(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. . .

And thank you for researching the time frame when Hayagriva Prabhu lived with us, in Srila Prabhupada’s apartment, in Los Angeles in late 1968. Since I am at present caring for my elderly mother, I have no time to do such research. So I very much appreciate that some of you pointed out that Hayagriva was indeed with Srila Prabhupada at that time, staying with us for two or three weeks.

Certainly I was very busy at that time in 1968 typing the daily dictation tapes that Srila Prabhupada gave me each morning, of the early chapters of Nectar of Devotion. So he was also translating Nectar of Devotion at that time, as well as working with Hayagriva on the final editing of the Gita, and from information in your letter, also the Srimad Bhagavatam. I should also mention he had begun Chaitanya Charitamrita only a few months before, and was having my then husband Goursundar do the transliteration. It was not uncommon for His Divine Grace to have several writing projects going at once.

Please understand, along with typing letters and NOD tapes, I was also the housemaid, cooking Srila Prabhupada’s prasad, cleaning his room, and bringing water and fruits in to Hayagriva and Srila Prabhupada while they were working “elbow to elbow” on his low trunk-style desk. Since I was in and out of Srila Prabhupada’s room many times a day, they no doubt could have also been working on Srimad Bhagavatam, Chaitanya Charitamrita, and probably on Nectar of Devotion as well, since I was transcribing a tape each day.

Of course, I realize it is not possible to say exactly what all they were working on, since it was probably all of the above, but it is a well-known fact that Hayagriva WAS Srila Prabhupada’s trusted editor for over two years at that time; he met Srila Prabhupada (Swamiji) in New York in 1966, and very shortly after meeting him, Srila Prabhupada requested him to help him edit his writings. If anyone wishes to research this time frame, please do so by reading Hayagriva’s book, The Hare Krishna Explosion. This book written by Hayagriva details his early meetings and editing work from 1966. In it Hayagriva describes many meetings, his discussions with “Swamiji” on the verses, and also other writing works as well. This book is a wonderful eyewitness account of those precious early days; it is accurate and insightful. And it is compiled from Hayagriva’s diaries and notes, at a time when most of the other early disciples had not yet begun even thinking of such compilations.

Hayagriva’s book, The Hare Krishna Explosion was also written and printed many years before the advent of the idea of posthumous editing and long before the introduction of Jayadvaita Maharaj Editingism. You will find it a truthful and politically untainted version of the early days, the progress of Prabhupada’s books, and the mood of the early days of ISKCON. Hayagriva expresses himself so eloquently and so wonderfully glorifies Srila Prabhupada. He also expresses his humility in feeling so unqualified to do this editing, even though “Swamiji” prods him to do so, and works with him closely every step of the way, both internally and externally. Srila Prabhupada’s sweetness and pure spiritual simplicity shines through at the same time as his precision of intent so far his writings are concerned.

In reading over the hair-splitting protests of the BBT editors, I can only wonder at the vehemence with which they justify their editing, even in the face of so many angry Godbrothers and Godsisters, so much evidence that Srila Prabhupada wanted his books held sacred, unchanged, and enshrined for posterity, and even a monumental million-dollar court case that was decided not in their favor. It is bewildering to me. What is the name of the Maya wherein one commits a blunder, is told by others, and even within their heart knows that he has done wrong–yet still, he insists on justifying his blunder? Can anyone of the respected Vaishnava scholars please tell me or describe to me this category of Maya’s agency? And in relation to one’s Guru, this category of aparadha?

Is it pride, is it stubbornness, is it fear of public shame? In spite of so many hundreds of devotees who stand in opposition to the book changes, still the editors insist on their claims–their claims to the exclusive right to change Srila Prabhupada’s books however they choose!

Is it enviousness of the fact that Hayagriva was already chosen by Krishna and Prabhupada to do this work? Is it power hunger, or a burning desire to make a name for oneself? What is it? What is at the root of this rejection of Prabhupada’s original books, that he himself often said were “written by Krishna”? Why are we in this predicament, and why are we even having this discussion?

Really, it should just be a matter of respect–respect for the Guru, Vaishnava etiquette, and common sense–that one does not alter one’s teacher’s books without his direct sanction and supervision. Why is this issue shrouded in such elaborate layers of man made monkey-poo? What is the reason for all this?

Even though many of Prabhupada’s disciples strongly disagree with this editing, and it was done at a time when everyone was grieving the loss of our beloved Srila Prabhupada, (and then by only one vote of the GBC), and has been challenged in a court case that then ushered in the wholesale re-printing (and distribution) of Srila Prabhupada’s original books–still, the editors stubbornly cling to some very shaky justifications. Why?? What is the cause of this??

