Shashidhar Jagadeeshan*
Anyone who is aware of the state of the world will recognize that we are at a point in human history where we are facing unprecedented challenges. Wars are raging, some of which are genocidal in nature. The threat of nuclear war has become imminent with the advent of authoritarian regimes all over the world. Every day, we read about extreme weather events. The rate of biodiversity loss is alarming with serious implications to the well-being of the planet. Human society is deeply divided with social and economic inequality at an all-time high. At a personal level, individuals seem to experience a deep sense of alienation, and one is often reading distressing reports about increasing rates of anxiety and depression among youth.
Krishnamurti would perhaps perceive this as a crisis in consciousness, one that demands both individual and collective responses. There is a rising strong feeling among many that what we need, certainly this late in the game, are collective responses. Perhaps there is also a feeling that individual action is ‘too little, too late’. But I believe, with Krishnamurti, that this division into the individual and the collective is a falsity.
In this article, I begin by exploring what a collective response entails and examine how the collective response is tied in with the individual response. I will then share our experience in CFL (Centre For Learning) of creating a learning community as a response to the challenges posed by the crisis and illustrate how educational spaces like schools provide an ideal setting to understand the interplay between the individual and the collective.
The demand for unprecedented cooperation
It is very clear that the nature of the challenges confronting us require unprecedented, widespread cooperation. Human beings do cooperate: when we are confronted with natural disasters; when we are driven by fear, desire, greed or anger; when we can easily identify the ‘other’; when we share an ideology or a belief system. Shared ideas can be abstract: money, a nation state or moral imperatives. In contrast, sending humans into outer space, creating amazing pyramids and even waging a war are stark examples of large-scale cooperation driven by the forces mentioned above.
Clearly, some forms of cooperation are dangerous, causing suffering either in the immediate future or in the long term. But what is more obvious is a serious lack of cooperation. Each of us will recognize this lack of cooperation at multiple levels: in our daily relationships, in our homes and neighbourhoods, at work, at national and global levels.
So, what blocks cooperation? What is the issue with our current modes of cooperation? As we have seen earlier, except perhaps when there is an immediate danger in front of us, our cooperation is driven by ideas or emotions, which can bring us together, but can also at the same time, contain the seeds of division.
Ideas contain the seeds of division
Religious ideas and beliefs have often served as a basis to bring people together, but as can be seen from the splintering that soon happens within religions, ideas are bound to lead to interpretations and each interpretation leads to a new faction. Nations too could be seen as a way of bringing smaller tribes together for mutual benefit. But when people feel that their interest is not being met, they will demand that they secede and form their own new nation.
Even when people come together with good ideas for a ‘good cause’— what Freud called the ‘narcissism of small differences’—eventually their efforts become fragmented! On a smaller scale, we see many families unable to hold together despite deep emotional and biological bonds.
We may begin with very noble intentions, but our brains are conditioned to convert intent into ideas. We deeply believe in our ideas. They seem completely logical and coherent and we have no reason to doubt them. But they are ideas—by which I mean we hold our perceptions and concerns conceptually, in the form of words, pictures, emotions and memories. More importantly, they are a part of our self and our identity. They have become part of the framework through which we experience the world. When our ideas are threatened, we viscerally experience a threat to our very being. Our instinct for self-protection kicks in and cooperation goes out of the window!
But without ideas, what is the ground from which we can cooperate? Krishnamurti suggests we begin by exploring our conditioning, rather than changing it, wishing it away or finding means to circumvent it. The ground for cooperation then lies in turning the light onto oneself. We are suggesting that true cooperation can happen only when there is an active understanding of our conditioning. This includes understanding the nature of thought (including emotions), the nature of ideology and beliefs, the process of identification, and the role played by a sense of a separate ‘self ’. What then is this art of exploring our conditioning, whether individually or collectively? I would like to suggest that this is what ‘dialogue’ can be.
The notion of dialogue
Dialogue as a form of communication and understanding has been a part of human consciousness from ancient times. The native Americans had a notion of dialogue which they termed the ‘Circle of Discourse’. These were by nature non-hierarchical; all participants were equally respected and listening and speaking were equally important. In the Indian tradition, the word Upanishad means to ‘sit near’. Upanishads are dialogues which discuss fundamental questions about life and existence. Of course, the most wellknown dialogues are the Socratic dialogues. The idea here is that through a series of penetrating questions, participants reach a state of puzzlement, referred to in Greek as Aporia. Understanding then follows.
David Bohm, the late physicist and philosopher, explored the notion of dialogue extensively. He says:
Dialogue, as we are choosing to use the word, is a way of exploring the roots of the many crises that face humanity today. It enables inquiry into, and understanding of, the sorts of processes that fragment and interfere with real communication between individuals, nations and even different parts of the same organization. In our modern culture men and women are able to interact with one another in many ways: they can sing, dance or play together with little difficulty, but their ability to talk together about subjects that matter deeply to them seems invariably to lead to dispute, division and often to violence. In our view this condition points to a deep and pervasive defect in the process of human thought. The word ‘dialogue’ derives from two roots: dia which means ‘through’ and logos which means ‘the word’, or more particularly, ‘the meaning of the word’. The image it gives is of a river of meaning flowing around and through the participants. Any number of people can engage in Dialogue; one can even have a Dialogue with oneself….
