Category Archives: Debate

01.02.26
by

The “Rascal Editors” Conversation – Then and Now

Śrīla Prabhupāda on Unauthorized Editing and Post-Samādhi Changes

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Discussions about post-samādhi editing of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books often assume that the real problem began after 1977. But Śrīla Prabhupāda himself tells a different story. In the well-known “Rascal Editors” conversation dated June 22, 1977, in Vṛndāvana, he describes a situation already unfolding — one marked by unauthorized editing, loss of control, lack of accountability, and the impossibility of verification.

Far from being historically irrelevant, these remarks reveal a structural problem — one that makes post-samādhi editing not only questionable, but fundamentally illegitimate.

Editing Without Control — Already in 1977

Śrīla Prabhupāda states:

“It is starting. What can I do? […] They make changes, such changes… So how to check this? How to stop this?”

This is a critical admission. Prabhupāda is not predicting a future danger; he is describing a present reality. Editorial changes were already occurring, and he openly acknowledges that he lacks the practical ability to stop them.

This point alone carries enormous weight. If the author himself — alive, present, accessible, and formally in charge — could not effectively control editorial activity, then any claim that editorial control somehow improved after his departure is untenable. The conditions for restraint were already weakening; after samādhi, they could only deteriorate further.

The Defining Issue: Absence of Authority

Prabhupāda continues:

“…they are doing without any authority […] Very serious feature.”

Here the issue is precisely identified. The problem is not accidental error, linguistic awkwardness, or the need for stylistic polish. The problem is unauthorized action.

This distinction is crucial when discussing posthumous changes to Prabhupāda’s books. Appeals to “clarification,” “restoration,” or “philosophical consistency” are irrelevant if no authority exists to sanction such changes. In a Vaiṣṇava framework — especially under the principle of ārṣa-prayoga — authority does not arise from competence, intention, or institutional position. It must be explicitly granted.

Without authority, even a well-intended edit is illegitimate.

“Jayadvaita Is Good” — A Misused Argument

At this point, defenders of post-samādhi editing often introduce the following exchange:

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Your original work that you’re doing now, that is edited by Jayadvaita. That’s the first editing.
Prabhupāda: He is good.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: He is good. But then, after they print the books, they’re going over. So when they reprint…
Prabhupāda: So how to check this? How to stop this?
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: They should not make any changes without consulting Jayadvaita.

From this, it is claimed that later editorial changes are justified because Jayadvaita Swami was trusted by Śrīla Prabhupāda.

This argument fails on several levels.

First, Prabhupāda’s approval of Jayadvaita was contextual and temporal. He approved Jayadvaita’s editing at that time, under his supervision, and within a defined scope. Nothing in this exchange grants blanket, indefinite, post-samādhi editorial authority.

Second, Prabhupāda himself explicitly rejected the idea that past approval guarantees present legitimacy. He repeatedly warned against exactly this kind of reasoning.

Śrīla Prabhupāda explains the logical fallacy involved:

“This is nagna-mātṛkā-nyāya. We change according to the circumstances. You cannot say that this must remain like this.”
(Morning Walk, May 5, 1973, Los Angeles)

In Nyāya logic, this fallacy assumes that because something was valid in the past, it must retain the same status indefinitely — regardless of changed circumstances. Prabhupāda explicitly rejected this mode of reasoning.

Trust Is Conditional — and Can Be Violated

Prabhupāda further clarifies that trust is never unconditional:

“I have given you charge… but you can misuse at any moment, because you have got independence. At that time your position is different.”
(Morning Walk, June 3, 1976, Los Angeles)

And he states even more plainly:

“Phalena paricīyate […] Present consideration is the judgement.”
(Morning Walk, October 8, 1972, Berkeley)

In other words, a person must be evaluated by present actions, not past reputation. Previous trust does not immunize later conduct.

