Jiddu Krishnamurti texts Jiddu Krishnamurti quotes and talks, 3000 texts in many languages. Jiddu Krishnamurti texts


Rishi Valley 1985

Rishi Valley 2nd Talk with Teachers 7th December 1985

K: May I raise a very complicated question? May I? How would you - if you had a son here or a daughter - want to educate them, or bring about an holistic life?

You've got so many students here - capable, intelligent, at least some of them, and would you bring about, through what means, through what kind of attitude, what kind of verbal explanation, would you go through to educate them in an holistic way of living? That is what I am proposing. I mean by holistic: whole, unbroken, not splintered up, not fragmented, as most of our lives are. So my question is, if I may put it to you: what would you do, in what manner would you educate, how do you bring about a holistic way of living, an outlook that's not fragmented in specializations? How would you help them, or educate them to bring this about? Is this too complicated a question? No answer?

HP: Sir, first we must be holistic ourselves.

K: That's understand, sir. But first of all, you are educators here, including myself, if you will permit me. I happen to be in Rishi Valley, I like the place, the beauty of the place, the hills, the rocks, the flowers, the shadows on the hills. I like the place. And I am one of the educators here; parents send me one of their children and I want to see that their whole life from the very beginning of their days, when they come here, I want to see that they live a life that is whole. Whole means good.

Good, not in the ordinary sense of that word, good. It has a special meaning, not the old traditional word good; a good boy, a good husband - that's all very limited, in the verbal sense. But the word 'good' has much greater significance when you relate goodness to wholeness. I don't know if I am making any sense. Good has that quality of being extraordinarily generous; good has that sense of not wanting to hurt another, consciously - you may do it unconsciously, but the whole attitude towards life, not to hurt, not to do something unkind consciously, you may say something unconsciously. Good, in the sense that it is correct - not only for the moment; correct all the time. I am inventing! Correct in the sense that it does not depend on circumstances - if it is correct now, it will be correct a hundred years later or ten days later. Correctness which is connected with goodness is not related to environment, circumstance, pressures and so on. So from that comes right action. I don't know if you are following what I am talking about.

So, goodness and an holistic way of living go together. And I am one of the teachers here, educators here, this gentleman here sends his son to this school, in what manner am I going to see that the boy grows in goodness and holistic way of living? That's my question. Do we rely on each other? Is it an individual problem or is it a problem of the whole school, the whole body? So it must be a comprehensive - not that gentleman thinks one way and I think one way about goodness - it must be a cohesive action. Now, is that possible? And do you want that? Sir, in the word 'holistic' is implied: not the orthodox, organized and all that stupid nonsense, but that quality of religion which we will go into presently. How am I, living here as an educator, to bring this about? Don't leave me alone, sir.

K: The first thing we have to do is to help the child feel secure in his relationship. It seems to me that unless the child feels secure in his relationship, with me and the place, nothing further can happen.

RH: I have to find out whether that is really what I want to do. If I feel that is really what I want to do, then I must find out what do I mean by that, what is the content of my feelings.

KJ: Would it not be necessary, if you and I are working together in the school, not to say what I mean by that or what you mean, but to find out if there is something that is valid for all of us. Not because we stick to an idea or come together around an idea, but in the investigation we see clearly that this is it.

K: Sir, do we, you and I, for example, understand what it means to be whole, an holistic life? Verbally even, logically, rationally, sanely? Do we understand what it means to live an holistic life? Or is it merely a theory?

RH: Sir, perhaps we merely understand by contrast. We see fragmentation is ourselves.

K: If you see fragmentation or breaking up in yourself, then you have the problem of how to get rid of it, how to be whole. I don't want problems. I don't want a problem which in solving it will bring about an holistic way of life. I don't want a problem about it. Then I have already broken it up.

RH: Despite that, the fact remains that we are fragmented.

K: That's the point. Just a minute. I know I am fragmented; my whole thinking process is fragmented. And also I know I mustn't make a problem of it because that's another fragmentation.

RH: My feeling of fragmentation is itself a problem - I don't make a problem, I see a problem.

