Teacher-Student Relationship

The medical teacher and the student in our Saṃhitās are portrayed as individuals of high moral and intellectual fibre who are temperamentally flawless. Suśruta does not describe the requisite qualities of the teacher probably on the assumption of the preceptor being the embodiment of all good values. Caraka advises the aspirant to approach the chosen preceptor with respect as one would approach the sacrificial fire, the gods, the king and the master.^[1] In other words, the attributes for which the sacrificial fire, the gods, the king and the master are honoured, the same should be perceived and accepted in the preceptor as well. Just as the fire provides light and warmth, the teacher dispels the darkness of ignorance. He has attributes similar to the deities who are worshipped for their divine qualities, and it is through the blessings of the preceptor that student can reach his desired goal. His position is akin to that of the king and the father for the preceptor protects, sustains and looks after the well being of his tutee. Through the initiation, the student undergoes a second birth at the hands of the preceptor. Like the servants who live under the tutelage of the master and minister to his needs, the student serves upon the preceptor and lives under his guidance.^[2]

The most notable aspect of their relationship as described in the texts is expectation of complete subordination of the pupil to his preceptor. He had to seek the latter’s permission at practically each and every step: whether to sleep, sit, eat, read or visit any place.^[3] There is an authoritarian tone when the teacher expects the student to be devoted to him, to surrender to his superiority, to be subordinate to him and behave in a manner that will be pleasant and useful to him. He must regard the teacher as his father and at the same time serve as his servant or supplicant.^[4] This implies the student was completely dependent on the preceptor for fulfilling all his needs. The preceptor’s instructions are incontrovertible. Hence, there is emphasis on the inculcation of humbleness in the student who is instructed to get rid of jealousy, anger, pride, conceit, rudeness, and back-biting among other vices.^[5]

Despite the insistence on complete submission and obedience, Caraka acknowledges that the preceptor’s instructions can be questioned only under the under four circumstances: if they are hostile to the king or disliked by him (rājadviṣṭāt), life-threatening (prāṇaharād vipulād), unrighteous (adharmayād) or could cause a calamity or something worthless.^[6]

The reference to life-threatening task here raises the question whether it alludes to a situation that is potentially perilous for the patient or the student. Again it is not clear what is meant by unethical (adharmayād)-whether it is related to the physician’s ethics only or the broader subject of dharma or righteousness as enshrined in the brahmanical law books. How far the student would be able to turn down his teacher’s instructions is open to question. Wujastyk remarks that this list leaves a great many questions open, and it seems Caraka is alluding to case scenarios that were either commonly understood in his times (and thus would have been clear to the student) or otherwise were discussed in more details elsewhere.^[7]

With the exception of these situations, Caraka envisages the submission of the pupil to the preceptor as absolute. Towards the end of the ritual of upanayana, the preceptor pronounces that if the student acts according to the instructions enunciated by him, he should be taught; otherwise, however, he should not be taught (yathopadeśaṃ ca kurvann adhyāpyaḥ, ato’nyathā tvanadhyāyāḥ).^[8]

The tasks that the student is expected to perform at the preceptor’s residence is not mentioned in our treatises which are mentioned in detail in the Gṛhyasūtras and the Dharmasūtras. These included procuring food through begging of alms, tending the sacred fire, tending cattle, etc.,^[9] and we may assume that the medical student carried out similar tasks with the additional duty of collecting drugs. Gathering of drugs was undoubtedly essential for the student to learn about the identification of plants and animal parts.

Significantly, Suśruta does not instruct the pupil to live with the teacher like his son, slave and supplicant nor he is told to surrender or subordinate himself though obedience and respect to the preceptor at all times is emphasised. The teacher’s responsibility is also spelled out when it is said that when the student is dutiful but the teacher is not, he would suffer the same sinful fate (as the student who fails to abide by the regulations laid out for him), and his learning would be futile.^[10] This is a clear signifier of the reciprocity of teacher-student relationship which is also is evident in the law books. It has been suggested that the teacher-pupil relationship was a covenant between the two.^[11]

We may mention here that Manu holds obedience to the teacher higher than that to parents: “By honouring his mother he gains this (nether) world, by honouring his father the middle sphere, but by obedience to his teacher the world of the Brahman.”^[12] Āpastamba lays down that if a teacher is incompetent, pupil can seek another (I.7.26). Loving his student like a son and totally devoted to him, the teacher should impart knowledge without holding anything back with respect to any of the Laws. Except in an emergency, moreover, he should not employ a pupil for his own purposes to the detriment of the pupil’s studies. (I.8.24-25). Āpastamba is also emphatic that a teacher ceases to be a teacher when he neglects teaching.^[13] The relationship of the student towards the teacher is of complete obedience, devotion, reverence and subservience, while the latter nourishes, protects, sustains and guides the pupil with care and affection. The preceptor is expected to uphold the highest ethical standard and fulfill his responsibilities. Though the student is expected to regard the teacher as the father, neither Caraka nor Suśruta, advise the preceptor to take a paternal interest in the pupil unlike the Dharmasūtrakāras like Āpastamba who emphatically says that the teacher should love him like a son.^[14] We may, however, point out that Dhanvantari addresses Suśruta and his other disciples endearingly as vatsāḥ (sons).^[15]

