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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Prabhujis

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

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

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

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

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

For example now the Bhagavad-gita ISKCON distributes has thousands of unauthorized changes that in many cases significantly change the meaning of what Srila Prabhupada said in his original Bhagavad-gita As It Is.

ISKCON tries to justify some of the changes by going back to a transcript of Srila Prabhupada’s dictation of the book which they call the “original manuscript.”

This “original manuscript” is a great deception. This is not the “original manuscript” at all. That is only the first draft of the book. Srila Prabhupada worked extensively on this “first draft” with his editor Hayagriva Prabhu and the result is Srila Prabhupada’s “Complete Edition” of his Bhagavad-gita As It Is published by Macmillan in 1972.

Govinda dasi, in her very important letter below, gives personal eyewitness proof that Srila Prabhuapda spent a lot of time working with Hayagriva Prabhu, the principle editor of Srila Prabhupada’s books, to take his Bhagavad-gita As It Is from the first draft to the manuscript that was presented to Macmillan to print the book.

What was approved by Srila Prabhupada for printing was the blueprint of the book provided to him by Macmillan, not his first draft.

Srila Prabhupada was personally involved in all stages of writing, editing and printing his original Bhagavad-gita As It Is, he lectured from this book constantly from 1972 to 1977 and personally read the book in his leisure time. With the exception of a few obvious typographical errors he never authorized any changes to this book. He certainly never autorized anyone to “Revise and Enlarge” it.

If you look at your ISKCON Bhagavad-gita you will see it is now “The Revised and Enlarged” edition. This is not authorized by Srila Prabhupada.

This is the most important issue facing ISKCON. ISKCON is changing Srila Prabhupada’s books. No matter what happens we have to preserve and distribute the original teachings of Srila Prabhupada and the main source of these teachings is Srila Prabhupada’s books.

Please read the very important letter below from Govinda Dasi who was personally serving Srila Prabhupada while he was working with Hayagriva Prabhu on editing his Bhagavad-gita As It Is and go to:

www.BookChanges.com

To research this matter further.

Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

Your servant

Madhudvisa dasa

Govinda dasi’s Letter

Dear Yashoda Dulal Prabhu,

Pamho. Yes, the bbt always gives that one worn-out example of cattle, and of course the other one, planet of the trees. Yes, those are typos, mistakes. They fail to mention the other four thousand and nine hundred and ninety eight changes they made!

And had these two errors been corrected, along with any misspelled words, etc. there would have been no cause for alarm–or for a million dollar lawsuit with… bbt defending the edited version–one which they lost in the courts. That court case is the only reason that now the world has an option to read Prabhupada’s original words. But the 5000 changes that were made, and changing the “writer’s voice” was unwarranted and factually criminal.

In a meeting at Honolulu temple some years back, Jayadvaita M. actually stated, “Oh, those (original) books were horrible!” Those “horrible” original books, filled with Srila Prabhupada’s divine mercy, made thousands of devotees in the ’70s. More books were distributed then than now.

It seems you believe the propaganda that Hayagriva was never around Prabhupada much, and there were many editors etc. What can I say? This is simply not true. I knew Hayagriva from the time I joined Prabhupada in San Francisco, January of 1967. Hayagriva was there, and was already editing the Gita, and spending hours every day with Srila Prabhupada going over every verse!

And later, just before the first Gita was printed, in late 1968, Hayagriva LIVED with us in Los Angeles. (I was Prabhupada’s secretary for the whole year of 1968 and part of 1969) Daily they would spend hours in Prabhupada’s room, going over every inch of the final edits. I am an eye witness to this.

At this time, I even did the cover drawing for the first MacMillan Gita (the purple one) with Prabhupada guiding me, literally over my shoulder, watching the drawing develop. The purple Gita cut out a lot of that meticulous work done by Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva; Macmillan wanted to make it smaller. So they greatly edited Prabhupada’s manuscript, and he was unhappy with it, but accepted it as “a blind uncle.”

But as soon as he could, he printed his manuscript in total, the Original Gita, the one with Jadurany’s reddish battlefield picture on the cover. Srila Prabhupada was extremely happy with that Gita–he finally got his carefully nurtured manuscript into print! He was overjoyed!

The “Edited Edition”, with the blue battlefield cover, done by Parikshit das, with Krishna carrying a whip rather than his Panchajanya (conch) as directed by Srila Prabhupada, was done AFTER Srila Prabhupada’s departure from this world. Both the editing and the cover were done after his departure, yet they inserted his preface and signature of 1971–as if, with 5000 changes, it was the same book! How unethical!

Most of Prabhupada’s disciples did not even know this editing mischief was going on; they were grieving the loss of Srila Prabhupada from this world. Only later, when the dust had settled, did many of us learn of this travesty.

