By Ajit Krishna Dasa
Those who have altered Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books like to speak of “devotee cooperation” and “proper channels.” What they mean is submission without scrutiny. They have built a system where questioning is punished, reasoning is re-framed as offense, and loyalty is measured by silence.
Whenever a devotee raises a concern, the reply is almost scripted:
“You are offensive.”
Continue readingBy Ajit Krishna Dasa
Srila Prabhupada’s decision to title Chapter 6 of the Bhagavad Gita As It Is “Sankhya Yoga” stands as a distinctive and deliberate choice, diverging from the more common “Dhyana Yoga” favored by traditional acharyas, modern scholars, and Western translators. This title, unique in the history of widely recognized Gita commentaries, reflects his mission to present the text through the lens of Gaudiya Vaishnavism while reintroducing the theistic Sankhya philosophy of Kapila Muni, the divine son of Devahuti from the Srimad Bhagavatam. Far from a mere editorial quirk, Prabhupada’s naming can be seen as a strategic reclamation of the term “Sankhya,” serving as an implicit attack on the atheistic Sankhya school and aligning the chapter’s teachings with Krishna consciousness. This choice makes sense when viewed through the philosophical content of Chapter 6, its integration of Sankhya and Yoga, and Prabhupada’s broader purpose of countering materialistic philosophies.
Sankhya philosophy, one of the six classical schools of Indian thought, fundamentally distinguishes between purusha (the eternal, conscious soul) and prakriti (temporary, unconscious matter), aiming for liberation through analytical knowledge. However, two versions of Sankhya exist: the atheistic, classical Sankhya, often attributed to a sage Kapila, which denies a supreme God and posits multiple purushas liberated through intellectual discernment alone, and the theistic Sankhya of Kapila Muni, an incarnation of Vishnu, as detailed in Srimad Bhagavatam (Canto 3, Chapters 24–33). The latter integrates this dualistic framework with devotion to Krishna, the Supreme Purusha, as the source and controller of all existence.
Srila Prabhupada consistently champions the theistic Sankhya of the Bhagavatam’s Kapila, critiquing the atheistic version as incomplete. In his purport to Gita 2.39, he describes Sankhya as the analytical study of soul and matter but ties it to Krishna’s authority, while in Srimad Bhagavatam 1.2.30, he credits Kapila (the Vishnu avatar) with creating Sankhya to dispel material illusion, implying the atheistic school is a corruption. By titling Chapter 6 “Sankhya Yoga,” Prabhupada reclaims the term from its godless connotation, positioning it as a Krishna-centric science of self-realization. This choice serves as an attack on atheistic Sankhya by asserting that true Sankhya—unlike its materialistic distortion—culminates in devotion to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, not mere intellectual isolation.
Chapter 6 of the Gita, while renowned for its meditative instructions (e.g., 6.11–14: sitting steadily, focusing on the self or Krishna), contains philosophical elements that resonate with Sankhya, justifying Prabhupada’s title. Verses like 6.5–6 (“One must deliver himself with the help of his mind… the mind is the friend or enemy”) echo Sankhya’s view of the mind as a product of prakriti that binds or liberates the purusha depending on its mastery. Similarly, 6.1–4 emphasize detachment from sense objects and fruitive results, mirroring Sankhya’s goal of disentangling the soul from material nature. The description of the yogi’s transcendent state in 6.20–23—realizing the self’s distinction from matter through “transcendental senses”—further aligns with Sankhya’s liberation through discriminative knowledge.
Prabhupada’s “Sankhya Yoga” title broadens the chapter’s scope beyond meditation (dhyana) to include this analytical foundation, reflecting the theistic Sankhya of Kapila, where understanding the soul’s eternality leads to Krishna (Srimad Bhagavatam 3.25.18). Unlike “Dhyana Yoga,” which narrows the focus to meditative practice, “Sankhya Yoga” encapsulates the integration of knowledge (Sankhya) and discipline (Yoga), culminating in devotion (6.47: “The highest yogi thinks of Me constantly”). By highlighting these Sankhya elements, Prabhupada challenges atheistic Sankhya’s endpoint—self-isolation without God—replacing it with a theistic synthesis that directs the practitioner to Krishna, thus undermining the atheistic school’s philosophical legitimacy.
