At this point, the so-called second edition might well provoke our curious investigator to browse the Internet a bit, as he is inclined to do, where he would find out that “revised” also means “omitted”. For example, the Forward, by a distinguished professor, as well as thirty color plates were omitted!

“Hm… apparently the second edition is not as complete as the first. That’s interesting… and look at this: there’s some articles here that demonstrate how the second edition has also been interpolated, reinterpreted. Hm… very interesting.” Etc.

This scenario is not far-fetched. There are a lot of intelligent people out there, especially those with some education, who approach their reading material in a discerning way. For example, in his article, “The Last Days of School“, Bhakta Philip, a champion book distributor, tells how, when he approached a student the student asked, “Are these the edited ones?”

The student explained, “A while ago there were some other people here passing out some books and I looked in the front and it said ‘REVISED’ in it and so I handed it back to them. I told them I don’t want an edited version, I want the original thing!” Bhakta Philip happily explained how all the titles he carried were original editions, and the student took one of each and made a nice donation.

Yes! All power to Sriman Bhakta Philip, as well as Mahajana das, Murti das, Brahmabhuta das, Raghava Caitanya das, Madhudvisa das and others around the world committed to distributing the real thing from Srila Prabhupada’s free press, Krishna Books, Inc.

Srila Prabhupada included the heading “Complete Edition” on the face page of his Gita. The so-called 2nd edition replaces that statement with the words, “2nd Edition, Revised and Enlarged.” “Complete Edition” certainly means definitive. Let the so-called second edition, which bears scant resemblance to the first, keep the self-incriminating phrase “revised and enlarged.” Very good! It helps to distinguish between the real thing and the other thing.

To know what that gold is, one has to first study Srila Prabhupada’s books and recordings (he called his books “recorded sound”). However, there is a popular propaganda that, in any case, one must hear from a “living (diksa) guru” for real spiritual benefits or advancement, or that listening to Srila Prabhupada’s recordings or studying his books without hearing from a “living guru” is insufficient. Or that reading his books is not the same as associating with Srila Prabhupada directly. In other words, since Srila Prabhupada is not still living, one must have a living guru. As one of his disciples used to say, “You cannot get to Srila Prabhupada except through me.”

These ideas started appearing in ISKCON just after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance in 1977. The bonafide agenda for the GBC at that time was to lead the Movement, immersed in bereavement, from its dependence upon both Srila Prabhupada-vapu and vani to a singular dependence upon Srila Prabhupada-vani. This was a lesson Srila Prabhupada had been teaching for years: Prabhupada-vapu is temporary, destined to disappear, but Srila Prabhupada-vani would go on. Srila Prabhupada wrote in his dedication of the Srimad Bhagavatam about Srila Bhaktisiddhanta: “He lives forever by his divine instructions and the follower lives with him.” The same is true of our Srila Prabhupada.

Unfortunately, the eleven rtvik appointees (half the GBC at that time), claimed an exclusive right to be spiritual masters, and immediately began giving second initiation to their Godbrothers and sisters who hadn’t been able to receive it from Srila Prabhupada before he disappeared. So, instead of leading the natural transition from Srila Prabhupada-vapu to Srila Prabhupada-vani, the transition was to enthrone new “vapus“, or living gurus. The transition continues as an integral part of the general metamorphosis of the International Society for Krsna Consciousness.

An interesting interpolation in the purport of Bhagavad-gita 4.34, 1983 revised edition, illustrates how the “living guru” concept and minimizing the transcendental potency of Srila Prabhupada’s words go hand in hand. The original purport, 1st Edition reads:

“Therefore, mental speculation or dry arguments cannot help one progress in spiritual life. One has to approach a bonafide spiritual master to receive the knowledge.”

And the revised version purport reads:

“Therefore, mental speculation or dry arguments cannot help lead one to the right path. Nor by independent study of knowledge can one progress in spiritual life.”

