Jayadvaita Swami agrees that Srila Prabhupada did not ask him or anyone else to “revise and enlarge” his Bhagavad-gita As It Is. So how did it happen? Where did the authority come from for ISKCON’s current “Revised and Enlarged” edition? It seems just after Srila Prabhupada left our material vision, Jayadvaita thought it was a good idea to revise and enlarge Prabhupada’s Gita, so he did it.

This was a confidential program. Although Jayadvaita did write a two-page letter to the “senior devotees” at the time, he never at any point in time revealed the extent of the changes he made to Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is. He personally challenged me on this point at a BBT Trustees meeting where I was invited to speak on the book changes. And when I asked him to let us all know who was actually aware of the extent of the changes he had made to Srila Prabhupada’s Gita before it was published (all the BBT trustees and others were present), his answer was, “three people.” And when I asked him who they were he told us himself, the typist and he also gave Dravida a quick look at the changes.

Apart from these three people no one else was aware of the extent of what he had done to Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is. No one in the BBT, no one in the GBC. The whole thing was done by Jayadvaita. He explained that he did the changes by writing them onto a Macmillan Gita and the only other person who saw that Gita with his changes written on it was Dravida, and of course the typist who typed up the manuscript of the current ISKCON “Revised and Enlarged” Bhagavad-gita As It Is.

So it was a great mistake on the part of the GBC and the BBT to print this book without being aware of the extent of the changes that had been made. Of course they made the decision based on a letter by Jayadvaita claiming that he had not made many changes:

“Comparing each verse in the book with the text of the manuscript, I made only those changes that to me seemed worthwhile. I tried to be conservative and not make needless changes.”
(Jayadvaita’s letter to senior devotees, October 25, 1982)

And what is his “authority” for this you may ask? As he said in the letter to senior devotees, “the text of the manuscript.” “I have made it closer to the original manuscript.”

And what is this so-called “original manuscript”? You can see it here.

As Bhakta Philip Prabhu has pointed out, this is not a manuscript at all. It is the first draft of the book. No author intends that the first draft of his book be published. He appoints an editor and together they work on the book to produce the manuscript which will ultimately be submitted to the publishers. In this case, Srila Prabhupada wrote the first draft and then worked with Hayagriva Prabhu and other editors to prepare the manuscript for his Bhagavad-gita As It Is, which was ultimately presented to MacMillan & Co. for printing.

Imagine that you write the first draft of a book and appoint an editor. You work with your editor on a daily basis for months until together you produce a manuscript you are happy with and your book is published. Your book becomes a worldwide best seller and you are very happy with it. It is a spiritual book and by reading it many of the readers have incredible life-changing experiences. They also become very attached to your book. Your book is praised by scholars worldwide with rave reviews. Then many years later, after you have left your body, somebody finds the first draft of your book and decides to “correct” your published book based on your first draft. Of course you were never intending to publish this first draft. That is why you spent so much time and energy working with your editor on that first draft to transform it into a manuscript you actually wanted to present to the publishers. How angry would you be with this fool who wants to undo your work and your editors’ work by going back to the first draft?

Jayadviata Swami, by going back to the first draft, is eliminating so many corrections and so much work that Srila Prabhupada personally did on his book with Hayagriva and his other editors. This is a great disservice to Srila Prabhupada.

Jayadviata Swami is insisting that his version of the history of the editing of Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is is correct. And what is his version of the history? He has turned to “smoke and mirrors” to try and bewilder the devotees into believing a false history. In the “history according to Jayadvaita’s imagination”, Srila Prabhupada only typed and dictated the first draft of his Bhagavad-gita As It Is and handed it over to his editors and did not work with his editors on the book. In this way he claims the first draft that he has is authoritative and he is justified in changing the printed book if he can find something different in the first draft.

On his website he debunks “The myth that Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva together carefully reviewed the completed text of Bhagavad-gita As It Is“. He does this by debunking a statement by Govinda dasi, who saw Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva working together on editing Prabhupada’s books in 1968 in Los Angeles. Prabhupada and Hayagriva were actually working together on editing Srimad-Bhagavatam at that time. And according to Jayadvaita, that “proves” that Prabhupada and Hayagriva did not work together on editing the Gita. Strange logic, but we are expected to believe the Swami anyhow.

In a recent blog post [also appearing in today's edition of the Sun – "Book Changes: History Really Does Back the BBT"] Jayadvaita continues to try and distort and change the history:

“And so the image of Srila Prabhupada sitting with Hayagriva in December of 1968 carefully going over every verse of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, seeing to the finishing touches, is a persistent image of something that never took place. That’s the truth. Here’s the timeline. See for yourself.” (Jayadvaita Swami)

Then he goes on to present many quotes from Srila Prabhupada that are supposed to prove that Srila Prabhupada did not work with his editors on the Bhagavad-gita As It Is at all. However, Krishna slipped one quote into his article that completely blows his cover:

December 14, 1967: Srila Prabhupada writes Rayarama, “I have already sent you the purports of each and every sloka that you sent me for correction. . . . As soon as you finish the Gitopanisad business and the matter is handed over to the MacMillan Co. we begin on the Bhagavatam work without delay.”

Here Jayadvaita is letting us know that Rayarama, while he was editing Bhagavad-gita, was in constant contact with Srila Prabhupada and was asking many questions about the editing, which Srila Prabhupada was answering. “I have already sent you the purports of each and every sloka that you sent me for correction.” So even with Rayarama’s editing he was asking Prabhupada many questions and Prabhupada was sending him many corrections to his “first draft”. None of these corrections by Srila Prabhupada are present in what Jayadvaita refers to as “the original manuscript.” This alone completely blows away any justification for using this document as any sort of authority, as it does not include the many corrections that Srila Prabhupada made to it while Rayarama was working on editing his Bhagavad-gita.

The real world is quite different from Jayadviata’s imaginary world. Even though the Swami constantly says, “It’s not true!” Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva did work together for almost three months in 1967 editing Bhagavad-gita As It Is, during this period Hayagriva Prabhu was consulting Srila Prabhupada daily on almost every verse in the Bhagavad-gita As It Is. It’s not a myth, it’s history, and this history completely destroys any justification at all for changing Prabhupada’s Gita based on Prabhupada’s first draft of the book (or the “original manuscript”, as the Swami calls it).

If you ask Jayadvaita about this he will lie and tell you: “It could not have happened. Prabhupada and Hayagriva were never living together. It’s an Internet myth…” All lies and deception, unfortunately. It is frightening to think that such a deceptive, dishonest character has been given full authority to change anything at all he wants to change in Prabhupada’s books without any system of checks and balances at all. He can change anything, print the changed books without even disclosing what he has changed. And he smiles and says, “You just have to accept it…”

The proof that Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva worked together daily editing Bhagavad-gita for almost three months in 1967 can be found in Hayagriva Prabhu’s wonderful book, “The Hare Krishna Explosion”:

January 17, 1967: Prabhupada arrives in San Francisco from New York. Hayagriva Prabhu is there to meet him. Prabhupada is still translating Bhagavad-gita and Hayagriva is there with him:

“Swamiji continues translating Bhagavad-gita. He is so eager to print it that we begin negotiations with a local printer. Prices are very high. In New York, Brahmananda continues his pursuit of publishers.”

So Hayagriva is negotiating on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf with a local printer to print Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Finishing his translation of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, working with Hayagriva Prabhu to edit it and getting it printed are clearly the most important projects on Srila Prabhupada’s agenda at this time.

Hayagriva is still in San Francisco on January 29th, two weeks later, for the big concert featuring the Grateful Dead.

Hayagriva is still with Srila Prabhupada in San Francisco in February:

“The days of February are beautiful with perfect temperatures in the seventies, fog rolling off early, skies very blue and clear, sun falling bright and sharp on the lush foliage of Golden Gate Park. The park encloses the largest variety of plant and tree life to be found in any one spot on earth. We are at a loss to identify plants for Swamiji.”

Hayagriva has settled down in the ISKCON San Francisco temple (a storefront near Golden Gate Park) and he is working there:

“I rent an electric typewriter, set it up in the back temple room, and continue typing up stencils for Back To Godhead, writing and editing [Bhagavad-gita] while Harsharani sends people after food, and cooks noon prasadam.”

Hayagriva is the only devotee living in the San Francisco temple and is the “Temple Commander”:

“Being the only person living in the temple proper, and one of the senior devotees besides, I’m naturally looked to as the temple commander, a role I often find myself regretting.”

All this time Hayagriva is living with Srila Prabhupada and his main service is editing Bhagavad-gita:

“Apart from kirtans, I find myself spending many sunny hours in the park, walking past the tennis courts to large, quiet bowers surrounded with hybiscus and eucalyptus. And at times I sit in the shade beneath the white and pink rhododendrons and edit Bhagavad-gita. After editing, I sometimes visit the museum and stroll through the replica eighteenth century gardens, chanting my daily rounds while perusing the curlicues of rococo art.”

Hayagriva is still in San Francisco together with Srila Prabhupada on February 27th. This is now six weeks in the personal association of Srila Prabhupada, working with him editing his Bhagavad-gita As It Is.

He is still there with Srila Prabhupada in March:

“Golden Gate Park is redolent with March flowers. The morning fog disperses early, and the days are cloudless and blue. Thousands continue to flock to San Francisco from the midwest and east, and our Sunday kirtans attract big crowds… On Tuesday evenings, we go to the beach with Swamiji and hold unforgettable Pacific Ocean sunset kirtans. Sitting on the sand, we watch the tide roll in, or chant and wait for the sun to dip below the horizon. After chanting, we roast potatoes and smear them with melted butter. Swamiji eats with us, sitting on a big log. And after potatoes, we roast marshmallows, and red apples stuffed with raisins and brown sugar.”

All throughout this time (now over two months) Hayagriva is working editing Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is, consulting Srila Prabhupada on almost every verse:

“Although I write on the Lord Chaitanya play through the spring days, my primary service is helping Swamiji with Bhagavad-gita. He continues translating, hurrying to complete the manuscript but still annotating each verse thoroughly in his purports. Daily, I consult him to make certain that the translation of each verse precisely coincides with the meaning he wants to relate. “Edit for force and clarity,” he tells me. “By Krishna’s grace, you are a qualified English professor. You know how grammatical mistakes will discredit us with scholars. I want them to appreciate this Bhagavad-gita as the definitive edition. All the others try to take credit away from Krishna.”

“I am swamped with editing. Since much of the text is equivocal due to grammar, I find myself consulting Swamiji on nearly every verse. It seems that in Sanskrit, Hindi, and Bengali, phrase is tacked onto phrase until the original subject is lost.”

March 21: Hayagriva is still in San Francisco working daily with Srila Prabhupada on editing Bhagavad-gita As It Is… So far this is almost nine weeks constantly with Srila Prabhupada…

April 9:

“Swamiji leaves for the airport. Before entering the car, he stops, cane in hand, and gives a long look at the little storefront temple. It is a look that says a great deal. Gurudas snaps a photo at that very instant. ‘That’s a farewell look,’ I think to myself.”

So Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva worked together on editing the Bhagavad-gita daily during the almost three months while Hayagriva Prabhu was living with him in the San Francisco temple, from Janurary 17, 1967 until April 9, 1967.

Jayadvaita Swami [desperately]: “IT JUST DID NOT HAPPEN!!!”

The history is the history. Srila Prabhupada worked on the first draft of Bhagavad-gita As It Is extensively with both Hayagriva Prabhu and Rayarama Prabhu. In the three months Hayagriva went through practically every verse with Srila Prabhupada and Prabhupada also sent many corrections to Rayarama Prabhu later on.

At that time Macmillan were only able to print 400 pages, so Rayarama abridged Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Prabhupada was not happy with this and wanted to publish the complete edition. Hayagriva was again called on by Srila Prabhupada for producing the manuscript, which was submitted to Macmillan for the publication of the complete 1,000 page edition in 1972. At this time there were at least exchanges of letters between Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva and Prabhupada was still giving him many instructions related to the editing and answering the questions he had in regard to the editing.

So Jayadvaita’s “history” that Srila Prabhupada did not work with his disciples on editing Bhagavad-gita is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. It is a dishonest attempt to mislead the devotees and cover-up the real history.

The authoritative edition of Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is is the final published 1972 “Complete Edition.” Not the first draft that Jayadvaita calls the “manuscript.” Srila Prabhupada spent considerable time, energy and effort working with his editors Hayagriva Prabhu and Rayarama Prabhu to take his first draft to the real manuscript — the manuscript which was submitted for publishing to MacMillan.

Changes to the final published book cannot be justified by referring to the first draft. This is a great mistake.

People are not so foolish. The truth is the truth. Eventually Jayadvaita’s smoke and mirrors will stop working and the blind followers will wake up and see the truth.

Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

Your servant,
Madhudvisa dasa

He claims that Mother Govinda dasi was wrong and that she did not ever see Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva working together on Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita. He very much respects his godsister, but still claims she could never have seen this… She is just plain wrong.

And as the master of spin, he has quoted Srila Prabhupada to “prove” that Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva never worked together on the editing of Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita. And what is that quote?

“Recently, Hayagriva came from Columbus, and he remained with me for more than a fortnight. He was assisting me in editing Srimad-Bhagavatam. Now he is married with Syama Dasi and has returned to New Vrindaban with his many responsibilities.”
(Letter to Rupanuga, January 15, 1969)

So Jayadvaita is trying to “spin” this quote where Prabhupada clearly says he and Hayagriva were working together editing Srimad-Bhagavatam to “prove” that Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva did not work together editing the Bhagavad-gita… You have to laugh… or cry. Who could accept this “logic”?

If Prabhupada and Hayagriva were working together at the end of 1968 on the Bhagavatam then surely that would indicate they worked together similarly on the Bhagavad-gita in 1967?

We know that Hayagriva was working on editing the Bhagavad-gita in August of 1967.

Srila Prabhupada’s Letter to Hayagriva, August 29, 1967:

“… am very glad to receive your first letter to me in India. So far Gita is concerned, please get it completed as soon as possible; it must be published now,…”

This work was disturbed by Kirtanananda, who returned from India to New York with a strange philosophy and convinced Hayagriva to go off with him to start another spiritual center that turned out to be the New Vrindavan Farm community. So Hayagriva was out of the picture for a couple of months.

Srila Prabhupada’s Letter to Brahmananda, November 18, 1967:

“As he [Rayarama] is now engaged in finishing Gita Upanisad, it is understood that he cannot work. The editing of Gita Upanisad is already much delayed. I think it was in this month of November last year [1966] my compilation of Gita Upanisad was finished. The editing work was first entrusted with Rayarama, but as he could not finish it the work was transferred to Hayagriva. In this way even within one year the editing work could not be finished. This is not very encouraging. Now it must be finished within three weeks and hand it over to MacMillan Co. Today I shall go to the travel agent’s office for booking my seat and may start by next Monday or Tuesday. In my next letter I shall let you and Mukunda know of my journey from Calcutta to San Francisco, via Bangkok, Hong Kong etc. Hope you are well.”

