Introduction
The Guru-Shishya Parampara has been the backbone of India’s ancient education system. It is at the root of the unique and knowledge tradition that we take pride in. It has acted as the guiding light of society and civilization across ages. Guru-Shishya duos have shaped the destiny of India and millions of Her children for millennia. Kautilya and Chandragupta Maurya are the foremost example of this. Others like sage Vidyaranya and Harihara I, Swami Samarth Ramdas and Chhatrapati Shivaji carried forward this legacy. It is clear that the Guru-Shishya tradition has produced the finest men and women this land has produced. Generation after generation it has produced highly illustrious people who could carry the weight of knowledge on their shoulders. It has propagated a culture of excellence and promoted complete and thorough understanding of the subject(s) at hand. But things have changed in the last two centuries. Systematic attacks by European colonisers and their ideological children at the grassroots level have almost completely destroyed this magnificent system of education. At a time when the left has radicalised itself to the core, even the most sacrosanct of institutions have come into the crosshairs of mindless questioning, the Guru-Shishya Parampara is no exception.
The article doesn’t start with a question, it starts with an assumption, that India lacked critical thinking and that this lack of critical thinking is to be blamed upon the Guru-Shishya Parampara. It makes a variety of arguments to disparage the Guru-Shishya tradition with his impudence. He employs a variety of methods to attain this objective including lies, outdated myths and sometimes twisting of facts. The article spends more time and words denigrating the tradition with its sly tone than actually provide any genuine feedback in good faith. There’s a grand total of zero mentions of what subjects were taught in this system except the carefully placed mentions of music and dance, if they are to be counted. There is no demonstration from history’s examples of this apparent lack of critical thinking. There is no discussion about what methodologies were followed to teach students, similarly there is no discussion about the quality of education in the Gurukul. Not once does he mention the astounding success of the system in carrying forward the knowledge of the arts, literature and the sciences like mathematics. That so much material about ancient Indian knowledge has come down to us despite the challenges posed by history is a testament to the success of the system. What effect did it have on those who were educated in this system? What aspect or aspects of critical thinking did India lack? How did this lack of critical thinking manifest in Indian society, i.e.- in what form did this lack of critical thinking reveal itself? What were the consequences of this lack of critical thinking on India? How did Indian society manage to function with suppressed critical thinking? The author completely misses out on these questions, almost as if saying that this supposed lack of critical thinking wasn’t even real. These things are critical for understanding why, if at all, this system led to the suppression of critical thinking in India. Instead, it keeps complaining about caste and authority and a series of logical fallacies. He makes no pretence of even being unbiased in his assessment, as if the entire Guru-Shishya Parampara was simply one long evil. The author is himself a university professor and a columnist writing for many major news and media platforms, journals and magazines etc., giving the author access and reach to the minds of both young, impressionable students and commoners. It thus becomes important to examine the article closely and bring forward the truth lost under the rubble of the numerous falsities, fallacies and myths and answer some of the questions asked in the article to the extent that it is possible.
What Critical Thinking is and what it is not?
According to Michael Scriven and Richard Paul, “Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.” It is based on: “universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue, assumptions, concepts, empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions, implication and consequences, objections from alternative viewpoints, and frame of reference. Critical thinking – in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes – is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking.” It is not cynicism, it is not being judgemental and it is not assigning blame. It is not ideological thinking. It is not the application of faulty ideological standards to examine social structures and institutions etc.
Firstly, it is important to note that the author never clarifies what he means by the term critical thinking anywhere in the article. Also, he begins the article by essentially engaging in the act of poisoning the well by mentioning TM Krishna’s insolent article about the tradition. Krishna engages in disparaging the tradition despite himself being a product of it. He wants to deny to others what he himself benefitted from. To point out the wrongs of one Guru is one thing but to make a case for the end of the institution on the basis of it is another. It starts this way to evoke a strong emotional response in the reader’s mind to derail any logical response to his article. It must also be noted that the author of the original article implies that the hapless Indians didn’t have critical thinking till the advent of European colonisers who brought modern education with them.
What the Guru-Shishya Parampara Actually Is
At this point it is important to put out clearly what the Guru-Shishya Parampara actually means. The Guru, put simply, is a dispeller of all kinds of ignorance. He can be generally understood as a personal spiritual teacher, but his role goes beyond that just of a teacher. He had not only intellectual knowledge but also experience. He’s the ‘teacher, counsellor, mature ideal, hero, source of strength and even divinity’ all rolled into one (The Guru in Hindu Tradition by John D. Mlecko). He’s the hand-holder and the authority pertaining to matters of ritualism and spiritual knowledge in the student’s spiritual journey. ‘He assumes comprehensive responsibility for a Shishya, providing education, guidance, and support in every aspect of life.’ (Relevance of the Guru-Shishya Parampara to Modern-Day Mentorship by M Behl). The student, or the Shishya, was simultaneously also a seeker and a devotee. In this system, books were rarely if ever used. Knowledge was orally transmitted. The relationship between the Guru and the Shishya was very close. He was supposed to stay at the Gurukul and surrender to the Guru and serve him. This closeness and surrender of the Shishya allowed the Guru to mold the Shishya. He was usually supposed to go through rites of initiation. Parampara refers to an uninterrupted spiritual lineage or tradition. Today, it is largely understood as a spiritual lineage or a tradition which carries forward a unique metaphysical experience and where the Shishya undergoes internal transformation.
