婚姻学堂
正确的教育始自教育者，他必须了解他自己，并且从定性的思想模式中解脱出来。因为它本身是什么，他传授的便是什么。如果他没有受到正确的教育，那么除了他所接受的同样机械化的知识之外，还能教什么呢?因此，问题不在孩子，而是在父母和教师;问题在于对教育者加以教育。
如果我们教育者并不了解自己，不了解我们与孩子之间的关系，而只是以知识填塞与孩子心中，使他通过种种考试，那我们又怎么能够建立起一个新的教育呢?学生在那儿等着受人指导、帮忙;然而如果指导者、帮忙者内心混乱、狭窄、充满了理论学说，是个国家主义者，那么，他的学生自然就和他一模一样了，教育便成了延续混乱和斗争的方式了。
如果我们看出这项真理，就会明白，正确地教育我们自己，非常重要。关切我们自己的再教育，远比为了孩子的未来幸福和安全要来得更迫切。
对教育者加以教育——就是使他了解自己——是一件十分困难的事。因为大部分人已经在某种教育思想体系或某种行动模式中僵化了，我们已将自己纳入某种意识形态、某种宗教，或某种特殊的行为标准中。因此，我们教给孩子的，是想“什么”，而不是“如何”想。
而且，父母和教师多半被自己的内心冲突和哀伤所苦。不论贫穷或富有，大多数的父母都全神专注于他们自己的烦恼和困难中。他们并不严肃地关切目前的社会与道德的堕落，而只期望自己的孩子有所专长，能出人头地。他们为孩子的将来而焦急，渴望孩子因教育而获得安稳的职位，或是幸福的婚姻。
一般人都以为父母爱他的孩子，但是事实并非如此。大部分的父母都不爱他们的孩子，虽然他们嘴上不会这么说。如果父母真爱他们的孩子，那么家庭和国家便不会受到人们的强调渲染而和整体的人类相对立。这种强调与渲染所引起的对立，在人与人之间造成社会上以及种族上的区分，以致带来了战争和饥馑。今日，人们只有受到严格的训练才能成为律师或医生，然而奇怪的是，他们却能够身为父母而不必接受任何教育，以为无需教育就能胜任此项至为重要的工作。
通常，由于有各自分离的倾向，家庭便助长了孤立的过程，因此成了社会中一项败坏的因素。唯有当爱与了解存在，孤立的围墙才会倒塌。那时，家庭便不再是一所封闭之处，它既不是一座监狱，也不是一座避难所。于是，父母不仅能与他们的子女沟通，且能与邻人互相默契。
许多父母由于全神贯注于他们自己的问题中，于是把孩子的幸福的责任推给教师。这时，重要的是，教育者对父母的再教育，也同样要助以一臂之力。
他必须和父母商谈，向他们解释，世界的混淆情形是他们自己个人混乱的反映。他必须指出：科学的进步本身无法造成既有价值的根本改变;而今日被称为教育的技术训练并非使人们自由，或使人更快乐;将学生加以限制，使他接受目前的环境，绝对无助于智慧的成长。他必须告诉父母，他尝试为孩子做些什么，而且将如何着手。他必须唤起父母的信赖，但不是凭着一种专家对待外行的权威姿态，而是和他们一起谈论孩子的脾气、困难、性向等等的问题。
如果老师把孩子当做一个个人而对他发生真正的兴趣，则父母将会信赖教师。在这种过程中，教师教育了父母，而且因为他从父母那儿同样学习了一些事物，所以他也教育了自己。正确的教育，是一项需要双方的耐心、尊重与慈爱的工作。明智的教师在一个明智的地区能够解决如何培育孩子的问题，热心的教师和关怀孩子的父母可以以此方式施行小型的试验。
父母是否曾经自问，为何要生孩子?他们要孩子，是为了延续他们的姓氏，接管他们的财产吗?他们要孩子，只是为了自己的高兴，为了满足自己情感上的需要吗?如果是这样的话，则孩子变成了父母的欲望和恐惧的投影而已。
如果父母因为误谬的教育而助长了妒嫉、仇恨和野心，他们能声称爱他们的孩子吗?激起国家或种族间的对立，而导致战争、毁灭与不幸，这是爱吗?以宗教或意识形态之名而制造人与人之间的冲突，这是爱吗?
