This article 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.
I have been studying more of your changes to Srila Prabhupada’s books, and I here give links to some articles I have written about these changes. I have also given some links to older articles which I have not sent to you before.
I have to give you links, since some or all of the articles include pictures and videos which I can’t post inside these mails, and if I attach them it will be confusing.
I, and many thousands of devotees world wide, are anxiously waiting for explanations of the many changes I have asked Jayadvaita Swami about several months ago. They can be found here:
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.
Original and authorized 1972 Macmillan edition:
“Time I am, Destroyer of the worlds, and I have come to engage all people…”
Unauthorized 1983 edition:
“Time I am, Destroyer of the worlds, and I have come here to destroy all people…”
Why has Jayadvaita Swami exchanged the word “engage” with the word “destroy”? There is no explanation for this particular change on the BBTI’s website.
Sanskrit synonyms says to engage twice:
The so called original manuscript is missing for this part of the gita, so no claim can be made that this change is “closer to Prabhupada”. On the contrary it seems to be what Srila Prabhupada wanted, since he made no objections when he heard the text to verse 11.32:
Giriraja: (reads synonyms for following verse:) “Translation: The Blessed Lord said: Time I am, destroyer of the worlds, and I have come to engage all people. With the exception of you, the Pandavas, all the soldiers here on both sides will be slain.”
Dr. Patel: Shall I read further, sir, or you want to comment?
Prabhupada: Yes. The process is going on. Although we have got so many plans to save, nobody can be saved. The destination, the bhutva bhutva praliyate [Bg. 8.19], that will go on. Simply vita-raga-bhaya-krodha man-maya mam upasritah [Bg. 4.10], they will be saved. Otherwise all finished.
We would like to hear from Jayadvaita Swami and the BBT International what the explanation for this change is?
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.
Some time ago (12.09.13) we presented the article “Tampering with Prabhupada’s personally typewritten sanskrit translations (BG, Chapter One)“. In that article we presented ALL changes made by the BBT International to the sanskrit synonyms for the first chapter of Bhagavad-gita As It Is. There are around 127 of these changes in the first chapter alone (if you count all changes made to one sanskrit word as only one change).
Here we are presenting some statistics by dividing the changes into different categories.
Some statistics
We have categorized the changes presented in the below PDF-file, so it is easier to see what was actually done by the BBT International. It must be noted that some changes fall into more than one category.
There are also some subtleties in the way the categorization has been done. For example, Prabhupada used a regular typewriter and was therefore not able to write the diacritic marks. So if the diacritic marks are missing in Srila Prabhupada’s draft, but they are added in the 1972 Macmillan edition that is not counted as a change.
Srila Prabhupada started all sanskrit synonyms with capital letters in the draft. In the both the 1972 and 1983 editions they were not written with capital letters. This has not been counted amongst the changes.
Other things not counted as a change is when Srila Prabhupada, while writing his draft, obviously hit a wrong letter on his keyboard. An example of this would be “bcpmes” instead of the correct “becomes”. “O” and “p” are just besides each other on a keyboard.
I did my very best, and I tried to be as kind as I could to BBT International, but I encourage everyone to double check my work and get back to me if they think anything could have been done better.
This is how we did it:
Modifications 1: Spelling mistakes, commas, punctuation marks, dividing or connecting sanskrit words and their synonyms:
Result: 23 (17.03%)
It should be noted that no changes that had to do with spelling, commas and punctuation marks were found. Therefore all changes here have to do with dividing and/or connecting sanskrit words.
Modifications 2: Modifications according to Srila Prabhupada’s draft while the original edition does not follow Srila Prabhupada’s draft:
Result: 6 (4.44%)
Here is should be noted that four of these six changes have to do only with connecting and dividing sanskrit words. All four are similar to this (left: draft, middle: 1972 edition, right: 1983 edition):
The other two changes back to the draft were actual changes of English translation, though minor.
Modifications 3: Modifications not according to Srila Prabhupada’s draft while the original edition also does not follow Srila Prabhupada’s draft.
