版本一

In ancient times those who wanted to learn would seek out a teacher，one who could propagate the doctrine，impart professional knowledge，and resolve doubts. Since no one is born omniscient，who can claim to have no doubts?If one has doubts and is not willing to learn from a teacher，his doubts will never be resolved. Anyone who was born before me and learned the doctrine before me is my teacher. Anyone who was born after me and learned the doctrine before me is also my teacher. Since what I desire to learn is the doctrine，why should I care whether he was born before or after me?Therefore，it does not matter whether a person is high or low in position，young or old in age. Where there is the doctrine，there is my teacher.

Alas!The tradition of learning from the teacher has long been neglected. Thus it is difficult to find a person without any doubts at all. Ancient sages，who far surpassed us，even learned from their teachers. People today，who are far inferior to them，regard learning from the teacher as a disgrace. Thus，wise men become more wise and unlearned men become more foolish. This explains what makes a wise man and what makes a foolish man.

It is absurd that a person would choose a teacher for his son out of his love for him，and yet refuse to learn from the teacher himself，thinking it a disgrace to do so. The teacher of his son teaches the child only reading and punctuation，which is not propagating the doctrine or resolving doubts as the afore mentioned. I don't think it wise to learn from the teacher when one doesn't know how to punctuate，but not when one has doubts unresolved，for that I find to be the folly of learning in small matters，but neglecting the big ones. Even medicine men，musicians and handicraftsmen do not think it disgraceful to learn from each other. When one of the literati calls another man his“teacher”and himself his“student”people will get together and invariably laugh at him. If you ask them why they are laughing，they will say that since he is almost of the same age and as eruditeas another man，it would be degrading for him to call the other man“teacher”if the other man's social rank is lower than his;and it would be flattering if the other man's social rank is higher. Alas!It is clear that the tradition of learning from the teacher can no longer be restored. Medicine men，musicians and handicraftsmen are despised by the gentlemen. How strange it is that gentlemen are less wise than these people!

The ancient sages did not limit themselves to particular teachers. Confucius had learned from people like Tanzi，Changhong，Shixiang，and Laodan，who were not as virtuous and talented as Confucius. Confucius said “If three men are walking together，one of them is bound to be good enough to be my teacher.” A student is not necessarily inferior to his teacher，nor does a teacher necessarily be more virtuous and talented than his student. The real fact is that one might have learned the doctrine earlier than the other，or might be a master in his own special field.

Pan，the son of Li's family，who is only seventeen years old，loves to study Chinese classics of the Qin and Han dynasties，and masters the six jing and their annotations. He does not follow conventions and is willing to learn from me. I appreciate his ability to act in accordance with the old tradition of learning. Therefore I dedicate this piece to him.

版本二

Elderly people aged over fifty must have read Han Yu’s On the Teacher. Quite a few remarks in this essay are worthy of contemplation by present-day teachers and pupils. Take the following for example:

“Confucius says: ‘Out of three men, there must be one who can teach me.’ So pupils are not necessarily inferior to their teachers, nor teachers better than their pupils. Some learn the truth earlier than others, and some have special skills — that is all.”

Han Yu wrote this essay to defend himself against the attack of his time on his having accepted some disciples. In his opinion, having disciples was not something to be surprised at because, as a teacher, he was not necessarily better than his disciples in every way, nor his disciples always inferior to him. As a matter of fact, one who has learned the truth earlier than you, no matter who he is, should be acknowledged as a teacher. You need not ask whether he was born before or after you because what matters is the knowledge that he can impart to you. Nor should you presume him to be omniscient. So long as he excels you in one respect, you should learn from him and call him your teacher. This advice of mine is addressed to pupils, and teacher as well — teachers whose duty it is to “to pass on the truth, impart knowledge and dispel ignorance”.

“Pupils are not necessarily inferior to their teachers, nor teachers better than their pupils”— that is a truth, not a fallacy. There is no impassable demarcation line between teacher and pupil. While a teacher may be superior to his pupil in one branch of knowledge, the latter may be superior to the former in another. While the teacher may be superior to his pupil today, the latter may be superior to the former tomorrow. That demonstrates the law of dialectics and the unity of opposites. A kind of interplay exists between teacher and pupil. The pupil should learn from his teacher, but sometimes there may also be something the teacher has to learn from his pupil.

A similar idea is expressed by the following well-known passage quoted from Xueji (The Subject of Education), a chapter of the ancient book Liji (The Book of Rites): “However nice the food may be, if one does not eat it, he does not know its taste; however perfect the doctrine may be, if one does not learn it, he does not know its value. Therefore, when he learns, one knows his own deficiencies; when he teaches, one knows where the difficulty lies. After he knows his deficiencies, one is able to examine himself. Hence, ‘teaching and learning help each other’; as it is said in Yue Ming, ‘Teaching is the half of learning’.” The above quotation from Liji, which lays emphasis on self-examination and self-improvement, is less thoroughgoing than what Han Yu says about education. Nevertheless, its remarks such as “When he teaches one knows where the difficulty lies”, “Teaching benefits teachers as well as pupils” and “Teaching is the half of learning” (a quotation meaning teaching and learning are opposite and complementary to each other) all remain irrefutable to this day.

To be a teacher, one must at the same time be a student, or be a student first, just as Carl Marx says, “Educators must themselves be educated first.” Though this is plain truth, yet people in their practical life seldom recognize it. It is especially hard for teachers of long standing or those with “special skills”, as Han Yu says, to look at this matter dialectically.

It is not without reason or cause that teachers fail to be readily receptive to the above-mentioned concept. The viewpoint “Pupils are not necessarily inferior to their teachers, nor teachers better than their pupils”, though put forward by Han Yu, himself a feudal-minded scholar typical of his time, was by no means popular in the feudal age. On the contrary, as teachers were ranked high up along with “Heaven, Earth, Sovereign and Parents” as objects of worship in the feudal age, pupils could never be on an equal footing with their teachers to form a unity of opposites. After all, a teacher was a teacher. His teaching profession was dignified, sacred and inviolable. A pupil was a pupil. He was never expected to surpass his teacher. The practice has come down from the past and become customary.

The new relationship between teacher and pupil should be that of, in the words of Han Yu, “not (being) ashamed to learn from each other”. That is to say, teacher and pupil should teach each other and learn from each other. They should teach each other as equals regardless of seniority, so that, as Han Yu says, “whoever knows the truth can be a teacher”.

Pupils should know the spirit of respecting the truth, learning from whoever knows. Teachers should be so open-minded as to be ready to learn from anyone who knows, just as Confucius says, “Out of three men, there must be one who can teach me”.

Han Yu, going by Confucius’ teaching, asserts that “a sage has no definite teacher”, meaning that a really wise and learned person has no fixed teacher and that he learns from whoever knows. I think I may as well added, “No teacher is all-knowing,” meaning that no teacher is infallible. A teacher should have the courage not only to hold firmly to the truth but also to admit his mistake. All devoted teachers might as well put this into practice so that they can strive, together with their pupils, for scientific knowledge and the truth.

On the other hand, however, pupils should also understand this: when they discover a teacher’s weak point in a certain respect, they should not jump to the conclusion that he is no longer qualified as a teacher, because the weak point in one respect does not mean the weak point in all respects and, likewise, the strong point in a certain point does not mean the strong point in all respects. Students of today, shouldering a great historical task, should deeply understand how limited their knowledge is and how important it is for them to learn modestly from all those who have knowledge and strong points, especially teachers who “have special skills”! That is all I can say about On the Teacher.