Category Archives: Debate

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.

11.04.25
by

Why One Conversation Cannot Rewrite the Gītā: A Case Study in Misusing Prabhupāda’s Words

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

A devotee recently pointed to the following excerpt from a 1973 conversation and argued that, based on this alone, Bhagavad-gītā 18.66 should be “corrected” to replace the word religion with “occupation”:

Prabhupāda: Now, Kṛṣṇa says, sarva-dharmān parityajya [Bg. 18.66].
Satish Kumar: Yes.
Prabhupāda: Now, dharma means occupation. Dharma is not translated as “religion.”
Satish Kumar: No, no.
Prabhupāda: This is wrong translation. Dharma means occupation.
Satish Kumar: Activity?
Prabhupāda: Activity, occupation.
(Conversation, London, July 30, 1973)

Before rushing to “fix” the book, a few points need to be made—especially in light of arsa-prayoga, the principle that the words of the ācārya are not to be tampered with after his departure:

  1. No instruction, and thus no authorization, was given to change the verse. Srila Prabhupada often spoke freely and loosely in conversation, but he gave direct, literal instructions for book changes while present. Here, he did not.
  2. Srila Prabhupada himself frequently translated dharma as “religion.” This is not a one-off occurrence—it appears hundreds of times in his books and lectures. Are we now to “correct” them all? On what authority?
  3. He heard the verse read aloud repeatedly and never objected. This is decisive. He personally approved the printed Gītā, lectured from it, and signed off on it as finished work.
  4. What happens when we find other places where Prabhupada gives different meanings or emphases? Language is fluid, and Srila Prabhupada tailored his wording to context and audience. Selectively mining conversations to override the final, published work is not fidelity—it’s revisionism.
  5. This is exactly how “The Blessed Lord” was removed by Jayadvaita Swami and the BBTI from later editions. Even though Srila Prabhupada accepted that phrase while alive, and even used it himself, editors saw one conversation where he expressed a reservation—and used that as a pretext to delete it from the entire book.

If this logic is allowed, what will be next?

This is the fatal pattern: use a stray comment in a private conversation to overrule the public, authorized book. It weaponizes Prabhupada’s own words against his finished legacy. That is the opposite of arsa-prayoga. That is how the books slowly stop being his.