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.
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’sposthumously 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.
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.
During a class at the Bhaktivedanta Manor, Malati Devi Dasi recounted a well-known episode from Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta where Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu corrected a single-word alteration made by Sarvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, the renowned scholar of Jagannātha Purī.
After becoming a devotee, Sarvabhauma was so overwhelmed with joy that he modified the word “mukti-pade” in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.14.8, replacing it with “bhakti-pade.” Although his intention was devotional, Mahāprabhu corrected him, explaining that “mukti-pade” is already a beautiful name of Kṛṣṇa, and śāstra must not be altered based on sentiment or preference.
Malati Devi Dasi drew a direct parallel to modern tendencies to edit sacred texts:
“Nowadays we also have people who like to change words from the holy scriptures, and some of us don’t appreciate it very much. … Śrīla Prabhupāda commented, ‘Write your own.’ In other words, one shouldn’t change. You can write your own.”
Her words are especially significant in light of the Arsa-Prayoga principle, which holds that the words of the ācārya are sacred and should not be edited or “improved” posthumously – like it has been done by Jayadvaita Swami, Dravida Dasa and the BBTI. Just as Mahāprabhu upheld the integrity of the original Bhāgavatam verse, devotees today are called to preserve Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books – like his Bhagavad-gita As It Is – exactly as he approved them — without revision or re-interpretation.
Three Key Points to Note
Malati Devi Dasi’s Personal Stance While Malati Devi spoke strongly against altering śāstra or works of ācāryas, it is not entirely clear what her full position is regarding the specific changes made to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books. We respectfully invite her to elaborate further — especially given her stature as one of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s earliest and most respected disciples.
The Arsa-Prayoga Principle This sacred principle — “Do not correct the ācārya” — has historically been recognized throughout the Vaiṣṇava tradition. Śrīla Prabhupāda himself invoked this principle when arguing against revising earlier editions of Bhagavad-gītā and Bhāgavatam by other commentators. “Write your own,” he said. Changing the master’s work, even with good intentions, severs the disciplic link by overlaying the disciple’s mind over the guru’s words.
The Lesson from Sarvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya Sarvabhauma’s change of one word was born of devotion, but Mahāprabhu still corrected it. If the Lord Himself did not approve of devotional word-swapping, what to speak of posthumous textual reconstruction by conditioned disciples decades later? The story demonstrates that no matter how exalted the editor or emotional the inspiration, śāstra and ācārya-vāṇī are not ours to adjust.
The full transcription, audio and video excerpt from Malati Devi Dasi’s class will be included below for reference.
If nothing else, the class was a timely reminder that great caution — and deep humility — is required when dealing with the words of the Lord and His pure devotee.
“So Mahaprabhu said, today I have been transported beyond the three worlds and I’ve been taken to Vaikuntha. All my desires have been fulfilled simply because Sarvabhauma has developed faith in Mahaprasad. And as a result of this, his attitude, Sarvabhauma’s attitude has also changed. And his conversion, it was like a conversion on that day. So he recited a verse of the Bhagavatam, and in that verse, in his newfound ecstasy and realizations, he changed one word. So I think nowadays we also have, we also have people that like to change words from the holy scriptures, and we don’t appreciate, some of us don’t appreciate it very much. So he altered one word. So the verse is well-known, 10.14.8 [Malati recites the Sanskrit], and here’s what he changed. So in the original version, it’s not bhakti-pade. And the verse in English, one who lives his life while joyfully seeing everything as your compassion, meaning the Lord’s compassion, so one who lives his life while joyfully seeing everything as your compassion, even as he experiences adverse conditions arriving from his past deeds, and constantly, nonetheless, constantly pays obeisances to you with his mind, words, and body, is certain to inherit a place at your lotus feet, the object of all devotion. So the original word was mukti-pade, and he changed that mukti-pade to bhakti-pade. And Mahaprabhu explained that there’s no need to change the words of mukti-pade, the source of liberation. It’s a epithet for Krishna. And Vasudeva answered, you’re quite correct to say that the words mukti-pade refer to Krishna, but the word mukti was used customarily in the sense of impersonal liberation, and thus it didn’t bring the same great pleasure as the word bhakti. So that, you know, for somebody who’s maybe not quite as astute, that may ring a bell. Yeah, that’s right. But that’s not how you approach a shastra, and particularly if your books are coming to you from jagat guru Srila Prabhupada, one should be very circumspect. So the other, when the other scholars in Puri heard that Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya had been converted to devotion to Krishna, because he’d been, you know, he’d been an impersonalist. And when they heard about this conversion to Krishna, then all of them took shelter of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. You know, like our verse from the Gita, that whatever the great man does, the common man will follow. He was a great man, he was a much revered and respected personality, and now he was joining the cult of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. And so they also followed, just like by getting the Beatles to chant Hare Krishna, by getting George in particular, it affected generations. Even to this day, people come across, oh, George Harrison chanted Hare Krishna, and they see the Krishna book with his signature, and immediately they’re attracted. But regards to changing the original text of the Shastra, Srila Prabhupada commented, write your own. In other words, one shouldn’t change. You can write your own.”
