Tag Archives: Bhagavad-gita

09.27.13
by

In The Early Days (Govinda Dasi)

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

govinda-dasi

Govinda Dasi

A number of devotees attended the recent (January 2003) series of meetings in Hawaii on the book changes. Jayadvaita Maharaja attended the first two meetings, and Nischintya Prabhu attended the third one (Jayadvaita Maharaja was out of town). I attended all three meetings and believe that much was accomplished. Many valuable points were gleaned from these sessions – both inspiring as well as grueling. These meetings are being transcribed, and are available on adi-vani.org for those who are interested.

We held the meetings in Srila Prabhupada’s room at New Navadvipa Dham, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada Memorial Tirtha (the Honolulu ISKCON temple), where Srila Prabhupada lived, worked and translated his books. His presence is very strong at our Hawaii temple. We all prayed for Srila Prabhupada’s divine presence at these meetings, and humbly requested that he inspire us to reach understandings based on his transcendental viewpoints, rather than our own limited ones. In my heart, I feel that Srila Prabhupada has urged me to speak out on this issue. I usually do not get involved in controversial matters unless the issue is of great importance. And the issue of Srila Prabhupada’s books, in my opinion, is of paramount importance. I have had many realizations and wish to share them here.

It is unreasonable to consider that Srila Prabhupada would intend to give up the results of two years of editing the book with Hayagriva and go backwards to the original manuscripts.

First, it seems that Jayadvaita Maharaja takes this matter too personally.

Continue reading →

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?

09.23.13
by

Arsha Prayoga – Part IV

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

By Locanananda Dasa (pasted from his blog)

scan131a

For those who saw the Hare Krishna movement spread from city to city and from country to country, it was clear that the original version of Srila Prabhupada’s books was full of spiritual potency and did not require to be changed in any way for his words to act upon the hearts of the conditioned souls.

The question as to whether the writings of the Acharya may or may not be revised by his disciples after his disappearance is answered by the rule of arsha-prayoga.

This principle states that one should not see mistakes in what the spiritual master has written or think that his writings may be changed to make them more effective or politically correct. To preserve his teachings in their originally published form is the way by which the Acharya is honored, and to do otherwise is to dishonor him. That is the rule of arsha-prayoga, a principle that devoted followers of a bona fide spiritual master must adhere to without deviation.

The rationale for changing Srila Prabhupada’s books was based on a series of false arguments, many of which were defeated by Srila Prabhupada himself as this article will show. To justify their actions, the BBT editors created the illusion that Srila Prabhupada’s books were defective and in need of extensive editing even though they knew His Divine Grace had never authorized anyone to revise his books after his disappearance. Subsequent to his departure, they conveniently overlooked the principle of arsha-prayoga and proceeded to do exactly what Vaishnava tradition strictly prohibits.

It was by the distribution of transcendental literature that Srila Prabhupada hoped to introduce Krishna consciousness to people everywhere. For those who saw the movement spread from city to city and from country to country, it was clear that the original version of Srila Prabhupada’s books was full of spiritual potency and did not require to be changed in any way for his words to act upon the hearts of the conditioned souls. Srila Prabhupada himself never doubted that his books would bring about a revolution in consciousness and induce people throughout the world to take shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. His transcendental vision was revealed in the following letters, all of which refer to the original version of his books.

“I am glad to learn that you are having nice success in placing my books in the libraries and in schools and colleges…. I am sure that this will revolutionize the thinking of the thoughtful men of your country as well as the students and professors, and the ultimate end will be to save the world from the clutches of material illusory activities which is now causing havoc everywhere.” (Letter to Karandhara dated 9-13-70)

“If we introduce these books in all of the bookstores, schools, colleges, libraries and everyone’s home, our religion will be the only religion in the world very soon.” (Letter to Krishna Bamini dated 1-4-72)

“We have got a great mission to fulfill, and these books and magazines are the torchbearers of Truth which can save the world.” (Letter to Ksirodakasayi dated 1-3-72)
Srila Prabhupada’s books, then, should be thought of as a permanent legacy to be embraced and shared by devotees everywhere. Their purpose is to establish religious principles and enlighten human society. They were Srila Prabhupada’s gift to the world and proof of his empowerment by Krishna. There was no reason, therefore, for His Divine Grace to recommend that his books be further revised. He was of the opinion that another round of editing would not be necessary for his literatures to deliver the world from the darkest regions of ignorance.

