The Older Ones Raise the Younger Ones

Right now we will try together to clarify the questions that trouble us, to arrive at a new direction, a new path, and new currents in everything that concerns the upbringing of our children. And today we will focus on a new direction that has come to be called "The older ones raise the younger ones," because, in essence, herein lies the solution to the problem of how to prepare the older children to become those who bring up the younger ones.

In previous talks you said that we need to give some children the opportunity to raise others, but you did not go into detail. To me it seemed a little similar to programs that, to a certain extent, exist in the traditional system of upbringing. For example, they take sixth-grade children (children from the lower grades are not considered old enough) to help the children a little with their studies at school (one hour a week) or to play with the younger children.

And indeed, I noticed that you are running a very unusual program in which the older children hold discussions with the younger ones. On their own initiative, the older ones can introduce various ideas; they also talk with the younger ones about life, and do not simply play with them and help them. At the moment this really exists, and it is something completely different.

We still need to find the right proportion in order to distribute the child's time, not at school (I can't even call it a school), but when he is in the group, in our system of upbringing. Part of the time will be devoted to receiving information, to learning; part of the time he will be in an environment suited to him; and part of the time — with the older children.

So it turns out that during the day the child is in different groups.

Possibly. In any case, he has to learn. And we need to try to organize as many activities as possible in nature, at businesses, in museums — children should not sit in front of a blackboard in a classroom.

Learning should not be passive but impactful and dynamic.

That is exactly how I picture learning. This will take up a third of the whole time. Another third will be taken up by their discussions, in which an instructor will take part, one who will have to step somewhat into the background so that the children can work through their own problems independently.

They also need to be taught how to do this.

And should the children do it completely on their own?

No, the instructor can be present there, but he needs to be on the children's level, and this is truly an art. He must know how to introduce corrections into the discussion in a hidden form, so that they do not feel or understand it, and also how to keep them from going in a direction that leads to a dead end. And a third part, or 20% of the time, should be devoted to the older children raising them. The age difference between them can be two or three years.

If, say, we suggest that one of the older children explain some topic in physics to the younger ones — do you know what effect this will have? How it will spur the child on to learn the material in order to pass it on to the younger ones! And with what admiration the younger children will look at him — how big and grown-up he is!

That is why I believe that from 20 to 30 percent of the time should be allotted to their meeting. It turns out that with such lessons we are bringing up the older children to become influential and grown-up. And at the same time, the younger ones receive a wonderful example to follow from their older brothers.

We only need to prepare them. And thanks to this we will see the most effective part of the upbringing — of both the older and the younger children.

Why does this seem so important to you?

The older ones will want to be influential and significant, and meanwhile they will be speaking about the right things. After all, it is said that from "for my own sake" one comes to "for the sake of others." And when the younger children see the older ones, they consider them truly grown-up (because to them the instructor is just an automaton). But someone who is already two or three years older, an older brother, is an authority for them in any matter; they follow him, as the saying goes, "with their eyes closed." Therefore, when the younger ones follow a child who sets them a good example — this is wonderful.

We suggested that boys of eleven or twelve years old hold a discussion with the younger children. I did not have enough time to help them prepare, and they prepared everything themselves. First the younger children were asked to lift a huge pot filled with water, and their favorite treat — chocolate — was chosen as the prize. None of them managed it alone, and then they unanimously decided to do it together. After they had all successfully lifted the heavy pot together, they shared their impressions of how each of them had gone through this peculiar test.

Very interesting, a good example. In this test you gave the children the opportunity to display very important qualities.

So, at the age of seven or eight, a child is already able to notice when he wants something for himself and when for others.

They are already able to analyze: "Why did I want to lift the weight by myself?

To get the chocolate." — So that only I would get it and no one else.

But now I know that I cannot do it alone and must share the chocolate with the others. How will I act in a similar situation next time? Will I go ahead from the start and share the chocolate with everyone, or will I try to manage on my own? Say, I can lift a heavy object by myself and receive chocolate for it. Is it worth doing this by myself or together with everyone?

Would you give him the opportunity to choose?

We can let them understand that such a possibility exists.

Could this not cause the child some harm? Would it not take away his right to choose? After all, when a younger child sees an older one, he wants to be just like him. And if he becomes like that, then this deprives him of the possibility of making his own choice to become someone different.

The choice consists in precisely this: learning from the right environment. We have no other choice. We cannot live in a void. What does it mean that I develop on my own? By means of what I have inside me? But there there is only my ego and impulses toward various pleasures. I do not know who I am and what I am. I am like the boy Mowgli from the jungle. What will come of me? We always develop in accordance with the surrounding environment, and here we are given an environment that is a good example for us.

