Is Śāstra the Central Authority for ISKCON?

[The video for this essay is available on YouTube at this link: click here.]

Dear Devotees,

I would like to share my view of the conflict between the faction of ISKCON of Bengaluru headed by Madhu Pandit, President, and the rest of ISKCON in India, as registered in Mumbai, in light of a recent report dated November 9 in the Times of India concerning a court case.

On May 16, 2025, a Supreme Court bench set aside the Karnataka High Court’s 2011 ruling and restored Bengaluru ISKCON’s independent control over the Hare Krishna Hill temple and its societies, dismissing Mumbai ISKCON’s ownership claims. However, in an October 28, 2025, split verdict on Mumbai’s review petitions, J. J.K. Maheshwari found an “error apparent on record” and admitted review with notice, while J. A.G. Masih found no error and dismissed it—referring the matter to CJI D.Y. Chandrachud for a larger bench, thereby reviving Mumbai’s challenge and placing Bengaluru’s victory in abeyance.[1]

However, between the two decisions, in his 2025 Vyasa Puja offering to Srila Prabhupada, Madhu Pandit Das, in referring to the initial May 16 decision in his favor said,

“After 25 years of the intense conflict with these leaders, our victory in the Supreme Court is nothing other than a direct blessing of Srila Prabhupada, who has vindicated our stand that only the ritvik system should be followed in ISKCON, most certainly blessing ISKCON Bangalore group of temples to continue the ritvik system.” (Madhu Pandit Das, President of ISKCON Bangalore, Vyasa Puja Offering, 2025)

But considering his statement in light of the outcome of the more recent Supreme Court of India review petition, does this mean that his stand on the “ritvik system” is no longer vindicated? It would appear so at this point. Sometimes even greatly learned men make mistakes. That is why the review petition exists at all.

For the same reason, Madhu Pandit’s belief that the Supreme Court victory has confirmed his belief in the ritvik system is also subject to human error. Appearances can be misleading. This being the case, how can we know for certain whether Prabhupada wanted a ritvik system, or whether he did not?

According to the principles of Vaidika Sanātana Dharma, all human knowledge is contaminated by illusion, distraction, imperfect senses, and cheating. Prabhupāda himself makes this point in his introduction to Śrī Īśopaniṣad, “With all these deficiencies, in conditioned life we cannot give perfect knowledge to anyone. Nor are we ourselves perfect. Therefore we accept the Vedas as they are.” Therefore, in order to decide such questions, such as, “Is the ritvik system authentic or is it false?,” the evidence given must be free of these four human defects. That evidence comes from śāstra, and nowhere else.

Prabhupāda said that the process of speaking in spiritual circles is to say something upheld by the śāstras. “One should at once quote from scriptural authority to back up what he is saying”.[2] Prabhupāda also said that among guru, sādhu and śāstra, “The śāstra is the center for all.”[3] That is why from the very beginning of ISKCON Prabhupada had his disciples recite the Sanskrit śloka in Gītā or Bhāgavatam class and encoraged them to memorize Sanskrit shlokas—even though most devotees in his time or even today hardly know Sanskrit. That practice came from Prabhupāda, and he encouraged it because he taught that śāstra is the topmost authority.

Srila Prabhupāda’s dedication to śāstra as the central, topmost authority among all authorities, including even guru, is what makes ISKCON’s claim to being an authentic Sanatana Dharma Saṁstha. In Bhagavad-gītā, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa says (16.24), tasmac chāstram pramāṇam te kāryākārya-vyavasthitau jñātvā śāstra-vidhānoktaṁ karma kartum ihārhasi, “One should therefore understand what is duty and what is not duty by the regulations of the scriptures. Knowing such rules and regulations, one should act so that he may gradually be elevated.” In Sanātana Dharma, there will certainly be some differences between the various sampradāyas. But one thing they do not differ on is the centrality of śāstra. Therefore Prabhupada says, “the rules and regulations as described in the śāstra – being above these defects – are accepted without alteration by all great saints, ācāryas and great souls.”[4] ISKCON’s status as a mission authentically representing Sanātana Dharma depends on us continuing to accept śāstra as the central authority, just as he did.

In the case of a pure devotee, like Prabhupāda, his words are, like śāstra, without defect. We also consider other great devotees like Śrīla Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, our gurudeva’s guru Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura to be above the four defects of conditioned life. In other sampradāyas, great ācāryas like Rāmāṇujācārya, Madhvācārya and others to also be without these human defects.

Given their exalted status as beyond human defect, a question may arise from the followers of any of these exalted personalities, “If our ācārya is a pure devotee without any defect, then why are the words of our guru alone not sufficient for our own perfect understanding?” The answer to this is that they are servants of śāstra, as these are the words of the Supreme Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, and his topmost devotees as named are in the śāstras themselves. These are cannonical works like the Purāṇas, Dharma-śāstras, and so forth. In order to make certain that we are not misunderstanding a point made by our guru, we also have to make sure our understanding is also harmonious and in line with the śāstra. Otherwise, we may be following Prabhupāda in a wrong way, in a way that is against śāstra and our previous ācāryas. Hence, the need for śāsta—guru, sādhu and śāstra is to ensure that our own understanding is correct.

Prabhupāda therefore compared correct understanding to a train running on three tracks. He said,

“And if you place your car or vehicle on these three parallel line, your car will go direct to Kṛṣṇa. Tinete kariyā aikya. Just like in the railway line you see two parallel lines. If they are in order, the railway carriages are carried very smoothly to the destination. Here also, there are three parallel lines—sādhu, śāstra, guru: saintly person, association of saintly person; acceptance of bona fide spiritual master, and faith in the scriptures. That’s all. Then your carriage will be going nicely, without any disturbance. Sādhu śāstra guru vākya, cittete kariyā aikya.” (Lecture, October 18, 1968, Seattle)

Hence, it is necessary we not only make sure our understanding is in line with Prabhupāda, but it must be in line with, or harmonized, with the words of the ācāryas and especially śāstra.

Śāstra is not only essential but practical for determining what is truth and what is speculation. Because śāstra is without human defect, explanations based on śāstra must be accepted over those that are not.

For example, the ritvik-vadis say that Prabhupāda’s so-called “final order” makes him the initiating spiritual master after his departure in 1977. But there is nothing in śāstra that says anything about this system of ritvik initiators. Instead, we have from Bhagavad-gītā, evaṁ paramparā prāptam imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ, that this disciplic succession was received from saintly king to saintly king, as Kṛṣṇa described it. In his purport to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.9.43, which similarly describes the paramparā system, Prabhupāda said, “One who is now the disciple is the next spiritual master.” But the so-called ritvik system of wherein the guru initiates after his departure is not sanctioned in śāstra.

Prabhupāda in his books has affirmed the same, that the next spiritual master is the present disciple, provided of course the disciple is qualified. Thus he says in the same purport, “And one cannot be a bona fide and authorized spiritual master unless one has been strictly obedient to his spiritual master.” Prabhupāda expected his disciples to become qualified and become dīkṣā-gurus after him.

In ISKCON, there have been gurus who have deviated and became unfit to continue as guru. But the śāstra itself anticipates that gurus sometimes deviate. Therefore in the Mahābhārata, Śrī Bhīṣmadeva himself said, guror apy avaliptasya kāryākāryam ajānataḥ utpatha-pratipannasya parityāgo vidhīyate, “Even a guru—who is otherwise due the utmost deference—but who is arrogant, ignorant of what is to be done and not to be done, and has taken to the wrong path—his rejection is prescribed.” If it is impossible for a guru to deviate, then why does the śāstra have a prescription for such a case? Gurus sometimes deviate. In ISKCON, such gurus when discovered have been rejected by the leadership and by disciples.

It is this conformance with both Prabhupāda’s instuctions and with the śāstra itself that makes ISKCON an authentic Sanātana Dharma saṁstha. To argue, as the ritvik-vadis have done, that one should follow Prabhupāda but in a way that is against śāstra is their disqualification.

This is my humble understanding of the matter.

Sincerely,

On behalf of the ISKCON India Scholars Board,

Bhavataḥ sevakaḥ

Kṛṣṇa-kīrti-dāsaḥ
Convenor

Endnotes

---