Monthly Archives: November 2025

11.07.25
by

Lord Ramacandra Removed – Revisited

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Link to original Arsa-Prayoga article:

https://arsaprayoga.com/2013/09/12/lord-ramacandra-removed-from-bhagavad-gita-as-it-is-10-31/

Description

This article examines Jayadvaita Swami’s deletion of the line “Lord Ramacandra, of the Ramayana, an incarnation of Krishna, is the mightiest of warriors” from the purport to Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 10.31 in posthumous printings by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International (BBTI). While the line was almost certainly inserted by one of Srila Prabhupada’s editors, it was later affirmed by Srila Prabhupada himself in recorded conversation. Once that acceptance is confirmed, the matter is settled — and the later deletion is revealed as a breach of paramparā, not a restoration of accuracy.

Type of change

Deletion — removal of a complete sentence from the published purport.

Category

Philosophical/Devotional change.

Commentary

The editor added it — and Srila Prabhupada accepted it

We do not have evidence that Srila Prabhupada personally wrote the line naming “Lord Ramacandra” in the 10.31 purport. The wording almost certainly came from an editor working under his supervision — and that is fine. Prabhupada relied on editors to help prepare many purports.

The crucial point is this:

Srila Prabhupada heard the exact purport, which included the reference to Lord Ramacandra, and explicitly accepted it as correct in a conversation quoted in the article. He repeated the same identification in his own voice.

Once that happened, the sentence became authorized. No one has the right to remove it after his departure.

Prabhupada confirmed the meaning of “Rama” here as Ramacandra

In a recorded discussion, Srila Prabhupada used this exact verse (10.31) as an example of how Lord Ramacandra is mentioned in the Gītā. He did not say, “This was an editorial invention.” He accepted it.
And even though the term “Rama” also can refer to Parasurama or Balarama, Prabhupada confirmed Ramacandra as one of the valid referents in this specific context of the Gita. That is enough to fix it into the purport permanently.

There is no scope to overrule the ācārya’s final approval

Posthumous editing is sometimes defended on the basis that “Prabhupada didn’t write this line himself.” But in Krishna consciousness, the test is not authorship — it is acceptance.

Once the ācārya approves and uses a sentence, it belongs to him. The disciple may not later argue: “But that wasn’t his original phrasing.” That is editorial hubris disguised as scholarship.

The deletion erases a confirmed Vaiṣṇava possibility

By removing the reference to Lord Ramacandra, BBTI did not just “restore ambiguity” — they erased part of Srila Prabhupada’s own explanation.

Srila Prabhupada made it clear: “Rama” can include several incarnations of the Lord, but also includes Lord Ramacandra in the context of this verse — a point he heard in the purport, accepted, and personally repeated.

The purport, as originally printed, reflected that full Vaiṣṇava understanding. After the deletion, it no longer does.

So the issue is not that the edited version is “uncertain” — but that it is incomplete. It no longer reflects the full range of meaning as accepted by Srila Prabhupada himself.

Removing what Prabhupada approved doesn’t improve accuracy.
It reduces fidelity.

Why this is not negotiable

Even if the line was originally added by an editor, Srila Prabhupada approved it, used it, and confirmed its meaning in his own voice. That turns an editorial suggestion into an ācārya-sanctioned teaching. Removing it is not just a mistake in publishing. It is a mistake in disciplic succession.

The Arsa-Prayoga principle is simple: You do not remove what the spiritual master has accepted. Once he confirms it, it becomes sacred.

The deletion of Lord Ramacandra’s name is not the editing of a “mistake.” It is the undoing of Prabhupada’s acceptance — and that is the real error.

11.07.25
by

Frivolous Change of Chapter-Heading – Revisited

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Link to original Arsa-Prayoga article:

https://arsaprayoga.com/2013/10/24/enjoying-the-self-within-or-the-duty-of-the-finger-bg-4-38/

Description

This article explores how changing the chapter title “Sankhya-yoga” to “Dhyāna-yoga” in Bhagavad-gita As It Is alters the reader’s perception of Srila Prabhupada’s intention — not because “Dhyāna-yoga” is inherently wrong or historically invalid, but because Prabhupada had a purpose in not using that more common title. The issue, therefore, is not academic accuracy, but fidelity to the ācārya’s personal voice — a core principle of Arsa-Prayoga, especially in the context of posthumous editing by BBTI.

Type of change

Substitution — one term from the Vedic tradition replaced by another, equally authentic, but conveying a different emphasis.

Category

Philosophical change.

