Talk:Guru-shishya tradition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Krishnaism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with traditions worshiping Krishna. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Vaishnavism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Vaishnavism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions How you can help: Notice board - Discussion board
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance for this Project's importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Rationale for this article 2 Improvements 3 Hindi word usage 4 Change title to Guru-SHISHYA belief system? 5 Major edit to come on Monday to address some of these questions... 6 Is Jossi's assertions regarding the ignorance of Westerners POV? 7 Please, before any more article moves, discussion..... 8 Guru-shishya relationship OK with me. Final major rewrite will be completed tonight... 9 Edits by Scott 10 Edits by jossi 11 Discussion of article name change 12 What about adding info re: Buddhism and this? 13 Reference footnoting 14 Addition 15 Parampara

[edit] Rationale for this article

While I have never actually seen any article that focuses specifically and exclusively on the Guru Chela Dynamic, I started this article with the belief that this dynamic is so fundamental to Hinduism that it is high time that it be documented and discussed. I am not as well qualified of an expert on Hinduism as I would like to be, and as such, I hope that other more highly qualified editors might eventually be able to fix any of my mistakes or oversights, and to upgrade and improve this article. I personally believe that this topic ought to make an article worthy of Wiki.

Scott P. 03:26, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I made some necessary changes to the title to conform to the WP styleguide. We need references for most of the assertions in the article, as as its stands now we do not provide readers with any references beyod the Krishna-Arjun relationship. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:34, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements

I am listing below improvements I see are needed. Feel free to add your own.

• NPOV current text by providing references
• Change title to Guru-chela relationship or Guru-disciple relationship
• Historical data of notable guru-disciple relationship (e.g. Rama/Hanuman)
• Relation to Bhaktimarg (path of devotion)
• Implications of the guru-chela relationship in modern India
• Guru-chela relationship and initation
• Guru-chela relationship Kriya Yoga
• Teacher/disciple relationship in other non-Hindu traditions

≈ jossi ≈ 03:43, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hindi word usage

Hi Scott

Shri Hedge is correct, it should be 'Shishya' rather than 'chela'. In Hindu culture, one always refers to 'Guru - Shishya Parampara' or the teacher - disciple tradition. Like the word 'Guru', 'Shishya' is a Sanskrit word. Rather than search google for chela / shishya individually, search for 'guru shishya' / 'guru chela' and check the results. Here are a few URLs you may find useful:

http://www.experiencefestival.com/guru-shishya_system http://www.itcsra.org/sra_story/sra_story_guru/sra_story_guru_index.html

By the way, there is no language called 'Hindustani'. 'Stan' (ideally, 'sthan') means 'location', and thus literally, 'Hindustani' means someone who stays in Hindustan (India). The national language of India is 'Hindi' and it is sometimes referred to as 'Hindustani', but the usage would be incorrect. Mostly, 'Hindustani' is used to seperate North Indian classical music (where Hindi is predominantly spoken) from Carnatic (southern part of India) style of classical music. You may find question # 3 from http://www.itcsra.org/sra_faq_index.html useful here...

Shailesh 15:17, July 31, 2005 User:59.95.2.150

Dear Shailesh,

Thanks for the most excellent URL's. I would guess that you must be Indian yourself with a name like that, am I correct? I once took a language course in which the study materials had been printed in New Delhi India, and the title of the main textbook was, "How to speak Hindustani", as well as the title of the course as taught by a UCLA professor. According to Webster's too, the first definition for the word Hindustani is the language Hindustani. Within Webster's the word 'Hindi' is defined as, "the most widely spoken of the modern Indic vernaculars, esp. its best-known variety, Western Hindi....a literary language derived from Hindustani, used by Hindus". Perhaps if you are Indian, you are Western Indian? Just a guess based on this Webster's definition.

I am aware that there are some regional variations of definitions of terms in India, such as the meanings of the terms Hindi and Hindustani. Also such variations may exist regarding the terms chela and shishya. I believe that I was first introduced to the term 'chela' in Eastern India, (Varanasi) where it was used extensively, in preference over the term shishya. I just did a google search as suggested, and rounding to the nearest thousand hits, there were 13,000 hits each, though there were admittedly a few hundred more hits for the shishya/guru search than for the chela/guru search.