I am no scholar. I am just a simple devotee who loves Srila Prabhupada wholeheartedly. When I met him in January of 1967, he immediately became the most important person in my life–a story repeated by many, many of Prabhupada’s disciples And later on, when I was fortunate enough to become his servant and secretary for well over a year, he became the father I never had. Like Sruta Kirti, whose father died when he was a small boy, my father left home when I was a child. Srila Prabhupada became not only my revered Spiritual Preceptor, but my father as well–my all-in-all most important person in my life.

Please remember, in 1967, 1968 and 1969, when I was first with His Divine Grace, ISKCON had not blossomed into a full-blown lotus; it was a bud just coming forth. In those days, there were no books, not even a Gita, and only a couple of small storefront temples existed– and a handful of devotees, mostly teenagers.

Yet “Swamiji”, Srila Prabhupada, had his plans, his dreams, and his visions of what was to be. He foresaw everything, from his books to his broad scale preaching work.

While I served as his secretary, Prabhupada received only a handful of letters daily, yet when he was giving me dictation to reply his letters, he would often sit and speak for hours at a time–about so many subjects. For at least two or three hours daily, I would sit before him in his simple apartment, across from his trunk-desk, and he would talk about everything under the sun. Why? I don’t know. Perhaps because I loved to listen, loved to hear him speak–about anything–and I believed in him. Even though we were in a cheap (and rat infested) apartment, with very little money, and only a handful of disciples, he would tell me of his long-range plans. He would often describe how he was going to have a world-wide Sankirtan party; he spoke of his plans to have an auditorium with a stage for bhajans where people could come and see various devotional performances. It was akin to a pauper speaking of plans to build a Disneyland. Yet, I would listen patiently with full faith, and never once doubted he would do the things he planned to do.

These were the sweet and intimate days of early ISKCON, with many precious hours spent daily with our beloved “Swamiji.” And with old-timers like Brahmananda, Mukunda, Satsvarupa, Rupanuga, Hayagriva and others. All simple souls who believed in our Swamiji. Because of this, these daily dealings with Srila Prabhupada, we loved him for who he was, long before he became famous all over the world. For us, he was not only our vastly learned great spiritual personality descending from the spiritual sky, but also the sweet and caring father that loved and cared for each of us. This was our beginning, our entry into his ISKCON. It was all sweetness. We held Srila Prabhupada in great esteem and we still do.

Jayadvaita Maharaj was not there at this time. Hayagriva was there, daily working on Srila Prabhupada’s books. He was the one sent by Krishna. He was educated–a college professor who specialized in the transcendental poets like Emerson, Thoreau, and Yeats. Krishna sent Srila Prabhupada the most qualified editor He could find, someone who could poetically present Prabhupada’s magnificent spiritual literature.

Hayagriva spent many hours and days and weeks with “Swamiji” working on his writings, smoothing and polishing, discussing and deciding on the various points. Hayagriva worked with “Swamiji” first in New York in late 1966, then went out to San Francisco in early January of 1967. He was one of the very first devotees I met when I came to Srila Prabhupada’s shelter in January of 1967, and yes, I also remember Hayagriva’s French horn that Srila Prabhupada affectionately mentions–his”bugle”. Hayagriva had a little cubby-hole set up at the back of the San Francisco storefront, where he worked on the editing, and was often up in “Swamiji’s” room discussing various editing points. That was in early 1967, and Hayagriva was still working with him in late 1968, even living with us in Prabhupada’s Los Angeles apartment.

Jayadvaita Maharaj wasn’t there then, and neither was Dravida Prabhu. Hayagriva, on the other hand, knew Srila Prabhupada well and worked “elbow to elbow” with “Swamiji” for perhaps two years before Jayadvaita Maharaj even became a devotee. Hayagriva served as Srila Prabhupada’s chief editor long before His Divine Grace was even known as “Srila Prabhupada.”

Now I ask, why is it that those persons who were so near to His Divine Grace, who spent so much time with him, serving him, and who witnessed his early plans for ISKCON, for his books, for his preaching mission, etc. ignored? Why are such devotees and their service and opinions ignored by a GBC/BBT that persists in this travesty of rewriting and redoing Srila Prabhupada’s books? Where is the common sense in this??

It reminds me of the Christian history/philosophy that is popular today. Some Biblical historians say that Christianity should be called “Paulism” rather than Christianity, since Paul’s views and ideas did not coincide with Christ’s. Though Paul never even met Jesus, in person, and had not very much regard for Jesus’ spiritual teachings, or divinity, he set himself up as a main disciple, and proceeded to promote his own views in the Biblical texts, rather than what Jesus actually taught. Thus Christianity morphed into something far different from what Jesus taught, and has now splintered into a thousand different ideologies all claiming to be the teachings of Christ.