K: I understand. I realize I am fragmented, but I don't want to make a problem of it.

RH: But, sir, doesn't it mean that when I see that I am fragmented, that itself is a problem?

K: That's what I want to get at That is, I see I am fragmented: I say one thing and I do another, think one think and contradict what I think, and so on, different types of fragmentation. And I also see very clearly that I mustn't make a problem of it.

RH: Perhaps I don't see that clearly.

K: That's what I want to discuss. If I make a problem of it, I have already further fragmented it.

RH: But there is an in-between stage.

K: Ah! I know all that. Just a minute. Follow what I am saying, if you don't mind. I am aware that I am fragmented, broken up in different ways - not wanting, wanting, ten different things. If I make a problem of it, saying to myself, I must not be fragmented - that very statement is born out of fragmentation. So something born of fragmentation is another form of fragmentation. Am I making myself clear, or am I being dumb? So I mustn't make a problem of it. But my brain is trained to problems. So I must be aware of the whole cycle of it. So what am I to do? Careful!

HP: When you say we should not make a problem of it, do we have a choice?

K: I did not say I should not make a problem of it.

HP: When you see the fragmentation within you, you say that I would not like to make a problem.

K: I see the truth, not, I will not make a problem of it. I see the fact that if I make a problem of it, it is another fragmentation. That's all. I see it. I don't say, I must get rid of it. I just see the fact that if I say, I must not, then that becomes another problem. That's all. So what am I to do? I wonder if you are catching at what I am trying to get at.

HP: Is there anything to be done in this case?

K: I am going to show you presently. Don't be so eager, if you don't mind my saying so.

HP: The way I see it, there is nothing to be done, just actually watching, observing.

K: Just a minute, sir. Don't come to that conclusion. What am I to do?

HP: Observe.

K: Don't tell me, sir. These are words. Seeing that I am fragmented, aware that whatever I do is another kind of fragmentation, what is left for me? You don't put yourself in that position, you have already come to a conclusion. So your conclusion is another fragmentation. I don't know if you follow all this. When you say, I can observe, that is already a conclusion.

HP: You have to say something.

K: Don't say anything. Whom are we talking to? Are we talking to each other? Or you are only listening to the speaker therefore waiting for him to tell you what to do. You understand? Suppose I have this problem, this question: is there a way of living holistically in which is involved the quality of a religious mind, deep goodness, without any mischief, without any duality? Am I making it complicated?

HP: No, sir.

K: Why not, sir? My whole brain thinks dualistically. It's always in opposition in the sense: I want to do this, and yet I mustn't do it. I should do it, but I don't like to do it, and so on. It always taking opposing positions. That is essentially fragmentation. Right? So what is left for me? I see all this at a glance, or through analysis. And I see it is like that. Then my question is, what am I to do? Don't tell me what you should do or shouldn't do - I don't accept anything from you, I am very sceptical by nature.

HP: You are asking the question; what am I to do? When one is observing there is no question of analyzing.

K: Are you doing it?

HP: Yes.

K: Are you doing it? If you are not doing it and you say; we must try, you are in contradiction, therefore duality, therefore fragmentation, and hence no goodness, and all the rest of it.

JR: As soon as you say or think about an holistic state, a state of goodness, you are already in duality, you are already in contradiction.

K: No, we are not in contradiction. I am only putting it into words. Holistic includes goodness. Right sir? A sense of religious action, a brain that is religious. What we mean by religion and all that we will go into presently. But I am asking you, what will you do, what's your action, what's your attitude when you want to educate your student in this goodness? The school has a certain reputation, a certain eclat - a feeling about it. And there is a certain atmosphere in this valley. And I send you my son, hoping that you will help him to grow in this holistic way of life. I am communicating, it's not contradicting.

JR: It is in the way I posit the question that the contradiction arises.