So who is going to win this race? Right now it looks like the chelas are neck to neck with the shishyas, but we still have one more lap to go it would seem. ;) Before changing the article name, perhaps just a little more input from a few (more) native Indians might be helpful. If you are a native Indian, then obviously you have some insights here that most Westerners probably don't have. Still, I might not be too hasty to assume that your first hand knowledge is agreed upon by all Indians.

If anyone is a native Indian, for easier identification purposes, please identify yourself as such in future posts.

Sincerely,

Scott P. 16:13, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Scott

You get 10 / 10 for your power of deduction! , Yes, I am from Pune, (located in the state of Maharashtra) in the western part of India.

Maybe you should have tried this URL first:

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/hindustani

Hindustani Adjective

1. Of or relating to or characteristic of Hindustan or its people or language.

Noun

1. A native or inhabitant of Hindustan or India.

2. A form of Hindi spoken around Delhi.

That definition seems to put things in proper perspective. In the western part, 'Hindustani' is more synonomus with either 'from Hindustan' or classical music.

Coming back to the main point, check out this URL:

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Chela/id/69015

This definition points out the subtle difference between a 'chela' and a 'shishya' and seems apt. Even in India, (at least western India :-)) when we say 'chela', it is mostly with sarcastic / derogatory overtones. e.g. "Oh him? He is just a chela of that guy."

So hope the shishyas win!

Regards

Shailesh.

p.s., er...you are not from Scotland, are you? ;-)

[edit] Change title to Guru-SHISHYA belief system?

hi

i am wondering if the word chela should be changed to Shishya.

thanks,

Shri hedge 23:58, July 29, 2005

Shri hedge,

I personally am not familiar enough with the Hindustani language to know wich term is more popularly used. If you or someone else might be a fluent Hindustani speaker, and if you might have good reason to believe that the term 'Shishya' is more popularly used than the term 'Chela', as the Hindustani word for 'disciple', then I would certainly support such a change in the article title.

Scott P. 13:06, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I just did a Google search on the two terms, chela and shishya. Chela had 278,000 hits, shishya only 16,000. Based on this result, my guess is that chela is probably the best term to use here, but who knows? A more fluent Hindustani speaker than I might prove me wrong someday.

Scott P. 13:18, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree on the "belief system" label. That is just a POV. My proposal was to rename to "Guru-chela relationship". If it is or it is not a "belief" system can be presented in the article, of courdse, with references about who thinks that it is a belief system. For example, for Hindus, Buddhist and Sikhs, it is not a belief system. For a Western observer may be. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:58, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Jossi,

To my understanding, every human relationship has certain beliefs attached. Even the parent child relationship has certain beliefs attached, such as the child's belief that the parent will provide for it, and the parent's belief that the child will love the parent in return. Even though these beliefs may normally prove to become the reality of the relationship, they do not always prove out as such. Of course this relationship is normally referred to as a relationship rather than as a belief system, but this is simply because observers seldom take the time needed to evaluate this relationship closely enough to realize that it is in fact a belief system at its core.

Similarly, the guru-chela relationship when scrutinized closely enough, is actually an entire system of expectations that may or may not be met in every such relationship. For me the term relationship seems to be too POV, as it seems to me to imply that the expectations are uniformly met and therefore are not beliefs but facts. It seems to me that to refer to it as a belief system enables us to more easily evaluate the various components on a piece by piece basis, and to look at it more honestly. I realize that on some levels such a perspective may seem to be 'heretical', as it is a perspective that tends to imply that these expectations are not always met, but to me such a perspective seems to be more NPOV. Could you please tell me why you feel that implying that the expectations are not always met is POV?

Scott P. 16:42, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Scott, as long as we stay within the boundaries of our opinions, we will be in POV territory. Let us find good primary sources and use these as our basis for discussion. That will put us back square in NPOV territory. ≈ jossi ≈ 16:25, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Major edit to come on Monday to address some of these questions...

