प्राचीन भारत में शिक्षा (डॉ. ए.एस. अल्तेकर - गुरुकुल एवं बौद्ध विहार शिक्षण इतिहास)

III] THE TEACHER AND THE STUDENT 49
to him and show him the highest possible reverence. He
is to be revered even more than parents; to the latter, we
owe our physical birth, to the former our intellectual
regeneration. From the Vedic age downwards the teacher
has been all along designated as the spiritual and intellec-
tual father of the student.¹ Without his help and guid-
ance, no education is possible. He is in fact indispensable.
This is graphically illustrated by the story of Ekalavya,
who when refused admission to his school by Droṇa, pre-
pared an image of the teacher under whom he longed to
learn, and successfully finished his studies in archery
under the inspiration that he received from the inanimate
representation of his animate preceptor. Buddhists and
Jains also attached equally great importance to the tea-
cher. This importance attached to the teacher need not
surprise us, for it is now admitted on all hands that
neither buildings nor equipment exercise such influence
on students as is exercised by cultured and competent
teachers, who instruct as well as inspire.
Why the Teacher was Revered : The great import-
ance that was attached to the teacher in the ancient
system of education and the high reverence that was
shown to him in society are not difficult to understand.
Since the earliest times the Vedic learning is being
transmitted orally in India from one generation to another.
This continued to be the case even when the art of
writing came into general vogue. The Mahābhārata
condemns to hell a person who commits the Vedas to
writing. Great importance was attached to the proper
1 Cf. आचार्य उपनयमानो ब्रह्मचारिणं कृणुते गर्भमन्तः । A. V. XI, 5, 3, See
also Va. Dh. S., 28,38-9; Gau. Dh. S., I. 1, 10; Manu, II, 170.
Bau. Dh. S., 1. 2. 48 maintains that a Śrotriya can never be
regarded as issueless, his students are his sons.
4

50 EDUCATION IN ANCIENT INDIA [Ch.
accent and pronunciation in the Vedic recitation, and
these could be properly learnt only from the lips of a
properly qualified teacher. The continuous transmission of
the store of the Vedic knowledge, which society regarded
as priceless, was possible only through the instrument-
ality of the teacher and his importance therefore could
not be exaggerated. With the rise of the mystical systems
of philosophy in the age of the Upanishads, the reverence
for the Guru became still more intensified ; for spiritual
salvation depended almost entirely upon his proper
guidance.¹ This deification of the philosophical Guru
was not without its reaction in favour of the ordinary
teacher who taught disinterestedly without stipulating for
any fees. We should further remember that books being
dear and rare, the student had generally to rely upon his
teacher alone to a much greater degree than is the case
now.² in the case of professions, even when books exist
in plenty, a good deal more has to be learnt from the
teacher. So a competent and sympathetic teacher, who
would unreservedly place at the disposal of his pupil the
essence of all his experience, could hardly be over-
venerated by the artisan apprentice working under him.
The glorification of the teacher must have produced
great psychological influence on students, for childhood
is the hey day of personal influence.

1 नैषा मतिस्तर्केणापनेया प्रोक्तान्येनैव सुज्ञानाय प्रेष्ठ । K. Up., II, 9.
तद्विज्ञानाय गुरुमेवाभिगच्छेत्समित्पाणिः श्रोत्रियं ब्रह्मनिष्ठम् ।:
Mun. Up, 1, 2, 3.
2 Mss. were often unreliable; so there was a prejudice against
students, who had not read under a teacher: cf:—
पुस्तकप्रत्ययाधीतं नाधीतं गुरुसंनिधौ ।
भ्राजते न सभामध्ये जारगर्भ इव स्त्रियः ॥
Nārada quoted by Pa. Mā., at I, 38.

