Lord Ramacandra removed from Bhagavad-gita, As It Is (10.31 purport)

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

This article was sent to the BBT International the 17th Oct. 2013. We asked them to comment on the points raised. So far we have not received any reply.

By Ajit Krishna Dasa
rama-nama

Changes have been made to the purport of verse 10.31 in Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita:

Here is a complete comparison of BG. 10.31 in Prabhupada’s 1972-edition and BBT International’s 1983 edition:

Continue reading

Arsha Prayoga And Shakespeare (I)

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

By Locanananda Dasa (originally posted on his blog)

shakespear

The question as to whether the writings of the acarya may or may not be revised by his disciples after his disappearance is answered by the rule of “arsa prayoga”.

This principle states that one should not see mistakes in what the spiritual master has written or think that his writings may be changed to make them more effective or politically correct. To preserve his teachings in their originally published form is the way by which the acarya is honored, and to do otherwise is to dishonor him. That is the rule of “arsa prayoga”, a principle that devoted followers of a bona fide spiritual master must adhere to without deviation.

The rationale for changing Srila Prabhupada’s books was based on a series of false arguments, many of which were defeated by Srila Prabhupada himself, as this article will show. To justify their actions, the BBT editors created the illusion that Srila Prabhupada’s books were defective and in need of extensive editing even though they knew His Divine Grace had never authorized anyone to revise his books after his disappearance. Subsequent to his departure, they conveniently overlooked the principle of “arsa prayoga” and proceeded to do exactly what vaisnava tradition strictly prohibits.

It was by the distribution of transcendental literature that Srila Prabhupada hoped to introduce Krishna consciousness to people everywhere. For those who saw the movement spread from city to city and from country to country, it was clear that the original version of Srila Prabhupada’s books was full of spiritual potency and did not require to be changed in any way for his words to act upon the hearts of the conditioned souls. Srila Prabhupada himself never doubted that his books would bring about a revolution in consciousness and induce people throughout the world to take shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. His transcendental vision was revealed in the following letters, all of which refer to the original version of his books.

“I am glad to learn that you are having nice success in placing my books in the libraries and in schools and colleges…. I am sure that this will revolutionize the thinking of the thoughtful men of your country as well as the students and professors, and the ultimate end will be to save the world from the clutches of material illusory activities which is now causing havoc everywhere.” (Letter to Karandhara dated 9-13-70)

“If we introduce these books in all of the bookstores, schools, colleges, libraries and everyone’s home, our religion will be the only religion in the world very soon.” (Letter to Krishna Bamini dated 1-4-72)

“We have got a great mission to fulfill, and these books and magazines are the torchbearers of Truth which can save the world.” (Letter to Ksirodakasayi dated 1-3-72)

Srila Prabhupada’s books, then, should be thought of as a permanent legacy meant to be shared and enjoyed by generations of devotees everywhere. His purpose in writing was to reestablish religious principles and, ultimately, to revive every conditioned soul’s dormant love of God. These transcendental literatures were Srila Prabhupada’s gift to the world and proof of his empowerment by Krishna. Judging from the statements made above, His Divine Grace seemed totally convinced that the books he had published, if distributed widely enough, would deliver the entire world from the darkness of ignorance. Therefore, there was no reason to believe that, to fulfill his mission, his books would have to undergo another round of editing, what to speak of the complete overhaul concocted by the BBT editors.

Our guideline in Krishna consciousness is that the only duty of the disciple is to faithfully execute the order of the bona fide spiritual master. If a disagreement arises over how to best serve the guru, the issue can generally be resolved by following whatever course of action the spiritual master had specifically recommended in his direct instructions to his disciples. In a room conversation that took place in Paris in 1976, Srila Prabhupada elaborated on this point, and his explanation soundly defeats virtually all of the arguments presented in favor of changing his books.

Excerpt from a room conversation taking place in Paris, France on August 5, 1976

Hari-sauri: Sometimes there’s some discrepancy, two parties, that may both want to serve but they have different ways, different ideas how to execute the same order, so there may be some disagreement.

