Guru Brahma Guru Vishnu Guru Devo Maheshwarah
Guru Saakshaat Paarabrahmah Tasmai Sri Gurave Namah
(The Teacher is like the Trinity of Gods, for he himself is the absolute being… I salute Thee)
It is not without thought or reason that the ancient Hindu religious texts treat the Guru (the Teacher) with respect and reverence, and as the channel of knowledge. In the Upanishad and Vedic traditions, the relationship between God and his devotee has an inherent element of trust and surrender, which can be compared to a Teacher-Student relationship. The Mahabharata and Ramayana have also explained the nature of the Guru-Shishya Parampara (Teacher-Student tradition). Many kings who were invincible in war, have bowed their heads in reverence to Gurus. The Vedas have also spoken about the Paarabrahmavidya (knowledge transferred from the Guru, the absolute, to the Shishya or Disciple). Even in Buddhism, both in its Hinayana and Mahayana forms, Buddha is the honoured mentor. Emphasis has been placed on the value of learning though the Teacher. The Guru is not only the channel of instruction and knowledge, he is the path (itself) towards self-realization and union with the ultimate.
The Guru-Shishya Parampara is the link between a Teacher and the taught. In order to deduce knowledge and put that acquired knowledge to experimentation, the guidance of the Guru is imperative. Though at times it may be prudent to question, students have generally been taught to adhere and not to question. A Guru sets goals and delineates the paths for success, and each student is taught according to his/her capability, as judged by the Guru. Of course there have been cases of blatant discrimination (by teachers) – the ancient notable examples being the cases of Karna and Eklavya, who were refused education and learning because of their social status. However, in general, Gurus took upon themselves the responsibility to equip all their students with knowledge, and not to deprive any individual student. A student was required to live with the Guru in the Gurukul (resident school) and help him in his daily chores; in return, learning was imparted. At the culmination of the education, a Gurudakshina (teacher fees) was taken from the student. The Sanatana Dharma tradition, the Advaita and Dvaita forms of philosophy, the Shaivite and Vaishnavite traditions, and a multitude of religious texts have spoken of the unquestioned surrender to the Guru.
The same is true in the specific field of Indian Classical Dance, where implicit surrender to one’s Guru is still prevalent. However, in modern times, the element of ‘questioning’ has made this teaching-learning a process of change. No longer are Classical Dance students willing to implicitly surrender to their Gurus. They should be explained this tradition in its right context. Surrender does not mean capitulation or a sacrifice of self-respect; it should rather be viewed as a dancer’s total devotion to the learning that is being transmitted through the Guru, who is obviously more experienced and knowledgeable. The Gurukul system in Indian Classical Dance has resulted in an emotional and pedagogic bonding between the Gurus (or Acharyas) and the Shishyas. The student gets individual attention on his/her path of constant learning. The learning process is comprehensive and non-formative - and seeks to impart, not evaluate. As the learning may take years, the student has to remain completely devoted to the Art, by practising great patience and perseverance.
The other side of the divide also merits a hearing. There is bound to be closed-ended learning when the student imbibes only from one teacher, and is given precious little room to experiment. Such Gurus do not encourage students who wish to branch out or start new ventures. There is also a sense of being over-dependent on the Guru, and there have been instances when Gurus have discarded and expelled pupils at will. The dancing careers of some promising Shishyas have been ruined, after years of hard work. Knowledge is also held back by some Gurus, for fear of being ‘surpassed’. Classical Dance being a competitive field, Gurus and Shishyas today often compete for the same programmes and performances, leading to bitterness and ill- feeling. Some dancers have to deal with the tag of being the students of “well-known’ Gurus, which often overshadows their individual identity. Also now prevalent is the (western) notion that all teaching is a paid profession, and so learners often question and demand their ‘money’s worth’ - and at times even ignore and insult their Gurus. These earners believe that Gurus must now have university degrees and be very good communicators. Most Gurus have preferred to remain rooted to their traditions of learning and teaching.
So, is there a solution in sight, to help preserve the Guru-Shishya Parampara – of adapting to the modern times without compromising on cultural traditions? One answer would be to institutionalize the learning at the Gurukul system (which continues to exist despite challenges), by awarding degrees and diplomas to Gurukul students. Space also has to be created for both learners and teachers, so that they do not have to compete with each other within the same framework. Shishyas should genuinely understand and accept that the element of surrender to a Guru is an uplifting (not capitulating) emotion and process. The Gurus should care for their learners, by being nurturers and educators, rather than instructors - for it is the learners who will carry forward the cultural traditions of the Gurus.
The writer is a renowned Kuchipudi Danseuse and Choreographer
Read More...