Philosophy in Practice:

Reflecting on Krishnamurti’s Educational Challenge

Alok Mathur

Locating Krishnamurti’s Educational Challenge

Educational questions and challenges in the contemporary world can be identified

at multiple levels. They could focus on the individual or personal level, or the level
of the school as an institution. Then there are questions and challenges for the
organization of school systems, or scaling up further, for education at the national
level. There are also issues that are increasingly being debated at the
international level. Beyond these one might also conceive of a global level that
encompasses the Earth with its multitude of human societies along with diverse
environments and other forms of life. Each of these levels brings up its own valid
concerns, questions and challenges.

This paper draws on the educational philosophy of J. Krishnamurti and focusses

largely on three of these levels: that of the human person, the level of the school,
and the level of global concerns. The implication of this philosophy, however, has
relevance, as I hope to show at the end, for the other levels as well.

I begin with two urgent crises that may be observed as part of the human
situation in the contemporary world:

The first is that: the past century has seen rapid material and industrial
development, as well as apparent social progress in many societies. But along
with this human societies across the globe seem to be riven with increasing
conflict and violence. Conflicting identities deriving from nationality, ethnicity,
religion, ideology, economic class, caste, language and gender, continue to incite
violence in multiple forms.

The second crises that is upon us is the following: Human scientific knowledge is
gaining a deeper understanding of the web of inter-connections that support the
rich diversity of life on Earth; at the same time human motivations and actions
continue to trigger a rapid degeneration of living environments and alarming
extinctions among other species.
These are two contemporary issues that Krishnamurti was deeply concerned with
in his life-time, and he saw these as essentially educational questions.

Who is Krishnamurti? For those unfamiliar with this name, I will briefly mention
that he was a prominent 20th century spiritual thinker, who for at least six
decades travelled across all continents as a peripatetic teacher, engaging
thousands of people in multiple ways. His purpose in doing so was to uncover,
along with them, the underlying factors that shape the human condition, and to
catalyze a self-awareness that may lead to a renewal in consciousness.

Krishnamurti established and nurtured a small number of schools in various parts

of the world, five in different locations in India and one each in central England
and southern California. His aims for these schools arose directly from his
perceptions and analysis of the common condition of humanity. He saw these
schools as centres of inquiry into the human condition, as well as the local and
global conditions of their times. Thus from their inception the schools were
seeded with a vision that was open to forms and expressions that are distinctive
and hence pluralistic in character. A residential school located in a drought-prone
valley in rural South India would necessarily need to respond to a different
landscape and cultural conditions than a school with an international character in
the verdant English countryside. An urban school in the heart of a metro city,
Chennai, would have quite a different set of issues to negotiate than a school on a
river bank at the edge of the ancient city of Varanasi.

Purpose of Education, Schools and the Human Condition

The purpose of education and the role of schools in human societies have been
seen through various metaphorical lenses. Schools have been viewed as moulds
for the reproduction of traditions and social norms, or as a means of transmission
of culture. They have also been seen as an arena for nation-building, or as
opportunities for development and progress (of the individual and the collective).
In recent decades schools are increasingly being seen as service providers that
cater to changing job-markets of a globalized economy. However, Krishnamurti
saw the schools that he established as spaces for the regeneration of individuals
and landscapes, and he proposed that a regeneration of society is consequential
to this.
What I wish to explore in this paper is the notion of philosophy in practice in
schools. It is firstly my contention that any school that attempts to engage with
aims of education that are beyond a purely scholastic or market-driven goal must
necessarily evolve a philosophy with a framework of values that lends coherence
to its curriculum and practices. More specifically, I will look at this notion as it
derives from Krishnamurti’s approach to educational questions.

When a principal of one of the schools he founded asked Krishnamurti to spell out
his aims for education, he responded by articulating three central aims:

1. Cultivation of a global outlook

2. Concern for human beings and the natural environment
3. Inquiry into all dimensions of human life 1

These aims taken together generate the essential impetus towards a philosophy in
practice, which is seeded into the raison d’etre of the schools. As an initial
characterization, I see philosophy in practice as acts of ‘responding with
authenticity and clarity, to oneself, to persons, to situations, to ideas, and to
landscapes’, as well as ‘to the human condition as a whole’. These acts may
emanate from simple and direct observation, from clear thinking and reflective
practice, from sustained critical awareness, or meditative inquiry, and they may
manifest at many levels in the context of schools and education. My contention is
that it is this that has the potential of imparting a dynamic, open-ended character
to the curriculum, practices and values that inform the lives of participants in a
school. What its multiple expressions might be, and what allows for or inhibits
such a philosophy in practice is something I will take up a little later in this paper.

