All changes except philosophical changes are okay?

myth-reality

 

MYTH:

“As long as the BBTI do not make philosophical changes, then their changes are all okay!”

REALITY:

Dear Jaya Krsna Prabhu! Dandavat pranam! Jaya Srila Prabhupada!

Our previous chat was very messy and unstructured. It was not possible for either of us to present our arguments and points in an orderly way. Therefore let us now start a debate where we focus on some concrete points. I suggest we start with your above request:

Jaya Krsna Dasa (JKD):

“Whenever possible, please share any verse you found which is  philosophically completely against what Srila Prabhupada taught because of this change. I mean only philosophical changes only, not any other type of changes”

Now, there are a few significant things about this request of yours. It has an implied premise, namely that:

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

The truth of this implied 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 Prabhupada did not 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 his books, we know that Jayadvaita Swami and the BBTI have done something wrong. My contention is that Jayadvaita Swami and the BBTI have made many needless changes. Too many.

Here is one example:

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

So why have the BBTI changed the covers of many of the books? This seems to be completely needless. Prabhupada loved the original cover. It was very special. It was popular. It made devotees. Why change it? We have asked the BBTI and Jayadvaita Swami why the cover was changed. But we have not received any reply.

Maybe you can answer this question, dear Jaya Krsna Dasa Prabhu?

Read more about the changes to the covers here:

https://arsaprayoga.com/2013/09/01/covers-should-be-the-same-regardless-of-language/

And here:

https://arsaprayoga.com/2013/12/24/prabhupadas-instructions-on-front-covers-not-honered/

So now I have:

1. Argued against your implied premise, and therefore against the validity of your question.
2. Presented positive evidence that the changes of the covers are against Srila Prabhupada’s instructions.

Now you have to:

1. Defend your implied premise, or admit that your question is invalid.
2. Argue against my points about the covers, or admit that you either cannot answer it, or that it is in fact against Srila Prabhupada’s instructions to change them.
3. Possibly present further points on the matter of the book changes.

Ajit Krishna Dasa

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.

Jayadvaita Swami takes a step in the right direction

It seems that finally the BBT International has been listening to the arguments presented by many concerned devotees and is now taking a step in the right direction by putting Jayadvaita Swami’s name in the edited edition:

Andrew Whitlock wrote in a mail to Jayadvaita Swami:

“Firstly I noticed that Your name does not appear on the re edited version.”

Jayadvaita Swami replied:

“It will appear in the “Note about the Second Edition” in upcoming printings.”

To be completely honest, transparent and follow academic rules Jayadvaita Swami’s name ought to appear on the front cover of the book, so everyone – in advance – will know that this is a posthumously edited book.

An example of how it is supposed to be done is here:

1485908_574307139305587_32311085_o
Of course, eventually we need to have Jayadvaita Swami’s edited version of Bhagavad-gita As It Is (and all other posthumously edited versions of Srila Prabhupada’s books) completely eliminated. But as long as the BBTI insist on violating the sastric rule of arsa-prayoga, they at least should mention it on the books.

 

Jayadvaita Swami’s “Then it is alright” argument defeated

On BBT International’s website we find this video:

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

In the video Jayadvaita Swami says:

”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. Jayadvaita Swami’s 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 his 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 Jayadvaita Swami says:

“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)

Jayadvaita Swami started circulating his 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. Jayadvaita Swami seems to conclude that since Prabhupada approved the verses that he brought him, then he also approved that he could change all his books using the same method – even after his disappearance. But this is an unwarranted extrapolation, because Jayadvaita Swami 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 his story no justification for such an extrapolation can be found. The only conclusion to be deduced (if the anecdote is at all true) is that what Jayadvaita Swami did to the very specific verses he brought Prabhupada was okay.  No more, no less.

3. If Jayadvaita Swami’s anecdote is true, then Prabhupada told him that if he had made the text closer to what Prabhupada originally said, then it was okay.

However, in my previous articles to Jayadvaita Swami I have referred to articles where it is clearly documented that he has:

  • Deleted many of Prabhupada’s own chosen words and sentences (even those also found in his ”original manuscript”)
  • Added his 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 Jayadvaita Swami thinks Prabhupada would have said if he 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 International are now ”accomplished sanskrit scholars” we have gone through some of your own typewritten sanskrit translations and changed them also.”