Even our Srila Prabhupada pointed out that it was a mistake to emphasize the death of Christ, rather than his teachings, and this focus on the crucifixion was introduced and promoted by the disciple Paul. Srila Prabhupada often spoke of the Aquarian Gospel as the true teachings of Christ, not the popular version promoted by Paul that came to be embraced by the Catholic Christianity. Certainly I am not a Biblical historian, and really know very little about all this, yet it seems that a similar pattern has emerged in our own day and age.

Is it always this way? A great saint, prophet, or personality comes from the spiritual world to uplift mankind–someone who inspires the hearts of millions of people–and trailing along behind him are those who obscure the path and teachings; with their editing brooms they sweep the path so that it’s changed for all those who come later. Is this just the way of the world? The reason Krishna tells Arjuna that He gave this knowledge to the Sungod but in the course of time it has been lost??

It has only been slightly more than 30 years since our Srila Prabhupada has left us–yet for perhaps 20 years or more, his original books were out of print completely, available only at second-hand stores, but not at his temples. Only the edited ones have been available, and even now, they continue to be the only books that are promoted by his very own temples! How is it that we have chosen to keep his temples, but not his authentic teachings intact??

Now, by the grace of Krishna, and also a federal court judge, those sacred original books are back in print, and being widely distributed, even going like hotcakes. Can’t anyone see a divine plan in all this? Are we really so deaf and dumb and blind (and perhaps prideful) that we can’t see Krishna’s plan in reviving these original sacred books and protecting them form all assailant editors?

What is missing in this picture? Is it humility, intelligence, or perhaps just the simple ability to say, very humbly: “I’m sorry, Srila Prabhupada. I made a mistake. Please forgive me.”

Yours in Srila Prabhupada’s seva,

Govinda dasi

The Principle is No Change:

“One should accept the instructions of the Supreme Personality of Godhead by bowing down at the lotus feet of the Lord. This means that anything spoken by the Personality of Godhead should be taken as it is, with great care and attention and with great respect. It is not our business to amend the words of the Supreme Personality of Godhead or make additions or alterations, as it has become a custom for many so-called scholars and swamis who comment on the words of Bhagavad-gita. Here the practical example of how to accept the instruction of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is shown by Prthu Maharaja. This is the way to receive knowledge through the parampara system.” (SB 4.20.17 P Lord Visnu’ s Appearance in the Sacrificial Arena of Maharaja Prthu)

Regarding your editing, I would very much like it. I am sending my lecture copies to you. I think my other copies are lying on the left side of my seat in a cardboard box which please find out. Please be careful not to change the ideas. (Letter to Kirtananda, Feb 10, 1967)

“Brahmananda & others cannot change the style. They want to see if there is any grammatical discrepancy.“( Letter to Satsvarupa, Jan 22, 1968)

I have dictated the missing purports from Chapter IX and they are set enclosed herewith. So far changing the working of verse or purport of 12:12 discussed before, it may remain as it is. (Mar 17, 1971)

I am very glad to learn that you are translating the Bhagavad-gita As It Is into Portuguese. Be careful not to change anything but present it exactly as it is. This is how we receive Bhagavad-gita through the disciplic succession as stated in the Fourth Chapter. By this translating work you will learn our philosophy very nicely. It is very important to broadcast Krishna consciousness all over the world. This is the great need of modern civilization. (Letter to Frederico, Oct 24, 1974)

No, the printing of the Gitar-gan cover this fashion is not at all approved by me. You have done most nonsensically. Why change the cover? When people look to see the Bhagavad-gita they expect to see Krishna and Arjuna, not the picture of Krishna with cow. You have done a great mistake by changing the front picture and it will hamper the sale. In future you don’t do any changes without asking me first.

Simply because there is no stock of books, we can do anything whimsically??? Is this logic? Gita is not spoken in Vrindaban, it is spoken on the battlefield of Kuruksetra, but this is Vrindaban picture. That chariot driven by 4 horses, that is the real Kuruksetra picture. It is not that because there is no stock we can do whimsically as we like and lose the idea, that is rasa-bhasa. Because there is no bread, you take stone to eat? There is no stock of bread so you will take stone??? The front picture is most important thing and you have changed it. It must remain standard, and not change. Also, the lettering is not nice on the cover. You could have taken a color picture of Krishna and Arjuna and used it black and white (one color) on the front cover. Just as you did with the inside back cover of the Bhagavat darsana, the original picture of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu was in color but you have printed it in black and white. You could have done this on the front cover with Krishna and Arjuna on the Battlefield of Kuruksetra, but the cover must not be changed. (Letter: Bhargava, May 29, 1976)