III] THE TEACHER AND THE STUDENT 51
Teacher's Training:—Though the teacher was held
in high reverence, it does not appear that any institutions
like Teachers' Training Colleges of the modern times
existed in the past. One of the hopes expressed at the
convocation (Samāvartana) was that the graduate may
have the good luck of attracting students from all
quarters.¹ It is therefore clear that no further training
was deemed necessary for the graduate in order to qualify
him for the teaching profession. The reasons for this
are not far to seek. Students received individual attention
and lessons from their teachers, as will be shown in
Chapter VI. During their educational course Vedic students
could note how precisely teachers used to pronounce and
intonate the Vedic Mantras when teaching them to their
students. As far as the study of other branches like
grammar, logic, rhetoric, philosophy etc. was concerned,
no special training was necessary for fostering and deve-
loping the powers of exposition and elucidation of students
specialising in them. In the modern system of education
students can get their degrees by listening to their teachers
in the class-rooms and answering the question papers in
the examination halls. Such was not the case in ancient
India. Several times during his course the student was
called upon to pass through the fiery ordeal of learned
debates (Śāstrārtha) when he was called upon to defend
his own position and attack that of the opponent in
heated discussions. Powers of debate and discussion were
thus remarkably developed by the time the student finished
his education. Advanced students were also given
opportunities of teaching the beginners in most of the
educational institutions.² The graduate therefore had a
1 Bau. Gr. S., II, 6.
2 See Suta-soma-jātaka No. 537. Of the advanced scholars at
P. T. O.

52 EDUCATION IN ANCIENT INDIA [Ch.
fairly good teaching experience to his credit by the time
he left his alma mater. The absence of training colleges
therefore did not materially tell upon the efficiency
of the teachers at least as far as higher education was
concerned.
Qualifications of the Teacher : Since the teacher
was held in high veneration, he was naturally expected to
possess several qualifications. The student was to look
upon the teacher as the ideal person and regulate his own
conduct by the example of his teacher. The latter there-
fore was expected to be a pious person of very high
character. He was to be patient and treat his students
impartially. Above all he was to be well grounded in his
own branch of knowledge; he was to continue his read-
ing throughout his life.¹ Profound scholarship however
was not sufficient for the teacher. He must have a fluent
delivery, readiness of wit, presence of mind, a great stock
of interesting anecdotes and must be able to expound
the most difficult texts without any difficulty or delay.²
In a word, he should be not only a scholar but also an
adept in teaching; then only he would be a great teacher,
as pointed out by Kālidāsa.³ The teacher must further be
able to inspire as well as to instruct; his piety, character,
(Continued from the last page)
Nālandā and Valabhi, I-tsing says that they passed two or
three years in these Universities, instructed by their teachers and
instructing others. I-tsing, p. 177
1 यावज्जीवमधीते विप्रः ।
2 प्रवृत्तवाक् चित्रकथः ऊहवान् प्रतिभानवान् ।
आशु ग्रन्थस्य वक्ता च यः स पण्डित उच्यते ॥
V. 33. 33
3 शिष्टा क्रिया कस्यचिदात्मसंस्था संक्रान्तिरन्यस्य विशेषरूपा ।
यस्योभयं साधु स शिक्षकाणां धुरि प्रतिष्ठापयितव्य एव ॥
Mālavikāgnimitram, Act I.

III] THE TEACHER AND THE STUDENT 53
scholarship and cultured life should be able to exercise a
subtle and permanent influence over the young students
sitting at his feet for their lessons.
High Code of the Teaching Profession : The teach-
ing profession had a very high code in ancient India.
There was often competition for getting more students ;
but if one teacher was found to be less well grounded
than his rival in his subject, he was expected to close
down his school and become a disciple of his rival in
order to get full knowledge.¹ The teacher was to begin
the education of the student as soon as he was satisfied
that the latter was sincere and possessed the necessary
calibre ; he was not to postpone instructions unnecessarily.²
1 G. Br., I. 1. 31 shows how on being defeated in debate with
Maudgalya, Maitreya at once closed his school and became the pupil
of his vanquisher in order to become better grounded in his
subject. The debate between Śaṅkara and Maṇḍana Miśra was
also held on the usual condition that the vanquished should
become the disciple of the vanquisher.
2 Usually teachers were allowed to watch the conduct and
calibre of the new entrants for about six months or a year:
but after that period they were bound to start instructions.
If they did not do so, they were saddled with all the sins of
the students they were keeping in suspense; cf. संवत्सरोषिते शिष्ये
गुरुर्ज्ञानमनिर्दिशन्। हरते दुष्कृतं तस्य शिष्यस्य वसतो गुरुः॥
Kūrma P. in VMS., p. 515
Ashṭāṅga-hṛidaya, Sūtrasthāna, chap. 2, allows only a six months'
period of waiting for medical students. Longer periods of
waiting like 5 or 32 years that we sometimes come across in
Tantras (e. g Tantrarāja-tantra, II. 37-8) and Upanishads (e. g.
Ch. Up. VIII. 7. 2. 3.) were intended for those who aspired to
be initiated in secret and esoteric philosophical doctrines, and
not for ordinary students.