The tendency in Indian tradition to connect Sankhya and Yoga as complementary systems supports Prabhupada’s titling. Historically, Sankhya provides the metaphysical blueprint (distinguishing purusha from prakriti), while Yoga, particularly Patanjali’s Ashtanga Yoga, offers the practical path, with dhyana (meditation, the seventh limb) as a key stage. The Gita itself reflects this synergy: Chapter 2 introduces Sankhya’s analytical wisdom (2.39), and Chapter 6 blends it with yogic practice. Prabhupada’s “Sankhya Yoga” title leverages this tradition, but adapts it to Vaishnavism by rooting it in Kapila’s theistic Sankhya, not the atheistic version that Patanjali’s Yoga partially accommodates (via Ishvara, Yoga Sutras 1.23).
This historical pairing bolsters Prabhupada’s attack on atheistic Sankhya. By invoking “Sankhya” in a yogic context, he reasserts its original spiritual purpose—lost in the godless classical school—and aligns it with the Gita’s theistic narrative, where Krishna is the ultimate goal (Gita 15.17–18). This reclamation serves as a polemic, subtly exposing atheistic Sankhya’s inadequacy compared to its devotional counterpart.
Prabhupada’s mission was to counter materialistic and impersonal philosophies, including atheistic Sankhya, which he saw as a distortion of Vedic truth. His critiques in purports—e.g., dismissing atheistic Sankhya as “dry speculation” (Gita 7.4, purport)—reveal his intent to restore its theistic essence. Naming Chapter 6 “Sankhya Yoga” is a deliberate strike against this distortion for several reasons:
No major traditional acharya (e.g., Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya) or modern translator (e.g., Sivananda, Chinmayananda) titles Chapter 6 “Sankhya Yoga”—they typically use “Dhyana Yoga” or variants, reserving “Sankhya Yoga” for Chapter 2. Prabhupada’s divergence is a bold innovation, justified by Chapter 6’s Sankhya-like elements and his mission. While “Dhyana Yoga” fits the chapter’s meditative focus, “Sankhya Yoga” captures its broader philosophical depth, aligning with his view of Kapila’s system as both knowledge and practice directed toward Krishna.
Srila Prabhupada’s “Sankhya Yoga” title for Chapter 6 makes profound sense as a reflection of its content—merging Sankhya’s analytical insights with Yoga’s meditative discipline—and his intent to advance Gaudiya Vaishnavism. It serves as a strategic attack on atheistic Sankhya by reintroducing Kapila’s theistic version, challenging its godless conclusions, and redirecting its principles toward Krishna. This choice not only highlights the chapter’s philosophical richness but also fulfills Prabhupada’s mission to present the Gita as a devotional text, countering materialistic distortions and establishing Krishna consciousness as the ultimate synthesis of Vedic wisdom. In this light, “Sankhya Yoga” is not just a title—it’s a declaration of theistic triumph over atheism, rooted in scripture and tradition.
For a definitive proof that Srila Prabhupada wanted Chapter Six of his Bhagavad-gita As It Is to be named Sankhya-Yoga, please see this article.
By Ajit Krishna Dasa
Jayadvaita Swami admits that it constitutes evidence against making a change if Srila Prabhupada read and/or lectured from a translation or purport without objecting to it:
“And yet we have several places where Śrīla Prabhupāda speaks of chapter six as the “Sāṅkhya-yoga chapter,” and of course he saw the chapter published with that title and never objected.”
The above quote is from Jayadvaita Swami’s annotated scans: Chapter Six from J. Swami’s edited copy of the 1972 edition. This is a chapter from the copy of the 1972 edition of Bhagavad-gītā As It Is on which Jayādvaita Swami marked the revisions for the edition of 1983.
Direct link to the annotated scans of Chapter Six (look for the headline “About sankhya”):
http://bbtedit.com/gitafiles/72_Gita_showing_revisions_06_chapter_6.pdf
By Ajit Krishna Dasa
Definition:
“ghostwriter
ˈɡəʊstrʌɪtə/
noun
a person whose job it is to write material for someone else who is the named author.
However, the difference between the usual ghostwriter and Jayadvaita Swami is that the latter is forcing his service upon the author (Srila Prabhupada), after the author’s demise.
We got rid of the eleven self-appointed zonal “gurus”. But we still have Jayadvaita Swami who, as the self-appointed ghostwriter, is forcing his editing on Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada has no say in this regard. He is simply being forced to accept the ghostwritten material of Jayadvaita Swami.
And so is everyone else.
Hare Krishna!
This below e-mail was sent to Sivarama Swami through the e-mail address (asksrs@gmail.com) provided on this website. I hope that the devotees in charge of receiving the e-mails will forward the e-mail to Maharaja. In the meantime I will look for another e-mail address of his.
—
Dear Sivarama Swami. Dandavat pranama. Jaya Srila Prabhupada.
I apologize if answering this letter becomes a burden on your many other responsibilities.
Recently I heard a podcast from your website where you respond to a few questions about the changes made to Srila Prabhupada’s books.
I have a few comments and points I find important in relation to your response, and I hope you will find the time to answer each of them.
This is an open letter, so it will also be posted online.
The letter is attached to this e-mail, but you can also find it here:
Thank you very much.
Your servant,
Ajit Krishna Dasa
—
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.”
Click to download the book
ISKCON’s Changes to Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is and Perfect Questions, Perfect Answers (by Madhudvisa Dasa).
Perhaps the first book on the book changes. So old it was made with a typewriter. Definitely of both present day and historical value. It contains a lot of good evidence against the changes, good arguments and historical documentation (like mails).
Download the book here: ISKCON’s Changes to Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is and Perfect Questions, Perfect Answers (by Madhudvisa Dasa).
In September 2014 Radhanath Swami sent the below e-mail to one of his Danish disciples, Caitanya Candra Dasa:
Here is the text in digital format:
“Dear Chaitanya Chandra Prabhu,
Please accept my respectful obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
I thank you for confiding in me on this subject. There is much to be said and I sincerely respect your concern. Actually, the subject is being discussed on the GBC level. The sacred principle of not changing what our Acarya has written is to be taken with great care. At the same time, the editorial process was done by persons who were personally trained by Srila Prabhupada. So it is not an easy subject. As it stands, it is being discussed on a high level of leadership.
I do not believe that your separating from our society will have any positive result. There are many innocent and sincere devotees simply trying to be faithful to their seniors. I believe that Srila Prabhupada would want this issue resolved on a higher level of leadership, which I believe it will be in time, and that it not disrupt the lives of innocent devotees or the unity of our society.
You have a right to your genuine concerns, please consider my appeal that you express it in a balanced way that preserves other sacred principles, those of respect and unity which Srila Prabhupada also emphasized as cardinal principles in vaisnava culture.
With gratitude, your servant, Radhanath Swami
An analysis:
We can see that Radhanath Swami is an intelligent diplomat.
RS: “I thank you for confiding in me on this subject.”
Radhanath Swami tries to maintain a relationship of trust. He makes it seem as if he appreciates Caitanya Candra Dasa’s questions, and invites him to open up his heart.
RS: “There is much to be said…”
This could make it seem as if Radhanath Swami has some special knowledge about the book changes, and as if it is a great mystery (secret knowledge) that requires deep and intense study, sadhana and special association to understand. But what Radhanath Swami is really saying, I guess, is that he does not know much about this matter, and that he is not going to speak much about it – neither to Caitanya Candra Dasa nor publicly.
RS: “…and I sincerely respect your concern.”
Radhanath Swami makes it seem as if he truly shares Caitanya Candra Dasa’s concerns. He speaks as if they are on the same side – that of genuine concern. But Radhanath Swami’s statement is trivial, for who does not care for Srila Prabhupada’s books? Everyone will say they care. Everyone will say that the editing should be done in a way that pleases Srila Prabhupada. But notice that Radhanath Swami does not disclose his own personal opinion. He really says nothing at all.
RS: “Actually, the subject is being discussed on the GBC level. The sacred principle of not changing what our Acarya has written is to be taken with great care. At the same time, the editorial process was done by persons who were personally trained by Srila Prabhupada. So it is not an easy subject. As it stands, it is being discussed on a high level of leadership.”
Here we again see Radhanath Swami’s diplomatic skills at work. He is indirectly saying that Caitanya Candra Dasa should not care much about it because it is being taken care of “on a high level of leadership”. Radhanath Swami says: “Do not worry! The GBC will handle it! Go back to sleep!”
But we all know what “a high level of leadership” in ISKCON means! It means incompetent devotees creating new problems while trying to solve already existing problems caused by themselves.
And what is the proof that the GBC are talking about this? It was not mentioned in the GBC resolutions of 2015. Maybe Radhanath Swami is misinformed or twisting the truth trying to buy time. Or maybe there is really a committee of around 3 members who are all pro-change who speaks about the book changes 2 hours per year trying to figure out how to close the mouths of the protesters.
Why should we accept Radhanath Swami’s “assurance” that the GBC is handling this issue? For all we know he could be lying. He presents no proof.
Radhanath Swami tries to balance things out by acknowledging that it is important not to change the words of our Acarya. But at the same time, he says, we should remember that those who did the changes were personally trained by Srila Prabhupada. Radhanath Swami uses the same diplomatic skills as Duryodhana on the battlefield first glorifying Drona and then Bhisma. He is saying to Caitanya Candra Dasa: “You are good, and they are also good! Therefore it is all very complicated and can only be solved at GBC level! Please go back to sleep!”
RS: “So it is not an easy subject.”
It really does not take much of a brain to see that Jayadvaita Swami and BBTI have violated the arsa-prayoga big time. But either Radhanath Swami will not write this online, or he is in denial or simply does not know much about what has been done to Srila Prabhupada’s books.
What we do know is that he is diplomatic, and that he is not going to risk his own prestige and position by speaking about the book changes online or publicly.
Factually, by his silence Radhanath Swami is accepting the changes made to Srila Prabhupada’s books by the BBTI, and by encouraging his disciples to also stay silent, he is also encouraging them to accept the changes.
RS: “There are many innocent and sincere devotees simply trying to be faithful to their seniors. I believe that Srila Prabhupada would want this issue resolved on a higher level of leadership, which I believe it will be in time, and that it not disrupt the lives of innocent devotees or the unity of our society.”
Radhanath Swami seems to have failed to understand that the so-called “higher level of leadership” in ISKCON has had more that 30 years to resolve this very simple issue. But they have continuously made the situation worse. Instead of stopping all editing while investigating the matter thoroughly they have allowed BBTI to continue editing many of Srila Prabhupada’s books.
We have absolutely no reason to believe or trust that the BBTI or GBC are capable of solving this issue on their own. And since they will not listen we have to challenge them to answer publicly. There is no other way. It is their own fault that this subject is being debated publicly.
And to claim that it is dangerous for new devotees to hear of such controversial topic is simply foolish. Our first concern in spiritual life is to make sure that the scriptures we read are bona fide. This is ABC and all new devotees are taught this in the temples, and it is written in all of Srila Prabhupada’s small introductory books. So if there is any doubt about the authenticity of the books, then all devotees need to know.
The funny thing is that we know for sure that the original books are bona fide and have the power to deliver us. But we are not sure if the changed editions have that potency. As a guru Radhanath Swami ought to have at least the amount of intelligence to understand that we must stop printing the changed books until we know for sure which editions are bona fide. Better safe than sorry.
But Radhanath Swami has never stepped forward to ask the BBTI to stop their editing while the matter is being investigated.
Instead Radhanath Swami suggests that we leave this crucial matter to incompetent “high level leaders”, while we sleep our way back to Godhead. Are these foolish instructions on the book changes really coming from a bona fide spiritual master?
RS: “You have a right to your genuine concerns, please consider my appeal that you express it in a balanced way that preserves other sacred principles, those of respect and unity which Srila Prabhupada also emphasized as cardinal principles in vaisnava culture.
With gratitude, your servant, Radhanath Swami”
Radhanath Swami tries to close the correspondence in a mood of friendship. He has said something and at the same time nothing. Radhanath Swami prefers that Caitanya Candra Dasa keeps quiet about this matter and leaves it to the “high level leaders”. At the same time Radhanath Swami knows that Caitanya Candra Dasa might not want to keep his mouth shut, so he implores him to speak in a balanced way if he speaks about it.
At no point did Radhanath Swami state his own opinion about the book changes, and he did not help Caitanya Candra Dasa understand this most important issue. If Radhanath Swami really was a bona fide guru, then he should easily be able and willing to clear the doubts of his disciples on this matter. But it seems he cannot do that. Or maybe he choses to let his disciples stay in the darkness of ignorance in order not to get himself into trouble.
This is not how a guru works. A guru is not a diplomat. A guru is straight forward. A guru want to help his disciples. He wants to save them from ignorance and the offences of violating the arsa-prayoga principle.
Some of our local ISKCON authorities in Denmark have tried to impress upon the Danish devotees that Caitanya Candra Dasa is violating his guru’s instructions by speaking about the book changes. But we can see this is false. Radhanath Swami says that Caitanya Candra Dasa has the right to be concerned about the book changes, and he does not prohibit Caitanya Candra Dasa from speaking publicly about the book changes – for whatever reason.
BY: THE ASSEMBLED DEVOTEES
Jul 25, 2014 — GLOBAL (SUN) —
No Opportunity for Questions?
In the 2003 Honolulu conversation cited in the first installment of Proof Positive, Jayadvaita Swami stated:
“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.”
In the 15 months prior to Srila Prabhupada approving the 1972 Bhagavad-gita blue-print/galleyproof, Jayadvaita wrote to His Divine Grace on six different occasions regarding book production. Srila Prabhupada replied each time, often with detailed explanations and instructions. Though the statements found in some of these letters (see below) refer to books other than Bhagavad-gita, they are still a definitive indication that Srila Prabhupada had made himself available for final proofreading, questions on editing, and other details of book production, and that he already was communicating and interacting with Jayadvaita on such matters.
And, as indicated below, Srila Prabhupada also went to New York and spent approximately 14 days there in July and August of 1971. The record shows that Jayadvaita had plenty of opportunity to send Prabhupada the Bhagavad-gita blue-prints, manuscripts and queries, as well as to meet personally with His Divine Grace. Srila Prabhupada also made a standing offer directly to Jayadvaita in a meeting in Boston in 1969 regarding publishing of the unabridged Gita:
Jayadvaita: [referring to the “original” manuscript] Some of it has been edited by Rayarama, but you can see around it and go to the original behind it.
Srila Prabhupada: So whatever is lacking, you ask me. I will supply you.
Why, then, did Jayadvaita Swami state there was no opportunity, and why didn’t he ask his questions when he had the chance?
(Emphasis is added in the following letters and some have been abbreviated):
Letter to Jayadvaita- Bombay, March 17, 1971:
“My Dear Jayadvaita, Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your letter dated 21st February, 1971 and noted the contents carefully. I do not know what may have happened to the letter dated 9th January, 1971, but I have not received it.
Regarding your questions:
12:12: The ultimate point is to come to the stage of loving Krsna and all other indirect processes are subsidiary….
14:27: Impersonal Brahman is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness because without coming to the brahma-bhutah platform and remaining engaged in the activities of brahman nobody can be joyful….
I have dictated the missing purports from Chapter IX and they are set enclosed herewith. So far changing the working of verse or purport of 12:12 discussed before, it may remain as it is.”
Letter to Jayadvaita- Los Angeles, July 3, 1971:
“My Dear Jayadvaita, Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your letter dated 30th June, 1971 and have noted the contents carefully. Your report on the progress of Srimad-Bhagavatam, first four cantos, is very much encouraging, so continue this work very seriously. I have again begun translating work and have so far sent Satsvarupa Prabhu three tapes from 4th Canto, 8th chapter, and will be sending many more.”
Letter to Jayadvaita- Los Angeles, July 13, 1971:
“I am in due receipt of your letter dated 10th July, 1971 and have noted the contents. Also I have received the laid-out sheets for tapes no. 1 & 2 and they are very well done. Thank you very much. I was so much pleased to see that already the tapes were edited and laid out and this is encouraging me to translate more and more. You can give Ch. 8 of S.B. canto 4 the title “Dhruva Maharaja enters the forest to meet the Lord”.
…Very soon I am coming to N.Y. and we can discuss further on these matters.“
Letter to Jayadvaita- Calcutta, February 18, 1972:
“My Dear Jayadvaita, Please accept my blessings. I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 5, 1972, and have noted the contents. Yes, because no one else can do them, I shall do the sanskrit synonyms. You simply send me now the manuscripts as required by you, and I shall send back either dictaphone tapes or tape-recorder cassettes.”
Letter to Jayadvaita- Calcutta, March 5, 1972:
“My dear Jayadvaita, Please accept my blessings. I have also received your letter along with Bali Mardan’s….As I have informed, Pradyumna and Syamasundara will be sending you regularly completed transcriptions of my translation work by post, that will avoid the high cost of sending tapes, which besides are very expensive and may be lost easily in mail, and because I am here if they have questions I can answer and make the final proofreading, and this will expedite everything. One thing, now you say the date for printing by MacMillan Co. is set for August 1st, but last time you said June 1st, so I am wondering how long this delaying business shall go on?”
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.”
In summary, Srila Prabhupada stated:
“So whatever is lacking, you ask me. I will supply you.”
(1969 meeting in Boston)
“Very soon I am coming to N.Y. and we can discuss further on these matters.”
(he then spends 2 weeks in New York)
“if they have questions I can answer and make the final proofreading”
“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.”
In total, Jayadvaita corresponded with His Divine Grace on six different occasions between February 1971 and May 1972.
Jayadvaita Swami stated:
“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.”
Just recently three confidential e-mails were leaked and posted on facebook. They reveal what Ramesvara Prabhu thinks about the changes made the Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita, the editing policies of the BBTI and they shed light on what happened when the GBC and BBT trustees “reviewed” the 83 Gita. 
Below are some quotes that will rock the boat, but please visit the website at the end of this article to see all three e-mails in their entirety and thus get the full picture. Quotes From confidential email no. 1:
“The problem with the “Responsible Publishing” paper is that it is simply not the entire body of instruction, and it‘s critics point out that it is one-sided and obviously leaves out many of Prabhupada’s cautionary instructions against unnecessary change,”
[…]
“That analysis with Dravida Prabhu left me with my deepest concern: if the changes didn’t have substantial merit but were made anyway, then regardless of the justification of “making it better” the door, the “change disease” as Srila Prabhupada called it, had been dangerously opened for anything to happen in the future after we are all long gone.”
[…]
“The Lilamrita interviews I found tell of Srila Prabhupada’s direct instructions regarding the size of the books, the artwork to be kept in the books, etc. – things that have already been changed so many times in the past 20 years, without understanding of Prabhupada’s orders, that it makes the “official” opening of this “change” door more ominous for the future, in ways we can’t even imagine.”
[…]
“…an absolute position has to be reached so that before we die, we know that within the BBT and ISKCON there could never again be one single change, for any reason, ever made to Srila Prabhupada’s books.”
From confidential e-mail no. 2:
“The “Responsible Publishing” (RP) paper has either a significant misleading or a significant historical inaccuracy. There are sites which claim to list more than 5,000 changes. Certainly there were thousands of changes. The RP paper states that every change to the translations was reviewed and approved by the Trustees, leading ISKCON devotees, the CBC, etc. Later the RP cites or implies in its endorsements that all the changes were approved. Of course, NO ONE other than the editors ever saw back in 1981 or 1982 ALL the changes.”
[…]
“I have always admitted that my great failure as a trustee was not carefully reading every proposed change, and instead, relying on the endorsement of Hridayananda and Satsvarupa- along with Jayadvaita.”
[…]
“I know that in talking years ago with others on that committee, that they also admitted performing only a cursory review of the proposed changes,…”
[…]
“No one back then did their job or acted with full responsibility for what they were endorsing. l assure you that NO ONE on that Committee ever even asked to see all the changes, and we would have been astounded to have learned in 1981 or 1982 that there were thousands, maybe more than 5,000 changes. I lazily assumed that the work done on manuscripts as close to the original as possible was the only thing that mattered. I failed to consider all the other Prabhupada instructions, the ramifications for making changes if they didn’t ultimately change the meaning; the effect of changes that in some cases loses the flavor of the Gita we had been studying for 10 years, and most importantly, that breaks the etiquette of changing a Sampradaya Acaraya’s books after His disappearance and opens the “change door” for possible future other changes over the decades and centuries to come. The RP paper implies that the changes were carefully reviewed and approved throughout the leadership of the BBT, GBC and ISKCON. I am certain that by interviewing all the leaders of that time, we would find most guilty of the same mistake that i made. It is true to state that the leaders of ISKCON at the time endorsed the changes. However, it is overtly misleading to state or suggest that the leaders actually performed a careful review. And getting back to the fact that there are thousands of changes, no leader, including the BBT Trustees, was ever shown every single change. No one! That is the sad historical fact…”
From confidential e-mail no. 3:
“I find it embarrassing that on the site BBTEdit.com, in the section about editing posthumously, the only quote to support touching the works of a departed Acarya is that Srila Jiva Goswami was working posthumously on Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu. Seriously – how can any living entity compare themselves to Sri Jiva Goswami, or think because he touched the work of Sri Rupa Gosvami, therefore an editor in the lower stages of bhakti, not yet fully situated in the perfected stages of bhava (what to Speak of prema) can touch and change the words of a departed Sampradaya Acarya. Not a good example in my lowly View – it begs the question of What our editors think of themselves and their level of Krsna Consciousness. Oh well…”
Please find all the three e-mails in their entirety here: http://jayasrikrishna.weebly.com (PDF and Word). You can also see and download the e-mails here as PDF and Word.
Arsa-Prayoga 
You must be logged in to post a comment.