许多父母由于让孩子接受了错误的教育，并且由于他们自己的生活方式，促使孩子走向冲突和悲哀之途。于是，当孩子长大而受苦时，他们便为他祈祷，或为孩子的行为找了种种的接口。父母因子女而感到痛苦，是一种占有的自怜形式，这种占有而产生的自怜形式之所以存在，是因为没有爱的缘故。
如果父母爱他们的子女，他们不会是国家主义者，他们不会把自己和任何国家视为一体，因为对国家的崇拜造成战争，而战争使他们的子女丧生或残废;如果父母爱他们的子女，他们会发现如何和财物保持正确的关系，因为占有的本能使财物附上了一种巨大而虚假的意义，足以毁灭世界;如果父母爱他们的子女，他们将不会隶属于任何有组织的宗教，因为教条和信仰将人类分成互相冲突的集团，在人与人之间造成对立;如果父母爱他们的子女，他们将铲除嫉妒与斗争，根本改变今日的社会结构。
只要我们期望于孩子的是权势、有更高更好的社会地位、布上成功之梯，我们心中便没有爱，因为对成功的崇拜，助长了冲突与不幸。爱孩子，是和他们有内心的沟通，使他们受到正确的教育，以帮助他们成为一个敏感、有智慧、完整的人。
当一个人决定从事教育时，他应该自问的第一件事是：何谓教育。它是按照普通的方式去传授一般的学科知识吗?他想将孩子加以限制，使他在这社会的大机器中成为一个齿轮，或是帮助孩子成为一个富有创造力的完整的人，使他成为虚伪价值的一项威胁?如果教育者是要帮助学生，使他对环绕于其四周的价值和影响——他是由这些所组成——加以探究，加以了解，那么教育者自己不是先要对这些价值和影响有所觉察吗?如果一个人瞎了眼，他能帮助人通达彼岸吗?
显然，教师自己必先着手观察。他必须随时警觉，密切注意自己的思维和情感，自己所受的限制方式，自己的种种活动和反应。因为由这种警觉的观察，才能产生智慧，他和别人以及其他事物的关系，才会有根本的转变。
智慧和通过考试是两回事。智慧是即兴自发的知觉(Sponataneous Peroeption)，它使一个人坚强、自由。想在孩子身上唤醒智慧，我们必须先了解何谓智慧，因为如果我们在种种方面仍然缺乏智慧的话，怎么能够要求孩子具备智慧呢?问题不仅在于学生有困难，我们自己也是一样。一些日积月累的恐惧、悲哀、挫折，我们均未曾从其中解脱。为了帮助孩子有智慧，我们必须破除自身中使我们麻木、迟钝、轻率的种种障碍。
如果我们自己追逐个人的安全，我们又如何能教导孩子不这么做?如果我们身为父母、教师，对生活都毫不敏感，如果我们在自己四周竖起围墙以保护自己，那么孩子还有什么希望呢?这种在世界上造成混乱的挣扎，要发现其中的真正意义，我们必须先觉察自己的心理过程而唤醒我们的智慧，我们必须着手探究一切将我们封闭于其中的价值观。
我们不应该继续再不加考虑地附和我们偶然出生于其中的生活模式。如果我们不了解自己，那么在我们自身，也就是在社会中，如何能有和谐呢?除非教育者了解自己，除非他看出自己受到限制了的反应，开始使自己从既存的价值中解脱，否则他如何能唤醒孩子的智慧呢?而如果他不能唤醒孩子的智慧，则教育者的任务是什么呢?