54 EDUCATION IN ANCIENT INDIA [Ch.
The duty to teach was imperative;¹ all students possessed
of the necessary calibre and qualifications were to be
taught, irrespective of the consideration as to whether
they would be able to pay any honorarium or not. We
have seen already that no regular fees were charged by
ancient Indian teachers and institutions. The poorest of
the poor could demand and get education from the tea-
cher by merely agreeing to do household work in the tea-
cher’s house. Further, the teacher was required to teach
every thing he knew to his disciple; he could withhold
nothing under the apprehension that his pupil may one
day outshine him in the profession.² How generous and
largehearted teachers usually were in this connection can
be judged from the conduct and exclamation of Alāra
Kalama, when the future Buddha had finished his edu-
cation under him :—
“Happy friend are we in that we look upon such a
venerable one, such a fellow ascetic as you. The doctrine
which I know, you too know, and the doctrine which
you know, I too know. As I am, so you are, as you are
so am I. Pray, sir, let us be joint wardens of this
company”.³
1 The Smritikaustubha narrates how a teacher was condemned
to be a mango tree in his next existence for his failure to
impart Vedic knowledge; cf. स चूतवृक्षो विप्रोऽभूद्विद्वान्वै वेदपारगः ।
विद्या न दत्ता विप्रेभ्यस्तेनैव तरुतां गतः । There is an obvious subtle
humour in the retribution imposed upon the teacher who
would not give what he possessed to others; as a mango tree
he would have to give all fruits to others and retain none for
himself.
2 Milinda-pañha, I. p. 142
3 Further Dialogues of the Buddha, Ariyapariyesana-sutta, p. 116.
Compare also the spirited protest of Bhāradvāja when he
apprehended that his royal pupil was suspecting that he was
not teaching him all that he knew; P. T. O.

[III] THE TEACHER AND THE STUDENT 55
Duties of the Teacher: The relationship between
the teacher and the pupil¹ was regarded as filial in character
both by Hindu and Buddhist thinkers; the teacher
therefore had to discharge several duties in addition to
imparting intellectual education and helping spiritual
progress. He was the spiritual father of the pupil and
was held as morally responsible for the drawbacks of his
pupils.² His extra-academic duties were varied and
numerous. He was always to keep a guard over the
conduct of his pupil. He must let him know what to
cultivate and what to avoid; about what he should be
earnest and what he may neglect. He must instruct him
as to sleep and as to keeping himself in health, and as to
what food he may take and what he may reject. He
should advise him as to the people whose company he
should keep and as to the villages (and localities) he may
frequent.³ If he was poor, he was to help him in getting
some financial help from people of influence and substance
in the locality. He was to arrange for his food and
clothing: the teachers of Sanskrit Pāṭhaśālās in eastern
India used to do this till quite recently. If the student
was ill, the teacher was to nurse and serve him as a father
would do his son.⁴
(Continued from the last page)
नाहमिदं वेद। यद्यवेदिषं कथं ते नावक्ष्यमिति।
समूलो वैष परिशुष्यति योऽनृतमभिवदति ॥
Pr. Up., VI. 1
1 Cf. पुत्रमिवैनमभिकांक्षन् Ap. Dh., S., 1. 2. 8. M. V. 1. 32
2 अतीत्य बंधूनवलंघ्य शिष्यानाचार्यमागच्छति शिष्यदोषः ॥
Pañcharatra 1. 21
3 Milinda-pañha, Vol. I, p. 142
4 The testimony of I-tsing shows that this was also done in
Buddhist monasteries; p. 120. The Buddha has left express
injunctions on the point; Mahāvagga, I. 26. 1-6

