Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Terrence Webster-Doyle's Forum Activity | 14 posts in 1 forum


14 posts  |  Page 1 of 1
Forum: Serious Debate Mon, 15 Jun 2009
Topic: The Oak Grove School: Is it teaching its students about conditioning or is it mearly just another prep school?

I am a former Director of the Oak Grove School. I was personally asked by Krishnamurti to do so in 1984. I had written him a letter saying that I was not, in all due respect, interested in him, but rather in understanding conditioning, which I realized could be seen by anyone that cared to look. (I had been seriously interested in understanding conditioning since 1969 when I first heard someone read a passage by Krishnamurti) I left the school shortly after taking over as Head Master mainly because I realized that the school when joining WASC (the Wester Association of School and Colleges) would have to conform to high conventional academic standards and therefore the students would have little or no time to have an education that fully explored K's insights into education. I have been in contact with the school lately and I am quite dismayed that they are still mainly concerned with being a conventional prep school. The only class being taught that they feel is educating their students to what Krishnamurti is saying is for seniors on "philosophic and religious world views including Krishnamurt." To me this is in total contradiction to what Krishnamurti was saying. The school original intent was to "understand conditioning" and when this more conventional approach was chosen I felt that there was a loss of that intent. I have for years tried to create resources for teachers and young people that help to understand conditioning in a practical and relevant format. I am interested in starting a school that really teaches the insights into conditioned thinking. My other desire is to start a Krishnamurti Teacher Training College so teachers can be properly trained to educate young people about conditioning. I look forward to meeting others who would care to dialog about these possibilities.

Forum: Serious Debate Wed, 24 Jun 2009
Topic: The Oak Grove School: Is it teaching its students about conditioning or is it mearly just another prep school?

Forget it. This is like "Telephone Tree" with something so very different coming out far away from the original statement of mine about the Oak Grove School. I'm not getting into this confusion. I am "resigning" from this site. Terrence webster-Doyle

Forum: Serious Debate Wed, 24 Jun 2009
Topic: The Oak Grove School: Is it teaching its students about conditioning or is it mearly just another prep school?

Heading ##

  1. I have apparently been ?banned? from the KFA Forum site in that I posted there the same posting I started out with here on Kinfonet about the Oak Grove School. My only desire there and here is to create an intelligent dialogue about the education of young people in understanding conditioning thinking, the main reason why I joined the Oak Grove School in 1984 and to give serious attention as to whether this school is actually fulfilling this intent or not. <pre><code> I am posting relevant segments of the following emails between </code></pre> Meredy Benson, the Director of the Krishnamurti Oak Grove School, and myself to try to show what I feel is a contradiction in what they say they do and what they actually do. <pre><code> As I said in my original posting I am concerned that this </code></pre> school is hypocritical in that it is not teaching its students about conditioning as K wanted. I was asked, as others were, by K when I was the Headmaster of the school in 1984 to develop programs for young people that educated them in a practical and relevant manner to conditioning as if it were a subject, like math or science. I understood this to mean ongoing classes starting at an early age and running up through their final years. As you will see in these letters, if you wish to read them, that in my view they are not living up to the intent K set down many years ago. <pre><code> The only reason I am posting them is to create a dialogue around </code></pre>

    the schools? intent to see if in fact they are educating their students to conditioning in an ongoing ?practical and relevant manner? and not just intellectually in one survey class for seniors called ??Exploring a number of religious and philosophical worldviews including Krishnamurti?.

    <pre><code> You be the judge of these emails and do what you will with </code></pre>

    them. My only hope is to bring what I see as a hypocritical stance to light so that people interested in the insights that K was pointing to can be incorporated more clearly and comprehensively with a school apparently dedicated to doing this.

