Siksa as most important guru

[Guest guest]

On 19 May 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

> It is

> important that as disciples and grand disciples we continue to make

> Srila Prabhupada's books available so he CAN act as as siksa to anyone

> with sincere desire.

>

> Diksa has more to do with institutional matters. Also very important

> and useful, but as a means, not an end.

 

 

While I agree, this idea is in conflict with much of the present leadership

mandates of ISKCON.

 

Is it more important to render submissive service and worship of the siksa

guru from whom we receive daily direct instruction(from Srila Prabhupada's

books/tapes)or the diksa guru from whom we receive the formal "institutional"

initiation but do not have much contact with later?

 

A mature understanding of this situation would seem to be of assistance in

solving many of the ISKCON guru problems. Now, the diksa disciple is almost

expected to dedicate everything to the diksa guru instead of the "most

important" siksa guru (Srila Prabhupada).

 

Also, if we "know" that siksa guru is the "most important" guru and that the

relationship with him can be through his teachings (books/tapes) whether he is

"living/present" or not, can we also not apply the strict requirements of the

qualifications for guru to him?

 

"One should approach a bonafide guru to inquire about the highest benefit of

life. Such a guru is described as follows... Such a guru does not manufacture

gold or juggle words. He is well versed in the conclusions of Vedic

knowledge. He is freed from all material contamination and is fully engaged

in Krishna's service." S.B. 5.14.13.

 

In other words, we KNOW Srila Prabhupada is freed from all material

contamination. We do not seem to have been too adept at determining if there

were/are any such individuals in ISKCON who are "freed from all material

contamination" and so they were mistakenly accepted as gurus because of some

conceived necessity for a diksa guru whether qualified or not. If we agreed

that only siksa from a pure devotee was necessary (if there is an absence of

qualified institutional diksa gurus) wouldn't it seem prudent to accept the

unquestionably qualified siksa guru? And wait for a patient period of time for

the program to develop qualified diksas?

 

"...the conclusion is that a spiritual master who is one hundred percent Krsna

conscious is the bonafide spiritual master, for he can solve the problems of

life." Bhagavad-gita 2.8

 

I also do not know if there are any current individuals who are "one hundred

percent Krsna conscious". Are there? I am asking this submissively.