Interpretation is at the heart of the ritvik controversy.

[Guest guest]

>> I believe that this was situation that Srila Prabhupada faced before he

>> departed, that there was no one of his disciples or Godbrothers who was

>> without some tinge of personal desire, therefore he didn't select any one

>> person as Acarya, but left us, in essence, an Acarya Board (ie the GBC).

>

>Maybe Prabhupada established the GBC because he simply wanted to follow in

>the footsteps of his Guru Maharaj who had done the same thing.

 

makes perfect sense.

 

SP could see how G-math failed by not following the system suggested by

Srila BSST (to have a GBC body) so he made a GBC body, it seems. I am sure

SP has said somewhere why he did it. That will end our "seems" and

"maybes"!

 

ys, bb

[Guest guest]

>

>When Satvarupa Maharaja asked Srila Prabhupada how initiations would be

>conducted after his dissapearence Srila Prabhupada responded that I will

>appoint some of you as "officiating acarayas". Did Prabhupada not know what

>he was saying? I believe he did want his disciples to be officiating gurus

>not the full fledged type that are mostly discribed in our literature.

>

>So in a sense he did want us to be Ritviks, but on behalf of who? Not on

>behalf of Srila Prabhupada as the Ritviks wrongly assume, but on behalf of

>the "Acarya Board" the GBC. This year the GBC in their meeting in Mayapur,

>without using the words that I have used here, have said basicly the same

>thing.

>

 

 

It seems the guru represents the disciplic succesion, working within ISKCON

in cooperation with the GBC.

 

I would propose the Prabhupada wanted his followers to be full-fledged, but

didn't appoint them as such. They will show their qualifications by their

activities and character.

 

ys,

 

Sthita