— Dialogue: A Proposal, David Bohm1
I like this description of dialogue, as a flow of meaning among and within participants. For me ‘meaning’ implies understanding and shared intent. Bohm explored the word ‘meaning’ a great deal, and he says for example, ‘You see, only meaning can arouse energy’. We, however, need to be cautious of the danger of shared meaning becoming another idea or conclusion. Shared meaning can also lead to the ideological traps I outlined at the start. Perhaps this is why Bohm spoke of ‘flow’, which suggests fluidity or a lack of rigidity.
Thinking together, seeing together
Krishnamurti seems to suggest that human beings are capable of ‘thinking together’ and ‘seeing together’. These are non-divisive acts at the heart of cooperation and non-fragmentary action: Freedom is the essence of thinking together. You must be free from your concepts, prejudices, and so on. I too must be free, and we come together in this freedom. It means dropping all our conditioning. It implies complete attention without any past.2
— J Krishnamurti
‘Seeing together’ is distinctly different from common notions of dialogue, such as: everyone’s opinion counts, let’s agree to disagree, let’s vote, we must tolerate diverse views, let’s bring in multiple perspectives. All of these somehow retain the seeds of division—by working around or managing matters—and are therefore limited and potentially dangerous.
Dialogue is the essential tool to think and see together in a questioning and gently sceptical way. The act of seeing together happens when we have a common insight, which is not based on ideas and concepts. Seeing together has the capacity to distinguish the real from the false. In it there is an in-built feature of self-correction. Of course, there is the danger that what we have seen together, becomes part of knowledge and a further template to act from. Again, the only safeguard against this seems an awareness of this danger and a renewed demand to see together without coming to any conclusion.
The collective response we need today is one that takes dialogue and cooperation of this different order. But is not collective response essentially a reflection of the individual’s response?
The individual and society
One of Krishnamurti’s key teachings is the statement ‘You are the world’. I understand this to mean that human consciousness is one, and in understanding ourselves we understand all of humanity. The sense that we are separate individuals may be an illusion. This sense of separation makes us relate to the world from a self-centred perspective, which might be the most dangerous thing on earth.
Seeing the state of the world and of ourselves, it behoves each one of us to bring about a radical transformation within ourselves. One is not different from the society in which we live; the world is us, and we are the world. The division between the individual and the community, the ‘me’ and the ‘you’, the ‘we’ and ‘they’, has caused so much mischief in the world, so much misery and confusion. And any serious person—I do not mean by that an intellectual but one who is involved in the whole process of living—must bring about this transformation within himself, who is the human being. And this change cannot be brought about unless there is total freedom from conditioning.3
— J Krishnamurti
Krishnamurti clearly points out that society at large is the result of the relationship among its members. If the members function from a deep sense of division and are driven constantly by the urge for self-protection, then the society we create will reflect this. The individual and society mirror each other. The response to the current crisis demands that we as individuals be watchful about how our conditioning is operating, and from this watchfulness we think, see and act collectively. The watchfulness is not out of fear, judgment or effort. Can we come upon this watchfulness in our daily lives? Krishnamurti felt that education could be a space for this, and the key to the regeneration of society. After all, at the heart of any school lies the question: ‘What kind of society do we wish to create and live in?’ As a teacher in a Krishnamurti-inspired school (CFL), there has been ample opportunity to explore all these questions through dialogue.
What is essential to such an education?
Centre For Learning (CFL) is a teacher-run school inspired by the teachings of J Krishnamurti. It has a flat structure with no hierarchy among its teachers. The school exists to become aware of how conditioning of various kinds leads to division and explore whether it is possible to live and act from a ground of compassion rather than division.
Dialogue is central to the work of the school, but a certain culture has to be in place for that to happen. First and foremost, the relationship between teacher and student must be based on affection and mutual respect. We cannot use traditional motivators like fear, competition, reward and punishment. The intention of learning, rather than guaranteed outcomes, must be at the heart of everything we do.
In the teaching of various subjects, where the teacher is expected to ‘know more’, dialogue is the mode of communication. Here too, meaning must flow between teacher and the taught. For example, the teacher asks a question or makes a brief presentation. Then there is a free flow of conversation, and questioning is constantly encouraged. The role of the teacher as an authority figure is kept light and meaning is gradually built in a collaborative way.
Finally, a school is also a complex community of students, teachers and parents, all of whom must cooperate at many levels and over many things for the community to function smoothly. How do we cooperate without using fear and authority? For us, dialogue is the way! Since we recognize the need for all members of the CFL community to think together, a great deal of time and energy is set aside for dialogue.