You may title this book, Teachings of Lord Kapila, but it must be subtitled, “The Son of Devahuti”. That will remain, do not try to change it. The Americans may like it or not like it, but we must make the distinction between devahuti putra kapila, and the atheistic Kapila. Do not try to change anything without my permission. (Letter to Radhavallabha, Aug 26, 1976)

Titling of the Ninth Canto as Liberation is good, and the Tenth Canto should be called “The Summum Bonum”. As far as the 11th and 12th Cantos are concerned they shall be named when they are presented. The title which you have given to the Eighth Canto was a little hard to understand at first but if it refers to pralaya, then it is alright. You must consult with me on such matters. Do not manufacture anything. (Letter to Radhavallabha, Oct 7, 1976)

Please accept my blessings. With reference to your letter to Harikesa dated 21st inst., regarding the purport, 2nd paragraph to Bhagavatam 2.2.38, it is clear. Do not try to change anything. (Letter to Gopiparanadhana, Sep 28, 1976)

Some Corrections are OK:

Regarding the corrections you have sent, this kind of changes is admissable. There is no harm. (Letter: Radhavallabha, Oct 21, 1975)

The review from “Choice” is very remarkable considering the importance of the journal, and I thank you very much for securing it. You have written: “We are all eager for the day when your books are recognized as the greatest masterpieces of all. We are all eager for the day when your books are the most demanded works in the library. We are sure that day is not far away.” Yes, Krsna will fulfill your desire. Actually it is so. But because they are fools and rascals it will take some time. Regarding the error which the critic has noted about the location of Tirupati, I did not say so. It should be corrected. (Letter to Ranadhira, Apr 18, 1977)

There Should Not be Very Much Editing:

There is a verse in Srimad-Bhagavatam that a book or poetry in which the Holy Name of Krishna is depicted, such language is revolutionary in the matter of purifying the material atmosphere. Even though such literature is presented in broken language or grammatical inconsistency or rhetorical irregularity, still, those who are saintly persons adore such literature. They hear such literature, and chant it and adore it, simply because the Supreme Lord is being glorified in this literature. In other words, we are not meant for presenting any literary masterpieces, but we have to inform people that there is a fire of maya which is burning the very vitality of all living entities, and they should guard against the indefatigable onslaught of material existence. That should be our motto. (Letter to: Krsna dasa  –  Los Angeles 13 Feb, 1969)

I also do not like too much editorial work. This too much editorial work on Geetopanishad has created some misunderstanding between the members of the editorial staff. Anyway, in the future one man should edit it, and that will be sufficient for our printing. And I do not want that Teachings of Lord Chaitanya should be edited again and typed again and time wasted in that way. I have also informed Rayrama of this, and you can also inform him like this. The book should be printed immediately, without any waste of time. That is my desire. (Letter to Satsvarupa, Dec 23, 1967)

I have sent a few tapes to Bhagavan das. He sends to you his edited copies and they may be made final. I want two editings only, just to see if there is any grammatical or spelling mistake. Your present program of two editions first by yourself and then by Jayadvaita is a nice arrangement. Jayadvaita has good knowledge. (Letter to Satsvarupa, Feb 15, 1970)

Yes, there is no need for corrections for the first and second Cantos. Whatever is there is alright. Once Pradyumna comes to join me here from India, then there will be no need for Nitai das or Jagannatha das to edit the Srimad-Bhagavatam. (Letter to Radhavallabha, May 4, 1976)

English and Sanskrit in the Books Must Be Correct:

Prabhupada: Those who have got books, there should be one correction. It is written “how.” It should be “now,” n-o-w, not “how.” (Srimd-Bhagavatam Lecture, Oct 19, 1974)

I have just received the blueprint copy of KRSNA, the Reservoir of Pleasure and I have begun to read it through. But I notice that there are some points you should correct before the final printing. I have already noted you the injunction that you should change the pretipadika artha to first case ending instead. Sannyasin should be printed Sannyasi, etc. So please correct these.

Another point is that there are some errors in the English also. On page 2 it should read “. . . decided to kill his sister, Devaki.” but it has become sisters, plural. Then, what does it mean? “The Lord’s compromise was that He had Vasudeva propose . . .” This does not seem to be very clear or at least it is very awkward expression. So please see that the editors make a very careful final proofreading before printing the final copies. (Letter to Pradyumna, Apr 28, 1970)

Regarding publishing the Life from Life in English it should be grammatically correct because it is written book. Yes, it will be very good if you publish a book of lectures. (Letter to Hamsaduta, Nov 14, 1974)

Concerning the Bhagavat darsana cover, this Hindi on the back is not good. Who is translating this? Also, the address on the back of our Vrindaban Temple is not correctly spelled. It has been spelled Chattakara Road; But it should be Chattikara Road. Who is proof-reading? (Letter: Bhargava, May 29, 1976)

