I met Hayagriva’s son in front of the Doughnut Plant perhaps ten years ago when I was working there as the treasurer and accountant. I asked him what his father had to say about the recent changes being made to Srila Prabhupada’s books. He said, “My father told me, ‘If I made all those changes to his Bhagavad-gita, he would have cut off my head.'”
We know Hayagriva presented many editing suggestions to Srila Prabhupada. He was being directed by His Divine Grace. How could another editor come along without knowing what edits to the manuscript Srila Prabhupada had specifically approved when working with Hayagriva? To think that by returning to the original manuscript and reversing what Srila Prabhupada had approved puts the modern editor in a precarious position of having likely negated and overruled the intentions of Krishna’s pure devotee. It is like a razor’s edge. If you are not cautious, you can get a bloody cheek, or much worse.
Argument for changing “planet of trees” to “planet of pitris”:
“Surely no one is claiming that ‘planet of trees’ was Śrīla Prabhupāda’s intended wording. It was clearly a transcription error, not his philosophical statement. The Sanskrit verse itself says pitṝn — meaning the forefathers — so the translation should read ‘planet of Pitṛs.’
Correcting this is not speculation or rewriting Śrīla Prabhupāda’s teachings; it’s simply fixing a typographical mistake introduced by a disciple who misheard or mistyped the word during transcription.
If we refuse to correct even such obvious human errors, then we’re not preserving Śrīla Prabhupāda’s message — we’re preserving someone else’s mistake. Surely Śrīla Prabhupāda would want his books to be accurate and consistent with the Sanskrit, not left with an obvious blunder that misrepresents his meaning.
So why shouldn’t we correct what is demonstrably wrong?”
The Logical Skeleton of the “Planet of Trees” Problem
Let’s define the argument formally and trace the logic step by step.
The Act
An editor proposes to change the phrase “planet of trees” in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s text.
Let’s denote:
A: the act of editing (in this case, changing “planet of trees”) P: the principle or justification offered for editing
The Principle (P)
When asked “Why make this change?”, the editor must appeal to some underlying principle. Examples might include:
P₁: To make the text clearer. P₂: To make it grammatically or factually correct. P₃: To make it more acceptable to scholars. P₄: To make it easier for modern readers to understand.
Each of these is a normative principle — a rule about how and why editing is justified.
But behind every such justification lies a network of unspoken assumptions. These assumptions are rarely admitted, but they silently shape the reasoning that allows the change. They are:
Assumption of Superior Understanding: The editor assumes he understands the Sanskrit, the author’s intention, and the correct translation better than the edition Śrīla Prabhupāda personally approved and distributed.
Assumption of Posthumous Authority: It is assumed that one has the right to alter the work of a departed ācārya, even though he explicitly warned against posthumous changes.
Assumption of Editorial Infallibility: The editor presumes that his perception of what is “obviously wrong” is reliable, objective, and free from personal or cultural bias.
Assumption of Legitimate Precedent: It is assumed that this one change will remain isolated — that it will not logically justify further changes made for similar reasons.
Assumption of Empirical Verification: The Sanskrit is treated as an unambiguous, mechanical key to what Śrīla Prabhupāda must have meant, as though his English usage and spiritual purpose can be reduced to literal Sanskrit equivalence.
Assumption of Authorized Reconstruction: The act of posthumous editing is seen not as alteration but as “restoration,” implying that human reconstruction can better represent revelation than the ācārya’s own approved work.
Assumption of Non-Transcendental Editing: The editing and publishing done under Śrīla Prabhupāda’s supervision are assumed to be purely material processes, not sanctified by his approval or by the paramparā principle of transmission.
Assumption of Harmless Intent: It is believed that because the motive is sincere or scholarly, altering the guru’s words cannot be spiritually harmful.
Assumption of Human-Centric Epistemology: Truth is viewed as something improved by human refinement and correction rather than preserved by faithful hearing and transmission.
