We are gradually producing videos on the book changes. Check our playlist at Youtube, and remember to subscribe for new videos.
Kindly share the videos on social media – especially on Facebook.
Thanks for watching and helping Srila Prabhupada.
Hare Krishna!
I have just made an e-book consisting of most of my articles, letters, rebuttals, quotes, debates etc. from arsaprayoga.com.
Here it is:
You will always be able to find the latest version in the e-book section of arsaprayoga.com.
Spread the word.
Your servant, Ajit Krishna Dasa
By Ajit Krishna Dasa
Srila Prabhupada frequently uses the terms “regulative principles” and “regulated principles” in his teachings.
But Jayadvaita Swami claims that “regulated principles” is a nonsense use of words. He calls it “obviously erroneous” and “a term that makes no sense” (Link).
He says it should always be “regulative principles”, and thus Jayadvaita Swami is in the process of changing all “regulated principles” into “regulative principles” in Srila Prabhupada’s books.
But there are two good reason to think Jayadvaita Swami is wrong:
First Reason
Srila Prabhupada explains just how spiritual principles are regulated, namely by the spiritual master:
“In the neophyte stage of devotion one must follow all the principles, regulated by the authority of the spiritual master.”
So “regulated principles” means principles regulated by a superior authority.
I do not know why this makes no sense to Jayadvaita Swami. It seems so obvious!
Let us take a simple example:
Chanting is a principle. Srila Prabhupada regulated that principle: Minimum 16 rounds per day.
Simple for the simple.
Second Reason
“Regulated principles” is a quite common term. Just take a look at google:
And a few more:
So!
Again!
Jayadvaita Swami’s “justifications” for changing “regulated principles” are just plain wrong.
Srila Prabhupada has regulated principles for the editing of his books. Jayadvaita Swami should learn them.
By Ajit Krishna Dasa
Nectar of Instruction, Text Two, Purport.
Original and Authorized 1975 Edition:
“…but instead of using their higher intelligence to cultivate God consciousness, so-called intelligent men misuse their intelligence to produce many unnecessary and unwanted things.”
Older BBTI Edition:
“…but instead of using his higher intelligence to cultivate God consciousness, so-called intelligent men misuse their intelligence to produce many unnecessary and unwanted things.”
Newest BBTI Edition:
“…but instead of using their higher intelligence to cultivate God consciousness, so-called intelligent men misuse their intelligence to produce many unnecessary and unwanted things.”
Oops.
By Ajit Krishna Dasa
Are you looking for a job? BBTI has the perfect job for you who like to correct corrections. This is an example of what you will do – 8 hours a day, 5 days a week:
Nectar of Instruction, Text One, Purport:
Original 1975 BBT Edition:
“As for the agitations of the flickering mind, they are divided into two divisions.”
An older edition from BBTI:
“As for the agitations of the bickering mind, they are divided into two divisions.”
BBTI’s newest edition:
“As for the agitations of the flickering mind, they are divided into two divisions.”
As you can see it seems that the mind of the editor was, after all, flickering. Just like in this example your job will be to correct all such corrections. Do not worry. You will be guaranteed work until you reach the age of retirement. And the job is well paid.
Almost 400 pages about the changes made to Srila Prabhupada’s books.
Click picture to visit website
From the back cover:
“Arsa prayoga, lit. “rishi’s license,” means to honour the acarya by preserving his teachings in the originally published form, not changing what he has written to make it appear more effective or politically correct. There should be no confusion between the work written by His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada and edited by Howard Wheeler and the posthumous cent per cent revised copy proposed by Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International. By changing Prabhupada’s books without explicitly saying so, they do a discredit to Srila Prabhupada, devotees and scholars. At present it appears that the revisions were made by the original author. This book is meant to be the truth about the editing of Prabhupada’s books carefully chronicled for future generations.”
Click to download the book
Govinda Dasi relates how Srila Prabhupada instructed her and other young devotee artists to paint devotional paintings, how he minutely supervised their work and how unfortunate it is that most of these authorized paintings have been removed from Srila Prabhupada’s books.
Download the book here: Srila Prabhupada: The Transcendental Art Master (by Govinda Dasi, ACBSP)
Plate 35 of the 1972 Edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is.
Not to be found in the 1983 Edition.
By Ajit Krishna Dasa
Original and authorised 1972 edition:
“The Blessed Lord said: There is a banyan tree which has its roots upward and its branches down and whose leaves are the Vedic hymns. One who knows this tree is the knower of the Vedas.”
The draft a.k.a. “the original manuscript”:
“The Supreme Lord said: It is said that there is a banyan tree which has its roots upward and its branches down; and the Vedic hymns are its leaves. One who knows this tree is the knower of the Vedas.”
Uauthorized 1983 edition:
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: It is said that there is an imperishable banyan tree that has its roots upward and its branches down and whose leaves are the Vedic hymns. One who knows this tree is the knower of the Vedas.”
From lectures:
Pradyumna: (Translation:) “The Blessed Lord said: There is a banyan tree which has its roots upward and its branches down and whose leaves are the Vedic hymns. One who knows this tree is the knower of the Vedas.”
Prabhupada: So this is the description of Vedic literature. Vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyah [Bg. 15.15]. That will be described. (Srila Prabhupada, Lecture, See Spiritual Identity Everywhere,
73/10/28 Bombay, Bhagavad-gita 15.1)
Nitai dasa: Translation: The Blessed Lord said: There is a banyan tree which has its roots upward and its branches down and whose leaves are the Vedic hymns. One who knows this tree is the knower of the Vedas.
Purport: After the discussion of the importance of bhakti-yoga, one may question, “What about the Vedas?” (Srila Prabhupada, Lecture, The Purpose of Vedic Study 74/02/26 Calcutta, Bhagavad-gita 15.1)
No objections from Srila Prabhupada.
Comment
1) We here observe that Jayadvaita Swami, after scanning the authorized verse, takes the usual route to an old draft (the so-called original manuscript). An idea for which he has no proper justification.
2) He decides to change “The Blessed Lord”. Here he could have chosen to use Srila Prabhupada’s words from the draft’ translation of Bg. 15.1 which reads “The Supreme Lord said”, but he chose instead to go to the English synonyms and use “The Supreme Personality of Godhead”.
3) Next he decides to add “It is said”. This he took from the drafts’ translation of Bg. 15.1.
4) Then he decides to add an adjective to “banyan tree”. He could have gone back to the English synonyms and used the word “eternal”. But instead he took a trip to the drafts’ purport where he for some reason chose the word “imperishable” over the word “indestructible” which is also in the purport. NOTE: The word “imperishable” is omitted from the purport of both the original 1972 edition and the 1983 edition which makes his choice even more strange.
5) He then changes “which” to “that” even though “which” was both found in the draft and was grammatically perfectly fine. In other words, he found the word “that” not in the English synonyms, not in the translation and not in the purport. But in his own mind.
Hundreds of changes to Srila Prabhupada’s Gita have been documented online. And we see Jayadvaita Swami again and again randomly chose words sometimes from the manuscripts’ translations, sometimes from the English synonyms, sometimes from the purport and sometimes from his own mind.
For the most part it is very hard to find any objective and identifiable criteria for his changes. Especially for changes such as those above. And there are hundreds, if not thousands, of such changes in the Gita alone.
Bhagavad-gita As It Is, Introduction:
Original, authorized 1972 edition:
vāñchā-kalpatarubhyaś ca kṛpā-sindhubhya eva ca
patitānāṁ pāvanebhyo vaiṣṇavebhyo namo namaḥ
“I offer my respectful obeisances unto all the Vaiṣṇava devotees of the Lord who can fulfill the desires of everyone, just like desire trees, and who are full of compassion for the fallen souls.”
JAS It Is:
vāñchā-kalpa-tarubhyaś ca
kṛpā-sindhubhya eva ca
patitānāṁ pāvanebhyo
vaiṣṇavebhyo namo namaḥ
“I offer my respectful obeisances unto all the Vaiṣṇava devotees of the Lord. They can fulfill the desires of everyone, just like desire trees, and they are full of compassion for the fallen souls.”
Jayadvaita Swami, Letter to Amogha Lila, 1986:
“Srila Prabhupada staunchly opposed needless changes.”
BY: BHAKTA TORBEN
Jun 21, 2015 — DENMARK (SUN) —
Bhagavad-gita As It Is, 13.25:
Original, authorized 1972 edition:
“That Supersoul is perceived by some through meditation, by some through the cultivation of knowledge, and by others through working without fruitive desire.”
Manuscript:
“That Supersoul is perceived by some through meditation, and by some through the cultivation of knowledge, and by others through working without fruitive desire.”
JAS It Is:
“Some perceive the Supersoul within themselves through meditation, others through the cultivation of knowledge, and still others through working without fruitive desires.”
The original 1972 standard and the so-called manuscript are completely identical. And well articulated. Still the ‘JAS It Is’ model chooses a different phrasing.
As seen many times before.
Here are some important words from the principal editor to Srila Prabhupada’ s books after His Divine Grace’ s departure. On the policy of editing:
“‘Arsa-Prayoga’ is a very important principle. The editor should never have the mentality that he is better than the author, that he has something more to contribute than the author does, that the author really doesn’t know what he is doing, but he knows what he is doing. That’ s offensive and that ruins everything. It is an offense to the acarya. The idea however that this sort of sanctity that the authors’ s has, or that the words of the author has, have, somehow extends to the mistakes of the editors is weird. It is an offense to correct the mistakes of previous editors! Are they acaryas? Are they paramahamsas? Are they infallible? They are wonderful devotees, they did wonderful service, but they made mistakes. Understandable.”
We advise the reader to ponder the gap between theoretical intent and actual action. This example is by far not an isolated case.
Arsa-Prayoga 
You must be logged in to post a comment.