“Taking Center of Krishna” Makes Perfect Sense

Why Bhagavad-gītā 9.32 Should Never Have Been “Corrected” on the Assumption of a Mishearing

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

One of the more interesting posthumous changes to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Bhagavad-gītā As It Is occurs in the purport to Bhagavad-gītā 9.32. In the original 1972 edition Śrīla Prabhupāda uses the unusual expression “taking center” not once, but three times:

“The most simple man taking center of the pure devotee can be purified by proper guidance. … This is possible only when one takes center of Kṛṣṇa. One has to take center completely of Kṛṣṇa. Then one can become much greater than great jñānīs and yogīs.”

The original Sanskrit word under discussion in the verse is vyapāśritya. Śrīla Prabhupāda gives it in the word-for-word as “particularly taking shelter,” and the translation says:

“O son of Pṛthā, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth—women, vaiśyas [merchants], as well as śūdras [workers]—can approach the supreme destination.”

Thus the original edition gives us shelter in both the word-for-word and translation, while the purport gives us center three times.

In the posthumously revised edition, all three occurrences of center have been replaced with shelter. The last part also received an additional phrase connecting the explanation explicitly with vyapāśritya. The assumption behind the change has now become clear because Jayadvaita Swami has published his annotated revision copy. His note on “taking center” reads:

“Manuscript: ‘taking center.’

This is surely a mishearing for ‘taking shelter.’ (The same error appears again in the next-to-last line of this purport.)

The term ‘centered’ can be used in the sense of ‘mentally and emotionally stable, secure, and well balanced,’ and perhaps the transcriber had the thought that one could achieve such centeredness by the grace of the pure devotees.”

This is important because we are no longer merely guessing why the change was made. Jayadvaita Swami’s later published explanation is that “taking center” is “surely a mishearing” for “taking shelter.” His 2016 announcement of the annotated scans gives further insight into his reasoning. He says that in several places the 1972 edition gives Śrīla Prabhupāda’s explanation of a Sanskrit word while omitting the Sanskrit word itself, specifically naming “vyapāśritya in text 32” as one of those cases.

There is nothing unreasonable about investigating whether a transcriber misheard Śrīla Prabhupāda. We know that genuine transcription mistakes occurred. The problem is the word “surely.” Before changing a published statement of the ācārya after his departure, “surely” should require extremely strong evidence. In this case the evidence points in precisely the opposite direction.

The manuscript actually says “taking center”

The first fact to notice is almost embarrassingly simple: the manuscript itself says “taking center.” Jayadvaita Swami acknowledges this in his annotation. Therefore this is not a case where the manuscript says “shelter” and the original editor inexplicably changed it to “center.” To justify the revision, an additional theory is required: the manuscript itself must contain a transcription error.

That is certainly possible. But possibility is not proof. The theory becomes still less persuasive when we notice that the expression occurs three times in a single short purport. A transcriber could of course mishear a phrase repeatedly, particularly if Śrīla Prabhupāda repeated it during the same dictation. But now we must ask the obvious question: Did Śrīla Prabhupāda use “center” or “taking center” in the same spiritual sense anywhere else?

The answer is yes—repeatedly.

And this is where Teachings of Lord Caitanya becomes extremely important.

“Taking center” was already in Teachings of Lord Caitanya in 1968

Teachings of Lord Caitanya was first published in 1968, four years before the complete Macmillan edition of Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. The BBT itself dates the first edition to 1968. When we examine that original edition, we discover not merely general statements about Kṛṣṇa being the “center,” but the same peculiar expression “taking center.”

Most strikingly, Teachings of Lord Caitanya refers to the very same passage from the Second Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that stands behind the discussion in the purport to Bhagavad-gītā 9.32:

“Even the aborigines and uncivilized human beings like Kiratas, Huns, Andhra, Pulinda, Pukksa, Abhira, Kank, Yuvana and Khasa, and many other human beings in the lower species of life—all can be purified simply by taking center of the pure devotees.”

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, 1968 edition, discussion of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.4.18.

That alone creates a major problem for the “surely a mishearing” theory. In Bhagavad-gītā 9.32 Śrīla Prabhupāda is discussing how persons of lower birth can become purified through the pure devotee, and the text says:

“The most simple man taking center of the pure devotee can be purified by proper guidance.”

Years earlier, while explaining the same Bhāgavatam teaching, Teachings of Lord Caitanya had already said:

“all can be purified simply by taking center of the pure devotees.”

These are not merely two occurrences of the word center. They are nearly the same construction, used in nearly the same doctrinal context.

And Teachings of Lord Caitanya does not stop there. A little later we find:

“The influence of devotional service is such that a person so engaged gives up all material desires and becomes fully attached to taking center unto Krishna, being moved by the transcendental qualities of the Lord.”

So before the 1972 Gītā ever appeared, a lifetime-published book already contained both “taking center of the pure devotees” and “taking center unto Krishna.” These correspond almost exactly to the two constructions Jayadvaita Swami later regarded as transcription mistakes in Bhagavad-gītā 9.32: “taking center of the pure devotee” and “takes center of Kṛṣṇa.”

At this point “surely a mishearing” is no longer a reasonable description of the evidence. At most it is a hypothesis, and a hypothesis contradicted by parallel usage elsewhere in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s published works.

Kṛṣṇa as “center” is everywhere in the same book

There are many more examples in the original Teachings of Lord Caitanya. Not all use the exact construction “taking center,” but together they demonstrate that center is not some alien concept accidentally introduced by a confused transcriber. Śrīla Prabhupāda repeatedly uses center as a theological term for the point upon which devotional life rests and around which spiritual relationships are arranged.

For example:

“Krishna is so kind that He awards him His Lotus Feet as a center for the devotee.”

Elsewhere, describing those who rise toward liberation without devotional service:

“even though they rise to the highest point of liberation by severe penances and austerity, still, with no center at Your Lotus Feet, they are sure to fall down again”

In his summary of the essential teaching of the four seed verses of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Śrīla Prabhupāda presents Kṛṣṇa Himself as the center of all relationships:

“I am the Supreme Center of relationship of all living entities, and My knowledge is the Supreme Knowledge”

The book also says that:

“Krishna is the ultimate center.”

and, when discussing human society:

“the transcendentalists or devotees of the Lord are not only freed from all material enviousness, but they are kind to everyone, endeavoring to establish a competitionless society, with God in the center.”

One could add further occurrences, but there is little need. The point is already established. In the 1968 Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Kṛṣṇa or His lotus feet are repeatedly presented as the center, the devotee can have His lotus feet “as a center,” one can be “taking center of the pure devotees,” and one can become attached to “taking center unto Krishna.”

Against this background, the claim that “taking center” in Bhagavad-gītā 9.32 is surely a mishearing becomes very difficult to defend.

It is tempting to speculate about whether Jayadvaita Swami had encountered all these passages when he revised the Gītā. But we do not need to speculate about his reading history. The objective point is sufficient: before an editor declares an ācārya’s published expression to be “surely” a transcription error and removes it after the author’s departure, the author’s own corpus should be investigated. Had the expression been investigated properly, the supposedly impossible usage would have been found elsewhere.

What does vyapāśritya actually mean?

We should be equally careful in the other direction. It would be an exaggeration to claim that center is the ordinary literal dictionary translation of vyapāśritya. It is not. The normal lexical meanings are taking refuge, having recourse to, resorting to, depending upon, or taking shelter. Sanskrit dictionaries give vyapāśri in the sense of going to something for refuge or having recourse to it, while the related āśraya has a broad semantic field including support, resting place, basis, receptacle, dependence, refuge, and that upon which something rests.

Therefore Śrīla Prabhupāda’s word-for-word “particularly taking shelter” is perfectly straightforward. So is his translation “those who take shelter in Me.”

But this is precisely why the use of center in the purport is so interesting.

Śrīla Prabhupāda did not lack the word shelter. He had already used it in the word-for-word. He had already used it again in the translation. Yet the original purport then gives center three times. If center were merely the result of somebody desperately trying and failing to remember the English word shelter, this would be a curious situation indeed.

A much more natural possibility is that we are seeing something Śrīla Prabhupāda does throughout his books: he attacks the same Sanskrit idea from different directions.

The word-for-word gives the reader the immediate lexical meaning. The translation gives the meaning of the Sanskrit sentence. The purport need not mechanically repeat the same English word yet again. It can explain another dimension of what the Sanskrit means in practice. To take shelter of Kṛṣṇa is to depend upon Him; to take Kṛṣṇa as one’s center is to make Him the fixed point upon which one’s whole life rests and around which all one’s activities are organized.

Those concepts are related, but not identical. That is precisely why retaining both expressions is valuable.

The word-for-word is not a straitjacket

This point is much more important than this single change. There is a tendency in some of the posthumous editing to treat the word-for-word as though it establishes the one authorized English equivalent to which the translation or purport ought to conform. But Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books themselves show that this is not his method.

The obvious example is śrī-bhagavān uvāca. In the original Gītā the word-for-word can identify bhagavān as “the Supreme Personality of Godhead,” while the running translation says “The Blessed Lord said.” The difference is not a defect requiring harmonization. It gives the reader two legitimate ways of approaching the Sanskrit expression.

The same principle may well operate in Bhagavad-gītā 9.32. The word-for-word tells us:

“vyapāśrītya—particularly taking shelter”

The translation says:

“those who take shelter in Me”

and the purport tells us what such shelter means existentially:

“one takes center of Kṛṣṇa”

Instead of treating that variation as a problem, why not learn from it?

This is especially relevant because Jayadvaita Swami has elsewhere explicitly described following the word-for-word when changing another part of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s text. Discussing Bhagavad-gītā 10.34, he writes:

“I also restored the word medha. Though Srila Prabhupada, in the purport, mentions it as ‘memory,’ I followed his word-for-word meaning, ‘intelligence.’ (‘Memory’ is smrti, as Srila Prabhupada indicates both in the purport and in his word-for-word meanings.)”

The particular textual question in Bhagavad-gītā 10.34 is different, and I am not arguing the merits of that change here. What is important is the editorial principle revealed by the explanation: where the purport and word-for-word appear not to match, there can be a tendency to make the text conform to the word-for-word.

But who established that as Śrīla Prabhupāda’s compositional rule?

A purport is not an expanded word-for-word translation. Śrīla Prabhupāda is free to give one aspect of a Sanskrit word in the synonyms, another in the translation, and yet another implication in the purport. Indeed, doing so can give the reader more understanding than forcing every layer into verbal uniformity.

