Though philosophy of education got its shape as a separate discipline already around 100 years ago, first of all, by the works of J. Dewey reaching the level of self-consciousness, nevertheless, till nowadays there are no researches, systematically viewing Buddhism from the perspective of philosophy of education.

…

many articles and books on Buddhism have been published in recent years, but publications dealing with Buddhist educational views are rarely available. This presentation is to raise the question regarding possible approaches to such research.

 

When we ask a question if Buddhism in general were suitable for being viewed in such perspective, the answer would be, that in terms of Buddhism the very founder of this spiritual tradition was considered not as the God or Messier or a Prophet, but as a Teacher. The followers of the tradition are called ‘students’. The very object of actual spiritual refuge is a Teaching, Dharma in Sanskrit. The role of a Teacher for the spiritual life was understood in India and Tibet so crucially, that even the cult of a Teacher – Sanskrit ‘guru’ or Tibetan ‘lama’ appeared.

…

Another point, proving positive answer to the raised question, would be, that traditionally Buddhism had the main social form of Buddhist monasteries, functioned as schools, colleges or universities, depending on the scale and capabilities of a specific monastery.

…

 

When we speak about a system of education, it is clear that the criteria of proper effectiveness of a system of education in a society would be 'a product' of specific social mentality, expressed in the models of social behavior, in social values and in social standards, used for solving problems, and, importantly, for conflict resolutions. In that sense I would put an example of Tibetan social mentality as such criteria of Buddhist education.

…

 I would like to share my experience of communication with Tibetan monks and nuns who impressed me as the best examples of educated men. So, I posit them as an ideal model of Buddhist mentality. Religiously educated Tibetan laymen are also a good example, taking in consideration manifestation of this mentality in terms of the last history of Tibet and general attitude of Tibetans towards Chinese in Chinese-Tibetan conflict. It could be expressed by the words of one relieved monk, Alak Rinpoche, who escaped to India. Answering to the question if he experienced a fear in the prison he replied: “Yes. A few times I felt fear to lose compassion towards Chinese”.

 

Now, mentioning ordinate Tibetans as ‘the best example of educated men’, I use the word ‘educated’ not in a strict meaning of scholarly terminology, corresponding to a specific system of philosophy of education. I use the word in its common meaning for this case, that is general meaning, which we use, combining two approaches. One is the point of view of breeding; another one is a personal and intellectual development resulted of studying. When ordinary people judge if somebody is well educated or not, they do not judge the level of specific knowledge, but they usually judge in general. This man is really well educated, that man is not educated at all. Interestingly, we find we are able to judge even the people from other cultural background, not being able to consider their knowledge at all.

 

It seems we expect that, when we contact somebody, who is well educated, we should feel this ‘well educatedness’ personally, through human communication. Here I would suggest a list of significant aspects characterizing human communication, which might apply for our judgment of people participating in the communication. The following terms of those aspects I use in a specific terminological meaning:

 

Thus, applying these criteria, in the case of educated Tibetan monks I found the higher level of mentality, expressed in the models of communication in all seven aspects: 1. they were very attentive and careful towards others, providing complete safety, comfort and real space for participation in the communication. 2. They were reasonably open, allowing realizing their position and opinions. 3. They paid interest to vast diversity of topics, showing wide scope of interests. 4. They were capable to analyze processes and to make original estimations and decisions. 5. They almost never expressed real psychic excitements or disturbing emotions. 6. They were unchangeably very friendly and manifested very good sense of humor. 7. They kept and embodied their values (that is the value of ethic conduct, of love, of wisdom, of mental peace, etc.) so successfully, that attracted people very much and created in memories following the communication quite a noble image, which consisted actually of those perceived idealized values.

 

Then, if I look at Tibetan monks strictly from the point of view of their mentality, I could specify some common for them features, in spite of natural diversity of individuals:

 

…

 

 

Prior researching the Buddhism as a philosophical foundation of education, it is necessary to take in consideration the approaches, which have been established in this field before.

