Original article can be found in Bhakta Torben’s ebook Blazing Edits:
Description
In Srila Prabhupāda’s manuscript/draft for Bhagavad-gita As It Is 9.19, the dictated synonyms read:
sat — being asat — non-being.
These exact synonyms also appear in the pre-samādhi editions, the authorized edition personally approved by Prabhupāda:
sat — being asat — nonbeing.
These match the literal Sanskrit dictionary meanings: sat = being, existent; asat = non-being, nonexistent. In the posthumous BBT International edition, Jayadvaita Swami replaces these with
sat — spirit asat — matter
—and adjusts the translation accordingly.
These substitutions do not appear in the manuscript, do not appear in the 1972 edition, and do not correspond to the literal Sanskrit.
Type of Change
Substitution. Jayadvaita Swami removes Srila Prabhupāda’s original synonyms (“being / non-being”) and replaces them with new synonyms (“spirit / matter”), a shift unsupported by any Prabhupāda source.
Category
Philosophical Alteration. This BBT International posthumous edit replaces Srila Prabhupāda’s specific translation choice for this verse with an alternative meaning he did not use here. Although sat and asat can carry broader philosophical associations in other contexts, Prabhupāda translated them in Bg 9.19 as “being / non-being.” Changing that to “spirit / matter” imposes an editor’s reinterpretation onto a verse where Prabhupāda had already given the exact meaning he intended.
Commentary
It is true that Srila Prabhupāda sometimes uses sat in a general philosophical sense to describe the eternal (spirit) and asat to describe the temporary (matter). However, this broader theological association does not justify altering his specific translation in a specific verse.
In Bhagavad-gita 9.19, Prabhupāda deliberately translated sat and asat as “being” and “non-being,” and this is confirmed by all available evidence:
The synonyms introduced by Jayadvaita Swami (“spirit” and “matter”) appear in none of these sources. They are not restorations of Prabhupāda’s work; they are editorial reinterpretations imposed onto the synonyms and translation after Prabhupāda’s departure.
Because the original wording is fully preserved in both the manuscript and the authorized 1972 edition, changing it does not take us “closer to Śrīla Prabhupāda,” as is the claim to fame of BBT International and Jayadvaita Swami—it takes the Bhagavad-gītā As It Is further away from Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own translation and intended meaning.
Even if “spirit” and “matter” are philosophically relevant within the broader framework of the Bhagavad-gita, Srila Prabhupāda did not use those terms to translate sat and asat in this verse.
Under the ārṣa-prayoga principle, the ācārya’s documented wording—especially when supported by both manuscript and pre-samādhi edition—is final and cannot be replaced with an editor’s inferred meaning.
The BBT International version thus represents an unauthorized posthumous substitution, shifting the verse away from Srila Prabhupāda’s own translation choice.
“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.”
When Bhakta Torben first published More Than Most in his ebook Blazing Edits, he exposed one of the clearest examples of how posthumous editing can distort Śrīla Prabhupāda’s intended meaning. His analysis of Bhagavad-gītā 18.63 was sharp, direct, and rooted in the ārṣa-prayoga principle. What follows is a revisiting of that same verse — not to replace his contribution, but to expand it. With additional evidence, deeper linguistic analysis, and Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own spoken confirmation of the original translation, we can now see even more clearly the magnitude of the philosophical shift introduced by the BBT International editor Jayadvaita Swami. This article stands in continuity with Bhakta Torben’s work and in appreciation of his service.
Description
Śrīla Prabhupāda’s manuscript (draft): “Thus I have explained to you the most confidential of all knowledge. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do.”
Original and Authorized Pre-Samadhi Edition: Same wording.
Jayadvaita Swami / BBT International posthumous edition: “Thus I have explained to you knowledge still more confidential. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do.”
Here the ācārya’s chosen expression — “the most confidential of all knowledge” — has been replaced with a weaker comparative phrase that Śrīla Prabhupāda never authorized. Jayadvaita Swami and BBT International assured us that their edits would bring us “Closer to Śrīla Prabhupāda.” This edit does the opposite.
Type of Change
Substitution (Replacement) — replacing the ācārya’s established wording with a new formulation after his disappearance.
Category
Philosophical Change — because it alters the meaning, force, and doctrinal weight of the verse in one of the most climactic moments of the Bhagavad-gītā.