But if we place them in a bad environment, then the children may choose it. — There is no choice: whatever environment a person has entered, that is what he becomes; he comes out of it as if off a conveyor belt.

Today there is an enormous range of choices, and in the system of upbringing there is great hope that if everything is very open for the children, then in this way the child will learn to make his own choice.

The child will learn to choose?

Exactly. Children are given the opportunity to choose, and we see that they are very confused.

On what basis do you believe that a child knows how to choose? I do not understand this. Can a person really make a choice? Grown-up people do not know how to make the right choice, so what is there even to say about children?

We can see how much time it sometimes takes for adults to make a decision: what do they want in life?

Even to choose a brand of cornflakes in the supermarket…

Precisely!

According to integral upbringing, a child is under the influence of adults until the age of twenty solely for the reason that it is the adult who can give him a good environment for his upbringing. And I, as a father, am constantly worried about what environment my child will be in. That is the only thing that is important to me. That is how I worried about my own children. For the same reason we care about these children too.

In what form do you think the discussion should take place?

It does not matter. The fact that they express their opinion and "stew in this pot" is already good. Their minds are already working in the right direction: to connect together or not? Is it worth getting the chocolate? Why do it and what for? Could I have done it myself? — No. And together? — Yes. What to do: do it together and get only part of the chocolate, or is it worth staying on my own and succeeding? Even a grown-up does not think about such things; he thinks automatically, according to his narrow egoistic way of thinking. But here he broadens it and enters into a wonderful, broad communication with the whole environment. This is very important and contributes to a person's inner development. This is the essence of the human being within us, for he is a social creature. And in this way you bring him into the right connection with the environment. If he grows up in such an environment, then later he will be able to fit in anywhere. Moreover, those around him will find him easy to be with.

You say that a child is a social creature.

We are already, from the very start, created by Nature as social creatures. Every species in Nature has its own pack, its own family for a certain time. The exceptions are certain birds and wolves, which have a permanent mate for life. All other animals mate only during the mating period. Human beings, however, are social creatures who need a social life that will provide each of us with our own life and means of subsistence according to the principle: I am for all, and all are for me. Today we cannot exist in the world by any other principle. We are dependent on one another in everything.

But you say that the ability to hold a discussion can be developed in a child at a very young age.

One can develop dependence, participation, the ability to yield and to examine one's relationships with everyone. If all of us are component parts of a single mechanism and unable to arrange our lives well without its inner harmony, then, thanks to such work with children, we are preparing good people for the humanity of the future.

So it turns out that a child's ability to arrange his life in the future depends on his ability to get along with the environment in which he finds himself.

It depends on his ability to get along with any environment, because, in the end, all of humanity will need to adopt a single model, since we are in an integral system.

And without this he has no future?

No.

To the question "Why should we be friends?" the children gave very natural answers: if you run into difficulties, a friend can help you; or if you are together with friends, then you are no longer afraid of anything and you feel their support. They can no longer imagine how it could be that they would not be together. The children now cannot imagine any other reality; they have already clothed themselves in this model.

The children have grasped that doing everything together is good.

And it really is good, and this is the model we need to arrive at.

First of all, it is true, it is natural, and it is obligatory for everyone. And second, the child naturally sees where his gain lies, who gives him confidence, and he seeks the society suited to him. The only question is what type of society he is looking for.

In one of the sessions we gave the instructors the task of finding out from the children why it is worth uniting. And if someone does not want to do it, how do you persuade him otherwise? And the children answered that you should suggest that this child join a group of children playing together, and then he will get a thousand times more pleasure than if he played by himself. But, as one of them said, it is impossible to explain this in words, because you have to feel it for yourself.

I would like to know: if we lead the children to such clarification and "back them into a corner" a little, is this good for them? I have doubts about whether such an approach is right — won't the child "break"?

The dialogue should be as open as possible. In addition, the children need to be given the chance to watch a recording of the lesson so that they can see how they answered the questions earlier. And after that, continue the discussion and give them the opportunity to correct themselves. After all, when a person sees himself from the outside, he already evaluates both himself and others differently. And then they need to be given the opportunity to return to the previous discussion and again shown the video recording with them in it, and in this way, each time, they will raise the level of the discussion and reach such heights that are even hard to imagine.

Do they need to have something explained to them, or should they simply be allowed to watch the recording?

No explanations are needed; let them develop on their own. You should only remind them of how the conversation began, because sometimes they no longer remember it.

In effect, the clarifications take place both among the younger children and within the older children, because they go through this discussion inside themselves.

Of course.