12/02/08 (M= Meredy; T=me)

M: In the high school, students explore open questions that encourage exploration of conditioning in their advisory classes and in 12th grade the students take a mandatory class, the one Debi mentioned on the phone, called Religion, Culture, and Ethics. At this time, students are encouraged to actively explore a number of religious and philosophical worldviews including Krishnamurti. The dialogue in this class is rich and I believe if you were to be a ?fly on the wall? listening to these students who have been educated at this school, you would not be able to sustain your current perspective.

<pre><code>T: In all due respect I find it amazing that one can say, ?students are </code></pre>

encouraged to actively explore a number of religious and philosophical worldviews including Krishnamurti?? Where did this come from? It sounds like a survey course taught at Villanova or the old Happy Valley School where three of our daughters went? Krishnamurti railed out against religion all the time!

? ?Religion is the frozen thought of man out of which they build temples.? ? ?Your belief in God is merely an escape from your monotonous, stupid and cruel life? ? ?The religions that we follow are created by our hopes and fears, by our desire for inward security and reassurance; and with the worship of authority, whether it is that of a saviour, a master or a priest, there come submission, acceptance and imitation."

<pre><code> T: And how one compare K?s ?worldview? with others? Either what he </code></pre>

said is true or it is not. One cannot compare what he said with other ?religious and philosophical worldviews? and really understand what this man was saying. It is totally antithetical to K?s work. How can one come to any understanding of what K was saying in this comparative methodological manner?

"To live without comparison requires tremendous intelligence and sensitivity, because then there is no example, there is no something that should be, no ideal, no hero. We begin with what actually is; and to understand what is, there is no need for comparison. When we compare, we destroy what is."

<pre><code> T: If I may be very frank, what you have just said is illogical and </code></pre>

incongruous. You must be aware of what K has said about religion and ?worldviews?, about comparison and philosophy

?Philosophy is the love of truth in everyday living, not my philosophy verses your philosophy, which is divisive...?

<pre><code>12-08-08 </code></pre>

P.S. to your e-mail: A dangerous contradiction in your required course?

Dear Meredy: There is one more important issue I only touched on in the reply to your last e-mail and it is this: Is it possible that the course ?Religion, Culture and Ethics? is a diametrically in opposition to the Oak Grove School?s intent as laid out by K? Here?s the one line in your e-mail that indicates that this may be so:

<pre><code> ?Exploring a number of religious and philosophical worldviews </code></pre>

including Krishnamurti?.

<pre><code> Where do you see that Krishnamurti has a ?worldview?? Isn?t he </code></pre>

actually saying the ?opposite? of what the class represents? Isn?t he trying to point out that having ?religious and philosophical worldviews? are divisive and hence create and sustain conflict? Isn?t he saying that one has to put aside all these worldviews that prevents peace and create conflict? In other words, isn?t he saying that identifying with a particular ethnocentric point of view, whether it?s religious, nationalistic or political, is fragmentary and hence conflict-ridden? And that this is conditioning?
And that it is all an illusion? And that we are deluded if we think that what we see as a ?worldview? as a fixed entity outside ourselves is real?
That in fact is it only an artificial conviction that we want to think is real?
In other words, it is only a figment of our hopeful imagination? Is this what the students attention is being brought to or are they simply engaging in intellectual comparisons about noble religious and philosophical ideals?

<pre><code>I am not trying to interpret or paraphrase Krishnamurti. Nor am I </code></pre>

