Do we need a shiksha guru when we don’t get personal guidance from our diksha-guru?

Podcast:

Do we need a spiritual master—and a particular spiritual master, such as a Dikṣā or Śikṣā Guru—to implement the process of śaraṇāgati, as Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura has said in his songs? And since the Dikṣā Guru’s personal guidance is often not available nowadays, do we then need a Śikṣā Guru?

I want to first present two seemingly conflicting points and then reconcile them.

First, the śāstra (scripture) is meant to be our guidebook. “tasmāj śāstraṁ pramāṇaṁ te kāryā kārya vara-sthitau | yā ātmā śāstra vidhānuktaṁ karma karatu mahārṣiḥ ||” You all need to follow śāstra, no doubt.

Having said that, a guidebook is very different from a manual, although sometimes the word manual is used. A manual literally gives step-by-step instructions—A, B, C, D, E—like this.

But life situations are quite complicated, and we have to use our God-given intelligence to make decisions. That’s why it is said: “dharmasiddhatvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyaṁ mahājino yena gatā sabhā” —Dharma ultimately resides in the hearts of great souls. Dharma is not just a fixed set of rules.

“dharmāmtaḥ sākṣiyād bhagavat paṇītaṁ” is true. What is Dharma? Dharma here broadly means the right thing to do. What is right is determined by the words of the Lord, yes, but the specific situations we encounter may differ greatly from the broad principles the Lord has given.

The same Krishna who gave the Bhagavad Gita to Arjuna was with Arjuna when they had to decide what to do with Aśvatthāmā, as described in the seventh chapter of the first canto of the Bhagavatam. There was no direct scriptural quote that Arjuna could apply for that decision. In fact, scriptural quotes could be cited on both sides—either forgiving him or punishing him.

So Arjuna had to use his intelligence.

“guru sādu śāstra vākke citte te kariyā hai kyā?” One meaning of this is that we should make our consciousness one with the words of the Guru, the Sādhu, and the Śāstra—that is, make their instructions our heart and soul.

Another meaning is that the Guru, Sādhu, and Śāstra speak at different times and contexts. By hearing all of them, we should be able to integrate and harmonize them inside our consciousness. Through this integration, we get our own inner compass to navigate the particular landscape we face, even if the path doesn’t exactly match scripture or the words of the Sādhu and Śāstra.

So, what is my point about surrendering to a Guru? Ultimately, bhakti is not a mechanical process; it is a relational process. It is not by merely surrendering to a Guru—be it Śikṣā or Dikṣā Guru—that we will automatically develop our relationship with Krishna.

Many surrendered to Śrīla Prabhupāda, yet many left the movement, especially after his departure. Some might say those people never truly surrendered. But during those 8, 9, or 10 years with Śrīla Prabhupāda, many were genuinely surrendered.

Krishna will guide us in whatever situation we are in.

If you look at initiation or guru-disciple relationships historically, they have varied greatly. We don’t even know the names of the specific spiritual masters of the Pāṇḍavas, Lord Rāma, or Parīkṣit Mahārāja. At the end of his life, Parīkṣit got instruction from Śukadeva Gosvāmī, but did he have no spiritual master before that?

In the case of Mahāprabhu, how much personal instruction did He receive from spiritual masters? They were part of a Brahminical culture, hearing many Brahmanas, and while one inspiring sage may have stood out, no single person was highlighted as the sole spiritual master.

Even in Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s life, he speaks of guidance from spiritual masters. But how much practical guidance did he receive from Bipin Gihari Goswami (his official initiating spiritual master) or Jagannātha Dāsa Bābāji (his main inspiration)? Reading his autobiography and biography, you find not very much direct guidance. The system and structure for such personal instruction were simply not as formalized or available.

So, things are fluid and dynamic. We all have to be resourceful.

Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura was addressing contemporary issues for the Bhadraloka (cultured classes). When controversies arose, like with Krishna Saṁhitā, there is no record of him consulting Jagannātha Bābāji on what to do. Each of us, when serving Krishna, receives intelligence from Krishna, and that is how we continue.

Of course, we take association from the community of Vaiṣṇavas and move forward.

Regarding ISKCON’s beginning, ISKCON’s inauguration was exceptional. At that time, there was no brahminical community to support Śrīla Prabhupāda, so he alone gave guidance and emphasized the spiritual master’s position greatly.

Still, how much practical instruction did he receive from his spiritual master? He attended his classes a handful of times and received broad, general instructions—not very specific. So spiritual dependence in feeling—knowing that without the spiritual master’s mercy one cannot progress—is essential.

But in practical action, a significant level of independence is needed. A devotee cannot and should not turn to the spiritual master for every small decision.

Regarding Śikṣā Guru, the concept has not been strictly formalized in our movement. There is no formal Śikṣā initiation.

Sometimes if inspired by a particular Vaiṣṇava, a devotee may formally approach them for guidance. Occasionally, devotees may inform their Dikṣā Guru that they wish to accept someone as their Śikṣā Guru.

But these are not mandatory. From the broad community of Vaiṣṇavas, we take inspiration from whoever inspires us and keep moving forward on our spiritual journey.

Thank you.