TEACHING, LEARNING, THINKING AND CREATING - III
Though the main purpose of learning is survival, it does not mean that people have learnt in the past or learn now only for their survival. Some learn hobbies and sometimes acquire a "professional" knowledge in some of them merely because they are interested in them. In the past, for example in Bharat, there were people such as Ajeevakas, Paribrajikas, Shramanas who were interested in knowing the "truth". They went from one place to another in search of "truth". One could perhaps say that they were not learning to survive. However, on the other hand it could be said that those who sought "truth" were in a way were doing so as only the "truth" would liberate their souls. In that sense it was the "survival" of the soul that these ancients were after.
With the advent of western Christian modernity in the fifteenth century, even the "truth seekers" have become "professionals" and they are turned out by modern education as Scientists, Mathematicians, Philosophers etc. Modernity has compelled most people to learn "hobbies" also for survival, that would become useful either as safety valves or as second strings. The learning today is associated with teaching by "professionals" who teach mainly for their survival as individuals, and who learn to teach also for the same purpose. The formal education under modernity has become on one hand a brain washing of people so that the system itself could survive, and on the other hand a training given to individuals so that they could learn a "profession" or acquire knowledge and skills for their survival. Of course, there may be few individuals who learn "hobbies" that do not come under any of these categories but they are the exception to the rule.
As seen from the above there are two types of survival. What matters most is the survival of the system though the survival of the individual is also very important. Without the individuals surviving the system could not survive, and the survival of the individuals is looked at mainly from the point of view of the survival of the system, which is nothing but the western Christian modernity that sprang up in the fifteenth century. Most of the so-called research done in the west as well as in our country would like to establish further the western Greek Judaic Christian culture Even if a whole paradigm is changed nothing or very little happens to the "Chinthanaya" that gives rise to the paradigms and the theories.
In general the teachers and the learners teach and learn what the system wants for its survival. As mentioned above most of the research done only confirm the established theories, a fact noticed by Dr. Thomas Kuhn with respect to western science. Those who acquire a very good knowledge in one or more disciplines are referred to as scholars and they are in essence walking libraries, though unlike the libraries they think on their own. However this thinking is limited and very often the thinking is associated with learning either from a text or from a teacher. It has to be emphasised that any thinking process is associated with creation, but very often what is created by the learner is not very different from what is created by the teacher or the text. Though the author is supposed to be dead, the author for most purposes live in the learner. It is more often the case with so-called educated learners whose creative ability is very low.
Those who think originally are the real thinkers and creators. They create knowledge that is passed on to the next generation. However, not all knowledge that is created by an original thinker is accepted by the society. The society or the system accepts only that knowledge that does not pose a challenge to its survival. In other words the knowledge that is created "survives" and propagates only if it is compatible with the "surroundings" or if it fits in with the system. Otherwise though knowledge once created cannot be destroyed it is relegated and neglected by the system.
The creation and propagation of knowledge is somewhat similar to the process associated with Darwinian evolution. A mutation would survive and propagate if it "fits in with the surroundings". However unlike in the case of mutations, knowledge even if it is not accepted by the society could not be destroyed. There is a possibility that any knowledge that is created would be resurrected by a future society or a different system.
It could be said that in a given society there are learners, teachers, scholars who merely propagate existing knowledge without any original creative thinking. Their thinking is very often limited to understanding the existing knowledge. However, one has to be very careful in statements such as these as it could give the impression that there is a body of knowledge that could be called existing knowledge. This is only a conventional truth and the moment one assumes an existing knowledge one becomes an "Athmavadin". People create knowledge "temporarily" when they understand but it could be said that most of the "creations" are not very different from each other. All the terms used here such as knowledge, individual, people are only conventional terms that do not represent any absolute entities.
We leave this discussion in general for the moment to come back to the situation in Sri Lanka. Needless to say that we do not have many original thinkers as such neither at present nor did we have in the last one thousand two hundred years or so. The only person who could be called an original thinker during this period was the late Mr. Cumaratunga Munidasa. It does not matter whether the knowledge he created was accepted by the society, what is important here is that he created new knowledge. I know that many would not only agree with me but would challenge me on this statement. However, it could be said that in general the Sinhala scholars who lived before the Portuguese arrived during the period referred to were happy with propagating the existing knowledge in the Sinhala Buddhist society or imitating the knowledge created in Bharat. After the Portuguese, and especially after the British, it has been a case of imitating the west and "fitting in" with the western Christian modernity.
In this series we shall concentrate on the British period (and the "American" period since the seventies - It is significant that since early seventies most of our graduates proceed to USA for their graduate studies to use the American terminology and not to Britain where the old generations had their postgraduate training - Our universities are becoming more and more Americanised and during the ten years I was kept out of the university system by interested parties I notice that the Universities have taken a turn to imitate the American system turning away from the British system. Now the Universities in Sri Lanka have GPAs, course units, modules, Carnegie Credits, semesters, Graduate Faculties and what not - very soon we will have the Dean's lists - but without any original thinking, not that there was any original thinking during the British period) not only because we are all products of that period but it is instrumental for the decisions we make at present with respect to education, culture, politics or economics. As we have seen our education systems was established by the British in order to supply them a group of servants whether civil or not who would serve them "diligently" , "honestly", efficiently" etc. These qualities have to be understood with respect to the British culture, as for example, what is efficient in that culture need not be so in any other culture. The British wanted two types of servants. One set of servants with a knowledge of English and the other set without such knowledge. Of course the servants with a knowledge of English were given "privileges" over the other servants, and a social status. A knowledge of English itself gave a person a social status that was symbolically expressed by the term "kaduwa" by the undergraduates in the sixties who had their education in Sinhala. I do not know of an equivalent Tamil term. The Tamils of this generation, and generations previous to that and of course generations after, were turned against the Sinhalas successfully by the British and the western modernity, and as far as they were concerned they were told that they had to liberate from those Sinhalas who were trying to liberate from the British.
The system of education introduced by the British was examination oriented from the very beginning and no encouragement was given to original thinking. The British were interested only in grading students from a very early age and to select those students in a hierarchial manner to suit their interests. It was the survival of the system that mattered to them and we had to learn those aspects that would make sure that the system survived. Anything that challenged the system was anathema not only to them but to those Sri Lankans who managed our affairs after the British left the country officially. I have personal experience in this regard. When I started to teach the students of the University of Colombo some aspects of Jathika Chinthanaya the then Vice Chancellor of the University called me to find out what I was doing. I explained to him that if all the others could teach Vijathika Chinthanaya then I should have the "right" to teach Jathika Chinthanaya. The Vice Chancellor in all his wisdom said that I had a captive audience and I should not be teaching Jathika Chinthanaya to this captive audience. Of course before I left he asked me whether I wanted to continue teaching in the University, which was a veiled threat that I decided to ignore. However, what I gathered from the wisdom of the Vice Chancellor was that the British did not establish universities to teach what we thought was good for the country and the students. They sent "captive audiences" to the lecturers so that the latter could teach only those things that are necessary for the survival of the British system in particular and western Christian modernity in general. What the good Vice Chancellor who had a good British education here as well as at Oxford told me was that the university students had been captivated through a process of examinations for the purpose of teaching them what is needed for the survival of western Christian modernity and teaching anything else was sacrilegious, and further that nobody had a "right" to do so. After all the "rights" are determined by the western Christian modernity.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>