問:這是你特別設計的一門課程還是它是正規課程裡的一部份?
答:這門課在這裡也很容易教的。這是我自己設計的一門單學期課程。每學期大約有180-280名學生選我這課,因為時間的關係,我只能教一兩個這樣的班。我是東西方歷史並教,中間又以佛教貫穿。
我從赫拉克賴脫(希臘哲學家)所說的「每一事物都在流動之中」開始。這是最基本的一個問題。我們的感官訊息是在流動之中,整個世界是在流動之中;既然如此,那麼我們是怎麼樣來認識事物的呢?我是以這個方法來講說四聖諦之一的苦諦的。現在這個時代是很難說動人相信生活是苦難的,一般人比較容易接受的是「萬物皆在瞬息萬變之中」。因此,凡是我們所執著所迷戀的都會改變;一改變,就有痛苦。世間的事物,沒有說是因為你執著上了,就不會變壞的;既然會變壞,那麼我們也就無不受苦。所以你可以從赫拉克賴脫(Heraclitus)哲學觀講起;他的哲學觀也正是柏拉圖起教之處。如果你講說柏拉圖以前的哲學,他們會認為你是在加州的柏克萊––認為什麼事情都是相對的。「我想幹啥都行」,這種觀點是支持快樂主義的論調。你從這一點下手,就可以一直講到佛教,一直講到西方思想,一直講到今年(1997)和資本主義、唯物主義、1997年的所有價值觀,都可講到。
另外一個題目是講當今美國與世界的價值觀結構。讓學生們看一看與此事件相關的整個架構,讓他們明白其中的性質。(這裡的相關事件,是指新近發生在肯塔基州的一樁學生槍殺命案。)
問:柏克萊中學的學生是否擔心類似的謀殺案會發生在柏克萊。
答:我們意想不到的是,同是一齣悲劇,我們看得比他們學生嚴重得多。那種事情他們可是天天耳濡目染,不算什麼。不論在哪,他們多數人時時刻刻都擔心挨槍打的。值得注意的是,一個十七歲的孩子的歷史概念和他們對一些詞彙的概念,如「悲劇」一詞。因為他們的人生歷程還很短,對生活的見識也很淺,所以要教他們的每一樣東西,都必須拿到他們切身的感知經驗之中––他們自身、此時、此地來講。像發生在肯塔基州那樣的悲劇,在他們的腦海裡只一閃而過,停留的時間甚至不及一個廣告的時間;一個十五秒鐘的廣告都能在他們的腦海中留下更深的印象。首先他們根本不注意這些事情,對於最新發生的事情缺乏背景知識的瞭解。他們沒有那個概念:他們也不看新聞,也不太關注時事。有一點很有趣,就是在新聞報導及報紙上登載的東西,如最新的時事,及其所產生的影響,如果想能明白這些事情,就需要有相當足夠的歷史知識才行。就拿國際新聞來講;你知道一個人要具備多少知識背景才能跟得上在印度、中國,或日本、歐洲發生的事情嗎?你需要有好幾年,或者幾十年的對那地方的知識作為背景,才能使得那裡所發生的事對你具有吸引力。
老師們自身的人生經歷及知識,已經有三十、四十、五十年的豐富的教學及生活經驗,拿這些經驗來教一個十四歲,或十七歲的孩子,硬要他們明白,這就犯了一個根本性的錯誤。一個+幾歲的孩子,一般說來,根本就不且備足以瞭解事情前前後後的歷史知識。他們的這種背景知識基礎,作老師的要幫他們從零點打起。基本上,你還是在與一些未受外界薰染和歷練的幼苗相處。所以,你教他們時,如想往太深的地方講,那你必得先創造一架整個知識結構;這一知識結構,必須是能使他們明白你所要講的教材的深奧之處。這就是為什麼在選擇教材時,你得非常謹慎。因為任何東西,只要是有深度的,你都要考慮如何從最基本的層次講授。
很多老師都認為他們自已很「新潮」。我已經看到(在柏克萊中學)成千的老師來了又走。我從一九六九年開始在那兒教書;我真是老資格,可以自稱是一頭老牛了。所以我看到許多自認為「新潮」的老師來了又去。這些學歷很高的,很「新潮」的老師通常只待一兩年、兩三年。他們不能留得住的一個原因,就是頂不住這些孩子們;老師們的心力頂不住。另外一個更主要的原因是他們自認「新潮」;孩子並沒有看把你看得那麼「新潮」。學生們的態度是:「沒什麼了不起的。你來教;也不過多個老師罷了!」要教得對機,你一定要從學生的背景知識基礎打起。
老師應該意識到的是,他教課時得教整個知識結構,無論哪一門學科都一樣。就拿時事新聞來說。老師從《新聞周刊》上摘錄下一則文章,覺得很有意思。但是除非作教師的能將這篇文章的背景知識襯托出來,學生不見得會感興趣;學生一不感興趣,老師就不高興了。但作老師的卻忘了一點,要引起學生的興趣,老師自己先要為這一則文章製造多大的知識背景。講到任何涉及人生深奧的領域或學科時,如政治學、社會學、心理學等等,在你將所要講的觀點傳達給學生,並讓他接受之前,也就是在你開講新聞報導文章之前,你都需要先灌輸一大片的相關的背景知識給學生。
討論
教師:我真是有這樣一種感覺,學生所能明白的,是與他們有關的個人潛在經驗。我們年紀比他們大,經驗比他們豐富,這些都可以作為製造教學背景知識的資本。通過我們的視野,他們可以學到一些東西;即便是很小、很實際的事情,我的經驗也可以影響孩子們。但有一點,這需要自己誠實。所以大概第一步是老師自己得對自己誠實。否則會叫學生一眼就給看穿了。
果勒:不錯。我上課時所要講授的幾個鐘頭的內容,實際上需要幾天,甚至幾個禮拜的準備,才能講得出去。關於「誠實」的每一點每一面,實在是不能用三言兩語講得通的。
教師:自身的誠實的確是極為重要的。但有一點我不太同意,你在剛開始的時候說,一個人需要經過許多的歷練才能教道德。我自己覺得重點不在歷練;而在誠實。老師應該認識到自身的有限性,也讓學生瞭解到老師的有限性––讓他們也能從別人的缺點之中學到一些東西。
果勒:你所說的正是歷練。
教師:我的經驗是一個十四、五歲的孩子不需要一大片的背景知識。從我自身的經驗我就可以創造一個知識架框,孩子也可以馬上能明白。這事做起來也挺簡單。
果勒:是的,但你應曉得你要拿給孩子的是什麼樣的知識背景。你所要教的教學知識內容,你得非常清楚地知道。
不吸毒戒之討論
說到吸毒與飲酒。我有一些班級,半數以上的學生毒癮很深。我給他們上課時,都是開門見山,片刻也不猶豫地講吸毒是怎麼樣地影響人的心志。跟青少年談吸毒與飲酒的關鍵是,你在改變最根本的世界觀基礎;每當你改變這基礎時,就會有動盪產生。不錯,你對迷幻藥很有經驗,但你班上七、八成的學生都有吸食經驗,所以不要在這一點上與他們起衝突。你可以說:「不管你有什麼樣的感受;你的那種感受是實在的嗎?那種感受不也是依賴身外之物去維持的嗎?」 關於毒品與酗酒,青少年所能明白的是:他們真正要的是自由;而吸毒與酗酒的根本問題,在於它讓人失去自身的自由。
從定義上講,你所要的快感境界還是依靠外界才獲得的;毒品與酒類都是屬於身外的東西,所以是一種靠不住的東西,是不實在的,沒有基礎的東西,而且不能給人自由。這又是另外一大話題。
全文完
|
|
Question: Is this a special course you designed or is it part of the regular curriculum?