Commentary

Not a question of “right” or “wrong” — but of honoring intention

Many commentaries throughout Vaiṣṇava history title Chapter 6 as “Dhyāna-yoga.” This is not a mistake. But Srila Prabhupada chose not to use this more common title. Instead, he used “Sankhya-yoga” consistently in his lectures, manuscripts, and published edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is.
That choice is not random — it reflects a pedagogical and theological strategy. When BBTI editors later replaced it with “Dhyāna-yoga,” the question is not whether their choice could be justified in a vacuum, but whether it should override Prabhupada’s own.

Srila Prabhupada’s framing is the governing standard

Prabhupada repeatedly emphasized that his edition of the Gītā was not merely another translation, but the definitive presentation of the Bhagavad-gita “as it is.” To alter his chosen structure — even in a title — is to alter the interpretive lens he intentionally set.
This is where Arsa-Prayoga becomes relevant: the principle that once the ācārya has spoken, his presentation stands. Posthumous editing, however well-meaning, must not replace the spiritual intuition of the empowered teacher with the academic preferences of his disciples or followers — whether they be Jayadvaita Swami, Dravida Dasa, or any future editor.

Why “Sankhya-yoga” rather than “Dhyāna-yoga”?

Prabhupada’s use of “Sankhya-yoga” emphasizes that meditation is not an isolated practice, but flows from knowledge — specifically, the discrimination between matter and spirit.
By choosing “Sankhya-yoga,” he was teaching that yogic practice is incomplete without philosophical realization and ultimately Kṛṣṇa consciousness. He may also have been signaling a departure from modern, technique-focused interpretations of yoga that are divorced from devotion — a trend evident even in the 1970s which has only grown stronger since.

The editorial risk: erasing Prabhupada’s corrective

Changing the title to “Dhyāna-yoga” removes that corrective emphasis and defaults back to the format familiar from other editions. This is exactly what makes the change problematic. If Prabhupada was deliberately shifting the focus — away from impersonal or secular yoga narratives and toward theistic Sankhya — then the editorial change undoes his work.
This is not a disagreement with previous ācāryas. It is a disagreement with editing the ācārya after his departure.

The issue, therefore, is not whether “Dhyāna-yoga” is a legitimate title in the wider tradition, but whether BBTI has the right to retroactively override Srila Prabhupada’s intentional wording in Bhagavad-gita As It Is. A single change in a chapter title may seem small, but it signals a larger trend: the subtle reshaping of Prabhupada’s work through posthumous editing instead of paramparā.

That is why this matters — not because of a word, but because of the principle.

11.07.25
by

The List That Doesn’t Exist! Or?

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

We’re told by Ramesvara Dasa that Srila Prabhupada personally approved a list of edits to his Bhagavad-gita As It Is. I have no problem accepting that. I even believe Ramesvara Dasa when he says he saw it. It would be wonderful to have the list!

But here’s the reality: the list seems to have vanished. No one has it. No one can show it. And without the list in hand, no one can prove what was on it, what was approved, or what wasn’t.

Even if several devotees from BBT or ISKCON saw it 40 or 50 years ago, memory is not a reliable basis for editing the books of an acharya. No one alive today can recall every detail with perfect accuracy after so many years. And even if they could, we would still be left with no way to verify it.

Let’s grant the strongest possible version of the argument and say the list absolutely existed and listed real, Prabhupada-approved changes. Then what? Without the list in our hands today, we cannot distinguish between:

– The changes Srila Prabhupada personally approved,
– The changes made later by editors after his departure, and
– The mistakes he deliberately left in.

That distinction is essential. Because if we start “fixing” or “restoring” the text without knowing which changes were authorized, we immediately run into a crisis: removing even one change could erase something Srila Prabhupada wanted kept. Leaving in even one change could preserve an unauthorized edit made after his departure. We can’t know who we’re obeying, and who we’re overriding.

So even if the list was seen by some devotees long ago, the fact that it cannot be produced today means that it cannot serve as a valid basis for altering Srila Prabhupada’s books. At this point, anyone making changes is operating on guesswork. And guesswork with the words of a pure devotee is not service. It is tampering.

Until the list is actually produced — not merely remembered or rumored — the only safe and faithful policy is:

-No posthumous edits.
-No guessing.
-No tampering with what we cannot verify.

Otherwise, we’re effectively trusting editors (Jayadvaita Swami and Dravida Dasa) more than Srila Prabhupada himself. That is not loyalty. That is deviation.

Until the list is in our hands, there is no debate. Either we preserve Srila Prabhupada’s books as he left them, or we risk rewriting him based on somebody’s memory from 1977. The choice should be obvious.

