Some readers have wondered as to why one might accept a siksa-guru while the diksa-guru is still present. There are also a number of other considerations that are in place on the under-explored theme of the siksa-guru.

Among the first five limbs of bhakti we find kRSNa-dIkSAdi-zikSaNam, "Initiation in Krishna-mantra and so on, and teaching." While the giving of the mantra is certainly also a kind of teaching, a dual necessity is indicated; otherwise, the mere mentioning of diksa would have sufficed. From that, one may understand that subsequent teaching is a necessity.

Sometimes the diksa-guru may fulfill two roles, that of the initiator and that of the teacher. Sometimes the diksa-guru may fulfill the task of the teaching in a more general manner, such as through public discourses not given specifically for any particular individual disciple. Sometimes the diksa-guru may not teach much at all.

There may be many reasons for why a diksa-guru may not assume a substantial and practical responsibility for individual follow-up with the initiate, tutoring him in his day-to-day bhajana, observing his progress and his shortcomings, holding him by the hand if you will in teaching the systematic methods of devotional activity. For example:

• The guru may have a great quantity of disciples, in which case following up on each individual will turn into a practical impossibility in terms of the guru's time and mental capacity.
• The guru may be old and fatiqued, and as such no longer possess the stamina to tend to the task.
• The disciple may, observing either or both of the above two reasons, feel that he does not wish to add to the burden of the guru by detailed inquiries.
• The guru and the disciple may be living far apart, or there may be a language barrier that makes communication difficult.
• The guru may have departed before an adequate amount of teaching was given.
• The guru may be so immersed in the ecstacy of his own bhajana as to be removed from the practical realities of life, and may assume that bhajana is as "free-flowing" for the disciple as it is for him.
• The guru and the disciple may have differing mindsets, leading to cumbersome and even strenuous communications owing to the difference in temperament or cultural background.
• The disciple may run into conflict with the senior disciples or the ashram management of the guru, and hence also end up with a distant relationship with him.
• The guru may think of the disciple as unfit for detailed instruction, initiating with a view that the disciple may at least make some pious merit and continue in a future life.

Whatever the reasons be, if someone feels the need for further and more detailed personal teaching, and if he has concluded after persistent endeavors that it is not available from the diksa-guru to the desired capacity, the only logical option is to find a supplementary teacher for further guidance. If a student doesn't learn well enough in the public school for one reason or another, a private tutor needs to be hired. Each individual must assess his and her own personal need and act accordingly. Making judgments on others' decisions is not a skillful thing to do, as we generally lack the means to look into others' hearts, not understanding their stage of development and corresponding inner necessities.

In this vein, I'd also like to note that I am not too inclined to discuss in a public text my own reasons for having accepted siksa-gurus in the past. First of all, since the reasons are particular to me, knowing them wouldn't be of much use for others; it would only perhaps make for some good spiritual voyeurism. Second, there are many gurubhais who may have diverging experiences or opinions, and making any statements on this could easily lead to misunderstandings.

The relationship with the siksa-guru should be understood as being complementary to the relationship with the diksa-guru. In some cases this relationship may, in contrast to the diksa-relationship, become more dominent in its spiritual impact; if not for differing levels of the gurus' realization (which isn't something one ought to venture into guessing, anyway), just owing to the sheer volume of time and teaching available from the siksa-guru, which may be dozen-fold in comparison. One may also feel that the special attention of the siksa-guru, his commitment to one's progress, is a powerful aid and inspiration in devotional life.

The fourth among the five initial limbs of bhakti is vizrambhena guroH sevA, "intimate service of the guru", the rendering of various personal services that draw the special goodwill of the guru for the blessing of the disciple. Where spending more time in the personal company of the guru is a reality, evidently this limb of devotion is also more practicable.

Unfortunately in practice it is sometimes seen that an immature siksa-guru will turn to (often subtly) denigrating the diksa-guru to "be the king of the hill", to grab the whole pie of the disciple's devotion to enjoy the natural benefits that follow. Conversely, it may also happen that an immature diksa-guru may be jealous of another senior practitioner qualified to act as a siksa-guru. These are troubling matters that tend to raise their heads in communities where even many elders are yet to see the farther shore of devotional maturity.

One question is whether one should seek the approval of the diksa-guru for accepting a siksa-guru. There is no one size fits all answer to this, given that there are a myriad of factors that may weigh in. I'll not elaborate further on that in this context. When one ponders on one's own situation, it will be wise to consult other senior saints aside the siksa-guru who are acquainted with the situation, if any are available. A siksa-guru may be of the opinion that it isn't necessary (I've had this happen twice); adamance on this may be taken as a red flag. In general, beware people who are too eager to become your siksa-gurus (and be in awe of the myriads of subtle ways in which attempts are made).

Someone may ask, "Is it necessary to call someone a siksa-guru? Can't I just be in his company otherwise?". The Sanskrit word "siksa" means "instruction", and the word "guru" means "teacher". If you spent time in the company of someone who taught you, giving you varieties of instructions, wouldn't you call him "an instructing teacher"? "Well of course I would, that's what he does." Does it then make a difference if you say the same using a Sanskrit word? If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck... It's probably — a duckbilled platypus?

Of course one may also have many levels of commitment to the siksa-guru. It may be more casual "we dig this sadhu" relationship, in which the usage of the term siksa-guru isn't really completely justified, or it may be a relationship where mutual internal commitments and a relationship of guidance and following is established.

Many are the factors one needs to weigh with this delicate issue. For those practitioners who are happy with little and for whom progressive spiritual life isn't the most overwhelming urge of everyday life, and where the mindset is more about "I'm happy to have these bits of devotion integrated into my everyday life" rather than "I need to optimize my sadhana and reach to advanced levels of spiritual experience", it may never become an issue to worry about.

I've certainly had my fair share of siksa-gurus for now, and perhaps for many years to come. In my sorry case, both serious siksa-relationships have ended up in somewhat of a disaster. Great and grand lessons learned, and I wouldn't change them for anything, but it's very unlikely that those are the lessons the teachers wanted to teach! For the time, with due respects to all, I think I'll be tackling issues on my own just fine. At least I can then hold myself and myself alone responsible for decisions that have substantial ramifications in my life.

Please don't let my occasional cynicism discourage you in your pursuit, no commentary is intended on the validity of the principles and the ideals — but be mindful of your steps!