(1) Why is it in the revised edition of the Bhagavad-gita, you and company have completely removed the foreword by Professor Edward Dimock that was printed in the original Macmillan version of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is which Srila Prabhupada regularly read from?

Readers, please visit the website and see the video on YouTube of Srila Prabhupada lecturing on the Bhagavad-gita. There, in the very immediate beginning (very first few minutes) of this video, you will find Srila Prabhupada praising the foreword by Professor Edward Dimock. This particular video clip is taken from one of the 19 Double layer DVD’s produced by Nrsimhananda Prabhu and his associates at ITV. It is the particular DVD named Bhagavad Gita as It Is, with Krishna and Arjuna on the chariot, and sky background, and is in the very first part, called “Introduction”.

Srila Prabhupada is reading the foreword himself, praising it, mentioning Edward Dimock’s name, and praising Edward Dimock for a particular comment that he had made, as follows:

“Swami Bhaktivedanta comments upon the Gita from this point of view, and that is legitimate. More than that, in this translation the Western reader has the unique opportunity of seeing how a Krsna devotee interprets his own texts”

Srila Prabhupada in the video explains this particular statement by Edward Dimock, on how a Krsna devotee interprets his own texts, by explaining that just as a family member only is qualified to give the best knowledge to others about his own family, similarly, only a Krsna devotee can properly explain to others about Krsna. Srila Prabhupada appreciates this particular point made by Edward Dimock in the video.

Thus, not only has Srila Prabhupada authorized this particular foreword in the Macmillan Bhagavad-gita, but had himself read, it, and praised certain points made by the person who wrote this foreword. Yet you, Jayadvaita Swami, Dravida Prabhu & Company, have the audacity to remove this foreword completely in your revised version. The proof of how you have offended your Spiritual Master is on public video record, as those who watch will sadly but easily be able to understand this particular deviation of yourselves in either revising or omitting your Spiritual Master’s works and words by using your fertile imaginations.

(2) Why have you, Jayadvaita Swami, Dravida Prabhu & Company, omitted 47 out of 48 of the original color pictures inside of the original Macmillan Bhagavad-gita As It Is? Why have you omitted the pictures of the bona fide disciplic succession Gurus coming before Srila Prabhupada, namely Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, Srila Gaur Kisore Das Babaji Maharaj, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur, with a brief description of their character and achievements? Srila Prabhupada wanted very much for every ISKCON member to understand their spiritual family roots, i.e., to understand the previous disciplic succession Gurus. That is why he arranged to put these pictures there.

Srila Prabhupada also wanted everyone, both devotees and karmi readers, to understand that he, as the author of this Macmillan version of Bhagavad-gita, was authorized and a student of these bona fide spiritual Masters, thus giving genuine authority to this book. Yet you, Jayadvaita Swami and company, have audaciously removed these most important disciplic Guru pictures. The other 43 pictures with their respective written descriptions below were also very useful for the reader to relate to what he was reading in the different chapters of the Bhagavad-gita. They were also painted with the guidance and authority of Srila Prabhupada, who blessed them with his constant glance whenever he used the book. Yet you have unfortunately removed all of them with the exception of one.

(3) Why have you, Jayadvaita Swami, Dravida Prabhu & Company, removed and replaced the original front cover of the Macmillan version of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is with your own version? In that original picture, Krsna is holding the conch shell, which is mentioned in the 1st chapter of the Bhagavad-gita, how when both Krsna and Arjuna blew their respective conch shells, it aroused fear and shattered the hearts of the enemies. Srila Prabhupada and all the thousands of devotees, including the karmis who bought this book, were delighted to see this spiritual picture, which is one of the chief attractions of the whole book. The horses in the Macmillan version look strong, stout, and healthy, as they should be, considering that they were gifted by the fire god Agni to Arjuna by the blessings of Krsna. This is mentioned in the Krsna book in the Chapter entitled, “Five Queens married by Krsna”.

Yet in your revised version picture, your horses look all so thin with very skinny legs, as if they have not had prasadam for a long time. They are half the size in bodily structure as opposed to the original Macmillan horses. They really do not look celestial and gifted by a celestial demigod. Readers, please compare for yourselves. Yet you Jayadvaita, Dravida & Company, have removed this wonderful picture and replaced it with yours. You have also replaced the original Krsna and Arjuna, with Krsna now holding a whip instead of a conch shell. What was the need for this change — just so that you all could show to everyone in the world that you could do something new and different than what your Spiritual Master has done?

(4) Why have you, Jayadvaita Swami, Dravida Prabhu & Company, on the back cover of your revised version of Bhagavad-gita, put a commentary by Mohandas K Gandhi, so-called praising the Bhagavad-gita, when you very well know how much Srila Prabhupada condemned Gandhi, especially in relation to the Bhagavad-gita? Srila Prabhupada comments that Gandhi was the greatest hypocrite, that on one hand while posing himself as a student of the Bhagavad-gita, he never even had any faith that Lord Krishna even existed. Srila Prabhupada describes Gandhi as having no spiritual consciousness whatsoever. Gandhi also did not even care to stop the millions of cows being slaughtered daily, when he had an excellent chance to do so, thus he was directly defying Lord Krishna’s instructions on cow protection described in the 18th Chapter of the Bhagavad-gita. Readers, please see the particular conversations mentioned below in the Folio about what Srila Prabhupada said abut Gandhi in relation to Bhagavad-gita and cow killing:

(A) Room Conversation March 2 1975 Atlanta:

Prabhupada: “No, no. No shortage. That is everything supply. You have got the Vedic knowledge. You don’t take care of that. You now manufacture your own knowledge. Now there is knowledge, this Bhagavad-gita is perfect knowledge, but even a political leader like Gandhi, he says that I don’t believe that there was anybody like Krsna living. This is your leader. All the acaryas, previous acaryas, big, big acaryas, Sankaracarya, big, big, stalwart, learned, they have accepted Krsna. Now Gandhi says, “I don’t believe.” Now you are guided by Gandhi, you are not guided by the acaryas. That is your misfortune. You are not guided by Krsna. You are guided by Dr. Radhakrishnan. That is the misfortune. Andha yathandhair upaneyamanau [SB 7.5.31], one blind man is being, is following another blind man. That is going on. That is going on all over the world, not only in India.

Guest (2): I think Mahatma Gandhi followed the Gita, all these…

Prabhupada: But he did not believe in Krsna and he followed Gita? Just see!

Guest (2): (indistinct)

Prabhupada: No, just try to understand the psychology. He (Gandhi) says plainly that I do not believe there was anybody Krsna, living ever. And he’s following Krsna’s instruction. Just see his position.

Guest (2): No, he must have also answered this question.

Prabhupada: No, no, there is no questioning. If you do not believe in somebody, how you are reading His book of knowledge?

Guest (2): That’s my point also.

Prabhupada: Yes, so therefore. This kind of leader we are following, contradictory. That is our misfortune.

(B) March 10th 1972, Vrndavana:

Prabhupada: “Useless speaking. In India also, so many fools, they are accepted as very perfect. Just like Gandhi, take Gandhi. Where was Gandhi? In spiritual consciousness, he is nothing. Nothing, no value. But if we say in the public, they will be angry, “Oh!” But actually there is no value, no spiritual value. He is known all over the world as a great spiritualist. He was a moralist, that’s all. That is not a qualification for understanding God”.

(C) March 5th 1975, New York:

Prabhupada: “Even Gandhi, such an exalted man, he says that “I have no belief. I do not believe that there was any person as Krsna ever living.” Just see. All the big, big acaryas of India who are practically controlling the destiny of the Hindu civilization or Vedic civilization, they all believe. Gandhi became more than them. Who made him, that is another thing. But he thinks like that, and because Gandhi thinks, just imagine how many millions of people have been misled”.

(D) January 23rd 1977, Bhuvanesvara:

Prabhupada: “Yes. No, anything, if you can understand very clearly, where is the question of interpretation? But it has become a fashion that “If I can interpret in my own way, I become a big scholar.” This is going on. If you have got your philosophy, you can speak. Everyone is free. Why you should take Bhagavad-gita and distort it? Krsna never meant that “In future Gandhi will come,” or “Dr. Radhakrishnan will come, and he will explain My ideas.” What is this nonsense? Krsna was a foolish person that he left it for Gandhi for distortion? He could not explain Himself that Kuruksetra means this body? Gandhi has to interpret? Do you think it is right?”

(E) Dec 16th 1975, Bombay:

Prabhupada: “Karl Marx maybe. Even your Gandhi-ism, that is also concoction. Gandhi invented nonviolence; it is also concoction. It is impossible. Everyone is doing this—something manufacturing. That is not sanatana dharma. Sanatana dharma is never manufactured. It is already there. You have to accept it, that’s all. Otherwise everyone is manufacturing some concoction. This is going on. Krsna is teaching, “Fight.” And Gandhi is teaching from Bhagavad-gita nonviolence. Just see! Is it possible?

(F) January 9th 1977, Bombay:

Prabhupada: “The people approached him that “Mahatmaji, you have got influence over the Muslims, why not stop cow-killing?” “I cannot touch on their religious principles.” Just see. Cow-killing is religious? Their religious principle. If I say my father-killing, mother-killing is my religion, so Gandhi will say, “Yes, you can do that. Nonviolent.” Kill nonviolent. This nonsense contradiction can be tolerated by the fools and rascals. That’s all. That is…”

(5) Why have you, Jayadvaita Swami, Dravida Prabhu & Company, removed the words below the picture of Srila Prabhupada in the original Macmillan Bhagavad-gita, namely, “greatest exponent of Krsna consciousness in the western world”? Is this also one of the many stupid mistakes made by some raw editors at the time, namely Hayagriva Prabhu, or some raw typist such as Bhakta Neal, and you have mercifully corrected it for all our spiritual welfare? Even a person with half a brain can understand that you have made the greatest offense to your spiritual master by enviously removing these words, “greatest exponent of Krsna Consciousness in the western world”.

Awaiting your reply. . .

In an Editorial Quiz by Jayadvaita Swami the question is posed:

“Please explain the meaning of ‘This realization is made possible by working with the fruitive being situated in the fixed conception of the self.’” (2.1, purport)

Jayadvaita Swami answers: “Forget it. The sentence is meaningless.”

I am just a Bhakta, I am not a big Swami, nor the head editor for the BBTI. I also never underwent any special education, training in editing or the use of, or manipulation, of the English language. But I love Srila Prabhupada and don’t question his authority. Some time ago someone brought up the fact that this sentence is very different in Srila Prabhupada’s Gita and Jayadvaita’s Gita and asked me how I felt about it. I read it with the devotee that asked me and it was clear to me what Srila Prabhupada says. Recently someone showed me the above public comments by Jayadvaita Swami about Srila Prabhupada’s books. So I will recap the conversation that I had with that devotee, if it is helpful to any one.

