CHAPTER-VI

CONCLUSION

J. Krishnamurti was acclaimed as one of the greatest educational thinkers who was

highly disappointed by the contemporary educational crisis. Indeed his model of

right education is verj' relevant which sparked both interest and controversy. He

consistently and untiringly struggled against the drawbacks in the present education

system. In his different talks and dialogues he repeatedly asserted that the

accumulation of facts and the development of capacity, which we call education,

deprive us of the fullness of integrated life and action, and that the wholeness of life

can be understood only through action and experience.

The debate over the means of becoming an integrated individual wdth the help of

right kind of education is the main focus of this research work. It concentrates on

finding the feasibility of Krishnamurti's approach and significance towards

contemporary educational crisis. Many a thinkers like Tagore, Gandhi, Aurobindo,

Radhakrishnan from east and Dewey, Rousseau, Paulo Freire, Ivan Illich from west

offered solutions and new pedagogy to overcome the deficiencies of education

system prevalent in their time. All of these thinkers agree that though the present day

educated people are technically experts they are not able to wipe out the ills of

society as they are ignorant about their inner potentialities. John Dewey's

experimental schools, Montessori's schools, Tagore's Santiniketan, Gandhi's Nai

Talim etc., were all different experiments conducted in trying to manifest the inner

potential of a pupil. However, they all met with partial success. This research work.

209

therefore, made an attempt to look at a different model presented by contemporary

Indian educational thinker Jiddu Krishnamurti.

In the preceding chapters we noticed some similarity in the approaches of

Krishnamurti with some other educators. Like Krishnamurti the idealist thinkers,

such as Gandhi, Tagore, Aurobindo etc., considered self realization and self-

knowledge through observation as one of the most important aims of education. Like

most of the educators Krishnamurti discarded physical punishment from the field of

education, but he did not stop at discarding the theory of physical punishment but he

was against cold and insulting punishment such as using harsh words etc. According

to Krishnamurti, in the field of education there is no place for any ideology. He was

uncompromisingly critical of any system of education which is mechanical. Like

Tagore he was not interested in any method of education as these thinkers

considered that not the method but the teacher full of love, compassion and

enthusiasm is more effective. He stands in the same lineage with Gandhi, Tagore.

Dewey, Rousseau as he was a believer of learning by doing. The western educator

John Dewey stated that the aim of education should be changed. He feh that physical

and social environment is always changing, so aims of education must also change.

The aim of education is not to reach any prefixed final goal. But Krishnamurti never

accepted the idea that the fianction of education is to conform the student to the

existing society because he considered the contemporary society as the corrupted

one.

Krishnamurti's numerous books and talks to students explore the nature of

human consciousness and the possibility of its transformation through inquiry and

insight. He engaged in dialogue with many modem thinkers, commentators,

210

politicians and scientists, including Aldous Huxley, Iris Murdoch, Ivan Illich,

Bernard Levin, Indira Gandhi, and David Bohm. He maintained that if young people

are rightly educated and they learn to see how they are conditioned by race,

nationality, religion, tradition and beliefs, they will discover for themselves how to

be fully intelligent human beings. The search for right education has led many a

thinker to develop a kind of a pedagogy that would result in 'awakening

intelligence' in students across the globe. Several factors which contribute to such an

awakening have been incorporated in the curricula across the educational

institutions. Like most of the contemporary educators Krishnamurti gave importance

on awakening intelligence and natural curiosity of a child as a helping factor of

learning. But Krishnamurti's approach to define intelligence is different fi"om the

psychologists and the educationists as they considered intelligence in terms of

practical wisdom or some ability to adjust with new situations. They are in favour of

possessing instruments by the teacher with which the teacher can measure the

intelligence of a pupil. Unlike these thinkers Krishnamurti maintained that

intelligence is neither accumulating knowledge nor can it be measured. He

uncompromisingly stood against the process of measurement and comparison. This

is very important to understand in schools that the very nature of intelligence is

sensitivity and love which has no measurement. The contemporary education

became more chaotic as it is more acquisition of knowledge than awakening of

intelligence. In present times we accumulate knowledge from books, scriptures and

from teachers which deny our ov^ intelligence. So the primary duty of a teacher

should not be to supply a lot of data or information to students but to show the

whole expanse of life, the beauty or ugliness of it which implies intelligence. It leads

a student to find out his true vocation of life or what he loves to do in life.

