Ancient Indian Education (Brahmanical and Buddhist) c12.s6.28

c12.s6.28

**Teacher's Remuneration.** We have already seen that the teacher proper who was called the Āchārya did not accept any remuneration for his work. He did the work of teaching as a matter of religious duty. The admission of a pupil was not a source of income to the teacher but an addition of a member to his family like that caused by the birth of a son. The teacher and the pupil were not connected with each other by the "cash-nexus" but by ties of spiritual relationship whereby both were repaying the debt they owed to the Ṛishis by the pursuit of knowledge. Manu says that a student should not pay anything to his teacher before he finishes his education [ii, 245]. A teacher teaching for fees is condemned as being guilty of a sin, *upapātaka* [Vishṇu, xxxvii, 20, 21, 34; *Yājña*, iii, 236, 242]. Uśanā [iv, 24] brands him as a *Vṛittika*. The *Smṛiti-chandrikā* (p. 140) not merely condemns the acceptance of a fee by the teacher but also any proposal for it as a condition of the pupil's admission. The *Saura Purāṇa* [x, 42] condemns to hell teacher and pupil working on the basis of any fees fixed. This tradition receives its classic expression in the *Mālavikāgnimitram* [i, 17] where Kālidasa condemns the learning which is sold as an article of merchandise and means of livelihood (*yasyāgamaḥ kevalajīvikāyai taṁ jñānapaṇyaṁ vaṇijaṁ vadanti*). The teacher who imparts instruction for a fee would be called an *Upādhyāya*. But though the *Āchārya* could not accept a fee from a pupil *under* instruction, he could accept the same from the pupil whose instruction was completed. In fact, it was one of the obligations of the Brahmachārin to bring to a close the period of his formal pupilage by making presents to his teacher. Of course, in the majority of cases it could not be expected that such presents would be at all any adequate remuneration for the amount of labour and expense involved in supporting and educating a student for a minimum period of twelve years. It was a case, in modern parlance, of free board, lodging, medical aid, clothing, and tuition given to the student during a continuous and long period exceeding a decade, the cost of which could not be properly assessed and much less paid in the shape of parting presents, especially in the case of a student of the Brahmin caste which was distinguished for its phenomenal poverty. It is, therefore, a misconception to argue that these parting gifts of a student to his teacher after completion of his studies disprove the honorary character of the work of the teacher and show the incorrectness of the prevailing assumption which makes it out to be a labour of love, a virtue which is its own reward, while it is essentially, looking beneath the appearances, a mere economic transaction.