唯有了解我们自己思想和情感的反应方式，我们才能真正帮助孩子成为一个自由的人。如果教育者对这件事十分关切，则不仅对于孩子，而且对于他自身，他都将加以敏锐地觉察。
很少人观察自己的思维和情感。如果它们十分丑陋，我们并不充分了解它们其中的含义，只是设法抑制它们或将它们弃之不顾。我们对自己并没有深入地觉察;我们的思维和情感是机械化的，一成不变的。我们学得几样事物，聚集一些知识，然后设法将它传递给孩子。
然而，如果我们对教育真正感兴趣，那么我们将不仅会设法找出世界各地在教育上所做的种种实验，而且对自己面对这整个问题的态度也会十分清楚明白。我们会自问：为何我们要教育孩子和自己，这一切有何目的?我们会探究生活的意义，个人与社会的关系等问题。显然，教育者必须有感于这些问题，设法帮助孩子去发现有关这个问题的真理，而不要将自己个人的习性和思想习惯加诸在孩子身上。
遵循一种制度——不论是政治上或教育上的制度——都无法解决我们种种的社会问题。了解我们面对问题的态度，远比了解问题本身来得重要。
如果要使孩子从恐惧之中——不论是对父母、对环境，或对上帝的恐惧——解脱出来，则教育者本身必须没有恐惧。然而要找到一些本身不被某种恐惧所苦的老师，是很困难的一件事。恐惧使思想萎缩而限制了自发创造的行为，一个心怀恐惧的教师，显然无法毫无畏惧地把生活的深刻意义传授给他人。恐惧和善良一样是具有传染性的。如果教育者自己内心有恐惧，他将把这种恐惧传染给他的学生，即使这种传染一时看不出来。
譬如说，假设有一个教师，他恐惧于舆论的批评。虽然他明白这项恐惧是荒谬无稽的，然而他无法克服它。他要怎么办?至少他能对自己承认这项事实，并且借着说出他自己的心理反应，公开地和学生讨论，而使他们了解恐惧。这种诚实而真挚的态度将大大鼓励学生，使他们对自己、对教师也同样地坦白率直。
要使孩子自由，教育者自己必须充分了解自由的意义，以及它所含的错综复杂的问题。任何形式的榜样或强制都无助于自由的诞生，唯有在自由中，自我发现和明辨之力才能存在。
孩子被他周围的人们和事物所影响，以及这些影响的真正价值。正确的价值，并非经由社会的权威或传统的权威而得以发现，只有经过个人的思考，才能获得启示。
如果我们深深地了解这一点，我们自始便会鼓励学生唤醒此种洞察今日个人和社会价值的能力。我们将会鼓励他找出一切事物的真正价值，而非某一组特定的价值。我们会帮助他无所恐惧，也就是免于教师、家庭或社会的一切控制而享有自由。因而，作为一个人，他可以在爱与善良中成长。教育者如此帮助学生朝向自由时，他也在改变自己的价值，他也开始摆脱了“我”以及“属于我”的束缚，他也在爱和善良中成长。这种相互教育的过程，创造了一种完全不同的师生关系。
任何形式的控制和强制，是自由与智慧的直接障碍。正确的教育在社会中没有权威、没有势力，它超越了社会的制裁。如果我们要帮助学生从他自己以及环境所制造出来的障碍中解脱，那么对于任何形式的控制都必须加以了解而舍弃。然而要做到这点，教育者自己也要从一切束缚人的权威中解脱。
追随他人，不论这人是如何的伟大，都妨碍了对自我存在方式的发现。追随某个现成的乌托邦诺言，会使心灵无视于它自己渴求安全、权威、他人帮助的那种封闭式的行动。神父、政客、律师、军人都准备“帮助”我们，然而，他们的帮助却损毁了智慧和自由。我们所需要的帮助来自我们自己，我们无需乞求帮助。因为，当我们谦虚地献身于工作中，当我们面对每日的困难和时间而去了解它们，则帮助就会不求自来。
我们必须避免有意识地或无意识地渴望他人的支持与鼓励，因为这种渴望能制造它本身的反应，而反应永远是使人幸福满足的。有别人来鼓励我们，指引我们，抚慰我们，是使人安慰的;然而，这种把别人当做向导，当作权威而趋向他的习惯，会立刻成为我们的一种毒素。一旦我们依赖他人的指引，我们便会忘却了原来的意图——唤醒个人的自由和智慧。
任何权威都是一种阻碍，因此教育者应该特别注意，不能成为学生的权威。树立权威，是一种意识上的或无意识中的过程。
学生是疑心未定，正在摸索探求;然而教师却握有确实的知识，富于经验。教师的这种力量和无疑的态度，使得学生安心而有沉浸于此气氛之下的趋向;然而这种安心既非恒久，也非真实。一个有意或无意地鼓励学生依赖的教师，对学生永远不会有多大的助益。他可能以其知识镇服学生，以其个性使学生为之目眩，然而他不是正确的教育者，因为他的知识和经验是他的嗜癖，他的避难所，他的樊笼;除非他由其中解脱，否则他无法帮助学生成为完整的人。
要成为一个正确的教育者，教师必须随时使自己从书本和实验室中解脱。他必须随时注意，不使他的学生将他塑造成一个榜样、一种理想或一项权威。当教师希望借着学生以达成他自己的愿望，当学生的成功成了他自己的成功，那么他的教育便成了一种自我延续的形式，这对于自我认识与自由是有害的。正确的教育者对于这些障碍必须加以觉察明白，以便帮助学生，使他不仅从教师的权威中解脱，而且也能从他自己的自我封闭的种种追求中解脱。
不幸的是，在学生遇到了问题时，大部分的教师并不把学生看成一个平等的伙伴——他们高高在上，训示着学生。这种师生关系只会增加教师与学生两方面的恐惧。造成这种不平等关系的原因是什么呢?是因为教师害怕自己的秘密被人发现?他与学生保持距离是为了维护自己的尊严、高贵，免于受学生的影响?这种高傲的态度，绝对无法打破人与人之间的藩篱。毕竟，教育者和他的学生是相互帮忙，从事于双方的教育。
任何的关系，都必须是一种相互间的教育。因为由知识、成就、野心所产生的自我保护性的孤立状态，只能滋生妒忌和对立，所以正确的教育者必须超越这些环绕在其周围的樊笼。
由于正确的教育者完全致力于个人的自由和完整，所以他是一个真正富有深入的宗教情操的人。他不属于任何宗教，不属于任何有组织的宗教;他免于信仰和仪式的束缚，因为他知道这些被人创造出来的信仰和仪式，是创造人的欲望所透射出来的迷惘、幻想而已。他知道唯有自我认识，也就是自由存在之时，真实或上帝才会存在。
并未获得学位的人常常是最好的教师，因为他们乐于实验;由于他们并非专家，所以他们乐于学习，乐于了解生活。对于真正的教师来说，教育不是一项技术，而是他的生活方式;就像一个伟大的艺术家一样，他宁愿挨饿也不放弃他的创造性工作。除非一个人具有这种从事教育的热望，否则他不该做一个教师。一个人务必亲自去发现他是否具有这项天赋，而不要把教育仅仅视为一种谋生的手段，草率从事。