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

Caitanya Mahaprabhu on the poetic mistakes of great vaisnavas

Sri Caitanya Caritamrita Adi Lila_1

Caitanya Mahaprabhu said:

Even in the poetic compositions of such great poets as Bhavabhuti, Jayadeva and Kalidasa there are many examples of faults. Such mistakes should be considered negligible. One should see only how such poets have displayed their poetic power.” (Caitanya Caritamrta, Adi-Lila, Ch. 16, Texts 101-102)

Prabhupada’s purport to text 102:

In Srimad-Bhagavatam (1.5.11) it is said:

tad-vag-visargo janatagha-viplavo
yasmin prati-slokam abaddhavaty api
namany anantasya yaso ‘nkitani yat
srnvanti gayanti grnanti sadhavah

In explaining the glories of the Lord, inexperienced men may compose poetry with many faults, but because it contains glorification of the Lord, great personalities read it, hear it and chant it.” Despite its minute literary discrepancies, one must study poetry on the merit of its subject matter. According to Vaisnava philosophy, any literature that glorifies the Lord, whether properly written or not, is first class. There need be no other considerations. The poetic compositions of Bhavabhuti, or Srikantha, include Malati-madhava, Uttara-carita, Vira-carita and many other similar Sanskrit dramas. This great poet was born during the time of Bhojaraja as the son of Nilakantha, a brahmana. Kalidasa flourished during the time of Maharaja Vikramaditya, and he became the state poet. He composed some thirty or forty Sanskrit dramas, including Kumara-sambhava, Abhijnana-sakuntala and Megha-duta. His drama Raghu-vamsa is especially famous. We have already described Jayadeva in Chapter Thirteen of this Adi-lila.

New questions to Jayadvaita Swami and Dravida Prabhu

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

Screenshot 2014-02-04 23.14.45

This article 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.

Dear Jayadvaita Swami and Dravida Prabhu! Dandavat pranam! Jaya Srila Prabhupada!

I have been studying more of your changes to Srila Prabhupada’s books, and I here give links​ to some articles I have written about these changes​. I have also given some links to older articles which I have not sent to you before.

 I have ​to give you links, since some or all of the articles include pictures and videos​ which I can’t post inside​ these mails, and if I attach them it will​ be confusing.

Please see the articles here:

TAMPERING WITH PRABHUPADA’S PERSONALLY TYPEWRITTEN SANSKRIT TRANSLATIONS (BG, CHAPTER ONE):
https://arsaprayoga.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/tampering-with-prabhupadas-personally-typewritten-sanskrit-translations/

CHANGES TO PRABHUPADA’S PERSONALLY TYPEWRITTEN SANSKRIT TRANSLATIONS (STATISTICS FOR BG, CHAPTER ONE):
https://arsaprayoga.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/changes-to-prabhupadas-personally-typewritten-sanskrit-translations-statistics-for-bg-chapter-one/

BBT(I) HAS DELETED THE COMPLETE FOREWORD OF PRABHUPADA’S BHAGAVAD-GITA AS IT IS:
https://arsaprayoga.wordpress.com/2014/01/13/bbti-has-deleted-the-complete-foreword-of-prabhupadas-bhagavad-gita-as-it-is/

FRIVOLOUS CHANGE OF CHAPTER-HEADING:
https://arsaprayoga.wordpress.com/2014/01/02/frivolous-change-of-chapter-heading/

T​O​ “​ENGAGE” or “​DESTROY”:
https://arsaprayoga.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/to-engage-or-destroy-bg-11-32/

COVERS SHOULD BE THE SAME REGARDLESS OF LANGUAGE:
https://arsaprayoga.wordpress.com/2013/09/01/covers-should-be-the-same-regardless-of-language/

PRABHUPADA’S INSTRUCTIONS ON FRONT COVERS NOT HONORED:
https://arsaprayoga.wordpress.com/2013/12/24/prabhupadas-instructions-on-front-covers-not-honered/

“PHALANX” IN BG. 1.2 AND BG. 1.11 (JAYADVAITA SWAMI’S DOUBLE STANDARD):
https://arsaprayoga.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/phalanx-in-bg-1-2-and-bg-1-11-jayadvaita-swamis-double-standard/

NOT BACK TO THE “ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT” (BG. 1.2):
https://arsaprayoga.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/not-back-to-the-original-manuscript-bg-1-2/

REMOVING “ETERNAL” FROM BHAGAVAD-GITA, AS IT IS (2.30):
https://arsaprayoga.wordpress.com/2013/08/31/removing-eternal-from-bhagavad-gita-as-it-is-2-30/

LORD RAMACANDRA REMOVED FROM BHAGAVAD-GITA, AS IT IS (10.31 PURPORT):
https://arsaprayoga.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/lord-ramacandra-removed-from-bhagavad-gita-as-it-is-10-31

​I, and many thousands of devotees world wide, are anxiously waiting for explanations of the many changes I have asked Jayadvaita Swami about several months ago. They can be found here:

Responding to Dravida Prabhu’s “defense” of the book changes (Jan. 2014)

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

dravidaDravida Prabhu

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

This a a response to Dravida Prabhu’s article “The Book Changes – A Defense” (posted on the Sampradaya Sun (01.13.2014).