Result: 15 (11.11%)
Modifications 4: Modifications not according to Srila Prabhupada’s draft while the original edition follows Srila Prabhupada’s draft.
Result: 89 (65.92%)
Modifications 5: Modification where the word was missing from Srila Prabhupada’s draft.
This a a response to Dravida Prabhu’s article “The Book Changes – A Defense” (posted on the Sampradaya Sun (01.13.2014).
Basically Dravida Prabhu’s attempted defense boils down to two wellknown fallacious arguments often presented by the BBT International:
1. Prabhupada trusted Jayadvaita Swami pre Nov 14th 1977. Therefore the editing Jayadvaita Swami has done after Prabhupada’s disappearance (post Nov. 14th 1977) is also approved.
2. The books are made “closer to Prabhupada” by making them closer to the so called original manuscript (which is really only a draft).
Let us look at each of these fallacious arguments.
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.
Excerpt from a letter called “Please Explain, Jayadvaita Swami, Dravida Prabhu & Company” originally posted on the Sampradaya Sun.
“BY: A GROUP OF SRILA PRABHUPADA DISCIPLES & FOLLOWERS
Dear Jayadvaita Swami, Dravida Prabhu & Company, please explain why you have done the following:
(1) Why is it in the revised edition of the Bhagavad-gita, you and company have completely removed the foreword by Professor Edward Dimock that was printed in the original Macmillan version of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is which Srila Prabhupada regularly read from?
Readers, please visit the website and see the video on YouTube of Srila Prabhupada lecturing on the Bhagavad-gita.
There, in the very immediate beginning (very first few minutes) of this video, you will find Srila Prabhupada praising the foreword by Professor Edward Dimock. This particular video clip is taken from one of the 19 Double layer DVD’s produced by Nrsimhananda Prabhu and his associates at ITV. It is the particular DVD named Bhagavad Gita as It Is, with Krishna and Arjuna on the chariot, and sky background, and is in the very first part, called “Introduction”.
Srila Prabhupada is reading the foreword himself, praising it, mentioning Edward Dimock’s name, and praising Edward Dimock for a particular comment that he had made, as follows:
“Swami Bhaktivedanta comments upon the Gita from this point of view, and that is legitimate. More than that, in this translation the Western reader has the unique opportunity of seeing how a Krsna devotee interprets his own texts”
Srila Prabhupada in the video explains this particular statement by Edward Dimock, on how a Krsna devotee interprets his own texts, by explaining that just as a family member only is qualified to give the best knowledge to others about his own family, similarly, only a Krsna devotee can properly explain to others about Krsna. Srila Prabhupada appreciates this particular point made by Edward Dimock in the video.
Thus, not only has Srila Prabhupada authorized this particular foreword in the Macmillan Bhagavad-gita, but had himself read, it, and praised certain points made by the person who wrote this foreword. Yet you, Jayadvaita Swami, Dravida Prabhu & Company, have the audacity to remove this foreword completely in your revised version. The proof of how you have offended your Spiritual Master is on public video record, as those who watch will sadly but easily be able to understand this particular deviation of yourselves in either revising or omitting your Spiritual Master’s works and words by using your fertile imaginations.”
[End of excerpt]
Below there are several instances where Prabhupada shows appreciation for the foreword by Edward Dimock. Please note that Prabhupada said that this foreword will “appeal to the scholarly class”. And we see here that Prabhupada in fact used the foreword to preach to professors, scholars, cardinals and journalists. As can be seen from the below quotes Prabhupada appreciated the foreword because it underscored some of his own points about this specific edition of the Bhagavad-gita, namely the As It Is version.
But the BBT International under the leadership of Jayadvaita Swami have now removed this foreword by Professor Dimock without ever explaining why. Certainly Prabhupada never asked for its removal.
Prabhupada: That’s all. So this Bhagavad-gita, at least, should be introduced in all colleges. And Professor Dimock has recommended. Just…
Professor: Well, it is quite widely read, the Bhagavad-gita.
Prabhupada: Eh?
Professor: The Bhagavad-gita is quite widely read.
Pradyumna: This is an introduction by Professor Dimock.