How does Krishnamurti connect such acts at the personal or individual level with
global issues? What is the essential core of a philosophy which must necessarily
emerge and find expression in the educational practice of schools? Krishnamurti’s
key insight is contained in the aphorism: ‘You are the world’. He affirms that “the
content of consciousness is common to all humanity”2. At one level this suggests

1
This is a paraphrase of Krishnamurti’s articulation: ‘inquiry into a religious life’. For him, the term a ‘religious life’
covered all dimensions of human life.

2
The Core of the Teachings, Statement by J. Krishnamurti
that every human being participates in and contributes to a collective
consciousness. What we call ‘individuality’ in fact rests on a layer of culture
acquired from tradition and environment. On this develop personal narratives
that give each person a sense of continuity and separate identity.

Krishnamurti traces all forms of human conflict and violence to a deep-seated

anxiety which has roots in a primordial split that repeatedly occurs in our
consciousness. This split manifests as the ‘observer’ (which is the sense of ‘I or
‘me’) and the ‘observed’ (which are the outward or inward phenomena that the
‘I’ takes cognizance of). The split also creates the division between ‘recollections
of the past (entwined with images of self and others) and projections into the
future (of what might be, or what must be). Our social upbringing or education
seldom encourages attention to the present moment, which is the primary source
of clarity according to Krishnamurti.

As a person grows within society, a multitude of beliefs, expectations and socially

acquired values imprint themselves in consciousness. The sense of a separate self
is shaped not by a single, but multiple identities, each fuelled by different social
settings, circumstances and experiences. When these identities are in conflict,
one experiences inner disharmony. Even when education cultivates the more
conscious, rational, logical and critical, facilities of the human mind, we hardly
ever turn around and attend to the undercurrent of inner movements, which
manifest as comparison and envy, or fear and anxiety. An inward falling out of
harmony is a state that almost all human beings experience, and in this are the
roots of violence and human suffering.

Violence is thus not simply outward acts of violation, of domination and

oppression, extending from rape and murder to the horrors of war or genocide,
with its brutal or cold-blooded mass killing. It begins inwardly in so-called
individuals with conflict and disharmony, and projects outward when ‘personal
identities’ or ‘group identities’ are in escalating conflict with each other. Asserting
or protecting a particular ‘identity’, whether it is of a person, a group, a religious
community or a nation, is a root cause of violence, and of injustice, in the world.
Hierarchies, fuelled by comparisons, fear and the urge to dominate, are thus
established and sought to be maintained. The human domination of nature and
consequent degradation of living environments are also a direct consequence of
this inward split and utter separation from nature that is now rampant in
industrial and post-industrial societies across the world.

Krishnamurti, however, also affirms that the uniqueness of human beings lies in a
capacity for freedom from this compulsive separation within consciousness, a
freedom that allows for the emergence of an authentic personhood. Freedom, for
him, is not the conceptual freedom of ‘an independent, autonomous agent, free
to choose and do as he wills’, which he sees as an illusion of modernity. He states
that: “Freedom is pure observation without direction, without fear of punishment
and reward. Freedom is without motive; freedom is not at the end of the
evolution of man but lies in the first step of his existence. In observation one
begins to discover the lack of freedom. Freedom is found in the choiceless
awareness of our daily existence and activity.”3 Freedom thus begins in an
unmotivated awareness of the movements of one’s own thoughts and feelings.
When one is not held within compulsive patterns of thought and emotions,
sensitivity deepens and takes the mind beyond its limiting boundaries, allowing
for spontaneous responses and an expansiveness of the ‘heart’. ‘Heart’ is a
metaphor for the feelings of connection, of responsibility for another, for an
interflow and reciprocity that is not caught up in static ‘identities’ that have to be
maintained or protected.

