Category Archives: No reply from BBT International

05.22.26
by

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.

  1. Earlier drafts may contain wording Śrīla Prabhupāda later rejected, improved, or allowed to be improved.
  2. Earlier drafts may lack corrections made during later discussions with editors.
  3. Some manuscripts are transcriptions, and transcriptions may contain misheard words, missing words, clipped phrases, phonetic approximations, or guessed readings.
  4. Some so-called manuscripts had already passed through editorial handling before reaching their surviving form.
  5. Some original transcription sources are no longer available, making the textual history incomplete.
  6. 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. 
  7. 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”].
  8. 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].
  9. The 1972 complete edition was published, approved, distributed, and used by Śrīla Prabhupāda.
  10. Reverting to earlier drafts risks undoing Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own editorial decisions.
  11. Without Śrīla Prabhupāda physically present to confirm or reject proposed changes, later editors must not assume his intention.
  12. The phrase “closer to the manuscript” does not necessarily mean “closer to Śrīla Prabhupāda.”
  13. The approved published editions have devotional, historical, and authorial authority that earlier working materials do not possess by themselves.
  14. The moment uncertain manuscript readings are allowed to replace approved published readings, the published book becomes unstable.
  15. Such a method grants later editors practical authority to reconstruct the ācārya’s words after his departure.
  16. A principle of caution requires preserving the authorized text when certainty is not available.
  17. 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.

11.01.25
by

“The Duty of the Finger” (4.38) – Revisited

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Link to original Arsa-Prayoga article:

https://arsaprayoga.com/2013/10/24/enjoying-the-self-within-or-the-duty-of-the-finger-bg-4-38/

Description

In the 1972 Macmillan edition of Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, approved and used by Śrīla Prabhupāda, the translation of BG 4.38 reads:

“And one who has achieved this enjoys the self within himself in due course of time.”

In the 1983 BBT International edition, the translation is changed to:

“And one who has become accomplished in the practice of devotional service enjoys this knowledge within himself in due course of time.”

Multiple phrases have been replaced or expanded, and the purport has been altered to match the new interpretation.

Type of change

Substitution and deletion (translation + purport)

Category

Philosophical change

Commentary

1. Change of theological focus

The original states that the self-realized person “enjoys the self within.” The revised version replaces “the self” with “this knowledge,” shifting the focus from spiritual identity to mental content. That is not a correction of language but a change of doctrine.

2. Introduction of wording not found in the original

Original: “has achieved this”
Edited: “has become accomplished in the practice of devotional service”
This inserts a new conceptual framework and changes the subject of the verse from realization to performance.

3. Removal of Vedāntic clarity

The original expresses the result of realization — the soul directly experiencing its own spiritual nature.
The edited version turns the verse into a statement about enjoying accumulated knowledge through devotional practice.

4. The “manuscript restoration” claim is invalid

The 1972 edition is already closer to the manuscript than the 1983 rewrite. Changing the published edition in the name of “restoration” while actually adding interpretive wording is not restoration — it is posthumous editing.

5. Śrīla Prabhupāda never corrected or objected to the original wording

Prabhupāda lectured from this verse and didn’t say the translation was wrong or needed revision. His silence is better seen as evidence of approval than evidence of disapproval.

6. Effect on meaning

-Shift from “enjoying the self” to “enjoying knowledge”
-Shift from realization to information
-Shift from divine fact to devotional process

Conclusion

This is not a spelling or grammar correction. It is a shift in meaning — from direct realization of the self to the enjoyment of knowledge gained through practice. That shift did not come from Śrīla Prabhupāda. It came from a posthumous editor, Jayadvaita Swami.

Such changes do not preserve Bhagavad-gītā As It Is — they transform it into Bhagavad-gītā JAS it is.
This is a clear violation of the principle of arsa-prayoga: the words of the ācārya must not be altered after his departure.

10.15.25
by

The Pseudo-Vāda of the Book-Changers

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 reading →
12.20.15
by

Is Jayadvaita Swami Still Good? (The Logic of the Naked Mother)

logical-fallacy-1

In defence of Jayadvaita Swami’s editing of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is BBT International write on their website:

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

And:

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

But it is a logical fallacy to claim that a thing must possess the same characteristics now as it did in the past.