Professor: Yes, I’ve seen it. I read it. But it is quite widely read, you know. I mean the translations… (Room Conversation with Sanskrit Professor, Dr. Suneson — September 5, 1973, Stockholm)
Prabhupada: That has been written by Professor Dayal, Dimock, that “Sanskrit scholars should get good opportunity, and nobody, I think, will deny Swamiji’s scholarship.” He has said that. (Room Conversation — September 21, 1973, Bombay)
Bhagavan: There are many copies of Bhagavad-gita, but the unusual happening with this version is until this was presented, there was no devotee…
Prabhupada: Professor Dimock has said very nicely.
Monsignor Verrozano: Yes, we have also many translations. Yes.
Prabhupada: You have not brought by the fruit?
Nitai: Yes, Satsvarupa Maharaja did.
Monsignor Verrozano: We have here one translation of the commentary of Professor Zehner(?) from Oxford.
Prabhupada: Here is my foreword by Professor Dimock.
Yogesvara: This is a professor from Chicago University who wrote the foreword to this edition. He makes an interesting comment.
Prabhupada: You read, read it.
Dhananjaya: Yes.
Prabhupada: Professor Dimock’s.
Cardinal Pignedoli: It’s very strange and famous. That’s the gospel.
Prabhupada: Read it.
Dhananjaya: (reading) “Swami Bhaktivedanta comments upon the Gita from this point of view. And that is legitimate.”
Prabhupada: Yes. That is legitimate.
Dhananjaya: “More than that, in this translation the Western reader has the unique opportunity of seeing how a Krsna devotee interprets his own texts. It is a Vedic…”
Cardinal Pignedoli: Yes.
Prabhupada: A Krsna devotee interpreting on Krsna, and a nondevotee interpreting on Krsna. There is far difference. (Room Conversation with Catholic Cardinal and Secretary to the Pope — May 24, 1974, Rome)
The introduction by Mr. Dimock is nice and it will appeal to the scholarly class. (Letter to: Rupanuga — Sydney 4 April, 1972)
Krishna is the source of all human cultural contributions, and His book is the most widespread read all over the world. So if you can convince this education minister that this KC Movement is cultural. One big, big Professor Dimock has given in his introduction to my Bhagavad-gita As It Is that every college student should read this book. Syamasundara. can send you a copy of his statement if you require. So if in other colleges beyond India it is so recommended, why not in India. So the education minister must advise this books should be read. This will give us example for approaching central government. There are so many things to be done. (Letter to: Giriraja — Sydney 12 April, 1972)
Speculators cannot have definite knowledge. Therefore our Professor Dimmock has said, “Here is definite definition of Gita.” What is that? Just see. Then it is so. He has appreciated it. You cannot see, of the…
Devotee: They only put two lines of what he said in there. He says this…
Prabhupada: Yes. That is his word.
Devotee: Oh.
Prabhupada: Read it all.
Devotee: “Definitive English edition of Bhagavad-gita. By bringing us a new and living interpretation of the text already known to many, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada has increased our own understanding manyfold.”
Prabhupada: That is a definite, not vague, speculative. That is the difference between my translation and others. Therefore I have given the name “As It Is.” So we will be no spoke or speculation. As soon as you speculate, you are rejected. Therefore others are seeing some danger that “This Bhaktivedanta’s…, this Bhagavad-gita As It Is accepted, then where we are?” (George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel)
Prabhupada: “Dimmock. He has given very good appreciation. And gradually it will be printed in other languages. German, French, Spanish, Denmark, Holland…” (Conversation with Dai Nippon — April 22, 1972, Tokyo)
Prabhupada: “Somehow or other.” This is science. “Somehow or other,” “maybe,” “perhaps.” This is their science. [break] …speculation. The whole Western countries, their all knowledge simply speculation. Nothing definite. [break] …Professor Dimmock has “Definitive…” What is that translation, or something like?
Harikesa: Definitive.
Prabhupada: Definitive, then translation of Bhagavad-gita, like that. [break] (Morning Walk — June 30, 1975, Denver)
Prabhupada: Yes, yes, yes. You just read one big professor’s remark here. You see?