Srila Prabhupada: Service means you must take order from the master. Otherwise, it is mental concoction. Actually the servant requests, “How can I serve you?” So when the master orders, “You serve me like this,” then you do that, that is service. And if you manufacture your service, that is not service. That is your sense gratification. Yasya prasadad bhagavat-prasadah. You have to see how he is pleased. Now if he wants a glass of water and if you bring a nice glass of milk, you can say, “Milk is better than water. You take it.” That is not service. He wants water, you give him water. Don’t manufacture better thing.

After Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance, and without his consent, the BBT editors took it upon themselves to re-edit his books, making thousands of unnecessary changes in an attempt to improve their wording and style. But, as Srila Prabhupada stated above, without his order, their service was a concoction. They were offering him milk when he had asked for water. He wanted them to follow the rule of “arsa prayoga”, but they decided to manufacture a better thing. So, according to the spiritual master, their editing was not service at all, but sense gratification.

Srila Prabhupada often insisted that he did not want his disciples to spend a great deal of time on editing work. He was also not very concerned with literary style. On one occasion, His Divine Grace said,

“We are not meant for presenting any literary masterpieces.”

and in the following letter, he gave further instruction to his book production staff with regard to their editorial and proofreading services:

“We have to do things now very dexterously, simply we have to see that in our book there is no spelling or grammatical mistake. We do not mind for any good style, our style is Hare Krishna, but still, we should not present a shabby thing. Although Krishna literatures are so nice that, even if they are presented in broken and irregular ways, such literatures are welcomed, read and respected by bona fide devotees.” (Letter to Satsvarupa dated 1-9-70)

Unless the BBT trustees felt that Srila Prabhupada’s books had been shabbily presented in the past, they had no right to tamper with them. While it is not our philosophy to print errors, it should be remembered that spiritual subject matter is transcendental to all mundane considerations and remains potent despite mistakes in grammar, spelling, etc.

As soon as Srila Prabhupada was satisfied with the standard of presentation of his books, he adamantly warned the BBT staff that further changes should not be made. He said it would be considered an offense for them to even think there were mistakes in his books. When it was brought to Srila Prabhupada’s attention in 1977 that significant changes had been made to his books without his approval, he instructed the directors of the BBT that their next printing should be again to the original way. The editors were well aware how averse Srila Prabhupada was to making changes, especially once a book had been published. How, then, could they act so boldly against his wishes, daring to change everything, and so soon after his physical departure? If Srila Prabhupada ever spoke of making improvements, he was referring to the quality of the printing only and was not suggesting that changes be made in the text of his books. When Srila Prabhupada first examined the 1972 MacMillan Gita, for example, he said it did not meet our vaisnava standard. He was disappointed with the quality of the paper, the binding, the color work and so on. These are the things he wanted improved. As far as the text was concerned, he said that nothing should be added or subtracted.

To Edit or Not To Edit – That Is The Question

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

By Govinda Dasi (ACBSP)

govinda-dasi-sp

Govinda Dasi & Srila Prabhupada

The book editing issue is a very serious one, perhaps the most serious issue in ISKCON today. I have seen the attractive and seemingly authentic website promoting these changes, but most of it is propaganda, a lot of it based on speculation of what took place. It is most unfortunate that this has occurred, as it endangers everything Srila Prabhupada came to this world to do. He came from Krishna Loka “to write some books.”

So many times, Prabhupada said, referring to his books, “NO Changes!” “Don’t change anything!” but this instruction, given repeatedly, has been glossed over by so many elaborate, and often untruthful, explanations and excuses.

The very real danger is that his books could be lost in time, as some changes lead to more changes, and “tinkering” with editing is the disease of the American nature. Prabhupada complained of this “Westerner disease” often, and there is ample evidence that he did not want his books changed after he left this world.