Admittedly, this article needs much work. Thanks for your very helpful and thoughtful suggestions Jossi and Shri Hegde. Tomorrow (Monday) I should be able to complete a significant rewrite of this article that will answer a few (though not most) of these good suggestions. Just thought you might want to know.

Sincerely,

Scott P. 12:57, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Scott. Let me just voice a concern: The tendency of Western people to dismiss other culture's understandings. The current article as it stands, is a perfect example of that. It is helplessly biased, and lacks a clear presentation of this ancient practice. For example, your edit:

The single most distinguishing characteristic of this belief system, which distinguishes it from most other spiritual belief systems, is the defacto deification of the guru.

... is an example of a lack of understaing of basic priciples of Hinduism as it pertains to divinity. It is also a common mistake based on a mis-interpretation of devotional writings and poems (Read Guru). Look forward to seeing your edits. ≈ jossi ≈ 16:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Jossi,

I have followed an Indian guru for many years (once), have studied and travelled independently in India, speak some Hindustani, and in addition to my own familiarity with my own former guru, I have closely studied many other Indian gurus. I admit that I was raised as a Westerner, however I do believe I have some ability to comment fairly on my experiences of Indian culture and religion. I would submit that if you are not a native Indian, then perhaps we are both in this together, and perhaps we will be able to work out a mutually better understanding through further dialogue.

Naturally, native Indian contributions to this discussion are most welcome.

Sincerely, Scott P. 16:50, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your candor, but note that WP is not a place to list our personal experiences. We need notable sources to attribute the text we add to an article. I would suggest you read about WP principles of No original research, Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. ≈ jossi ≈ 18:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Jossi,

You seem to be telling me that because I am a Westerner that I shouldn't edit here, yet you are apparently a Westerner yourself. Could this be because you live on the East Coast or something and I live too far west for you in Michigan?  ;-)

Cheers,

Scott P. 00:27, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I am a Jewish, dark-skinned Spaniard, if that is what you ask. My request is that we avoid using WP as a soapbox for advocating against or for gurus and that we avoid using WP to "express" our opinions on gurus. We need notable primary sources to cite from, not our recollections, impressions and/or experience. For that we have blogs, discussion forums, etc. This is an encyclopedia. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:37, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is Jossi's assertions regarding the ignorance of Westerners POV?

I prefer the title guru-disciple relationship and I do not believe in Jossi's assertion that we, Westerners, were raised in a different culture and therefore can never understand and describe aspects of Hinduism, no matter how long and how intensely we followed various Hindu gurus and no matter how much we read and studied the subject. Of course some things are different, but we can learn and acknowledge the differences. I also refuse to make a distinction between "Western" and "Eastern" that I consider vague, artificial and based on ignorance. Andries 20:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Andries

Scott P. 00:37, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

In regard to Westerners/non-Westerners, it is naive to assume that there are no differences in culture, worldview, etc. I am not saying that we Westeners are "ignorant". What I am saying is that a tradition of 5,000 years has an impact on conceptualization. What you consider "divine", the way that we in the West speak of "divinity" is a completely different thing for someone born in Indian culture. Nevertheless, Guru-disciple relationship could be a good title, although "tradition" may be a better one, given that it is a tradition of thousands of years, not an invention of the 21st century. ≈ jossi ≈ 16:34, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please, before any more article moves, discussion.....

Dear Gentlemen,
          Over the last two days, a certain individual has arbitrarily moved this article four times without entering into a word of dialogue or agreement with anyone else. To the best of my understanding, Wiki was meant to be a place for collaboration, dialogue and agreement, and not a dictatorship. Please, before any more such moves, discuss, agree, collaborate, don't just move move move... without asking a soul. Thanks.

PS: Final major rewrite postponed to Tues AM, after that, it is my hope that we will be able to make further major edits via consensus, collaboration and agreement.

Scott P. 01:05, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guru-shishya relationship OK with me. Final major rewrite will be completed tonight...

