My Interpretation of On the
Teacher
Liao
MOSHA
Elderly people aged over fifty must have read Han
Yu's On the Teacher. Quite a few remarks in this essay are worthy
of contemplation by present-day teachers and pupils. Take the
following for example:
Confucius says: 'Out of three
men, there must be one who can teach me.' So pupils are not
necessarily inferior to their teachers, nor teachers better than
their pupils. Some learn the truth earlier than others, and some
have special skills — that is all.
Han Yu wrote this essay to
defend himself against the attack of his time on his having
accepted some disciples. In his opinion, having disciples was not
something to be surprised at because, as a teacher, he was not
necessarily better than his disciples in every way, nor his
disciples always inferior to him. As a matter of fact, one who has
learned the truth earlier than you, no matter who he is, should be
acknowledged as a teacher. You need not ask whether he was born
before or after you because what matters is the knowledge that he
can impart to you. Nor should you presume him to be omniscient. So
long as he excels you in one respect, you should learn from him and
call him your teacher. This advice of mine is addressed to pupils,
and teachers as well — teachers whose duty it is "to pass on the
truth, impart knowledge and dispel ignorance".
Pupils are not necessarily
inferior to their teachers, nor teachers better than their pupils —
that is a truth, not a fallacy. There is no impassable demarcation
line between teacher and pupil. While a teacher may be superior to
his pupil in one branch of knowledge, the latter may be superior to
the former in another. While the teacher may be superior to his
pupil today, the latter may be superior to the former tomorrow.
That demonstrates the law of dialectics and the unity of opposites.
A kind of interplay exists between teacher and pupil. The pupil
should learn from his teacher, but sometimes there may also be
something the teacher has to learn from his
pupil.
A similar idea is expressed
by the following well-known passage quoted from Xueji (The Subject
of Education), a chapter of the ancient book Liji (The Book of
Rites): "However nice the food may be, if one does not eat it, he
does not know its taste; however perfect the doctrine may be, if
one does not learn it, he does not know its value. Therefore, when
he learns, one knows his own deficiencies; when he teaches, one
knows where the difficulty lies. After he knows his deficiencies,
one is able to examine himself; after he knows where the difficulty
lies, one is able to improve himself. Hence, 'teaching and learning
help each other;' as it is said in Yue Ming, 'Teaching is the half
of learning.'" The above quotation from Liji, which lays emphasis
on self-examination and self-improvement, is less thoroughgoing
than what Han Yu says about education. Nevertheless, its remarks
such as "When he teaches one knows where the difficulty lies",
"Teaching benefits teachers as well as pupils" and "Teaching is the
half of learning" (a quotation meaning teaching and learning are
opposite and complementary to each other) all remain irrefutable to
this day.
To be a teacher, one must at
the same time be a student, or be a student first, just as Carl
Marx says, "Educators must themselves be educated first." Though
this is plain truth, yet people in their practical life seldom
recognize it. It is especially hard for teachers of long standing
or those with "special skills", as Han Yu says, to look at this
matter dialectically.
It is not without reason or
cause that teachers fail to be readily receptive to the
above-mentioned concept. The viewpoint "Pupils are not necessarily
inferior to their teachers, nor teachers better than their pupils",
though put forward by Han Yu, himself a feudal-minded scholar
typical of his time, was by no means popular in the feudal age. On
the contrary, as teachers were ranked high up along with "Heaven,
Earth, Sovereign and Parents" as objects of worship in the feudal
age, pupils could never be on an equal footing with their teachers
to form a unity of opposites. After all, a teacher was a teacher.
His teaching profession was dignified, sacred and inviolable. A
pupil was a pupil. He was never expected to surpass his teacher.
The practice has come down from the past and become
customary.
The new relationship between
teacher and pupil should be that of, in the words of Han Yu, "not
(being) ashamed to learn from each other." That is to say, teacher
and pupil should teach each other and learn from each other. They
should teach each other as equals regardless of seniority, so that,
as Han Yu says, "Whoever knows the truth can be a
teacher."