211

An integrated approach to awaken intelligence which includes art of seeing, art

of listening, and art of learning is presented in this work from Krishnamurti's

perspective. All these arts together form an integrated approach for awakening

intelligence in a pupil. Art of seeing implies the observation without the screen of

own images and own desires. It is an observation without any choice. It is an

astonishing watchfulness where there is no explanation of a teacher or a student and

both are free from a sense of superiority or inferiority. In this state there is no

fragmentation between the observer and the observed. It is interesting to state that in

the quantum theory of physics the idea that the observer and the observed cannot be

separated has been put forth as necessary for the understanding of the fimdamental

laws of matter in general. Krishnamurti felt that depending on others for this inward

observation is only ignorance. In the same way while stating about the art of

listening Krishnamurti brings out an interesting difference between 'listening to

hear' and 'listening to find out'. 'Listening to hear' has very little meaning which

gives confirmation only to the hearer's existing thoughts. It is only 'listening to find

out' which makes the mind of a student free, alive, sharp and curious and thereby

helps him to be creative.

Another art mentioned by Krishnamurti was the 'art of learning'. There appears

to be two ways of learning, i.e. learning to accumulate a great deal of knowledge and

learning to awaken intelligence which is bom out of observation and self knowledge.

Krishnamurti felt that without awakening intelligence only accumulation of

knowledge has no meaning at all in the field of right education. It is admitted by all

that technical knowledge has a great deal in our everyday life. However,

Krishnamurti's approach is to find out that the fundamental task of education is to

212

discover the areas where knowledge and technical skills are necessary and where

they are irrelevant and even harmful. As he gave emphasis on the harmonious

balance of intellect and sensitivity he visualized that when the mind learns the

significance of existence of relevancy and irrelevancy of the technological

knowledge, a totally new dimension will be realized and the unused potentialities of

human mind will be activated. It is the starting of awakening intelligence. This

approach fosters an understanding of the process of learning and of the challenges

and opportunities of our daily lives; the acquisition of knowledge, therefore, does

not become an end in itself, but is seen as part of this process.

Considering comparison, reward- punishment, ambition as some deteriorating

factors of learning; Krishnamurti advocated freedom and fearlessness, natural

curiosity, interest, attention as helping factors of learning. Regarding comparison he

stated that it is only when there is comparison between the one called 'clever' and

the one called 'dull' that there is such a quality of dullness. It is the individual who

is important, and by comparing a student with somebody who is cleverer, the teacher

is belittling him, making him smaller, more stupid. Comparing with other students

the teacher can never help a student to find out what he really is. Comparison

destroys one's own capacity. Through comparison students are encouraged to

imitate the example of others and made ambitious. It is very common at present

times how the parents decide at the time of the child's birth itself whether the child

should become a doctor or an engineer. They encourage their child to be ambitious

and because of their desire or for the child's own ambition he loses his true vocation.

The students do as they are told, and in that there is no love; there is only

contradiction. To do something with love and with whole being is not ambition.

213

Ambition is the outcome of fear. If a boy is interested in being an engineer because

he wants to build beautiful structures, marvelous irrigation systems, splendid roads,

it means he loves engineering; and that is not ambition. One's vocation means

something which he loves to do, or which is natural to him. Is it possible to sweep

away completely this ambition which is bringing so much misery to human beings?