judging you. I am only sharing observations that may or may not be accurate. I think that anyone can see this for oneself, not intellectually but actually ? in everyday living, if one takes the time and energy to look.
But the seemingly difficult thing to realize is that the conditioning ? the ?religious and philosophical worldview? ? is ?me? ? it is who I am, an arbitrary compilation of collective memories that identifies me within the group. But the confusion happens when ?I? look to see if what is going out there is real or not, doesn?t realize that the eyes it is looking through is the entity that needs to be seen. But since we have been habituated to think that the reality of ?religious and philosophical worldviews? is ?out there,? not realizing that ?out there? is a projection of what we have been conditioned to see, we continue on unaware of its dangerous implications. In other words, projection makes perception. It keeps us imprisoned in a miasma of confusing thoughts that seem to represent security or hope to us. But is this real? Perhaps it?s like looking through the eyes of what we have been taught as if we were seeing the world (worldview) through thick colored lenses.
For example, If I was raised a Catholic and was sent to a Catholic School and had to take a comparative course in ?religious and philosophical worldviews? could I only see the other religious and philosophical view points through the eyes of being a Catholic? Is the medium the message?
Would what I see, in comparison to what I been inculcated to think, be either rejected as false for not conforming to my viewpoint or intellectually entertained as ?interesting?? Or would I take on parts of other views as an outcome of such a comparative study, trying to piece together a worldview that more fits my individualistic, personal preferences due to my own unique life experiences? But if the core of who I am is still conditioned to a particular viewpoint can I ever see what is beyond that fixed perspective. Wasn?t Krishnamurti continually trying to point out how these fragmentary obstructions prevent that undiluted, non-fragmentary, non-divisive state of perception, that state of mind that he termed ?religious? in the nonsectarian use of the word? That innocence that is love that can do no harm? Can we logically, step-by- step put aside all that which prevents love, the ?religious and philosophical worldviews,? the ?collective me? who has created and sustained all this divisive conflict and therefore by doing so lay the ground work for the other to happen?

<pre><code> With care, Terrence </code></pre>
Forum: Serious Debate Mon, 29 Jun 2009
Topic: The Oak Grove School: Is it teaching its students about conditioning or is it mearly just another prep school?

Hello Yiming: Thank you for getting the dialogue back on track. It seems as if it has been taken in a direction that is not addressing the Oak Grove School and the KFA. Having been the director of the school and having been vitally interested in the conditioning that K spoke about since 1969, having taught classes on K at Sonoma State University in Northern California I am still concerned with the education of young people to conditioning for obvious reasons. My wife and I ran a school in Ojai after I left the Oak Grove. The basis intent of the school was to introduce its students, ages 11 to 15, to conditioning through every subject matter so it was integrated into their education. As far as I can see the only class at the Oak Grove on "conditioning" is taught by the director Meredy Benson Rice which is a survey course on all the "philosophical and religious world views including Krishnamurtis." I wrote to her saying that this was in direct contradiction to what K was saying. First of all he had not "world view" and he spoke out against religion many times. What I also said to her was that in order to teach about conditioning one had to do it on an ongoing developmental basis within a practical and relevant context. This context I felt that could bring out conditioning in daily relationship is bullying -- from the playground to the battlefield--as we call it on our web page www.atriumsociety.org ?For the past twenty five years I have been working on programs that could do this. K asked the staff and parents many times that the school needed programs to teach the students about conditioning. So I took this charge seriously. Two years ago I gave them to the Oak Grove school and after a two-year silence finally Meredy said that they were not needed for they were doing what I was offering. But this is not so. I personally don't care if they use my programs or not but to use some program that taught the young people about conditioning within the over all curriculum and not just once time in an intellectual survey source when they are seniors. They say that they talk to the students a lot about what K said but again this just intellectual and will only be incorporated within the system of thought as another ideal to actualize and hence to add to the confusion and conflict that all intellectual systems about how to bring about peace do. ?I look forward to hearing from you in the dialogue on Kinfonet. Best, Terrence

Forum: Serious Debate Thu, 02 Jul 2009
Topic: The Oak Grove School: Is it teaching its students about conditioning or is it mearly just another prep school?