In Nyaya this fallacy is called Nagna-Matrika-Nyaya / The Logic of the Naked Mother. Srila Prabhupada explains:

This is nagna-matrka-nyaya. We change according to the circumstances. You cannot say that this must remain like this. (Morning Walk, May 5, 1973, Los Angeles)

Srila Prabhupada knew things could change, and he would never commit such a logical fallacy. He explains:

Prabhupada: I have given you charge of this BBT, millions of dollars you are dealing, but it is not for your misuse. As soon as you misuse, that is your responsibility.
Ramesvara: Yes, but he says but still, you’ll know that I’m going to misuse it.
Prabhupada: No. That Krsna knows, when something charge is given. But because you are independent, I know that “Ramesvara is very good boy; let him be in charge.” But you can misuse at any moment, because you have got independence. You can misuse at any moment. At that time your position is different. (Morning Walk — June 3, 1976, Los Angeles)

And here he clearly says that we must evaluate a person based on the present situation:

Prabhupāda: So phalena paricīyate. You have to consider the case, suppose a man was very good now he has stolen something still he is a good man? Present consideration is the judgement… There is a Bengali proverb that seven generations before my forefathers used to eat ghee, ghee butter so still I got this smell.
Devotee (1): Hm.

Prabhupāda: Seven generations before my forefathers used to eat ghee so therefore that smell is still there in my house. Is that very good argument? (Morning Walk – October 8, 1972, Berkeley)

Previously we have dealt with BBT International’s argument here and here.

BBT International’s “Jayadvaita-Swami-is-good-argument” has thus been show to be logically invalid. In other words, it is not enough to say that at one point in time Srila Prabhupada liked Jayadvaita Swami’s editing. We need more. We need to know the present situation.

On top of that we have a few e-books out, documenting that Jayadvaita Swami has transgressed the instructions given by Srila Prabhupada. Please take a look at them:

No Reply from BBTI

Blazing Edits

Arsa-Prayoga – Preserving Srila Prabhupada’s Legacy

The BBT International and Jayadvaita Swami need to address the points presented in these books instead of relying on faulty logic.

11.13.15
by

Open Letter to Sivarama Swami

Screen Shot 2015-11-13 at 19.52.49

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:

Open Letter to Sivarama Swami

Thank you very much.​
Your servant,
Ajit Krishna Dasa

—

08.21.15
by

E-BOOK: No Reply From BBTI

We have created an e-book (free of course) from some of the articles on http://arsaprayoga.com. It is called…

No Reply From BBTI

The changes to Srila Prabhupada’s books that the BBT International does not want you to know about!

Screenshot 2014-05-10 10.32.28

READ ONLINE HERE (PDF):

e-book-no-reply-from-bbti-version-0.1-05-10-2014

DOWNLOAD THE E-BOOK HERE! (PDF)

Please share this e-book with as many as possible! 

04.16.15
by

“Enter Blazing” – Jayadvaita Swami Commits a Grammatical Error (Bg. 11.28)

universal-formThe Universal Form

Bhakta Torben Nielsen recently made me aware of this change to Bg. 11.28:

Original and authorized 1972-edition:

“As the rivers flow into the sea, so all these great warriors enter Your blazing mouths and perish.”

BBT International’s edited 1983 edition:

“As the many waves of the rivers flow into the ocean, so do all these great warriors enter blazing into Your mouths.”

So-called original manuscript:

There is no verse for 11.28 as the page is missing. But verse 30 mentions the words “blazing mouths”.

This is a very interesting change, because it is of a grammatical nature:

  • In Srila Prabhupada’s original 1972 edition the adjective “blazing” describes the plural noun “mouths”.
  • In BBT International’s 1983 edition the adjective “blazing” describes the plural noun “warriors”.

So which translation is grammatically correct – Srila Prabhupada’s or Jayadvaita Swami’s?

The context

Here we have the verses from Bg. 11.28-30 (original edition):

“As the rivers flow into the sea, so all these great warriors enter Your blazing mouths and perish.” (Bg. 11.28)

“I see all people rushing with full speed into Your mouths as moths dash into a blazing fire.” (Bg. 11.29)

“O Visnu, I see You devouring all people in Your flaming mouths and covering the universe with Your immeasurable rays. Scorching the worlds, You are manifest.” (Bg. 11.30)

We see that Srila Prabhupada describes the mouths of the universal form as “blazing” (Bg. 11.28) and “flaming” (Bg. 11.30), and compares them to a “blazing fire” (Bg. 11.29). There is no “original manuscript” available for Bg. 11.28-29, but the “original manuscript” for Bg. 11.30 also says “blazing mouths”, as mentioned above.

