Earlier Drafts Are Not Final Authority

Why the “Original Manuscripts” Cannot Overrule Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Approved Bhagavad-gītā As It Is

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

One of the central arguments used to justify the posthumous revision of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Bhagavad-gītā As It Is is that the revised edition brings the book closer to the “original manuscripts.” At first hearing, this may sound reasonable. If an earlier manuscript contains wording different from the published edition, some may assume that the earlier wording must be closer to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own intention.

But that assumption is not sound.

The so-called “original manuscripts” cannot simply be treated as a single, faultless, final, authorially approved text. They are textual witnesses from different stages of production. Some materials are typed pages. Some are transcriptions from tapes. Some are retyped manuscripts. Some had already passed through earlier editorial handling. In some cases, earlier sources were no longer available.

Jayādvaita Swami himself has acknowledged that “original manuscripts” means different things in different sections of the Gītā. For the first five or six chapters, the term refers to manuscripts apparently typed by Śrīla Prabhupāda himself. For the middle six chapters, it refers to original transcriptions of his tapes. For the last chapters, it refers to old retyped manuscripts from which the 1972 Macmillan edition was produced. He further states that the retyped manuscripts for the last six chapters were copied from original transcriptions “on which much editing had already been done,” and that the original transcriptions themselves were apparently lost before 1972 [Jayādvaita Swami, “About this conference and about the manuscripts,” Bhagavad-gītā Revisions Explained, Part 2].

Therefore, the central question cannot merely be, “What does an earlier manuscript say?” The real question is: “What did Śrīla Prabhupāda approve, authorize, publish, use, lecture from, and give to the world?”

Earlier textual material may be historically useful. It may help scholars understand how the book developed. It may illuminate editorial decisions. It may reveal possible problems in the production history. But it cannot automatically overrule an edition Śrīla Prabhupāda approved during his manifest presence.

Manuscripts Are Witnesses, Not Masters

A manuscript is not the same thing as final authorial intention. A draft may contain wording the author later rejected. It may preserve an incomplete stage of thought or presentation. It may include transcription errors. It may contain phrasing that was later improved in consultation with an editor. It may reflect a stage before the author’s final approval.

This is especially important in the case of Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, because Śrīla Prabhupāda’s book went through a real process of dictation, typing, editing, proofreading, printing, and approval. The earlier manuscript layer was not the final public act of the author. The approved published editions were.

A manuscript may testify. It may illuminate. It may raise questions. But it cannot rule over the author-approved published book.

To say that a reading is “closer to the manuscript” does not necessarily mean that it is closer to Śrīla Prabhupāda. It may only mean that it is closer to an earlier draft, a transcription, an unfinished reading, or a wording that was later superseded. This distinction is essential.

Dictation and Transcription Were Not Faultless Processes

Many of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books were dictated on a Grundig dictating machine. This allowed him to produce a vast amount of transcendental literature, but it also created practical problems. Jayādvaita Swami acknowledges that this method meant Śrīla Prabhupāda had less opportunity to review and revise his words, that he sometimes spoke passages twice, and that he had to depend on the accuracy of transcribers [Jayādvaita Swami, “Editing the Unchangeable Truth”].

Jayādvaita Swami further admits that, especially in the early years, transcription accuracy was poor. The transcribers were not deeply familiar with Śrīla Prabhupāda’s philosophy, had difficulty with his Bengali accent, and were unfamiliar with many Sanskrit words and quotations. He also notes that the dictation machine itself could clip words or delete them when Śrīla Prabhupāda started, stopped, or reviewed his dictation [Jayādvaita Swami, “Editing the Unchangeable Truth”].

The result was that transcriptions sometimes contained gaps, omissions, phonetic approximations, and wrong guesses. According to Jayādvaita Swami, this was especially true for Bhagavad-gītā As It Is and, to a lesser extent, Kṛṣṇa Book [Jayādvaita Swami, “Editing the Unchangeable Truth”].

This is decisive. A transcription is not automatically identical with Śrīla Prabhupāda’s words. It may contain his words, but it may also contain the transcriber’s misunderstanding of his words. It may contain missing Sanskrit, guessed phrasing, clipped words, incomplete quotations, or damaged readings. Therefore, such materials must be handled with caution. They cannot be treated as a faultless court of appeal over an approved published edition.

The 1968 Macmillan Translations Were Approved for Continued Use

The 1968 abridged edition of Bhagavad-gītā As It Is is highly important in this discussion. It was not the complete form Śrīla Prabhupāda ultimately wanted, but its verse translations had authorial weight. Śrīla Prabhupāda did not treat them as a defective layer to be discarded whenever an earlier draft differed from them.

This becomes clear in a discussion with the BTG staff in Boston on December 24, 1969. Hayagrīva specifically raised the question of the Macmillan translations. He said that the translations themselves had been “somewhat changed” in Bhagavad-gītā As It Is as it came out from Macmillan, and he asked Śrīla Prabhupāda whether he liked those translations. Śrīla Prabhupāda replied: “Whichever is better, you think. That’s all. You can follow this Macmillan.” Hayagrīva then said, “They’re good. I think they’re very good.” Śrīla Prabhupāda answered: “Yes. You can follow that translation. Simply synonyms he can add, transliterations.” When Hayagrīva added that all the purports could be included and nothing deleted, Śrīla Prabhupāda approved: “That’s all right” [Discussion with BTG Staff, December 24, 1969, Boston; cited in Arsa Prayoga and Salt in the Caranamrita].

This is an important piece of evidence. Śrīla Prabhupāda was not unaware that the Macmillan translations had been changed from earlier drafts. Hayagrīva explicitly told him so. Śrīla Prabhupāda had the opportunity to reject those translations, to order a return to the earlier manuscript readings, or to insist that the translations be reworked from the draft. He did not do so. Instead, he said, “You can follow this Macmillan” and “You can follow that translation.”

This has direct bearing on readings such as “The Blessed Lord.” Śrīla Prabhupāda had every opportunity to replace “The Blessed Lord” with “The Supreme Personality of Godhead” when the complete edition was being prepared. He did not. On the contrary, when the Macmillan translations were raised directly, he approved following them. Therefore, where the 1968 Macmillan translations differ from earlier drafts, those earlier drafts cannot simply be treated as more authoritative.

The significance is not that the 1968 abridged edition was the final complete form of the Gītā. It was not. Śrīla Prabhupāda wanted the complete edition with all verses, synonyms, transliterations, translations, and purports. But the conversation shows that the Macmillan translations themselves were not to be automatically discarded. They were acceptable for continued use in the expanded edition.

Therefore, if an earlier draft contradicts the 1968 Macmillan translation, the draft does not automatically overrule the published wording. The published wording had passed into an author-approved process. To change it after Śrīla Prabhupāda’s departure requires clear authorization from Śrīla Prabhupāda. Merely pointing to an earlier draft is not enough.

This also sharpens the argument against the posthumous revision. If Śrīla Prabhupāda knowingly allowed the Macmillan translations to be followed in the preparation of the complete edition, then later editors cannot claim that a return to earlier drafts is automatically a return to Śrīla Prabhupāda. In some cases, it may be a move away from what Śrīla Prabhupāda approved.

Hayagrīva’s Work Cannot Be Dismissed as Unauthorized Interference

The posthumous revision argument often depends on treating Hayagrīva’s editorial work as an obstacle between us and Śrīla Prabhupāda. But this is too simplistic. Śrīla Prabhupāda engaged Hayagrīva as an editor. He accepted his service. Hayagrīva was not a later posthumous reviser reconstructing the author’s intention after his departure. He worked during Śrīla Prabhupāda’s manifest presence.

There is evidence that Hayagrīva worked closely with Śrīla Prabhupāda over a substantial period. Govinda Dāsī states that in 1966, 1967, and 1968 Hayagrīva spent many hours alone with Śrīla Prabhupāda discussing the editing work, and that they went over the verses extensively [Govinda Dāsī, Honolulu iṣṭagoṣṭhī, January 2003; cited in Arsa Prayoga].

Govinda Dāsī also argues that it is unreasonable to think Śrīla Prabhupāda would intend to give up the results of extensive editing work with Hayagrīva and go backward to earlier drafts. She notes that there were many working drafts in various stages of editing, and that Jayādvaita Swami confirmed in the second Hawaii iṣṭagoṣṭhī that “there is no one original manuscript” [Govinda Dāsī, cited in Arsa Prayoga].

This is exactly why caution is required. If a later editor goes back to an earlier draft, he may think he is removing Hayagrīva’s influence. But he may in fact be removing wording that Śrīla Prabhupāda accepted, discussed, approved, or preferred. He may be undoing Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own editorial decisions.

The fact that we cannot know every detail of the discussions between Śrīla Prabhupāda and Hayagrīva does not give later editors freedom to reconstruct the book. It gives them a reason to refrain.

The 1972 Complete Edition Has Final Published Authority

The 1972 Macmillan edition is the complete edition of Bhagavad-gītā As It Is that Śrīla Prabhupāda gave to the world. In his preface, Śrīla Prabhupāda explains that the earlier published edition had been cut short, and that the complete edition was being presented in its original form with full paramparā explanation [A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda, Preface to Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, 1972].

This makes the 1972 edition central. It was not merely another stage in an unfinished process. It was the completed published edition. It was printed during Śrīla Prabhupāda’s manifest presence. He used it, lectured from it, ordered it read and distributed, and allowed it to stand.

There is also testimony that Śrīla Prabhupāda approved the galley proofs or blueprint connected with the 1972 edition. The Arsa Prayoga compilation cites Brahmānanda’s recollection that Śrīla Prabhupāda personally read through the galleys, made notations in his own hand, and did the proofreading before the book was sent for printing [“Galley Proofs,” in Arsa Prayoga].

The 1972 edition should therefore stand as the standard complete edition of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. Earlier drafts cannot overrule it merely because they are earlier. Earlier does not mean final. Earlier does not mean approved. Earlier does not mean closer to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s intention.

Clear Instruction, Not Editorial Confidence

The decisive principle is this: only clear instruction from Śrīla Prabhupāda can form the basis for changing anything in his published books.

It is not enough that a later editor believes he has found a mistake. It is not enough that a manuscript contains a different reading. It is not enough that a later scholar or devotee thinks the text would be clearer, smoother, more accurate, or closer to a draft. Such judgments may be discussed in scholarly notes, but they do not create authority to alter Śrīla Prabhupāda’s book.

Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own instructions on ārṣa-prayoga point strongly toward preservation. In the well-known exchange with Rādhā-vallabha Dāsa, Śrīla Prabhupāda says that the tendency to correct is “very bad,” that “whatever authority has done, even there is mistake, it should be accepted,” and that one should not become “more learned than the authority” [Room Conversation, February 27, 1977; cited in Arsa Prayoga].

The relevant standard is not editorial confidence. The relevant standard is authorization.

The Missing Authorization

A posthumously revised edition cannot be accepted merely because later editors believe their changes are improvements, corrections, or restorations from earlier manuscripts. The decisive question is whether Śrīla Prabhupāda clearly authorized such posthumous changes to his published book.