Hello Eve and others who want to continue the dialogue about the Oak Grove: I appreciate your comments. Thank you for staying on the topic of the Oak Grove School that seems to have gotten lost in other peoples comments about extraneous things. I have never thought of myself as apart of the establishment but as one who is constantly questioning it. Please look at our programs (all for free) and tell me if you then think differently? www.atriumsociety.org This is one could say is a "school" on line. We are mainly now working with children of war in Liberia to help them to understand the prejudicial conditioned thinking that created the horrendous conflict there. At least they are open to investigating this. As K use to say, "What will it take for you to see this?" I feel that we are doing this to the best of our ability as we reach out to other places around the world who are open. I hope that you look at our site and give me feedback. By the way my wife and I did run a school in Ojai after I left the Oak Grove that did inquire into the concerns K brought about. Luckily it was funded by an outside source for we could not get enough financial support from tuitions. Best, Terrence

Forum: Serious Debate Fri, 03 Jul 2009
Topic: The Oak Grove School: Is it teaching its students about conditioning or is it mearly just another prep school?

Hello all especially Eve and Yiming: I am an educator and therefore interested in an education that can really addresses what K pointed out about the destructive nature of conditioned thinking. I first visited the potential for the Oak Grove School in the early 70s when they were just starting to have a few classes up at the property at the east end in Ojai. I wrote Mark Lee the then director of the school to come about my interest in the upcoming school. I myself had been running "free schools" based on the Summerhill model by AS Neil in England. I also taught classes on K's work at Sonoma State University in Northern California along with other classes including the "Psychology of Alternative Education. As I mentioned before my wife and I started a school in Ojai based on the questions K asked that ran for 4 years. We stopped the school to create the resources for it. Now we have the resources but no school. So for many years I have been involved in education and that is why I question the validity of the Oak Grove in it's intent to carry out what K was asking. I was there when he spoke openly about his dissatisfaction with the Oak Grove. He asked me a few times over lunch what I thought of the school but not having been there for long I couldn't give him accurate answers. Now I could of course. I hope that I am not complaining about the Oak Grove but am questioning in a way that will bring about a creative dialogue about the school and education in general. Teaching young people about conditioning takes much time in a developmental and consistent fashion year after year starting when they are quite young. So my intent here on Kinfonet is to explore an education for young people that can do exactly this (I am not interest in intellectual speculation about K's "philosophy or any thing related to it). I just want to see at least one school genuinely dedicated to actually carrying out the insights that K (along with David Bohm) has brought forward. In the next few responses I would like to share with you some of what I wrote mark Lee and Meredy as to what I see is an education that can do this. I am careful to say that these are observations to be taken lightly and not be taken as any dogmatic conclusions. Until then...Best, Terrence

Forum: Serious Debate Fri, 03 Jul 2009
Topic: The Oak Grove School: Is it teaching its students about conditioning or is it mearly just another prep school?

Hello Meredy and Mark: There is one more thing I would like to share with you both--why it is dangerous to let the intellect translate understanding conditioning into a body of knowledge that one can debate over, that one can compare with other bodies of knowledge. When this happens this knowledge then gives a false impression of understanding.

<pre><code> As I have said before If one doesn't help educate students when they are young to see, to actually be aware of, their conditioned reactions in a practical and relevant context (such as bullying) then over the years with the over emphasis on the intellect, of knowledge one is setting in place conditioning because the message is that thinking, knowledge, the intellect is the source of understanding conditioning, which it isn't. Thinking or the intellect can only create a mental picture of what conditioning is. The question is "If thought has created the terrible conflict in the world can thought undo it?" Thinking cannot see the actual conditioning as it is happening. If one doesn't introduce conditioning to young people at the beginning of their education, how it acts, or should I say reacts, in their daily lives in relationships then over time it becomes an abstraction, a generalization of knowledge and in the case of Krishnamurti it becomes "his teachings" and then more abstractly "THE teachings" which is just a convenient way to distance oneself from seeing the fact of conditioning in each and every moment. In this way the intellect formulates certain ideals and then compares them with other ideals such as what you are doing in your comparison class contrasting "world views" for that is what thought does. It is a tool of measurement. It was never designed to understand in an insightful way. That is a very different capacity that has to be nurtured in children from a very early age by certain "activities" that promote and enhance awareness. I am not talking about a "method" but rather a "mirror" that they can actually see themselves in, a "mirror" that does not distort what is, that does not reflect what one wishes things could be or not be. Awareness is that capacity that can observe one's state of mind, being aware of each and every thought/felt that moves though the brain without any interference from the observer or thinker trying to change what is seen. Just to observe, or as K put it, "silent and choiceness awareness." Knowledge is a cumulative capacity and in science and technology it works well (if the one thinking in these ways is him or herself aware of conditioning). But thought in the psychological realm gives the illusion of understanding, of knowing. It has no real effect on the conditioning. In fact it just perpetuates the lack of real intelligence that comes from observation. Thought is conceptual and awareness in perceptual. They are two very different things. The only time thought can be used in that area is when it is reporting on what is being observed in the moment or after the observation it can be used as a pointer to conditioning, but the key is in seeing. </code></pre>

