Educationists who inspire me

Jiddu Krishnamurti was born on 11 May 1895 in Madanapalle, a small town in south India. He was  adopted in his youth by Dr Annie Besant, then president of the Theosophical Society. Dr Besant and others proclaimed that Krishnamurti was to be a world teacher. In 1929, however, Krishnamurti renounced the role that he was expected to play, dissolved the Order with its huge following, and returned all the money and property that had been donated for this work. From then, for nearly sixty years until his death on 17 February 1986, he travelled throughout the world talking to large audiences and to individuals about the need for a radical change in mankind.

Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ideals on education have been controversial, to say the least. Even now with our visions of liberal education, his ideas spark debates. Some say the ideas are impractical; some argue that they cannot be practiced in a world where a student has to succeed- and by success we obviously mean material gains, power and position.

Our views of education need to be realigned to understand Krishnamurti’s philosophy. In the present formal system of education, his ideas seem impractical. He talks about a complete harmony between an individual and the society. His views on society is similar to what was said in our Upanishads-

“Samaniba Akutih Samana Hrudayani chah;

Samanamastu Vo Manoah Yathavah Susahasti” 

“The purpose of all of you; let be one; let your hearts be one; let your minds be one, by means of which all of you could be one in all respects.” 

According to Krishnamurti, the purpose of education is to bring about freedom, the flowering of goodness, that in itself shall transform the society for better.

The freedom that he speaks of is, of course, spiritual rather than political. And he says that it is the duty of the schools to nurture this freedom among the children.

He insists that schools have special places for silence- where the students can know their thoughts- not just religious chanting of mantras and meditation. The silence he speaks of is a dialogue between the subconscious mind and the conscious mind.

Krishnamurti says in his diary-

“It’s(the brain) the centre of remembrance, the past; it’s the storehouse of experience and knowledge, tradition. So it’s limited, conditioned. Its activities are planned, thought out, reasoned, but it functions in limitation, in space-time. So it cannot formulate or understand that which the total, the whole, the complete is. The complete, the whole is the mind.”

This experience of life in its totality can be complete when one experiences the nature’s beauty- because there is no logical thought, nor purpose in its majesty. It is not by accident that the schools founded by him are away from the cities, in natural surroundings. Beauty to him brings about the sensitivity that he considers essential in human nature. The natural surrounding, the beauty of a tiny flower by the road speaks about the glory and majesty of harmony and selflessness.

“From this sensitivity for the whole of existence springs goodness, love;”Krishnamurti 1964)

Lastly, Krishnamurti speaks about the nature and duty of educators. They are central in his philosophy of education; in creating a space for the child to know himself, the teachers create that positive energy that drives the process of self-knowing and self- learning forward. And thus the society at large embraces the goodness and transforms itself for the better.

In 1901, someone in Bengal desired the same for children- freedom to express thoughts and follow the path to self-knowledge. In 1921 his ideals on education manifested in Vishva Bharati University. Rabindranath Tagore had similar views about freedom- like Krishnamurti he believed that nature is the ultimate teacher. Nearness to nature in all its resplendent would lead the students to freedom of heart; this then would manifest itself in his intellect and lastly it will evolve the free will so often spoken about by Rousseau.

There is another similarity between Krishnamurti and Tagore’s ideals on education. Both of them placed profound importance on art and creative pursuits for developing sensitivity in children. There is this famous story- It goes like this- Children at Patha bhavan  used to pick flowers from trees. In doing so they would often break the branches. So Gurudev told them that they were hurting the trees and advised them to take permission from the trees before plucking the flowers. Do you imagine that the children stopped? They kept on plucking the flowers-only from now on they peeped inside Tagore’s room and say that they had already taken permission from the trees.

At Patha Bhaban the children sat on hand-woven mats beneath the trees, which they were allowed to climb and run beneath, between the classes.

Amartya Sen, a Nobel Laureate himself and a former student of Patha Bhavan, writes that at Santiniketan, the emphasis was on “self-motivation rather than on discipline, and on fostering intellectual curiosity rather than competitive excellence.” 

The philosophy of education envisaged by both these educationists is more relevant today than it was before. We need the harmony of soul and nature, of hand and mind and of teacher and taught. We cannot just add these ideas into an otherwise mechanical system of schooling and advertise ourselves as “unique”. That would never work and as always we shall blame that the ideas were impractical to start with.

But if we take a pause from churning out  toppers rankers and IIT-ians and start paying attention to make the students lifelong learners, it would be these ideas that would show us the path to success and an enriched humanity.