By Ajit Krishna Dasa
Bhagavad-gita Jas It Is, Ch. 2, Text 13:
“As the text of Bhagavad-gita continuously changes, in Srila Prabhupada’s As It Is edition, from original to unoriginal to unrecognizable, the rest of his books similarly change into new editions after his death. A self-deceived editor is not bewildered by such a change.“
I wanted to send the below e-mail to Bir Krishna Goswami personally. But the e-mail on his website is not working. I am now looking for another e-mail address, and any help in this regard is welcomed. But since the letter is an open letter I am posting it here on Arsa-Prayoga and hope that Maharaja will see it.
Here it is:
—-
Dear Bir Krishna Goswami. Dandavat pranama. Jaya Srila Prabhupada.
I would like to apologize if answering this letter becomes a burden on your many other responsibilities.
Recently I heard a Q&A session with you, and I have a few points that I would very much like to hear your opinion about. Instead of writing here I have attached my letter to you to this e-mail. Alternatively you can also see it here:
Open Letter to Bir Krishna Goswami
Thank you very much.
Your servant,
Ajit Krishna Dasa
Jayadvaita Swami has come under a lot of fire for saying that we cannot chant “Jaya Srila Prabhupada” while singing Gurvastakam:
(Watch from 14:30 and 10 minutes further)
[Unfortunately the video has been removed]
Sura Prabhu gave a lecture in the Los Angeles temple where he heavily criticized Jayadvaita Swami’s points:
(Watch from minute 12 and the rest of the video)
Svavasa Prabhu also gave his views on the matter here:
Gaura Dasa [who used to support the book changes, but later changed his mind] wrote this on Facebook:
“HH Jayadvaita Swami’s Views On Singing Srila Prabhupada’s Pranams During Mangal Arati Has Created A Great Deal Of Controversy
A video is circulating online [that we will not share on Arsa-Prayoga] that Punya Das prabhu brought to my attention the other day that was disturbing him. Obviously the video itself is horribly offensive and filled with Vaisnava aparadha comments against Jayadvaita Swami – but unfortunately the real comments expressed by Jayadvaita swami are also still there and are still wrong and still also offensive.
He has stated that the Samsara Prayers are not the Founder Acarya Song and discourages the idea of singing Srila Prabhupada’s pranams or name during Mangal arati.
Jayadvaita Swami’s example and understanding of mangal Arotike in the 1960s doesn’t apply to the way Srila Prabhupada established standards for his worldwide ISKCON. Starting with the acquisition of New Dwaraka as his world headquarters Srila Prabhupada had leaders fly into LA for 1-2 weeks to be trained in new permanent standards for arotike, for the morning program, for Deity worship, for morning and evening class which included chanting Sanskrit, etc. The kirtans always included chanting the pranam prayers and Jaya Prabhupada. I simply have no words to express how obvious this is. To preach that the standard should not include these pranam prayers and that the chant “Jaya Prabhupada” shouldn’t be part of mangal arotike during the samsara prayers is offensive and completely against the foundational position of the founder- acarya.
When his Godbrothers tried to minimize his position, Srila Prabhupada empathized even more the importance of his pranam mantras. His Divine Grace was very concerned about his name appearing in his books, on the BBT building, on letterhead, etc. This is central and essential to not having his teachings marginalized. How Jayadvaita doesn’t understand this is bewildering and I can only attribute it to his being covered by the illusory energy.
Whoever Pranatha Prabhu is, he is really not understanding how deeply important this is to the eternal position of our founder-acarya.
The overwhelming comments show how disturbed devotees are, even those who strongly support Jayadvaita.
I don’t know what else to say when to me something is so obvious.
It feels like trying to explain how book distribution was Srila Prabhupada’s only solace to a devotee who doesn’t believe in book distribution.
Prananatha’s cooment indicates a lack of understanding our Founder Acaray’s position :
Prananatha Das Paul Tuffery : I just watched the entire video, start to end. I don’t see where he is saying anything against what was established by Srila Prabhupada. What is the fuss about? He gave numerous examples of how Srila Prabhupada wanted kirtan to be performed including how Srila Prabhupada would stop kirtan if he was unhappy with it. So, the precedent as established by Srila Prabhupada, should be followed. Otherwise, how are we glorifying him?