This is why one must educate young people to conditioning early on, to the fact of it, otherwise this budding insight can slowly be taken over by the intellect and formulated into knowledge which then makes it dead, the past. Observation is the moment-to-moment awareness of conditioning as it is occurring. Knowledge has no place there. But the longer one waits to expose young people to this, the more thought takes over and it becomes an explanation, a description of what is, not want is (I think that the acronym of the 3Es works well here; you can about read it below it you want). What I am trying to say again is that young people need to be taught about conditioning from the start and not just intellectually entertain it when they are older entering early adulthood. It?s too late then, although one may think that one has understood conditioning for the deceptive process of thought can do that.

<pre><code> I assume that to some extent you know what I just shared with you, but are you applying it in the overall education of your students, right from the beginning as it is necessary to do? Of all the schools in the world that should be properly educating its students to conditioning within a relevant format it is you, not just giving intellectual lip service, thinking that one has brought about understanding Best, Terrence www.atriumsociety.org </code></pre>

"The use the acronym the ?3Es? can demonstrate how we need to approach changing human behavior. The 3Es represent the learning process. This is what is means:

  1. Explanation: is what I am doing right now. I am using thought to describe the learning process. If we both speak the same language and have had a similar background then what is being explained will probably make sense. The intent of this is to create a common definition of what is meant by the ?learning process.? One can call this stage ?foresight.?

  2. Example: is the next step in learning. This is when one remembers something from their past that corresponds to the Explanation. In this way one ?personalizes? the explanation in that one now thinks ?Oh, I know what he is describing for I remember when this happened to me.? For example, if I was explaining that the cause of bullying is conditioned thinking, one might see the truth of this in a past occurrence. This stage can be called ?hindsight.?

  3. Experiencing: is the stage that is not of thought. Thought is used to explain it, as I am doing here, but it is not thought that is Experiencing. In the example above of conditioned thinking, the actual awareness of the fact of conditioning as it is happening in the moment is Experiencing. This stage can be called ?insight.? The conventional process of changing behavior is through the first two stages, especially #1, the Explanation stage. We have been conditioned to think that thinking, since it can do so many amazing things, can resolve human conflict. The fact of the matter is that thinking is what caused conflict in the first place in the way we have been conditioned to think in a fragmentary, self-centered, divisive manner.

Forum: Serious Debate Sat, 04 Jul 2009
Topic: What would a school look like that actually taught Krishnamurti's insights into conditioning