Hayagriva Did Not Change the Meaning of the Philosophy:

I don’t think that Hayagriva is at fault. He has not changed the meaning or the philosophy in any way. But if you like to use the original manuscript, then if it is possible, you can use it. (Letter to Hamsaduta, Jun 8, 1975)

BBT Editors Were Making Unapproved Changes:

I will have to see personally what are the mistakes in the synonyms and also how you intend to correct them. I was not satisfied with the corrections that were made before. I saw some changes which I did no approve. Nitai may correct whatever mistakes are there, but the corrected material must be sent to me for final approval. So reprinting the volumes will have to wait until the mistakes are corrected and approved by me. In the meantime you can supply the standing orders whatever new volumes are published. (Letter to Radhavallabha, Jan 5, 1976)

Prabhupada: The nonsense, they are… They are correcting my trans… Rascal. Who has done this? Munayah is addressing all these munis.
Tamala Krsna: It’s addressing the munis?
Prabhupada: Yes.
Tamala Krsna: Sadhus, great sages.
Prabhupada: Yes. Sadhu means they are very pure. What can be done if it goes there and these rascals becomes Sanskrit scholar and do everything nonsense? One Sanskrit scholar strayed, that rascal… He take… What is his…? Saci-suta? Saci-sandana?
Tamala Krsna: Jaya-sacinandana?
Prabhupada: And they are maintaining them. Different meaning.
Tamala Krsna: “Bhavadbhih – by all of you; loka – the world; mangalam – welfare; yat – because; krtah – made; krsna – the Personality of Godhead; samprasnah – relevant question; yena – by which; atma – self; suprasidati – completely pleased.” Translation: “O sages…”
Prabhupada: Now here is “O sages,” and the word meaning is “of the munis.” Just see. Such a rascal Sanskrit scholar. Here it is addressed, sambodhana, and they touch it — “munayah – of the munis.” It is very risky to give to them for editorial direction. Little learning is dangerous. However proper Sanskrit scholar, little learning, dangerous. Immediately they become very big scholars, high salaried, and write all nonsense. Who they are? (pause) Then?
Tamala Krsna: “O sages, I have been…”
Prabhupada: No, they cannot be reliable. They can do more harm. Just see here the fun(?).
(Conversation, “Rascal Editors” — June 22, 1977, Vrndavana)

Books Can Not Be “Simplified”:

Our literature is not sentimental stories. It is meant to be understood by the intelligent class of men. Children and those with child-like mentalities will do better to chant “Hare Krishna” and take prasadam. We cannot water down the philosophy to make it more palatable. Our books must remain as they are. Do not waste your time anymore with such attempts. We are not going to publish it. Whatever books we have got, let them try to understand, and if they cannot then let them chant “Hare Krishna” and take prasadam. (Letter to Lilavati, Mar 31, 1977)

Even if there are Some Discrepancies, They Are Accepted:

Transcendental literature that strictly follows the Vedic principles and the conclusion of the Puranas and pancaratrika-vidhi can be written only by a pure devotee. It is not possible for a common man to write books on bhakti, for his writings will not be effective. He may be a very great scholar and may be expert in presenting literature in flowery language, but this is not at all helpful in understanding transcendental literature.

Even if transcendental literature is written in faulty language, it is acceptable if it is written by a devotee, whereas so-called transcendental literature written by a mundane scholar, even if it is a very highly polished literary presentation, cannot be accepted. The secret in a devotee’s writing is that when he writes about the pastimes of the Lord, the Lord helps him; he does not write alone.

As stated in the Bhagavad-gita (10.10), dadami buddhi-yogam tam yena mam upayanti te. Since a devotee writes in service to the Lord, the Lord from within gives him so much intelligence that he sits down near the Lord and goes on writing books. (Caitanya-caritamrta Adi-Lila 8.39)

So unless one is self-realized, there is practically no use writing about Krsna. This transcendental writing does not depend on material education. It depends on the spiritual realization. You’ll find, therefore, in the comments of Bhagavatam by different acaryas, even there are some discrepancies, they are accepted as asat-patha. It should remain as it is. (Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.5.23-24 — Vrndavana, Mar 31, 1976)

The Next Printing Should be the Original Way:

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.
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.

