Krishnamurti (K): Education, as it is, is to make children conform to a pattern, consciously or unconsciously. It is really not education at all, but memorizing and acting skilfully according to memory. We wish the parents to understand what we are trying to do. We need their cooperation, at all levels, not just to send their children here and forget them. We are trying to establish not only an academic school but also to cultivate the understanding or the development of the total human being, not just one part of the human being. It is not just to cultivate memory with facts, and so condition the mind to function only in one particular direction. We have had discussions about this with psychologists, analysts and scientists, and they agree. In Ojai, there are many schools, but we want to start something totally new. We are concerned not only with academics but also with the intellectual, moral, physical, psychological, spiritual, and religious aspects—the total human being.

When the children come to the school, the teachers are conditioned and the children are conditioned. So it is a matter of relationship between the children and the grown-up people—in discussion, in talking over, in teaching, in walks, and everything—to uncover and to dissolve this heavy conditioning. Therefore, it is very important for the parents to be with us. That is why we thought it would be wise and necessary to have a group of parents to discuss this.

How to do this? Is there a method to uncondition the human mind? The human mind which has been developed, cultivated, for centuries upon centuries, is conditioned by the past, with a great deal of information, a great deal of knowledge, a great deal of experience, stored up in the brain. The cultivation of that is considered education. But here, through dialogue, the teacher, the parent and the student establish a relationship in which there is no authority, because authority breeds fear, destroys relationship. There is no question of authority; but there must be discipline. The word discipline comes from disciple, one who is learning; not imitating, not obeying, not conforming, but learning. The root meaning of discipline is to learn. So, this is a school where there is freedom. What is generally understood by the word freedom is to do what one wants to do; but that is the very denial of freedom. So there is freedom, there is a sense of no authority.

Authority implies obedience, and therefore there is no comprehension; people just conform out of fear. Out of fear they imitate, set up an example and imitate that example because the authority demands it. Discipline in the accepted, orthodox, traditional sense is conformity, obedience, acceptance: you are my authority and I follow you because I am frightened. Discipline means to learn, not to revolt, not to react to what you already have been conditioned to.

In Latin, the root meaning of the word school is leisure. Leisure is necessary to learn, otherwise you cannot learn. Freedom implies responsibility; you cannot be free if you are irresponsible. You are responsible for learning, for understanding what it means to learn.

We have started a school on a very small scale with that intention. Not intention, that is what we are going to do. And to do that properly, wisely and sanely, parents must cooperate. If they come to the school, the staff will discuss with them if they want. We will discuss what it means to teach, what the teacher’s function is; and whether they talk and teach from an authority, from a pedestal, or teach in relationship with the student so that, in any subject the teacher not only discusses the subject but also, in the very discussion, unconditions himself as well as the student. It is a mutual process. It is not that the teacher must first be unconditioned and then teaches. They do it together.

We want to bring about a totally different kind of mind, a mind that is intelligent, that can meet every challenge, not just isolated ones. To do that, you must understand what it means to be religious. Religion now has become organized propaganda of belief, and therefore is not religion at all. The root meaning of religion is to gather all your energy to discover what truth is, to understand what truth is, to see what truth is—which has nothing whatsoever to do with rituals, dogma, beliefs, and hierarchical priesthoods and so on. And you must understand what it means not to be afraid; what it means to understand the whole social structure, which is based on pleasure. In the pursuit of pleasure you will invariably cultivate fear. And we will go into the question of what love is.

So it is not only the academic side, but the cultivation, the understanding of the whole human mind—the student as well as the educator—so that when the child goes out from the school he has a mind that is a really good mind, a good heart—if I can use that word without becoming sentimental and romantic—and be a really religious human being. This is what we want to do.

