The guru-śiṣya paramparā is under attack. If you believe Apoorvanand Jha, the teacher-student tradition that forms one of the foundational pillars of Indic civilisation was a system of absolute authority where teachers wielded unchallenged power and students submitted without question.

In his recent Scroll article, he makes several problematic claims and paints the ancient teacher-student tradition as an oppressive system built on permanent power imbalance, caste exclusivity, and blind obedience.

His arguments rely primarily on an article by Carnatic vocalist T.M. Krishna, which attempts to dismantle this ancient tradition. Both articles display a troubling bias against the guru-śiṣya paramparā while uncritically praising the modern education system as the enlightened alternative.

There is just one problem: the Upaniṣads say otherwise. The caricature constructed by Krishna and Jha collapses under the weight of Upaniṣadic evidence.

Rather than the oppressive, power-imbalanced system he describes, the Upaniṣads reveal a tradition built on mutual respect, intellectual inquiry, and shared pursuit of knowledge.

Understanding Brahmavidyā: The Purpose of Traditional Teaching

The Upaniṣads, which form the Śruti Prasthāna (scriptural foundation) of Vedānta, focus centrally on brahmavidyā, the knowledge of ultimate reality. Swami Ranganathananda defines this as "the science of the total reality," encompassing both higher (parā) and lower (aparā) forms of knowledge. In essence, the guru taught his student the science of the Self, what the texts call ātmavidyā or ādhyātmavidyā.

This context matters. The guru-śiṣya relationship described in the Upaniṣads was not primarily about transferring technical skills or accumulating information. It was about facilitating a profound transformation of consciousness. Understanding this purpose helps us evaluate whether the relationship truly embodied the abuses Jha alleges.

The Myth of Permanent Power Imbalance

Jha quotes Krishna's claim that "the guru-disciple relationship is founded on a permanent imbalance of power" and notes that "this imbalance is not merely tolerated: it is celebrated." The evidence from the Upaniṣads tells a different story.

The Taittirīya Upaniṣad, affiliated with the Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda, offers particularly clear evidence against this characterisation. The third anuvāka of its Śikṣāvallī section opens with a prayer that both teacher and student "together attain fame" and that "both be equally endowed with the greatness of Brahman." This is not window-dressing; it establishes the fundamental principle that teacher and student are co-participants in the educational process, each benefiting equally.

Swami Lokeshwarananda, interpreting Ādi Śaṅkarācārya's commentary, explains that the teacher's fame should grow through his skill in imparting knowledge while the student's fame should grow through his ability to absorb it. Both should develop the brilliance of Brahman. The text envisions both ācārya (teacher) and antevāsin (residential student) being led towards Brahman together.

The first anuvāka of the Brahmānandavallī section reinforces this equality. It opens with a prayer seeking equal protection for guru and śiṣya, emphasising that education should prove equally useful to both. Both must invest equal effort in the learning endeavour. Both must be physically and mentally prepared to engage in study. The learning gained must have real depth; no half-hearted attempts permitted.

The repeated emphasis on equality, coordination, and collaboration fundamentally contradicts Jha's characterisation. Rather than celebrating a power imbalance, these texts insist on mutual benefit and shared responsibility.

Mutual Obligations and Social Duty

The Taittirīya Upaniṣad contains detailed instructions for both gurus and śiṣyas. Teachers were expected to embody complete integrity: honesty in action, speech, and thought. They had to personally study and teach the scriptures with this same integrity. This required a life of austerity devoted to learning and teaching.

Importantly, study (svādhyāya) was prescribed for everyone, not just professional teachers. Even householders maintaining the sacred fires and attending to guests and children were expected to continue self-study and teaching. The texts understood enriching oneself academically and sharing that knowledge as fundamental social duties, integral to one's āśramadharma (stage-of-life obligations).

This context reveals that the guru-śiṣya relationship was not an isolated power dynamic but part of a broader social framework where knowledge transmission was everyone's responsibility.

The Teacher Is Not Infallible

Jha claims that "in this system, the word of guru is final" and that "the guru is frequently imagined as possessing divine attributes." The Taittirīya Upaniṣad directly contradicts this absolutist view.

The eleventh anuvāka of the Śikṣāvallī contains the ācārya's final advice to a graduating student. Among the instructions is this crucial point: while the mother, father, teacher, and guests should be regarded as divine, the student should only emulate the teacher's positive actions. The text explicitly acknowledges that teachers will have faults and defects, and these should not be imitated.