First of all, Srila Prabhupada says, “This realization”. If one simply reads the previous sentence in the purport it outlines what “This realization” is. Srila Prabhupada says very clearly “self-realization by an analytical study of the material body and the spirit soul”. Then Srila Prabhupada goes on to say that this realization “is made possible by working with the fruitive being”. Now this is also perfectly clear to me, the fruitive being is just that, a fruitive being/someone (a being) that is still on the furtive platform of existence, someone that is not yet a yogi or a sadhu. So this is the process. We all start where we are, as a fruitive being, that is the position of everyone in the beginning, and by working in Krishna consciousness we, the fruitive beings, can come gradually to higher understandings of the real self. So here Srila Prabhupada finishes the very clear sentence by giving the process by saying, “situated in the fixed conception of the self.” This is the process of Krishna consciousness – the conditioned soul, who is a fruitive being, must gradually become more and more, as Srila Prabhupada clearly says, ‘situated in the fixed conception of the real self’. This is the process and the end. This is Krishna consciousness. The process at the beginning and at the end are the same but one gradually progresses within this realization. It is all perfectly clear to me, I don’t know what the difficulty is in understanding this?

With all due respect to the BBTI’s staff, editorial practices, scholarship and realizations, if Jayadvaita Swami is saying that Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-Gita is “meaningless” and he feels “doesn’t make a damn bit of sense” to him, and can’t understand such a simple point as this, then how is it he is freely editing Srila Prabhupada’s transcendentally perfect books?

This reminds me of a billboard I recently saw in front of a church that read, “We don’t change God’s words to fit us, we change ourselves to fit Gods words.”

Srila Prabhupada said in a Bhagavad-gita lecture on 10.4-5, in New York, January 4, 1967:

“You can speculate in any damn thing, and you can write volumes of books. That does not mean that you are a man of knowledge.”

If you would like some of Srila Prabhupada’s original, pure and authorized (pre-1978) books to bring with you in your daily life to distribute, please go to www.KrishnaStore.com

I am not opposed to correction of a limited few and obvious grammatical errors, but I have been opposed to the massive Gita changes since the very beginning, long before I knew there were massive changes in the editing, or what all the changes were.

We were in Detroit in the early 80′s when a number of the GBC members held a closed door secret meeting where they discussed the changes to Srila Prabhupada’s books. At the time of the meeting they would not even tell us what the meeting was about.

[Note from Madhudvisa dasa: I have checked the story Ameyatma Prabhu gives with Brahmananda Prabhu who was present at the time and who knows the details and while the "gist" of what he says is true, there does seem to be a slight misunderstanding as to exactly what Prabhupada did. According to Brahmananda Prabhu Srila Prabhupada signed a contract with Macmillan that gave them the exclusive rights to print his Bhagavad-gita As It Is, however he included a clause in the contract with Macmillan which stated that if the book went out of print the copyrights would return to him. As BBT were really the main customer for this book from Macmillan at some point Srila Prabhupada told the BBT to slow down and eventually stop the Gita orders from Macmillan. And eventually Macmillan did not reprint Prabhupada's Gita so it went out of print and the copyrights returned to Srila Prabhupada. In any case the result of this is the same as the story Ameyatma Prabhu tells on his Sampradaya Sun story. So this is actually a confirmation of the incidents he mentions. One of the reasons BBT purchasing the unabridged Gita from Macmillan was unworkable was that Macmillan would charge the BBT about three times the printing cost, whereas if the BBT printed the book themselves they would only have to pay the printing cost.]

On regaining the rights to his unabridged Gita, Srila Prabhupada gave Ramesvara instructions regard future printing. In those instructions it is my understanding that there was absolutely no mention by Srila Prabhupada that the wording should be Changed!!! Prabhupada had used that Gita for years. He gave classes from it, and we have no record of him ever asking that massive changes be made. That it be edited and changed to make it ‘perfect’. Where are such orders from Prabhupada?

Ramesvara, at the time, told the artists, including myself, what changes Srila Prabhupada requested, and it was concerning the paintings. Ramesvara never mentioned to us, and we also knew the BBT proof readers and editors as well at that time, and they never mentioned any order by Srila Prabhupada to edit the wording. The only instruction Ramesvara told us, either the same day Prabhupada gave the instruction, or just days after, was that he wanted many more paintings.

Srila Prabhupada ultimately wanted 108 full color plates, but told Ramesvara that in the next printing there should be Minimum 54. 54 is 1/2 of 108. Ramesvara told us that Prabhupada wanted, in the next printing, a minimum of 54 color plates.

But, there was no BBT printing until the early 1980′s, when the mass changes to wording were made. I was still in Detroit when the new changed printing came out. It had been many years since the last MacMillan prints were made. ISKCON / BBT had either run out, or very low on Gitas, so, this printing was long awaited and long needed. When I got the new Gita, the first thing I noticed was the changed cover. That bothered me, as Srila Prabhupada had not asked for the cover to be changed. He wanted new paintings to be added, but had told Ramesvara not to change the existing ones. Why the cover was changed? Then, I immediately thumbed through to look at the paintings. The paintings were the first thing, because I knew what Prabhupada told Ramesvara, to increase them, 54 minimum. I was shocked and bewildered. There were not more paintings, there were no 54 paintings, there were far FEWER color plates.

And, worse, the disciplic succession was taken out of that printing. In the MacMillan Gita aside from Srila Prabhupada’s picture there is Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, Srila Gaur Kishore, and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur. But, in the new ‘changed’ Gita there was only Srila Prabhupada. All the other Acaryas had been removed. My heart sank. And, I knew that very second that Srila Prabhupada was not pleased with that new botched reprint. This was NOT what he asked for. A few weeks later Ramesvara visited Detroit, where I was living, and I made an appointment to see him privately. I asked him, point-blank, why the past Acaryas were removed? His face remained stern and quiet, then I reminded him of Srila Prabhupada’s instructions to him, that there be minimum 54 plates, and yet, this new changed Gita had fewer prints? Ramesvara took the defensive and became immediately angry. He raised his voice and said, “Ameyatma, you are not a Preacher. You are not a real devotee of Caitanya Mahaprabhu because you have no understanding how to Preach.” He said that that instruction by Srila Prabhupada was not practical. And that what Srila Prabhupada really wanted, more then increasing the number of color plates, what he really wanted was More Books distributed. Ramesvara argued that adding color prints to 54 would have raised the cost of printing so high that no book distributors would be able to sell it. To keep the costs below $3.50, so that book distributors could sell at $5, he not only did not increase the color plates, but he purposefully took many out, to reduce the cost, to keep the costs lower.

But, I countered that Prabhupada’s order was to be followed, and that we should not try to think we are more intelligent. If we simply follow what he wanted, then the result will be perfect. If we thwart what he wanted, then no good result will come.

This logic simply made Ramesvara raging mad with anger. He pounded his fist on the table and repeatedly shouted, “You are not a Preacher, Ameyatma, you are not a book distributor and therefore you are not a real devotee of Lord Caitanya, therefore you have no understanding. Because you don’t distribute books, you can’t know what Prabhupada wants. He said he wanted more pictures, but a preacher knows he really wants more books. You are simply a fault-finder, finding fault with the real devotees of Caitanya, and finding fault with the real preachers.” And, then he went on lecturing me how I was so fallen, and boasted how he was now an Acarya, and that I was committing a great offense by trying to find fault with him about his decisions.

That meeting left a black rotten taste in my mouth. This was the attitude and mood behind the printing and changes of the new Gita! At the time I had absolutely no knowledge that there was even one grammatical change made, what to speak of en mass. All I knew was the attitude behind the changes to what Srila Prabhupada said he wanted was wrong. Srila Prabhupada’s instructions were thrown out, what he wanted was thrown out, and other opposite changes occurred.

From that day onward, I wanted absolutely nothing to do with the new changed Gita, and as I said, it had nothing to do with the changed edits that Jayadvaita made. I had my own separate reasons for rejecting the new Gita. The taking out of the past Acaryas was proof enough to me that Ramesvara was the one who had no real understanding. And, his angry defensive attitude during our meeting finalized my conclusion, that the new changed Gita was not at all pleasing to Srila Prabhupada. Thus, I kept my original Gita ever since, and for years had no other Gita at home.

Years went by, and sometime around 1996 or 97 or so while living in Alachua, Virabahu was visiting Alachua. He was GBC for Alachua at the time. We were old friends back before he had become a guru and then GBC, so I invited my old friend over to my house for a program. He agreed to come and probably 50+ devotees came for the program. On arriving, he asked me for a Gita so he could give Gita class. I handed him my original MacMillan copy.

Now, at the time I had avoided the controversy over the changes that Jayadvaita made. I simply did not want the new changed Gita due to the above reasons. But, many years had gone by, and in 96-97 I wasn’t even thinking about it. When I handed Virabahu the Original Gita, his out-reached hand jerked back when he saw it was the original Gita. He then looked at me incredulously and said, “Why are you handing me this Gita?” I wasn’t into politics, I had no idea what his problem was. I said, “What’s wrong, this is the only Gita I have”. He said, “What? I can’t give class from that Gita“. Then he turned to others in the room and said, “Can someone go home and get me a BBT Gita“. This created a bit of a stir, and one devotee come over to me and asked what sort of political statement was I trying to pull off by handing Virabahu an original Gita? Another told me that was so uncool and fallen of me to try and force Virabahu to give class from “one of those” Gitas.

That was it. Before then I had avoided the Changes controversy. But, what the HELL was going on? This had been my One and Only Gita for nearly 25 years at that point. It was the SAME (version) Gita that Srila Prabhupada had given classes from all over the world for years. It was the SAME Gita that he fought for to get back the full printing rights to. This was Prabhupada’s Gita, and yet, here a GBC treated it like poison, like it was a deviant political statement to give class for ‘that’ (banned?) Gita.

We know of no instruction by Srila Prabhupada asking us to make massive changes to that Gita. When he won back the full printing rights to HIS Gita, He only asked that we increase the number of color plates, he Did NOT ask that we edit it and change verse after verse after verse. Until that day I had no idea what the controversy was over the ‘changes’, I had my own reasons for rejecting the new changes. But, after that, I could see, again, a sick attitude by those who supported the changes. Virabahu jerked back his hand and would not even touch the original Gita, as if it were poison to him. Others told me it was a political statement to give a class from that Gita. GREAT then, I will make it a political statement in their eyes, if that is how they see it. This is the SAME Gita Srila Prabhupada spoke from, had read to him, gave classes on. And, they won’t even touch it, seeing it as poison.

So, you have your way of seeing things, and may side with Jayadvaita, but not all Srila Prabhupada’s disciples see it that way. Some do get upset and terse in their language at times, but that does not negate the underlying issue. It is simply an easy cop out for you to label us all as fallen fault-finders. For those who disagree, over the years we have had no voice, and so it gets very frustrating in dealing with those whom we disagree with. The GBC has, formally, stood behind the changes, and they are the ones who have politicized the issue, as I saw personally in the actions of Virabahu, who jerked his hand back and refused to touch Srila Prabhupada’s original Gita, and refused to give a class using the same version that Srila Prabhupada himself used. He is the one who made a bold political statement that night, I simply didn’t have any other Gita, I wasn’t trying to make any such statement, but he and his followers did. And, I do not agree with their political views. I consider his view, his actions, and those the GBC and Jayadvaita Swami as deviant, politically based, and fallen.

Here is excerpt of what Srila Prabhupada had to say about those RASCALS who make numerous changes to his books:

Yasoda-nandana: In the Gurukula we were teaching Isopanisad class to the children. So we took… [break] …Prabhupada and the words which the recent edition of the Press is wrong. Many changes were brought. They were trying to make better English, but sometimes, to make better English, I think they were making philosophical mistakes also. There is no so much need of making so much better English. Your English is sufficient. It is very clear, very simple. We have caught over 125 changes. They’re changing so many things. We are wondering if this is necessary? I will show you today. I have kept the book.

