Tag Archives: religion

01.02.26
by

The “Rascal Editors” Conversation – Then and Now

Śrīla Prabhupāda on Unauthorized Editing and Post-Samādhi Changes

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Discussions about post-samādhi editing of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books often assume that the real problem began after 1977. But Śrīla Prabhupāda himself tells a different story. In the well-known “Rascal Editors” conversation dated June 22, 1977, in Vṛndāvana, he describes a situation already unfolding — one marked by unauthorized editing, loss of control, lack of accountability, and the impossibility of verification.

Far from being historically irrelevant, these remarks reveal a structural problem — one that makes post-samādhi editing not only questionable, but fundamentally illegitimate.

Editing Without Control — Already in 1977

Śrīla Prabhupāda states:

“It is starting. What can I do? […] They make changes, such changes… So how to check this? How to stop this?”

This is a critical admission. Prabhupāda is not predicting a future danger; he is describing a present reality. Editorial changes were already occurring, and he openly acknowledges that he lacks the practical ability to stop them.

This point alone carries enormous weight. If the author himself — alive, present, accessible, and formally in charge — could not effectively control editorial activity, then any claim that editorial control somehow improved after his departure is untenable. The conditions for restraint were already weakening; after samādhi, they could only deteriorate further.

The Defining Issue: Absence of Authority

Prabhupāda continues:

“…they are doing without any authority […] Very serious feature.”

Here the issue is precisely identified. The problem is not accidental error, linguistic awkwardness, or the need for stylistic polish. The problem is unauthorized action.

This distinction is crucial when discussing posthumous changes to Prabhupāda’s books. Appeals to “clarification,” “restoration,” or “philosophical consistency” are irrelevant if no authority exists to sanction such changes. In a Vaiṣṇava framework — especially under the principle of ārṣa-prayoga — authority does not arise from competence, intention, or institutional position. It must be explicitly granted.

Without authority, even a well-intended edit is illegitimate.

“Jayadvaita Is Good” — A Misused Argument

At this point, defenders of post-samādhi editing often introduce the following exchange:

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Your original work that you’re doing now, that is edited by Jayadvaita. That’s the first editing.
Prabhupāda: He is good.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: He is good. But then, after they print the books, they’re going over. So when they reprint…
Prabhupāda: So how to check this? How to stop this?
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: They should not make any changes without consulting Jayadvaita.

From this, it is claimed that later editorial changes are justified because Jayadvaita Swami was trusted by Śrīla Prabhupāda.

This argument fails on several levels.

First, Prabhupāda’s approval of Jayadvaita was contextual and temporal. He approved Jayadvaita’s editing at that time, under his supervision, and within a defined scope. Nothing in this exchange grants blanket, indefinite, post-samādhi editorial authority.

Second, Prabhupāda himself explicitly rejected the idea that past approval guarantees present legitimacy. He repeatedly warned against exactly this kind of reasoning.

Śrīla Prabhupāda explains the logical fallacy involved:

“This is nagna-mātṛkā-nyāya. We change according to the circumstances. You cannot say that this must remain like this.”
(Morning Walk, May 5, 1973, Los Angeles)

In Nyāya logic, this fallacy assumes that because something was valid in the past, it must retain the same status indefinitely — regardless of changed circumstances. Prabhupāda explicitly rejected this mode of reasoning.

Trust Is Conditional — and Can Be Violated

Prabhupāda further clarifies that trust is never unconditional:

“I have given you charge… but you can misuse at any moment, because you have got independence. At that time your position is different.”
(Morning Walk, June 3, 1976, Los Angeles)

And he states even more plainly:

“Phalena paricīyate […] Present consideration is the judgement.”
(Morning Walk, October 8, 1972, Berkeley)

In other words, a person must be evaluated by present actions, not past reputation. Previous trust does not immunize later conduct.

This principle applies directly here. Whatever confidence Prabhupāda had in Jayadvaita’s editing during his presence cannot be mechanically transferred to a radically different situation: post-samādhi editing, without authorial oversight, involving substantive changes to published works.