一旦教育成了我们的一项职业、一种谋生手段，而非一项献身的天职，世界与我们之间必然会有鸿沟存在;我们的家庭生活便和我们的工作分离，无法融合。一旦教育成了一种和其他人工作相似的职业，人与人之间及社会各阶层之间的冲突与仇恨将不可避免。竞争、对于个人野心的无情追逐、国家与种族间的种种区分——他们造成对立和无止境的战争——将有增无减。
然而，如果我们致力于成为正确的教育者，那我们便不会在家庭生活和学校生活之间造成隔离，因为我们处处关心的是自由与完整。我们平等地看待富人或穷人的孩子，把每一个孩子当做一个具有特殊的性情、遗传、野心等等的个人。我们关切的，不是某个阶级，不是有权势的人或无权势的人，而是个人的自由和完整。
献身于正确教育必须是自动自发的，它不该是任何劝服或希冀个人利益的结果，而且必须心中没有因渴望成就所引起的恐惧。把自己和学校的成败视为一体，这其中仍然含有个人的动机。如果教育是一项天职，如果一个人认为正确的教育对个人是绝对必要时，他就不会被自己或旁人的野心所阻碍或左右。他会为了这项工作而腾出时间，找出机会，他会立刻着手而不求报酬、荣誉或名望。于是，其他的事——家庭、个人的安危、舒适——都成了次要的事。
如果我们真切地想成为一个正确的教师，则我们不仅只对于某种教育制度不满，而是对所有的教育制度都会产生不满，因为我们明白任何教育方法都不能使个人解脱、自由。一种方法或制度可以将个人加以限制，使他受制于一组不同的价值观，然而却无法使个人自由。
一个人也必须警觉，不要落入他自己特有的体系——心灵是一直从事此项建构的。握有一套行为、行动的模式，是一种方便而安稳的方法，因此心灵躲藏于它自己的种种公式化的行为中。时时警觉是一件麻烦而吃力的事，而奉守一种方法，却不需要思考。
重复与习惯，助长了心灵的怠惰。心灵需要冲击才能清醒过来，我们把这种冲击称为“问题”。我们解决问题的依据是那些陈腐的说明、辩解、谴责，这一切又使心灵昏沉入睡。心灵时时落入这种怠惰的形式中，正确的教育者不仅要使自己的内心中止这种怠惰，而且要帮助学生对它加以观察。
也许有人会问：“如何才能成为正确的教育者?”显然，询问“如何”的心灵并非解脱自由的心灵，而是胆怯的心灵，它寻求的是利益或结果。意欲成为某种东西的希望和努力只能使心灵服从于它所欲望的目标。然而，一个自由的心灵却是随时观察，随时学习，因而打破了自我所投射的种种障碍。
自由在于起点，它并非是到了终点才能获取的东西。一个人一旦问了“如何”，它便面临难以克服的困难。而一个希望献身教育事业的教师永远不会提出这个问题，因为他知道没有任何方法可以依循而成为正确的教育者。如果一个人真正感兴趣，他不会寻求一项方法，借以保证获得他所渴望的结果。
任何制度都能使我们具有智慧吗?我们可能通过制度的创造而获得各种学位等等;然而，我们能成为教育者吗?寻求报偿或想要被称为一个卓越的教育家，这是渴望受人赏识。虽然被称赞、被鼓励有时使人愉快，然而，如果一个人乐此不疲，它将成为一种毒剂，使人很快产生厌恶之心。期望他人的赞赏和鼓励，是颇不成熟的态度。
如果要创造任何新的事物，需要的是警觉和活力，而非争吵斗嘴。如果一个人在工作中感到挫折，那么随之而来的便是厌烦和无聊。如果一个人不感兴趣，显然他不应该继续从事教育。
然而，为何教师都缺乏浓厚的兴趣呢?什么原因使得一个人感到挫折呢?挫折并非由于被环境所迫而做这个或那个的结果;它是由于我们不明了自己真正想要做的是什么。由于内心混乱而处处受到推挤，最后踏上了一块完全使我们不感兴趣的地方。
如果教育是我们真正的天职，我们可能在今日教育的混乱中，看不出一线生机而暂时感到挫折。然而，一旦我们认清且明白了正确教育的含义，我们便又重新充满冲劲和热忱。这与意志或决心无关，而是觉察与了解的问题。
如果一个人的天职是从事教育，而他又了解正确教育的重要性，那么他不得不是正确的教育者。他不需要遵循任何的方法。了解到正确的教育对于达到个人的自由和完整是不可或缺的，这一事实会使人产生根本上的改变。如果一个人觉察到唯有经由正确的教育，人类才能有和平与快乐，那么他自然会把毕生精力和兴趣投入这项教育中。
一个人之所以从事教育，是因为他想要使孩子的内心充实，如此，对于财物，他便会赋予正确的价值。如果内心没有充实，则世俗的事物便变得过分地贵重，因而导致种种形式的毁灭与不幸。一个人从事教育是为了鼓励学生发现自己的天赋才能，并且避免那些在人与人之间滋生对立的职业。一个人从事教育，是为了帮助年轻人朝向自我认识的路。没有自我认识，便无法获得和平以及持久的快乐。一个人从事教育，不是实现自我，而是牺牲自我。
缺乏了正确的教育，迷惘便会被视为真实，于是个人的内心便永远存在着冲突，因此在他与别人的关系——这就是社会——中也会有冲突。一个人从事教育，因为他明白唯有自我认识，而非有组织的宗教教条与仪式，才能产生心灵的安宁;他明白唯有超越了“我”和“属于我”的时候，创造、真理、上帝才能存在。
EDUCATION AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LIFE CHAPTER 6 ‘PARENTS AND TEACHERS’
THE right kind of education begins with the educator, who must understand himself and be free from established patterns of thought; for what he is, that he imparts. If he has not been rightly educated, what can he teach except the same mechanical knowledge on which he himself has been brought up? The problem, therefore, is not the child, but the parent and the teacher; the problem is to educate the educator.