Śrīla Prabhupāda Confirms the Original Translation (Full Lecture Quote)
When the 1972 translation was read aloud to Śrīla Prabhupāda, he accepted it immediately and began teaching from it without hesitation. Even more striking, he strengthened it by using the pure Sanskrit superlative guhyatamam in his explanation.
Hari-śauri:
iti te jñānam ākhyātaṁ guhyād guhyataraṁ mayā vimṛśyaitad aśeṣeṇa yathecchasi tathā kuru
“Thus I have explained to you the most confidential of all knowledge. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do.”
Prabhupāda: “So it is your business. ‘You deliberate on all the points I have told you. Now if you like, you surrender unto Me. If you don’t like, you do whatever you like.’ Yathecchasi tathā kuru. This is God. He doesn’t touch on your liberty. He gives you the right information. Now you… Idaṁ te jñānam? Iti te jñānam.”
Hari-śauri: “Iti te jñānam ākhyātam.”
Prabhupāda: “Ākhyātam.”
Hari-śauri: “Guhyād guhyataraṁ mayā.”
Prabhupāda: “Guhyād guhyataraṁ mayā.”
Hari-śauri: “Vimṛśyaitad.”
Prabhupāda: “Vimṛśya — ‘Now you think over it.’ You consider, make your deliberation, and then you do whatever you like. Iti te jñānam ākhyātam — ‘I’ve explained to you all kinds of different types of knowledge, and ultimately, guhyatamam, the most confidential knowledge I’ve spoken to you, that you surrender to Me.’”
This is decisive. Śrīla Prabhupāda accepts the translation exactly as printed in 1972 and then upgrades the comparative to the superlative. The posthumous edit does the opposite.
A Note on the Synonyms
It is true that Śrīla Prabhupāda uses the literal phrase “still more confidential” in the synonyms for guhyataram. But the Synonyms in Prabhupāda’s books serve as literal Sanskrit glosses, not as the final doctrinal expression of the verse. Prabhupāda routinely departs from the synonyms when giving the English Translation, because the Translation is where he presents the siddhānta — the intended philosophical meaning. In Bhagavad-gītā 18.63, Prabhupāda deliberately chose “the most confidential of all knowledge” for the Translation, and in his lecture he further strengthened that sense by using the pure superlative guhyatamam. The doctrinal meaning is therefore the superlative, not the comparative. The presence of “still more confidential” in the synonyms cannot justify altering Śrīla Prabhupāda’s authorized translation.
Commentary
The Sanskrit phrase guhyād guhyataraṁ is grammatically comparative (“more confidential”), but in the context of the Gītā it clearly expresses a final, culminating revelation. Śrīla Prabhupāda captures this meaning with precision by translating it as “the most confidential of all knowledge.”
This phrase appears in:
– the manuscript – the 1972 Bhagavad-gītā As It Is – Śrīla Prabhupāda’s lectures – his consistent theological vocabulary
The BBT International posthumous edit — “knowledge still more confidential” — collapses that force.
-It downgrades the meaning, turning a climax into a comparative. -It contradicts Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own explanation, where he uses the superlative guhyatamam. -It breaks Prabhupāda’s established vocabulary (“most confidential” is a fixed Prabhupādan term). -It corrects nothing and weakens much. -It violates the Arsa-prayoga principle by overriding an ācārya’s chosen wording after his departure.
This is a philosophical change, not merely an adjustment of English.
Conclusion
Śrīla Prabhupāda’s translation of Bhagavad-gītā 18.63 is clear, intentional, and confirmed by his own spoken commentary. The posthumous BBT International edit by Jayadvaita Swami replaces that clarity with a weaker, unauthorized formulation that is directly contradicted in his lecture.
This is not refinement. It is distortion.
When Śrīla Prabhupāda has already spoken, the matter is finished.
“As you know, and as we kept in mind while doing the work, Śrīla Prabhupāda staunchly opposed needless changes.” (Jayadvaita Swami, Letter to Amogha Lila, 1986)
This statement is correct. Śrīla Prabhupāda did staunchly oppose needless changes — and this principle is the foundation of ārṣa-prayoga, the principle that the words of a pure devotee are not to be altered by conditioned editors.
The following example — pointed out to us by Bhakta Torben Nielsen in his ebook Blazing Edits — illustrates the issue perfectly.
We look at a posthumous edit introduced by BBT International (BBTI) in the 1983 revised Bhagavad-gita As It Is, specifically 18.2, purport.
