[Buddha-l] Buddhist pedagogy

[jkirk]

Stefan wrote:
=======
L.S. stands for lectori salutem, which is Latin for 'hail to the reader'.

I can imagine. Thanks for your help. The question whether teaching the 
tilakkhana to young kids (as young novices, for example) is beneficial 
remains unanswered.  Is a young kid able to 'understand' the absence of a 
self, or 'all is characterized by suffering'? (I figure 'impermanence' is 
this easiest).

In what way is this different from instilling particular beliefs (as is done 
in theistic traditions (Mary a virgin, Mohammed the last profet, pork is 
bad, resurrection, 'speak the truth and speak it ever, causeth what it 
will', etc.), which might remain unquestioned or even incomprehensible to 
kids?

Cheers,
Stefan
===================
I have never seen that Latin phrase-thanks.

Well, if your question applies to the "young novices" you cited, as child 
monk recruits whether temporary or permanent, my guess is that matters of 
belief are simply drummed into them as per other age-old teaching practices:
memorization of texts, recitation of texts, and so on. I doubt if their 
teachers give much thought to how much of it the kids understand. However, 
I've not seen any research or commentary that reports on the beneficence or 
efficacy of such pedagogy re: Buddhism.  (This doesn't mean that none 
exists. I simply haven't seen any. Has anyone?)
There is plenty on such methods being counter-productive and boring re: 
other kinds of education.

I doubt if trying to get a novice-age kid to understand the notion of anatta 
is a good idea; it could be a bad idea (if we are dealing with western 
social environments). Establishment of a solid sense of self (however 
conventional it may be) is no doubt beneficial in the development of those 
elements of personality, character, etc that make social living possible and 
run smoothly.
(Research on Indians and Thais suggests that a "solid sense of self" isn't 
as strong as it is in the west.)  How that self-sense operates in daily life 
is the stuff of character training, of helping them to develop a sense of 
ethical behavior.

However, the teaching on dependent arising strikes me as understandable at 
earlier ages and also of potential beneficence in a child's ethical 
development. Also metta, mudita, and karuna. I see no problem at all with 
helping kids to learn these as desirable action traits. I wouldn't go 
overboard with karma as a unit of such instruction, though (see all the 
silliness that has led to, in the US, at least.) At a kid's level, the 
common adage, "what goes around, comes around" would serve just fine, as 
that can be practically demonstrated by a teacher or parent.

Buddhist ideas of the anatta type probably wouldn't have beneficial salience 
until adulthood, at least.  Sila, paticca sumuppaada, and those brahma 
vihaaras noted probably have a better prospect of helping at earlier ages. 
Just my 2 cents. (Is this what you were asking about, or did I misunderstand 
you again?)
Best,
Joanna