Category Archives: No reply from BBT International

10.23.13
by

“Phalanx” in Bg. 1.2 and Bg. 1.11 (Jayadvaita Swami’s double standard)

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

Back-To-Godhead-Jayadvaita-Swami

The text below was sent to the BBT International through their website (http://www.bbtedit.com/contact) and to Jayadvaita Swami and Dravida Prabhu’s personal e-mails (jswami@pamho.net, jayadvaita.swami@pamho.net, dravida108@gmail.com) the 7th Feb. 2014. We asked them to comment on the points raised.

So far we have not received any reply.

Regarding the word “Phalanx” in Bg. 1.2 Jayadvaita Swami writes on the BBT International’s website:

“In the old edition, the idea of a specific military formation (vyudham) is omitted.”

So we see that Jayadvaita Swami feels free to not only override Prabhupada’s editorial decisions regarding Bg. 1.2, namely to omit “military phalanx”, but also to unnecesarrily add the word “formation” instead of “phalanx” (Prabhupada often used the word phalanx. We find it many times in books like Bhagavad-gita, Krishna Book, Nectar of Devotion, Caitanya Caritamrta, and also in lectures, conversations, earlier essays and poems).

Jayadvaita Swami continues:

“In the new edition, I revised “phalanx” to “military formation” because a phalanx (originally) is a particular type of formation peculiar to ancient Greek warfare. Greek columns on the Battlefield of Kuruksetra didn’t seem right. Hence the revision.”

Then why did Jayadvaita Swami not remove the word “phalanx” from Bg. 1.11?

“All of you must now give full support to Grandfather Bhisma, as you stand at your respective strategic points of entrance into the phalanx of the army.” (Bg, 1.11, BBT International 1983 edition)

“Phalanx” is also found in the purports to Bg. 1.3 and Bg. 1.11 in BBT International’s 1983 edition.

Something doesn’t make sense!

In retrospect: “Phalanx” has come to refer to any military formation, so perhaps I should have been less picky. But at any rate, the new translation gets in the idea that the old one left out.”

So will Jayadvaita Swami again add the word phalanx to Bg. 1.2? Or will he remove it from Bg. 1.11 and add “formation”? Changing back and forth – again and again and again…ad infinitum?

Is that what Prabhupada expected from his editors? Is this how the world comes to respect Prabhupada’s books and ISKCON?

10.22.13
by

Not back to the “original manuscript” (Bg. 1.2)

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

This article was sent to the BBT International the 22nd Oct. 2013. We asked them to comment on the points raised. So far we have not received any reply.

Read these quotes carefully:

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

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

From the so called “original manuscript”:

bg-1-2-manuscript

From the original and by Prabhupada approved/authorized 1972 edition of Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is:

bg-1-2-1972

From the BBT International’s 1983 posthumously edited Bhagavad-gita As It Is:

bg-1-2-1983

“PHALANX” – JAYADVAITA SWAMI’S DOUBLE STANDARD

Jayadvaita Swami attempts to justify his changes in this way:

“In the old edition, the idea of a specific military formation (vyudham) is omitted. In the new edition, I revised “phalanx” to “military formation” because a phalanx (originally) is a particular type of formation peculiar to ancient Greek warfare. Greek columns on the Battlefield of Kuruksetra didn’t seem right. Hence the revision. In retrospect: “Phalanx” has come to refer to any military formation, so perhaps I should have been less picky. But at any rate, the new translation gets in the idea that the old one left out.

We see that Jayadvaita Swami feels free to not only override Prabhupada’s editorial decisions regarding Bg. 1.2, namely to omit “military phalanx”, but also to unnecesarrily add the word “formation” instead of “phalanx” (a word Prabhupada often used).

Bg, 1.11 (BBT International 1983 edition):

“All of you must now give full support to Grandfather Bhisma, as you stand at your respective strategic points of entrance into the phalanx of the army.”

According to Jayadvaita Swami: in Bg. 1.2 “phalanx” didn’t seem right on Kuruksetra, because it’s a Greek word peculiar to ancient Greek warfare. But in Bg. 1.11 Jayadvaita Swami did not remove “phalanx”.

What are we to make of it?

Jayadvaita Swami admits that he might have been a little too “picky” regarding the word “phalanx”. This means he is not completely satisfied with his own work.  Maybe we will have a new edition of Bg. 1.2 in his next printing? And what about Bg. 1.11? Change-change back-change-change back? Is that what Prabhupada wanted?

Jayadvaita Swami said he tried not to make needless changes, but only those worthwhile. But which of the changes here are really worthwhile? Which are really needed? None of them! Bg. 1.2 is just fine the way it is in the original 1972 edition.

