based on questions/answers on the guru issue with Bhanu Swami
Q: In ISKCON, shiksha generally means advice on missionary issues like my service or problems I’m facing. Is it correct to assume that, prior to Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur, our acharyas who wrote about shiksha and shiksha-guru were referring more specifically to scriptural study?
A: Yes, I think mainly it’s scriptural. We have someone like Ramanujacharya who had, I think, thirteen shiksha gurus because they taught different areas of knowledge—scriptural knowledge on different things. One would teach the Tamil Veda, one would teach logic, and so on. So that’s what we mean by shiksha mainly.
When Jiva Goswami uses the term in Bhakti sandarbha, he’s giving shiksha on the method of worship, not something like how to deal with your family. Generally, gurus would avoid that and leave other people to give such advice, focusing instead on scriptural teachings—mantra or scriptural knowledge. So, shiksha would mainly mean teaching bhakti scriptures.
Q: In the early 1990s, you were authorised to become an initiating guru, but you refrained from doing so. What were your reasons, and do you plan to initiate in the future?
A: The main reason is that the idea of what a diksha guru is remains unclear among followers or disciples, who sometimes project things onto the guru that aren’t true.
Also, within ISKCON itself—perhaps even in the GBC—the function of the guru is not always clearly understood. If we say precisely, “You’re only the postman; that’s your role,” then things might be clearer.
In other sampradayas like the Madhva Sampradaya, the gurus say openly, “We’re just assistants.” Even if they’re strict in sadhana, know all the scriptures and Madhva’s commentaries, they don’t claim to be the deliverer—they leave that to Madhvacharya. The same is true in the Ramanuja Sampradaya; they state explicitly that they’re assistants only. So there’s never any competition with the founder.
Q: You mentioned that a shiksha guru can give first initiation and still not be the diksha guru, and that the diksha guru gives a private mantra. In our case, Srila Prabhupada gave his diksha mantra and people use it openly. So, can a shiksha guru give first initiation, and how does that relate to these now public guru mantras?
A: It’s a slightly complex issue.
Technically, what we call first initiation isn’t the essence of initiation because you’re not yet receiving the mantra that qualifies you to worship the deity. Only with second initiation do you get that mantra, which is why we say second initiation is diksha in the main sense.
However, we also call first initiation diksha because you receive a spiritual name. Getting a name—like Krishnadas—is part of what we call Pancha-samskara, part of Pancharatrika initiation. You receive a name, Tilak, branding, a mantra, and you perform worship—five samskaras in all.
So, in that sense, receiving a name is part of initiation. But without the mantra, you wouldn’t be qualified to worship the deity. Therefore, it’s not the main part of diksha—it’s like diksha part one.
At that time, we also take vows and commit to chanting sixteen rounds daily, which makes it, in one sense, like a formal shiksha ceremony as well.
Q: There’s the problem that we want to make the shiksha guru equal to the diksha guru in ISKCON. It’s said in scripture like Chaitanya Charitamrita, but it’s difficult to apply because we have no formal process for recognising a shiksha guru, whereas we do for a diksha guru.
A: Yes. A proposal could be that we have a similar ceremony to first initiation, without giving the name. That would make a shiksha guru formally recognised in some sense. There are no scriptural rules on how to become a shiksha guru, but one could have a formal ceremony with vows, without the name.
Q: You say the diksha guru is just like a postman, delivering the message. Is the shiksha guru also like that?
A: Yes, even the shiksha guru is.
Q: Then the ritviks say the same thing—that Prabhupada is the deliverer. Isn’t that the same idea?
A: No, there’s a difference. The ritviks say you get your diksha mantra from Prabhupada—at second initiation they play a tape, and Prabhupada gives the mantra. So he becomes your diksha guru. I’m not saying that.
If we say the diksha guru cannot deliver someone and only Prabhupada delivers, it might sound shocking, but actually it reflects a devotee’s humility. A true devotee feels powerless—just a servant of the servant. Even someone elevated in prema doesn’t think he’s doing anything; it’s Krishna acting through him.