Prabhupada: I know what these rascals are doing. What can be done? How they can be relied on?

Svarupa Damodara: It’s not the responsibility of the BBT trustee, to see these things don’t change without Prabhupada’s sanction?

Prabhupada: And Ramesvara is indulging this. The great rascal is that Jagannatha? He’s there in Los Angeles.

Tamala Krsna: Jagannatha dasa?

Prabhupada: Maybe.

Indian devotee (2): Jagannatha-suta.

Prabhupada: Jagannatha-suta.

Tamala Krsna: No…

Prabhupada: And the one rascal is gone.

Tamala Krsna: Nitai.

Prabhupada: It is starting. What can I do? These cannot… These rascals cannot be educated. Dangerous. Little learning, dangerous. So how to correct? The leader of th
ese dangerous — Radha-vallabha.

Tamala Krsna: Radha-vallabha?

Prabhupada: Hm. He’s a dangerous, who maintains these rascal with this work. He’ll always have questions and alteration. That is his business. That is American business. They take that always. What can I do? Ultimate, it goes for editorial. They make changes, such changes.

[see my note below, why Prabhupada was so much against Radha Ballabha, and what Prabhupada meant by he is maintaining these rascals]

Tamala Krsna: Your original work that you’re doing now, that is edited by Jayadvaita. That’s the first editing.

Prabhupada: He is good.

Tamala Krsna: He is good. But then, after they print the books, they’re going over. So when they reprint…

Prabhupada: So how to check this? How to stop this?

Tamala Krsna: They should not make any changes without consulting Jayadvaita.

Prabhupada: But they are doing without any authority.

Svarupa Damodara: I think we should make whole survey, all books already printed, before printing the next batch and check any mistakes so that it should be all corrected. Otherwise, if the scholars find out that there are so many mistakes in the books, then the quality and the appreciation will be reduced.

Giriraja(?): (indistinct)

Svarupa Damodara: Yes. We find so far that they are appreciating so much within the scholarly circle, and we want to maintain that actually.

Prabhupada: Very serious feature. It is not possible for me to check, and they are doing all nonsense, freedom. (pause)

[hmm, this should be discussed. Prabhupada did not want them to make so many edits and changes, but, he says here, it is not possible for him to check them, to stop them. That is an interesting statement. He cites Ramesvara later as being the director behind all this, and Prabhupada wanted it stopped, but could not do so himself at the time - interesting ]

Yasoda-nandana: Jaya Srila Prabhupada.

Prabhupada: What to do?

Tamala Krsna: I think Svarupa Damodara’s point, that all the books should now be checked before they’re reprinted again… And they have to be checked not by some so-called learned Sanskrit man but by a learned devotee. Just like you always favored Jayadvaita because his Krsna consciousness…

Prabhupada: Jayadvaita, Satsvarupa…

Yasoda-nandana: Bhakti-prema, Satsvarupa is there.

Tamala Krsna: So Bhakti-prema… That’s a good solution.

Prabhupada: Yes.

…

Prabhupada: It is very serious situation. Ramesvara is in direct…

Svarupa Damodara: I think they’re working too independently without consulting properly.

Yasoda-nandana: Sometimes they appeal that “We can make better English,” so they change like that, just like in the case of Isopanisad. There are over a hundred changes. So where is the need? Your words are sufficient. The potency is there. When they change, it is something else.

[NOTE That Yasodanandana is speaking of changes to the English, and that Prabhupada agrees, he is opposed to such changes also, the Sanskrit editing was also mentioned, but, the main changes made to Isopanishad were English changes, and that Prabhupada also opposes this. Svarup Damodar was speaking of major editing, but, Prabhupada does not really discuss the idea, he does not really agree to that idea, he is simply calling those who made the changes, RASCALS ]

Svarupa Damodara: That’s actually a very dangerous mentality.

Yasoda-nandana: What is it going to be in five years? It’s going to be a different book.

Prabhupada: So you… What you are going… It is very serious situation. You write one letter that “Why you have made so many changes?” And whom to write? Who will care? All rascals are there. Write to Satsvarupa that “This is the position. They are doing anything and everything at their whim.” The next printing should be again to the original way.

[They made "so many changes" Prabhupada says, so the NEXT PRINTING SHOULD BE AGAIN TO THE ORIGINAL WAY" That is how many of us feel today. Way TOO Many changes have been made, wholesale, we should simply go back to the original and respect the SACREDNESS of Srila Prabhupada's work. ]

….

Prabhupada: So write them immediately that “The rascal editors, they are doing havoc, and they are being maintained by Ramesvara and party.”

Tamala Krsna: Sometimes there’s a fear that some word will be unpopular, and on account of desire to gain popularity or acceptance, they lessen the strength of the word. They change the word. They choose a word which is more so-called acceptable.

…

Prabhupada: So you bring this to Satsvarupa. They cannot change anything.

…

[My dear Jnanagamya, what about this instruction by Srila Prabhupada. He said, next printing go back to the Original, and then he says, They Can NOT Change ANYTHING. What about these words from our Guru Maharaj? regarding changes to his books???? ]

Prabhupada: So on the whole, these dangerous things are going on. How to check it?

…

Prabhupada: So they are doing very freely and dangerously. And this rascal is always after change, Radha-vallabha. He’s a great rascal.

(Conversation, “Rascal Editors,” and Morning Talk — June 22, 1977, Vrndavana)

First, about Radha-vallabha. In ’76, Srila Prabhupada came to LA and took a tour of the BBT offices. Prabhupada found that many grhastas were being maintained by the BBT. So, Prabhupada said, no salaries, BBT was not to hire grhastas. He said all work was to be VOLUNTARY. Grhastas, he said, should get outside job and work outside to earn income, then they can volunteer service for the BBT in the evenings and weekends. And, brahmacaris, he said, they can do service and be maintained by the temple, but not the grhastas. Besides, BBT was paying for their apartments, paying the temple for their meals, and paying them salary. Even though it was stipend, living in poverty, Prabhupada on principal did not want BBT to maintain grhastas. All service to BBT must be voluntary.

This Jagannath Suta was grhasta and BBT was paying him. Srila Prabhupada wanted him off BBT payroll. But, Radha-vallabha rejected this idea. He argued with Prabhupada that these grhastas (including himself) were essential to the operation of the BBT, that book publication, and then distribution will suffer and decrease if they follow what Prabhupada wanted. Prabhupada insisted, and in the end, Ramesvar and Radha-vallabha kept maintaining most of the grhastas, and that has been followed ever since.

Like the Archives, or Sura, etc., these grhastas are maintained by BBT funds, and Prabhupada’s instruction was that all such grhastas go work outside, maintain themselves, then do Voluntary SERVICE for the BBT. Prabhupada’s instructions and orders were ignored, disobeyed and thwarted and not followed. Radha-vallabha himself was grhasta then, and Prabhupada also wanted him to get outside job, work and maintain himself, and just render SERVICE to the BBT. But, he and Ramesvara refused to obey Prabhupada’s direct instructions to them. Thus, months before Prabhupada departs, the last thing he has to say about Radha-vallabha is he is calling him RASCAL, a Great Rascal, and
he is also implicating Ramesvara, he is directing, he is behind all this.

When this Jagannath Suta was finally let go by the BBT, he got very upset and left ISKCON and became a born again Christian and began preaching against ISKCON, and against Srila Prabhupada. Just see.

But, what started this conversation? CHANGES to his books. 125 changes to the Isopanishad. Srila Prabhupada was not pleased at all. He never said, oh, they found so many errors, good work. He never asked, oh, so many errors, what were they? He did not care what changes they made, but, wholesale changes he was against. Only others are suggesting that they go through and make changes to his books and try to make them perfect. Only others make that suggestion, and no where does Prabhupada actually agree, rather, he says things like, What is to be done? What to do? And says, it is now starting…. When he does state what HE wants, he says write a letter and tell them NO CHANGES, and he says, Next Printing, go back to the ORIGINAL. Others suggested changing to make it so called ‘perfect’ but those were not Prabhupada’s words, not his suggestion, not his request, not his order. His order is, NO CHANGES – Go Back To The ORIGINAL.

That is what so many of us want. We are fed up with all the changes, changes, changes. We see this conversation and we hear Srila Prabhupada is not happy with changes, others suggest changes, but, he says NO CHANGES Go Back to the Original.

Devotees have been crying fowl for over 30 years, for at least the last 25, and the GBC calls us fault-finders, even when we have presented our side in a civil and respectful way. So, devotees like Hasti are simply expressing their frustration in dealing with this. So, he used sarcasm and you see that as fault-finding mentality. Sorry, after being ignored and labeled in derogatory terms for simply wanting to see that Prabhupada’s orders are carried out, No Changes, go Back to the Original – we want his Sacred Works preserved – AS They WERE, otherwise, we see this conversation and we see how Prabhupada was upset, calling them all RASCALS, and we are fed up. We point out they are rascals, and we are demonized. Hopefully you can see the real issue we have with the changes to the books.

Aspiring to become your worthy and humble servant,

Ameyatma das

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

Hare Krsna—or should I write “hare krsna”? I just received your letter recommending more changes. You write:

“Strong reasons can be advanced, however, for leaving aside our present standard in favor of extending “down style’ to all pronouns.

The editors of Chicago “urge a spare, down style” in the field of religion, as in others. Specifically, they say that pronouns referring to God (or Christ) “are today preferably not capitalized.”

Does the use of lower case signify an impious lack of regard for the Deity? The King James Bible, that great work of awe and reverence, affords God a lower-case he. (For that matter, so does the Book of Mormon.)….”

1) First point you make in your letter above (which,in its entirety, follows this letter of mine) is your reference to some magazine called Chicago.

Seems nobody I know has ever heard of this one and besides that why are you getting “spiritual advice” from them instead of your own spiritual master???

What bona fide disciple of Srila Prabhupada cares if  the man on the moon uses caps or lower case letters to describe the Supreme Person Krsna ??

Have you lost your senses ? Our ONLY authority is Srila Prabhupada in case you have forgotten that most basic Krsna conscious fact. Disciple means to follow the discipline of the master-your master, who told you to use Caps when referring to God , Christ, Buddha, etc.

Furthermore these people you refer to, want to refer to the Lord in lower case as if they are in a position to dictate to GOD–Oh,Yes God, I have declared that You are no longer to be seen as the Primordial Person, the Supreme Controller, the Ultimate Refuge, but now we the editors of Chicago, along with Jayadvaita swami think the world is now ready for YOU as a lower case person.

And YES ,for your information,by the way, the lower case DOES signify  disrespect for a Deity of God. This shows you have Not much respect for God-because even a village idiot could understand this-but apparantly not you.

Furthermore, why are “strong reasons” as you say for this new change coming from  a magazine called Chicago, the Mormons and the King James bible folks?? Since when did bona fide vaisnavas care for village katha? Or the ramblings of mundane so called scholars?

None of the above people or groups even come close to following vaisnava dharma, know of its presence or if they do, care to follow it. They are all dull headed materialists and you are now taking THEIR advice?? Why are you NOT taking the advice of your God brothers who know the difference?  Again, what has happened to you brain??

2) Next you write……….