Assumption of Continuity Through Change: It is presumed that one can modify the form of revelation while maintaining the same authority — that textual alteration does not alter metaphysical authenticity.
Each of these assumptions is philosophically weighty. Together they invert the traditional hierarchy of authority: revelation is no longer the standard to which the human intellect submits, but the raw material upon which the intellect exercises control.
The Universalizability Test
A principle, once invoked, cannot rationally be restricted to one case unless there is an additional principle that limits it.
So, if we accept P₁: “We may change the text to make it clearer,” then that principle must logically apply to all cases where the editor believes clarity could be improved.
This is the universalization of P₁.
It follows from the principle of consistency — that identical reasons must yield identical permissions in identical types of cases.
The Problem of Subjectivity
Now, terms like “clarity,” “correctness,” and “scholarly acceptance” are subjective when judged by material standards. There exists no empirical or linguistic rule by which such clarity can be objectively verified in spiritual literature.
The only true standard of clarity is the revealed principle that transcendental sound must be preserved exactly as spoken by the realized soul. Therefore, applying P₁ or P₂ based on academic or personal judgment replaces revealed authority with subjective interpretation.
That judgment is fallible, culturally conditioned, and limited by material perspective.
So: P₁ ⇒ subjective authority replaces divine authority.
Slippery Slope Formalized
We can now model the chain of reasoning:
1) Accept A₁: “Change planet of trees for clarity.” 2) This implies acceptance of P₁: “We may change anything that increases clarity.” 3) By universalizability, P₁ applies to any word, sentence, or concept. 4)The editor, being the judge of clarity, now possesses implicit interpretive authority. 5) The distinction between “editor” and “author” dissolves in principle.
Therefore: A₁ ⇒ authorization of all Aₙ justified by the same principle.
This is the essence of the slippery slope — not a mere rhetorical trope, but a logical entailment: once the normative justification for one action applies equally to more consequential actions, those actions are justified in principle unless an independent limiting condition is introduced.
The Limiting Condition Problem
To halt the slope, one must introduce a limiting condition — a new premise L that restricts P₁. For example: L: “We may only edit obviously mistaken phrases like “planet of trees”, but not others.”
However, L itself must be justified by a new principle Pᴸ. If Pᴸ lacks independent justification, it is arbitrary. And arbitrary limits collapse under rational scrutiny.
Thus, unless one can show a non-arbitrary, divinely sanctioned, epistemically objective boundary between “permissible correction” and “impermissible alteration,” the permission to change anything for clarity logically includes permission to change everything for clarity.
The Transcendental Counterprinciple
The only consistent way to avoid the slope is to affirm an opposite axiom:
P*: The author’s words are inviolable, as they carry transcendental authority.
Here, clarity is not improved by editing the text, but by purifying the reader’s consciousness. This inverts the premise entirely: instead of adjusting revelation to fit human comprehension, the human must adjust his comprehension to fit revelation.
Conclusion
The argument against even changing “planet of trees” is not fanaticism — it is philosophical consistency. Because once you accept a humanly defined justification for altering revealed speech, you’ve imported a subjective epistemology into a domain that claims divine origin. That is not editing — it’s epistemic rebellion disguised as scholarship.
Sometimes devotees laugh at those who object to “minor edits” in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books. They say, “Come on — only fanatics would object to correcting a comma, a typo, or a small grammar mistake!” And many accept that reasoning without much thought, assuming that those who resist changes must simply be sentimental or stubborn.
But this attitude hides a serious misunderstanding. It assumes that changing a small detail is harmless, and that the only people who care are extremists. In reality, the issue is not about commas or spelling at all — it’s about who has the right to adjust the words of the spiritual master.
Once we say, “We can change a word for clarity,” we have already accepted the principle that human judgment can improve what was spoken by the pure devotee. And if that principle is accepted once, it can be applied again and again — not just to commas, but to sentences, meanings, and even philosophy. The logic that allows one small change can justify any change.
