On a beautiful, warm day two Saturdays ago David Moody held a discussion of his recently published book, THE UNCONDITIONED MIND: J. Krishnamurti And The OAK GROVE SCHOOL. David Moody was the first teacher to be hired to teach at the Oak Grove School in Ojai. This was in 1975. He later became director of the Oak Grove School. The book discussion was held in the late afternoon at the Krishnamurti Library, formerly known as Pine Cottage, here in Ojai. About 50 people attended including myself and many others who were or are involved with the KFA. I recognized the faces of people from 35 years ago who used to attend the K talks in the Oak Grove.

The book is of interest to those who want to learn of the power struggles and conflicting visions that enevitably arise when something as unique and innovative as the Oak Grove School is attempted. It is a very interesting book to those of us who knew many of the participants, teachers, parents, students and administravtive personel. And I think it would be of interest to those who are interested in all of the schools founded by K.

Here is a quote from the book that is topical to this forum and may be of interest to some of you on what is conditioning. "Conditioning is essentially the weight of tradition, the burden of past generations, the accumulated patterns of thought and judgement imposed on the individual by society. I hasten to say that this is not a complete or only definition of conditioning but a view from one (David Moody) who has given it some serious consideration.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Tue, 17 Jan 2012.

i think with respect that the people you mention, were other people , that is connected and symonously link with that same man, i recall myself, the name david moody, but thought it to be a fictional name. the polical game started around the early 1970's, where people,s name, identity, and actual form were believed to be of another social kind, that is they were judged as real men, and so the conscensus saw them as characters,

the early 70's was a time, when humans were humans, friends, and the great human race, lived their lives , almost like the natural men , it was good idealisation for some, where people would talk late at night, and look forward to another day, of our human lives.

the real question of life centred on what man actually was, so people would not know your human identity, people whom saw you as real, wanted you to be the archetype of the human race. socialism was resisted, as some groups, resisted truth, and seemed to play a supported role as if born a politic breed, or a follower of a court, actually fundamental.

there is truth tellers, and others, more play out a saviour game, but there country is an adopted one, and there was difference between, the told truth and the living of it, WE HAD to live human truth in our own lands, now there is none, but personal liars.

schools were actually based on sincere cults, where indians, would naturally form a group and discuss solitute, and have a integrated view of life, they had a way that time of saving man, you kind of was astonished by them, and they were not actally krishnarmurti, apart from one of them. at the same time people had educational groups, but they were more natural learning groups and used to talk as friends, resisting state education , though helpling out.

these groups were eventually known as schools, and they would know by sight and contact, other groups, people whom read indian philospher krishnarmuri, it was not that big, people now express their lies, through their berserk nature, and at this time, the meeting groups , talking about education, were not interested in schools at all. they liked to meet, were quiet churchy type people, were fundamentalists, and there connection with krishnarmurti was more practically sharing the same space, or place.

krishnarmurti schools, are just a sham, there was no idealogy to support these places, they had more informal people groups, like quiet people talking, and some places shared it with educational groups. people like me don't like the association with education, and philosophy being expressed b y someone whom was not a philsopher, and infact there have been four krisharmurtis, or more, schools as educational places, have became modern names with the indian seer's name, brockwood back for instance had talks due to pressure from the english middle class or international feeling. the indian could not talk to the english , or anglophille, and the contemporary talk started. there was no schools but there is now, there was infact many class, but there is not anymore, there was organisers with understanding but that was a few years ago. the group jack talks about was a meeting like imaginative people , who were talking probably of another subject, the k group did not offer anything but quiet meditation and some informal discussion. school was infact an after hours meditation, and that was your choice. the modern thing is a theatrical turd, where popularism lies to the people, and the lives that were tribes.

frank

the messiah

Jack Pine wrote:
"Conditioning is essentially the weight of tradition, the burden of past generations, the accumulated patterns of thought and judgement imposed on the individual by society."

So the question is whether the brain can feel this weight and unburden itself. I've seen no evidence that it can, and I can only believe or doubt that K's brain could and did, so all we have are statements like this to build a religion on or to file away with all the rest of the rubbish we cherish.

Jack Pine wrote:
"Conditioning is essentially the weight of tradition, the burden of past generations, the accumulated patterns of thought and judgement imposed on the individual by society.

This definition suggests that "society" is something outside of the self. Society is a pattern of thinking within the self. The perception of conditioning as imposed on "me" by an outside entity limits freedom.

