Readers’ comments: Guru-shishya tradition stifles curiosity

I am from the Netherlands and this is a good article because when the teacher/guru lacks human values, society has a big problem (“How the traditional guru-shishya system undermined critical thinking in India”). The guru must also respect the life of the disciple, if not, they are not a guru. Rather than blind belief in a person, investigate and then chose. – Bert van der Heijden

***

The article has given voice to several lakhs of pupils suffering on account of a merciless suppression of their curiosity. The guru-shishya relationship exists only because of the supporters of “Sanatana Dharma” values, in which the concept of equality is absent. People who suffer from a superiority complex always oppose equality and fraternity. In India, many people are brainwashed and have accepted discrimination while believing that their karma is on account of past deeds. The article help understand why modern education system is good for all. – Muralidhara Lokikere

***

The article hits the bull’s eye in criticising this imbalanced, upper-class controlled system. Mankind would not have reached this pinnacle of achievements in science and exploration if it were to only obediently repeat what was learnt from teachers/gurus. Every guru has limitations and we respect them for our initial learnings. Individuals must explore and learn through free will. It is time to liberate us from false, pretentious and suppressive institutions to keep us in shackles even in this era. – Ramesh TN

Gurus can be questioned

The answer is not as simple as the article claims. Learning is always painful and teaching even more so. The example of Dronacharya should be read in its proper context. Arjuna’s guru was so affected by the pure devotion and loyalty of his favourite pupil that he was willing to go to any extent to protect him, even if it meant injustice for Eklavya.

In many fields like athletics and performing arts, both students and teachers have to put in efforts for achieve excellence and it is to the credit of the guru-shishya tradition. Few instances like the Gundecha brothers cannot negate all the good achieved by guru shishya traditions. – Apurva Choudhary

***

Critical thinking is required to assess the merits and demerits of a system. However, critical thinking does not mean that you have to question the guru. As long as you are the shishya, you have to take the words of the guru as the truth. In solving a maths problem, one of my teachers gave a valuable advice: “First you follow the path shown by me; after that you can start thinking of other paths”. – Jose P Koshy

***

This is a good observation. But in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says in 4.32

तद्विद्धि प्रणिपातेन परिप्रश्न‍ेन सेवया ।
उपदेक्ष्यन्ति ते ज्ञानं ज्ञानिनस्तत्त्वदर्शिनः ॥

It translates to learning the truth by approaching a spiritual master, inquiring submissively and render service as a token of gratitude. “Pariprashnen” means asking questions. Self-realised souls can impart knowledge because they have seen the truth. – Narsimhakripa Das

***

The article offers little value as it focuses on historic texts and past perspectives. The content would be much more impactful if it addressed the core purpose of this system: the necessity for the shishya to remain humble toward both the guru and the subject matter in order to facilitate deeper learning. – Dileep Mandapam

***

The article offers a different perspective. However, the tradition has been misunderstood. If the tradition was so rigid then how did any discipline ever become better than the guru and, if so, how was it allowed? The abuse part may be selectively true but it is incorrect to paint the entire tradition in a single colour. – Abhijeet G

***

The article is ignorant of India’s ancient education system. Nowhere was it mentioned that it is wrong to ask questions doubts: even Arjuna asked Krishna doubts, that too on the battlefield. These articles don’t make any sense and are not cool. – Kushal Bhure

***

Questioning the guru originated in Indian philosophy. In fact, real gurus encouraged doubts and cleared them with his finest knowledge procured due to his saadhna. That is why Indian darshan shastras are the finest, most liberal and wise teaching systems. Because of guru-shishya system we have Kannad, Aryabhatta and many enlightened beings who contributed towards science, mathematics and medicine in Bharatvarsh, now India. – Neha Nirmal

***

This article is biased, half-baked and completely contrary to evidence. Current colonial system doesn’t allow questions in school. Guru-shishya factored each person based on his capabilities, absorption and promoted knowledge. I condemn the author and request him to apologise and issue an addendum. – Aiyer VLV

***

This unnecessary and one-sided perspective not only reflects bias but also ignorance. In today’s world where Western influence is slowing killing our traditions, it is our responsibility to represent our culture in the right perspective. Please forgive me of you find my words to be harsh. – Rahul Gurav

***

The same system of education that the author derides produced eminent scholars of Sanskrit, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, jurisprudence and linguistics. All the famous universities of ancient India relied on the discourse between a guru and disciples.

Disciples were free to question and correct their teachers. Had the system of education, practised in ancient India, been devoid of critical thinking and criticism, it would not have attracted students from as far as China and Japan. – Rajesh Gopinath