Questioner (Q): Could you go into the idea of fear, of raising these children without the conditioning of fear? If they’re going home every day to their parents…

K: That is just it. They come for eight hours to the school where there is no fear: no scolding, no giving marks, no competition, where each is as good as the others in the sense of no comparison. In the schools in India and at Brockwood, we have tried to make the student understand that learning is important, not how much he or she learns through competition, but that learning is a sacred thing. Among the Greeks as well as the Hindus there was the idea that learning is the highest quality; not just learning from books, but learning about yourself, learning how to live properly, learning what relationship is, learning about what love is, what death is. All that. So, when the students come for eight hours to the school and go back to the parents, the parents are going to have a very difficult time. That is why it is very important that we all meet together and understand what we are doing; not have parents say, ‘You do it, leave us alone. It’s your responsibility’. I think that is wrong, because they are your children, and therefore are your responsibility as well as ours. That is why the parents and we must meet and discuss this whole thing, and what is involved, very deeply.

You see, the whole approach to learning throughout Western Europe and in America, and unfortunately it is now taking place in India too, is to learn subjects that will help you to have a career, get a job, get married and settle down. They do not bother about anything else because there is overpopulation; for every job there are thousands of people applying. It is becoming a tremendous problem in Europe and in India. Perhaps not so much here because people are a little more affluent here. So the parents have to understand and cooperate with us, if they think it is right. Otherwise, there is no point in sending your children.

Now, why are we vegetarian? I will explain, if you want, very carefully. Even the agrobiologists and others are saying that to have cattle on land is very expensive, that land must be used to feed human beings, not cattle. You must know something about it since it is going on throughout the world. Those who have studied this also say that eating meat makes the mind less sensitive. Accept it or not.

Q: No, I would not accept that at all, sir.

K: I know, sir. I am just saying. There are various problems involved, and killing. Killing leads to violence. In American culture, European culture, and now it is spreading to the Asiatic world, there is tremendous violence. Every day, you see it on television, in Europe, in India, everywhere. So man becomes callous, callous in what he does, what he eats, his speech, his whole attitude. You have to kill vegetables; that is also killing, but kill as little as possible. On one side is the scientific attitude which says raising cattle is becoming too expensive; on the other side is morality: can you live without killing? Practically all religions say, ‘Don’t kill’. But perhaps the Christians are the people who have killed most. Forgive me. If you can prepare good food, why do you want meat and fish when you have enough protein? That is why we have said we are strict vegetarians. If the parents are not, the children go home and eat meat, so there is going to be conflict in the children. They are going to be very disturbed. We tell them one thing; they go back home and you tell them another thing. So all of us must agree, amicably, reasonably, sanely, that we are all concerned with the child, not with our opinions, not with our conditioned values. The children and what is best for them is the most important thing. The best thing is perhaps vegetarian. We can discuss that.

They must be moral human beings. Society is immoral. All the social, religious structure is immoral. If, after millions of years, man is not moral, then what is the point of his living? Morality means the student must find out what it means to love human beings. Also, to understand life, he must understand death and what it means to meditate. The whole of that is our concern. If the parents are willing to cooperate with us, it is better for the student. Therefore it is a mutual responsibility, it is not our sole responsibility. We want to help the student to understand not only himself but the world.

Q: Educators in other school systems have their rules; you must have a degree and you must please some authority. Does this school have to adhere to that system of selecting educators?

K: I do not know. We have not gone into that yet. What we propose is to help the child to read and write, but the emphasis is on the transformation of the mind—morally, ethically, in behaviour, how to talk properly, the whole of that. The emphasis is on that, plus the academic side. Whether authorities will allow all this, I really do not know. We will have to find out. One of the things we are going to insist on is that the children learn all the subjects, not just one subject.

Q: Children are not interested in anything. How can we reach them, bring an interest out in them?

K: It depends on the educator, it depends on the parents, on what kind of environment you have around you. If you want to discuss it, we will go into it. I am asking you, I am not stating. Do parents give total security to their children? By total security, I mean concern not only with their food and so on, but morally, totally.

Several voices: Some. Very few. Never. I don’t think any of them do.