Now even if, as they often claim, this additional wording was purloined by the editors from a previous draft of the manuscript submitted to Macmillan, it is not applicable to Srila Prabhupada’s books and was better edited out. In fact, the independent, serious study of Srila Prabhupada’s books of knowledge guarantee advancement in spiritual life! Because reading Srila Prabhupada’s purports is approaching the bonafide spiritual master. The whole point of distributing those books is to get people to read them and experience spiritual enlightenment. As Srila Prabhupada writes in his Preface to the Srimad Bhagavatam (1ast Ed.): “The reading matter is so arranged… that one is sure to become a God realized soul at the end of finishing the first nine cantos.” And in the Krsna Book Introduction (1st Ed.), he explains that when people who are after sex life in this material world read “…about Krsna’s pastimes with the gopis, they will relish transcendental pleasure, although it appears to be materialistic.” Actually, the potency or power of Srila Prabhupada-vani to revive Krsna consciousness, rasabhavamrita, is proving inconceivable.

The idea that one must have a living diksa guru to understand Krsna consciousness from Srila Prabhupada appears to be a scam. The fact is that reading or hearing from Srila Prabhupada is associating with the most bonafide spiritual master, the best spiritual master, at whose pada (lotus feet) all other prabhus pay obeisances. And reading his books is directly associating with him and equal in power to hearing in his physical presence.

In a lecture in Bombay on December 6, 1974, Srila Prabhupada said, referring to sastras, “Only highly qualified brahmins, they used to keep hand-written. And it was worshipped in the temple as Deity sastra. Not that it was available anywhere. Now press has made it very cheaper. But we should always understand that grantah or the scripture should be worshipped as God. That is sound incarnation of God. It should not be neglected. Don’t neglect Bhagwat, Bhagavad-gita as ordinary books. You must be very careful. So, as you take care of the Deities, so take care of the books also.”

The conclusion is that in the same way Lord Krsna is identical with His words in the Gita, even though He spoke them long ago, Srila Prabhupada is actually present in his purports, even though he is no longer physically present. And those purports are as much sastra as the verses they explain. Those books are as good as Deities in the temple. They are not the playthings of editors, but the literary incarnations of God and His most confidential servants. Therefore, they must be approached with all respect and reverence.

Srila Prabhupada’s books and recordings are a consistent and constant source of revelation for anyone who follows him. If one is able to follow Srila Prabhupada’s instructions to chant 16 rounds, follow the four regulative principles, systematically study his teachings and then help others do the same, that person will undoubtedly remember Lord Krsna at the time of death. Such a bhakta may be unable to discover a guru fully qualified to give diksa and specific name. Those who factually meet the standards required by Srila Prabhupada to become a genuine spiritual master may be few and far between. But by honestly and seriously accepting Srila Prabhupada as siksa guru, anyone can obtain freedom from the material conception of life, be inspired to action in Krsna consciousness, and learn to think of Srila Prabhupada and Lord Krsna always.

One way to consider whether the revisions published in the 1983 version of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is were necessary is to make a side-by-side comparison of those revisions with the first edition text as published by Macmillan Co. in 1972. It was that text or manuscript to which Srila Prabhupada affixed his seal of approval: “I have received your letter dated May 26, 1972, along with the blue-print copies of Bhagavad-gita As It Is from the Macmillan Company. It is very nice. So I shall be looking forward to seeing the entire manuscript and book sometime around first July, 1972.” (Letter to Jayadvaita, May 28, 1972) Macmillan had previously published a heavily abridged paperback edition, and as Srila Prabhupada later wrote: “I was not very happy, therefore, when I had to minimize our original manuscript.” (Preface, 1972 edition) He was glad to see that Macmillan was publishing his entire manuscript in book form at last.

Srila Prabhupada had been closely monitoring both the preparation of the manuscript and the contract with Macmillan. On February 9, 1972 he had written: “I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 9, 1972, along with the two copies of the Macmillan Co. contract. As per your instructions I have initialed same wherever your own initials have appeared. I noticed that in the carbon copy contract, you neglected to initial the last clause (b) of section XX Special Provisions, although you had done so on the original copy. In addition I have the phrase to XII Competative Material as follows, “as well as the 48 pages of illustrations for which the Author reserves the right to publish for any purpose he may determine…” (Letter to Rupanuga, February 22, 1972).