The fundamental function of education should be to help the student to grow

independently so that he can be free of the danger of ambition and can find his true

vocation. Krishnamurti keeps on reminding us that the minds of the students should

not be dead by conclusions and opinions of others. No one should accept anything as

true or false as that is the established truth by tradition or authority, or by books or

scriptures. This voice of Krishnamurti accords with Malavikagnimitram, where

Kalidasa says

"Everything is not good simply because it is old; no literature should be treated

as unworthy simply because it is new. Great men accept the one or the other

after due examination. [Only] the fool has his understanding misled by the

beliefsofothers."(I, 2) '

Contrary to most of the Indian philosophical schools and contemporary thinkers,

Krishnamurti stated clearly that freedom is not the opposite of bondage, or an escape

from the circumstances in which one is caught. Freedom is not 'freedom from

something' or avoidance of restraint. Krishnamurti is different from other thinkers

regarding the notion of freedom when we observe his idea of 'Freedom from the

Known'. By 'freedom from the known' Krishnamurti means living in the 'now'

which is not of time, in which there is only this movement of freedom, untouched by

214

the past, by the known. Krishnamurti's question for us is: can the mind that is

brought up in a culture so dependent on environment and its own tendencies ever

find that freedom which is complete solitude and in which there is no leadership, no

tradition and no authority? In the process of learning it is very essential for the

teachers to understand the nature of freedom. Without this understanding the teacher

will only impose his prejudices, his limitations and conclusions on the students. In

this way the students will accept this through fear and become conventional human

beings and in Krishnamurti's terminology 'second hand human beings'.

Another significant factor of learning in J. Krishnamurti's educational

philosophy is fearlessness. To Krihnamurti the central issue in understanding the

nature and structure of fear is to face it, but not through the screen of words, but to

observe the very happening of fear without any movement away from it. There is

fearlessness when the mind can look at the fact vwthout translating it or giving it a

name. It is not possible for one to get rid of fear if he makes effort to be fearless

without having a comprehensive perception of the total process of fear.

Krishnamurti opined that learning is part of existence and a child can learn if there is

no fear.

Krishnamurti asserts the fruitlessness of systems or methods in so far as the

question of the achievement of right education is concerned. Because one cannot be

educated with intelligence and be fi"ee fi^om fear, through any kind of system. It is

Krishnamurti's original contribution to point out that right education is not only

cultivating capacity or technique to get a good job and financial status which

involves method but to awaken the inward understanding with a capacity to explore

and examine one's own inward state of mind and go beyond it and this does not

215

require any method. Practicing a system or a method the mind becomes mechanical.

But as the mind is a hving thing it caimot be understood through a system. Without

having a comprehensive perception of one's ovwi thought and desire only by

cultivating capacity no man can live peacefully.

Like the Brazilian thinker Paulo Freire Krishnamurti was also critical of the

guru-disciple relationship, where the guru is the oppressor and student is the

oppressed. He is very unique in stating the point that transcendental idea of truth is

related to the everyday world of education, both in terms of our lives and the

curriculum for study in the humanities. So, we ourselves have to find out this truth

of life without any external help. However, for the achievement of right education if

no guide is needed, one may arise a question regarding the function of a teacher. It is

here to be noted that in absolute sense krishnamurti does not deny the necessity of a

guru. As he himself is a teacher of humanity, he points out that the teachings of a

teacher is a mirror in which one can find reflected all the hidden ways of the self and

there is an astonishing clarity in what the mirror shows, if only one cares to look at.

Therefore, he invites his listeners not to understand what the speaker says, but to

understand what his says act as a mirror in which the listener look at himself

J. Krishnamurti stated about the importance of leisure on the part of a teacher

and a student in the process of right education. One who is overburdened with

physical and mental activities cannot get time for leisure, which makes him dull and

inactive. By leisure Krishnamurti means observation of one's own thought, feelings

and activities in silence with the help of the above mentioned three arts. It is our

fault to think that pressure of earning a living or any pressure imposed on us is an

absence of leisure. Krishnamurti says that the meaning of leisure is veries from

216

person to person. To some who are greatly interested in their work, that work itself

is leisure; the very action of interest, such as study, is a form of relaxation. To

others, leisure may be a withdrawal in to seclusion.

