Author Archives: Ajit Krishna Dasa

11.26.13
by

Bhaktivinoda Thakura on unscrupulous men who interpolate the Vedas

Help us by “liking” and “sharing” this post!

Bhaktivinod-Thakur-7-207x300

Raghunatha dasa Babaji, “In the course of time many unscrupulous men have interpolated chapters; mandalas, sections; and mantras into the Vedas for self-interested reasons. A Vedic text may be discovered somewhere, but that does not mean that all parts of the book are authentic. Texts that have been authenticated through the ages by the acaryas of the bona fide sampradayas are the Vedas. Sections or even entire books rejected by these authorities are unacceptable to us.”

Jaiva Dharma, Part One: Pramana, Evidence, and Prameya, Truth

Jayadvaita Swami has also interpolated, substracted and re-arranged sentences, words, paragraphs, chapters, forewords and paintings from Prabhupada’s already authorized books. His editing work was never approved or authenticated by Prabhupada.

Then, are his edited books authentic?

11.17.13
by

Shocking statement by Danish BBT editor Lalitanath Dasa

Help us by “liking” and “sharing” this post!

Some statements by Prabhupada on his Bhagavad-gita As It Is, 1972 edition:

“In all countries all over the world the Bhagavad-gita is read by philosophers, psychologists, and religionists. We are also finding very good sales with our Bhagavad-gita As It Is. This is because the commodity is pure gold. There are many editions of the Bhagavad-gita, but they are not pure. Ours is selling more because we are presenting the Bhagavad-gita as it is.” (SSR 1c: A Definition of God)

“In either case, you should please try to introduce into every college and university our Bhagavad-gita As It Is. That will surely be a great service. The Bhagavad-gita is well read everywhere, and you need only to convince them that this is the best edition.” (Letter to Jayapataka, Los Angeles 30 January, 1969)

“Our Bhagavad-gita As It Is is so much important to the world for uplifting it from darkest condition of ignorance,…” (Letter to Jayadvaita, Calcutta 5 March, 1972)

Contrasted to this we find these shocking words from one of the Danish BBT(I) editors who is behind the new release of the Danish translation of the posthumously edited and therefore unauthorized 1983 edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is (sent to me personally by e-mail):

“Even though I might be able to tolerate reading it (for everything from Prabhupada is of course ecstatic) it still contains too many mistakes for me to read it without curling my toes and become irritated” (Lalitanath Dasa, editor for BBT International, 08.23.2012)

ld-om-gita
We might note the self-contradictory nature of Lalitanath Dasa’s statement. He thinks it’s ecstatic, but he is curling his toes and becoming irritated. These are not signs of ecstasy. These are negative material emotions.

What did Prabhupada think of editors who saw mistakes in his books:

SP: That is his tendency, to correct. That’s very bad. He should not do that.

RVD: So I’ll just forget this, then.

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

RVD: Oh.

SP: Arsa prayoga. That is ha… He should not become more learned than the authority. That is very bad habit.

RVD: He was always wondering how he should think. So I’ll tell him that. He thinks, “If I think I see a mistake, what should I think?” I’ll tell him what you just said.

SP: He cannot see mistake. He is mistake (laughter). That is being done by this rascal. I don’t want.

11.09.13
by

Jayadvaita Swami ignores Prabhupada’s instructions to avoid controversy

“Help us by “liking” and “sharing” this post!”

Jayadvaita Swami finds himself as the main character in one of most controversial dramas in ISKCON, namely the posthumous editing of Prabhupada’s books.

But…

“Regarding Jayadvaita it is good for him to avoid controversy.” (Letter to Ramesvara, Bombay, 25 November, 1974)

And on a morning walk where Jayadvaita Swami and others were talking with Prabhupada about publishing matters that could cause controversy amongst devotees:

 “As soon as there is some controversy, avoid it.” (Morning Walk, April 10, 1976, Vrndavana)

Back-To-Godhead-Jayadvaita-Swami

Taking these instructions into consideration, the question arises:”Why is Jayadvaita Swami still deeply involved in this controversy?” He is actively debating the issue, writing articles, making videos, giving seminars and continuing his work of re-writing Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is.