The posthumous revision of Bhagavad-gītā 9.32 therefore risks doing exactly the opposite of what good editing should do. It increases consistency while decreasing information.

Śrīla Prabhupāda himself explains the geometry

If the evidence ended with Teachings of Lord Caitanya, the case would already be strong. But Śrīla Prabhupāda himself explains what it means to make Kṛṣṇa the center, and his explanation is explicitly geometrical.

In Vṛndāvana on October 24, 1972, he gave the following explanation:

“Prabhupāda: Compass. Yes. That compass, you put the pointed part on the center, you can make a circle. So if I do not take the central point, I make my own point, then my circle will overlap your circle, there will be a clash. But if the center is the same, I can draw one circle, you can draw one, another circle, none of these circles will overlap. So if taking Kṛṣṇa as the center… Nirbandhe kṛṣṇa-sambandhe. If we relate our activities, social activities, philanthropic activities, political activities, any a…, religious activities, any activity, if you make center Kṛṣṇa, then my circle, your circle, another circle will not overlap. But it will give different lights, Kṛṣṇa being center.

That point we were discussing in this morning from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Ataḥ pumbhir dvija-śreṣṭhā varṇāśrama-vibhāgaśaḥ [SB 1.2.13]. Everyone is trying to make his own circle—political, social, humanitarian, philosophical, scientific. That’s all right. But Bhāgavata says that make your circle perfect from the point of Kṛṣṇa. Don’t miss the point. Svanu…, svanuṣṭhitasya dharmasya saṁsiddhir hari-toṣaṇam [SB 1.2.13]. Whatever you do, if you try to please Kṛṣṇa, then your circle is perfect. Kṛṣṇa must be center. Rūpa Gosvāmī says, nirbandhe kṛṣṇa-sambandhe [Brs. 1.2.255]. Kṛṣṇa-sambandhe, you can deal in politics; then politics will be perfect. Kṛṣṇa-sambandhe, you can make circle of scientific knowledge; then it will be perfect. Making center Kṛṣṇa, either politics, sociology, philosophy, religion, whatever it may be, it will be perfect.”

This quotation is extremely important because it eliminates much of the need for speculation about what Śrīla Prabhupāda means by center. He begins with a literal compass. He speaks about putting its point on the center. He says, “if I do not take the central point.” He then immediately applies the analogy spiritually: “taking Kṛṣṇa as the center.” He continues with “make center Kṛṣṇa,” “Kṛṣṇa being center,” “Kṛṣṇa must be center,” and “making center Kṛṣṇa.”

This is unmistakably geometrical reasoning. There is a fixed central point, and different circles are drawn in relation to it. If people establish different independent centers, their circles conflict. If Kṛṣṇa is the common center, the different circles of political, social, philosophical, scientific and religious activity can all be properly related.

It is worth remembering here that constructions such as “taking O as centre” or “taking A and B as centres” are perfectly normal in Indian mathematical English when describing compass constructions. That does not prove that take center of Kṛṣṇa is standard general English. It obviously is not. But it gives us the linguistic background to an analogy Śrīla Prabhupāda himself explicitly uses. His thought is perfectly clear: take the central point; take Kṛṣṇa as the center; construct everything in relation to Him.

Seen in that light, “taking center of Kṛṣṇa” is not gibberish. It is compressed Indian English expressing a coherent and repeatedly stated philosophical idea.

Śrīla Prabhupāda heard the expression and said “Yes”

There is another piece of evidence that must be included, although we should not make it prove more than it proves. On June 28, 1976, Bhagavad-gītā 9.32 was being discussed in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s presence. The original purport was read aloud:

“The most simple man, taking center of the pure devotee, can be purified by proper guidance.”

Śrīla Prabhupāda responded:

“Yes. The guidance means how to take him to Kṛṣṇa’s shelter. Then he will be all right.”

This does not prove that Śrīla Prabhupāda stopped and consciously inspected the English phrase taking center. We should not manufacture evidence. But it certainly weighs against the assertion that the phrase was an obvious error that he would naturally reject. The exact expression was read in his presence, and his recorded response begins “Yes.”

Even more interestingly, he then explains center in terms of shelter. That beautifully illustrates the very principle discussed above. There is no need for the two words to fight with one another. Śrīla Prabhupāda can hear center and explain shelter. The concepts illuminate each other.

That is quite different from an editor deciding that because one word is correct, the other must therefore be wrong.

Even BBTI’s own Style Guide recognizes this principle

There is a certain irony here. The BBTI’s own 2016 Style Guide, to which Jayadvaita Swami was a principal contributor, begins with a sensible limitation:

“These are standards meant to apply to BBT publications henceforward, not (except where indicated) to be retroactively applied to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s already published works.”

Under the entry attraction, the guide explains a distinction that modern English would normally make and then wisely concludes:

“In Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books, let his usage of attraction stand as is.”

Under servitude it similarly discusses the rather negative meanings the word can carry in modern English and concludes:

“In Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books, let servitude stand.”

That is exactly the caution that should have governed “taking center.” Here we have an unusual expression, but unlike a meaningless typo it has a coherent theological meaning, appears repeatedly in another lifetime-published book, corresponds with Śrīla Prabhupāda’s repeated presentation of Kṛṣṇa as the center, and is illuminated by an explicit compass-and-circle analogy.

If attraction and servitude can stand because they are Śrīla Prabhupāda’s usages, why should taking center be erased when the evidence supporting it is considerably stronger?

And what if the English is still considered odd?

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that someone remains unconvinced. Suppose he says: “I understand what Śrīla Prabhupāda means, but taking center of Kṛṣṇa is still strange English.”

Fine.

That brings us directly to ārṣa-prayoga.

Śrīla Prabhupāda wrote:

“So far your telling me that some devotees consider that because there may be some grammatical discrepancies in my Srimad-Bhagavatam, First Canto, then they may also be allowed to translate with errors accepted, that is just like imitating Raslila. When you do all other things like Krishna, they you can do Raslila. So if these other writers can do like me and spread Krishna consciouness all over the world by becoming big Vedic scholars, then they can do. If one is too big, there is no mistake. Arsa prayoga means there may be discrepancies but it is all right. Just like Shakespeare, sometimes there are odd usages of language, but he is accepted as authority. I have explained all these things in my Preface to First Canto.”

Letter to Maṇḍalī Bhadra, January 20, 1972.

And in 1976 he said:

“So unless one is self-realized, there is practically no use writing about Krishna. This transcendental writing does not depend on material education. It depends on the spiritual realization. You’ll find, therefore, in the comments of Bhagavatam by different acaryas, even there are some discrepancies, they are accepted as arsa-prayoga. It should remain as it is.”

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam lecture, Vṛndāvana, March 31, 1976.

Notice how perfectly the first quotation fits this case. Śrīla Prabhupāda specifically mentions “odd usages of language.” He does not say that odd usage automatically authorizes a later disciple to rewrite the authority into conventional English. His example is Shakespeare: unusual language may simply be allowed to stand because it belongs to the author.

This produces a very difficult dilemma for the defense of the change.

If “taking center of Kṛṣṇa” is meaningful, then it should not have been changed because the revision removes a legitimate dimension of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s explanation.

If it is merely an odd usage of English, Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own ārṣa-prayoga principle tells us why such odd usage can be allowed to remain.

Either way, the case for posthumously replacing it with shelter becomes weak.

The problem is not “shelter”

None of this means that shelter is philosophically wrong. Of course it is not. Śrīla Prabhupāda himself gives vyapāśritya as “particularly taking shelter,” translates the verse with “take shelter in Me,” and explains the same passage in 1976 by speaking of “Kṛṣṇa’s shelter.” The question is therefore not whether shelter is correct.

The question is whether center was wrong.

That is an entirely different proposition, and it is the proposition necessary to justify removing Śrīla Prabhupāda’s published wording.

Jayadvaita Swami’s annotation does not say merely that shelter is a possible improvement. It says:

“This is surely a mishearing for ‘taking shelter.’”

But now consider the evidence that must be placed against that word surely:

The manuscript itself says “taking center.” The 1972 authorized edition says it three times. The 1968 Teachings of Lord Caitanya says “taking center of the pure devotees” while discussing the same Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam verse. The same book says “taking center unto Krishna.” It speaks of Kṛṣṇa’s lotus feet “as a center for the devotee,” of having “no center at Your Lotus Feet,” of Kṛṣṇa as the “Supreme Center of relationship of all living entities,” and of society with “God in the center.” Śrīla Prabhupāda later gives an extended geometrical explanation involving a compass, “taking the central point,” “taking Kṛṣṇa as the center,” and “Kṛṣṇa must be center.” And when the disputed sentence itself was read aloud to him in 1976, he responded, “Yes,” and explained it in terms of shelter.

That is not evidence for certainty that center was a mishearing.

It is evidence that center was part of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s language and thought.

Sometimes the editor has not yet understood the author

Would most contemporary American editors write:

“One has to take center completely of Kṛṣṇa”?

Probably not.

They might write:

“One has to take complete shelter of Kṛṣṇa.”

Or:

“One has to take Kṛṣṇa completely as the center.”

Both sound more conventional to modern ears. But neither fact gives a posthumous editor the right to assume that the original expression must therefore be an error.

This case illustrates one of the fundamental dangers in editing Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books after his departure. An editor encounters something strange. Instead of first asking whether the strangeness belongs to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own manner of expression, he asks how the sentence would normally be written in standard English. Once the editor decides what Śrīla Prabhupāda must have meant to say, the manuscript, the published edition and even repeated parallel usages can all be reinterpreted as mistakes.

That procedure reverses the proper burden of proof.

The more responsible approach is the opposite. When a published expression seems strange, first search Śrīla Prabhupāda’s other books. Search his lectures and conversations. Examine his use of the underlying Sanskrit concept. Ask whether the unusual English may be carrying a nuance that more ordinary English would lose. Only after exhausting those possibilities can one even begin to discuss whether the wording is demonstrably erroneous.

In Bhagavad-gītā 9.32, that investigation leads to a striking conclusion. “Taking center of Kṛṣṇa” makes perfect sense. It means to make Kṛṣṇa the fixed point upon which our life rests and around which all our activities, relationships and purposes are arranged. Śrīla Prabhupāda expressed that same idea repeatedly, and in 1972 he illustrated it with the precision of a compass drawing a circle around its center.

The word-for-word gives us shelter. The translation gives us shelter. The purport gives us center. Why must one destroy the other? Sometimes apparent inconsistency is not a defect. Sometimes it teaches us something. And sometimes what looks like an obvious mistake in the ācārya’s language is not a mistake at all.