Original (Prabhupāda-approved pre-samadhi edition):
“There are many prescriptions of methods for performing sacrifice for some particular purpose in the Vedic literatures.”
Posthumously edited (BBTI edition):
“In the Vedic literature there are many prescriptions of methods for performing sacrifice for some particular purpose.”
This is not a correction. This is not a clarification. This is not a doctrinal improvement.
It is simply a relocation of one phrase — a stylistic reshuffling that has no philosophical or grammatical necessity whatsoever.
What problem did this edit solve?
None.
Was the original incorrect, unclear, or misleading?
No.
Did Srila Prabhupada ever request this change?
No.
Did BBTI give a reason for it?
No.
According to Jayadvaita Swami’s own standard — “Prabhupāda opposed needless changes” — this is precisely the kind of change Śrīla Prabhupāda would not have approved.
Jayadvaita Swami then makes an unnecessary posthumous edit.
That is why this small change becomes a perfect diagnostic tool. It shows that once editors begin altering Srila Prabhupada’s books based on personal preference or literary style, the entire principle of ārṣa prayoga has already been abandoned.
Why This Matters for Bhagavad-gita As It Is
The 1972 first edition was personally approved, lectured from, distributed, and trusted by Śrīla Prabhupāda. The 1983 posthumously edited edition by BBTI was not.
When even a harmless sentence — one that Prabhupāda accepted and used — is needlessly altered, it proves the deeper issue:
Posthumous editing inevitably leads to editorial overreach, because the standard has shifted from “transmit exactly” to “improve according to taste.”
And once that door opens, the rest of the book becomes vulnerable.
In the 1972 Macmillan edition of Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, approved and used by Śrīla Prabhupāda, the translation of BG 4.38 reads:
“And one who has achieved this enjoys the self within himself in due course of time.”
In the 1983 BBT International edition, the translation is changed to:
“And one who has become accomplished in the practice of devotional service enjoys this knowledge within himself in due course of time.”
Multiple phrases have been replaced or expanded, and the purport has been altered to match the new interpretation.
Type of change
Substitution and deletion (translation + purport)
Category
Philosophical change
Commentary
1. Change of theological focus
The original states that the self-realized person “enjoys the self within.” The revised version replaces “the self” with “this knowledge,” shifting the focus from spiritual identity to mental content. That is not a correction of language but a change of doctrine.
2. Introduction of wording not found in the original
Original: “has achieved this” Edited: “has become accomplished in the practice of devotional service” This inserts a new conceptual framework and changes the subject of the verse from realization to performance.
3. Removal of Vedāntic clarity
The original expresses the result of realization — the soul directly experiencing its own spiritual nature. The edited version turns the verse into a statement about enjoying accumulated knowledge through devotional practice.
4. The “manuscript restoration” claim is invalid
The 1972 edition is already closer to the manuscript than the 1983 rewrite. Changing the published edition in the name of “restoration” while actually adding interpretive wording is not restoration — it is posthumous editing.
5. Śrīla Prabhupāda never corrected or objected to the original wording
Prabhupāda lectured from this verse and didn’t say the translation was wrong or needed revision. His silence is better seen as evidence of approval than evidence of disapproval.
6. Effect on meaning
-Shift from “enjoying the self” to “enjoying knowledge” -Shift from realization to information -Shift from divine fact to devotional process
Conclusion
This is not a spelling or grammar correction. It is a shift in meaning — from direct realization of the self to the enjoyment of knowledge gained through practice. That shift did not come from Śrīla Prabhupāda. It came from a posthumous editor, Jayadvaita Swami.
Such changes do not preserve Bhagavad-gītā As It Is — they transform it into Bhagavad-gītā JAS it is. This is a clear violation of the principle of arsa-prayoga: the words of the ācārya must not be altered after his departure.
Sometimes devotees laugh at those who object to “minor edits” in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books. They say, “Come on — only fanatics would object to correcting a comma, a typo, or a small grammar mistake!” And many accept that reasoning without much thought, assuming that those who resist changes must simply be sentimental or stubborn.
But this attitude hides a serious misunderstanding. It assumes that changing a small detail is harmless, and that the only people who care are extremists. In reality, the issue is not about commas or spelling at all — it’s about who has the right to adjust the words of the spiritual master.
Once we say, “We can change a word for clarity,” we have already accepted the principle that human judgment can improve what was spoken by the pure devotee. And if that principle is accepted once, it can be applied again and again — not just to commas, but to sentences, meanings, and even philosophy. The logic that allows one small change can justify any change.
To call those who resist such logic “fanatics” is easy, but it misses the point entirely. Their concern is not over grammar — it is over preserving the disciplic succession intact. The words of the ācārya are sacred sound vibrations, not material literature to be polished according to our taste.
What follows will show — step by step — how even the smallest editorial correction rests on a principle that, once accepted, opens the door to an endless chain of justifications. What begins as “just a comma” can quietly become the rewriting of revelation itself.
To see this clearly, we must put emotion aside and follow the logic wherever it leads — beginning with the simple question, “Why change a comma?”
The Logical Skeleton of the “Comma Correction” Problem
Let’s define the argument formally and trace the logic step by step.
1. The Act
An editor proposes to change a comma in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s text.
Let’s denote:
A: the act of editing (in this case, a comma correction)
P: the principle or justification offered for editing
2. The Principle (P)
When asked “Why make this change?”, the editor must appeal to some underlying principle. Examples might include:
P₁: To make the text clearer.
P₂: To make it grammatically correct.
P₃: To make it more acceptable to scholars.
P₄: To make it easier for modern readers to understand.
Each of these is a normative principle — a rule about how and why editing is justified.
3. The Universalizability Test
A principle, once invoked, cannot rationally be restricted to one case unless there is an additional principle that limits it.
So, if we accept P₁: “We may change the text to make it clearer,” then that principle must logically apply to all cases where the editor believes clarity could be improved.
This is the universalization of P₁. It follows from the principle of consistency — that identical reasons must yield identical permissions in identical types of cases.
4. The Problem of Subjectivity
Now, terms like “clarity,” “correctness,” and “scholarly acceptance” are subjective when judged by material standards. There exists no empirical or linguistic rule by which such clarity can be objectively verified in spiritual literature.
The only true standard of clarity is the revealed principle that transcendental sound must be preserved exactly as spoken by the realized soul. Therefore, applying P₁ or P₂ based on academic or personal judgment replaces revealed authority with subjective interpretation.
That judgment is fallible, culturally conditioned, and limited by material perspective.
So: P₁ ⇒ subjective authority replaces divine authority.
5. Slippery Slope Formalized
We can now model the chain of reasoning:
Accept A₁: “Change comma for clarity.”
This implies acceptance of P₁: “We may change anything that increases clarity.”
By universalizability, P₁ applies to any word, sentence, or concept.
The editor, being the judge of clarity, now possesses implicit interpretive authority.
The distinction between “editor” and “author” dissolves in principle.
Therefore: A₁ ⇒ authorization of all Aₙ justified by the same principle.
This is the essence of the slippery slope — not a mere rhetorical trope, but a logical entailment: once the normative justification for one action applies equally to more consequential actions, those actions are justified in principle unless an independent limiting condition is introduced.
6. The Limiting Condition Problem
To halt the slope, one must introduce a limiting condition — a new premise L that restricts P₁. For example: L: “We may only edit commas, but not words.”
However, L itself must be justified by a new principle Pᴸ. If Pᴸ lacks independent justification, it is arbitrary. And arbitrary limits collapse under rational scrutiny.
Thus, unless one can show a non-arbitrary, divinely sanctioned, epistemically objective boundary between “permissible correction” and “impermissible alteration,” the permission to change anything for clarity logically includes permission to change everything for clarity.
7. The Transcendental Counterprinciple
The only consistent way to avoid the slope is to affirm an opposite axiom:
P* : The author’s words are inviolable, as they carry transcendental authority.
Here, clarity is not improved by editing the text, but by purifying the reader’s consciousness. This inverts the premise entirely: instead of adjusting revelation to fit human comprehension, the human must adjust his comprehension to fit revelation.
8. Conclusion
The argument against even a “comma correction” is not fanaticism — it is philosophical consistency. Because once you accept a humanly defined justification for altering revealed speech, you’ve imported a subjective epistemology into a domain that claims divine origin. That is not editing — it’s epistemic rebellion disguised as scholarship.
The Comma Argument — Explained Simply
If the above explanation felt a little technical, here is the same argument expressed in simpler terms. And if you already understood everything written above, you don’t need to read this — but it may still help you explain it to others.
1. What Begins as Small
An editor wishes to correct what seems like a small detail in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s book — perhaps a misplaced comma or a minor grammar issue. It sounds harmless, almost helpful.
2. The Justification
When asked why, the editor replies: “To make it clearer,” or “To make it grammatically correct,” or “To make it more respectable to scholars,” or “To help modern readers understand.” This reason — whatever it is — becomes the principle that justifies the change.
3. The Law of Consistency
But once a principle is accepted, it cannot logically apply only once. If we can change one comma for the sake of clarity, then that same rule allows changes to any word, sentence, or idea — whenever an editor feels it will improve clarity. The permission extends to all similar cases.
4. The Real Issue: Whose Standard?
Words like “clarity,” “correctness,” and “modern understanding” are not absolute. They depend on culture, education, and opinion. So, if we rely on these human measures, then human judgment becomes the standard. That means divine revelation is being adjusted according to the limitations of the editor. Yet śāstra gives a higher rule: the words of the realized soul are perfect as they are. Our duty is to understand them through humility and service, not revision.
5. How the Slope Works
Once the principle of editing is accepted, it can be used again and again. First a comma, then a phrase, then a whole sentence — each change defended by the same reasoning: “It’s clearer now.” This is not a paranoid fear; it’s the logical consequence of the principle itself.
6. The Futile Attempt to Draw a Line
Someone might say, “We will only correct minor things.” But that limit has no real foundation. If we may change for clarity, then anything can be changed if it seems unclear. Any stopping point is arbitrary — a line drawn in sand. Unless there is a divinely given boundary, the permission to change one thing is permission to change everything.
7. The Only Consistent Principle
There is only one safe and consistent position: The words of the ācārya must remain exactly as they are. We do not make transcendental sound more “perfect” — it is already perfect. Our task is not to edit the message, but to purify the heart so that we can hear it properly.
8. The True Meaning of Faithfulness
To reject editing is not fanaticism — it is fidelity. It means accepting that revelation stands above our judgment. Once human reasoning is allowed to “improve” divine sound, the message ceases to be revelation and becomes interpretation. That is how “fixing a comma” slowly becomes rewriting the words of a pure devotee.
Arsa-Prayoga.com – Revisited is the title of an upcoming ebook that continues the work begun here on arsaprayoga.com. It re-examines the changes made to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s original books from new angles and explains why each alteration is significant.
Each example will also be posted here on arsaprayoga.com.
The original cover of The Perfection of Yoga, published during Śrīla Prabhupāda’s presence, depicts Lord Krishna instructing Arjuna on the battlefield of Kurukṣetra. The newer version replaces this sacred scene with a modern, abstract image: a silhouetted yoga figure against a cosmic background, accompanied by planetary symbols and a hummingbird.
Type of change
Visual substitution — replacement of the original painting with a completely different concept.
Category
Philosophical change.
Commentary
The original cover: revelation and surrender
The first edition’s painting is not just devotional art — it is theology in color. It captures the divine dialogue of the Bhagavad-gītā: the Supreme Lord imparting transcendental knowledge to the bewildered soul. Krishna’s gesture expresses both compassion and authority, while Arjuna’s posture shows humility and surrender.
This image teaches before one even opens the book. It tells the reader: “Here is yoga in its highest form — the union between the soul and Krishna through surrender and service.” The visual message aligns perfectly with Śrīla Prabhupāda’s text, where yoga culminates not in physical postures or impersonal meditation, but in bhakti-yoga, devotion to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
The new cover: abstraction and self-centered spirituality
The new cover shifts the entire philosophical mood. The central figure is no longer Arjuna receiving revelation but a lone silhouette performing an asana — an emblem of modern yoga culture. The background, with its planets, abstract lights, and hovering bird, suggests cosmic energy and mysticism rather than divine personality.
The focus has moved from Krishna to the individual practitioner. The very idea of “perfection” is reframed — from surrender to the Supreme to self-realization through posture and mental discipline. The new imagery reflects the psychology of self-help and the commercial yoga industry rather than the theology of bhakti.
The consequence: from tattva to marketing
This shift is not cosmetic. It mirrors the broader editorial problem: once Krishna is removed from the center — visually or textually — everything else changes. The meaning of yoga becomes sentimental and speculative.
Where the original cover anchored the reader in tattva (spiritual truth), the new one drifts toward māyā-vāda aesthetics — the impersonal mood of “energy,” “light,” and “universal consciousness.” It exchanges humility for abstraction, devotion for design.
Śrīla Prabhupāda’s original books were meant to preach, not to conform. The old cover declared the eternal truth of Krishna consciousness; the new one markets a diluted idea of spirituality.
In short: the original cover preaches; the new cover advertises.
And that change — from revelation to representation, from śabda-pramāṇa (divine authority) to manuṣya-pramāṇa (human taste) — is the violating of the principle of arsa-prayoga.
Arsa-Prayoga.com – Revisited is the title of an upcoming ebook that continues the work begun here on arsaprayoga.com. It re-examines the changes made to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s original books from new angles and explains why each alteration is significant.
Each example will also be posted here on arsaprayoga.com.
The article examines a major change in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.16.12, purport, where a large portion of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s original text was deleted and replaced with a much shorter version. In the original Delhi edition, personally typewritten by Śrīla Prabhupāda, the purport included a vivid cosmological description explaining how each planet is “an island in the airy ocean of outer space.” The later BBT-International edition removes most of this section, leaving only a brief mention of Bhārata-varṣa and the Mahābhārata’s description.
Since the Delhi edition was typed by Śrīla Prabhupāda himself, there is no earlier draft that could justify this change. The deletion therefore cannot be called a “restoration.” It is a posthumous editorial removal of material personally written and approved by the author.
Type of change
Deletion and condensation — a large section of original text removed and shortened.
Category
Philosophical change.
Commentary
Deletion and condensation
This is not a correction of typographical error. Substantial text has been eliminated, changing both the content and scope of the purport. Such reduction is not preservation but revision.
Loss of cosmological detail and mood
The removed section presents the Vedic conception of the universe, describing planets as islands in the airy ocean of space. This imagery expresses both philosophical meaning and devotional beauty. Its removal flattens the text, leaving a stripped-down version that weakens the reader’s sense of Vedic cosmology and spiritual wonder.
Interpretive interference
By removing this material, the editor decided which aspects of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s exposition were “essential” and which were not. That decision cannot be editorial—it is interpretive. It transfers authority from revelation to human judgment, from transmission to management.
Modern palatability
It seems likely that the editor considered Prabhupāda’s cosmological explanation too unusual or “unscientific” for modern readers and shortened it to make the purport more acceptable. This turns faithfulness into adaptation. Instead of preserving Śrīla Prabhupāda’s transcendental message, the text is reshaped to suit secular taste.
The result is not merely a shorter purport, but a reorientation of meaning: the Bhāgavatam’s bold transcendental cosmology is softened into something modern minds can tolerate. What was revelation becomes explanation.
Śrīla Prabhupāda’s original books were never meant to be adjusted for comfort. Their strength lies in direct transmission of transcendental knowledge, unbent by modern prejudice. Editing them to “help” the reader understand does not illuminate the message—it dims it. In this change, the editor crosses the line from preservation to modification, from śabda-pramāṇa (divine authority) to manuṣya-pramāṇa (human opinion).
Arsa-Prayoga.com – Revisited is the title of an upcoming ebook that continues the work begun here on arsaprayoga.com. It re-examines the changes made to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s original books from new angles and explains why each alteration is significant.
Each example will also be posted here on arsaprayoga.com.
The article shows how a small change in a purport—from “done by Krishna” to “done for Krishna”—creates a profound shift in meaning. Though it appears minor, this substitution alters the philosophical substance of the text.
Type of change Substitution — a single preposition replaced.
Category Philosophical change.
Commentary
Alters causal agency / the relationship between Krishna and activity The difference between “by Krishna” and “for Krishna” is not stylistic. It changes who is acting and whose will is primary. “Done by Krishna” means that Krishna is the direct actor, the cause behind all action. “Done for Krishna” reverses the flow, implying that the devotee acts and offers the result. That is not the same truth; it replaces divine agency with human initiative.
Changes nuance of surrender / devotional theology In the original wording, the devotee is fully dependent. He is the instrument, Krishna the mover. This is the essence of śaraṇāgati—to see Krishna as the doer in all things. The edited phrase softens that surrender. It suggests the devotee’s independent action performed on Krishna’s behalf rather than through Krishna’s will. The theology of dependence becomes a theology of contribution.
Moves from metaphysical fact to interpretive sentiment “Done by Krishna” is an ontological statement: it describes reality as it is. “Done for Krishna” is a moral sentiment: it describes how we wish to act. This subtle shift turns realization into interpretation, revelation into advice.
A single preposition has thus transformed the meaning, the mood, and the philosophy. It is not grammar; it is theology.
Arsa-Prayoga 
You must be logged in to post a comment.