…

Prabhupada: So you bring this to Satsvarupa. They cannot change anything… So on the whole, these dangerous things are going on. How to check it? (Conversation, “Rascal Editors” — June 22, 1977, Vrndavana)

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

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

“…the Sanskrit editors where by now accomplished scholars. And now they were able to see their way through perplexities in the manuscript by consulting the same Sanskrit commentaries Srila Prabhupada consulted when writing Bhagavad-gita As It Is.” (from A Note About the Second Edition, 1986 printing)

The BBT editors may think they are very great scholars, qualified to go back to the original scriptures and “correct” Srila Prabhupada’s translations… But Srila Prabhupada didn’t have so much faith in his “Sanskrit Scholar” disciples…

“…a little learning is dangerous, especially for the Westerners. I am practically seeing that as soon as they begin to learn a little Sanskrit immediately they feel that they have become more than their guru and then the policy is kill guru and be killed himself.” (from a letter to Dixit das on 18 Sep 1976)

There are some typographical errors in the 1972 printing, and if Jayadvaita had simply corrected the obvious typos no one would have been at all concerned.

The problem is Jayadvaita did not just correct the typographical errors. He has also changed so many things. There are thousands of changes which are completely unnecessary, change for the sake of change. Most of the changes make no significant improvement to the book. However these changes alter whole “feel” and style of the book and many devotees do not like the new “style.”

Among his more than 5,000 changes to Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is there are many major changes to the meaning of the text in the original book amid thousands of petty changes which apparently do not change the meaning…

There are hundreds of changes that completely alter the meaning of what Srila Prabhupada says in the original book, and which he confirmed while giving his classes and hearing the book read by devotees…

To give some idea of the changes we have collected 108 of them. This is by no means a complete list. There are hundreds more similar changes that COMPLETELY alter the meaning of the text in Srila Prabhupada’s book, but these 108 changes will give us a small insight as to how different Jayadvaita’s Bhagavad-gita is from Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is.

I guarantee if you take a little time to carefully go through this paper you will be surprised and shocked to see the GBC could allow such meddling with Srila Prabhupada’s books…

These 108 changes are just a few examples we have picked out to illustrate the point that Jayadvaita’s “New, Revised and Enlarged” Bhagavad-gita, in many, many cases, is completely different in the message it presents to Srila Prabhupada’s book. It’s NOT, NOT, NOT at all the same message one gets by reading Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is! It’s a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BOOK.

Srila Prabhupada completely approved of his original Bhagavad-gita As It Is , he read it himself daily and gave his classes from it. He certainly did not give ANYONE the AUTHORITY to “revise and enlarge” it.

Bg 2.8 P ORIGINAL:

…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.

(1) It’s only one word changed, but what a difference! In Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita we can understand Krsna by reading the Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam, after all the books are not different from Krsna!! But Jayadvaita has adjusted everything for us…

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.

(2) Arjuna WAS advised by Krsna to “sacrifice the material body for the cause of religion…” But one would never know that by reading Jayadvaita’s version. This is typical of his word juggling. He uses the same words as in the original book but moves them around to get a completely different meaning…

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.

(3) One would never know the soul is unchangeable by reading Jayadvaita’s book…

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.

(4) If one removes “is eternal” [perhaps by studying the original sanskrit to "correct" Srila Prabhupada's translation] it is NOT the same thing as the book Srila Prabhupada personally read from daily and gave all his classes from. Is it? Why didn’t Jayadvaita Swami listen to Srila Prabhupada’s classes?

“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)

But Jayadvaita has “intelligently” removed “eternal” form his translation of this verse!

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.

(5) Why bother with varnasrama-dharma? How can one make spiritual advancement by following varnasrama-dharma? No. One has to surrender to the ISKCON authorities…

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?

(6) Is it really the same thing to give up “self-gratificartory pursuits” and to give up “occupational duties?”

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.

(7) Just see! We get absolutely no hint at all from Jayadvaita Swami’s translation that a devotee is “steadfast in yoga” or a devotee has any “evenness of mind.” However, 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.

Srila Prabhupada very clearly accepts the translation As It Is!!! He does not say “It’s wrong! Please get Jayadvaita Swami to change it…”

Not only does Srila Prabhupada accept the translation As It Is, he says “This is the explanation of yoga, evenness of mind.” And Jayadvaita Swami has completely deleted it!!!

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.

(8) Here the emphasis has been taken off “freeing oneself from all fruitive activities.” Also the the meaning of surrender has been changed… Anyhow it’s different from the translation clearly accepted by Srila Prabhupada in his physical presence.

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].

(9) Krishna! It’s difficult to work out what Jayadvaita is trying to do here! The original translation is so perfectly clear and obvious. After reading it there’s no doubt what it says… “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.” What’s wrong with that? It’s perfect! When we read Jayadvaita’s translation it’s not at all clear… And the meaning is completely different from the one personally approved by Srila Prabhupada!