This letter illustrates Srila Prabhupada’s supervision of details. Another example, regarding the purposes in the 1972 manuscript being prepared for Macmillan: “So far changing the wording in the verse or purport of 12:12 as described before, it may remain as it is.” (Letter to Jayadvaita, March, 1972) Interestingly, three words in that purport to 12:12, last, regulated and state, were changed against these instructions – after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance – during the revision process.

Srila Prabhupada commented in Vrndavan (June 27, 1977), “What can I do? Ultimate, it goes for editorial. They make changes, such changes.” Obviously, Srila Prabhupada is referring here to unnecessary changes out of his control, not all changes. Editing means to make changes, but everyone makes mistakes particular to their service, and the particular mistake that editors tend to commit is the unnecessary changes or hyper-editing of content. And in this case – the 1983 Gita revisions – without the author’s option to review any changes while he was present.

Therefore, notwithstanding the sworn Internet testimonials of various ISKCON officials or reviewers, the technique of rummaging previous drafts or tapes to justify all the changes in a printed book appears dubious – in the absence of a clear directive for such a procedure from the author, Srila Prabhupada.

Be that as it may, in Srila Prabhupada’s absence a side-by-side comparison of purports from the two editions can be made by the light of his clear instructions: “Our editing is to correct grammar and spelling errors only, without interpolation of philosophy or style.” (Letter to Rupanuga, 1970) Also, Srila Prabhupada had warned the original editor of his 1972 manuscript, Hayagriva das, that he should be careful not to make needless changes in Srila Prabhupada’s purports, his “personal ecstasies.”

Random House’s authoritative Webster’s College Dictionary (2005 ed.) defines interpolation: ‘to introduce (something additional or extraneous) between other things or parts; interject; interpose; to alter (a text) by the insertion of new matter, esp. deceptively or without authorization to insert (new, or spurious matter) in this manner.”

The following two columns of excerpts are from purports only, example arranged in a way to make a simple comparison between the two editions. It’s up to the reader to judge by the result whether Srila Prabhupada’s instructions are followed in these revisions of his “personal ecstasies.” ‘Personal ecstasies’ mean that Srila Prabhupada is giving vijnana or realized knowledge. As he said, “My purports are liked by people because it is presented as practical experience.” (May 23, 1977, Vrindavan)

(An analysis of examples of interpolations will follow in Part II)

[NOTE: My appreciations to Sriman Praghosa das, the renowned book distributor, for these purport excerpts from his email to Madhuvisa das on 3/12/98. Thank you very much.]

The editors of the 1983 revised Gita did not believe that they actually interpolated philosophy or style.* Their idea was to improve both translations and purports by transposing and clarifying portions of old manuscripts, etc. existing prior to the one finally submitted to Macmillan in 1972. Truly, many of the grammatical, spelling, format and historical inaccuracies corrected in the revision would have been approved by Srila Prabhupada himself had he been consulted.

Be that as it may, Srila Prabhupada never instructed anyone to use a procedure of re-visiting and researching old manuscripts or dictations to revise future printings of his first editions. On the other hand, recordings made from 1972 until 1977, six years, demonstrate how Srila Prabhupada often personally read excerpts from the Gita in classes, room conversations, engagements, etc. Many times he also instructed devotees present to read aloud as he listened. There is no evidence indicating that he ordered extensive revisions for the next printing. As the current chief editor wrote; “To my knowledge, Srila Prabhupada never asked us to re-edit the book.” ( letter to Amogha Lila, July, 1986 ) .

Interestingly enough, none of the scholars, educators, professors and other reviewers of the Gita called for it either. From 1972 until 1983 we don’t find requests from professionals for a revision to a higher standard. Nor do we hear any demand from devotees in general for such a thorough revision. In fact, the editors state in “A Note About the Second Edition” found in the BBT revised editions: “Yet their effort to publish Srila Prabhupada’s work was a success, and the Bhagavad-gita As It Is has become the standard edition for scholars and devotees around the world.” Still, after eleven years of documented success, the Gita was extensively re-worked. Why? What is the reason?

