Tag Archives: arsa-prayoga

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

Advertisement
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:

https://arsaprayoga.com/2014/08/12/small-word-big-difference/

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

04.13.14
by

Deleting “whatever” (Bg. 6.26)

Bg. 6.26:

Srila Prabhupada’s draft (so-called original manuscript):

Screenshot 2014-04-13 12.00.37

Original and authorized 1972 Macmillan edition:

“From whatever and wherever the mind wanders due to its flickering and unsteady nature, one must certainly withdraw it and bring it back under the control of the Self.”

BBT International’s posthumously edited 1983 edition:

From wherever the mind wanders due to its flickering and unsteady nature, one must certainly withdraw it and bring it back under the control of the Self.

What did Srila Prabhupada think about the verse?

Visnujana: Verse twenty-six: “From whatever and wherever the mind wanders due to its flickering and unsteady nature, one must certainly withdraw it and bring it back under the control of the Self [Bg. 6.26].”

Prabhupada: This is the process. This is yoga system. Suppose you are trying to concentrate your mind on Krsna, and your mind is diverted, going somewhere, in some cinema house. So you should withdraw, “Not there, please, here.” This is practice of yoga. Not to allow the mind to go away from Krsna. (Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 6.25-29, Los Angeles, February 18, 1969)

The words translated as “whatever and wherever” is “yataḥ yataḥ”. In the 1972 Macmillan edition the word for word looked like this:

 yataḥ-whatever; yataḥ;-wherever

In BBT International’s 1983 edition this is changed to:

yataḥ yataḥ — wherever

Unfortunately these word for word synonyms are missing for 6.26 in the so-called original manuscript. But we do find something in Srimad-Bhagavatam:

yataḥ yataḥ — from whatever and wherever; (SB 7.15.32-33)

As a side note: This verse from Srimad-Bhagavatam in about the same subject as Bg. 6.26:

While continuously staring at the tip of the nose, a learned yogi practices the breathing exercises through the technical means known as puraka, kumbhaka and recaka — controlling inhalation and exhalation and then stopping them both. In this way the yogi restricts his mind from material attachments and gives up all mental desires. As soon as the mind, being defeated by lusty desires, drifts toward feelings of sense gratification, the yogi should immediately bring it back and arrest it within the core of his heart. (SB 7.15.32-33)

Again we left with the conclusion that Jayadvaita Swami and the BBT International are not bringing Srila Prabhupada’s books “closer to Prabhupada”. They are violating Srila Prabhupada’s, sastra’s and their own stated editing guidelines by making both needless and harmful changes in Srila Prabhupada’s books.

03.29.14
by

“Secret wisdom” deleted from Bhagavad-gita As It Is (Bg. 9.1)

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Bg. 9.1:

Srila Prabhupada’s draft (so-called original manuscript):

Screenshot 2014-03-29 12.53.56

Original and authorized 1972 Macmillan edition:

“The Supreme Lord said: My dear Arjuna, because you are never envious of Me, I shall impart to you this most secret wisdom, knowing which you shall be relieved of the miseries of material existence.”

BBT International’s posthumously edited 1983 edition:

“The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: My dear Arjuna, because you are never envious of Me, I shall impart to you this most confidential knowledge and realization, knowing which you shall be relieved of the miseries of material existence.”

Here we, again, see that Jayadvaita Swami’s editing often takes us further away from Srila Prabhupada. We see again and again that the BBT International’s claim to fame, namely that they are making the books “closer to Prabhupada” is false. In fact they are deliberately changing Srila Prabhupada’s own chosen words. In other words, they are violating the principle of arsa-prayoga – again and again.

How long will this be allowed to go on?

03.18.14
by

Jayadvaita Swami’s Reward (Bg 4.11)

Screenshot 2014-03-13 10.45.34Jayadvaita Swami

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

BG 4.11:

So called original manuscript (Srila Prabhupada’s draft):

Screenshot 2014-03-18 21.02.45Click to enlarge picture

Original and authorized 1972 Macmillan edition:

All of them—as they surrender unto Me—I reward accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Pṛthā.

BBT International’s posthumously changed 1983 edition:

“As all surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Pṛthā.”

Hayagriva Prabhu was true to Srila Prabhupada’s words here. Jayadvaita Swami’s 1983 version is not! Why?