11.06.13
by

E-mail exchange between Jayadvaita Swami and Ajit Krishna Dasa (Part 2)

Please help us by “liking” and “sharing” this post!

JSportraitJayadvaita Swami

What follows is a continuation of an e-mail exchange between me, Ajit Krishna Dasa, and Jayadvaita Swami (Part 1 can be accessed here).

Jayadvaita Swami answered my e-mail in the following way (29th October 2013):

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
Not for publishing, forwording, quoting, etc.

[Ajit Krishna Dasa:] What other topic ought to be prioritized higher than this?

[Jayadvaita Swami:] For you, from what I hear: Following the four regulative principles.

From what I understand, you are living with a woman to whom you are not married. Since the laws for the next ten thousand years so deeply concern you, you might want to start with the first four.

Bye.

My reply to Jayadvaita Swami (6th November 2013):

Dear Jayadvaita Swami! Dandavat pranam! Jaya Srila Prabhupada!

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my e-mail despite your kartik vows to focus more on chanting and reading.

The topic we exchanged about was the changes made to Prabhupada’s books, and you said you were busy. So even though I am happy to receive your reply I am surprised to see that you are prioritizing the topic of my marital status higher than answering the questions regarding the changes made to Prabhupada’s books. In your reply you didn’t mention anything at all about the changes made to Prabhupada’s books.

You once wrote an introductory manual to debate and argumentation called “Straight Thinking, Strong Speaking“. Over the years you have given seminars from this book, and it has been used at the Vrindavan Institute for Higher Education. A seminar can be downloaded from your personal website.

stss-jas-vihe-title

The topic for the first section of “Straight Thinking, Strong Speaking” is “Arguments”. Among other things you here mention different types of fallacies. One of them is called “Topic Switching”. You write:

Topic Switching

Also known as Diversion, Changing the Subject, and Red Herring.

[…]

Avoiding the question: Your opposer says something which does not answer the question he was asked.

[…]

REMEDY:

Refuse to be diverted. Restate the original topic and stick to it.”

(Straight Thinking, Strong Speaking, p. 10)

You have not answered the questions regarding the book changes, but have instead switched the topic to my personal marital status. According to your own manual I should refuse to let you divert me and instead restate the original topic:

The changes made to Prabhupada’s books!

In addition, switching the topic from the changes made to Prabhupada’s books to speaking negatively about my personal marital status is a specific type of “Topic Switching”, namely “Argumentum ad hominem” also called “character assassination”, “poisoning the well” or “Give the dog a bad name and hang it”. You mention this type of fallacy on page 17 in your manual:

Argumentum ad hominem

”attack on the person”

Instead of addressing the argument, one tries to discredit the person who made it.

This form of argument is famous as “the refuge of the scoundrels”.

It may involve innuendo or direct name-calling.

[…]

It can be a powerful device before a sympathetic audience.

[…]

REMEMBER: Knocking the person does not knock out the argument.

(Straight Thinking, Strong Speaking, p. 17-18)

You mention five ways to deal with the attack. Out of the five I have chosen:

3. Point out what is going on–your opponent is stooping to name-calling.

4. Demand the person give evidence to back up his personal attacks and show that they are relevant.

5. Accept the pejorative label & then demand that your opponent address himself to the real argument.

(Straight Thinking, Strong Speaking, p. 17-18)

Regarding the fourth and fifth option I have the following comments:

It is a fact that I am living with a woman, Bhaktin Anna, to whom I am not yet married [Note: We got married (civil marriage) 22nd Nov. 2013]. We do follow the regulative principles, and do not engage in illicit sex unless you want to use the hyper-strict definition that also includes living together as engaged, but without physical intimacy. If you are not referring to this hyper-strict definition, then you lack the evidence to back up your accusation that we don’t follow the four regulative principles.

Anna and I are looking for a qualified, pure brahmana to perform the Vedic marriage ceremony. In our understanding being pure includes being loyal to Prabhupada’s teachings/his original books. We are actually in the process of arranging a stay on Hawaii, because we know some of your godbrothers there whom we consider very loyal disciples of Srila Prabhupada. They are dedicated to printing and distributing his original books. We hope to have the fire sacrifice done there [Note: That plan did not work out so far].