Both our treatises are silent on the issue of remuneration to the preceptor. Payment of fees at the commencement of the course is known from the Jātaka narratives. The Susīma Jātaka narrates how the Boddhisattva went to Takṣaśilā to learn the three Vedas and the elephant lore. When he found the teacher, he washed his feet and lay before him a fee of thousand pieces of money.^[16] The Milindapañha informs us that the aspiring medical student could procure a teacher either by the payment of fee or by performance of service without any reference to the pre-enrollment selection process or to any formal process of initiation.^[17] It appears from this piece of evidence that there was on option of either paying the course fee or serving the preceptor.

It is difficult to determine to what extent the rules of initiation were followed at the admission of all students. Neither any student of Ātreya nor of Dhanvantari is mentioned to have been initiated after the upanayana ritual. This is true of the celebrated physician of Magadha, Jīvaka as we know from the Mahāvagga. Having the desire of learning medicine he approached a world-renowned physician at Takṣaśilā and said, “I wish to learn your art, doctor.” The teacher replied, “Well, friend Jīvaka, learn it.”^[18] Neither any pre-enrollment assessment of the aspirant nor is any formal initiation referred to here.

On the basis of the study of the Caraka and Suśruta Saṃhitās it is difficult to ascertain with certainty the nature of the selection and assessment processes for the medical student but we are better informed on the conception of medical education. The Saṃhitās demonstrate a remarkably eclectic approach to education which is evident in their emphasis on learning related subjects (śāstras)^[19] and learning from other experts of the same subject even though they may be rivals in the field. It is very often noticed that the ancient medical authorities held varied views on a particular subject. Students are familiarised with the views of other authorities through discussions we have mentioned earlier and in the course of the lecture. In the Suśruta Saṃhitā we get references five authorities on embryology whose views are stated and refuted with the teacher’s own arguments.^[20] The exposure to other hypotheses is an important aspect of medical education in ancient India.

The student is advised to always strive to acquire the desirable qualities and learn similar noble qualities even from his enemies without having any sense of jealousy. Further, he should consider the entire universe as his preceptor as the wise do and it would be foolish think otherwise. The aspiring physician should, therefore, welcome good advice which brings fame, which promotes longevity and strength and which is acceptable to the people. Such advice can be had even from an enemy and be adopted in practice.^[21] These words of counsel to the prospective physician embody open-mindedness to concepts and therapeutic practices of not only other experts of the same medical tradition but other traditions as well. Anything that is beneficial should be accepted without prejudice by the practitioner of medicine. Therefore, Caraka insists on making honest efforts to be in constant touch with this science^[22] and Suśruta advocates continued study and practice after completion of the course.^[23] Perhaps, it would not be wrong to conclude that the ultimate aim of the study of medicine and surgery was not just the cure of the sick but the cultivation of a scientific attitude as well.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Caraka Saṃhitā Vimānasthāna 8.5.

[2]:

Āyurvedācārya J. Vidyalankar, Caraka Saṃhitā, translated into Hindi, Delhi, 2007 (Reprint), p.351.

[3]:

Suśruta Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 2.6.

[4]:

Caraka Saṃhitā Vimānasthāna 8.13.

[5]:

Suśruta Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 2.6.

[6]:

Caraka Saṃhitā Vimānasthāna 8.13.

[7]:

Dagmar Wujastyk, Well-Mannered Medicine, p.86.

[8]:

Caraka Saṃhitā Vimānasthāna 8.14.

[9]:

R.K. Mookerji, Ancient Indian Education, p.93.

[10]:

Suśruta Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 2.7.

[11]:

L.M.Singh, K,K. Thakral, P.J. Deshpande, “Suśruta’s Contributions to the Fundamentals of Surgery”, Indian Journal of History of Science, Vol.5, No.1, pp. 38-50.

[12]:

Manusmṛti II.233.

[13]:

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra I.8.27.

[14]:

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra I.8.23.

[15]:

Suśruta Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 1.5.

[16]:

Jātaka, Vol. II, No.411.

[17]:

The Questions of King Milinda, VI.10.

[18]:

Mahāvagga VIII.1.6.

[19]:

Suśruta Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 4.6.

[20]:

They are Śaunaka, Kṛtavīrya, Pārāsarya, Mārkaṇḍeya and Subhūti Gautam; Suśruta Saṃhitā Śārīrasthāna 3.32.

[21]:

Caraka Saṃhitā Vimānasthāna 8.14.

[22]:

Caraka Saṃhitā Vimānasthāna 8.14.

[23]:

Suśruta Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 3.56.