….” For example, Nanda Maharaja says to Krsna:

My boy, You must be tired from so much wandering in the forest. Go home with Your elder brother and take Your bath. I will look after the cows. Please don’t delay any longer or Your mother will be unhappy and scold me. Please cooperate and go right now.

Here the pronoun with which Nanda addresses Krsna bears an honorific capital though Nanda’s mood towards Krsna is decidedly ‘lower case.’

Again, These books are written for READERS–NOT Nanda Maharaj!!! The READERS should KNOW WHO it is they are reading about–GOD. Nandas relationship with Krsna is besides the point. The point is that God or His expansions should ALWAYS have Upper case letters-otherwise how will the readers know this is GOD?

By lowering the letter case,  you have made something which is clear to millions, now UNCLEAR!!!

All over the world everyone knows that when you refer to GOD in writing, He is ALWAYS  spelled with upper case letters……..-this is first grade stuff…………..Did you not pass first grade english??

3) And now another one…. from you…..

…..”Similarly, ,Sisupala hurls at Krsna scurrilous insults, with a piously reverent capital: “I think Krsna to be no better than a crow — how can He be fit to accept the first worship in this great sacrifice?”…”

So you think that the vedas were written by Srila Vyasadev for Sisupals benefit so that he would know that it was GOD  that was going to kill him? No, these vedas were written for us the readers so that WE would know that sisupala was to be killed by God.

It seems your point of reference in these cases is the demons side and not the pious souls who will read and get benefit.

4) you write more……

….”And yet again, sometimes the capital not only clashes with a speaker’s mood but even gives away the story line. For example, when an unknown boy rings milk, Madhavendra Puri asks:

Who are You? Where do You reside? And how did You know that I was fasting?

All such anomalies would be remedied by the consistent use of pronouns in lower case. This is the style that Dravida and I both favor….”

So, practically speaking,  the whole world accepts that the name of God should be written in the upper case, but you and Dravida alone, think otherwise. There is so much mystery, intrigue, deception,  etc, in the vedas, and it has been that way for billions of years.

But now you and Dravida think that people will not be able to perceive this mystery in a story line because the words depicting God will be giving away the story by showing Him in capital letters??

What has happened to your brains??

Devotees read and re read the Srimad Bhagavatam over and over again knowing fully well who Krsna is, yet that doesnt remove the mystery,suspense, and attraction they have for Him-even if His name was in lower case.

But by putting His name in lower case, YOU remove Him from THIS position from those who do not know who He is.

YOU are now doing what Prabhupada has warned us about- so called scholars who want to KILL Krsna by their demoniac changing of the words of sastra.

First kill the guru…….. then kill Krsna.

Now it has taken place….just see….

Hare Krsna — reply if you dare…

Damaghosa das

————————————————————

–H.H. JAYADVAITA SWAMI’S PROPOSAL TO THE BTG & BBT RE. A CHANGE IN POLICY TOWARDS THE USE OF “DIVINE PRONOUNS”

BBT Style: Regarding lower case for “divine pronouns”

Since the beginning, the BBT style for capitalizing pronouns has been this:

The pronoun He is capitalized for Krsnaa and His Visnu-tattva expansions,
and She for Srimate Radharani. For two or more of these together, They is
capitalized; but when anyone else is included, they becomes lower case.
Hence Balarama is He, but Subhadra is she; and Krsna and Arjuna, and the
Jagannatha deities, and the Panca-tattva are all they. We, Him, Her, She,
and possessives are treated in a similar fashion.

Strong reasons can be advanced, however, for leaving aside our present
standard in favor of extending “down style’ to all pronouns.

The editors of Chicago “urge a spare, down style” in the field of religion,
as in others. Specifically, they say that pronouns referring to God (or
Christ) “are today preferably not capitalized.”

Does the use of lower case signify an impious lack of regard for the Deity?
The King James Bible, that great work of awe and reverence, affords God a
lower-case he. (For that matter, so does the Book of Mormon.)

In BBT publications, the style of pronouns in the plural can be puzzling.
Why are the Jagannatha deities or the Panca-tattva they?

More disturbing still is the use of a capitalized pronoun that belies the
context in which it appears — as it often does. For example, Nanda Maharaja
says to Krsna:

My boy, You must be tired from so much wandering in the forest. Go home with
Your elder brother and take Your bath. I will look after the cows. Please
don’t delay any longer or Your mother will be unhappy and scold me. Please
cooperate and go right now.

Here the pronoun with which Nanda addresses Krsna bears an honorific capital
though Nanda’s mood towards Krsna is decidedly ‘lower case.’

Similarly, ,Sisupala hurls at Krsna scurrilous insults, with a piously
reverent capital: “I think Krsna to be no better than a crow — how can He
be fit to accept the first worship in this great sacrifice?”

And yet again, sometimes the capital not only clashes with a speaker’s mood
but even gives away the story line. For example, when an unknown boy brings
milk, Madhavendra Puri asks:

Who are You? Where do You reside? And how did You know that I was fasting?

All such anomalies would be remedied by the consistent use of pronouns in
lower case. This is the style that Dravida and I both favor.

Though scholars and general readers may find lower case entirely natural, we
need to take into account that many ISKCON devotees are likely to see it as
a shocking sign that the BBT (probably influenced by demonic scholars) has
slid into treating Krsna “like an ordinary human being.”

Some would no doubt point out that ,Srila Prabhupada, in his original
Bhagavatam, used upper-case pronouns. And in a talk with his editors on
December 4, 1969, he again endorsed upper-case pronouns.

Of course, in that original Bhagavatam ,Srila Prabhupada also sometimes used
upper-case Who. And in that 1969 conversation his general attitude was “the
fewer capitals the better.”

And so, although we naturally defer to Srila Prabhupada’s example in so many
areas, we need to ask ourselves whether typographic conventions should be
one of them. And since the 1969 exchange about pronouns was brief, we need
to ask ourselves whether to regard it as a definitive instruction or a
circumstantial comment.

In proposing lower case, one option open to us is to first try a lower-case
policy in BTG, where we can gauge feedback and revert to upper case should
we choose.

In any event, we propose the lower-case standard only for new books, not for
Srila Prabhupada’s already published titles.

Hare Krsna.

————————————————————

Conversation with Srila Prabhupada on Capitalisation

Satsvarupa: Prabhupada, in editing, there are two different policies about using capitals. One is to use as few capitals as possible or to use many capitals, in grammar capitalized, or to use few. So sometimes your Nectar of Devotion has got very few capitals. When Balarama is referred to as “he,” there is no capital. But the other policy is to always put… Krsna’s Hands, capital H, Krsna’s Feet, capital F, Krsna Who, capital W. Which is…

Prabhupada: No, no, no. Don’t follow that policy. That will not be very… Then…

Satsvarupa: The less capitals, the better?

Prabhupada: Yes. I think. What do you think?

Hayagriva: Well, I think, when referring to Krsna, we should always have a capital “H.” [His, Him, etc]

Prabhupada: Especially. Yes. Especially for Krsna, you can.

Hayagriva: And if we want to, for Radha, capital “S.” [She]

Prabhupada: But Balarama is not different from Krsna.

Satsvarupa: So He is capital “H.”

Hayagriva: So He is capital “H.” But then here we go. (laughter)

Prabhupada: No, no. You limit to these three. That will do.

Hayagriva: Limit to those three.

Prabhupada: Or Visnu. Yes. Visnu.

Hayagriva: What about avataras, in reference to Christ or Buddha?

Prabhupada: Buddha is capital used. Jesus Christ is capital used.

Satsvarupa: Yes. But he… Like “He.” He means Buddha, “Who.”

Hayagriva: No, “He.”

Prabhupada: No. That you can use…

Satsvarupa: Small.

Prabhupada: Yes.

Satsvarupa: Then words like Krsna’s “pastimes,” “entourage,” His “will.”

Prabhupada: No, small.

Satsvarupa: Small.

Prabhupada: Yes.

Hayagriva: The possessions of Krsna, small.

Prabhupada: Small.

Satsvarupa: His hands and feet, small.

Brahmananda: Lotus feet?

Prabhupada: Yes.

Satsvarupa: Lotus flower?

Prabhupada: Yes. All small. Simply name. Stick to name.

Hayagriva: The pronoun, Krsna, “who.” The pronoun “who,” that’s not…

Prabhupada: No, no. Use small.

Hayagriva: Thank you. There’s so many… That causes a headache for everyone.

Prabhupada: No. It is better to make everything sound but slow. We want to create this position of Back to Godhead as very authorized representation of the science of God. In future people may refer to it, so we should very cautiously and very nicely do it. It is very important thing, Back to Godhead. If our movement is going to be recognized as scientific, God consciousness movement, then this Back to Godhead will be referred as authorized scripture. So therefore we have to prepare in such a way, nothing non-conclusive can be introduced in this. That should be our policy. And actually it is the position of Back to Godhead.

[Conversation with Srila Prabhupada Dec. 24, 1969]

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]

Dear BBT Trustees,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

“This movement is being supported just by literature. So in this
way we can flood the whole world with Krsna consciousness and then
there’ll be a change. If we want to see a change in the world,
then we have to distribute knowledge of Krsna in this way.” (Srila Prabhupada Room
Conversation 701213rc.ind)

I am writing this letter to request you to seriously consider the following question: “Should Srila Prabhupada’s books be changed or not?”

I’m not talking about correcting real typos and Sanskrit errors.

Should we make significant changes which alter the meaning of text in books which have already been edited by editors chosen by Srila Prabhupada and completely approved of and personally used by Srila Prabhupada on a daily basis for his personal reading and giving classes from?

Should such changes be made secretly by the BBT without informing the devotees that the books have even been changed, and perhaps without even informing the GBC and other leaders in ISKCON?

Should such changes be made completely at the discretion of the BBT editors without any requirement they justify the changes they have made, or even document them?

Many devotees are completely against changing even a word of the original published books of Srila Prabhupada, and that is fine by me and most other devotees also. I’m quite happy with all of Srila Prabhupada’s books as they were originally published and personally approved of by Srila Prabhupada.

I have read all of Srila Prabhupada’s original books many times and the effect they have had on my consciousness is very nice. They are certainly very potent as Srila Prabhupada approved of them.

If we continue to distribute Srila Prabhupada’s books as he personally approved of them they will continue to make new devotees and thus the Krishna consciousness movement will automatically expand. There is no doubt about that at all.

“This new BTG is done very nicely. The printing is very beautiful
and I thank you very much for doing such a nice job. I am very
glad to hear you have printed 100,000 copies of this magazine. Now
give them to everyone. Also I am very happy to hear the other
books will be coming out very soon. If you can finish
Bhagavad-gita As It Is in Spanish and show me at the Mayapur
festival that will be very sublime. Please print as many books as
possible, this is my real pleasure. By printing these books of our
Krsna Conscious philosophy in so many different languages we can
actually inject our movement into the masses of persons all over
the world, especially there in the western countries and we can
literally turn whole nations into Krsna Conscious nations. Thank
you for representing me there in LSS by stressing the importance
of attendance to the morning and evening programs and following
all of the spiritual practices. This is wanted. Without these
things there is no devotional life. And by your example many
others will also become strong.” (Srila Prabhupada’s letter to
Hridayananda Maharaja 74-12-21)

Many devotees, however, in principle, are not opposed to correcting real typographical and Sanskrit errors in the original books.

