What’s wrong with the rittvik philosophy?

Regarding the Rittvik Issue – A Philosophical Perspective

As far as the Rittvik issue is concerned, if we want to discuss it purely on a philosophical or scriptural level, Srila Prabhupada clearly emphasized that the process of learning in our tradition is through Guru, Sadhu, and Shastra. Now, when we look into Sadhu and Shastra, it is very difficult to find any regular or systematic substantiation for the kind of Rittvik system being proposed.

Yes, there are exceptions. For instance, it’s said that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu initiated Tukaram Maharaj, or similar extraordinary cases. But these are exceptions, not the basis for establishing a new standard system. Nowhere in our tradition has there been a precedent where the entire Guru-parampara is effectively terminated with one Acharya and thereafter replaced with a proxy-based system of initiation.

In the Rittvik model, Srila Prabhupada is considered the final Guru for all future generations, and others simply act as ceremonial representatives (Rittviks). But Prabhupada himself never institutionalized such a system. In fact, many devotees have challenged this idea. There were also discussions and even proposed debates between the proponents of the Rittvik system and those who opposed it. However, the Rittvik proponents insisted that the debate be based solely on Prabhupada’s statements, excluding Sadhu and Shastra.

But that in itself is problematic. Prabhupada never claimed independent authority. He always emphasized that his authority came from aligning with Sadhu and Shastra. He often said: “My spiritual master gave me a mission,” and “I am speaking based on Shastra.” He never claimed that Krishna was speaking to him at every moment and that his authority came from some direct personal revelation. Even if he had such divine connection, he never based his authority on that claim. He never separated himself from the tradition; rather, he remained fully within the framework of its epistemology.

Now, the Rittvik proponents claim that “Guru is above Sadhu and Shastra.” While there are verses that glorify the Guru in exalted terms, such statements are often in the mood of praise, not meant as precise philosophical positions. For example, when we glorify the Guru as equal to God, it’s not a literal ontological claim but an expression of deep reverence.

The Vedic system is not based on the idea that the Guru alone is the sole source of spiritual knowledge. Even if we consider Prabhupada’s own words, we see that when he considered something crucial—such as “we are not the body, we are the soul”—he repeated it hundreds of times. When he said “Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead,” he said it emphatically and repeatedly.

So, if Prabhupada truly wanted to change the entire Guru-Shishya system into a Rittvik model where no future Gurus initiate disciples in their own names, he would have stated it clearly and repeatedly—not in just one letter. And that too a letter which was not even penned by him directly. That July 9th letter was written by Tamal Krishna Maharaj, based on Prabhupada’s instructions, and then signed by Prabhupada.

If you analyze the letters Prabhupada himself wrote entirely, he usually signed them. In contrast, dictated letters—where a disciple composed the text based on his dictation or gist—were signed after review. The term “henceforward” in that letter, which is used as the key basis for the Rittvik argument, is linguistically ambiguous. In ordinary usage, “henceforward” doesn’t necessarily mean eternally—it usually means “from now on, until further notice” or “for the foreseeable future.”

More importantly, this one letter is heavily outweighed by dozens of statements where Prabhupada clearly says that his disciples will have disciples. He often said, “You all become Gurus.” In some places, he even encouraged initiation during his own presence but emphasized the etiquette of bringing new initiates to the Diksha-Guru during the Guru’s lifetime.

So, if we apply the principle of Guru-Sadhu-Shastra and consider Prabhupada’s style of teaching, it is clear that he was not prone to making radical, unprecedented shifts in tradition through a single passing reference. His emphasis was always on clarity and repetition regarding important matters.

Now, some say that Srila Prabhupada’s teachings or intentions were deleted or hidden. However, if you study the dynamics of ISKCON in 1977, this seems highly improbable. Even among Prabhupada’s leading disciples, there were serious disagreements. For example, when Prabhupada wanted to go on Vrindavan Parikrama in a bullock cart during his final days, some disciples insisted he be allowed to fulfill his wish, while others strongly opposed it on health grounds. Such diverse opinions existed even in that emotionally charged time.

Given such differences, is it really plausible that all leading disciples conspired together to delete a critical instruction from Prabhupada—and not a single one raised any objection for over a decade? Only when the Rittvik controversy gained traction did such allegations arise. If such deletion had occurred, there would have been multiple sources testifying to it. But that is simply not the case.

Finally, we must understand the essential issue. Even in the Rittvik system, those acting as Rittvik representatives guide others, give instructions, and hold positions of authority. So, what is the real difference? It shifts the tradition from a living chain of parampara—which is at the heart of Sanatana Dharma—toward a more frozen model resembling that of Christianity, where Jesus is the only savior and all others are simply preachers or intermediaries.

Yes, Prabhupada is an empowered Acharya and savior for millions. But he never said that the Vedic tradition should be abandoned or that the living Guru-parampara should be replaced by a posthumous, centralized system. The heart of the Vedic system is the living transmission of wisdom through Guru-Sadhu-Shastra.