Answer: It could be easily taught up here. It is a one-semester course I designed myself, with between 180 and 280 kids signing up for it each semester of which I can only teach, because of time considerations, a couple of classes of it. But what I do with that is, I run that whole history against Eastern thought and then I run Buddhism across that.
I start from Heraclitus: "Everything is in flux."How do we know anything if "everything is in flux?
"That is the fundamental problem. Our sense data is in flux; the world is in flux; therefore how do we know anything? I use that as a way to explain the First Noble Truth: "the truth of suffering.
"In this day and age, it is difficult to convince people that life is suffering. It is easier for people to accept an explanation "that everything is in flux,
"therefore any place you try to attach will change. Therefore you will suffer. There is no place that you can attach to anywhere in the world that will not change and cause suffering. So you start from Heraclitus which is exactly the same place that Plato started from. If you describe the world of pre-Plato, they would think they were in Berkeley: everything is relative. Whatever I feel like is ok. It would support hedonistic views. So starting from that place, you can work your way all the way through Buddhism and all the way through Western thought to 1997 and capitalism, materialism—all the values of 1997.
Another topic is to go through what the current construct of values is in America and the world right now. Look at that whole frame of reference and have them understand what the nature of that is. (Reference to a cold-blooded murder of one student by another that had just occurred in Kentucky).
Question: Are students at Berkeley High worried that something similar to that murder might happen there?
Answer: The ironic thing is that we see it as much more of a tragedy than they do. They deal with stuff like that everyday. Half of them worry about getting shot at every moment, wherever they are. It is like a total abstraction. One of the things about 17-year olds is their sense of historical perspective; their sense of words like "tragedy." They are very young and have very little perspective on life. So everything has to be brought directly to their existential experience—them, now, here where they are. Tragedies like the one in Kentucky go through their heads very quickly. It didn't even hit long enough to score as much as an ad. A 15-second advertisement scores more in their consciousness than news. First of all, most of them don't pay any attention, have no context for the latest thing that happened in the news. They have no idea. They don't watch the news. They don't pay that much attention to it. You see, the funny thing about the newspaper and news is that it requires a very long historical context to be able to have any understanding of the impact of any current stories. Take, for instance, international news. You know how much background you need to have to follow what is going on in India, China, Japan, or Europe. You need years, decades, of knowledge to make that story fit into a context that's at all interesting.
