What is the ritvik philosophy and why is it wrong?

One may fear accepting the wrong person as a spiritual master and being cheated, but the ritvik philosophy is not the right answer.

Anyone who is interested in Krsna Consciousness and has access to the internet is probably familiar with the ritvik philosophy. According to it, the last instruction of Srila Prabhupada was that he should remain the only initiating spiritual master and anyone can take a posthumous initiation from him thoroughly a priest, who chants on his beads and does the other rites in front of a picture. There are different versions of the ritvik philosophy, but they are all centered around interpretations of two tapes recorded in the last days of Srila Prabhupada.

Since this idea is widely propagated, many may have doubts about it in the back of their minds. The fear of maybe not be doing the right thing in accepting a spiritual master or the fear of being cheated may hamper one in his spiritual progress. This is an essay that I hope can help to put these doubts to rest. Just like Krsna killed the demon Madhu, I hope this can help to dispel any doubts you may have on this subject.

The ritvik movement appeared in the 1980s, during the zonal acarya period, a time of confusion when there were excesses on the part of many. Seeing that some of the gurus were acting in questionable ways, a few devotees went to the other extreme, concluding that there would be no bonafide spiritual masters after Srila Prabhupada.

This was the fruit of a polarization phenomenon, where some go to one extreme and others end up going to the opposite extreme. Since that time, many things have been corrected, and our collective understanding of the role of the spiritual master matured inside our movement. The ritvik philosophy was not based on the scriptures, but merely on supposition and interpretation of a few of Srila Prabhupada’s last statements. It was discussed for some time between the leaders of our society, but the lack of philosophical consistency led it to be quickly discarded. Most of the devotees that were initially pushing it, abandoned it over the years. What happened is that some unscrupulous persons took it and started using it to amass followers, or at times just to attack our society. Many of them are envious individuals who don’t follow principles or chant. Frequently their sadhana is simply to post offenses over the Internet.

The importance of accepting a spiritual master is one of the most central aspects of the Vaishnava philosophy. One who can’t accept a spiritual master out of pride, assuming that nobody is higher than him, or that no one is perfect, is actually doing so out of ignorance. In fact, in his purport to CC Adi 1.35, Srila Prabhupada directly states that: “If one thinks that he is above consulting anyone else, including a spiritual master, he is at once an offender at the lotus feet of the Lord. Such an offender can never go back to Godhead. It is imperative that a serious person accept a bona fide spiritual master in terms of the śāstric injunctions.”

In the whole story of Vaishnavism, there is not a single acarya that has not accepted a spiritual master. Even Lord Caitanya accepted Isvara Puri. To say nothing of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, even Krsna Himself accepted Sandipani Muni! Naturally, Krsna is the original composer of the Vedic literature and He knows it better than anyone else, but He still accepts a spiritual master just to give an example. 

By the time of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, the teachings of Mahaprabhu had been practically lost. Still, to give an example, he took initiation from Bipin Bihari Goswami, a member of a lineage coming from Jahnavi Devi. The main point is that it is practically impossible for a conditioned soul to free himself from material conditioning, and it’s completely impossible to attain a relationship with Krsna without being connected with one of Krsna’s associates. The main problem is that because our consciousness is entrapped into the material energy, we can’t associate with Krsna, much less with His eternal associates. For all practical purposes, they are there and we are here. Even though Krsna is in our hearts, we can’t perceive or hear Him.

For any conditioned soul, the only real opportunity to re-establish his relationship with Krsna is by associating with a liberated soul who is here in this world, walking amongst us. Devotional service is not a theoretical thing, it must be learned by hearing, serving, and associating with a liberated soul. Not only that, but we need someone who can act as our lawyer, presenting our case to Krsna and standing in our favor. We have been guilty of indescribable acts since time immemorial, and only by surrendering to Krsna’s representative can we realistically be rectified.

One could argue: what is the necessity of associating with a pure devotee if we can just hear Srila Prabhupada’s classes and read his books? Naturally, to associate with Srila Prabhupada’s vani is an essential aspect of our spiritual life, and even someone who doesn’t have contact with other devotees can make great advancement by just doing that. However, one is going to benefit only to the extent he follows what he hears. If Srila Prabhupada says that one should accept a spiritual master and one refuses, then the relationship is broken and the advancement stops. This is an instruction that Srila Prabhupada consistently repeats in his books and classes. As he wrote in the same purport to CC Adi 1.35 mentioned earlier:

“One should always remember that a person who is reluctant to accept a spiritual master and be initiated is sure to be baffled in his endeavor to go back to Godhead. One who is not properly initiated may present himself as a great devotee, but in fact he is sure to encounter many stumbling blocks on his path of progress toward spiritual realization, with the result that he must continue his term of material existence without relief. Such a helpless person is compared to a ship without a rudder, for such a ship can never reach its destination. It is imperative, therefore, that one accept a spiritual master if he at all desires to gain the favor of the Lord. The service of the spiritual master is essential.”