The Danish yatra is small, and the propaganda for the BBT International’s book changes has been extensive for decades. Therefore, even though things are now gradually changing, to find a person who has both the overall purity, the skills to perform the fire sacrifice and the loyalty to the original books is difficult. So for now Anna and I have to settle with just wearing engagement rings on our fingers and are planning to have a civil marriage, because finding a bona fide brahmana is so difficult [Note: As mentioned above we did have a civil marriage in 2013].

I do value any advice regarding my marital status, if it comes from a true well-wisher. However, I sense you’re raising the topic for some other reason! And since the topic of my marital status has no logical connection to the truthvalue of my conclusions about the changes you have made to Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is (and other books) I humbly beg you to follow the guidelines regarding arguments and fallacies that you yourself teach devotees through your Straight Thinking, Strong Speaking manual and seminars.

Strong speaking will not suffice when it comes to the topic of the changes made to Prabhupada’s books. We are thousands of devotees eagerly awaiting your promised answers flavored with some straight thinking– and directly related to the points I raised in my blogposts and the e-mails I have sent to you.

I beg to remain your servant,

Ajit Krishna Dasa

11.04.13
by

BBT International does not follow the correct editing protocol for posthumous editing (Govinda Dasi)

Help us by “liking” and “sharing” this post!

govinda-dasiGovinda Dasi

I think the primary issue at hand is the posthumous editing protocol that has NOT been followed by the BBTI.

Yes, many devotees agree that no editing should have been done, other than the very few things mentioned by His Divine Grace (like the cattle raising and trees).  But most devotees think the thousands of changes are unwarranted.

Yet, there are others who find the edited Gita more to their liking.  And they prefer to read and distribute this Gita.

So now both are available from the BBT.  And devotees can choose which they prefer, or better yet, buy both and compare them.

But the REAL ISSUE here needs to be addressed.

That is: the correct protocol for posthumous editing MUST BE INTRODUCED by the BBT in order for Srila Prabhupada’s books to be considered authentic.

At the present time, the edited books are not authentic or true copies of the originals.  Without dating the editions, numbering them, and placing the editors’ names on the cover and/or title page, the Bhagavad Gita As It Is, so-called Srila Prabhupada’s Gita, is now considered by the academic community to be a non-authentic replica, not true to the original writings of His Divine Grace.

In other words, what is being pawned off as “Srila Prabhupada’s works” is really not authentic, and therefore is not respected by the world of scholars. It is seen as an undated edition, a conglomeration not to be trusted or considered worthy of study or scholarly examination.

When a book is posthumously edited, and changes comprise more than a certain percentage of the text, certain protocol must be followed in order for the book to be considered a genuine work of the author.  This has not been done by BBT.

Academic acceptance was quite important to Srila Prabhupada; there is much evidence of this.  He was quite eager to receive scholarly reviews for his writings, and to publish them in his books.

However, the academic reviews that are printed in the “new edition”, the posthumous edition, were in fact written and intended for the original edition, published while Srila Prabhupada was present.  The BBT has simply tacked these reviews onto the edited Gita, as if they were written for it–when in fact, these scholars never saw the posthumous edition.  This is not only unprofessional, but it is unethical.  This greatly compromises the status of Srila Prabhupada’s works.

This is an issue we should all be concerned about.  This is the issue that needs to be corrected by the BBT.

The correction is quite simple.  There are many websites devoted to such correct protocol.  Simply including the editors names, the date of editing, and the number of the edition will go a long way in correcting this glaring anomaly.  The BBT should take action on this as soon as possible, before scholarly reviews expressing this very fact become public.

Thank you for your time and concern,

Govinda dasi, ACBSP
HareKrishnaHawaii.com

10.28.13
by

E-mail exchange between Jayadvaita Swami and Ajit Krishna Dasa

Help us by “sharing” and “liking” this post!

JSportraitJayadvaita Swami

I sent this e-mail to Jayadvaita Swami (23rd October 2013):

Dear Jayadvaita Maharaja! Dandavat pranam! Jaya Prabhupada!

I have written several times via the contact form on the BBTedit.com website. But I have not received any replies.

I have done studies of some of the changes made to the Bhagavad-gita As It Is, and my conclusion is that there are some problems. I would very much like your reponse to some of the articles on my new blog:

https://arsaprayoga.wordpress.com/

The amount of devotees concerned with the editing of the BBT International increases. Information is being spread like wildfire via facebook and other social medias.

Here are the 5 articles I have sent via the contact form on BBTedit.com. I hope we will receive your replies to all the points raised in all the 5 articles:

https://arsaprayoga.wordpress.com/category/no-reply-from-bbt-international/

Our intention is to publish your answers along with our comments (if we have any). If we do not get answers that will also be posted.

Everything will be shared using facebook, twitter, pinterest, e-mails, google+, linkedin and more.

This e-mail will also be posted and shared!

We hope you will have time to reply!

Hare Krishna
​Your lowly servant,
Ajit Krishna Dasa

Jayadvaita Swami’s preliminary reponse (25th Oct. 2013):

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
Not for publishing, quoting, forwarding, etc.

Dear Ajit Krishna,

Please accept my best wishes. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I wish to acknowledge receiving your letter.

I have 70 letters now in my in-box, more come every day, and during Kartika I spend more time reading and chanting. So I may not respond quickly. But I *will* look at what you wrote and respond.

As a general note:

Rather than first write me directly, you have chosen first to express your concerns through propaganda on the internet. I regard this as a sort of rowdy, uncultured behavior. I doubt that any competent Vaisnava spiritual guide has advised you to act in this way.

The approach you have chosen complicates communication. It conveys a poor impression of your worth. And it sends your letter down, not up, my priority list.

I do value critical input, but I value it more when given personally, in a gentlemanly fashion.

Anyway, as I said, I will look at what you wrote and respond.

Hare Krsna.

Hoping this finds you in good health,

Yours in Srila Prabhupada’s service,
Jayadvaita Swami

PS:

My apologies for your not receiving replies to the messages you sent to BBTedit.com. I am not the person to whom messages sent there automatically go. And I don’t have control over that part of the site’s infrastructure. When time allows, I’ll write to the person who controls it and try to break the jam.

Hare Krsna.

Ajit Krishna Dasa (28th October 2013):

Dear Jayadvaita Swami! Dandavat pranam! Jaya Prabhupada!

Thank you very much for your kind reply to my e-mail! Very nice to
hear from you!

As I wrote in my first e-mail this correspondence will be made public.
The debate about the book changes ought to be in full disclosure,
exposed to as much light as possible. Prabhupada’s books are, after
all, our law books for the next ten thousand years, so we want
complete transparency when changes to the books are being made.

I know thousands of devotees would love if you would prioritize this
debate more than any other topic. But if you do not agree to my public
approach and find it “rowdy” and “uncultured” you are, of course, free
not to engage in the debate. But before you do that, kindly consider
that BOTH sides of this debate for years have been making “propaganda”
(a term Prabhupada mostly used with positive connotations) on the
internet and elsewhere for years.

For example, BBTedit.com use typical propaganda tools like claiming
they dispel the “myths” promoted by those opposed to the book changes.
They also publish videos with small, carefully selected snippets of a
long video with Madhudvisa Prabhu aiming at creating doubts about his
personality and statements (Why can’t we see the full video?).

You are yourself publishing articles wherein you use sarcasm as a
propaganda tool. Examples are these articles:

http://www.jswami.info/images_planet_trees

http://www.jswami.info/content/bbt_calendar_unauthorized_changes

I try my best to not use sarcasm and other such tricks on my blog
https://arsaprayoga.wordpress.com and I will guarantee you a nice
treatment if our exchange continues.

My plan is that I will systematically go through the complete gita and
send you all my questions. I will post them on my blog with the
following notice:

“This article was sent to the BBT International through their website
(http://www.bbtedit.com/contact) and to Jayadvaita Swami’s personal
e-mails (jswami@pamho.net and jayadvaita.swami@pamho.net) the
date-month-year. We asked them to comment on the points raised. So far
we have not received any reply.”

Everything will be spread through social media like facebook etc.

The picture that the BBT International tries to paint is that:

1. You are authorized by Prabhupada to change his Bhagavad-gita.

2. You are only making corrections back to the so called original manuscript.

3. That you have made no unnecessary changes.

4. That you honor the arsa-prayoga principle by not correcting
Prabhupada’s sanskrit and personally chosen words, but only the words
of the previous editors.

However, in my studies I (and others) have found:

1. Corrections made to Prabhupada’s sanskrit translations and chosen words.

2. New words which are not to be found in the so called original
manuscript or in the 1972 edition being added to the gita.

3. Words that are both found in the so called original manuscript and
in the 1972 edition being removed from the gita.

4. Unnecessary change of syntax (sentence structure).

There are thousands of devotees following this debate and eagerly
awaiting your comments to all the points raised both in this e-mail
and in all the blogposts I have previously sent to you and the BBT
International.

What other topic ought to be prioritized higher than this?

We all hope you will find time to answer these important questions!

Have a wonderful day,
Your lowly servant,
Ajit Krishna Dasa (Denmark)

PS: I forgot to mention a 5th point, namely that I also found in my studies of the book changes that Prabhupada never authorized you (or anyone else) to re-edit the Bhagavad-gita.

Ys, Ajit Krishna Dasa

We are now awaiting Jayadvaita Swami’s reply.

Read PART 2 here

10.24.13
by

“The duty of the finger” (Bg. 4.38)

Help us by “liking” and “sharing” this post!

This article was sent to the BBT International through their website (http://www.bbtedit.com/contact) and to Jayadvaita Swami’s personal e-mails (jswami@pamho.net and jayadvaita.swami@pamho.net) the 24th Oct. 2013. We asked them to comment on the points raised.

So far we have not received any reply.

1383179_412872895502777_881195929_n

By Bhakta Torben and Ajit Krishna Dasa

Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita 4.38, original 1972 edition:

Skærmbillede 2013-10-24 kl. 14.27.12

Jayadvaita Swami’s version (BBT International, 1983 edition):

Skærmbillede 2013-10-24 kl. 14.28.19

The sentence,

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

is changed to:

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

This change is both needless and alters the meaning.

It is NEEDLESS because Prabhupada has not asked for it.

It alters the meaning, as the words “enjoys the self” is erased and replaced with “enjoys this knowledge”.

And the words “has achieved this” are substituted with “has become accomplished in the practise of devotional service”.

Furthermore the words “are culminated” in the end of the purport are NEEDLESSLY changed to “culminate”.

So there are NEEDLESS changes BOTH in the translation and in the purport.

Usually all this is explained away with something from the “original manuscript”. But on BBT International’s website we find no information about this change.

The “original manuscript” sounds like this:

Skærmbillede 2013-10-24 kl. 11.27.55

So AGAIN the “original manuscript” is seen to be closer to the 1972 original Bhagavad-gita than Jayadvaita Maharaj’s version.

On top of that, in the word-for-word translation the word “na – never” is changed to “na – nothing” and “svayam-itself” is changed to “svayam-himself”. Prabhupada personally did ALL the type-writing for the first six chapters of the so called “original manuscript”. In the “original manuscript” Prabhupada’s translation of “na” was “never” (Na-never) and his translation of “svayam” was “itself” (svayam-itself):

Skærmbillede 2013-10-24 kl. 14.13.44

So BBT International have CHANGED PRABHUPADA’S SANSKRIT TRANSLATION as it was PERSONALLY WRITTEN BY HIM, on his type writer. Prabhupada was very concerned with better knowing disciples that had become “learned” in sanskrit:

“…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.” (from a letter to Dixit das on 18 Sep 1976)

Prabhupada gave this lecture from Bg. 4.38 and did not mention anything about changing anything:

Madhudvisa: Verse thirty-eight: “In this world there is nothing so sublime and pure as transcendental knowledge. Such knowledge is the mature fruit of all mysticism and one who achieved this enjoys the self within himself in due course of time [Bg. 4.38].”

Prabhupada: Yes. Knowledge: “I am part and parcel of Krishna, or God. My duty as part and parcel is to serve Krishna.” Just like this finger is the part and parcel of my body. The duty of the part and parcel is to serve.
(Bhagavad-gita 4.34-39, Los Angeles, January 12, 1969)

10.23.13
by

Letter to Jayadvaita Swami (23rd Oct. 2013)

letter-to-jayadvaita-swami-1Click to enlarge picture!

Dear Jayadvaita Maharaja! Dandavat pranam! Jaya Prabhupada!

I have written several times via the contact form on the BBTedit.com website. But I have not received any replies.

I have done studies of some of the changes made to the Bhagavad-gita As It Is, and my conclusion is that there are some problems. I would very much like your reponse to some of the articles on my new blog:

https://arsaprayoga.wordpress.com/

The amount of devotees concerned with the editing of the BBT International increases. Information is being spread like wildfire via facebook and other social medias.

Here are the 5 articles I have sent via the contact form on BBTedit.com. I hope we will receive your replies to all the points raised in all the 5 articles:

https://arsaprayoga.wordpress.com/category/no-reply-from-bbt-international/

Our intention is to publish your answers along with our comments (if we have any). If we do not get answers that will also be posted.

Everything will be shared using facebook, twitter, pinterest, e-mails, google+, linkedin and more.

This e-mail will also be posted and shared!

We hope you will have time to reply!

Hare Krishna
​Your lowly servant,
Ajit Krishna Dasa

10.23.13
by

Help Prabhupada by writing BBT International and Jayadvaita Swami

Please request answers from BBT International and Jayadvaita Swami! Send them the blogposts from this Arsa-Prayoga Blog and ask for their response!

Write BBT International: http://bbtedit.com/contact

Write to Jayadvaita Swami: jswami@pamho.net or jayadvaita.swami@pamho.net

10.23.13
by

“Phalanx” in Bg. 1.2 and Bg. 1.11 (Jayadvaita Swami’s double standard)

Help us by “sharing” and “liking” this post!

Back-To-Godhead-Jayadvaita-Swami

The text below was sent to the BBT International through their website (http://www.bbtedit.com/contact) and to Jayadvaita Swami and Dravida Prabhu’s personal e-mails (jswami@pamho.net, jayadvaita.swami@pamho.net, dravida108@gmail.com) the 7th Feb. 2014. We asked them to comment on the points raised.

So far we have not received any reply.

Regarding the word “Phalanx” in Bg. 1.2 Jayadvaita Swami writes on the BBT International’s website:

“In the old edition, the idea of a specific military formation (vyudham) is omitted.”

So we see that Jayadvaita Swami feels free to not only override Prabhupada’s editorial decisions regarding Bg. 1.2, namely to omit “military phalanx”, but also to unnecesarrily add the word “formation” instead of “phalanx” (Prabhupada often used the word phalanx. We find it many times in books like Bhagavad-gita, Krishna Book, Nectar of Devotion, Caitanya Caritamrta, and also in lectures, conversations, earlier essays and poems).

Jayadvaita Swami continues:

“In the new edition, I revised “phalanx” to “military formation” because a phalanx (originally) is a particular type of formation peculiar to ancient Greek warfare. Greek columns on the Battlefield of Kuruksetra didn’t seem right. Hence the revision.”

Then why did Jayadvaita Swami not remove the word “phalanx” from Bg. 1.11?

“All of you must now give full support to Grandfather Bhisma, as you stand at your respective strategic points of entrance into the phalanx of the army.” (Bg, 1.11, BBT International 1983 edition)

“Phalanx” is also found in the purports to Bg. 1.3 and Bg. 1.11 in BBT International’s 1983 edition.

Something doesn’t make sense!

In retrospect: “Phalanx” has come to refer to any military formation, so perhaps I should have been less picky. But at any rate, the new translation gets in the idea that the old one left out.”

So will Jayadvaita Swami again add the word phalanx to Bg. 1.2? Or will he remove it from Bg. 1.11 and add “formation”? Changing back and forth – again and again and again…ad infinitum?

Is that what Prabhupada expected from his editors? Is this how the world comes to respect Prabhupada’s books and ISKCON?