Notes on Teaching

The Ultimate Teacher

I have seen it repeated in different forums that one should only accept the highest, most realized devotee of Krishna. In the technical parlance of Gaudiya Vaishnavism the word uttama is used. Uttama in Sanskrit is the root of the word “ultimate.”

Adhikar means “qualification.” So Uttama-adhikari means the “ultimately-qualified.”

The idea is that one should only take instruction from the uttama-adhikari, the ultimately-qualified, given that there are 3 kinds of truth-seekers or devotees of God Krishna: beginner (kanistha), medium (madhyama) and ultimate (uttama).

Kanistha or beginning truth-seekers have some faith. But their faith is green. In beginners, faith is soft and confused. Sometimes it is “blind faith.” Such truth-seekers are distracted by different goals and are not entirely dedicated. In the beginner, faith is easily acquired but easily discarded. A beginner may be ready to give everything for a newfound faith, only to be shocked by a scandal, or swayed by an argument into giving up his faith.

Madhyama or medium qualification means that one’s faith is not easily swayed. There is practice, wisdom and experience that confirms faith on a personal level. A “medium” truth-seeker can defend his faith from different points of view, based on personal experience, practical wisdom, and the knowledge gained through study of the scriptures and the guidance of a spiritual master. A “medium” qualification is sufficient for teaching.

Teaching is a peculiar occupation. Sometimes the best teachers know little about their subject but are expert in infecting their students with a curiosity about the subject. They have not learned everything; they have not mastered their field, but they have enough of a spark to ignite a fire in the hearts of their students.

It is said that those who can do and those who can’t teach. Many a common piano teacher has inspired a student to go on to become a great virtuoso. The teachers at the school room in Stratford-upon-Avon who taught “small Latin and less Greek” according to Ben Jonson, produced a Shakespeare. Many a great student was inspired by an ordinary teacher.

Teaching is hard work, and successful teachers work hard to create a proper learning environment for their students. Great teaching really less to do with great knowledge and expert skills than with one’s attitude towards students and and the subject being taught. 

Virtuosity is not an essential aspect of great teaching. Andrés Segovia is revered as one of the greatest guitarists of the 20th century. The classical guitar virtuoso was notorious as a bad teacher, famous for bullying and destroying his students at master classes. He was a brilliant guitarist, but unfit as a teacher. According to John Williams, one of his protégées, He had no patience and no empathy for his students and reduced them to tears. A recent book reveals that Williams remembers Segovia making his students copy his every inflection – demands that Williams believes "undermined any sense of personal ownership of a piece. It was as if Segovia had… ordained that there was but one valid transcription, one interpretation and one fingering of anything in the repertoire and they were his own.

Williams felt that, perhaps because of this, he never played his best for Segovia and that many of the maestro's students would have been better if they were not so constrained."

Virtuosos in sports also fail to make great teachers. In hockey, Wayne Gretzky, famous as the 'Great One' is considered by most hockey followers to be the best player in hockey history.

But the nine-time MVP, four-time Stanley Cup champion and leading scorer in NHL history never led his team, the Phoenix Coyotes to the playoffs in four seasons behind the bench. He stepped down as coach shortly before the start of the 2009-10 season with the team mired in a bankruptcy court hearing and bidders indicating he would no longer be associated with the team after it emerged from bankruptcy.

My point is that virtuosity is not only nonessential in teaching, it may even be a disqualification. One of the most important qualifications for a teacher is empathy. Since virtuosos focus solely on their own achievements and skills they often discard empathy as a valuable part of life. In sports, especially, empathy may be poison. After all, the object is to win.

The qualification for teaching, then, is not to be on the highest platform of perfection, but to be able to empower others, to see the good in others and bring it out, the power to polish a lump of coal until it becomes a diamond. A good teacher does not look at mud and think, ¨this is mud. It´s filthy. I cannot touch it.¨ A good teacher looks at the mud and sees a perfectly crafted ceramic vase. He knows how to bring the art out of the mud.