 

Aims of education were among the first questions, raised by Aristotle. According to Aristotle’s statement, the fundamental principle for all human aims of activities was eudemonia, that is well being or happiness. Aristotle referred the characteristic of a person as “the wise” or as a one of “the many” to the knowledge of eudemonia, happiness. Respectively, the theory of true activity or right action was elaborated on the basis of such true knowledge. Upon the completion of the system of posited principles Aristotle inferred the aims of education as teaching the intellectual and moral virtues necessary for right action. Another question raised by Aristotle was about specific sorts of lives aimed to specific objects (pleasure, honor, etc.). He wrote in Book VII of the Politics: “A man should be capable of engaging in business and war, but still more capable of living in peace and leisure; and he should do what is necessary and useful, but still more should he do what is noble. These then are the aims that ought to be kept in view in the education of the citizens both while still children and at the later ages that require education”. Among some other the most important questions, raised by Aristotle, there were the choice as the origin of action and the role of reason, or intellect and moral state for making a choice.

 

John Comenius (1592-1670) introduced the conceptions of natural seeds ofvirtue and education, originally maintained in pupils’ minds. In ‘Great Didactic’ he viewed an education as a way to become a human being. He propagated a strict order of a curriculum, which should be a copy of order existing in a nature. He defined the prerequisites needed for an educator and for a pupil. In the sphere of knowledge he explained the method of teaching knowledge not as transmission of different words and opinions to the pupil, but as opening pupils’ abilities to understand things, since the knowledge would come from this ability. He based his system of education on the aim, transcending this life, and demanded all other aims to be subordinated to this main one.

 

Pestalozzi (1746-1827) insisted on the trust and receptivity of the pupils towards an educator as a basis for an education. He considered love and kindness to be the main content of an education and proved it by the keen need of kindness and goodness inherent for every pupil. He was cautious about the role of words in the process of education, calling them “dangerous signs, expressing good and evil”.

 

Philosophy of education by Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) is formulated in his “Emil” concentrated on the purity of a human heart, on moral motivation according the age of a pupil. Russo thought, a small child would not have any moral motivation, so he would not do anything morally bad. He defined the primary education as purely negative one, just protecting the young hearts against evil and minds against ignorance. He spoke about the need for an educator to be a model for a pupil. He accepted the only method – the method of personal experience of a pupil him/her self, not verbal instructions on a teacher’s side.

 

Lev Tolstoy in the article ‘Yasnopolyanskaya school during November and December’ discussed order and discipline in school as manifestation of violence and the need of waiting and respect to the human nature as opposite non-violent method to get better and deeper order among pupils.

 

John Dewey started with revealing false imputations concerning the very essence of education, leading towards the understanding the ends of education as directing the child to some fixed adult’s standard. Treating the education as a system, he combined critics of existing educational methods with revision of the definitions of the nature of education, formulating the latter as development, expounding his own vision of development as the main feature of life in general and concluding with identifying the ends of education with education itself. This formulation led Dewey to a definition of educational principles, stated the latent inner powers of a student to become manifested, resulting in achieving “the end – the direct transformation of the quality of experience”.[1]

Dewey proclaimed self-realization ethic, construed in terms of the realm of experience, where both the self, manifested in the form of habits, and the ideal self co-exist. He applied this moral philosophy to the theory of education in “Democracy and Education”, describing educationas the “freeing” of the capacities of learners (or realization, liberation, development, discovery – his another terminology). Dewey discussed the teacher’s role and interpreted it as to inquire into the pupils’ capacities, and to provide environment and experiences, which can “function” or realize these capacities.[2]

Dewey looked into "customary and "reflective" morality, into the principle of defining the purposes of education for a specific individual, into the problem of differentiation between the subject of educating activities for an educator and for being educated and into values of education.

Dewey explored the nature of thinking and discussed an advantage of a stimulating, first of all, of an astonishment and doubts at the initial stage of thinking process and already then observing, examining and analyzing, thus coming to the resultant state through proving by experience.[3]

Dewey reminded the potential danger of giving just verbal didactic instruction.