Faill: Yes.
Prabhupada: Professor Dimmock of Chicago University.
Faill: “A new and living interpretation.” This is you, is it?
Prabhupada: This is…? Yes.
Faill: That’s you.
Prabhupada: Yes. If you read these books and write regular articles on the basis of my talk with you, it will be actually great benefit to the public. (Room Conversation with Bill Faill (reporter) — October 8, 1975, Durban)
Pusta Krsna: In the United States… These are many letters we have, just some of them, from different professors who are actually using Prabhupada’s books, professors from respectable universities such as Harvard, Yale, Duke. Professor Dimmock, who is the leading scholar of southeastern languages at the University of Chicago, he very much appreciates Prabhupada’s books.
Prabhupada: He has written one foreword.
Pusta Krsna: So these books are being accepted as the authority, at least in America and England, so far as studies of Indian culture are concerned, philosophy, sociology. And you can see the beautiful presentation. Each Sanskrit is there, transliteration so that anyone can chant, word-for-word Sanskrit to English translation, translation in English, and then the purport, a commentary.
Prof. Olivier: That’s right. This is a good edition. Good edition.
Pusta Krsna: Professor Dimmock, he says that there are many, many translations of Bhagavad-gita, and he says that “By bringing us a new and living interpretation of a text already known to many, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada has increased our understanding manyfold.” So although it’s been prevalent in America… I know that when I was studying Humanities in college in the University of Florida, Bhagavad-gita was required. And we read one edition, but it was very much limited. Until we come in contact with Bhagavad-gita As It Is, the understanding is very much limited. But it’s not a sectarian approach. It’s purely scientific and realistic. There are many such reviews.
Prof. Olivier: Well, this is a good letter. (Room Conversation with Professor Olivier — October 10, 1975, Durban)
Prabhupada: Therefore rascal. (laughter) Therefore rascal. We definitely know Krsna, the origin of everything. That is definite, not “It may be.” We don’t say “Krsna may be.” No. Definitely. Krsnas tu bhagavan svayam [SB 1.3.28]. Here is Bhagavan. Here is God. That is definite. Therefore our professor…
Hamsaduta: Svarupa Damodara?
Prabhupada: No, no. Who has written foreword to my Bhagavad-gita?
Harikesa: Dimmock.
Prabhupada: Dimmock. “Here is definitive…”
Hamsaduta: Version.
Nitai: “Definitive edition.”
Prabhupada: “Definitive edition.” That is the credit. Not “may be.” No “maybe,” sir. That is rascaldom. (Morning Walk — November 26, 1975, New Delhi)
Prabhupada: Dimmock said that “Here is the commentation who has practiced devotion in his life.” (Morning Walk — December 17, 1975, Bombay)
“Regarding the controversy about book distribution techniques, you are right. Our occupation must be honest. Everyone should adore our members as honest. . . These dishonest methods must be stopped. It is hampering our reputation all over the world.” (Letter to Rupanuga, 1-9-75)
The way in which Prabhupada’s books are presented to the public is also part of the book distribution process. To hide the fact that the 1983 edition has hidden co-authors that have made extensive additions, subtractions and changes to the book is not honesty. It will hamper ISKCON’s reputation.
In fact, this has already hampered ISKCON BBT International’s reputation as a trustworthy publishing company, as the scholarly community has begun to voice their opinions on the deceptive practices used in the post-humous publications. Factors such as using scholarly reviews from the original 1972 edition (when those scholars never saw, nor reviewed, the vastly edited later edition) have clouded the authenticity of Srila Prabhupada’s sacred books. Respectable scholars would never do such a thing.
Using the 1971 signature of Srila Prabhupada on the posthumously edited 1983 edition also calls to question the integrity of the BBT International. Srila Prabhupada never saw the posthumous edition–yet his signature is there as if he had. This is certainly deceptive on the part of BBT International.
Not clearly disclosing the fact that the 1983 edition has hidden co-authors has greatly damaged the reputation of ISKCON BBT International, and will continue to do so unless responsible remedial action is taken by those entrusted with this important work.
