Please accept my humble obeiscances. Srila Prabhupada jayatah.

I just came upon this in Folio – SPL Ch 4, “A Summer in Montreal” and I am
sending it to you just in case this point is not in your awareness.

Brahmananada had just come from Boston:

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

Now everybody knows that Prabhupada never intended his Gita to be abridged.
MacMillan did (abridged it) it for their own reasons. So the Gita here being
referred to is the complete work.

With one exception I am not in touch with any ISKCON or BBT leaders or I
would be copying this to them. But I _have_ copied it to the BBT personnel
on PAMHO’s address list who I am at all familiar with.

Your servant

Rasananda das

Consequently, there is no indication for the prospective buyer that the book is actually a revised version of the original; rather it is made to appear to be simply a re-printing of the original—by the same author! The BBT editors, remaining incognito, continue to plagiarize Srila Prabhupada’s name and fame to lend credibility to their in fact re-written version of the Bhagavad-Gita As It Is, originally designated as the “Complete Edition” by Srila Prabhupada himself.

On the back cover, once again the editors omit an important phrase in the description of Srila Prabhupada as “the leading exponent of the science of Krsna consciousness in the West and the world’s most distinguished teacher of Vedic religion and thought…” And they add a curious sentence in conclusion, which really reflects their own clandestine position: “Thus, unlike other editions of the Gita, his conveys Lord Krsna’s profound message as it is—without the slightest taint of adulteration or personally motivated change.” This is so reminiscent of that well-known story of the man on the second floor of his house hearing a noise downstairs and calling out, “Who’s there?” revealing the actual position, a voice from below answers emphatically, “Oh, I’m not stealing! I’m not stealing!”

Or the time when devotees told Srila Prabhupada about a newspaper article claiming that a space probe to Mars had sent back photographic images that so closely resembled the terrain in Arizona. Srila Prabhupada said the scientists involved were themselves in Arizona, simply revealing their own minds, reflecting their surroundings.

Similarly, these editors, perhaps smarting from unending legitimate criticism, have inadvertently revealed their own position: “Oh no, we have edited responsibly, without the slightest taint of adulteration or personally motivated change!” But they continue to commit what Srila Prabhupada described in the purport Srimad Bhagavatam 3.4.26:

“Although one may be well versed in transcendental science, one should be careful about the offense of maryada-vyatikrama, impertinently surpassing a greater personality.”

The impertinence knows no bounds, because BBT editing has become a co-authoring of Srila Prabhupada’s books. Buyer beware! Milk still looks like milk even when containing poison.

2009 Hardback

2010 Paperback

(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. . .

This reminds me of several years ago when I personally approached one scholar at a university teaching a course on eastern philosophy. I presented Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-Gita with the offer that if they would consider using it as course material then I would beat whatever price they were paying for the version they were presently using. This scholar’s reply was: I know you people from ISKCON, I know you have changed Swami Prabhupada’s Gita after his demise, so how can I use such a book.

I am not any type of scholar or editor or anything like that, but I am a sincere seeker of the pure unadulterated truth. I was thinking about all this editing stuff and one thing that has stuck out in my mind is how for many years now Jayadvaita Swami has claimed to have what he calls as an original “manuscript” of Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-Gita and he claims to be changing Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita to become closer to that so-called “manuscript”. So I looked up the word manuscript in the dictionary:

man·u·script [man-yuh-skript] –noun

1. the original text of an author’s work, handwritten or now usually typed, that is submitted to a publisher.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/manuscript

Then I got the idea to look up the word draft:

draft [draft, drahft] –noun

1. a drawing, sketch, or design.

2. a first or preliminary form of any writing, subject to revision, copying, etc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/draft

From this it appears to be incorrect and misleading to call what Jayadvaita Swami has a manuscript because it was never submitted to the publisher (Macmillan). What he has is simply a rough draft that was never intended to be published. A draft is, as it says here, a first or preliminary form of any writing, subject to revision, copying, etc. This is a perfect description of what Jayadvaita Swami has. The manuscript is what becomes the actual published book. The manuscript is verbatim to the 1972 Macmillan Bhagavad-Gita. So with that being cleared up, the question is whether it is such a good idea for a conditioned soul to revert a published, approved manuscript of a Maha-bhagavata Acharya Sad-guru back to a previous unpublished draft without his direct permission. Jayadvaita Swami: “I never got an explicit word from Srila Prabhupada to do this work at an explicit time.”

Also all the reviews by world famous scholars that the BBTI have placed in their revised edited Gita are not reviews of that revised edited version, they are reviews of Srila Prabhupada’s original approved version.

It amazes me that there are so many thousands upon thousands of dollars being spent on so many elaborate international propaganda campaigns, books being written and distributed, websites and videos created, all for the sole purpose of simply trying to spin the minds of all the innocent, simple devotees into thinking that Prabhupada’s approved, authorized books are not any good, and need to be continuously changed without end. But I ask, what will be the result of all this besides people completely loosing faith in Srila Prabhupada’s books due to the intensive revisions that they have undergone?

Imagine if all that same money, propaganda, resources, websites, videos, time, energy, manpower, intelligence etc. was used to distribute Srila Prabhupada’s books instead of just continuously changing them (and desperately trying to justify those changes)? Just think how many more thousands of poor, fallen conditioned souls miserably lost and drowning in the ocean of nescience and illusion without a glimmer of hope in all directions could have gotten to hear from Srila Prabhupada, if all those same resources where used to distribute Prabhupada’s books?