 

Later Deweyian philosophy of education helped modern researchers to look deeper into many aspects, raised by him and to go further. During last decades these problems received new interpretations through the prism of new theoretical approaches. Post-modernist skepticism revised, first of al, the “subject/object” distinction (interpreting reality as not existing objectively, “out there,” but rather, as being partly a human creation). The nature of knowledge was reviewed as a product of an interaction between our ideas about the world and our experience of the world, the process of learning as contained in the mind of the learner was replaced by the suggestion of distributing this process across persons and actions.

In terms of ‘Philosophy of Education Society’ Conferences a number of reports were dedicated to Dewey, including mentioned report of Craig A. Cunningham; Naoko Saito (University of Tokyo); Eric Bredo (University of Virginia); the response of D.C. Phillips (Stanford University) to the report of Bredo; Fay Rosner (University of Illinois at Chicago). I just would list here the topics of their investigations: social relationships with a combination of the emphasis on an individuality without contradiction; symbol-processing approach and a situated approach and the possibility of balance of these two, in order to solve the dualistic problems of language and reality; mind and body; individual and society; formal and informal, as they were marked by Dewey. Another topic was Dewey’s distinction between "customary" and "reflective" morality, probing whether morals can be taught.

Agustin Basave from the Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Mexico in his report Integral Philosophy of Education: A New "Paideia" at the 20^th World Congress on Philosophy drew attention to the balance between the sciences of empirical verification and humanistic duties, which could not been achieved if we do not establish education on love. 

Eduardo Abranches de Soveral (Universidade do Porto, Portugal) reported on the same Congress on “Principles for a Pedagogy in the Technological Era”. I would remark a first directive of his orientation for the education for the future to humanize technology; to educate people in the adequate use of machines,that is to teach the users of the technical means of communication not to ignore or disdain their ethical, pedagogical and civic responsibilities. Another directive is a generalized vision of richer human values. Putting an emphasis on an ethical and civic nature of education, he appeals to overcome obstacles for that by categorically subordinating the schools to a set of ethical principles and by opposing Freud's dogmatic presuppositions and mutation in thought.

As their first basic level philosophers of education were establishing true aims of education. They compared their vision with the social vision,’ false’ or ‘traditional’, dictated by the society. This aimed to use a person by itself, without letting him to exist as a personality. At that point of analysis the researchers were exposed to an inevitable pressure of a social character of education and tried their best to solve it. Social relationships considered to be as very significant part of education. From social and psychological positions specific sorts of individuals and correspondent ways of life were described. In modern time we discuss the problem of tension between sameness and radical diversity and suggest teaching patience, dialogue, plurality as very important principles for the socialization of a Man. Other modern global problems could be solving on the traditional humanistic base of education.

 

For achieving the aims philosophers looked for the potentiality (seeds) or primary state of purity, which must be understood also as the foundation for self - realization ethic.

Achieving the aims was referred to the ideal state of Man, whilst this ideal was supposed to be defined from the point of view of the Man himself or from the point of view of accepted basic theory of human existence in the world – in accordance with Christian views or others. Particularly, that ideal state could be linked with the manifestation and complete realization of the ‘ideal self’.

Specifically this ideal state should be embodied by the ideal (educated, wise) Man, viewed in contrast with uneducated others. There appeared an interpretation the educated (ideal) Man as a proper Man, which implied the understanding that an education enables a Man to manifest his nature. The inference was the idea to understand learning as learning from Nature.

The field of education was considered in terms of activities, in relation with knowledge and virtues. Intellect and moral state was viewed as the origin of an action making choice.

 

The most important elements of the system were analyzed in the dual relation: a Teacher, proposed by many philosophers as a model, and a pupil. Prerequisites for both were discussed. Also the relations between these two were considered as very important. The differentiation of the subjects of educating activities for educator and for being educated was drawn.

 

So far as the process of education was concerned, the nature of teaching could be understood differently. But many shared Dewey’s formulation as “the “freeing” of the capacities”. Importance of transformation in this process was remarked. In terms of modern thought the subtle level of understanding of these three (Teacher – pupil – process of teaching) was achieved by doubting the traditional subject/object distinction.