The Question of Authority and Surrender
He bemoans Gurus testing the loyalty of aspiring Shishyas by making him to do his household chores. Now firstly, this is in no way related to critical thinking or the lack of it. It serves no purpose in the article except projecting a garbled image of the aforementioned system in the mind of an unsuspecting and ignorant reader. Secondly, it is ultimately the decision of the Guru to accept or reject a student who approaches him. After all, in the traditional view, a Guru is said to have to bear a part of the Shishya’s sins. The position of a Guru is one that of responsibility and not privilege. It is thus important for the Guru’s work that the Shishya serves him by completely surrendering to him. It is thus also a test of the Shishya’s obedience and faith in the Guru, and more importantly his hunger for knowledge. Thirdly, not all Gurus will do this, and not all Shishyas will have to undergo this test. For others, their tests might look different.
Reginald and Jamila Massey (1989, 92), writing about Kathak refer to this aspect of the guru/shishya system. The student
“began when very young, by performing, more often than not, the menial tasks of the household, and only when the master was convinced that the pupil’s lagan or call to vocation was strong enough would the actual training begin. Meanwhile by simply being in almost constant attendance upon the guru he was able to absorb the atmosphere of the art to which he aspired…Even when he was a trained artiste, it was not beneath his dignity to see to his guru’s comforts by pressing and massaging his teacher’s feet. This was done, not necessarily because the master’s feet were aching, but because it was regarded as a way of acknowledging his superiority, and showing him the respect due to someone who embodied a particular tradition of art and culture.”
In Training in Indian Classical Dance: A Case Study, Ananya Chatterjea explains,
“Not only is the guru invested with all the trust of his shishya, but he is also accorded a more than human status, albeit a status he has earned. The shishya who goes through the same intense discipleship and continues his search for knowledge even beyond that will, in turn, deserve the title of guru and the honor attendant upon it… The subtext is that such instances, which mark a dancer as a skilled artist and which are accomplished through subtle negotiations in the body, can only be taught by someone who has mastered much more than technique: a guru, whose knowledge includes a sociocultural dimension, a philosophical dimension, as well as a kinesthetic dimension… It is perhaps important to remind oneself that Indian classical dance has a rich history dating back to the second century and is besides situated within a complex philosophical context. Thus, someone who has attained the status of a guru has obviously attained a substantial degree of mastery over this vast body of material. The unconditional respect for the guru expressed in the traditional saying “Guru Brahma, Guru satya” (the guru is god, the guru is truth) seems legitimate in the context of Indian culture if one recalls the hard work and penance the guru has gone through in order to reach, his wisdom, technical finesse, and depth of understanding of the philosophy underlying the art.”
She further adds,
“McMullen (1976) suggests that the guru institution is a typical product of ancient Indian society with its typically Hindu nature of revelation, emphasis on wisdom… In fact, the long period of apprenticeship with the guru, the living in close proximity with him, and the strong emotional bond between guru and shishya all necessitate a cognitive mode that requires that the student be constantly but subtly placed in a learning environment which enriches her or him continuously. In this situation, the student learns much more than the skills of technique and repertoire. The shishya learns deportment, legend, culture, philosophy—in other words, acquires some degree of wisdom that is different from, and marks the context of knowledge. This learning is not necessarily learned from the guru’s conscious instruction, however, but rather is realized by the student through the hours of practice, repetition, and personal deliberation: this is the typically Hindu ideal of revelation.”
To conclude, making the student run errands for the teacher is not abuse of power but an essential part of the learning process which greatly helps the student.
He moves on to the Divine attributes of the Guru, questioning who certifies the presence of the Divine qualities and by what signs is it to be required. Generally speaking, he’s somewhat correct. Probably no one can certify the presence of the Divine element in the Guru in most cases. It is thus upon the Shishya himself to recognise the right Guru. It is indeed a difficult task and a mistake can cost years of a student’s life and sometimes things more valuable than that. Remember that the Guru-Shishya relationship is also linked to the metaphysical world. There’s immense uncertainty here, and this uncertainty and fear of what might lie across a wrong decision has given birth to the Hindi phrase “Paani peeyo chhaan ke, Guru keejae jaan ke” (Drink water only after filtering it, make one a Guru only after knowing him well).
But we need to broaden our horizon. This was a high risk, high reward scenario. In such conditions, the student has to rely on his own Viveka to make the correct choice. Someone who was serious about pursuing knowledge needed to be more aware and sincere. He had to first build up his knowledge to reach a state where he could judge a Guru. This led to society at large becoming more aware, more self-dependent and morally stronger. Our society had more strong and well-maintained sensibilities of personal right and wrong. This was possible because of strong familial and social relations in closely-knit families and communities and the concept of the Kulguru, the common Guru for a whole family. Essential information was also provided by the vaachan (speaking) of the Itihasa texts (the Ramayana, the Mahabharata and the Puranas) etc., which were open for all. This gave the required foundational information and knowledge of subjects like religion, ethics and philosophy etc. This means the spread of those subjects’ knowledge on a societal level. A great deal of information was also provided in the form of bardic and devotional poems, particularly after the advent of the Bhakti movement. There are also the Shikshaks and the Adhyapaks. Shikshaks and Adhyapaks are essentially different from Gurus.
The student also had the option of testing and judging various Gurus before finally choosing one. All these factors ensured that a willing student at last had a realistic chance at finding a good Guru. Nevertheless, none of these can fully ensure that a Guru will necessarily be a well-meaning person and working in the best interests of the student and this remains very precarious. There is scriptural permission to leave a Guru if he engages in Adharmic behaviour or if he isn’t really knowledgeable.
