Interpretation is at the heart of the ritvik controversy.

[Guest guest]

> > > "In our vaisnava society, Vedic authority has been seriously

> > > compromised by an unshastric apotheosis of Srila Prabhupada. Most

> > > people in our society are willing to accept a conclusion based solely

> > > on Srila Prabhuapda's words without bothering to insist that the

> > > conclusion be supported by sastra or the words of previous acaryas.

> >

> > I would say that "Srila Prabhupada's words" are sastra.

>

> Whatever Prabhupada spoke is from the sastra. But the problem arises when

> someone is misinterpreting his words. At that time asking him for the

> sastric proof is not undermining the words or position of Prabhupada. That

> is why it is said guru, sadhu & sastra. Sometimes when a bonafide guru's

> words are misinterpreted in his absence then such interpretations should

> be rejected if they appear to make the guru say something different from

> sastra & sadhu.

>

> Your servant,

> Nayana-ranjana Dasa

 

Yes! Excellent Nayanaranjana Prabhu!

 

We often encounter some idea, and the author will say, "I am not saying it,

Srila Prabhupada is saying it!" But as soon as we say, "Srila Prabhupada

said, Vyasa said, etc.", we are offering an INTERPRETATION of what is said.

In fact, you can't really read or hear something without interpreting it.

Understanding something necessarily means interpreting the words, sounds,

pictures, ink on the page, etc. from which we draw our understanding. That

is why we have to check ideas not only against guru, but sadhu and shastra

as well to see that as far as possible our INTERPRETATION of guru's

instructions is correct.

 

ys KKdas