56 EDUCATION IN ANCIENT INDIA [Ch.
Income of the Teacher; Early Period: We have no
data to enable us to get a precise idea of the normal income
of the teacher in the early period. In ancient days in India as
in the West, there was no Education Department prescribing
a scale of salaries, which was more or less followed in
private institutions also. Educational institutions them-
selves came into existence only at about the 5th century
A. D. We have already seen how the educational theory
and practice prohibited the teacher from charging any
fixed scale of fees from his students. The teacher in
ancient India therefore had, as a general rule, no fixed
income. We have seen already that usually he was
also a priest. His income therefore consisted partly of
offerings obtained by him on the occasions of rituals and
sacrifices and partly of voluntary gifts given by his stu-
dents either during or after their course. There was to
be no stipulation for these presents; so they varied with
the financial capacity of the guardians. At Taxila we
learn that the 'world-renowned' teachers used to have 500
students reading under them, and that the rich ones among
the latter used to offer a fee of a thousand coins.¹ This
however does not enable us to get any accurate idea of
the teacher's income. The number of students, 500, is
conventional² and not real and we do not know whether
the fee of 1000 coins offered was for one year or for
the whole course, and whether it included the expenses
of boarding and lodging also, which were normally offered
by the Taxila teacher. We therefore can form no definite
idea of the income of the teacher during the early period.
1 The coins were probably silver Kārshāpaṇas, each weighing
about one third of the modern rupee.
2 Usually each teacher had only about 15 to 20 students read-
ing under him; see Chp. VI.

III] THE TEACHER AND THE STUDENT 57
Income of the Teacher in Later Period: We how-
ever get more definite data about the teacher's income from
the time educational institutions were evolved. Teachers
at Buddhist Universities of Nălandā and Vikramaśīlā
were monks and so required no salaries; the administra-
tion had to spend for each monk-teacher just the amount
necessary for the maintenance of only four students.¹
In south Indian colleges the annual salary of teachers
varied according to their qualifications and subjects from
160 to 200 maunds of rice.² This income was about
two and half times the income of the village accountant
or the carpenter, and was equal to about four times the
amount necessary for meeting the normal food expenses
of a family of five persons. We would not be wrong
in supposing that as a general rule in ancient India the
Sanskrit teacher imparting higher education received a
similar income. He was thus neither suffering from
abject poverty nor rolling in superfluous wealth. Society
enabled him to lead a life of moderate comforts accord-
ing to the ideal of plain living and high thinking. We
can now understand why learned teachers were exempted
from taxation. The income of the primary teacher
was naturally less than that of the Sanskrit teacher. In
Bengal at the advent of the British rule, the income
of the primary teacher was just equal to that of the
1 Bose, Indian Teachers of Buddhist Universities, p. 35.
2 S. I. E. R., 1917, No. 333. The total cost of one good meal for
one year was about 8 maunds of rice. The salaries above men-
tioned were given in the college at Ennayiram; in other insti-
tutions they were sometimes different. Sometimes inscriptions
disclose that the Veda teachers used to get only 30 maunds of
rice per annum; in such cases they were probably part-time
teachers and were expected to supplement their income from the
proceeds of the priestly profession.

58 EDUCATION IN ANCIENT INDIA [Ch.
patwari, who collected the village revenue or the amin,
who settled village disputes on behalf of Zemindar.¹
Probably the same was the case during the ancient Indian
period. This income however was not in the form of
a fixed salary, but had to be collected in the form of
voluntary and irregular subscriptions from the villagers
and guardians.
Duties of Students : Let us now survey the
duties of students towards their teachers. The student
was to hold his teacher in deep reverence and honour
him like the king, parents and god.² His outward behavi-
our must be in conformity with the rules of decorum
and good manners, he ought to get up and salute his tea-
cher in the proper way, he ought not to occupy a higher
seat or wear a gaudier dress. Reviling and backbiting
are severely condemned. It however did not follow that
the student was to connive blindly at his teacher's mis-
conduct. Both the Buddha³ and Āpastamba,⁴ who
enjoin high reverence for the teacher, lay down that the
student should draw his teacher's attention in private to
his failings, and dissuade him from wrong views if he
happened to be inclined towards them; the duty of obedi-
ence comes to an end if the teacher transgresses the limits
of Dharma.⁵ His commands were to be regarded as

1 Stark, Vernacular Education in Bengal, pp. 28—48.
2 I Manu, II, 200 ff. Cf. also Charaka Saṁhitā, Vimāna-sthāna,
VIII, 4, :-
तमग्निवच्च देववच्च राजवच्च पितृवच्च भर्तृवच्चाप्रमत्तः परिचरेत् ।
3 MV., 1. 25. 10. 20.
4 प्रमादानाचार्यस्य बुद्धिपूर्वकं वानियमातिक्रमं रहसि बोधयेत् । 1. 2. 6, 13
5 आचार्याधीनो भवति अन्यत्राधर्माचरणात् । G. D. S. III, 1.15
गुरोरप्यवलिप्तस्य कार्याकार्यमजानतः ।
उत्पथप्रतिपन्नस्य न्याय्यं भवति शासनम् ॥ Mbh., I. 140. 54