A devotee wrote:
For those who have’t seen the video or don’t want to see it, I typed it out:
[Jayadvaita Swami speaking]
Basically, morning: Samsara dava, Sri Krsna Caitanya, Hare Krsna, nothing else. Evening: Gaura Artik, Sri Krsna Caitanya, Hare Krsna, nothing else, pretty clear.
A devotee is asking whether after Samsara dava we should chant Prabhupada pranams mantra. Interesting question. When Prabhupada chanted it in the morning, he chanted Samasara dava, Sri Krsna Caitanya, Hare Krsna, nothing else. He didn’t chant the pranams mantra to his guru maharaj.
Now, if I suggest that we shouldn’t chant Prabhupadas pranams mantra, there’ll be a revolution. But actually it’s not nessecary. It’s not what he did and we don’t have to.Samsara dava, Sri Krsna Caitanya, Hare Krsna, nothing else.
So, when someone who’s not Prabhupadas direct disciple, begins by offering pranam mantra to Prabhupada, my hearing takes a beating. I think: ’What’s wrong with this person?!”
But at least: don’t start with Prabhupada pranams mantra. You’re totally contrary to the tradition, if you do that.
The next thing that disturbs me, sometimes we hear, right in the middle of Samasara dava ‘jaya Prabhupada, Jaya’…
[Note from myself: as a matter of fact, he actually does say that (every time that he says it) in a ridiculing manner, swaying his hands in a ‘funny’ way, pulling a face]
What the hell is that?! Samsara dava is not the Prabhupada song! It’s the guru song… which doesn’t mean the founder acharya of ISKCON. Samsara dava is not the Prabhupada song.
And therefore it even disturbs me when, you know, they finish the… dhyāyam stuvaḿs tasya yaśas tri-sandhyaḿvande guroḥ śrī-caraṇāravindam.. ‘jaya Prabhupada jaya’… as again if it was the Prabhupada song.
If you want to think of Prabhupada during that song, that’s fine, but it’s not… What if somebody else is thinking of his guru? God forbid! Then you’ve spoiled his meditation. Because you’re thinking it’s the Prabhupada song.
You don’t need to chant ‘Jaya Prabhupada’ at any point.
Samsara dava, Sri Krsna Caitanya, Hare Krsna, nothing else.
And.. alright, I won’t buck the system. After Samsara dava, AFTER Samsara dava, Prabhupada pranams. And if you left them out, you will not be wrong. You’ll be institutionally wrong, but you’ll not be philosophically wrong, because Prabhupada said Samsara dava, Sri Krsna Caitanya, Hare Krsna, nothing else.
That’s what he did and if that’s what you do, you’re no worse than he was. And he was perfect.
So again, I am no campaigning to edit it out of the program, but keep it at that, if you would. Or, to put it in another way, I would be happy if you would keep it at that.”
Ajit Krishna Dasa’s concluding comment:
Let us hope that the ISKCON leaders comes to understand that Jayadvaita Swami has had this mentality all the time, also when editing Srila Prabhupada’s books. He even said that “there are warts” on Srila Prabhupada’s original books.
Click to download the book
ISKCON’s Changes to Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is and Perfect Questions, Perfect Answers (by Madhudvisa Dasa).
Perhaps the first book on the book changes. So old it was made with a typewriter. Definitely of both present day and historical value. It contains a lot of good evidence against the changes, good arguments and historical documentation (like mails).
Download the book here: ISKCON’s Changes to Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is and Perfect Questions, Perfect Answers (by Madhudvisa Dasa).
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.
BY: BHAKTA TORBEN
May 14, 2015 — DENMARK (SUN) —
Bhagavad-gita As It Is, 2.23:
Original, authorized 1972 edition:
“The soul can never be cut into pieces by any weapon, nor can he be burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind.”
Manuscript:
“The soul can never be cut into peices by any kind of weapon, neither can he be burnt by fire, nor can He be moistened by water, nor can he be dried up by the wind.”