The initiating and instructing spiritual masters have the mission of not only teaching but especially observing and correcting their disciples, allowing them to grow. To humbly accept chastisement and to acknowledge one’s faults is a difficult process to follow, but anyone sincere in the spiritual path must accept it. This is a process that was ultimately created by Krsna to correct the conditioned souls.

Ritviks don’t want to accept this instruction and thus concoct a conspiracy theory, based on the idea that Srila Prabhupada taught something during his whole life and then contradicted himself at the last moment. They then try to cover the incongruences and contradictions in their theory with further speculation, arguing that no disciples of Srila Prabhupada are qualified, that his books were changed, and so on.

The ritvik theory is an example of an idea that, in the name of maintaining Srila Prabhupada’s legacy, propagates a conclusion that is opposite to his teachings and is thus actually offensive to him. Anyone who studies Srila Prabhupada’s books will understand the concept of parampara and the importance of learning the spiritual science from a living spiritual master. Just like Srila Prabhupada connected his disciples with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura and the other members of the parampara, one needs to be connected to Srila Prabhupada through one of his qualified disciples or grand-disciples. The allegation that there are no pure and bonafide gurus after Srila Prabhupada is nothing less than a direct offense to him. It implies that Srila Prabhupada was incompetent, and thus not able to train his disciples to become pure devotees. It also implies that the process given by him doesn’t work and that he wasn’t successful in his mission.

We can see that these baseless suppositions have been used by other unscrupulous people to create further damage. By claiming that disciples of Prabhupada are neophytes, that Prabhupada taught only the ABCD, etc. they promote themselves as pure devotees who came to offer something higher, and in this way try to accumulate disciples by sowing chaos. A truly advanced spiritual master is not anxious to increase the number of disciples and does not need to diminish other devotees (or train his disciples in doing so).

In any case, even if one would believe that there are no pure devotees on the planet, the necessity of accepting a spiritual master remains. There is a story that illustrates this point: 

Once Dronacarya asked both Duryodhana and Yudhisthira to fulfill a mission. Duryodhana’s mission was to find someone higher than him and bring him to his teacher by the end of the day, while the mission of Yudhisthira was to find someone lower than him. By the end of the day, both came back empty-handed. Being puffed-up, Duryodhana couldn’t find anyone he could accept as superior to himself, while the wise Yudisthira could see that even the poorest persons could do things that he couldn’t, or would possess qualities he would lack, therefore he also came back empty-handed. 

Unless one is like Duryodana, incapable of finding anyone higher than himself, he should choose someone connected to a bonafide line, that one sees as more elevated than himself, and accept him as a spiritual master. One who is attracted to Srila Prabhupada should connect himself with him through one of his bonafide disciples or grand disciples.

Ritviks can’t thus be considered bonafide followers of Srila Prabhupada, since they don’t follow his instructions. On the opposite, in many aspects they do precisely the opposite: attacking Srila Prabhupada’s bona fide disciples and followers that are carrying out his mission. By concocting an unbonafide process, many of them end up developing anger, lust, and envy instead of proper Vaishnava qualities, which can be observed in practice. Instead of advancing spiritually and developing a relationship with Krsna, they just degrade themselves by criticizing and offending others. 

Another good example in this connection is the story of Ekalavia, narrated in the Mahabharata. The deeper meaning was explained by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura in his article “Upakhyane Upadesa” (translated by H.H. Bhakti Caru Swami) and also explained in the book “Spiritual Connection” by HH Bhakti Dhira Damodhara Swami.

“One day, on the order of Dronacarya, the Kauravas and Pandavas ventured out from their capital to the forest to hunt. They soon came across a dog, directly on their path and were extremely astonished to find that seven arrows had been shot into the dog’s mouth simultaneously when he had opened it to bark. They could see that the archer who had let loose those arrows was even more skilled than any of the Pandavas, and set out to find him.

After searching for some time, they discovered that the boy who had performed this feat was Ekalavya, the son of Hiranyadhanura, and that he had developed his extraordinary skill by making and worshipping an idol of Dronacarya.

The Pandavas returned to their capital and informed Dronacarya of this amazing incident. In a humble mood, Arjuna informed Dronacarya of the fact that the acarya had one disciple more skilled in the art of archery than he. The acarya listened to these words in shock. At once, he returned to the forest with Arjuna and came upon Ekalavya, who was fully absorbed in practising archery as he let loose dense volleys of arrows, one after the other.