Screen Shot 2015-03-13 at 11.49.21

Plate 31

The painting above this article is Plate 31 from the Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Just like all other paintings in the book it was approved by Srila Prabhupada. On the painting we clearly see that the warriors are entering into the blazing mouths of The Universal Form – just like we are told that they are in the Bg. 11.28, 1972 edition.

Srila Prabhupada’s desire

Based on the above, there is no doubt at all that Srila Prabhupada wanted to use the adjective “blazing” to describe the mouths of the universal form. He never meant to say that the great warriors were “blazing”.

What does the previous acaryas say about Bg. 11.28? (as translated on bhagavad-gita.org)

Sridhara Swami’s commentary:

“As unlimited currents of water helplessly flow in innumerable rivers and are propelled from multiple channels into the ocean, the mighty warriors of the Kaurava and Pandava armies are seen to be helplessly propelled into the flaming, gnashing mouths of the visvarupa or divine universal form of Lord Krishna.” ()

Kesava Kasmiri’s commentary:

“How helplessly do the mighty warriors of the Kaurava and Pandava armies enter into the flaming mouths of Lord Krishna’s visvarupa or divine universal form? As helplessly as unlimited currents of water from innumerable rivers are propelled into entering the ocean.”

In his translations of Visvanath Cakravarti Thakura and Baladeva Vidyabhusana’s Bhagavad-gita commentaries Bhanu Swami also translates Bg. 11.28 as follows:

“As many swift currents of rivers flow towards the sea, so these heroes of the world enter Your flaming mouths.”

The sanskrit

Gaura Krishna Dasa, a student of sanskrit, sent me the following analysis of the sanskrit grammar:

Regarding the change in the translation of Bhagavad gita 11.28.

The word “abhivijvalanti” is in the 1972 edition taken as what in grammar is called a verbal adjective or a participle. A participle is basically a derivative from a verb but belonging in the group of adjectives. This particular participle is a participle in present tense, active voice for parasmaipada verbs. It is in neuter gender, plural number and in the accusative case which clearly indicates that it relates to “vaktraani” which is also in neuter gender, plural number and accusative case.

Sridhara Swami, Visvanath Cakravati Thakur and Baladeva Vidyabhusana have the same grammatical conclusion of this word as a participle and therefore in relation to “vaktraani” attributively, “blazing mouths”.

The “anti” ending in “abhivijvalanti” could preliminarily appear as a finite verb 3rd person in the plural number and present tense related to “nara-loka-viira” (the kings of human society), but this conclusion is in the least very strange. It would, if accepted, be a distortion of historical facts and it must be concluded faulty because this sentense already has a finite verb namely “visanti” meaning entering. So if we for the sake of example maintain “abhivijvalanti” as a finite verb, as it is done in the 1983 edition it would translate “as the many waves of the rivers flow into the ocean, so all these great warriors enter and blaze your mouth”, since “abhivijvalanti” can also not be taken as an adverb describing “visanti” attributively.

Conclusion:

“abhivijvalanti” must be taken as a participle – as done by the previous acaryas and the original 1972 edition – and not a verb as done in the 1983 edition.

Conclusion

The evidence against Jayadvaita Swami’s change is overwhelming:

1. Srila Prabhupada is very clear in his original Gita and his manuscripts – the mouths are blazing. Not the warriors.

2. Srila Prabhupada follows the previous acaryas who says that the mouths are blazing (flaming, gnashing).

3 The painting depicting this event (Plate 31 in the Bhagavad-gita As It Is) shows that it is the mouths of The Universal Form that are blazing.

4. According to sanskrit grammer it is the “mouths” that are “blazing”. Not the “warriors”.

Even if both translations could be correct (which they cannot), there would still be no justification – based on the above analysis – to change Srila Prabhupada’s translation of the verse.

It would not be possible to do this without overriding his own editorial decisions and thus violating the arsa-prayoga principle.

—

Please see additional evidence here.

02.03.15
by

PROOF POSITIVE: AN APPEAL TO JAYADVAITA SWAMI FOR CLARIFICATION (PART 2)

Screen Shot 2014-07-26 at 19.25.48

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.”

12.19.14
by

Response to the author of “No More Cattle Raising on the Planet of the Trees”

Book Change Rebuttal

Response to the author of “No More Cattle Raising on the Planet of the Trees”

Screen Shot 2014-12-19 at 13.22.21

In the following we will discuss the article “No More Cattle Raising on the Planet of the Trees” that was recently posted on the Dandavats website (http://www.dandavats.com/?p=14403).