Our guideline in Krishna consciousness is that the only duty of the disciple is to faithfully execute the order of the bona fide spiritual master. If a disagreement arises over how to best serve the guru, the issue can generally be resolved by following the course of action chalked out by the spiritual master himself through direct instructions to his followers. In a room conversation that took place in Paris in 1976, Srila Prabhupada elaborated on this point, and his explanation soundly defeats virtually all of the arguments presented in favor of changing his books.

Excerpt from a room conversation taking place in Paris, France on August 5, 1976

HARI-SAURI: Sometimes there’s some discrepancy, two parties, that may both want to serve but they have different ways, different ideas how to execute the same order, so there may be some disagreement.

PRABHUPADA: Service means you must take order from the master. Otherwise, it is mental concoction. Actually the servant requests, “How can I serve you?” So when the master orders, “You serve me like this,” then you do that, that is service. And if you manufacture your service, that is not service. That is your sense gratification. Yasya prasadad bhagavat-prasadah. You have to see how he is pleased. Now if he wants a glass of water and if you bring a nice glass of milk, you can say, “Milk is better than water. You take it.” That is not service. He wants water, you give him water. Don’t manufacture better thing.

After Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance, and without his consent, the BBT editors took it upon themselves to re-edit his books, making thousands of unnecessary changes in an attempt to improve their wording and style. But, as Srila Prabhupada stated above, without his order, their service was a concoction. They were offering him milk when he had asked for water. He wanted them to follow the rule of arsha-prayoga, but they decided to manufacture a better thing. So, according to the spiritual master, their editing was not service at all, but sense gratification.

In preparing his books for publication, Srila Prabhupada did not want a great deal of time spent on editing work. Neither was Srila Prabhupada very concerned with style. His Divine Grace once said:

“We are not meant for presenting any literary masterpieces.”

In the following letter, he carefully instructed his book production staff concerning his priorities:

“We have to do things now very dexterously, simply we have to see that in our book there is no spelling or grammatical mistake. We do not mind for any good style, our style is Hare Krishna, but still, we should not present a shabby thing. Although Krishna literatures are so nice that, even if they are presented in broken and irregular ways, such literatures are welcomed, read and respected by bona fide devotees.” (Letter to Satsvarupa dated 1-9-70)

Unless the BBT trustees felt that Srila Prabhupada’s books had been shabbily presented, they had no right to tamper with them. Of course, it is not our philosophy to print errors, but spiritual subject matter is transcendental to all mundane considerations and remains potent despite mistakes in grammar, spelling, etc. Once the presentation of his books had met Srila Prabhupada’s standard of approval, he adamantly warned the BBT staff that further changes could not be made. He said they should not even think there were mistakes in his published works.

When it was brought to Srila Prabhupada’s attention in 1977 that significant changes had been made in his books without his approval, he instructed the directors of the BBT that the next printing of his books should be again to the original way. The BBT editors knew how averse Srila Prabhupada was to making revisions in his books, especially once they had been published. How, then, despite his specific instructions, could they justify acting against his wishes and dare to change everything shortly after his physical departure?

If Srila Prabhupada ever spoke of making improvements, he was referring to the quality of the printing only and was not suggesting that changes be made in the text of his books. When Srila Prabhupada first examined the 1972 MacMillan Gita, for example, he said it did not meet our Vaishnava standard. He was disappointed with the quality of the paper, the binding, the color work and so on. These are the things he wanted improved. As far as the text was concerned, he said that nothing should be added or subtracted.

09.21.13
by

Debate with Brahmananda Das (ACBSP) about the book changes

Help us by “liking” and “sharing” this post!
Srila-Prabhupada-speaks-to-Brahmananda-on-Juhu-Beach-Bombay-290x166
Prabhupada speaks with Brahmananda
—–
The following exchange between Brahmananda Das (ACBSP) and myself took place on the Facebook profile of Palaka Dasa. I have deleted comments not related to the specific exchange between Brahmananda Prabhu and myself.
–

In ’72 Gita in every Text for the Sanskrit words “sri bhagavan uvaca” the Synonym is “The Supreme Personality of Godhead Said” but the Translation is “The Blessed Lord Said.” Why are the Synonym and the Translation for the same Sanskrit completely different? I think I know the answer to this but does Palaka Dasa and Ajit Krishna Dasa know?