When Dronacarya approached, Ekalavya suddenly saw the acarya standing directly before him. The young archer immediately worshipped his feet, introduced himself as one of his disciples, and stood submissively with folded hands. Dronacarya addressed Ekalavya, “You must offer me guru-daksina.” Ekalavya replied, “Whatever you order, I am prepared to give.” Dronacarya next told Ekalavya to sever his right thumb and give it as daksina, and he followed the order of his gurudeva with a bright face, without any objection.”

At first, it looks like Ekalavia was the perfect disciple and Arjuna was envious of him, but the real meaning is the opposite. Ekalavia was a member of the Nishada tribe. Not only did he lack the proper moral qualifications, but he was also envious of the Pandavas, being a member of a tribe that was a sworn enemy of the Kuru dynasty. When he approached Dronacarya, wanting to learn military science, Drona could understand his mentality and thus he flatly rejected, seeing that whatever he would teach him, would just increase his pride and would ultimately be used against his other disciples.

At this point, Ekalavia had three options:

– Act like a bona-fide disciple, accept the order of the guru, and just go home.

– Try to learn from someone else.

– Try to reform himself, so he could become qualified to be taught by Dronacarya.

Instead, he concocted a method of worship with the goal of stealing the military knowledge from Dronacarya. His worship was thus not based on love and submission but on pride. When Arjuna saw the situation, he was alarmed that the good name of Dronacarya could be dishonored by such a nonsensical fellow. He thus called Dronacarya, and he in turn solved the situation by taking the thumb of Ekalavia. At the time, archers would hold the arrow using the thumb and the index finger, thus by losing his thumb Ekalavia’s talent became useless. In this way, Dronacarya nullified what Ekalavia had stolen from him.

Still, one could argue that Ekalavia should be given credit for his incredible sacrifice in offering his thumb to Dronacarya, but even this was not done with the proper consciousness. On the opposite, he just acted out of pride, out of the fear of losing his reputation by breaking his word. He did that out of mundane considerations, just as other Ksatryias did so many things out of pride throughout history. He taught that instead of admitting that he was not an actual disciple of Dronacarya, it would be better to cut out his finger and save face. Understanding his mentality, Dronacarya went ahead and asked his thumb as a daksina to quickly solve the problem.

Ekalavia can thus be considered the first ritvik of history. A ritvik may claim to be a disciple of Srila Prabhupada, but in reality, he is just concocting a process of worship that will not lead to any good result. One who is sincere will eventually be guided by the Supersoul to meet a bonafide spiritual master and surrender to him, understanding him to be Krsna’s representative. The envious, however, will just fall into further darkness.

When confronted with arguments against their philosophy, many ritviks ask for “scriptural evidence”. Naturally, much evidence can be provided, starting with Bg. 4.2 and 4.34, but this is largely useless. Whatever evidence can be offered, a ritvik will always reject, using word jugglery or twisted logic. The fact is that the scriptures repeatedly emphasize the importance of accepting a spiritual master and hearing the spiritual science from him (“Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth“). However, the ritvik philosophy is not based on the scriptures, and therefore these arguments are not accepted. It’s not based on Srila Prabhupada either, since this is a point Srila Prabhupada repeatedly states, reinforces, and repeats in his purports. Ritviks ignore all these statements and instead, base their philosophy on creative interpretations of a couple of recorded tapes. They use word jugglery and passages taken out of context to create a conspiracy theory, sustaining that Prabhupada contradicted himself, teaching all his life that we should accept a spiritual master and then changing his mind in the last moment, creating some process that deviates both from sastra and from the predecessor acaryas.

Ultimately, the importance of accepting a spiritual master is a subject that comes down to one understanding it or not, according to his adikari. For one who really can’t understand it, my suggestion is to study Srila Prabhupada’s books and follow the spiritual process described by him. This, combined with drinking one or two glasses of milk per day, may help develop the subtle tissues in the brain necessary for the understanding of spiritual matters.

Question: What is the difference between the ritvik system, where a priest initiates on behalf of Srila Prabhupada, and the current system in ISKCON where the guru initiates under the direction and monitoring of the GBC on behalf of Srila Prabhupada’s ISKCON, and not independently. It seems they are the same system practically speaking. One has Srila Prabhupada as the acarya empowering ritviks to initiate on his behalf. The other has the GBC as the authority empowering some members to initiate under the authority and guidance of the GBC. It seems that both systems are practically the same, since if an ISKCON guru was to leave the GBC authority, that person would be rejected as bogus and unauthorized, is it not?