The editor simply has not yet understood what the ācārya is saying.

08.10.26

by Ajit Krishna Dasa

Hayagriva Prabhu versus Posthumous Editing: Eleven Problems with Jayadvaita Swami’s Method

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Hayagriva Prabhu (Howard Wheeler) was an English instructor at Ohio State University and the principal English editor of Srila Prabhupada’s original Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Because he worked directly with Srila Prabhupada, his account is highly relevant to any evaluation of the posthumous editing later undertaken by Jayadvaita Swami.[1]

Hayagriva writes:

“Daily, I try to clarify and strengthen the sentences without changing the style or meddling with the meaning, and, needless to say, this is very difficult. I soon find myself consulting Swamiji on every other verse, and occasionally he dictates an entirely different translation. The verse translations themselves are most problematical because they often differ from the word by word Sanskrit-English meanings accompanying them. What to do?”[1]

According to Hayagriva, Srila Prabhupada eventually became tired of being consulted about so many verse translations:

“Just copy the verses from some other translation,” he tells me, discarding the whole matter with a wave of his hand. “The verses aren’t important. There are so many translations, more or less accurate, and the Sanskrit is always there. It’s my purports that are important. Concentrate on the purports.”[1]

Srila Prabhupada was obviously not saying that Krishna’s verses were spiritually unimportant. He was explaining where the distinctive value of his Bhagavad-gita lay. Many English translations already existed. What the world did not have was a genuine Vaisnava explanation in the preaching line of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

What does this account tell us about Jayadvaita Swami’s later editing?

1. Srila Prabhupada knew that the translations and synonyms sometimes differed

Hayagriva directly informed Srila Prabhupada that the verse translations often did not correspond exactly with the word-for-word meanings.[1]

This was not a problem discovered only after Srila Prabhupada’s departure. It was already known while the original book was being edited.

We therefore cannot simply argue:

The translation differs from the synonyms; therefore the translation is an editorial mistake that must be corrected.

Srila Prabhupada knew that such differences existed. Sometimes he dictated another translation. At other times, he apparently considered the matter too insignificant to deserve so much attention.[1]

A discrepancy may indicate an error. But the mere fact that a discrepancy exists does not prove that one has been found.

2. The word-for-word meanings are not an infallible control text

Jayadvaita Swami frequently uses the Sanskrit synonyms as a standard against which the published translation should be measured.[2]

Hayagriva’s account, however, shows that Srila Prabhupada did not require the English translation to reproduce the synonyms mechanically. A translation may convey the contextual meaning of the verse without corresponding word for word with every English equivalent in the synonym section.

The synonyms themselves also passed through transcription and Sanskrit editing. They were not necessarily a flawless text personally finalized in every detail by Srila Prabhupada.[2]

This means that changing a translation merely to bring it into closer conformity with the synonyms may not take us closer to Srila Prabhupada. It may instead take us away from the edition he accepted.

3. The earlier manuscript cannot automatically overrule the published book

Hayagriva describes an active editorial process. He encountered problems, consulted Srila Prabhupada, received new translations and incorporated editorial decisions into the developing book.[1]

The earlier manuscript does not therefore necessarily contain Srila Prabhupada’s final decision.

It may preserve what he first dictated. That is not always the same as what he later wanted published.

The final text may contain later instructions, translations dictated after the first manuscript was prepared, suggestions made by Hayagriva and accepted by Srila Prabhupada, contextual editorial decisions, deliberate departures from the synonyms, or imperfections that Srila Prabhupada knowingly allowed to remain.

Many of the discussions behind such decisions were never recorded. A posthumous editor cannot recover them simply by placing an earlier manuscript beside the published edition and noting the differences.

4. The editor sometimes needed Srila Prabhupada’s personal judgment

Hayagriva says that he found himself consulting Srila Prabhupada “on every other verse.”[1]

That is not a minor detail.

It shows that the correct final wording could not always be mechanically deduced from the manuscript, the synonyms or the other available documents. The editor needed the living author.

After Srila Prabhupada’s departure, such consultation was no longer possible. Where the surviving sources disagree, a later editor may have no way of knowing whether Hayagriva misunderstood the manuscript, Srila Prabhupada dictated a later change, Srila Prabhupada accepted Hayagriva’s wording, the wording was chosen for readability, or Srila Prabhupada simply regarded the difference as unimportant.

This is precisely where restraint becomes necessary. When certainty is no longer possible, an editor should not replace the published wording merely because another reconstruction appears more plausible to him.

5. Srila Prabhupada rejected needless editing

Srila Prabhupada’s attitude in Hayagriva’s account is not one of editorial perfectionism. After repeated consultation over matters he considered secondary, he told Hayagriva to concentrate on the purports.[1]

This does not mean that Srila Prabhupada was indifferent to accuracy. Hayagriva specifically says that he sometimes dictated an entirely different translation. Srila Prabhupada was willing to make changes when he considered them necessary.[1]

But he did not regard every possible improvement, discrepancy or irregularity as something that had to be corrected.

Jayadvaita Swami has himself acknowledged that Srila Prabhupada opposed needless changes.[3] That restriction matters greatly in the present controversy.

A sentence may be made more literal, smoother, more grammatical, more concise or more closely aligned with the synonyms. None of these facts, by itself, proves that the published sentence should be changed.

The important questions are whether the change is truly necessary and, above all, who has the authority to make that decision.

While Srila Prabhupada was physically present, Hayagriva could ask him. Srila Prabhupada could decide whether the perceived problem was important, whether a change should be made and what the replacement wording should be.

Jayadvaita Swami could not ask him after 1977.

The warning against needless changes should therefore have led to greater conservatism after Srila Prabhupada’s departure, not less. When the author can no longer decide whether a change is necessary, the editor should be especially reluctant to alter the completed work.

Nearly every sentence can be rewritten in another way. That does not create the authority to do so.

6. Srila Prabhupada identified the purports as his unique contribution

Srila Prabhupada said that many translations of Bhagavad-gita already existed and were “more or less accurate.” What was lacking were Vaisnava purports in the preaching line of Caitanya Mahaprabhu.[1]

This establishes a clear hierarchy of importance.

The verse translations certainly matter. But Srila Prabhupada did not present the creation of a uniquely perfect English rendering of every Sanskrit construction as the main purpose of his book. The Sanskrit was printed there, other translations already existed, and reasonably accurate renderings were available.

His unique contribution was the purports.

That has two important consequences.

First, it weakens the case for extensively reconstructing the verse translations after his departure. Srila Prabhupada did not ask Hayagriva to turn every difference between the translations and synonyms into a major problem. He sometimes corrected a translation, but he did not instruct Hayagriva to pursue endless textual uniformity. He told him to concentrate on the purports.[1]

Second, it makes posthumous changes to the purports even more serious.

The purports are not merely supplementary comments surrounding the “real” Bhagavad-gita. According to Srila Prabhupada himself, they were precisely what was missing from the English-speaking world.

To alter their wording, reasoning, emphasis, quotations, theological terminology or presentation is therefore to interfere with the most distinctively authorial part of Bhagavad-gita As It Is.

There is an obvious tension in the later editing programme. Srila Prabhupada told Hayagriva not to spend excessive time refining the verse translations but to concentrate on the purports. Yet Jayadvaita Swami later revised both the translations and the purports.[1][2][4]

Srila Prabhupada’s statement cannot reasonably be used to diminish the importance of preserving the verse translations while simultaneously justifying changes to the purports. Its natural implication points in the other direction: do not obsessively reconstruct the translations, and exercise even greater restraint with the purports.

Jayadvaita Swami presents many of his revisions as restorations of material supposedly lost, distorted or obscured. The official BBT defence follows the same general line.[2][4] Hayagriva’s testimony, however, shows why the surviving documents alone cannot always reveal which differences were errors and which resulted from Srila Prabhupada’s personal participation in the original editorial process.

7. Hayagriva’s authority was direct, limited and supervised

Hayagriva worked while Srila Prabhupada was physically present.

When uncertainty arose, he could consult him. Srila Prabhupada could approve, reject, modify or completely replace Hayagriva’s proposed wording.[1]

Jayadvaita Swami’s posthumous position is fundamentally different.

Srila Prabhupada expressed confidence in Jayadvaita’s editing while he was physically present and able to supervise it.[5] That does not automatically amount to unlimited and perpetual authority to revise completed books after Srila Prabhupada’s departure.

Approval of editing conducted under the living author’s supervision cannot simply be converted into independent editorial authority once the author is no longer available.

This is one of the central errors in the defence of the revised books. Permission to perform particular editorial work during Srila Prabhupada’s presence is treated as though it authorized an open-ended programme of posthumous reconstruction.

Hayagriva was not independently deciding what Srila Prabhupada ought to have said. He was working under Srila Prabhupada’s direct authority and could consult him whenever serious problems arose.[1]

Posthumous editing based on surviving documents, memories and editorial inference is not the same thing.

8. Later decisions and the final text may overrule earlier drafts

Hayagriva says that Srila Prabhupada sometimes dictated an entirely different translation when consulted about a verse.[1]

Suppose Srila Prabhupada first dictated one translation and later gave Hayagriva another. Which one should be regarded as authoritative?

Normally, the later translation.

Suppose an early manuscript contains one wording, but Srila Prabhupada later accepts a different formulation during the preparation of the published edition. Which one should govern?

Again, the later authorized outcome.

An author has the right to reconsider, revise, replace or approve editorial changes to his earlier wording. The fact that a wording appears first does not make it his final decision.

This is especially important because many later instructions may have been given orally during the editorial process. They may never have been written into the earlier manuscript that has survived.

The manuscript may therefore preserve the beginning of the process, while the published text preserves the later result.

During the preparation of the book, Srila Prabhupada could dictate another translation, clarify his intended meaning, accept Hayagriva’s wording, approve a contextual paraphrase, abandon an earlier formulation or decide that an apparent imperfection should remain.

A posthumous editor cannot assume that every difference between the manuscript and the published edition represents corruption introduced by Hayagriva.

The fact that wording appears in an earlier source gives it genetic priority. It does not automatically give it final authorial authority.

The 1972 edition represents the completed edition published and used during Srila Prabhupada’s physical presence. The manuscript represents an earlier stage of the work.[6] The later form cannot be overturned merely because an earlier form has been discovered.

9. Some errors can be objectively demonstrated—but this does not justify thousands of changes

It would be too absolute to say that Jayadvaita Swami cannot prove that any differences in the published book are errors.