This principle applies directly here. Whatever confidence Prabhupāda had in Jayadvaita’s editing during his presence cannot be mechanically transferred to a radically different situation: post-samādhi editing, without authorial oversight, involving substantive changes to published works.

Evidence of Breach: Changes in Style, Mood, and Philosophy

This is not a theoretical concern. Post-samādhi editions exhibit clear and documentable changes that go far beyond spelling or grammar. These include alterations to:

  • Śrīla Prabhupāda’s personally typewritten Sanskrit translations
  • Śrīla Prabhupāda’s spoken, forceful, non-academic style
  • the mood and devotional tone of passages
  • the philosophical framing and emphasis
  • the balance between direct instruction and interpretive explanation
  • and, in some cases, the theological perspective itself

Style, tone, and mood are not cosmetic. They are integral to meaning and pedagogy. To alter them without authority is to alter the work — and doing so after the author’s departure violates the trust placed in any editor.

Original manuscripts, first editions, and contemporaneous recordings therefore function only as witnesses to what Śrīla Prabhupāda authorized and published — not as licenses to revise his words post-samādhi.

Then and Now: Structural Parallels

The situation Prabhupāda describes in 1977 and the situation surrounding post-samādhi editing share the same defining features:

  • Editorial changes occurring without explicit authorization
  • Inability to verify or supervise those changes
  • Absence of a final, corrective authority
  • Institutional normalization of editorial discretion
  • Appeals to past trust rather than present evidence

The difference is not one of kind, but of degree. What was beginning in 1977 became entrenched after Prabhupāda’s departure.

The Unavoidable Conclusion

Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own words establish the following facts:

  1. Unauthorized editing was already occurring during his presence.
  2. He could not effectively stop it.
  3. He could not reliably check or verify it.
  4. He explicitly warned against relying on past trust as permanent validation.

From this, the conclusion follows with clarity:

Post-samādhi editing of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books lacks authority, lacks verification, and reproduces precisely the dangers he himself identified.

That Jayadvaita Swami was trusted then does not settle the question now. Trust is conditional, circumstances change, and actions must be judged in the present.

Where authority is absent and trust has been objectively violated, restraint is not extremism — it is fidelity.

11.23.25
by

Rewriting the Acarya: How BBTI’s New Gita Description Undermines Srila Prabhupada’s Divine Authority

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

For anyone studying ISKCON history, the integrity of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s original books, the principle of ārṣa-prayoga, or the ongoing debate about BBT International’s post-samādhi editing, there is no clearer example of the underlying problem than the quiet shift found in the Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. Two descriptions of Śrīla Prabhupāda — one from the original edition, one from the newer BBTI edition — reveal two completely different theologies. This is not merely linguistic preference. It is a redefinition of Prabhupāda’s authority, status, and position in the guru-paramparā.

Anyone familiar with the editing controversies surrounding the changed Gītā knows this issue is not about grammar. It is about revelation.

The Original Description: Śrīla Prabhupāda as a Divinely Empowered Ācārya

“HIS DIVINE GRACE A.C. BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI PRABHUPĀDA, the leading exponent of the science of Kṛṣṇa consciousness in the West and the world’s most distinguished teacher of Vedic religion and thought is the author of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Kṛṣṇa and many other versions of Vedic literature. He is a fully self-realized devotee of Lord Kṛṣṇa and is the latest disciple in a succession that originally began with Kṛṣṇa Himself. He is the founder and spiritual master of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness which now has centers in major cities throughout the world.” (From the backcover of the original and authorized Bhagavad-gita As It Is, 1972-1977)

The original Bhagavad-gītā As It Is presents Śrīla Prabhupāda according to classical Vaiṣṇava siddhānta. Nothing is minimized. Nothing is secularized. His identity is stated as the tradition itself understands it:

• He is the leading exponent of Kṛṣṇa consciousness.
• He is the most distinguished teacher of Vedic religion and thought.
• He is a fully self-realized devotee of Lord Kṛṣṇa.
• He stands in an unbroken guru-paramparā beginning with Kṛṣṇa Himself.
• He is the founder and spiritual master of ISKCON.
• His writings are Vedic revelation — śabda-brahma — not ordinary literature.
• His authority is divine, not academic.