So I really do know what happened in those days. I even met with MacMillan in New York prior to the printing.

Jayadvaita M. had not even become a devotee in early 1967, so how would he know?? He says many things that are not in keeping with what really happened, since he was not there; perhaps he is relying on hearsay, I don’t know. Neither was Jayadvaita M. in Los Angeles in late 1968 when Hayagriva lived with us for weeks on end, completing the editing work. Most of what the bbt says in this regard is based on fairy tales, hearsay, and perhaps some personal ambition as well. I do not know how they can skew things in this way and still sleep at night.

But what I do know is that Srila Prabhupada wanted NO FURTHER CHANGES TO HIS BOOKS. HE EXPRESSED THIS ON MANY OCCASIONS. A little research can easily prove this point.

Now, you may enjoy reading many various literatures that are perhaps well written, even better written, and that is fine. But if you want to read Srila Prabhupada’s original words, gone over with a fine tooth comb by Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva, then I suggest you read his original books. If you want to compare them, that’s fine too. But his original books must be available to the people who will come in the future of this Kali Yuga. And the changes must stop lest the original teachings be obliterated in the course of time.

Generally I avoid these political issues, as I feel most are fairly unimportant and always changing. However, this book issue is very very important. So important that Srila Prabhupada himself came to me in a darshan a few years back and told me to defend his original books. Frankly, I did not want to take this task, as it means stepping on people’s toes, but he insisted. He ordered me to speak out, so I must, in spite of being labeled and criticized.

Srila Prabhupada wants it known all over the world, and especially for future generations, that his original books are just as he intended them to be. They have his full shakti, full mercy, and are for all of mankind. If the changes continue, there will always be another editor who thinks he can improve this or that, and eventually the original meaningswill be lost.

You may appreciate the editing work, but Srila Prabhupada doesn’t. He didn’t appreciate the changes then, and he doesn’t appreciate it now. Our duty is to please our Guru, not our own sense of what sounds good or doesn’t sound good.

He made this clear so many times, yet they have chosen to ignore everything he said. Please understand, I don’t blame any one person, not even Jayadvaita M. It is the nature of the Kali Yuga to try to destroy that which is sacred and meant for the upliftment of mankind. That is how Maya works.

Srila Prabhupada often said “Krishna has written these books.” So tell me, how can a conditioned soul improve on what Krishna has said or written??

Your servant and sister,
Govinda devi dasi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bg 2.8 P ORIGINAL 72 GITA:

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

Bg 2.8 P REVISED & ENLARGED:

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

Bg 2.18 P ORIGINAL:

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

Bg 2.18 P REVISED & ENLARGED:

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

Bg 2.25 T ORIGINAL:

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

Bg 2.25 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

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

Bg 2.30 T ORIGINAL:

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

Bg 2.30 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

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

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

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

Bg 2.31 P ORIGINAL:

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

Bg 2.31 P REVISED & ENLARGED:

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

Bg 2.40 P ORIGINAL:

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

Bg 2.40 P REVISED & ENLARGED:

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

Bg 2.48 T ORIGINAL:

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

Bg 2.48 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

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

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

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

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

Bg 2.49 T ORIGINAL:

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

Bg 2.49 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

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

Bg 2.51 T ORIGINAL:

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

Bg 2.51 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

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

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

Prabhupada: Yes. There is purport?

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

Prabhupada: All right. Finish.

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

Prabhupada: Read it again.

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

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

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

Bg 2.57 T ORIGINAL:

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

Bg 2.57 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

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

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

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

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

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

Bg 2.61 P ORIGINAL:

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

Bg 2.61 P REVISED & ENLARGED:

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

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

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

Bg 2.66 T ORIGINAL:

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

Bg 2.66 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bg 3.8 T ORIGINAL:

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

Bg 3.8 T REVISED & ENLARGED:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

Your servant

Madhudvisa dasa

Govinda dasi: …that in 1966, ’67 and ’68, Hayagriva spent many, many hours alone with Srila Prabhupada, discussing the different aspects of the editing work. They went over each verse extensively, and Srila Prabhupada was actually quite clear in expressing what he wanted. He, even in the case of legal matters, or something else that he might not know how things worked, he knew what he wanted. So he had an uncanny ability to see through any situation. That’s an understatement, and I’m putting that so that people can appreciate it.

So, when the later Gita was edited, the manuscript had already been gone over, how many times? We don’t really know, I don’t really believe, I mean, joined after Hayagriva. I joined in Frisco as soon as Srila Prabhupada came to Frisco, and then I went back to LA with him. I think, Javadvaita Maharaja, didn’t you say you joined in Boston in…

Jayadvaita Maharaja: New York.

Govinda dasi: …in May of ’68?

Jayadvaita Maharaja: Yes.

Govinda dasi: I thought it was in Boston.