Some mistakes are objectively demonstrable. “Planet of trees”[7], for example, is an obvious error. Other examples may include misplaced purports, accidental omissions, typographical mistakes or passages that plainly resulted from faulty transcription.

But the existence of a limited number of obvious mistakes does not justify a wholesale posthumous reconstruction of the book.

The question is not whether any errors existed. Of course they did.

The question is whether Jayadvaita Swami can establish that the thousands of passages he changed were all errors, rather than acceptable editorial choices, approved paraphrases, later authorial decisions, stylistic preferences, contextual translations or imperfections knowingly accepted by Srila Prabhupada.

In many cases he cannot.

Even that, however, is not the end of the matter. Srila Prabhupada and sastra repeatedly teach that discrepancies in the works of great Vaisnava authorities may be accepted rather than corrected. Arsa-prayoga does not depend upon denying that a mistake exists. It tells us how a recognized mistake in the work of an authority should be treated.[8][9][10][11]

Srila Prabhupada explained:

“Arsa-prayoga means there may be discrepancies but it is all right.”[8]

On another occasion, speaking of discrepancies in the writings of the acaryas, he said:

“It should remain as it is.”[9]

Therefore, proving that an imperfection exists does not by itself decide what should be done with it. Some mistakes are not invitations for later disciples to rewrite the authority. They test whether the disciples are willing to accept the principle of arsa-prayoga.

Obvious errors should not become a Trojan horse for extensive rewriting. Proving that one passage contains a mistake does not establish that every difference from an earlier manuscript is also a mistake.

Nor does it prove that a later editor can reconstruct the exact words Srila Prabhupada would have chosen.

10. Proving an error does not prove the right to correct it

There is a still more fundamental issue.

Suppose Jayadvaita Swami conclusively proves that a passage in the original edition contains an error. It does not follow that he has the authority to alter Srila Prabhupada’s published book.

Two questions must be kept separate:

Is the passage erroneous?

Are we authorized to correct it in the original edition after Srila Prabhupada’s departure?

An affirmative answer to the first question does not automatically produce an affirmative answer to the second.

This is where arsa-prayoga becomes decisive.[8][9][10]

Arsa-prayoga does not ask us to deny that a mistake exists. Nor does it require us to pretend that a grammatical, linguistic or factual discrepancy is somehow materially correct.

The mistake can be acknowledged as a mistake and still be accepted and left unchanged.

Srila Prabhupada explained that discrepancies may be found in the works of recognized authorities and acaryas, but that they should remain as they are. He also warned that a later person should not try to become more learned than the authority.[9][10]

Recognizing a mistake does not give someone jurisdiction over the author’s text.

An obvious error such as “planet of trees”[7] can be acknowledged openly. Its source can be identified, and the correct meaning can be explained in a footnote, appendix, errata list or separate annotated edition.

But the original should remain original.

That is the point of arsa-prayoga. The discrepancy is acknowledged. It is accepted as part of the acarya’s completed work. It is not silently removed and replaced.

Otherwise, obvious errors become the entrance point for a much broader editorial authority. First the editor corrects what everyone agrees is a mistake. Then he changes what he considers misleading, awkward or insufficiently literal. Eventually he changes what he believes Srila Prabhupada probably intended to say.

The line between correction and rewriting gradually disappears.

Opponents of posthumous editing do not need to claim that the original books contain no mistakes. That would misunderstand arsa-prayoga and leave the argument unnecessarily vulnerable.

The stronger position is straightforward:

Yes, the mistake may be real. We acknowledge it and explain it where necessary. But we accept it as part of the acarya’s completed work and do not alter the original.

The issue is not whether Jayadvaita Swami can identify a mistake. Of course he can. The issue is why identifying it should give him the right to change Srila Prabhupada’s published book.

It does not.

Jayadvaita may be right that a particular mistake exists and still be wrong to alter the original text.

11. Jayadvaita’s method often constructs a new text rather than restoring an old one

Jayadvaita Swami presents his work as bringing the book closer to what Srila Prabhupada originally said.[2][4]

But what exactly counts as what Srila Prabhupada “said”?

Is it his first dictation? The typed manuscript? A later translation dictated to Hayagriva? A correction given orally? Hayagriva’s wording accepted by Srila Prabhupada? Or the final published edition that Srila Prabhupada used and distributed?

Once a later editor begins choosing wording from manuscripts, transcripts, synonyms, recordings and purports, while resolving the conflicts among them through his own editorial judgment, the result may be a text that never existed during Srila Prabhupada’s lifetime.[2][4]

That is not restoration in the ordinary sense.

Restoration returns a work to a form that previously existed. An eclectic reconstruction creates a new composite text by selecting among conflicting sources.

The BBT’s own account describes extensive comparison of manuscripts and other source materials in an effort to reconstruct what the editors believe Srila Prabhupada intended.[2][4] But where Srila Prabhupada’s oral decisions can no longer be recovered, the reconstruction necessarily includes the judgment of the posthumous editor.

The resulting text may be closer to Jayadvaita Swami’s theory of what the book should have been. That does not necessarily make it closer to Srila Prabhupada.

The real conclusion

Hayagriva’s testimony does not prove that the 1972 edition contains no errors. Nor is it necessary to make such a claim.

What his testimony proves is that the relationship between the manuscripts, synonyms, translations, purports and published text was far more complicated than Jayadvaita Swami’s restoration narrative suggests.[1][2][4]

Srila Prabhupada knew that discrepancies existed. He sometimes dictated new translations and sometimes accepted editorial solutions. His later decisions could supersede his earlier dictation. He opposed needless changes, and he identified his purports—not perfect English uniformity—as the unique contribution of his Bhagavad-gita.[1][3]

Some errors can be demonstrated. Others cannot.

This is exactly why arsa-prayoga matters.

Arsa-prayoga does not mean denying the existence of mistakes. The principle only becomes relevant once a mistake or discrepancy has been recognized. If there were no acknowledged imperfection, there would be nothing to accept.[8][9][10]

Srila Prabhupada said:

“The system is: whatever authority has done, even there is mistake, it should be accepted.”[10]

The statement is clear. “Even there is mistake” acknowledges the mistake. “It should be accepted” tells us how to respond to it.

Arsa-prayoga is therefore not a doctrine of material textual infallibility. It is a principle of submission to authority.

A discrepancy is identified and honestly acknowledged. Because it appears in the completed work of the authority, it is accepted and left unchanged.

Nimai Pandit taught the same principle when Isvara Puri asked Him to correct possible mistakes in his book. Nimai did not claim that a Vaisnava’s writing could never contain a grammatical discrepancy. He explained that Krishna accepts the devotional sentiment of His devotee and condemned the mentality of finding fault with such an offering.[11]

Acknowledging mistakes is therefore not a weakness in the arsa-prayoga position. It is essential to it.

If we denied that mistakes could exist, our argument would be:

Do not change the books because there are no mistakes.

One undeniable error would then appear to defeat the whole position.

The actual argument is considerably stronger:

Yes, mistakes may exist. We acknowledge them and explain them where necessary. But we accept them as part of the acarya’s completed work and do not alter the original.

Even when Jayadvaita Swami demonstrates a genuine error, he has not thereby established the right to correct it in the original edition.

The question “Is this an error?” must be separated from the question “Are we authorized to change it in Srila Prabhupada’s published book?”

The first may sometimes be answered yes. The second does not follow from it.

“Planet of trees”[7] may be openly acknowledged as a mistake. Its origin and correct meaning may be documented in an annotated edition, a footnote, an appendix or an errata list.

But the original must remain original.

If obvious mistakes are treated as permission to rewrite the text, the process will not stop with the obvious mistakes. The editor will move on to passages he considers misleading, awkward, insufficiently literal or inconsistent with what he believes Srila Prabhupada intended.

At that point, he is no longer merely preserving the work. He is reconstructing it according to his own judgment.

The decisive question is not whether a later editor can produce wording he considers more accurate. The decisive question is who has the authority to change Srila Prabhupada’s published book.

Where Srila Prabhupada personally ordered or approved a correction, it could be made under his authority. Where he did not, the published text should remain unchanged.

Errors, variants and proposed corrections can be documented transparently in a separate annotated or critical edition. In that way all the evidence is preserved without allowing a posthumous editor to replace Srila Prabhupada’s published work with a new composite text.

The original must remain original—not because we refuse to recognize its mistakes, but because we accept the principle of arsa-prayoga.

The mistakes are acknowledged. They are accepted. And they are left as they are. Hayagriva worked with Srila Prabhupada. Jayadvaita Swami works from surviving documents and his interpretation of them.

Those are not equivalent forms of authority.

References

[1] Hayagriva Dasa, Vrindavan Days, account of his work editing Bhagavad-gita As It Is with Srila Prabhupada. The quoted passage is reproduced in Jagannatha Mishra Dasa, comp., Arsa Prayoga: The Preservation of Srila Prabhupada’s Original Books, pp. 85–86. The compiled text identifies its source as “Hayagriva, Vrindavan Days.”

[2] Jayadvaita Swami, “Editing the Unchangeable Truth,” originally published in ISKCON Communications Journal, vol. 11, 2005, and republished on Jayadvaita Swami’s website on June 18, 2006. See especially the sections “How Were the Books Written?”, “Sanskrit Editing,” and “Revisions to Published Books (after Srila Prabhupada’s Departure).”

[3] Jayadvaita Swami, letter to Amogha Lila Dasa, 1986: “As you know, and as we kept in mind while doing the work, Srila Prabhupada staunchly opposed needless changes.” See also Jayadvaita Swami’s letter to senior devotees, October 25, 1982: “I tried to be conservative and not make needless changes.”

[4] Jayadvaita Swami and Dravida Dasa, Responsible Publishing: Why and How the BBT Publishes Revisions of Srila Prabhupada’s Books, prepared by the English editorial department of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust and approved by the BBT trustees. The paper states that the later editors consulted manuscripts, transcripts, recordings and other source materials to restore material they considered lost, obscured or distorted.

[5] A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, letter to Radhavallabha Dasa, September 7, 1976: “Concerning the editing of Jayadvaita Prabhu, whatever he does is approved by me. I have confidence in him.” The statement was made while Srila Prabhupada was physically present and able to supervise the editing.

[6] A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Bhagavad-gita As It Is, complete edition, New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1972. See also the conversation with Hayagriva Dasa, December 24, 1969, in which Srila Prabhupada told him regarding the Macmillan translations: “Whichever is better, you think. That’s all. You can follow this Macmillan,” and then: “Yes. You can follow that translation.”

