The question is: how can we see the current Ritvik conflict from a Bhagavad Gita or spiritual perspective? This issue has been active on social media, and I’ve been asked about it repeatedly. Over the past month, I’ve reflected on it and will now share thoughts from four perspectives: philosophical, psychological, historical, and individual.
- Philosophical Perspective: Dharma and Balance
So far, most discussions have focused on proving that the Ritviks are wrong at an institutional level. I’d like to take a broader, philosophical approach. Krishna talks about the concept of dharmasya glanir in the Bhagavad Gita—that is, the disruption of dharma, which then requires correction.
To understand this disruption, we must understand dharma. The word has many meanings; here, I refer to dharma in terms of the role and position of the guru in the tradition. One meaning of dharma is harmonious belonging—each part of a larger whole must contribute and be supported in return.
Harmonious belonging is a two-way street. We must do our part in the collective, and the collective must support us. Krishna refers to this in prcchami tvam dharma-sammudha-cetah. Arjuna asks this question, and Krishna responds by saying dharma-samsthapana-arthaya sambhavami yuge yuge—that he appears to restore balance.
This principle applies to the guru system. The disciple is the individual, and the guru represents the larger system. The disciple offers respect and obedience; the guru provides guidance, inspiration, and mercy, and is expected to set an example of pure bhakti. When both sides function properly, there is balance, and the disciple grows.
In the history of our movement, when Srila Prabhupada went to America, he was an exemplary guru and the only guru at the time. What he did was extraordinary.
After his departure, there were successor gurus. From 1977 to 1987, there was a lot of dharmasya glanir—a disruption in dharma—which, as mentioned earlier, can happen in both directions. The disciple may not follow properly and needs to maintain standards and do sadhana. But sometimes the spiritual master may also have problems. Several spiritual leaders at that time faced moral challenges and had falls, which shook the faith of many devotees.
This led to soul-searching about what should be done. Until then, the focus was on disciples being strict, but when those representing Prabhupada and Krishna fell, it was seen as dharmasya glanir at the level of the guru.
An internal guru reform took place in ISKCON. Post-Prabhupada, the zonal Acharya system had emerged. Srila Prabhupada had appointed some of his disciples as gurus, and each became acharya for a particular zone. Everyone in that zone was expected to take initiation from that guru. ISKCON became divided into zonal societies, and these gurus gained significant authority—more than even their godbrothers.
The reform clarified that gurus may be spiritual guides for their disciples but not for their godbrothers. Their vote in the GBC became equal to that of non-gurus. This allowed more devotees to take up the guru service. The reform also clarified that disciples are encouraged to seek guidance not only from their initiating guru but from the broader tradition.
While this reduced major issues, problems still occurred. Later, another response to these issues came in the form of the Ritvik movement.
- The Rise of the Ritvik Movement
So when we talk about dharmasya glanir, one aspect is that disciples need to correct themselves, and another is that gurus need to do the same. There was an attempt to fix the guru system by making gurus accountable to the GBC. A certain amount of reform was done.
However, some devotees felt this was not effective. Generally, when there is dharmasya glanir, there are three possible responses: we can tolerate it, try to mitigate it, or emigrate from it. The Ritviks chose to emigrate, believing the system could not be fixed. They proposed creating something new.
Their view was that the problem lay in making the spiritual master the object of faith. If the guru has faults, it can deeply affect the disciple. So they suggested shifting faith to someone who cannot disappoint—Srila Prabhupada. The Ritvik system holds that Srila Prabhupada is the only guru, and others are merely his representatives initiating on his behalf.
In our tradition, when there is dharmasya glanir, the situation is to be addressed using guru, sadhu, and shastra. All three are needed to determine the right course of action.
Looking at the broader tradition and shastra, there is little to no basis for a continuous Ritvik system. There are rare cases of Ritvik initiation under special circumstances, but the cornerstone of the tradition has always been a living guru guiding a living disciple.
The Ritviks, however, elevated the guru’s authority above even sadhu and shastra, making Prabhupada’s words supreme. Based on sadhu and shastra, this system is extremely difficult to substantiate. Some effort has been made to support it using Prabhupada’s words, leading to debate from both sides.
This represents a departure from the traditional system of guru-disciple relationships central to the Vedic tradition. Recently, the Ritviks won a court case in Bangalore, which is now being seen not just as a legal victory but as a moral and spiritual validation of the Ritvik philosophy.
While it’s important to recognise that, from the perspective of guru, sadhu, and shastra, it’s almost impossible to substantiate the Ritvik system as an absolute and eternal model in our tradition, it’s also not healthy to demonise the Ritviks. They are following Srila Prabhupada and worshipping Krishna.
- Psychological Perspective: The Fragility of Faith
This raises the question: how is dharmasya glanir to be addressed?
At a psychological level, faith is both precious and fragile. We naturally seek to protect it. Some Ritviks present philosophical arguments for their position, but often this is accompanied by attempts to discredit the current guru system, including demonising present gurus. Past scandals are frequently cited—some true, others exaggerated or distorted.
To explain this dynamic, I’ll use a military metaphor. Srila Prabhupada described spiritual life as a war against maya. In war, leaders may become wounded or make mistakes. But condemning them entirely or questioning their intentions ignores their service and sacrifices.