Why not just accept Srila Prabhupada’s original books the same way Srila Prabhupada and all those scholars did? Srila Prabhupada would daily read his own books and Srila Prabhupada accepted them. All those big, big scholars accepted them. While Srila Prabhupada was still personally directing and overseeing things the devotees accepted them, and distributed them. Prabhupada was pleased by this. Now after Srila Prabhupada is not there any more personally overseeing everything there is so much change. What would we think if someone started revising say the original published texts of Sanatana Goswami, Jayadeva Goswami, or Bhaktisidanta Saraswati Thakura? Would anyone tolerate the revision of even a mundane document like the constitution of the USA? So why do we tolerate the revisions on Srila Prabhupada’s books?

This reminds me of a funny quote in this regard from Hari Sauri Prabhu’s Transcendental Diary where he recalls what Srila Prabhupada said about his disciples changing things: “You must do something new. If you have to put your feet upward and head down, walk on your hands and clap your feet, but do something new!” He shook his head in slight exasperation. “This is your American disease. Always changing! Change every few minutes. Our qualification is we don’t change anything.” Then he quoted Bhagavad-gita 4.2: “This supreme science was thus received in disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost.” “This changing will ruin everything.”

For further reading on this subject of manuscript or draft there is a nice article by a very senior Prabhupada disciple at: http://bookchanges.com/iskcons-original-manuscript-scam/

OK, back to the nectar! I was distributing books at one of the last big concerts of the summer. I was wandering around back stage (how I get into places like this even surprises me sometimes, and reminds me that Krishna and Prabhupada are the doers and I just have to go along for the ride) and I bumped into the head sound guy. I was checking out all his high-tech sound equipment and he showed me how he was broadcasting the whole show live to some local radio station. Anyway, I showed him Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-Gita and did my little presentation and he patiently listened to me and had a big grin on his face the whole time. Then he just said, “This is totally synchronistic”, and handed me a $20. So I gave him Prabhupada’s Gita, KRSNA, and an Isopanishad. Then I asked him what was so synchronistic about it. He told me that he was just reading a book by Robert Anton Wilson called “Prometheus Rising” and he explained that in that book the author gives examples of some synchronistic events that may happen in our life, and if any of these events happen then it is some type of very special occurrence. He explained that one of the examples of synchronistic events he gives in the book is someone walking up to you and handing you a Bhagavad-Gita!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bg 2.8 P ORIGINAL 72 GITA:

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

Bg 2.8 P REVISED & ENLARGED:

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

Bg 2.18 P ORIGINAL:

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

Bg 2.18 P REVISED & ENLARGED:

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

Bg 2.25 T ORIGINAL:

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

Bg 2.25 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

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

Bg 2.30 T ORIGINAL:

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

Bg 2.30 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

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

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

Prabhupada: Dehi nityam avadhyo ‘yam dehe sarvasya bharata. Dehe, dehe means body, within the body. This topic began, dehino ‘smin yatha dehe kaumaram yauvanam jara. Deha, dehi. Dehi means one who possesses the body. Just like guni. Asthate in prata. The grammatical. Guna, in, deha, in, in prata. Dehin sabda. So the nominative case of dehin sabda is dehi. Dehi nityam, eternal. In so many ways, Krsna has explained. Nityam, eternal. Indestructible, immutable. It does not take birth, it does not die, it is always, constantly the same. Na hanyate hanyamane sarire. In this way, again he says nityam, eternal. (730831BG.LON) So here Srila Prabhuapda clearly confirms that the word eternal (nityam) belongs in this verse. But for some completely unknown reason, not supported by the manuscript, and not supported by Prabhuapda personally, JAS has decided to delete the word eternal…

Bg 2.31 P ORIGINAL:

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

Bg 2.31 P REVISED & ENLARGED:

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

Bg 2.40 P ORIGINAL:

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

Bg 2.40 P REVISED & ENLARGED:

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

Bg 2.48 T ORIGINAL:

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

Bg 2.48 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

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

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

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

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

Bg 2.49 T ORIGINAL:

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

Bg 2.49 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

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

Bg 2.51 T ORIGINAL:

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

Bg 2.51 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

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

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

Prabhupada: Yes. There is purport?

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

Prabhupada: All right. Finish.

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

Prabhupada: Read it again.

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

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

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

Bg 2.57 T ORIGINAL:

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

Bg 2.57 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

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

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

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

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

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

Bg 2.61 P ORIGINAL:

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

Bg 2.61 P REVISED & ENLARGED:

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

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

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

Bg 2.66 T ORIGINAL:

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

Bg 2.66 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bg 3.8 T ORIGINAL:

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

Bg 3.8 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

Your servant

Madhudvisa dasa

Two Editions of TLC Compared

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

Method of Counting Deleted Words

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

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

1974: (Bhag. 10.9.12)

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

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

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

Results for TLC

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

Analysis of the Content of Deleted and Inserted Words

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

Examples of deleted information include:

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

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

Examples of deleted standards include:

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

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

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

Examples of deleted philosophy include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Examples of deleted logic and reasoning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Black and white illustrations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Prabhupāda: Huh?

Kīrtanānanda: To Bhaktisiddhānta’s Brahma-samhitā. It would be nice if you would write some purports to it.

Prabhupāda: Purports?

Kīrtanānanda: Yes. Some of us have difficulty understanding Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī.

Prabhupāda: Yes. So if I get time… My time is very limited. So even there is difficulty, let them read over and over and again. Then they will understand. Why should we change it? Let it be presented as Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī has given.