Understanding the June 22, 1977 instruction: A discussion for devotees who oppose the changes to his books
Introduction
Among devotees who oppose the posthumous changes to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books, there is considerable agreement about the fundamental issue: his completed and published works should be preserved, not revised according to the judgments of subsequent editors. Nevertheless, disagreements sometimes arise over the meaning of particular instructions, especially his statement of June 22, 1977:
“The next printing should be again to the original way.”
Some devotees understand these words as a command to restore the earliest editions of his books. Others believe the instruction concerned unauthorized alterations introduced into previously published works. Still others are uncertain how to reconcile the statement with Prabhupāda’s own revisions, his approval of editorial corrections, and his willingness to have qualified devotees examine his books for mistakes.
These disagreements deserve serious attention because they can weaken an otherwise strong argument. Our opposition to the posthumous revisions should not require us to deny that Prabhupāda authorized editorial work during his lifetime. Nor should our acknowledgment of such authorization be mistaken for acceptance of the claim that editors thereby acquired authority to revise his completed books after his disappearance.
Three distinct questions are frequently treated as though they were identical:
- What did Śrīla Prabhupāda mean by “the original way”?
- What kinds of corrections did he permit during his lifetime?
- What authority, if any, did editors retain to change his published books after his disappearance?
These questions are related, but an answer to one does not automatically settle the others.
My conclusion regarding the third question is that Śrīla Prabhupāda did not authorize the posthumous revision of his completed and published books. I have examined the arguments advanced in defense of those revisions elsewhere and do not find them sufficient to establish the necessary authority. The present article is not another examination of that controversy.
Instead, I want to address a narrower question among devotees who share my opposition to the changes: How should we understand Prabhupāda’s instruction to return to “the original way,” and what should we do about it?
One principle should govern our examination: We should never defend Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books by attributing instructions to him that the historical record cannot sustain.
What happened on June 22, 1977?
The statement was made during a conversation in Vṛndāvana, subsequently known as the “Rascal Editors” conversation. Several devotees brought editorial problems to Prabhupāda’s attention. Their concerns involved errors in translations, changes to previously printed books, and editors taking excessive liberties with his writings.
The discussion began with a problem in the Sanskrit synonyms of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.2.5. The word munayaḥ, which addresses the sages, had been rendered in the synonyms as “of the sages.” Prabhupāda objected strongly, pointing out that the word was in the vocative case and should not have been translated in that manner.
This example is significant because it demonstrates that Prabhupāda was concerned about the accuracy of his books. The problem was not simply that someone had changed an earlier expression. It was that an editor’s handling of the Sanskrit had introduced an error.
The conversation subsequently turned to broader editorial practices. Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Gosvāmī explained that Jayādvaita Prabhu performed the initial editing of certain works, but that further changes were being made after printing. Prabhupāda acknowledged Jayādvaita’s competence, saying, “He is good.” When Tamāla Kṛṣṇa explained that changes were nevertheless being introduced afterward, Prabhupāda responded:
“But they are doing without any authority.”
Svarūpa Dāmodara then proposed a systematic review:
“I think we should make whole survey, all books already printed, before printing the next batch and check any mistakes so that it should be all corrected.”
Prabhupāda acknowledged the seriousness of the situation and remarked:
“It is not possible for me to check, and they are doing all nonsense, freedom.”
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa returned to Svarūpa Dāmodara’s proposal and suggested that previously published books be examined before reprinting. He emphasized that the work should be performed by a learned devotee rather than merely by someone with academic Sanskrit knowledge.
Prabhupāda mentioned Jayādvaita and Satsvarūpa, and Yaśodānandana suggested Bhakti-prema Mahārāja. Tamāla Kṛṣṇa described this as a good solution, and Prabhupāda answered:
“Yes.”
This exchange is important. In the very conversation in which Prabhupāda condemned unauthorized alterations, he accepted a proposal to examine previously published books and correct mistakes.
We cannot reasonably interpret his subsequent instruction as a categorical prohibition against every correction without creating an unnecessary conflict within the conversation itself.