Dear Brahmananda Prabhu! Dandavat pranam! Jaya Srila Prabhupada!

The ultimate reason it is there is because Prabhupada approved it. He and Hayagriva worked on the BG before it was printed in 68. After that Prabhupada gave lectures from it and read it. And in a conversation he approved that the verses as they were in the 68 edition could be used for the 72 edition also.Another thing is that Prabhupada would often give one word in the word-for-word and another in the translation. That is often seen in his books. That is his prerogative as author. And it gives us the possibility to see both words.

All for now,
Your humble servant,
Ajit Krishna Dasa

Here is the place where Prabhupada approves of the verses from the 68 edition being used also for the 72 edition.

Prabhupada had all the chances in the world to change “The blessed Lord” to “The Supreme Personality of Godhead”, but he didn’t. Then on what authority can we change it?

Hayagriva: I would like to see that in going over mine. I’ll have to go over it chapter by chapter. But I will compare the version I have with that version, and… I know the translations themselves, they were somewhat changed in Bhagavad-gītā As It Is as it came out in Macmillan. Did you like those translations?
Prabhupāda: Whichever is better, you think. That’s all. You can follow this Macmillan.
Hayagrīva: That was the second… They’re good. I think they’re very good.
Prabhupāda: Yes. You can follow that translation. Simply synonyms he can add, transliterations.
Hayagrīva: And we have all the purports. We can include everything. Nothing will be deleted. Everything will be in there.
Prabhupāda: That’s all right.
(Discussion with BTG Staff, December 24, 1969, Boston)

 Brahmananda Das

BTW it was not Hayagriva who was the main editor of BG; it was Rayarama, who edited BG for two periods of time. I personally took the ms. away from H. and gave it to R. on SP’s order when H. went into maya. Till this day I still recall H.’s brutal words against SP when he wanted to crack our faith in SP. “The incident of Kirtanananda and Hayagriva chapter may now be closed. We shall always pray to Krishna for their recovery and we should not seriously take their counter propaganda. I am sure they will flap for some time without any effect on our Krishna Consciousness, service. Let us go ahead with our work and everything will be all right. Most important thing at present is to deal with MacMillan Co. Regarding editing of my books it was rightly entrusted to you from the very beginning but Kirtanananda wanted that the editing should be done by Hayagriva. But I understand from your version that in some places of Gita Upanisad he (Hayagriva) has followed Swami Nikilananda who is quite unaware of Krishna Consciousness. By their present behavior it appears that Hayagriva belongs to the same feather and Krishna has saved His Gita Upanisad by transferring the whole thing into your hands. Now please do your best and hand it over to MacMillan Co. for necessary action.” SPL to Rayarama 67/11/15

 Ajit Krishna Dasa

Dear Brahmananda Prabhu! Thanks for your answer.

I think the real question is not who was the main editor behind Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is or what the editors said or did. The main thing is Prabhupada’s relationship to his Bhagavad-gita As It Is. We find no information, as far as I can judge, in your statements or quotes that can be used as sufficient or necessary evidence to support any posthumous changes in Prabhupada’s books. It would be nice if you could point out precisely what you think is the necessary or sufficient evidence, so that we can all see and evaluate it. You said in your first comment that you had some special knowledge about how “The Blessed Lord” came to be in the translations. Maybe you can tell us about it?

Your humble servant,
Ajit Krishna Dasa

End of exchange

09.20.13
by

Jayadvaita Swami: Is He on the Mental Platform?

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

By B. RADHA-GOVINDA (originally posted on the Sampradaya Sun)

Back-To-Godhead-Jayadvaita-Swami

Mental platform refers to one’s acceptance and (later) rejection (sankalpa/vikalpa), of the same thing based on the likes and dislikes of the mind, resultant from false ego. This mental platform based acceptance and rejection is symptomatic of conditioned souls, not the pure devotee.

The uttama adhikari pure devotee knows the sastras which are a direct manifestation of Krsna’s expressed words, expressed either directly from Krsna or His incarnations, or from those pure empowered devotees to whom Krsna has given realization of His words/instructions, Krsna’s using such pure devotees as His instrument to convey their realized (“Krsnized”) words and/or their prayers of glorification expressed through sastra.

Regarding Jayadvaita Swami and the question, “Is he on the mental platform?”, my question comes because not only does Jayadvaita Swami change certain things in Srila Prabhupada’s books, but he makes changes to the changes he (JAS) has himself already made.

To give one example, over the years I saw a few different changed versions of Bhagavad-gita As It Is (Was), and there were different “renditions” to the BG 2.1 verse, although Srila Prabhupada’s translation was already so clear and beautifully expressed that the reader has a very vivid, heartfelt understanding of Arjuna’s feelings from the verse, which read:

“Sanjaya said: ‘Seeing Arjuna full of compassion and very sorrowful, his eyes brimming with tears, Madhusudana, Krsna, spoke the following words’.”

Despite the (pre-1978) word for word translation, krpaya – ‘by compassion’, avistam – ‘overwhelmed’, asru-purna – ‘full of tears”; akula – depressed’; iksanam – ‘eyes’; visidantam- ‘lamenting’, one of Jayadvaita Swami’s edited (slaughtered) renditions of this verse read, “Sanjaya said: ‘Seeing Arjuna his mind depressed, Madhusudana, Krsna, spoke the following words'”.

One has to assume Jayadvaita Swami was, at a later point, dissatisfied with his own editing because he changed his own (edited, “subtracted”) rendition of this verse to read more according to the original translation in Srila Prabhupada’s pre-1978 edition of Bhagavad Gita As It Is. This updated/renewed/changed verse read, “Sanjaya said: ‘Seeing Arjuna full of compassion, his mind depressed, Madhusudana, Krsna, spoke the following words’.”

That was again changed, the final, most current rendition reading, “Sanjaya said: ‘Seeing Arjuna full of compassion, his mind depressed, his eyes full of tears, Madhusudana, Krsna, spoke the following words’.”

Although in the pre-1978 BG, in the word for word translation the word “depressed” is given as the translation for “akula,” although Jayadvaita Swami uses the word “depressed” in his edited translation of this verse, in his editing of the word for word translation, there is no word “depressed” used there. (Please note the difference between the two word for word translations with asru-purna-akula given below to mean ‘full of tears’ and the pre-1978 BG’s word for word translation, asru-purna – ‘full of tears’; akula – ‘depressed’.)

krpaya -‘ by compassion’, avistam – ‘overwhelmed’, asru-purna-akula- ‘ full of tears’;iksanam – ‘eyes’; visidantam – ‘lamenting’.

So one may have to question whether it is a matter of mental platform being the reason for Jayadvaita Swami’s (re)editing his own published editing of Srila Prabhupada’s books, or whether he’s doing so to keep a job for himself.

Transcending the “mental platform” requires that one identify the mind as the source of accepting and rejecting based on false ego, and allowing one’s intelligence to be one’s guide, that intelligence based on sastra or the instructions of those pure devotees who know and speak them.

May we be safely situated under the shelter of Srila Prabhupada’s Lotus Feet, Those of our Guru Varga, the Vaisnavas, and Sri Sri Radha and Krsna.

Your servant,

B. Radha-Govinda
Hare Krsna

09.20.13
by

A Letter on Book Changes

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

govinda-dasi

By Govinda Dasi (ACBSP)

Srila Prabhupada often said “Krishna has written these books.” So tell me, how can a conditioned soul improve on what Krishna has said or written??

Dear Yashoda Dulal Prabhu,

Pamho. Yes, the BBT always gives that one worn-out example of cattle, and of course the other one, planet of the trees. Yes, those are typos, mistakes. They fail to mention the other four thousand and nine hundred and ninety eight changes they made!

And had these two errors been corrected, along with any misspelled words, etc. there would have been no cause for alarm–or for a million dollar lawsuit with bbt defending the edited version–one which they lost in the courts. That court case is the only reason that now the world has an option to read Prabhupada’s original words. But the 5000 changes that were made, and changing the “writer’s voice” was unwarranted and factually criminal.

In a meeting at Honolulu temple some years back, Jayadvaita M. actually stated, “Oh, those (original) books were horrible!” Those “horrible” original books, filled with Srila Prabhupada’s divine mercy, made thousands of devotees in the ’70s. More books were distributed then than now.