Here Jayadvaita Swami has covered up the point that devotees renounce the fruits of action. He doesn’t seem to like this point and often obscures it, but it’s a basic cornerstone of Krsna Consciousness… Whatever fruits our actions produce are not ours! They’re Krsna’s and should be used in Krsna’s service. That’s renouncing the fruits of our actions, we don’t enjoy them ourselves, we use them for Krsna’s enjoyment…

So what did Srila Prabhupada think about the original translation? Did he ask Jayadvaita to change it?

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…

Chant Hare Krishna and be happy! All glories to Srila Prabhupada and his original books!

Madhudvisa dasa

[99 more changes to come in Part 2 next week...]

All glories to Srila Prabhupada’s ORIGINAL books!

Jayadvaita Swami has started his own “newsgroup” where he aims to “explain” why he “revised and enlarged” Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is even though he openly admits Srila Prabhupada “never asked us to re-edit the book…”.

He has posted one “explanation” of a correction to an obvious typographical error… Actually he corrected many real typographical errors in the original book, perhaps a little more than one hundred, but he made more than five thousand changes!

Jayadvaita does not seem to realize no one is complaining about the correction of real typographical errors… Srila Prabhupada wanted the BBT editors to make sure the books were correct grammatically but he did not give anyone the authority to Revise and Enlarge his books or change his words or change the style! So Jayadvaita can go on and post a little more than one hundred articles to his “newsgroup” describing his one hundred or so bona fide corrections. But what about the other 4,900 changes?

The point he has never addressed in any of his “explanations” is why he has produced a “Bhagavad-gita” which contains hundreds of changes that COMPLETELY alter the meaning of the book when compared to the original version Srila Prabhupada personally read from daily, gave all his classes from and did not ask anyone to “revise and enlarge.” Jayadvaita’s book is completely different from Srila Prabhuapda’s. Where is the authority for all these changes?

Srila Prabhupada gave no authority for such changes… So we will continue looking at some of the changes.

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.

(10) Here the principle of being without attachment is completely removed from Jayadvaita’s translation. Of course he may say he has some secret manuscript he has got this information from or he may have studied the Sanskrit and by his great learning in the Sanskrit language decided there was no attachment in the original Sanskrit. But where did he get the authority from to retranslate this 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.

(11) 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?

(12) “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 3.3 T ORIGINAL:

The Blessed Lord said: O sinless Arjuna, I have already explained that there are two classes of men who realize the self. Some are inclined to understand Him by empirical, philosophical speculation, and others are inclined to know Him by devotional work.

Bg 3.3 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O sinless Arjuna, I have already explained that there are two classes of men who try to realize the self. Some are inclined to understand it by empirical, philosophical speculation, and others by devotional service.

(12) Just a few of Jayadvaita Swami’s little “corrections…”

Bg 3.6 T ORIGINAL:

One who restrains the senses and organs of action but whose mind dwells on sense objects certainly deludes himself and is called a pretender.

Bg 3.6 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

One who restrains the senses of action but whose mind dwells on sense objects certainly deludes himself and is called a pretender.

Bg 3.7 T ORIGINAL:

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.

Bg 3.7 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

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.

(13 & 14) This is one of the most amazing changes. Jayadvaita has removed or changed ALL the main points in the original verse! The original clearly says one who CONTROLS his senses by the mind and ENGAGES in works of devotion is by far superior… After reading all of Srila Prabhupada’s other books and hearing his classes one would expect to find this in Srila Prabhuapda’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is.

Jayadvaita’s version is a little different… He’s much more generous. According to him if a “sincere person” TRIES to control the senses and BEGINS karma-yoga [in Krsna consciousness] he is by far superior! One does not even have to control his senses, just “try to”, and he does not even have to be engaged in devotional service, he just has to “begin karma-yoga…” We can note [according to Jayadvaita] one does not even have to make any advancement in karma-yoga, if he just begins karma-yoga and TRIES to control his senses he is by far superior!!

So is there any hint Srila Prabhupada wanted Jayadvaita to make these changes to this verse? Is there any hint Srila Prabhupada was not satisfied with the original translation?

Sudama: Verse number seven: “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.”

Prabhupada: Yes. Instead of artificially trying to meditate and control the senses, just engage your senses in the activities of Krsna consciousness and gradually you will be happy. Your senses will be controlled. Go on. (681223BG.LA)

Srila Prabhupada clearly hears the original translation has no objections to it whatsoever! Rather Srila Prabhupada completely agrees with the original translation and EMPHASISES the very points Jayadvaita has DELETED in his translation!! Srila Prabhupada emphasises engaging the senses in Krishna consciousness and thus controlling them. But there’s no hint in Jayadvaita’s translation of engaging the senses in devotional service [just "beginning karma-yoga"??] and there’s no mention of controlling them either [just TRYING to control the senses...]

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.