A deeper inquiry may negate the ‘self’ that is socially constructed and uncover a
perception of the whole, of one’s essential relatedness with humankind and
nature. This to Krishnamurti is true ‘individuality’, in the etymological meaning of
that word as ‘indivisible’. While one’s unique character and talents as an
individual remain, there is no sense of fundamental separation from others.
Developing further on the aphorism, ‘you are the world’, Krishnamurti has this to
say: “As the representative of the whole human race, your response is whole, not
partial. So responsibility has a totally different meaning. One has to learn the art
of this responsibility. If one grasps the full significance that one is psychologically
the world, then responsibility becomes overpowering love. Then one will care for
the child, not just at the tender age, but see that he understands the significance
of responsibility throughout his life. This art includes behaviour, the ways of one's
3
The Core of the Teachings, Statement by J. Krishnamurti
thinking and the importance of correct action. In these schools of ours,
responsibility to the earth, to nature and to each other is part of our education,
not merely the emphasis on academic subjects, though they are necessary.”4

Some Dimensions of Philosophy in Practice

With this we return to Krishnamurti’s aims of education, which places multiple

demands on the real schools that exist and the actual teachers who teach there.
While no specialized qualification is required of teachers, Krishnamurti often
reiterated that it is the ‘educator who needs educating’ and suggested ‘you are
human beings first and then teachers’. Early on he challenged the teachers in his
very first school to create an educational approach which was new: “I would give
the boy (or girl) the opportunity to be inwardly free and not be a tool of the
teacher, [or] of the society. It requires a great deal of thinking and organizing to
create this new way.”5 He, however, did not propose any blue-print of education,
any particular design for the curriculum or methods to be followed in schools.
And yet these aims translate into a broad framework of values - such as a wide-
ranging awareness of the world, sensitivity and concern for others, a sense of
beauty and response to nature, a non-competitive attitude and a spirit of inquiry
and questioning. These are intended to inform the curriculum and practices of the
schools. Each school - depending on its location, its cultural context and the
talents of specific people who administer it – has interpreted and defined the
values and actions that give curricular content and practical form to the daily life
of the school.

Engagement with context and specific landscapes gives rise to a plurality of

responses. This requires school administrators and teachers to pay close attention
to prevailing circumstances and to resources available and it has led them to
engage with landscapes and communities beyond the school. To take some
examples: a school located in a forested glade at the edge of a dense urban
metropolis has shaped its campus into a vibrant centre for cultural and aesthetic
exploration, and children and adults get drawn here from different parts of the

4
Pp 19-20, The Whole Movement of Life is Learning, Krishnamurti, J., Krishnamurti Foundation Trust
5
Talks to Boys and Girls at Rishi Valley, 3rd November, 1952 (unpublished material)
country. Another school located in a drought-prone rural area initiated re-
afforestation and water conservation practices several decades ago, turning its
campus into a tree-laden sanctuary for birds; in recent times the school has
extended its concerns to include an active engagement with changing agricultural
and pastoral practices and the sustainability of rural livelihoods in an era of
globalization and global warming. These activities, reaching outwards beyond the
school’s boundaries, also reach inwards to the school community, modifying its
curriculum and influencing the educative experiences of teachers and students in
particular ways. This is one form of philosophy in practice, which draws on a broad
framework of values and gives each school a particular character.

Within the institutional space of the school community philosophy in practice

must express itself in a variety of other ways. Much ‘thinking and organizing’ is
required to structure and administer any school. Moreover, the process of
communication, of sustaining structures and practices, is an on-going task. The
cyclical, often ritualized, routines of school life, however, need to be infused with
intention, awareness and spontaneous actions. For values acquire meaning only
when teachers and students express these through their own inquiry and
behaviour. It is in ‘present awareness’ that a quality of deeper engagement is
evoked. Attention to the ‘present moment’ gives access to the reality and potency
of human situations as they arise. This is what shapes a teacher’s response to a
student’s provocative question in class; or the way a house-parent listens and
responds to a parent’s expectations of his daughter; or the manner in which an
administrator engages with an agitated colleague. Depth of present awareness
also enables a more nuanced understanding and response to an issue of discipline
among students.

It is important here to make a crucial distinction: between philosophy in practice

and philosophy that is put into practice. The latter has the implication of a value
framework deriving from philosophical considerations, which is sought to be
given form and content within schools. The impetus for change comes from a
scheme outside the actuality of schools and their situations, and seeks to
influence and change its practices. However, schools are living institutions, and
without inner changes in the actors who make up the school community, efforts
to change their ways of being, thinking and feeling are likely to be met with
responses of resistance or mere acceptance, rather than thoughtful responsibility
for initiating and sustaining the required change. Much human energy remains
locked up in either case. If we take the release of constructive human energies as
a barometer for meaningful educational change, attempts to put a philosophy
into practice often fall short of even thoughtfully espoused aims.