K: I understand. We are trying to investigate the question, not trying to lay down laws about it. At least I'm not. I really want to find out what way I can help the student. I may not be holistic. You understand? Don't say: first I must be holistic, and then I can teach. Then we are dead. Then you will take an eternity, and the boy will have gone on to BA, MA, or whatever it is. If you say; I must first, then you have stumped yourself, stymied yourself. Sir, I am not going to saying anything. I don't know what to do. I really don't know what to do with the student who comes here, whose parents want him to join the army, or business, or something or other. And I've got the tremendous opposition of society, the father, the mother, the grandfather, wanting the boy to have a job and all that. How am I to bring this about? You don't answer me. I don't know.

KJ: Krishnaji, I am not answering the question: how am I to bring this about? I'm looking at fragmentation.

K: In the boy?

KJ: And in me, and in the world.

K: What does that mean? Follow it sir, don't change it, follow it, that mean? I am fragmented and the boy is fragmented. Right? Right, sir?

KJ: Right.

K: Then what's the relationship between the boy and myself?

KJ: We are learning together.

K: Don't use phrases quickly. What's my relationship with the student who is fragmented like myself?

RH: I am not different from him.

K: Of course you are different from him - you teach mathematics, he doesn't know any. Don't say you are not different from him.

KJ: There is no relationship at all, if I am fragmented.

K: Please, sir, answer my question. You are fragmented, and your student, I am also fragmented. Right? Then what do you do? What's our relationship? Or, is there any relationship at all? Or, we are on the same level? Right? Ah, that's it, you won't admit that. I am fragmented, she is fragmented - not your sir. I am fragmented, he is fragmented - he is my student, or I am his student, better. I am his student. And what is the relationship between these two fragments? You understand sir, I am asking this question.

KJ: It can only be a fragmented relationship,if you can call it that.

K: Yes, so what is actually my relationship? What is my actual relationship with you who are fragmented, and like me, I am fragmented, what is out actual relationship?

KJ: There doesn't seem to be any.

K: That's all. How can fragments have a relationship?

A: Why not?

K: Are you really asking that question?

A: Yes.

K: You answer it. You ask me a question, and I am too eager to reply to it. So it goes on between you and me. I answer it, and then you counter it. Then I counter it, and so on. If your question is serious, has that question any vitality? Are you listening to what I am saying? He asks me a question, and he expects me to answer it, and I say: I won't answer it, because in the question itself is the answer. So can we look at the question and wait for it to flower? You understand, sir? I ask the question, he won't answer it, because he says, I don't know, or I do know but it has no meaning. Because my question is very, very serious, you understand, sir? Let the question itself flower, not respond to it. I don't know if you follow what I am talking about. So the question itself contains the answer, if you let it flower, it you let it alone, don't kind of immediately respond to it. Because your response is already conditioned, already personal etc., etc. So leave the question. If the question has depth, significance, vitality, then that very the question unfolds. Am I talking nonsense? No, I have done this, so it is not nonsense.

Now, sir - just a minute. Is there truth? Does truth exist? You don't know, if you're honest. So we leave the question, I don't know, let's look at the question. And the question begins to unfold, is there truth, or only the sense of tremendous active, vital, illusion. I won't go into all that. What shall I do with student who has come here for four months, what shall I do, what shall I talk about? I wish you would look at it. Narayan, come on, sir.

N: What did you exactly mean when you said, is there truth, or only tremendous vital illusion. You are making a distinction between the two. Can you further go into that?

K: We are going off to something else. I am trying to say if the question has depth, if the question has a sense of great vitality - because you are asking the question after your own great inward searching, or outward searching, you are putting that question - so let the question itself answer. It will if you leave it alone.

Now I am coming back to my original question, we are going off all the time.

G: As an educator, as a teacher, I have a child come to me. I am fragmented, the chid is fragmented, so there is no relationship.

K: Are you sure there is no relationship, or are you just saying it?

G: I think, no, I am sure there is no relationship in the fragmented state, and I find that any response that I give to that child, or to the student, would itself be a fragmented response.

K: Yes. Stop there. Then, what will you do? You understand? Is that a statement - whatever relationship I have it is still fragmented. Is that a reality or a verbal statement?

G: It seems a reality to me.

K: Either, it is real, in the sense that the microphone is real there, that's not an illusion. The word 'microphone' is not that. The word is not that. Right? I don't know if you get the quality of it.