To answer the second question, the general identifiers of a good Guru are his behaviour, knowledge, wisdom and character etc. The scriptures and texts written by great Acharyas of the past mention some signs of a good Guru. For example, Adi Shankaracharya in his work Vivekachudamani writes:
“Who is versed in the Vedas, sinless, unsmitten by desire and a knower of Brahman par excellence, who has withdrawn himself into Brahman; calm, like fire that has consumed its fuel, who is a boundless reservoir/ocean of mercy that knows no reason, and a friend of all good people who prostrate themselves before him; Worshipping that Guru with devotion, and approaching him, when he is pleased with prostration, humility and service, (he) should ask him what he has got to know:” (verses 33 and 34)
The revered ascetic-sage has listed out the following qualities or signs of a good Guru:
- Scripturally learned
- Spiritually realized
- Free from desires
- Morally pure
- Calm and detached
- Overflowing with compassion
Adi Shankaracharya’s comparison of the Guru with an ocean (of mercy) seems apt given the context of the Guru inheriting the Shishya’s sins. This is also why some spiritual masters might avoid taking students.
In Bhakti Yoga, Swami Vivekananda opines:
“The teachers whose wisdom and truth shine like the light of the sun are the very greatest the world has known, and they are worshipped as God by the major portion of mankind. But we may get help from comparatively lesser ones also; only we ourselves do not possess intuition enough to judge properly of the man from whom we receive teaching and guidance; so there ought to be certain tests, certain conditions, for the teacher to satisfy, as there are also for the taught.
In regard to the teacher, we must see that he knows the spirit of the scriptures. The whole world reads Bibles, Vedas, and Korans; but they are all only words, syntax, etymology, philology, the dry bones of religion. The teacher who deals too much in words and allows the mind to be carried away by the force of words loses the spirit. It is the knowledge of the spirit of the scriptures alone that constitutes the true religious teacher. The network of the words of the scriptures is like a huge forest in which the human mind often loses itself and finds no way out. — “The network of words is a big forest; it is the cause of a curious wandering of the mind.” “The various methods of joining words, the various methods of speaking in beautiful language, the various methods of explaining the diction of the scriptures are only for the disputations and enjoyment of the learned, they do not conduce to the development of spiritual perception”…
The second condition necessary in the teacher is — sinlessness. The question is often asked, “Why should we look into the character and personality of a teacher? We have only to judge of what he says, and take that up.” This is not right. If a man wants to teach me something of dynamics, or chemistry, or any other physical science, he may be anything he likes, because what the physical sciences require is merely an intellectual equipment; but in the spiritual sciences it is impossible from first to last that there can be any spiritual light in the soul that is impure. What religion can an impure man teach? The sine qua non of acquiring spiritual truth for one’s self or for imparting it to others is the purity of heart and soul. A vision of God or a glimpse of the beyond never comes until the soul is pure. Hence with the teacher of religion we must see first what he is, and then what he says. He must be perfectly pure, and then alone comes the value of his words, because he is only then the true “transmitter”. What can he transmit if he has not spiritual power in himself? There must be the worthy vibration of spirituality in the mind of the teacher, so that it may be sympathetically conveyed to the mind of the taught. The function of the teacher is indeed an affair of the transference of something, and not one of mere stimulation of the existing intellectual or other faculties in the taught. Something real and appreciable as an influence comes from the teacher and goes to the taught. Therefore the teacher must be pure.
The third condition is in regard to the motive. The teacher must not teach with any ulterior selfish motive — for money, name, or fame; his work must be simply out of love, out of pure love for mankind at large. The only medium through which spiritual force can be transmitted is love. Any selfish motive, such as the desire for gain or for name, will immediately destroy this conveying medium. God is love, and only he who has known God as love can be a teacher of godliness and God to man.
When you see that in your teacher these conditions are all fulfilled, you are safe; if they are not, it is unsafe to allow yourself to be taught by him, for there is the great danger that, if he cannot convey goodness to your heart, he may convey wickedness. This danger must by all means be guarded against. — “He who is learned in the scriptures, sinless, unpolluted by lust, and is the greatest knower of the Brahman” is the real teacher.”
Scriptures often mention similar standards.
“With sacrificial wood in hands, one should approach a guru, who is both a ‘Shrotriya’ and ‘Brahmanishtha’” (Mundaka Upanishad 1.2.12)
In his discourse, How to See the Guru: Mercy, Srila Bhakti Nirmal Acharya Maharaj calls this Divine element in question the Guru Tattva.
Therefore, to answer his question, it is upon no one else but the Shishya himself to recognise a good Guru based on the above-mentioned signs. He must be aware and sincere about what he’s getting into in his quest of knowledge. He must explore, he must learn and he must test. He must take into account whether the Guru himself, his path, his teaching methodology, his pedagogy are fit for him or if he can actually adjust to the said Guru’s standards and demands. The Guru must also be judged by his knowledge, character, actions. The Guru Parampara (lineage) is also an important indicator.
The author next once again invokes TM Krishna and his article. Krishna’s article was written in the context of the Gundecha brothers controversy where their students accused them of mental, physical and sexual abuse. The accusations, if true, are as surprising as they are saddening and infuriating. The Guru-Shishya relationship is considered sacred and such cases reflect poorly on it. As of the date of writing of this article, the case is still in court.
This case is used to make sweeping generalizations about Gurus. He puts the Gurus in one segment who are secretly on the same side as the accused because they want to preserve the authority of the Guru. This is the quintessential Marxist framing where one side is made out to be the necessarily evil oppressor, and the other side is made the helpless, innocent oppressed. All context is erased. At a time when this reductionist view of things is being challenged and moved past even in History, the field where it originally came from, one might wonder what use it might have in judging the institution in question.
He repeats that you can’t question your Guru and then references another article where a military instructor slaps a trainee for asking a question. Now we have to see if the instructor qualifies to be a Guru in the light of the above-mentioned qualities of Guru. An actual Guru would have in fact encouraged him to ask more questions and be satisfied. Did the trainees study or train under the said instructor in hopes of inner transformation or spiritual upliftment? The author fails to show how any of these obstruct critical thinking.
The DU professor’s next complaint is that the Guru has unlimited authority. He once again cites Krishna’s article to raise the point that there is an imbalance of powers in this system. While his point may seem largely correct, he completely misses out on crucial details which should ideally form the flesh and bone of one’s understanding of the system. There is a context behind why this is so. Before the aspiring student who wants to learn from him, a Guru is answerable towards and responsible for his own spiritual lineage. Remember that the role of a Guru is the transmission of a unique path and more importantly, a unique metaphysical experience. The student has to be deserving to receive admission in a Guru’s path. This changes once the individual becomes a Shishya of the said Guru. From that point onwards, the Shishya is also the Guru’s responsibility. By tradition, the disciple has now become the Guru’s burden to carry.
For example, in Upadeshasahasri, Adi Shankaracharya says:
“When the teacher finds from signs that knowledge has not been grasped or has been wrongly grasped by the student, he should remove the causes of non-comprehension in the student. This includes the student’s past and present knowledge, want of previous knowledge of what constitutes subjects of discrimination and rules of reasoning, behaviour such as unrestrained conduct and speech, courting popularity, vanity of his parentage, ethical flaws that are means contrary to those causes. The teacher must enjoin means in the student that are enjoined by the Shruti and Smriti, such as avoidance of anger, Yamas consisting of Ahimsa and others, as well as the rules of conduct that are not inconsistent with knowledge. He [teacher] should also thoroughly impress upon the student qualities like humility, which are the means to knowledge. The teacher is one who is endowed with the power of furnishing arguments pro and con, of understanding questions [of the student], and remembers them.” (verses 1.4–1.6)
Joel D. Mlecko, writing in The Guru in Hindu Tradition, says, “Whatever the area of his sway, the Guru is expected to facilitate external harmony and internal serenity to the shishya.”
There’s the question of power and authority. This must be seen in light of the comments by Ananya Chatterjea mentioned above, that the Guru is
“accorded a more than human status…a status he has earned…The unconditional respect for the guru…seems legitimate in the context of Indian culture if one recalls the hard work and penance the guru has gone through in order to reach, his wisdom, technical finesse, and depth of understanding of the philosophy underlying the art…someone who has mastered much more than technique: a guru, whose knowledge includes a sociocultural dimension, a philosophical dimension…”.
The Guru has years of experience on the subject, and in the spiritual world which is said to be like a scary ocean, the Shishya has no direct physical refuge except the Guru. He might know the best interests of the Shishya better than the Shishya himself. This is because the Shishya is believed to be in the state of deeply ingrained ignorance, which is why he approaches the Guru in the first place. A Guru might make the Shishya change his habits or actions and behaviour, question his ego, thoughts and beliefs etc. All this wouldn’t be possible without the Guru holding and exercising a disproportionate amount of power over the Shishya. Thus, for the Guru to be able to effectively help his disciple, the disciple must first surrender so that there’s no tussle between the two later. This also ensures the dignity of the position of the Guru.
In a similar spirit, Joel D. Mlecko says:
“The traditional scriptural description of gurus has often been a listing of ideals rather than a reporting of actual lived qualities. Nevertheless, ideals are to be striven for and they point to what a culture maintains as important. What then does this historical context reveal about those ideal personal traits of the guru? Swami Gnaneswaranda states:
The guru has had the excellences as well as the defects and difficulties of human life. He has understood them thoroughly, and by means of his experiences and experiments he has discovered a method by which to rise above them.
Thus, first of all, the guru is fully human; because of this, he is wise. He has the ability to rightly interact with persons and situations based on a broad range of knowledge, experience and understanding. For the guru has already walked the path chosen by the seeker. The guru, therefore, is in a position to show the way and to transmit the value of his experience to the disciple. The guru’s wisdom is born of meditativeness, that is, reflection on and absorption in his experiences. Thus, the guru speaks little. When he does speak, however, it is with personal equanimity. He does not show an extreme of emotions: he is not overly depressed in grief nor overly exhilarated in joy. It is not the exigencies of the external world which direct his life; his illumination, strength, and serenity come from within. Though he does not deny the external reality, his vision of it is sacramental. Swami Krishnananda has written:
Seeing the diversity of characters, whether in a learned savant or a low caste, a cow, a dog or an elephant, the sage of equal vision recognizes the Divine Presence in them all, without disturbing the course of life based on such difference.
Since the guru possesses the knowledge and experience of deeper Reality, he possesses all and requires nothing further. Therefore, he is described as desireless, free from both temptation of acquisition and of renunciation. Though he possesses relatively nothing, paradoxically, the guru is a giver; he gives compassion and, most importantly, he facilitates serenity or peace of mind. This is the guru in the Hindu tradition.
It is not just the Shishya who must surrender to the Guru but also the Guru who is expected to act in the best interests of the Shishyas. This is why it is important for the Guru to have unbalanced power and authority over the Shishya. Note that the Guru-Shishya relationship is said to last across births.
We must also ask some important questions. Is the Guru’s path even suitable for the Shishya? Is he meant to go down that specific path? Is there anything new that the Guru can add to the Shishya’s knowledge or anything new that he can give him? If not, can it be said that the Shishya will be wasting his time, energy and efforts under that Guru? Do all students have the same educational requirements? Can it be said for sure that the Guru that the Shishya is approaching will be able to cater to his specific needs? Who out of the two is better suited to understand and judge these things?
As we saw previously, and as we will see ahead, none of this is an impediment in the way of developing critical thinking since questioning is not only allowed but also encouraged in the system as long as the disciple is humble and reverential towards the Guru and his questions don’t come from a place of ego or arrogance. Even if we were to assume that unclear and irregular standards of admissions might have suppressed critical thinking in some way (which the author never mentions), what was the scale of this suppression and how could it be blamed on the Guru-Shishya Parampara? It is responsible for its effects on those whom it takes in, not those whom it rejects, and even if we assume that rejection of interested students somehow would have suppressed critical thinking in them and the larger society, is it that those students did not have the option of approaching other Gurus who might’ve considered them fit and accepted them as their Shishyas? As the author himself mentioned in the original article, the moment at which a disciple is deemed worthy of initiation is determined entirely by the Guru’s will so admission standards were different for different Gurus. There’s also the religious, social and historical backdrop of the belief in Karma. Given this background, the dedication of a student towards inquiry and learning matters more than his acceptance by a certain Guru.
The article also says that the Shishya can’t challenge the Guru, which is true, but this is because the Guru and the Shishya are supposed to work in tandem towards a common goal, not against each other. It is the Shishya who must adjust to the Guru’s standards and it is the Guru who must adjust his pedagogy and teaching methodology to suit the individual Shishya so that there can be compatibility between the two. But does this mean that the Shishya can never disagree with the Guru or that he can’t ever have views different from him? We will see ahead.
Modern Education
Now, in true spirit of critical thinking we must turn the tables and reverse the gaze. Does modern education suppress critical thinking too since interviews are mandatory for entrance into various educational institutions and these institutions might not give reasons for choosing one student and rejecting another either? Or does a modern educator impede critical thinking in his students when he punishes them for asking questions in the classroom? Or does this somehow not hamper the process of development of critical thinking skills in the student? Even in Delhi University, where the author teaches, interviews are required for admissions into certain courses and institutions. Does Delhi University or its institutes stop critical thinking by not giving out the reasons for taking interviews and rejecting certain students without giving out reasons? Such reasoning can only be called poor. Instead of discussing the core topic of the article, the author distracts the reader through the deployment of seemingly related but inconsequential and misleading questions and analysis of the institution.
We must also abandon this simplistic and reductionist view of authoritative teachers and hapless students. According to a 2022 study by Belinda Agyapong, Gloria Obuobi-Donkor, Lisa Burback and Yifeng Wei, teachers are suffering too. The results show: “When only clinically meaningful (moderate to severe) psychological conditions among teachers were considered, the prevalence of burnout ranged from 25.12% to 74%, stress ranged from 8.3% to 87.1%, anxiety ranged from 38% to 41.2% and depression ranged from 4% to 77%.”
Regarding Caste Exclusion
It is in his next claim that he resorts to outright lies to slander the tradition. He says that inclusion and exclusion into the Guru-Shishya Parampara was purely caste-based and historically individuals from the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes were barred from educational spaces. Nothing could be further from the truth. He calls caste and lineage ‘insurmountable obstacles’. He bases his argument on two examples (using the word myths would have been more apt) from the Mahabharata, the stories of Eklavya, who was asked by Dronacharya to cut off his thumb in Guru Dakshina—an act that left him incapable of archery—despite Dronacharya never having actually taught him, and Karna, who was cursed by Parashurama for concealing his caste. We will now examine this argument and these examples.
Dronacharya was appointed as the royal preceptor of the Kuru clan by Bhishma (refer to section CXXXIII of Sambhava Parva, Book 1: The Adi Parva), which means he was now bound by duty to protect the State. He was no ordinary teacher. Now, if we read the section which talks about this story of Eklavya giving his thumb away, we find that Eklavya was (i) not rejected because of his caste, (ii) was not a simple forest dweller. He was the son of a Nishada king Hiranyadhanus, as he himself reveals (refer to section CXXXIV of the Sambhava Parva, Book 1: The Adi Parva).
It was Arjuna reminding Drona of his promise of making him the best archer in the world which becomes the immediate reason for this demand. Now, we must also understand and recognise the fact that losing one’s thumb doesn’t render one incapable of practicing archery. In fact, in modern archery this draw or style of holding the arrow without the use of the thumb is called the Mediterranean draw, which is one of the standard draws. This draw is considered one of the most powerful and stable draws. In “The Shooting Methods of the Archers of the Ancient Greek World 1400 BC – 400 BC,” Spyros Bakas writes:
“The ‘Mediterranean’ technique is considered to be the most powerful draw form… Contrary to the weak and almost always in motion ‘Greek draw’, the Mediterranean technique could be explained as a way of a more stable draw, which can be used with more powerful bows and therefore cause more damage to the enemy from a greater distance… The ‘Mediterranean’ draw comes second in favor among the archers, as a way of shooting presented in a more static stance, and could be used also through a more powerful and bigger size bow than the typical small Scythian composites.”
The Mediterranean draw is recommended to be used with gloves for protection. Krishna mentions Eklavya using ‘leathern gloves’ to Arjuna. Eklavya was allied with the king of Magadha, Jarasandha, who was a major enemy of the Kuru-Panchala confederacy. Jarasandha attacks Mathura (Krishna’s kingdom) many times. Eklavya is ultimately killed by Krishna (mentioned in Book 5: Udyog Parva, Sanat-sujata Parva, section XLVIII).
Krishna justifies this in the Drona Parva (181.5) by saying that people like Jarasandha and Eklavya would have furthered the cause of Adharma had they stayed alive. This enmity does not end here. A son of Eklavya seized the sacrificial horse of Arjuna and was killed by Arjuna (Chapter 83, Asvamedhika Parva, source: Puranic Encyclopedia by Vettam Mani, page 268).
Now, we will also have to see the story of Eklavya’s Guru Dakshina in this light. Drona was the royal preceptor or Raja Guru of the Kurus, and thus his duty was to ensure that there was no threat to the Kuru clan. How could he then have taught Eklavya, an enemy prince?
Coming to Karna, it gets even simpler. Karna was not cursed because he was of a certain caste. What angered his Guru was the fact that he lied to him. How do we know this? We will have to go back to section CXXXIV of the Sambhava Parva, Adi Parva, which says:
“The Vrishnis and the Andhakas, and princes from various lands, and the (adopted) son of Radha of the Suta caste (Karna), all became pupils of Drona.”
Karna was one of the students studying at Guru Drona’s Gurukul by virtue of being the son of Dhritrashtra’s charioteer.
Now this leaves us with a paradox: the same Karna who could study at Drona’s Gurukul, where everybody would have known his caste and lineage, somehow became ineligible to study under Parashurama, Drona’s Guru. The only logical explanation possible is that Karna received the curse for lying to his Guru.
Similarly, if lineage was an insurmountable obstacle, then Satyakama Jabala would never have been accepted as a Shishya by the sage Haridrumata Gautama.
The professor is not the first one to raise such questions about the Gurukul system; others have raised similar objections too. In reality, martial arts and training as a field were often open to all. We will take the example of Kalaripayattu, the famed martial art from Kerala. In Kerala History and Its Makers, A. Sreedhara Menon writes:
“This necessitated that special attention should be bestowed on the upkeep of the Kalari or Gymnasium which offered a regular and full-fledged scheme of physical education to the youth of the land. The Kalari was in fact the most important institution of the age and it helped to impart military training and discipline of the Spartan type to the youth of the land, irrespective of caste, community or sex. Each Kara or village had its Kalari presided over by the guardian deity called Kalari Paradevata or Bhagavathi. It had as its head or Guru the Panikkar or Kurup who gave training to the youth in the use of weapons as well as in such martial feats as fencing, boxing and wrestling. Children who finished their course of studies in the village schools joined the Kalari for getting trained in gymnastics and the use of arms. This training was known as Kalaripayattu.”
In Education in Ancient India, A. S. Altekar writes:
“The recruitment to the army was not confined to the Kshatriya caste; inscriptions make it clear that it was very largely recruited from the agriculturists and Shudras. Dhanurveda also contemplates military education for all the four castes. It is interesting to note that when Yuan Chwang was in India in the second quarter of the 7th century A.D., the kings of Ujjain, Maheshvar and Assam were Brahmanas, those of Pariyatra and Kanauj, Vaishyas, and those of Matipura and Sindh, Shudras. If members of all classes could become kings, it follows that they must all be following the military profession. The caste system therefore made education rigid only to a limited degree… Military training was no monopoly of the Kshatriyas in early times, and Vasishtha therefore lays down that a Brahmana was to be invested with a bow, the Kshatriya with a sword, the Vaishya with a lance and the Shudra with a mace.”
So this accusation of martial training being gatekept turns out to have no basis in reality.
And again, how could the Guru-Shishya Parampara be held responsible for the lack of critical thinking among those whom it rejected, even if on a caste basis? This once again only wastes the reader’s time by redirecting the discussion to unrelated matters.
He objects to the fact that India’s highest sports award is named after Dronacharya and says that this is a testament to the deep-rooted casteism in the Indian cultural unconscious. Firstly, he mistakes the highest sports coaching award with the highest sporting award in the country; the highest sports award in India is the Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award. Secondly, acceptance of the award being named after Dronacharya is because he is probably the single most famous Guru, his fame in turn is because of him being the Guru of Shishyas like Arjuna, the archer who was so dedicated to his skill that he saw nothing but his target, who became the finest archer of his day, and not because he made Eklavya cut his thumb.
It is also remarkable that the author has chosen the Mahabharata of all scriptures—the epic which rejects any simplistic binaries—to base his reductionist assessment of the Guru-Shishya tradition on. In fact, is it not because of how starkly in contrast the story of Eklavya stands in relation to our understanding of the Guru-Shishya relationship that we remember it? Is it not the act of lying to his Guru by Karna that astonishes us?
He next claims that it was “precisely the guru-shishya system” because of which the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes were barred from educational spaces. Such claims are not new; however, the emerging consensus is that people being denied education on the basis of their caste is a myth. The assumption is based on the realities of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when colonial policies had decimated the traditional indigenous education system of India. How can this be blamed on the Guru-Shishya system? Dharampal’s book The Beautiful Tree: Indigenous Indian Education in the Eighteenth Century strongly challenges this assumption.
In the article on Dharampal’s The Beautiful Tree, Dr. Mrunalini Newalkar writes:
“A striking point from his broader survey is the wide social strata to which both the taught and the teachers in the elementary schools belonged. It is true that the greater proportion of the teachers came from the Kayasthas, Brahmins, Sadgop and Aguri castes. Yet, quite a number came from 30 other caste groups also, and even the Chandals had 6 teachers. The elementary school students present an even greater variety, and it seems as if every caste group is represented in the student population, the Brahmins and the Kayasthas nowhere forming more than 40% of the total. In the two Bihar districts, together they formed no more than 15 to 16%.”
The Ramayana mentions Nishadaraj Guha who attended the same Gurukul as Lord Rama. It is clear that this allegation too has no basis in reality. We must once again question the utility of this claim in an article about critical thinking.
This is also a great opportunity to remember the great master Ramanujacharya who was willing to make even a Shudra, Kanchipurna, his Guru, despite being a Brahmin himself. Another great master from a completely different spiritual tradition, Shankaracharya, touches the feet of Shiva who had come to him disguised in the form of a Chandala individual for making him realise true knowledge. What do these examples say about the Guru-Shishya Parampara?
He next says that the modern system “rests on the principle of equality… admission does not depend on the discretion of an individual; it is governed by impersonal procedures.” This is being written at a time when the Left in India increasingly considers even standard testing casteist. He says, “Alongside this is the recognition that no domain of knowledge or skill belongs exclusively to any one community. Every field must remain open to all. Military education, for example, is not meant for a particular caste or for the defence of a royal lineage; it exists to protect society as a whole and is therefore open to everyone.” This assertion, as we saw previously, is false.
Next, he says, “In today’s educational system, curricula are shaped through collective deliberation rather than by the will of a single authority. A student is expected to work not with one teacher alone but with many. There are numerous ways of thinking and analysing, many modes of knowledge. Students cannot remain bound to a single individual; they must retain the freedom to choose. Their loyalty is not to a particular guru but to their field of inquiry.” Now we have to understand that not all students have the exact same level of capability and skill in every subject. The author assumes that one shoe fits all. In the Guru-Shishya Parampara, the Guru would have moderated the curriculum upon the needs of the students. He would have kept his students’ strengths and weaknesses in mind. He would have advanced the speed and level of instruction in some subjects for some students. The modern system, however, is impersonal and unmoved by things such as a lagging student. Also, is it not true that although not considered the ideal scenario, a Shishya could have gone to many Gurus to study? Is it also not for this reason that every Guru was expected to have complete mastery over his field? Loyalty to the Guru and loyalty to the field of inquiry thus become one. We must also ask if a student could learn more simply by having multiple Gurus. Did Arjuna not have both Dronacharya and Krishna as his Guru at various points in his life? But did he stop considering Drona his Guru? The author assumes that Indians never bothered learning anything from others, which is again false. The Mauryan polish is claimed by some to have been learned from the Persians according to some. We also find that many mediaeval and early modern Indian kingdoms were employing Europeans to learn their tactics and technology etc. This also once again reminds us that making someone your Guru was a very serious statement.
The next few paragraphs in the article can only be described as a polemic against the Guru-Shishya Parampara. At this point, his criticism of the Guru-Shishya Parampara stops being about the institution or about education. It becomes purely ideological. The author is an adherent of critical pedagogy. Critical pedagogy believes that the purpose of education is to train the student to fight against “oppression.” Herein, the teacher must help the student raise his “consciousness” about oppressive social structures in the world around them like race, class, gender etc. (“the oppressed unveil the world of oppression”) and allow them to “take action toward liberation” (i.e., become activists). One can wonder if this system is even sustainable. The author does not explain why or why not we should preserve the status quo and why the transformation of “social dominance” is inherently good, but he does critique the Guru-Shishya Parampara for not unsettling it. The reader is expected to uncritically accept that “transformation” is good. It must be pointed out that in Marxist thinking, change or transformation usually mean things like the abolition of the family.
Did the System Suppress Critical Thinking?
The author claims, “Modern education is founded on the freedom to question. The guru-shishya tradition does not permit this freedom. Within it, the disciple is expected to renounce her ego, efface herself entirely, and accept the guru’s word as final.” The author implies that while the modern system allows students to ask questions, the Shishyas in the Guru-Shishya setup could not do so. He thinks pupils are shut down for asking questions in the Gurukul and that it led to them becoming uninquisitive. Inquisitiveness is required for the development of critical thinking skills. This ultimately means that the Guru-Shishya system killed critical thinking in India.
Applying some critical thinking will tell us that this isn’t actually true. At the very foundation of the Vedas lie the Upanishads. The Upanishads revolve around the simple act of asking questions and seeking answers from those deemed fit for it. They kept the realisation of true knowledge above mere ritualism, and strongly emphasised experiential knowledge of the truth rather than just intellectual understanding. This also tells us that India has always had people full of desire for knowledge—people who question, people who were willing to renounce everything in their pursuit of truth. The foundation of India’s knowledge system was robust.
Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita says, “By humble submission, by enquiry, by service, they will teach to thee knowledge, the knowing, the perceivers of truth.”
The Shishya is expected to humbly and respectfully enquire the truth from a knowledgeable Guru. In the Vivekachudamani, one is expected to have the following qualities to qualify for the inquiry of truth:
(i) the ability of discernment or discrimination of the Real from the unreal
(ii) the aversion to the enjoyment of fruits (of one’s actions) here and hereafter
(iii) the group of six attributes
(iv) Mumukshatva — the yearning for Liberation
The six attributes are:
- Śama — control of the mind
- Dama — control of the senses
- Uparati — withdrawal from distractions
- Titikṣā — endurance of hardship
- Śraddhā — faith in Guru and scriptures
- Samādhāna — one-pointed concentration
One can only wonder what a society which considered these high ideals the minimum requirements for inquiry into the higher truth would have looked like.
What the System Actually Produced
Kautilya in the Arthashastra compiles and analyses the works of previous Acharyas on statecraft. Was he not a product of the Guru-Shishya system? One can go on and on citing such examples, but two of them deserve special mention: Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya. We know both of them as great teachers who founded distinct schools of philosophy, but they had more in common. Both of them studied from teachers belonging to different schools of philosophy (Advaita, Bhedabheda), both had disagreements with their teachers, and both ended up converting their own Gurus to their belief systems. Questioning, disagreements and debate were never considered wrong in the Guru-Shishya Parampara; they just had to be expressed with humility, respect and with a spirit of inquiry. Sneha Nagarkar has written more about this in her article, No, The Guru-Shishya Parampara Was Not About Blind Obedience.
He next mentions that the aim of modern education is to “cultivate an independent voice and autonomy”; however, this is not happening. According to a report by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression:
“Free speech is under continuous threat at many of America’s colleges, pushed aside in favor of politics, comfort, or simply a desire to avoid controversy. As a result, speech codes dictating what may or may not be said, ‘free speech zones’ confining speech to tiny areas of campus, and administrative attempts to punish or repress campus free speech on a case-by-case basis have become all too common.”
The report says that 28% of students say they often self-censor during classroom discussions. 34% of students say it is acceptable to use violence to stop a campus speaker, at least in rare cases. 72% of students say shouting down a speaker is at least sometimes acceptable. Only 27% of students believe that it was “very” or “extremely” clear that the administration supports free speech on campus. This is a glaring example of what modern universities have become. A system must be judged not just by its promises but also by what it delivers, and the modern education system fails dramatically at that. Compare this with the Guru-Shishya Parampara, where healthy debate was always nurtured.
Towards the end, he says, “A central objective of education is to expand the space for democratic thought and democratic feeling. Does the guru-shishya tradition help achieve this aim?” This is largely true for a democratic nation, but we must ask if the Guru-Shishya Parampara should be judged entirely on this basis. If that is so, then can we say that what non-democratic countries like China and Iran are providing is not actually education? Is the education they provide somehow against critical thinking? Then how are they ahead of a democratic country like India on several important parameters? Can it be implied that education in democratic countries is actually indoctrination where students have to necessarily arrive at the same conclusions? Is this not the very opposite of what we call “independent voice and autonomy”? Is it not true that the seeds of modern education in India were sown by the British colonialists with the sole aim of creating a servile collaborator class of “interpreters” who could form the link between them and common Indians?
At the very end, he says:
“The reason the guru-shishya tradition is being celebrated so insistently in India today is that those in power no longer desire independent, critical minds. They seek obedient subjects, individuals trained to surrender before authority. The task of education is to warn against this tendency and to nurture a critical outlook. In this long walk, the guru-shishya tradition is not a support but an obstacle.”
Conclusion
If this was true, then would we have got individuals like Kautilya and Chandragupta Maurya who stood up to the tyranny of the Nandas? Or Samarth Ramdas and Shivaji Maharaj who stood up to the tyranny of the Mughals? Or Vidyaranya Swami and Harihara I who stood up to the Tughlaqs? The truth is this system has taught history what defiance is.
What we get from this is a picture of the holistic system of education where learning and enquiry were encouraged, a system where teachers were the shapers of society and civilization and not mere salaried employees, a system which differentiated knowledge from wisdom, which fostered brilliance and which sought to transform individuals into the best versions of themselves who could not just be useful to themselves but also the larger society. The accusations of preventing critical thinking turn out to be nothing more than the author’s imagination and twisting of facts. What ultimately emerges is not a system that suppressed inquiry, but one that demanded seriousness, discipline and sincerity from those who sought knowledge. The charge of destroying critical thinking rests on assertions that remain unsubstantiated, examples that collapse under closer scrutiny and comparisons that fail to hold when applied consistently. A tradition that could produce thinkers who questioned, debated, disagreed and even redefined entire philosophical systems cannot be reduced to a caricature of blind obedience. To do so is not analysis, but misrepresentation. The Guru-Shishya Parampara, in both its ideals and its historical expressions, stands not as an obstacle to critical thought, but as one of its most rigorous and demanding frameworks.
The Way Forward
Does this mean we can’t have a positive vision for modern education? Or that the modern system only has drawbacks? Not necessarily. The traditional system fulfils the need of the traditional society, conserving traditions, imparting cultural values and education, serving as a repository for knowledge about India, carrying forward the legacy of Indian knowledge tradition etc., while the modern system fulfils the requirements of the modern world like making the student employable, teaching the student how to live in and deal with the modern world with respect to modern ethics, laws and technology etc. using modern methodology and adjust to the competitive new age etc. Both systems seem largely anti-thetical in nature. Attempts are already being made to take the best of both systems and cater to the demands and requirements of both the traditional and modern worlds. It is important to note that some of these include institutions run by the traditional bodies like the Sringeri Math. We also have the examples of institutions run by the Shantiniketanand the Ramkrishna mission etc. This shows that these institutions have the deep desire to make improvements if required and provide the best to their students. Similarly, a student pursuing under a mentor represents, at least in some form and spirit, similarities with the Guru-Shishya system. We need not pit them against each other but instead them to the best of their capabilities, giving students access to both traditional and modern knowledge, values, pedagogy and technology etc. creating a harmonizing and conducive environment for the student to learn in.
—Centre for Studies in Hindu Conservatism
Bibliography
- Bhagavad Gita
- Mahabharata
- Ramayana
- Mundaka Upanishad
- Vivekachudamani — Adi Shankaracharya
- Upadeshasahasri — Adi Shankaracharya
- Arthashastra — Kautilya
- Bhakti Yoga — Swami Vivekananda
- The Guru in Hindu Tradition — John D. Mlecko
- Kerala History and Its Makers — A. Sreedhara Menon
- Education in Ancient India — A. S. Altekar
- The Beautiful Tree: Indigenous Indian Education in the Eighteenth Century — Dharampal
- Puranic Encyclopedia — Vettam Mani
(The article was published on cshc.substack.com on April 06 and has been reproduced here)