Philosophy in practice thus arises in the self-awareness and self-education of the

administrator or teacher, even as he is engaged in his daily tasks and interactions.
This often begins with discontent with the present situation. It deepens as the
teacher sustains inquiry and finds authentic meaning in his work. The teachers’
inquiry may relate to specific issues in the classroom, or extend to curriculum and
practices in the school that have an effect on learning. The inquiry may
encompass the why, what and how of the subjects he teaches; it may be
grounded in the need to reach out to students with varied backgrounds; or it may
be concerned with the impact of psycho-social influences on himself and his
students. The interchange between teacher and student extends the boundaries
of subject knowledge and may include concerns outside these. For instance,
teachers and students could together question habits of mind; critically examine
issues of identity, or attitudes towards women in a patriarchal society; they may
look at implications of mythic explanations of a traditional culture, or discuss the
connection between attitudes to nature and consumerist life-styles. In doing this
they develop their critical sensibilities, begin to understand the influences that
shape them and uncover factors that contribute to violence, injustice or
environmental degradation. Whereas teachers may have more to communicate in
terms of knowledge and reasons, the fresh perceptions, questions or even
innocent prejudices of young people are equally valuable in their mutual inquiry.
Underneath all of these inquiries, moreover, lies an inquiry into oneself. In its
fuller meaning this is an inquiry into human nature and its relationship to the
whole. Any school where multiple such inquiries are possible invites the
emergence of an evolving philosophy in practice.

Emergence of philosophy in practice

What factors allow for such philosophy in practice to arise and sustain itself? And
what factors inhibit it? Since any such act involves authentic thinking and feeling,
a primary condition is that there be space and opportunity for teachers (and
students) to become aware of their beliefs, thoughts and feelings, along with an
invitation to think on these, and to have these challenged. This implies that the
structuring of the school as an institution cannot be strongly hierarchical,
authoritarian, or very tightly held together. At the same time the space for
expression, participation and initiative needs to be held within a broad framework
of values, for this framework sustains cohesion and responsibility, while allowing
for autonomy of thought, feeling and action in participants. Within such reflective
autonomy, there may be many an initiative that individual teachers (and
students) may pursue, while remaining mindful of its implications for the school
community as a whole.

The axis of autonomy-authority is then one crucial determinant of the possibility

of philosophy in practice. A school tilted too far to one side of this axis - towards a
restrictive or an all too surely-exercised authority - would inhibit the freedom to
question and think. “If the headmaster is dominating, then the spirit of freedom…
obviously cannot exist.”6 But on the other hand, an autonomy that is
individualistic, without participation in a broadly shared framework of values,
could lead to fragmented and chaotic activity. The former is generally the case
with large schools, manned by a hierarchy of administrators who see their roles as
supervisory, as well as with schools that are part of highly structured bureaucratic
systems. Smaller schools with a progressive intent may swing towards the second
situation if there is no guiding framework of values; though there is no guarantee
that small schools too cannot swing to the authoritarian end of the axis. The
persona, self-perceptions, and evolving vision of administrators and teachers are
clearly a crucial factor here.

Autonomy and individual initiative in teachers (and students) is vital for energizing
a school; but there is another factor equally important that fragments the energy
of school communities and inhibits philosophy in practice. This is the factor of
comparison and the competitive spirit. This is a subtle and powerful emotion that
can readily arise in human relationships, as much among teachers as between
students. Competition as an outcome of comparative evaluation has been
acclaimed as a spur to purposeful activity, self-betterment and even excellence.
6
Pg 90, Education and the Significance of Life, Krishnamurti J., Krishnamurti Foundation India
However, once we recognize that this inward comparison effectively masks
authentic thinking and feeling, we can see that it narrows our viewpoints and
yardsticks. It diverts energies away from genuine engagement with subject matter
or any other area of inquiry. Competition is thus detrimental to critical as well as
creative thinking. On the other hand, cooperation, a feeling of thinking and
working together, though harder to come by, holds the possibility of inquiring
together with others. Whenever such inquiry arises among a group of teachers (or
teachers and students) who come together to think, plan and do something
meaningful in a school, the impact on them as well as their students can be all the
more energizing.

We thus have a second determinant, the axes of competition-cooperation, which

influences the arising of philosophy in practice. School policies, as well as attitudes
of administrators and teachers, are the primary factors in influencing how schools
locate themselves along this axis. Institutionalized competition, a hallmark of
most modern school systems across the world, narrows learning down to an
achievement-orientation with winners, losers and push-outs. At another level,
administrators or teachers who show marked preferences towards some, or who
set one person (or group) against another, unwittingly or wittingly encourage
comparison and competition of another kind. Both these factors tend to lock the
energies of the young and old in petty envies, conflicting emotions and even
feelings of oppression.