Evidence of Breach: Changes in Style, Mood, and Philosophy

This is not a theoretical concern. Post-samādhi editions exhibit clear and documentable changes that go far beyond spelling or grammar. These include alterations to:

  • Śrīla Prabhupāda’s personally typewritten Sanskrit translations
  • Śrīla Prabhupāda’s spoken, forceful, non-academic style
  • the mood and devotional tone of passages
  • the philosophical framing and emphasis
  • the balance between direct instruction and interpretive explanation
  • and, in some cases, the theological perspective itself

Style, tone, and mood are not cosmetic. They are integral to meaning and pedagogy. To alter them without authority is to alter the work — and doing so after the author’s departure violates the trust placed in any editor.

Original manuscripts, first editions, and contemporaneous recordings therefore function only as witnesses to what Śrīla Prabhupāda authorized and published — not as licenses to revise his words post-samādhi.

Then and Now: Structural Parallels

The situation Prabhupāda describes in 1977 and the situation surrounding post-samādhi editing share the same defining features:

  • Editorial changes occurring without explicit authorization
  • Inability to verify or supervise those changes
  • Absence of a final, corrective authority
  • Institutional normalization of editorial discretion
  • Appeals to past trust rather than present evidence

The difference is not one of kind, but of degree. What was beginning in 1977 became entrenched after Prabhupāda’s departure.

The Unavoidable Conclusion

Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own words establish the following facts:

  1. Unauthorized editing was already occurring during his presence.
  2. He could not effectively stop it.
  3. He could not reliably check or verify it.
  4. He explicitly warned against relying on past trust as permanent validation.

From this, the conclusion follows with clarity:

Post-samādhi editing of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books lacks authority, lacks verification, and reproduces precisely the dangers he himself identified.

That Jayadvaita Swami was trusted then does not settle the question now. Trust is conditional, circumstances change, and actions must be judged in the present.

Where authority is absent and trust has been objectively violated, restraint is not extremism — it is fidelity.

01.01.26
by

“Secret Wisdom” – Revisited (Bhagavad-gita 9.1)

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Link to the Original Article:

https://arsaprayoga.com/2014/03/29/secret-wisdom-deleted-from-bhagavad-gita-as-it-is-bg-9-1/

Description

This article examines a significant philosophical and devotional change introduced into Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 9.1 in the posthumously edited edition by Jayadvaita Swami and the BBTI. In the authorized 1972 edition—and in Srila Prabhupada’s original manuscript/dictation—the verse described the Gītā’s teachings as “this most secret wisdom.” In the revised edition, this was changed to “this most confidential knowledge and realization.” The result is not a restoration of fidelity but a step away from Srila Prabhupada’s intended expression—without any authorization, necessity, or justification.

Type of change

Substitution — replacement of a spiritually and philosophically loaded phrase.

Category

Philosophical/Devotional change.

Commentary

Replaces a deep theological term with a weakened alternative

“Secret wisdom” conveys the classical Vaiṣṇava understanding of revealed, esoteric truth: sacred, hidden, spiritually potent, and only bestowed upon those qualified by devotion and purity.

The substitution—“confidential knowledge and realization”—shifts that meaning toward intellectualism and personal experience. “Knowledge” is shared, “realization” is internal, and “confidential” sounds like something selective but not necessarily mystical or transformative.

The change flattens the metaphysical and devotional gravity of the verse.

This is a devotional change.

A devotional change is an alteration that affects the text’s devotional feeling, focus, or relationship to Krishna, even if the new wording looks technically correct. It shifts the mood, tone, or spiritual orientation—replacing revelation with instruction, grace with technique, or divine agency with human effort. The vocabulary may remain respectable, but the bhakti-current is weakened, redirected, or interrupted.

What makes this edit worse: “secret wisdom” was Prabhupada’s own language

Far from correcting an accidental edit or misplaced phrase, this change removes a term that was present in both the 1972 edition and Srila Prabhupada’s original manuscript.

In other words:

  • Prabhupada dictated “secret wisdom.”
  • Prabhupada approved its use in the printed edition.
  • Jayadvaita Swami removed it after his physical departure.

This is not editing. This is altering Prabhupada’s own words.

Dismantles the revelatory mood of the Gītā

In the original, Krishna says:

“I shall impart to you this most secret wisdom…”

It is revelation, not merely instruction. Krishna is gifting hidden truth to His qualified devotee.
After the edit, that mood has shifted:

“I shall impart to you this most confidential knowledge and realization…”

Knowledge and realization are things acquired, not revealed. This flips the devotional dynamic from grace to effort, from mystery to methodology.

Violates Arsa-Prayoga—and common sense

Arsa-Prayoga exists to protect the words of the ācārya, even if those words appear imperfect by modern standards. When a disciple changes what the guru actually said—especially after his departure—it is an act of editorial presumption, not service.

There is no scope for removing what Srila Prabhupada originally wrote and approved. Yet Jayadvaita Swami did just that—while claiming to be “bringing us closer” to Srila Prabhupada.

The irony writes itself.

The real issue

The problem is not simply about words. It is about authority.

When a disciple removes a phrase the guru himself composed, approved, and published—what else is being removed?

How many more spiritual treasures are quietly erased in the name of editorial “improvement”?

That is why devotees committed to preserving Bhagavad-gītā As It Is reject such posthumous editing—not out of sentimentality, but out of fidelity. We are not here to correct Srila Prabhupada.
We are here to hear him.

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)

12.13.25
by

Regulated Principles – Revisited (Bhagavad-gita 12.12)

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Link to the original article

This article revisits an earlier analysis of Bhagavad-gītā 12.12 concerning the phrase “regulated principles,” which was later changed to “regulative principles” in post-1977 editions of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books. This change belongs to the broader pattern of Bhagavad-gītā As It Is changes and Srila Prabhupada book changes introduced after his departure.

The original article can be found here:
https://arsaprayoga.com/2016/03/24/regulated-principles-regulated/

Description of the change

In the original edition of Bhagavad-gītā 12.12, Śrīla Prabhupāda used the phrase “regulated principles.” In later editions, this wording was replaced with “regulative principles,” as part of ongoing BBT editorial changes.

The change was justified by the editor, Jayadvaita Swami, on the grounds that “regulated principles” is “obviously erroneous” and “a term that makes no sense,” whereas “regulative principles” is said to be the “usual and sensible” expression. This justification has frequently been cited in discussions concerning Jayadvaita Swami editing.

The editor further argues that Śrīla Prabhupāda’s earlier instruction not to change the wording of Bhagavad-gītā 12.12 applied only to a specific question about sequence, and should not be extended to prevent later editorial revision of individual words or phrases.

Type of editorial change

Substitution (Replacement)

One expression (“regulated principles”) has been exchanged for another (“regulative principles”).

This substitution is justified through Interpretive Editing, insofar as the editor’s judgment about what “makes sense” and what is “usual” is allowed to override the author’s actual wording.

The change is not based on:
– a typographical error
– a grammatical mistake
– manuscript or draft evidence
– or a request from the author

It is a preference-based replacement.

Category

Posthumous interpretive substitution with systemic normalization

A valid expression used repeatedly by the ācārya was replaced after his departure, not on the basis of error, manuscript evidence, or authorial revision, but through editorial judgment regarding what was considered “sensible” or “correct.”

Although the substitution may appear minor in isolation, it participates in a broader pattern of posthumous normalization, whereby authorial language is silently replaced across the corpus according to later editorial preference. The result is a subtle but real shift in meaning, moving from principles presented as regulated by authority to principles framed as impersonal regulatory norms.

Commentary

Authorial instruction

In a letter dated March 17, 1971, addressed to Jayadvaita Swami, Śrīla Prabhupāda wrote:

“So far changing the wording of verse or purport of 12.12 discussed before, it may remain as it is.”

The statement is clear. Śrīla Prabhupāda refers explicitly to the wording of both the verse and the purport of Bhagavad-gītā 12.12 and instructs that it remain unchanged.

This is the natural and default reading of the sentence. No qualification is stated, and no limitation is expressed.

Jayadvaita Swami suggests that Śrīla Prabhupāda was referring only to a specific editorial issue then under discussion. However, that is a restrictive reinterpretation, not the plain meaning of the text. If only a single, narrowly defined change were being ruled out, there would be no reason to mention both the verse and the purport, nor to speak broadly of “changing the wording.”

Once an author issues a clear instruction to leave the wording of a passage unchanged, the burden of proof lies entirely on anyone who wishes to override that instruction. In this case, no manuscript evidence, authorial clarification, or demonstrable error has been produced that would justify doing so.

The later substitution therefore proceeds not from authorization, but from editorial judgment applied in defiance of an explicit instruction.