The editors continue their explanation: “For this second edition, however, Srila Prabhupada’s disciples had the benefit of having worked with his books for the last fifteen years. The English editors were familiar with his philosophy and language, and the Sanskrit editors were by now accomplished scholars. And now they were able to see their way through perplexities in the manuscript by consulting the same Sanskrit commentaries Srila Prabhupada consulted when writing Bhagavad-gita As It Is. The result is a work of even greater richness and authenticity… In places the translations, though already correct, have been revised to come closer to the original Sanskrit and Srila Prabhupada’s original dictations…”

The editors are claiming the benefit of 15 years work, which would mean 1968 until 1983, the year of the revision. However, the value of those benefits is uncertain, because in June, 1977 Srila Prabhupada severely chastised the editors for changes to his Isopanisad and Bhagavatam. He described the editors as rascals (a term he usually reserved for atheists, material scientists and politicians), and called them “dangerous” at least six times in ten minutes of discussion. Just five months before his disappearance, Srila Prabhupada made this a major issue for the Society.

The same basic issue came up in 1983 and has continued more or less for the last 25 years. But for us, now, who will decide who is right and who is wrong? One side says “responsible editing,” the other says “irresponsible, unauthorized, etc.” But who is right and who is wrong? Who will decide?

So now we must come to the point of reason. Is it reasonable to conclude that just five or six years after deserving that 1977 chastisement, editors could have emerged as “accomplished scholars” –by 1983? One editor escaped chastisement. Still, isn’t six years a short time for everyone to turn up as “accomplished scholars?” But even if all the editors had been studying Sanskrit for 30 years by 1983, is it plausible that such editors could be able to dive into the superexcellent depths of Sanskrit revelation, and come up with an understanding of it’s complexities—the same complexities—understood by previous acaryas? Was this the prerogative of such disciples, that they could be “able to see their way through perplexities in the manuscript by consulting the same Sanskrit commentaries Srila Prabhupada consulted when writing the Bhagavad-gita As It Is? Is it possible?

And further, “In places the translations, though already correct, have been revised to come closer to the original Sanskrit…” Here the implication is that the editors in 1983, whoever they were, thought they could interpret the original Sanskrit texts comparatively as well as Srila Prabhupada himself, or at least well enough to put their new realizations in his book under his name. And, that they could understand the same complexities understood by previous acaryas (presumably Sridhar Swami et. al.) simply by using the same Sanskrit commentaries Srila Prabhupada used. Is this credible? Is it reasonable to conclude that such editors were capable of producing “a work of even greater richness and authenticity?” Or that translations “already correct” could have been revised to even more correctness by them? Was all this perfection really possible by 1983?

May be, if they had received authorizations and blessings from Srila Prabhupada in 1977 before he disappeared, but that didn’t happen. It is known from that recorded conversation of June, 1977, that when Tamal Krsna suggested to Srila Prabhupada Jayadwaita check any changes before reprinting, Srila Prabhupada countered: “But they are doing without any authority!” In other words, no need for Jayadwaita to become an inspector of changes because nobody was authorized to make such changes in the first place! Tamal had already said to Srila Prabhupada: “Your original work that you’re doing now, that is edited by Jayadwaita. That’s the first editing.” Srila Prabhupada had answered, “He is good.”

So Srila Prabhupada, in the midst of all the turmoil, made it clear that he was satisfied with Jayadwaita’s work. Yet a “first editing” is entirely different from re-editing an already finished or printed work, which is what the others were doing. Srila Prabhupada never authorized anyone, including Jayawaita or Pradyumna to do that with the Bhagavad-gita then or in the future.