So in that sense, we’re all like little puppets of Krishna. The postman analogy comes from Prabhupada himself, who said, “I’m just the postman.” A guru must be transparent—a qualified, sincere via medium.
Q: You mentioned the Nectar of Devotion speaks of Uttama as a sadhaka also. I’ve been puzzled because, in the Nectar of Instruction, Prabhupada first refers to someone strictly performing sadhana as Uttama, but later refers to Uttama, Madhyama, and Kanishtha Gurus as Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur does—where Uttama means fully self-realised. What is that purport finally referring to?
A: That creates a bit of controversy because two different concepts of Uttama are used there.
Q: Could you kindly elaborate on the concept of the guru as postman? It seems central and difficult for ISKCON to digest. You mentioned earlier that the GBC has passed a number of initiatives, but this idea remains challenging.
A: Prabhupada said it about himself.
There was once a meeting with the ritviks, who were presenting the idea that Prabhupada is the deliverer and we are not. A small paper was written in response titled Who Is the Deliverer? The conclusion was that everybody is the deliverer — the shiksha guru, the diksha guru, Prabhupada, the holy name, scripture, Krishna — all contribute.
But at the same time, in reality, we should remain humble and see ourselves simply as conveyors of the message, like postmen. We don’t open the envelope or change the message. That’s our basic function. The parampara passes on the same message of Bhagavatam to the present day without distortion, and that can be done by a Madhyama-adhikari.
As Vishwanath Chakravarti Thakur says, the Madhyama-adhikari is the main person who gives mercy to the people.
Q: So you’re saying that most, if not all, of ISKCON’s gurus are likely on the Madhyama-adhikari platform. What are the obstacles in the hearts of disciples that make some of us insist that our diksha gurus must be Uttama-adhikaris?
A: It’s quite natural. If we’re going to accept a guru as an absolute authority, we want to place him at the highest level. And he may be — but we should also be realistic and refer to scripture to understand who is Uttama, who is on bhava, and who is still practising sadhana.
We should also consider what the guru himself claims. Does he say he has prema? Does he say he sees Krishna directly every day? Or does he simply say, “I’m practising sadhana”? We need some reality in our respect.
We honour our gurus because they serve Krishna and act as mediums for His mercy. But disciples shouldn’t artificially project a level upon them. To help protect disciples from confusion or guilt, perhaps the GBC could make a statement clarifying this — so disciples can say, “I’m following the GBC; my guru is on this level. It’s not my fault; it’s defined by the system.”
Q: Regarding the deliverer, couldn’t we say that ultimately Krishna is the deliverer?
A: Yes, that was also the conclusion of the paper. If we say Srila Prabhupada is the deliverer, then we could also say Srila Bhaktisiddhanta or Bhaktivinoda Thakur is the deliverer. Ultimately, it’s Krishna who delivers — through scripture, the guru, the holy name, and so many channels. The Madhyama-adhikari is simply the medium of Krishna’s mercy.
Within our sampradaya and ISKCON, in terms of worship hierarchy, we generally approach the most direct representative — Srila Prabhupada.
Q: As a neophyte, I feel that as disciples we should give all our respect and loyalty to both our shiksha and diksha gurus.
At the same time, you mentioned that false expectations can develop regarding the guru when we see things in a certain way. So how do we give full respect and loyalty to our guru without affecting ISKCON in a negative way?
A: Yes, that’s our dilemma. We think, “I’m giving all my respect to my diksha guru—how can I respect anyone else?” But as I mentioned, it’s like respecting your father, your father’s brothers, and your grandfather—you respect everyone, but in different degrees.
Within ISKCON, we should never restrict a disciple’s devotion to their guru, but there must be some moderation, because we live in a society with many gurus and a managerial structure.
If a disciple follows only their guru’s orders without considering ISKCON’s organisation, conflicts can arise. For example, a guru might instruct where or how to preach, but ISKCON’s managers might have different plans. Then there’s friction.
So we have to adjust our understanding of “absolute” obedience to the guru—balancing it with ISKCON’s structure and the practical reality of our gurus’ levels.