My name is Terrence Webster-Doyle and as I said before I was asked by Krishnamurti to take over as the headmaster of the Oak Grove School in 1984 replacing Mark Lee who became the head of KFA. I started a debate on whether or not the Oak Grove school was actually teaching the insights K had about conditioning. I questioned that for I feel questioning is a healthy process to get the truth of something. But I felt that the dialogue on Kinfonet immediately got off course with some people speculating about various things not related to the question at hand and therefore I feel that the debate was fragmented and not focused. What I would like to attempt to do here is to stay focused on what a school would look like that actually taught K's insights in education about conditioned thinking. I would like to see what the school would do on a daily basis? What would the curriculum be like in detail? What training would the teachers have? How would conditioning be incorporated into the overall curriculum? How would one incorporate understanding conditioning into the conventional academic subjects? What practical and relevant context would be needed to demonstrate conditioning on a daily basis at the school in relationship? At what age should this start and how, not the how of a method but the how of "mirroring" conditioning as it is happening in the moment? What would be the process of learning that would have to take place in order to have conditioning understood intellectually and at the same time experientially? I want to get to particulars and not intellectualize about extraneous matters unrelated to the detailed structure and make up of a model school, not as an ideal but as an actuality that one could take as a working hypothesis and create such a school. As I said in the other debate about the Oak Grove School I want to bring to life such an education. I feel my wife and I made an attempt to do this with the Atrium School we started in Ojai the same year I left the Oak Grove. I would like to share this experience with you. So if you enter this debate please stay on track. Please don't get carried away by abstract dissertations about what K said or not or go off on some quasi spiritual or philosophical speculation. I would greatly appreciate if you would share your observations on such a school so we can together at least "on paper" create such a place of intelligence.

Forum: Serious Debate Sat, 04 Jul 2009
Topic: The Oak Grove School: Is it teaching its students about conditioning or is it mearly just another prep school?

Eve: Please don't worry about me. It is not a matter of letting go of anything but rather bringing it into the light of awareness to see what a real education would look like in juxtaposition to this the shortcomings of the Oak Grove. By the way have you had the opportunity to look at our web site www.atriumsociety.org ? Terrence P.S. I don't want to tear anything down but rather build up a school that can not only help young people to get the right education which would include understanding conditioning but that would help them transform society to a healthier state. I don't think that being educated about conditioning would prevent one from getting a "good job" and contributing to positive changes. All one has to do is to go conventions like the Green Festivals to see how many positive vocational possibilities there are for health change. Isn't becoming a "misfit" just a reaction to society as it is?

Forum: Serious Debate Sat, 04 Jul 2009
Topic: What would a school look like that actually taught Krishnamurti's insights into conditioning

Radical means "at the root" not a rebellious reaction. Yes, I think that such a school might not get accreditation but if it taught all the academics necessary for college entrance through the eyes of conditioning as we did in the Atrium School then I think it could get the necessary accreditation. But this is has not happened yet especially with the Oak Grove school. But I would still like to have people stay with the intent of this debate since I think it is imperative to create such an education. Does anyone have any concrete insights into this as I have asked at the start above?

Forum: Serious Debate Sun, 05 Jul 2009
Topic: The Oak Grove School: Is it teaching its students about conditioning or is it mearly just another prep school?