The author attempts to prove that Srila Prabhupada instructed his editors to make changes and corrections to his books after his disappearance. In support of his conclusions the author quotes from the “Rascal Editors” conversation and from a mail exchange between Ramesvara Dasa and Tamala Krishna Goswami.

A careful analysis, however, reveals that the author’s conclusions are invalid. He is correct when he says that after the “Rascal Editors” conversation Srila Prabhupada approved that further editing could be performed. This is revealed in the mail exchange between Ramesvara Dasa and Tamala Krishna Goswami (see Appendix 2 in the author’s article). But his conclusions about HOW editing could be continued, and FOR HOW LONG it could be continued are fallacious. He specifically commits three logical fallacies that invalidate his conclusions:

  1. SELECTIVE EVIDENCE/CHERRY PICKING
  2. NON SEQUITUR
  3. TAKING A QUOTE OUT OF CONTEXT/CONTEXTOMY

In order to properly understand Srila Prabhupada’s last instructions on editing (that we know of) we have to take a closer look at the letter Tamala Krishna Goswami wrote Ramesvara Dasa (see Appendix 2 in the author’s article), because a crucial sentence has been left out of the author’s analysis (reproduced here in bold):

“Your suggestion that in the future any mistakes which are found can be reported to Satsvarupa Maharaja, Jayadvaita Prabhu, Radha Ballabha Prabhu, or yourself, and after sufficient investigation and confirmation these mistakes can be rectified is accepted. As we are working on this Fifth Canto planetary system, whatever corrections are required to be made, we will get approved by His Divine Grace and then send them on to you so that the new edition will be free from any of these discrepancies.“

[…]

“Although He has certain doubts in regard to the perfectness of our service, He is quite confident that you will do the needful to make any corrections that are required. [handwritten:] I explained the contents of your letter and Satsvarupa’s, and Radhaballabha and He seemed satisfied that things were not being unauthorizedly changed, while at the same time whatever corrections needed to be done were being made.” (Letter to Ramesvara from Tamala Krishna, July 22, 1977)

From these quotes we can understand that Srila Prabhupada did not want any more editing that was not “sufficiently investigated” and “confirmed”. Nothing should be “unauthorizedly changed”. Now, the questions is:

WHO will ultimately confirm and authorize the editing?

We get a hint about whom by looking at the sentence that the author has left out:

“As we are working on this Fifth Canto planetary system, whatever corrections are required to be made, we will get approved by His Divine Grace…”

So it seems the four above mentioned devotees were not just changing the books themselves. They were sending their changes to Srila Prabhupada for final approval. This seems to be the procedure that Tamala Krishna Goswami is talking about.

By leaving the sentence about the edits to the fifth canto out the author commits the fallacy of “selective evidence” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy).

Some might argue that MAYBE the changes to the fifth canto were the only changes that were sent to Srila Prabhupada, and not any other changes. But “maybe” is guesswork. And we do not make changes to the books of the acaryas based on guesswork (maybe, I think, perhaps etc). A principle of caution must be observed in editing Srila Prabhupada’s books. Better safe than sorry!

So contrary to what the author argues we find no evidence in the exchange between Ramesvara Prabhu and Tamala Krishna Goswami to support the conclusion that these four above mentioned devotees could edit without having Srila Prabhupada approve or disapprove all their changes.

The author’s conclusion about posthumous editing simply does not follow from it’s premises, and therefore he also commits the logical fallacy “non sequitur” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)) which cover all arguments in which the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Another very important point is that neither in the “Rascal Editors” conversation nor in the exchange between Tamala Krishna Goswami and Ramesvara Dasa do we find any information about posthumous editing. They were spoken/written within a context where Srila Prabhupada was around to approve or disapprove the editing work of BBT. The conversation and the letters came into existence because Srila Prabhupada and some of his disciples were dissatisfied with some of the editing work done by the BBT – not because anyone asked Srila Prabhupada about how editing should be done after his disappearance.

The burden of proof is on the devotee who states that we can project, extend or expand the instructions given by Srila Prabhupada on book editing from one context (when he was around) into a completely different context (when he is no longer around). In connection with the book changes no one has been able to lift this burden of proof successfully, and the author’s attempt also fails:

The author argues that since the letter written by Tamala Krishna Goswami states that “in the future” the editing should follow the above mentioned procedure, and since Srila Prabhupada never asked them to stop this procedure, therefore this procedure must still be followed after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance. There are several problems with this argument:

  1. The letter was signed by Srila Prabhupada, but was written by Tamala Krishna Goswami. So we cannot know for certain how Srila Prabhupada understood and interpreted the words “in the future”. We cannot even be sure he took special notice of the words.
  1. We humans often use “in the future we should do such and such” in a very unspecified way – and often it is implicit that there is a timeframe involved, or that if certain factors are changed then the procedure must also be changed or stopped. For example, if I tell my wife that “in the future” the procedure is that she should have my breakfast ready at 9:00a.m., then I do not also have to state the obvious fact that if I die today, then she should stop that practice tomorrow. Similarly, based on sastra and Srila Prabhupada’s clear instructions on the arsa-prayoga principle it can be argued that he did not also have to tell his editors that if he leaves his body, then they should stop the editing. At least there is NO PROOF for the contention that the editing should continue.
  1. If one states that the words “in the future” also refers to the time after Srila Prabhupada left his body, then one is clinging to the same faulty reasoning as the ritviks. Ritviks state that the word “henceforward” in the famous July 9th letter (also written by Tamala Krishna Goswami and signed by Srila Prabhupada) should be taken to mean that ritvik initiations should continue after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance. But neither the author nor any other ISKON leader will accept that interpretation of the word “henceforward” in the July 9th letter. Thus they have a double standard – i.e. they apply a different set of principles for similar situations. Unless the author wants to fall prey to the same faulty reasoning as the ritviks, he has to admit that there is no proof that “in the future” refers to the time after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance.

Summing this point up:

Nothing seems to suggest that the instructions on book editing given by Srila Prabhupada in the “Rascal Editors” conversation and in the exchange between Ramesvara Dasa and Tamala Krishna Goswami can be extrapolated into a context where Srila Prabhupada is no longer around. So by insisting on this unjustified extrapolation the author is effectively invalidating his own argument by committing the logical fallacy of quoting out of context/contextomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context).

We do not have one single instruction from Srila Prabhupada where he allows for posthumous editing of his books. However, he actually taught us how to deal with the transcendental mistakes of the acaryas.

First of all he gave philosophical instructions about the dangers of violating the arsa-prayoga principle:

“If one is too big, there is no mistake. Arsa-prayoga means there may be discrepancies but it is all right. Just like Shakespeare, sometimes there are odd usages of language, but he is accepted as authority. I have explained all these things in my Preface to First Canto.” (Letter to Mandali Bhadra, Jaipur 20 January, 1972)

“So unless one is self-realized, there is practically no use writing about Krsna. This transcendental writing does not depend on material education. It depends on the spiritual realization. You’ll find, therefore, in the comments of Bhagavatam by different acaryas, even there are some discrepancies, they are accepted as arsa-prayoga. It should remain as it is.”
(Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.5.23-24, Vrndavana, March 31, 1976)

Prabhupada: This of should be strictly forbidden.
Radha-vallabha: So no corrections. That makes it simple.
Prabhupada: They can divide the synonyms. That’s all.
Radha-vallabha: Synonyms. So even…
Prabhupada: That is his tendency, to correct. That’s very bad. He should not do that.
Radha-vallabha: So I’ll just forget this, then.
Prabhupada: The system is: whatever authority has done, even there is mistake, it should be accepted.
Radha-vallabha: Oh.
Prabhupada: Arsa-prayoga. That is ha… He should not become more learned than the authority. That is very bad habit….

[…]

Prabhupada: Why finish it? Whatever is done is done. No more….
Radha-vallabha: Well, now that this system of no corrections anywhere, that makes it very simple. Then he can’t do anything. I don’t think he wants to, either. It makes it more simple for him. It makes him very uncomfortable.
Prabhupada: No corrections.
(Room Conversation 27 february, 1977)

Srila Prabhupada also taught us by his own practical example. The article “Srila Prabhupada’s Instructions on editing are in his own books” (by Prahlada Nrisimha Dasa) reveals how Srila Prabhupada himself dealt with the transcendental mistakes made by the previous acaryas (he did not change or touch them). Here are two examples from the article:

“In the Caitanya-caritāmṛita, Madhya-līlā 9.358, Srila Prabhupāda cites his spiritual master Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, who points out that in the seventy-fourth verse of this same chapter there is an apparent error made by Kṛṣṇa dāsa, Kavirāja Gosvāmī. Srila Prabhupāda, just to teach us the principle of arsa-prayoga, [please see quotes from Srila Prabhupāda on “arsha-prayoga” at the end of this article] does not touch the words of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kaviraja Goswami, but leaves this apparent error as it is, out of respect for the transcendental book. Even though Srila Prabhupāda’s own spiritual master, the most pure and intimate confidential devotee and associate of Lord Kṛṣṇa and Sri Caitanya Mahāprabhu himself, had clearly pointed out that this is an apparent error and is apparently wrong.

Furthermore in the purport to that seventy-fourth verse, mentioned above, Srila Prabhupada mentions nothing; only at the end of the chapter, after Srila Kṛṣṇadāsa Kaviraja concludes his narration, does Srila Prabhupāda even mention the apparent mistake.

That Caitanya-caritāmṛita, Madhya-līlā 9. 358 purport is cited here for your reference:

“Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura points out that in the seventy-fourth verse of this chapter it is stated that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu visited the temple of Śiyālī-bhairavī, but actually at Śiyālī, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu visited the temple of Śrī Bhū-varāha. Near Śiyālī and Cidambaram there is a temple known as Śrī Muṣṇam. In this temple there is a Deity of Śrī Bhū-varāha. In the jurisdiction of Cidambaram there is a district known as southern Arcot. The town of Śiyālī is in that district. There is a temple of Śrī Bhū-varāhadeva nearby, not Bhairavī-devī. This is Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura’s conclusion.”

This is a very good lesson to make a clear and prominent note of how Srila Prabhupāda, the teacher by example, has chosen to edit (or rather not edit) the words of the spiritual masters or previous acharyas’ writings.”

[…]

“We will cite another place were Srila Prabhupāda left a seeming mistake as it is, even though it may be considered “wrong.”

“Ambikāvana is situated somewhere in the Gujarat province. Ambikāvana is said to be situated on the river Sarasvatī, yet we do not find any Sarasvatī River in the Gujarat province; the only river there is Savarmati. In India, all the big places of pilgrimage are situated on nice rivers like the Ganges, Yamunā, Sarasvatī, Narmadā, Godāvarī, Kāverī, etc. Ambikāvana was situated on the bank of Sarasvatī, and all the cowherd men and Nanda Mahārāja went there.” (KRSNA Book 1970 edition Volume 1 Chapter 33 / Vidyādhara Liberated and the Demon Śaṅkhāsura Killed)

In this quote from Srila Prabhupāda’s original KRSNA book, Prabhupāda mentions that although it says, “Ambikāvana is said to be situated on the river Sarasvatī, yet we do not find any Sarasvatī River in the Gujarat province…” Prabhupāda does not change the text to correct the seeming mistake.” (Prahlada Nrisimha Dasa, Srila Prabhupada’s Instructions on editing are in his own books)

The article has additional examples and many other interesting points in regard to the topic of book changes.

Sastra also confirms that the mistakes of the acaryas should not be corrected:

“Anyone who finds any fault with a devotee’s description of Krishna is a sinner. If a devotee writes a poem, no matter how poorly he does it, it will certainly contain his love for Krishna. A fool says ‘visnaya’ while a scholar knows the correct form is ‘visnave’, but Krishna accepts the sentiment in either case. If anyone sees a fault in this, the fault is his, for Krishna is pleased with anything the pure devotee says. You too describe the Lord with words of love, so what arrogant person would dare criticize anything that you have written?” (Chaitanya Bhagavata 1.11.105-110)

The conclusion is that there is no mention of posthumous editing in Srila Prabhupada’s teachings other than:

1) The clear statements about not changing the works of an acarya (the arsa-prayoga principle).

2) Srila Prabhupada’s own example of not touching the mistakes of the previous acaryas.

3) Sastric injunctions on not to correct the mistakes of the acaryas.

As cited above Tamala Krishna Goswami writes to Ramesvara Dasa:

“Your suggestion that in the future any mistakes which are found can be reported to Satsvarupa Maharaja, Jayadvaita Prabhu, Radha Ballabha Prabhu, or yourself, and after sufficient investigation and confirmation these mistakes can be rectified is accepted.” (Letter to Ramesvara from Tamala Krishna, July 22, 1977)

Besides the obvious problem that none of the changes made post-1977 can be approved by Srila Prabhupada, there is also the problem that HARDLY ANY of the changes made to the Gita have been “sufficiently investigated”. The changes were made by Jayadvaita Swami – more or less alone. And as we see there are many discrepancies in his editing. And most of his changes are directly violating clear instructions from Srila Prabhupada. For example, Srila Prabhupada did not want any needless changes.

“As you know, and as we kept in mind while doing the work, Srila Prabhupada staunchly opposed needless changes.” (Jayadvaita Swami, Letter to Amogha Lila, 1986)

But the Gita (and other books) is filled with thousands of needless changes. Many of these are mentioned in the e-book “No Reply from BBTI” which is easily found by searching the internet.

This e-book shows how the attempted justifications used by the BBTI are very problematic. BBTI usually argue that:

  • We are changing Srila Prabhupada’s books back to what he actually said in his original manuscript.
  • We are making the book “Closer to Prabhupada”.
  • We are only correcting grammar, commas, capitalization etc.
  • We are only correcting the mistakes of previous editors.
  • No unnecessary changes have been made.

But the articles in the e-book documents that the BBTI has needlessly:

  • Deleted many of Srila Prabhupada’s own chosen words and sentences (even those also found in his ”original manuscript”).
  • Added their own words and sentences (which means these words and sentences are also not to be found in the ”original manuscript”).
  • Changed Srila Prabhupada’s own personally typewritten sanskrit translations.
  • Made needless change of syntax (sentence structure).

So even if we – for the sake of argument – accept the conclusion that some changes could be made posthumously (for which there is no evidence), then we would still be in a situation where the BBTI has violated the instructions on how Srila Prabhupada wanted his books edited while he was still around to supervise the work.

All the articles in “No Reply from BBTI” have been sent to Jayadvaita Swami, Dravida Dasa, BBTI and the author of “No More Cattle Raising on the Planet of the Trees”. But so far we have received no replies to the points raised – hence the name “No Reply from BBTI”.

We humbly ask you to read this e-book, and also visit the many different websites made by devotees who are skeptic towards the changes to Srila Prabhupada’s books. The author of this article shall promptly send you links to “No Reply from BBTI” and other relevant websites on your request.

Your servant, Ajit Krishna Dasa

12.12.14
by

Rebuttal of Hridayananda Dasa Goswami’s Claims on the Book Changes

Danesh Dasa posted the following on the facebook group “Hridayananda Das Goswami – Friends and Disciples”:

“Hridayananda Maharaj on the revised 2nd edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is:

“I Support This Edition”

“Jaya Advaita Swami and Dravida Prabhu sincerely worked to restore Prabhupada’s original text, and to clear up obvious mistakes by typists. Surely Prabhupada would appreciate this. Further, no one has ever shown that these corrections altered in any way Prabhupada’s philosophical teachings. Thus I support this edition of Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita.””

Here is a screenshot: Screen Shot 2014-12-11 at 10.55.31

Let us take a look at each of Maharaja’s statements:

Hridayananda Dasa Goswami:

“Jaya Advaita Swami and Dravida Prabhu sincerely worked…”

Hridayananda Dasa Goswami here commits the fallacy of “begging the question” and the fallacy of “Ipse dixit / bare assertion fallacy”:

“Begging the question means “assuming the conclusion (of an argument)”, a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.” (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)

Jayadvaita Swami and Dravida Prabhu did their job sincerely only if they pleased Srila Prabhupada, and we are disagreeing about precisely that. Therefore Maharaja is “begging the question”.

Hridayananda Dasa Goswami needs to give some evidence in support for his claim. But instead of giving evidence he just states it, and this is the fallacy of “Ipse dixit / bare assertion fallacy”:

“Ipse dixit, Latin for “He, himself, said it,” is a term used to identify and describe a sort of arbitrary dogmatic statement which the speaker expects the listener to accept as valid.” (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit)

Hridayananda Dasa Goswami:

“…to restore Prabhupada’s original text, and to clear up obvious mistakes by typists.”

Here Hridayananda Dasa Goswami commits the fallacy of “selective evidence / fallacy of incomplete evidence”:

“Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.” (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy))

It is correct that Jayadvaita Swami and BBTI in some cases have changed the books back to what Srila Prabhupada said in the so-called original manuscripts. But is this really a good idea? Normally your drafts end up in your trash bin. If someone took your drafts out of your trash bin and changed your essay back to what you wrote in your drafts without consulting you first, I think you would feel insulted. Here is an article that deals with this unusual idea of changing a text back to its draft:

https://arsaprayoga.com/2013/10/15/jayadvaita-undoes-prabhupadas-work-on-gita-manuscript/

What Hridayananda Dasa Goswami fails to communicate (and possibly comprehend) is the sad fact that in many cases Jayadvaita Swami and BBTI have brought Srila Prabhupada’s books further away from the so-called original texts. They have deleted Srila Prabhupada’s own chosen words and sentences and added their own. They even changed hundreds (if not thousands) of his personally typewritten sanskrit translations. And in most cases there was no reason to do it at all – other than the whimsical preferences of the editors. I have documented many instances of this sort of editing in my e-book “No Reply from BBTI” and on my website www.arsaprayoga.com (see links below).

Hridayananda Dasa Goswami:

“Surely Prabhupada would appreciate this.”

Here Hridayananda Dasa Goswami again commits the fallacy “Ipse dixit / bare assertion fallacy”.

Hridayananda Dasa Goswami:

“Further, no one has ever shown that these corrections altered in any way Prabhupada’s philosophical teachings.”

Since Hridayananda Dasa Goswami presents no evidence to back up his claim, he again commits the fallacy of “Ipse dixit / bare assertion fallacy”.

He claims that no one has been able to demonstrate that Jayadvaita Swami and BBTI have made changes to the philosophy. But by publishing the 1983 edition of the Gita it was openly declared that it is perfectly okay to violate the principle of arsa-prayoga. This is a serious philosophical deviation, and this offensive mentality is now woven into each and every page of Srila Prabhupada’s books, and everyone who reads them will be contaminated by this mentality.

Besides this, now there might only be very few philosophical mistakes made by Jayadvaita Swami and BBTI, but what about the future? If the door is not closed forever, then the changing business might go on forever, since one change justifies the next. Srila Prabhupada was afraid of this (see the famous “Rascal Editors” conversation).

We also know that Jayadvaita Swami has made his own mistakes. One example of this is his changing “Visnu Form” into the “Visnu platform” (Bg. 2.61). This seems to be a change that takes the Gita in the mayavada direction. And here is a link to an article that demonstrates how Jayadvaita Swami has changed a sentence in the Gita so it gets the opposite meaning of what Srila Prabhupada originally said:

Small Word, Big Difference (Bg. 12.2 p.)

Do we want more of these kinds of changes?

Another significant point in this regard is that Hridayananda Dasa Goswami presents an hidden premise, namely that:

All changes that are not of a philosophical nature are okay.

This hidden premise can be disproved by quoting Jayadvaita Swami and the BBTI:

“As you know, and as we kept in mind while doing the work, Srila Prabhupada staunchly opposed needless changes.” (Jayadvaita Swami, Letter to Amogha Lila, 1986)

Now, as we see Srila Prabhupada did not only disapprove of philosophical changes to his books. He also disapproved of “needless changes”. Therefore, if we can find any needless changes in the 1983 edition of the Gita, we know that Jayadvaita Swami and the BBTI have displeased Srila Prabhupada. My contention is that Jayadvaita Swami and the BBTI have made many needless changes (thousands). I have presented some of them in my e-book “No Reply from BBTI”:

https://arsaprayoga.com/2014/05/08/e-book-no-reply-from-bbti/

This e-book shows how the attempted justifications used by the BBTI fails. BBTI usually argue that:

  • We are changing Srila Prabhupada’s books back to what he actually said in his original manuscript.
  • We are making the books “Closer to Prabhupada”.
  • We are only correcting grammar, commas, capitalization etc.
  • We are only correcting the mistakes of previous editors.
  • No unnecessary changes have been made.

But the articles in the e-book documents that the BBT International have needlessly:

  • Deleted many of Srila Prabhupada’s own chosen words and sentences (even those also found in his ”original manuscript”).
  • Added their own words and sentences (which means these words and sentences are also not to be found in the ”original manuscript”).
  • Changed Srila Prabhupada’s own personally typewritten sanskrit translations.
  • Made needless change of syntax (sentence structure).

Hridayananda Dasa Goswami:

“Thus I support this edition of Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita.”

If Hridayananda Dasa Goswami had studied this issue carefully he would not support the 1983 edition of the Bhagavad-gita.

Some might argue that Hridayananda Dasa Goswami’s statement is not supposed to be a thorough defense of his views. That is perfectly fine – as long as we recognize that his above statement is completely useless in any kind of debate on the topic.

The interesting question is:

Will Hridayananda Dasa Goswami ever post a thorough defense of his view on this controversial topic? Or does he expect his disciples and well-wishers to blindly accept his statements without any supporting evidence?

We are many who would love to see how he will attempt to justify the editing of Jayadvaita Swami and the BBTI.

Your servant, Ajit Krishna Dasa