JAS It Is:
“The soul can never be cut to pieces by any weapon, nor burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind.”
Although both the manuscript and the original says he about the soul, the JAS It is-version has, for unknown reasons, dropped the pronoun.
Paradoxically, however, ‘Jas It Is’ version in the ensuing verse, 2.24, does NOT drop the pronoun ‘he‘ for the soul:
Bhagavad-gita As It Is 2.24:
Original, authorized 1972 edition:
“This individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned nor dried. He is everlasting, all-pervading, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same.”
Manuscript:
“This individual soul is unbreakable, cannot be burnt, insoluble, nondriable, everlasting, present everywhere, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same.”
JAS It Is. 2.24:
“This individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned nor dried. He is everlasting, present everywhere, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same.”
So the ‘JAS It Is’ edit-strategy seems to be pretty fickle. “Should we, or shouldn’t we?”
Anyway, why not just stick to the original? It is pretty clear.
In London, 1973, BOTH of the original’s verses were read aloud to Srila Prabhupada.
The Universal Form
Bhakta Torben Nielsen recently made me aware of this change to Bg. 11.28:
Original and authorized 1972-edition:
“As the rivers flow into the sea, so all these great warriors enter Your blazing mouths and perish.”
BBT International’s edited 1983 edition:
“As the many waves of the rivers flow into the ocean, so do all these great warriors enter blazing into Your mouths.”
So-called original manuscript:
There is no verse for 11.28 as the page is missing. But verse 30 mentions the words “blazing mouths”.
This is a very interesting change, because it is of a grammatical nature:
So which translation is grammatically correct – Srila Prabhupada’s or Jayadvaita Swami’s?
The context
Here we have the verses from Bg. 11.28-30 (original edition):
“As the rivers flow into the sea, so all these great warriors enter Your blazing mouths and perish.” (Bg. 11.28)
“I see all people rushing with full speed into Your mouths as moths dash into a blazing fire.” (Bg. 11.29)
“O Visnu, I see You devouring all people in Your flaming mouths and covering the universe with Your immeasurable rays. Scorching the worlds, You are manifest.” (Bg. 11.30)
We see that Srila Prabhupada describes the mouths of the universal form as “blazing” (Bg. 11.28) and “flaming” (Bg. 11.30), and compares them to a “blazing fire” (Bg. 11.29). There is no “original manuscript” available for Bg. 11.28-29, but the “original manuscript” for Bg. 11.30 also says “blazing mouths”, as mentioned above.
Plate 31
The painting above this article is Plate 31 from the Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Just like all other paintings in the book it was approved by Srila Prabhupada. On the painting we clearly see that the warriors are entering into the blazing mouths of The Universal Form – just like we are told that they are in the Bg. 11.28, 1972 edition.
Srila Prabhupada’s desire
Based on the above, there is no doubt at all that Srila Prabhupada wanted to use the adjective “blazing” to describe the mouths of the universal form. He never meant to say that the great warriors were “blazing”.
What does the previous acaryas say about Bg. 11.28? (as translated on bhagavad-gita.org)
Sridhara Swami’s commentary:
“As unlimited currents of water helplessly flow in innumerable rivers and are propelled from multiple channels into the ocean, the mighty warriors of the Kaurava and Pandava armies are seen to be helplessly propelled into the flaming, gnashing mouths of the visvarupa or divine universal form of Lord Krishna.” ()
Kesava Kasmiri’s commentary:
“How helplessly do the mighty warriors of the Kaurava and Pandava armies enter into the flaming mouths of Lord Krishna’s visvarupa or divine universal form? As helplessly as unlimited currents of water from innumerable rivers are propelled into entering the ocean.”
In his translations of Visvanath Cakravarti Thakura and Baladeva Vidyabhusana’s Bhagavad-gita commentaries Bhanu Swami also translates Bg. 11.28 as follows:
“As many swift currents of rivers flow towards the sea, so these heroes of the world enter Your flaming mouths.”
The sanskrit
Gaura Krishna Dasa, a student of sanskrit, sent me the following analysis of the sanskrit grammar:
Regarding the change in the translation of Bhagavad gita 11.28.
The word “abhivijvalanti” is in the 1972 edition taken as what in grammar is called a verbal adjective or a participle. A participle is basically a derivative from a verb but belonging in the group of adjectives. This particular participle is a participle in present tense, active voice for parasmaipada verbs. It is in neuter gender, plural number and in the accusative case which clearly indicates that it relates to “vaktraani” which is also in neuter gender, plural number and accusative case.
Sridhara Swami, Visvanath Cakravati Thakur and Baladeva Vidyabhusana have the same grammatical conclusion of this word as a participle and therefore in relation to “vaktraani” attributively, “blazing mouths”.
The “anti” ending in “abhivijvalanti” could preliminarily appear as a finite verb 3rd person in the plural number and present tense related to “nara-loka-viira” (the kings of human society), but this conclusion is in the least very strange. It would, if accepted, be a distortion of historical facts and it must be concluded faulty because this sentense already has a finite verb namely “visanti” meaning entering. So if we for the sake of example maintain “abhivijvalanti” as a finite verb, as it is done in the 1983 edition it would translate “as the many waves of the rivers flow into the ocean, so all these great warriors enter and blaze your mouth”, since “abhivijvalanti” can also not be taken as an adverb describing “visanti” attributively.
Conclusion:
“abhivijvalanti” must be taken as a participle – as done by the previous acaryas and the original 1972 edition – and not a verb as done in the 1983 edition.
Conclusion
The evidence against Jayadvaita Swami’s change is overwhelming:
1. Srila Prabhupada is very clear in his original Gita and his manuscripts – the mouths are blazing. Not the warriors.
2. Srila Prabhupada follows the previous acaryas who says that the mouths are blazing (flaming, gnashing).
3 The painting depicting this event (Plate 31 in the Bhagavad-gita As It Is) shows that it is the mouths of The Universal Form that are blazing.
4. According to sanskrit grammer it is the “mouths” that are “blazing”. Not the “warriors”.
Even if both translations could be correct (which they cannot), there would still be no justification – based on the above analysis – to change Srila Prabhupada’s translation of the verse.
It would not be possible to do this without overriding his own editorial decisions and thus violating the arsa-prayoga principle.
—
Please see additional evidence here.
MERGED?
BY: BHAKTA TORBEN
Feb 03, 2015 — DENMARK (SUN) —
Bhagavad-gita As It Is, 8.18
Authorized Original 1972:
“When Brahma’s day is manifest, this multitude of living entities comes into being, and at the arrival of Brahma’s night they are all annihilated.”
Science of Self-realization, page 225:
“When Brahma’s day is manifest, this multitude of living entities comes into being, and at the arrival of Brahma’s night they are all annihilated.”
JAS It Is:
“At the beginning of Brahmā’s day, all living entities become manifest from the unmanifest state, and thereafter, when the night falls, they are merged into the unmanifest again.”
Manuscript:
“On the manifest of the Brahma´s day, all living entities, they come into being and when there is arrival of night of Brahma everything becomes annihilated.”
Srila Prabhupada preached heavily against the mayavada concept of ‘merging’. For SURE he did not use the ‘merge’ word in this verse.
—
A few points from Arsa-Prayoga:
1. Science of Self-Realization was published after the departure of Srila Prabhupada. But it was made on his order. Bhagavad-gita 8.18 was, however, published in Beyond Birth and Death (published while Srila Prabhupada was here) and a Back to Godhead magazine from 1974.
2. Actually Srila Prabhupada used the word “merge” in his original and authorized Gita (like in 2.54). So the most important point here is that Jayadvaita Swami has added words (like merged, manifest, unmanifest, state, falls etc.) to Bg. 8.18 which Srila Prabhupada did not intend to be in Bg. 8.18. Jayadvaita Swami is therefore not telling the truth when he claims he has made the Gita “more faithful to Srila Prabhupada” or “closer to Prabhupada”.
Jayadvaita Swami has made a new translation of the Gita and published it in Srila Prabhupada’a name.
Srila Prabhupada preached heavily against the mayavada concept of `merging´. For SURE he did not use the `merge´ word in this verse.
Arsa-Prayoga 
You must be logged in to post a comment.