To David, Eve and Yiming: David thank you for your comments, although I wouldn?t consider myself a ?lad? at this stage of life being in my seventh year (by the way my name is Terrence). My intention with both of the ?debates? was a straight-forward objective inquiry into whether the Oak Grove School was actually teaching about conditioning as K asked of it. And secondly to elicit insights into what such a school could be like. My intention was never to get into personal conflicts of a subjective psychological nature. I feel not conflict with anyone, perhaps only frustration. My main interest is in understanding conditioning and having an education that actually has this as their focus. I appreciate Eve?s latest comments on how to teach in this way. This is what I was asking for it and now has given me a greater understanding of this process. When I was at the Oak Grove I spent part of an afternoon up at K?s house at the east end with K, Mark Lee, David Moody and Mary Zimbalist (K?s ?companion?). It was there I had the opportunity to go over a very simple single sheet of paper that had K?s intent for the school. In essence he was just interested in helping the students to understand conditioning. It was as simple as that. K many times during his talks said that understanding conditioning was simple and not difficult but just hard work. He asked the parents and especially the staff to develop programs that could directly teach about conditioning. I took that charge seriously and tried to do so with the programs that I have created.
As I have said previously when I approached the Oak Grove School a few years back with my programs they were met with resistance. As I also said before that it made little difference to me if they used my programs or not but to use some sort of means to teach the students in a consistent, developmental fashion about conditioning as a subject in a relevant and practical format such as bullying. But this went nowhere. They felt that they were doing this but not directly in any subject class on conditioning. All the things they offered were in my view secondary as best, mostly psychological methods to change conditioning. I differed with them on this, as you know. But this is now past and for me there is no need to go into what the Oak Grove does or doesn?t any more. What I am interested in is a school that does what K?s asked us to do.
And I have found one in Liberia. To quote from a book about this school called Brave New Child ? Liberating the Children of Liberia and the World, There have been many theories put forward as causes of the Liberian civil war ? including unemployment, abuse of human rights, political patronage, illiteracy, lack of development and tribalism, among others. While it is true that all of these factors may have contributed, at the heart of the Liberian conflict ? as with all global conflicts ? is psychological conditioning, the fundamental cause of all human conflict.? As the book goes on to say (from the back cover), ?These Lessons demonstrate that no matter how conditioned one is to violent behavior, and these children of Liberia are perhaps the most severe cases one can imagine, that they can be liberated from that habitual mindset. And if they can, so can all children who face conflict daily ? from bullying on the playground to bullying on the battlefield.? And as Marvin Davis the teacher of the Liberian Common Ground peace school program says, ?The work of the Common Ground Society in helping the youth of war torn Liberia understand the basic destructive nature of prejudicial conditioned thinking can prevent another and more catastrophic civil war that most likely could last for many generations to come. This is based on the fact that these young people have been primed for war having grown up in it, that is, they have been unsuspectingly habituated to horrendous violence and that if this is unleashed, as it easily could be, it will be catastrophic. This is an urgent warning that needs to be heard and properly attended to, for as history has shown, without understanding this basic reasoning we have again and again been compelled to go to war.? Here is a courageous man who after spending seven years as a refugee in the Gambia went back to his home in Liberia after the fifteen-year civil war and started the peace school project with twenty war torn young people in Buchanan. This amazing book is about this yearlong experience. He is now in the capital of Monrovia and has taught over three thousand young people about the effects of conditioning as the underlying factor in creating the war. If any of you are interested in understanding how Marvin transformed the violent revengeful conditioned mindset of these children I suggest that you look at the book on our web page www.atriumsociety.org. The book is there for you to either buy at Trafford Publications at http://books.trafford.com/07-0354 or you can see a sample on our site and even download the book in full if you wish. (Yiming: you stated that you have the financial capability to fund such a school. I think that the one in Liberia would be a great one to do and I know that he desperately needs funding to continue. If you are interested in this please let me know).

Forum: Serious Debate Sun, 05 Jul 2009
Topic: What would a school look like that actually taught Krishnamurti's insights into conditioning

