Krishnamurti and Sri Aurobindo on Education- A Comparative Study

• In Event: Case studies in holistic and post-foundation education

Proposal

Objective and Mode of Inquiry

Advocating for the philosophy of education as a knowledge field in its own right, Seshadri (2008) argues that empirical methods alone cannot settle educational decisions because these decisions involve value judgments. Any engagement with education—teaching, training, administration, policy-making, evaluation, and research—requires us to ground our decisions and actions in our vision. They must deal with logical and conceptual issues. As a philosophical inquiry, conceptual analysis deepens our understanding of various dimensions of education and provides us with a robust framework for practical decisions. (Srivastava, 2017; Seshadri, 2008).

In this paper, I delve into the educational beliefs of two highly influential twentieth-century thinkers whose educational contributions have been profound. However, they have yet to be widely recognized in the West. Through conceptual analysis, I explore their ontology, epistemology, and axiology to shed light on their educational ideologies. I compare the two systems of thought. Therefore, with its unique contribution, this paper enriches the academic discourse on alternative education philosophies, pedagogies, and implications for educators and policymakers.

Literature Review and Conceptual Framework

Jiddu Krishnamurti
a) Ontology, Epistemology, and Axiology
Krishnamurti maintained that a sacred dimension to life—truth or God—must be discovered within oneself through sustained awareness of one’s thoughts, emotions, behavior, and relationships (Kumar, 2011). In one of his most famous speeches, Krishnamurti called the truth a ‘pathless land’ (Hunter, 1988; Kumar, 2011). He emphasized deep, impartial inquiry and adopting a skeptical outlook to develop an intuitive mode of understanding. Observation is an essential element of Krishnamurti's epistemological approach. He linked observation with a detached, non-judgmental awareness of life. (Hunter, 1988).
Hunter (1988) notes that he repeatedly focused on integrity, honesty, sensitivity, and harmony. He asked people to approach every person and situation afresh without allowing any shadows of the past to linger.
b) Theory of Education
Krishnamurti believed that the quality of the teacher-pupil relationship was more important than any methods or pedagogics. He believed in the power of non-verbal communication and established through his example how a teacher’s presence can be a catalyst in enhancing the perception of their pupils. He asserted several times that the purpose of education at his schools was essentially religious, whereby the students and staff would explore the sacred dimension of life. He regretted the overemphasis on intellect in education (Hunter, 1988).
Krishnamurti censured the carrot-and-stick approach of schools because it inculcated ambition and competition. This competitive spirit works against the welfare of fellow human beings. He was against any guru/disciple or abbot/monk relationship. He stressed the individual search for truth. His pedagogical approach in public talks, lectures, and meetings involved introspective inquiry. He advocated for an unbiased and skeptical approach to problem-solving rather than working in a conceptual framework.
Sri Aurobindo
a) Ontology, Epistemology, and Axiology
Aurobindo proclaimed that the goal of life is not only individual liberation but collective transformation. He argued that the mind can work as a channel to seek knowledge but never reach its culmination without evolving into the higher forms of consciousness. Its primary vehicle is intellect, but it cannot transcend the subject-object dichotomy. Therefore, one must progress through the following levels of consciousness: the higher mind (above logical reasoning), the illumined mind (beyond thoughts), the overmind (transition link between the lower levels of consciousness and the Supermind intelligence where the division between the knower, the known, and the knowledge dissolves) (Mastny, 1975).
Aurobindo professed that the ultimate test of virtue and morality was the ability to see God in the ugly and the evil and the yearning to heal it of its ugliness and evil simultaneously. He believed that the judgment of good and evil holds good only in a world of contradictions. However, with the progress of spiritual consciousness, such distinctions and polarities diminish.
b) Theory of Education
Sri Aurobindo was critical of the inorganic teaching method in the current education system, where teaching in snippets was a complicated and rambling path to learning. He suggested harmonious development through an integral curriculum to transform consciousness (Vidal, 2017).
In his integral education, the emphasis is on physical, vital, mental, psychic, and spiritual dimensions. Vital education aims to develop the senses through discrimination and aesthetics. Mental education encompasses comprehension, synthesis, judgment, imagination, memory, observation, concentration, and reasoning (Mastny, 1975). Differentiating between psychic and spiritual education, Sri Aurobindo explains that while psychic education liberates the seeker from personal attachment and is the highest earthly manifestation, the latter trains for the release from all earthly manifestations.

Insights and Discussion

Both philosophers see the root cause of human problems in distorted consciousness. Therefore, they both consider self-understanding and self-transformation to be education goals. They believe in the transcendent dimension of life, but their approaches to understanding it differ. Krishnamurti called the truth a “pathless land.” He did not thereby propose any methods, pedagogies, or curriculum. However, Aurobindo suggested a nuanced framework to guide educators and learners toward self-discovery. Krishnamurti’s idea of awareness of one’s reflection in relationships was unique to him. Similarly, his skepticism was as outstanding as Aurobindo’s faith in the Divine Will or Grace in realizing the ultimate truth.
Though Krishnamurti also aimed to bring about social transformation through individual work, Aurobindo was more direct and assertive in addressing the need for a collective transformation. Aurobindo did not assume that personal liberation would automatically change the world's plight.

Scholarly Significance

Kumar (2011) argues that education is best understood by exploring how human consciousness manifests itself in various educational decisions and practices. Merely changing social structures cannot bring change in individual consciousness. Even the changes wrought by critical pedagogy or self-reflection will thus be short-lived. Therefore, the contributions of scholars like Krishnamurti and Sri Aurobindo to the educational theory are unique. These theories establish a dialectical relationship between the inner and the outer life.
Although the two thinkers may differ in their goals and approaches to spiritual and social metamorphosis, alternative education scholars and practitioners can significantly benefit from Krishnamurti's and Sri Aurobindo's educational theories and ideas.

Author

• Harpreet Kaur, University of Maryland, College Park