There is no such evidence.

There is evidence that Śrīla Prabhupāda engaged editors during his manifest presence. There is evidence that he wanted spelling, grammar, Sanskrit names, and presentation handled properly under his supervision. There is evidence that he approved published editions during his lifetime. But there is no clear instruction from Śrīla Prabhupāda authorizing later editors, after his departure, to reconstruct Bhagavad-gītā As It Is from earlier drafts and manuscripts, alter thousands of readings, and then present the result as his own book.

This point is strengthened by the exchange in which Vyāpaka Dāsa asks Jayādvaita Swami whether he has explicit instructions from Śrīla Prabhupāda authorizing him to make post-samādhi changes to his books. Jayādvaita Swami’s answer is recorded as “No” [Published e-mail correspondence between Jayādvaita Swami and Vyāpaka Dāsa, cited in Arsa Prayoga].

That absence is decisive. Without clear authorization, the work must remain as the ācārya gave it.

Even the Manuscript Argument Is Not Followed Consistently

Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to grant the revisers permission to consult earlier drafts and manuscripts, the posthumous revision would still face a serious internal problem: the revisers do not consistently follow the manuscript evidence.

The justification repeatedly offered is that the revised edition brings the text closer to what Śrīla Prabhupāda originally wrote or said. But in many cases the changes do not simply restore manuscript readings. Critics have documented instances where the BBTI deleted Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own chosen words and sentences, even where those words are also found in the so-called “original manuscript”; added words and sentences not found in the manuscript; changed Śrīla Prabhupāda’s personally typewritten Sanskrit translations; and made unnecessary changes of syntax [No Reply From BBTI, Introduction].

This is decisive for the internal critique. The issue is not merely that the manuscripts are uncertain. The issue is that even the appeal to manuscripts is applied selectively. If the manuscript agrees with the 1972 edition but the editor still changes the text, then the editor is no longer restoring the manuscript. He is substituting his own judgment.

A clear example is Bhagavad-gītā 9.1. In both Śrīla Prabhupāda’s draft, described by critics as the so-called original manuscript, and in the authorized 1972 Macmillan edition, the verse reads: “I shall impart to you this most secret wisdom, knowing which you shall be relieved of the miseries of material existence.” In the BBTI’s posthumously edited 1983 edition, this was changed to: “I shall impart to you this most confidential knowledge and realization, knowing which you shall be relieved of the miseries of material existence” [Ajit Krishna Dasa, “‘Secret Wisdom’ Deleted from Bhagavad-gita As It Is (Bg. 9.1),” in Salt in the Caranamrita].

This is not a restoration from the manuscript. The manuscript and the 1972 edition agree in preserving “this most secret wisdom,” while the revised edition replaces it with “this most confidential knowledge and realization.” Therefore, the change moves away not only from the 1972 edition but also from the very manuscript standard invoked to justify the revision.

This example is especially significant because the change is not merely cosmetic. “Secret wisdom” carries a particular theological and devotional weight. It suggests revealed, hidden, spiritually potent truth given by the Lord to a qualified devotee. “Confidential knowledge and realization” may sound respectable, but it shifts the texture of the expression. It replaces Śrīla Prabhupāda’s concise and spiritually charged phrase with a more explanatory formulation. Whether one personally likes the new wording is beside the point. The question is whether Śrīla Prabhupāda authorized the change. He did not. And even the manuscript argument does not support it.

Another example discussed in the Arsa-Prayoga material concerns Bhagavad-gītā 4.38. The article argues that the 1983 revision changes “one who has achieved this” to “one who has become accomplished in the practice of devotional service,” and changes “enjoys the self within himself” to “enjoys this knowledge within himself.” It then notes that the so-called “original manuscript” is closer to the 1972 edition than to Jayādvaita Swami’s revised version. The same discussion also points to changes in the word-for-word translation, where “na – never” is changed to “na – nothing,” and “svayam – itself” is changed to “svayam – himself,” even though Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own typewritten manuscript reportedly has “na – never” and “svayam – itself” [Ajit Krishna Dasa, “Enjoying the Self Within or the Duty of the Finger,” in No Reply From BBTI].

Another example concerns Bhagavad-gītā 2.61, where “Viṣṇu form” was changed to “Viṣṇu platform.” The Arsa-Prayoga article notes that this change had no basis in the so-called original manuscript and reports that Jayādvaita Swami later admitted that the change was a mistake [Arsa-Prayoga WordPress export, article on BG 2.61].

A further example concerns Bhagavad-gītā 18.50. Bhakta Torben compares the 1972 edition, the so-called manuscript, and the posthumously revised edition, and argues that phrases such as “one who has achieved this perfection” and “the stage of highest knowledge” are not found in either the 1972 edition or the draft. He concludes that such words cannot be the author’s words [Bhakta Torben, “Redundant Edit ad Nauseam,” in Blazing Edits].

This means that the revision cannot be defended merely as a return to the manuscript. It is not only manuscript restoration. It is also editorial invention, editorial preference, and editorial reconstruction. In some cases, the revisers are not going back to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s approved published text. They are not even going back to the earlier drafts. They are going somewhere else entirely: to the editor’s own judgment.

Why Going Back to Earlier Manuscripts Can Move the Book Further from Śrīla Prabhupāda

There are several reasons why returning to earlier manuscripts may move Bhagavad-gītā As It Is further away from Śrīla Prabhupāda’s intention rather than closer to it.

Earlier drafts may contain wording Śrīla Prabhupāda later rejected, improved, or allowed to be improved.
Earlier drafts may lack corrections made during later discussions with editors.
Some manuscripts are transcriptions, and transcriptions may contain misheard words, missing words, clipped phrases, phonetic approximations, or guessed readings.
Some so-called manuscripts had already passed through editorial handling before reaching their surviving form.
Some original transcription sources are no longer available, making the textual history incomplete.
Śrīla Prabhupāda explicitly allowed the Macmillan translations to be followed when preparing the expanded edition, even after Hayagrīva told him that those translations had been changed from earlier forms [Discussion with BTG Staff, December 24, 1969, Boston]. Therefore, earlier drafts cannot automatically overrule the 1968 Macmillan translations.
The 1968 edition was personally proofread and approved by Śrīla Prabhupāda, and therefore has greater authority than earlier drafts where they differ [Brahmānanda Dāsa, quoted in Śrīla Prabhupāda-līlāmṛta 7.4; cited in “Prabhupada Did the Proofreading of the Entire Bhagavad-gita, As It Is”].
Hayagrīva worked directly with Śrīla Prabhupāda, and later editors cannot know with certainty which changes were discussed and approved [Govinda Dāsī, cited in Arsa Prayoga].
The 1972 complete edition was published, approved, distributed, and used by Śrīla Prabhupāda.
Reverting to earlier drafts risks undoing Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own editorial decisions.
Without Śrīla Prabhupāda physically present to confirm or reject proposed changes, later editors must not assume his intention.
The phrase “closer to the manuscript” does not necessarily mean “closer to Śrīla Prabhupāda.”
The approved published editions have devotional, historical, and authorial authority that earlier working materials do not possess by themselves.
The moment uncertain manuscript readings are allowed to replace approved published readings, the published book becomes unstable.
Such a method grants later editors practical authority to reconstruct the ācārya’s words after his departure.
A principle of caution requires preserving the authorized text when certainty is not available.
Any genuine scholarly value in the manuscripts can be preserved through annotation without altering the main text.

This last point is essential. The existence of manuscript evidence does not require alteration of the main text. It requires transparency, careful scholarship, and humility.

Hidden Revision Is Not Honest Annotation

There is also a serious issue of transparency. A genuinely scholarly annotated edition openly tells the reader what it is. It identifies the base text. It explains the editorial method. It names the responsible editor or editors. It places variants, corrections, historical notes, and interpretive comments where the reader can see them.

The posthumously revised Bhagavad-gītā As It Is does not function in this way. The changes are not transparent to the ordinary reader. The cover does not clearly announce that the book is a posthumously revised edition of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s work. One must open the book and examine the publishing details before discovering that the text has been revised. Even then, the extent, nature, and significance of the changes are not made visible in the body of the book.

This creates a grave problem. The reader naturally assumes that the book in his hands is simply Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. He is not clearly informed on the cover that later editors have altered the text after Śrīla Prabhupāda’s departure. He is not shown where the changes occur. He is not given the 1968 or 1972 readings beside the revised readings. He is not given a full critical apparatus explaining what was changed, why it was changed, and on what precise authorization from Śrīla Prabhupāda it was changed.

This is not transparent scholarship. It is concealed revision.

A posthumously revised edition does not merely change the text. It presents a text shaped by later editorial judgment as if it were Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own final book. Later editorial choices are absorbed into the author’s voice, and the reader is made to receive those choices under Śrīla Prabhupāda’s name.

That is precisely why a clear distinction must be made between annotation and alteration.

Annotated Editions Are Not the Problem

This does not mean that manuscripts should be hidden or ignored. Nor does it mean that scholarship has no place. A new annotated edition, similar in principle to what Graham Schweig has proposed or modeled, can be valuable. Such an edition may present the 1972 text, discuss manuscript variants, identify historical problems, note possible typographical issues, compare readings, and explain editorial questions transparently.

This kind of work can be acceptable because it does not replace Śrīla Prabhupāda’s text with later editorial judgment. It allows readers to see the evidence. It allows scholars to study the textual history. It allows devotees to understand the production of the book more deeply. But it does not insert later conclusions into the main text as if they were certainly Śrīla Prabhupāda’s final words.

Graham Schweig’s edited volume includes the suggestion that the first printing of the 1972 edition should be restored as the standard edition, with later editorial changes and changes authorized or requested by Śrīla Prabhupāda indicated in a critical apparatus [Kenneth Rose, “On Restoring the 1972 Edition of the Bhagavad Gītā As It Is,” in Graham M. Schweig, ed., Posthumous Editing of a Great Master’s Work].

That is the correct kind of direction. Annotation is one thing. Alteration is another.

An annotated edition says: “Here is Śrīla Prabhupāda’s approved text. Here are relevant notes, variants, and explanations.”

A posthumously revised edition says, in effect: “We have changed the text according to later editorial judgment, but the changed text will still be presented to ordinary readers as Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own Bhagavad-gītā As It Is.”

The first can be valuable. The second cannot be accepted as Śrīla Prabhupāda’s authorized Bhagavad-gītā As It Is without clear instruction from Śrīla Prabhupāda. And such evidence does not exist.

The Principle of Caution

A principle of caution must be observed when absolute certainty is not available.

If we do not know whether a wording in the 1968 or 1972 edition came from Śrīla Prabhupāda’s direct preference, Hayagrīva’s suggestion accepted by Śrīla Prabhupāda, Rayarāma’s editorial work known to Śrīla Prabhupāda, or some other stage of approved correction, then we should not presume authority to reverse it.

If we do not know whether an earlier manuscript reading was discarded, superseded, improved, or corrected, we should not restore it into the main text.