Status of the original wording

The editorial justification for replacing “regulated principles” rests on the claim that the phrase is “obviously erroneous” and “a term that makes no sense.” This claim is central to the justification offered in defenses of Srila Prabhupada book changes, since it is presented as grounds for altering the wording of the text.

However, even this line of argument is hypothetical. According to the arsa-prayoga principle, the words chosen by the ācārya are themselves authoritative and are not to be altered on the basis of later judgment, stylistic preference, or perceived improvement. The burden is therefore not merely to allege an error, but to demonstrate one so compelling that it would override both explicit authorial instruction and the governing principle of preserving the ācārya’s language.

No such demonstration has been made.

“Regulated principles” is a grammatically normal adjective–noun construction in English, denoting principles whose application or scope is regulated by authority. The expression is widely attested in formal English usage, particularly in legal, academic, and institutional contexts. It is neither novel nor idiosyncratic.

A phrase that is both grammatically correct and semantically intelligible cannot be classified as an error. At most, it may be considered less common than an alternative. But uncommon usage is not the same as incorrect usage, and editorial preference does not convert a valid expression into a mistake.

Since the original wording is not erroneous, the justification collapses even on its own terms. And even if an error were alleged, it would still fail to meet the standard required to override arsa-prayoga and a clear authorial directive.

The substitution therefore represents not a correction, but an editorial judgment imposed after the fact.

Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own usage

The claim that “regulated principles” represents an error is further undermined by Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own consistent usage of the term.

Śrīla Prabhupāda employed both expressions—“regulative principles” and “regulated principles”—throughout his preaching and teaching life. He used them before coming to the West and continued to use them afterward. The expressions appear across multiple genres: books, letters, lectures, and recorded conversations.

While “regulative principles” is more frequent, frequency alone is not evidence of correctness, nor does it establish exclusivity. Authors routinely employ a dominant term alongside contextual variants, especially when addressing different aspects of a subject.

Notably, Śrīla Prabhupāda tends to use “regulated principles” in contexts where emphasis is placed on regulation by authority—that is, principles as administered, defined, or enforced by the spiritual master or governing discipline. In such contexts, the term functions descriptively rather than categorically.

This pattern of usage indicates deliberate expression, not linguistic confusion. It also rules out the suggestion that the phrase was an accidental or unconscious deviation from a supposedly correct form.

Under the arsa-prayoga principle, such usage carries decisive weight. The language employed by the ācārya—especially when repeated across time and context—constitutes authoritative usage and is not subject to retroactive normalization based on later editorial preference.

The nature of the editorial justification

The substitution of “regulated principles” with “regulative principles” is justified not by manuscript evidence, not by authorial revision, and not by demonstrable error, but by an editorial assertion: that the original wording “makes no sense.”

This form of justification is significant. It does not appeal to facts about the text, but to an editor’s judgment about what ought to make sense, what is “usual,” and what is considered acceptable terminology. In doing so, it quietly shifts the basis of authority from the author’s expressed language to the editor’s linguistic intuition.

Such a move reverses the proper order of editorial responsibility. Editors are entrusted with preserving an author’s words, not with revising them according to later standards of clarity, convention, or taste—especially when the author has explicitly intervened and instructed that the wording remain unchanged.

Moreover, the claim that a phrase “makes no sense” is not a neutral observation. It is an evaluative judgment that demands substantiation. In this case, no such substantiation is provided. The phrase in question is grammatically sound, semantically intelligible, and demonstrably used by the author himself and by competent writers outside this tradition.

The justification therefore rests on an unargued assertion presented as self-evident. When such assertions are allowed to function as grounds for textual alteration, editorial judgment replaces authorial intent as the final arbiter of meaning.

Under the arsa-prayoga principle, this is precisely the point at which editing ceases to be custodial and becomes interpretive. The substitution is not driven by necessity, but by preference—expressed in the language of inevitability.

Implications of the “nonsense” claim

The claim that “regulated principles” is a term that “makes no sense” carries implications far beyond Bhagavad-gītā 12.12.

If the expression were genuinely nonsensical or erroneous, consistency would require that it be corrected wherever it appears. In practice, this is precisely what has occurred. In the edited corpus published by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International (BBTI), the expression “regulated principles” has been systematically replaced with “regulative principles.” Searches for the former term in BBTI’s website vedabase.io now lead only to the latter.

