Category Archives: Examples of changes

10.01.13
by

New Danish Bhagavad-gita As It Is cover against Prabhupada’s instructions

Help us by “liking” and “sharing” this post!

Recently the leading Danish editors (Lalitanath Dasa and Jahnudvipa Dasa/Jahnu Dasa) working for BBT International were made aware of this quote:

Prabhupada:

“And the covers, if possible, should always be the same for each respective book regardless of what language it may be printed in.” (Letter to Jadurani, Bombay, January 3, 1975)

Here is the cover for Prabhupada’s original 1972 edition of his Bhagavad-gita As It Is:

Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is-original_1972_Macmillan-cover

Prabhupada liked this cover so much that he wanted the Deities of Gita-nagari should be “Krishna and Arjuna, exactly as on the cover of the Bhagavad-gita.”:

Srila Prabhupada began to sow the seeds of inspiration in directing the future development of Gita-nagari farming community.  Prabhupada confirmed today that the presiding Deity should be Krsna and Arjuna, exactly as on the cover of the Bhagavad-gita. (Tamal Krishna Goswami’s Diary, Prabhupada’s Final Days, August 30)
I
Through their online magazine the Danish BBT(I) editors recently informed the Danish congregation that their new translation of the unauthorized BBT International 1983 Bhagavad-gita are to be published late November 2013. Despite being aware of the above desire and instruction from Srila Prabhupada the editors apparently decided to create their own, new cover–quite different from the original:

Skærmbillede 2013-10-01 kl. 10.05.00

Prabhupada:

“Service means you must take order from the master. That is service. Otherwise it is mental concoction. Actually, the servant requests, “How can I serve you?” So when the master orders, “You serve me like this,” then you do that, that is service. And if you manufacture your service, that is not service. That is your sense gratification. Yasya prasādād bhagavat-prasādaḥ. You have to see how he is pleased. Now if he wants a glass of water and if you bring a nice glass of milk, you can say milk is better than water, you take it. That is not service. He wants water, you give him water. Don’t manufacture better thing.” (Lecture, Bhagavad-gita 15.15, August 5, 1976, New Mayapur (French farm))

09.30.13
by

Who’s counting? 541 verses changed

Help us by “liking” and “sharing” this post!

By Krishna Kripa Devi Dasi (ACBSP) (Originally posted on adi-vani.org.)

bg_not_equal

Original and authorized 1972 edition versus the unauthorized, changed 1983 edition

See the table below for the number changed in each chapter.

How many Bhagavad-gita As It Is verses were changed in the 1983 revised edition?  Over three-fourths of them, 77% or 541 verses were changed out of 700 total.

Srila Prabhupada’s 1972 Bhagavad-gita As It Is, published by Macmillan Company, was compared with the BBT revision, first published in 1983.  Only the verses were examined.

In 21 verses (3%), only the spelling, punctuation or capitalization was changed, and the words were left intact.  In 520 verses (74%), words were removed, rearranged, or inserted.  In Chapter 17,  93% of the verses were changed.  See the table below for the number changed in each chapter.

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Verses Changed in the BBT 1983 Revised Edition

Chapters 1 – 18:  541 verses out of 700 = 77% changed

Number of Verses Changed Per Chapter

Ch 1:   35 out of 46 = 76% changed;

Ch 2:   49 out of 72 = 68% changed;

Ch 3:   33 out of 43 = 77% changed;

Ch 4:   23 out of 42 = 55% changed;

Ch 5:   19 out of 29 = 66% changed;

Ch 6:   43 out of 47 = 91% changed;

Ch 7:   22 out of 30 = 73% changed;

Ch 8:   21 out of 28 = 75% changed;

Ch 9:   24 out of 34 = 71% changed;

Ch 10:  36 out of 42 = 86% changed;

Ch 11:  50 out of 55 = 91% changed;

Ch 12:  16 out of 20 = 80% changed;

Ch 13:  24 out of 35 = 69% changed;

Ch 14:  24 out of 27 = 89% changed;

Ch 15:  15 out of 20 = 75% changed;

Ch 16:  20 out of 24 = 83% changed;

Ch 17:  26 out of 28 = 93% changed;

Ch 18:  61 out of 78 = 78% changed

09.25.13
by

Not back to “the original manuscript” (BG 13.3)

Help us by “liking” and “sharing” this post!