RH: Are you saying that conceptual understanding..

K:.. is not understanding. When I say 'the door', I mean the door, the fact.

RH: Then you are using your words in a very different way.

K: No.

RH: When you say: ask the question and leave it alone...

K: Let us see what happens to the question.

RH: What you are implying is: don't ask conceptual questions.

K: That's right.

RH: That flows from implication of certain statements.

K: Not only reflective questions, but also haven't you noticed how a question has a vitality?

So let's come back. We keep going off. What am I to do, sir? You tell me.

G: I just want to add one more question. Am I fooling myself that I can give an holistic education?

K: We are going to find out. We are going to find out, you and I, whether it is possible to do it or not? The first statement is: we are both fragmented. et's stick to that, not move away. And I don't know what to do. Right sir? Are you clear? I don't know what to do. What does that mean to you; I don't know? Careful! I don't know. You understand, sir? You don't know what to do. Then, I must investigate. When I say, I don't know, do I really mean I don't know? Or, am I waiting for somebody else to tell me, so I will know? Which is it?

Gop: At the moment the latter.

K: Is there a state of the brain when it says: I really don't know? You understand my question? I really don't know. I am not waiting for him to answer; or memory operating, or expecting someone else to tell me. All these states are waiting for an answer. But no one can answer this, because they are all fragmented. Therefore I am waiting, watching, looking, observing, listening to the question. I don't know what to do. I wonder if you understand what I am talking about? Then I ask myself; what's the state of my brain which says: 'I don't know?'

GN: At that point in time, it's not functioning.

K: 'I don't know'. Or are you waiting for it to know?

N: Waiting for it to know.

K: Therefore, you are waiting to know, you will know. Therefore your brain is not saying; 'I don't know'. It's all very logical sir.

AM: The brain doesn't say it doesn't know.

K: That's it, that's the first thing - the brain never acknowledges or remains in the state: 'I don't know'. I ask you: 'What is Iswara?' And you promptly answer, because you have read, or you don't believe or you believe; Iswara comes as a symbol to you. But if you ask: what is the element which created this? I won't go into this. It's a tremendously interesting question: What is life? (It's too complicated.) What is the beginning of life? What is the life in the seed that you plant? The life of man - what is the origin of that life, the very cell? It leads off somewhere else.

So I don't know how to deal with that boy or with myself. Any action I take, any movement of thought, is still born out of fragmentation. Right? So I really don't know. So may I proceed?

N: Please, sir.

K: What is love? Is it related to hate? If it is related - love then is still fragmentation. Right? Do you understand what I am saying, sir?

N: Love is not the opposite of hate.

K: What is love? It has nothing to do with pity, sympathy - all the rest of it. What is love? You don't know. Is it that state of not-knowing love? You're being mesmerized. It leads so far, so deep that I don't know if you want to go into all this.

I don't know what to do with that boy or girl; we are both fragmented. I can teach them mathematics, geography, history, biology, chemistry, psychiatry, or anything - but that's nothing. Sorry! This demands much deeper enquiry, very much deeper. So I said, what is it that is completely holistic? Certainly not thought - thought is experience and all the rest of it. It's certainly not sympathy; not generosity; not empathy; not saying: 'you're a nice chap'. So love has - what?

N: Compassion.

K: Love, compassion - that is the only thing that's holistic. I'm just discovering something for myself. I say, love is not thought; love is not pleasure. Don't accept, for God's sake that is the last thing. Love is utterly unrelated to hate, jealousy, anger - all that. Love is really completely unbreakable. It's whole and it has its own intelligence. Compassion, love has its own intelligence. Of course. Am I talking nonsense?

N: I have heard you say this before in different ways.

K: In different ways. I am coming back to that. So not knowing, to know. What does that mean, to know?

N: It is love.

K: Oh, no sir. Just listen, you are not listening. To know: I know my wife. Can you ever say about a person - I know.

RH: To know is to shut off in some way.

K: Yes. If I say; 'I know Radhikaji' - what do I know about her? So, to say, I know, is fragmentation.

RD: Is it Krishnaji? - to say, 'I know'.