This means that the issue is no longer confined to a single verse or purport. The original expression has effectively been removed from Śrīla Prabhupāda’s published works, despite the fact that it is grammatically valid, semantically clear, and demonstrably used by him across books, letters, lectures, and conversations.

The implications are therefore substantial. Accepting the claim that the term “makes no sense” entails the conclusion that Śrīla Prabhupāda repeatedly employed nonsensical language throughout his preaching and teaching life, and that this language required silent correction after his departure. This conclusion is untenable.

Once it is acknowledged that the phrase is valid English and contextually meaningful, the premise underlying its systematic removal collapses. What remains is not correction of error, but posthumous normalization imposed according to editorial preference.

This case therefore illustrates how a single unsubstantiated linguistic judgment, once accepted, can justify wide-ranging alteration of an ācārya’s language across an entire corpus.

Philosophical impact

Although the substitution may appear minor, it is not without interpretive consequence.

The phrase “regulated principles” presents the principles in question as having been regulated—that is, as defined, delimited, and enforced by authority. The emphasis falls on regulation as an act: principles are regulated by someone, within a specific disciplic and administrative context. The formulation naturally directs attention toward the role of the spiritual master and the concrete transmission of discipline.

By contrast, “regulative principles” frames the same practices as a class of principles whose function is to regulate behavior in general. The emphasis shifts from regulation by authority to regulation as an abstract characteristic. The principles are presented less as imposed disciplines and more as impersonal normative categories.

Both expressions can coexist within Vaiṣṇava teaching, and both are doctrinally compatible. The issue is not theological contradiction, but framing. Language does not merely convey rules; it frames how authority, obligation, and transmission are understood.

In this case, the substitution subtly moves the reader’s attention away from regulated practice as something received through authority and toward regulated practice as something conceptually defined. The result is a small but real shift from personal administration to impersonal classification.

Under the arsa-prayoga principle, such shifts matter. The language chosen by the ācārya is part of the teaching itself, not a neutral vehicle that may be freely exchanged for a preferred equivalent. When authorial wording is replaced on the grounds of editorial sense-making, even slight changes accumulate and alter how discipline and authority are perceived.

The significance of this case, therefore, does not lie in the gravity of the substitution taken in isolation, but in the precedent it sets: that an editor’s judgment about clarity may override the ācārya’s chosen language, even where that language is valid, intentional, and explicitly protected from alteration.

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.

11.12.25
by

Jayadvaita Swami Condemns His Own Edits: A Case Study in Needless Change

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Jayadvaita Swami wrote in 1986:

“As you know, and as we kept in mind while doing the work, Śrīla Prabhupāda staunchly opposed needless changes.” (Jayadvaita Swami, Letter to Amogha Lila, 1986)

This statement is correct. Śrīla Prabhupāda did staunchly oppose needless changes — and this principle is the foundation of ārṣa-prayoga, the principle that the words of a pure devotee are not to be altered by conditioned editors.

The following example — pointed out to us by Bhakta Torben Nielsen in his ebook Blazing Edits — illustrates the issue perfectly.

We look at a posthumous edit introduced by BBT International (BBTI) in the 1983 revised Bhagavad-gita As It Is, specifically 18.2, purport.

Original (Prabhupāda-approved pre-samadhi edition):

“There are many prescriptions
of methods
for performing sacrifice
for some particular purpose
in the Vedic literatures.”

Posthumously edited (BBTI edition):

“In the Vedic literature
there are many prescriptions
of methods
for performing sacrifice
for some particular purpose.”

This is not a correction.
This is not a clarification.
This is not a doctrinal improvement.

It is simply a relocation of one phrase — a stylistic reshuffling that has no philosophical or grammatical necessity whatsoever.

What problem did this edit solve?

None.

Was the original incorrect, unclear, or misleading?

No.

Did Srila Prabhupada ever request this change?

No.

Did BBTI give a reason for it?

No.

According to Jayadvaita Swami’s own standard — “Prabhupāda opposed needless changes” — this is precisely the kind of change Śrīla Prabhupāda would not have approved.

The contradiction is unavoidable:

  1. Jayadvaita Swami says unnecessary edits violate Prabhupāda’s wishes.
  2. Jayadvaita Swami then makes an unnecessary posthumous edit.