The thing which concerns me and most other devotees is not the actual correction of real typographical errors in the English and Sanskrit in the original printed books, but the “revision and enlargement” of the books.

More than 70% of the Bhagavad-gita translations and more than 70% of the purports have been changed. In many cases the meaning of the new text is substantially different from the meaning of the original text approved by Srila Prabhupada. We have made a small list of some of these changes at:

www.BookChanges.com

Even though Jayadvaita Swami has made literally thousands of changes to the Bhagavad-gita and most of them appear completely unnecessary, he says in his July 1986 letter to Amogha Lila Prabhu:

>First: To my knowledge, Srila Prabhupada never asked us to re-edit
>the book.
>
>As you know, and as we kept in mind while doing the work, Srila
>Prabhupada staunchly opposed needless changes.

There are so many substantial changes. It is no longer the same book as the one Srila Prabhupada personally approved of and used himself at all. Jayadvaita Swami himself calls it the “Revised and Enlarged” edition.

Of course we have written to Jayadvaita Swami and asked for his explanation, as you know, many devotees have done that over the years, but he always replies with the same letters [one to Amogha Lila and the other to "Senior ISKCON Devotees"] he wrote in 1986, which quite convincingly demonstrate there are a number of bona fide typos and Sanskrit errors in the original Bhagavad-gita which he has corrected, however there is no hint that he has made many changes and revisions which alter the meaning of the text in the book from the original approved by Srila Prabhupada.

In many places he has, perhaps unintentionally, subtlety changed the meaning of the text thus causing it to present a COMPLETELY different meaning from the original. That is the most disturbing aspect of the changes.

If he simply corrected the typos and Sanskrit without altering the meaning of the text and without trying to remove Hayagriva Prabhu’s editing who would have complained? After all Srila Prabhupada selected Hayagriva to edit the book and liked his editing.

There are so many examples of subtle changes of meaning in the book that look like small edits, but actually COMPLETELY change the meaning. I have not put many of them on the book changes page because it’s difficult for many to see how the meaning is changed and easy for Jayadvaita or Dravida to write something that “explains it” by referring to the “original manuscript” which they will not make available for anyone to look at…

Something to think about: (from bg 4.10)

Original: “…the conception of void that underlies the frustration of life…”

Jayadvaita: “…the conception of void that arises from frustration in life…”

So it is not difficult to see here that the editing has COMPLETELY changed the meaning and the original point has been COMPLETY lost. The original, approved by Srila Prabhupada, says void philosophy causes frustration whereas Jayadvaita’s says void philosophy “arises from frustration”. If this was an isolated incident that would be one thing, but there are hundreds of instances like this were the new version subtly imparts a completely different meaning to the original approved by Srila Prabhupada.

>My dear Hamsaduta,
> Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your letter
>dated May 30, 1975 and have noted the contents. I don’t think that
>Hayagriva is at fault. He has not changed the meaning or the
>philosophy in any way…(Srila Prabhupada’s Letter: 75-06-08)

We have sometimes presented such things to Jayadvaita Swami, but he does not seem to be able to conceive such changes of meaning exist in the new edition. He just gets angry and calls us “self-righteous” and “abusive” and “refuses to correspond further”.

On such an important issue as the authorization and validity of changes to Srila Prabhupada’s books, a point which is fundamental to the credibility and authority of the entire ISKCON movement, this is not a very satisfactory reply.

>Date: 19.4.1997
>From: Jayadvaita Swami
>To: Madhudvisa dasa
>Subject: Vedabase editions & book revisions
>Ahmedabad
>18 April 97

>Dear Madhudvisa dasa,

>Hare Krsna. Since you’ve already decided what books you will accept
>as bona fide and what you will criticize as bogus, and since you are
>already sure enough of your convictions that you think it worthwhile
>to express them in a self-righteous and abusive manner, I have
>nothing to say to you except that I see no need for us to correspond
>further.

>Best wishes. Hare Krsna.

>Jayadvaita Swami

It would seem to us that the BBT have given absolute authority to Jayadvaita Swami to change anything he likes at all in Srila Prabhupada’s books without anyone even checking or approving of what he does. Of course that may not be that case, however that is what appears to be happening. So it is a very dangerous position for ISKCON as, really, everything in ISKCON depends on the authority of Srila Prabhupada’s books. Srila Prabhupada’s books are the real asset of ISKCON. They are the attractive principle.

“I was very glad to learn how our devotees are coming out
victorious in the preaching to the university professors and
students. Other groups have no philosophy nor do they have any
idea of spiritual life, what to speak of living it. Our movement
is authorized. Our books are based on the statements of the most
exalted devotees. And if we follow strictly the guidelines for
devotional service as they are given in the Nectar of Devotion and
Nectar of Instruction, then no one can touch us. Our position is
definitely due to our books, therefore I am always pressing on
this point. All the groups are declining including the Christians.
We are being harassed by the authorities and they are all
Christians. Because they are losing ground, and we are increasing,
they are trying to stop us. There is always this battle between
the demons and the devotees, but the devotees always win because
they are protected by Krishna.” (Letter: Bahudak 76-01-11)

If someone is making changes to Srila Prabhupada’s books, but is not prepared to justify them, and if the BBT refuse to make the source-material which authorizes such changes available, it does not look good.

I am also most distressed about Jayadvaita’s editing of Srila Prabhupada’s “Krsna Book”. That is completely heart-breaking. Srila Prabhupada’s original “Krsna Book” is so transcendentally wonderful. I can’t put it into words. It’s not possible to explain how wonderful that book is. Of course you know that well yourself. But Jayadvaita’s editing has COMPLETELY changed it…

Prabhupada liked, regularly read from, 100% approved of and relished reading his original “Krsna Book”. Satsvarupa Maharaja’s editing is very nice. I’m sure he has not changed the meaning from Srila Prabhupada’s dictation tapes. The English is very good. There are some Sanskrit errors and typos of course. If they were corrected who would complain? But Jayadvaita has practically re-written the book! He has completely changed the editing style, removed all the words he considers redundant, in places added in what appears to be his own preaching, and he has used Hridyananda Maharaja’s translation of the Tenth Canto to “correct” Srila Prabhupada’s Krsna Book… It is a disaster and heart-breaking to me… Who authorized him to “correct” Srila Prabhupada’s “Krsna Book”?

With all due respect, I don’t want to read Srila Prabhupada’s books “corrected by Jayadvaita Swami”. And I really don’t think anyone does. Even the scholars, university professors, etc. Srila Prabhupada’s books are literary classics. The scholars and university professors liked them as they were originally published! There are so many rave reviews. Everyone likes them. They are transcendental gems. They are priceless. Every word is spiritual. The whole thing is 100% transcendental. Even though there may appear to be some small discrepancies to our material eyes…

Who would be interested in any of the worlds great literary classics “corrected by Jayadvata Swami”? It is ridiculous. People want to read the original book!

And “Perfect Questions, Perfect Answers”… That has been “re-edited” by Sita devi dasi… Who is “Sita devi dasi” anyhow? What gives her the right to change Srila Prabhupada’s books? She has deleted so many things from “Perfect Questions, Perfect Answers”? What is the explanation? I don’t think the BBT even told anyone they changed the book!! Did the GBC approve of these changes?

We have the original transcript of the conversation and the text which has been deleted from the new edition is in the original transcript of the conversation. She has deleted Srila Prabhupada’s instruction that performing devotional service for some material benefit is business not devotion, she have deleted Bob asking Srila Prabhupada, “You mean by following these [regulative] principles,” and Srila Prabhupada replying “Yes.” She have deleted a whole discussion about miracles, “Miracles are for the ignorant”. She has deleted Srila Prabhupada saying “Our knowledge is perfect.” She has deleted Srila Prabhupada saying chanting Hare Krishna is a yogic process! Srila Prabhupada’s instruction that one who does not have perfect knowledge should not teach has been completely removed… And what to speak of Srila Prabhupada’s four page discourse on independence and the fact that we are always controlled either by maya or Krishna. It has been completely deleted from the new version along with so many other things. How can the BBT delete so much text from such a small book?? Who instructed Sita devi dasi to do this?

http://krishna.org/ISKCON/BookChanges/pqpac.html

No one in the BBT is prepared to explain WHY? And WHAT NEXT? Perhaps they will get Sita devi dasi to do the next edition of Bhagavad-gita? The “Women’s-Lib Edition” I see you have had some email correspondence about…

Some of the ISKCON Matajis may be a little pacified by all these changes to Srila Prabhupada’s books… But is that really the business of the BBT? And where has this idea of changing Srila Prabhupada’s books come from in ISKCON? Why are the Matajis demanding Srila Prabhupada’s books be changed? Do they no longer have any faith in Srila Prabhupada and his books? Who has taught them this??

Surely the BBT has a far greater responsibility, the responsibility to print and distribute Srila Prabhupada’s books as he approved of them? Without changing the message in the books? Perhaps with real typos and Sanskrit errors corrected. If that is all the editors do then who would complain?

“Too much editing is not required. If Satsvarupa has already edited it, there is no need of further editing.” (Letter to Rayarama 21-Dec-67)

Srila Prabhupada’s books are the only hope for this world (and the only hope for us!) so the BBT and ISKCON should be busy making plans to print them in unlimited quantities and distribute them widely to save the world… Not making plans how to change them and make them more “acceptable” to the public and the ISKCON Matajis…

“So Krsna is very popular in India. In every home, Krsna is
worshipped, and there are many millions of temples of Krsna in
India and followers also. Followers means almost all Hindus are
followers of Krsna. They read this Bhagavad-gita. So I have
recently published Bhagavad-gita As It Is. It is published by
Macmillan Company, and this book is very nicely being received. It
is being reviewed by several papers. I have got many others books.
They are being gradually introduced. Perhaps you have seen in our
counter. We have got books, magazines, calendar, and other
literatures. So it is a very scientific movement. It is not a
sentiment, bogus hoax. Anyone who wants to understand this
movement philosophically, scientifically, they will be very much
satisfied with this. The idea is that any religious movement
without philosophical basis, it is simply sentiment or fanaticism.
And philosophy without idea of God is simply mental speculation.
Therefore religious principles combined with philosophy, that is
perfect. So the younger section become attracted to this movement
because we are giving some religious principle based on
philosophy.” (Interview 680201iv.la)

How can we make Prabhupada’s books “acceptable” to people in maya? We have to make the people in maya Krishna conscious then they will not only accept, but they will relish Srila Prabhupada’s books. But if we water-down the books to make them “acceptable” to the public and the feminists then the potency will be lost and they will no longer be relishable by the devotees either. It is like sweet-rice with sand in it. It’s still sweet undoubtedly but how can you enjoy it mixed with sand?

I pray that you will consider what I have written and write back, not like Jayadvaita, calling me “self-righteous and abusive”. But an honest reply.

Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

Madhudvisa dasa

NOTE: This letter was written on March 8, 1998, almost 12 years ago, and still I have not received any reply from the BBT, and still the BBT is pushing on their agenda of changing Prabhupada’s books more and more and more…

“To my knowledge, Srila Prabhupada never asked us to re-edit the book.” (Jayadvaita Swami)

Some Statistics:
496 out 625 Purports have been changed;
483 out 653 Translations have been changed.