So we can see Srila Prabhupada finished writing the Bhagavad-gita As It Is in November 1966. Editing was given to Rayarama, who could not complete it, and then editing was transferred to Hayagriva sometime in 1967 [before Prabhupada went to India]. Then Hayagriva left with Kirtanananda for a couple of months and in this time Prabhupada tried to get Rayarama to complete the editing, but it seems again he could not finish it and it was again handed back to Hayagriva to complete.

Srila Prabhupada’s Letter to Hayagriva, March 17, 1968:

“I thank you very much for your letter dated March 9, 1968. I have come back to San Francisco on the 8th March, and while I was in Los Angeles for two months, I received the balance portion of Bhagavad-gita edited by you. I am expecting the foreword also, but I can understand that it was not yet dispatched. So, when it is prepared you can send it to me here in S.F. I am so glad to understand that you are missing the atmosphere of S.F. which you so nicely enjoyed last year, and similarly, I am also missing your company which I enjoyed last year here.

Whenever I go to the class, I remember you, how joyfully you were chanting in the Temple, and whistling the bugle so nicely. Whenever I see the cornet lying idle because nobody can play on this particular instrument, I remember Hayagriva Brahmacari immediately.”

In this very revealing letter we find that Rayarama again did not complete the editing and again the job of finishing the editing of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is was given to Hayagriva, and by sometime in February 1968, Srila Prabhupada received the “balance portion” of Bhagavad-gita edited by Hayagriva. Now Prabhupada is only waiting for the edited foreword to come from Hayagriva and the manuscript will be complete.

The most important point: “I am also missing your company which I enjoyed last year here. Whenever I go to the class, I remember you, how joyfully you were chanting in the Temple, and whistling the bugle so nicely.”

Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva were living together in San Francisco in 1967, which is the time when Hayagriva did most of the Bhagavad-gita editing. So this would be the time when Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva sat together regularly and discussed the editing of Bhagavad-gita As It Is. How can anyone think that in 1967, when Srila Prabhupada had just finished writing his Bhagavad-gita As It Is in December of 1966, and now he was living in San Francisco with Hayagriva Prabhu, that they did not discuss the editing of Bhagavad-gita, which was the most important project in ISKCON at that time?

Hayagriva also remembers, in his Hare Krishna Explosion book, consulting with Srila Prabhupada daily on the editing work for Bhagavad-gita As It Is. How does spin-doctor Jayadvaita Swami deal with this?

“Hayagriva does speak of consulting Srila Prabhupada “daily” throughout the spring of ’67. But Hayagriva’s memory must have been tricking him: In the time he speaks of, he was in San Francisco, Srila Prabhupada in New York.”

Strange. Both Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva and Govinda dasi all remember being together in 1967. But our spin doctor is saying “No no no. It’s not true. It’s not true… Hayagriva imagined it, Govinda dasi imagined it and Prabhupada imagined it…”

Jayadvaita Swami, I think everyone can agree, is great at spinning things. But here he has overstepped all reasonable boundaries. To try and spin Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva working together editing the Bhagavatam and use this to “prove” that Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva did not work together on editing the Bhagavad-gita is JUST TOO MUCH…

And we have the testimony now of Srila Prabhupada, Hayagriva Prabhu and Govinda dasi, who all recall Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva working together daily on the editing of Bhagavad-gita in 1967 in San Francisco.

So the conclusion: Jayadvaita Swami is “just plain wrong…”

One visitor to www.BookChanges.com left a very nice comment a couple of days ago:

Submitted on 2010/08/22 at 8:42am

Dear Prabhujis

I have been listening to this controversy around the edited books, and I would like to make a suggestion/statement. If I had an employee that cost my business one million dollars through a lawsuit that I didn’t win I would fire that employee. Pure and Simple.

His Holiness JaiAdvaita Swami Maharaj should be “put out to pasture” and preach the glories of Lord Caitanya throughout the world. That is his job as a Sanyasi. He is now old like the rest of us, and sufficiently realized in his Krishna Consciousness to have a profound preaching result.

His work as Editor of Srila Prabhupada’s books has now come to an end, and it will cost millions more to reverse this mess. Send him on the road as a senior devotee. Hari Bol!

PS: Dravida’s post does not deserve a reply. We all admit that there are some genuine typographical errors in the Bhagavad-gita and no one is complaining about correcting genuine typographical errors. Dravida is trying to use the tactics Jayadvaita Swami was using ten years ago. We have gone past that stage now. Some of the changes he mentions also should not have been changed. But I am not going to go down that path. For further information, please refer to www.BookChanges.com.

This is a side-by-side comparison of Srila Prabhuapda’s original Macmillan Bhagavad-gita As It Is (on the left hand side) and ISKCON’s “Revised and Enlarged” edition [on the right hand side].

The Macmillan edition comes from the Bhaktivdanta Vedabase 2003 and does contain some scanning errors, occasionally there are words that have characters in them that are incorrect. ISKCON’s Revised and Enlarged edition comes from the Bhaktivedanta Vedabase 3.1.

Because of the way the diff program we used works in some cases we had to make the format of the Sanskrit verses the same in both books, otherwise the diff program would go crazy. Often in the original editon a Sanskrit verse would be quoted on four lines and in ISKCON’s “Revised and Enlarged” edition it is only quoted on two [longer] lines. So to get a clear comparison we have made the Sanskrit verses on the same number of lines in both books. Also sometimes we had to break a paragraph or join a paragraph in one of the books, again so the diff program would give the proper output.

We have only compared the translations and purports for Chapter 1-18. For clarity we have not compared the word-for-word synonyms, even though there are a lot of changes in the synonyms.

Apart from any scanning errors and the slight format adjustments we had to make you will very clearly see all the changes that have been made between the two versions of Srila Prabhuapda’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is in a way that was never possible before.

• Bg 1: Observing the Armies on the Battlefield of Kuruksetra
• Bg 2: Contents of the Gita Summarized
• Bg 3: Karma-yoga
• Bg 4: Transcendental Knowledge
• Bg 5: Karma-yoga-Action in Krsna Consciousness
• Bg 6: Sankhya-yoga
• Bg 7: Knowledge of the Absolute
• Bg 8: Attaining the Supreme
• Bg 9: The Most Confidential Knowledge
• Bg 10: The Opulence of the Absolute
• Bg 11: The Universal Form
• Bg 12: Devotional Service
• Bg 13: Nature, the Enjoyer, and Consciousness
• Bg 14: The Three Modes of Material Nature
• Bg 15: The Yoga of the Supreme Person
• Bg 16: The Divine and Demoniac Natures
• Bg 17: The Divisions of Faith
• Bg 18: Conclusion-The Perfection of Renunciation

This is the “original manuscript” referred to by Jayadvaita Swami which he uses to justify the BBT changes to Srila Prabhuapda’s Gita.

As I have noted elsewhere ISKCON’s New Gita Closer to the Manuscript? Not Really…
this manuscript is not the authority, the published book is the authority. However out of interest we have decided to publish the “original manuscript” also.