If we cannot know with certainty, we must preserve what Śrīla Prabhupāda approved and gave.

The burden of proof rests entirely on the person who wants to change the text. And that proof must not merely show that an earlier manuscript says something different. It must show that Śrīla Prabhupāda clearly instructed that such a change should be made. Without such instruction, the change should not enter the main text.

The Two-Book Solution

The proper conclusion is not that all textual study should stop. Nor is it that manuscript evidence has no value. The proper conclusion is that there must be two clearly distinct kinds of books, with two clearly distinct functions.

1. The Primary Book: Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Original Bhagavad-gītā As It Is

The primary book should be Śrīla Prabhupāda’s original Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, meaning the 1972 Macmillan complete edition as he gave it. This edition should be printed and distributed without changes.

That means no later manuscript restorations, no stylistic improvements, no theological adjustments, no silent corrections, no modernization, no “closer to the manuscript” revisions, and no editorial attempts to improve what Śrīla Prabhupāda approved and gave to the world.

If there are mistakes, they remain in the main text. If there are awkward phrases, they remain. If there are questions about Sanskrit, syntax, grammar, or terminology, they remain. This is not because mistakes are desirable in themselves, but because later editors do not have authority to alter the ācārya’s approved published book without his clear instruction.

This edition should be the standard edition for worship, study, preaching, citation, translation, book distribution, and institutional use.

2. The Secondary Book: A Clearly Presented Annotated Edition

A secondary book may also be produced: a clearly labeled annotated edition.

This edition may include the original 1972 Macmillan text as its base text, but the main text must remain unchanged. Around that text, the edition may provide notes, manuscript variants, proposed corrections, historical explanations, editorial discussions, Sanskrit clarifications, and comparisons with the 1968 edition, manuscripts, lectures, or later revisions.

Such an edition must openly present itself as an annotated edition. The cover, title page, introduction, and notes must make clear that it is not replacing Śrīla Prabhupāda’s original book. It is a scholarly aid for readers who want to study the textual history and editorial questions.

This secondary edition may be useful and valuable. It may help devotees and scholars understand the history of the text. It may preserve manuscript evidence transparently. It may discuss possible mistakes without altering Śrīla Prabhupāda’s words. But all such discussion must remain outside the main text.

The original Gītā is the text. The annotated edition is a study tool.

Final Conclusion

The posthumously revised edition of Bhagavad-gītā As It Is cannot be accepted as Śrīla Prabhupāda’s authorized standard text. There is no clear instruction from Śrīla Prabhupāda authorizing later editors to reconstruct his Gītā from earlier manuscripts after his departure, make thousands of changes, and present the changed result as if it were his own final book.

The proper solution is two distinct books.

First, the primary book: the original 1972 Macmillan Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, printed exactly as Śrīla Prabhupāda gave it, without changes. This edition should remain the standard edition for distribution, study, citation, translation, preaching, and institutional use.

Second, a secondary annotated edition may be produced and clearly presented as such. This edition may contain manuscript variants, proposed corrections, editorial discussions, historical notes, and scholarly explanations. But all such material must remain outside the main text. The reader must be able to distinguish Śrīla Prabhupāda’s approved words from later editorial analysis at every point.

In this way, Śrīla Prabhupāda’s original book is preserved, while scholarship is not suppressed. The original edition remains the authority; the annotated edition serves as a transparent aid.

What must be rejected is the present model of posthumously altering the text and presenting the altered result as if it were Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own Bhagavad-gītā As It Is.

08.23.15

by Ajit Krishna Dasa

E-BOOK: Arsa-Prayoga: Preserving Srila Prabhupada’s Legacy

Almost 400 pages about the changes made to Srila Prabhupada’s books.

Click picture to visit website

From the back cover:

“Arsa prayoga, lit. “rishi’s license,” means to honour the acarya by preserving his teachings in the originally published form, not changing what he has written to make it appear more effective or politically correct. There should be no confusion between the work written by His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada and edited by Howard Wheeler and the posthumous cent per cent revised copy proposed by Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International. By changing Prabhupada’s books without explicitly saying so, they do a discredit to Srila Prabhupada, devotees and scholars. At present it appears that the revisions were made by the original author. This book is meant to be the truth about the editing of Prabhupada’s books carefully chronicled for future generations.”

Get the book on Amazon.

08.11.15

by Ajit Krishna Dasa

E-book: Srila Prabhupada: The Transcendental Art Master

Click to download the book

Govinda Dasi relates how Srila Prabhupada instructed her and other young devotee artists to paint devotional paintings, how he minutely supervised their work and how unfortunate it is that most of these authorized paintings have been removed from Srila Prabhupada’s books.

Download the book here: Srila Prabhupada: The Transcendental Art Master (by Govinda Dasi, ACBSP)

06.08.15

by Ajit Krishna Dasa

Ramesvara Prabhu Speaks About the Paintings in Srila Prabhupada’s Books

Ramesvara Prabhu here speaks about the amazing transcendental pastime of creating the many paintings in Srila Prabhupada’s books – especially the Krishna Book.

He explains how Srila Prabhupada often gave personal instructions to each artist regarding the specific paintings they made.

Unfortunately almost all these transcendental paintings have been removed from Srila Prabhupada’s books and replaced with other paintings that were not made under Srila Prabhupada’s supervision and authorization.

07.26.14

by Ajit Krishna Dasa

Proof Positive: An Appeal to Jayadvaita Swami for Clarification (Part 1)

BY: THE ASSEMBLED DEVOTEES

Jul 22, 2014 — GLOBAL (SUN) — Let us first offer our obeisances to our Spiritual Master, His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

om ajnana-timirandhasya jnananjana-salakaya
caksur unmilitam yena tasmai sri-gurave namahAlso, let us extend our respects to H.H. Jayadvaita Swami. We pray he will understand the concerns expressed in this essay and not construe our presentation as something other than a quest for truth.

In a conversation with Govinda dasi in 2003 (see Appendix A), H.H. Jayadvaita Swami repeatedly denied that Srila Prabhupada saw the galley proofs for his 1972 MacMillan edition of Bhagavad-Gita, indicating there were mistakes Prabhupada would not have allowed, implying this is why the book needed re-editing.

Jayadvaita Swami stated:

“He [Srila Prabhupada] never saw the proofs in 1972.”

“No he did not.”

“Prabhupada didn’t see the galley proofs of the 1972 edition.”

“But he didn’t see the galley proofs for the 1972 one…”

“there was no opportunity to like send Prabhupada back and forth, like sending him the second chapter and getting it back and asking questions; it just didn’t happen.”

“I could tell you that some of the verses that some of the BBT staff questioned, Prabhupada would never have approved. I can say with confidence, Prabhupada would never have approved.”

“And the unabridged edition he really didn’t see in its preparation for its, um, pre-publication stages”

The above statements appear to be in stark contradiction to the following letter from Srila Prabhupada to Jayadvaita found in the Bhaktivedanta Vedabase (Prabhupada regularly referred to galley proofs as “blue-prints” – see Appendix B).

SP Letter to Jayadvaita- Los Angeles, May 28, 1972:

“My Dear Jayadvaita, Please accept my blessings. I have received your letter dated May 26th, 1972, along with the blue-print copies of Bhagavad-gita As It Is from MacMillan Company. It is very nice. So I shall be looking forward to seeing the entire manuscript and book sometime around first July, 1972.”

After receiving the blue-print copies, Srila Prabhupada states “it is very nice”, gives no indication that he found any mistakes, and expresses anticipation to see the completed book. It would oppose reason to argue that the above letter does not indicate Srila Prabhupada’s approval of the blue-prints/galley proofs. In absence of evidence to the contrary, the May 28th letter proves that not only did Srila Prabhupada see and approve the blue-prints/galley proofs but that Jayadvaita himself sent them to His Divine Grace.

The printing of Bhagavd-gita As It Is in 1972 was to be the very first publication of Srila Prabhupada’s unabridged version of the book and it was about to be printed by a world-renowned publishing house. This was a very important event and a very significant milestone in Srila Prabhupada’s literary corpus—presumably something a disciple involved at responsible levels of the book production process would not take lightly or easily forget. Taking all these factors into consideration, is it unreasonable to wonder how Jayadvaita Swami not only forgot he had sent Prabhupada the blue-prints, but also forgot Prabhupada personally acknowledged receipt of them and had indeed approved them? In addition, it seems Jayadvaita Swami never came across the digital copy of the above letter in the Bhaktivedanta Vedabase during his otherwise scrupulous research regarding BBT editing.

As disciples of Srila Prabhupada, we feel duty bound to petition Jayadvaita Swami to explain these discrepancies to the Vaisnava community. At the same time we caution our readers notto rush to judgment without allowing Jayadvaita Swami a chance to respond. We concede that there may have been extenuating circumstances that we are yet unaware of. Perhaps Jayadvaita Swami has letters from Srila Prabhupada that never made it to the Bhaktivedanta Archives or other evidence that could shed light on this issue. If so, we hope he will share them with the assembled devotees and uproot our reasonable doubts. Under the circumstances, we trust he will understand why we would consider physical evidence much more compelling than personal recollection. When all the evidence is presented, if our assessments prove wrong, an apology on our part would certainly be warranted.

We conditioned souls have four defects. Our senses are imperfect, we fall prey to illusion, make mistakes and have a tendency to cheat. From the evidence available thus far, one would conclude that Jayadvaita Swami is also a victim of the four defects. Even if we assume the alleged error was an honest mistake, it is nonetheless, a grave mistake and it could cast doubt on his credibility as an impartial editor of the sanctified words of our Spiritual Master. It may even raise the greater question: Is it appropriate for any conditioned soul to edit the books of an empowered and fully realized nitya-siddha devotee after their departure andwithout their express approval or direct oversight?

Jayadvaita Swami Letter to Amogha Lila, quoted in Responsible Publishing:

“To my knowledge, Srila Prabhupada never asked us to re-edit the book” [1972 MacMillan edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is]

Appendix A

Conversation between Govinda dasi and Jayadvaita Swami – Honolulu, Jan 19, 2003(emphasis is added):

Jayadvaita Maharaja: …It differs in uh, [inaudible] uh, in addition to that, of course, Prabhupada did see the galley proofs in 1968 of the abridged edition. He never saw the proofs in 1972. He wasn’t involved at any stage of the production, except, um, mainly for expressing impatience at how slow it was being turned out—a slowness for which I was partly responsible. Um, but he didn’t go over, didn’t go over the manuscript…

Govinda dasi: Srila Prabhupada didn’t see the galley proofs?

Jayadvaita Maharaja: No, he did not. [inaudible] Prabhupada didn’t see the galley proofs of the 1972 edition. But he did see the galley proofs, and we have galley proofs with Prabhupada’s handwriting and directions, just in very few places, for the original edition. But he didn’t see the galley proofs for the 1972 one…

Govinda dasi: There must be some preliminary, something that he went over, if he didn’t see the final galley proofs.

Jayadvaita Maharaja: Not that I remember.

