[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Surely, that is obvious.For its own convenience themind has divided itself as the one who disciplines and the part thathas to be disciplined, and we play this game with ourselves, whichis absurd, because it has no reality at all.It is a convenient form ofself-deception.Now, can a mind which is so disciplined, which is controlled,shaped through tradition, through certain evaluations which societycalls moral - we are not now questioning whether they are moral orimmoral - , can such a mind ever find out what is true? Or does themind, in seeking what is true, create its own way of life which isdisciplinary? Obviously, the man who is seeking truth must bevirtuous, but virtue is not an end in itself.Virtue is to bring order, ithas no validity in itself.If virtue has validity in itself it leads torespectability, which society loves.But the mind that isunderstanding itself creates its own order, which is not animposition, not an adjustment to any form of compulsion.Themind that is aware is all the time bringing order within itself, whichis not the order imposed by society or religious sanctions, thoughoutwardly they may seem to correspond.But a mind that is merelycontrolled through fear of going wrong, through fear of whatpeople will say, that is imitating, trying to live according to whatShankara or anyone else has said, such a mind can never find outwhat is real.It is only the free mind that can discover the real, andto be free the mind has to understand itself.But merely to state thatthe mind is free has no meaning.It is like the schoolboy wanting todo exactly what he likes, which he calls freedom.That is obviouslynot freedom.Whereas, if the mind is aware of its own ways in relationship, if it is capable of watching its own movementswithout condemnation or evaluation, then it will understand what itis to be free, and only such a mind can discover that which iseternal.February 6, 1955 BANARAS TALK TO PARENTS 27TH JANUARY1955What is the responsibility of a parent? Perhaps it might be ofinterest to discuss that, even though there are very few parentshere.Why do we, as parents, want to educate our children at all? Itis generally understood that parents desire their children to beeducated to fit into society, to adjust themselves and adapt theirthoughts to society, which really means helping them to prepare fora profession of some kind so that they can earn a livelihood.Theywant their children to be educated to pass examinations, to take adegree at some university, and then to have a fairly good job, asecure position in society.That is all most parents are concernedwith.To put their children through college they pay so muchmoney, easily if they are wealthy, with great difficulty if they arenot; and to them, education is a matter of adding a few letters afterthe student's name, which they hope will make him a so-calledgood citizen, a respectable member of society.What parents areprimarily interested in, especially in a country like this where thereis overpopulation and a heavy burden of tradition, is to help thestudent have a job so that he won't starve.I am not criticizing, butmerely stating a fact.Here, fortunately, the problem of war is notimminent, whereas in Europe and America conscription in variousforms has been introduced and the boys have to go through themilitary system; they are trained in a particular military unit tofight, to destroy, and are released only after three or four years toenter a civilian occupation and carry on their life.In India this isnot insisted upon. So, what is the responsibility of parents? Does theirresponsibility end the moment the boy or the girl has taken adegree and is married off? What do we mean by responsibility? Towhat are we responsible? Is it our responsibility to see that theyoung people fit into a particular society irrespective of whetherthat society is good or bad, revolutionary or corrupt? Is it ourresponsibility to make the boy or the girl conform, regardless ofwhat he or she wants to do and is capable of? Is that what we meanby responsibility?Question: Whether he lives in America, in Russia, or in India, aparent who really loves his child will be deeply concerned to insurethat he has an ingrained sense of social obligation which will benatural to him and which, as he grows up, he will express in acertain way according to his capacities.Krishnamurti: The parent spends so much money on theeducation of his child, which means putting him through theuniversity and all that.Such education may enable the student to fitinto society, but will it help him to be creative?Questioner: The parent will judge education on the basis ofwhether or not it makes his child an asset from the social point ofview.Krishnamurti: That brings up the complex question of what isthe cultural or social background of the parent and the educator,does it not? It means, really, investigating to find out what societyis, and whether education is merely a matter of conditioning thechild to serve society according to the established pattern.On theother hand, when he grows up and leaves the university, should thestudent be in opposition to society? Or should he be capable of creating a new kind of society altogether? As parents, what is itthat we want?Questioner: There is one thing we don't want: that a young manwho has had a good education in an expensive school should justdemand comforts from society.Such people give nothing in return,and they are impoverishing the country.Krishnamurti: That is, how can education help the student, fromchildhood right through adolescence to maturity, not to beantisocial? Now, what do we mean by being antisocial? If a boy iseducated not to be antisocial in Russia, it means conditioning himto fit into the Communist society.Here, when we talk of educatinghim not to be antisocial, we also mean conditioning him not tobreak out of the established pattern.As long as he conforms andstays within the pattern of a particular society, we call him a socialasset, but the moment he breaks away from the pattern we say he isantisocial
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]