“As you know, and as we kept in mind while doing the work, Srila Prabhupada staunchly opposed needless changes.” (Jayadvaita Swami)

Jayadvaita’s 1986 explanation of his changes to “Bhagavad-gita As It Is” published recently on VNN mentions many changes which seem to be justified. There are some typographical errors in the original 1972 edition of Srila Prabhupada’s “Bhagavad-gita As It Is.” That is accepted by everyone, however Srila Prabhupada accepted the book, and read from it and gave classes from it himself almost daily and many devotees claim Srila Prabhupada’s personally accepting and using the book means he approved of it.

This appears to be confirmed in a letter from Srila Prabhupada to Hamsadutta where Srila Prabhupada states in reference to the Bhagavad-gita As It Is, “Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your letter dated May 30, 1975 and have noted the contents. I don’t think that Hayagriva [one of the original editors] is at fault. He has not changed the meaning or the philosophy in any way.”

However, on comparing Jayadvaita’s changes to the original book approved by Srila Prabhupada himself, some devotees claim Jayadvaita’s revisions to the book appear to have changed the meaning of the philosophy in a number of places. Until now Jayadvaita has not offered any explanation for these revisions other than the letter recently published by VNN.

Many devotees accept the few apparent errors in Srila Prabhupada’s original Bhagavad-gita in the same mood as the Srimad-Bhagavatam verse (1.5.11):

“On the other hand, that literature which is full of descriptions of the transcendental glories of the name, fame, forms, pastimes, etc., of the unlimited Supreme Lord is a different creation, full of transcendental words directed toward bringing about a revolution in the impious lives of this world’s misdirected civilization. Such transcendental literatures, even though imperfectly composed, are heard, sung and accepted by purified men who are thoroughly honest..”

Srila Prabhupada authorized Jayadvaita Swami to edit his books, but some devotees have asked, “Where does Srila Prabhupada give Jayadvaita permission to ‘Revise and Enlarge’ his books as he has done for the Revised and Enlarged edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is? Some also question if so many revisions will effect the potency of the book.

Previously, in an earlier article, we have asked Jayadvaita to explain his change to Bg. 10.34

“…One need not read many books on different subject
matters; the ability to remember a few and quote them when
necessary is also another opulence.”“Revised and Enlarged” version:

“And the ability not only to read many books on different
subject matters but to understand them and apply them when
necessary is intelligence (medha).”

However he has not provided any explanation at all for this change and after three weeks we simply get the same old 1986 letter from Jayadvaita which has been sent to the author at least five times already. This change is not mentioned in his letter. And some devotees claim there are dozens of very significant changes of this nature in the “Revised and Enlarged” Bhagavad-gita along with hundreds of others that subtly change the meaning of the text. These points are not cleared up in Jayadvaita’s letter.

A number of the changes appear to be bona fide corrections to the original edition, however there are other changes which appear to alter the meaning of the text. Previously, when this has been pointed out to Jayadvaita Swami, he has called the person pointing this out “self-righteous and abusive” and flatly refused to offer any explanation…

Date: 19.4.1997
From: Jayadvaita Swami
To: H. N. Subject: Vedabase editions & book revisions
Ahmedabad 18 April 97

Dear Mr. N.,

Hare Krsna. Since you’ve already decided what books you will accept as bona fide and what you will criticize as bogus, and since you are already sure enough of your convictions that you think it worthwhile to express them in a self-righteous and abusive manner, I have nothing to say to you except that I see no need for us to correspond further.

Best wishes. Hare Krsna.

Jayadvaita Swami

Some devotees are not satisfied with such an explanation and feel it is their right to know why changes have been made to their spiritual master’s books which the editors are not prepared to justify or even discuss.

Some of the alleged changes have been listed on a Book Changes web page at <http://bookchanges.com/examples-of-iskcons-bhagavad-gita-changes/>

“Whenever difficult questions arose, Gopiparanadhana and I met to consider them, and we consulted the original books Srila Prabhupada consulted when he wrote Bhagavad-gita As It Is–the Bengali translations and commentaries by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura and Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana.” (Jayadvaita Swami)

“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. (Srila Prabhupada to Rayarama May 15, 1969)

Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

Madhudvisa dasa

Date: 4.4.1997
From: H. N.
To: Dulal Chandra (Bhaktivedanta Archives)
Subject: What kind of VedaBase is THIS?!?

Dear Dulal Chandra,

My name is H. N. and my address is… I’ve ordered the Bhaktivedanta Vedabase in December 1996 and happily received it a few weeks later. Now I discovered that at least two very important books on the CD aren’t the same as the printed [original] ones! Namely Krsna book and Bhagavad-gita. I can’t believe it! What are you guys doing there in the US? What kind of storing and preserving is this? Still, even now, I can’t believe it. I’m really shocked.

I EXPECT AND I WANT THE ORIGINAL BOOKS WITCH WERE DISTRIBUTED IN THE ’70 AND NOT SOME NEW EDITIONS.

This Vedabase is completely useless and I don’t want it any longer. Take it back and return the money, or send a corrected edition, although I don’t think that I’m able to trust your organisation any longer. Better return the money. I pray for your well-being and I hope Srila Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada will forgive you this horrible offence. Awaiting your early reply.

Sincerely, H. N.

Dear H.,

Thank you for your e-mail received today. While I understand your anger over what you perceive to be offenses on the part of the staff of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, I can assure you that there are very important and valid reasons for the re-editing of the books. The first and most important is that Srila Prabhupada himself insisted on his books being edited to the highest possible standard of English language so that scholars would accept them as valid and important translations of the Vedic literatures. The second is that in the early days of ISKCON, the devotees involved were simply not very expert and many errors were made. To give just one of the more serious examples, one purport in Bhagavad-gita was placed after the wrong verse. Srila Prabhupada engaged the best people he could but most were unqualified and despite their best efforts, many mistakes were there. Later on, the re-editing was entrusted to devotees who had become more expert and they referred to the original transcriptions of the tapes made by Srila Prabhupada himself to get the best result. Because we are distributing the Vedabase to scholars we offer the most valid editions we can. I trust that this will give you a better idea of our predicament. We certainly have no intention of changing anything in the Srila Prabhupada legacy of philosophy and realization. Please feel free to communicate with us further in this regard. We understand that some will think that the effort to re-edit is a bigger mistake than allowing the flawed earlier edition to stand for all time and we are painfully aware that some will try to exploit this to criticize the BBT and ISKCON for their own purposes. We have nothing to hide, and we do not try to “cover up” what we are doing. We have yet to have pointed out to us where in the new editions, the text deviates in any way from Srila Prabhupada’s intent or purport. I trust this meets you well. Please do not take offense. It is our purpose only to serve the devotee community to the best of our ability and we seek only their blessings.

Yours sincerely,

Ranjit Dasa

Dear Ranjit,

thanks for your early reply. I’m really not satisfied with your explanation, because there are so many modifications. Do you really want me to believe the former editors had made so many mistakes, at nearly every paragraph in the mentioned books, and Srila Prabhupada himself repeatedly cited this mistakes without complaining? I’m not a fool. I won’t buy that. I think there are some “disciples” who think they have become better than their spiritual master. That’s what I think. This sort of book-changing policy, making better English, happened even as Srila Prabhupada was on earth.

> “We have yet to have pointed out to us where in the new editions, the text deviates in any way from Srila Prabhupada’s intent or purport.”

There are so many modifications. I’ve to cite the whole books if I want to show them altogether to you. But here are some examples from Bhagavad-gita:

• 7.8, Purport (BG 1972)“The light of the sun and the moon is also originally emanating from the brahmajyoti, which is the impersonal effulgence of the Lord. Similarly pranava, or the omkara transcendental sound used in the beginning of every Vedic hymn to address the Supreme Lord also emanates from Him.””The light of the sun and the moon is also originally emanating from the brahmajyoti, which is the impersonal effulgence of the Lord. And pranava, or the omkara transcendental sound used in the beginning of every Vedic hymn, to addresses the Supreme Lord.” (Vedabase)So, do you see in the new edition omkara emanating from the Lord? Which one is now the original sentence? Why has “omkara emanating from the Lord” been removed?
• Here’s another:2.25, Translation (BG 1972)It is said that the soul is invisible, inconceivable, immutable and unchangeable. Knowing this, you should not grieve for the body.(Vedabase)It is said that the soul is invisible, inconceivable, and immutable. Knowing this, you should not grieve for the body.Well, you may say, it doesn’t matter if the soul is no longer unchangeable, because immutable means almost the same. But where is the order to change this translation? Why didn’t Prabhupada rebel against this error while one of his disciples read this translation before him in 1973 (730828BG.LON)?
• Here’s a better one:3.7, Translation (BG 1972)On the other hand, he who controls the senses by the mind and engages his active organs in works of devotion, without attachment, is by far superior.(Vedabase)On the other hand, if a sincere person tries to control the active senses by the mind and begins karma-yoga [in Krsna consciousness] without attachment, he is by far superior.Is it no more necessary to control the senses? Is it now enough to sincerly try? All Glories to the mercyful editor, our good friend who don’t want to bother us to much… Again, at the lecture in 1968 Srila Prabhupada didn’t say anything about the translation while a disciple read it from the book (681223BG.LA).
• This one is really serious:4.34, Translation (BG 1972)Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth.(Vedabase)Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth.One may think this is irrelevant. But Srila Prabhupada has a very deep philosophical understanding of the spiritual master. He know why he translates this text singular. He himself cites this vers again and again in many of his books, without changing only one word: SB 4.28.64p, SB 5.14.41p, SB 6.7.15p, SB 6.8.42p, SB 7.7.47p, SB 8.6.9p, SB 8.24.53p, SB 9.10.3p, SB 10.3.14p etc. + lectures + conversations
• Another “mercy” of the editor:3.32, Translation (BG 1972)But those who, out of envy, disregard these teachings and do not practice them regularly, are to be considered bereft of all knowledge, befooled, and doomed to ignorance and bondage.(Vedabase)But those who, out of envy, disregard these teachings and do not follow them, are to be considered bereft of all knowledge, befooled, and ruined in their endeavors for perfection.Similar in the translation of text 6.35. Where is the regular/constant practice? Again, Srila Prabhupada himself cites this translation (690101BG.LA) without modification and soft wording.
• This one shows what changing of a little word can do:2.8, Purport (BG 1972)They are seeking peace in different ways, but 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.(Vedabase)They are seeking peace in different ways, but 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.
• And here’s another “little” modification:7.30, Purport (BG 1972)Persons acting in Krsna consciousness are never entirely deviated from the path of understanding the Supreme Personality of Godhead.(Vedabase)Persons acting in Krsna consciousness are never deviated from the path of entirely understanding the Supreme Personality of Godhead.Watch the word “entirely”. The same meaning? No, one of this is far out, dear matajis and prabhujis.

I’ll stop now, because there are really too many modifications to cite; many of them are not only superficial. This Vedabase is completely useless. Correct it or take it back, whatever you like. I don’t want it.

Yours sincerely, H.

Dear H.,

Thank you for your detailed exposition on some points. However, the issues are not so simple. I can give only one example because I don’t have the time to go into all of them:

>This one is really serious:

>4.34, Translation (BG 1972)

>Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth.

>(Vedabase)

>Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth.

>One may think this is irrelevant. But Srila Prabhupada has a very deep philosophical understanding of the spiritual master. He know why he translates this text.

The original manuscript reads:

“Just try to know the truth of all these by approaching self-realised spiritual master with all submission enquiries and rendering service unto Him. Such learned self realised spiritual master initiates knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth.”