The challenge of living and working together
I will share what I see as the demands on different members of a school, and then explain how dialogue can be ‘used’, perhaps ‘instrumentally’, to meet these.
Demands on the young:
- Do not intentionally hurt anyone.
- Respect common spaces and property.
- Respect agreed-upon times when we do things together. Follow norms of behaviour that have been created together, especially in the areas of sexuality, substance abuse and safety.
- For older students: take active ownership in creating and maintaining the ethos of the school.
We must remember that there is an asymmetric power relation between adults and young people. Therefore, it is especially important to create a safe and democratic space where the voices of all participants are respected and heard. Apart from informal conversations which happen one-on-one, or in small groups, we have created semi-formal spaces to think together. For example, we have weekly dialogues, where teachers and students (even very young ones) sit together and discuss a variety of subjects. These may be problem solving sessions, but more often they are meant to understand our psychological landscapes and how to navigate them. We have meetings where adults and students who share a hostel meet regularly to question norms that are in place and to make sure that as a community, we do not swing between being conformist and being reactive. The attempt is to see if it is possible to function from a ground of understanding, rather than from mechanical rules and rebellion. Occasionally, the whole school meets to discuss common concerns. Here topics can range from plate washing to bullying.
Demands on parents:
- To work with the teacher body in understanding the philosophy of the school, so that the adults in a child’s life are not pulling in different directions, and the engagement with the intentions are not seen as only teachers’ work.
- To be alert to one’s own fears, ambitions and aspirations so that these do not pass on to children, or end up distorting the work of the school.
- The school and home should not be at odds with each other in their relationship to discipline, learning, food, media and sleep.
- Can the parents and teachers explore what it means to help a child feel completely secure?
Semi-formal spaces have evolved for conversations with parents to explore the questions that are important in the school. These include a weekend orientation for new parents, teachers and parents meeting once a month, and an annual one-on-one meeting with each parent re-examining why we have come together.
Demands on teachers:
- Being teacher-run means being responsible for all aspects of the school, no-one plays the role of either a foot soldier or the general!
- Collective decision-making implies starting with the intent to cooperate from the very beginning, seeing the importance of ‘thinking together’.
- CFL is the result of the collective understanding of its members, so every member has to be proactive about maintaining the ethos of the school.
Once again dialogue is central to the teachers’ lives. We meet frequently, and each meeting is an opportunity to listen and think together. We have consciously set aside time fortnightly to explore fundamental questions without any agenda. New teachers have a separate space to discuss in a smaller group. Our annual teacher retreats are both spaces to ‘clean house’ and to go deeper into questions that animate us.
Our challenges:
Naturally, we have had our challenges along the way. What is humbling is that while our attempts described above make sense and are absolutely necessary, they are not sufficient in meeting the challenge of ‘awakening intelligence’.
For the students, alongside learning there is the creation of a learner. The learner, to whom learning is happening, seems separate from the learning. Thus, the student inevitably begins adding layers of information to their sense of self. They experience insecurities, comparisons, inadequacies and pride. A benign environment is not enough to avert all these self-related knots. Yet students may resist this process of dialogue and self-observation, feeling it is imposed from the outside.
With parents, we are working with the deep instinct to protect one’s own young. Here the dialogue is a process of exploring well-being for our children, a well-being that is inclusive in nature and which has compassion and sensitivity as its main pillars.
And to now turn the light onto ourselves, teachers. We are subject to all the forces I mentioned earlier! We convert intent into ideas all the time and must watch out for it. We experience both the pull of conformity and the pull of wanting to be different. Our images of each other, built up over time, prevent listening. Our emotions can overwhelm the conversation, and relationships may break under the force of our egos. In all these ways, the flow of meaning is blocked. This is the challenge David Bohm posed: ‘…humans can sing, dance or play together with little difficulty, but their ability to talk together about subjects that matter deeply to them seems invariably to lead to dispute, division and often to violence.’
CFL has put in enormous energy to create a cohesive and coherent learning community, trying to stay true to its intent. On a daily basis, we do what we do because it makes sense and there is really no other alternative if one is interested in responsible education. Thanks to this ethos of dialogue, there are many times when we share ‘as one’ the same reality and meaning flows. And when this happens, there is a quality of relatedness without conflict; there is the joy in cooperation and a release of creative energy that is palpable to all.
* Shashidhar teaches Mathematics at Centre For Learning and can be reached at shashidhar.jagadeeshan@centreforlearning.in
1 Dialogue, A Proposal, David Bohm, Donald Factor and Peter Garrett, 1991 http://www.davidbohm.net/dialogue/dialogue_proposal.html.
2 ‘The Whole Movement of Life is Learning’: J Krishnamurti’s Letters to the Schools, 2004
3 J Krishnamurti: Public Talk 2 in Amsterdam, 4 May 1969