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.

 

>

> 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

 

But if Krsna says: dehino smin..., and Srila Prabhupada says (just

repeating) you are not this body but soul, and i preach you are not this

body but soul - then where is interpretation? I say :Prabhupada SAID you are

not this body because Krsna HAS SAID you are soul, amsa. So if i just repeat

then where is any INTERPRETATION as you proposed above?