I favor the use of the word 'shishya' in the title as it seems to me that this word would serve to better clarify the marked differences between the Western word, 'disciple', and the Hindi word, 'shishya'. Hopefully by noting this difference from square one, we might start off on the right foot, so to speak. Outside of this one word change, I agree with the rest of the title as it now stands.

I am in the process of completing the major rewrite that I have promised, which I expect to post tonight sometime. Jossi, I apologize for the admittedly very scarce documentation in the original article. I promise to have far better documentation in tonight's major rewrite.

Thanks,

Scott P. 19:09, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by Scott

Overall this is a good effort, although it has some rough corners.

1. The use of the acronym GSR is original research. No need to invent and.or use an acronym
2. The distinction between Bhakti and non-Bhakti needs much work
3. The concept of Bakhti is misrepresented
4. In the current presentation of Bhakti, Maharaji does not belong in that the list as he does not ask assigment of material possession, does not asserts any commands that one has to obey, does not exhert any authority over peroples lifes, sexuality, livelihood. social life, etc. Does not requires from anyone to engage in physical demonstrations of affection. There is respect from a student to a teacher and a love that is expressed both ways.
5. There is a lack of historical and cultural information about this ancient practice

≈ jossi ≈ 23:37, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Jossi,

I have no objection to your removal of Maharaji from this list, even though the criteria for being included on the list was not that Maharaji asks for what the article describes as the 'most extreme types' of submission, only asked for by 'some' gurus who accept bhakti devotion. This article is not intended to single out Maharaji, but only to evaluate some of the major forms of the GSR.

Thank you for pointing out the need to clarify that the acronym 'GSR' is unique to this article, which I have now done. I used the term within this article only in an attempt to simplify both the reading, and the writing of the article, not in an attempt to invent a new acronym. I'm not quite certain as to how you feel that the term 'Bhakti' is misrepresented, but if you could clarify what you mean by this, or re-edit as you prefer, this would be appreciated. I agree that the non-Bhakti yoga section could stand much work for expansion. If you might have any suggestions for any such expansion, or editing, that would be appreciated too.

Scott P. 00:17, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I have made several edits that I hope enhance the article building on your intital draft. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:07, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by jossi

• expanded intro to include some more historical info (Upanishads, Vedas)
• removed the disclaimer about "spiritual only". This tradition is also present in music, architecture and medicine in India.
• expanded on Bhakti
• distiction between Bhakti and Prapatti
• several grammar and polishing
• started the external links section
• added the Hinduism template

≈ jossi ≈ 00:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of article name change

To all friends who have contributed on this Talk page thus far,

I would like to change the title of this article to Guru-shishya relationship, now that I have done what I would call my last major new-article-edit. Any comments or suggestions would be most appreciated.

Thanks,

Scott P. 00:20, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I have no problems as long as we do redirects from Guru-shishya tradition and Guru-shishya parampara. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:29, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, let's wait til tomorrow, and if no further suggestions, make the change.

Scott P. 00:52, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

On second thoughts, the current title is more accurate. We could create redirects from Guru-shishya relationship and Guru-shishya parampara.

Dear Jossi,

This article was intended to focus more on the psychological and belief aspects of the relationship rather than upon the traditional aspects of it, which would include the physical aspects of it. While admittedly there is a large overlap of these two concepts, tradition and beliefs, still they are not entirely the same thing. Also, as you will note, the contents of the article are focusing more on beliefs and psychology than they are upon exactly how these beliefs might now manifest, or have once manifested in the past, via tradition. By changing the title of this article back to 'relationship', it would seem to me that this subtle, yet helpful shift of focus as originally intended will be achieved. Your further comments on this, or anyone else's comments on this would be most appreciated. Since we are apparently no longer in agreement on this question, unless you have some additional reasons for your preference that might persuade me, perhaps it would now be best to wait to see if anyone else has any insights into this question before proceeding to make any change. Anyone else??? Scott P. 15:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I understand that the original intention has evolved. That is always a good thing as I think the article is now much more encompassing and encyclopedic than before. In an article about the Guru-shishya tradition, there is (and should be) a place for an analysis of the psychological and belief aspects, if (and only if) supported by external primary sources that discuss such beliefs and/or psychological aspects. So, the current article as it has evolved is about the ancient teacher-student tradition in Hinduism. Tradition in this context it does not mean "in the past". This "tradition" is very much alive nowadays not only in "spiritual" matters, but also in medicine, music and architecture.