This article was sent to the BBT International the 15th Oct. 2013. We asked them to comment on the points raised. So far we have not received any reply.

Bhagavad-gita As It Is (13.3)

The original manuscript:

bg-original-manuscript-13.3

The authorized and approved 1972 edition:

bg-original-1972-13.3

The translation from the 1972 edition was approved by Prabhupada, and we see how it follows the draft (the so called original manuscript) very nicely. But then something strange happens in the BBT International’s 1983 edition:

The BBT International’s 1983 edition:

bg-1983-edition-13.3

We can see that the BBT International have changed the word “owner” to “knower” in the second line. Why? Searching the BBT International’s website and the internet we have found no information on why this change was made.

Questions to the BBT International:

Before you changed Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is verse 13.3…

  • Did you know that Prabhupada approved the galley proofs / the blueprint of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is, and according to Brahmananda Das (at that time swami) Prabhupada read the complete galley proofs before approving them to be sent to MacMillan to be used for printing what became the original and authorized 1972 edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is?
  • Did you know that Prabhupada lectured many times on BG 13.3, and that he did not object to the word “owner” in the translation? Did you know he actually reconfirmed the word “owner” by using it in these lectures?

Pusta Krsna:

ksetra-jnam capi mam viddhi
sarva-ksetresu bharata
ksetra-ksetrajnayor jnanam
yat taj jnanam matam mama

Translation: “O scion of Bharata, you should understand that I am also the knower in all bodies, and to understand this body and its owner is called knowledge. That is My opinion.”

Prabhupada: That is greatness. This is the distinction. God is great. I know about my body, you know about your body, but God knows about your body and my body and his body and every… That is greatness. (Evening Darsana — July 6, 1976, Washington, D.C.)

Hari-sauri:

ksetra-jnam capi mam viddhi
sarva-ksetresu bharata
ksetra-ksetrajnayor jnanam
yat taj jnanam matam mama
[Bg. 13.3]

Prabhupada: Ksetra-ksetrajnayor jnanam yat taj jnanam matam mama. English?

Hari-sauri: “O scion of Bharata, you should understand that I am also the knower in all bodies, and to understand this body and its owner is called knowledge. That is My opinion.”

Prabhupada: First of all knowledge means ksetra-ksetrajna. The body is the field of activity. You are acting, I am also acting, everyone is acting — according to the body. But the actor is called ksetrajna. Just like a cultivator is tilling the land, his own, and the tiller is cultivator. Similarly, this body is an analogy of this field, and we are tilling. So Krsna says that “I am also one of the tillers.” Just like the tenant and the landlord. In an apartment house, the tenant is occupier of a certain house, certain apartment, but the landlord is the owner of the whole house. So God says “I am also ksetrajna — but for all the buildings.” Everything that is there, all planets, all, everywhere. That is His all-pervasiveness. I am the proprietor of this body, owner of this body, but God is proprietor of all the bodies. In this way that is explained.” (Room Conversation with George Gullen, President of Wayne State University — June 15, 1976, Detroit)

“So people are taking this, that “I am this body.” That is ignorance. If they know, if one knows that “I am not this body; I am proprietor of this body, I’ll have to work with this body for my future,” then that is knowledge. Etad yo vetti ksetra-jna, knower, one who knows. That is the beginning of knowledge. Then Krsna says,

ksetra-jnam capi mam viddhi
sarva-ksetresu bharata
ksetra-ksetra-jnayor jnanam
yat taj jnanam matam mama
[Bg. 13.3]

Krsna is giving His opinion, the Supreme Authority, that “If you want to know, if you want to be in knowledge, this is knowledge.” What is that? “That this body, you are not this body; you are the owner of the body. And you should know also that the there is another person. As you are a person, you are owner of this body, there is another person.” Who is that? “That is I am.” Krsna says. Ksetra-jnam capi mam viddhi: “I am also owner of this body.” Actually Krsna is the owner of the body. Just like in a, in an apartment, there is the occupier and the landlord…Similarly, Krsna is the real owner of this body because Krsna has given me this body just to occupy it and work. So far. Not that I am the actual proprietor of this body.” (As the body is our field for cultivating Krsna conscious ness, so the land is our field for cultivating food…Vedic civilization means every man should produce his own food. More precise reference to be added soon)

Devotee: “O scion of Bharata, you should also understand that I am also the knower in all bodies and to understand this body and its owner is called knowledge. That is my opinion.”