This is a fundamental mistake that teachers make when they take their own life context, which is enriched by 30, 40, even 50 years of teaching and experience, and use that to dictate what a 14 or 17-year old should be able to relate to. Students in their teens normally have no historical context at all to base themselves in. The teacher has to develop everything from scratch. You are dealing with
tabulae rasae (minds not yet influenced by outside impressions and experiences) basically. And so, if you want to create a profundity, you have to know that you have to create the entire construct from which they can see what you want to present as being profound. That is why you have to choose very carefully what you are going to teach, because anything they are going to get in terms of profundity, you are going to have to figure out how to give them—from scratch.
A lot of teachers think themselves really "hip." I have seen thousands of teachers come through that school. I have been teaching there since 1969. I am so old, I am a dinosaur. I have watched many come and go who perceived themselves as really "hip." Those highly educated, "hip" teachers usually last for 1, 2 or 3 years! One reason they don't last is that they can't hack it. They don't have the energy to hack it. But the other, and bigger, reason is that they think they are "hip." To these kids you are not "hip." Nobody is "hip."You are just another teacher and you have to create the entire construct from scratch.
What the teacher must realize is that he has to teach the entire context—regardless of the subject matter. Let's take Current Affairs, for example. The teacher brings in an article from
Newsweek that he finds really interesting. But unless he creates a context for it, it is not necessarily going to be interesting to the students at all. Then the teacher gets upset because they are not interested. But he fails to realize that in order to incite their interest he would have to provide an incredible context for just that one story to be understood. When it comes to politics, social contract, psychology, or any other profound area of life, then a tremendous amount of background is required in the context of whatever you wish to teach before you can get the point you wish to make across—before the news articles will be meaningful.
Discussion
Teacher: What I honestly feel the students really relate to is the individual's potential experience. We can use our being older and more experienced than they are to create the context for them, and then they can see through our perspective. They can be influenced by my experience, even in simple, practical things. But it requires self-honesty. So maybe the first step is that the teacher has to be really honest with him. Otherwise, the students will see right through him.
Doug: True. I am trying to cover in a few hours what actually requires days or weeks to bring across. Each one of the points about honesty can't just be expressed in a few words.
Teacher: Self-honesty is incredibly important. In fact, I disagree a little with what you mentioned in the beginning about having to have a lot of practice in order to be able to teach virtue. What I find is essential is not the practice but the honesty. You have to recognize your own limitations even to the point that you make that a part of the students' awareness—that they can learn from others' shortcomings as well.
Doug: But what you have described is practice.
Teacher: My experience is that 14 or 15-year olds don't need a huge context. I can just create a construct from my own experience and they understand right away. It is very simple to do.
Doug: Yes, but you have to know what context you should bring to them. You have to be very aware of what context you are assuming.
On No Drugs
There are drugs and alcohol. I have classes where half the students are heavy dopers and I go right at it. I don't even pause for one second. I go right into what it is about—how it affects the mind. The issue of drugs and alcohol to teenagers is that you are changing the fundamental ground from which you are seeing the world. So any time you change that fundamental ground, instability results. Yes, you've had a great experience on acid (LSD). Three-fourths of the kids in the class have done acid.
Don't try to argue about that. You say, "Whatever experience you've had: is it on solid ground? Is it not dependent on something outside of yourself?" This is an issue of freedom. Kids can understand the issue of drugs and alcohol because what they really want is freedom. And the fundamental issue of drugs and alcohol is that you are losing your freedom to something outside.
Whatever state you achieve had to be created from something outside, by definition. Drugs and alcohol involve the consumption of something external and so that is not a stable situation. It is not solid. It is without foundation. And it is not free. That is another big issue.
The End
|
本刊以弘揚佛陀正法為宗旨,歡迎各界投稿。凡是有關佛法之學術論著﹑個人學佛因緣﹑心路歷程﹑感應等經歷,以及對於現今教育的看法﹑學習的感想﹑心得報告,都歡迎您投稿。對於投稿:
㈠ 以贈送本刊為稿酬。
㈡ 原則上,本刊對貴作會依實際需要做修正。
㈢ 如果您不同意本刊對貴作有任何修正,請註明。
㈣ 請自行留複本,原則上本刊不退稿;若需退稿者,請附上回郵信封。
來稿請寄:萬佛城金剛菩提海雜誌社編輯部
The aim of this journal is to propagate the Proper Dharma of the Buddha. Any articles relating to Buddhism, such as research papers, personal stories, views on today's education, and so on, are welcome. The following applies to all manuscripts;
(1) Free copies of the issue(s) in which the manuscript is published will be given to the author.
(2) The manuscript will be edited as necessary.
(3) If you do not wish your manuscript to be altered in any way, please say so.
(4) The journal generally does not return manuscripts, so please keep your own copy.
If you need your manuscript back, please enclose a self-addressed, stamped envelope.
Send manuscripts to:
Vajra Bodhi Sea Editorial Department,
P.O. Box 217, Talmage, CA 95481, USA |