Another important aspect of Krishnamurti's educational philosophy is the

insertion of meditation in students' curriculum, besides the other activities like

gardening, agriculture, cooking, cleaning etc. However, doubt may arise about the

importance of including meditation in the curriculum ^ Krishnamurti himself was

opposed to any traditional method of meditation. One may be interested in so called

meditation but his thoughts are distracted, so he fixes his mind on a picture, an

image, or an idea and excludes all other thoughts. In this process of concentration

there is a constant interruption of other ideas, thoughts or other emotions and we try

to push them away and spend the time battling with our thoughts. Meditation is not

control of thought, because control of thought creates conflict in the mind.

Krishnamurti suggested another type of concentration, which is attention. It is the

awareness of every thought and feelings without justification. Watching the whole

movement of thought and feeling one can have the proper understanding. Out of this

awareness of thought without justification comes silence. This silence is nothing but

meditation mentioned by Krishnamurti in which the person who meditates is entirely

absent. So meditation as described by Krishnamurti is not concentration, but

attention. For him attention is paying attention to a great deal and concentration is

not seeing everything but only one thing.

As a strong enthusiast for the development of aesthetic sense in education,

Krishnamurti asserts the importance of having a sensitive mind. It is a very

challenging task to be sensitive, being a part of this world where technological

217

knowledge is all important, where making money, being an engineer or corrupted

politician is assuming such importance. The very essence of krishnamurti's

educational philosophy lies in the point that unlike most of the present psychologists

and educationists he never engaged himself only on making man technically expert

but his endeavor is to make man sensitive. Sensitivity implies to feel, to receive

impressions, to have sympathy for others who are suffering, to have affection and to

be aware of the things that are happening around one. To deal with a child an

educator must have a sensitive heart, mind and body which can help an educator to

find out the hidden potentiality of a child.

Krishnamurti differs from all the educators so far as the problem of discipline is

concerned. He gave a new aspect to the word 'discipline' when he stated that

learning is discipline. The word 'discipline' comes from the word 'disciple' which

means to learn. Discipline, emerged in his educational philosophy, is not concerned

with the traditional beliefs likes rules, regulations, obedience, compulsion, fear or

suppression. Thus, we do not find any analysis of good conduct or character

formation in the educational philosophy of Krishnamurti which is considered as the

fundamental concept in educational philosophy of the thinkers like Gandhi.

Krishnamurti seeks the necessity of religious teaching. But it would be far easier

to state for Krishnamurti that what is truly religious is not conditional or culture

bound. He fijrlher stated that what is religious is not contained by or subject to any

dogma, belief or authority. Thinkers like Gandhi, Radhakrishnan etc; also did not

put stress on any organized religion or religious belief in the field of education. They

were of the opinion that in students' curricula a study of the life of great religious

teachers likes Nanak, Tulsidas etc; should be included. Again western thinkers like

218

John Dewey were against inclusion of religion in student's curricula. However,

Krishnamurti's interpretation of religion is quite different from these thinkers as he

described religion as an internal state of tranquility of self knowledge. To be an

integrated human being through right kind of education it is urgent to be 'truly

religious' which implies love without motive, to be generous, to be good; but

making a search for such goodness or generosity through scriptures is futile. It is

only the parents and the educators who have the responsibility to help the child so

that their mind and heart are not shaped by religious preconceptions and prejudices

and become free to discover the reality through self knowledge. Krishnamurti stated

that to be an integrated human being one must have the religious spirit as well as a

scientific mind. Due to lack of religious spirit the scientific discoveries are used and

exploited by the human beings who considered themselves as American, Indian, and

Russian etc. Therefore, to develop true religious spirit and true scientific mind is the

first and foremost task of right kind of educatioa In Krishnamurti's approach it

becomes clear that he has not ignored the aim of achieving bread and butter through

education but he is quite aware of the complexities and crisis of present day life.

Moreover, as he did not believe in any political, religious or economic movement to

wipe out the ills of society, he considered education as the biggest medium of

psychological revolution and thereby remove individual and social turmoil.

Krishnamurti regarded patriotism as a dangerous disease which is harmfiil to the

worid unity. It seems that no other thinkers but Krishnamurti reminded us that

human beings are more important than national or ideological boundaries. So he

stresses the need for imparting right education to children which can provide a

different atmosphere to children so that no student inherits the consciousness of

219

older generation which is infected with the disease of fragmentation in terms of

rehgions, nationalism, patriotism etc., which create conflict and lead to wars. Here

he differs from those educators who prefer the education of patriotism and organized

religion.

Krishnamurti made a psychological study on the problem of human relationship.

Krishnamurti noted that understanding human relationship is part of education

which is greater than merely teaching academic subjects. Intelligence of students

comes naturally and easily when the whole nature and structure of relationship is

seen. Like the Brazilian thinker Paulo Freire he asserted that the teacher and the

taught should involve in real understanding of the importance of relationship only

then they can establish a right relationship among them in the school where there is

no sense of superior or inferior. True relationship can remain only when there is

complete communion, love and freedom to understand each other.

This work also looked at the application of Krishnamurti's different thoughts

regarding the place of authority in a school, reftisal of examination system, different

aspects of right living, functions of a teacher etc. in different Krishnamurti Schools

situated in India and abroad. According to Krishnamurti, the intensions of

educational centers must be the inner transformation of individual as well as society.

The establishment of Krishnamurti schools in India and aboard is the fruit of his

attempt to redress the failure of education to tackle what he saw as the deeper human

issues.

He denounced the prevailing examination system of educational institutes which

test only the students' academic activities and their complete development by testing

220

the excellencies of subject matter only. Examinations are based on competition and

comparison which breeds disappointment, frustration, jealousy, envy and intricacy.

Contrary to this he stated about the process of evaluation which tests not only

proficiency of a particular subject but also enables one to assess the knowledge,

skill, interest, attitude, expression etc. A record of student's progress should be

maintained for the information of the teacher and parents instead of giving marks,

and it should be done by the teacher himself

Krishnamurti school gives importance on learn to live rightly, which demands

excellence in four broad aspects of our life i.e. the physical, intellectual, emotional

and spiritual. In M.K. Gandhi's educational philosophy also we find the significance

of these aspects of child's all-round development. While Krishnamurti puts

importance on a residential school having a little number of students for this all-

round development, Gandhi did not specify about the size of school or classroom

and number of students in this regard. In our everyday life the physical, intellectual,

emotional and spiritual aspects are so interconnected that they constitute one

integrated inseparable whole. It is not possible to live rightly in one aspect without

living rightly in all the other aspects. Therefore, students who are the achievers of

higher degrees fi^om present so-called educational institutes are baffled by the

turmoil of personal and social life after living schools and colleges. If students are

helped ft"om the very beginning to look at life as a whole with all its psychological,

intellectual and emotional problems they will not be frightened by it.

Krishnamurti does not repose his faith on large and flourishing educational

institutes. Large institutes by their very nature cannot be responsive to the needs of

221

children. Krishnamurti has often pointed that school is a sacred place where all are

learning about the complexity as well as simplicity of life.

Central to the vision of right education that Krishnamurti placed is the role of the

teacher. He remarkably stated that teaching is not a specialists' profession. He

enumerated some qualities like a burning desire to teach, love, patience, sensitivity,

affection, intelligence etc., which are necessary for a right kind of teacher. Many a

thinkers agree on the point that teacher should not have any authoritarian outlook.

But it is only Krishnamurti who stated that teacher should be free from any

organized belief, dogma, ritual, cast or creed. There arises a doubt regarding this

aspect of teacher in existing Krishnamurti School. Though Krishnamurti opposes

any cult, creed or sect in a teacher, one may find contradiction or opposition that the

teachers mostly selected in schools run by 'Krishnamurti Foundation' are of

Krishnamurti cult. Giving the importance of educating the educator Krishnamurti

mentioned that teacher should not forget that the purpose of bringing up and of

educating the child is to help the child to be himself In this way he believed in the

role of an educator who is not only technically skillful but also can help a child to be

an integrated individual.

