Guru-tattva: Message of the Ācāryas

Question: I have a question on guru-paramparā. I was thinking that the inner meaning of ācārya-paramparā is the core message or the Truth. I am following the essential principles, like molding my life to chant 32 or 64 rounds daily, offering reasonable respects to all Vaiṣṇavas, whoever they are in any sampradāya without entering into any debate, listening to a śikṣā-guru on a regular basis, further molding my life in the lessons on humility, glorifying Rādha and Shyāma, etc. Do I still need to take dīkṣā from a guru? Or can I go on in my life without officially taking dīkṣā? It feels sectarian to do so.

Answer: Your thinking about the “inner meaning” of ācārya-paramparā being the core message or the Truth is wonderful. My question to you, however, is: Without a guru, how do you understand the “core message or the Truth?” It is great if one can understand the core message after taking dikṣā from a genuine guru and studying under him but to understand it on one’s own is the greatest wonder. Gītā 2.29 says, “Some consider the self as amazing, some speak of it as amazing, and some hear of it as amazing, while others, even after hearing of it, cannot comprehend it at all.” In SB 11.22.10, Kṛṣṇa even says to Uddhava that by oneself, one can never understand the core message.

That a person can attain the Truth without a dīkṣā-guru is beyond my imagination. How can a person with a conditioned mind even understand the Truth without a guru? What is the test of one’s own understanding? A conditioned mind will extract some Truth from śāstra according to their conditioning, as your good self has extracted it. You may counter by saying that you have heard it from a śikṣā-guru. That is also your own extraction because you have accepted that person as your śikṣā-guru who confirms your point of view. Otherwise, if you can have a śikṣā-guru, why would you be so averse to dīkṣā? If taking a śikṣā-guru does not make you sectarian but taking dīkṣā does, then all it means is that you have a śikṣā-guru who confirms your views. Then such a guru is not really your śikṣā-guru because you are not learning from him. In the name of śikṣā-guru, we want a “confirmation guru.” This is the reason that a śikṣā-guru is acceptable, because you can reject what you do not like about his teachings. At the same time, we say that there is no difference between śikṣā-guru and dikṣāguru, so if I have a śikṣā-guru, there is no need of a dīkṣā-guru. Moreover, if I do not agree with my śikṣā-guru, I can give him up and take another one without much difficulty. But in this whole process, you are just following your own mind and not śāstra. Śāstra is very clear that you should take dīkṣā and without dīkṣā, bhakti does not even begin. You want to follow your mind but at the same time get the result described in śāstra. If you want to get the results described there, you have to follow śāstra.

Notify me of new articles

Comments ( 4 )
  1. Radhapada Das

    Dear Satyanarayan Das Babaji,
    Dandavats and pranams.
    Jaya Sri Radhe!
    Brilliant explanation!! Anyone out there still sitting on the fence about the need to take shelter of the lotus feet of Sri Guru in parampara, take diksa and learn the path of bhakti?

  2. Vraja

    Sometimes I just wonder why so often so much of our attitude is, “if I do this, this, and this, but not that or that”…

    I don’t know if my grammar is right but, “bhaktyaa sanjaataya bhaktih “

    “Do I need a guru?” Well let’s say “no”. Krishna is everyone’s guru. But krishna says tad-viddhi- “you need a guru”

    What’s the big deal?

    I am anything and everything except a good example of any of this, but honestly I think most people don’t really know what krishna bhakti even theoretically is, fewer still even want it, and that’s why people think that maybe they are ok without a guru.

    • Avalokiteshvara das

      It’s probably at least partly because we habitually tend to assume that the spiritual path (any actual spiritual path) is about ME. It’s about the Lord though. We misunderstand who the main character in this particular storyline is. If I think of Prema as just some good vibes I want to get to feel, why would I humble myself at the feet of a Guru unless I happen to be a masochist?

  3. Pancajanya das

    One Acharya is quoted as saying that initiation is just a formality; that the real initiation is to take up to the process seriously and preach it to others. Perhaps some of his followers have misunderstood him because the Acharya himself took formal diksha, but they have used this quote to justify not taking diksha. Perhaps it is due to a mistrust or fear of taking shelter of unqualified gurus.

Post comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • Satyanarayana Dasa

    Satyanarayana Dasa
  • Daily Bhakti Byte

    The authority of the Guru is coming from sastra only. Guru and sastra are not independent. They go together. Guru is the embodiment of sastra. You will not know sastra because you are going to study it with your samskaras. You need a Guru who has risen above that conditioning and who can give you the light of the sastra.

    — Babaji Satyanarayana Dasa
  • Videos with Bababji

  • Payment

  • Subscribe

  • Article Archive

  • Chronological Archive

© 2017 JIVA.ORG. All rights reserved.