The discussion continued with examples of editorial interference involving Easy Journey to Other Planets and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Yaśodānandana then raised the matter of Śrī Īśopaniṣad:
“Sometimes they appeal that ‘We can make better English,’ so they change like that, just like in the case of Īśopaniṣad. There are over a hundred changes. So where is the need? Your words are sufficient. The potency is there. When they change, it is something else.”
Svarūpa Dāmodara described this mentality as dangerous, and Yaśodānandana expressed concern that continued alterations would eventually produce an entirely different book.
Prabhupāda responded:
“It is very serious situation. You write one letter that ‘Why you have made so many changes?’ […] Write to Satsvarūpa that ‘This is the position. They are doing anything and everything at their whim.’ The next printing should be again to the original way.”
The immediate context is unmistakable. Prabhupāda was disturbed by editors making changes according to their own judgment, and he wanted the situation corrected.
But the question remains: What exactly did he mean by returning to “the original way”?
What can we establish with certainty?
Before examining the possible interpretations, we should distinguish what the conversation establishes from what we infer.
First, Prabhupāda objected strongly to unauthorized editorial interference. He criticized editors for making changes without proper authority and described the situation as serious. Whatever disagreements may arise over particular editions, there is no reasonable basis for minimizing his objections.
Second, he directed that the next printing should return to the original way. The instruction was restorative in character. He was not encouraging additional editorial experimentation but ordering a departure from the practices that had prompted his dissatisfaction.
Third, he accepted a proposal for qualified devotees to examine previously published books and correct mistakes. This is equally part of the historical record and must be included in our interpretation.
Fourth, Śrī Īśopaniṣad was mentioned immediately before the instruction. This gives us strong reason to believe that Prabhupāda had that book particularly in mind. Nevertheless, the wider discussion concerned editorial problems affecting several works, and his criticism of unauthorized changes was not limited to Īśopaniṣad.
The conversation does not establish with equal certainty whether he intended a general directive covering every previously published book or a more immediate instruction concerning the particular alterations being discussed.
Nor does it provide a complete account of which changes he wanted reversed.
These limitations should not make us hesitant to acknowledge what he clearly said. Rather, they should prevent us from extending his instruction beyond what the evidence supports.
Does “original” necessarily mean “earliest”?
This is where I believe an important distinction is sometimes overlooked.
The earliest editions of Prabhupāda’s books are historically indispensable. They preserve his writings before many subsequent editorial interventions and provide a basis for identifying alterations. Their preservation is therefore of great importance.
But chronological priority and authorial authority are not identical.
Prabhupāda sometimes revised his own writings, instructed editors to correct mistakes, and approved corrections made under his authority. Such decisions cannot simply be disregarded because an earlier printing exists.
Consider a straightforward example. Suppose Prabhupāda identified a mistake in an early edition of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and instructed that it be corrected in the next printing. Would his June 1977 statement require us to restore the original mistake merely because it appeared in the first edition?
Certainly not. That would mean placing the chronological priority of the earliest printing above Prabhupāda’s own subsequent instruction.
The same principle applies to changes he personally authorized. If he approved a particular correction, we cannot automatically condemn it merely because the corrected wording differs from an earlier edition.
We must therefore distinguish between changes made with proper authorization and changes introduced independently by editors. Both may produce differences between editions, but their authority is not the same.
This suggests that “the original way” should not be understood as a universal formula requiring the earliest wording to prevail irrespective of Prabhupāda’s own decisions.
The more consistent interpretation is that he wanted his books protected against unauthorized editorial interference, with objectionable alterations reversed and genuine mistakes corrected under proper authority.
That interpretation fits both his strong criticism of editorial independence and his acceptance of qualified editorial checking.
It is important, however, to acknowledge that Prabhupāda did not explicitly define the expression in those terms. We are interpreting his instruction in light of the surrounding evidence, not quoting a definition he supplied.
The immediate reference to Śrī Īśopaniṣad
Because Śrī Īśopaniṣad was mentioned immediately before Prabhupāda’s instruction, it deserves particular attention.
Yaśodānandana complained that the editors had introduced numerous alterations, ostensibly to improve the English. Prabhupāda responded by condemning editors who were acting at their own whim and instructing that the next printing should return to the original way.