III] THE TEACHER AND THE STUDENT 59
ultra vires, if they were likely to jeopordise the student's
life or were against the law of the land.
Duty .of Personal Service : Both in Buddhist
monasteries and Hindu Gurukulas, the student was
expected to do personal service to the teacher 'like
a son, suppliant or slave.¹ He was to give him water
and tooth stick, carry his seat and supply him bath
water (M. V.. I. 25, 11-12). If necessary, he was to
cleanse his utensils and wash his clothes.² He was fur-
ther to do all sundry work in his monastery or his tea-
cher's house, like cleansing the rooms etc., bringing fuel
or guarding cattle. This custom existed in the Vedic
age³ and was widely prevalent in later times also. Tradition
asserts that even great personages like Śrī-Kṛishṇa had
deemed it an honour to do all kind of menial work in
their preceptor's house during their student days. It was
held that no progress in knowledge was possible without
service in the teacher's house.⁴
Limitation on this Duty : There were, however,
limitations to this duty to work. The teacher was prohi-
bited from assigning any work that was likely to inter-
fere with the studies of the student. The duty was
further more nominal than real in the case of paying
scholars. We have seen already that the duty to teach
was imperative and a teacher could not refuse a student
merely because he was poor. Poor students were admit-
ted if they were willing to help the teacher in his house-
hold or farm work; this duty to work was effectively
operative only in their cases. At Taxila the students
¹ पुत्रवद्दासषदर्थिवच्चानुचरता त्वया....।
² Mahāvagga, 1. 25-2
³ G. Br., I, 2, 1-8.
⁴ गुरुशुश्रूषया ज्ञानं शान्ति योगेन विन्दति । Mbh,, V. 36. 52

60 EDUCATION IN ANCIENT INDIA [Ch.
who used to pay their teachers honorarium in advance
used to stay in their houses like eldest sons, doing no
household work and spending all their time in study. Free
students,—dhammāntevāsikas,—on the other hand used to
do all kind of manual work for their teachers. They
used to work by day, when paying scholars were receiving
their lessons ; teachers used to hold special classes for
them at night with a view to see that their education did
not suffer on account of their day’s work on the farm
or in the household.¹ At Nālandā also secular students
who sought free boarding, lodging and education had to
do some manual work for the monasteries.²
· Mutual reltaions between Teachers and
Students : Public educational institutions, where tea-
chers used to teach students admitted by the managing
body, were not many in ancient India. The relations
between the teacher and the student were therefore
direct and not through any institution. The student
usually went to such a teacher as attracted his atten-
tion by his reputation for character and scholarship ;
the teacher selected such students as appeared to him
sincere, zealous and well-behaved. The student usually
lived either under the roof of the teacher or under his
direct supervision. The teacher not only did not demand
any fee but also helped the poor students in getting food
or clothing. He nursed him if he was ill. The student
naturally lived as a member of the household of the tea-
cher and helped him in doing the household work if
necessary. The teacher on the other hand would not

1. Cf. धंमंतेवासिका आचरियस्स कम्मं कत्वा रत्तिं सिप्पमुग्गण्हन्ति आचरियभाग-
   दायका गेहे जेट्ठपुत्ता विय हुत्वा सिप्पमेव उग्गण्हन्ति ।
   Tilamuṭṭhijātaka, No. 252
2. Takakusu, I-tsing, P. 106.

III] THE TEACHER AND THE STUDENT 61
expect this work if the student was a paying boarder
and would limit it to the minimum in the case of poor
students.¹ Under such circumstances the relations bet-
ween the teacher and the student were naturally very
cordial and intimate; they were united, to quote the
words of the Buddha, 'by mutual reverence, confidence
and communion of life'.² Students usually did not desert
one teacher for another merely out of freakishness.³
Teachers would often entertain genuine affection for
their students and would sometimes select some of them
as their sons-in-law. Later authorities have laid it down
that a student cannot marry his teacher's daughter,
because she stood in the relation of a sister to him ; Kacha
refused to marry Devayānī on that account. This rule
seems to have been framed to prevent complications likely
to arise in practice when young students used to live and
board with their teachers. But earlier practice seems to
have been different. In Jātakas we come across sev-
eral cases of teachers marrying their daughters to their
1 Cf. न चैनमध्ययनविघ्नेन आत्मार्थेषूपरुन्ध्यादनापत्सु । Ap Dh S., I 2. 8
The teacher was also responsible for the safety of students when
he sent them out for his own work; if any mishap overtook them
he was held guilty. Cf. गुरुप्रयुक्तश्चेन्म्रियेत (शिष्यः) त्रीन्कृच्छ्रांश्चरेत् ।
Bau. Dh. S., II. 1. 27
2 M. V.. I. 32. 1
3 Students deserting their teachers without any reason are ridiculed
as crows by Patañjali, cf. यो गुरुकुलं गत्वा न चिरन्तिष्ठति स उच्यते
तीर्थकाक इति । Vol. I. P. 391
In Uttararamacharit, II, we no doubt find Ātreyī leaving
Vālmīki, and going to Agastya But the reason was that she
was too dull to read along with Kuśa and Lava. Of course if a
student wanted to learn a different branch of learning, he would
leave his old teacher and go to the expert in the particular
branch.

62 EDUCATION IN ANCIENT INDIA [Ch.
most promising students; the custom was so deep rooted in
certain teachers' families that students had often no option
in the matter, even if they were not in favour of the
match.¹
Mutual Relations in After-life: The cordial rela-
tions that existed between the teacher and the student
continued also in their after-life. Even when the student
had returned home after his education, he was to call on
his teacher frequently, bringing him some present, it may
be even a tooth-stick.² Teachers also used to return these
visits.³ The teacher's visit was not without its benefit
to the student ; he used to utilise the occasion to ascertain
how far the ex-student was keeping up his reading and
studies. In the Anabhirati Jātaka⁴ the ex-student informs
his teacher that he was quite up-to-date in his studies
for some time after he had left his school, but admits
that he had forgotten some of his Vedic Mantras since
the time he was married; he however promises to mend
the matters without delay. The mutual contact between
the teacher and the student thus continued in the after-
life and was not without mutual benefit
The Daily Life of the Student:—Let us now see
what was the daily life of the student. Naturally it
differed in different courses and we have detailed informa-
tion only about the religious and literary education.
The students taking these courses used to get up early
in the morning before birds had begun to stir,⁵ i. e. at
1 See Silavimansa Jātaka, No 305. In Mahāmagga Jātaka, we
find the student marrying his teacher's daughter because there
was no option for him in the matter. He was against the match.
2 Ap. Dh. S., 1, 2, 8,22.
3 Jātaka No. 130.
4 No. 185.
5 T. S., VI. 4. 3. A. Br. II. 15

III] THE TEACHER AND THE STUDENT 63
about 4-30 A. M. Then they used to attend to morning
functions, take their bath and offer their prayers. Vedic
students used to spend a good deal of the morning time
in performing various morning rituals connected with fire
sacrifices; this afforded them practical training in the
rituals they were expected to perform in their after-life.
Other students contented themselves with their prayers
(sandhyā) and spent the rest of the morning either in
learning new lessons or in revising old ones. At about
11. A. M. this work would come to an end and students
used to break off for their meals. Those staying with
their teachers or in boarding houses used to get ready
meals served out for them; those who were poor used
to go out to collect cooked food for their meals. After
the noon meal there followed a period of rest of about
an hour or so; and teaching started at about 2 P. M.
and went on till the evening. We sometimes get refer-
ences to students spending their evening in collecting
sacred fuel for sacrifices (Jātaka No. 150); but this
must have been true of Vedic students of the early period
only. Evening was probably spent in physical exercises.
At sunset they offered usual prayers, attended to fire
sacrifices, and then took their supper. Poor students,
who had to work by day in the teacher's house or else-
where, used to spend a considerable part of the night in
studies. We should not forget that paper and printing
were unknown and books were rare and costly; so there was
little of homework possible, except the revision and reca-
pitulation of the lessons learnt in the teacher's presence.
Students of sculpture, architecture, painting, smithy and
carpentry etc. spent most of the day in the teacher's
workshop, learning the details and the technique of the
art and trade, and often accompanying and helping the
teacher as apprentices in the professional work that he

64 EDUCATION IN ANCIENT INDIA [Ch.
may have undertaken in the town or city. It will be thus
seen that the educational system tried to reproduce in
the student life the atmosphere and the conditions exist-
ing outside in actual life both in the case of religious and
industrial students.)
The Student Life and the Duty to beg : The
begging of the daily food has been enjoined on the stu-
dent as a religious duty. This injunction occurs in sacred
texts from the Vedic age downwards;¹ nay, some texts
lay it down that the student must beg his food both
morning and evening.² It has been declared that no food
is so holy for the student as the food he obtains by
begging at midday.³
Why begging food was prescribed : The rule
of begging was laid down for the student in order to
teach him humility and make him realise that it was due
to the sympathy and help of society that he was learning
the heritage of the race, and being enabled to follow a
profession that would secure him a living. This rule
further removed the distinction between the rich and the
poor and brought education within the reach of the
poorest. It was also useful in reminding society of its
duty and responsibility about the education of the rising
generation. Civilisation will not progress if each gene-
ration does not take proper steps to transmit its heritage
to the next. Hindu thinkers therefore made it an incum-
bent duty for all householders to offer cooked food to
the begging student; a householder refusing his request
1 A. V., XI. 5. 9.; Go. Gr. S., II; 10; Dr. Gr. S. II. 5. 16 Manu II. 65
2 Jai. Gr. S., I. 18; Ap. Dh. S. I. 1. 3. 24-5
3 शाकभक्षाः पयोभक्षा ये चान्ये यावशाकिनः।
सर्वे ते भैक्षभैक्ष्यस्य कलां नार्हन्ति षोडशीम् ॥ Atri in SCS P. 111.

III] THE TEACHER AND THE STUDENT 65
was threatened with serious spiritual sanctions.¹ In
medieval universities of Europe, a very large number
of students used to maintain themselves by begging out
of sheer necessity; in ancient India begging was elevated
into a duty of the student life. It may however be point-
ed out that our educationalists have pointed out that a
student can beg food just sufficient for his needs; if he
collected more, he would be guilty of theft.² Similarly
he could not have recourse to begging when his education
was over.³ Society was morally bound to support every
poor student who was honestly struggling to educate
himself; when however he was educated, he was expected
to stand on his own legs.
How far was the Rule to Beg Followed: There is
clear evidence to show that Smṛitis themselves did not
expect the rule of begging to be literally followed by all
students, both rich and poor. They have laid down a
penance, only if the student did not beg at least once in
the week.⁴ This shows that the rule of begging was a
mere formality in the case of rich students and a reality
only in the case of the poor ones.⁵ When circumstances
1 Cf. स्त्रीणां प्रत्याचक्षाणां समाहितो ब्रह्मचारी इष्टं दत्तं हुतं प्रजां पशूं
ब्रह्मवर्चसमन्नाद्यं वृङ्क्ते । Ap. Dh. S. 1, 3, 24-25,
2 आहारादधिकं वर्णी न क्वचिद्भैक्षमाचरेत् ।
युज्यते स्तेयदोषेण कामतोऽधिकमाहरन् ॥ Manu in VMS. p. 486.
3 समावृत्तस्य भिक्षाऽशुचिकरा । B. D. S., II. 1. 53; see also S. Br.,
XI. 3. 3. 7.
4 न चैनं सप्तम्यभिक्षित् यायात् । B. D. S., I. 2. 52.
5 There are also other indications in Smritis to show that begging
was not a reality in the case of all. It has been laid down by
Sumantu (quoted in VMS. p. 486) that students under 12
should take their food early in the morning; begging should
be resorted only after 12. अश्नीयादष्टवर्षस्तु ब्रह्मचारी प्रगे सदा ।
तदूर्ध्वमाद्वादशाब्दादश्नीयात्सङ्गवे सदा ॥ तदूर्ध्वं गृहिष्वद्भिक्षां भोजनं च समाचरेत् ।
The view of Krishṇājini is also the same, Ibid.
5

66 EDUCATION IN ANCIENT INDIA [Ch.
permitted, Smṛitis have allowed students to take their
food in the house of their preceptors.¹ Well-to-do
students at Taxila were generally living and boarding at
their teachers' houses. In richly endowed colleges like
those at Nālandā, Salotgi and Ennāyiram, arrangements
were made by the college administration for the free
boarding of students from generous endowments received
for the purpose; begging food was not necessary at these
places. Sometimes, as at Benares for instance, such
arrangements were independently made by rich citizens
of the locality.² Begging food was not necessary at such
places. The Chinese pilgrim Yuan Chwang attributes the
fame of Indian scholars for deep scholarship to the
circumstance that students in India have not to worry about
their food, clothing and medicines.³ It will be thus seen
that begging was elevated into a duty for the student,
primarily for the purpose of bringing education within
the reach of the poorest, and secondarily for removing
the superiority complex from the mind of rich students;
he was the ideal student who lived by begging and not
he who lived on his family's support. The rule was not
intended to be literally followed by all students every day.
Rules of Discipline: Let us now survey and com-
ment upon the rules of discipline prescribed for students.⁴
It was felt that student's life should be characterised by
dignity, decorum and self-discipline and should be devoted
to acquire a grounding not only in learning but also in the
1 भैक्षाचार्यवृत्तिः स्यात् । M. Gr. S., 1 1. 3; see also Manu, II. 142.
2 Losaka Jātaka, No. 41 (C. 500 B. C.) and Bernier p. 335,
(17th century A. D.) both refer to the arrangements made by
the rich citizens of Benares for distributing khichdī to poor
students.
3 Beal, Life of Yuan Chwang, p. 113.
4 For the rules of the student life, see Manu, II, 175ff. ; Yāj. I. 28 ff.;
Gau. Dh. S. I. 2; As. Gr. S. I. 22; Dr. Gr. S. II. 5 etc.

III] THE TEACHER AND THE STUDENT 67
culture and religion of the race. In order to infuse
piety, it was therefore laid down that they should
regu- larly offer the prescribed prayers and sacrifices
both morning and evening. In order to inculcate
good etiquette and manners, it was insisted that they
should show proper courtesy and respect to their elders
and teachers. The duties towards the latter have been
described already. In order to develop character, em-
phasis was given on moral earnestness; lying, slandering
and backbiting were never to be indulged in. They were
to observe strict celibacy even in thought and speech.
Strength of mind and character is developed if we
learn to deny to ourselves our natural desires and incli-
nations¹; rules of discipline therefore laid down that
articles like meat, sweetmeats, spices, ornaments and
garlands, which have a natural attraction for the youth
and tend to accentuate the sex impulse, should be tabooed
to students. Even royal students, staying in a Gurukula
were not allowed to have any private purse, lest they
should secretly purchase prohibited articles.² Plain living
and high thinking was to be the student's ideal: they
were to shave their heads clean or keep matted hair:
no time was to be wasted in oiling, combing and dressing
the hair. Students must take the bath once in the day,
but pleasure baths were forbidden. Shoes, umbrellas
and cots were not to be used as a general rule. Food
and dress were to be simple but sufficient. The aim in
prescribing these rules was to enable students to form a
number of useful habits during the formative period of

1 This was the view of Locke also; Graves, Great Educationalists, p. 61.
2 The prince in Junha Jātaka could only promise that he could
compensate the poor Brahmana for the breakage of this bowl only
when he later returned to Benares and became a king. Obviously
he had no privy purse (V. p. 456).

68 EDUCATION IN ANCIENT INDIA [Ch.
childhood and adolescence, which were expected to be
of good use to them throughout their life. And finally
students were to attend their classes regularly, listen to
lectures attentively and master and digest carefully all
that was taught before the school met the next day.
How far Relaxation was Permitted: Of the
above rules, those relating to religious duties and moral
behaviour, were particularly emphasised and strictly
enforced; modifications however were permitted in the
case of the rest, if demanded by special circumstances.
Thus the prohibition against the use of shoes and um-
brellas was not rigorously enforced in ancient India as
in ancient Sparta; the idea was that students should not
be so soft as to require these articles when moving about
on good roads in villages and towns¹ under normal circum-
stances. Students going to thorny forests in search of
the sacred fuel (samidhs) or undertaking a long journey
to distant places like Taxila over the burning plains of
northern India², were permitted the use of both the shoes
and umbrellas. Similarly occasional exceptions were
permitted in the case of the use of sweetmeats, when
students were invited to some religious function or feast
like a Śrāddha. The use of oils was permitted in some
localities once a week probably after the shave³. Cots also
were probably permitted in swampy or snake-infested areas.
Were Rules of Discipline unreasonable? : The
rules of discipline were on the whole reasonable for the
age. They were intended to infuse piety, teach manners,
1 Cf. न ग्रामोपानहौ। Dr. G. S. II. 5.
2 See Tilamutthi Jātaka, No. 252, where students coming to
Taxila from Benares are seen to be equipped with shoes and
umbrellas.
3 Such was the case in the college at Tirumukhudal in the 11th
century A. D.; see E. I, XXI. p. 223.