In case of teaching, knowledge specification was done regarding the nature of thinking, the nature of knowledge, the variety of symbol-processing approach and a situated approach.

 

For the case of teaching morality, the question of the meaning of genuine morality was raised, since on the answer to the question it depends whether morals could be taught.

Recently, traditional perception of the world as value-neutral, unproblematic, and unchangeable has been doubted in the process of education.

 

Philosophers had different vision regarding the main content of education, but in the past, and, especially, in modern time, love and kindness were appreciated as such – in accordance with the main need of a Man. In general, the place of values in education was always commonly asserted.

 

 

Now I formulate basic questions, investigating the Buddhist tradition as a system from the point of view of philosophy of education. These would be the following ones:

 

 

In terms of Buddhism I have actually to speak about the two traditions, which are Hinayana (Smaller Vehicle) tradition of early Buddhist schools and Mahayana (Great Vehicle) tradition, widely spread in later times (after the first century C.E.). Both traditions could be viewed as variants of a system, since both have a lot of common. Mahayana tradition practically conveyed the basics of Hinayana as its compound part. But also it is possible to speak about them as the separate systems, and this is what I am doing in my research, emphasizing more on Mahayana, since it is more known by me from Tibetan tradition.

 

So I look at 2 sets of Buddhist texts as materials for exploration. The first set contains sutras of Pali Canon of Theravada, representing Hinayana tradition.

…

Another set … is represented primarily by an early philosophical text of Mahayana tradition – Catuhśatakaśastrakārikā (Four Hundred Stanzas), composed by Aryadeva in the period of II-III A.D. as a commentary to Madhyamaka philosophy, based on the Buddha’s Prajňapāramitā (Perfection of Wisdom Sutras) sutras…

The whole Mahdyamaka philosophy first was expounded by the great Indian master Nagarjuna (I-II A.D.), in his work Prajňanāmamūlamadyamakakārikā (Treatise on the Middle Way). I have chosen those texts by Aryadeva, Nagarjuna, Prajňapāramitā sūtra and a number of other most relevant text by Shantideva, Chandrakirti, Gyel-tsap Dharma Rinchen, since they represent the whole topic in its completeness. Besides, I am planning to join a research of some educational texts on the relevant topics, traditionally used nowadays for the Buddhist educational program in the Tibetan monasteries.

 

At the moment my research is in the middle of process,

… I can speak in the report about the perspectives of my research.

 

Here I would present brief answers to the raised questions, relevant to the both traditions, with references and, where possible, quotations.

 

 

 

Elements of two models. Theravada and Mahayana traditions

 

For Mahayana – that would be similar.

Slight but significant difference between Theravada and Mahayana understanding of the nature of mind would refer to the interpretation it in coordination with the state of Enlightenment, Bodhi. Mahayana tradition connects this state in its potential form with the very nature of buddhi, the mind, or more precisely saying ‘animated-ness’.

In Mahayana the greater, absolute model would be Enlightened One, the smaller is Bodhisattva (The Hero of Enlightenement), moving towards the highest state. In Aryadeva’s text (101)[8] there is such characteristic of an absolute ideal: “Not a single movement of Buddhas is without reason; even breathing is exclusively for the benefit of sentient beings.” there is such characteristic of an absolute ideal: “Not a single movement of Buddhas is without reason; even breathing is exclusively for the benefit of sentient beings.”

The main difference between two traditions in this ideal model does not lie in the sphere of moral purity of defilements or in the sphere of Wisdom. It concerns infinite Love, Compassion and responsible care of Buddha and Bodhisattvas, attained by Mahayana method.

 

5. Which are the purposes, needed for the achievement of those aims and for shaping that ideal model?

For Theravada the first purpose is disappointment concerning worldly life and strong will to reach freedom of it. Besides, the purposes would be to consummate in virtue, to control the actions (the most rough, social and ethical purpose), to keep control over sensuality, to view and trace mentality, to cultivate mindfulness and alertness in all daily activities, to develop discerning, particularly through the practice of wisdom.