Claiming that gurus have usurped Prabhupada’s position and highlighting or inventing flaws does a disservice to the tradition. On the other hand, it’s also problematic to demonise critics of the guru system by labelling them all as guru-aparadhis destined for hell.
Beneath these debates is often a deeper concern: what is a safe and worthy object of faith? Unless this emotional issue is addressed, arguments will remain superficial. Human intelligence can be used either to challenge or justify the mind’s conceptions. These conceptions are not purely rational—they are also emotional.
Even now, if we are to correct the dharmasya glanir, there needs to be deeper soul-searching about how the system of guru-shishya parampara, a cornerstone of the Vedic tradition, can apply today. Many devotees feel they do not get proper guidance or association with their spiritual master. At times, spiritual masters may give guidance that is unproductive or counterproductive, even without moral flaws.
The guru-disciple relationship is a personal connection. Faith cannot be legislated or secured by philosophical argument alone. When faith is vulnerable, deep soul-searching is needed, which includes examining the psychological level.
We are not psychoanalysing motives; both sides may have noble intentions despite serious differences. Differences of opinion can be about judgment—wrong decisions that have consequences but can be learned from—or about ability, which is more damaging. Questioning integrity, however, makes reconciliation almost impossible.
Let us pray that neither side assumes the worst about the other. Some individuals may have ulterior motives, but it is unlikely that everyone does. Giving the benefit of the doubt—apaisunam, as Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita—increases the chance of a solution to dharmasya glanir that meets current needs while remaining faithful to tradition.
- Historical Reflection and Individual Application
Historically, something similar happened in Christianity. Originally united in the Catholic Church, it split into Catholics and Protestants in the Christian Reformation. Many lost faith in the church’s authority. Martin Luther led the Protestants.
Some popes were immoral, with illicit affairs and children. The church sold indulgences, allowing donations to transfer souls from hell to heaven. The Protestants proposed sola scriptura—scripture alone is the authority. They argued church leaders were not needed to understand scripture, so everyone could interpret the Bible.
This led to nearly 55,000 Protestant denominations and fragmentation. Europe divided: Spain, Portugal and Italy remained Catholic, while France, Germany and England became Protestant. Each side ascribed the worst motives to the other.
After the Reformation, Islamic invaders attacked Europe, with Catholic kings ruling countries with Protestant populations. The Protestants were also there as soldiers. Martin Luther told the soldiers this attack by the Muslims is actually God’s punishment for the Catholics and therefore you should not fight against them. Many soldiers refused to fight, and those kingdoms were overrun, churches were destroyed. Eventually, when the Muslim invaders started attacking the Protestant countries, Martin Luther changed tune and said these are not agents of God’s retribution but agents of Satan to destroy our church. They fought against them.
This infighting led not only to mutual violence but also made us vulnerable to external enemies, destroying ourselves.
We do not have Sola Scriptura but can say what the Ritviks are doing is Sola Prabhupada—Prabhupada alone and nothing else. In our tradition there is Guru Sadhu Shastra. If this infighting continues, Sanatana Dharma faces far bigger threats. We are already spending huge amounts of energy—financial, time, and emotional. This will only lead to further fragmentation. There have been attempts after hundreds of years to bring Protestants and Catholics together, but many historical wounds remain.
Hopefully, we can pray, as Dhruva Maharaja prays in the fifth canto, that all living beings become peaceful so a cooler head prevails and we do not repeat the tragedies of history where fighting leads to vicious animosity.
- What Can We Do as Individuals?
At an individual level, what can we do? Those of us practicing bhakti and involved in the Krishna consciousness movement may ask who is right or wrong. More important is to focus on what is right or wrong for me.
What is right for me is that I came here for Krishna consciousness. How can I best cultivate it? There is some dharmasya glanir. Can I fix it right now? It is unlikely by getting caught in the crossfire of arguments. We will only get distracted, and our faith, convictions, and intelligence will be confused.
Let us focus on cultivating Krishna consciousness individually. If some of us have the responsibility or inclination to help bring resolution, we may do so. But for most, it is to focus on Krishna consciousness.
This is the International Society for Krishna Consciousness—it is for Krishna consciousness, not of Krishna consciousness. It is a place for cultivating Krishna consciousness.
To conclude, the metaphor of mining from the seventh canto: just as gold lies underground and must be dug out, the soul exists deep within ourselves and must be excavated. If someone comes to mine gold, many other things might happen, including fights. But if we have come to mine gold, we focus on gold. If we have the capacity to fix fights, we do so; otherwise, we risk losing the gold.
Krishna consciousness is accessible and relishable for everyone, even now. By focusing on this, we fulfill Srila Prabhupada’s purpose to cultivate Krishna consciousness.
The exact way the larger system functions is not something we can fix. Getting caught in that will distract us from Krishna consciousness. Srila Prabhupada says in the seventh canto purport that one should keep one’s intelligence and mind steady, healthy, and strong to differentiate the goal of life from a life full of problems.
There are many problems in life and we cannot deal with all. Let us focus on dealing with those that help us pursue the goal of life: cultivating our individual constitutional consciousness.