Govinda dasi: Then he had to have… I mean, I…

Jayadvaita Maharaja: As far as I remember, he didn’t. He was just… the main thing that he was asking was, “Where is it? I’ve been hearing, ‘Just now coming, just now coming;’ I’ve been hearing that for some time now—where is the book?” The main thing that we were hearing from Prabhupada was, “Where is it?” And, um, Prabhupada at that time was already traveling extensively, um, around the world, and, uh, there was just none of this, there was no opportunity to like send Prabhupada back and forth, like sending him the second chapter and getting it back and asking questions; it just didn’t happen.

Govinda dasi: Hayagriva was living with Srila Prabhupada in ’68, and they were going over things, and that was after this book [the abridged edition] was printed. So that must have been for the ’72 one.

Jayadvaita Maharaja: He may have, for some brief time, spent some time with Prabhupada. It’s possible. Um, but the final product was certainly not, um, something that Prabhupada, um, you know, pored over the original, he just didn’t have, couldn’t possibly have the… I could tell you that some of the verses that some of the BBT staff questioned, Prabhupada would never have approved. I can say with confidence, Prabhupada would never have approved. Some of the very few verses that we had issues with, there’s no question in my mind that Prabhupada didn’t see them.

Later in the same conversation:

Jayadvaita Maharaja: Just all I really wanted to do is contribute to the history of the Gita and say that, um, what Prabhupada saw and signed off on, um, in 1968, was the abridged edition. And the unabridged edition he really didn’t see in its preparation for its, um, pre-publication stages, except perhaps there were some meetings at some point, you were there to…

SP Letter to Jayadvaita- Los Angeles, May 28, 1972:

“My Dear Jayadvaita, Please accept my blessings. I have received your letter dated May 26th, 1972, along with the blue-print copies of Bhagavad-gita As It Is from MacMillan Company. It is very nice. So I shall be looking forward to seeing the entire manuscript and book sometime around first July, 1972.”

Appendix B

The following letters show:

Srila Prabhupada regularly referred to galley proofs as blueprints
was consistent in his oversight of the editing
was meticulous in his scrutiny regarding errors

Letter to Pradyumna- Los Angeles, April 20, 1970:

“Please accept my blessings. I have just received the blueprint copy of KRSNA, the Reservoir of Pleasure and I have begun to read it through. But I notice that there are some points you should correct before the final printing.”

Letter to Brahmananda- Los Angeles, April 20, 1970:

“P.S. There are some editorial mistakes in the blueprint of The Topmost yoga.”

Letter to Brahmananda- Los Angeles, April 22, 1970:

“Please accept my blessings. Regarding the Topmost Yoga, in the blueprint there are many mistakes. I am pointing out some of them as follows:”

Letter to Brahmananda- Los Angeles, June 2, 1970:

“I have received the blueprint from Uddhava and I have already corrected 180 pages and sent it to Boston, and the balance will be sent tomorrow.”

Letter to Brahmananda- Los Angeles, June 19, 1970:

“Regarding Bhagavatam printing, I have received the blueprint copy of 1st chapter, 2nd Canto, and it is very nicely done. The style is to the standard of my previous books.”

Letter to Uddhava – Los Angeles, July 11, 1970:

“Please accept my blessings. I beg to thank you for your letter dated 6th July, 1970, along with the blueprint copy of the Lord in the Heart. Thank you very much. It is alright to go ahead with the printing of this second chapter. I have approved all the questionable points noted by Pradyumna, so it is alright.”

Letter to Uddhava- Los Angeles, July 14, 1970:

“Please accept my blessings. I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 12th July, 1970, along with the blueprint for the third chapter of Srimad-Bhagavatam Second Canto, entitled “Pure Devotional Service: the Change in Heart.” I have looked over the blueprint and noted a few points to be corrected, so I am sending back the blueprint to you for seeing the necessary changes as they are in the text.”

Letter to Uddhava- Los Angeles, July 24, 1970:

“Please accept my blessings. I beg to acknowledge your letter dated 20th July, 1970, along with the blueprint for chapter 4 Second Canto Srimad-Bhagavatam. I have gone through the blueprint and I am also sending the necessary Sanskrit corrections to Pradyumna. So when these corrections are made then you can print immediately.”

Based on the above letters, one might ask: If Srila Prabhupada had wanted any corrections made in the blue-prints of the ’72 Gita, would he not have stated so?

11.04.13

by Ajit Krishna Dasa

BBT International does not follow the correct editing protocol for posthumous editing (Govinda Dasi)

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

Govinda Dasi

I think the primary issue at hand is the posthumous editing protocol that has NOT been followed by the BBTI.

Yes, many devotees agree that no editing should have been done, other than the very few things mentioned by His Divine Grace (like the cattle raising and trees). But most devotees think the thousands of changes are unwarranted.

Yet, there are others who find the edited Gita more to their liking. And they prefer to read and distribute this Gita.

So now both are available from the BBT. And devotees can choose which they prefer, or better yet, buy both and compare them.

But the REAL ISSUE here needs to be addressed.

That is: the correct protocol for posthumous editing MUST BE INTRODUCED by the BBT in order for Srila Prabhupada’s books to be considered authentic.

At the present time, the edited books are not authentic or true copies of the originals. Without dating the editions, numbering them, and placing the editors’ names on the cover and/or title page, the Bhagavad Gita As It Is, so-called Srila Prabhupada’s Gita, is now considered by the academic community to be a non-authentic replica, not true to the original writings of His Divine Grace.

In other words, what is being pawned off as “Srila Prabhupada’s works” is really not authentic, and therefore is not respected by the world of scholars. It is seen as an undated edition, a conglomeration not to be trusted or considered worthy of study or scholarly examination.

When a book is posthumously edited, and changes comprise more than a certain percentage of the text, certain protocol must be followed in order for the book to be considered a genuine work of the author. This has not been done by BBT.

Academic acceptance was quite important to Srila Prabhupada; there is much evidence of this. He was quite eager to receive scholarly reviews for his writings, and to publish them in his books.

However, the academic reviews that are printed in the “new edition”, the posthumous edition, were in fact written and intended for the original edition, published while Srila Prabhupada was present. The BBT has simply tacked these reviews onto the edited Gita, as if they were written for it–when in fact, these scholars never saw the posthumous edition. This is not only unprofessional, but it is unethical. This greatly compromises the status of Srila Prabhupada’s works.

This is an issue we should all be concerned about. This is the issue that needs to be corrected by the BBT.

The correction is quite simple. There are many websites devoted to such correct protocol. Simply including the editors names, the date of editing, and the number of the edition will go a long way in correcting this glaring anomaly. The BBT should take action on this as soon as possible, before scholarly reviews expressing this very fact become public.

Thank you for your time and concern,

Govinda dasi, ACBSP
HareKrishnaHawaii.com

10.15.13

by Ajit Krishna Dasa

Jayadvaita undoes Prabhupada’s work on Gita Manuscript

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

By Madhudvisa Dasa in 2010 (originally posted on bookchanges.com)

ISKCON now distributes a Bhagavad-gita that contains more than 5,000 unauthorized changes. Srila Prabhupada gave all his classes from his original Bhagavad-gita As It Is and read from this book personally on a daily basis and listened to his disciples read from it, and commented on the philosophical points as they read. With the exception of a couple of obvious typographical errors, Prabhupada never at any point of time ordered that his Bhagavad-gita be changed. He most certainly did not authorize the production of a revised and enlarged edition of his book.

Jayadvaita Swami agrees that Srila Prabhupada did not ask him or anyone else to “revise and enlarge” his Bhagavad-gita As It Is. So how did it happen? Where did the authority come from for ISKCON’s current “Revised and Enlarged” edition? It seems just after Srila Prabhupada left our material vision, Jayadvaita thought it was a good idea to revise and enlarge Prabhupada’s Gita, so he did it.

“Comparing each verse in the book with the text of the manuscript, I made only those changes that to me seemed worthwhile. I tried to be conservative and not make needless changes.”
(Jayadvaita’s letter to senior devotees, October 25, 1982)

And what is his “authority” for this you may ask? As he said in the letter to senior devotees, “the text of the manuscript.” “I have made it closer to the original manuscript.”

And what is this so-called “original manuscript”? You can see it here.

This is not a manuscript at all. It is the first draft of the book. No author intends that the first draft of his book be published. He appoints an editor and together they work on the book to produce the manuscript which will ultimately be submitted to the publishers. In this case, Prabhupada wrote the first draft and then worked with Hayagriva and other editors to prepare the manuscript for hisBhagavad-gita As It Is, which was ultimately presented to Macmillan & Co. for printing.

Imagine you write the first draft of a book and appoint an editor. You work with your editor on a daily basis for months until together you produce a manuscript you are happy with and your book is published. Your book becomes a worldwide best seller and you are very happy with it. It is a spiritual book and by reading it many of the readers have life-changing experiences. They also become very attached to your book. Your book is praised by scholars worldwide with rave reviews. Then many years later, after you have left your body, somebody finds the first draft of your book and decides to “correct” your published book based on your first draft. Of course you were never intending to publish this first draft. That is why you spent so much time and energy working with your editor on that first draft to transform it into a manuscript you actually wanted to present to the publishers. How angry would you be with this fool who wants to undo your work and your editors’ work by going back to the first draft?

Jayadvaita Swami, by going back to the first draft, is eliminating so many corrections and so much work that Srila Prabhupada personally did on his book with Hayagriva and his other editors. This is a great disservice to Srila Prabhupada.

The Swami is insisting that his version of the history of the editing of Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is is correct. And what is his version of the history? He has turned to “smoke and mirrors” to try and bewilder the devotees into believing a false history. In the “history according to Jayadvaita’s imagination”, Srila Prabhupada only typed and dictated the first draft of his Bhagavad-gita As It Is and handed it over to his editors and did not work with his editors on the book. In this way he claims the first draft that he has is authoritative and he is justified in changing the printed book if he can find something different in the first draft.

On his website he debunks “The myth that Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva together carefully reviewed the completed text of Bhagavad-gita As It Is“. He does this by debunking a statement by Govinda dasi, who saw Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva working together on editing Prabhupada’s books in 1968 in Los Angeles. Prabhupada and Hayagriva were actually working together on editingSrimad-Bhagavatam at that time. And according to Jayadvaita, that “proves” that Prabhupada and Hayagriva did not work together on editing the Gita. Strange logic, but we are expected to believe the Swami anyhow.

In a recent blog post [“Book Changes: History Really Does Back the BBT“] Jayadvaita continues to try and distort and change the history:

“And so the image of Srila Prabhupada sitting with Hayagriva in December of 1968 carefully going over every verse of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, seeing to the finishing touches, is a persistent image of something that never took place. That’s the truth. Here’s the timeline. See for yourself.” (Jayadvaita Swami)

Then he goes on to present many quotes from Srila Prabhupada that are supposed to prove that Srila Prabhupada did not work with his editors on the Bhagavad-gita As It Is at all. However, Krishna slipped one quote into his article that completely blows his cover:

December 14, 1967: Srila Prabhupada writes Rayarama, “I have already sent you the purports of each and every sloka that you sent me for correction. . . . As soon as you finish the Gitopanisadbusiness and the matter is handed over to the Macmillan Co. we begin on the Bhagavatam work without delay.”