It seems you believe the propaganda that Hayagriva was never around Prabhupada much, and there were many editors etc. What can I say? This is simply not true. I knew Hayagriva from the time I joined Prabhupada in San Francisco, January of 1967. Hayagriva was there, and was already editing the Gita, and spending hours every day with Srila Prabhupada going over every verse!

And later, just before the first Gita was printed, in late 1968, Hayagriva LIVED with us in Los Angeles. (I was Prabhupada’s secretary for the whole year of 1968 and part of 1969) Daily they would spend hours in Prabhupada’s room, going over every inch of the final edits. I am an eye witness to this.

At this time, I even did the cover drawing for the first MacMillan Gita (the purple one) with Prabhupada guiding me, literally over my shoulder, watching the drawing develop. The purple Gita cut out a lot of that meticulous work done by Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva; Macmillan wanted to save money, to make it smaller. So they greatly edited Prabhupada’s manuscript, and he was unhappy with it, but accepted it as “a blind uncle.”

But at his first opportunity, he printed his manuscript in total, the Original Gita, the one with Jadurany’s reddish battlefield painting on the cover. Srila Prabhupada was extremely happy with that Gita–he finally got his carefully nurtured manuscript into print! He was overjoyed!

The “Edited Edition”, with the blue battlefield cover, done by Parikshit das, with Krishna carrying a whip rather than his Panchajanya (conch) as directed by Srila Prabhupada, was done AFTER Srila Prabhupada’s departure from this world. Both the editing and the cover were done after his departure, yet they inserted his preface and signature of 1971–as if, with 5000 changes, it was the same book! How unethical!

Most of Prabhupada’s disciples did not even know this editing mischief was going on; they were grieving the loss of Srila Prabhupada from this world. Only later, when the dust had settled, did many of us learn of this travesty.

So I really do know what happened in those days. I even met with MacMillan in New York prior to the printing.

Jayadvaita M. had not even become a devotee in early 1967, so how would he know?? He says many things that are not in keeping with what really happened, since he was not there; perhaps he is relying on hearsay, I don’t know. Neither was Jayadvaita M. in Los Angeles in late 1968 when Hayagriva lived with us for weeks on end, completing the editing work.

Most of what the bbt says in this regard is based on fairy tales, hearsay, and perhaps some personal ambition as well. I do not know how they can skew things in this way and still sleep at night.

But what I do know is that Srila Prabhupada wanted NO FURTHER CHANGES TO HIS BOOKS. HE EXPRESSED THIS ON MANY OCCASIONS. A little research can easily prove this point.

09.20.13
by

Arsha-Prayoga Part III – The Case Against Changing Prabhupada’s Books

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

sp-sitting-books

By Locanananda Dasa  (originally posted on his blog)

While planning to print the unabridged version of the Bhagavad-gita, Srila Prabhupada often referred to it as the revised and enlarged edition. When the BBT published its unauthorized adulterated Gita years later, they would henceforward refer to the 1972 printing as the original edition while calling theirs the revised and enlarged edition. This appears to be a subtle act of deception meant to validate the irreverent practice of changing Srila Prabhupada’s Books.

Continue reading →

09.17.13
by

Arsha Prayoga Part II

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

srila-prabhupada-reading-his-own-books

By Locanananda Dasa (originally posted on his blog)

Srila Prabhupada’s desire was to see his books translated into all of the major languages of the world. By 1970, numerous centers had opened in countries outside of the United States and translation work had begun in Germany, France, Canada, South America and Japan. When the German devotees undertook the translation of the Srimad Bhagavatam, they discovered what they thought were grammatical discrepancies in the original English. The translators reasoned that if their spiritual master could publish his books with flaws included, then their own translation work could also contain mistakes and no harm would be done. In a very strongly-worded letter, Srila Prabhupada chastised his disciples for thinking they could imitate their spiritual master and explained that to avoid this offense, they must follow the principle of arsha prayoga.

One should not see mistakes in the books written by his spiritual master, nor should one think he is able take the same liberties taken by him. His Divine Grace warned his disciples that only if they were able to spread Krishna consciousness all over the world as he had done could discrepancies in their translation work be overlooked, otherwise not.

“So far your telling me that some devotees consider that because there may be some grammatical discrepancies in my Srimad Bhagavatam, First Canto, then they may also be allowed to translate with errors accepted, that is just like imitating Raslila. When you do all other things like Krishna, then you can do Raslila. So if these other writers can do like me and spread Krishna consciousness all over the world by becoming big Vedic scholars, then they can do.