Basically Dravida Prabhu’s attempted defense boils down to two wellknown fallacious arguments often presented by the BBT International:

1. Prabhupada trusted Jayadvaita Swami pre Nov 14th 1977. Therefore the editing Jayadvaita Swami has done after Prabhupada’s disappearance (post Nov. 14th 1977) is also approved.

2. The books are made “closer to Prabhupada” by making them closer to the so called original manuscript (which is really only a draft).

Let us look at each of these fallacious arguments.

Continue reading

The BBT(I) doesn’t follow Prabhupada’s orders on using honest book distribution techniques

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

Prabhupada:

“Regarding the controversy about book distribution techniques, you are right. Our occupation must be honest. Everyone should adore our members as honest. . . These dishonest methods must be stopped. It is hampering our reputation all over the world.” (Letter to Rupanuga, 1-9-75)

The way in which Prabhupada’s books are presented to the public is also part of the book distribution process. To hide the fact that the 1983 edition has hidden co-authors that have made extensive additions, subtractions and changes to the book is not honesty. It will hamper ISKCON’s reputation.

In fact, this has already hampered ISKCON BBT International’s reputation as a trustworthy publishing company, as the scholarly community has begun to voice their opinions on the deceptive practices used in the post-humous publications. Factors such as using scholarly reviews from the original 1972 edition (when those scholars never saw, nor reviewed, the vastly edited later edition) have clouded the authenticity of Srila Prabhupada’s sacred books. Respectable scholars would never do such a thing.

Using the 1971 signature of Srila Prabhupada on the posthumously edited 1983 edition also calls to question the integrity of the BBT International. Srila Prabhupada never saw the posthumous edition–yet his signature is there as if he had. This is certainly deceptive on the part of BBT International.

Not clearly disclosing the fact that the 1983 edition has hidden co-authors has greatly damaged the reputation of ISKCON BBT International, and will continue to do so unless responsible remedial action is taken by those entrusted with this important work.

The fact that there is no dating of the posthumous editions also calls to question the integrity of the BBT International. It has been noted that the posthumous editions began to appear perhaps six years after Srila Prabhupada’s demise. This tends to indicate, according to some, that the author had no interest or inclination towards a re-editing of his Bhagavad Gita.

And since there is no record of the author ordering or approving such edited work, it leaves the posthumous edition hanging in mid-air, with no reliable data to show who did it, when they did it, and where it came from. This is a grand deception.

Below is an example of a revised book where honest means have been used. As long as the BBT International insists on publishing their edited 1983 Bhagavad-gita As It Is it must meet the same criteria of honesty to the be accepted in scholarly circles.

1485908_574307139305587_32311085_o

CUT CUT

Help us by liking and sharing this post!

1011077_564490286979035_1426667528_n

BY: BHAKTA TORBEN (originally posted on the Sampradaya Sun)

CUT CUT

“Ardha-kukkuti-nyaya. All rascals, they accept this Bhagavad-gita on the principle of ardha-kukkuti-nyaya. In the nyaya, in the logic. There is a logic, ardha-kukkuti-nyaya. What is that ardha-kukkuti-nyaya?

Kukkuti means the hen. So hen gives one egg every day. So the man, proprietor of the hen, he is considering that “This hen is very good, giving every day one egg. But the, its mouth is expensive. It eats. So let me cut the mouth, simply take the egg.”

So there are rascals, they study Bhagavad-gita on this principle of ardha-kukkuti-nyaya. “Cut this, take this, cut this, take this.” So if you cut the head, there will be no more egg. The rascal does not know. If you cut the head there will be no more production of egg.

So similarly, if you try to study Bhagavad-gita according to your whims, cut this and take this, that is not study of Bhagavad-gita.

That is something else. That is something else. That is something else.”