The original was both singular and plural. In the second edit the compromise was made that the first part remain singular while the second sentence be plural if you want to maintain the concept that “they have seen the truth.”

Maybe you should open a dialoge with the editor and find out from him the particular reasons for all these changes. One thing you can find in the Vedabase is that Jayadvaita Swami, along with Sastvarupa Gosvami was considered by Srila Prabhupada as the proper man to edit his works. So Jayadvaita Swami was deputed by the ISKCON authorities to do the needful.

The original editor, Hayagriva Das has passed away. Really the difference is simply between a Hayagriva edit and a Jayadvaita edit. I give no credence whatsoever to the idea that any attempt was made to change the philosophy.

These topics will be the stuff of academic debate for years to come.

Yours in the service of Krishna,

Ranjit dasa

Dear H.,

Thank you for your message. Regarding the following points:

>thank you for your message. It is understandable that the Trustees of the BBT are responsible which books are to be published. Maybe you can tell who has ordered and approved this revisions so I’m able to complain to him directly.

Jayadvaita Swami happens to be the current chairman of the BBT Trustees.

They elect from among the trustees a new chairman every 3 years and it is coincidental that he also happens to be the editor of the new edition of Bhagavad-gita. Regarding approval of the revisions, I can tell you that the decision was made in 1983 in Mayapur during the meetings by a committee of GBC men and BBT Trustees. Jayadvaita Swami had been assigned the task to re-edit for the reasons I mentioned in a previous email (that serious errors were in the original like the purport in the wrong place etc. etc.) At that point Jayadvaita Swami was neither a GBC man nor a trustee by the way, but the main editor for BBT books. Because I was in Mayapur at the time, I know that this committee spent many hours going through each and every correction and approved them before the new edition was printed. Prior to these meetings every GBC man had been sent a copy of the proposed corrections also for their comment and corrections. I may be a little hazy on the exact details because I was not personally involved but this is my understanding of what happened.

You can contact Jayadvaita Swami at:

jswami@afn.org

Yours sincerely,

Ranjit das

Letters to and from the BBT – Part 2 (Jayadvaita Swami)

Date: 16.4.1997
From: H. N.
To: Jayadvaita Swami
Subject: Vedabase editions & book revisions

Dear Jayadvaita Swami,

My name is H. N. and I’m living in Europe. Last December I purchased the Vedabase CD. After some months I discovered that the books on the Vedabase aren’t the original editions of Srila Prabhupadas books, but some revised editions. This concerns at least Bhagavad-gita and the book about Krishna-lila. After complaining to the Bhaktivedanta Archives I sent the Vedabase back, because I expect the original editions of Srila Prabhupadas books on the CD and not some revised versions of the 80′s.

Please refer to the discussion with Ranjit dasa of the Bhaktivedanta Archives which I forward to you.

Ranjit dasa says that you re-edited the mentioned books (at least BG) and that you are the current chairman of the BBT Trustees. He further explains that the Bhaktivedanta Archives are not responsible for which books are to be found on the Vedabase but the BBT Trustees. My suggestion is to put the original edition of the revised books (also) on the Vedabase and maybe the original manuscripts. This would prevent further complaints and misunderstandings.

Regarding the modifications. I wouldn’t say anything if only the obvious errors were corrected, but there are lots of modifications which aren’t necessary and many of them are changing the meaning of a sentence. Here are a few examples:

> “We have yet to have pointed out to us where in the new editions, the text deviates in any way from Srila Prabhupada’s intent or purport.”

There are so many modifications. I’ve to cite the whole books if I want to show them altogether to you. But here are some examples from Bhagavad-gita:

• 7.8, Purport (BG 1972)“The light of the sun and the moon is also originally emanating from the brahmajyoti, which is the impersonal effulgence of the Lord. Similarly pranava, or the omkara transcendental sound used in the beginning of every Vedic hymn to address the Supreme Lord also emanates from Him.””The light of the sun and the moon is also originally emanating from the brahmajyoti, which is the impersonal effulgence of the Lord. And pranava, or the omkara transcendental sound used in the beginning of every Vedic hymn, to addresses the Supreme Lord.” (Vedabase)So, do you see in the new edition omkara emanating from the Lord? Which one is now the original sentence? Why has “omkara emanating from the Lord” been removed?
• Here’s another:2.25, Translation (BG 1972)It is said that the soul is invisible, inconceivable, immutable and unchangeable. Knowing this, you should not grieve for the body.(Vedabase)It is said that the soul is invisible, inconceivable, and immutable. Knowing this, you should not grieve for the body.Well, you may say, it doesn’t matter if the soul is no longer unchangeable, because immutable means almost the same. But where is the order to change this translation? Why didn’t Prabhupada rebel against this error while one of his disciples read this translation before him in 1973 (730828BG.LON)?
• Here’s a better one:3.7, Translation (BG 1972)On the other hand, he who controls the senses by the mind and engages his active organs in works of devotion, without attachment, is by far superior.(Vedabase)On the other hand, if a sincere person tries to control the active senses by the mind and begins karma-yoga [in Krsna consciousness] without attachment, he is by far superior.Is it no more necessary to control the senses? Is it now enough to sincerly try? All Glories to the mercyful editor, our good friend who don’t want to bother us to much… Again, at the lecture in 1968 Srila Prabhupada didn’t say anything about the translation while a disciple read it from the book (681223BG.LA).
• This one is really serious:4.34, Translation (BG 1972)Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth.(Vedabase)Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth.One may think this is irrelevant. But Srila Prabhupada has a very deep philosophical understanding of the spiritual master. He know why he translates this text singular. He himself cites this vers again and again in many of his books, without changing only one word: SB 4.28.64p, SB 5.14.41p, SB 6.7.15p, SB 6.8.42p, SB 7.7.47p, SB 8.6.9p, SB 8.24.53p, SB 9.10.3p, SB 10.3.14p etc. + lectures + conversations
• Another “mercy” of the editor:3.32, Translation (BG 1972)But those who, out of envy, disregard these teachings and do not practice them regularly, are to be considered bereft of all knowledge, befooled, and doomed to ignorance and bondage.(Vedabase)But those who, out of envy, disregard these teachings and do not follow them, are to be considered bereft of all knowledge, befooled, and ruined in their endeavors for perfection.Similar in the translation of text 6.35. Where is the regular/constant practice? Again, Srila Prabhupada himself cites this translation (690101BG.LA) without modification and soft wording.
• This one shows what changing of a little word can do:2.8, Purport (BG 1972)They are seeking peace in different ways, but 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.(Vedabase)They are seeking peace in different ways, but 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.
• And here’s another “little” modification:7.30, Purport (BG 1972)Persons acting in Krsna consciousness are never entirely deviated from the path of understanding the Supreme Personality of Godhead.(Vedabase)Persons acting in Krsna consciousness are never deviated from the path of entirely understanding the Supreme Personality of Godhead.Watch the word “entirely”. The same meaning? No, one of this is far out, dear matajis and prabhujis.I’ll stop now, because there are really to much modifications to cite; many of them are not only superficial. This Vedabase is completely useless. Correct it or take it back, whatever you like. I don’t want it.

I’m convinced that many of the modifications in the revised editions aren’t authorized; there are more errors (perhaps more serios errors) in the revised editions than in the original editions. If anyone is able to explain these modifications (at least the few examples above) then it’s you.

Well, I’m still shocked about how rash and effortlessly this revisions were done, only a few years after the author passed away. Bhagavad-gita is the key to Srila Prabhupadas books, which he himself uses many times to look at other important books like Srimad Bhagavatam and Caitanya Caritamrita. To revise this book which is approved by Srila Prabhupada himself is playing with hellfire. Bhagavad-gita is like a pair of glasses which are to be used to look on the vedic sastras. If the glasses becomes bad then how will you be able to use them? You can’t unlock the door with a “revised” key, that’s not possible. You need the original key.

Although I’m not responsible for the purity of Srila Prabhupadas teachings, I’d be very dismayed if the further generations won’t be able to dive into this transcendental ocean. I hope you are aware of what you are doing and of what you are responsible.

Yours sincerely, H.

Dear Mr. N.,

Hare Krsna. Since you’ve already decided what books you will accept as bona fide and what you will criticize as bogus, and since you are already sure enough of your convictions that you think it worthwhile to express them in a self-righteous and abusive manner, I have nothing to say to you except that I see no need for us to correspond further.

Best wishes. Hare Krsna.

Jayadvaita Swami

Dear Jayadvaita Swami,

It really hurts me to see your reaction. Your message means only one thing to me: you aren’t able to explain even the few examples I cited and therefore you want to cut off the discussion saying that I’m offending you (why?), although I gave enough reasons for everything I wrote. I didn?t want to talk to you because I’m not an insider and it’s not my responsibility to protect the very teachings of Prabhupada. But I sent you the last message to give you a fair opportunity to explain.

Well, it’s your decision to take it or not. But that’s for sure: your reactions will decide how I and maybe many other people will furthermore view you and some responsible authorities in ISKCON either as Prabhupadas successors or as Prabhupadas enemies No.1.

I’ve seen that there is a lot of trouble all over the world because of this book revisions and I think you know this well. Why not end this unworthy quarrel by taking this unlucky revisions back? You can do it.

Anytime. You are able to stop this. What are you waiting for? That the devotees start to kill each other? That the people are going to say that Prabhupadas books have been distorted as they say now about the bible?

If you stop this trouble this will proof that you are a worthy disciple of your brilliant spiritual master and he will surely be very grateful and give you his blessings.

Sincerely, H.

Dear H.,

Thank you for your messages. I am sorry that you feel that Jayadvaita Swami is insensitive to your requests:

>it really hurts me to see your reaction. Your message means only one thing to me: you aren’t able to explain even the few examples I cited and therefore you want to cut off the discussion saying that I’m offending you (why?), although I gave enough reasons for everything I wrote. I didn’t want to talk to you because I’m not an insider and it’s not my responsibility to protect the very teachings of Prabhupada. But I sent you the last message to give you a fair opportunity to explain. Well, it’s your decision to take it or not. But that’s for sure: your reactions will decide how I and maybe many other people will furthermore view you and some responsible authorities in ISKCON either as Prabhupadas successors or as Prabhupadas enemies No.1.

>I’ve seen that there is a lot of trouble all over the world because of this book revisions and I think you know this well. Why not end this unworthy quarrel by taking this unlucky revisions back? You can do it. Anytime. You are able to stop this. What are you waiting for? That the devotees start to kill each other? That the people are going to say that Prabhupadas books have been distorted as they say now about the Bible? If you stop this trouble this will proof that you are a worthy disciple of your brilliant spiritual master and he will surely be very grateful and give you his blessings.

However, he did ask me to forward you the text of 2 letters sent out by him in the early 80s that address your doubts and questions. I had forgotten that I had these on computer but I think when you read them you will have a better idea of this whole matter:

[NOTE: These letters are to be found in the next message.]

Dear Jayadvaita Swami,

After reading your letters regarding the revision of Bhagavad-gita I’ve to agree that there are some errors in the original edition which need to be corrected. But I think you still misunderstand me — I don’t complain about these errors. I wouldn’t complain even the translations and completions of the sanskrit in the purports or some helpful hints from the editor. My intention is to show you that there are many modifications – in the translations and in the purports – which are changing the meaning of a sentence and that these modifications cannot be approved by the author.

Probably you made these modifications unconsciously, I don’t know. It seems you aren’t aware that there are such strange modifications and still think that there are only corrections and improvements. But that’s not the fact and everything I wrote is to explain this. It’s not my intention to offend you, nor to complain against the correction of errors.

My claim is that some of the modification in Bhagavad-gita injure the teaching of Prabhupada – mostly very subtle, but sometimes obviously too. Therefore I cited a few examples. But if it is helpful I’ll spend some more days and show you more, if necessary each and every modification I’m able to find. But for now it seems the hardest task is to make you understand – first that I don’t want to offend you and second that there are indeed modifications and not only corrections.

I see only two ways to clear this out properly:

1. A proper documentation to all the revisions be made easily available for everyone (published on the Internet…), and not only to some “senior devotees” of ISKCON (especially not only the senior devotees and GBC of ISKCON in the early 80′s). The revised books should also be approved by independent, critical scholars who are disciples of Srila Prabhupada.
2. The other way is to stop the printing of the revised books and print the original editions again. The devotees must be informed about the revised Bhagavad-gita. Bhagavad-gita may be corrected, but no revisions or new editions. If the manuscripts bear some extra teachings, there could be an extra book. I think this is the easiest and the best way.

The most dreadful way is the one which it seems you are taking now: To ignore the complains and to slander all the concerned people who are complaining. What do you think this people will do, if the authorities in ISKCON don’t listen and worse – start to defame them by declaring that they are making politics against the organisation (this is what Ranjit dasa wrote in his first message) and that they are offenders? Do you think they will be any longer friends of such an organisation?

Unlikely.

Sincerely, H.

Dear H.,

Thank you for your letter.

>after reading your letters regarding the revision of Bhagavad-gita I’ve to agree that there are some errors in the original edition which need to be corrected.

Now we are getting somewhere.

>My intention is to show you that there are many modifications – in the translations and in the purports – which are changing the meaning of a sentence and that this modifications cannot be approved by the author.

>My claim is that some of the modification in Bhagavad-gita injure the teaching of Prabhupada – mostly very subtle, but sometimes obviously too.

You cannot say this without reference to the original manuscript. That is why I asked you for a copy of the manuscript that you have.

>But for now it seems the hardest task is to make you understand – first that I don’t want to offend you and second that there are indeed modifications and not only corrections.

To some it may appear that the changes are modifications but this was certainly not the intention and one man’s correction can be another man’s modification.

>I see only two ways to clear this out properly:

>A proper documentation to all the revisions is easily available for everyone (published on the Internet…), and not only to some “senior devotees” of ISKCON (especially not only the senior devotees and GBC of ISKCON in the early 80′s). The revised books should also be approved by independent, critical scholars who are disciples of Srila Prabhupada.

Many devotees have the list of revisions. They are distributed to all the translators who have to translate into the different languages for one thing. The new edition was examined by practically all the disciples of Srila Prabhupada who were in the movement at the time who had any critical capability at all.

>The other way is to stop the printing of the revised books and print the original editions again.

What about your agreement above that some corrections are necessary?

Give us a break!

>The devotees must be informed about the revised Bhagavad-gita. Bhagavad-gita may be corrected, but no revisions or new editions. If the manuscripts bear some extra teachings, there could be an extra book. I think this is the easiest and the best way.

1. All the devotees know about the revised edition. This is no secret.

2. There are absolutely NO “extra teachings”. Everything is simpy an attempt to render faithfully the original manuscript.

>The most dreadful way is the one which it seems you are taking now: To ignore the complains and to slander all the concerned people who are complaining. What do you think this people will do, if the authorities in ISKCON don?t listen and worse – start to defame them by declaring that they are making politics against the organisation (this is what Ranjit dasa wrote in his first message) and that they are offenders? Do you think they will be any longer friends of such an organisation? Unlikely.

I don?t recall saying this. Unfortunately my messages from this time were somehow erased so perhaps you could send me a copy of this message.

It is a fact though, that there are schismatic groups that slander the devotees and management of ISKCON and the BBT for their own purposes and that one of the issues that they use is the accusation that these editions are an attempt to “change the philosophy”. I did not mean to imply that every criticism is some kind of political attack, just that this whole issue has become politicized and this fact cannot be ignored.

So for the BBT to enter into some kind of dialog or discussion of this subject is a usually a big loser for all concerned because of the tendency for the debate to descend into a big mud-slinging back and forth, with lots of offenses.

I regret that this is still, after all, the material world.

Yours sincerely,

Ranjit das

Dear Ranjit,

Thank you for your message.

>> My claim is that some of the modification in Bhagavad-gita injure the teaching of Prabhupada – mostly very subtle, but sometimes obviously too.

> You cannot say this without reference to the original manuscript.

Why not publish the original manuscript? This would be very helpful. You cited only one example (Trans. BG 4.34 – the one with the smallest modifications regarding the text but one of the big modifications regarding the philosophy) and even then the text of the manuscript were not the same as in the book, neither in the original edition nor in the revised edition. It would be very useful if you please take the time to look at the other examples I cited and quote the text of the original manuscripts.

My claim (that there are some modifications in Bhagavad-gita which cannot be approved by the author) based first of all on the fact, that Prabhupada himself cites and approves the text of the original edition.

This proofs that the text in the original edition cannot be wrong and doesn’t need to be re-edited. You and Jayadvaita Swami ignore this continuosly, though it’s a very important fact – just as important as the original manuscript, at least!

It’s necessary to answer this question: Why has this text been re-edited although the author himself approved it? You may say the revised text is closer to the text of the original manuscript. Well, that may be so, but even then there must be a clear and direct order of the author that the concerned text needs to be re-edited, otherwise it’s not possible to refute the fact that the author himself cited and approved the original text. Prabhupadas books are not ordinary books, they are mystic, sastras, the very words of the supersoul. Without direct order of the author it is not possible to revise them. A direct confirmation is more important than a manuscript (and the opinion that the re-edited text is closer to the manuscripts and the intentions of the author) – who knows, maybe there were some extra instructions regarding the text of the manuscript which are no longer available.

Regarding re-editions – I just read the following in the letter to Rayarama, 21. Dec. 1967: “too much editing is not required. If Satsvarupa has already edited it, there is no need of further editing.” This statement applys to Teachings of Lord Caitanya. I’ve never seen an order of Prabhupada where he said that a book needs to be re-edited, especially not Bhagavad-gita. There happened something with the Isopanisad (“only” over a hundred changes, in BG there are thousands) and in Back to Godhead and even then he wanted that the next printing should be done again the original way. No re-editions wanted – do it again the original way.

For me there is still another very important proof, which unfortunately cannot be used in this discussion. But I think it’s interesting for you too. I first read the revised Bhagavad-gita years ago – of course without knowing that there are modifications. In the epiloge of the German edition (which differs from the one in the English original) it is not apparent to what extend the revisions were made, and after all – it’s an epiloge and not a foreword. Another fact is that I thought I read the complete edition about which Prabhupada speaks in the foreword and not the revised edition of the complete edition. I thought the word revised edition means the complete edition, which Prabhupada mentioned in the foreword. Can’t say that the publishers did anything to make this difference evident. Anyway. I remind till now that it sometimes took me aback while reading this Bhagavad-gita and I didn’t know why. I lost the enthusiasm to read Bhagavad-gita, I lost my faith in the translations and purports of Prabhupada and then I read only the translations of the last chapters, just to finish this book. I never had these strange feelings when studying other books of Prabhupada. On the opposite – I studied the books as if I had to pass an examination. I wrote down thousands of statements and fed them into the computer; this was my main business for years. But until now I wasn’t able to do this with Bhagavad-gita and now – after comparing the two editions – I know why. I remember only one of this frustrations. It hit me while reading the purport of Vers 4.34. Now, after comparing the two editions of Bhagavad-gita, I found a big insertion which was exactly the cause which lessen my trust and enthusiasm. Maybe this sounds unbelieveable, but I swear it’s true.

> Many devotees have the list of revisions.

So, you have it too? Then it should be easy to explain the few cited examples, isn’t it? What states this list regarding the examples I cited? Does it include the text of the manuscript and the transcriptions of the tapes?

Or is it only a endless list of the modifications? If so, do you really think even one of the devotees took the time to check each and every modification? Just the devotees in ISKCON, who seems to be always pressed for time? How shall they have time to check this thousands of modifications?

Days are necessary to find even the few examples I cited; even if someone use the powerful computers nowadays. How were the devotees in ISKCON of the early 80′s, with no such powerful computers but with a lot of trouble, able to check the new edition properly? And why then are this complains now all over the world? As far as I know there are even complains from people who were (and are?) in ISKCON at that time and who had seen this list. Even Jayadvaita Swami had to answer in his letter (1986!) such complains. More than ten years ago! And you were not able to stop it till now!

> 1. All the devotees know about the revised edition. This is no secret.

Not really. They don’t know about the real extent of the revisions, that’s for sure. They cannot believe that the authorities of ISKCON are able to do as mentioned. If they really know about the revisions, then how can there be politics against ISKCON? You can’t cheat the devotees so easily and of course not by stating that there are unauthorized modifications in Prabhupadas books. Actually all this endless trouble is proof Nr. 1 that there is something fishy about this revisions. And even if the critics are altogether “demons” or the like – the power of evil man is the sin of the “good”.

Sincerely, H.

Dear Dravida dasa

Please accept my humble obeisances.
All Glories to Srila Prabhupada.

“… A pure devotee always engages in the service of the Lord, taking shelter of His lotus feet, and therefore he has a direct connection with the saffron-mercy particles that are strewn over the lotus feet of the Lord. Although when a pure devotee speaks the articulation of his voice may resemble the sound of this material sky, the voice is spiritually very powerful because it touches the particles of saffron dust on the lotus feet of the Lord…”

Srila Prabhupada’s purport to Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.20.25.

I have recently received some e-mail messages from America and Europe regarding some recent e-mail exchanges which you recently had with Bhakta Wolfgang from Europe about some of his inquiries regarding changes in the Bhagavad-Gita As It Is [1972 original edition]. Several pages of text where also attached which purport to be H.H. Jayadvaita Swami’s explanations of why he undertook the various editorial changes in the new Bhagavad-Gita As It Is.[the revised edition].

As you are obviously aware, many devotees have questioned these various editorial changes. I have a few questions which I have been frequently asked and which I respectfully submit before you. Your answers would be very much appreciated.

1. Do you have any verifiable evidence in the form of an original letter from Srila Prabhupada or an original audio tape recording or original video tape recording where His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada specifically and directly authorized these various editorial changes in His original Bhagavad-Gita As It Is?
2. Could you please provide me with the actual text of an official GBC resolution [s] where they have authorized these various editorial changes?

I hope this finds you in the best of health and Krishna Consciousness.

Yours in Srila Prabhupada’s service

Yasodanandana dasa

Dear Yasodanandana Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

In answer to your questions, I don’t have any original tape recording of any kind of Srila Prabhupada authorizing the editorial changes in the Gita. And despite scouring the GBC resolutions from 1979-83, I found no reference to the Bhagavad-gita whatsover. It seems the assignment of Jayadvaita Swami to perform that task was unpublished–at least I couldn’t find it in the GBC resolutions made widely available.

Hoping this meets you well, I remain
Your servant,

Dravida dasa