K: I'm talking about human beings. I know that is a palm tree. I know that is a tiger. But to say, I know him, is a violation.

RD: The brain is so dull.

K: Your brain, sir, is damned dull. (Laughter)

RD: Yes, sir. It is rooted. It remains rooted in all this knowledge.

K: Yes, sir. I asked a question, which is: can I help the student or talk to him? I know I am fragmented; he is fragmented. And I also know, have a feeling, that love is whole, compassion. Therefore compassion, love have their own intelligence. I am going to see if that intelligence can operate. I don't know if I am conveying anything.

JR: You say that love has its own intelligence; you say that love is holistic - it's not fragmented. Isn't that just an assumption?

K: No, I am talking about myself. Love is not an assumption - my god.

JR: Maybe it is, because I don't know.

K: Remain there. You don't know. Wait, find out; don't answer. I don't know what the inside of a modern car is. I don't know. I have, as a matter of fact, stripped a car, old cars. I know how it works, I know the gadgets of it, but a modern cars I wouldn't touch because it is too complicated. Right? So I want to learn about it. So I go to a garage man and he says; this, this, this, he teaches me; because I want to know how it works. I take the trouble; I take the pains; I pay him, if I have the money; or work with him till I know every part of that car. That means I want to learn, but I'm not sure you want to learn as I want to learn about a car. You understand, sir? I am not at all sure you want to learn.

RD: But Krishnaji, this very wanting to learn...

K: Don't translate into fragmentation.

RD: No, I'm not. I've done a lot with you on this. I wanted to learn, and wanting to learn itself, as we understand the word 'wanting to learn'. Today, I don't want to learn. Please listen to what I want to say. Today I don't want to learn in the sense of wanting-to-know-more-about it. I don't want to do it.

K: Just a minute, sir. I don't know how those cameras work, and you say, learn about it. I ask him, and I become his apprentice: I watch how he does it, I learn about it. Then I say: I know how to work that camera. But human beings are not like cameras. They are much more complicated, silly asses! Much more psychological, they are like a messy machine, and I want to know how their brain works. Either I become a biologist, or a brain specialist, or I study myself, which is much more exciting than going to a brain specialist. Just a minute, just a minute. So I learn how my brain works - there is nobody to teach me.

RD: There may be.

K: I don't trust them.

RD: But I listen to them.

K: I don't trust anybody.

RD: True, I don't trust anybody.

K: All their knowledge is from books, or from their small little selves. So I say, I am going to investigate this whole way of living, not just parts of it, the whole way of living.

RD: Sir, I had a teacher, I had a teacher, please listen, who, I felt, had an extraordinary understanding about the nature of human beings. I wanted to learn. I began learning with that teacher. The teacher pointed out the nature of the brain, the nature of the self, the nature and I began learning in the same way as I learnt everything else.

K: Oh no. I understand, I understand.

RD: I did. And we began to gather knowledge, what learning really means - as we know it.

K: Learning, as we know it, is merely accumulating memory.

RD: Accumulating memory - but there is an observing in it.

K: Yes. Yes. Yes. Don't let's make it complicated.

RD: One observed; remembered; got what one called 'insight'.

K: Oh.

RD: Yes. I know. I said, what one called 'insight', something new, something one has not known earlier, something which seemed to make the picture better, larger and so on. You come to a point when you see that this process of making the picture is endless. It is nothing to do with the real thing.

K: So what? At the end of it, what?

RD: So, what is this learning?

K: I don't consider that learning.

RD: Yes, that's not learning.

K: So what is learning? Surely, memorizing is not learning.

RD: No. That's not learning.

K: But that's what you are doing. Rajesh, is there another way of learning? Is there something entirely different from the ordinary learning? You understand the question? Is there?

RD: I don't know.

K: Do you want to know? No. Do you want to find out if there is another way of learning - not memorizing, memorizing, memorizing and then remembering, acting skilfully and so on. We know that very well. Now he comes along and tells me: look, don't do that, that's mechanical, all that. He says there is another way of learning. Will I listen to him? Will I take the trouble to say, tell me about it. I am receptive; I am anxious; I am willing to find out. So he begins to tell me. Am I capable of listening to what he is saying? Or my whole brain revolts against this, because it's used to one pattern, and to break that pattern is the real difficulty?