The fact that there is no dating of the posthumous editions also calls to question the integrity of the BBT International. It has been noted that the posthumous editions began to appear perhaps six years after Srila Prabhupada’s demise. This tends to indicate, according to some, that the author had no interest or inclination towards a re-editing of his Bhagavad Gita.
And since there is no record of the author ordering or approving such edited work, it leaves the posthumous edition hanging in mid-air, with no reliable data to show who did it, when they did it, and where it came from. This is a grand deception.
Below is an example of a revised book where honest means have been used. As long as the BBT International insists on publishing their edited 1983 Bhagavad-gita As It Is it must meet the same criteria of honesty to the be accepted in scholarly circles.
The thoughts and the effects of such revolutionary literature are 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…
1972 Conversations, January, 1972, Room Conversation Including Discussion on SB. 1.5.11 — January 19, 1972, Jaipur, 720119RC.JAI
Prabhupada: These people or this revolution is meant for killing the sinful resultant actions of the people. This revolution. Janata agha, agha means resultant action of sinful life. Janata agha viplavah. Viplavah means revolution, this very word is used. Tad-vag-visargo janatagha-viplavo yasmin prati-slokam abaddhavaty api[ SB 1.5.11]. Such revolutionary literature, even they are not properly composed. Yasmin prati-slokam 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. What is the thought is there? Therefore, it is said that tad-vag-visargo janatagha-viplavo yasmin prati-slokam abaddhavaty api, namany anantasya yaso “nkitani yat[ SB 1.5.11].
If there is simply the attempt is there how to glorify the Supreme Lord, that is a fact. It doesn”t matter whether it is written in correct language or incorrect language, it doesn”t matter. If the whole thought is targeted to glorify the Supreme Lord, then namany anantasya yaso “nkitani yat grnanti gayanti srnvanti sadhavah. Then those who are actually sadhu, even in spite of all these defects, because the only attempt is to glorify the Lord, then those who are sadhu, those who are devotee, they hear it. Srnvanti gayanti grnanti. Not only hear, they chant also the same thing. And not only chant, but grnanti, they apply in their actual life.
This is the Bhagavata sloka. Is it clear now? Yes. Tad-vag-visargo janatagha-viplavo[ SB 1.5.11]. If the thought is revolutionary for transcendental realization, even it is not properly composed from grammatical and literary point of view, because the attempt is there for glorifying the Supreme Lord, all devotees, all great sages, saintly persons, sadhavah, grnanti, they accept. Yes. Grnanti srnvanti, hear with attention, and gayanti, and chant also. This is the principle.The only center is whether it is meant for awakening God consciousness. That is the central point, not the language(?). But it does not mean that it should not be correctly written. Correctly or incorrectly, if it is spoken by realized soul, that is important. Srnvanti gayanti. Somehow or other, if the attempt is to glorify the Supreme Lord; otherwise, if the attempt is to kill the Supreme Lord… Just like Dr. Radhakrishnan, what is the value of such erudition? A rascal. That is called (Sanskrit), jugglery of words. It has no value.
Anyone who is trying to present… Just like Aurabindo, he has no idea what is Krsna and writing so many nonsense things. Vivekananda, he has no idea. Dr. Radhakrishnan. Rabindranath Tagore, he has no idea what is God, but he is writing Gitanjali. That should be tested by life. Caitanya Mahaprabhu speaking apani acari prabhu jivere sikhaya, He behaves Himself perfectly and then teaches how to become a devotee. He is mad after Krsna, He is falling down in the sea. You see? So that is wanted. And the Bhagavata also says, sa vai pumsam paro dharmo yato bhaktir [SB 1.2.6], how one has increased his devotion and love for Krsna, that is the test of it. Not these formalities. Another place Krsna says, api cet su-duracaro bhajate mam ananya-bhak. Even suduracarah, even not well behaved but unflinching faith in Krsna, sadhur eva sa mantavyah [Bg. 9.30], he is sadhu. Don”t consider about his misbehaviors. That is not consideration. That will be corrected. Because he has taken to Krsna consciousness, gradually those things, those defects will be corrected. ksipram bhavati dharmatma sasvac-chantim nigacchati, he will become very soon a great religious soul because he has taken to Krsna.