The manuscript is presented as .pdf files and can best be viewed with the Adobe PDF viewer which can be downloaded free of charge from www.Adobe.com

• Introduction
• Chapter 1: Observing the Armies on the Battlefield of Kuruksetra
• Chapter 2: Contents of the Gita Summarized
• Chapter 3: Karma-yoga
• Chapter 4: Transcendental Knowledge
• Chapter 5: Karma-yoga-Action in Krsna Consciousness
• Chapter 6: Sankhya-yoga
• Chapter 7: Knowledge of the Absolute
• Chapter 8: Attaining the Supreme
• Chapter 9: The Most Confidential Knowledge
• Chapter 10: The Opulence of the Absolute
• Chapter 11: The Universal Form
• Chapter 12: Devotional Service
• Chapter 13: Nature, the Enjoyer, and Consciousness
• Chapter 14: The Three Modes of Material Nature
• Chapter 15: The Yoga of the Supreme Person
• Chapter 16: The Divine and Demoniac Natures
• Chapter 17: The Divisions of Faith
• Chapter 18: Conclusion-The Perfection of Renunciation

Just imagine if I write a book and find an editor I trust and and give him the service of editing my manuscript for publication. I work with the editor, answering his questions and give him guidance on how to edit the book. Then I supervise all aspects of the production of the book and see and approve of the final blueprint.  When the book is printed, it is that book which is the authorized and authoritative version of my book. Not my first manuscript.

If later on someone finds my first manuscript and notes that there are some differences in the first manuscript to the printed book and he decides to “correct” my book back to my original manuscript he is doing me a great disservice.

The whole idea of having an editor and working with him to produce the final book is to produce something which will be somewhat different from the original manuscript. If Prabhupada wanted to publish his original manuscript, unedited, he could have done that. But, no, he appointed an editor and worked with that editor to produce the final result and he was very happy with the published book.

So the whole justification of the ISKCON book changes is completely wrong. The authoritative version of Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is is the 1972 Macmillan Complete Edition. Not the so-called “original manuscript.” The 1972 Macmillan Complete Edition is the book used by Srila Prabhuapda personally on a daily basis for his reading and for giving all his Bhagavad-gita classes from. Srila Prabhuapda read his whole published Bhagavad-gita As It Is many times and he had his disciples read large sections of it out aloud which he would comment on during class. And these Bhagavad-gita readings with commentaries by Srila Prabhuapda were recored.

In the six years from 1972 to 1977 Srila Prabhuapda only mentioned two or three things he wanted corrected in his Bhagavad-gita As It Is, however at no point did he ever authorize anyone to “revise and enlarge” it. And this fact is openly admitted by the BBT.

Prabhuapda did not give anyone the authority to change his Bhagavad-gita As It Is. But the BBT changed it anyhow. This Prabhuapda referred to as the “American disease.” Change, change, change. This constant change is very destructive to spiritual life.

Understanding this point, that the manuscript is not the authority but the printed 1972 Macmillan “Complete Edition” is, still I was a little interested to see if it was actually true that Jayadvaita’s changes to Bhagavad-gita As It Is, make it closer to the original manuscript. Here are some of the changes I have mentioned in the past[these are the ones from the "108 Changes article"] along with what Jayadvaita Swami calls the “original manuscript.”

This short study clearly shows that although there are some cases where he has “made it closer to the manuscript” in the majority of cases Jayadvaita Swami’s changes are not connected with or supported by the original manuscript at all. And there are so many differences in the manuscript that he does not change. So the manuscript is obviously not the reason for his changes and this defense “I have simply made it closer to the manuscript” is a smokescreen only, an attempt to cover up why he really made these changes.

Bg 2.8 P ORIGINAL 72 GITA:

…they can achieve real happiness only if they consult Krsna, or the Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam–which constitute the science of Krsna–or the bona fide representative of Krsna, the man in Krsna consciousness.

Bg 2.8 P REVISED & ENLARGED:

…they can achieve real happiness only if they consult Krsna, or the Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam–which constitute the science of Krsna–through the bona fide representative of Krsna, the man in Krsna consciousness. This change has absolutely no justification in the manuscript. The original translation follows the original manuscript. Original manuscript says one can be happy if he consults Bhagavad Gita or Srimad Bhagavatam which constitute the science of Krishna from the bona fide representative of Krishna [which means you can achieve real happiness by consulting Bhagavad Gita or Srimad Bhagavatam if it is presented by the bona fide representative of Krishna, so the books are only good if presented by a bond fide representative of Krishna, like Prabhuapda's books are] OR the man in Krishna consciousness. The original translation puts it slightly differently but still comes up with the same conclusion, the same philosophy, howerver JAS is giving us a completely different conclusion. So as far as I can see that “-from the bona fide representative of Krishna” in the manuscript is saying that the books have to be from the bona fide representative of Krishna, and the second part is OR the man in Krishna consciousness. There is no question about the philosophy here. That is correct.The book Bhagavata and the person Bhagavata are the same and one can get the same benefit either from the book Bhagavata or the person Bhagavata. This idea is presented in Prabhupada’s original Gita, but not JAS’s edition. So according to JAS’s presentation you can not get real happiness from the Bhagavatam or Bhagavad-gita book, you can only get this “through the man in Krishna consciousness.” This is a very misleading and philosophically incorrect presentation. The book Bhagavata has to be presented, means written, by the bona fide representative of Krishna, so one can become completely Krishna conscious by reading this book Bhagavata which has been written by the bona fide representative of Krishna. JAS’s translation makes it appear that this is not possible. Therefore it is presenting incorrect philosophy, even though it may seem to be an attempt to make it closer to the original manuscript, he has made the philosophy incorrect.

Bg 2.18 P ORIGINAL:

…The body itself is unimportant. Arjuna was advised to fight and to sacrifice the material body for the cause of religion.

Bg 2.18 P REVISED & ENLARGED:

…The body itself is unimportant. Arjuna was advised to fight and not sacrifice the cause of religion for material, bodily considerations. This change has absolutely no justification in the manuscript. The original translation perfectly follows the manuscript. The original manuscript clearly says “Arjuna was advised to fight without consideration of the material body and sacrifice [it to] the cause of religiosity.” That is exactly what the original translation says with slightly better wording. However what JAS has put is completely meaningless gobbledygook. What on earth does it mean to “fight and not sacrifice the cause of religion for material, bodily considerations???” It is a completely meaningless and confusing statement. Here JAS is clearly tying to change something that appeared in the original manuscript. Original manuscript clearly says Krishna asked Arjuna to fight without consideration of the material body and to sacrifice it to the cause of religiosity. You can not find this anywhere in JAS’s Gita…

Bg 2.25 T ORIGINAL:

It is said that the soul is invisible, inconceivable, immutable and unchangeable. Knowing this, you should not grieve for the body.

Bg 2.25 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

It is said that the soul is invisible, inconceivable and immutable. Knowing this, you should not grieve for the body. This change has absolutely no justification in the manuscript. The word “unchangeable” is clearly there in the manuscript in both the translation and the word-for-word meanings. But JAS has simply deleted it.

Bg 2.30 T ORIGINAL:

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 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

O descendant of Bharata, he who dwells in the body can never be slain. Therefore you need not grieve for any living being. This change has absolutely no justification in the manuscript. This is something of a mystery. You can see the manuscript really does not very closely resemble the original published edition, but more importantly it does not resemble JAS’s changed version either. We can only assume that there was some conversation with Srila Prabhuapda that resulted in this translation. In any case the original editors would have been justified in putting “eternal” into the translation on the basis that the word “nityam” appears in the verse and Srila Prabhuapda translates this to “eternally,” however Jayadvaita can not be justified in removing the word “eternal” from the translation as he says he changes Prabhupada’s translations to match the Sanskrit word-for-word. In this case he has changed the original translation and made it inconsistent with the word-for-word synonyms. There is absolute proof that Srila Prabhuapda accepted this verse, and the inclusion of “eternal” in the translation as it was presented in his original Bhagavad-gita As It Is, and you can read that below. So there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for JAS to remove the word “eternal” from the translation while otherwise keeping the version presented by the editors of the original edition that does not really appear to be very close to the original manuscript anyhow. This one verse is ample proof that JAS is not “making it closer to the original manuscript.” Here his translation is exactly like the Macmillan edition using the “he who dwells in the body can never be slain,” which does not appear in the manuscript, JAS has simply deleted the “is eternal” for reasons only known to him. The “eternal” is in the word-for-word, “nityam,” there is nothing wrong with the original editors putting it in the verse as is very clearly shown by Srila Prabhuapda himself below. It is only necessary to listen to Srila Prabhuapda’s classes to resolve all these points.