This description fits perfectly with Prabhupāda’s own statements and the strict understanding of ārṣa-prayoga: when an empowered ācārya speaks, the words are final. You do not alter them, interpret them “for modern audiences,” or adjust them posthumously. His authority derives from Kṛṣṇa — not from a publishing institution.

The New BBTI Description: From Divine Authority to Academic Respectability

“His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda was a teacher in the disciplic line from Kṛṣṇa (the speaker of the Gītā) and was an exemplar in bhakti-yoga, the yoga of devotional mysticism. His translation and com­mentary are guided by a lifetime of scholarship and enriched by the realizations of a mature practitioner.” (From the backcover of the posthumously edited Bhagavad-gita As It Is)

The revised description in the BBT International edition removes the transcendence. It removes the divine empowerment. It removes guru-paramparā. It removes the ontology of revelation. And it replaces them with the vocabulary of secular Religious Studies departments.

• Prabhupāda becomes a “teacher,” not an empowered master.
• His realizations become “experience” rather than self-realization.
• His authority becomes “scholarship” rather than śakti.
• His mission becomes “devotional mysticism” rather than a divine commission.
• His position in the disciplic succession is omitted altogether.
• His books are framed as scholarly works, not revealed scripture.

This is the language academics use to describe a respected religious figure. It is not the language used to describe a mahā-bhāgavata delivering Kṛṣṇa’s message unchanged.

The change is intentional, ideological, and foundational.

Why This Change Is a Philosophical Change — Not a Stylistic One

It may look like the back-cover text was simply “updated,” but the shift is far deeper. In Vaiṣṇava theology, the way an ācārya is described is not marketing — it is philosophy. Changing that description changes the conceptual foundations of revelation, authority, and paramparā.

Here is why the newer BBTI description constitutes a genuine philosophical shift:

• The original text affirms Prabhupāda as a self-realized, divinely empowered ācārya standing in a guru-paramparā beginning with Kṛṣṇa. This is core Vaiṣṇava siddhānta.

• The newer text removes all transcendental claims and replaces them with the vocabulary of academic religious studies: teacher, practitioner, exemplar, scholar. This reframing is ideological, not neutral.

• When divine empowerment is replaced by “scholarship,” the source of authority is relocated—from Kṛṣṇa and paramparā to human effort, experience, and education. That is a direct shift in epistemology.

• The original presentation makes Prabhupāda’s books śabda-brahma—untouchable, uneditable, preserved by ārṣa-prayoga.

• The new presentation makes his books appear to be religious literature written by a competent teacher—therefore open to “correction,” “improvement,” and posthumous editing.

• How you describe the guru governs how you treat his words. Reduce him from an empowered ācārya to a spiritual author, and the editorial boundaries disappear.

• Redefining Prabhupāda’s ontological position automatically redefines the ontological status of his books. This is the very heart of philosophy—not of style.

The shift from “empowered ācārya delivering divine revelation” to “scholarly teacher presenting devotional mysticism” is not cosmetic. It is a change in philosophy. And such disobedient philosophical changes form the groundwork for most of what the BBT International has done to Prabhupāda’s books since 1978.

Why the Shift Happened: The Institutional Motives Behind the New Description

These changes do not emerge from nowhere. They serve specific institutional incentives inside BBTI and the modern ISKCON structure. When you examine the newer description, the motives become obvious:

Secular respectability
Kṛṣṇa consciousness must appear “safe” to academics, journalists, and interfaith circles. Divine claims are removed. Authority is softened. The ācārya becomes an acceptable subject of Religious Studies rather than a representative of God.

