Tag Archives: philosophy

12.19.25
by

Jayadvaita Swami Makes a “Mad” Change – Revisited (Bhagavad-gita 13.1-2)

By Ajit Krishna Dasa (Denmark)

Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 13.1–2

Link to the Original Article

https://arsaprayoga.com/2014/09/26/jayadvaita-swami-makes-a-mad-change/

Description of the Change

In the purport to Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 13.1–2, the original and authorized 1972 edition reads:

“Sometimes we understand that I am happy, I am mad, I am a woman, I am a dog, I am a cat: these are the knowers.”

In the posthumous 1983 Bhagavad-gītā As It Is published by BBT International, this passage has been altered to:

“Sometimes we think, ‘I am happy,’ ‘I am a man,’ ‘I am a woman,’ ‘I am a dog,’ ‘I am a cat.’ These are the bodily designations of the knower.”

The word “mad” has been replaced with “a man”.

The available evidence, including the original manuscript, which is a transcription of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s spoken words, strongly supports “mad” as the original wording.

Type of Editorial Change

Substitution (Replacement)

One word has been removed and replaced with another, altering the wording of the text.

Category

Interpretive Editing (with philosophical implications)

The substitution reflects the editor’s interpretation of what the text should say, rather than what the available evidence suggests Śrīla Prabhupāda said or intended.

Commentary

Śrīla Prabhupāda frequently uses happiness and madness as philosophical opposites. These terms are not employed casually, but as indicators of epistemic condition.

Kṛṣṇa Himself establishes this polarity:

“The mode of goodness conditions one to happiness, passion to action, and ignorance to madness.”
Bhagavad-gītā 14.9

In Śrīla Prabhupāda’s teachings, happiness is associated with clarity, knowledge, and alignment with reality, whereas madness denotes illusion, ignorance, and misidentification. The conditioned soul falsely identifies with these states and takes them to be the self.

Thus, the original phrase “I am happy, I am mad” illustrates a key philosophical point: false identification with states of consciousness, not merely with bodily forms. This fits precisely with the subject matter of Chapter 13, which distinguishes the knower (kṣetrajña) from the known (kṣetra), including mental conditions.

By contrast, “man–woman” is a purely taxonomic distinction, comparable to up–down or left–right. It describes biological or social categories but carries little philosophical depth. It does not convey the contrast between knowledge and illusion that Śrīla Prabhupāda repeatedly emphasizes throughout his books, lectures, and conversations.

It is therefore significant that Jayadvaita Swami publicly dismissed the word “mad” as “straight-out nonsense” and denied that it could be the words of his spiritual master. This claim is not supported by the available manuscript evidence, nor by Śrīla Prabhupāda’s consistent and well-documented usage of the happy–mad polarity across his teachings.

Such a dismissal suggests more than a textual disagreement. It indicates a lack of holistic familiarity with Śrīla Prabhupāda’s philosophical language, combined with an editorial confidence that risks attributing error or incoherence to the ācārya himself. At minimum, it reflects interpretive overreach; at worst, it shows a willingness to override both evidence and tradition in favor of personal judgment, a posture that carries the risk of offense toward Śrīla Prabhupāda.

The original wording is grammatically sound, philosophically precise, consistent with Śrīla Prabhupāda’s teachings, and supported by the available manuscript evidence. The change was unnecessary and reflects editorial judgment rather than demonstrable error.

This is therefore a clear example of a philosophical change introduced through interpretive substitution in the posthumous, post-1977 BBT International editions of Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. It illustrates the broader pattern of posthumous book changes that alter how readers understand Śrīla Prabhupāda’s teachings.