For a constructive cooperation to be generated in a school, it requires a different

kind of possibility: teachers (and students) need to share their thoughts and
concerns often, find common ground with each other, attend to problems
through discussion and dialogue, and develop an appreciation and respect for
each other. “To be able to work together in this really cooperative way, we must
meet often and be alert not to get submerged in detail.” 7 In the cut and press of
daily school life, these opportunities are not easily found and it needs a longer-
term commitment on the part of administrators and teachers, as well as an
intelligent structuring of appropriate forums. This may be less difficult in smaller
schools, but here too relationships and communication may get crystallized into
set patterns, engendering feelings of inclusion and exclusion. Any school with a
7
Pg 21, Introduction, Life Ahead, Krishnamurti. J., Krishnamurti Foundation India
serious intent must therefore seek to structure itself to move beyond
commonplace barriers between people, such as closely-held opinions, biases and
assumptions about each other. Opening up spaces for people to communicate at
various levels allows for inquiries that are generated together, as well as decisions
and actions that carry a deeper educative impulse. When administrators and
teachers come together in this spirit, it makes possible a periodic renewal of
structures, of curriculum and practices, and values acquire new and contextual
meanings. When parents too are part of the shared concerns, a different kind of
energy and atmosphere may be experienced in a school. For philosophy in
practice would then have the possibility of becoming a collective enterprise for all
those involved in the school. The cumulative effect of supporting such an
enterprise makes the school a centre of inquiry.

Significance of Schools as Centres of Inquiry

One may ask: what is the significance or the need for schools as centres of
inquiry? As I approach the end of this paper, there are two levels of responses I
would briefly offer. The first concerns the context of the school and its
participants. The second relates to the relevance of such schools for educational
reform and renewal on a wider scale.

Focusing first at the level of the school, it may be seen that in becoming a centre
of inquiry, the school would have three kinds of impact:

 As and when it sustains such inquiries, a school is able to evolve values that
find specific expression in its curriculum and practices. Students would carry
the educative impact of these well beyond their life in school. We may hope
that they will be able to meet the practical and moral challenges of the future
and live with harmony and balance, not adding to the conflict and violence in
the world.
 A culture of inquiry is also an impetus for a critical re-engagement with
changing realities of the times, with its emerging socio-political, economic and
environmental challenges. If the school and its teachers periodically renew the
curriculum to bring in these challenges, it would enable students to remain in
dynamic engagement with complex emerging issues. Out of this some of them
may find a meaningful direction in life. Bringing a quality of intelligence and
 commitment to their chosen life work, they may actually make a constructive
difference in the world.
 Any sustained engagement of this kind also invites an enlargement of the
school’s own sphere of action and enables participation of persons from the
school in wider arenas of social and educational concern. This may be an
engagement with local communities, constructive interaction with state school
systems, new approaches to the practices of teacher education, or
contributions to the national discourse on school education.

Schools as centres of inquiry have one other significance. It is in and through such
schools that practical research into new possibilities in education are undertaken.
While being part of wider systemic arrangements in a given society, they are able
to maintain a relative autonomy of purpose and a creative dimension in their
approach. And this allows for new forms of curriculum and practice to emerge.
The schools can then serve as demonstrative spaces as well as educational
resource centres. Their relevance to reform and renewal of school education at
the national as well as international level can hardly be minimized.

Finally, I would end my paper by echoing the deep concern that Krishnamurti
himself began these schools with. For him, the darkness that threatens to engulf
the human situation on Earth, demands that the schools become ‘centres of light
and wisdom’8, a beacon for the renewal of human consciousness in the 21 st
century.

References:

1. Krishnamurti, J., Core of the Teachings, a recorded statement

2. Krishnamurti, J., The Whole Movement of Life is Learning, Krishnamurti Foundation Trust

3. Rishi Valley School: The First Forty Years, Based on Historical Work by Roshen Dalal,
Edited by Hans and Radhika Herzberger, with an Afterword by Alok Mathur

4. Krishnamurti J., Education and the Significance of Life, Krishnamurti Foundation India

5. Krishnamurti. J., Life Ahead, Krishnamurti Foundation India

8
Pp 107-108, The Whole Movement of Life is Learning, Krishnamurti, J., Krishnamurti Foundation Trust