11.04.25
by

Why One Conversation Cannot Rewrite the Gītā: A Case Study in Misusing Prabhupāda’s Words

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

A devotee recently pointed to the following excerpt from a 1973 conversation and argued that, based on this alone, Bhagavad-gītā 18.66 should be “corrected” to replace the word religion with “occupation”:

Prabhupāda: Now, Kṛṣṇa says, sarva-dharmān parityajya [Bg. 18.66].
Satish Kumar: Yes.
Prabhupāda: Now, dharma means occupation. Dharma is not translated as “religion.”
Satish Kumar: No, no.
Prabhupāda: This is wrong translation. Dharma means occupation.
Satish Kumar: Activity?
Prabhupāda: Activity, occupation.
(Conversation, London, July 30, 1973)

Before rushing to “fix” the book, a few points need to be made—especially in light of arsa-prayoga, the principle that the words of the ācārya are not to be tampered with after his departure:

  1. No instruction, and thus no authorization, was given to change the verse. Srila Prabhupada often spoke freely and loosely in conversation, but he gave direct, literal instructions for book changes while present. Here, he did not.
  2. Srila Prabhupada himself frequently translated dharma as “religion.” This is not a one-off occurrence—it appears hundreds of times in his books and lectures. Are we now to “correct” them all? On what authority?
  3. He heard the verse read aloud repeatedly and never objected. This is decisive. He personally approved the printed Gītā, lectured from it, and signed off on it as finished work.
  4. What happens when we find other places where Prabhupada gives different meanings or emphases? Language is fluid, and Srila Prabhupada tailored his wording to context and audience. Selectively mining conversations to override the final, published work is not fidelity—it’s revisionism.
  5. This is exactly how “The Blessed Lord” was removed by Jayadvaita Swami and the BBTI from later editions. Even though Srila Prabhupada accepted that phrase while alive, and even used it himself, editors saw one conversation where he expressed a reservation—and used that as a pretext to delete it from the entire book.

If this logic is allowed, what will be next?

This is the fatal pattern: use a stray comment in a private conversation to overrule the public, authorized book. It weaponizes Prabhupada’s own words against his finished legacy. That is the opposite of arsa-prayoga. That is how the books slowly stop being his.

11.01.25
by

“The Duty of the Finger” (4.38) – Revisited

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Link to original Arsa-Prayoga article:

https://arsaprayoga.com/2013/10/24/enjoying-the-self-within-or-the-duty-of-the-finger-bg-4-38/

Description

In the 1972 Macmillan edition of Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, approved and used by Śrīla Prabhupāda, the translation of BG 4.38 reads:

“And one who has achieved this enjoys the self within himself in due course of time.”

In the 1983 BBT International edition, the translation is changed to:

“And one who has become accomplished in the practice of devotional service enjoys this knowledge within himself in due course of time.”

Multiple phrases have been replaced or expanded, and the purport has been altered to match the new interpretation.

Type of change

Substitution and deletion (translation + purport)

Category

Philosophical change

Commentary

1. Change of theological focus

The original states that the self-realized person “enjoys the self within.” The revised version replaces “the self” with “this knowledge,” shifting the focus from spiritual identity to mental content. That is not a correction of language but a change of doctrine.

2. Introduction of wording not found in the original

Original: “has achieved this”
Edited: “has become accomplished in the practice of devotional service”
This inserts a new conceptual framework and changes the subject of the verse from realization to performance.

3. Removal of Vedāntic clarity

The original expresses the result of realization — the soul directly experiencing its own spiritual nature.
The edited version turns the verse into a statement about enjoying accumulated knowledge through devotional practice.

4. The “manuscript restoration” claim is invalid

The 1972 edition is already closer to the manuscript than the 1983 rewrite. Changing the published edition in the name of “restoration” while actually adding interpretive wording is not restoration — it is posthumous editing.

5. Śrīla Prabhupāda never corrected or objected to the original wording

Prabhupāda lectured from this verse and didn’t say the translation was wrong or needed revision. His silence is better seen as evidence of approval than evidence of disapproval.

6. Effect on meaning

-Shift from “enjoying the self” to “enjoying knowledge”
-Shift from realization to information
-Shift from divine fact to devotional process

Conclusion

This is not a spelling or grammar correction. It is a shift in meaning — from direct realization of the self to the enjoyment of knowledge gained through practice. That shift did not come from Śrīla Prabhupāda. It came from a posthumous editor, Jayadvaita Swami.

Such changes do not preserve Bhagavad-gītā As It Is — they transform it into Bhagavad-gītā JAS it is.
This is a clear violation of the principle of arsa-prayoga: the words of the ācārya must not be altered after his departure.