Examples of how the “happy-mad” polarity is used by Śrīla Prabhupāda:

Just like a man — ordinarily we perceive — a gentleman, after working very hard, if he gets some bank balance and nice house, nice wife, and some children, he thinks, “I am very happy.” This is also maya. He thinks, “But I am happy.” What kind of maya? Pramattah tesam nidhanam pasyann api na pasyati. He is in maya, mad, illusion, pramatta. (Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.26.22, Bombay, December 31, 1974)

Don’t be very much happy when you are in happy condition of life; neither you become mad in miserable condition of life. (Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.26.47, Bombay, January 22, 1975)

You must have perfect knowledge. Then you’ll be happy. Then you’ll be peace. And if you are misguided, bewildered, mad, then how you can be happy? (Rotary Club Lecture, Ahmedabad, December 5, 1972)

So these are all mad condition. So when he turns to God… Service he must give. Nobody can say, “I’m not serving anybody.” That is not possible. You must be serving somebody. Just like you are serving government, he is serving some office, because service is our nature. So we are not happy because the service is misplaced. (Room Conversation and Interview with Ian Polsen — July 31, 1972, London)

Prabhupada: Even the father, mother is not crying. The mother’s baby dies. She cries, she becomes mad. But when the child gives up that childhood body, accept another body, she’s happy because she knows: “My son is there. (Room Conversation with Anna Conan Doyle, daughter-in-law of famous author, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, August 10, 1973, Paris)

Pradyumna: It’s Canto Five, Chapter Five, verse number seven. “Even though one may be very learned and wise, he is mad if he does not understand that the endeavor for sense gratification is a useless waste of time. Being forgetful of his own interest, he tries to be happy in the material world, centering his interests around his home, which is based on sexual intercourse and which brings him all kinds of material miseries. In this way one is no better than a foolish animal.” (Room Conversation, February 16, 1977, Mayapur)

Because the mad son is loitering in the street without any information of the father, to bring him back before the father. That is the best. He will be happy. (Room Conversation, March 26, 1977, Bombay)

We are just like a criminal who has dirty things within his heart. He thinks, “If I get such-and-such thing, I’ll be happy.” And at the risk of his life he commits a crime. A burglar, a thief, knows that if he is captured by the police he’ll be punished, but still he goes and steals. Why? Nunam pramattah: he has become mad after sense gratification. (BTG, 1983, The Self And Its Bodies)

12.09.25
by

Feel Free – Give And Take – Revisited (Bg. 9.19)

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Original article can be found in Bhakta Torben’s ebook Blazing Edits:

Description

In Srila Prabhupāda’s manuscript/draft for Bhagavad-gita As It Is 9.19, the dictated synonyms read:

sat — being
asat — non-being.

These exact synonyms also appear in the pre-samādhi editions, the authorized edition personally approved by Prabhupāda:

sat — being
asat — nonbeing.

These match the literal Sanskrit dictionary meanings: sat = being, existent; asat = non-being, nonexistent. In the posthumous BBT International edition, Jayadvaita Swami replaces these with

sat — spirit
asat — matter

—and adjusts the translation accordingly.

These substitutions do not appear in the manuscript, do not appear in the 1972 edition, and do not correspond to the literal Sanskrit.

Type of Change

Substitution. Jayadvaita Swami removes Srila Prabhupāda’s original synonyms (“being / non-being”) and replaces them with new synonyms (“spirit / matter”), a shift unsupported by any Prabhupāda source.

Category

Philosophical Alteration. This BBT International posthumous edit replaces Srila Prabhupāda’s specific translation choice for this verse with an alternative meaning he did not use here. Although sat and asat can carry broader philosophical associations in other contexts, Prabhupāda translated them in Bg 9.19 as “being / non-being.” Changing that to “spirit / matter” imposes an editor’s reinterpretation onto a verse where Prabhupāda had already given the exact meaning he intended.

Commentary

It is true that Srila Prabhupāda sometimes uses sat in a general philosophical sense to describe the eternal (spirit) and asat to describe the temporary (matter). However, this broader theological association does not justify altering his specific translation in a specific verse.

In Bhagavad-gita 9.19, Prabhupāda deliberately translated sat and asat as “being” and “non-being,” and this is confirmed by all available evidence:

1) Manuscript: Prabhupāda dictated sat = being, asat = non-being.
2) 1972 Edition: Prabhupāda published sat = being, asat = nonbeing.
3) Sanskrit Dictionary: sat = being, asat = non-being (as primary meanings).

The synonyms introduced by Jayadvaita Swami (“spirit” and “matter”) appear in none of these sources. They are not restorations of Prabhupāda’s work; they are editorial reinterpretations imposed onto the synonyms and translation after Prabhupāda’s departure.

Because the original wording is fully preserved in both the manuscript and the authorized 1972 edition, changing it does not take us “closer to Śrīla Prabhupāda,” as is the claim to fame of BBT International and Jayadvaita Swami—it takes the Bhagavad-gītā As It Is further away from Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own translation and intended meaning.

Even if “spirit” and “matter” are philosophically relevant within the broader framework of the Bhagavad-gita, Srila Prabhupāda did not use those terms to translate sat and asat in this verse.

Under the ārṣa-prayoga principle, the ācārya’s documented wording—especially when supported by both manuscript and pre-samādhi edition—is final and cannot be replaced with an editor’s inferred meaning.

The BBT International version thus represents an unauthorized posthumous substitution, shifting the verse away from Srila Prabhupāda’s own translation choice.

11.23.25
by

Rewriting the Acarya: How BBTI’s New Gita Description Undermines Srila Prabhupada’s Divine Authority

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

For anyone studying ISKCON history, the integrity of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s original books, the principle of ārṣa-prayoga, or the ongoing debate about BBT International’s post-samādhi editing, there is no clearer example of the underlying problem than the quiet shift found in the Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. Two descriptions of Śrīla Prabhupāda — one from the original edition, one from the newer BBTI edition — reveal two completely different theologies. This is not merely linguistic preference. It is a redefinition of Prabhupāda’s authority, status, and position in the guru-paramparā.

Anyone familiar with the editing controversies surrounding the changed Gītā knows this issue is not about grammar. It is about revelation.

The Original Description: Śrīla Prabhupāda as a Divinely Empowered Ācārya

“HIS DIVINE GRACE A.C. BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI PRABHUPĀDA, the leading exponent of the science of Kṛṣṇa consciousness in the West and the world’s most distinguished teacher of Vedic religion and thought is the author of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Kṛṣṇa and many other versions of Vedic literature. He is a fully self-realized devotee of Lord Kṛṣṇa and is the latest disciple in a succession that originally began with Kṛṣṇa Himself. He is the founder and spiritual master of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness which now has centers in major cities throughout the world.” (From the backcover of the original and authorized Bhagavad-gita As It Is, 1972-1977)

The original Bhagavad-gītā As It Is presents Śrīla Prabhupāda according to classical Vaiṣṇava siddhānta. Nothing is minimized. Nothing is secularized. His identity is stated as the tradition itself understands it:

• He is the leading exponent of Kṛṣṇa consciousness.
• He is the most distinguished teacher of Vedic religion and thought.
• He is a fully self-realized devotee of Lord Kṛṣṇa.
• He stands in an unbroken guru-paramparā beginning with Kṛṣṇa Himself.
• He is the founder and spiritual master of ISKCON.
• His writings are Vedic revelation — śabda-brahma — not ordinary literature.
• His authority is divine, not academic.

This description fits perfectly with Prabhupāda’s own statements and the strict understanding of ārṣa-prayoga: when an empowered ācārya speaks, the words are final. You do not alter them, interpret them “for modern audiences,” or adjust them posthumously. His authority derives from Kṛṣṇa — not from a publishing institution.

The New BBTI Description: From Divine Authority to Academic Respectability

“His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda was a teacher in the disciplic line from Kṛṣṇa (the speaker of the Gītā) and was an exemplar in bhakti-yoga, the yoga of devotional mysticism. His translation and com­mentary are guided by a lifetime of scholarship and enriched by the realizations of a mature practitioner.” (From the backcover of the posthumously edited Bhagavad-gita As It Is)

The revised description in the BBT International edition removes the transcendence. It removes the divine empowerment. It removes guru-paramparā. It removes the ontology of revelation. And it replaces them with the vocabulary of secular Religious Studies departments.

• Prabhupāda becomes a “teacher,” not an empowered master.
• His realizations become “experience” rather than self-realization.
• His authority becomes “scholarship” rather than śakti.
• His mission becomes “devotional mysticism” rather than a divine commission.
• His position in the disciplic succession is omitted altogether.
• His books are framed as scholarly works, not revealed scripture.

This is the language academics use to describe a respected religious figure. It is not the language used to describe a mahā-bhāgavata delivering Kṛṣṇa’s message unchanged.

The change is intentional, ideological, and foundational.

Why This Change Is a Philosophical Change — Not a Stylistic One

It may look like the back-cover text was simply “updated,” but the shift is far deeper. In Vaiṣṇava theology, the way an ācārya is described is not marketing — it is philosophy. Changing that description changes the conceptual foundations of revelation, authority, and paramparā.

Here is why the newer BBTI description constitutes a genuine philosophical shift:

• The original text affirms Prabhupāda as a self-realized, divinely empowered ācārya standing in a guru-paramparā beginning with Kṛṣṇa. This is core Vaiṣṇava siddhānta.

• The newer text removes all transcendental claims and replaces them with the vocabulary of academic religious studies: teacher, practitioner, exemplar, scholar. This reframing is ideological, not neutral.

• When divine empowerment is replaced by “scholarship,” the source of authority is relocated—from Kṛṣṇa and paramparā to human effort, experience, and education. That is a direct shift in epistemology.

• The original presentation makes Prabhupāda’s books śabda-brahma—untouchable, uneditable, preserved by ārṣa-prayoga.

• The new presentation makes his books appear to be religious literature written by a competent teacher—therefore open to “correction,” “improvement,” and posthumous editing.

• How you describe the guru governs how you treat his words. Reduce him from an empowered ācārya to a spiritual author, and the editorial boundaries disappear.

• Redefining Prabhupāda’s ontological position automatically redefines the ontological status of his books. This is the very heart of philosophy—not of style.

The shift from “empowered ācārya delivering divine revelation” to “scholarly teacher presenting devotional mysticism” is not cosmetic. It is a change in philosophy. And such disobedient philosophical changes form the groundwork for most of what the BBT International has done to Prabhupāda’s books since 1978.

Why the Shift Happened: The Institutional Motives Behind the New Description

These changes do not emerge from nowhere. They serve specific institutional incentives inside BBTI and the modern ISKCON structure. When you examine the newer description, the motives become obvious:

Secular respectability
Kṛṣṇa consciousness must appear “safe” to academics, journalists, and interfaith circles. Divine claims are removed. Authority is softened. The ācārya becomes an acceptable subject of Religious Studies rather than a representative of God.

Institutional flexibility
If Prabhupāda is framed as a scholar, then the institution replaces him as the ongoing authority. Once his transcendence is removed, reinterpretation and doctrinal adjustment become easy. Editorial intervention becomes normal.

Legal and social safety
Absolute guru claims make institutions nervous. Removing transcendence reduces risk — legal, social, and political.

Justifying textual alteration
If Prabhupāda is merely a scholar, editors become co-scholars. Posthumous editing becomes an “academic duty.” “Fixing,” “refining,” and “modernizing” the Gītā becomes justified.

Every one of these motives requires the same thing: a quiet lowering of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s divine identity.

The Weberian Pattern: How Institutions Tame Their Founders

Max Weber described exactly what happens after a charismatic spiritual founder departs. The patterns are precise:

• The founder is reinterpreted as a historical figure.
• Absolute authority is replaced by bureaucratic authority.
• Revelation becomes “tradition.”
• Radical spiritual demands are softened for institutional comfort.
• Doctrines are edited to fit new cultural expectations.
• The living spiritual fire becomes the institution’s heritage instead of its guiding force.

This is not speculation. This is exactly what unfolded in ISKCON after 1977 — and the rewritten Gītā description is one of the clearest examples.

How the New Description Enables Posthumous Editing

Once Prabhupāda is reframed as a respected “teacher” rather than a divinely empowered ācārya, everything changes:

• His books appear to be literature, rather than revelation.
• Literature can be edited, updated, and modernized.
• Editors become authoritative intermediaries.
• ārṣa-prayoga is discarded as outdated superstition.
• Post-samādhi editing is normalized.
• Authority shifts from the guru to the institution.

The new Gītā description is the theological justification for the changed Gītā — and for every other altered text.

The Consequence: Two Descriptions, Two Theologies

These two descriptions of Śrīla Prabhupāda represent two incompatible worldviews.

• The original description safeguards the purity of Prabhupāda’s teachings.
• The newer description prepares the ground for reinterpretation and revision.

• The original affirms revelation.
• The new one reduces revelation to scholarship.

• The original protects the guru-paramparā.
• The new one replaces it with institutional authority.

• The original makes posthumous editing unthinkable.
• The new one makes it inevitable.

This shift is not a detail. It is the philosophical foundation of the entire posthumous editing project.

11.09.25
by

Jayadvaita Swami’s Posthumous “Should Not” Edit – A Change in the Philosophy of Bhagavad-gītā (Bg. 13.1–2)

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Description

In the purport to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Bhagavad-gītā 13.1–2, a single missing word completely reverses the meaning of the text.

1972 Unabridged Edition (Collier-Macmillan, First Printing):

“Now, the person who identifies himself with this body is called kṣetrajña, the knower of the field.”

This wording wrongly defines the kṣetrajña—the knower of the field—as one who identifies with the body. When this error was read aloud in Paris in 1973, Śrīla Prabhupāda immediately caught it and corrected it personally.

He said:

“Who does not identify, it should be.”
…
“This should be corrected immediately.”

His instruction was clear and recorded. But in Jayadvaita Swami’s posthumously edited BBT International edition the sentence was changed to read:

“Now, the person, who should not identify himself with the body, is called kṣetra-jña, the knower of the field.”

This new version does not follow Śrīla Prabhupāda’s direct correction.

Type of Change

Substitution and Doctrinal Editing

The phrase “should not identify” replaces Śrīla Prabhupāda’s exact correction “does not identify.” This change substitutes a normative instruction for a descriptive definition, thereby altering the philosophical meaning of the Bhagavad-gītā purport.

Category

Doctrinal Error

The BBT International wording, “should not identify,” gives an entirely different philosophical conclusion.

Śrīla Prabhupāda’s version, “does not identify,” distinguishes the self-realized soul from the conditioned soul. Only those who do not identify with the body are kṣetrajña, the true knowers of the field.

By contrast, “should not identify” applies to all human beings, since everyone should not identify with the body. It therefore implies that even the ignorant, body-conscious person is “called kṣetrajña.”

This transforms a definition of realization into a moral exhortation—and thus changes the philosophy of the Bhagavad-gītā itself.

The result is a posthumous doctrinal alteration that stands in direct contradiction to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s explicit instruction.

It takes us not “Closer to Śrīla Prabhupāda“, as the BBT International catchphrase goes, but further away from him.

Commentary

Śrīla Prabhupāda’s recorded conversation (Paris, August 11, 1973) leaves no room for interpretation:

Prabhupāda: “It is wrongly written… Who does not identify, it should be… This should be corrected immediately… One must know that ‘I am not this body.’ That is knowledge. That is knower.”

The meaning is self-evident: The kṣetrajña is the person who knows he is not the body.

To say “should not identify” is not simply a weaker phrase—it collapses the distinction between knowledge and ignorance. It tells everyone what they ought to do, instead of describing who actually is the knower.

This is not a stylistic difference; it is a philosophical change.

In fairness, the same missing “not” appears in the original typed manuscript, which was a transcription of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s dictation. The error may have originated with the typist, not the early editors.

But after 11th August 1973 that was no longer relevant. When Śrīla Prabhupāda himself discovered the error and issued a correction, the matter was settled permanently.

Once the ācārya speaks, his words are final. No posthumous editorial interpretation can override them.

This is precisely the purpose of the Arsa-prayoga principle: the words of the ācārya are sacred and must not be changed by later editors, regardless of intention or perceived improvement.

As Śrīla Prabhupāda said that day:

“If you identify with body, how you know it? Oh, it is a very great mistake.”

The BBT International version preserves that mistake—only in a subtler form.

The correct version, as ordered by Śrīla Prabhupāda, reads:

“Now, the person who does not identify himself with this body is called kṣetrajña, the knower of the field.”

This is not just the right grammar. It is the right philosophy.

Note

This case perfectly illustrates why the Arsa-prayoga principle must be upheld in all dealings with Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books. Even small “clarifications” made after the author’s disappearance can become posthumous doctrinal changes that distort meaning and misrepresent the ācārya’s philosophy.

The correction ordered by Śrīla Prabhupāda was explicit and recorded. Jayadvaita Swami and BBT International had no mandate to modify or reinterpret it.

This single word—does not—marks the difference between ignorance and realization, illusion and knowledge. And when we protect Śrīla Prabhupāda’s exact words, we are not only defending language. We are defending truth itself.

11.07.25
by

The List That Doesn’t Exist! Or?

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

We’re told by Ramesvara Dasa that Srila Prabhupada personally approved a list of edits to his Bhagavad-gita As It Is. I have no problem accepting that. I even believe Ramesvara Dasa when he says he saw it. It would be wonderful to have the list!

But here’s the reality: the list seems to have vanished. No one has it. No one can show it. And without the list in hand, no one can prove what was on it, what was approved, or what wasn’t.

Even if several devotees from BBT or ISKCON saw it 40 or 50 years ago, memory is not a reliable basis for editing the books of an acharya. No one alive today can recall every detail with perfect accuracy after so many years. And even if they could, we would still be left with no way to verify it.

Let’s grant the strongest possible version of the argument and say the list absolutely existed and listed real, Prabhupada-approved changes. Then what? Without the list in our hands today, we cannot distinguish between:

– The changes Srila Prabhupada personally approved,
– The changes made later by editors after his departure, and
– The mistakes he deliberately left in.

That distinction is essential. Because if we start “fixing” or “restoring” the text without knowing which changes were authorized, we immediately run into a crisis: removing even one change could erase something Srila Prabhupada wanted kept. Leaving in even one change could preserve an unauthorized edit made after his departure. We can’t know who we’re obeying, and who we’re overriding.

So even if the list was seen by some devotees long ago, the fact that it cannot be produced today means that it cannot serve as a valid basis for altering Srila Prabhupada’s books. At this point, anyone making changes is operating on guesswork. And guesswork with the words of a pure devotee is not service. It is tampering.

Until the list is actually produced — not merely remembered or rumored — the only safe and faithful policy is:

-No posthumous edits.
-No guessing.
-No tampering with what we cannot verify.

Otherwise, we’re effectively trusting editors (Jayadvaita Swami and Dravida Dasa) more than Srila Prabhupada himself. That is not loyalty. That is deviation.

Until the list is in our hands, there is no debate. Either we preserve Srila Prabhupada’s books as he left them, or we risk rewriting him based on somebody’s memory from 1977. The choice should be obvious.

10.27.25
by

The Poison of “Correction”

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Even if the Hare Krishna mantra is chanted with imperfect pronunciation, when it is offered from the heart of a sincere devotee, it fully manifests its spiritual potency. The Lord accepts devotion, not technical precision. When the same mantra is spoken by one without devotion, even if every syllable is perfectly pronounced, it remains spiritually barren.

In the same way, a text, like Bhagavad-gita As It Is, that contains some mistakes but is written by a pure devotee is infinitely more valuable than a text polished and faultless yet composed by a non-devotee or a devotee still bound by the modes of nature, like Jayadvaita Swami. The words of a pure devotee are not of this world—they carry realization, faith, and the power to awaken dormant love of God. Even a text with mistakes written by an imperfect devotee with good intentions is incomparably more beneficial than one written without mistakes by a person bereft of devotion. The measure of truth is bhakti, not grammatical or academic refinement.

Those, like Jayadvaita Swami, Dravida Dasa and the whole BBTI, who cannot grasp this principle and imagine themselves fit to posthumously “correct” Srila Prabhupada’s books expose the arrogance of their own contamination. By inserting their so-called improvements—corrections, additions, alterations, deletions—they violate the arsa-prayoga principle and impose their conditioned, offensive mentality upon the pure devotee’s work and upon the hearts of all who read it. Even when their changes are materially correct, they are spiritually poisonous, for they spring from pride and disbelief. The transcendental mistakes of a pure devotee like Srila Prabhupada are divinely sanctioned; to tamper with them is to challenge the authority of the Lord Himself.

Therefore, to protect the integrity of the transcendental message, Srila Prabhupada’s words must be preserved exactly as he gave them—untouched, unaltered, and undefiled by the ambition of the faithless.

10.18.25
by

The “Planet of Trees” Problem: How One Edit Justifies Them All

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

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.

  1. 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

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Assumption of Harmless Intent: It is believed that because the motive is sincere or scholarly, altering the guru’s words cannot be spiritually harmful.
  9. Assumption of Human-Centric Epistemology: Truth is viewed as something improved by human refinement and correction rather than preserved by faithful hearing and transmission.
  10. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

10.18.25
by

The Myth of the Comma Fanatic: Why Every Edit Matters

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

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:

  1. P₁: To make the text clearer.
  2. P₂: To make it grammatically correct.
  3. P₃: To make it more acceptable to scholars.
  4. 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:

  1. Accept A₁: “Change comma 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.

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.

10.17.25
by

Spaced Out Edit – Revisited

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Arsa-Prayoga.com – Revisited is the title of an upcoming ebook that continues the work begun here on arsaprayoga.com. It re-examines the changes made to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s original books from new angles and explains why each alteration is significant.

Each example will also be posted here on arsaprayoga.com.

Today we are revisiting:

Spaced Out Edit

https://arsaprayoga.com/2021/02/28/spaced-out-edit/

Description

The article examines a major change in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.16.12, purport, where a large portion of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s original text was deleted and replaced with a much shorter version. In the original Delhi edition, personally typewritten by Śrīla Prabhupāda, the purport included a vivid cosmological description explaining how each planet is “an island in the airy ocean of outer space.” The later BBT-International edition removes most of this section, leaving only a brief mention of Bhārata-varṣa and the Mahābhārata’s description.

Since the Delhi edition was typed by Śrīla Prabhupāda himself, there is no earlier draft that could justify this change. The deletion therefore cannot be called a “restoration.” It is a posthumous editorial removal of material personally written and approved by the author.

Type of change

Deletion and condensation — a large section of original text removed and shortened.

Category

Philosophical change.

Commentary

Deletion and condensation

This is not a correction of typographical error. Substantial text has been eliminated, changing both the content and scope of the purport. Such reduction is not preservation but revision.

Loss of cosmological detail and mood

The removed section presents the Vedic conception of the universe, describing planets as islands in the airy ocean of space. This imagery expresses both philosophical meaning and devotional beauty. Its removal flattens the text, leaving a stripped-down version that weakens the reader’s sense of Vedic cosmology and spiritual wonder.

Interpretive interference

By removing this material, the editor decided which aspects of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s exposition were “essential” and which were not. That decision cannot be editorial—it is interpretive. It transfers authority from revelation to human judgment, from transmission to management.

Modern palatability

It seems likely that the editor considered Prabhupāda’s cosmological explanation too unusual or “unscientific” for modern readers and shortened it to make the purport more acceptable. This turns faithfulness into adaptation. Instead of preserving Śrīla Prabhupāda’s transcendental message, the text is reshaped to suit secular taste.

The result is not merely a shorter purport, but a reorientation of meaning: the Bhāgavatam’s bold transcendental cosmology is softened into something modern minds can tolerate. What was revelation becomes explanation.

Śrīla Prabhupāda’s original books were never meant to be adjusted for comfort. Their strength lies in direct transmission of transcendental knowledge, unbent by modern prejudice. Editing them to “help” the reader understand does not illuminate the message—it dims it. In this change, the editor crosses the line from preservation to modification, from śabda-pramāṇa (divine authority) to manuṣya-pramāṇa (human opinion).