(15) 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…

Bg 3.9 T ORIGINAL:

Work done as a sacrifice for Visnu has to be performed, otherwise work binds one to this material world. Therefore, O son of Kunti, perform your prescribed duties for His satisfaction, and in that way you will always remain unattached and free from bondage.

Bg 3.9 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

Work done as a sacrifice for Visnu has to be performed, otherwise work causes bondage in this material world. Therefore, O son of Kunti, perform your prescribed duties for His satisfaction, and in that way you will always remain free from bondage.

(16) Why has Jayadvaita removed the fact one who always performs his prescribed duties for Krishna remains unattached?

Did Prabhuapda request this change? Was he unhappy with the original translation??

Sudama: Verse number nine: “Work done as a sacrifice for Visnu has to be performed, otherwise work binds one to this material world. Therefore, O son of Kunti, perform prescribed duties for His satisfaction and in that way you will always remain unattached and free from bondage.”

Prabhupada: Yes. Bondage means working for one’s own account. The same example. Just like a soldier is fighting for the country under the command of the commander in chief. The more he’s killing, he’s getting promotion, he’s getting medals. But the same man, when he comes back at home, if he kills one man, he’s hanged. Why? Because that killing and this killing is not the same thing. So one who cannot engage himself cent percent in Krsna consciousness, let him remain in his own position and try to sacrifice for Visnu or Krsna as far as possible. (681223BG.LA)

Once again, no hint anywhere that Srila Prabhupada was not happy with the original translation…

Bg 3.20 T ORIGINAL:

Even Kings like Janaka and others attained the perfectional stage by performance of prescribed duties. Therefore, just for the sake of educating the people in general, you should perform your work.

Bg 3.20 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

Kings such as Janaka attained perfection solely by performance of prescribed duties. Therefore, just for the sake of educating the people in general, you should perform your work.

(17) A few little edits…

Bg 3.20 P ORIGINAL:

…because he was the king of Mithila… he had to teach his subjects how to fight righteously in battle. He and his subjects fought to teach people in general that violence is also necessary in a situation where good arguments fail.

Bg 3.20 P REVISED & ENLARGED:

…because he was the king of Mithila… he had to teach his subjects how to perform prescribed duties. Lord Krsna and Arjuna, the Lord’s eternal friend, had no need to fight in the Battle of Kuruksetra, but they fought to teach people in general that violence is also necessary in a situation where good arguments fail.

(18) Interesting…

Bg 3.32 T ORIGINAL:

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.

Bg 3.32 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

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.

(19) So Jayadvaita has made it a little different. But did Prabhuapda ask for the change? NO! He PERSONALLY quoted the original verse AS IT IS!!

Tamala Krsna: Thirty-two: “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.”

Prabhupada: Yes. If somebody says, “Oh, why shall I serve God?” all right, then you shall have to serve dog. That’s all. Therefore he is befooled. He does not know that he has to serve somebody. His constitutional position is like that. He cannot escape. So therefore if he denies to serve God, Krsna, then he has to serve maya, illusion, in the hope that “I have become the master.”

Just like in your country the President Johnson was the master. Actually, he was not the master; he was the servant of the country. Now the country has dismissed him. He is no longer master. So our mastership in this material world is like that. Actually, we are servant, but we are thinking master. In a family, I am servant of my wife, I am servant of my children, I am servant of my servants, but I am thinking I am master. “I am master of this family. I am master of this country. I am master of this society.” Nobody is master.

The Caitanya-caritamrta says, therefore, “The master is only Krsna.” Ekale isvara krsna ara saba bhrtya: “Only Krsna, or God, is master, and everyone is servant.” Yare yaiche nacaya se taiche kare nrtya: “Each servant is dancing according to the order of the Supreme.” That’s all. Nobody is master. So this false conception of becoming master is called maya, illusion. Nobody is master. Therefore one who disagrees to become servant of God, he is befooled. It is said, “But those who, out of envy…” He is constitutionally servant, but he is envious: “Why shall I become God’s servant? I shall become God.” You see? Everyone is claiming, “Oh, everyone is God. Why? What is the use of becoming servant of God? I am God.” This is enviousness. So if one refuses to serve God and become envious, “disregard these teachings and do not practice them regularly are to be considered bereft of all knowledge.” Because he is servant, but he is thinking, “I am master. I am not serving anyone.” This is maya, bereft of all knowledge. Go on.

Where is the hint Srila Prabhupada wanted Jayadvaita to changed the translation he heard from Tamala Krsna and then even quotes himself in his explanation? There is no AUTHORITY from Srila Prabhupada to change this verse at all. Srila Prabhupada clearly accepts the original translation AS IT IS…

Chant Hare Krishna and be happy. More changes to come next week…

Your servant, Madhudvisa dasa.