Prabhupada: So Arjuna inquired from Krsna six things: ksetra, ksetrajna, prakrti, purusa, jnanam, jneyam. What is knowledge and what is the object of knowledge. (Bhagavad-gita 13.3 — Paris, August 11, 1973)

Nitai: Translation: “O scion of Bharata, you should understand that I am also the knower in all bodies, and to understand this body and its owner is called knowledge. That is My opinion.”

Prabhupada:

ksetra-jnam capi mam viddhi
sarva-ksetresu bharata
ksetra-ksetra-jnayor jnanam
yat taj jnanam matam mama
[Bg. 13.3]

Jnanam, knowledge. The Supreme Personality of Godhead Krsna is explaining about knowledge. People are being educated all over the world for advancement of knowledge. Knowledge is meant for the human being, not for the cats and dogs. Therefore, for human being, there are so many universities, schools, colleges, institutions, laws. There are so many things (indistinct) to advance knowledge is to understand “Who am I?” If I do not know who am I, then what is the meaning of my advancement of knowledge? Generally, despite so many universities all over the world, people are going on in the concept of this body, “I am this body.” “I am Indian,” “I am American,” “I am Hindu,” “I am Muslim.” So everyone is identifying himself with this material body. Then where is the advancement of knowledge? Here Krsna says, ksetra-ksetra-jnayor jnanam yad jnanam, taj jnanam matam mama. The ksetra, this body, and the owner of the body… I am not this body, I am the owner of this body. This is jnanam. (Bhagavad-gita 13.3 — Hyderabad, April 19, 1974)

  • Did you know that Prabhupada used the words “knower”, “owner”, “occupier” and “proprietor” many times for both the soul and Krishna? And many times when referring specifically to BG 13.3? And did you know that Prabhupada often translated ksetra-jna as both the “knower of the body”, “owner of the body”, “possessor of the body” and “proprietor of the body”?

“But there is another living being. He is supreme living being, Krsna. He says that “I know everything of everyone’s body.” Ksetra-jnam capi mam viddhi sarva-ksetresu bharata [Bg. 13.3]. This is the verse. Ksetra-jna means the knower of the body. You are individual knower of your body; I am knower individually of my body.” (Lecture at Boys’ School — Sydney, May 12, 1971)

“In Bhagavad-gita it is said, ksetra-jnam capi mam viddhi sarva-ksetresu bharata [Bg. 13.3]. Everything is there. The ksetra-jna means the possessor of this ksetra, body, the owner or occupier.” (Bhagavad-gita 7.3 — London, March 11, 1975)

“The ksetra jna, the owner of the body, is also called the khaga, the living entity. Within the body there are two such ksetra jnas — the individual soul and the Supersoul. The individual soul is the owner of his individual body, but the Supersoul is present within the bodies of all living entities.” (SB 10.2.27)

“In another place, Krsna says this dehi or ksetra-jna, the owner of the body is there, and there is another ksetra-jna, another owner. That is Krsna. Ksetra-jnam capi mam viddhi sarva-ksetresu bharata [Bg. 13.3]. As the individual soul is there within the body, similarly, the Supersoul, Krsna, is also there.” (Bhagavad-gita 2.30 — London, August 31, 1973)

“In another place also Krsna says ksetra-jnam capi mam viddhi sarva-ksetresu bharata [Bg. 13.3]. The question of the ksetra-jna, the owner of the body and the body. In this Chapter, in the Thirteenth Chapter, it is discussed. So in that chapter Krsna says that “I am also one of the owner of the body,…”” (Bhagavad-gita 9.3 — Toronto, June 20, 1976)

“In the Bhagavad-gita Krsna says, ksetrah ksetra-jnah. Ksetra-jnam capi mam viddhi sarva-ksetresu bharata [Bg. 13.3]. Ksetra-jna means the proprietor of the ksetra, this body. Body is called ksetra. So I am proprietor.” (Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.25.4 — Bombay, November 4, 1974)

(For more references please search the Vedabase/folio for these key words in relation to BG. 13.3. There are too many examples to include them all here).

The BBT International can’t justify this change from “owner” to “knower” in BG 13.3 by referring to the so called original manuscript, Prabhupada’s desires, to faulty sanskrit translation, to meaning, to spelling or to grammar.

Then how will they justify it?

09.24.13
by

A little learning is dangerous

Help us by “liking” and “sharing” this post!sp-pointing-finger

According to Satsvarupa Goswami in his Prabhupada Lilamrita Srila Prabhupada said arsha-prayoga establishing a no change policy:

But one day while sitting in the garden with Tamala Krsna, Svarupa Damodara, and others, Srila Prabhupada became very disturbed when he detected a mistake in one of his already printed books. Tamala Krsna was reading aloud a verse from the First Canto which began, “Munayah sadhu prsto ‘ham.” Srila Prabhupada had him read the synonyms.

Tamala Krsna read: “munayah-O sages; sadhu-this is relevant; prstah-questioned… ”

“Sadhu?” asked Srila Prabhupada. Thus he uncovered a thoughtless mistake made by the Sanskrit editors. Sadhu means “devotee,” not “this is relevant.” Srila Prabhupada became very angry and denounced the “rascal Sanskrit scholars.” “A little learning,” he said “is dangerous. Immediately they think they have become big scholar, thinking, “I shall arrange!’ And then they write all nonsense.” He continued speaking about the mistake for half an hour. He was disturbed. He ordered Tamala Krsna to write at once to the BBT and stop these speculations by his disciples-changing his books in the name of editing The devotees were startled to see Prabhupada so angry; he was supposed to be peacefully relishing a Srimad-Bhagavatam reading here in his garden. Such a change was very serious, he said, because it changed the meaning. “Even if the authorized acaryas would make a mistake,” he said, “it would not be changed. This is arsa-prayoga. In this way the acaryas are honored.” (Srila Prabhupada Lilamrita, chapter 52 “I Have Done My Part”)

09.21.13
by

Debate with Brahmananda Das (ACBSP) about the book changes

Help us by “liking” and “sharing” this post!
Srila-Prabhupada-speaks-to-Brahmananda-on-Juhu-Beach-Bombay-290x166
Prabhupada speaks with Brahmananda
—–
The following exchange between Brahmananda Das (ACBSP) and myself took place on the Facebook profile of Palaka Dasa. I have deleted comments not related to the specific exchange between Brahmananda Prabhu and myself.
–

In ’72 Gita in every Text for the Sanskrit words “sri bhagavan uvaca” the Synonym is “The Supreme Personality of Godhead Said” but the Translation is “The Blessed Lord Said.” Why are the Synonym and the Translation for the same Sanskrit completely different? I think I know the answer to this but does Palaka Dasa and Ajit Krishna Dasa know?

Dear Brahmananda Prabhu! Dandavat pranam! Jaya Srila Prabhupada!

The ultimate reason it is there is because Prabhupada approved it. He and Hayagriva worked on the BG before it was printed in 68. After that Prabhupada gave lectures from it and read it. And in a conversation he approved that the verses as they were in the 68 edition could be used for the 72 edition also.Another thing is that Prabhupada would often give one word in the word-for-word and another in the translation. That is often seen in his books. That is his prerogative as author. And it gives us the possibility to see both words.

All for now,
Your humble servant,
Ajit Krishna Dasa

Here is the place where Prabhupada approves of the verses from the 68 edition being used also for the 72 edition.

Prabhupada had all the chances in the world to change “The blessed Lord” to “The Supreme Personality of Godhead”, but he didn’t. Then on what authority can we change it?