Pupils should show the spirit
of respecting the truth, learning from whoever knows. Teachers
should be so open-minded as to be ready to learn from anyone who
knows, just as Confucius says, "Out of three men, there must be one
who can teach me."
Han Yu, going by Confucius'
teaching, asserts that "a sage has no definite teacher", meaning
that a really wise and learned person has no fixed teacher and that
he learns from whoever knows. I think I may as well add, "No
teacher is all-knowing," meaning that no teacher is infallible. A
teacher should have the courage not only to hold firmly to the
truth but also to admit his mistake. All devoted teachers might as
well put this into practice so that they can strive, together with
their pupils, for scientific knowledge and the
truth.
On the other hand, however,
pupils should also understand this: when they discover a teacher's
weak point in a certain respect, they should not jump to the
conclusion that he is no longer qualified as a teacher, because the
weak point in one respect does not mean the weak point in all
respects and, likewise, the strong point in a certain point does
not mean the strong point in all respects. Students of today,
shouldering a great historical task, should deeply understand how
limited their knowledge is and how important it is for them to
learn modestly from all those who have knowledge and strong points,
especially teachers who "have special skills"! That is all I can
say about On the Teacher.

Let Us Have
Faith
Helen Keller
In our day-to-day lives, the virtue of
courage doesn't receive much attention. Courage is a quality
reserved for soldiers, firefighters, and activists. Security is
what matters most today. Perhaps you were taught to avoid being too
bold or too brave. It's too dangerous. Don't take unnecessary
risks. Don't draw attention to yourself in public. Follow family
traditions. Don't talk to strangers. Keep an eye out for suspicious
people. Stay safe.
But a side effect of
overemphasizing the importance of personal security in your life is
that it can cause you to live reactively. Instead of setting your
own goals, making plans to achieve them, and going after them with
gusto, you play it safe. Keep working at the stable job, even
though it doesn't fulfill you. Remain in the unsatisfying
relationship, even though you feel dead inside compared to the
passion you once had. Who are you to think that you can buck the
system? Accept your lot in life, and make the best of it. Go with
the flow, and don't rock the boat. Your only hope is that the
currents of life will pull you in a favorable
direction.
No doubt there exist real
dangers in life you must avoid. But there's a huge gulf between
recklessness and courage. I'm not referring to the heroic courage
required to risk your life to save someone from a burning building.
By courage I mean the ability to face down those imaginary fears
and reclaim the far more powerful life that you've denied yourself.
Fear of failure. Fear of rejection. Fear of going broke. Fear of
being alone. Fear of humiliation. Fear of public speaking. Fear of
being ostracized by family and friends. Fear of physical
discomfort. Fear of regret. Fear of success.
How many of these fears are
holding you back? How would you live if you had no fear at all?
You'd still have your intelligence and common sense to safely
navigate around any real dangers, but without feeling the emotion
of fear, would you be more willing to take risks, especially when
the worst case wouldn't actually hurt you at all? Would you speak
up more often, talk to more strangers, ask for more sales, dive
headlong into those ambitious projects you've been dreaming about?
What if you even learned to enjoy the things you currently fear?
What kind of difference would that make in your
life?
Have you previously convinced
yourself that you aren't really afraid of anything... that there
are always good and logical reasons why you don't do certain
things? It would be rude to introduce yourself to a stranger. You
shouldn't attempt public speaking because you don't have anything
to say. Asking for a raise would be improper because you're
supposed to wait until the next formal review. They're just
rationalizations though - think about how your life would change if
you could confidently and courageously do these things with no fear
at all.
Security is mostly a
superstition
It does not exist in
nature
nor do the children of
men
as a whole experience
it
Avoiding danger is no
safer
in the long run than outright
exposure
Life is either a daring
adventure or
nothing
To keep our faces toward change
and
behave like free
spirits
in the presence
of fate is strength undefeatable