The natural reading is that Prabhupāda wanted the objectionable changes reversed rather than perpetuated in subsequent printings.
He did not suggest that the altered text should simply continue to be printed alongside an earlier version. His instruction was to restore the text, not merely to make an alternative available.
Nevertheless, we should distinguish this conclusion from the broader claim that every book must always be restored to its earliest edition. The immediate instruction may have concerned Śrī Īśopaniṣad specifically, while expressing a general principle about unauthorized changes.
There is also a distinction between knowing that Prabhupāda wanted restoration and knowing precisely which wording he intended to restore. The conversation does not provide a complete comparison of the relevant editions or identify every alteration that needed to be reversed.
We therefore have strong evidence concerning the direction of his instruction, but less conclusive evidence concerning its exact textual implementation.
This distinction does not diminish the seriousness of his order. It simply recognizes the limits of the surviving record.
Did Prabhupāda permit corrections?
Yes, and this is something devotees who oppose the posthumous revisions should acknowledge without hesitation.
The June 22 conversation itself establishes that Prabhupāda accepted a proposal for qualified devotees to examine previously printed books and correct mistakes.
His correspondence provides additional evidence. In his September 7, 1976 letter to Rādhā-vallabha, he expressed confidence in Jayādvaita’s editing and approved work involving Sanskrit synonyms.
The July 22, 1977 letter from Tamāla Kṛṣṇa to Rāmeśvara is also relevant. Referring to a proposed procedure for dealing with errors, Tamāla Kṛṣṇa wrote:
“Your suggestion that in the future any mistakes which are found can be reported to Satsvarupa Maharaja, Jayadvaita Prabhu, Radha Ballabha Prabhu, or yourself, and after sufficient investigation and confirmation these mistakes can be rectified is accepted.”
The same letter explained that corrections being prepared for the Fifth Canto would be submitted for Prabhupāda’s approval.
This correspondence demonstrates that Prabhupāda accepted a procedure for identifying and rectifying mistakes. For the particular Fifth Canto work under discussion, his personal approval was explicitly contemplated.
We should be precise about what this establishes. It does not prove that Prabhupāda personally approved every correction to every book, nor does it establish that every correction required a separate act of personal approval. The historical evidence supports a process involving trusted editors, investigation, and authorial authority, but it does not define every procedural detail.
Equally, this evidence does not establish authorization for the posthumous revision of his completed and published books.
Permission to correct mistakes under the author’s authority is not automatically permission to continue revising that author’s works after his disappearance. The latter requires its own authorization, which I do not find established by the historical evidence.
There is therefore no need to deny that Prabhupāda allowed corrections during his lifetime in order to maintain a firm opposition to the posthumous revisions.
Indeed, denying such corrections would unnecessarily weaken our argument.
We should distinguish between a genuine mistake that Prabhupāda wanted corrected and a passage that an editor considered defective merely because he preferred another expression. The existence of a possible improvement does not, by itself, establish permission to make it.
An editor may sincerely believe that he is correcting a mistake when he is actually replacing Prabhupāda’s intended wording with an interpretation of his own.
That was precisely one of the dangers raised during the June 1977 conversation.
Our objection should therefore concern unauthorized editorial interference, not the correction of mistakes Prabhupāda himself permitted.
Four possible interpretations
With the evidence before us, I think we can distinguish four principal interpretations of Prabhupāda’s instruction.
The first interpretation is that every book should be restored to its earliest published edition without exception. This provides a simple rule, but it is difficult to reconcile with the revisions and corrections Prabhupāda personally made or authorized. Nothing in the conversation establishes that he intended to reverse his own editorial decisions.
The second interpretation is that he intended editors to recover his original intended meaning through extensive reconstruction of previously published works. Earlier manuscripts and dictations may sometimes provide evidence of genuine mistakes, but the context of this statement is primarily restorative. Prabhupāda was objecting to editorial liberties already taken with his works, not granting editors unrestricted discretion to reconstruct them according to their own judgment.
The third interpretation is that he was referring specifically to Śrī Īśopaniṣad. This has strong support from the immediate context. The book was mentioned just before his instruction, and the complaint concerned alterations already made to its text. The limitation of this interpretation is that Prabhupāda’s broader objections concerned editorial practices affecting several books, not merely one.
The fourth interpretation is that he was establishing a general principle against unauthorized alterations, requiring objectionable changes to be reversed while allowing legitimate corrections under proper authority. This accounts for his strong criticism of independent editing, his acceptance of qualified checking, and his own history of approving corrections. In my judgment, it is the most coherent reading of the conversation as a whole.
The third and fourth interpretations are not mutually exclusive. Prabhupāda may have had Śrī Īśopaniṣad immediately in mind while expressing a principle that applied to unauthorized editing more generally.
That combination appears to me the strongest interpretation.
It explains why Prabhupāda instructed a return to an earlier text, why he condemned alterations made at the editors’ whim, and why he nevertheless accepted qualified correction of genuine mistakes.
It also avoids attributing to him the unreasonable intention of reversing changes he had personally made or approved.
What should we do as devotees?
For devotees who oppose the posthumous changes, several practical conclusions follow.
First, we should defend Prabhupāda’s authority rather than regard the chronological priority of a particular edition as an absolute rule. The earliest editions are indispensable historical records, but their authority derives from their relationship to Prabhupāda and his publishing decisions, not merely from their age.
Second, we should respect revisions and corrections he personally made or authorized. His instruction to return to the original way should not be used to justify disregarding his own decisions. An unauthorized editorial alteration and an authorized correction are not the same thing, even if both result in a difference between printings.
Third, we should recognize that an authorized edition need not be textually perfect. Prabhupāda worked through editors, transcribers, typesetters, and printers, and he acknowledged that he could not personally check everything. The discovery of mistakes does not automatically invalidate a book he approved for publication.
Fourth, we should take his specific objections seriously. Where he instructed that objectionable changes be reversed, we should not use his general willingness to authorize editorial work as an excuse for disregarding that instruction.
Finally, we should be careful about disagreements among ourselves. Devotees who share a commitment to preserving Prabhupāda’s books may nevertheless differ over the precise scope of a historical instruction or the textual state it was intended to restore.
Such disagreements should be resolved through careful examination of evidence, not through an assumption that our preferred interpretation must be the only possible one.
There is no need to exaggerate Prabhupāda’s instructions in order to defend them. Nor should we hesitate to acknowledge evidence that complicates a simplified account of the history.
Our position is strongest when it rests on what he actually said and authorized.
Conclusion
Śrīla Prabhupāda’s instruction that “the next printing should be again to the original way” was given in response to serious concerns about unauthorized editorial interference. His dissatisfaction was unmistakable, and his instruction deserves to be taken with full seriousness.
The immediate context strongly suggests that he had the objectionable alterations to Śrī Īśopaniṣad particularly in mind. Yet the wider conversation concerned the editing of several books, and his criticism of independent editorial changes was broader than any one publication.
At the same time, he accepted a proposal to have qualified devotees examine previously printed books and correct mistakes. His broader publishing history also demonstrates that he sometimes made and authorized corrections himself.
These facts must be understood together.
I therefore do not believe that his instruction can reasonably be interpreted as an absolute requirement to restore the first printing of every book, irrespective of his own subsequent decisions. The interpretation that best accounts for the evidence is that he wanted unauthorized alterations reversed and his books restored to their properly authorized form, while permitting genuine corrections under legitimate authority.
This conclusion does not weaken our opposition to the posthumous revisions. On the contrary, it allows us to maintain that position without making claims about Prabhupāda’s lifetime editorial instructions that the historical record cannot support.
Nor does it require us to settle every question concerning different lifetime editions or every possible textual correction. Those questions should be examined individually, with proper attention to the evidence.
Our responsibility is to preserve Prabhupāda’s teachings faithfully, respect his own editorial decisions, and avoid imposing our preferred interpretations upon his words.
We should not defend the earliest wording at the expense of Prabhupāda’s own authorized corrections, any more than we should defend later alterations at the expense of his instructions.
If we keep his authority at the center of our understanding, I believe devotees who oppose the posthumous revisions can develop a more consistent interpretation of his June 1977 statement without pretending that every historical question has already been settled.