Hayagriva: I would like to see that in going over mine. I’ll have to go over it chapter by chapter. But I will compare the version I have with that version, and… I know the translations themselves, they were somewhat changed in Bhagavad-gītā As It Is as it came out in Macmillan. Did you like those translations?
Prabhupāda: Whichever is better, you think. That’s all. You can follow this Macmillan.
Hayagrīva: That was the second… They’re good. I think they’re very good.
Prabhupāda: Yes. You can follow that translation. Simply synonyms he can add, transliterations.
Hayagrīva: And we have all the purports. We can include everything. Nothing will be deleted. Everything will be in there.
Prabhupāda: That’s all right.
(Discussion with BTG Staff, December 24, 1969, Boston)

 Brahmananda Das

BTW it was not Hayagriva who was the main editor of BG; it was Rayarama, who edited BG for two periods of time. I personally took the ms. away from H. and gave it to R. on SP’s order when H. went into maya. Till this day I still recall H.’s brutal words against SP when he wanted to crack our faith in SP. “The incident of Kirtanananda and Hayagriva chapter may now be closed. We shall always pray to Krishna for their recovery and we should not seriously take their counter propaganda. I am sure they will flap for some time without any effect on our Krishna Consciousness, service. Let us go ahead with our work and everything will be all right. Most important thing at present is to deal with MacMillan Co. Regarding editing of my books it was rightly entrusted to you from the very beginning but Kirtanananda wanted that the editing should be done by Hayagriva. But I understand from your version that in some places of Gita Upanisad he (Hayagriva) has followed Swami Nikilananda who is quite unaware of Krishna Consciousness. By their present behavior it appears that Hayagriva belongs to the same feather and Krishna has saved His Gita Upanisad by transferring the whole thing into your hands. Now please do your best and hand it over to MacMillan Co. for necessary action.” SPL to Rayarama 67/11/15

 Ajit Krishna Dasa

Dear Brahmananda Prabhu! Thanks for your answer.

I think the real question is not who was the main editor behind Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is or what the editors said or did. The main thing is Prabhupada’s relationship to his Bhagavad-gita As It Is. We find no information, as far as I can judge, in your statements or quotes that can be used as sufficient or necessary evidence to support any posthumous changes in Prabhupada’s books. It would be nice if you could point out precisely what you think is the necessary or sufficient evidence, so that we can all see and evaluate it. You said in your first comment that you had some special knowledge about how “The Blessed Lord” came to be in the translations. Maybe you can tell us about it?

Your humble servant,
Ajit Krishna Dasa

End of exchange

09.14.13
by

Is Jayadvaita Swami still good?

Help us by “liking” and “sharing” this post!

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

BBT International and their supporters often attempt to justify the changes made to Prabhupada books by Jayadvaita Swami by pointing out that Prabhupada a couple if times spoke highly of his editing work.

This article will show that these statements by Prabhupada can’t be construed to mean that Jayadvaita Swami editing work after Prabhupada’s disappearance is pleasing to Prabhupada.

From BBT International’s website:

“Of course, regarding Jayadvaita Swami, the BBT’s chief editor, Srila Prabhupada wrote, “Concerning the editing of Jayadvaita Prabhu, whatever he does is approved by me. I have confidence in him.” (letter to Radhavallabha, 7 September 1976)

BBT International and their supporters often speak about this quote from Prabhupada as if it was some kind of blessing from Prabhupada that makes Jayadvaita Swami and his editing infallible even to this very day. This, of course, makes no sense and even Jayadvaita Swami himself admits that he sometimes commits mistakes in his editing. One example of this is his changing “Visnu Form” into the “Visnu platform”:

visnu-platform

(Click to enlarge picture)

So it’s obvious that we can’t take the statement “…whatever he does is approved by me” too literal. In order to be continuously approved by Prabhupada Jayadvaita Swami need to continuously meet certain criteria set forth by Prabhupada and sastra in regard to editing protocol. If it can be argued in any way that the editing policy of BBT International compromises the transcendental potency of Prabhupada’s books, or if Jayadvaita Swami becomes an atheist or a mayavadi or falls down and or if he somehow goes against the direct instructions of Prabhupada in his editing proces, then we must conclude that his editing is unauthorized and must be stopped. He can then no longer be “approved”.

This blog and several other websites have for years been showing that there is no evidence to support even the slightest change in Prabhupada’s books. It has been shown how Jayadvaita Swami does not at all perform his editing work according to the accepted protocol set forth by Prabhupada (“NO CHANGES”), sastra (arsa-prayoga) and even academic scholars. We have shown how he is actually sabotaging the books – however well-intentioned he may be.