It is Krishnamurti's revolutionary' thinking to state that a school can run without

a central audiority. He fiirther says that one may doubt about it and because it has

never been tried. Those who have not given themselves over deeply to the task of

right education they feel the lack of central authority. To those who have not given

themselves over deeply and lastingly to the task of right education, the lack of

central authority may appear to be an impractical theory; but if one is completely

222

dedicated to right education, then one does not require to be urged, directed and

controlled.̂

To make integrated human beings by awakening intelligence through right kind

of education is Krishnamurti's supreme task. His educational philosophy is

concerned more with actual than with the ideal and is more close to life and living.

In our daily life intelligence manifests itself in constant awareness of every

movement of thought, feeling and action which he termed as mutation of mind. This

concept of mutation and insight has great importance in Krishnamurti's educational

philosophy which is also supported by modem science. Well-known scientist David

Bohm stated in one place

"It is worth remarking that modem research into the brain and nervous system

actually gives considerable support to Krishnamurti's statement that insight may

change the brain cells." ^

It is remarkable that though the fact of mutation of brain cells has got scientific

support yet there is no method to such mutation or to the total insight. Therefore,

mutation or radical transformation by awakening of intelligence is a typical thing in

Krishnamurti's philosophy which is sometimes indefinable and questionable. It is

the inevitable question that comes to our mind as to what is the new pedagogy,

offered by Krishnamurti to answer the contemporary educational crisis? He

postulates the necessity of psychological mutation of human mind and thereby to

awaken intelligence. To be integrated individuals he invites us to awaken the

intelligence which is bom out of observation and self knowledge. Such integration

cannot be organized by any method. No technique, no system can help one to be an

223

integrated individual. Contrary to this the integrated human being can come to

technique through experience. The creative impulse of a man makes its own

technique which Krishnamurti considered as the greatest art. Therefore, an

integrated approach for awakening intelligence presents hope to all thinking people

who are concerned with the future of education system in India and elsewhere in the

world. Whether we can develop a pedagogy based on Krishnamurti's ideas on

awakening intelligence remains a challenging task.

There is no denying the fact that the present education suffocates a student with

world of information. Does this information awaken intelligence is an important

question. Most of the time a student who is passing out of educational institutions is

becoming more dull, less imaginative and creative. There are question marks on the

curricula, on teaching methodologies and on examination system. Distraught with

the present model of education J. Krishnamurti developed his own theory of

developing intelligence. In this work the researcher has discussed in detail on the art

of seeing, the art of listening, and the art of learning. All these together form an

integrated approach for awakening intelligence in a pupil. However, developing

pedagogy out of this theory needs fiirther research. Moreover, Krishnamurti himself

was against any established system or a model. He was against all impositions on

students. The learning process includes observation of the whole movement of 'the

self. This observation needs considerable amount of energy. This technique cannot

be taught, therefore, it becomes very difficult to develop a working pedagogy based

on Krishnamurti's theory on awakening intelligence.

This work divulges it clearly that Krishnamurti's answer to the world-wide

educational crisis does not address only the structure of education like John Dewey,

224

Whitehead, Radhakrishnan etc., but also addresses the nature and quality of man's

mind and life. To recapitulate, his observations and explorations of contemporary

education are penetrating and profound which shook not only the students, teachers

and parents but all the thinking people who are concerned about the failure of

present educational system.

225

References

1. Radhakrishnan, S., (1994), Recovery of Faith. India: Harper Collins

Publishers, p.6.

2. Krishnamurti, Jiddu, (1953), Education and the Significance of Life,

Chennai: Krishnamurti Foundation India p.p. 88-89.

3. Krishnamurti, Jiddu, (1999), The Limits of Thought Discussion with David

Bohm, London: Rout ledge, p. 3

226