Here Jayadvaita is letting us know that Rayarama, while he was editing Bhagavad-gita, was in constant contact with Srila Prabhupada and was asking many questions about the editing, which Srila Prabhupada was answering. “I have already sent you the purports of each and every sloka that you sent me for correction.” So even with Rayarama’s editing he was asking Prabhupada many questions and Prabhupada was sending him many corrections to his “first draft”. None of these corrections by Srila Prabhupada are present in what Jayadvaita refers to as “the original manuscript.” This alone completely destroys any justification for using this document as any sort of authority, as it does not include the many corrections that Srila Prabhupada made to it while Rayarama was working on editing his Bhagavad-gita.

The real world is quite different from Jayadvaita’s imaginary world. Even though the Swami constantly says, “It’s not true!” Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva did work together for almost three months in 1967 editing Bhagavad-gita As It Is, during this period Hayagriva Prabhu was consulting Srila Prabhupada daily on almost every verse in the Bhagavad-gita As It Is. It’s not a myth, it’s history, and this history completely destroys any justification at all for changing Prabhupada’s Gita based on Prabhupada’s first draft of the book (or the “original manuscript”, as the Swami calls it).

If you ask Jayadvaita about this he will lie and tell you: “It could not have happened. Prabhupada and Hayagriva were never living together. It’s an Internet myth…” All lies and deception, unfortunately. It is frightening to think that such a deceptive, dishonest character has been given full authority to change anything at all he wants to change in Prabhupada’s books without any system of checks and balances at all. He can change anything, print the changed books without even disclosing what he has changed. And he smiles and says, “You just have to accept it…”

The proof that Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva worked together daily editing Bhagavad-gita for almost three months in 1967 can be found in Hayagriva Prabhu’s wonderful book, “The Hare Krishna Explosion”:

January 17, 1967: Prabhupada arrives in San Francisco from New York. Hayagriva Prabhu is there to meet him. Prabhupada is still translating Bhagavad-gita and Hayagriva is there with him:

“Swamiji continues translating Bhagavad-gita. He is so eager to print it that we begin negotiations with a local printer. Prices are very high. In New York, Brahmananda continues his pursuit of publishers.”

So Hayagriva is negotiating on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf with a local printer to print Prabhupada’sBhagavad-gita As It Is. Finishing his translation of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, working with Hayagriva Prabhu to edit it and getting it printed are clearly the most important projects on Srila Prabhupada’s agenda at this time.

Hayagriva is still in San Francisco on January 29th, two weeks later, for the big concert featuring the Grateful Dead.

Hayagriva is still with Srila Prabhupada in San Francisco in February:

“The days of February are beautiful with perfect temperatures in the seventies, fog rolling off early, skies very blue and clear, sun falling bright and sharp on the lush foliage of Golden Gate Park. The park encloses the largest variety of plant and tree life to be found in any one spot on earth. We are at a loss to identify plants for Swamiji.”

Hayagriva has settled down in the ISKCON San Francisco temple (a storefront near Golden Gate Park) and he is working there:

“I rent an electric typewriter, set it up in the back temple room, and continue typing up stencils forBack To Godhead, writing and editing [Bhagavad-gita] while Harsharani sends people after food, and cooks noon prasadam.”

Hayagriva is the only devotee living in the San Francisco temple and is the “Temple Commander”:

“Being the only person living in the temple proper, and one of the senior devotees besides, I’m naturally looked to as the temple commander, a role I often find myself regretting.”

All this time Hayagriva is living with Srila Prabhupada and his main service is editing Bhagavad-gita:

“Apart from kirtans, I find myself spending many sunny hours in the park, walking past the tennis courts to large, quiet bowers surrounded with hybiscus and eucalyptus. And at times I sit in the shade beneath the white and pink rhododendrons and edit Bhagavad-gita. After editing, I sometimes visit the museum and stroll through the replica eighteenth century gardens, chanting my daily rounds while perusing the curlicues of rococo art.”

Hayagriva is still in San Francisco together with Srila Prabhupada on February 27th. This is now six weeks in the personal association of Srila Prabhupada, working with him editing his Bhagavad-gita As It Is.

He is still there with Srila Prabhupada in March:

“Golden Gate Park is redolent with March flowers. The morning fog disperses early, and the days are cloudless and blue. Thousands continue to flock to San Francisco from the midwest and east, and our Sunday kirtans attract big crowds… On Tuesday evenings, we go to the beach with Swamiji and hold unforgettable Pacific Ocean sunset kirtans. Sitting on the sand, we watch the tide roll in, or chant and wait for the sun to dip below the horizon. After chanting, we roast potatoes and smear them with melted butter. Swamiji eats with us, sitting on a big log. And after potatoes, we roast marshmallows, and red apples stuffed with raisins and brown sugar.”

All throughout this time (now over two months) Hayagriva is working editing Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is, consulting Srila Prabhupada on almost every verse:

“Although I write on the Lord Chaitanya play through the spring days, my primary service is helping Swamiji with Bhagavad-gita. He continues translating, hurrying to complete the manuscript but still annotating each verse thoroughly in his purports. Daily, I consult him to make certain that the translation of each verse precisely coincides with the meaning he wants to relate. “Edit for force and clarity,” he tells me. “By Krishna’s grace, you are a qualified English professor. You know how grammatical mistakes will discredit us with scholars. I want them to appreciate this Bhagavad-gita as the definitive edition. All the others try to take credit away from Krishna.”

“I am swamped with editing. Since much of the text is equivocal due to grammar, I find myself consulting Swamiji on nearly every verse. It seems that in Sanskrit, Hindi, and Bengali, phrase is tacked onto phrase until the original subject is lost.”

March 21: Hayagriva is still in San Francisco working daily with Srila Prabhupada on editingBhagavad-gita As It Is… So far this is almost nine weeks constantly with Srila Prabhupada…

April 9:

“Swamiji leaves for the airport. Before entering the car, he stops, cane in hand, and gives a long look at the little storefront temple. It is a look that says a great deal. Gurudas snaps a photo at that very instant. ‘That’s a farewell look,’ I think to myself.”

So Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva worked together on editing the Bhagavad-gita daily during the almost three months while Hayagriva Prabhu was living with him in the San Francisco temple, from Janurary 17, 1967 until April 9, 1967.

Jayadvaita Swami [desperately]: “IT JUST DID NOT HAPPEN!!!”

The history is the history. Srila Prabhupada worked on the first draft of Bhagavad-gita As It Isextensively with both Hayagriva Prabhu and Rayarama Prabhu. In the three months Hayagriva went through practically every verse with Srila Prabhupada and Prabhupada also sent many corrections to Rayarama Prabhu later on.

At that time Macmillan were only able to print 400 pages, so Rayarama abridged Prabhupada’sBhagavad-gita As It Is. Prabhupada was not happy with this and wanted to publish the complete edition. Hayagriva was again called on by Srila Prabhupada for producing the manuscript, which was submitted to Macmillan for the publication of the complete 1,000 page edition in 1972. At this time there were at least exchanges of letters between Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva and Prabhupada was still giving him many instructions related to the editing and answering the questions he had in regard to the editing.

So Jayadvaita’s “history” that Srila Prabhupada did not work with his disciples on editing Bhagavad-gita is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. It is a dishonest attempt to mislead the devotees and cover-up the real history.

The authoritative edition of Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is is the final published 1972 “Complete Edition.” Not the first draft that Jayadvaita calls the “manuscript.” Srila Prabhupada spent considerable time, energy and effort working with his editors Hayagriva Prabhu and Rayarama Prabhu to take his first draft to the real manuscript — the manuscript which was submitted for publishing to MacMillan.

Changes to the final published book cannot be justified by referring to the first draft. This is a great mistake.

People are not so foolish. The truth is the truth. Eventually Jayadvaita’s smoke and mirrors will stop working and the blind followers will wake up and see the truth.

Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

Your servant,
Madhudvisa dasa

10.06.13

by Ajit Krishna Dasa

Govinda dasi and Jayadvaita Swami in Honolulu on Jan 19, 2003 (Part 2)

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

(Originally posted on adi-vani.org. Part 2 of 2. Read Part 1 here)

Govinda dasi: …that in 1966, ’67 and ’68, Hayagriva spent many, many hours alone with Srila Prabhupada, discussing the different aspects of the editing work. They went over each verse extensively, and Srila Prabhupada was actually quite clear in expressing what he wanted. He, even in the case of legal matters, or something else that he might not know how things worked, he knew what he wanted. So he had an uncanny ability to see through any situation. That’s an understatement, and I’m putting that so that people can appreciate it.

So, when the later Gita was edited, the manuscript had already been gone over, how many times? We don’t really know, I don’t really believe, I mean, joined after Hayagriva. I joined in Frisco as soon as Srila Prabhupada came to Frisco, and then I went back to LA with him. I think, Javadvaita Maharaja, didn’t you say you joined in Boston in…

Jayadvaita Maharaja: New York.

Continue reading →

10.03.13

by Ajit Krishna Dasa

Istagosthi about book changes, January 2003 in Honolulu, Hawaii (Part1)

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

Govinda dasi in Honolulu on Jan 26, 2003 (Originally posted on adi-vani.org)

Prabhupada in Hawaii with Govinda Dasi and other devotees

Govinda dasi: When we had the meetings here [Honolulu Temple], one of the things that Jayadvaita Maharaja said was that they [the BBT trustees] did not ever prevent devotees from printing the books. But we had a letter from Dhanistha dasi, she’s an old book distributor. I don’t know her personally, but she wrote a letter saying that she had approached, she called Jayadvaita in 1996 or 95, to print the books, 5,000, she had the money to do it, and she approached in as simple and stupid a way as possible, just like “Please, just for sentiment,” and so forth, and she was refused.

There’s some reason going on, that they don’t want Srila Prabhupada’s books. You have these books available, but the BBT newsletter in the temple lobby states clearly that the temples cannot buy from Krishna Books Inc.

Devotee: They can buy them from the BBT, but at higher prices than the changed books. But just for the record, where there’s a will, there’s a way.

Govinda dasi: OK, I’ll just go over the notes from the meetings. As you know, we had a series of meetings with Jayadvaita Maharaja: two meetings, actually. And one of the things that we had to make very clear is that this is not a personal issue—that we don’t like Jayadvaita’s writing, or we don’t like his editing work. That really isn’t the issue at all. It’s nothow the books were edited; it’s the fact that they were edited.

The issue is not—and of course, he took it a bit personally but I think he did understand eventually that that wasn’t our point—that we think he’s a great writer, and he should write and edit many books—but not Srila Prabhupada’s books. They should be left as they are. So that’s the main issue, actually, the main issue.

