First of a Three-Part Series

Cognitive Dissonance

The theory of cognitive dissonance was first presented in 1956 by a social psychologist named Leon Festinger. He studied a UFO cult based in Chicago whose leader predicted that the world would end on a certain date. Festinger wanted to study the aftershock and related effects when a prophecy failed to pan out. Cognitive dissonance is defined as the uncomfortable feeling of two contradictory ideas being held simultaneously. In the case cited, upon realizing that the world had not ended, cult members were forced to acknowledge that their previous idea was wrong; this is called a disconfirmed expectancy. The leader then declared that the non-event was due to the extreme faith of the group’s members in her teachings; the catastrophy had been averted due to this faith—the cause for scheduled cataclysm had been removed. Only a couple of the eleven members left the group; many of those who remained became even more devoted.

A similar sequence of events occurred in the Krishna consciousness movement after the manifest departure of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada in 1977. Under his bona fide direction, devotees became convinced that the movement would take over the entire world; they were infused with his absolute view. Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu had predicted that the chanting would spread to “every town and village.” It was easy to assume that the ISKCON corporation would be the fulcrum manifestaton of this prediction, since it had already established itself in almost every major international city. One Japanese gentleman wrote in a paper that, “This Movement, as it is growing fast, within ten years the whole world will become Hindu." Morning Walk at Marina del Rey on July 13, 1974 in Los Angeles

Cognitive dissonance first became prominent in the Krishna consciousness movement when the so-called zonal acaryas became entangled in scandal. Although the most serious disciples of Srila Prabhupada had refused to whatsoever accept the zonal dispensation, virtually all the others had remained loyal to the eleven, so to speak. Older devotees still enmeshed in the institution found something amiss when, for instance, one zonal was overheard calling another “a smuck.” Although the zealous throng of fanatics surrounding any of the eleven could always be whipped into the frenzy of “transcendental competition” by such remarks, those who had engaged in more serious service found substantial reason to doubt.

As the scandals spread from one zone to another, these initial sparks of doubt conflagrated into huge fires. The biggest scandal by far was the murder of Sulocan dasa by a henchman from Kirtanananda’s New Vrndavana. At this point, the GBC was forced to “reform” the zonal dispensation in hopes of extinguishing as much of the blaze as possible.

The devotees who submitted to the zonal acaryas then began to separate into three prominient cults, and these are well known to all. Despite the often savage infighting between them, it can be demonstrated that cognitive dissonance has been the most influencial factor in the development of all of them. The source of the cognitive dissonance was having a triumphalist view of the future of the Hare Krishna movement, while being forced to see that it was going the route of so many mundane religious cults--the “disconfirmed expectancy.”

One could rightly argue that applying mundane psychological criteria to the practice of pure Krishna consciousness is offensive.This is not the case, however, when discussing groups that are deviated from the standards of their alleged disciplic succession. In such cases, the exhibition of mundane psychological behavior is further proof that, within these groups, there is activity impelled by the three modes of material nature.

The “Test”

As the individual zonals became disgraced, a familiar senario of cognitive dissonance repeated itself in many temples. Rank and file devotees were told by middle-manager hatchet men that the scandalous events surrounding their so-called pure devotee were all a “test” sent by Maya (illlusion).  These tests were sent to see if they would maintain their faith. Many then devoted themselves with renewed enthusiasm as a result of this deceptive ploy. Those who left, on the other hand, were denigrated and viewed as “weak,” or bad apples that had been shaken from the tree.

More deluded zealots saw the scandals as indications that their leader was an incarnation of Lord Shiva or somesuch, and that they were part of his divine pastimes or “lila.” These, as well as others who hardened themselves to endure even worse possible events, imagined that such dedication would make them eligible to go back to Godhead. There were even those who became capable of going through this psychological roller-coaster or haunted house more than once. Scandalized zonal acaryas who saw themselves as beneath another “pet-disciple” in the pecking order advised their disciples to migrate to that “superior guru.” Then, several years later, some variant of the same syndrome repeated in the new millieu.

Older Prabhupada initiates often reacted differently. Of course, many had already been driven out by the time the scandals hit. As direct disciples of the zonals became better managers or manipulators, the less fanatical disciples of His Divine Grace became quite expendable. This overt or covert expulsion created a great deal of resentment, and numerous horror stories began to be whispered about the movement. Prabhupada initiates who wanted to “remain on the boat” gravitated to those temples where the “guru” was less narsicistic or heavy handed; those who concluded that the boat was sinking did otherwise—they left the thing.