Jayadvaita Maharaja: I came up to Boston right after I joined. I was a devotee in New York for two months.

Govinda dasi: So I was there at your initiation then.

Jayadvaita Maharaja: Yes.

Govinda dasi: So my point here is that already Srila Prabhupada had been working on this, I don’t know how many years before, but Hayagriva had been working on this with Srila Prabhupada, and they went over things. They would discuss things. Hayagriva, he’s no longer present in this world, and I’m not, I’m just pointing out that Hayagriva was the person sent in at that time. And Hayagriva was, interestingly enough, an English professor with a PhD, and his specialty was poetry. And Bhagavad-gita means ‘Song of God,’ it’s a poetic treatise in Sanskrit. So somehow or other by Krsna’s arrangement, a specialist in poetry with a big bushy beard—and he as a rather far-out fellow, but he was a good writer, an excellent writer—was sent to Srila Prabhupada and Srila Prabhupada spent many, many hours with him.

Now, for example there’s a simple change, “the Blessed Lord said.” That’s been removed, because you [Jayadvaita Maharaja] say that the original manuscript didn’t have that. But how do we know that in the two years, and the hours that he [Srila Prabhupada] spent with Hayagriva discussing things, that they didn’t discuss this point, that ‘the Blessed Lord’ sounds better than ‘the Supreme Personality of Godhead,’ or so many points that we really don’t know. We can’t possibly know; we weren’t there. We don’t really know that. We just know that Bhagavad-gita As It Is has, in 1968, ‘the Blessed Lord said.’ I’m taking that as a very simple, innocuous example. And we don’t really know where it came from. You [Jayadvaita Maharaja] say that you have the original manuscript, but yet the person who worked with the original manuscript isn’t here anymore, he’s deceased. I mean Hayagriva; I don’t mean Srila Prabhupada. I don’t refer to Srila Prabhupada like that. And so I don’t know whether or not… that’s one question.

Now, how do we know that… Srila Prabhupada went over things very thoroughly. He went over this drawing. He corrected me, he watched what I was doing, many things. Teachings of Lord Caitanya, we also worked on the drawings for that while we were in Los Angeles, and I’m bringing this up because there’s a similar change in this regard. Teachings of Lord Caitanya originally had five or six black-and-white drawings. In those days we couldn’t afford to print color. So, Gourasundar and I did five or six black-and-white drawings, and Srila Prabhupada very meticulously went over them. He told us exactly what to put. I had never been in the Jagannath temple, I had never even been to India, and I wasn’t allowed in anyway. And he told me everything that was inside, where the pujari sits, Jagannath was up on this thing, it was dark all around—he gave me specific instructions on how to do that drawing; that drawing and all the rest that are in there.

So that’s how meticulous he was. I didn’t work with Hayagriva; Srila Prabhupada was busy working with Hayagriva. I was typing his letters, editing his letters, cooking his chapattis and stuff like that. But Srila Prabhupada was working on his books, OK? Now, those drawings were all removed from the subsequent edition of Teachings of Lord Caitanya, the drawings that Srila Prabhupada personally oversaw. He was quite distressed by this. He said, “Why have you removed those drawings? I had those done. Why did you remove them?” And they put some very nicely, highly beautiful, technically accurate paintings in there. Being an artist, I can relate to this from the artistic point of view. Also the Krsna Book, the artistic paintings, the early paintings were technically not as proficient as the ones that were later substituted for the early ones. But Srila Prabhupada was very distraught. He said, “Why did you remove those early paintings? They were full of bhakti.”

OK, this is my point. Number one, he made corrections according… for two years, before we were even around, Maharaja and I, I don’t know, I was in college and he was doing… I think you’re younger than me, so you were probably in high school, I don’t know. So basically, we weren’t around. While this is going on, a lot of things could have been occurring between Hayagriva and Srila Prabhupada that we don’t know about; that we can’t possibly know about. We just can’t know about them. However, given the way he managed the artists and the way the artwork was done, and the way the editing work was done later on, I would say he probably had a hand in it.

OK, there’s another point. That’s my point as far as that’s concerned. Srila Prabhupada had a Midas touch: everything he touched turned to bhakti—even us. We basically had… we were kids, green behind the ears, and without a whole lot of punya, actually. A lot of us were taking drugs, a lot of us… I was in my fourth year of college, and I left school and met him three months later, and I felt he saved my life because I saw no meaning in anything. And I’m sure most of us feel the same way, wherever we came from. Srila Prabhupada had the Midas touch. His Midas touch—everybody knows who Midas was, the king that turned everything to gold. So, he infused, he oversaw the production of everything that happened, and he infused the artists and editors with his own bhakti. It was like a fever; it was wonderful, it was actually the best time in my life. Putting out those seventeen volumes of Caitanya-caritamrta and working around the clock; there’s probably nothing that you’ll look back on in your life that was more beautiful. It was like Srila Prabhupada’s divine presence permeated us all. It permeated our work. And you know, I look at some things that I did; I look at that painting above Srila Prabhupada’s head right there, and I don’t even think I did that painting. I look at that one, and I think, “I did that?” [note: several of Govinda dasi’s oil paintings hang in Srila Prabhupada’s room  where the meeting is being held] Srila Prabhupada’s mood infused us, it gave us the ability… What is that verse in Caitanya-caritamrta, that the lame can cross mountains and the blind can see? He gave us, we were warm bodies, his energy came through us, and we did incredible works.