For Mahayana the first purpose is generating the method – Bodhicitta, Mahayana’ spirit of Enlightenement, based on unbearable compassion towards others, suffering similarly, like oneself. Practice of morality, concentration and wisdom would be approximately like those in Theravada.

 

In Theravada Anguttara Nikaya III.134, Dhamma-niyama Sutta it is explained: “Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands -- this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant… The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All processes are inconstant."

For Mahayana the main trait of a Teacher would be love and compassion, causing generating the spirit of Enlightenment. From ‘Four hundred’. (108) – “ A spiritual gide who wishes to help must be attentive toward students“.According to the commentary, this attentiveness means keeping with the dispositions of the students. On the base of that it is said about skillfulness. From ‘Four hundred’ (111) “Just as a mother is especially anxious about a sick child, Bodhisattvas are especially compassionate toward the unwise.”

 

7. Who is supposed to be a pupil? Who is an ideal pupil?

According to both traditions, ordinary beings are called ‘children’ or ‘unwise’ and suppose to become pupils. The pupil must be open to the teaching first of all. The ideal pupil is characterized by a number of qualities, describes mainly in terms of sincere motivation, particularly compared with the motivation of a seek person, searching for treatment. Also there are three requirements, needed for a pupil. He/she must be free from possible faults of listener – the fault of being closed ‘vessel’ for the teaching, of being ‘vessel’ poisoned by wrong motivation or preconceptions, of being leaking ‘vessel’, loosing all heard

 

 

8. Which are ideal relations between a Teacher and a pupil?

In general, it would be similar for Theravada and for Mahayana. There is hierarchy with great respect and reliance from the side of a pupil towards a Teacher. From the side of a Teacher there is great care of the benefit of a pupil. But in Aryadeva’s text there is also such passage (112): “They become students of some and become teachers of others, through skillful means and knowledge giving understanding to those who do not understand”. In the commentary it is explained: “Since Bodhisattvas are willing to take any form, no matter how humble, to help others, we should also be prepared to adopt an interferer position when necessary.”

 

The teaching is shaped in both traditions such way, that the basic store is personal realization of the pupils concerning their present experience. The main goal at this level is to reveal this present experience, to investigate, what is present situation and present notions of a pupil, to make it clear. According to this very experience the aims of attaining a better or ideal state are defined, mostly as negative ones, compared with present unsatisfactory state - especially in Theravada. That dominating approach of negation of present unsatisfactory state founds particularly on the natural inner need of happiness, bliss, complete satisfaction, inherent to every sentient being.

This creates the motivation for the following development. The motivation is considered to be the main factor for every action, since it defines the quality of an action. In dependence on motivation two traditions are differentiated. In terms of Tibetan Buddhism three gradual stages of the path along with three types of personalities were described by lama Tsonkapa (1357-1419) in dependence primarily on the motivation. It is supposed that realistic aims could be posited only in accordance with the sincere motivation, so the wise teachers correct these aims individually in accordance with the state of pupil’s motivation and take care of its developing to help pupils to progress.

 On this base all other levels are built. The structure has consecutive order, with combination on each level its natural elements with of some elements, presenting higher levels. Thus for instance starting from the beginning level egoistic desire, self-cherishing attitude are shown as the key cause for sufferings, consequently as the abandoned factor. Later on the same attitude is being investigated much deeper, in philosophical view of selfless. That is an example of more complex order of educational process than simple lineal one.

The next level would be introspective analyzing by the pupil his present notions, approaches and motivation. Then he comes to combined with daily life introspective viewing and control over the events. Philosophical analysis is used all along the path for examining present notions and appearances. Buddhist philosophy plays great role for solving moral and psychological problems. Taking in consideration Mahayana uncommon doctrinal positions (the responsibility of salvation all other sentient beings), making this role also extremely significant in social aspect, that major specific feature of the whole system of Buddhist education is worthy to be investigated as detailed as possible.

 

There were also some special topics, discussed by Buddha. These are sociology and social psychology - Anguttara Nikaya IV.255, Anguttara Nikaya IV.32, Sangaha Sutta, Kula Sutta,   Anguttara Nikaya VII.64, Dhammaссu Sutta. Also there are some teaching on the proper prosperity in this world and many suttas, devoted to the topic of dearth and dying - Majjhima Nikaya 41 Saleyyaka Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya IV.184, Abhaya Sutta. In “Four hundreds” the 1st chapter is consisted is four main topics for meditation on impermanence. The emphasis is placed on recognizing that people, things and situations are not static, unchangeable. Acknowledging this leads to diminishing pupil’ attachment and fear and to being better prepared to face both life and death.

 

Concerning the process of learning there is basic instruction not to rely on words, but to rely on inner realizations. That originally had defined the character of educational methods.

 

There is a special method applying by the teacher to him/her self. Thus in Anguttara Nikaya V.159, Udayi Sutta it is explained, which thoughts and attitudes should be cultivated inwardly by the teacher, before and during the teaching.

 

Very important method for both Buddhist traditions is rational discourse and prove, connecting the ideal aims with the foundation of common sense inherent to ordinary thought of a pupil.

 

Key method of Buddhist education is an introspection, inevitable for transformative development of personal experience.

 

Principle method is practical approach, withdrawing from speculations. By Buddha’s definition, His teaching is such, which has practical aim and the taste of practice in every drop of it.

 

The method of negation. This negative approach is explainable, if to remember the first principles of Buddhist educational philosophy. This method is negation or purification of all, produced by ordinary defiled fermented psychic, including all its levels and elements.

 

The method of a dialogue. That could be explicit or inner dialogue with a pupil, taking his/her approaches and interests into consideration (Anguttara Nikaya IX.41, Tapussa Sutta). As in the commentary to “Four hundreds” explained, “Bodhisattvas use others’ natural affinities and interests as a means of gradually leading them toward an understanding of reality”. That actually forms so called skillfulness of Buddha’s teaching, His ability to present different positions and even different philosophical views. Great part of this phenomenon could be explained also by Buddhist understanding of emptiness, considering these views, etc. as relative ones, not containing any substance or independent existence.

 

According to the commentary to ‘Four hundreds’: “A Bodhisattva’s training consists of practicing the six perfections and the four ways of gaining others’ trust in order to help them”.

 

The method of applying vivid examples, stories, images or even demonstrations visually, using things. That helped pupils to become engaged in situation, experiencing it personally (Majjhima Nikaya 75, Magandiya Sutta и Majjhima Nikaya 7, Vatthupama Sutta и в особенности Majjhima Nikaya 61, Ambalatthikarahulovada Sutta).

 

The method of gradualness and of proper time for the instruction. Thus the 8^th chapter of ‘Four hundred’ provides advice on how to make the student’s mind ready for instruction concerning the fundamental nature of all phenomena. The commentary explains: “It is wise to proceed cautiously. First people should be discouraged from doing unwholesome things and encouraged to do what is wholesome. They should then be helped to overcome gross misconceptions regarding the self and finally the subtler ones, until all wrong views have been eradicated”.

 

The method of raising the doubt. - Anguttara Nikaya III.65, Kalama Sutta. The 8^th chapter of ‘Four hundred”.

 

The method of repetitions, learning by heart, refrains in the texts. That could be explained by psychological approaches of Buddhism to education (not taking it as transmission of information), which demand time for all psychic processes.

 

Concerning the organization of the process of education, there is threefold principle of learning, usually detailed taught to pupils in the beginning of the process of their education. This principle is ‘1. listening – 2. personal analyzing, investigating – 3. meditative assimilating, mastering’. For fulfilling this principle into the monastic system the educational process traditionally was organized as daily morning lectures of a teacher, noon and afternoon debates between pupils, evening personal meditations.

 

Another important principle of organization is setting proper motivation for specific educational process every time in the beginning and directing the resultant energy of the completed educational process to higher goals in the end of every session of teaching.

---