“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) So here Srila Prabhuapda clearly confirms that the word eternal (nityam) belongs in this verse. But for some completely unknown reason, not supported by the manuscript, and not supported by Prabhuapda personally, JAS has decided to delete the word eternal…

Bg 2.31 P ORIGINAL:

…Discharging one’s specific duty in any field of action in accordance with varnasrama-dharma serves to elevate one to a higher status of life.

Bg 2.31 P REVISED & ENLARGED:

…Discharging one’s specific duty in any field of action in accordance with the orders of higher authorities serves to elevate one to a higher status of life. I guess here it might be possible to argue that JAS has made it closer to the original manuscript. However my opinion on this is we should respect the original editors and it is not unreasonable to assume that the higher authority is the Varnasrama Dharma system since the whole purport is speaking of this Varnasrama system and the original editor may not have like to have it saying …higher authority… higher status of life. Such things that are philosophically and gramatically correct should not be changed to satisfy some pedantic editor. There is nothing wrong with the original at all.

Bg 2.40 P ORIGINAL:

If someone gives up self-gratificatory pursuits and works in Krsna consciousness and then falls down on account of not completing his work, what loss is there on his part?

Bg 2.40 P REVISED & ENLARGED:

If someone gives up his occupational duties and works in Krsna consciousness and then falls down on account of not completing his work, what loss is there on his part? Here you may be able to make a case that JAS has made it closer to the manuscript. Maybe you could even make a case that this is a valid correction. But you see this is the first one so far and I am being impartial here. I am not just picking out the quotes for this presentation. I am going through ALL the quotes I gave in this “108 Changes” article and I did not look at the manuscript before writing that article.

Bg 2.48 T ORIGINAL:

Be steadfast in yoga, O Arjuna. Perform your duty and abandon all attachment to success or failure. Such evenness of mind is called yoga.

Bg 2.48 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

Perform your duty equipoised, O Arjuna, abandoning all attachment to success or failure. Such equanimity is called yoga. The original translation to this verse has been very clearly approved by Srila Prabhupada personally and considering this to change it and delete points that Prabhuapda has stressed on so strongly is a great mistake and very offensive to Srila Prabhupada. Why the editors do not listen to Srila Prabhuapda’s classes before they butcher his books?

(7) When Tamala Krsna read the verse to Srila Prabhupada in 1968 (681216BG.LA) Prabhupada had this to say:

Tamala Krsna: “Be steadfast in your duty, O Arjuna, and abandon all attachment to success or failure. Such evenness of mind is called yoga.”

Prabhupada: This is the explanation of yoga, evenness of mind. Yoga-samatvam ucyate. If you work for Krsna, then there is no cause of lamentation or jubilation. Jubilation is there because you are working for Krsna, but there is no cause of lamentation. Yoga-sthah kuru karmani, yogah karmasu kausalam. That is the secret of activities, how you can very diligently work at the same time you are not entangled with the actions. That is the secret. Go on. So JAS has completely deleted this “evenneess of mind” from the verse, even though Prabhuapda clearly states that “this is the explanation of yoga, evenness of mind.”???

Bg 2.49 T ORIGINAL:

O Dhananjaya, rid yourself of all fruitive activities by devotional service, and surrender fully to that consciousness. Those who want to enjoy the fruits of their work are misers.

Bg 2.49 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

O Dhananjaya, keep all abominable activities far distant by devotional service, and in that consciousness surrender unto the Lord. Those who want to enjoy the fruits of their work are misers. Here JAS is making it closer to the manuscript and he is backed up by the word-for-word synomyms also. This is perhaps the best example so far but I must admit to having an uncomfortable feeling about this manuscript page that seems to have been typed with two different typewriters. And I do not know how that would be possible?

Bg 2.51 T ORIGINAL:

The wise, engaged in devotional service take refuge in the Lord and free themselves from the cycle of birth and death by renouncing the fruits of action in the material world. In this way they can attain that state beyond all miseries.

Bg 2.51 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

By thus engaging in devotional service to the Lord, great sages or devotees free themselves from the results of work in the material world. In this way they become free from the cycle of birth and death and attain the state beyond all miseries [by going back to Godhead]. Here I guess you could say JAS is making it closer to the manuscript, however Prabhuapda has clearly aproved of the original translation below so JAS’s jumbling of words is completely unnecessary.

Tamala Krsna: “The wise, engaged in devotional service, take refuge in the Lord and free themselves from the cycle of birth and death by renouncing the fruits of action in the material world.”

Prabhupada: Yes. There is purport?

Tamala Krsna: No. There’s a little more to that sloka.

Prabhupada: All right. Finish.

Tamala Krsna: “In this way they can attain that state beyond all miseries.”

Prabhupada: Read it again.

Tamala Krsna: “The wise, engaged in devotional service, take refuge in the Lord and free themselves from the cycle of birth and death by renouncing the fruits of action in the material world. In this way they can attain that state beyond all miseries.”

Prabhupada: How easy it is. You take to Krsna consciousness, you act in Krsna consciousness, you overcome the cycle of birth and death. And as soon as you overcome the cycle of birth and death, you overcome all miseries. Because birth and death means this material body. The living entity, spirit soul, has no birth and death. And anyone who possesses this material body has to undergo the threefold miseries of the material world. A similar passage is there in the Srimad-Bhagavatam. The other day, as I was speaking to you, nunam pramattah kurute vikarma. All these people, they are acting in a way which they ought not to have done. Nunam pramattah. But they are acting as madmen. Why? Yad indriya-pritaya, for satisfaction of the senses. Nunam pramattah kurute vikarma yad indriya-pritaya aprnoti na sadhu manye. This is not good. Because he does not know that he has achieved this material body by working in that way in his previous life. Again he is working in that way. So he’ll have to accept again this material body, therefore he’s miser. He’s not properly utilizing. Go on.

So it’s obvious Srila Prabhupada approved of, accepted and fully authorized the original translation! He had Tamala Krsna read it and agreed, “Yes, there is purport?” Then he had Tamala read it again, “How easy it is…” There is absolutely no hint Srila Prabhupada even considered anyone would dare to change the translation he personally heard twice here and completely agreed with and approved of…

Bg 2.57 T ORIGINAL:

He who is without attachment, who does not rejoice when he obtains good, nor lament when he obtains evil, is firmly fixed in perfect knowledge.

Bg 2.57 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

In the material world, one who is unaffected by whatever good or evil he may obtain, neither praising it nor despising it, is firmly fixed in perfect knowledge.

This is very interesting. Here JAS has made it closer to the manuscript, apparently. But in reality he has completely removed the principle of being without attachment is completely removed from Jayadvaita’s translation.

The manuscript’s “without affection for the good or the evil,” was rendered by the original editor as without attachment for good or evil, which correctly prevents the idea in the manuscript.