[7] Bhagavad-gita As It Is 10.29, Macmillan edition, 1972, which reads “planet of trees.” See Jayadvaita Swami, “10.29: The planet of the trees,” in Bhagavad-gita Revisions Explained—Part 1, BBTedit.com, for the BBT’s explanation of this error and its correction.

[8] A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, letter to Mandali Bhadra Dasa, Jaipur, January 20, 1972: “Arsa-prayoga means there may be discrepancies but it is all right. Just like Shakespeare, sometimes there are odd usages of language, but he is accepted as authority.”

[9] A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.5.23–24, Vrindavana, March 31, 1976: “You’ll find, therefore, in the comments of Bhagavatam by different acaryas, even there are some discrepancies, they are accepted as arsa-prayoga. It should remain as it is.”

[10] A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, room conversation with Radhavallabha Dasa concerning editing, Mayapur, February 27, 1977: “The system is: whatever authority has done, even there is mistake, it should be accepted.” Srila Prabhupada identified the principle as “arsa-prayoga” and continued: “He should not become more learned than the authority. That is very bad habit.”

[11] Vrindavana Dasa Thakura, Sri Caitanya-bhagavata, Adi-khanda 11.103–110, especially verses 105–110. Nimai Pandit tells Isvara Puri that Krishna is pleased with a devotee’s poetry even when imperfectly composed; that both visnaya and visnave are accepted when offered with devotion; and that one who finds fault with a devotee’s description of Krishna is himself at fault.

08.10.26

by Ajit Krishna Dasa

How Can a Pure Devotee Make Mistakes and Still Never Be Wrong?

Why “there are no mistakes” is not the Vaiṣṇava position

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

A devotee may reason as follows: A pure devotee is free from the four defects of conditioned life. One of those defects is the tendency to commit mistakes. Therefore, a pure devotee cannot make mistakes, and consequently there can be no mistakes in the books of Śrīla Prabhupāda or the previous ācāryas.

This argument sounds loyal to the ācāryas, but it is based on an equivocation. The word “mistake” is being used in two different senses as though there were no difference between them.

The Vaiṣṇava ācāryas themselves repeatedly speak about grammatical defects, literary discrepancies, imperfect composition, apparent misquotation and other faults in transcendental literature. They do not solve the matter by denying that such things exist. They explain why such external faults do not constitute material defects in the pure devotee or compromise the transcendental nature and potency of his work.

The claim that there can be no mistakes of any kind does not really defend the ācāryas. It contradicts what the ācāryas themselves have said.

The contradiction exists only on the surface

A contradiction occurs when the same thing is both affirmed and denied in the same respect. “There are mistakes” and “there are no mistakes” would therefore be contradictory only if the word “mistake” meant exactly the same thing in both statements.

It does not.

When it is said that a pure devotee does not commit mistakes, the meaning is that he does not manufacture transcendental knowledge under the influence of illusion, speculation, deception and defective material senses. His presentation of the Absolute Truth is not a product of the four defects of conditioned existence.

When the ācāryas speak of mistakes, faults or discrepancies in devotional literature, however, they refer to such things as grammatical irregularities, awkward expressions, imperfect composition, slips of language, literary discrepancies, apparent misquotations or incidental historical and geographical errors. A text may therefore contain a conventionally incorrect grammatical form without being spiritually defective, and an expression may be imperfect according to ordinary literary standards while still being a perfect vehicle for transmitting transcendental realization.

There is no more contradiction here than when we say that Kṛṣṇa possesses qualities and that Kṛṣṇa is nirguṇa, without qualities. Kṛṣṇa possesses unlimited transcendental qualities, but He has no material qualities. Similarly, Kṛṣṇa is personal and impersonal. He is not impersonal in the sense that He lacks personality; His impersonal feature is subordinate to His unlimited transcendental personality.

In the same way, the writings of a pure devotee are free from material mistakes, although they may contain external or conventional discrepancies. The mistake is present in one sense and absent in another.

If the pure devotee is always right, he is also right about mistakes

There is an even more obvious problem with the claim that no mistake of any kind can appear in the work of a pure devotee.

The pure devotees themselves say that the writings of pure devotees and great authorities may contain mistakes, defects, discrepancies, imperfect expressions and apparent misquotations. Therefore, if the pure devotee is always correct and never wrong, then he must also be correct and never wrong when he says that such mistakes and imperfections can exist.

One cannot logically argue, “Śrīla Prabhupāda cannot be wrong; therefore, Śrīla Prabhupāda must be wrong when he says that an authority’s work may contain mistakes.” Nor can one argue, “The ācāryas cannot make incorrect statements; therefore, their statements about defects, discrepancies and imperfect language must be incorrect.”

That position refutes itself.

The argument can be expressed formally:

The teachings of the pure devotee concerning transcendental literature are correct.
Pure devotees teach that transcendental literature may contain conventional mistakes, faults, discrepancies and imperfections.
Therefore, it is correct that transcendental literature may contain conventional mistakes, faults, discrepancies and imperfections.

The conclusion can be avoided only by denying one of the premises. If the first premise is rejected, the claim that the pure devotee is always correct has been abandoned. If the second premise is rejected, the plain statements of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura and Śrīla Prabhupāda have been denied. There is no third option.

The argument that “a pure devotee cannot make mistakes” can therefore not be used to invalidate the ācāryas’ statements that mistakes may exist. If those ācāryas are correct, then the mistakes they describe must be possible.

Why “transcendental mistake” is not an oxymoron

The expression “transcendental mistake” may at first sound contradictory, but again the contradiction disappears when the relevant distinctions are made.

The argument is simple:

Everything a pure devotee does in pure devotional service is transcendental.
The ācāryas acknowledge that conventional mistakes may sometimes occur in the literary service of pure devotees.
Therefore, conventional mistakes may occur within transcendental service and within its transcendental literary product.
Such mistakes may properly be called transcendental mistakes.

The phrase does not mean that falsehood becomes truth, that incorrect grammar becomes correct grammar or that two plus two becomes five. It means that the discrepancy occurs within a transcendental act of devotional service and does not arise from material speculation, deception, envy or defective spiritual realization.

A mistake of this kind may be called transcendental because of its source, context and purpose. It originates within the service of a pure devotee, it occurs in an act intended for the glorification of Kṛṣṇa, it is accepted by Kṛṣṇa on the strength of the devotee’s surrender and devotional intention, and it does not destroy the transcendental potency of the work. When the ācārya has authorized the work, the discrepancy becomes part of the presentation he has given.

The conventional mistake remains conventionally mistaken. What is denied is that it constitutes a material defect in the pure devotee’s realization, consciousness or transmission of siddhānta.

This is exactly the distinction illustrated by the example of viṣṇāya and viṣṇave. Viṣṇāya remains grammatically incorrect, but Kṛṣṇa accepts it when spoken with devotion. The grammatical defect remains external, while the service remains transcendental and the offering remains acceptable to Kṛṣṇa.

Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura openly acknowledged defects

Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura did not claim that the transcendental character of his work guaranteed perfect grammar and language. On the contrary, he explicitly requested that such defects be overlooked:

“We have discussed the Absolute Truth in this book, so please excuse any grammar or language defects. Swan-like persons should not waste any time in this way. Those who criticize such external defects while studying this book will obstruct its main purpose—accepting the essence of the Absolute Truth—and are not eligible to study this book. Arguments born of childish education are despicable in serious subject matters.”

—Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, Śrī Kṛṣṇa-saṁhitā, Chapter 10, Text 19

This statement would make no sense if a transcendental book could not contain grammatical or linguistic defects. Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura does not say that the defects are grammatically correct; he calls them defects. His point is that concentrating on them while missing the transcendental substance obstructs the purpose of the book.

The swanlike reader separates milk from water. He does not deny that water is present. He takes the essential substance.

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī: the spirit may wear defective clothing

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura made the same distinction:

“The kind indulgence of the reader is solicited to overlook shortcomings inseparable from the employment of a foreign language and consider only the spirit irrespective of the defective garb in which she might be clothed.”

—Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, The Harmonist, June 1927, No. 1

Again, the language is unmistakable. There are “shortcomings,” and the “garb” may be “defective,” yet the spirit clothed in that language remains transcendental. The external form and the internal substance must therefore be distinguished. A defect in the garment is not a defect in the person wearing it.

The devotee is right even when he apparently misquotes

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura takes this principle much further in his article on Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura:

“The devotee is always right. The non-devotee in the shape of the empiric pedant is always and necessarily wrong. In the one case there is always present the Substantive Truth and nothing but the Substantive Truth. In the other case there is present the apparent or misleading hypothesis and nothing but un-truth. The wording may have the same external appearance in both cases.

“The identical verses of the Scriptures may be recited by the devotee and the non-devotee … The devotee is right even when he apparently misquotes, the non-devotee is wrong even when he quotes correctly the very words, chapter and verse of the Scriptures.”

—Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, “Thakur Bhaktivinode,” The Harmonist, Vol. XXIX, No. 6, December 1931, p. 169

This adds an essential spiritual layer to the discussion. The transcendental value of speech is not determined by its external verbal accuracy alone. The same verse may be spoken by a pure devotee and by an envious materialist. The syllables may be externally identical, yet the spiritual value of the two acts is categorically different.

Conversely, a devotee may apparently misquote a verse while actually communicating its transcendental substance, whereas a nondevotee may reproduce every syllable correctly while distorting or denying its meaning. Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī does not deny that the devotee may apparently misquote. He explicitly says that this may happen, yet the devotee is “right” because the Substantive Truth is present in his speech.

This does not mean that every factual statement made by anyone who calls himself a devotee automatically becomes correct, nor does it give sentimentalists permission to manufacture philosophy. Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī is speaking about transcendental sound manifest through genuine devotional realization. His point is that material philological correctness is neither a sufficient nor the ultimate criterion of spiritual truth.

The empiric scholar thinks that accuracy of vocabulary gives him possession of the truth. The ācārya explains that the Absolute Truth reveals Himself through submission and service, not through mechanical verbal expertise.

This quotation also reinforces the earlier logical argument. If “the devotee is always right,” then Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī must also be right when he says that a devotee may apparently misquote. One cannot use the first half of his statement to deny the second half of the very same teaching.

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu acknowledged poetic faults

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu did not teach that great spiritual literature is necessarily free from every literary fault. He stated:

“Even in the poetic compositions of such great poets as Bhavabhuti, Jayadeva and Kalidasa there are many examples of faults. Such mistakes should be considered negligible. One should see only how such poets have displayed their poetic power.”

—Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 16.101–102

The words are explicit: “There are many examples of faults,” and “such mistakes should be considered negligible.” Mahāprabhu does not say that the faults cease to be faults. He says how they should be evaluated.

Śrīla Prabhupāda explains the principle in his purport:

In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.5.11 it is said:

tad-vāg-visargo janatāgha-viplavo
yasmin prati-ślokam abaddhavaty api
nāmāny anantasya yaśo ’ṅkitāni yat
śṛṇvanti gāyanti gṛṇanti sādhavaḥ

“In explaining the glories of the Lord, inexperienced men may compose poetry with many faults, but because it contains glorification of the Lord, great personalities read it, hear it and chant it.” Despite its minute literary discrepancies, one must study poetry on the merit of its subject matter. According to Vaiṣṇava philosophy, any literature that glorifies the Lord, whether properly written or not, is first class. There need be no other considerations.

Śrīla Prabhupāda’s conclusion could hardly be clearer:

“According to Vaiṣṇava philosophy, any literature that glorifies the Lord, whether properly written or not, is first class. There need be no other considerations.”

“Whether properly written or not” necessarily admits the possibility that the literature is not properly written. It nevertheless remains first class because its spiritual status is determined by its subject matter and devotional purpose, not merely by external literary perfection.

Viṣṇāya and viṣṇave

The same principle appears in Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s response to Īśvara Purī. Īśvara Purī asked Mahāprabhu to point out mistakes in his book about Kṛṣṇa’s pastimes, but Mahāprabhu replied that one who finds fault with a devotee’s description of Kṛṣṇa is himself at fault. He then gave a specific example:

“An uneducated person may chant viṣṇāya, while a sober person will chant the proper form, viṣṇave, but the Supreme Lord Kṛṣṇa will accept both forms when they are chanted with devotion.”

The explanation explicitly identifies viṣṇāya namaḥ as improper according to grammar and viṣṇave namaḥ as correct. Yet Kṛṣṇa accepts the devotional offering in both cases because He accepts the devotee’s sentiment.

This example logically settles the matter. Viṣṇāya is grammatically incorrect, a devotee may nevertheless say viṣṇāya, and Kṛṣṇa accepts the devotee’s offering. Therefore, grammatical incorrectness can exist in a devotional expression without making that expression spiritually defective or unacceptable to Kṛṣṇa.

Mahāprabhu does not deny the grammatical mistake. In fact, the entire teaching depends upon recognizing it. If there were no grammatical difference between viṣṇāya and viṣṇave, the example would have no meaning.

The mistake is real according to grammar, while the offering is perfect according to devotion. That is precisely the distinction under discussion.

Śrīla Prabhupāda anticipated literary discrepancies in his own work

In his original commentary on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.5.11, Śrīla Prabhupāda frankly acknowledged the limitations of presenting transcendental knowledge in a foreign language:

“Our presenting this matter in adequate language, especially a foreign language, will certainly fail, and there will be so many literary discrepancies despite our honest attempt to present it in the proper way. But we are sure that with all our faults in this connection the seriousness of the subject matter will be taken into consideration, and the leaders of society will still accept this due to its being an honest attempt to glorify the Almighty God. […] After all, it is a technical science of spiritual values, and thus we are concerned with the techniques and not with the language. If the techniques of this great literature are understood by the people of the world, there will be success.”

Śrīla Prabhupāda himself says that adequate linguistic presentation “will certainly fail,” that there will be “so many literary discrepancies,” and that there will be “faults.” Success depends upon the spiritual science being understood, not upon literary perfection.

One cannot seriously maintain that Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books contain no literary discrepancies while Śrīla Prabhupāda himself says that there will be many. If Śrīla Prabhupāda is never wrong, then he is not wrong here either. The only possible reconciliation is the obvious one: such discrepancies are not material defects in his transcendental message.

Ornamentation is not the ecstasy

Śrīla Prabhupāda wrote in a letter dated January 29, 1976:

“The Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam says if there is a real presentation of spiritual understanding, then, even if it is presented in broken language, it is accepted by high, saintly persons, because it glorifies the Supreme Person. On the other hand, if literature is highly metaphorically composed, if it does not glorify the Lord, it is compared to a place inhabited by the crows. Actually, if some literature doesn’t carry any real knowledge, what is the use of ornamental language? […] That sentiment is required. […] It is not the ornamentation, it is the ecstasy.”

—Śrīla Prabhupāda, letter to Dr. Wolf, January 29, 1976

The contrast is not merely between bad writing and good writing. It is between broken language containing spiritual realization and polished language devoid of spiritual substance. The first is accepted by saints; the second is a place for crows.

A grammatically perfect denial of Kṛṣṇa is spiritually false, while an imperfectly phrased glorification of Kṛṣṇa may be spiritually perfect.

“It is not the grammatical”

Śrīla Prabhupāda repeatedly explained that the potency of transcendental literature lies in its substance and effect:

“Such revolutionary literature, even they are not properly composed. Yasmin prati-ślokam abaddham. Not according to the grammatical rules and other rhetorical rules, but the, I mean to say, thoughts and the effects of such revolutionary literature is required. Not the grammatical. The so-called rascals, they are concerned with the grammatical. But those who are actually worker, they are concerned with the thoughts.”

—Room conversation discussing Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.5.11, Jaipur, January 19, 1972

He also wrote:

“There is a verse in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that a book or poetry in which the Holy Name of Kṛṣṇa is depicted, such language is revolutionary in the matter of purifying the material atmosphere. Even though such literature is presented in broken language or grammatical inconsistency or rhetorical irregularity, still, those who are saintly persons adore such literature. They hear such literature, and chant it and adore it, simply because the Supreme Lord is being glorified in this literature. In other words, we are not meant for presenting any literary masterpieces…”

—Letter to Kṛṣṇa Dāsa, February 13, 1969

Again, broken language, grammatical inconsistency and rhetorical irregularity are not denied. Their spiritual insignificance is explained.

“There may be discrepancies, but it is all right”

Śrīla Prabhupāda defined ārṣa-prayoga in precisely these terms:

“If one is too big, there is no mistake. Ārṣa-prayoga means there may be discrepancies but it is all right. Just like Shakespeare, sometimes there are odd usages of language, but he is accepted as authority.”

—Letter to Maṇḍalī Bhadra, January 20, 1972

He later stated:

“You’ll find, therefore, in the comments of Bhāgavatam by different ācāryas, even there are some discrepancies, they are accepted as ārṣa-prayoga. It should remain as it is.”

—Lecture on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 7.5.23–24, Vṛndāvana, March 31, 1976

Notice the exact structure. Śrīla Prabhupāda says, “There is no mistake,” and immediately afterward explains that “there may be discrepancies.” He then concludes, “It should remain as it is.”

He places these ideas together and therefore clearly did not regard them as contradictory. “There is no mistake” cannot mean that there is no external discrepancy, because he immediately says that discrepancies may exist. The natural meaning is that the discrepancy does not diminish the authority of the great ācārya and should not be treated as an ordinary conditioned defect.

Once again, if Śrīla Prabhupāda is always correct, he is also correct in saying that “there may be discrepancies.”

Ārṣa-prayoga would be meaningless if mistakes were impossible

Śrīla Prabhupāda stated:

“The system is: whatever authority has done, even there is mistake, it should be accepted.”

He then identified this system as ārṣa-prayoga and warned that the disciple should not try to become more learned than the authority. He concluded, “Whatever is done is done. No more,” and finally, “No corrections.”

The expression “even there is mistake” presupposes that something may be recognized as a mistake. If no mistake of any kind could possibly appear in the work of an authority, the instruction would be empty.

Ārṣa-prayoga does not teach that the disciple must hypnotize himself into believing that every external detail is conventionally correct. It teaches the proper response when a discrepancy is perceived. The discrepancy may be acknowledged and explained, but the disciple does not therefore assume jurisdiction over the completed words of the authority.

“Transcendental mistakes dictated by Śrīla Prabhupāda himself”

This distinction was understood within Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own publishing operation.

In a letter dated July 22, 1977, Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami reported that Rāmeśvara Mahārāja had divided discrepancies in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books into three categories:

Typographical errors.
Mistakes made by the English and Sanskrit editors.
“Transcendental mistakes dictated by Śrīla Prabhupāda himself.”

The same report states that Śrīla Prabhupāda wanted the mistakes rectified while warning the editors not to make unnecessary changes. These were the principles under which the editors were operating while Śrīla Prabhupāda was present.

According to Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami’s report, Śrīla Prabhupāda was dissatisfied that mistakes remained and wanted them corrected. The classification presented in connection with those instructions included “transcendental mistakes dictated by Śrīla Prabhupāda himself.”

We do not presently have a direct recording or written statement in which Śrīla Prabhupāda personally uses the exact expression “transcendental mistakes.” That should be admitted plainly. Nevertheless, it does not follow that the category is philosophically incoherent.

The existence of what may properly be called transcendental mistakes can be deduced logically from Vaiṣṇava philosophy and from the explicit statements of the ācāryas. Literary service performed by a pure devotee for Kṛṣṇa is transcendental, and the ācāryas explicitly acknowledge that mistakes, faults and discrepancies may occur within such literature. Therefore, mistakes may occur within transcendental literary service, and such mistakes may properly be described as transcendental mistakes.

A typographical mistake belongs to the printer. An editorial mistake belongs to the editor. A transcendental mistake belongs to the authorized expression of the ācārya and is therefore treated according to ārṣa-prayoga.

It may remain a mistake according to grammar, geography or another conventional standard, but it is transcendental in relation to its source, purpose, acceptance by Kṛṣṇa and position within the ācārya’s authorized work.

This does not prove that every disputed passage is a mistake dictated by Śrīla Prabhupāda, nor does it prove that editors were authorized to continue correcting his books after his departure. It proves something more limited but decisive for the present discussion: the category of transcendental mistakes is neither logically contradictory nor foreign to the principles taught by our ācāryas.

Śrīla Prabhupāda demonstrated the principle in practice

In Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā 9.74, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī apparently identifies the wrong temple visited by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura points out the discrepancy.

Śrīla Prabhupāda did not rewrite Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja’s text. He preserved it and supplied the clarification later, in his purport to text 358.

This is precisely the proper distinction between preservation and annotation. The original remains original, the apparent discrepancy is not concealed, the reader is informed in a note, and the later commentator does not silently rewrite the departed ācārya.

That is also the proper answer to discrepancies in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books. The original authorized edition should remain unchanged. Relevant questions, manuscript variants, grammatical observations and proposed corrections may be documented transparently in a separate annotated or critical edition.

