33 Q: Then there should be no pattern to this group then.
1:29:36 K: Ah – if there is attachment then you are lost.
1:29:43 Q: But there can be total involvement.
1:29:44 K: Ah. If you see this is the right thing to do you are not attached.
1:29:54 Q: Then we are talking about right action.
1:29:57 K: That is what I am saying, sir.
1:30:02 Q: But we have to see it.
1:30:03 K: See it. It is obvious. If you are attached to your wife, is attachment love? Attachment breeds fear, jealousy – oh, I won't go into all that, sorry.
1:30:33 Q: What I had hoped we could address in this discussion, a bit, for the few minutes that are left, is the insight that...
1:30:42 K: Yes, sir, look. We need a different kind of education, right? Which is concerned with the total man, woman, child, with the wholeness of man. The wholeness of man is both physical, psychological, so-called spiritual, so-called religious – not the religion that is going on, which is all rubbish, it is a great circus. So if you see all that – do you actually see the importance of the education of children, students, myself, yourself, the development of the totality of man. If you see that and if I see it, we say, we have got children, let's educate them in that way, there is no attachment. It is only when I don't see, I say, I must do, and then what I do I am attached to.
1:32:06 I think that is enough, isn't it? Right, sir.