Institutional flexibility
If Prabhupāda is framed as a scholar, then the institution replaces him as the ongoing authority. Once his transcendence is removed, reinterpretation and doctrinal adjustment become easy. Editorial intervention becomes normal.

Legal and social safety
Absolute guru claims make institutions nervous. Removing transcendence reduces risk — legal, social, and political.

Justifying textual alteration
If Prabhupāda is merely a scholar, editors become co-scholars. Posthumous editing becomes an “academic duty.” “Fixing,” “refining,” and “modernizing” the Gītā becomes justified.

Every one of these motives requires the same thing: a quiet lowering of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s divine identity.

The Weberian Pattern: How Institutions Tame Their Founders

Max Weber described exactly what happens after a charismatic spiritual founder departs. The patterns are precise:

• The founder is reinterpreted as a historical figure.
• Absolute authority is replaced by bureaucratic authority.
• Revelation becomes “tradition.”
• Radical spiritual demands are softened for institutional comfort.
• Doctrines are edited to fit new cultural expectations.
• The living spiritual fire becomes the institution’s heritage instead of its guiding force.

This is not speculation. This is exactly what unfolded in ISKCON after 1977 — and the rewritten Gītā description is one of the clearest examples.

How the New Description Enables Posthumous Editing

Once Prabhupāda is reframed as a respected “teacher” rather than a divinely empowered ācārya, everything changes:

• His books appear to be literature, rather than revelation.
• Literature can be edited, updated, and modernized.
• Editors become authoritative intermediaries.
• ārṣa-prayoga is discarded as outdated superstition.
• Post-samādhi editing is normalized.
• Authority shifts from the guru to the institution.

The new Gītā description is the theological justification for the changed Gītā — and for every other altered text.

The Consequence: Two Descriptions, Two Theologies

These two descriptions of Śrīla Prabhupāda represent two incompatible worldviews.

• The original description safeguards the purity of Prabhupāda’s teachings.
• The newer description prepares the ground for reinterpretation and revision.

• The original affirms revelation.
• The new one reduces revelation to scholarship.

• The original protects the guru-paramparā.
• The new one replaces it with institutional authority.

• The original makes posthumous editing unthinkable.
• The new one makes it inevitable.

This shift is not a detail. It is the philosophical foundation of the entire posthumous editing project.

11.17.25
by

VIDEO: The Pseudo-Vada of the Book Changers

“Those who have altered Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books like to speak of “devotee cooperation” and “proper channels.” What they mean is submission without scrutiny. They have built a system where questioning is punished, reasoning is re-framed as offense, and loyalty is measured by silence.

Whenever a devotee raises a concern, the reply is almost scripted:

“You are offensive.”

“Your tone is wrong.”

“You should write privately to the authorities.”

But if one does write, the tone becomes the issue again. One may receive half an answer, and if one seeks clarification, the discussion is declared over.”

11.15.25
by

VIDEO: Why “Do the Changes Make a Significant Difference” is the Wrong Question

“The question “Do the changes make a significant difference to the message?” sounds fair—but it completely misses the point. It assumes that the legitimacy of changing a pure devotee’s words depends on how much the meaning seems to change. That assumption itself is false.”

11.10.25
by

Why “Do the Changes Make a Significant Difference?” Is the Wrong Question

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

The question “Do the changes make a significant difference to the message?” sounds fair—but it completely misses the point. It assumes that the legitimacy of changing a pure devotee’s words depends on how much the meaning seems to change. That assumption itself is false.

The issue is not how much the message shifts. The issue is that anyone dared to shift it at all. Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books are not ordinary literature subject to posthumous editing or so-called editorial refinement by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International (BBT International) or its post-samādhi editors like Jayadvaita Swami. They are śabda-brahma—the sound incarnation of divine truth transmitted through an authorized ācārya. Once such an ācārya leaves this world, his words are final. No conditioned soul is authorized to adjust them, no matter how “minor” the adjustment may appear.