To call those who resist such logic “fanatics” is easy, but it misses the point entirely. Their concern is not over grammar — it is over preserving the disciplic succession intact. The words of the ācārya are sacred sound vibrations, not material literature to be polished according to our taste.
What follows will show — step by step — how even the smallest editorial correction rests on a principle that, once accepted, opens the door to an endless chain of justifications. What begins as “just a comma” can quietly become the rewriting of revelation itself.
To see this clearly, we must put emotion aside and follow the logic wherever it leads — beginning with the simple question, “Why change a comma?”
The Logical Skeleton of the “Comma Correction” Problem
Let’s define the argument formally and trace the logic step by step.
1. The Act
An editor proposes to change a comma in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s text.
Let’s denote:
A: the act of editing (in this case, a comma correction)
P: the principle or justification offered for editing
2. The Principle (P)
When asked “Why make this change?”, the editor must appeal to some underlying principle. Examples might include:
P₁: To make the text clearer.
P₂: To make it grammatically correct.
P₃: To make it more acceptable to scholars.
P₄: To make it easier for modern readers to understand.
Each of these is a normative principle — a rule about how and why editing is justified.
3. The Universalizability Test
A principle, once invoked, cannot rationally be restricted to one case unless there is an additional principle that limits it.
So, if we accept P₁: “We may change the text to make it clearer,” then that principle must logically apply to all cases where the editor believes clarity could be improved.
This is the universalization of P₁. It follows from the principle of consistency — that identical reasons must yield identical permissions in identical types of cases.
4. The Problem of Subjectivity
Now, terms like “clarity,” “correctness,” and “scholarly acceptance” are subjective when judged by material standards. There exists no empirical or linguistic rule by which such clarity can be objectively verified in spiritual literature.
The only true standard of clarity is the revealed principle that transcendental sound must be preserved exactly as spoken by the realized soul. Therefore, applying P₁ or P₂ based on academic or personal judgment replaces revealed authority with subjective interpretation.
That judgment is fallible, culturally conditioned, and limited by material perspective.
So: P₁ ⇒ subjective authority replaces divine authority.
5. Slippery Slope Formalized
We can now model the chain of reasoning:
Accept A₁: “Change comma for clarity.”
This implies acceptance of P₁: “We may change anything that increases clarity.”
By universalizability, P₁ applies to any word, sentence, or concept.
The editor, being the judge of clarity, now possesses implicit interpretive authority.
The distinction between “editor” and “author” dissolves in principle.
Therefore: A₁ ⇒ authorization of all Aₙ justified by the same principle.
This is the essence of the slippery slope — not a mere rhetorical trope, but a logical entailment: once the normative justification for one action applies equally to more consequential actions, those actions are justified in principle unless an independent limiting condition is introduced.
6. The Limiting Condition Problem
To halt the slope, one must introduce a limiting condition — a new premise L that restricts P₁. For example: L: “We may only edit commas, but not words.”
However, L itself must be justified by a new principle Pᴸ. If Pᴸ lacks independent justification, it is arbitrary. And arbitrary limits collapse under rational scrutiny.
Thus, unless one can show a non-arbitrary, divinely sanctioned, epistemically objective boundary between “permissible correction” and “impermissible alteration,” the permission to change anything for clarity logically includes permission to change everything for clarity.
7. The Transcendental Counterprinciple
The only consistent way to avoid the slope is to affirm an opposite axiom:
P* : The author’s words are inviolable, as they carry transcendental authority.
Here, clarity is not improved by editing the text, but by purifying the reader’s consciousness. This inverts the premise entirely: instead of adjusting revelation to fit human comprehension, the human must adjust his comprehension to fit revelation.
8. Conclusion
The argument against even a “comma correction” is not fanaticism — it is philosophical consistency. Because once you accept a humanly defined justification for altering revealed speech, you’ve imported a subjective epistemology into a domain that claims divine origin. That is not editing — it’s epistemic rebellion disguised as scholarship.