Furthermore, the text advises students that there may be brāhmaṇas superior to their own teacher in learning and conduct, and these individuals deserve honour. The term "brāhmaṇa" here refers to erudite scholars and virtuous individuals within the social context of the time. The text specifies that only compassionate, selfless brāhmaṇas of good character should be emulated.

This guidance reveals a tradition far more nuanced than Jha suggests. The teacher receives respect and reverence, yes, but this does not translate to absolute, unquestioned authority. Students are explicitly told to exercise discernment.

Student Selection and Discrimination

Jha writes: "Within the guru-shishya system, the guru's authority is absolute. He is under no obligation to explain why he accepts one person as a disciple and rejects another. The moment at which a disciple is deemed worthy of initiation is determined entirely by the guru's will."

This characterisation ignores a fundamental point: the Upaniṣadic sages who served as teachers were individuals who had realised Brahman. Questioning the discernment (vivekabuddhi) of those who had attained the highest truth would be absurd. Their decisions about accepting students were not arbitrary exercises of power but reflections of deep wisdom.

Consider the famous example of Satyakāma Jābala. His family background was unknown, a significant social disadvantage in that context. Yet Sage Gautama accepted him as a disciple, impressed by the young man's dedication to truth. This example shows teachers making decisions based on genuine merit rather than social status.

The fourth anuvāka of the Śikṣāvallī shows the ācārya expressing intent to receive students "from all quarters, in whatever possible manner," but only after they had achieved complete control over their bodies and minds. This represents a standard based on preparation and readiness, not arbitrary preference or social prejudice.

The Caste System Critique

Like many contemporary critics, Jha attempts to discredit the guru-śiṣya paramparā by linking it to caste discrimination. He writes: "Since the question is being raised in the Indian context, it is impossible to ignore its deep entanglement with the caste system."

While many Upaniṣadic sages were indeed brāhmaṇas, the texts themselves contain numerous examples that undermine rigid caste-based exclusivity.

The Chāndogya Upaniṣad describes Sage Gautama accepting King Pravahana Jaivali, the Pañcāla ruler, as his teacher to learn the pañcāgnividyā (doctrine of the five fires). The Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad recounts the same king teaching Sage Aruṇī this knowledge.

Similarly, the Chāndogya Upaniṣad tells of King Aśvapati, son of Kekaya, agreeing to teach the knowledge of Vaiśvānara Ātman to five sages who approached him. These examples show kṣatriya (warrior-ruler) kings teaching brāhmaṇa sages, a reversal of the rigid hierarchy Jha implies.

These instances demonstrate that while the guru-śiṣya tradition existed within a stratified society, it possessed mechanisms that could transcend caste boundaries when genuine knowledge was at stake.

The Right to Question

Jha asserts: "In the guru-shishya tradition, the guru is beyond question. His decisions cannot be challenged." The actual texts show otherwise.

King Janaka of Videha posed a series of questions to his teacher Yājñavalkya. The entire Praśnopaniṣad is structured around pupils posing questions to Sage Pippalāda; the text's very name means "the Upaniṣad of questions."

Perhaps the most instructive example comes from the Bhagavad Gītā. While not formally part of the guru-śiṣya tradition, it provides illuminating parallels. Arjuna requests Kṛṣṇa to instruct him, declaring himself Kṛṣṇa's disciple. Kṛṣṇa provides extensive teaching, but then says something remarkable:

"Thus, I have explained to you this knowledge that is more secret than all secrets. Ponder over it deeply, and then do as you wish."

The choice to follow the teaching is left entirely to Arjuna. This hardly resembles the authoritarian system Jha describes. Rather, it shows teaching that respects the student's autonomy and judgement.

Beyond the Polemic

Jha's article contains many more problematic assertions about the guru-śiṣya paramparā, along with uncritical praise for the modern education system that ignores its own significant flaws. No educational system is perfect, but Jha's attempt to deconstruct the traditional system relies on claims that contradict the textual evidence.

The Upaniṣads present a tradition characterised by:

Mutual benefit and shared pursuit of knowledge between teacher and student, not permanent power imbalance
Recognition of teachers' fallibility and students' right to exercise discernment
Acceptance of students based on genuine preparation and merit, including across caste boundaries
Encouragement of questioning and intellectual inquiry
Respect for student autonomy in deciding whether to follow teachings

This does not mean the tradition was flawless or never subject to abuse. But critiques should be based on evidence, not caricature. It is hoped that more scholars will contribute evidence-based rebuttals to Jha's problematic characterisations.

Sneha Nagarkar

Get Swarajya in your inbox.