Even a single substituted synonym or rearranged phrase presumes editorial superiority over one who spoke under Kṛṣṇa’s direct guidance. That is why the ārṣa-prayoga principle exists: the words of the ācārya are sacred and must remain untouched. It protects the integrity of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s original books from unauthorized changes made after his departure.

Moreover, the idea of “significant difference” is itself deceptive. Many edits that look small actually do change meaning—altering theological emphasis, philosophical precision, or Śrīla Prabhupāda’s characteristic tone. But even if some do not, the very act of judging “significance” replaces revelation with speculation. It invites endless tampering under the same excuse, which has already been seen in the posthumously edited Bhagavad-gita As It Is.

There is also a deeper layer. Words don’t only convey meaning—they frame it. They shape how readers approach and internalize the message. Changing phrasing, order, or rhythm changes the lens through which the reader perceives the philosophy. Just as altering the cover of Bhagavad-gita As It Is reframes a reader’s expectations before opening the book, altering the language inside silently redefines how one enters the message itself.

Śrīla Prabhupāda’s English was an extension of his bhāva—his spiritual mood. His rhythm, simplicity, and repetition carried power far beyond grammar. To “polish” that expression is to polish away the teacher’s presence. Even if the words remain similar, the śraddhā-bindu—the drop of faith that transmits realization—fades.

So the real problem is not merely what has changed, but that the frame of reception—the channel connecting the reader to the guru—has been tampered with. Once that link is altered, the spiritual potency no longer flows in the same pure way.

That is why the question, “Do the changes make a significant difference?” is misplaced. The real question is:

Who gave anyone the right to touch even one word of a self-realized ācārya’s books after his departure?

11.09.25
by

Does “Having Once Been” Imply Creation? A Closer Look at Bhagavad-gītā 2.20

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

The Verse in Question

Bhagavad-gita As It Is 2.20 (1972 authorized edition):

na jāyate mriyate vā kadācin nāyaṁ bhūtvā bhavitā vā na bhūyaḥ
“He is never born, nor does he ever die. Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be.” (Bhagavad-gītā 2.20)

In his posthumously edited edition of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, Jayadvaita Swami altered the translation of this verse, claiming that Śrīla Prabhupāda’s original wording — “Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be” — wrongly suggests that the soul was created. He presented this change as a clarification meant to align more closely with Vaiṣṇava philosophy. Yet when the verse is examined carefully, both linguistically and philosophically, that justification collapses entirely.

Continue reading →
11.09.25
by

Jayadvaita Swami’s Posthumous “Should Not” Edit – A Change in the Philosophy of Bhagavad-gītā (Bg. 13.1–2)

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Description

In the purport to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Bhagavad-gītā 13.1–2, a single missing word completely reverses the meaning of the text.

1972 Unabridged Edition (Collier-Macmillan, First Printing):

“Now, the person who identifies himself with this body is called kṣetrajña, the knower of the field.”

This wording wrongly defines the kṣetrajña—the knower of the field—as one who identifies with the body. When this error was read aloud in Paris in 1973, Śrīla Prabhupāda immediately caught it and corrected it personally.

He said:

“Who does not identify, it should be.”
…
“This should be corrected immediately.”

His instruction was clear and recorded. But in Jayadvaita Swami’s posthumously edited BBT International edition the sentence was changed to read:

“Now, the person, who should not identify himself with the body, is called kṣetra-jña, the knower of the field.”

This new version does not follow Śrīla Prabhupāda’s direct correction.

Type of Change

Substitution and Doctrinal Editing

The phrase “should not identify” replaces Śrīla Prabhupāda’s exact correction “does not identify.” This change substitutes a normative instruction for a descriptive definition, thereby altering the philosophical meaning of the Bhagavad-gītā purport.

Category

Doctrinal Error

The BBT International wording, “should not identify,” gives an entirely different philosophical conclusion.

Śrīla Prabhupāda’s version, “does not identify,” distinguishes the self-realized soul from the conditioned soul. Only those who do not identify with the body are kṣetrajña, the true knowers of the field.

By contrast, “should not identify” applies to all human beings, since everyone should not identify with the body. It therefore implies that even the ignorant, body-conscious person is “called kṣetrajña.”

This transforms a definition of realization into a moral exhortation—and thus changes the philosophy of the Bhagavad-gītā itself.

The result is a posthumous doctrinal alteration that stands in direct contradiction to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s explicit instruction.

It takes us not “Closer to Śrīla Prabhupāda“, as the BBT International catchphrase goes, but further away from him.

Commentary

Śrīla Prabhupāda’s recorded conversation (Paris, August 11, 1973) leaves no room for interpretation:

Prabhupāda: “It is wrongly written… Who does not identify, it should be… This should be corrected immediately… One must know that ‘I am not this body.’ That is knowledge. That is knower.”

The meaning is self-evident: The kṣetrajña is the person who knows he is not the body.

To say “should not identify” is not simply a weaker phrase—it collapses the distinction between knowledge and ignorance. It tells everyone what they ought to do, instead of describing who actually is the knower.

This is not a stylistic difference; it is a philosophical change.

In fairness, the same missing “not” appears in the original typed manuscript, which was a transcription of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s dictation. The error may have originated with the typist, not the early editors.

But after 11th August 1973 that was no longer relevant. When Śrīla Prabhupāda himself discovered the error and issued a correction, the matter was settled permanently.

Once the ācārya speaks, his words are final. No posthumous editorial interpretation can override them.

This is precisely the purpose of the Arsa-prayoga principle: the words of the ācārya are sacred and must not be changed by later editors, regardless of intention or perceived improvement.

As Śrīla Prabhupāda said that day:

“If you identify with body, how you know it? Oh, it is a very great mistake.”

The BBT International version preserves that mistake—only in a subtler form.

The correct version, as ordered by Śrīla Prabhupāda, reads:

“Now, the person who does not identify himself with this body is called kṣetrajña, the knower of the field.”

This is not just the right grammar. It is the right philosophy.

Note

This case perfectly illustrates why the Arsa-prayoga principle must be upheld in all dealings with Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books. Even small “clarifications” made after the author’s disappearance can become posthumous doctrinal changes that distort meaning and misrepresent the ācārya’s philosophy.

The correction ordered by Śrīla Prabhupāda was explicit and recorded. Jayadvaita Swami and BBT International had no mandate to modify or reinterpret it.

This single word—does not—marks the difference between ignorance and realization, illusion and knowledge. And when we protect Śrīla Prabhupāda’s exact words, we are not only defending language. We are defending truth itself.

11.07.25
by

Lord Ramacandra Removed – Revisited

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Link to original Arsa-Prayoga article:

https://arsaprayoga.com/2013/09/12/lord-ramacandra-removed-from-bhagavad-gita-as-it-is-10-31/

Description

This article examines Jayadvaita Swami’s deletion of the line “Lord Ramacandra, of the Ramayana, an incarnation of Krishna, is the mightiest of warriors” from the purport to Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 10.31 in posthumous printings by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International (BBTI). While the line was almost certainly inserted by one of Srila Prabhupada’s editors, it was later affirmed by Srila Prabhupada himself in recorded conversation. Once that acceptance is confirmed, the matter is settled — and the later deletion is revealed as a breach of paramparā, not a restoration of accuracy.

Type of change

Deletion — removal of a complete sentence from the published purport.

Category

Philosophical/Devotional change.

Commentary

The editor added it — and Srila Prabhupada accepted it

We do not have evidence that Srila Prabhupada personally wrote the line naming “Lord Ramacandra” in the 10.31 purport. The wording almost certainly came from an editor working under his supervision — and that is fine. Prabhupada relied on editors to help prepare many purports.

The crucial point is this:

Srila Prabhupada heard the exact purport, which included the reference to Lord Ramacandra, and explicitly accepted it as correct in a conversation quoted in the article. He repeated the same identification in his own voice.