“BEGAN TO SPEAK”

Jayadvaita Swami continues:

“Srila Prabhupada typically said “began to speak” or “began to say” when the meaning is simply “spoke” or “said.” Such a phrase as “began to speak” is more apt when followed by something like “but was cut off” or “but changed his mind and fell silent.” In later books, the BBT editors routinely trimmed off the “began to.”

The expression “began to speak” is not wrong, and as we can see below Prabhupada did not object to it in Bg. 1.2, but re-confirmed it. Therefore the change is needless and not at all worthwhile. The editors might have trimmed the phrase off in other books, but these books were then approved by Prabhupada. Bg. 1.2 was approved with the phrase “began to speak”. Prabhupada did not approve the 1983 edition.

The shocking fact is that Jayadvaita Swami’s underlying technique is to attempt to mind-read Prabhupada after his physical disappearance and use his mind-reading “discoveries” about Prabhupada’s desires in relation to his books to change them posthumously. I don’t think even the devotees in favor of the changes have the fantasy to imagine that this is an editing methodology actively used by the BBT International.

The fallacy of going back to the so called original manuscript is covered here. But apart from that, what does it even mean to postulate that you are changing back to the manuscript, when there are so many instances where you concoct phrases that Prabhupada never used in relation to the verses under discussion?

Let us see how Prabhupada dealt with Bg. 1.2:

Pradyumna: (leads chanting, etc.)

sanjaya uvaca
drstva tu pandavanikam
vyudham duryodhanas tada
acaryam upasangamya
raja vacanam abravit
[Bg. 1.2]

Translation: “Sanjaya said: O King, after looking over the army gathered by the sons of Pandu, King Duryodhana went to his teacher and began to speak the following words:”

Prabhupada: So Dhrtarastra inquired from Sanjaya, kim akurvata: “After my sons and my brother’s sons assembled together for fighting, what did they do?”

Prabhupada continues without objecting to the words “began to speak. In fact a little later in the same lecture Prabhupada says:

“Raja vacanam abravit [Bg. 1.2]. Then he began to speak, to inform Dronacarya.”

(Bhagavad-gita 1.2-3, London, July 9, 1973)

So in this lecture Prabhupada heard the verse, and did not object to to words “gathered” and “began to speak”.  In fact he re-translated the words “raja vacanam abravit” to “began to speak” – the very same words he used in his draft (so called original manuscripts) and which he had approved in his 1972 edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is.

From a room conversation:

Aksayananda: Acaryam upasangamya raja vacanam abravit [Bg. 1.2].
Prabhupada: Yes. What is the translation?
Aksayananda: “Sanjaya said, ‘Oh king after looking over the army gathered by the sons of Pandu, King Duryodhana went to his teacher and began to speak the following words.’ ”
Prabhupada: Aiye. [break] Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s mission is to preach. So you join us.

(Room Conversation on New York court case, November 2, 1976, Vrindavana)

Prabhupada continues speaking with no objection to the verse as it was read to him.

The comparison of Bg. 1.2 in the original 1972 edition and BBT Internationals 1983 posthumously edition version is an axample of everything Prabhupada’s editors should NOT do:

  • They changed what was approved by Prabhupada (namely “gathered” and “began to speak”)
  • They added what Prabhupada approved left out (namely “military”)
  • then added something Prabhupada didn’t write (namely “formation” instead of “phalanx” and “spoke” instead of “began to speak”).

Jayadvaita Swami is not at all being conservative in his editing. He is by nature an extreme liberal, since he feels free to rely on a New Age methodology, namely using his feelings and “intuition” to mind-read Prabhupada. Jayadvaita Swami is actively using this liberal New Age methodology to add, substract, concoct and change words in Prabhupada original and authorized books.

09.25.13
by

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

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

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

Bhagavad-gita As It Is (13.3)

The original manuscript:

bg-original-manuscript-13.3

The authorized and approved 1972 edition:

bg-original-1972-13.3

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

The BBT International’s 1983 edition:

bg-1983-edition-13.3

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

Questions to the BBT International:

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

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

Pusta Krsna:

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

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

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

Hari-sauri:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prabhupada:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then how will they justify it?

09.12.13
by

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

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

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

By Ajit Krishna Dasa
rama-nama

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

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

Continue reading →

09.01.13
by

Covers should be the same regardless of language

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

The text below was sent to the BBT International through their website (http://www.bbtedit.com/contact) and to Jayadvaita Swami and Dravida Prabhu’s personal e-mails (jswami@pamho.net, jayadvaita.swami@pamho.net, dravida108@gmail.com) the 7th Feb. 2014. We asked them to comment on the points raised.

So far we have not received any reply.

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Prabhupada:

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

But what has happened after Prabhupada’s physical departure? The new Bhagavad-gita looks very different! Now there are many different covers on the market. There are even many different covers for the English edition(s), and also for other editions in their particular language.

Here you can read more about the changes to the pictures, paintings and covers in Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita, As It Is:

Click to access _changes.pdf

Starting with the original front cover here are some of the many different covers used to present Bhagavad-gita, As It Is. Continue reading →

08.31.13
by

Removing “eternal” from Bhagavad-gita As It Is (2.30)

This article was sent to the BBT International the 20th Oct. 2013. We asked them to comment on the points raised. So far we have not received any reply.

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Bg 2.30 – original and authorized 1972-edition:

“O descendant of Bharata, he who dwells in the body is eternal and can never be slain. Therefore you need not grieve for any creature.”

Bg 2.30 – unauthorized 1983 BBT International edition:

“O descendant of Bharata, he who dwells in the body can never be slain. Therefore you need not grieve for any living being.”

Why has the word “eternal” been removed? What does Prabhupada say? Here are something from his lectures:

“O descendant of Bharata, he who dwells in the body is eternal and can never be slain. Therefore you need not grieve for any creature.”

Prabhupada: Dehi nityam avadhyo ‘yam dehe sarvasya bharata. Dehe, dehe means body, within the body. This topic began, dehino ‘smin yatha dehe kaumaram yauvanam jara. Deha, dehi. Dehi means one who possesses the body. Just like guni. Asthate in prata. The grammatical. Guna, in, deha, in, in prata. Dehin sabda. So the nominative case of dehin sabda is dehi. Dehi nityam, eternal. In so many ways, Krsna has explained. Nityam, eternal. Indestructible, immutable. It does not take birth, it does not die, it is always, constantly the same. Na hanyate hanyamane sarire. In this way, again he says nityam, eternal. (730831BG.LON)

Another lecture:

Devotee: 30: “O descendant of Bharata, he who dwells in the body is eternal and can never be slain. Therefore you need not grieve for any creature [Bg. 2.30].”

Prabhupada: Now, after putting forward all definitions and arguments from different angles of vision, of different philosophers, thesis, now Krsna concludes, “My dear Arjuna, take it for certain that the soul within is eternal.”

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bhagavad-gita 2.27-38 — Los Angeles, December 11, 1968

Even in Srimad Bhagavatam Prabhupada writes that BG 2.30 confirm the eternality of the soul:

“The living entity is unborn and eternal, and as confirmed in the Bhagavad-gita (2.30),…”

>>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 2.7.49

Then why take “eternal” out the of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is?

BBTI attempts to give this justification:

“The words “is eternal” (First Edition) do not appear in Srila Prabhupada’s original manuscript. The word nityam here means “eternally” — or, as Srila Prabhupada gives it, “always.” It modifies avadhyah. Thus, “always unfit for being slain.” Putting that negatively, as the original editor chose to do, the “always” becomes “never” — “he can never be slain.”

>>> Ref. VedaBase => GRV: 2.31: “Editing varnasrama-dharma out of the books?

There a quite some problems with this proposed justification:

  • We do not know what Hayagriva Prabhu and Prabhupada agreed upon while carefully working together on the Bhagavad-gita. Prabhupada might have wanted the word “eternal” to be there. We do not know and therefore we can’t change anything. Why? Because we can’t change in Prabhupada’s books based on “maybe”, “perhaps”, “I think” etc.) This “principle of caution” ought to implemented in ALL editing work.
  • Prabhupada himself used the word “nityam” in lectures and said that meant that the soul is eternal. In one of the above lectures Prabhupada even says that “Krsna concludes, “My dear Arjuna, take it for certain that the soul within is eternal.” So Krishna says in BG 2.30 that the soul is eternal. But BBT International thinks otherwise and overrides Prabhupada’s own words and corrects his sanskrit. Prabhupada was very concerned with better knowing disciples that had become “learned” in sanskrit:

“…a little learning is dangerous, especially for the Westerners. I am practically seeing that as soon as they begin to learn a little Sanskrit immediately they feel that they have become more than their guru and then the policy is kill guru and be killed himself.” (from a letter to Dixit das on 18 Sep 1976)

  • The result of these changes and their proposed justification will make it seem – for new devotees and scholars – that Prabhupada’s sanskrit was not good enough. Imagine that a new bhakta or bhaktin heard or read one of the above lectures by Prabhupada were he says that nityam in BG 2.30 means the soul is eternal. And then the new bhakta or bhaktin later reads that this is actually not correct sanskrit, and now the BBT International has corrected it by removing it from the translation. What kind of impression will this new bhakta or bhaktin get of Prabhupada and his knowledge of sanskrit? Will it increase their respect for him? Of course not! What will it say about the way we honor the acaryas in our sampradaya? Is this arsa-prayoga – to respect the authoritative sages?