However Jayadvaita Swami has changed it to “unaffected by whatever good or evil he may obtain.” This is very different from Prabhuapda’s idea in the manuscript. Being unattached to good or evil or having no affection for good or evil is very different from not being affected by good or evil.

So here we have the strange situation where JAS has made it closer to the original manuscript, apparently, but by word juggelry he has screwed a completely different meaning out of the verse…

Bg 2.61 P ORIGINAL:

The Yoga-sutra also prescribes meditation on Visnu, and not meditation on the void. The so-called yogis who meditate on something which is not the Visnu form simply waste their time in a vain search after some phantasmagoria. We have to be Krsna conscious–devoted to the Personality of Godhead. This is the aim of the real yoga.

Bg 2.61 P REVISED & ENLARGED:

The Yoga-sutra also prescribes meditation on Visnu, and not meditation on the void. The so-called yogis who meditate on something which is not on the Visnu platform simply waste their time in a vain search after some phantasmagoria. We have to be Krsna conscious–devoted to the Personality of Godhead. This is the aim of the real yoga.

This change is completely contrary to the original manuscript. Prabhuapda very clearly twice states one has to meditate on the Visnu FORM in the manuscript and Jayadvaita changes it to the impersonal Visnu PLATFORM.

Just see how he works! He has not even deleted any words at all here! He has just added in “on” and “plat” and see the effect it has! The original says anyone who meditates on something other than the Visnu form is wasting his time, but Jayadvaita has to adjust this as what about the impersonalists? They meditate on the impersonal form, etc… Surely they’re not wasting their time?? So has to change Srila Prabhupada’s purport…

Bg 2.66 T ORIGINAL:

One who is not in transcendental consciousness can have neither a controlled mind nor a steady intelligence, without which there is no possibility of peace. And how can there be any happiness without peace?

Bg 2.66 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

One who is not connected with the Supreme [in Krsna consciousness] can have neither transcendental intelligence nor a steady mind, without which there is no possibility of peace. And how can there be any happiness without peace?

Here the original translation is clear and does not need to be “corrected.” And the “corrections” JAS has done do not come from the manuscript at all.

• He has added “connected with the Supreme” [not in manuscript].
• He has replaced “controlled mind” with “transcendental intelligence” which is in the manuscript but it has nothing to do with the “controlled mind” he replaces it for. He has removed the “controlled mind” altogether and we find “controlled mind” in the manuscript as “fixed mind” .
• Instead of the “controlled mind” or the “fixed mind” he has invented “steady mind” and put that into his new transaction. There is no “steady mind” in the manuscript…

So what is the result of all of Jayadavita’s word juggling here?  “A controlled mind…” In the original we can clearly see there’s no possibility of peace and happiness without a controlled mind, but in Jayadvaita’s translation the mind control has become a “steady mind?” He has also made it very confusing. The meaning is no where near as clear as the original. Who said Jayadvaita was making “better English?” He’s making bewildering English!

Tamala Krsna: 66: “One who is not in transcendental consciousness can have neither a controlled mind nor steady intelligence, without which there is no possibility of peace, and how can there be any happiness without peace?”

Prabhupada: Everyone in this material world, they are after peace, but they don’t want to control the senses. It is not possible. Just like you are diseased, and doctor says that “You take this medicine, you take this diet,” but you cannot control. You are taking anything you like, against the instruction of the physician. Then how you can be cured? Similarly, we want cure of the chaotic condition of this material world, we want peace and prosperity, but we are not ready to control the senses. We do not know how to control the senses. We do not know the real yogic principle of controlling the senses. So there is no possibility of peace. Kutah santir ayuktasya. The exact word is there in the Bhagavad-gita. If you are not engaged in Krsna consciousness, there is no possibility of peace. Artificially, you may try for it. It is not possible. Go on. (681219BG.LA)

Just see! Srila Prabhupada heard this verse personally and immediately he is preaching on the point of sense control! Where does he say “Get Jayadvaita Swami to delete mind control from the translation?” No. He does not say that. He preaches on sense control!

Bg 3.8 T ORIGINAL:

Perform your prescribed duty, for action is better than inaction. One cannot even maintain his physical body without work.

Bg 3.8 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

Perform your prescribed duty, for doing so is better than not working. One cannot even maintain one’s physical body without work.

Here is a case where the original edited translation is perfectly good and true to the manuscript and approved by Srila Prabhuapda himself [see below] and Jayadvaita has changed it to something else that some may say is “closer to the manuscript.” But this is completely unnecessary. The original translation is perfectly good.

This is interesting. Another little “correction.” But Srila Prabhupada heard the original verse many times and never requested that it be “corrected…”

“Perform your prescribed duty, for action is better than inaction. A man cannot even maintain his physical body without work.”

Prabhupada: Krsna never said that “You sit down, lazy.” You must work. And that is intelligence, how to engage a person in some work. That requires governing body. That is intelligence. They should be ready to work, and your intelligence will engage them. And there is sufficient. Why you are constructing so many centers? There is enough work to do. Just like here. All people are coming, and each one can be preached, each one can be convinced of the philosophy. (770121r2.bhu)

There is no indication anywhere that Srila Prabhupada was not satisfied with the original translation AS IT IS…

There are so many more examples. But any thoughtful person can see that:

• The source of many of the changes is not the original manuscript at all.
• Even if there is some difference from the original manuscript that does not mean the book should be changed back to the original manuscript. Prabhupada appointed the original editors and personally supervised and approved of their work.
• The real authorized version of Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is is the published 1972 Macmillan “Complete Edition” NOT the so-called “original manuscript.

All glories to His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada who’se original books will illuminate this dark age of Kali for at least the next 10,000 years.

Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

Your servant

Madhudvisa dasa

The meeting was chared by Brahma Muhurta Prabhu and Jayadvaita Swami and all other important BBT trustees and members were present.

The presentation was well received and the only point that Jayadvaita Swami contested was:

Nobody, except the editor, [Jayadvaita Swami] was aware of the magnitude of the changes.

After a long discussion Jayadvaita Swami admitted that apart from himself there were only two other people in the world who were aware of extent of the changes to Bhagagavad Gita that he had made. Those other two people were Dravida who he showed the manuscript to and the typist who typed the final manuscript to be sent to the printers.

Please study the attached .pdf file.  Restoring Confidence in the BBT.pdf

Topics Covered in Presentation:

• BBT’s Responsibilities
• Current Problems BBT is Facing
• BBT Have No Authority to Make these Changes to Prabhuapda’s Books
• Srila Prabhupada Does Not Want His Books Changed
• Prabhupada Refereed to the Editors as “Rascals” in 1977
• In 1977 Prabhupada Ordered the “Next Printing Should Be The Original Way.”
• BBT Disobeyed This Order. Instead of Printing the Original Way, BBT Started Making Huge Changes to Prabhuapda’s Bhagavad Gita.
• BBT Released the “Revised and Enlarged Edition” of Bhagavad Gita in 1983.
• The Extent of Changes Were Not Revealed to Anyone, Not Even the BBT.
• Types of Changes Made to Bhagavad Gita
• Editor’s Justification of the Changes
• Changes Were Based on the False Premise that the Editor Can Change Anything He Feels Like Changing.
• The Most Famous Change [Bhagavad Gita 4.34]
• Prabhupada’s 1936 Translation of 4.34 Same As Macmillan Gita
• A Small Collection of Changes Clearly Not Approved by Srila Prabhupada
• The Way Forward for the BBT and Increasing Book Distribution

Conclusion:

• These unauthorized, undocumented and unnecessary changes destroy the authority of BBT books
• Such changed books will never be accepted by any thoughtful person as authorative.
• “The next printing should be the original way.”
• The Principle is nothing can be changed. If there is no error in the printed book it should not be changed
• Real typographical errors in the original books can be corrected. But only if there are footnotes notifying the readers of the correction.

Please study the attached .pdf file.  Restoring Confidence in the BBT.pdf

All changes are highlighted in the following pages. This comparison is based on the original & revised versions as they are presented in the Bhaktivedanta Archives Folio. We have not yet verified if the original and revised Cc’s in the folio are exactily the same as the printed books or not.

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Adi-lila

Adi 1: The Spiritual Masters
Adi 2: Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu Is the Supreme Personality of Godhead
Adi 3: The External Reasons for Lord Caitanya’s Appearance
Adi 4: The Confidential Reasons for Lord Caitanya’s Appearance
Adi 5: The Glories of Lord Nityananda Balarama
Adi 6: The Glories of Sri Advaita Acarya
Adi 7: Lord Caitanya in Five Features
Adi 8: The Author Receives the Orders of Krsna and Guru
Adi 9: The Tree of Devotional Service
Adi 10: The Trunk, Branches and Subbranches of the Caitanya Tree
Adi 11: The Expansions of Lord Nityananda
Adi 12: The Expansions of Advaita Acarya and Gadadhara Pandita
Adi 13: The Advent of Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu
Adi 14: Lord Caitanya’s Childhood Pastimes
Adi 15: The Lord’s Pauganda-lila
Adi 16: The Pastimes of the Lord in His Childhood and Youth
Adi 17: The Pastimes of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu in His Youth

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Madhya-lila

Madhya 1: The Later Pastimes of Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu
Madhya 2: The Ecstatic Manifestations of Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu
Madhya 3: Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s Stay at the House of Advaita Acarya
Madhya 4: Sri Madhavendra Puri’s Devotional Service
Madhya 5: The Activities of Saksi-gopala
Madhya 6: The Liberation of Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya
Madhya 7: The Lord’s Tour of South India
Madhya 8: Talks Between Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Ramananda Raya
Madhya 9: Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s Travels to the Holy Places
Madhya 10: The Lord’s Return to Jagannatha Puri
Madhya 11: The Beda-kirtana Pastimes of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu
Madhya 12: The Cleansing of the Gundica Temple
Madhya 13: The Ecstatic Dancing of the Lord at Ratha-yatra
Madhya 14: Performance of the Vrndavana Pastimes
Madhya 15: The Lord Accepts Prasada at the House of Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya
Madhya 16: The Lord’s Attempt to Go to Vrndavana
Madhya 17: The Lord Travels to Vrndavana
Madhya 18: Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s Visit to Sri Vrndavana
Madhya 19: Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu Instructs Srila Rupa Gosvami
Madhya 20: Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu Instructs Sanatana Gosvami in the Science
Madhya 21: The Opulence and Sweetness of Lord Sri Krsna
Madhya 22: The Process of Devotional Service
Madhya 23: Life’s Ultimate Goal–Love of Godhead
Madhya 24: The Sixty-One Explanations of the Atmarama Verse
Madhya 25: How All the Residents of Varanasi Became Vaisnavas

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Antya-lila

Antya 1: Srila Rupa Gosvami’s Second Meeting With the Lord
Antya 2: The Chastisement of Junior Haridasa
Antya 3: The Glories of Srila Haridasa Thakura
Antya 4: Sanatana Gosvami Visits the Lord at Jagannatha Puri
Antya 5: How Pradyumna Misra Received Instructions from Ramananda Raya
Antya 6: The Meeting of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Raghunatha dasa Gosvami
Antya 7: The Meeting of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Vallabha Bhatta
Antya 8: Ramacandra Puri Criticizes the Lord
Antya 9: The Deliverance of Gopinatha Pattanayaka
Antya 10: Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu Accepts Prasada from the Devotees
Antya 11: The Passing of Haridasa Thakura
Antya 12: The Loving Dealings Between Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Jagadananda
Antya 13: Pastimes with Jagadananda Pandita and Raghunatha Bhatta Gosvami
Antya 14: Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s Feelings of Separation from Krsna
Antya 15: The Transcendental Madness of Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu
Antya 16: Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu Tastes Nectar from the Lips of Lord Sri Krsna
Antya 17: The Bodily Transformations of Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu
Antya 18: Rescuing the Lord from the Sea
Antya 19: The Inconceivable Behavior of Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu
Antya 20: The Siksastaka Prayers

In 2004 I attended the Mayapur Festival for the first time in many years in 2004 as I had some service to do there for ITV [ISKCON television].

Jayadvaita Swami was chasing me at mangal aroti and whenever he saw me walking around the temple grounds. I was avoiding him, but finally he aproached me and said rather roughly “I want to talk to you!”

He wanted me to go to his room but I said it is nice here, why not talk here in the park? He didn’t like that idea but we talked for a while there. He was very rough, demanding that he is a senior devotee. He told me that I should surrender to him and accept whatever he has done to Srila Prabhuapda’s books, he demanding that I take down all my websites and publish widely letters apologizing to him and endorsing his “Revised and Enlarged” versions of Srila Prabhupada’s books.

All the time he was saying “come to my room…” So finally, out of curiosity as to what he had in store for me in his room, I did.

When we got to his room all hell broke loose. He was screaming and shouting “shithead, shithead, shithead… why don’t you accept me as your authority… Take down all your websites.” He was so crazy I really was very shocked. He was pounding me with his fists and kicking me and hitting the walls and kicking the furniture around all the time to the “shithead, shithead, shithead” mantra. And sometimes he would become tired and lie down on his bed to re-gather his energy.

It is not that he physically hurt me. His punches were very light and I could hardly feel his kicks. I did not end up with any bruises or anything. But it was really an amazing sight to see…

I was just sitting there chanting Hare Krishna completely stunned. I had no idea at all that JAS was so crazy. There is no question in my mind now, he is completely insane. He is supposed to be a swami, one who is the master of his senses but his is completely out of control. He let me know in no uncertain terms that it was only because of three crazy devotees that his book editing was ever challenged. He named them: Kirtanananda, Hansadutta and me. He told me for years he has been trying to destroy my preaching. We saw that recently in LA. He tried to poison so many devotees against me. Yadubara and many others. But somehow his actions have not had much effect.

Ultimately I left his room, completely shocked. I could never believe he would act like this. He was still waving his arms around “shithead, shithead, shithead.” Anyhow he is very afraid of Hansadutta Prabhu and by Krishna’s arrangement Bhakti Charu Swami paid Hansadutta’s airfare to Mayapur to give him some inspiration for the animation project he plans to start in Mayapur. He arrived here the morning after JAS’s “shithead, shithead, shithead” explosion.

Hansadutta said the first person he saw here was JAS when he saw him he looked like he had seen a ghost. JAS tried to attack Hansadutta, that he [JAS] was a BBT trustee. That is as far as he got and Hansadutta completely demolished him. So we have not seen JAS since them. How on earth can ISKCON have such crazy people in such high positions. It is insane. Hansadutta says I should have recorded it and posted it on the internet then everyone could see what sort of “swami” he is.

JAS admitted finally during the “shithead, shithead” conversation that there was never a complete list of the changes to the Gita circulated to the devotees. Only a list of changes to the translations. He also admitted and we know it that the changes to the purports are “very extensive.” And to this day the only person who is aware of these extensive changes to Prabhupada’s purports is JAS. No one else has ever seen them or knows what they are or review them. He also expressed his disgust that Prabhupada’s original books are being printed and distributed and said, “It’s only the ritviks who are buying them.” [which is of course competely untrue. There is nothing that unites the devotees of all camps more than everyone's desire to read Srila Prabhupada's original books...]

Please see the following email exchange with Jayadvaita Swami where he admits that all I have said above is true.

For the record, since this meeting, Jayadvaita has been a perfect gentleman and “very sweet” to me. Always praising my determination and dedication to Srila Prabhupada… But I think this is only a show… Deep down in his heart he still does not like me very much…

From Madhuvisa:

Dear Sir, (Jayadvaita is addressing me as “Sir”?)

> I humbly admit I found it uncomfortable that you yelled at me so much tonight, calling me so many bad names and overall was very rough with me.

You deserved it. And more…

> We are both followers of Srila Prabhupada and we may have different opinions on some points but we should be able to meet in a gentlemanly manner.

You’re twenty years my junior. You claim to be a brahmacari, and I am a sannyasi. You were initiated (if at all) ten years later than me.

And yet you think you’re perfectly within your rights to broadcast to the whole world, “Jayadvaita Swami [is] disobeying Srila Prabhupada’s direct order that he should not change a word in his books” (an order, of course, that Srila Prabhupada never gave me). And still, after publishing this and other such thoroughly rude insults, you somehow believe you’re entitled to be treated “in a gentlemanly manner.” Hmmm. . .

> You are asking me to apologize but I would humbly request some sort of apology from you also. You called me “shit head” so many times, I really do not think that is appropriate.

You’re right. I apologize [for calling you "s...head"]. If I’d used Srila Prabhupada’s language, I would have said you have cow dung for brains.

> I understand you are upset about some of the things I have posted on the net, but on close examination you will find that every posting contains a significant point which we need to consider.

And lots of garbage we don’t. And, by the way, you don’t raise any points that BBT editors and consultants with much finer discretion than you haven’t considered already….

> Just on the few changes we looked at tonight you admitted to three errors you have introduced into the new version and surely if one did a through study there would be many hundreds of new errors.

Two, if I recall. Both of them petty. And I didn’t admit that I introduced them. If you’d been listening, you might have heard that I didn’t know whether the errors were mine or those of a typist.

> The point of my website is to show that in so many ways the philosophy presented in your “Revised and Enlarged” Gita differs substantially from Prabhupada’s original Bhagavad-gita As It Is. And you accept that. I accept that in some cases you have recovered missing things, etc. But overall I can not personally put my faith in your “Revised and Enlarged” Gita and so many devotees feel like this.

I am not in need of your faith, sir. Put it wherever you’d like.

> Your “Revised and Enlarged” Gita rests on your authority. You have decided what to change and what not to change and as we saw there are so many things you could have changed, but have chosen not to, therefore it is all according to your opinion. You have decided what to change and what not to change.

Son, *every* editor decides what to change and what not to change. And your complaint seems to be that my opinions differ from yours. Your opinion is that perhaps fifty of the revisions are justified, the rest not…. Should I feel crushed? Yes, after due deliberation and consultation, I decided what to change and what not to change….

> The point I have made is this is a very dangerous precedent for the future. We have to preserve the original teachings of Srila Prabhupada. And the original Macmillan Gita was accepted by Prabhupada, he did not request anyone to reedit it. That is the main point. If Prabhupada wanted his books reedited that would be a different matter.

> TKG put this question to Srila Prabhupada in the rascal editors conversation, “Can JAS go through and reedit the books?” and Prabhupada’s conclusion was, “No, the next printing should be the original way.” So that is a clear order from Srila Prabhupada NOT to reedit the books. Your interpretation of this is not honest. The original way clearly means the original way the books were printed.

Not honest? Dear Mr. Honesty: I’m sitting here in front of my VedaBase, and I’ll be hog-tied if I see anywhere in that conversation, “Can JAS go through and reedit the books?” You can take your brand of honesty and shove it.

> I think you are a little unfair in so heavily criticizing the articles I have written,

I haven’t criticized them heavily enough.

> Hopefully when we meet again it can be on more gentlemanly terms.

Hopefully when we meet again you will deserve it.

> I am not anything special but I am sincerely trying to serve Srila Prabhupada with all my energy and I do not really find it very comfortable if you just want to yell at me and call me names.

Oh, you’re uncomfortable, are you? Dear, dear! You can dish out insults to your seniors in public, but when your seniors dish it out to you in private, you can’t take it. Poor baby!

> What is the point of this? My points are valid, and you have agreed to that, you have agreed to three errors in just the few verses we looked at tonight, so I humbly submit that all the faults are not on my side. You have to admit that there are some faults on your side also then we can make some progress.

Sir, I don’t have to negotiate with you. You can make progress on your own.

…

Hare Krsna. Yours in Srila Prabhupada’s service, Jayadvaita Swami

[I have deleted some text and the blue  is by me - Madhudvisa dasa]

Regarding your proposed program of editing, the Bhagavatam First Canto is already edited, so when making final typing, you shall simply see it for proofreading. (Letter to Rayrama 15-May-69) This is NOT a comprehensive list!

• Sense Control, Regulative Principles, etc
  • Constant Practice
  • Controling the Mind and Senses
• Mode of Goodness
  • Acting in Goodness Leads to Knowledge?
  • Acting in Goodness Purifies One?
• Fruitive Activities
  • Give Up Fruitive Activities?
  • Renouncing Fruits of Action?
  • Devotees are Not Anxious for Fruitive Rewards?
• Mayavadis, Jnanis and Yogis…
  • Sat-Cakra-Yoga?
  • Reading Many Books?
  • Void Philosophy Causes Frustration?
  • Without Humility Understanding is Harmful?
  • Meditation On Other Than the Visnu Form?
• Spiritual Master
  • Many Spiritual Masters?
  • Not through the Independent Study of Books…
  • Spiritual Master Can Drive Away All Nescience?
• More palitable for the public?
  • Fighting for Krishna?
  • Material Existence is Suffering Only?
  • Sacrificing the Material Body For the Sake of Religion?
  • The Soft Line for Ksatriyas
  • Devotees are Liberated and Their Minds are Peaceful?
  • Brahmacaris Are Austere and Simple?
  • Devotees Should Live Simply?
  • “Faithfulness” is one of the Opulences of a Woman?
• Philosophy
  • The Changeless Soul?
  • Brahma is the “creator god”?
  • We Can’t Create Matter From Nothing? And “Krishna is the supreme creator of all individual souls? “
  • “OM” Eminates From Krishna?
• Various
  • Swans “Digging into” the Lotus Flower?
  • What Happened to the Purport?
  • Brahma has 4, 8, 16, 32, etc heads?

Please read these changes completely as they give a very good insight into the types of things ISKCON and the BBT are deleting from Srila Prabhupada’s books. They have their own agenda and they want to change the philosophy that is presented in Srila Prabhupada’s books and by carefully studying the changes they are making you can gradually understand their demoniac agenda….

The original edition was more or less a transcript of the original conversation. It was edited, of course, to make the English clear and correct and to make it readable. But basically it remained a transcript of the original conversation.

The 1993 version changes all of this. The book is slashed from 99 pages to 77 pages! And the type is not even smaller! So much has been cut out. In one place four complete pages have been deleted!

All the text has been heavily edited and the whole mood of the book has been completely changed. We have not done anything below about the editing, we have just pointed out a few pieces of text (shown in bold) that have been completely deleted from the new edition.