That is why this small change becomes a perfect diagnostic tool. It shows that once editors begin altering Srila Prabhupada’s books based on personal preference or literary style, the entire principle of ārṣa prayoga has already been abandoned.

Why This Matters for Bhagavad-gita As It Is

The 1972 first edition was personally approved, lectured from, distributed, and trusted by Śrīla Prabhupāda. The 1983 posthumously edited edition by BBTI was not.

When even a harmless sentence — one that Prabhupāda accepted and used — is needlessly altered, it proves the deeper issue:

Posthumous editing inevitably leads to editorial overreach, because the standard has shifted from “transmit exactly” to “improve according to taste.”

And once that door opens, the rest of the book becomes vulnerable.

It all starts with edits exactly like this.

11.10.25
by

Why “Do the Changes Make a Significant Difference?” Is the Wrong Question

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

The question “Do the changes make a significant difference to the message?” sounds fair—but it completely misses the point. It assumes that the legitimacy of changing a pure devotee’s words depends on how much the meaning seems to change. That assumption itself is false.

The issue is not how much the message shifts. The issue is that anyone dared to shift it at all. Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books are not ordinary literature subject to posthumous editing or so-called editorial refinement by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International (BBT International) or its post-samādhi editors like Jayadvaita Swami. They are śabda-brahma—the sound incarnation of divine truth transmitted through an authorized ācārya. Once such an ācārya leaves this world, his words are final. No conditioned soul is authorized to adjust them, no matter how “minor” the adjustment may appear.

Even a single substituted synonym or rearranged phrase presumes editorial superiority over one who spoke under Kṛṣṇa’s direct guidance. That is why the ārṣa-prayoga principle exists: the words of the ācārya are sacred and must remain untouched. It protects the integrity of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s original books from unauthorized changes made after his departure.

Moreover, the idea of “significant difference” is itself deceptive. Many edits that look small actually do change meaning—altering theological emphasis, philosophical precision, or Śrīla Prabhupāda’s characteristic tone. But even if some do not, the very act of judging “significance” replaces revelation with speculation. It invites endless tampering under the same excuse, which has already been seen in the posthumously edited Bhagavad-gita As It Is.

There is also a deeper layer. Words don’t only convey meaning—they frame it. They shape how readers approach and internalize the message. Changing phrasing, order, or rhythm changes the lens through which the reader perceives the philosophy. Just as altering the cover of Bhagavad-gita As It Is reframes a reader’s expectations before opening the book, altering the language inside silently redefines how one enters the message itself.

Śrīla Prabhupāda’s English was an extension of his bhāva—his spiritual mood. His rhythm, simplicity, and repetition carried power far beyond grammar. To “polish” that expression is to polish away the teacher’s presence. Even if the words remain similar, the śraddhā-bindu—the drop of faith that transmits realization—fades.

So the real problem is not merely what has changed, but that the frame of reception—the channel connecting the reader to the guru—has been tampered with. Once that link is altered, the spiritual potency no longer flows in the same pure way.

That is why the question, “Do the changes make a significant difference?” is misplaced. The real question is:

Who gave anyone the right to touch even one word of a self-realized ācārya’s books after his departure?

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.

11.08.25
by

Malati Devi Dasi: “One shouldn’t change. You can write your own.”

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

8 November 2025 — Bhaktivedanta Manor, UK

During a class at the Bhaktivedanta Manor, Malati Devi Dasi recounted a well-known episode from Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta where Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu corrected a single-word alteration made by Sarvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, the renowned scholar of Jagannātha Purī.

After becoming a devotee, Sarvabhauma was so overwhelmed with joy that he modified the word “mukti-pade” in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.14.8, replacing it with “bhakti-pade.” Although his intention was devotional, Mahāprabhu corrected him, explaining that “mukti-pade” is already a beautiful name of Kṛṣṇa, and śāstra must not be altered based on sentiment or preference.

Malati Devi Dasi drew a direct parallel to modern tendencies to edit sacred texts:

“Nowadays we also have people who like to change words from the holy scriptures, and some of us don’t appreciate it very much. … Śrīla Prabhupāda commented, ‘Write your own.’ In other words, one shouldn’t change. You can write your own.”