Posthumous editing is not respected by the scholarly community (see Dr. John Trimble, famous for his Writing with Style) nor is it respected or approved of by the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. The opinions of such famous Western scholars as Dr. Trimble, and the opinions of famous Gaudiya scholars, have not been included in this BBT-edit website — because they are NOT favorable. So the reasoning for doing this massive edit is flawed, i.e. “to make the books more acceptable to scholars…”

Continue reading

The definitive english edition of Bhagavad-gita

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

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

This is the back cover of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is (Third printing, 1973)

BG bagside-tiff

Meriam-Webster Dictionary:

1de·fin·i·tive
adjective \di-ˈfi-nə-tiv\

Definition of DEFINITIVE

1 : serving to provide a final solution or to end a situation <a definitive victory>
2 : authoritative and apparently exhaustive <a definitive edition>
3
a : serving to define or specify precisely <definitive laws>
b : serving as a perfect example : quintessential <a definitive bourgeois>
4 : fully differentiated or developed <a definitive organ>

(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/definitive)

Prabhupada:

Prabhupada: He has mistaken in so many ways. (Sanskrit) Just like our… Not Pradyumna. If somebody has boils all over the body, then where it will be operated? Better kill this body. (laughing) So he has got so many boils, this Hegel and Segel, all, because they are speculators. They have no definite knowledge. Speculators cannot have definite knowledge. Therefore our Professor Dimmock has said, “Here is definite definition of Gītā.” What is that? Just see. Then it is so. He has appreciated it. You cannot see, of the…
Devotee: They only put two lines of what he said in there. He says this…
Prabhupāda: Yes. That is his word.
Devotee: Oh.
Prabhupada: Read it all.
Devotee: “Definitive English edition of Bhagavad-gītā. By bringing us a new and living interpretation of the text already known to many, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda has increased our own understanding manyfold.”
Prabhupada: That is a definite, not vague, speculative. That is the difference between my translation and others. Therefore I have given the name “As It Is.” So we will be no spoke or speculation. As soon as you speculate, you are rejected. Therefore others are seeing some danger that “This Bhaktivedanta’s…, this Bhagavad-gita As It Is accepted, then where we are?”

(http://prabhupadabooks.com/classes/philosophy/hayagriva/george_wilhelm_friedrich_hegel – May 1976)

And

Prabhupada: Therefore rascal. (laughter) Therefore rascal. We definitely know Krishna, the origin of everything. That is definite, not “It may be.” We don’t say “Krishna may be.” No. Definitely. Krishnas tu bhagavan svayam [SB 1.3.28]. Here is Bhagavan. Here is God. That is definite. Therefore our professor…
Hamsaduta: Svarupa Damodara?
Prabhupada: No, no. Who has written foreword to my Bhagavad-gita?
Harikesa: Dimmock.
Prabhupada: Dimmock. “Here is definitive…”
Hamsaduta: Version.
Nitai: “Definitive edition.”
Prabhupada: “Definitive edition.” That is the credit. Not “may be.” No “maybe,” sir. That is rascaldom.

(http://prabhupadabooks.com/conversations/1975/nov/morning_walk/new_delhi/november/26/1975)

Prabhupada never asked that his gita be re-edited. On the contrary, in May 1976 Prabhupada still referred to his gita as “the definitive edition” comparing it to other translations of lesser importance. During the four years from 1972 to 1976 he could have changed it if he had wanted to. But he still considered his translations and purports as they appeared at that particular time (May 1976) to serve as the final solution, the end of all editions, the authoritative, the exhaustive, the defining, the precise, the perfect example, the fully differentiated and developed edition of the Bhagavad-gita EVER published in recent times. Nothing indicates that Prabhupada ever changed his mind about this.

But to many devotee’s amazement the BBT International seemed not to agree with Prabhupada! Because in 1983 (six years after Prabhupada’s physical disappearance) the BBT International deleted the foreword by Professor Dimmock wherein he says that Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is, 1972 edition, is the “definitive edition“. They also in some (if not all) of their many publications of their changed 1983 edition – deleted the sentence “The definitive english edition of Bhagavad-gita” from the back cover. And they exchanged pictures and paintings and made 5000+ changes, additions and deletions in the translations and purports of the book.

Why?

