Triple Stream

Editorial

Modern educationists whose ideas are borrowed from Western scholars and professors will be surprised to note some of the principles and educational practices obtaining in ancient India long before the first European university came into existence. According to Manu there were three types of education - (1) Loukika (2) Vaidika and (3) Adhyatmika. In other words they are utilitarian, vedik and spiritual. Manual work (what we now call ‘work experience’) was a component of education. It was not merely ‘book learning’ or ‘rote learning’. For example, students were made to fetch water, gather fire-wood, run errands, tend cattle and sheep, watch fields and stop breaches in dykes. In which way it is different from most of our N. C. C. and N. S. S. activities of today?

There was no discrimination between pupil and pupil on the basis of economic status. For example Krishna (prince) and Kuchela (pauper) were sent by their teacher Sandipani to fetch water, fire-wood and sacrificial twigs. Once when they did not return from the forest, the teacher went in search of them in pouring rain and in darkness out of love and concern for their welfare. Teachers used to pray that they should get good students who bring credit to their teacher and their country. One such prayer is: “O’ creator! just as water flows to the lower level, just as months pass in regular succession, so may brahmacharis (students) come to me”.

The philosophy of Indian education never supported a narrow out­look or regionalism. 6000 years ago in Adharvana Veda our Indian teachers proclaimed: “MAATA BHOOMI PUTROHAM PITRUYAH” (The whole world is our mother land. We are the sons of Mother Earth). At about the same time the Rig Veda said: “UPASARPA MAATARAM BHOOMIM” (dedicate yourself to the service of the world, your mother land) and KRIM VAANTO VISWA MAARYAM” (Make the whole world noble in action). The Vishnu Purana enjoined, “LOKA SAMASTHA SUKHINO BHAVANTU”(may the whole world prosper and be happy). The Upanishads said “VASUDHAIKA KUTUMBAM” (The whole world is a single family). In Taittireya Upanishad the teacher advises the student who finished his education to speak the truth, to treat the parents, the teacher and the guest as Gods and work for LOKA SANGRAHA. Is this world out-look in any way inferior to the modern concept of the ‘Global Village’?

What should be the characteristics of a good teacher? The ancient educationists prescribed nine qualities - “SUCHIH, VAACHASWI, VARCHASWI, DHRUTIMAAN, SMRUTIMAAN, KRUTI, NAMRATAH, UTSAAHI, JIJNAASU - DESIKO NAVALAKSHNAHA (the teacher should have nine qualities - (1) External and internal cleanliness (2) Effective expression, (3) Bright Countenance (Personality) (4) Physical and moral courage (5) Good memory (6) Writing skills (7) Humility (8) Enthusiasm and (9) Eagerness to pursue knowledge.

Is it not a comprehensive check­list comparable to the recommendations of any modern commission on education - Radhakrishnan Commission, Kothari Commission or the New Education Policy Document? Besides, no one was considered to be a worthy teacher without “ANUBHOOTI” (Experience) and ‘DARSHANA’ (Vision).

There is no surprise that such ideal teachers were treated in the Vedas as equal to Gods (ACHARYA DEVO BHAVA). As time passed, we got the popular idea: “the teacher is Brahma, the teacher is Vishnu, the teacher is Shiva”. We have also the converse that the original teachers were Gods themselves - ‘Geetacharya’ and ‘Shiva Charya’. The word ‘Acharya’ meant one who did not merely cover the syllabus and coach for the examination but taught ‘acharas’ or how to lead a good life and cultivate good practices and values. As society took care of the teachers’ needs and the kings or wealthy people maintained the ‘ashrams’, education was more or less free. Only after the students began to earn, they could contribute to the upkeap of the school.

The only fee paid by the student at the end of the course was called ‘Gurudakshina’. Except in rare cases guru-dakshina was only a token to show deep debt of gratitude to the teacher who loved the student more than his own son. In many cases gurudakshina was a mere pumpkin, an umbrella, a piece of upper cloth etc. Of course when rich people offered costly things, they were utilised for the improvement of the ashrams. Manu said “The teacher who compels his pupil to pay a sum of money is not fit for inter-dining”. There was a sort of social boycott. In later eras teachers were permitted to collect tuition fees from those who could afford to pay. One of the Jatakas related the story of the 16 year old son of the Rajah of Benaras who went to Taksha Sila with one thousand pieces of gold - the fee for the teacher who had to take him through the various branches of learning. However, there was no fixed fee. It varied according to the income of the parent.

Aptitude and discipline were rated high among the pupils. The  following three categories of students were declared unfit to receive education:

ASUYA KAYA (those who lack interest or aptitude)

ANRUJAVE (who are not truthful or straight forward)

AYATAYA (who lack discipline).
Today our pedagogues of Teacher - Training Colleges talk of ‘entering behaviour’ and ‘terminal behaviour’ of the student in ‘lesson-plan’ etc. In Manduko Panishad, Narada is said to have gone to Sanatkumar to learn from him. He said, “Teach me, Sir”. Sanat Kumar said, “please tell me first what you know already; afterwards I will tell you what is beyond”. In other words, without using the modern jargon, Sanatkumar wanted to have an idea of his would-be pupil’s ‘entering behaviour’. Of course, Narada gave a list of subjects, he had already studied. It shows how the curriculum had developed.

World’s great linguists rate Panini’s grammar very highly as the work of a path-finder. Panini wrote in 4th century B.C. but mentions a formidable list of 64 predecessors. ‘Amara Kosa’, a Dictionary in Sanskrit verse, is a pioneering effort in lexicography. It is interesting to note that there were non-Brahmin scholars like Janaka, Chitra Gangyayani and Ajatasatru who gave instruction to Brahmins on scholarly matters and issues of profound philosophy.

Maharshis were not men who led cloistered lives away from society. Salihotra who wrote ‘Aswa Shastra’ was a Maharshi. Maharshi Vatsayana wrote ‘Kama Shastra’. In fact, the great Rishis were all married men living with their families and teaching their pupils. Even their Ashrams were not too far from residential localities. For example in Kalidasa’s ‘Raghu Vamsa’ King Dilipa started after his lunch and reached the Ashram before sun-set. He travelled only on horse-drawn coach.

It is a mistake to think that the courses in the ancient and Buddhistic periods were purely literary, theoretical and religious. There were 18 Shilpas which included vocational and job-­oriented courses. The subjects consisted of Secular Law, Logic, Atomic Theory, Arithmetic, Music, Flower decoration, Rangoli, Weaving, Pottery, Carpentry, Architecture, Dance, History, Military Art etc.,

Even technical science was recommended. In Rig Veda, Chapter 10, Section 155, the Mantra, 3 says:

“Technical Science is a wonderful thing. It removes poverty and brings prosperity. O’ poverty-stricken man! Acquire technical knowledge.....and Remove Poverty and want”.

Taksha Sila was a sort of Central University which was internationally popular. Even their methods of instruction, compare favourably with contemporary practices ‘Discussion’ and ‘Questioning’ formed an important part of methodology. Huan Tsang, Fahian, It-sing and other Chinese visitors had nothing but praise for the teaching strategies followed in Nalanda, Vikrama Sila, Uddanta Puri and other universities. “Scholars including students took part in conferences of learned men called ‘Parishads’ and ‘Goshties’ (seminars). They maintained well-stocked libraries. Ratna dadhi was a 9 storeyed library building, housing rare manuscripts.

– I. V. CHALAPATI RAO
Editor