Craig Walker wrote:
This definition suggests that "society" is something outside of the self. Society is a pattern of thinking within the self.

It can be looked upon in this way, Craig. But also, self is society within one. We are dealing with collective thought. The self is the transmiting mechanism of collective thought.

Self and society are two aspects of the one thing, collective thought. This is one reason why K said the individual does not exist. The other reason is that the self is not indivisible.

I do not think David Moody has intended to make the self and society counterposed, although the wording Jack quotes may make it appear so.

Society is the manifestation of the values and expectations of a group of people conditioned by their circumstances and each other.

lidlo lady wrote:
So the question is whether the brain can feel this weight and unburden itself. I've seen no evidence that it can, and I can only believe or doubt that K's brain could and did, so all we have are statements like this to build a religion on or to file away with all the rest of the rubbish we cherish.

You have seen 'no evidence'? Where are you looking? - at everyone else?

Why not find out first-hand - within yourself? Too difficult? Easier to be the expert on others perhaps?

Craig Walker wrote:
This definition suggests that "society" is something outside of the self. Society is a pattern of thinking within the self. The perception of conditioning as imposed on "me" by an outside entity limits freedom.

Are you and Peng saying that the individual and society are a two way street? That our thought activity conditions society and that society, in turn, conditions us? I think that's correct. We are society and society is us.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Tue, 17 Jan 2012.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
You have seen 'no evidence'? Where are you looking? - at everyone else?

It doesn't matter where you look if you're capable of seeing what's there. When your head is stuffed with K-isms, however, you see through the K prism.

lidlo lady wrote:
It doesn't matter where you look if you're capable of seeing what's there.

Oh but it does matter. That is why you have to constantly undermine K, and anyone else who has listened to what he said.

Nothing can be understood by continuing with judgements and opinions of others. It begins and ends with observation of the movement of thought - the self - internally.

Not palatable eh! Self doesn't like that, so it goes on the attack.

This post was last updated by Patricia Hemingway Tue, 17 Jan 2012.

God, you are one tiresome old twat, Patricia. I feel sorry for anyone you're related to who might feel obligated to put up with you.

lidlo lady wrote:
God, you are one tiresome twat, Patricia.

Ah - back to the schoolyard taunts from the schoolyard bully.

What is it supposed to achieve I wonder. Intimidation?

Well - perhaps it worked for you in grade-school, and is a very cherished memory of 'power'. But you are a big boy now!

Okay, Patricia, you've worn me out. You're just not worth the trouble.

lidlo lady wrote:
Okay, Patricia, you've worn me out. You're just not worth the trouble.

Oh yes - it is wearing if the schoolyard bully can't achieve the desired intimidation.

I'm sure you'd sooner be put out of your misery than be intimidated.

lidlo lady wrote:
I'm sure you'd sooner be put out of your misery than be intimidated.

And I am sure you would love to do that.

Patricia's stupid, pig-headed persistence wins. She can go on like this forever. She has nothing to say, but damned if she can't say it for longer than anyone else.

lidlo lady wrote:
Patricia's stupid, pig-headed persistence wins. She can go on like this forever. She has nothing to say, but damned if she can't say it for longer than anyone else.

The last word, and back to the schoolyard insults from lidlo!

This post was last updated by Patricia Hemingway Tue, 17 Jan 2012.

lidlo lady wrote:
She can go on like this forever. She has nothing to say, but damned if she can't say it for longer than anyone else.

You know there are some things[when Nick is not going on an endless pointless personal attack]that actually challenge belief systems. However mostly it seems he is more interested in the upper hand so to speak.He takes paul to task for blabbering all over every thread...yet he does so himself.If one is attempting to discover/uncover ones own conditioning..surely one may need to look at Ones self..first and foremost? So I repeat you are no different that anyone else here..not Paul..not Dr.S...not Patricia ..not me..except in the mistaken assumption that you are!

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Jack Pine wrote:
Are you and Peng saying that the individual and society are a two way street? That our thought activity conditions society and that society, in turn, conditions us? I think that's correct. We are society and society is us.

Answering for myself, yes Jack. As long as there is no individual, in the true sense of the word, there is symbiosis, the social man. I am the mechanism by which society reproduces itself. I know there must be more to me than that. I am aware how my situation is one of extreme poverty of being, but I cannot help it.

But I was also reducing the man/society dichotomy to one thing, collective thought. I think K goes into this quite deeply, like no one else that I have come across has. There is collective thought which is expressed in the atomised human and the atomised society he creates and which creates him. It is a symbiosis within collective thought.

