Feature

In ancient India also the system of education was more or less like that in Greece. Gurus or teachers collected students to teach them the way of life free of charge or with nominal charge called 'dakkhina'. It was formal teaching rather in informal way. The teacher-student relationship was cordial, tied with the warmth of heart. The students got spiritual as well as material education. They had a chance to become good souls for dedicating to the service of humanity. They were enlightened. In course of time the tradition has been lost. Now learners do not gather around the gurus in his educational cottages or 'asrams' to take lessons amid nature. The picture is different now.

In present-day world, the teacher-student relationship is based on money rather than soul. The learners have to pay money for education, obligatorily. As education has been commercialised, so no money, no education. The teachers will not provide education without money. Here a good teacher is the person who can earn a lot of money. And a student is expected to have the capability to pay sufficient money to a teacher. A student has to buy education with money. Costly education in big institutions is meant for the wards of moneyed people. This is the order of the day -- the capitalist order, pervading and invading, regrettably, but without any escape.

The teacher-student relationship has also changed on another dimension. The relationship is now that of domination and subjugation. The teacher is always thought to be superior and infallible in almost all cases. The learner is always expected to accede to whatever the teacher says. Expressing a different opinion is not entertained anyway. Opposition to teacher's doctrine means rejection and humiliation of the student under the aegis of social norms. Student's behaviour and attitude not conforming to the norms are considered as impudence. We admonish them as 'beyabab'!

The matter was a little different in old Greece. We are told that Aristotle expressed differing opinions with Plato. Even Aristotle was alleged to evict his guru from the place of his lecture, though there was settlement later. They were student and teacher, after all, with conflicting ideologies. Plato stressed the reality of idea while Aristotle stressed the reality of matter. The former adopted an introspective method for gaining knowledge while the latter suggested an empirical method. One has the vision of a spiritual leader while the other had the wisdom of a scientist. They argued and fought for their own positions, through bickering, however, without any denial of studentship or teachership. They spent long twenty years together in Academy as guru-shisya. It is only after the death of the great guru that the great shisya left the learning centre. Both of them still shine with their own light like two dazzling stars in the sky, side by side. One is not dimmed by the other.

Obviously there were influences of teacher on the student. But the student preserved all right and might to accept or reject the teacher. Plato was greatly influence by Socrates though he built his own array of opinions. Aristotle challenged Plato in almost all aspects of theorisations. Alexander is leant to accept little from Aristotle. They were all four different personalities, with distinct patterns of magnanimity and nobility.

The Greek teaching tells us to search for knowledge with open mind. It encourages us to 'know thyself' and others without any prejudice. We are indebted to the great Greek teachers for showing us the light of knowledge at the dawn of civilisation. The legend will always act as an inspiration for going ahead towards enlightenment with constant agreeing and differing. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Alexander will guard us like four walls from four sides. The four walls are our greatest shelter.

(The wrier is Assistant Professor and Head, Department of English, Daffodil International University. Email: binoy_barman@yahoo.com)