“If one is too big, there is no mistake. Arsha 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 dated 1-20-72 )

Srila Prabhupada wrote, “If one is too big, there is no mistake,” so when the BBT [Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International, Inc.—not the authentic Bhaktivedanta Book Trust established by Srila Prabhupada] decided that his books were full of mistakes and had to be re-edited, they made Srila Prabhupada look very small, and that is their great offense.

Sometimes, the editors try to justify their actions by claiming that scholars would have found fault in our books had they not been revised. The many, many letters Srila Prabhupada received from world-renowned scholars that glorified his phenomenal literary output contradict this false propaganda. The academic community was astounded by the magnitude of his undertaking and showed its appreciation for the exactness with which he translated and the profound devotion he expressed in his Bhaktivedanta purports. We have chosen one such letter which exemplifies to what extent Srila Prabhupada’s extraordinary efforts were acknowledged by the educated class of men. We advise the reader to keep in mind that these comments refer to the original BBT printing of his books.

Excerpted from a letter written by Sri R. Subrahmanyam, M.A., Deputy Research Director of the National Parliament of the Central Government of India:

“To teach this science of God to people everywhere and to aid them in their progress and development towards the real goal of life, Srimad Bhagavatam is most eminently fitted. In fact, this great ancient work of Vyasa will fill this need of the modern times, for it is a cultural presentation for the re-spiritualization of the entire human society. His Divine Grace, Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the founder-acarya of the ISKCON movement, has taken upon himself, in addition to his ceaseless travels and other multifarious activities in the service of the Lord, the stupendous task of translating this Sanskrit work into English in about sixty volumes for the welfare and happiness of mankind.

“So far, eighteen volumes of this most beautiful literature on God have been brought out by ISKCON, and the rest are under preparation. Needless to say that in keeping with the excellence of their other publications, the publishers have seen to it that the printing, get-up, and pictures in these volumes are also of the highest quality, as though to serve as an ornament to the divine contents of the books.

“This is a rare opportunity for people and leaders of every country, race and community in the world to know and understand the glorious science of God and work for their perfection.”

We challenge the BBT managers and their editors to produce a single letter from any recognized scholar agreeing with them that Srila Prabhupada’s original books were full of mistakes and had to be revised for his message to be properly understood. Since their purpose in making these revisions was to impress scholars, we hereby challenge them to come forward and produce evidence that there are indeed scholars who approve of the thousands of changes they made to Srila Prabhupada’s books.

Another argument presented to support the BBT’s questionable editorial policy was that their editors, by dint of their many additional years of experience, had become more qualified than Srila Prabhupada’s earlier staff of editors, and this had supposedly earned them the right to review all of the books after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance and make whatever changes they thought were necessary. In the late 1960′s, Hayagriva had similarly offered to redo some of Rayarama’s editorial work, thinking himself more academically qualified than his godbrother, but Srila Prabhupada did not approve of his proposal. Although Hayagriva was an accomplished professor of English at Ohio State University, contrary to his opinion (and that of today’s BBT managers), Srila Prabhupada affirmed that academic credentials are not the primary qualification to edit transcendental literature. In his reply to Hayagriva, he wrote:

“Rayarama may not be as qualified as you are, but his one qualification that he is fully surrendered to Krishna and his spiritual master is the first class recommendation for his editing any one of our literatures, because editing of Vedic literatures not depend on academic education.” (Letter to Hayagriva dated 1-15-68 )

It is evident from his letter that Srila Prabhupada considered his early editors to be fully competent because they were depending upon Krishna and the spiritual master to give them the ability to perform their service. His Divine Grace was very satisfied with the quality of their work and, to show his appreciation, he later wrote to Hayagriva, “I want your company always for editing my writings very nicely.” As far as we have been able to ascertain, he never contemplated having anyone redo the work of his editors.

It is also a fact that Srila Prabhupada’s involvement in the preparation of his books went far beyond his original dictation, although the BBT’s propaganda would lead one to believe that his participation ended there. The truth is that in order to guarantee a very high standard of presentation, Srila Prabhupada personally supervised all proofreading and editorial work and did not allow any significant changes to be made in the text of his books without his approval. It is customary that once a writer accepts an edited draft of his book, it immediately supersedes an unedited draft. When the BBT editors decided to work again from Srila Prabhupada’s original manuscripts, they were, in effect, rejecting the proofreading and editorial work that Srila Prabhupada himself had overseen. This is not how one shows appreciation for the spiritual master’s endeavor to publish his books, or for the service offered to him by others.

09.15.13
by

BBTI MYTH: Hayagriva’s memory failed him

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Did Hayagriva Prabhu’s memory fail him when he said that he was working closely with Srila Prabhupada in the spring of 1967?

Fra Hayagriva Dasa’s The Hare Krishna Explosion:

“Daily, I consult him [Prabhupada] to make certain that the translation of each verse precisely coincides with the meaning he wants to relate.”

The_Hare_Krishna_Explosion-cover

On BBT International’s website it is stated:

“Hayagriva does speak of consulting Srila Prabhupada “daily” throughout the spring of ’67. But Hayagriva’s memory must have been tricking him: In the time he speaks of, he was in San Francisco, Srila Prabhupada in New York.“

How did Jayadvaita Swami reach this particular conclusion? No matter how I analyze the situation, I reach the conclusion that Hayagriva’s explanation holds true.  I could be wrong, so if anyone has some input, I am all ears.

Let’s look at history :

We know that Prabhupada was in San Fransisco where Hayagriva was also from 19th of January 1967 until April 9th 1967. This can be seen by looking at Prabhupada’s letters. Hayagriva wrote in his book The Hare Krishna Explosion that Prabhupada arrived in San Francisco the 19th of January 1967, and that is also precisely the day when the first letter from Prabhupada is sent from San Fransisco. Hayagriva also wrote that Prabhupada took off from San Francisco April 9th, and the last letter Prabhupada sent from San Fransisco is sent 7th of April. The first letter he sent from New York, where he left to from San Fransisco, was sent 10th of April.

Regarding spring, a short search on the internet shows that spring in San Francisco lies in the months of March, April and May. From Hayagriva’s book we know that the period in which he was very busy editing the Bhagavad-gita As It Is under Prabhupada’s personal supervision, and where he consults Prabhupada daily about the verses to ensure that they accurately convey what Prabhupada wants, took place between March 1st and March 21st 1967.

So there are no inconsistencies in Hayagriva’s memory when he says that he and Prabhupada cooperated in the spring of 1967. Nor is there anything at all hindering that this cooperation took place throughout the complete period of time when Prabhupada was in San Fransisco which is 82 days. Taking Prabhupada’s eagerness to send the Bhagavad-gita As It Is to the press, it would not at all be unimaginable that he was very involved in the editing of the book in these 82 days. Actually, who can believe anything else? One can do a lot of work in 82 days. Especially when you only need 2-4 hours of sleep every night.

Who knows the details of what was going on there? No one really knows the precise extend to which Prabhupada was involved in the process of editing. But in one period he was, according to his cheif editor Hayagriva Dasa, daily consulted with nearly every verse to make certain that the translation precisely coincided with the meaning he wanted to relate. Therefore the thousands of changes done by the BBT International to the verses and purports of the 1972 edition are for the most part based only on guesswork.

This is clearly an unsafe, irresponsible and unacceptable editing protocol.

If my calculation are correct – and I think they are – then the BBT International and Jayadvaita Swami ought to either correct or remove their mistaken calculation from their respective websites. If I am wrong, then I would like to see my calculation countered by another analysis done by the BBT International and/or Jayadvaita Swami.

Will they do any of these things? Or will they just let their analysis stay on their websites, even if they are wrong? Time will tell.

09.14.13
by

Is Jayadvaita Swami still good?

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

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

BBT International and their supporters often attempt to justify the changes made to Prabhupada books by Jayadvaita Swami by pointing out that Prabhupada a couple if times spoke highly of his editing work.

This article will show that these statements by Prabhupada can’t be construed to mean that Jayadvaita Swami editing work after Prabhupada’s disappearance is pleasing to Prabhupada.