(Bhagavad-gita 1.28-29 – London, July 22, 1973)

Prabhupada: Rascals are concerned with grammar. Actual workers are concerned with thoughts.

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

sp-with-bg

Re-posted from krishna.org

The thoughts and the effects of such revolutionary literature are required. Not the grammatical. The so-called rascals, they are concerned with the grammatical. But those who are actually worker, they are concerned with the thoughts…

1972 Conversations, January, 1972, Room Conversation Including Discussion on SB. 1.5.11 — January 19, 1972, Jaipur, 720119RC.JAI

Prabhupada: These people or this revolution is meant for killing the sinful resultant actions of the people. This revolution. Janata agha, agha means resultant action of sinful life. Janata agha viplavah. Viplavah means revolution, this very word is used. Tad-vag-visargo janatagha-viplavo yasmin prati-slokam abaddhavaty api[ SB 1.5.11]. Such revolutionary literature, even they are not properly composed. Yasmin prati-slokam abaddham. Not according to the grammatical rules and other rhetorical rules, but the, I mean to say, thoughts and the effects of such revolutionary literature is required. Not the grammatical. The so-called rascals, they are concerned with the grammatical. But those who are actually worker, they are concerned with the thoughts. What is the thought is there? Therefore, it is said that tad-vag-visargo janatagha-viplavo yasmin prati-slokam abaddhavaty api, namany anantasya yaso “nkitani yat[ SB 1.5.11].

If there is simply the attempt is there how to glorify the Supreme Lord, that is a fact. It doesn”t matter whether it is written in correct language or incorrect language, it doesn”t matter. If the whole thought is targeted to glorify the Supreme Lord, then namany anantasya yaso “nkitani yat grnanti gayanti srnvanti sadhavah. Then those who are actually sadhu, even in spite of all these defects, because the only attempt is to glorify the Lord, then those who are sadhu, those who are devotee, they hear it. Srnvanti gayanti grnanti. Not only hear, they chant also the same thing. And not only chant, but grnanti, they apply in their actual life.

This is the Bhagavata sloka. Is it clear now? Yes. Tad-vag-visargo janatagha-viplavo[ SB 1.5.11]. If the thought is revolutionary for transcendental realization, even it is not properly composed from grammatical and literary point of view, because the attempt is there for glorifying the Supreme Lord, all devotees, all great sages, saintly persons, sadhavah, grnanti, they accept. Yes. Grnanti srnvanti, hear with attention, and gayanti, and chant also. This is the principle. The only center is whether it is meant for awakening God consciousness. That is the central point, not the language(?). But it does not mean that it should not be correctly written. Correctly or incorrectly, if it is spoken by realized soul, that is important. Srnvanti gayanti. Somehow or other, if the attempt is to glorify the Supreme Lord; otherwise, if the attempt is to kill the Supreme Lord… Just like Dr. Radhakrishnan, what is the value of such erudition? A rascal. That is called (Sanskrit), jugglery of words. It has no value.

Anyone who is trying to present… Just like Aurabindo, he has no idea what is Krsna and writing so many nonsense things. Vivekananda, he has no idea. Dr. Radhakrishnan. Rabindranath Tagore, he has no idea what is God, but he is writing Gitanjali. That should be tested by life. Caitanya Mahaprabhu speaking apani acari prabhu jivere sikhaya, He behaves Himself perfectly and then teaches how to become a devotee. He is mad after Krsna, He is falling down in the sea. You see? So that is wanted. And the Bhagavata also says, sa vai pumsam paro dharmo yato bhaktir [SB 1.2.6], how one has increased his devotion and love for Krsna, that is the test of it. Not these formalities. Another place Krsna says, api cet su-duracaro bhajate mam ananya-bhak. Even suduracarah, even not well behaved but unflinching faith in Krsna, sadhur eva sa mantavyah [Bg. 9.30], he is sadhu. Don”t consider about his misbehaviors. That is not consideration. That will be corrected. Because he has taken to Krsna consciousness, gradually those things, those defects will be corrected. ksipram bhavati dharmatma sasvac-chantim nigacchati, he will become very soon a great religious soul because he has taken to Krsna.