So in the beginning if there is some defect, we should not consider that. We have to see how much his love for Krsna has increased, that is the test. Not the formalities. That is the test, how much he has sacrificed for Krsna, how much he is prepared to sacrifice for Krsna. If one takes Krsna for making business, that is different thing, that is not devotion. Salagrama, my Guru Maharaja used to say salagram bir badam hoy (?). Just like you have seen salagrama. So if somebody takes that and breaks peanuts, so there is no devotion. It is a show during, attracting the visitors, it is nicely decorated, but in their absence, take it and you will have stone. So all this mostly the temple show is going on like that. They have made it a show of business. The devotees will come and pay something and I may have devotion or not devotion, it doesn”t matter. One should be baccha bankaram suci (?), inside and outside perfect.
na yad vacas citra-padam harer yaso
(jagat-pavitram) pragrnita karhicit
tad vayasam tirtham usanti manasa
na yatra hamsa niramanty usik-ksayah
[ SB 1.5.10]
Na yad vacas citra-padam harer yasah. You can present a literature very perfect from literary point of view, from metaphor and poetical, rhetorical, very perfectly written, citra-padam, attractive by language. Na yad vacas citra-padam, such kind of literature, if there is no description of the glories of the Lord, na tad vacas citra-padam. Just like there are so many sex literatures, very attractive, it is selling like anything. But we are not interested in those rascal literatures. Tad vayasam tirtham, such literature is considered as the place of enjoyment of the crows. Vayasam means crow. The crow take enjoyment in the garbage, you have seen? They won”t go in a nice place. They will come all together. Just like vultures, they come together to take pleasure in a corpse, dead body. But a white swan, raja-hamsa, he goes to a place where there is nice water, lilies and lotus and nice trees.
You have seen that St. James Park? They will find out such nice place. They won”t go to imitate the crows. The crows-like people will take pleasure in such nonsense literature, sex literature, or any such literature. So many nonsense literatures nowadays they are having good sale. Because people are becoming crows-like, they have no high idea, they have no sense of Krsna consciousness, naturally they will take. Just like hippies, they have become all bad taste, crows-like.
So we have to become swans, raja-hamsa, paramahamsa, paramahamsa. Paramo nirmatsaranam. Then you can understand Krsna consciousness. If you remain crows, then you cannot, that is not possible. By nature”s example we have to see if crows-like and swans-like, pigeons-like, birds of the same feather. Birds of the same feather flock together, is it not? So you have to change your feather, then he will be pleased. If you keep your feather crows-like, then you cannot mix with the swans, that is not possible. This is the test. There are classes of men like crows, and there are classes of men like swans. So we are preparing our devotee… (aside) What is that?
Devotee (1): Is anybody watching?
Devotee (2): No.
Prabhupada: So Krsna consciousness means swan-like, they should be like swans. Their behavior should be like swans. They should live in clean place, at refreshing place. So as soon as somebody will come to the temple, he will be… (aside) You have some papers I shall show?
Syamasundara: I just wanted to check and see if there”s somebody here. It”s Nanda-kumara.
Prabhupada: So keep this principle in view, that you have to become swan, not crows. They say that everyone, every religion is all the same. This is all nonsense. (indistinct) In Bhagavad-gita there are different types of religion, sattvic, rajarsic, tamasic. And our this… If you take it as religion, this is transcendental. Sa vai pumsam paro dharmo [SB 1.2.6]. Parah means transcendental, it is not ordinary, aparah.
In aparah dharma, the materialistic dharma, there are ritualistic ceremonies how to make one perfect for accepting transcendental religion. But this Krsna consciousness is directly putting oneself in the transcendental. That is the special (indistinct). Caitanya Mahaprabhu… (aside) Why don”t you close it?