Once that happened, the sentence became authorized. No one has the right to remove it after his departure.

Prabhupada confirmed the meaning of “Rama” here as Ramacandra

In a recorded discussion, Srila Prabhupada used this exact verse (10.31) as an example of how Lord Ramacandra is mentioned in the Gītā. He did not say, “This was an editorial invention.” He accepted it.
And even though the term “Rama” also can refer to Parasurama or Balarama, Prabhupada confirmed Ramacandra as one of the valid referents in this specific context of the Gita. That is enough to fix it into the purport permanently.

There is no scope to overrule the ācārya’s final approval

Posthumous editing is sometimes defended on the basis that “Prabhupada didn’t write this line himself.” But in Krishna consciousness, the test is not authorship — it is acceptance.

Once the ācārya approves and uses a sentence, it belongs to him. The disciple may not later argue: “But that wasn’t his original phrasing.” That is editorial hubris disguised as scholarship.

The deletion erases a confirmed Vaiṣṇava possibility

By removing the reference to Lord Ramacandra, BBTI did not just “restore ambiguity” — they erased part of Srila Prabhupada’s own explanation.

Srila Prabhupada made it clear: “Rama” can include several incarnations of the Lord, but also includes Lord Ramacandra in the context of this verse — a point he heard in the purport, accepted, and personally repeated.

The purport, as originally printed, reflected that full Vaiṣṇava understanding. After the deletion, it no longer does.

So the issue is not that the edited version is “uncertain” — but that it is incomplete. It no longer reflects the full range of meaning as accepted by Srila Prabhupada himself.

Removing what Prabhupada approved doesn’t improve accuracy.
It reduces fidelity.

Why this is not negotiable

Even if the line was originally added by an editor, Srila Prabhupada approved it, used it, and confirmed its meaning in his own voice. That turns an editorial suggestion into an ācārya-sanctioned teaching. Removing it is not just a mistake in publishing. It is a mistake in disciplic succession.

The Arsa-Prayoga principle is simple: You do not remove what the spiritual master has accepted. Once he confirms it, it becomes sacred.

The deletion of Lord Ramacandra’s name is not the editing of a “mistake.” It is the undoing of Prabhupada’s acceptance — and that is the real error.

11.07.25
by

Frivolous Change of Chapter-Heading – Revisited

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Link to original Arsa-Prayoga article:

https://arsaprayoga.com/2013/10/24/enjoying-the-self-within-or-the-duty-of-the-finger-bg-4-38/

Description

This article explores how changing the chapter title “Sankhya-yoga” to “Dhyāna-yoga” in Bhagavad-gita As It Is alters the reader’s perception of Srila Prabhupada’s intention — not because “Dhyāna-yoga” is inherently wrong or historically invalid, but because Prabhupada had a purpose in not using that more common title. The issue, therefore, is not academic accuracy, but fidelity to the ācārya’s personal voice — a core principle of Arsa-Prayoga, especially in the context of posthumous editing by BBTI.

Type of change

Substitution — one term from the Vedic tradition replaced by another, equally authentic, but conveying a different emphasis.

Category

Philosophical change.

Commentary

Not a question of “right” or “wrong” — but of honoring intention

Many commentaries throughout Vaiṣṇava history title Chapter 6 as “Dhyāna-yoga.” This is not a mistake. But Srila Prabhupada chose not to use this more common title. Instead, he used “Sankhya-yoga” consistently in his lectures, manuscripts, and published edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is.
That choice is not random — it reflects a pedagogical and theological strategy. When BBTI editors later replaced it with “Dhyāna-yoga,” the question is not whether their choice could be justified in a vacuum, but whether it should override Prabhupada’s own.