He feels that the 1972 edition is not in keeping with manuscript, which he only has access to, and is not available to anyone else that he knows about. And that’s just not the issue. The issue is that when you write something, even if you have an original manuscript—I’m a writer, and I may have three [versions] in the trash before I print something—but whatever I sign my name to and I print, that is the final edition. That’s what I approve for the world to see. And that’s really the issue here.

Srila Prabhupada approved of his Gita. He not only approved of it; he spent ten years lecturing from it. Every verse of the Bhagavad-gita, except for a few verses in the First Chapter, Srila Prabhupada spoke on over a period of ten years. He had ample opportunity to say, “Change this, change this, change this.” But he only requested a couple of changes. There was ‘cattle raising’ he wanted changed to ‘cow protection,’ and I believe there was one other, dhyana-yoga or something like that. Those were very small changes.

Bhaktisiddhartha Prabhu: He wrote that book twice, because the original Bhagavad-gitamanuscript was stolen during his household life. It must have said exactly what he wanted it to say, because he wrote it twice.

Govinda dasi: It was mysteriously, that was before, in the early times. Personally, being a writer and an artist, it has always amazed me that somebody could start over from scratch. I think about that sometimes, when I start getting discouraged with some work. Srila Prabhupada started over from scratch: no Xerox copy, no computer. That’s dedication. So anyway, he knew what he was doing.

And somehow or other, anyway the issue is that you can’t change books post-disappearance or posthumously. And as we discussed, Keli, Satyahit’s wife, did a lot of research on the word ‘bowdlerizing.’ Bowdler was a fellow that lived in the 16^th century or 18^th century—it was after Shakespeare—and he was the fellow that changed all the books. The original meaning was expurgated, meaning that he went over Shakespeare’s books, and he changed any passages for English schoolgirls, if they had any risqué parts, he took them out. So when a book is changed posthumously, among the scholarly community it’s called bowdlerizing. It’s sort of like bastardizing, it has that connotation. I have information from a Ph.D., Hari-kanta, she sent me an email stating that it has a bad connotation.

And also Dr. John Trimble, the professor of English that I took a course from in 1998. I was unaware in 1998 that the books had been bowdlerized, because I had my own set. I’m like so may other Srila Prabhupada disciples sitting at home with their own sets of books. But unknown to me, my spiritual master’s books had all been completely changed. So when I was in Texas, I went out and got myself a Gita at the local temple. And I opened it up, and I said, “What the hell happened to this book!?” [laughter] Excuse me; I was in Texas. It didn’t even sound anything like Srila Prabhupada’s Gita. So I went to Professor Trimble, and he explained that it had been bowdlerized. And so, Dr. Trimble was the first person to tell me this word; I’d never heard of it before.

So Keli contacted him, and Dr. Trimble wrote a letter back, which is a very interesting letter. Bear in mind that Dr. Trimble wrote Writing With Style. There’s not a writer on earth that doesn’t have this book. There are two [main reference books for writers]—Elements of Style, by Strunk and White, and Writing With Style.

Devotee: Without getting into that debate, because then we could be here for quite some time… I don’t want to get into that debate, because by going into that debate, I am violating Srila Prabhupada’s order not to change one word. Srila Prabhupada didn’t care… In other words, to say that we haven’t changed the philosophy… well, we were told that about so many things. To say that “We haven’t changed the philosophy, so that’s alright,” is really a slap in the face to Srila Prabhupada, who specifically said, “Don’t change it.” So what part about, ‘Don’t change it,’ or the word ‘no,’ don’t they understand? In other words, you can come up with all kinds of rationalizations—‘it’s closer to the manuscript,’ ‘we didn’t change the meaning’—you can go on and on. But we have our spiritual master pounding his desk, saying, “Don’t change one word; this is your American disease.” And even now, there’s a discussion that we should start taking out some of the passages that are not politically correct.

So in other words, you may come up with so many disingenuous arguments—‘Well, it doesn’t change the meaning,’ or ‘It’s closer to the original manuscript’—and this is only 25 years after Srila Prabhupada is gone that this has come to pass, that all the books have been changed. What’s going to happen in another 25 years, another 25 years, another 25 years? We will be just like the Christian Bible! Whatever an institution decides is politically correct or economically viable will then become the standard. So we’re going, “No! No changes. That’s what Srila Prabhupada said, that’s what the scholarly community says, and that’s what thesastra says.” So we don’t even want to go into the manuscript (which of course, nobody is allowed to see), and we don’t need to go into whether they changed the meaning or not. I just come back to, “What part about ‘no’ don’t you understand?”

Satyahit Prabhu: Jayadvaita Swami said that the intention for the future is to write new booksadapted from Srila Prabhupada’s teaching. In other words, their plan is not to go on distributing Srila Prabhupada’s books but to adapt the philosophy and write new ones.

Devotee: In other words, “We don’t like this, we’ll take out this, we’ll change this, we’ll do that.” So, people can do as they like, just don’t put Srila Prabhupada’s name on it. Srila Prabhupada didn’t write it, Srila Prabhupada didn’t authorize it, Srila Prabhupada didn’t approve it; don’t put his name on it. Put your name on it, and go get your own scholarly reviews, and go get your own devotees to distribute them. As for us, what Srila Prabhupada did is good enough for me, it’s good enough for all the other acaryas, it’s good enough for all the Vaisnava sampradayas on the planet—I’m personally going to stick with that. And if somebody wants to do something different, be my guest. I just don’t want to be there when the Yamadutas show up.

Govinda dasi: Bowdlerizing is what happened to the Bible, and Bowdler was responsible for a great deal of what happened to the Bible. I’m not an authority on this, but Keli, Satyahit’s wife, has done a great deal of research on this, and the changes to the Bible—there were many of them made—basically, it’s been bowdlerized.

Now, this is from a PhD named Dr. Holly Ogren, regarding the definition and usage of the word ‘bowdlerizing:’ “Generally, the word has a negative connotation for the person doing the bowdlerizing. If you can access the Oxford Dictionary, you can find more information to support this position.”

Now hear what Dr. Trimble has to say. Keli wrote Dr. Trimble:

Dear Professor Trimble,

You don’t know me, but I’m a friend of a former student of yours, Bonnie McElroy [Govinda dasi]. She and I are both members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. The principal editor of our spiritual master’s books is here in Hawaii promoting his editorial changes, which many of our members are very unhappy with. Bonnie remembers a conversation she had with you a few years ago about bowdlerizing, and after reading Dr. Bowdler’s Legacy: a History of Expurgated Books in England and America by Noel Perrin, I realized that this is what the editors of our spiritual master’s books have been doing. Their rationalization and plea is to correct the grammar and English—supposedly to make it more acceptable to the scholarly community. They have gone farther by changing the meaning through subtle word jugglery. The reason I have written is to ask you, ‘What is the scholarly response to posthumous editing, especially of religious texts?’ Our community is meeting with the editor tomorrow; could you please write me. It would be good to know your response for further discussion.

Dr. Trimble’s reply:

Dear Carol,

Regularizing the spelling and grammar is one thing; “improving” the meaning is another, especially when such changes aren’t expressly acknowledged. I think the editor should be challenged. At the very least, he should have to justify every “improvement” that isn’t strictly grammatical. The burden of proof is on him, not on you.

Hope this helps,
John Trimble

Now this is from a scholar, the best writer; he wrote the legal encyclopedia. So this guy knows his stuff. So this argument, that ‘We’ve made it more acceptable to the scholarly community,’ just doesn’t fly.

Devotee: I was at a meeting at the LA temple with a number of senior devotees—and one devotee was putting forth the idea, “Well what about the scholars?” Another devotee said, “So what if there are a couple of scholars that think this or that; the whole Vaisnava community is in an uproar about it; I think maybe we should worry about that first.”

The second thing I always like to point out is that 99.99% of all our glorious scholarly reviews are done from the original authorized and approved version, and I don’t that we have more than a handful that are done from the new version. In other words, all of our scholarly reviews—of which there are hundreds—are done from authorized and approved versions, and not from the new ‘better for scholars’ version.

Govinda dasi: So really, the issue is not how he changed the books; it’s the fact that they are changed. Also, that the concept of bowdlerizing is a Western concept; it’s a scholarly concept. But there’s another concept that has a Sanskrit name: it’s arsha prayoga. It means ‘respect for the spiritual master’s words.’ That you respect them—if he says that the sky is pink and white polka-dotted, then it’s pink and white polka-dotted—that’s how it is with the disciple. There are so many stories like that in the Vedas, where the guru tests the disciple in this way. So basically, we have to have respect for Srila Prabhupada’s words. He saw, later on, he saw the American disease. I’ve got so many things that are written about the American disease of changing things. [See for example, letter 74-11-24 to Bhakta das]

Satyahit Prabhu: That reminds me of something Jayadvaita Maharaha said, that Srila Prabhupada authorized him to go ahead and make any changes he wanted…

Govinda dasi: Jayadvaita Maharaja seems to believe that he has a carte blanche, open-ended permission that ‘you can change all my books’ from Srila Prabhupada. I do not know where he has gotten this, because it is not written anywhere, and it contradicts…

Devotee: There is one letter, authorizing him to do some editorial work while Srila Prabhupada was here on the planet. It wasn’t a carte blanche for ever and ever, and as far as I know it was in regard to a certain title only for certain editorial work

Devotee: Because Srila Prabhupada authorized and approved it and as she just said, it’s calledarsha prayoga: that the respect for what the spiritual master authorized and approved is such that he tells the disciple, “That’s a snake,” and the disciple sees a rope, he goes, “That’s a snake.” And if he goes later, “That’s a rope,” then the disciple goes, “Oh, it’s a rope.” So we print them as they are, and later on we intend to print little addendums showing some minor corrections. And if they had done this, nobody would object. Just like you were saying, Srila Prabhupada wanted ‘cow protection’ not ‘cattle raising.’ So the solution is to start printing Srila Prabhupada’s authorized and approved books, and if you have a problem with something, put it down somewhere else, or put it in a footnote, put it in an addendum. Print the manuscript that it originally came from, if you want to be so close to the original manuscript, and say, “This is the original manuscript, but this is what Srila Prabhupada authorized and approved. And as Govinda dasi was explaining to me, it wasn’t just that Hayagriva was an English professor and one of Srila Prabhupada’s original disciples, but Srila Prabhupada spent two years with him going over the manuscript.

Govinda dasi: Before Jayadvaita joined the movement in May of 1968, Hayagriva had already been working with Srila Prabhupada on the Bhagavad-gita for two years already. I lived with Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva in Los Angeles. They worked for hours every day. This is before Jayadvaita joined the movement. And so why—the Gita is a song: the Song of God. It’s poetic, beautiful, in Sanskrit it’s actually poetry. Why would Krsna out of the blue send an English professor, a PhD in English, who happens to be a poet, who happens to have the writing style of a Merton and Thoreau, and all of the early transcendental poets? That was an accident, right? He just happened to send in 1966. Havagriva is not the issue. We’re not saying that Haygriva is a pure devotee. That’s not the issue; the issue is that Krsna was sending Srila Prabhupada whatever he needed to do his work. And He sent him a very qualified man to do this editing.

I take one example: “The Blessed Lord said.” It’s been changed to “The Supreme Personality of Godhead said.” This is not something that we want to quarrel about. The Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Blessed Lord… but how do we know that Srila Prabhupada and his editor didn’t sit down and discuss this point, and decide on “the Blessed Lord said?” We don’t know that because we weren’t there, and actually, Jayadvaita wasn’t there. It was something that was going on already. Jayadvaita joined in Boston on 1968, like May or a couple of months before. We were in Boston at that time. Gourasundara and Srila Prabhupada and I were staying in Boston for a month in May of 1968, about the time he joined and was working for the press.

One day Srila Prabhupada called me in to his room in Boston. He had a Back to Godhead in his hand. He was livid. He said, “Look at this! Look what they have done!” He showed me. I was like, “OK, what did they do?” The Back to Godhead had—and I’ve still got this Back to Godhead—it had a picture of Srila Prabhupada, black and white, and a big statement: “This man has changed the world.” He was very upset. He said, “This, this is the beginning of falldown. To consider, to refer to the spiritual master as a man shows that the consciousness of the disciple does not see the spiritual master correctly. Call them!” So Rayarama was brought on the carpet.

My point here is that this was the mood at the press at the time Jayadvaita Maharaja joined. He was a new devotee. Satsvarupa was the president, Rayarama was the editor of Back to Godhead; Srila Prabhupada later removed him, and I don’t know the exact history on that, but he did not agree with Rayarama’s point of view on the spiritual master or on how Back to Godhead should look. There was an issue with skull on the cover. Srila Prabhupada was like, “A skull on the cover? Pictures of Krsna should be through Back to Godhead! Not skulls!”

So Srila Prabhupada was very on-target about what he wanted. He could see how the consciousness was moving in any disciple. I can remember so many instances. I was really angry about something one day, and he said to Gourasundara, “Govinda dasi is fighting a war.” He could read your mind, from 3,000 miles away, from Krsna-loka away. How about right now? As if we don’t believe he’s sitting right here listening to this discussion. We do. He’s right here, and he’s very happy that we’re defending his books.

My concern is this: I just got a Back to Godhead magazine, and it showed a big party in Poland with over 100,000 people: a big festival. 93,000 plates of prasadam distributed. And it had a picture of the book table, and on the book table was not Srila Prabhupada’s Gitas; on the book table was the changed version. And what we have to realize, as Srila Prabhupada’s disciples, is that Srila Prabhupada’s books have almost been lost. Twenty years they’ve been practically out of print. They’ve almost been lost. How serious is this? This is very serious. Probably the most important thing we can do with our lives is to reinstate his books. I believe that historians are going to look at this era, because you know history and historians have a way of bringing things out. All religions have a very rocky beginning, I have been told by scholars. I’m not a scholar myself. But when they look at this era, there’s no way that the political turmoil and all of the strange things that have happened since Srila Prabhupada left can be hidden; there’s just no way. They’re going to look at this era as being the Dark Ages, or like the Vatican Inquisitions, or an era where they fed the Christians to the lions, or—what did they do to Saint Thomas, crucify him upside down? They’re going to look at this era with great suspicion. My concern is, will they know by that time which one is the original Bhagavad-gita? Will they actually know? If this million-dollar lawsuit had not been won, and these books not put back into print, the world would not have Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita fifty years from now. That is basically the truth, and that’s a very serious thing.

Govinda dasi: One time, I was illustrating—and this is how closely Srila Prabhupada worked with his writers and artists. I was illustrating those early paintings in the Prahlad books. It was very simple, this was in the early days when we were first devotees. I had only been a devotee for a couple of months, so I really didn’t know very much—not that I know very much now, but I mean I really didn’t know. We didn’t even have a Gita in those days, guys. There weren’t any books, only the three volumes of Srimad-Bhagavatam that Srila Prabhupada had brought from India. And we read those; but there’s a picture where Prahlad is boiled in oil. And so there are all these demons that go and stick him, and Srila Prabhupada described all those demons. So I would draw each picture and then go and show it to him. Just like he would talk with Hayagriva about each change in his manuscript. So in the course of this particular drawing, he told me how each of these demons looked. And I had never seen a demon, so I didn’t know. So I looked at some comic books, and got some ideas, they had some tails and some horns, and I kind of made some demons up s best I could. And I took it in and showed it to him, and he said, “Yes, that’s very good. There are such demons in jungles in Africa and South America, like that.” And I said, “What?” I was, after all, college educated, I was in my fourth year of college when I joined Srila Prabhupada, left abruptly—never have regretted that decision. So I thought I knew everything that existed in the world, because that’s what they told me in college, you know, biology, anthropology and all that. So I said, “I didn’t know that!” In other words, he had said that there were such demons in the world, and I didn’t know that. He looked at me and said, “There are many things you do not know.”

And I think we underestimate; the problem with the movement, with our whole ISKCON, is not really realizing who Srila Prabhupada is, and underestimating who he is. This is the bottom line; this is why these books have been edited. This is why all these things have happened in the way that they’ve happened. And I think in the future, Srila Prabhupada will be recognized more for who he is. Already we have since 1996, when Srila Prabhupada re-entered the society in the form of the Centennial, I think that people appreciate him more. Those of you who lived through the 1978-86 eleven guru days know what I’m talking about. And that’s a separate subject; I don’t want to get into it, I want to stick to the books. But I have a couple of notes here.

One of the things is that Srila Prabhupada accepted his books in 1972 as transcendental. As I said, he lectured on every verse in the Gita. And he constantly pushed book distribution and said his books were transcendental. So Srila Prabhupada said that his books were transcendental then, and yet now these same books aren’t good enough, they’re not transcendental?

Govinda dasi: And another point is, he never actually gave authority to change his books after his departure. He specifically said, “Any changes should be seen by me.” He says many things [about the book changes], and you should read them, and they will be available on the new web site, www.adi-vani.org. And people will be able to write letters in to email@adi-vani.org. The purpose of this website is to have all the many disciples—and there are batches in Europe, batches in India and all over the world—and they’re not unified. The idea is that they will all write letters. And even if the BBT doesn’t change right now, we want to leave a broad enough band of history, a broad enough volume of work that when historians pore over this in 50 years, and we’re all dead and gone and forgotten—and all of us will be, including the biggest leaders—they will be able to see which books were Srila Prabhupada’s books, and they will be able to see what Srila Prabhupada’s original disciples had to say about the changes. This is what we’re trying to do. It’s not a political ‘right now’ thing; it’s a future thing. Other people have other ideas; this is my idea. But basically, we have to leave enough history that Srila Prabhupada’s books don’t get lost.

Because right now, even though they’re printing—they just printed 10,000 Gitas, right?—for the last 20 years, how many millions of the other Gita have been distributed? All over Poland, all over Russia, all over the whole world. So, what will the historians think? That was the originalGita. Of course, there may be three or four more versions or editions by then. So that’ll be just like the Bible. It could easily turn into the Bible, and we don’t want this to happen. So our mood here is we’re just a handful, but there are many, many Srila Prabhupada disciples, sitting in their homes with the Bhagavad-gitas, who are disgruntled and don’t have a forum to speak what they have to say. We want to give them a forum. This is our goal.

Govinda dasi: Srila Prabhupada liked the original books and paintings. For the record, there’s a lot of information that’s available to people, where Srila Prabhupada describes that, “The early paintings are full of bhakti; why did you remove them from the books?” He liked the mood. This was, and for those of you who came later, I want you to know that Srila Prabhupada oversaw every step of the production in many, many ways.

Devotee: The early paintings have a look of pastel, and the colors of Krsna’s form are so, so attractive.

Govinda dasi: They’re full of bhakti. When the spiritual master is present, he has the Midas touch. He touches anything and it’s surcharged with bhakti. He touched us, and we were infused with bhakti. Look at the stuff we did; we were 20-year-old kids, green behind the ears. It was because his energy was working through us; he was using us, we were willing warm bodies, and he guided us from within, he guided us from without, he watched over us, and he was over our shoulder. For example, that original purple Gita, I was staying with Srila Prabhupada in LA, and I drew the cover picture for it. He would come shuffling into my room and look over my shoulder while I was drawing the picture. Macmillan cut the book down; he didn’t like that. He wanted it to be with all the purports, so the next one was. So he wasn’t happy with the fact that they wanted not so much repetition.

And then so far as the Teachings of Lord Caitanya, you mentioned that earlier, because that’s going to be on the press next. That book, we did the drawings while we were living with Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada described how the drawings should look. We were very poor in those days, so we didn’t do full color; we did black-and-white drawings.

I had never been to India, and I had never been to Jagannath Puri temple. And there’s a drawing in there of Jagannath up on an altar, for those of you who have seen it. Maybe a lot of you haven’t even seen it. But Srila Prabhupada described in detail how Jagannath was up on this altar, how the room was dark—it’s dark in those big old Orissan temples—and how the pujari is sitting there and receiving the flowers. He would tell us each step of the way for these drawings. And the same way with the early paintings of Jadurani. Jadurani painted those paintings in the next room, Srila Prabhupada was living in the New York apartment, he was living in the bedroom—he did everything in this one room—and in his living room, me and Gaurasaundara and Jadurani sat and did drawings all day. He would walk in, and he would even pose for us. Sometimes he posed, he showed us how a dhoti was wrapped one day. He wrapped adhoti—an elaborate dhoti, the kind Krsna wears—and stood in a threefold posture. His favorite pose was Lord Nrsimhadeva. He would come in and roar, and you would see the whites of his eyes. [devotees: “Haribol!”] And we were just new kids—but he was actually really into Nrsimha-lila big time—but he showed us each step of the way. We can’t think that ‘We did this,’ anymore than we can think ‘Hayagriva edited this, Hayagriva did this.’

Srila Prabhupada was working through us all, and the people who came to think that ‘I am the doer’ and ‘I am doing this’—and I know a few, and they’re not around anymore. One of them was my ex-husband. Srila Prabhupada said, “He suffered from too much intelligence.” He left because he was brilliant. He thought that he knew more than his guru. Srila Prabhupada said, “He’s suffering from too much intelligence; he thinks he knows more than his guru.” He was brilliant, there’s no question; he wrote books at 21 years old. But that doesn’t cut it. Srila Prabhupada came from Krsna-loka to write some books, print some books; and the fact that they have been altered is the worst thing that could happen. Everything else will be lost in the wash, but his books… He used to say that “Even if we lose all the temples, you have my books.” But we don’t have his books. My point is, his books have been—until the past year—completely lost, except in my bookcase, and so forth. So this is a very significant thing, that he oversaw the production with the artists and the writers, and he infused the work with his own bhakti. That’s why those early writings and those early paintings are so… shining. I look at this painting, and I don’t know how I did it. I look at that one, and I don’t know…[note: Srila Prabhupada’s room in New Navadvipa is decorated with several paintings done by Govinda dasi and other artists directly under Srila Prabhupada’s supervision.] I don’t have the same mood now; I think none of us really do, as we did while Srila Prabhupada was present.