Her words are especially significant in light of the Arsa-Prayoga principle, which holds that the words of the ācārya are sacred and should not be edited or “improved” posthumously – like it has been done by Jayadvaita Swami, Dravida Dasa and the BBTI. Just as Mahāprabhu upheld the integrity of the original Bhāgavatam verse, devotees today are called to preserve Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books – like his Bhagavad-gita As It Is – exactly as he approved them — without revision or re-interpretation.

Three Key Points to Note

  1. Malati Devi Dasi’s Personal Stance
    While Malati Devi spoke strongly against altering śāstra or works of ācāryas, it is not entirely clear what her full position is regarding the specific changes made to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books. We respectfully invite her to elaborate further — especially given her stature as one of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s earliest and most respected disciples.
  2. The Arsa-Prayoga Principle
    This sacred principle — “Do not correct the ācārya” — has historically been recognized throughout the Vaiṣṇava tradition. Śrīla Prabhupāda himself invoked this principle when arguing against revising earlier editions of Bhagavad-gītā and Bhāgavatam by other commentators. “Write your own,” he said. Changing the master’s work, even with good intentions, severs the disciplic link by overlaying the disciple’s mind over the guru’s words.
  3. The Lesson from Sarvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya
    Sarvabhauma’s change of one word was born of devotion, but Mahāprabhu still corrected it. If the Lord Himself did not approve of devotional word-swapping, what to speak of posthumous textual reconstruction by conditioned disciples decades later? The story demonstrates that no matter how exalted the editor or emotional the inspiration, śāstra and ācārya-vāṇī are not ours to adjust.

The full transcription, audio and video excerpt from Malati Devi Dasi’s class will be included below for reference.

If nothing else, the class was a timely reminder that great caution — and deep humility — is required when dealing with the words of the Lord and His pure devotee.

Video:

Audio:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KkVZgvY94F6IgLG0dOlYsC_aTGslC2kn/view?usp=drive_link

Full transcription (made with AI):

“So Mahaprabhu said, today I have been transported beyond the three worlds and I’ve been taken to Vaikuntha. All my desires have been fulfilled simply because Sarvabhauma has developed faith in Mahaprasad. And as a result of this, his attitude, Sarvabhauma’s attitude has also changed. And his conversion, it was like a conversion on that day. So he recited a verse of the Bhagavatam, and in that verse, in his newfound ecstasy and realizations, he changed one word. So I think nowadays we also have, we also have people that like to change words from the holy scriptures, and we don’t appreciate, some of us don’t appreciate it very much. So he altered one word. So the verse is well-known, 10.14.8 [Malati recites the Sanskrit], and here’s what he changed. So in the original version, it’s not bhakti-pade. And the verse in English, one who lives his life while joyfully seeing everything as your compassion, meaning the Lord’s compassion, so one who lives his life while joyfully seeing everything as your compassion, even as he experiences adverse conditions arriving from his past deeds, and constantly, nonetheless, constantly pays obeisances to you with his mind, words, and body, is certain to inherit a place at your lotus feet, the object of all devotion. So the original word was mukti-pade, and he changed that mukti-pade to bhakti-pade. And Mahaprabhu explained that there’s no need to change the words of mukti-pade, the source of liberation. It’s a epithet for Krishna. And Vasudeva answered, you’re quite correct to say that the words mukti-pade refer to Krishna, but the word mukti was used customarily in the sense of impersonal liberation, and thus it didn’t bring the same great pleasure as the word bhakti. So that, you know, for somebody who’s maybe not quite as astute, that may ring a bell. Yeah, that’s right. But that’s not how you approach a shastra, and particularly if your books are coming to you from jagat guru Srila Prabhupada, one should be very circumspect. So the other, when the other scholars in Puri heard that Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya had been converted to devotion to Krishna, because he’d been, you know, he’d been an impersonalist. And when they heard about this conversion to Krishna, then all of them took shelter of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. You know, like our verse from the Gita, that whatever the great man does, the common man will follow. He was a great man, he was a much revered and respected personality, and now he was joining the cult of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. And so they also followed, just like by getting the Beatles to chant Hare Krishna, by getting George in particular, it affected generations. Even to this day, people come across, oh, George Harrison chanted Hare Krishna, and they see the Krishna book with his signature, and immediately they’re attracted. But regards to changing the original text of the Shastra, Srila Prabhupada commented, write your own. In other words, one shouldn’t change. You can write your own.”