There is NO explanation of why this change was made on the BBTI’s website. I wonder why, since they write:

“Want to see the actual revisions made for Bhagavad-gita As It Is, Srimad-Bhagavatam, and Teachings of Lord Caitanya? You’ve come to the right place.” (BBT International’s website)

And on Jayadvaita Swami’s “annotated scans” which are categorized under “See the changes” on BBTI’s website there is no annotations made to verse 4.11.

Regarding these “annotated scans” BBT International’s website says:

“When Jayadvaita Swami made his revisions for the second edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, he did them directly on a copy of the book–that is, a copy of the first edition. After the second edition was published, for many years his first-edition copy was lost. But back in roughly 2006, Dravida Dasa found it in a trunk in San Diego. More recently, that copy has been scanned and digitized. And now the BBT is putting it here online.”

Apparently not all the changes made to Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is are to be found in this “annotated scan” that all of a sudden mysteriously re-appeared. Why do they not write that not all changes are mentioned in this “annotated scan”? Are they trying to hide some of the changes from the public?

How did Srila Prabhupada feel about verse  4.11 as it appeared in his 1972 Macmillan Bhagavad-gita As It Is:

Prabhupada: So the original verse says that “All of them as they surrender unto Me, I reward accordingly. Everyone follows my path in all respects.” This means that everyone is searching after that absolute truth. Some of them are satisfied with impersonal feature. The philosophers, jnanis, they, because they want to understand the absolute truth by dint of their imperfect knowledge.

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bhagavad-gita 4.11-18 — Los Angeles, January 8, 1969

Prabhupada: “All of them — as they surrender unto Me — I reward accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Prtha.” God is everything, and we can associate with Him according to our choice.

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Interview with the New York Times — September 2, 1972, New Vrindaban

Cyavana: Krsna says, “All of them, as they surrender, I reward accordingly.” So that means they are surrendering in different…
Prabhupada: Yes. He has not surrendered. He keeps himself separate from Krsna, and he is, artificially he shows surrender. Surrender does not mean that you reserve something for you. That is not surrender. Surrender means without reservation. That is surrender.

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Morning Walk — November 1, 1975, Nairobi

Pradyumna (leads chanting): Translation: “All of them, as they surrender unto Me, I reward accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Prtha.”

Prabhupada:

ye yatha mam prapadyante
tams tathaiva bhajamy aham
mama vartmanuvartante
manusyah partha sarvasah
[Bg. 4.11]

Everyone is seeking to find out Krsna. Directly or indirectly. Krsna means the all-attractive. All-attractive. Bhagavan means the all-attractive Supreme Personality of Godhead. So indirectly or directly, everyone is seeking Krsna, the all-attractive. Ananda-mayo ‘bhyasat. The Supreme Bliss.

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bhagavad-gita 4.11 — Bombay, March 31, 1974

Nitai: “All of them — as they surrender unto Me — I reward accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Prtha.”

ye yatha mam prapadyante
tams tathaiva bhajamy aham
mama vartmanuvartante
manusyah partha sarvasah
[Bg. 4.11]

We are continuing from yesterday’s subject matter, how one can become purified and go back to home, back to Godhead.
Here the second line of this verse is very important. It is said, mama vartmanuvartante manusyah partha sarvasah: “All human being is searching after Me.”

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bhagavad-gita 4.11 — Geneva, June 1, 1974

Prabhupada: This is page one-hundred-eighteen, yes.
Tamala Krsna: “All of them as they surrender unto Me, I reward accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Prtha.” Purport: “Everyone is searching after Krsna in the different aspects of His manifestation. Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is partially realized in His impersonal brahmajyoti or shining effulgence. Krsna is also partially realized as the all-pervading Supersoul dwelling within everything, even in the particles of atoms.”
Prabhupada: It [the microphone] is not fixed up right.
Tamala Krsna: “But Krsna is only fully realized by His pure devotees. Therefore, Krsna is the object of everyone’s realization, and as such anyone and everyone is satisfied according to one’s desire to have Him. One devotee may want Krsna as the supreme master, another as his personal friend, another as his son, and still another as his lover. Krsna rewards equally all the devotees in their different intensities of love for Him. In the material world the same reciprocations of feelings are there and they are equally exchanged by the Lord with the different types of worshipers. The pure devotees both here and in the transcendental abode associate with Him in person and are able to render personal service to the Lord and thus derive transcendental bliss in His loving service. As for those who are impersonalists and who want to commit spiritual suicide by annihilating the individual existence of the living entity, Krsna helps them also by absorbing them into His effulgence. Such impersonalists do not agree to accept the eternal, blissful Personality of Godhead, and consequently they cannot relish the bliss of transcendental personal service to the Lord…”
Prabhupada: Yes.
Tamala Krsna: “…and they extinguish their individuality.”
Prabhupada: God realization, there are three aspects: brahmeti paramatmeti bhagavan iti sabdyate [SB 1.2.11].