The extent of Srila Prabhupada’s disappointment in this matter can not be underestimated. He said, after being informed of the changes in the Isopanisad, “I know what these rascals are doing. What can be done? How they can be relied on?” And later, “It is starting. What can I do? These cannot…These rascals cannot be educated. Dangerous. Little learning, dangerous…What can I do? Ultimate it goes for editorial…”

In the 3^rd Canto (3.4.26), Srila Prabhupada writes, “Although one may be well versed in transcendental science, one should be careful about the offense of maryada-vyatikrama, or impertinently surpassing a greater personality. According to scriptural injunction one should be very careful of transgressing the law of maryada-vyatikrama because by so doing one loses his duration of life, his opulence, fame and piety and the blessings of all the world. To be well versed in the transcendental science necessitates awareness of the techniques of spiritual science.”

At this point the significant question emerges: Has maryada-vyatikrama, impertinently surpassing a greater personality, occurred in the process of editing and reprinting Srila Prabhupada’s books? It certainly had by 1977, according to the momentous June 22^nd, 1977 room conversation about changes to the Isopanisad and Srimad Bhadavatam. Six years later, considering the exaggerated claims in the “Note About the Second Edition” and the extreme content-editing of the text, it appears to have occurred again in the 1983 “Revised and Enlarged” version of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is.

Vaisnava etiquette demands that Srila Prabhupad’s disciples, grand-disciples, et. al. always think themselves fools in front of Srila Prabhupada. But, unfortunately, sometimes some of them forget that, and dare to rush in where angels fear to tread.

* “Our editing is to correct grammar and spelling errors only, without interpolation of style or philosophy.” ( Srila Prabhupada, 02/17/70 )

Maybe Srila Prabhupada’s grand-disciples aren’t revisionists at heart. Maybe Srila Prabhupada’s books as revised by BBTI haven’t inspired them?! Maybe they’d get the taste enjoyed by the old book distributors if they had the chance.

The original BBT is still around, but in a new dress, called KBI. Do this math: same books + same author = same distribution. But it’s all about the manpower.

Hare Krsna

All Glories To Srila Prabhupada

Two Editions of TLC Compared

The 1968 edition of the Teachings of Lord Caitanya (TLC) was last printed by BBT in 1972.  Its content and words are substantially different from the 1974 BBT (USA) edition and subsequent revisions.  Over 100 pages of the 1968 first printing and the 1974 edition were compared.  Nearly 12,000 words were deleted from one third of the first edition, the equivalent of 24 full pages of text.  At this rate,  the total number of deleted words for the entire book is estimated at 33,000, the equivalent of 66 full pages of text missing from a book 310 pages long.  Substantial information and philosophy was deleted along with the thousands of words.  Clearly, the 1968 first edition contains substantial content not found in the 1974 edition and subsequent revisions.

Method of Counting Deleted Words

How were deleted words determined?  The 1968 and 1974 editions were compared word for word, sentence by sentence. Words that appeared in the first edition but were deleted (omitted) from the 1974 edition were marked as deleted words.  Great care was taken not to count words that were rearranged in the same sentence or which appeared in another nearby sentence or paragraph.  Words that were changed for spelling, capitalization or punctuation were not counted as deleted words.  Words for citation references that were changed to the standard format were not counted as deleted words.  In the following example, none of the words were counted as deleted words:

1968: Srimad Bhagwatam, Tenth Canto, Ninth Chapter, 12th Verse

1974: (Bhag. 10.9.12)

Deleted words were counted whether or not the words were replaced by other words.  In the following example, the words “you” and “I” were counted as deleted from the first edition even though they were replaced by substitutes in the 1974 edition.

“It is not displayed by you or I” (1968, p.1)

“It is not displayed by man or any other creature.” (1974, p. 1)

Results for TLC

The results were extensive.  In 112 pages, 11,831 words were deleted.  In the Introduction alone, 3695 words were deleted from 18 pages, the equivalent of 7.4 full pages of text.  Approximately 40% of the total words were deleted from the Introduction.  In the paragraph describing the ten offenses to the Holy Name, 218 words were deleted out of 524 total words, meaning that 42% of the words in this paragraph were deleted (1968, p. 27-28).