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.
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.
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:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Argument for changing “planet of trees” to “planet of pitris”:
“Surely no one is claiming that ‘planet of trees’ was Śrīla Prabhupāda’s intended wording. It was clearly a transcription error, not his philosophical statement. The Sanskrit verse itself says pitṝn — meaning the forefathers — so the translation should read ‘planet of Pitṛs.’
Correcting this is not speculation or rewriting Śrīla Prabhupāda’s teachings; it’s simply fixing a typographical mistake introduced by a disciple who misheard or mistyped the word during transcription.
If we refuse to correct even such obvious human errors, then we’re not preserving Śrīla Prabhupāda’s message — we’re preserving someone else’s mistake. Surely Śrīla Prabhupāda would want his books to be accurate and consistent with the Sanskrit, not left with an obvious blunder that misrepresents his meaning.
So why shouldn’t we correct what is demonstrably wrong?”
The Logical Skeleton of the “Planet of Trees” Problem
Let’s define the argument formally and trace the logic step by step.
The Act
An editor proposes to change the phrase “planet of trees” in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s text.
Let’s denote:
A: the act of editing (in this case, changing “planet of trees”) P: the principle or justification offered for editing
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 or factually 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.
But behind every such justification lies a network of unspoken assumptions. These assumptions are rarely admitted, but they silently shape the reasoning that allows the change. They are:
Assumption of Superior Understanding: The editor assumes he understands the Sanskrit, the author’s intention, and the correct translation better than the edition Śrīla Prabhupāda personally approved and distributed.
Assumption of Posthumous Authority: It is assumed that one has the right to alter the work of a departed ācārya, even though he explicitly warned against posthumous changes.
Assumption of Editorial Infallibility: The editor presumes that his perception of what is “obviously wrong” is reliable, objective, and free from personal or cultural bias.
Assumption of Legitimate Precedent: It is assumed that this one change will remain isolated — that it will not logically justify further changes made for similar reasons.
Assumption of Empirical Verification: The Sanskrit is treated as an unambiguous, mechanical key to what Śrīla Prabhupāda must have meant, as though his English usage and spiritual purpose can be reduced to literal Sanskrit equivalence.
Assumption of Authorized Reconstruction: The act of posthumous editing is seen not as alteration but as “restoration,” implying that human reconstruction can better represent revelation than the ācārya’s own approved work.
Assumption of Non-Transcendental Editing: The editing and publishing done under Śrīla Prabhupāda’s supervision are assumed to be purely material processes, not sanctified by his approval or by the paramparā principle of transmission.
Assumption of Harmless Intent: It is believed that because the motive is sincere or scholarly, altering the guru’s words cannot be spiritually harmful.
Assumption of Human-Centric Epistemology: Truth is viewed as something improved by human refinement and correction rather than preserved by faithful hearing and transmission.
Assumption of Continuity Through Change: It is presumed that one can modify the form of revelation while maintaining the same authority — that textual alteration does not alter metaphysical authenticity.
Each of these assumptions is philosophically weighty. Together they invert the traditional hierarchy of authority: revelation is no longer the standard to which the human intellect submits, but the raw material upon which the intellect exercises control.