If we who are the educators do not understand ourselves, if we do not understand our relationship with the child but merely stuff him with information and make him pass examinations, how can we possibly bring about a new kind of education? The pupil is there to be guided and helped; but if the guide, the helper is himself confused and narrow, nationalistic and theory-ridden, then naturally his pupil will be what he is, and education becomes a source of further confusion and strife.
If we see the truth of this, we will realize how impor- tant it is that we begin to educate ourselves rightly. To be concerned with our own re-education is far more necessary than to worry about the future well-being and security of the child.
To educate the educator – that is, to have him understand himself – is one of the most difficult undertakings, because most of us are already crystallized within a system of thought or a pattern of action; we have already given ourselves over to some ideology, to a religion, or to a particular standard of conduct. That is why we teach the child what to think and not how to think.
Moreover, parents and teachers are largely occupied with their own conflicts and sorrows. Rich or poor, most parents are absorbed in their personal worries and trials. They are not gravely concerned about the present social and moral deterioration, but only desire that their children shall be equipped to get on in the world. They are anxious about the future of their children, eager to have them educated to hold secure positions, or to marry well.
Contrary to what is generally believed, most parents do not love their children, though they talk of loving them. If parents really loved their children, there would be no emphasis laid on the family and the nation as opposed to the whole, which creates social and racial divisions between men and brings about war and starvation. It is really extraordinary that, while people are rigorously trained to be lawyers or doctors, they may become parents without undergoing any training whatsoever to fit them for this all-important task.
More often than not, the family, with its separate tend- encies, encourages the general process of isolation, thereby becoming a deteriorating factor in society. it is only when there is love ind understanding that the walls of isolation are broken down, and then the family is no longer a closed circle, it is neither a prison nor a refuge; then the parents are in communion, not only with their children, but also with their neighbours.
Being absorbed in their own problems, many parents shift to the teacher the responsibility for the well-being of their children; and then it is important that the educator help in the education of the parents as well.
He must talk to them, explaining that the confused state of the world mirrors their own individual confusion. He must point out that scientific progress in itself cannot bring about a radical change in existing values; that technical training, which is now called education, has not given man freedom or made him any happier; and that to condition the student to accept the present environment is not conducive to intelligence. He must tell them what he is attempting to do for their child, and how he is setting about it. He has to awaken the parents’ confidence, not by assuming the authority of a specialist dealing with ignorant laymen, but by talking over with them the child’s temperament, difficulties, aptitudes and so on.
If the teacher takes a real interest in the child as an individual, the parents will have confidence in him. In this process, the teacher is educating the parents as well as himself, while learning from them in return. Right education is a mutual task demanding patience, consideration and af- fection. Enlightened teachers in an enlightened community could work out this problem of how to bring up children, and experiments along these lines should be made on a small scale by interested teachers and thoughtful parents.
Do parents ever ask themselves why they have children? Do they have children to perpetuate their name, to carry on their property? Do they want children merely for the sake of their own delight, to satisfy their own emotional needs? If so, then the children become a mere projection of the desires and fears of their parents.
Can parents claim to love their children when, by educating them wrongly, they foster envy, enmity and ambition? Is it love that stimulates the national and racial antagonisms which lead to war, destruction and utter misery, that sets man against man in the name of religions and ideologies?
Many parents encourage the child in the ways of conflict and sorrow, not only by allowing him to be submitted to the wrong kind of education, but by the manner in which they conduct their own lives; and then, when the child grows up and suffers, they pray for him or find excuses for his behaviour. The suffering of parents for their children is a form of possessive self-pity which exists only when there is no love.
If parents love their children, they will not be nationalistic, they will not identify themselves with any country; for the worship of the State brings on war, which kills or maims their sons. If parents love their children, they will discover what is right relationship to property; for the possessive in- stinct has given property an enormous and false significance which is destroying the world. If parents love their children, they will not belong to any organized religion; for dogma and belief divide people into conflicting groups, creating antagonism between man and man. If parents love their children, they will do away with envy and strife, and will set about altering fundamentally the structure of present-day society.
As long as we want our children to be powerful, to have bigger and better positions, to become more and more successful, there is no love in our hearts; for the worship of success encourages conflict and misery. To love one’s children is to be in complete communion with them; it is to see that they have the kind of education that will help them to be sensitive, intelligent and integrated.
The first thing a teacher must ask himself, when he decides that he wants to teach, is what exactly he means by teaching. Is he going to teach the usual subjects in the habitual way? Does he want to condition the child to become a cog in the social machine, or help him to be an integrated, creative human being, a threat to false values? And if the educator is to help the student to examine and understand the values and influences that surround him and of which he is a part, must he not be aware of them himself? If one is blind, can one help others to cross to the other shore?
Surely, the teacher himself must first begin to see. He must be constantly alert, intensely aware of his own thoughts and feelings, aware of the ways in which he is conditioned, aware of his activities and his responses; for out of this watchfulness comes intelligence, and with it a radical transformation in his relationship to people and to things.
Intelligence has nothing to do with the passing of examinations. Intelligence is the spontaneous perception which makes a man strong and free. To awaken intelligence in a child, we must begin to understand for ourselves what intelligence is; for how can we ask a child to be intelligent if we ourselves remain unintelligent in so many ways? The problem is not only the student’s difficulties, but also our own: the cumulative fears, unhappiness and frustrations of which we are not free. In order to help the child to be intelligent, we have to break down within ourselves those hindrances which make us dull and thoughtless.
How can we teach children not to seek personal security if we ourselves are pursuing it? What hope is there for the child if we who are parents and teachers are not entirely vulnerable to life, if we erect protective walls around ourselves? To discover the true significance of this struggle for security, which is causing such chaos in the world, we must begin to awaken our own intelligence by being aware of our psychological processes; we must begin to question all the values which now enclose us.
We should not continue to fit thoughtlessly into the pattern in which we happen to have been brought up. How can there ever be harmony in the individual and so in society if we do not understand ourselves? Unless the educator understands himself, unless he sees his own condi- tioned responses and is beginning to free himself from existing values, how can he possibly awaken intelligence in the child? And if he cannot awaken intelligence in the child, then what is his function?
It is only by understanding the ways of our own thought and feeling that we can truly help the child to be a free human being; and if the educator is vitally concerned with this, he will be keenly aware, not only of the child, but also of himself.
Very few of us observe our own thoughts and feelings. If they are obviously ugly, we do not understand their full significance, but merely try to check them or push them aside. We are not deeply aware of ourselves; our thoughts and feelings are stereotyped, automatic. We learn a few subjects, gather some information, and then try to pass it on to the children.
But if we are vitally interested, we shall not only try to find out what experiments are being made in education in different parts of the world, but we shall want to be very clear about our own approach to this whole question; we shall ask ourselves why and to what purpose we are educating the children and ourselves; we shall inquire into the meaning of existence, into the relationship of the individual to society, and so on. Surely, educators must be aware of these problems and try to help the child to discover the truth concerning them, without projecting upon him their own idiosyncrasies and habits of thought.
Merely to follow a system, whether political or educational, will never solve our many social problems; and it is far more important to understand the manner of our approach to any problem, than to understand the problem itself.
If children are to be free from fear – whether of their parents, of their environment, or of God – the educator himself must have no fear. But that is the difficulty: to find teachers who are not themselves the prey of some kind of fear. Fear narrows down thought and limits initiative, and a teacher who is fearful obviously cannot convey the deep significance of being without fear. Like goodness, fear is contagious. If the educator himself is secretly afraid, he will pass that fear on to his students, although its contamination may not be immediately seen.
Suppose, for example, that a teacher is afraid of public opinion; he sees the absurdity of his fear, and yet cannot go beyond it. What is he to do? He can at least acknowledge it to himself, and can help his students to understand fear by bringing out his own psychological reaction and openly talking it over with them. This honest and sincere approach will greatly encourage the students to be equally open and direct with themselves and with the teacher.
To give freedom to the child, the educator himself must be aware of the implications and the full significance of freedom. Example and compulsion in any form do not help to bring about freedom, and it is only in freedom that there can be self-discovery and insight.
The child is influenced by the people and the things about him, and the right kind of educator should help him to uncover these influences and their true worth. Right values are not discovered through the authority of society or tradition; only individual thoughtfulness can reveal them.
If one understands this deeply, one will encourage the student from the very beginning to awaken insight into present-day individual and social values. One will encourage him to seek out, not any particular set of values, but the true value of all things. One will help him to be fearless, which is to be free of all domination, whether by the teacher, the family or society, so that as an individual he can flower in love and goodness. In thus helping the student towards freedom, the educator is changing his own values also; he too is beginning to be rid of the `’me" and the"mine," he too is flowering in love and goodness. This process of mutual education creates an altogether different relationship between the teacher and the student.
Domination or compulsion of any kind is a direct hindrance to freedom and intelligence. The right kind of educator has no authority, no power in society; he is beyond the edicts and sanctions of society. If we are to help the student to be free from his hindrances, which have been created by himself and by his environment, then every form of compulsion and domination must be understood and put aside; and this cannot be done if the educator is not also freeing himself from all crippling authority.
To follow another, however great, prevents the discovery of the ways of the self; to run after the promise of some ready-made Utopia makes the mind utterly unaware of the enclosing action of its own desire for comfort, for authority, for someone else’s help. The priest, the politician, the lawyer, the soldier, are all there to "help" us; but such help destroys intelligence and freedom. The help we need does not lie outside ourselves. We do not have to beg for help; it comes without our seeking it when we are humble in our dedicated work, when we are open to the understanding of our daily trials and accidents.
We must avoid the conscious or unconscious craving for support and encouragement, for such craving creates its own response, which is always gratifying. It is comforting to have someone to encourage us, to give us a lead, to pacify us; but this habit of turning to another as a guide, as an authority, soon becomes a poison in our system. The moment we depend on another for guidance, we forget our original intention, which was to awaken individual freedom and intelligence.
All authority is a hindrance, and it is essential that the educator should not become an authority for the student. The building up of authority is both a conscious and an unconscious process.
The student is uncertain, groping, but the teacher is sure in his knowledge, strong in his experience. The strength and certainty of the teacher give assurance to the student, who tends to bask in that sunlight; but such assurance is neither lasting nor true. A teacher who consciously or un consciously encourages dependence can never be of great help to his students. He may overwhelm them with his knowledge, dazzle them with his personality, but he is not the right kind of educator because his knowledge and experiences are his addiction, his security, his prison; and until he himself is free of them, he cannot help his students to be integrated human beings.