So even though Prabhupada spoke highly of Jayadvaita Swami’s editing 40 years ago it does not make Jayadvaita Swami infallible, and it does not mean that he can just do whatever he likes to Prabhupada books.

The other quote that BBT International and their supporter often refer to is this:

From BBT International’s website:

“And in the conversation where Srila Prabhupada complained so strongly about “rascals editors,” Srila Prabhupada said about Jayadvaita, “He is good.””

So 40 years ago Prabhupada said about Jayadvaita Swami that he was “good”. Does it then follow logically or experientally that he is still “good”? Obviously not! There are several examples of Prabhupada at one point praising some of his disciple, and then at a later point criticized them severely.

Prahlada-Nrsimha Prabhu has written a very nice article about this (published on bookchanges.com):

Just because Srila Prabhupada at one point said someone was a good man, does that mean that they are one now? Srila Prabhupada liked many devotees at one point and at that point put them in positions of power and authority and praised them, but later on down the road he changed his opinion about them and/or they went astray or deviated to one degree or another. So although at one point Prabhupada approved of someone and complimented them, that does not mean that from that point on they are bona-fide no matter what they do. Here are a few examples to further examine this point.

One Prabhupada disciple did HUGE service for Prabhupada, pushing on the book distribution mission (probably) more than any other Prabhupada disciple in ISKCON’s history, and was pretty much running ISKCON at one point. But later he changed the basic rules of the four regulative principles to three. Does that mean because he had so many thousands of disciples, and at one point was so dear to Srila Prabhupada that Prabhupada even commented on how he was so intelligent and empowered, that now we should all only have three regulative principles instead of four and continue to follow this devotee?

There were so many big, big devotees that Srila Prabhupada personally gave sannyasa to but later on Srila Prabhupada became so fed up with their deviations that he said that they should give up those positions as sannyasi! Srila Prabhupada even said “This should be strictly outlawed, no more sannyasis….there will be no sannyasi anymore.”

(Room Conversation — January 7, 1977, Bombay)

Srila Prabhupada established the GBC as the ultimate managing authority for all ISKCON. But at one point Srila Prabhupada totally disbanded the whole of the GBC within ISKCON due to their deviations! So simply because at one point in time Srila Prabhupada appointed them to power and trusted them, does that give them permanent power? No! At any time anyone can lose their position and power and deviate or go astray and at that point one is no longer authorized and empowered.

I feel the most relevant example is from the concluding words of the Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, dated November 10, 1974

“Now, by the grace of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and his Divine Grace Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, it is finished. In this connection I have to thank my American disciples, especially Sriman Pradyumna dasa Adhikari, Sriman Nitai dasa Adhikari, Sriman Jayadvaita dasa Brahmacari and many other boys and girls who are sincerely helping me in writing, editing and publishing all these literatures.”

But then on February 27, 1977 in Mayapura India Srila Prabhupada says “Nitai, he’s a rascal.”

Unfortunately there are so many examples I could mention, but in order to not depress/and embarrass all of us unnecessarily in this article I will stop here.

In conclusion, we have shown how the above two claims by the BBT International about Jayadvaita Swami being “good” and his work being “approved” by Prabhupada can’t be used to justify the changes he has made to Prabhupada’s books. And that they can’t be used as a guarantee that Jayadvaita Swami has not comitted mistakes himself or that he has pleased Prabhupada by his work.

09.13.13
by

“Rascal Editors” (Prabhupada Conversations, June 22, 1977, Vrindavana)

Help us by “liking” and “sharing” this post!

Read the complete conversation here.

09.13.13
by

Original and authorized 1969 Sri Isopanisad (audio book)

Help us by “liking” and “sharing” this post!

Prabhupada became extremely concerned when he was informed that his own BBT had changed his Sri Isopanisad and he wanted it published again “the original way”. However, this instruction was never followed.

But here is the original version in audio and as ebook for FREE from krishnapath.org:

Sri_Isopanisad_original

FREE ORIGINAL AND AUTHORIZED SRI ISOPANISAD AUDIO AND EBOOK

“The next printing should be again to the original way.”

Yasoda-nandana: Sometimes they appeal that “We can make better English,” so they change like that, just like in the case of Isopanisad. There are over a hundred changes. So where is the need? Your words are sufficient. The potency is there. When they change, it is something else.

Svarupa Damodara: That’s actually a very dangerous mentality.

Yasoda-nandana: What is it going to be in five years? It’s going to be a different book.

Prabhupada: So you… What you are going… It is very serious situation. You write one letter that “Why you have made so many changes?” And whom to write? Who will care? All rascals are there. Write to Satsvarupa that “This is the position. They are doing anything and everything at their whim. The next printing should be again to the original way.”

(S.P. Conversation, “Rascal Editors,”June 22, 1977, Vrndavana)

09.12.13
by

Lord Ramacandra removed from Bhagavad-gita, As It Is (10.31 purport)

Help us by “liking” and “sharing” this post!

This article was sent to the BBT International the 17th Oct. 2013. We asked them to comment on the points raised. So far we have not received any reply.

By Ajit Krishna Dasa
rama-nama

Changes have been made to the purport of verse 10.31 in Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita:

Here is a complete comparison of BG. 10.31 in Prabhupada’s 1972-edition and BBT International’s 1983 edition:

Continue reading →

09.09.13
by

Cover Up

Help us by “liking” and “sharing” this post!

By Bhakta Torben Nielsen

(This was originally posted in the Sampradaya Sun.)

bg-cover-original

Here in Denmark we have a “new” version of Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is (supposedly), coming up. One of the editors, Jahnu/Jahnudvipa prabhu, publicized his suggestion for a front cover (pictured below). As everyone can see, by comparison, it is different, in so many ways, from Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is. This is a local example, but from research on the Internet, it is easily seen how widespread this corruption is.

Srila Prabhupada:

“And the covers, if possible, should always be the same for each respective book regardless of what language it may be printed in.” (Letter to Jadurani, Bombay, January 3, 1975)

“Regarding Bhagavad-gita, enlarged edition, the picture approved by me to Jadurani is all right.” (Letter to: Satsvarupa – Los Angeles 31 July, 1970)

A subsequent “debate” on editor Jahnu’s suggestion of a Bhagavad-gita cover was quickly censored, including Jahnu’s picture. The topic was banned, as there is a stricture on that facebook forum (Krishna.dk) not to bring up “institutional”, “controversial” or “negative” material.

The idiotic irony is that bringing up the topic is “controversial” and forbidden – but DOING these things, changing the books, is fine.

jahnus-cover-bg-1

Jahnu’s Suggested Bhagavad-gita cover

______________________________________________

A few comments from Ajit Krishna Dasa (not featured in the post at Sampradaya Sun)

It is truly astonishing to see the amount of mistakes on this suggested cover:

  • Bhagavad-gita is wrongly spelled with capital “G” in “gita. It is supposed to be a small “g”.

Prabhupada says:

“Regarding the listing of the Bhagavad-gita in the religion catalog of MacMillan, they have spelled it Bhagavid Gita and not Bhagavad-gita As It Is. I do not know why they should commit such mistake, I hope that this will not hamper the sales. Please point out this discrepancy to Mr. Wade.” (Letter to Brahmananda, Los Angeles, 19 December, 1968)

  • Over the “i” and the “a” there should be a line. That could be excused if this is not the final version, and the sanskrit diacritics will be added later.
  • On the original it says “As It Is”. In Jahnu’s this is changed to only capital letters “SOM DEN ER”.
  • On the original books it says “His Divine grace”. On Jahnu’s we find “Sri Srimad A.C…”
  • Regarding the artwork itself. Prabhupada was happy about the front cover of his 1972 edition. He approved it. He never asked for it to be changed at any point. The original cover is shining, it gives the impression of heroism, chivalry and fighting for the right cause. The colors on Jahnu’s cover is dark, boring and depressing. Prabhupada said that if a painting should be changed it should be the exact same scene, but made better (read more about this here). On Jahnu’s cover we find a different scene, and the dark and depressing colors certainly does’nt make it better.

I find it truly astonishing how a BBT International editor like Jahnu, who has been working for BBTI for more than 20 years, doesn’t know or care about the clear instructions from Srila Prabhupada regarding front covers, artwork and text-editing. The amount of speculation Jahnu puts into his cover is amazing.