From BBT International’s website:

“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)

BBT International and their supporters often speak about this quote from Prabhupada as if it was some kind of blessing from Prabhupada that makes Jayadvaita Swami and his editing infallible even to this very day. This, of course, makes no sense and even Jayadvaita Swami himself admits that he sometimes commits mistakes in his editing. One example of this is his changing “Visnu Form” into the “Visnu platform”:

visnu-platform

(Click to enlarge picture)

So it’s obvious that we can’t take the statement “…whatever he does is approved by me” too literal. In order to be continuously approved by Prabhupada Jayadvaita Swami need to continuously meet certain criteria set forth by Prabhupada and sastra in regard to editing protocol. If it can be argued in any way that the editing policy of BBT International compromises the transcendental potency of Prabhupada’s books, or if Jayadvaita Swami becomes an atheist or a mayavadi or falls down and or if he somehow goes against the direct instructions of Prabhupada in his editing proces, then we must conclude that his editing is unauthorized and must be stopped. He can then no longer be “approved”.

This blog and several other websites have for years been showing that there is no evidence to support even the slightest change in Prabhupada’s books. It has been shown how Jayadvaita Swami does not at all perform his editing work according to the accepted protocol set forth by Prabhupada (“NO CHANGES”), sastra (arsa-prayoga) and even academic scholars. We have shown how he is actually sabotaging the books – however well-intentioned he may be.

So even though Prabhupada spoke highly of Jayadvaita Swami’s editing 40 years ago it does not make Jayadvaita Swami infallible, and it does not mean that he can just do whatever he likes to Prabhupada books.

The other quote that BBT International and their supporter often refer to is this:

From BBT International’s website:

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

So 40 years ago Prabhupada said about Jayadvaita Swami that he was “good”. Does it then follow logically or experientally that he is still “good”? Obviously not! There are several examples of Prabhupada at one point praising some of his disciple, and then at a later point criticized them severely.

Prahlada-Nrsimha Prabhu has written a very nice article about this (published on bookchanges.com):

Just because Srila Prabhupada at one point said someone was a good man, does that mean that they are one now? Srila Prabhupada liked many devotees at one point and at that point put them in positions of power and authority and praised them, but later on down the road he changed his opinion about them and/or they went astray or deviated to one degree or another. So although at one point Prabhupada approved of someone and complimented them, that does not mean that from that point on they are bona-fide no matter what they do. Here are a few examples to further examine this point.

One Prabhupada disciple did HUGE service for Prabhupada, pushing on the book distribution mission (probably) more than any other Prabhupada disciple in ISKCON’s history, and was pretty much running ISKCON at one point. But later he changed the basic rules of the four regulative principles to three. Does that mean because he had so many thousands of disciples, and at one point was so dear to Srila Prabhupada that Prabhupada even commented on how he was so intelligent and empowered, that now we should all only have three regulative principles instead of four and continue to follow this devotee?

There were so many big, big devotees that Srila Prabhupada personally gave sannyasa to but later on Srila Prabhupada became so fed up with their deviations that he said that they should give up those positions as sannyasi! Srila Prabhupada even said “This should be strictly outlawed, no more sannyasis….there will be no sannyasi anymore.”

(Room Conversation — January 7, 1977, Bombay)

Srila Prabhupada established the GBC as the ultimate managing authority for all ISKCON. But at one point Srila Prabhupada totally disbanded the whole of the GBC within ISKCON due to their deviations! So simply because at one point in time Srila Prabhupada appointed them to power and trusted them, does that give them permanent power? No! At any time anyone can lose their position and power and deviate or go astray and at that point one is no longer authorized and empowered.

I feel the most relevant example is from the concluding words of the Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, dated November 10, 1974

“Now, by the grace of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and his Divine Grace Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, it is finished. In this connection I have to thank my American disciples, especially Sriman Pradyumna dasa Adhikari, Sriman Nitai dasa Adhikari, Sriman Jayadvaita dasa Brahmacari and many other boys and girls who are sincerely helping me in writing, editing and publishing all these literatures.”

But then on February 27, 1977 in Mayapura India Srila Prabhupada says “Nitai, he’s a rascal.”

Unfortunately there are so many examples I could mention, but in order to not depress/and embarrass all of us unnecessarily in this article I will stop here.

In conclusion, we have shown how the above two claims by the BBT International about Jayadvaita Swami being “good” and his work being “approved” by Prabhupada can’t be used to justify the changes he has made to Prabhupada’s books. And that they can’t be used as a guarantee that Jayadvaita Swami has not comitted mistakes himself or that he has pleased Prabhupada by his work.