To be the right kind of educator, a teacher must constantly be freeing himself from books and laboratories; he must ever be watchful to see that the students do not make of him an example, an ideal, an authority. When the teacher desires to fulfil himself in his students, when their success is his, then his teaching is a form of self-continuation, which is detrimental to self-knowledge and freedom. The right kind of educator must be aware of all these hindrances in order to help his students to be free, not only from his authority, but from their own self-enclosing pursuits.
Unfortunately, when it comes to understanding a problem, most teachers do not treat the student as an equal partner; from their superior position, they give instructions to the pupil, who is far below them. Such a relationship only strengthens fear in both the teacher and the student. What creates this unequal relationship? Is it that the teacher is afraid of being found out? Does he keep a dignified distance to guard his susceptibilities, hide importance? Such superior aloofness in no way helps to break down the barriers that separate individuals. After all, the educator and his pupil are helping each other to educate themselves.
All relationship should be a mutual education;and as the protective isolation afforded by knowledge, by achievement, by ambition, only breeds envy and antagonism, the right kind of educator must transcend these walls with which he surrounds himself.
Because he is devoted solely to the freedom and integra- tion of the individual, the right kind of educator is deeply and truly religious. He does not belong to any sect, to any organized religion; he is free of beliefs and rituals, for he knows that they are only illusions, fancies, superstitions projected by the desires of those who create them. He knows that reality or God comes into being only when there is self-knowledge ind therefore freedom.
People who have no academic degrees often make the best teachers because they are willing to experiment; not being specialists, they are interested in learning, in understanding life. For the true teacher, teaching is not a technique, it is his way of life; like a great artist, he would rather starve than give up his creative work. Unless one has this burning desire to teach, one should not be a teacher. It is of the utmost importance that one discover for oneself whether one his this gift, and not merely drift into teaching because it is a means of livelihood.
As long as teaching is only a profession, a means of livelihood, and not a dedicated vocation, there is bound to be a wide gap between the world and ourselves: our home life and our work remain separate and distinct. As long as education is only a job like any other, conflict and enmity among individuals and among the various class levels of society are inevitable; there will be increasing competition, the ruthless pursuit of personal ambition, and the building up of the national and racial divisions which create antagonism and endless wars.
But if we have dedicated ourselves to be the right kind of educators, we do not create barriers between our home life and the life at school, for we are everywhere concerned with freedom and intelligence. We consider equally the children of the rich and of the poor, regarding each child as an individual with his particular temperament, heredity, ambitions, and so on. We are concerned, not with a class, not with the powerful or the weak, but with the freedom and integration of the individual.
Dedication to the right kind of education must be wholly voluntary. It should not be the result of any kind of persuasion, or of any hope of personal gain; and it must be devoid of the fears that arise from the craving for success and achievement. The identification of oneself with the success or failure of a school is still within the field of personal motive. If to teach is one’s vocation, if one looks upon the right kind of education as a vital need for the individual, then one will not allow oneself to be hindered or in any way sidetracked either by one’s own ambitions or by those of another; one will find time and opportunity for this work, and will set about it without seeking reward, honour or fame. Then all other things – family, personal security, comfort – become of secondary importance.
If we are in earnest about being the right kind of teachers, we shall be thoroughly dissatisfied, not with a particular system of education, but with all systems, because we see that no educational method can free the individual. A method or a system may condition him to a different set of values, but it cannot make him free.
One has to be very watchful also not to fall into one’s own particular system, which the mind is ever building. To have a pattern of conduct, of action, is a convenient and safe procedure, and that is why the mind takes shelter within its formations. To be constantly alert is bothersome and exacting, but to develop and follow a method does not demand thought.
Repetition and habit encourage the mind to be sluggish; a shock is needed to awaken it, which we then call a problem. We try to solve this problem according to our well-worn explanations, justifications and condemnations, all of which puts the mind back to sleep again. In this form of sluggishness the mind is constantly being caught, and the right kind of educator not only puts an end to it within himself, but also helps his students to be aware of it.
Some may ask,"How does one become the right kind of educator?" Surely, to ask "How" indicates, not a free mind, but a mind that is timorous, that is seeking an advantage, a result. The hope and the effort to become something only makes the mind conform to the desired end, while a free mind is constantly watching, learning, and therefore breaking through its self-projected hindrances.
Freedom is at the beginning, it is not something to be gained at the end. The moment one asks "How," one is confronted with insurmountable difficulties, and the teacher who is eager to dedicate his life to education will never ask this question, for he knows that there is no method by which one can become the right kind of educator. If one is vitally interested, one does not ask for a method that will assure one of the desired result.
……