Devotee: You painted that painting? [pointing to the painting of Sri-Sri Pancha-Tattva behind Srila Prabhupada.]

Govinda dasi: Yes, and when I painted that, there was an incident where Srila Prabhupada let me know… The whole time I painted it, I wanted to paint it so that he would like it so much, that he would touch Lord’s Caitanya’s feet. I never told him that. Years later, years later, it used to be right here. He liked having it right here [next to his desk]. I was standing at the door, he came over to the painting, put his head on Lord’s Caitanya’s lotus feet, and left for the airport. And I thought, “Oh, he has satisfied my desire.” I mean, there are the experiences that we had with Srila Prabhupada. These are real experiences. Like Satyahit said, he used to fall down, he was so overwhelmed by Srila Prabhupada’s divine presence. He opened our hearts completely.

So without getting too far off, my point here is that he guided us from within, and Srila Prabhupada didn’t want things changed. He was unhappy when we didn’t respect what he had done, and when they removed the pictures, he complained about it. But it was never corrected. To this day, I don’t think anybody even has those pictures except me, because I’ve got all the early books. So that’s one of my second points, so far as the human aspect of this, and the historical aspect of this.

There’s one other thing that’s significant here. Srila Prabhupada guided us on all our drawings. Jadurani and I used to sit in his front room, and Srila Prabhupada sat in his bedroom. There was an arched window between, and he walked in and out of the room while we were painting. And this is how close a contact the writers and the artists had with Srila Prabhupada in the early days. We were very, very… a nuclear family, almost. Srila Prabhupada would pose for us sometimes. He would walk in and he would pose. Sometimes he posed for Krsna, to give us an idea how the flute and everything, the position. He posed for Hiranyakasipu with his arms up, and he posed for Nrsimhadeva at least once a day, that was his favorite pose. He would walk in and roar, and say, “I’m jumping out of the pillar!” [laughter] Honestly! Anyone who was there can tell you this. This is what the early times were like. I’m just painting this picture so you can understand where I’m coming from.

Once in the Prahlad book, which was a children’s book that we were working on at the time, he told me to paint some demons that were poking at Prahlad while he was sitting in a boiling vat of oil. Well, I’d never seen a demon except in a comic book, so I got one of Rayarama’s comic books and managed to come up with demons, with tails, and skinny and horns, stuff like that. I kind of made them up. And then I took it to show it to him, because he approved everything. That’s my point. He approved the writing, he approved the artwork. He looked at them, and said, “Yes, that is very good. There are such demons in Africa and other places, in the jungles.” And I was in my fourth year of college; educated, right? And I said, “Oh Srila Prabhupada, I didn’t know that,” meaning that I didn’t know that such things existed on our planet, because science had taught me everything that there was. And Srila Prabhupada looked at me and said, “There are many things you do not know.”

And I think that’s the essence of how we should remain in his presence: there are many things we don’t know. Srila Prabhupada is the one who actually knows. He’s the one who actually guided all of this, in what: eleven years, how many times did he travel around the world, ten or twelve times? And in eleven years, he printed how many books? He did phenomenal things. We didn’t do this. None of us did this. We weren’t the doers; we were warm bodies who were willing to do what he wanted us to do. And his divine presence came through his books, and they were transcendental. He told everyone they’re transcendental: “Read my books. They’re transcendental.” So he accepted his books in 1972 as transcendental and perfect, and he lectured on them. He lectured on almost every verse of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is over ten years’ time. Both of these Gitas: this one, [the “purple Gita”] which is almost unchanged, the translation; and this one, [the Macmillan Gita] which is much fatter and has more. He lectured on these for ten years, over ten years. And he only requested two or three small changes. And believe me, if he didn’t like something, he could break up a lecture and let you know it. He certainly laid into Dr. Radha-Krsna at least a dozen times that I can think of.

So, Srila Prabhupada said that they were transcendental then, and now those same books are not good enough? Now they’re not transcendental? OK, this is one point. I consider that they’re still transcendental. And of course we discussed the authority issue: that Jayadvaita Maharaja has said that Srila Prabhupada did not specifically give him the permission to…