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.
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.
Slippery Slope Formalized
We can now model the chain of reasoning:
1) Accept A₁: “Change planet of trees for clarity.” 2) This implies acceptance of P₁: “We may change anything that increases clarity.” 3) By universalizability, P₁ applies to any word, sentence, or concept. 4)The editor, being the judge of clarity, now possesses implicit interpretive authority. 5) 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.
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 obviously mistaken phrases like “planet of trees”, but not others.”
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.
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.
Conclusion
The argument against even changing “planet of trees” 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.
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.
The original Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, published during Śrīla Prabhupāda’s lifetime, features Krishna and Arjuna in the midst of the Kurukṣetra battlefield. Krishna, serene yet commanding, drives the chariot; Arjuna, bow in hand, reaches for an arrow, ready to act. The scene is dynamic, radiant, and filled with purpose. It embodies the Gītā’s central message — divine action under Krishna’s direction.
In contrast, the later BBT International cover replaces this vivid scene with a sepia-toned, static composition. Krishna and Arjuna sit quietly, the battlefield emptied of movement and power. The tone is reflective rather than transcendental, subdued rather than triumphant.
Type of change
Visual substitution — replacement of the original dynamic battlefield scene with a subdued, neutral reinterpretation.
Category
Philosophical change.
Commentary
The original cover: divine engagement and fearless surrender
Śrīla Prabhupāda’s approved cover proclaims the philosophy of the Gītā through imagery. Arjuna acts under Krishna’s order — his bow raised, but his heart surrendered. This is yoga in motion — not escapism, but spiritual courage.
The colors are rich, the composition alive. The scene radiates energy and conviction. It declares that Krishna consciousness is not an abstraction but a living call to act under divine direction. Śrīla Prabhupāda’s purpose was to awaken the world, and the cover reflects that sense of urgency and truth.
The viewer can feel the śakti — the divine energy of the moment when the soul, guided by Krishna, takes up its duty. This was not designed as decoration; it was preaching in paint.
The new cover: aesthetic calm and philosophical retreat
The later BBT International design strips that vitality away. Krishna and Arjuna now appear passive, framed in a gentle sepia hue. The dynamic exchange of surrender and command is replaced with composure and stillness. The mood has shifted from revelation and spiritual revolution to respectability.
This change did not happen by accident. The likely reason was discomfort — the fear that Arjuna with a drawn bow might look too “militant,” that the world might see the Gītā as a book of conflict. To avoid misunderstanding, they drained the image of its conviction. But by doing so, they did exactly what Prabhupāda warned against: they compromised the message to fit modern taste.
The result is art that pleases the world but fails to challenge it. The battlefield has become a conversation; surrender has become suggestion.
The original showed Krishna leading; the new shows Krishna posing. The first commands reverence; the second invites indifference.
From message to impression
The original cover invited readers into Krishna’s presence. The new one invites them into neutrality. The first preaches; the second performs. The first says, “Here is God leading His devotee.” The second says, “Here is a peaceful scene from an ancient text.”
This is not refinement — it is retreat. The battlefield of the soul has been turned into a soft philosophical setting, safe for polite society but stripped of its divine tension.
When sacred power is replaced by compositional balance, the Gītā stops being a living revelation and becomes a cultural artifact.
Conclusion
Śrīla Prabhupāda’s original cover was both spiritually bold and visually beautiful — suitable for any setting because it carried truth without apology. The replacement, though visually refined, removes the transcendental urgency and courage that the Gītā was meant to awaken.
To replace revelation with restraint is not service but revision. And that quiet reduction — the removal of vitality, immediacy, and surrender — is the violation of the principle of arsa-prayoga.
Image Notes:
Left — Original 1972 cover approved by Śrīla Prabhupāda. Krishna and Arjuna in divine motion on the battlefield of Kurukṣetra, embodying surrender and duty under Krishna’s order.
Right — Later BBT International edition. A static, sepia reinterpretation that replaces transcendental engagement with polite serenity.
Arsa-Prayoga 
You must be logged in to post a comment.