Caitanya-caritamrta says, krsne bhakti kaile sarva-karma krta haya. If you become Krsna conscious, then it is to be supposed that you have finished all other types of religion. My Guru Maharaja used to cite one example that one”s friend was sitting on the high court judge”s bench. So he was speaking to another, “Oh, that Panchu was playing with us naked. He is sitting on the high court judge”s bench. Oh, how he was playing with us naked, how he is seated in the high court bench?” “Yes, I have seen, you have seen actually he is sitting.” “Oh, then he must not be getting salary.” He must not be getting salary. So this is the argument. Familiarity breeds contempt. So he cannot believe that he has become a high court judge. He thinks that “I am a rascal fool and my friend, how he can become high court judge? He must not be getting salary.” But is that very good argument that the high court judge is seated there without any salary? This argument is false(?). That is enviousness. Nirmatsarata. That is the habit of the conditioned soul. So if… (end)
In Brahma Samhita by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, Introduction, page xvi (page 7 in the PDF):
“…As per Srila Prabhupada’s instructions regarding the publication of this volume, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati’s somewhat technical and sometimes difficult prose has been left intact and virtually untouched. Fearing that any editorial (grammatical and stylistic) tampering with Bhaktisiddhanta’s text might result in inadvertant changes in meaning, Prabhupada asked that it be left as is, and the editors of this volume have complied with his wishes…”
Ramesvara Prabhu remembers regarding that same publication og Brahma Samhita:
“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.” (Ramesvara, Interview 1979)
The Brahma-Samhita was published with only very slight editing done:
Typographical errors was corrected.
Capitalization was standardized.
Sanskrit terms in devanagari script appearing within the English text was transliterated.
Already transliterated terms have been adjusted to international standards.
The original devanagari text was added for each verse. It was followed by roman transliteration, and then by a word-for-word translation into English (none of these appeared in the original edition).
This very limited editing of Brahma-Samhita were made under the instructions of our Sampradaya-Acarya, Srila Prabhupada, who is a pure unalloyed devotee of the Lord. No mistakes and no offenses would be made as long as he supervised and approved the work. In addition, the editors were honest and wrote in the introduction precisely what they did to the original work. The BBT International should also be honest by letting the readers know what they did to Prabhupada Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Something like this ought to be written:
Despite the fact that Srila Prabhupada educated us in the vedic principle of arsa-prayoga that state that the words of the acarya should not be corrected, we, the editor’s, have made extensive posthumous changes and corrections to Prabhupada’s personally typewritten sanskrit translations. We have also added completely new words, sentences and paragraphs and made re-arrangement of words and sentences. Original paintings and pictures have been removed and exchanged with new ones. We have also removed the foreword and changed the cover. All editing is done without the approval of the author. We can’t guarantee that our editing is free from mistakes, or that the author would be pleased with the editing.
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.
Here we see, in the background, the painting Prabhupada chose for the front cover of his Bhagavad-gita As It Is (standing yet unframed on the floor).
He was very happy about that painting, and he wished that Deities precisely resembling Krishna and Arjuna on the painting be made for the alter on the Gita-Nagari farm.
“Srila Prabhupada began to sow the seeds of inspiration in directing the future development of Gita-nagari farming community. Prabhupada confirmed today that the presiding Deity should be Krsna and Arjuna, exactly as on the cover of the Bhagavad-gita.” (Tamal Krishna Goswami’s Diary, Prabhupada’s Final Days, August 30)
He also desired that the pictures on he covers on his books should remain the same on all their respective translations into other languages. This wish has, unfortunately, never been honored.
Prabhupada:
“And the covers, if possible, should always be the same for each respective book regardless of what language it may be printed in.” (Letter to Jadurani, Bombay, January 3, 1975)
An unfortunate local example of an unauthorized cover can be read in the links below:
If the present editors of the BBTI insist on continuing their unauthorised revisions of Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is – they should at least make it clear that what they are now publishing is NOT the original.
Simple honesty would be good.
Don’t you think?
This is really how the BBT(I) editors should do their gita cover with regard to full disclosure so the buyer is fully aware it is a revised edition they are looking at.
See Rupanuga Prabhu’s article on this specific subject matter of EDITING PROTOCOL.
Arsa-Prayoga 
You must be logged in to post a comment.