Srila Prabhupada’s framing is the governing standard

Prabhupada repeatedly emphasized that his edition of the Gītā was not merely another translation, but the definitive presentation of the Bhagavad-gita “as it is.” To alter his chosen structure — even in a title — is to alter the interpretive lens he intentionally set.
This is where Arsa-Prayoga becomes relevant: the principle that once the ācārya has spoken, his presentation stands. Posthumous editing, however well-meaning, must not replace the spiritual intuition of the empowered teacher with the academic preferences of his disciples or followers — whether they be Jayadvaita Swami, Dravida Dasa, or any future editor.

Why “Sankhya-yoga” rather than “Dhyāna-yoga”?

Prabhupada’s use of “Sankhya-yoga” emphasizes that meditation is not an isolated practice, but flows from knowledge — specifically, the discrimination between matter and spirit.
By choosing “Sankhya-yoga,” he was teaching that yogic practice is incomplete without philosophical realization and ultimately Kṛṣṇa consciousness. He may also have been signaling a departure from modern, technique-focused interpretations of yoga that are divorced from devotion — a trend evident even in the 1970s which has only grown stronger since.

The editorial risk: erasing Prabhupada’s corrective

Changing the title to “Dhyāna-yoga” removes that corrective emphasis and defaults back to the format familiar from other editions. This is exactly what makes the change problematic. If Prabhupada was deliberately shifting the focus — away from impersonal or secular yoga narratives and toward theistic Sankhya — then the editorial change undoes his work.
This is not a disagreement with previous ācāryas. It is a disagreement with editing the ācārya after his departure.

The issue, therefore, is not whether “Dhyāna-yoga” is a legitimate title in the wider tradition, but whether BBTI has the right to retroactively override Srila Prabhupada’s intentional wording in Bhagavad-gita As It Is. A single change in a chapter title may seem small, but it signals a larger trend: the subtle reshaping of Prabhupada’s work through posthumous editing instead of paramparā.

That is why this matters — not because of a word, but because of the principle.

11.07.25
by

The List That Doesn’t Exist! Or?

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

We’re told by Ramesvara Dasa that Srila Prabhupada personally approved a list of edits to his Bhagavad-gita As It Is. I have no problem accepting that. I even believe Ramesvara Dasa when he says he saw it. It would be wonderful to have the list!

But here’s the reality: the list seems to have vanished. No one has it. No one can show it. And without the list in hand, no one can prove what was on it, what was approved, or what wasn’t.

Even if several devotees from BBT or ISKCON saw it 40 or 50 years ago, memory is not a reliable basis for editing the books of an acharya. No one alive today can recall every detail with perfect accuracy after so many years. And even if they could, we would still be left with no way to verify it.

Let’s grant the strongest possible version of the argument and say the list absolutely existed and listed real, Prabhupada-approved changes. Then what? Without the list in our hands today, we cannot distinguish between:

– The changes Srila Prabhupada personally approved,
– The changes made later by editors after his departure, and
– The mistakes he deliberately left in.

That distinction is essential. Because if we start “fixing” or “restoring” the text without knowing which changes were authorized, we immediately run into a crisis: removing even one change could erase something Srila Prabhupada wanted kept. Leaving in even one change could preserve an unauthorized edit made after his departure. We can’t know who we’re obeying, and who we’re overriding.

So even if the list was seen by some devotees long ago, the fact that it cannot be produced today means that it cannot serve as a valid basis for altering Srila Prabhupada’s books. At this point, anyone making changes is operating on guesswork. And guesswork with the words of a pure devotee is not service. It is tampering.

Until the list is actually produced — not merely remembered or rumored — the only safe and faithful policy is:

-No posthumous edits.
-No guessing.
-No tampering with what we cannot verify.

Otherwise, we’re effectively trusting editors (Jayadvaita Swami and Dravida Dasa) more than Srila Prabhupada himself. That is not loyalty. That is deviation.

Until the list is in our hands, there is no debate. Either we preserve Srila Prabhupada’s books as he left them, or we risk rewriting him based on somebody’s memory from 1977. The choice should be obvious.