Analysis of the Content of Deleted and Inserted Words

The content of deleted words was examined.  Many deleted phrases, sentences and paragraphs contained information, standards and philosophy that were not rewritten or relocated in the 1974 edition, i.e., they were deleted completely from the book.  The following are examples of deleted information, standards and philosophy; the deleted words are in bold type.

Examples of deleted information include:

1. “Other devotees had approached Chaitanya and asked Him to forgive Junior Haridas, but Chaitanya replied, ‘You all go live with him and forgive him. I’ll stay alone.‘” (1968, p. 3)

2. “…Brahma created the whole human society, animal society, everything.” (1968, p. 14)

Examples of deleted standards include:

1. “… one should not eat anything other than Krishna prasadam (food offered to Krishna)” (1968, p. 28)

Compare with the 1974 version: “One should not indulge in illicit sex life, intoxication, meat eating or gambling.” (1974, p. 30)

2. “but He [Lord Chaitanya] was strict — like a thunderbolt — with those of the renounced order who cheated by the method known as ‘drinking water underwater while taking bath on a fast day.’” (1968, p. 3)

Examples of deleted philosophy include:

1. “Therefore to learn how Krishna’s pleasure can be obtained, you have to study the first Nine Cantos of Srimad Bhagwatam.  In the Tenth Canto, Krishna’s pleasure potency is displayed…(1968, p.8)

Compare with the 1974 version which inserted sahajiyism: “In order to learn how Krsna’s pleasure can be obtained, we must read the Tenth Canto of the Srimad-Bhagavatam in which Krsna’s pleasure potency is displayed…” (1974, p. 11)

2. “If one is unnecessarily envious of a devotee who is trying to spread the Holy Name all over the world, in execution of the order of his spiritual master, such a rascal is the greatest offender at the Feet of the Holy Name.“  (1968, p. 27)

3. “But Krishna Consciousness is so nice that it makes no distinction between man and woman.” (1968, p. 7)

4. Vedic astronomy was replaced with Western astronomy by the insertion of three words, “the earth about”:

“Lord Chaitanya gave a comparable instance in the orbit of the Sun.” (1968, p. 80)

“Lord Caitanya clarified this by comparing His pastimes to the orbit of the earth about the sun.” (1974, p. 93, italics added)

Examples of deleted logic and reasoning

Another category of deletions is logic and reasoning.  In the 112 pages of the TLC so far examined, the word “therefore” was omitted 66 times from the 1968 edition.  Most often, “therefore” was replaced with “since” or “because,” but in 27 instances, “therefore” was not replaced at all.

In a Los Angeles, August 25, 1972 morning lecture, Srila Prabhupada explained his use of the word “therefore”:

So, “therefore,” the word is “therefore.”  “Therefore” means after concluding something. That means the “therefore.” When you talk, when you argue, when you come to the conclusion, then you say “therefore.”  Or when our argument is stopped, then we say “therefore.”

In other words, Srila Prabhupada used this word to speak and write conclusive and convincing statements.  He used “therefore” to emphasize and make certain points so that the reader would use his own logic and reasoning to accept them.  Srila Prabhupada’s use of “therefore” is opposed to dogmatic statements which are written in a style of factual statements.

In addition to the deletions discussed above, the following items were omitted from the revised edition:

* The book’s subtitle: “A Treatise on Factual Spiritual Life”

* The division of chapters into Part I and Part II (see Table of Contents)

* Publisher’s note, Acknowledgement page, the author’s biography, and

* Black and white illustrations.

Two Editions of the Bhagavad-gita Compared: A Preliminary Study

The same method of count and analyze was applied to Srila Prabhupada’s 1972 first edition of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is and the revised 1983 version.  Only the verse translations were examined.  Out of the total 700 verses, in 74% or 521 verses, the words were changed by deletions, insertions or rearrangement.  In three chapters, over 90% of the verses were changed in this way.  Chapter 6 had 43 verses changed out of 47 total; Chapter 11 had 50 out 55; and Chapter 17 had 26 out of 28.  (These numbers do not include verses that were changed only for spelling, punctuation or capitalization.  Only 21 verses, or 3% of the total, are in this category.)

Chapters 1-3, 6, 11 and 18, which contain 49% or 341 of the total 700 verses, were carefully examined to count the number of deleted words.  Of the 341 verses, 227 contained deletions totaling 987 words.  215 verses contained inserted words (which have not been counted yet).  Since nearly 1000 words were deleted from half the Gita verses examined, it is estimated that at least 2000 words were deleted from the verses alone in the 1983 revised edition.

Analysis of the deleted, inserted and re-arranged words in the revised edition revealed philosophical interpolations, that is, the insertion of different ideas.  For example, regarding sense control, “control the lower self by the higher self” (1972) was interpolated to “steady the mind by deliberate spiritual intelligence” (1983, Bg 3.43); and “he who controls the senses” (1972) was interpolated to “a sincere person who tries to control the active senses” (1983, Bg 3.7); “You are the origin without beginning, middle or end” to “You are without origin, middle or end” (Bg 11.19); and “out of fear” to “out of fear of bodily discomfort” (Bg 18.8);

In another example, the word “eternal” was deleted from the revised translation, although the Sanskrit word “nitya” (meaning “eternal”) is included in the Sanskrit verse: “he who  dwells in this body is eternal and can never be slain” (1972) changed to “he who dwells in this body can never be slain” (1983, Bg 2.30).

Other philosophical changes were made by replacing words (indicated in bold type).  For example: “One who is not in transcendental consciousness” (1972) was changed to “One who is not connected with the Supreme [in Krsna consciousness]” (1983, Bg 2.66); and “all material desires born of false ego” (1972) changed to “all material desires born of mental speculation” (1983, Bg 6.24).

The revised edition altered the meaning of numerous verses simply by substituting words that are not synonymous.  The dictionary definitions of the substitutions differ substantially from the first edition words.  For example: “the self-realized soul” (1972) was changed to “a sober person” (1983, Bg 2.13); “coward” to “insignificant” (Bg 2.35); “constant practice” to “suitable practice” (Bg 6.35); “master” to “creator” (Bg 11.37); “right means” to “appropriate means” (Bg 6.36); “deviated” to “bewildered” (Bg 6.38); “factors” to “causes” (Bg 18.13); “threefold basis” to “three constituents” (Bg 18.18); “ignorance and delusion” to “illusion” (Bg 18.25); “corrupt” to “polluted” (Bg 1.40); “one who has been honored” to “a respectable person” (Bg 2.34); “fruitive activities” to “abominable activities” (Bg 2.49); “truly situated in knowledge” to “firmly fixed in perfect consciousness” (Bg 2.58); “impulses” to “qualities” (Bg 3.5); “nourishing” to “cooperation” (Bg 3.11); “work” to “prescribed duties” (Bg 3.22); “sentient beings” to “living beings” (Bg 3.24); “fruitive action” to “fruitive results” (Bg 3.26); “influence of the three modes” to “influence of false ego” (Bg 3.27); “doomed to ignorance and bondage” to “ruined in their endeavors for perfection” (Bg 3.32).

Some revisions changed the meaning of the verses by replacing or rearranging many words.  For example: “though I may survive”(1972) changed to “though they might otherwise kill me” (1983, Bg 1.32-35); “Attraction and repulsion for sense objects are felt by embodied beings, but one should not fall under the control of senses and sense objects” (1972) was replaced by “There are principles to regulate attachment and aversion pertaining to the senses and their sense objects. One should not come under the control of such attachment and aversion” (1983, Bg 3.34).  And “One can obtain the results of renunciation simply by self-control and by becoming unattached to material things and disregarding material enjoyments.  That is the highest perfectional stage of renunciation” (1972) was replaced by “One who is self-controlled and unattached and who disregards all material enjoyments can obtain, by practice of renunciation, the highest perfect stage of freedom from reaction.” (1983; Bg 18.49).

Additional philosophical changes were made by removing logic and reasoning.  In one verse (see below), the word “thus” was deleted and words were rearranged.  The result was that the revised edition reversed the process, thereby changing the cause into the effect, and the effect into the cause.  “One who can control his senses by practicing the regulated principles of freedom can obtain the complete mercy of the Lord and thus become free from all attachment and aversion.” (1972, Bg 2.64) changed to “But a person free from all attachment and aversion and able to control his senses through regulative principles of the Lord can obtain the complete mercy of the Lord.” (1983, Bg 2.64)

Logic and reasoning was removed from some verses by rearranging or replacing critical words.  In logical arguments, certain words such as “similarly,” “therefore,” “thus,” “if” and “then” indicate conclusions or how to apply reason within the argument.  Different grammatical rules are used in logical arguments.  For example, in a logical argument, the word “similarly” is placed as the first word to identify the beginning of a conclusive statement.  In factual or descriptive statements, the word is used simply as an adverb and placed in a different location, near the verb. In several verses, the revised edition moved the word “similarly” to make it act as an adverb rather than to identify the conclusion.  Consequently, the original philosophical conclusion was changed to a weaker, descriptive statement.

First edition: “As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, similarly, the soul accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones.” (1972)

Revised edition: “As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, the soul similarly accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones.” (1983, 2.22)  See also Bhagavad-gita 3.25 and 3.38.

Srila Prabhupada’s poetic, often epic, style was interpolated frequently and replaced by a conventional, news magazine style.  For example, “subject to destruction” (1972) changed to “sure to come to an end” (1983, Bg 2.18); “foresee” to “see” (Bg 1.30); “verily” to “certainly” (Bg 6.42); “behold” to “see now” (Bg 11.5);  “there is no end, there is no beginning, and there is no middle to all this” to “no end, no middle, and no beginning” (Bg 11.16); “who stands above even Brahma” to “greater even than Brahma” (Bg 11. 37); and “homage” to “respectful obeisances” (Bg 11.37).

Interpolations of style also include the replacement of first edition words with synonyms.  Such changes did not clarify the meaning or correct grammatical errors.  For example, “happiness and distress” (1972) change to “joy and sorrow” (1983, Bg 18.27); “listen” to “hear” (Bg 18.20); “a man” to “a person” (Bg 3.16); “sea” to “ocean” (Bg 11.5); “one who is engaged” to “he who engages” (Bg 11. 55); and “in accordance with” to “according to” (Bg 18. 19)

In some verses, words were arbitrarily rearranged; for example, “ignorance and illusion” (1972) changed to “illusion and ignorance” (1983, Bg 18.72).

In other verses, the commanding, imperative, forceful style suitable for giving orders was changed to a weaker style, more suitable for suggestions.  For example, “Be steadfast in yoga, O Arjuna.  Perform your duty and abandon all attachment to success or failure. Such evenness of mind is called yoga.” (1972, Bg 2.48) changed to “Perform your duty equipoised, O Arjuna, abandoning all attachment to success or failure.  Such equanimity is called yoga.” (1983, Bg 2.48)

In summary, it is estimated that over 2000 words were deleted from the verse translations alone in Srila Prabhupada’s first edition of the Bhagavad-gita, and that words were inserted in over half of the total verses.  It seems that the revised Gita changed the majority of Srila Prabhupada’s translated verses, including philosophy and style.  Further investigation is required.  In any case, this preliminary study has demonstrated that the revised edition is clearly not the same book.

Conclusion

The count and analyze method produced evidence that conclusively proves that the revised editions of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is and the Teachings of Lord Caitanya are not editorially equivalent to the first editions in philosophy, style or content.  These revised editions contain an undetermined number of interpolations of philosophy and style.  Some examples have been demonstrated herein.  These revised editions mix Srila Prabhupada’s teachings with different ideas without separating (or identifying) one from the other. Thus, for the general reader, it is difficult to identify the interpolations of philosophy and style within the revised editions.  For this reason alone, the revised editions of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is and the Teachings of Lord Caitanya are unreliable for the study of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings.