Where I differ from Garuda Dasa

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

If you are involved in the controversy about the posthumous changes made to Srila Prabhupada’s books then I guess you know who Garuda Dasa (Graham M. Schweig) is. Otherwise you can easily inform yourself by searching the internet.

To avoid any misunderstandings about my position in relation to Garuda Dasa I will now explain where and why I disagree with him on the topic of the posthumous editing of Srila Prabhupada’s books.

Unlike me Garuda Dasa wants a new edition, or version, of Bhagavad-gita As It Is. He is not satisfied with the work of Jayadvaita Swami, but at the same time he thinks we still need some posthumous editing. Garuda would like to do this editing himself – with a small group of qualified devotees.

I strongly disagree with him, and I recently presented my worries to him thus (slightly edited):

“You keep bringing up a couple of quotes to support posthumous editing, for example this one:

‘Our editing is to correct grammatical and spelling errors only, without interpolation of style or philosophy’ (Letter to Rupanuga Dasa, February 17, 1970).

And then you add that Srila Prabhupada’s instructions on editing his books can be summed up in the mantra “no changes, no mistakes,” and that this mantra must guide the posthumous editing of his books.

I find your argument fallacious for the following reasons:

1) There is no evidence that Srila Prabhupada included the idea of posthumous editing when he spoke these words. The context was that he was present to supervise the work – if he so desired.

2) Srila Prabhupada spoke out against posthumous editing on several occasions.

3) Srila Prabhupada’s own example was that he did not change his guru’s or previous acarya’s mistakes when he found them. Srila Prabhupada would not even allow corrections of grammatical mistakes made by the editors of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura (see more below).

4) Caitanya Mahaprabhu also did not correct the mistakes of the acaryas.

So why do you want to extrapolate these quotes to include posthumous editing?

Why not do as Srila Prabhupada did, i.e. let the books be! And then perhaps create separate booklets to explain the mistakes?”

Garuda Prabhu first said he more or less agreed with me. But a few days later he wrote this:

‘I’ve looked into every one of the changes in the BGAII with the help of an extremely competent devotee. My conclusion: I can accept up to 25% of the editing, and even some of it very good. But at least 75% of the editing was totally unnecessary, even intrusive. With just the 25% of valid editing, no second edition would have been necessary.’ (Garuda Dasa, Facebook post, May 2020)

Garuda says he can accept 25% of Jayadvaita Swami’s editing. And then he wants to do some editing himself. First we had Srila Prabhupada’s Gita, then we had Jayadvaita Swamis new edition, and now Garuda might take over Jayadvaita Swami’s role as a posthumous editor, and then we will have a third.

It should be obvious that Garuda Prabhu’s attempts will not settle the matter. Intelligent devotees are against all sorts of posthumous editing. Why? Well, first of all because of the above mentioned reasons. But also because no matter how well-articulated your reasons are for making a certain change you cannot get Srila Prabhupada’s approval. And that is certainly needed.

This affair can only be settled by reference to an absolute principle. We are fortunate to have this principle. It is called arsa-prayoga. It means that we cannot make any changes to the acaryas words (without explicit instructions from the acarya himself). This settles the matter. There is nothing further to discuss.

But as long as we have conditioned souls taking up roles as authorities on the editing of Srila Prabhupada’s books there will be disagreements as to what constitutes a good, or the best, editor, and what constitutes a good reason to change. One editor will reject the other editors, and new, differing editions of Srila Prabhupada’s books will be published.

My position is, therefore, that this dispute cannot be settled with reference to conditioned souls no matter how good they are at editing. It can only be settled by reference to an absolute principle – arsa-prayoga.

Post November 18, 1977 all editing stops, and thereafter only commentaries on the books are allowed. Everyone can, if they so desire, make their individual commentary describing the mistakes in the original Bhagavad-gita As It Is. And then they can personally publish it at their own cost, and also get all the material profit.

Unfortumately Garuda’s attempts, however well-intented, will result in more frustration. We will have more and more new editions, or versions, of Srila Prabhupada’s Gita. People will lose their trust in Srila Prabhupada’s books, and in the Krishna consciousness movement.

With Garuda Dasa at the helm of the ongoing editing the changes to Srila Prabhupada’s books will not be stopped.

Your servant,

Ajit Krishna Dasa

**********

Objections answered

A devotee wrote:

“The suggestion to correct transcription errors made by Srila Prabhupada’s disciples, who made mistakes and aren’t gurus or acharyas, doesn’t fit the description of your quote.”

and

“Srila Prabhupada’s editors were not acaryas. They’re conditioned souls. They made mistakes.”

My answer:

As soon as the book the approved there can be no more changes without the direct approval and instruction of the guru.

While discussing the editing of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saravati Thakura’s Brahma Samhita we find this recollection by Ramesvara Dasa:

“Once it’s approved it’s eternal.” That was his quote. “Once it’s approved it’s eternal.” One of the heaviest incidences came up I think in ’76 or ’77, we wrote to Prabhupada about publishing his spiritual master’s book the Brahma-samhita. Because it had already been introduced to chant in the Gurukulas, we were chanting it all over ISKCON. And although Prabhupada in ’75 said, “You cannot read the Gaudiya Math publications, you cannot approach my spiritual master or Bhaktivinoda directly. You have to learn their teachings through me, through my books, through my lectures.” This was a big incident in ’75 because the devotees were buying Gaudiya Math publications and reading directly. And Prabhupada completely smashed it. So it was either ’76 or ’77 we wanted to print Brahma-samhita. Prabhu­pada approved it and he wrote a very heavy letter to Radhaballabha. Because we were asking Prabhupada about editing changes. I’m not sure if he wrote the letter or if it’s on a tape or maybe it’s both. I think Radhaballabha had a room conversation with Prabhupada and I wasn’t present. Tamal was there. And in addition to that I think there’s a letter. Anyway, between the letter and the room conversation, the instruction was given that “You cannot make any changes in my spiritual master’s book.” “What about the incorrect grammar?” Prabhupada’s reply, “You cannot change one comma, not even a comma, not even a punctuation mark, that is the etiquette.” So that was just another one of those super heavy instructions that the etiquette in dealing with a great acarya’s books is that whatever he has done it’s eternal and it can never be changed. And I believe that all of this was part of Prabhupada’s training us. He wanted to train people who would be entrusted with his books. And who would in turn train the next generation of BBT men, managers and production managers in this fanatical, literally fanatical transcendental phobia about changes. Prabhupada went out of his way to train us. Some of the instructions were so extreme that one might say they’re exaggerated. But they’re not exaggerated. This is exactly what Prabhupada wanted. (Ramesvara Dasa, Interview, 1979)

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. Saravati Thakura had editors. It was their job to properly edit the Brahma Samhita. But as we see Srila Prabhupada would not even allow corrections to the grammatical mistakes of the editors of the book.

We should follow in Srila Prabhupada’s footsteps by not allowing any changes to whatever Srila Prabhupada has approved to be in his books.

If Srila Prabhupada was here we could ask him, and he might give his approval to such corrections. But since he is not here, and thus cannot give his approval, it is offensive to continue editing his book.

Intelligent devotees can foresee how havoc can come from trying to correct the editors’ mistakes:

-Can only their grammatical mistakes be corrected?

-Is it considered a mistake if an editor has left passages from the so-called original manuscript out?

-How do we know if something is an editorial mistake, or a transcendental mistake made by Srila Prabhupada? Or perhaps not a mistake at all. There are many grey areas.

I think there will be differing answers to these questions, and then we are again left with conditioned souls as our editorial guides, instead of an absolute principle – arsa-prayoga.

And then we have not made progress towards stopping the continues changes and corrections to Srila Prabhupada’s books?

“Man” Not Sexist

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

I was mildly disturbed to read Yadavendra Dasa’s “Treacherous Intervention” posted March 19th in the Sampradaya Sun.

Yadavendra Prabhu notes that in the two editions of Bhagavad-gita As It Is (1972 and 1983) the text of verse 4.23 differs from Srila Prabhupada’s typewritten text in the original manuscript.

He notes that the original manuscript uses the words “a person” whereas both of the two published editions uses “a man”. He concludes that this is highly sexist, and he argues that the editors must have been on the bodily platform, influenced by male pride and have misinterpreted Srila Prabhupada’s words.

Is Yadavendra Prabhu correct?

The answer is “No!”, and here is why:

Yadavendra Prabhu’s conclusion can be immediately falsified if we can find an instance where Srila Prabhupada uses the word “man” (in his translations, lectures and purports) in the same sense that it is used in the two published editions of Bhagavad-gita As It Is 4.23.

A search on the Vedabase, and in the original manuscripts reveals that there are indeed instances where Srila Prabhupada uses the word “man” in precisely that same way. We find it in for example Bg. 2.70, 4.39 and 6.7.

Original Manuscript 5.7 (“not the man who”):

Screen Shot 2018-03-21 at 13.23.23

Original Manuscript 4.39 (“A faithful man”):

Screen Shot 2018-03-21 at 13.26.28

Original Manuscript 6.7 (“To such a man”):

Screen Shot 2018-03-21 at 13.31.35

Srila Prabhupada gave lectures on all three of the above-mentioned verses, and he did not complain about their wordings.

The word “man” is used in all of these three verses in both the 1968 and the 1972 edition, and we know Srila Prabhupada said they could keep the verses of the 1968 edition in the 1972 edition. He must have been satisfied with them.

In Srila Prabhupada’s purports the word “man” or “men” is used in a similar sense (as in the two published editions) hundreds of times. It is very easy to find them by doing a search on the Vedabase.

This disproves Yadavendra Prabhu’s idea that it is sexist to use the word “man” like it is used in the two published editions – unless he wants to argue that Srila Prabhupada was sexist. But his point is precisely that Srila Prabhupada was not sexist, but that the two editors were.

I guess my point is that if we want to criticise Srila Prabhupada’s editors we must first do our own research properly lest we make fools of ourselves.

 

 

No Objection

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Jayadvaita Swami admits that it constitutes evidence against making a change if Srila Prabhupada read and/or lectured from a translation or purport without objecting to it:

Screen Shot 2018-02-10 at 13.05.46

“And yet we have several places where Śrīla Prabhupāda speaks of chapter six as the “Sāṅkhya-yoga chapter,” and of course he saw the chapter published with that title and never objected.”

The above quote is from Jayadvaita Swami’s annotated scans: Chapter Six from J. Swami’s edited copy of the 1972 edition. This is a chapter from the copy of the 1972 edition of Bhagavad-gītā As It Is on which Jayādvaita Swami marked the revisions for the edition of 1983.

Direct link to the annotated scans of Chapter Six (look for the headline “About sankhya”):

http://bbtedit.com/gitafiles/72_Gita_showing_revisions_06_chapter_6.pdf

New Video Series on the Book Changes

We are gradually producing videos on the book changes. Check our playlist at Youtube, and remember to subscribe for new videos.

Kindly share the videos on social media – especially on Facebook.

Thanks for watching and helping Srila Prabhupada.

Book Changes – Playlist

Harikesh Swami – Next Acarya After Srila Prabhupada?

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Danish Bhagavad-gita As It Is Anno 1984:

13346308_10154338447350962_9033715945169577503_o

BBT International approved of this change! Perhaps even Jayadvaita Swami?

Later the devotees had to rip out this page. Embarrasing! Shows the extent of the zonal “acarya’s” ambitions, and the self-deception of their followers.

Kripamoya Dasa Fails to Justify the Book Changes

I had a few exchanges with Kripamoya Prabhu (ACBSP & GBC) on Facebook. The exchange speaks for itself. I did not leave anything out.

Here we go:

Screen Shot 2016-07-09 at 23.28.51

Screen Shot 2016-07-09 at 23.29.04

Kripamoya Prabhu did not respond.

Later, in another exchange, Kripamoya Prabhu stated that he could not accept a devotee’s criticism of ISKCON, because the devotee posted anonymously. I responded by referring to the above exchange where I posted non-anonymously, but where he, Kripamoya Prabhu, still did not respond.

Screen Shot 2016-07-09 at 23.22.43

Screen Shot 2016-07-10 at 03.30.21

To some of the above comments Kripamoya Prabhu also responded:

Screen Shot 2016-07-09 at 23.23.47

Kripamoya Prabhu did not respond.

Foreign Translations – No Problem

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

A devotee, Purusha Dasa, is mocking those who are against the book changes. Check the picture:

Screen Shot 2016-06-14 at 18.09.50

My answer:

Purusha Dasa is presenting a false analogy. Let me explain:

Translations into foreign languages presents no problem for those against changes to Srila Prabhupada’s books.

Why?

Because such translations do not present themselves as the original words of Srila Prabhupada. Instead they present themselves as foreign translations of Srila Prabhupada’s words, and everyone knows that such translations come with some problems. But you can always check the foreign translations against the original English editions.

On the other hand, the unauthorized, changed books from BBT International present themselves as Srila Prabhupada’s original words, even though they are not. And BBT International wants to eliminate the original editions so that any comparison between the originals and the changed editions is impossible.

Now that is a problem.

“Blessed Lord” Means the Lord is Praiseworthy

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

One of the thousands of things that Jayadvaita Swami changed in the Bhagavad-gita As It is was the term “The Blessed Lord”.

There are some misconceptions about this term in the society of devotees. Even some native English speaking devotees believe that the term refers to a scenario where the Lord is being blessed (endowed) with a certain thing or attribute by one of his devotees.

Based on this misconception they consider the term “The Blessed Lord” as it is used in the Bhagavad-gita As It Is to be mistaken, and thus they support Jayadvaita Swami’s change to “The Supreme Personality of Godhead”.

I am quite amazed that native English speakers are not aware that the term “The Blessed Lord” or “to bless the Lord” means something completely different. I am also amazed to see how they criticise the term “The Blessed Lord” without bothering to look for it’s meaning in a dictionary or online.

Let us help them:

Screen Shot 2016-04-28 at 14.28.42

And

Screen Shot 2016-04-28 at 14.42.44

To learn more about how the term is used we need to nothing more than search the internet. There are loads of answers. In Christianity is perfectly normal to say “The Blessed Lord” and “Bless the Lord” in the sense of praising, glorifying and honoring God.

Here is something from an article that makes the point clear:

“There are two main things that we do when we bless the Lord.  The first is synonymous with giving thanks and praise.  Some translations actually say, “Give thanks to the Lord,” where others say, “Bless the Lord.”  So, blessing the Lord is praising Him and giving thanks to Him—for blessing us!  The other thing we do when we bless the Lord is to proclaim Him blessed.  Here I think I’ll have to make a distinction between “blessed” and “blessed.”  For clarity’s sake, this distinction is between “blessed” and “blest”—though I don’t really like that newfangled form of the word—the former in two syllables and the latter in one.  The former is a state of being, the latter a consequence of something have been done or given to someone.

When we call God blessed, we are saying something about who God is.He is blessed, which is a synonym for “holy.”  Blessed is God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!  The Byzantine Divine Liturgy always opens with the glorious and magnificent “Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, both now and forever and unto ages of ages!” When we speak of God as the recipient of our blessings (praises and thanksgivings), then He is blest.  May the Lord be forever blest!  Sometimes both meanings can apply simultaneously.When Our Lady said, “All generations shall call me blessed,” it means both that all generations acknowledge her holiness and that all generations acknowledge that she has been uniquely blest by God.”

When Jayadvaita Swami made the change from “The Blessed Lord” to “The Supreme Personality of Godhead” he did not used the above mentioned misconception as a justification. Perhaps he knew there was nothing wrong with the term. He attempted to justify his change in another way. His attempted justification will be the subject matter of an upcoming article.

Regulated Principles Regulated (Bg. 12.12)

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Srila Prabhupada frequently uses the terms “regulative principles” and “regulated principles” in his teachings.

But Jayadvaita Swami claims that “regulated principles” is a nonsense use of words. He calls it “obviously erroneous” and “a term that makes no sense” (Link).

He says it should always be “regulative principles”, and thus Jayadvaita Swami is in the process of changing all “regulated principles” into “regulative principles” in Srila Prabhupada’s books.

But there are two good reason to think Jayadvaita Swami is wrong:

First Reason

Srila Prabhupada explains just how spiritual principles are regulated, namely by the spiritual master:

“In the neophyte stage of devotion one must follow all the principles, regulated by the authority of the spiritual master.”

So “regulated principles” means principles regulated by a superior authority.

I do not know why this makes no sense to Jayadvaita Swami. It seems so obvious!

Let us take a simple example:

Chanting is a principle. Srila Prabhupada regulated that principle: Minimum 16 rounds per day.

Simple for the simple.

Second Reason

“Regulated principles” is a quite common term. Just take a look at google:

Screen Shot 2016-03-24 at 01.26.14

And a few more:

Screen Shot 2016-03-24 at 01.12.14Screen Shot 2016-03-24 at 01.12.53Screen Shot 2016-03-24 at 01.13.11Screen Shot 2016-03-24 at 01.13.33Screen Shot 2016-03-24 at 01.13.54

So!

Again!

Jayadvaita Swami’s “justifications” for changing “regulated principles” are just plain wrong.

Srila Prabhupada has regulated principles for the editing of his books. Jayadvaita Swami should learn them.

Deluded Editor Not Bewildered

Screen Shot 2016-01-23 at 05.07.33

By Ajit Krishna Dasa​

Bhagavad-gita Jas It Is, Ch. 2, Text 13:

“As the text of Bhagavad-gita continuously changes, in Srila Prabhupada’s As It Is edition, from original to unoriginal to unrecognizable, the rest of his books similarly change into new editions after his death. A self-deluded editor is not bewildered by such a change.“