Prabhupada did the proofreading of the entire Bhagavad-gita As It Is

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Brahmananda Prabhu as quoted in ”Srila Prabhupada Lilamrta”:

“Macmillan Company was publishing Bhagavad-gita, and Prabhupada himself was publishing Teachings of Lord Caitanya through Dai Nippon in Japan. Because Brahmananda had contacted the editors at Macmillan Company, Prabhupada credited him with the success of the Gita’s being published by such a famous company. Brahmananda was also Prabhupada’s man for dealing with Dai Nippon. Both books were on tight printing schedules, and Brahmananda had to return quickly to New York with the corrected proofs.

Brahmananda: “I came up to show Prabhupada the galley proofs for both Teachings of Lord Caitanya and Bhagavad-gita, As It Is. I just happened to have both galley proofs that had arrived. So it was a wonderful thing to bring these galley proofs to Prabhupada for checking. I was there only for a few days, maybe a weekend or so. Prabhupada personally read through the entire galleys and made notations in his own hand. He did the proofreading of the galleys. Everything was done by Srila Prabhupada. It was a very personal kind of thing. Of course, that gave Prabhupada great pleasure because he wanted his books published, and we had started to do it. So Prabhupada took great pleasure in proofreading those galleys. And he handed them to me, and it was very wonderful.” (SPL 7-4: A Summer in Montreal, 1968 / http://vedabase.com/en/spl/7/4)

prabhupada-gita-smiling

For those who are not familiar with the term “galley proofs” here is a definition from wikipedia:

“In printing and publishing, proofs are the preliminary versions of publications meant for review by authors, editors, and proofreaders, often with extra wide margins. Galley proofs may be uncut and unbound, or in some cases electronic. They are created for proofreading and copyediting purposes, but may be used for promotional and review purposes also.”

These memories from Brahmananda Prabhu informs us that Prabhupada read through the complete Bhagavad-gita, As It Is before it was sent to be printed in late 1968. This means that Prabhupada read through all 700 verses and their purports.

An interesting point in this regard – which serves as an example of unauthorized editing – is that the word ”coward” was in verse 2.35, and that the word ”brimming” was in verse 2.1 both in the 1968-edition and the 1972-edition. But still the BBT International took the liberty to remove and change these words on their own initiative in their 1983-edition. Prabhupada saw and approved these two words. He did not change them to ”insignificant” og ”full of tears” respectively, even though he had from 1968-1972 to do so if that was what he wanted. Even after 1972 he could have ordered them changed. But just like with all others words and sentences in his Bhagavad-gita As It Is (except 2-3 instances) he did not give any order to change them. And therefore we also do not have the right to do it.

Removing “eternal” from Bhagavad-gita As It Is (2.30)

This article was sent to the BBT International the 20th Oct. 2013. We asked them to comment on the points raised. So far we have not received any reply.

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Bg 2.30 – original and authorized 1972-edition:

“O descendant of Bharata, he who dwells in the body is eternal and can never be slain. Therefore you need not grieve for any creature.”

Bg 2.30 – unauthorized 1983 BBT International edition:

“O descendant of Bharata, he who dwells in the body can never be slain. Therefore you need not grieve for any living being.”

Why has the word “eternal” been removed? What does Prabhupada say? Here are something from his lectures:

“O descendant of Bharata, he who dwells in the body is eternal and can never be slain. Therefore you need not grieve for any creature.”

Prabhupada: Dehi nityam avadhyo ‘yam dehe sarvasya bharata. Dehe, dehe means body, within the body. This topic began, dehino ‘smin yatha dehe kaumaram yauvanam jara. Deha, dehi. Dehi means one who possesses the body. Just like guni. Asthate in prata. The grammatical. Guna, in, deha, in, in prata. Dehin sabda. So the nominative case of dehin sabda is dehi. Dehi nityam, eternal. In so many ways, Krsna has explained. Nityam, eternal. Indestructible, immutable. It does not take birth, it does not die, it is always, constantly the same. Na hanyate hanyamane sarire. In this way, again he says nityam, eternal. (730831BG.LON)

Another lecture:

Devotee: 30: “O descendant of Bharata, he who dwells in the body is eternal and can never be slain. Therefore you need not grieve for any creature [Bg. 2.30].”

Prabhupada: Now, after putting forward all definitions and arguments from different angles of vision, of different philosophers, thesis, now Krsna concludes, “My dear Arjuna, take it for certain that the soul within is eternal.”

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bhagavad-gita 2.27-38 — Los Angeles, December 11, 1968

Even in Srimad Bhagavatam Prabhupada writes that BG 2.30 confirm the eternality of the soul:

“The living entity is unborn and eternal, and as confirmed in the Bhagavad-gita (2.30),…”

>>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 2.7.49

Then why take “eternal” out the of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is?

BBTI attempts to give this justification:

“The words “is eternal” (First Edition) do not appear in Srila Prabhupada’s original manuscript. The word nityam here means “eternally” — or, as Srila Prabhupada gives it, “always.” It modifies avadhyah. Thus, “always unfit for being slain.” Putting that negatively, as the original editor chose to do, the “always” becomes “never” — “he can never be slain.”

>>> Ref. VedaBase => GRV: 2.31: “Editing varnasrama-dharma out of the books?

There a quite some problems with this proposed justification:

  • We do not know what Hayagriva Prabhu and Prabhupada agreed upon while carefully working together on the Bhagavad-gita. Prabhupada might have wanted the word “eternal” to be there. We do not know and therefore we can’t change anything. Why? Because we can’t change in Prabhupada’s books based on “maybe”, “perhaps”, “I think” etc.) This “principle of caution” ought to implemented in ALL editing work.
  • Prabhupada himself used the word “nityam” in lectures and said that meant that the soul is eternal. In one of the above lectures Prabhupada even says that “Krsna concludes, “My dear Arjuna, take it for certain that the soul within is eternal.” So Krishna says in BG 2.30 that the soul is eternal. But BBT International thinks otherwise and overrides Prabhupada’s own words and corrects his sanskrit. Prabhupada was very concerned with better knowing disciples that had become “learned” in sanskrit:

“…a little learning is dangerous, especially for the Westerners. I am practically seeing that as soon as they begin to learn a little Sanskrit immediately they feel that they have become more than their guru and then the policy is kill guru and be killed himself.” (from a letter to Dixit das on 18 Sep 1976)

  • The result of these changes and their proposed justification will make it seem – for new devotees and scholars – that Prabhupada’s sanskrit was not good enough. Imagine that a new bhakta or bhaktin heard or read one of the above lectures by Prabhupada were he says that nityam in BG 2.30 means the soul is eternal. And then the new bhakta or bhaktin later reads that this is actually not correct sanskrit, and now the BBT International has corrected it by removing it from the translation. What kind of impression will this new bhakta or bhaktin get of Prabhupada and his knowledge of sanskrit? Will it increase their respect for him? Of course not! What will it say about the way we honor the acaryas in our sampradaya? Is this arsa-prayoga – to respect the authoritative sages?

Response to Niscala Devi Dasi on the book changes

My response to an article by Niscala Devi Dasi posted on oneiskcon.com:

http://www.oneiskcon.com/the-actual-changes-to-srila-prabhupadas-books-and-his-standards/#comment-655

As Govinda Dasi Mataji says posthumous editing must be done according to a specific protocol. It needs to be stated on the book that is was posthumously edited, by whom, what was edited, and the date.

The problem with the new gita is that it not only lacks these informations, but it also has Prabhupada’s signature as if it was his original version, even though he never asked for this new edition nor approved it.

Editing something in Prabhupada’s books can only be done if the following is verified:

1. The change must not violate the principle of arsa-prayoga.

2. The change must be done

  • on the basis of a direct order, or
  • the change must be shown to be permitted, and/or
  • approved after it is done.

3. The change must not be needless (Prabhupada did not want needless changes)

4. We must be 100% sure (there must absolutely no doubt) that Prabhupada wanted this specific change (a principle of caution must be observed).

We know the proper protocol for posthumous editing never has been followed by BTT International. In addition to this: Can anyone present just one change in Prabhupada’s books made posthumously that does not violate at least of the above points? Continue reading