Diksa and Siksa


Any of us generally knows the difference between diksa and siksa. And accepts the idea that we may have as many siksa-gurus as our situation and Krsna will make us have. Krsna can appear through anyone to teach us something. Even materialists, demons and animals or vegetals may, sporadically or not, teach us something, voluntarily or not. On contrary, it looks like we can have only one diksa-guru.

Nevertheless, if we deepen this subject a little more, it appears that to make such a difference or to give it too much importance is somehow illusory, wrong and even offensive.

Obviously, we absolutely can not put at the same level all our siksa gurus. A millipede or a dog may teach us something one day, for very sure, but a materialist will probably be able to eventually to bring us more on some occasion because his potential and his(her) realizations about life may be higher and a little more sophisticated than the one of a millipede or a dog.

A "basic" devotee will probably have a stronger potential to inspire us and to bring us some essential teachings than the former ones whom I just mentionned. As well, an advanced Vaisnava will be in position to give us even more than this devotee. The pure devotee, the acarya, will, of course, bring us even far more than tthis advanced devotee! And precisely, at this point and from it, we must start our thinking about diksa and siksa, and base our reasoning about this subject.

Let's, very briefly, resume the whole situation:

Those basic and advanced devotees I was speaking about, who can bring us realizations, knowledge and inspiration, exist ONLY because of the acarya and his mercy. They were mainly made and built by the acarya. Even their own endeavour and personal efforts to progress on the spiritual path were generated by and depend on the pure devotee original siksa and first impulse. Even the Holy Name could not be chanted by us or would not work the same for us without the mercy of the pure devotee.

Therefore, even the siksa which we can receive from those devotees is indirectly the siksa of the pure devotee. This sub-siksa would never exist without the pure devotee's first siksa.

As well, the possible, voluntary or not, siksa that we may receive, sporadically or not, from other living entities (materialists, demons, animals or even vegetals) is dependant on the siksa given originally by the pure devotee. Without this first siksa, and our training coming from it, we would not be able, or be able the same (far from that!) to understand and take advantage on the proper and genuine way of those secondary siksas. It may even happen that the "siksa" of a demon was not even a positive and well-intended siksa. But only something, the goal of which was to disturb or to "kill" us. However, thanks to the original siksa of the pure devotee, we turn something which was at first bad for us, into a positive siksa. Sometimes without being even aware or fully aware of the original bad intention of this demon.

Therefore, directly or indirectly, we learn all from the pure devotee. And all categories of secondary siksas we may receive are totally dependant on the original first pure devotee's siksa. And subordinated to it. Consequently, in one sense there is only one siksa-guru. If we don't accept that or understand it, that means that we are not able to take or to receive the original siksa from the acarya as much as it is required and desired to be done.

That's the reason why it is much better, if it is possible or made possible, to take diksa directly from the person who can give the most complete and perfect siksa. And the original one. What's the use and the necessity to unnecessarily complicate things?!!!

Considering this fact, it is artificial, illusory and detrimental to separate those two concepts of diksa and siksa or to give to this difference too much importance.