The argument defeats itself

The claim that a pure devotee’s books cannot contain mistakes of any kind produces a series of impossible consequences.

It requires denying Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s reference to “grammar or language defects.” It requires denying Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura’s reference to “shortcomings” and “defective garb,” as well as his statement that a devotee may “apparently misquote.” It requires denying Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s statement that great poetry contains “many examples of faults,” and it requires denying the explicit distinction between the incorrect viṣṇāya and the correct viṣṇave.

It also requires denying Śrīla Prabhupāda’s prediction of “so many literary discrepancies,” his references to broken language, grammatical inconsistencies and rhetorical irregularities, and his statement that “whatever authority has done, even there is mistake, it should be accepted.” It renders the entire principle of ārṣa-prayoga meaningless and requires rejecting the 1977 editorial category of “transcendental mistakes dictated by Śrīla Prabhupāda himself.”

Most decisively, it requires claiming that the pure devotees are wrong when they say that the works of pure devotees may contain mistakes.

Thus, in an attempt to defend the pure devotee, the argument ends by contradicting the pure devotees. That is not fidelity. It is an unnecessary theory imposed upon their words.

The correct Vaiṣṇava conclusion

The correct conclusion preserves both sides of the teaching.

A pure devotee does not commit material mistakes in transmitting the transcendental conclusion. His work is not a product of illusion, cheating, speculation or defective material knowledge. Nevertheless, his literary presentation may contain external discrepancies judged according to grammar, rhetoric, chronology, geography or other conventional standards.

Such discrepancies may be recognized without reducing the transcendental status of the ācārya. They may be conventionally incorrect while remaining spiritually faultless, and they may be described as mistakes externally while being accepted as transcendental internally.

Kṛṣṇa accepts the devotion. Saintly persons accept the spiritual substance. The disciple accepts the authority. And the original work remains as the ācārya left it.

There are mistakes, and there are no mistakes—but not in the same respect. There are external discrepancies, but there are no material defects in the transcendental message, purpose and authority of the pure devotee.

That is not an oxymoron.

That is ārṣa-prayoga.

08.05.26

by Ajit Krishna Dasa

Why The “Family Tree” Explanation Does Not Work

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Introduction

Not everyone who is against the changes to Srila Prabhupada are in agreement about everything. Madhusudana Dasa has recently proposed an unusual defence of the phrase “planet of trees” in the purport to Bhagavad-gita 10.29. According to his explanation, “trees” should be understood as “family trees” or “genealogical trees,” and “planet of trees” would therefore mean the planet of genealogy or the ancestors.

This argument appears to have been offered out of a sincere desire to defend Srila Prabhupada and deny that the authorized edition contains an error. Nevertheless, sincerity does not make an argument sound. Those who oppose the changes must be especially careful not to defend weak interpretations merely because they seem useful to our position.

Such arguments ultimately hamper the effort to preserve Srila Prabhupada’s original books. They allow representatives of BBT International to portray opponents of the changes as people who are unwilling to acknowledge even obvious textual problems. Worse, they unnecessarily tie the preservation of the authorized edition to the indefensible claim that every sentence must be linguistically flawless.

That claim is neither necessary nor helpful. We can acknowledge an obvious transcriptional or editorial error without conceding that later editors had the authority to rewrite Srila Prabhupada’s published work after his departure. The original edition can remain original, while an annotation transparently explains the difficulty.

The following examines the proposed “family trees” interpretation on its own linguistic and logical merits.

The Meaning of “Family Tree”

The devotee claims that “planet of trees” can mean “planet of genealogy” because the word “tree” can occur in expressions such as “family tree” or “genealogical tree.”

That argument is linguistically invalid.

No one disputes that words can have several meanings. The issue is whether the proposed meaning is actually available in the expression being discussed. Polysemy does not mean that every meaning associated with a compound expression can be transferred to one of its individual words.

“Family tree” is an established compound expression. Merriam-Webster defines “family tree” as “genealogy” or “a genealogical diagram.” Cambridge similarly defines it as a drawing showing relationships between members of a family. These dictionaries define the complete expression “family tree,” not the standalone word “tree” as meaning “genealogy.”

The standalone word “tree” can metaphorically refer to something arranged in a branching form, especially a branching diagram or graph. But a branching diagram is not automatically a genealogy. It might be a decision tree, syntax tree, evolutionary tree, file tree or mathematical tree. The surrounding words determine what kind of tree is intended.

Therefore:

“Family tree” may mean genealogy.

But “tree” by itself does not mean genealogy.

And “trees” by itself does not mean ancestors.

This is not an appeal merely to what an “average native speaker” happens to feel. It is ordinary compositional semantics. The modifier “family” supplies the genealogical meaning. Remove that modifier and the meaning is no longer specified.

The Problem with Transferring Meaning

Consider the absurd consequences of the proposed reasoning:

A “decision tree” represents decisions. Therefore, “tree” can mean a decision.

A “syntax tree” represents syntax. Therefore, “tree” can mean syntax.

An “evolutionary tree” represents evolutionary relationships. Therefore, “tree” can mean evolution.

Obviously, none of these conclusions follows. The complete expressions have specialized meanings that the word “tree” does not carry by itself.

The phrase “planet of trees” therefore means, in normal English, a planet or realm associated with trees. It does not mean “planet of family trees,” much less “planet of genealogy,” and still less “planet inhabited by ancestors.”

Even replacing it with “planet of family trees” would not solve the problem. A family tree is a genealogy or genealogical representation. It is not an ancestor. A planet of family trees would be a planet containing genealogies or diagrams, not the abode of the persons represented in those genealogies.

A Chain of Unsupported Substitutions

The proposed reasoning requires several unsupported substitutions:

trees
→ family trees
→ genealogies
→ ancestors
→ the Pitrs
→ the planet of the Pitrs

None of these intermediate steps is expressed in the sentence. They have been inserted afterwards in order to save the wording from an obvious problem. That is precisely what makes the explanation ad hoc.

Context Cannot Manufacture Meaning

The context of Bhagavad-gita 10.29 does not rescue the argument. The verse mentions the Pitrs and Aryama. That context tells us what the purport ought to be referring to. It does not change the lexical meaning of “trees” into “genealogy.”

Context helps a reader choose between meanings that a word or expression can genuinely bear. It does not manufacture a new meaning merely because that meaning would be convenient.

For example, in a discussion about banks and finance, the sentence “I sat on the bank” may reasonably refer to a financial institution only if the grammar and surrounding language support that reading. Context cannot make “I climbed the bank” mean “I climbed a financial institution” merely because money was being discussed.

The same distinction applies here. The mention of ancestors makes it likely that “trees” is an error connected with the Pitrs or Pitrloka. It does not make “planet of trees” an English expression meaning “planet of ancestors.”

The Probable Origin of the Error

In fact, the source material gives a straightforward explanation. “Pitrs” is pronounced somewhat like “pi-trees,” and Pitrloka refers to the world of the ancestors. One scholarly analysis describes “planet of trees” as a mishearing of “Pitrloka” during transcription. Another source similarly explains the error as “a planet of ancestors,” or Pitrs, pronounced approximately “pi-trees.”

Even BBT International’s own defence of the revisions does not offer the genealogical interpretation. On the contrary, its editorial quiz asks, “Where is the planet of the trees?” and answers sarcastically, “If you find it, let us know.” The editors of BBT International themselves plainly regard the wording as an error, not as a sophisticated reference to family trees.

Polysemy Does Not Prove the Interpretation

The reference to Leontiev is also irrelevant. Whether Leontiev said that words may have several meanings proves nothing disputed here. Everyone accepts polysemy. The question is not whether “tree” can have metaphorical meanings. The question is whether “planet of trees” is established or intelligible English for “planet of genealogy” or “planet of ancestors.”

It is not.

To establish the proposed interpretation, evidence would be needed of actual English usage in which:

“Trees,” without “family,” “genealogical” or another qualifier, means genealogies.
“Planet of trees” means a realm of genealogical descent.
A genealogy is used metonymically for the ancestors themselves in this construction.

No such evidence has been supplied. Merely pointing to the dictionary entry for “family tree” does not establish any of these propositions.

A Misrepresentation of the Objection

The devotee also misrepresents the objection by claiming that critics think a tree must always mean wood or forest. No such claim has been made. “Tree” has several literal and metaphorical uses. But none of that shows that “trees” alone means genealogy in the sentence under discussion.

The issue is not:

“Can the word tree ever be used metaphorically?”

Of course it can.

The issue is:

“Can ‘planet of trees’ naturally and correctly mean ‘planet of the ancestors’?”

No dictionary evidence, usage evidence or grammatical argument has been supplied to show that it can.

An Ad Hoc Reinterpretation

The explanation is therefore not a dictionary-based interpretation. It is an ad hoc reinterpretation constructed through association:

-trees remind him of family trees;

-family trees remind him of genealogy;

-genealogy reminds him of ancestors;

-and the verse happens to concern the Pitrs.

That may explain how he arrived at the interpretation. It does not establish that the sentence has that meaning.

Recognizing the Error Does Not Criticize Srila Prabhupada

Acknowledging the error does not mean criticizing Srila Prabhupada. The wording already appears in the surviving manuscript drafts, which themselves contain transcriptional and editorial errors. It may therefore reflect a transcriber’s mishearing rather than Srila Prabhupada’s actual spoken wording.

Nor does admitting the error settle the separate question of whether later editors were authorized to alter the published edition. An error can be acknowledged and explained in an annotation while the original authorized edition remains unchanged.

Two Separate Questions

Thus, two issues must be kept distinct:

“Planet of trees” is an obvious textual error.

That error does not by itself authorize the posthumous rewriting of Srila Prabhupada’s book.

The attempted “family trees” explanation fails because it confuses the meaning of a compound expression with the meaning of one of its component words, mistakes association for semantics, and then uses context to insert several unstated ideas into the sentence.

That is not linguistic analysis. It is an ad hoc rescue.

Conclusion

This brings us back to the broader problem raised at the beginning. Those who oppose the posthumous changes to Srila Prabhupada’s books do not strengthen their case by defending every inherited wording through increasingly strained interpretations. On the contrary, such arguments make the entire preservationist position easier to dismiss.

If explanations are presented that cannot withstand elementary linguistic analysis, representatives of BBT International can point to them as evidence that critics of the changes are motivated by denial rather than by careful reasoning. One weak argument can then be used to discredit many strong ones.

