Teaching to Shoot the Invisible Eye
Recently during one of my bookish indulgences, I came across
the cliched, used and abused anecdote from Mahabharata. Guru Drona, the teacher of
all Pandavas and Kauravas, tested all his students by asking them individually
to shoot a dummy bird’s eye and before shooting did so they were to describe
what they saw. Obviously, what followed is known to all of us. We all have been
fed with this story since childhood by our elders, teachers and even those
storybooks and Tinkle comics. Even Mr Ramanand Sagar reiterated this in his
televised creations. We were taught to be focused like Arjuna, who was the
only student to reply that he only saw the eye and received adulation from his
guru.
The book in my hand however was not talking about it in the same manner as the aforementioned sources were. Here the author mentioned that Karna, the tragic hero of the epic, was studying in the same school as Pandavas and Kauravas, but was never acknowledged by Drona. He, therefore, embraced the Sun God as his guru and proceeded to master the art of warfare. However, on the day when this test was being conducted, he was away to meet his parents in a distant homeland and missed it. He was informed about it by the guru’s son Ashwatthama when he was back in school. Karna apparently wanted to prove his proficiency too and decided in his mind that he will shoot not just one but both the eyes of the dummy bird. The test was conducted during the day but since Karna didn’t want to irk his indifferent guru, he decided to execute his feat in the dead night.
So bow in hand he asked his brother Shon to tie the dummy bird up in the tree and hold a lamp above the target for him to see it. His plan was simple. He will release two arrows within a fraction of a second. The impact of the first arrow will swirl the bird leaving the other eye open for the second arrow to pierce. He did succeed in this feat and went back to his routine life without ever mentioning a word about it to anyone. The only witnesses of this incredible feat were Karna himself and his brother Shon.
I do not wish to explore the Pandora’s Box of historical accuracy about this anecdote nor do I think of myself as an expert in Physics to challenge the possibility of such a feat, keeping in mind the force, wind speed and velocity calculations.
What actually struck me in this story was the fact that the idea of hitting both eyes did not occur to Drona!
The supreme guru of Mahabharata just saw a single feat and decided that Arjuna will be the greatest archer in the known world of that time. He saw greatness in the concentration and focus a student showed while studying, but not in thinking laterally and getting his student to hit a target that was not visible. So basically, Arjuna’s talent as an archer was limited by the extent of his guru Dronacharya’s thought process.
This makes me question myself as an academician, whether I am helping my students achieve their true potential or am I limiting their progress due to my follies.
Teachers do have flaws. We are humans and we are bound to err in one way or other in our activities and advice. The gravity of our flaws is enhanced because of the fact that our students rely on us heavily when it comes to acquiring knowledge as well as making key decisions in life, especially with respect to their careers. So, who is at fault here? Is it our fault that our thinking and learning are limited by the experiences of our lives and the availability of time and other resources at our disposal? Or is it the fault of our students who look at us as some all-knowing entities basis our age-old tradition of placing the teacher on the same pedestal as God? Or if we go back to the earlier story is it better if the students do not have a teacher? Should we let them learn from their instincts and experiences?
If it was possible to achieve greatness without a teacher our country would be teeming with a lot of Karnas who never get basic education throughout their lives. It would also be preposterous to blame the faculty or student alone for this situation. The mistake is not in either of the parties but in the understanding of the role of a teacher and that of a student. Our history tells us to have faith in our guru and to be obedient. As much as I agree with this statement, I believe it has been interpreted from an extremist perspective.
As yet, quite a few teachers expect students to never question the logic behind any of the concepts that are being taught and therefore accept everything at face value. The concept of treating a teacher as a God also instils an unwanted ego in the minds of certain teachers which may lead to their aggressive reaction to any challenging question that a student puts forth. In management education, we speak of lateral thinking ability and critical thinking skills, yet at the slightest hint of a student challenging the fundamentals of a model or process, we tend to get irritated and reprimand the student for wasting our time and that of the remaining students in the class.
The way out of this paradox is two-fold. It can be dealt with a change in the approach of both teachers and students towards education & learning. The teacher should make it a point to keep challenging the student to test his/her limits and thereby realize their true potential. The occasional pat on the back is necessary but too much encouragement or too much restraint will only lead to the student slowing down or even stopping on the way to progress. The teacher needs to react to every success of the student with appreciation followed by a new challenge, thereby not letting the student linger on success for too long. Failures need to be looked at through a magnifying glass with complete dispassion, making it an analytical study rather than reminiscing on an embarrassing defeat.
Today most students do not know why they are learning what they are supposed to learn. They blindly follow the prescribed syllabus. Like the teacher, the student also has an obligation of asking questions when in doubt. The questions should not be directed towards challenging the knowledge of the teacher but to understand the reasoning behind every concept taught. A student can only aim to master a subject if he/she is convinced that it has practical applications in the world outside their classrooms.
No doubt, the approach discussed, is not an innovative one but an interesting and relatively under-explored perspective and may not be well accepted by many who still have deep-rooted beliefs in the misinterpreted words of old. But it is worth a try. There is also a pitfall in this suggestion that students may rather end up asking endless questions and going in circles thereby defeating the purpose of this approach. If applied judiciously this methodology of learning can help students become critical thinkers, which will help them succeed not only in academics but in all other avenues of life.