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bhagavad-gita 4.11-18 — Los Angeles, January 8, 1969

Again we see that Jayadvaita Swami’s and BBT International’s claim to fame – namely that they are making the books “closer to Prabhupada” – is false propaganda. Many, many changes – hundreds (if not thousands) – are further away from the words that Srila Prabhupada originally wrote or dictated.

Their claim about not making needless changes is proved false by the changes to Bg. 4.11, since this change is not at all needed.

Does Jayadvaita Swami and the BBTI trustees ever ask themselves this question: If making all of these changes is our way of surrendering to Srila Prabhupada, then what will our reward be?

02.21.14
by

BBTI makes extreme changes to Perfect Questions, Perfect Answers (22 pages deleted)

02.09.14
by

VIDEO: The Duty of the Finger (Bg 4.38)

12.25.13
by

Prabhupada on Brahma-Samhita: It should be left as is!

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

Sri_Brahma-Samhita-cover

In Brahma Samhita by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, Introduction, page xvi (page 7 in the PDF):

“…As per Srila Prabhupada’s instructions regarding the publication of this volume, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati’s somewhat technical and sometimes difficult prose has been left intact and virtually untouched. Fearing that any editorial (grammatical and stylistic) tampering with Bhaktisiddhanta’s text might result in inadvertant changes in meaning, Prabhupada asked that it be left as is, and the editors of this volume have complied with his wishes…”

Ramesvara Prabhu remembers regarding that same publication og Brahma Samhita:

“What about the incorrect grammar? “Prabhupada’s reply, “You cannot change one comma, not even a comma, not even a punctuation mark, that is the etiquette.” So that was just another one of those super heavy instructions that the etiquette in dealing with a great acarya’s books is that whatever he has done it’s eternal and it can never be changed. And I believe that all of this was part of Prabhupada’s training us . He wanted to train people who would be entrusted with his books.” (Ramesvara, Interview 1979)

The Brahma-Samhita was published with only very slight editing done:

  • Typographical errors was corrected.
  • Capitalization was standardized.
  • Sanskrit terms in devanagari script appearing within the English text was transliterated.
  • Already transliterated terms have been adjusted to international standards.
  • The original devanagari text was added for each verse. It was followed by roman transliteration, and then by a word-for-word translation into English (none of these appeared in the original edition).

This very limited editing of Brahma-Samhita were made under the instructions of our Sampradaya-Acarya, Srila Prabhupada, who is a pure unalloyed devotee of the Lord. No mistakes and no offenses would be made as long as he supervised and approved the work. In addition, the editors were honest and wrote in the introduction precisely what they did to the original work. The BBT International should also be honest by letting the readers know what they did to Prabhupada Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Something like this ought to be written:

Despite the fact that Srila Prabhupada educated us in the vedic principle of arsa-prayoga that state that the words of the acarya should not be corrected, we, the editor’s, have made extensive posthumous changes and corrections to Prabhupada’s personally typewritten sanskrit translations. We have also added completely new words, sentences and paragraphs and made re-arrangement of words and sentences. Original paintings and pictures have been removed and exchanged with new ones. We have also removed the foreword and changed the cover. All editing is done without the approval of the author. We can’t guarantee that our editing is free from mistakes, or that the author would be pleased with the editing.

12.09.13
by

Tampering with Prabhupada’s personally typewritten sanskrit translations (BG, Chapter One)

Please help us by “liking” and “sharing” this post!

Skærmbillede 2013-12-09 kl. 22.03.15

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 and Bhaktin Anna Nygaard

In regard to the posthumous editing of Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is, Jayadvaita Swami has expressed (emphasis added by Arsa-Prayoga staff):

1982:

“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 Swami, letter to senior devotees, October 25, 1982)

1986:

“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)

1995:

“When Srila Prabhupada conveyed to us the conclusions of the previous acaryas, he did so perfectly, preserving and transmitting the philosophy exactly as it is, neither watering anything down, nor covering anything over, nor leaving anything out. He gave us the essence of everything.

We therefore don’t need to add anything, subtract anything, or change anything. We need only faithfully serve Srila Prabhupada’s orders, and everything will be revealed.” (Jayadvaita Swami, Sri Vyasa Puja book August 19,1995)

2009:

On BBT International’s website we find this video:

Transcription of the video:

“Arsa-Prayoga is a very important principle. The editor should never have the mentality that he’s better than the author, that he has something more to contribute than the author does, that the author really doesn’t know what he is doing, but he knows what he is doing. That’s offensive! And that is…ruins everything! It is an offense to the acarya. The idea, however, that this sort of sanctity that the author’s text has, or that the words of the author have, somehow extends to the mistakes of the editors…is weird! “It’s an offense to correct the mistakes of previous editors!” Are they acaryas? Are they paramahamsas? Are they infallible? They are wonderful devotees, they did wonderful service. But they made mistakes. Understandably.”

Summing up Jayadvaita Maharaja’s standpoints from the above:

In 2009 Jayadvaita Swami admits that the principle of arsa-prayoga is very important, and that it is an offense to violate it. He admits that Prabhupada’s text has sanctity, and that the editors of Prabhupada’s books should never think they are better than Prabhupada and has more to contribute than Prabhupada.

In 1995, twelve years after Prabhupada’s disappearance, Jayadvaita Swami said that we should not add, subtract or change anything in the teachings Prabhupada has given us. Earlier, in 1982 and 1986, Jayadvaita Swami claimed that they had in mind not to make needless changes in their editing of Bhagavad-gita As It is, because Prabhupada staunchly opposed such needless changes. They only changed what they felt was worthwhile changing. However, Jayadvaita Swami further states that the sanctity that Prabhupada’s texts have do not apply to the work done by Prabhupada’s editors (he seem not to appreciate the fact that this work was later approved by Prabhupada. Does Prabhupada’s approval not have sanctity?)

In this way Jayadvaita Swami makes it seem as if he did not add, subtract or change any of Prabhupada’s direct words (except for the grammatical errors, capitalisation and commas). However, during the last three decades, we and many other devotees have observed and documented numerous needless changes made by Jayadvaita Swami to Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is. And in spite of Jayadvaita Swami’s own seeming interest in not adding, subtracting or changing anything in Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, the posthumously edited books contain all of these three types of edits (adding, subtracting and changing).

We will now start a series of articles documenting the changes made to the sanskrit synonyms (word for word meanings) in the first six chapters of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Why only the first six chapters?

According to Jayadvaita Swami the first five or six chapters of the draft (often referred to as the ”original manuscript”) to the Bhagavad-gita As It Is was personally typewritten by Srila Prabhupada himself.

Jayadvaita Swami writes on his website:

”Some books Srila Prabhupada wrote out in longhand or typed himself. These include Easy Journey to Other Planets, Sri Isopanishad, the first and second cantos of Srimad-Bhagavatam, the first five or six chapters of Bhagavad-gita As It Is,…” (Jayadvaita Swami, Editing the Unchangeable Truth, How Were the Books Written?, Reprinted from ISKCON Communications Journal, Volume 11, 2005)

If anything has sanctity, apart from the finished manuscripts that Prabhupada sent to the press for printing, it must be the words that he himself wrote on his type-writer. We would most certainly not expect to see any changes made to these. Even if they contain mistakes, these mistakes should not be corrected according to the principle of arsa-prayoga.

However, we do see significant changes made to the sanskrit translations that Prabhupada personally wrote on his type-writer. By comparing the posthumously edited 1983 edition with both the 1972 MacMillan edition and the so called “original manuscript” we see that the 1972 MacMillan edition is much closer to and faithful to Prabhupada’s original words.

This is especially interesting because 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)

We now publish for the first time a complete list over all the changes made to Prabhupada’s personally type-written sanskrit translations. Here is the complete list for Chapter One.

PDF: bg-comparing-OM-1972-1983-ch1  

Direct link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/d9u09z5jxnwj50d/bg-comparing-OM-1972-1983-ch1.pdf

12.06.13
by

Question to Jayadvaita Swami: What would Prabhupada say to you?

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

This letter was sent to Jayadvaita Swami the 6th Dec. 2013:

Dear Jayadvaita Swami! Dandavat pranam! Jaya Srila Prabhupada!

