A recent Scroll article argues that India’s guru-shishya tradition undermined critical thinking. As someone who has taught ayurveda for over 25 years, I must respectfully disagree. The problem isn’t with what the classical texts prescribed, but with what we’ve forgotten they contained.
Open any classical ayurvedic text and you’ll find something surprising: questions. Lots of them. The Charaka Samhita, composed around the first century CE, isn’t structured as a guru’s monologue but as a dialogue where students challenge, probe, and demand clarification. The very word “Upanishad” – the foundational Vedic texts – means “sitting down near” for inquiry, not passive absorption.
The Rig Veda’s creation hymn ends with a stunning admission of uncertainty: “Who really knows? Perhaps even the one who looks down from the highest heaven does not know.” This isn’t dogma suppressing questions – it is ancient literature institutionalising intellectual humility.
The classical ayurvedic tradition went further, developing sophisticated methodological frameworks that would make modern peer reviewers nod in recognition. Tantrayukti, a system of 36 logical principles, required that any knowledge claim present contrary viewpoints (viparyaya) and examine them systematically.
Imagine submitting a research paper today where you are required to present opposing views fairly –that was standard practice in classical India.
The tradition distinguished between three types of debate: vada (honest truth-seeking), jalpa (arguing for victory) and vitanda (mere criticism). They valued the first while warning against the others – a nuance we have lost in our soundbite culture.
Most remarkably, classical texts explicitly stated that even scriptural authority must be rejected if it contradicts direct observation or logical reasoning. This principle, yukti, placed empirical evidence and logic above tradition. Authority alone was never enough.
So what went wrong?
The degradation happened gradually through centuries of political instability, economic pressures, and colonial disruption. Scholarly assemblies (parishat), at which knowledge claims were collectively examined and debated, disappeared. The emphasis shifted from yukti (reasoning) to rote memorisation. Knowledge became commodified as family secrets rather than shared inquiry. By the time British colonisers arrived, they found a system already weakened, and their critique accelerated its decline.
The irony is profound: colonial education policies dismantled what remained of traditional scholarly institutions while simultaneously criticising Indian traditions for lacking critical thinking. It’s like breaking someone’s glasses and then mocking them for not being able to see clearly.
Today’s critique perpetuates this historical blind spot by conflating the sophisticated classical framework with its degraded modern manifestations. It’s like judging the scientific method based on the worst examples of corporate-funded research or ideologically-driven science, rather than on its foundational principles.
The real lesson here is not that traditional Indian education suppressed critical thinking – it’s that we need to examine primary sources before generalising about any tradition. The guru-shishya system, in its authentic classical form, was remarkably sophisticated: empirical observation, logical reasoning, systematic debate, and evidence-based consensus.
What killed critical thinking in India was not the guru-shishya tradition itself but the historical forces that prevented us from maintaining its practices. When scholarly assemblies collapsed, when reasoning gave way to repetition, when inquiry became ritual, that is when critical thinking died.
The question isn’t whether to reject or embrace the guru-shishya tradition. It’s whether we can understand what made it work at its height: the insistence on evidence over authority, the systematic examination of alternatives, the honest acknowledgment of uncertainty and the collective validation of knowledge through rigorous debate.
These are not obstacles to critical thinking. They are its methods – and they’ve been hiding in plain sight in our classical texts, waiting for us to remember how to read them.
Dr Aakash Kembhavi is an ayurvedic practitioner.
You’ve read Scroll.
Now help sustain it
Scroll is funded by readers, not corporate owners. If you believe our work matters, support our newsroom. Become a member today!
We’re not driven by clicks or corporate interests – just honest, independent reporting. Keep us going. Support Scroll today!