K: A child demands total security, because then he is free to grow, to be happy. So, what we propose is that the child, when he comes into the school, feels he is completely secure. Which does not mean that he can depend on us. He is secure in the sense that there is no fear, no punishment, that he is being looked after carefully—his clothes, his taste, his exercise, everything—so that he feels completely secure; and therefore has trust in the educator. That gives him a sense of, ‘By Jove, here are people who really care for me’. We do that at Brockwood Park School in England. We have done it there and we want to do it here. It is not just a theory we are talking about.

So, security means that the student feels he can trust the educator, that the educator is with him, not against him. Therefore the educator establishes a relationship with the student and creates an atmosphere where there is this feeling. That is one thing. And the other is a sense of protection. I must explain this word protect. It does not mean guide him; it does not mean make him feel he is dependent on us. You can only protect a person when there is stability, security and freedom, when he feels that people are protecting him, not overwhelming him, holding him, but seeing that he has all the things necessary, morally, and so on. We want him to feel that he is at home. Sorry, I am not saying he is not at home with you. I am saying that is the most important thing. Because when he feels at home, it brings a different kind of feeling into it. That is, he must respect the room, the furniture; it is his home.

Q: My son feels very at home here. It takes a long time for him to get home after school is finished.

K: We want him to feel that he is at home. Home implies security, protection, no fear, trust; all that is implied.

Let’s discuss the place of knowledge in society. What place has knowledge in society? It has helped man to function technologically, to earn a livelihood, to kill, to destroy species of animals. And that very knowledge has helped him to conform to a pattern. It is not that he must be against pattern, but understand what the pattern is and the need to change the pattern. Now, what is knowledge? What is it to know? What does it mean when I say, ‘I know you’?

I know you because I met you last year or the year before. The memory of it, the picture, the face, the form is imprinted on the brain. And that is the past. So all knowledge—divine knowledge or scientific knowledge or book knowledge—is the past. There is no knowledge of tomorrow; “knowledge” of tomorrow is a projection from the known of yesterday. So, has knowledge a place in the transformation of man?

Knowledge has a place in the technological world: how to drive a car, how to speak a language, work in a factory, be a professor. Knowledge is necessary—but has knowledge changed, transformed man? Apparently it has not. This is a subject which we discussed with prominent scientists at Brockwood. The question was put to them whether knowledge has any significance in relation to the transformation of man. Apparently, knowledge has not transformed man psychologically, inwardly.

So one must go into the question: is learning merely the acquisition of knowledge? Or has learning a different meaning? If I accumulate knowledge in order to live skilfully, effectively, in a society which is corrupt, knowledge is useful there, but will that knowledge change my relationship to my wife, to my neighbour, to the world? Apparently it has not done so. So what place has knowledge? We have to go into what learning implies. As it is now understood, it is gathering information, accumulating knowledge and acting on that. That has not transformed man. It may have modified man, but it has not radically transformed him. So, knowledge has its place, but knowledge cannot transform man. Therefore some other energy is needed to transform man.

Q: So knowledge and conditioning would be almost the same.

K: Yes sir.

Q: If the educators bring this inner thing up with the students, who educates the parents?

K: We are doing it now.

Q: I can foresee a parent being totally ostracized.

K: No sir. That is what is happening in the world. But here we are asking the parents to come in. We say, ‘Look, this is what we are doing, please share with us’.

Q: You are trying to create an environment in the school and at home.

K: That is right. Otherwise you destroy the child.

Q: You talked about knowledge and how that does not do what it should for man. So it is an inner thing that we need. It is understanding.

K: It requires a lot of going into. One has to go into the whole structure of thought, which has accumulated knowledge, which is knowledge. Has thought changed man? Thought has built society, thought has built the Christian religion; the whole structure of religion is based on thought. This is a fact. Thought has built the technological world, the industrial world; thought has built the economic world. This is the world which we live in. And what is the relationship of thought to knowledge?

Thought is knowledge. Knowledge is memory, whether in the computer or in your brain; and the response of memory is thought. As long as there is the function of memory within the field of knowledge, it is all right, but when thought spills over into fields that it has no relation to, then all the trouble begins.

To learn a language, thought is necessary. To drive a car, thought is necessary. To function in a factory, in science, in the field of knowledge, thought has a place. Otherwise, you could not come here, I could not speak English, and so on. Has thought any other place? Has thought any place in human relationship?

Q: In the sense of being secure in relationship.

K: Is there security in relationship? If I am married or have a girlfriend, what is my relationship to her? Is it one of security? Am I seeking security in her, and she seeking security in me? Which means she possesses me and I possess her?

Q: We are talking in relationship to the children. We emphasize the need for security.

K: Let’s be clear. In the school, the children need complete security. Otherwise, as they are, as is happening in the world and especially in America, as you know, they are thrown out. Father and mother are so occupied that they have no time for the poor child. So he feels insecure. So he does all kinds of things: violence, amusements, drugs and so on. So he has to find security in the educator. And it is the function of the educator to see that he has this security. We will discuss how to have it and so on.

Q: I see what you are saying. In going forward with this project to put the school together, to gather teachers, to gather parents, to gather children, there is the element of trust. Is the element of trust the necessary element that supports us in going forward?

K: Yes, that is right. But we are moving.

Q: There is a relationship here in this room, as in marriage.

K: But sir, we are discussing knowledge. What place has knowledge in human relationship? You know me. I know my wife. My wife knows me. Now, what do you mean by that “knowing”?

Q: Well, we have memory which we can access.

K: Wait, do not rush. Memory of what?

Q: Past experiences.

K: Which are what? Past experiences, what are they?

Q: Which are knowledge.

K: No, no, just look at it. You are too quick. Past memories, you say, past experiences. What are they? Sex? Comfort?

Q: Conversation, relating.

K: Conversation, nagging, hurt, irritation. So you have a picture of me and I have a picture of you, which is knowledge. So am I related to you at all, or am I related to the picture which I have about you?

Q: Since the picture you have of me has been me, you are relating to what has been. If I am changing, you are not relating to me.

K: Look, I have a picture of you, and you have a picture of me based on past incidents, happiness, pleasure, this, that, ten different things or a hundred different things. So I have an image, a picture of you, and you have a picture of me. That is a fact. That is the image created through memory. So I know you according to the picture I have about you. But I do not know you.

Q: I see your point. I don’t necessarily agree.

K: Ah, no, no. No, not my point, not my point. It is not a point. We are not debating. Please, I hate debates. Ah, no, this is a dialogue. Dialogue means conversation between two people who are trying to understand something.

Q: Yes. Exactly.

K: Our relation is essentially based on the images we have. The image is a picture, is a word, something gone. So I really do not know you. I know you only according to my picture. Yet I say I am related to you. And I say that is not relationship. It is only when the picture is not, that I am related to you. I’m sorry.

Q: No, I understand completely what you are saying. It is just too much to go into right now, but I understand what you are saying.

K: That is why I did not want to go on. You raised that question, so we asked whether knowledge has any place in relationship at all. Put it around the other way: is love knowledge? Is love thought? This requires a great deal of exploration. Thought is a material process based on memory. It is retained in the cells of the brain, and therefore it is material. The scientists are agreeing with this. I talked about this fifty years ago but it doesn’t matter; they are talking about it now. So, it is a material process. Thought is a movement in time, so it is material. But we try to find that which is not material through thought.

So, this is what we are going to do, a few of us at least. This is not just a theory which we are carrying out, an experiment—that would be a terrible thing. This is after considering what is happening in the world; after considering what education has done to man; after considering parents who love their children seeing them killed by war. All that is involved in this, not just passing an exam. So if you as the parents say, ‘We want to cooperate in all this’, it is your responsibility, and it is the responsibility of the educator, and together we are going to help create this thing.

Q: Sir, one question does arise. There can be a conflict between the home and the school. What if we have an environment where we have an older child who is not within the age group to come here, who is in no way interested? How is it best to handle this?

K: That is why we said it is absolutely important that the parents should cooperate with us, and that we cooperate with them. It is not just a one-sided affair. If you have older children, bring them, and let’s discuss, talk, find out.