We are also the vehicles through which collective thought extends itself. And it is this function that leads us to believe we are creating something, even here and now.

We may occasionally create something new or special. There may be an insight, a break through. But we are not in a position to properly discern the wheat from the chaff. That which is new is therefore assimilated immediately into the old.

This post was last updated by Peng Shu Tse (account deleted) Wed, 18 Jan 2012.

The field of the known, which includes both the fragments of "self" and "society", is collective. It must be, because it is conditioned. These fragments interact within each of us in a self-reinforcing way; it's not that an outer "society" imposes its conditioning on "us".

In David Moody's book you can see that much of what he thinks is imposed on him by others is his own creation (or reaction). Because of this, he contributes as much to the collective confusion at the school as the others. How could it be otherwise? In spite of this, he and the others manage to create with Krishnamurti a school that is grounded in the teachings.

This post was last updated by Craig Walker Wed, 18 Jan 2012.

Craig Walker wrote:
Because of this, he contributes as much to the collective confusion at the school as the others.

If you know something about "the collective confusion at the school", is it because you are or have been directly involved? If so, what can you say about whether a K-school differs much from the usual, typical conditioning institutions parents put their kids in?

Craig Walker wrote:
it's not that an outer "society" imposes its conditioning on "us".

I don't see society as being seperate from the individual. The collective thought of society has conditioned the individual to be christian, Buddhist, communist, capitalist or whatever. And the individual, as part of society, by accepting that conditioning reinforces the collective thought, or conditioning that conditions the individual. I think that makes sense and maybe it's not too far from what you are trying to point out.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Thu, 19 Jan 2012.

Craig Walker wrote:
In David Moody's book you can see that much of what he thinks is imposed on him by others is his own creation (or reaction). Because of this, he contributes as much to the collective confusion at the school as the others. How could it be otherwise? In spite of this, he and the others manage to create with Krishnamurti a school that is grounded in the teachings.

You may be right. I have never met Moody but I often saw him at the talks and especially at the question and answer sessions with K where he would, invariably, ask a thoughful question.

I do remember that there was a lot of dissatisfaction among many of the parents and teachers at Oak Grove in the early 1980's. Mark Lee and Erna were often mentioned in conjunction with this dissatisfaction. I didn't know about the power play with Hidley and his business pardner and Erna until I read Moody's book. And from what I saw back then and what I saw of Dr. Hidley I wouldn't doubt that for a minute.

I'm pretty sure that Hidley eventually took all of his many kids out of Oak Grove and put them in a Catholic School. The one in the upper valley which I can't remember the name of right now. Which leads me to believe that Hidley did try to mold the Oak Grove School into a personal image of what he thought a school should be. One perhaps much more traditionally structured than what K and many of the rest of the parents and teachers at Oak Grove had in mind.

I don't know why Moody wrote the book but it appears that he is still bitter about what happened especially with Erna. Maybe writing the book will enable him to let his bitterness go and move on.

I'm only basing my comments on what I read in David's book. I don't mean any disrespect to David, who is obviously a dedicated and capable teacher/administrator. As Krishnamurti observed, we're all conditioned to see the fragment of ourselves as the whole, and this produces contradiction and confusion in our relationships. If you read the book with that in mind, it's quite illuminating.

I served on the KFA Board for 3 years (long after the events in this book). It was challenging because of the mix of personalities--including my own--and the onslaught of the recession. Like David, however, I felt honored to make a contribution to Krishnamurti's work.

lidlo lady wrote:
I feel sorry for anyone you're related to who might feel obligated to put up with you.

You my friend are neither obligated..or related..yet feel compelled to spill the bile...tisk tisk!:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Craig Walker wrote:
I served on the KFA Board for 3 years (long after the events in this book).

Yeah Craig, I know who you are. Didn't you also oversee the renovation of Arya Vihara into it's present incarnation as a Bed and Breakfast called Pepper Tree Retreat?

RICK LEIN wrote:
You my friend are neither obligated..or related..yet feel compelled to spill the bile...tisk tisk!:)

Its the thinking compulsion that can not be stopped :) In that we are family.

Jack Pine wrote:
Yeah Craig, I know who you are. Didn't you also oversee the renovation of Arya Vihara into it's present incarnation as a Bed and Breakfast called Pepper Tree Retreat?

Ouch ..... !!!