A section on the "psychological aspects" can be added with good citations by authors and scholars that may have studied this subject. A caveat, is that most probably these are Western scholars/writers and as such they will have a very narrow and specific POV. That will be OK, of course, we will need just to add some context for NPOV.

In regard to the title, If you disagree on keeping the current one, Guru-shishya tradition, we could ask some editors that have been working on the Hinduism articles for their opinion, or put up an RfC. ≈ jossi ≈ 18:07, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

I know a lot of discussion has gone into place for changing the name from "Guru-shishya belief system" to "Guru-shishya tradition". Well, I would further suggest that the name be changed to "Guru-shishya parampara" which is more appropriate and is how it is exactly referred to by Hindus in India. It is also more complete. I am saying this for the same reasons for which you have not kept the title words as the "teacher-student" instead of "guru-shishya".

Also, I think the first line of the article is grammatically incorrect. It says ---> "The guru-shishya tradition (also guru-shishya parampara or lineage) is a spiritual relationship ..." How can a tradition be a relationship? I would suggest it be started as "The guru-shishya parampara is a spiritual tradition ..." --Abahuguna 18:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What about adding info re: Buddhism and this?

Another thing that needs to be covered: Although I am not too familiar with Buddhism, I think that Tantric buddhism has gruru-disciple tradition as well. ≈ jossi ≈ 02:48, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Jossi,

I agree that a discussion of the Buddhist aspects of the guru-shishya relationship would add to this article.

Thanks,

Scott P. 15:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reference footnoting

Dear Jossi,
          Thought you might be interested in seeing where I learned the footnoting style I put in yesterday:

List_of_self-proclaimed_deities

          Thanks again for your most excellent upgrades to what started out as a fairly humdrum article.

Sincerely,

-Scott P. 10:23, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Scott. I have also asked a few other editors to take a look and they have added a few more pieces as well. I agree the article is getting there slowly, although there is still wortk to do. I am aware of the footnote style, but in our case, we are listing references, so I replaced it with the ref syntax. As for the "lists" in Wikipedia, I don't see much encyclopedic value on these... as they are sometime abused to bypass NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ 18:41, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

That list was definately POV, but I have better things to be doing with my time than to be pointing that out to the one editor that had that list fairly well buttoned up and solely under his control. I just thought I'd put the link here in case you hadn't already seen that style.

Take care,

-Scott P. 19:29, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Addition

Thanks for the addition of that essay, Andries. It will be a good idea to summarize some of his views and add to the article in the "Psychological aspects in a Western context". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In particular, I like this passage from the conclusion:

[...] there is a genuine Western emphasis on the uniqueness and autonomy of the individual that contrasts sharply with Ramakrishna's emphasis on childlike faith and the Third Dalai Lama's injunction to see any failings in the guru as our own. But how can we reconcile the Western heritage of the uniqueness and autonomy of the individual with the loyalty, devotion, and faith needed to build the spiritual link with the guru? I suggest that understanding the role of psychological projection in laying the spiritual cable between guru and disciple can help us benefit from this relationship, guard us from some of its pitfalls, and reconcile our divergent cultural demands with those of the guru-disciple tradition.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it is a reputable source, though I am not sure. I have some reputable Dutch language sources (Paul Schnabel) that say more or less the same, including a book that was published a few weeks ago "Goeroes en Charisma"/"Gurus and charisma" by Dr. Andre van der Braak. Andries 20:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parampara

Parampara is only one aspect to the Guru-shishya tradition. Maybe we can merge Parampara into this article in its own section? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Or have a section and link to the main article of parampara? Wikidās ॐ 21:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that is a better a idea as it allows the Parampara article to be developed further. Go ahead and create a short section summarizing it and add a link. I'll chip-in if needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Good work! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)