Some weeks have passed since our last e-mail exchange. I hope  you are in the process of answering the questions I linked to in my first two e-mails to you? Otherwise they are here:

E-mail 1: https://arsaprayoga.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/letter-to-jayadvaita-swami-23rd-oct-2013/

E-mail 2: https://arsaprayoga.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/e-mail-exchange-between-jayadvaita-swami-and-ajit-krishna-dasa/

These are questions that thousands of devotee’s around the world would like to see answered as soon as possible.

While awaiting your promised answers, I am constantly researching the changes made to Prabhupada’s books. Recently I saw this video posted on BBT International’s website:

Direct link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlqbnzzL_28

In the video you say:

”I went back and re-edited especially the translations in the first canto. Especially the first perhaps three chapters where I thought their were a lot of short comings. And I typed up all the translations – after I finished all the work, I typed up all the translations in one manuscript and put them in an envelope, and Prabhupada was coming to New York where I was at the time. Prabhupada came, and I put all the translations in an envelope, and I wrote a cover letter explaning what I have done, and asking him whether it was okay. And then I brought it up to Prabhupada’s quarters at 55th Street in New York–the New York temple—with the idea that I would leave them with his secretary and come back later. But Prabhupada was right there, and so he…I offered obeisances, and he had me, you know: ”What do you do in here?” ”What have you come for?” Not in those words, but, you know, he inquired was I was doing. And I explained that I had come to deliver this. So Prabhupada had me start reading right in his presence. And I began, I read the first verse, the second verse, the third verse. I went through a few verses, and Prabhupada stopped me. Prabhupada was listening very carefully, he stopped me. ”So what you have done?” And I said: ”Well, Srila Prabhupada, I have edited to try to bring it closer to what you originally said.” Prabhupada said: ”What I have said?” I said: ”Yes, Srila Prabhupada!” Then Prabhupada: ”Then it is alright!”, and that was it. ”Then it is alright!” ”What I have said?”, ”Then it is alright!”

 A few points about this story:

1. Your story is merely anecdotal evidence which is considered a rather unreliable and dubious support of a  claim. No one is really able to investigate the truth value of your story. To use anecdotal evidence as the foundation for changing the books that are supposed to guide mankind the next ten thousands years will surely create doubt about the authority of the changed books.

As Srila Prabhupada said about such stories:

“Just like in our ISKCON there are so many false things: “Prabhupada said this, Prabhupada said that.””
(Srila Prabhupada Letter, 7/11/1972)

“They misunderstand me. Unless it is there from me in writing, there are so many things that “Prabhupada said.”” (Srila Prabhupada Letter, 2/9/1975)

And as you yourself say:

“If Srila Prabhupada didn’t clearly and definitely say it, and if it first came up after 1977 whatever it is, don’t trust it. Rule of Thumb.” (Diksa-Diksa, Where the Rtvik People are Wrong,  p. 85, Jayadvaita Swami)

You started circulating your story after the book changing controversy started, and there is no evidence to support that it is true. Therefore, “…don’t trust it. Rule of Thumb.”

Skærmbillede 2013-12-06 kl. 20.59.15

2. You seem to conclude that since Prabhupada approved the verses that you brought him, then he also approved that you could change all his books using the same method – even after his disappearance. But this is an unwarranted extrapolation, because you extrapolate far beyond the range of available data, namely from one single instance of editing to more or less all future instances of editing. But from your story no justification for such an extrapolation can be found. The only conclusion to be deduced (if your anecdote is at all true) is that what you did to the very specific verses you brought Prabhupada was okay.  No more, no less.

3. If your anecdote is true, then Prabhupada told you that if you had made the text closer to what Prabhupada originally said, then it was okay.

However, in my previous e-mails to you I have referred to articles where it is clearly documented that you have:

  • Deleted many of Prabhupada’s own chosen words and sentences (even those also found in his ”original manuscript”)
  • Added your own words and sentences (which means they are also not to be found in the ”original manuscript”)
  • Changed Prabhupada’s own personally typewritten sanskrit translations.

The article ”The Duty of the Finger” demonstrates all these types of changes made to Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is:

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

Now, I think most devotees around the world would like to know what you think Prabhupada would have said if you had told him:

”Well, Srila Prabhupada, in my editing I have deleted some of your own chosen words and sentences! And I have also invented some completely new words and sentences and put them in where I felt they would do a good job! And since we at the BBT are now ”accomplished sanskrit scholars” we have gone through some of your own typewritten sanskrit translations and changed them.”

What do you, honestly, think Prabhupada would have answered? Then try to extrapolate that answer to the changes you have made to Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is.

Your servant, Ajit Krishna Dasa