RD: And trying to break that pattern is useless.

K: That makes another problem. I don't want to do that. So first, I ask myself - do I really want to learn? Go on, sir, don't ask me, I am asking you, do you want to learn? Or, is it another chapter to add to your memory, another book?

RD: I see what you are saying.

K: So let's come back. What am I to do or not do? Or the question is much deeper than merely the boy and the girl whom I'm educating. So it might be I have not really understood, verbally even, what it means to live a holistic life - understood intellectually. I don't know if you follow, what I am talking about.

Q: I would say yes.

K: No, are you sure. You've used two words. I am sure intellectually. So, you have separated the intellect from the whole. Therefore you're not - listen, listen ...

Q: Sorry.

K: What, what about?

Q: For not listening. You were saying something and ...

K: Sir, when you say I understand intellectually, it means just bananas.

Q: Sir, I don't say I understand just intellectually.

K: I say you are not listening old boy. When one says I understand it intellectually it means absolutely nothing. Right? When you say intellectual that's another fragment. So, don't use the word I understand intellectually. That's a crime.

Now, what am I, an educator at Rishi Valley, I understand partially what it means, verbally even, a holistic way of living. And knowing that he and I are both fragmented. Right? Are you listening? You're getting bored.

Q: No, not bored.

K: You can't sustain attention?

Q: Sir, how do you say that? I am not bored, not at all.

K: You were not listening yesterday.

Q: I don't know what to say to you.

K: Yes sir. Five minutes we will stop. May I finish this? I am at Rishi Valley, lovely place, beautiful hills and all the beauty of the earth here. I wonder if you know what I mean by beauty. No, I won't go into that any more. I'm here, I am responsible for the parents for that boy or girl, right? They have send them because we have good reputation, we look after them, we do all that, That's not the point. He comes around and tells me: It's all right, but what matters is a holistic way of life. Not intellectual, but the whole psyche, the whole being, the whole entity, which is now fragmented, if that can be whole then you have done the most extraordinary education - he tells me that. And he goes away and I don't know what to do. I understand the verbal meaning of whole, non-fragmented, not broken up, not saying one thing and doing something else, thinking something and doing quite the opposite of that. All that is fragmentation of life. And I don't know what to do. I really mean deeply, profoundly, gravely, seriously, I don't know what to do. Right? Am I deceiving myself when I say I don't know what to do, or waiting for somebody to tell me or some book, something will accidentally come along and give me - unfortunately that word - insight. So I can't wait for that because the boy is growing up and kicking around. So, what shall I do? I know one thing, absolutely for certain - I don't know. Right? I don't know. All my inventions all my thinking have collapsed. I don't know if you feel that way. I don't know. So the brain is open for reception. You understand what I am saying? The brain has been closed - by conclusions, by opinions, by judgements, by values, by my problems - it's a closed thing. When I say I really don't know I have broken something, I have broken the bottle which held the champagne. Out of that I begin to find out, when the bottle is broken. Right Sir? Then I find out what love is, what compassion and what that intelligence is that is born out of compassion. It has nothing to do with intellect.

Right Sir, it is now an hour and 37 minutes we have talked. Is that enough? Have I mesmerised you all?

Sir, we never come to the point when I say I don't know. Right? You ask me about God, I have immediate answers. Or you ask me about chemistry - out comes it, the tap is open. Sociology, any damn thing I am ready to answer. We meet day after tomorrow, don't weht? I hope you can bear it. You see I'm one of those idiots, sir, who hasn't read a damn thing except novels - you understand. It's a fortunate thing.

Q: And who doesn't think also, Sir.

K: No, it's like a drum, it's all tuned up, when you strike on it, it gives the right note. I hope you aren't tired.


Rishi Valley 1985

Rishi Valley 2nd Talk with Teachers 7th December 1985

Texts and talks of Jiddu Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti quotes. Books about
J Krishnamurti. Philosophy.


the 48 laws of power