Bad Influence

Previous to the departure of Srila Prabhupada from manifest presence in 1977, only a very few malcontents left the movement to become associated with the remnants of the Gaudiya Matha. Those who had left the shelter of Srila Prabhupada were rightly deprecated by their (former) godbrothers. By 1977, Srila Prabhupada’s conclusions about his godbrothers were well known throughout the Society. Devotees generally knew that some of “the godbrothers” were extremely envious of Srila Prabhupada, and that associating with them was dangerous and could easily destroy one’s ability to keep full faith in the spiritual master (Prabhupada).

"If you are serious to be an important assistant in our Society, you should fully engage yourself in translation work. And do not mix yourself with my so-called godbrothers. . . There are many rascals in the name of Vaishnavas; be careful of them.” Letter to Niranjana, November 21, 1972

“Actually amongst my Godbrothers no one is qualified to become acarya. So it is better not to mix with my Godbrothers very intimately, because, instead of inspiring our students and disciples, they may sometimes pollute them.” Letter to Rupanuga, April 28, 1974

This standard was completely ignored by the zonal acaryas in the immediate aftermath of Srila Prabhupada’s departure, however. They could have intensely poured over Srila Prabhupada’s instructions regarding succession, or they could have consulted the movement’s own scholars in this regard. Instead, the illusory energy dictated to them that they should approach the “senior authority” of Swami B.R. Sridhara. His remark: “Rittvik-acharya, then it becomes as good as acharya,” and his Bengali cliche “mad guru si jagat guru” were like gasoline that brought the fire of zonal acarya-ism to blazing strength. The results of that advice should now be apparent to everyone. Some devotees like to celebrate Swami B. R. Sridhara as a well-wisher of the movement: Phalena pariciyate – judge by the results.

Based on the counsel of Swami B.R. Sridhara, the zonal acaryas began their imitation of devotees on the highest level. This purport from a book that should have been consulted was either dismissed or completely ignored:

“However, one should not imitate the behavior of an advanced devotee or maha-bhagavata without being self-realized, for by such imitation one will eventually become degraded. . . The devotee should also know his own position and should not try to imitate a devotee situated on a higher platform.”                                 Nectar of Instruction, Text Five, purport

The disconfirmed expectancy of the scandals affected the direct disciples of Srila Prabhupada in a manner different from the “initiated” followers of the zonal acaryas. A segment of the first-mentioned group were driven to resolve their internal conflicts by also approaching the same “senior authority” in Navadvipa who had helped to put them in psychological difficulty in the first place. It is interesting how the same man who gave the original inflammatory advice later became one of the chief beneficiaries of the very chaos he played a big part in creating. The earlier standard prohibiting association with Srila Prabhupada’s godbrothers was very little deterrence in the face of this reaction to a flood of cognitive dissonance.

The fault-finding tendency of many disciples of Srila Prabhupada was also inflamed by the disconfirmed expectancy they experienced when the scandals unfolded. Many of them remembered the weak sadhana and sense control of some of the eleven before their instant group ascension to “pure devotees.” Many Prabhupada men had initially harbored internal doubts about the eleven pretender mahabhagavats rising to such exalted positions in such a short time. When the scandals hit, these doubts were confirmed.

I personally heard one senior devotee, an “incarnation” of sorts, say to a group during breakfast prasadam in Berkeley that, “I am as good as him.” He was discussing a zonal acarya who was undergoing an embarrassing situation at the time. Many of these men, who had been passed over when the eleven were selected, now felt that they also deserved an elevated seat in the clubhouse. This phenomenon, when it had previously occurred in the Gaudiya Matha, was described very nicely by Srila Prabhupada. The prescient irony contained in his letter--and the mention of one of the key players in both collapses--is self-evident:

“So Sridhara Maharaja and his two associate gentlemen unauthorizedly selected one acarya and later it proved a failure. The result is now everyone is claiming to be acarya, even though they may be kanistha adhikari with no ability to preach. In some of the camps, the acarya is being changed three times a year. Therefore we may not commit the same mistake in our ISKCON camp.” Letter to Rupanuga, April 28, 1974

“Unfortunately, when the acarya disappears, rogues and non-devotees take advantage and immediately begin to introduce unauthorized principles. . .  The acarya, the authorized representative of the Supreme Lord, establishes these principles, but when he disappears, things once again become disordered” Srimad-Bhagavatam, 4.28.48, purport (emphasis added)

The social arrangement of Srila Prabhupada’s movement, when it functioned correctly, created a transcendental peer pressure wherein devotees felt accountable for their unauthorized behavior and thoughts. With this subtle structure in disarray, deluded devotees created an overblown assessment of their level of advancement. Pandora’s Box had been opened; getting the genie back in the bottle was going to be next to impossible.

When criticizing the leaders became widespread, the GBC was forced to implement major damage control. The pressure from the temple presidents and other middle managers could not be turned aside after the murder and scandals. The group attitude devolved to no longer be predominantly one of service but rather one of thinking that one could do a better job than the “gurus.” Such were the results of the zonal acaryas’ example of faithlessness in regard to implementing Srila Prabhupada’s instructions on succession. The eleven weeds created many more seeds.

Those who left Srila Prabhupada to serve the Gaudiya Matha leaders were by no means immune from this. A predominant misconception amongst these refugees was that they had received only the basic knowledge of Krishna consciousness from Srila Prabhupada; they were now going to be enlightened (allegedly) in the more advanced levels of “svarupa siddhi.” No doubt their new masters encouraged this delusion. Apparently, all the ordeals (“tests”) were ordained to funnel them to someone capable of teaching (indoctrinating) every refugee in the intimate details of their eternal relationship with Krishna in the spiritual world. Little did they know that they were going from the frying pan into the fire.

The worst factor for those who left the shelter of Srila Prabhupada was that they took on the Gaudiya Matha way of supposedly practicing Krishna consciousness. These devotees like to count how many of their leaders accept that it is not possible for a living entity to fall from the spiritual world; this is, in part, to demonstrate that there is unanimity in their camp on this controversial issue. Although they like to single out a very few quotations of Srila Prabhupada that apparently agree with them, it can be clearly demonstrated that this was not his teaching. Accepting their conclusion is a clear deviation from the siddhanta put forward by the last Sampradaya Acarya, the one moon who outshone all of the stars.

Not all of Srila Prabhupada’s godbrothers were envious of him, but most of them associated with those who were not at all hesitant to make poisonous remarks. The general view of Srila Prabhupada among “the godbrothers” was that he was offensive to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Prabhupada, mostly because he had allowed his disciples to also address him as “Prabhupada.” Once one was in “the godbrother’s” association, therefore, it became “proper etiquette” to refer to A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami by that group’s title for him: “Swami Maharaja.”

If a disciple of Srila Prabhupada did not get this understanding from the Gaudiya Matha directly, he heard it from another (former?) disciple of Srila Prabhupada who was closely associated with the group. This kind of association also transmitted the misconception that Srila Prabhupada had only trained his disciples in the ABC’s of Krishna consciousness. It was also not uncommon to hear in these cults that Srila Prabhupada was only in the fraternal rasa, but that Srila-this-or-that was actually in conjugal rasa-- and therefore higher than the Sampradaya Acarya; some fools actually accepted this poison.

“When our disciples similarly wanted to address their spiritual master as Prabhupada, some foolish people became envious. Not considering the propaganda work of the Hare Krsna movement, simply because these disciples addressed their spiritual master as Prabhupada, they became so envious that they formed a faction along with other such envious persons just to minimize the value of the Krsna consciousness movement. To chastise such fools, Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami very frankly says, keha karibare nare jyestha-laghu-krama. Anyone who is a bona fide preacher of the cult of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu must be respectful to the real devotees of Lord Caitanya; one should not be envious, considering one preacher to be very great and another to be very lowly. This is a material distinction and has no place on the platform of spiritual activities.” Sri Chaitanya Caritamrita, Adi Lila, 10.7, Purport

Cognitive Dissonance Run Amok

Of the three main deviant factions of Srila Prabhupada’s followers, no group is more a product of cognitive dissonance than the rittviks. Rittvik was not even formulated until well after most of the zonal acaryas became personally and institutionally disgraced. By 1989, much of the Neo-Gaudiya faction had broken away and was already engaged in battle on various fronts with the fabricated so-called “ISKCON.” Although the Neo-Gaudiya matha was certainly an alternative, many followers of Srila Prabhupada, both original initiates and disciples of the “new gurus,” could not leave his shelter and accept him on an equal level with “the godbrothers.” They were still conscious of the old prohibition--and rightly so.

Although the original formulators of rittvik, as well as its most persuasive leaders, were all senior and mid-level disciples of Srila Prabhupada, the real driving force behind rittvik were all of the now disconnected disciples of disgraced zonal acaryas. The GBC had failed in a big way to create a graceful solution for these people. When their previous “guru” had been recognized, many of them had risen in the ranks of his particular cult, becoming accustomed to all sorts of name and recognition. Many were so-called second initiates, and there were even sannyasis. When their zonal acarya became persona non grata, however, these newcomers were all instantaneously thrown into a kind of purgatory. They understandably experienced no shortage of bitterness and extreme anger--due to all of the previous personal sacrifice and austerity performed apparently for nothing.

Many of these new people were those who had become even more devoted to their so-called guru when his scandals started to emerge into group consciousness. When he finally gave up the charade, however, they felt burned to the core. They directed this rage not only at their “guru” and his hatchet men but toward the source of the whole nightmare - the GBC.

All of these people had been indoctrinated in ladder-climbing by their former masters, since that is how the zonal acaryas had achieved their own prominence. Your position on the “pet disciple” list was, after all, determined by how many letters you had from Srila Prabhupada and how much time you had spent buzzing around Prabhupada’s physical form. When the followers of those men found themselves without a ladder to climb, it was extremely humiliating. Oblivious to this discomfort, the “authority” - the GBC--coldly mandated that these people must choose yet another post-holder for “re-initiation.” In other words, they had to start ladder-climbing all over again. At this point in their own “growing pains,” the GBC was blind to both its hubris and the effects of its self-interested damage control; they continued to overlord just like before. There is no doubt that the Commission has regretted many times how those new people were mishandled after the scandals transpired.

Anyway, some devotees were re-initiated even more than once; it was cognitive dissonance piled upon cognitive dissonance, a kind of layer cake. It was all squared, cubed, and so on – a psychological horror show. By 1989, the resentment towards the GBC and especially of its treatment of the new people was becoming more than palpable. All of these many disconnected devotees could be likened to minerals dissolved in a chemical solution that had been heated by personal austerity and penance. After the scandals, that fire died down very quickly, and the solution became, what is called in chemistry, super-saturated. The rittvik formula, when it was presented in 1989, was the required alchemical catalyst, and an entire faction crystallized almost instantaneously.

The disciples of the zonals were formerly described in a study that had been performed on devotees in the mid-Eighties by psychologist Dr. Arnie Weiss. He wrote, “My study had some interesting results. The most prominent was that on the Comrey Personality Scales, both male and female devotees showed a hallmark personality trait. On the average, devotees scored way above the normal range in compulsivity. I don’t know of any other group . . . that has been studied, that has such a pronounced measure of compulsivity.” Devotees were close to the norm on most other measures.  

People with an extreme amount of compulsion are described as having Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder. Although devotees were not necessarily described as having that disorder, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders gives some indication of the traits associated with compulsivity in this description:

“Individuals with this disorder are rigidly deferential to authority and rules and insist on quite literal compliance, with no rule bending for extenuating circumstances." (p. 670, 1998 edition) (emphases added)

"People with this disorder may be especially attentive to their relative status in dominance-submission relationships and may display excessive deference to an authority they respect and excessive resistance to authority that they do not respect." (p. 671, 1998 edition) (emphasis added)

These descriptions accurately describe the previous thinking of those who now flocked to rittvik. By 1989, their masters had indirectly created these results, i.e., one extreme was replaced by another. Although it may not have been apparent to the founders, the genius in the rittvik formula was that it not only recognized all of the burnt, fried, and deep fried former followers of the zonal acaryas, it actually elevated them to a higher position than they had achieved previously.  It was a ladder-climbing win-win, so to speak. Everyone got to go on being treated like so-called brahmanas, and they got to keep their “initiated” spiritual names. Everyone got patted on the back.

All of the cognitive dissonance of seeing one’s so-called guru become disgraced and all of the disconfirmed expectancy of seeing the movement factionalize--all of that was instantly evaporated. Any idea of how an insincere person contacts a pretender guru was completely swept under the rug. Rittvik made everything more than perfect for all these people. It was all so obvious to them: “Why hadn’t we seen before that this was what Srila Prabhupada had really wanted?” There was only one problem, a very big one: It was not authorized by the Gaudiya Vaishnava parampara.

The shastric mistake of the rittviks was that they took a naimittika instruction--a time, place, circumstance, and management instruction (regarding how initiations were to be performed when His Divine Grace was manifest but did not personally conduct the initiation ceremony)--and put it on the level of his nitya instructions, such as chanting Hare Krishna and reading the books. The absurdity of this concoction reaches its highest zenith when some of rittviks claim Srila Prabhupada is to be the only guru for the next ten thousand years!  How do they make such a preposterous claim? Simply because someone had used the word “henceforward” in typing up a letter that Srila Prabhupada signed.

End of Part 1

21st Century Mleccha Sahajiya Cults Part 2

Quotes from the books of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada are copyright by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust