03.21.18
by

“Man” Not Sexist

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

I was mildly disturbed to read Yadavendra Dasa’s “Treacherous Intervention” posted March 19th in the Sampradaya Sun.

Yadavendra Prabhu notes that in the two editions of Bhagavad-gita As It Is (1972 and 1983) the text of verse 4.23 differs from Srila Prabhupada’s typewritten text in the original manuscript.

He notes that the original manuscript uses the words “a person” whereas both of the two published editions uses “a man”. He concludes that this is highly sexist, and he argues that the editors must have been on the bodily platform, influenced by male pride and have misinterpreted Srila Prabhupada’s words.

Is Yadavendra Prabhu correct?

The answer is “No!”, and here is why:

Yadavendra Prabhu’s conclusion can be immediately falsified if we can find an instance where Srila Prabhupada uses the word “man” (in his translations, lectures and purports) in the same sense that it is used in the two published editions of Bhagavad-gita As It Is 4.23.

A search on the Vedabase, and in the original manuscripts reveals that there are indeed instances where Srila Prabhupada uses the word “man” in precisely that same way. We find it in for example Bg. 2.70, 4.39 and 6.7.

Original Manuscript 5.7 (“not the man who”):

Screen Shot 2018-03-21 at 13.23.23

Original Manuscript 4.39 (“A faithful man”):

Screen Shot 2018-03-21 at 13.26.28

Original Manuscript 6.7 (“To such a man”):

Screen Shot 2018-03-21 at 13.31.35

Srila Prabhupada gave lectures on all three of the above-mentioned verses, and he did not complain about their wordings.

The word “man” is used in all of these three verses in both the 1968 and the 1972 edition, and we know Srila Prabhupada said they could keep the verses of the 1968 edition in the 1972 edition. He must have been satisfied with them.

In Srila Prabhupada’s purports the word “man” or “men” is used in a similar sense (as in the two published editions) hundreds of times. It is very easy to find them by doing a search on the Vedabase.

This disproves Yadavendra Prabhu’s idea that it is sexist to use the word “man” like it is used in the two published editions – unless he wants to argue that Srila Prabhupada was sexist. But his point is precisely that Srila Prabhupada was not sexist, but that the two editors were.

I guess my point is that if we want to criticise Srila Prabhupada’s editors we must first do our own research properly.

02.10.18
by

No Objection

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Jayadvaita Swami admits that it constitutes evidence against making a change if Srila Prabhupada read and/or lectured from a translation or purport without objecting to it:

Screen Shot 2018-02-10 at 13.05.46

“And yet we have several places where Śrīla Prabhupāda speaks of chapter six as the “Sāṅkhya-yoga chapter,” and of course he saw the chapter published with that title and never objected.”

The above quote is from Jayadvaita Swami’s annotated scans: Chapter Six from J. Swami’s edited copy of the 1972 edition. This is a chapter from the copy of the 1972 edition of Bhagavad-gītā As It Is on which Jayādvaita Swami marked the revisions for the edition of 1983.

Direct link to the annotated scans of Chapter Six (look for the headline “About sankhya”):

http://bbtedit.com/gitafiles/72_Gita_showing_revisions_06_chapter_6.pdf

04.13.17
by

JAYADVAITA SWAMI – SELF-APPOINTED GHOSTWRITER

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Definition:

“ghostwriter
ˈɡəʊstrʌɪtə/
noun
a person whose job it is to write material for someone else who is the named author.

However, the difference between the usual ghostwriter and Jayadvaita Swami is that the latter is forcing his service upon the author (Srila Prabhupada), after the author’s demise.

We got rid of the eleven self-appointed zonal “gurus”. But we still have Jayadvaita Swami who, as the self-appointed ghostwriter, is forcing his editing on Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada has no say in this regard. He is simply being forced to accept the ghostwritten material of Jayadvaita Swami.

And so is everyone else.

Hare Krishna!

Screen Shot 2017-04-13 at 21.27.05
04.13.17
by

Grammar mistake in 1983 Gita (Bg 9.31)

BBT International / Jayadvaita Swami are making their own share of mistakes. Here is a new one brought to my attention by Bhakta Torben Nielsen.

From the original 1972 Bhagavad-gita As It Is (Bg 9.31)

17880556_10155300261850962_8701180303661613560_o

No mistakes here.

From Jayadvaita Swami’s unauthorized 1983 Bhagavad-gita As It Is (9.31)

17741302_405450219811127_1864148414_n

There is no full stop before “How”, and therefore “H” should not be capitalized.

The mistake is also to be found on vedabase.com (Bg 9.31)

Screen Shot 2017-04-13 at 11.50.33

Mistakes are inevitable in this material world. I personally prefer the mistakes made by Hayagriva Prabhu, the only editor Srila Prabhupada approved to edit his Bhagavad-gita As It is.

12.18.16
by

New Video Series on the Book Changes

We are gradually producing videos on the book changes. Check our playlist at Youtube, and remember to subscribe for new videos.

Kindly share the videos on social media – especially on Facebook.

Thanks for watching and helping Srila Prabhupada.

Book Changes – Playlist

07.10.16
by

Harikesh Swami – Next Acarya After Srila Prabhupada?

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Danish Bhagavad-gita As It Is Anno 1984:

13346308_10154338447350962_9033715945169577503_o

BBT International approved this change! Perhaps even Jayadvaita Swami?

Later the devotees had to rip out this page. Embarrasing! Shows the extent of the zonal “acarya’s” ambitions, and the self-deception of their followers.

07.09.16
by

Kripamoya Dasa Fails to Justify the Book Changes

I had a few exchanges with Kripamoya Prabhu (ACBSP & GBC) on Facebook. The exchange speaks for itself. I did not leave anything out.

Here we go:

Screen Shot 2016-07-09 at 23.28.51

Screen Shot 2016-07-09 at 23.29.04

Kripamoya Prabhu did not respond.

Later, in another exchange, Kripamoya Prabhu stated that he could not accept a devotee’s criticism of ISKCON, because the devotee posted anonymously. I responded by referring to the above exchange where I posted non-anonymously, but where he, Kripamoya Prabhu, still did not respond.

Screen Shot 2016-07-09 at 23.22.43

Screen Shot 2016-07-10 at 03.30.21

To some of the above comments Kripamoya Prabhu also responded:

Screen Shot 2016-07-09 at 23.23.47

Kripamoya Prabhu did not respond.

07.09.16
by

Foreign Translations – No Problem

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

A devotee, Purusha Dasa, is mocking those who are against the book changes. Check the picture:

Screen Shot 2016-06-14 at 18.09.50

My answer:

Purusha Dasa is presenting a false analogy. Let me explain:

Translations into foreign languages presents no problem for those against changes to Srila Prabhupada’s books.

Why?

Because such translations do not present themselves as the original words of Srila Prabhupada. Instead they present themselves as foreign translations of Srila Prabhupada’s words, and everyone knows that such translations come with some problems. But you can always check the foreign translations against the original English editions.

On the other hand, the unauthorized, changed books from BBT International present themselves as Srila Prabhupada’s original words, even though they are not. And BBT International wants to eliminate the original editions so that any comparison between the originals and the changed editions is impossible.

Now that is a problem.

04.28.16
by

“Blessed Lord” Means the Lord is Praiseworthy

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

One of the thousands of things that Jayadvaita Swami changed in the Bhagavad-gita As It is was the term “The Blessed Lord”.

There are some misconceptions about this term in the society of devotees. Even some native English speaking devotees believe that the term refers to a scenario where the Lord is being blessed (endowed) with a certain thing or attribute by one of his devotees.

Based on this misconception they consider the term “The Blessed Lord” as it is used in the Bhagavad-gita As It Is to be mistaken, and thus they support Jayadvaita Swami’s change to “The Supreme Personality of Godhead”.

I am quite amazed that native English speakers are not aware that the term “The Blessed Lord” or “to bless the Lord” means something completely different. I am also amazed to see how they criticise the term “The Blessed Lord” without bothering to look for it’s meaning in a dictionary or online.

Let us help them:

Screen Shot 2016-04-28 at 14.28.42

And

Screen Shot 2016-04-28 at 14.42.44

To learn more about how the term is used we need to nothing more than search the internet. There are loads of answers. In Christianity is perfectly normal to say “The Blessed Lord” and “Bless the Lord” in the sense of praising, glorifying and honoring God.

Here is something from an article that makes the point clear:

“There are two main things that we do when we bless the Lord.  The first is synonymous with giving thanks and praise.  Some translations actually say, “Give thanks to the Lord,” where others say, “Bless the Lord.”  So, blessing the Lord is praising Him and giving thanks to Him—for blessing us!  The other thing we do when we bless the Lord is to proclaim Him blessed.  Here I think I’ll have to make a distinction between “blessed” and “blessed.”  For clarity’s sake, this distinction is between “blessed” and “blest”—though I don’t really like that newfangled form of the word—the former in two syllables and the latter in one.  The former is a state of being, the latter a consequence of something have been done or given to someone.

When we call God blessed, we are saying something about who God is.He is blessed, which is a synonym for “holy.”  Blessed is God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!  The Byzantine Divine Liturgy always opens with the glorious and magnificent “Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, both now and forever and unto ages of ages!” When we speak of God as the recipient of our blessings (praises and thanksgivings), then He is blest.  May the Lord be forever blest!  Sometimes both meanings can apply simultaneously.When Our Lady said, “All generations shall call me blessed,” it means both that all generations acknowledge her holiness and that all generations acknowledge that she has been uniquely blest by God.”

When Jayadvaita Swami made the change from “The Blessed Lord” to “The Supreme Personality of Godhead” he did not used the above mentioned misconception as a justification. Perhaps he knew there was nothing wrong with the term. He attempted to justify his change in another way. His attempted justification will be the subject matter of an upcoming article.