So he saw the American disease of changing things, and he talks about it in a number of different places, that “The American disease is that they will try to improve and they will change.” One time, one devotee came here, and Srila Prabhupada gave him like an hour’s instruction—I was in the room—how he should do deities. He wanted Gour-Nitai deities. And then at the end of it, he said, “My wife wants to make silk. Can we kill the silkworms?” You know, you’ve got to douse them at the end. And after he left, Srila Prabhupada was shaking his head. He said, “These American boys. Next they will be asking me if they can kill cows to make mrdangas!” Because he was disgusted with this American disease of always wanting to change things and ‘improve’ things. And he reached the point where, toward the end—and you can see around the 1976 letters in all this material that we have—he basically said, “No changes.” Because if he gave them an inch, they would take a mile. Which is why, even though there may be some so-called ‘imperfections’ that you may claim that scholars may see, it’s better not to make any changes because the temptation of a barber is to cut too much hair, and the temptation of an editor is to clip too much or to change too much.

Devotee: Just like the Caitanya-caritamrta, there’s a letter from Mathila-dhish about, obviously anyone that was there for the Caitanya-caritamrta marathon knows that the artists, one would fall asleep, another would come and try to finish it. It was a two-month marathon to produce fifteen books. So then after there was more time and energy, and money and facility, they told Srila Prabhupada, “Well we can touch them up and fix them.” Srila Prabhupada said, “No changes.” Then they tried to tell him, da-da-da-da, and Srila Prabhupada said “No changes.” And then they tried again, saying “We just want to finish it, Srila Prabhupada,” and the third time, very furious, “No changes.”

Govinda dasi: One of the points that I really want to make here is that Srila Prabhupada did oversee his work. He really did; it wasn’t like it was just going on. Even the Caitanya-caritamrta, he was on top of it every moment of the day. Srila Prabhupada got up at two in the morning, and started his translation work. His book work was the most important thing he was here to do. And he kept saying that. So he did watch over it. And things were close, like a family in 1966. They were very close in ’67, ’66, there were only a handful [of devotees], and we would sit around in Srila Prabhupada’s quarters in the evening. We were like small family in New York, and we would talk. And so he would have very close direct contact with all of us. And that contact he had with Hayagriva, he was working on the manuscripts, it wasn’t like later when you had to make an appointment to see Srila Prabhupada; you walked into his room, and in and out all day long! And he sat with you and talked with you and worked with you. This was what the Bhagavad-gita was born amongst, this was how it was edited. So Srila Prabhupada worked closely to get the books like he wanted them, and even if there were a few so-called ‘errors,’ they were still acceptable to him.

And as I said, the underlying danger here is the one, the core danger here is seeing Srila Prabhupada as an ordinary man. This is the greatest danger, and I mentioned that ad [in an early Back to Godhead magazine], and after he left in 1977, a decade of forgetfulness ensued. And in this era, many mistakes were made and many wrongs were done, and there was a confusion surrounding his whole disappearance and everything really kind of fell apart. And those of you who lived through this know that it is true. 90% of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples either left or were forced to leave. In 1996 Srila Prabhupada began to enter back into the center of ISKCON, with the Centennial, and simultaneously with the winning of the court case, his original books started coming out again, so that his work will be preserved.

So my concern is that in 50 years, what will history see? If we allow the gate to be opened for the changes, they will go on. There are already indications that they’re thinking of making other changes.

Bhaktisiddhartha Prabhu: There’s a forum on COM that discusses proposed changes to Srila Prabhupada’s books. The major theme that they’re discussing is ‘the removal of sexist and racist language.’ They’re talking about removing whole sections of Srila Prabhupada’s books.

Tejo-prakash Prabhu: Jayadvaita told us when he was here that nothing has been changed in the Srimad-Bhagavatam.

Govinda dasi: That’s not true.

Devotee: Not true.

Bhaktisiddhartha Prabhu: There are thousands of changes.

Tejo-prakash Prabhu: So where’s their credibility?

09.27.13

by Ajit Krishna Dasa

Jayadvaita Swami admits: There is no one original manuscript

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

Excerpts regarding the so called “original manuscript” from an article by Govinda Dasi

Govinda Dasi

“It is unreasonable to consider that Srila Prabhupada would intend to give up the results of two years of editing the book with Hayagriva and go backwards to the original manuscripts.”

“Jayadvaita Maharaja says that he changed the Bhagavad-gita to be more in keeping with the original manuscript.’ I question which manuscript, since nearly two years of editing by Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva had already taken place before Jayadvaita even joined the movement. There certainly were many working drafts and manuscripts in various stages of editing, since Srila Prabhupada spent many hours, weeks and months going over every detail of every single verse of the Gita with Hayagriva. Jayadvaita Maharaja confirmed this in the second Hawaii istagosthi meeting: there is no one original manuscript.’

A writer usually prepares several working drafts before the final draft is polished and sent to press. For example, I made several drafts of this letter, correcting spelling, grammar and style. The first drafts are in my trash bin. I am signing this, the final draft, for publication. If someone took an earlier draft out of my trash bin and published it, I would be greatly annoyed. Similarly, Srila Prabhupada’s signature is on the final draft of the complete Bhagavad-gita As It Is (completed in 1968 but not published until 1972), not on any so-called original manuscripts’ Jayadvaita Maharaja may possess. To assume that Srila Prabhupada was not watching over and scrutinizing this whole process is absurd. His books were most important to him. He knew both internally and externally what was going into his books, and he signed and sealed the work when it was completed to his satisfaction and ready to go to press.”

“Certainly, the few typos that slipped through needed Srila Prabhupada’s correction, but the scope of alterations in Jayadvaita Maharaja’s edited version is far broader. Jayadvaita Maharaja’s version of Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita doesn’t just correct typos; it also succeeds in changing Srila Prabhupada’s mood, style and often, his meaning. Indeed, after Srila Prabhupada’s departure, the original Bhagavad-gita was rewritten to suit the taste of the editors, on the plea that it is closer to – in Jayadvaita Maharaja’s opinion – the original manuscript.’ But Jayadvaita Maharaja stated in the second book changes meeting in Hawaii that there were many original manuscripts’ of varying quality and content. There is no one original manuscript.’

In this case, any changes are really unreasonable, when you consider that Srila Prabhupada had the original manuscripts in hand, but chose to sign off on the edited version. Why didn’t he just choose to print one of those manuscripts? Why did he, instead, spend hundreds of hours with Hayagriva, editing his manuscript to flow beautifully in the English language? Moreover, why would Srila Prabhupada sign it and gift it to the world, if he intended that future editors would dig up some so-called original manuscripts’ and try to change it back to the original.’ It is unreasonable to consider that Srila Prabhupada would intend to give up the results of two years of editing the book with Hayagriva and go backwards to the original manuscripts.’”

“When Jayadvaita Maharaja presents his rationale for editing Srila Prabhupada ‘s Bhagavad-gita As It Is to the public, he quotes a few passages from Bhagavad-gita As It Is that are obviously confusing, and claims, “these need to be changed.” For example, he cites “planet of the trees” [Bg. 1972 edition 10.24 P] and “cattle raising” [Bg. 1972 edition 18.44 T]. He uses these isolated examples to justify his wholesale rewriting of the entire Gita. Perhaps no one would object if Jayadvaita Maharaja had noted those few changes authorized by Srila Prabhupada in footnotes or an addendum, instead of making sweeping, unauthorized editorial changes to virtually the entire book. If he feels there are confusing aspects, or as he himself is fond of putting it, “goofs” in Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is, then these portions can be selected and clarified in a published addendum or series of footnotes without changing the meaning of any other part of the book.”

“Jayadvaita Maharaja has rewritten the whole book according to some manuscripts that he believes to be the original – and which Srila Prabhupada did not choose to print. Rather, in both 1968 and 1972 Srila Prabhupada chose to print the edited version, not a manuscript.

The overriding fact is that Srila Prabhupada never told Jayadvaita Maharaja or anyone else to edit his books after he left. I repeat, Srila Prabhupada never gave Jayadvaita Maharaja or anybody authority to edit or change his books after his departure. Instead, he said, “Print the books the original way.” By late 1976, he was acutely aware of the American disease’ of compulsively changing things, so he chose the safest route to protect his books: “NO CHANGES.””

Arsa-Prayoga

Preserving Srila Prabhupada's books

Category Archives: Govinda Dasi

Earlier Drafts Are Not Final Authority

Why the “Original Manuscripts” Cannot Overrule Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Approved Bhagavad-gītā As It Is

Manuscripts Are Witnesses, Not Masters

Dictation and Transcription Were Not Faultless Processes

The 1968 Macmillan Translations Were Approved for Continued Use

Hayagrīva’s Work Cannot Be Dismissed as Unauthorized Interference

The 1972 Complete Edition Has Final Published Authority

Clear Instruction, Not Editorial Confidence

The Missing Authorization

Even the Manuscript Argument Is Not Followed Consistently

Why Going Back to Earlier Manuscripts Can Move the Book Further from Śrīla Prabhupāda

Hidden Revision Is Not Honest Annotation

Annotated Editions Are Not the Problem

The Principle of Caution

The Two-Book Solution

1. The Primary Book: Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Original Bhagavad-gītā As It Is

2. The Secondary Book: A Clearly Presented Annotated Edition

Final Conclusion

E-BOOK: Arsa-Prayoga: Preserving Srila Prabhupada’s Legacy

E-book: Srila Prabhupada: The Transcendental Art Master

Ramesvara Prabhu Speaks About the Paintings in Srila Prabhupada’s Books

Proof Positive: An Appeal to Jayadvaita Swami for Clarification (Part 1)

Appendix A

Appendix B

BBT International does not follow the correct editing protocol for posthumous editing (Govinda Dasi)

Jayadvaita undoes Prabhupada’s work on Gita Manuscript

Govinda dasi and Jayadvaita Swami in Honolulu on Jan 19, 2003 (Part 2)

Istagosthi about book changes, January 2003 in Honolulu, Hawaii (Part1)

Jayadvaita Swami admits: There is no one original manuscript

Why the “Original Manuscripts” Cannot Overrule Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Approved Bhagavad-gītā As It Is

Manuscripts Are Witnesses, Not Masters

Dictation and Transcription Were Not Faultless Processes

The 1968 Macmillan Translations Were Approved for Continued Use

Hayagrīva’s Work Cannot Be Dismissed as Unauthorized Interference

The 1972 Complete Edition Has Final Published Authority

Clear Instruction, Not Editorial Confidence

The Missing Authorization

Even the Manuscript Argument Is Not Followed Consistently

Why Going Back to Earlier Manuscripts Can Move the Book Further from Śrīla Prabhupāda

Hidden Revision Is Not Honest Annotation

Annotated Editions Are Not the Problem

The Principle of Caution

The Two-Book Solution

1. The Primary Book: Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Original Bhagavad-gītā As It Is

2. The Secondary Book: A Clearly Presented Annotated Edition

Final Conclusion

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Appendix A

Appendix B

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: