by Bhakta Michael Garner
“Sri Jiva Gosvami advises that one not accept a spiritual master in terms of hereditary or customary social and ecclesiastical conventions. One should seek out a genuinely qualified spiritual master for actual advancement in spiritual understanding.”
Caitanya-caritämåta, Ädi 1.35, purport
The concept of paramparä refers to an unbroken chain of spiritual authority transmitted directly from guru to disciple. This lineage is designed to preserve the purity of teachings without dilution or distortion. Often misunderstood, paramparä is not merely a “priestly” succession; rather, it is a genuine guru-disciple transmission rooted in authorization and qualification. This ensures that each teacher in the line embodies and transmits the original teachings without compromise.
When Çréla Prabhupäda appointed eleven ritviks—representatives empowered to conduct initiations on his behalf—he did not intend to establish an eternal ritvik system. His directive indicated that they could serve temporarily as his deputies but were not granted the authority to act as dékñä gurus independently.
This was clearly articulated in the conversation on May 28, 1977, where he stated that future gurus would be “ . . . be actually guru . . . but by my order . . . When I order, ‘You become guru,’ he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That’s it.” The crucial point here is authorization: In paramparä, authority is never assumed, inherited, or even passed by votes: It must be explicitly passed down.
Unfortunately, misunderstandings, intentional disobedience, and deviation–all egged-on by the so called “higher authoritires”–have led to the notion of a perpetual ritvik system and a reliance on institutional or ecclesiastical voting mechanisms to “authorize” new gurus. Both undermine the integrity of the paramparä.
These proposals, whether the eternal ritvik system or voting arrangements, are artificial constructs that ignore the clear principles set forth by Prabhupäda and the entire Vaishnava tradition. Genuine succession requires direct empowerment and clear authorization; anything else deviates from the authentic process of paramparä.
Prabhupäda’s intention was to preserve the purity of the lineage with Successors emerging through divine connection and authority—not through political manuevers or assumption. Any system lacking direct authorization dilutes the essence of spiritual transmission and risks transforming a living tradition into a rigid and dogmatic structure devoid of true spiritual potency.
Çréla Prabhupäda did not come to the West to establish an organized religion with the trappings of priesthood and man-made dogma. A voted-in, rubber-stamped, institutional guru is not a guru! A bona fide spiritual master cannot be established merely through institutional votes or bureaucratic rubber-stamp. In Krishna conscious tradition, a guru is meant to be a transparent via medium to the Absolute Truth, realized through pure devotion, strict adherence to çästra, and unwavering fidelity to the guru-paramparä.
By definition, a “rubber-stamped guru” undermines these qualifications by substituting spiritual realization with institutional approval, which misleads disciples and followers and dilutes the sanctity of the guru-disciple relationship. Çréla Prabhupäda himself warned against this deviation, asserting that a bona fide guru must be recognized by his transcendental qualities and deep knowledge of Krishna consciousness, not by politics or majority consensus.
Such distortions risk creating a system where loyalty to the institution takes precedence over loyalty to the Absolute Truth, which Çréla Prabhupäda described as detrimental to spiritual advancement.