That is unnecessary. Our position does not depend on pretending that every sentence in the authorized edition is free from transcriptional, grammatical or editorial difficulty. It depends on a much firmer principle: acknowledged imperfections do not grant later editors unlimited authority to rewrite a departed acarya’s published work.

We should therefore distinguish clearly between preserving an authorized edition and defending every wording as linguistically perfect. The first is principled and defensible. The second can lead to contrived explanations that damage the credibility of the very cause they are intended to support.

The “family trees” interpretation is a clear example. It should not be repeated as part of the case against the book changes. It does not protect Srila Prabhupada’s books. It gives opponents of the original editions an avoidable advantage.

The stronger course is honesty, precision and restraint: acknowledge the textual error, explain its probable origin, preserve the original edition unchanged, and reject the false conclusion that the existence of such an error authorizes posthumous revision.

08.02.26

by Ajit Krishna Dasa

Is Jayadvaita Swami Better Than Srila Prabhupada?

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

In Bhagavad-gita 3.27, Srila Prabhupada’s manuscript reads:

“The bewildered spirit-soul under the influence of the three modes of material nature, thinks himself as the doer of activities, which are done by Nature.”

The authorized 1968 and 1972 editions preserve the same sentence and meaning, with normal English polishing:

“The bewildered spirit soul, under the influence of the three modes of material nature, thinks himself to be the doer of activities, which are in actuality carried out by nature.”

After Srila Prabhupada’s departure, Jayadvaita Swami changed the translation to:

“The spirit soul bewildered by the influence of false ego thinks himself the doer of activities, which are in actuality carried out by the three modes of material nature.”

This was not the correction of a typographical error. Nor was it a restoration of Srila Prabhupada’s manuscript. The sentence was substantially rewritten.

Jayadvaita Swami replaced:

“The bewildered spirit soul”

with:

“The spirit soul bewildered by the influence of false ego.”

He removed:

“under the influence of the three modes of material nature”

from its position describing the conditioned soul and moved “the three modes of material nature” to the end of the sentence as the agents carrying out the activities.

He also replaced:

“carried out by nature”

with:

“carried out by the three modes of material nature.”

Thus the wording, grammatical structure and distribution of ideas were all changed.

It may be argued that the revised version follows the Sanskrit grammar more literally. But this only explains why Jayadvaita Swami preferred his new translation. It does not make his translation Srila Prabhupada’s translation.

THE TRANSLATION WAS REPEATEDLY READ TO SRILA PRABHUPADA

The evidence does not stop with the manuscript and the published editions. The original translation was repeatedly read aloud in Srila Prabhupada’s presence, and he explained it without objecting to its wording.

During a Bhagavad-gita lecture in Los Angeles on December 30, 1968, Tamala Krishna read:

“The bewildered spirit soul, under the influence of the three modes of material nature, thinks himself to be the doer of activities which are in actuality carried out by nature.”

He then read the purport, including:

“The person in material consciousness is convinced by false ego that he is the doer of everything.”

Thus “false ego” was not absent from Srila Prabhupada’s explanation. It was clearly presented in the purport, while the translation retained the wording Srila Prabhupada had given.

In Melbourne on July 2, 1974, Caru again read the original translation:

“The bewildered spirit soul, under the influence of the three modes of material nature, thinks himself to be the doer of activities, which are in actuality carried out by nature.”

Srila Prabhupada immediately explained:

“Nature. Nature is giving us different body. I am the spirit soul. Because I have accepted natural…, material nature’s protection, I am getting different types of body.”

Far from correcting the translation, Srila Prabhupada emphasized precisely its wording:

“Nature. Nature is giving us different body.”

In Perth on May 13, 1975, Amogha read:

“The bewildered spirit soul, under the influence of the three modes of material nature, thinks himself to be the doer of activities, which are in actuality carried out by nature.”

Srila Prabhupada replied:

“Yes. He is pulled by the ear by the nature, ‘You rascal, you have associated with this quality. You do this. You must accept this body.’”

He then asked:

“What is the purport I have given?”

Again, Srila Prabhupada accepted the translation and proceeded to explain how nature controls the conditioned living entity.

At Laguna Beach on July 26, 1975, Srila Prabhupada personally asked for the verse:

“Find out this verse. Prakrteh kriyamanani gunaih karmani sarva… Who can read very distinctly?”

Satsvarupa then read:

“The bewildered spirit soul, under the influence of the three modes of material nature, thinks himself to be the doer of activities, which are in actuality carried out by nature.”

Srila Prabhupada said:

“Purport.”

The purport explained that the person in material consciousness is convinced by false ego that he is the doer of everything.

Thus the original translation and the explanation involving false ego stood together perfectly well. Srila Prabhupada did not need the translation rewritten to make the point clear.

We therefore have Srila Prabhupada’s manuscript, the authorized 1968 edition, the authorized 1972 edition, and several occasions on which the verse was read aloud before him and explained by him.

At no point did Srila Prabhupada say that the translation was wrong or needed to be rewritten.

A LITTLE SANSKRIT

Srila Prabhupada also gave a severe warning about disciples who acquire some Sanskrit knowledge and then begin to think themselves superior to their spiritual master:

“I am also practically finding that if any of our students artificially try to become scholars by associating with unwanted persons they become victimized, for a little learning is dangerous, especially for the Westerners. I am practically seeing that as soon as they begin to learn a little Sanskrit immediately they feel that they have become more than their guru and then the policy is kill guru and be killed himself.”

Letter to Dixit, September 18, 1976.

The problem is not the study of Sanskrit. Srila Prabhupada encouraged proper study. The problem begins when a disciple’s limited scholarship gives him the confidence to stand above the guru’s work, judge it defective and replace it with something he considers better.

That is what happened here.

Jayadvaita Swami did not restore Srila Prabhupada’s manuscript. He replaced Srila Prabhupada’s authorized translation with a posthumous retranslation that he considered more grammatically precise.

It is difficult to see this as anything other than an attempt to improve, correct and present something supposedly better than what Srila Prabhupada gave.

Worse still, the new sentence is published under Srila Prabhupada’s name. The ordinary reader is not told:

“This translation was rewritten by Jayadvaita Swami after Srila Prabhupada’s departure.”

Instead, it is presented as though Srila Prabhupada wrote it.

That is dishonest.

WHAT DO WE ACTUALLY WANT?

Followers of Srila Prabhupada must make up their minds.

Do we want the Bhagavad-gita Srila Prabhupada actually gave us?

Or do we want something later editors consider clearer, more accurate and effectively “better than Srila Prabhupada”?

We cannot honestly pretend that these are the same thing.

Anyone is free to produce another translation of Bhagavad-gita. Jayadvaita Swami may publish his preferred rendering, explain why he considers it superior and place his own name on the book.

But he should not replace Srila Prabhupada’s authorized translation and publish the replacement as though Srila Prabhupada wrote it.

If someone wants a “better” Bhagavad-gita, let him write or read another one.

Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita should remain Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita.

THE “KILL GURU” MENTALITY

Srila Prabhupada warned that when a disciple learns “a little Sanskrit” and begins to think himself greater than his guru, the result is the mentality of “kill guru and be killed himself.”

The revised Bhagavad-gita is infested with that mentality.

Again and again, the editor places his own judgment above Srila Prabhupada’s authorized words, removes what Srila Prabhupada gave, and substitutes what he considers clearer, more accurate or better.

Books do not merely transmit information. They also train the reader in a way of thinking.

When devotees are taught to accept such posthumous rewriting as faithful service, they are gradually taught the same principle: that Srila Prabhupada’s words are not final, that his books may be judged from below, and that a disciple may improve the acarya whenever he believes he knows better.

In that sense, the revised Bhagavad-gita does not merely arise from the “kill guru” mentality. It contaminates its readers with the same mentality by normalizing it and presenting it as service to Srila Prabhupada.

Followers of Srila Prabhupada must therefore decide what they actually want: Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita, or an editor’s supposedly improved replacement published under Srila Prabhupada’s name.

If we want Srila Prabhupada, then we must accept what Srila Prabhupada gave.

Why Bhagavad-gītā 9.32 Should Never Have Been “Corrected” on the Assumption of a Mishearing

The manuscript actually says “taking center”

“Taking center” was already in Teachings of Lord Caitanya in 1968

Kṛṣṇa as “center” is everywhere in the same book

What does vyapāśritya actually mean?

The word-for-word is not a straitjacket

Śrīla Prabhupāda himself explains the geometry

Śrīla Prabhupāda heard the expression and said “Yes”

Even BBTI’s own Style Guide recognizes this principle

And what if the English is still considered odd?

The problem is not “shelter”

Sometimes the editor has not yet understood the author

Share this:

1. Srila Prabhupada knew that the translations and synonyms sometimes differed

2. The word-for-word meanings are not an infallible control text

3. The earlier manuscript cannot automatically overrule the published book

4. The editor sometimes needed Srila Prabhupada’s personal judgment

5. Srila Prabhupada rejected needless editing

6. Srila Prabhupada identified the purports as his unique contribution

7. Hayagriva’s authority was direct, limited and supervised

8. Later decisions and the final text may overrule earlier drafts

9. Some errors can be objectively demonstrated—but this does not justify thousands of changes

10. Proving an error does not prove the right to correct it

11. Jayadvaita’s method often constructs a new text rather than restoring an old one

The real conclusion

References

Share this:

Why “there are no mistakes” is not the Vaiṣṇava position

The contradiction exists only on the surface

If the pure devotee is always right, he is also right about mistakes

Why “transcendental mistake” is not an oxymoron

Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura openly acknowledged defects

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī: the spirit may wear defective clothing

The devotee is right even when he apparently misquotes

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu acknowledged poetic faults

Viṣṇāya and viṣṇave

Śrīla Prabhupāda anticipated literary discrepancies in his own work

Ornamentation is not the ecstasy

“It is not the grammatical”

“There may be discrepancies, but it is all right”

Ārṣa-prayoga would be meaningless if mistakes were impossible

“Transcendental mistakes dictated by Śrīla Prabhupāda himself”

Śrīla Prabhupāda demonstrated the principle in practice

The argument defeats itself

The correct Vaiṣṇava conclusion

Share this:

Introduction

The Meaning of “Family Tree”

The Problem with Transferring Meaning

A Chain of Unsupported Substitutions

Context Cannot Manufacture Meaning

The Probable Origin of the Error

Polysemy Does Not Prove the Interpretation

A Misrepresentation of the Objection

An Ad Hoc Reinterpretation

Recognizing the Error Does Not Criticize Srila Prabhupada

Two Separate Questions

Conclusion

Share this:

Share this: