This critique of the guru-shishya system it appears to confuse the profound, time-tested tradition with its fashionable distortions and misinterpretations (“How the traditional guru-shishya system undermined critical thinking in India”). The foundational precept of the genuine guru-shishya relationship is belief, openness and dialogue, not blind submission.
The scripture which is the cornerstone of the philosophy, the Bhagavad Gita, is structured as a disciple’s honest questioning and the guru’s compassionate clarification. Krishna by no means silences Arjuna; as a substitute, he encourages dialogue, saying, “Now listen, O Arjuna, how with the mind absorbed in Me… you will know Me completely, free from doubt.” The system is constructed on eradicating doubt, or samsaya, not instilling worry.
The instance of Karna from the Mahabharata is profoundly misunderstood. Parashurama’s curse was not about “caste supremacy”, however the elementary breach of truthfulness, or satya, which is the bedrock of the connection. Karna, by mendacity about his identification, broke that belief. The curse that information would fail him at a essential second symbolises a deep non secular precept: information acquired by deceit is unstable. To scale back this to “guru dominance” is to overlook its moral and narrative depth.
You are right that the abuses witnessed in current a long time – the place gurus, maybe on account of misplaced authority, institutional energy, or social hierarchy, suppress questioning – are deviations from the tradition. They are signs of ego and institutional decay, not options of the system itself.
The article’s selective studying and compelled framing appear much less like a honest evaluation and extra like an try and discredit a core civilisational academic and non secular methodology by conflating its essence with its occasional corruptions. I request the editor to offer sufficient consideration intimately earlier than publishing such articles henceforth. – Jayachandran Elumalai
***
I respect the issues you increase about energy imbalance, exclusion and abuse inside sure historic and modern manifestations of the tradition.
At the identical time, I wish to supply a nuance that will complicate the central declare that the guru – shishya system, as an entire, didn’t allow questioning or essential thought.
Classical Indian mental traditions – significantly in philosophy, grammar, logic and theology – had been deeply rooted in structured debate (vāda), counter-argument (prativāda), and rigorous reasoning (tarka). Systems akin to Nyāya, Mīmāṃsā, and Vedānta advanced exactly by sustained instructor – pupil disputation, the place questioning the guru’s place was not solely permitted however methodologically mandatory. Texts had been taught by pūrvapakṣa-siddhānta frameworks, coaching college students to first argue towards a place earlier than establishing one.
It is plain that social hierarchies, caste exclusion, and authoritarian misuse distorted academic areas – and these distortions deserve critique – the best paedagogic mannequin embedded in lots of conventional programs was not passive obedience however mental sharpening by dialogue, memorisation adopted by interpretation, and debate carried out inside moral bounds.
In this sense, the issue might lie much less with the epistemological foundations of the guru-shishya mannequin and extra with its social seize and institutional degeneration over time. Acknowledging this distinction, I consider, permits for a extra traditionally balanced understanding – one which critiques injustice with out dismissing indigenous traditions of reasoning that contributed to India’s lengthy scholarly legacy. Thank you for frightening an vital dialogue. I hope this attitude provides one other layer to the dialog. – Yeshaswini Pavankumar
‘Hindupohobic’, ‘bias’
This is sadly a biased, anti-Hindu outlook. The Dronacharya Award is known as for the connection between Dronacharya and Arjuna. Complete obedience is predicted through the time of tutelage below the guru. Once guru dakshina has been paid, the disciple is impartial and is meant to observe his dharma.
The motive for imposing trials by guru earlier than imparting information is to check the worthiness, the psychological power and acumen. The casteist remarks are unfair, particularly in the direction of Dronacharya, who taught Arjuna the a number of utilization of Bramhastra and taught solely dispersal to his personal son to stop misuse.
Sanatana Dharma itself has a protracted historical past of philosophical debates carried out and encouraged by kings. I realise that Scroll is extremely biased towards Hindus and their philosophy, however I’m sending this within the hope that there could also be no less than one one that might take a look at the philosophy with an unbiased view. – Vijaya Swati G
***
The disciple ought to have the shraddha to hearken to the instructor. The proper of questioning has by no means been denied. In actuality, there have been raging debates between the instructor and disciples on every challenge! This sort of writing solely serves to catch the curiosity of the neoliberals. This is why folks attempt to denigrate their very own conventional information programs. – Bratati Mukherjee
***
I problem you to a public debate on this subject the place all of India can see. – Arjun
***
This article is impressed by Hinduphobic intentions. I’m not conscious of any historic textual content wherein any shishya was punished or frowned upon for questioning his guru. Hindu philosophy is filled with tales the place established beliefs had been questioned even challenged. Social reformer Basavanna protested towards the established ritualistic Hindu tradition.
Hindus have been inculcated by centuries of liberal ideas and are open to reformation. How else was the Hindu Code Bill by BR Ambedkar be handed in Hindu-majority India? Scroll is an agent of the western deep-state and illiberal of the rising Hindu nationalist spirit which has been making Bharat sturdy and a power to reckon with. Your sabotage won’t work. – Virupaksh Reddy Patel