To David, Eve and Yiming: David thank you for your comments, although I wouldn?t consider myself a ?lad? at this stage of life being in my seventh year (by the way my name is Terrence). My intention with both of the ?debates? was a straight-forward objective inquiry into whether the Oak Grove School was actually teaching about conditioning as K asked of it. And secondly to elicit insights into what such a school could be like. My intention was never to get into personal conflicts of a subjective psychological nature. I feel not conflict with anyone, perhaps only frustration. My main interest is in understanding conditioning and having an education that actually has this as their focus. I appreciate Eve?s latest comments on how to teach in this way. This is what I was asking for it and now has given me a greater understanding of this process. When I was at the Oak Grove I spent part of an afternoon up at K?s house at the east end with K, Mark Lee, David Moody and Mary Zimbalist (K?s ?companion?). It was there I had the opportunity to go over a very simple single sheet of paper that had K?s intent for the school. In essence he was just interested in helping the students to understand conditioning. It was as simple as that. K many times during his talks said that understanding conditioning was simple and not difficult but just hard work. He asked the parents and especially the staff to develop programs that could directly teach about conditioning. I took that charge seriously and tried to do so with the programs that I have created.
As I have said previously when I approached the Oak Grove School a few years back with my programs they were met with resistance. As I also said before that it made little difference to me if they used my programs or not but to use some sort of means to teach the students in a consistent, developmental fashion about conditioning as a subject in a relevant and practical format such as bullying. But this went nowhere. They felt that they were doing this but not directly in any subject class on conditioning. All the things they offered were in my view secondary as best, mostly psychological methods to change conditioning. I differed with them on this, as you know. But this is now past and for me there is no need to go into what the Oak Grove does or doesn?t any more. What I am interested in is a school that does what K?s asked us to do.
And I have found one in Liberia. To quote from a book about this school called Brave New Child ? Liberating the Children of Liberia and the World, There have been many theories put forward as causes of the Liberian civil war ? including unemployment, abuse of human rights, political patronage, illiteracy, lack of development and tribalism, among others. While it is true that all of these factors may have contributed, at the heart of the Liberian conflict ? as with all global conflicts ? is psychological conditioning, the fundamental cause of all human conflict.? As the book goes on to say (from the back cover), ?These Lessons demonstrate that no matter how conditioned one is to violent behavior, and these children of Liberia are perhaps the most severe cases one can imagine, that they can be liberated from that habitual mindset. And if they can, so can all children who face conflict daily ? from bullying on the playground to bullying on the battlefield.? And as Marvin Davis the teacher of the Liberian Common Ground peace school program says, ?The work of the Common Ground Society in helping the youth of war torn Liberia understand the basic destructive nature of prejudicial conditioned thinking can prevent another and more catastrophic civil war that most likely could last for many generations to come. This is based on the fact that these young people have been primed for war having grown up in it, that is, they have been unsuspectingly habituated to horrendous violence and that if this is unleashed, as it easily could be, it will be catastrophic. This is an urgent warning that needs to be heard and properly attended to, for as history has shown, without understanding this basic reasoning we have again and again been compelled to go to war.? Here is a courageous man who after spending seven years as a refugee in the Gambia went back to his home in Liberia after the fifteen-year civil war and started the peace school project with twenty war torn young people in Buchanan. This amazing book is about this yearlong experience. He is now in the capital of Monrovia and has taught over three thousand young people about the effects of conditioning as the underlying factor in creating the war. If any of you are interested in understanding how Marvin transformed the violent revengeful conditioned mindset of these children I suggest that you look at the book on our web page www.atriumsociety.org. The book is there for you to either buy at Trafford Publications at http://books.trafford.com/07-0354 or you can see a sample on our site and even download the book in full if you wish. (Yiming: you stated that you have the financial capability to fund such a school. I think that the one in Liberia would be a great one to do and I know that he desperately needs funding to continue. If you are interested in this please let me know).

Forum: Serious Debate Sun, 05 Jul 2009
Topic: What would a school look like that actually taught Krishnamurti's insights into conditioning

Eve: Aren't there certain universally accepted standards of politeness? David did not ask you to stop posting here but instead to stop posting your personal complaints within this context who's intent is of a more general objective educational nature. You do seem to have a "chip your shoulder" and have used this forum to express this in subtle and overt ways blaming me, for example, for not wanting to get into resolving your conflict. You seem to be acting as the victim here. As I said before this was never my intent with this forum so I agree with David in his view that perhaps another forum for your personal grieviances might work better for you. So therefore there is nothing then to prevent you from saying with the original topic here minus the personal remarks.

Forum: Serious Debate Wed, 08 Jul 2009
Topic: What would a school look like that actually taught Krishnamurti's insights into conditioning

David, Your views on education about conditioning were the most straight forward and intelligent I have heard. I greatly appreciate the simplicity and directness of that. It makes sense as it was what K was asking for. Best, Terrence

14 posts  |  Page 1 of 1