Answer: The central point is that in the ritvik system, the priest doesn’t assume any responsibility for the devotees being initiated. He just performs the ceremony and expects that Srila Prabhupada will take care of the rest. This is very similar to the idea prevalent in some Christian sects, where Christ is expected to take away the sins of the followers. This is not an authorized system, and thus the so-called ritvik initiation is not valid. The candidate remains without the benefits of a spiritual master. One may still be able to make some advancement, according to their sincerity, but according to the scriptures, they can’t go back to Godhead by following such an irregular system. As mentioned by Srila Prabhupada on CC Adi 1.35:

“One should always remember that a person who is reluctant to accept a spiritual master and be initiated is sure to be baffled in his endeavor to go back to Godhead. One who is not properly initiated may present himself as a great devotee, but in fact he is sure to encounter many stumbling blocks on his path of progress toward spiritual realization, with the result that he must continue his term of material existence without relief. Such a helpless person is compared to a ship without a rudder, for such a ship can never reach its destination. It is imperative, therefore, that one accept a spiritual master if he at all desires to gain the favor of the Lord. The service of the spiritual master is essential. If there is no chance to serve the spiritual master directly, a devotee should serve him by remembering his instructions. There is no difference between the spiritual master’s instructions and the spiritual master himself. In his absence, therefore, his words of direction should be the pride of the disciple. If one thinks that he is above consulting anyone else, including a spiritual master, he is at once an offender at the lotus feet of the Lord. Such an offender can never go back to Godhead. It is imperative that a serious person accept a bona fide spiritual master in terms of the śāstric injunctions. Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī advises that one not accept a spiritual master in terms of hereditary or customary social and ecclesiastical conventions. One should simply try to find a genuinely qualified spiritual master for actual advancement in spiritual understanding.”

The relationship of the guru and the disciple is a central point to be understood. The guru is not just an ordinary teacher: he assumes the responsibility of guiding the disciple in his spiritual life and ultimately bringing him back to godhead. Similarly, the initiation is not just a mere ceremony, but a formalization of this relationship. The position of the guru is thus similar to a parent. There is no question of becoming a son or daughter of a deceased person. A parent does his job by educating his children, and after growing up the children have the responsibility of educating their own children. 

If one wants to join the Acyuta Gotra, the family of Krsna, he needs to become the spiritual son of a member of the current generation, who is here on this planet and willing to accept him or her as his disciple, connecting him to Srila Prabhupada and the rest of the parampara. This is the way Krsna created the system and the way Prabhupada explains it all over his books. One can’t become a direct disciple of Srila Prabhupada after his departure any more than one can become a disciple of Bhaktivinoda Thakura or Rupa Goswami.

About the question of the relationship between the gurus and the GBC, the point is that the position of the guru needs to be reconciled with the necessity of working in a cooperative way under the supervision of the GBC (that acts as Prabhupada’s representative). Two good readings in this connection are the book “Srila Prabhupada, The Founder-Acharya of ISKCON” by Ravīndra Svarūpa Prabhu, and the document “Srila Prabhupada and the Gaudiya Math” by Drutakarma Prabhu.

This is actually a point that is still being debated and adjustments may be made in the future. We can note that the first attempt at a guru system in our society was the zonal acarya system, which had many flaws. Over time, mistakes were corrected, resulting in a system that is closer to what Srila Prabhupada instructed. The current system may still need some adjustments, but it seems we are going in the right direction.

A few ideas that one needs to reconcile in his mind to understand this topic:

a) Prabhupada will not accept anyone as his disciple because he is not on the planet. He passed the baton to his disciples and grand disciples.

b) The GBC works as Prabhupada’s representative in administrative matters, but being an impersonal entity, the GBC can’t accept disciples. One can only be a disciple of a person, not of an institution or an assembly body.

c) Only individual disciples or grand disciples of Srila Prabhupada can accept disciples. However, they also need to work cooperatively under the institution (as per Prabhupada’s order) therefore there is also a need for some checks and balances on the part of the GBC, acting as a representative of Srila Prabhupada.

d) Being the ultimate authority and representative of Prabhupada, the GBC has the responsibility of overseeing the gurus and alerting members of the society in case a guru falls from the regulative principles and is not willing to correct himself. However, for the last decades, they have been using this power in a very conservative way. The idea seems to transfer more of the responsibility of choosing and observing the guru to the disciples.

Similarly, the GBC does not currently “empower” any guru; this was a term used in the 1980’s. Since then, the GBC has reduced its interference in the process. Currently, the GBC just evaluates the candidates and gives their “non-objection” if proved that a candidate is in good standing. The GBC therefore does not take the responsibility of judging if the guru candidate is a pure devotee or not, this is now up to the potential disciples to evaluate; it just checks if there are no obvious disqualifications on his part. We can see thus that the system is moving closer to how it worked historically, with the relationship of guru and disciple being based mostly on a personal relationship instead of institutional interference.