So in the beginning if there is some defect, we should not consider that. We have to see how much his love for Krsna has increased, that is the test. Not the formalities. That is the test, how much he has sacrificed for Krsna, how much he is prepared to sacrifice for Krsna. If one takes Krsna for making business, that is different thing, that is not devotion. Salagrama, my Guru Maharaja used to say salagram bir badam hoy (?). Just like you have seen salagrama. So if somebody takes that and breaks peanuts, so there is no devotion. It is a show during, attracting the visitors, it is nicely decorated, but in their absence, take it and you will have stone. So all this mostly the temple show is going on like that. They have made it a show of business. The devotees will come and pay something and I may have devotion or not devotion, it doesn”t matter. One should be baccha bankaram suci (?), inside and outside perfect.

tad-vag-visargo janatagha-viplavo
yasmin prati-slokam abaddhavaty api
namany anantasya yaso “nkitani yat
srnvanti gayanti grnanti sadhavah
[ SB 1.5.11]

And then against this,

na yad vacas citra-padam harer yaso
(jagat-pavitram) pragrnita karhicit
tad vayasam tirtham usanti manasa
na yatra hamsa niramanty usik-ksayah
[ SB 1.5.10]

Na yad vacas citra-padam harer yasah. You can present a literature very perfect from literary point of view, from metaphor and poetical, rhetorical, very perfectly written, citra-padam, attractive by language. Na yad vacas citra-padam, such kind of literature, if there is no description of the glories of the Lord, na tad vacas citra-padam. Just like there are so many sex literatures, very attractive, it is selling like anything. But we are not interested in those rascal literatures. Tad vayasam tirtham, such literature is considered as the place of enjoyment of the crows. Vayasam means crow. The crow take enjoyment in the garbage, you have seen? They won”t go in a nice place. They will come all together. Just like vultures, they come together to take pleasure in a corpse, dead body. But a white swan, raja-hamsa, he goes to a place where there is nice water, lilies and lotus and nice trees.

You have seen that St. James Park? They will find out such nice place. They won”t go to imitate the crows. The crows-like people will take pleasure in such nonsense literature, sex literature, or any such literature. So many nonsense literatures nowadays they are having good sale. Because people are becoming crows-like, they have no high idea, they have no sense of Krsna consciousness, naturally they will take. Just like hippies, they have become all bad taste, crows-like.

So we have to become swans, raja-hamsa, paramahamsa, paramahamsa. Paramo nirmatsaranam. Then you can understand Krsna consciousness. If you remain crows, then you cannot, that is not possible. By nature”s example we have to see if crows-like and swans-like, pigeons-like, birds of the same feather. Birds of the same feather flock together, is it not? So you have to change your feather, then he will be pleased. If you keep your feather crows-like, then you cannot mix with the swans, that is not possible. This is the test. There are classes of men like crows, and there are classes of men like swans. So we are preparing our devotee… (aside) What is that?
Devotee (1): Is anybody watching?
Devotee (2): No.
Prabhupada: So Krsna consciousness means swan-like, they should be like swans. Their behavior should be like swans. They should live in clean place, at refreshing place. So as soon as somebody will come to the temple, he will be… (aside) You have some papers I shall show?
Syamasundara: I just wanted to check and see if there”s somebody here. It”s Nanda-kumara.
Prabhupada: So keep this principle in view, that you have to become swan, not crows. They say that everyone, every religion is all the same. This is all nonsense. (indistinct) In Bhagavad-gita there are different types of religion, sattvic, rajarsic, tamasic. And our this… If you take it as religion, this is transcendental. Sa vai pumsam paro dharmo [SB 1.2.6]. Parah means transcendental, it is not ordinary, aparah.

In aparah dharma, the materialistic dharma, there are ritualistic ceremonies how to make one perfect for accepting transcendental religion. But this Krsna consciousness is directly putting oneself in the transcendental. That is the special (indistinct). Caitanya Mahaprabhu… (aside) Why don”t you close it?

Caitanya-caritamrta says, krsne bhakti kaile sarva-karma krta haya. If you become Krsna conscious, then it is to be supposed that you have finished all other types of religion. My Guru Maharaja used to cite one example that one”s friend was sitting on the high court judge”s bench. So he was speaking to another, “Oh, that Panchu was playing with us naked. He is sitting on the high court judge”s bench. Oh, how he was playing with us naked, how he is seated in the high court bench?” “Yes, I have seen, you have seen actually he is sitting.” “Oh, then he must not be getting salary.” He must not be getting salary. So this is the argument. Familiarity breeds contempt. So he cannot believe that he has become a high court judge. He thinks that “I am a rascal fool and my friend, how he can become high court judge? He must not be getting salary.” But is that very good argument that the high court judge is seated there without any salary? This argument is false(?). That is enviousness. Nirmatsarata. That is the habit of the conditioned soul. So if… (end)