This does not exclude virtuosos from the teaching process. A great violin teacher also take pleasure in teaching solfeggio and basic scales to beginners. But by the same token a casual observer who drops into the classroom will conclude that the teacher is a mediocre violinist, or why would he be playing ¨twinkle twinkle little star.¨

Everyone naturally claims that their guru is on the highest platform. But the very function of teaching belongs to the madhyama-adhikari. The definition of a ¨medium¨ level of faith is that one can defend his point of view with arguments, examples, and personal wisdom. The role of a teacher is to explain, to give arguments, to help others. The role of a spiritual virtuoso is to climb to the zenith of mysticism, a feat which can rarely be communicated to others. The role of a spiritual teacher is to give guidance; this can only be done through argument, precept and practice.

The uttama-adhikari may present himself as an avadhut, a mystic beyond egoistic consciousness. The behavior of an avadhut is a riddle. It is impossible to follow the example of a spiritual virtuoso like Nityānda Prabhu, since we lack the tools to interpret his behavior.

It is the business of a teacher to be critical, to make distinctions, to say this is correct and this is incorrect. The uttama-adhikari however sees everything in absolute harmony and balance. He fails to make critical analysis for this reason. He is no longer interested in criticism. He sees only divinity everywhere. Every wave is favorable.

Śrīdhara Mahārāja, in the course of this teachings, made an interesting point. In a lecture given on the 18th of August in 1980 he explains:

Only from the madhyama-adhikārī, or middle stage, intermediate stage, that is only fit for discharging the duty of the Ācārya.

When uttama-adhikārī [devotee in the highest stage] comes to take the position of the Ācārya, he has also to come down to the position of madhyama. Inspired by the order by the Lord, uttama-adhikārī comes down to the position of madhyama-adhikārī and then he makes disciples.

Because in the uttama-adhikārī proper, there is feeling, universal angle of vision that everything is adjusted with the Supreme Absolute, he does not see that a part is revolting. The revolting portion is not seen in his eyes. That everything is perfectly adjusted, this is uttama-adhikārī.

And the madhyama-adhikārī sees that this is proper adjustment and that is maladjustment, and from the maladjustment they should be taken to proper adjustment. This is madhyama-adhikārī.

So Guru is always madhyama-adhikārī. Whether he comes down from uttama-adhikārī or is a bona fide madhyama-adhikārī. But it is the duty of the madhyama-adhikārī because he sees two things: divinity and non divinity. This is madhyama-adhikārī. So the work of Guru is the work of the madhyama-adhikārī.

He makes it clear that a teacher’s work is distinct from that of a mystic. The uttama-adhikari or highly realized soul may be absorbed in bhakti without ever feeling the need to get on a soap-box and preach. He doesn´t call out atheists and agnostics or nonbelievers, since he sees everyone harmonized in the infinitely favorable waves of divinity.

And so it is that many of the greatest devotees of Krishna and Chaitanya Mahāprabhu are not preachers. Hari Dās Thakur took the name of God Krishna millions of times and scarcely had any breath left over to explain and analyse his faith. Gaura Kishore Das Babaji lived under an overturned boat on the banks of the Ganges and avoided teaching.

Once again, the point that Śrīdhara Mahārāja makes is that teaching is distinct from realization. The role of teacher is distinct from that of mystic. A great mystic may say nothing at all or speak in riddles and parables. A great teacher is not afforded such a luxury. Teaching involves a different skill set, a different mentality, and a different approach than personal realization.

Teachers may be polemic, as was Śrīla Prabhupāda. Śrīla Prabhupāda challenged cops and hippies, Christians and Jews, Yogis and scientists, to take up Krishna Consciousness. He called out the hypocrites and exhorted all to take to the holy name. This does not mean that he was not an uttama-adhikari. It means that out of compassion he devoted himself to teaching.