I cannot guarantee the percentage success I can achieve through this, but I can definitely guarantee satisfaction that I am doing justice to my role, as a teacher. To say the least, I can assertively say that I would not be stopping my student from hitting the invisible eye.
P.S. This article is a result of my conversations with my wife Kunjal Nair, without whom none of my scribbles would have seen the light of day.
The book in my hand however was not talking about it in the same manner as the aforementioned sources were. Here the author mentioned that Karna, the tragic hero of the epic, was studying in the same school as Pandavas and Kauravas, but was never acknowledged by Drona. He, therefore, embraced the Sun God as his guru and proceeded to master the art of warfare. However, on the day when this test was being conducted, he was away to meet his parents in a distant homeland and missed it. He was informed about it by the guru’s son Ashwatthama when he was back in school. Karna apparently wanted to prove his proficiency too and decided in his mind that he will shoot not just one but both the eyes of the dummy bird. The test was conducted during the day but since Karna didn’t want to irk his indifferent guru, he decided to execute his feat in the dead night.
So bow in hand he asked his brother Shon to tie the dummy bird up in the tree and hold a lamp above the target for him to see it. His plan was simple. He will release two arrows within a fraction of a second. The impact of the first arrow will swirl the bird leaving the other eye open for the second arrow to pierce. He did succeed in this feat and went back to his routine life without ever mentioning a word about it to anyone. The only witnesses of this incredible feat were Karna himself and his brother Shon.
I do not wish to explore the Pandora’s Box of historical accuracy about this anecdote nor do I think of myself as an expert in Physics to challenge the possibility of such a feat, keeping in mind the force, wind speed and velocity calculations.
What actually struck me in this story was the fact that the idea of hitting both eyes did not occur to Drona!
The supreme guru of Mahabharata just saw a single feat and decided that Arjuna will be the greatest archer in the known world of that time. He saw greatness in the concentration and focus a student showed while studying, but not in thinking laterally and getting his student to hit a target that was not visible. So basically, Arjuna’s talent as an archer was limited by the extent of his guru Dronacharya’s thought process.
This makes me question myself as an academician, whether I am helping my students achieve their true potential or am I limiting their progress due to my follies.
Teachers do have flaws. We are humans and we are bound to err in one way or other in our activities and advice. The gravity of our flaws is enhanced because of the fact that our students rely on us heavily when it comes to acquiring knowledge as well as making key decisions in life, especially with respect to their careers. So, who is at fault here? Is it our fault that our thinking and learning are limited by the experiences of our lives and the availability of time and other resources at our disposal? Or is it the fault of our students who look at us as some all-knowing entities basis our age-old tradition of placing the teacher on the same pedestal as God? Or if we go back to the earlier story is it better if the students do not have a teacher? Should we let them learn from their instincts and experiences?
If it was possible to achieve greatness without a teacher our country would be teeming with a lot of Karnas who never get basic education throughout their lives. It would also be preposterous to blame the faculty or student alone for this situation. The mistake is not in either of the parties but in the understanding of the role of a teacher and that of a student. Our history tells us to have faith in our guru and to be obedient. As much as I agree with this statement, I believe it has been interpreted from an extremist perspective.
As yet, quite a few teachers expect students to never question the logic behind any of the concepts that are being taught and therefore accept everything at face value. The concept of treating a teacher as a God also instils an unwanted ego in the minds of certain teachers which may lead to their aggressive reaction to any challenging question that a student puts forth. In management education, we speak of lateral thinking ability and critical thinking skills, yet at the slightest hint of a student challenging the fundamentals of a model or process, we tend to get irritated and reprimand the student for wasting our time and that of the remaining students in the class.
The way out of this paradox is two-fold. It can be dealt with a change in the approach of both teachers and students towards education & learning. The teacher should make it a point to keep challenging the student to test his/her limits and thereby realize their true potential. The occasional pat on the back is necessary but too much encouragement or too much restraint will only lead to the student slowing down or even stopping on the way to progress. The teacher needs to react to every success of the student with appreciation followed by a new challenge, thereby not letting the student linger on success for too long. Failures need to be looked at through a magnifying glass with complete dispassion, making it an analytical study rather than reminiscing on an embarrassing defeat.
Today most students do not know why they are learning what they are supposed to learn. They blindly follow the prescribed syllabus. Like the teacher, the student also has an obligation of asking questions when in doubt. The questions should not be directed towards challenging the knowledge of the teacher but to understand the reasoning behind every concept taught. A student can only aim to master a subject if he/she is convinced that it has practical applications in the world outside their classrooms.
No doubt, the approach discussed, is not an innovative one but an interesting and relatively under-explored perspective and may not be well accepted by many who still have deep-rooted beliefs in the misinterpreted words of old. But it is worth a try. There is also a pitfall in this suggestion that students may rather end up asking endless questions and going in circles thereby defeating the purpose of this approach. If applied judiciously this methodology of learning can help students become critical thinkers, which will help them succeed not only in academics but in all other avenues of life.
I cannot guarantee the percentage success I can achieve through this, but I can definitely guarantee satisfaction that I am doing justice to my role, as a teacher. To say the least, I can assertively say that I would not be stopping my student from hitting the invisible eye.
P.S. This article is a result of my conversations with my wife Kunjal Nair, without whom none of my scribbles would have seen the light of day.
Comments
Post a Comment