What I learŶt froŵ NaŶa: DoŵesticatiŶg EducatioŶ iŶ a Tiŵe of Industrial Thinking. Seminar: The Future of Architectural Education, Faculty of Architecture, CEPT University, 26 th – 27 th Dec 2012 Riyaz Tayyibji, Faculty, School of Architecture, CEPT University, Ahmedabad. In the seminar in July, earlier this year, my paper outlined ten main points that I thought framed the architectural value system at the School of Architecture CEPT University, over the period of its growth and development, across these 50 years. In some cases I alluded to; and in other cases stated the relationship of these values to the prevalent values in the context that the school finds itself. In these subsequent months I have mulled over and discussed this issue with friends and colleagues and have been often told that it is old fashioned stuff, to contemplate the place and nature of values in the perceivable future. I have found it nearly impossible to address this issue in the abstract, a fact that almost suggested that my friends are right. However, in the process it did occur to me that there is another way of looking at this, that there are things that are far away, and there are things that are within reach. It is my instinct that in times of uncertainty we must gather what is close at hand to deal with larger issues with greater balance, and sometimes greater stability. Many papers in this seminar haǀe talked aďout the ǁoƌld, oƌ the Gloďal , India- the nation, Ahmedabad- the city, and of course The School of Architecture, SA- the institution. I would like to suggest that this is still too far away, that as Juzer so powerfully put it in his oration yesterday, that we must bring it home, even if it is only to play in the garden courtyard of our selves. My maternal grandfather was an educator. He started the Muslim Education Society in Baroda in 1936, over the next 70 years he grew 14 schools, both primary and secondary in both Gujarati and English Mediums. In my difficult teenage years he was my guide and in the years after his passing it has come to my knowledge that I was not the only one. He was a confidant and friend to a motley crew of us, who ranged in age from 9 to the age 76. I was 13, when my Nana first asked me…ǁell!.. but what do you thiŶk?. MLJ NaŶa ǁas ϴϮ, aŶd Iŵ Ŷot suƌe he ƌealized ǁhat kiŶd of ǁiŶdoǁ this siŵple ƋuestioŶ opeŶed up in what I then perceived as my cave like world of parental authority and seclusion. I have often thought about what made him so accessible a person and a teacher who always made you feel that you had come to your own conclusions. There have been issues that were discussed between us over a period of 10 years and I still wonder what his opinions about them are. Of course I know what his opinions were, what he thought, but he never stated them; they always seemed to come out of the disĐussioŶ, so Iŵ left to ǁoŶdeƌ ǁhetheƌ these aƌe ǁhat I thiŶk he thought or what he actually thought. So when Prof. Chhaya in his paper yesterday quoted that with tacit knowledge we know more than we can express, it occurred to me that the language of this knowledge is one that only occasionally needs to State. My Nana understood language well. He had this wonderful ability to discern it, s epaƌate it fƌoŵ ǀalue. He understood that the languages change while values endure. He lived to 99 through a century of tumultuous change with a calmness and grace that is now my aspiration. I remember my paƌeŶts