The Comma Argument — Explained Simply
If the above explanation felt a little technical, here is the same argument expressed in simpler terms. And if you already understood everything written above, you don’t need to read this — but it may still help you explain it to others.
1. What Begins as Small
An editor wishes to correct what seems like a small detail in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s book — perhaps a misplaced comma or a minor grammar issue. It sounds harmless, almost helpful.
2. The Justification
When asked why, the editor replies: “To make it clearer,” or “To make it grammatically correct,” or “To make it more respectable to scholars,” or “To help modern readers understand.” This reason — whatever it is — becomes the principle that justifies the change.
3. The Law of Consistency
But once a principle is accepted, it cannot logically apply only once. If we can change one comma for the sake of clarity, then that same rule allows changes to any word, sentence, or idea — whenever an editor feels it will improve clarity. The permission extends to all similar cases.
4. The Real Issue: Whose Standard?
Words like “clarity,” “correctness,” and “modern understanding” are not absolute. They depend on culture, education, and opinion. So, if we rely on these human measures, then human judgment becomes the standard. That means divine revelation is being adjusted according to the limitations of the editor. Yet śāstra gives a higher rule: the words of the realized soul are perfect as they are. Our duty is to understand them through humility and service, not revision.
5. How the Slope Works
Once the principle of editing is accepted, it can be used again and again. First a comma, then a phrase, then a whole sentence — each change defended by the same reasoning: “It’s clearer now.” This is not a paranoid fear; it’s the logical consequence of the principle itself.
6. The Futile Attempt to Draw a Line
Someone might say, “We will only correct minor things.” But that limit has no real foundation. If we may change for clarity, then anything can be changed if it seems unclear. Any stopping point is arbitrary — a line drawn in sand. Unless there is a divinely given boundary, the permission to change one thing is permission to change everything.
7. The Only Consistent Principle
There is only one safe and consistent position: The words of the ācārya must remain exactly as they are. We do not make transcendental sound more “perfect” — it is already perfect. Our task is not to edit the message, but to purify the heart so that we can hear it properly.
8. The True Meaning of Faithfulness
To reject editing is not fanaticism — it is fidelity. It means accepting that revelation stands above our judgment. Once human reasoning is allowed to “improve” divine sound, the message ceases to be revelation and becomes interpretation. That is how “fixing a comma” slowly becomes rewriting the words of a pure devotee.
Those who have altered Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books like to speak of “devotee cooperation” and “proper channels.” What they mean is submission without scrutiny. They have built a system where questioning is punished, reasoning is re-framed as offense, and loyalty is measured by silence.
Whenever a devotee raises a concern, the reply is almost scripted:
“The problem of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (BBT) editing can be summarized fairly well with four concise points:
(1) False Assumption of Authority: where Prabhupada only granted conservative, provisional authority, the BBT editors assumed unrestricted, open-ended authority.
(2) Editorial Overreach: where Prabhupāda requested only simple copyediting and correction of obvious mistakes, the BBT editors took great liberties in revising, omitting, and even attempting to correct the author’s content.
(3) Noncompliance with Scholarly Standards: where Prabhupada requested scholarly editorial standards, the BBT editors misapplied scholarly textual methods and employed arbitrary and inconsistent editing practices.
(4) Editorial Changes without Transparency: where devotional and scholarly editorial standards compelled full transparency, the extent of editorial changes by the BBT editors are undisclosed in the author’s works.”
Reference:
Posthumous Editing of A Great Master’s Work – Special Focus on the Writings of A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Edited by Graham M. Schweig, 2024, Lexington Books, Introduction, p. 3-4)
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?
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.
Srila Prabhupada’s draft (so-called original manuscript):
Original and authorized 1972 Macmillan edition:
“From whatever and whereverthe mind wanders due to its flickering and unsteady nature, one must certainly withdraw it and bring it back under the control of the Self.”
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.
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:
“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:
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.
”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.”
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:
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.
“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)
“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.
Arsa-Prayoga 
You must be logged in to post a comment.