Ancient Indian Education (Brahmanical and Buddhist) c12.s6.29

c12.s6.29

**A Pupil's presents to his Teacher after end of Pupilage.** According to Manu, "he who knows the sacred law must not present any gift to his teacher before the *Samāvartana* (rite performed by student to end his studentship); but when, with the permission of his teacher, he is about to take a final bath, let him *procure* a present for the venerable man according to his ability, viz. a field, a cow, a horse, a parasol and shoes, a seat, grain, even vegetables, and thus give *pleasure* to his teacher" [ii, 245–6]. The word "procure" implies that the student is ordinarily of such circumstances that he has to collect the gifts for his teacher by begging. This supposition is indeed clearly confirmed by a passage in Āpastamba [i, 2, 7, 19–21] in which he enjoins that the student "shall procure in a righteous manner the fee for the teaching of the Veda to be given to his teacher according to his power". The "righteous manner" means that unless his teacher is in distress and need of immediate relief, the student is not to take a fee from an Ugra ["either the offspring of a Vaiśya and of a Śūdra woman or a twice-born man, who perpetrates dreadful deeds" (Haradatta quoted in *SBE.*, ii, p. 27)] or from a Śūdra, though "some declare that it is lawful at any time to take the money for the teacher" from such persons. Efforts of poor students to procure such fees for their teachers are mentioned in the *Jātakas*, as stated below [e.g. No. 478] or in the *Raghuvaṁśa* of Kālidāsa in the story of Kautsa [Canto v]. The *Mahābhārata* mentions a typical case of King Poshya asking his wife to make a gift of her precious *kuṇḍala* (ear-rings) to the poor Snātaka, Utaṅka. It will thus appear that the payment of the fee is enjoined more as a religious act formally bringing to a close the period of studentship and marking the fulfilment of a sacred vow than as any kind of material remuneration for useful services rendered. Indeed, one text emphasizes the ideal position that "there is no object in the world by the gift of which a pupil can discharge his debt to his teacher, even if he has taught him only one letter [Ekam api aksharaṁ yastu guruḥ śishye nivedayet [Prithivyāṁ nāsti tad dravyaṁ yad dattvā so'nṛiṇī bhavet]. But this rule did not apply to the exceptional cases of the rich. In the *Mahābhārata*, Bhīshma appointed Droṇa as the teacher of the Kaurava princes by first paying him a handsome fee [i, 142, 1]. The *Jātakas*, as cited below, are full of cases of rich and royal guardians paying in advance the whole remuneration to the teachers of their wards. In the *Milinda Pañha* [i, 17], the father of Nāgasena pays to the teacher first, as he sends his son to him for Vedic study. But the idealist monk, Nāgasena, refuses the lavish gifts of his royal pupil, Menander, who humbly urges their acceptance to escape from the scandal of not paying his teacher [ib., i, 134-5]. Along with rich students thus paying their teacher in advance, the Buddhist works tell of poor students who were admitted by their teachers as "free" students, so that poverty was not allowed to operate as a bar to education in the system of the times. But such students were differently treated from the regular students. They were employed on manual work for the school in the daytime when the teacher was occupied in instructing the other students. He would, however, give the evenings to their instruction [cf. Dhammāntevāsikā āchāriyassa kammaṁ katvā rattiṁ sippamuggaṇhanti āchāriyabhāgadāyakā gehe jeṭṭhaputtā viya hutvā sippameva uggaṇhaṁti (*Tilamuṭṭhi Jātaka*, No. 252)].