And during their preparation they think through how to explain it to the child. The instructors also meet with these children before the discussion and prepare them. It seems to me that they even asked them not to try to lift this pot — otherwise the clarification would not work.

And each of them had to try to lift the heavy pot and feel this, didn't they?

Correct.

The point is that this is also a sensory upbringing, because a great deal is said about sensations: what do I feel, how will I feel differently?

Upbringing must be only at the level of the feelings. The child has to go through this.

Today it is not customary to talk about such things. The only exceptions are brief conversations with parents. It is simply wonderful that you can talk with a group of children about what they feel!

If perception does not pass through the feelings — the entire essence of a person — then this is no longer upbringing; nothing remains of it.

So it turns out that if learning does not make an impression, then everything stays at the level of knowledge?

I have to receive such an impression from it that a memory remains with me, and on the basis of these memories I act further.

At some point I heard you speak about the opposition between knowledge and revelation. What is the difference between what I will feel for myself and knowledge that I have and that remains theoretical?

There is no such thing as knowledge on its own. We have not spoken about how to teach physics, mathematics, and the other exact sciences, which also need to be conveyed through discussion and through inner, sensory perception.

But that is abstract.

The problem is precisely that it is not abstract. Why would it be abstract? We observe the phenomena of Nature, and if, say, I take an acid and combine it with another reagent, or lift two kilograms of weight into the air, or mix certain gases, any phenomenon can be translated into sensory perception. And then it is recorded within the person, and from all the forms of Nature's development — the still, vegetative, animate, and human — from the various processes taking place in optics, mechanics, biology, zoology, or botany, he receives a sensory perception. A person must sense how this takes place inside him. And if he enters into this process, then he becomes a human being within his world.

Does this connect him to the world? Does he form some other kind of understanding?

Yes, he understands that he accepts and feels all these laws, and they pass through him.

So after this he will destroy the world less?

Yes, but in addition, he will attain the single form of all of Nature, which reflects the unity of the whole world and does not divide into physics, chemistry, biology, and zoology. It is we ourselves who divide it up this way, but in essence it is a whole picture, which we slice into such layers because it is more convenient to perceive it that way. We cannot be universal scientists able to attain a complete perception, but this leads us toward an integral view.

And what about the fact that after the first explanation to the child, the situation looks as if he is speaking in slogans, answering with the very same words that were in the explanation — that is, he is not yet living through this impression? Say, he was told that when you do something together with others it is much better than alone. And he answers that together is better.

Then start practicing with them. And take your seemingly dry and meaningless phrase and try to pass it through various impressions, so that by the end of the lesson he understands that you are conveying to him a special law that exists in Nature and in society. And according to this law, when parts are joined together (1+1+1+…), a large, strong mass results.

And then the question arises that parents and educators usually raise: that you are raising a child in some kind of closed world and teaching him that being together is much better and that this is the law of Nature, and then the child goes out into the street and lands in a jungle. How is he to correctly connect these two worlds?

That is not so; such a child will never be harmed. It seems to us that a person who understands the laws of Nature's governance and how he himself should behave with Nature and in society will be unhappy, and everyone will take advantage of this and extract their own benefit from him. But this is not the case.

And if he learns to yield and begins to behave this way in the street, where no one acts like that?

No, we do not teach yielding just like that. We are speaking, after all, about three lines.

And what do these three lines consist of?

Our behavior should be balanced by kindness and severity, by a generous hand and a good heart together with restrictions and laws. We observe this in Nature as well: you always have two reins. So a person who finds himself in such a situation actually comes into balance with society. In balance, two forces must be present, because with one force alone you will never achieve anything. We ourselves see that in Nature there exist two forces: the force of reception and the force of bestowal, positive influence and negative, heat and cold, pressure and its absence. That is why we need to teach a person how to always be in balance between these two forces and how, by means of them, to relate to society. If a child interacts with society through these two forces, he will never be harmed. Society, too, will perceive him correctly and will sense him as its positive part.

What action is the opposite of yielding? If, on the one hand, I need to yield, then what should the reaction be on the other side?

I yield only on the condition that the other side understands me in exactly the same way as I understand it. Otherwise, perhaps I do not need to yield at all, and instead I will need to apply pressure — and considerable pressure at that. And we see that such pressure can escalate into wars. But this too is called a kind of yielding, for I am giving up my good attitude in order to create a balanced counteraction to the force standing before me.

Very well, here there is food for thought. Usually I sum up the conversation myself, but this time we gave that opportunity to the children. Here is their conclusion:

1. Only together can you achieve success.

2. If you are together with friends, you feel that it is great!

3. Together with friends you feel more joy.