(Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.5.23-24 — Vrndavana, March 31, 1976)

Prabhupada:This of should be strictly forbidden.

Radha-vallabha: So no corrections. That makes it simple.

Prabhupada: They can divide the synonyms. That’s all.

Radha-vallabha: Synonyms. So even…

Prabhupada: That is his tendency, to correct. That’s very bad. He should not do that.

Radha-vallabha: So I’ll just forget this, then.

Prabhupada: The system is: whatever authority has done, even there is mistake, it should be accepted.

Radha-vallabha: Oh.

Prabhupada: Asa-praya(?) [NOTE: "Asa-praya(?)" should be transcribed as“Arsha-prayoga”] That is ha… He should not become more learned than the authority. That is very bad habit….

Prabhupada: Why finish it? Whatever is done is done. No more….

Radha-vallabha: Well, now that this system of no corrections anywhere, that makes it very simple. Then he can’t do anything. I don’t think he wants to, either. It makes it more simple for him. It makes him very uncomfortable.

Prabhupada: No corrections.

(February 28, 1977, Mayapura)

In the first quote above from Vrndavan, when listening to the audio one can hear that the transcription is clearly wrong. Prabhupada is transcribed as saying “asat-patha” but if you listen to the audio closely you will hear Srila Prabhupada clearly says “arsha-prayoga” not asat-patha. Also the words asat-patha make no sense in this context but the words  arsha-prayoga make perfect sense.

On the second above quote from Mayapur, I could not find the audio for this, but considering that (as per my knowledge) the words arsha-prayoga are not used by Srila Prabhupada on a daily basis, it goes to reason that the transcriber may not have been familiar with them. Not understanding those words the transcriber typed in “Asa-praya(?)” with a question mark afterwords to indicate his failure to understand what Srila Prabhupada said.

According to Satsvarupa Prabhu in his Prabhupada Lilamrita he also informs us that Srila Prabhupada said arsha-prayoga establishing a no change policy:

But one day while sitting in the garden with Tamala Krsna, Svarupa Damodara, and others, Srila Prabhupada became very disturbed when he detected a mistake in one of his already printed books. Tamala Krsna was reading aloud a verse from the First Canto which began, “Munayah sadhu prsto ‘ham.” Srila Prabhupada had him read the synonyms.

Tamala Krsna read: “munayah-O sages; sadhu-this is relevant; prstah-questioned… ”

“Sadhu?” asked Srila Prabhupada. Thus he uncovered a thoughtless mistake made by the Sanskrit editors. Sadhu means “devotee,” not “this is relevant.” Srila Prabhupada became very angry and denounced the “rascal Sanskrit scholars.” “A little learning,” he said “is dangerous. Immediately they think they have become big scholar, thinking, “I shall arrange!’ And then they write all nonsense.” He continued speaking about the mistake for half an hour. He was disturbed. He ordered Tamala Krsna to write at once to the BBT and stop these speculations by his disciples-changing his books in the name of editing The devotees were startled to see Prabhupada so angry; he was supposed to be peacefully relishing a Srimad-Bhagavatam reading here in his garden. Such a change was very serious, he said, because it changed the meaning. “Even if the authorized acaryas would make a mistake,” he said, “it would not be changed. This is arsa-prayoga. In this way the acaryas are honored.”

(Srila Prabhupada Lilamrita, chapter 52 “I Have Done My Part”)

These days many ISKCON devotees are publishing their own books, making their own translations and commentaries on Sanskrit or Bengali texts, or editing Prabhupada’s books

I have no problems with devotee’s translating books into English that were not done by Srila Prabhupada. What must be considered is: if we accept Srila Prabhupada as a guru or acharya then we must accept what he said about who is qualified and who is not to do this seva.

One effect of this flood of new books by various devotees is that if you go to an ISKCON event or temple and visit the book table often one finds that these books are more prominently displayed and distributed than Srila Prabhupada’s books. Also when you get a book that has Prabhupada’s name on it as the translator and author the words contained in it, are not approved of by Prabhupada due to content being changed by conditioned souls even after his clear instructions where given to not change it.

In this article we are going to discover directly from Srila Prabhupada what the qualifications are that one must have to write transcendental literature. On this same note when one edits a book rearranging or removing words that were approved by the acharya and uttama-adhikari devotee and replaces them with words that are of ones own choosing according to ones own mind and senses the same principals and rules apply.

Do Not Repeat What the Previous Acharyas Have Already Done:

This is a matter of etiquette. If a previous acarya has already written about something, there is no need to repeat it for personal sense gratification or to outdo the previous acarya. Unless there is some definite improvement, one should not repeat. (Cc. Madhya 12.151)

So Vyasadeva is the spiritual master. So the later acaryas, they did not think it proper that whatever the… Because their spiritual master has had already made a commentary on the Vedanta-sutra, “Oh, that is sufficient. Why should we do again?”These are some of the etiquette. (Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila 22.21-28 — New York, January 11, 1967)

One cannot defy the previous acaryas. The false pride that makes one think that he can write better than the previous acaryas will make one’s comments faulty. At the present moment it has become fashionable for everyone to write in his own way, but such writing is never accepted by serious devotees. (Cc. Antya 7.134)

Many devotees are writing their own (or editing Srila Prabhupada‘s) Bhagavad-Gita, I guess they have not read these verses from the Caitanya-caritamrta? Or maybe they feel that Srila Prabhupada is not competent in his translations. They obviously consider that there is something lacking in Srila Prabhuapda’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is and believe they can make a better translation and commentary on the Gita than Prabhupada. A mood such as this, where one intentionally or unintentionally may impertinently put forward presentations that overstep or out do the previous acharya simply show that they are not qualified to write transcendental literature.

In this regard one may refer to the Srimad Bhagavatam 3.4.26 where Srila Prabhupada warns his followers of the offense called maryada-vyatikrama “Although one may be well versed in the transcendental science, one should be careful about the offense of maryada-vyatikrama, or impertinently surpassing a greater personality. According to scriptural injunction one should be very careful of transgressing the law of maryada-vyatikrama because by so doing one loses his duration of life, his opulence, fame and piety and the blessings of all the world…. The rule is that in the presence of a higher personality one should not be very eager to impart instructions, even if one is competent and well versed.”

Not Possible Unless Authorized by Superior Authorities:

One cannot write on spiritual matters without being blessed by Krsna and the disciplic succession of gurus. The blessings of the authorities are one’s power of attorney. One should not try to write anything about Vaisnava behavior and activities without being authorized by superior authorities.This is confirmed in Bhagavad-gita: evam parampara-praptam imam rajarsayo viduh. (Cc. Madhya 24.345)

Without Your mercy such poetic expressions would be impossible for an ordinary living being to write. (Cc. Antya 1.196)

Not Possible Unless One is a Pure Unalloyed Devotee of Krishna:

Writing transcendental literature is not something an ordinary devotee can do. Only a pure unalloyed advanced devotee of Krishna has the power to write transcendental literature and anyone who has read Srila Prabhuapda’s books must know this for he stresses this point in many places:

The writing of Vaisnava literatures is not a function for ordinary men. Vaisnava literatures are not mental concoctions. They are all authorized literature meant to guide those who are going to be Vaisnavas. Under these circumstances, an ordinary man cannot give his own opinion. His opinion must always correspond with the conclusion of the Vedas. Unless one is fully qualified in Vaisnava behavior and authorized by superior authority (the Supreme Personality of Godhead), one cannot write Vaisnava literatures or purports and commentaries on Srimad-Bhagavatam and Bhagavad-gita. (Cc. Madhya 24.326)

“The words spoken by the Lord are different from words spoken by a person of the mundane world who is infected with four defects. A mundaner

1. is sure to commit mistakes,
2. is invariably illusioned,
3. has the tendency to cheat others and
4. is limited by imperfect senses.With these four imperfections, one cannot deliver perfect information of all-pervading knowledge. Vedic knowledge is not imparted by such defective living entities….One cannot say anything about the transcendental world without being free from materially contaminated consciousness.” (Introduction to Gitopanisad)

Unless one is a fully unalloyed devotee of the Lord, one should not try to describe the pastimes of Krsna in poetry, for it will be only mundane. There are many descriptions of Krsna’s Bhagavad-gita written by persons whose consciousness is mundane and who are not qualified by pure devotion. Although they attempted to write transcendental literature, they could not fully engage even a single devotee in Krsna’s service. Such literature is mundane, and therefore, as warned by Sri Sanatana Gosvami, one should not touch it. (Antya 1.212)

Here Srila Prabhupada stresses that only a pure unalloyed advanced devotee can write transcendental literature and if a devotee who is not a very highly advanced being free from materially contaminated consciousness tries to write such literature it will be mundane and Prabhupada warns us “one should not touch it”.

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 acceptableif 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.(Cc. Adi 8.39)

When a pure Vaisnava speaks, he speaks perfectly. How is this? His speech is managed by Krsna Himself from within the heart. (Cc. Madhya 8.200)

No one can learn Srimad-Bhagavatam who is associated with persons engaged in sex life. That is the secret of learning BhagavatamNor can one learn Bhagavatam from one who interprets the text by his mundane scholarship. One has to learn Bhagavatam from the representative of Sukadeva Gosvami, and no one else, if one at all wants to see Lord Sri Krsna in the pages. That is the process, and there is no alternative. (SB 1.3.44)

One cannot write such transcendental literature by mental speculation. One who writes about the Supreme Personality of Godhead must be especially favored by the Lord. Simply by academic qualifications it is not possible to write such literature. (Cc. Adi 14.1)

To describe Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu or Lord Sri Krsna, one needs supernatural power, which is the grace and mercy of the Lord. Without this grace and mercy, one cannot compose transcendental literature. By dint of the grace of the Lord, however, even one who is unfit for a literary career can describe wonderful transcendental topics. (Cc. Adi 13.1)

Prabhupada: Prepared by nondevotees. How you can expect? Bhaktya mam abhijanati [Bg. 18.55]. Without being devotee, who will understand Bhagavatam? It is not so easy. Big, big panditas, they cannot understand Bhagavatam even… No, no, that is rubbish. They do not know what is Bhagavata. How they will translate?Professional translation is not.Bhagavata-pado giya bhagavata sthane. “Whose life is Bhagavata, go there and read Bhagavata.” That is the recommendation. That is the order of Svarupa Damodara Gosvami. Ordinary men, what they will understand, Bhagavata? Bhagavata is not for ordinary men. Paramo nirmatsaranam satam vastavam vastu vedyam atra [SB 1.1.2]. In the beginning it is said unless one is paramahamsa, he cannot understand.Paramonirmatsaranam.(Room Conversation — April 2, 1977, Bombay)

Such transcendental narrations of the pastimes of the Lord can be described only by liberated souls like Vyasadeva and his bona fide representatives who are completely merged in the transcendental loving service of the Lord. Only to such devotees do the pastimes of the Lord and their transcendental nature become automatically manifest by dint of devotional service. No one else can either know or describe the acts of the Lord, even if they speculate on the subject for many, many years. The descriptions of the Bhagavatam are so precise and accurate that whatever has been predicted in this great literature about five thousand years ago is now exactly happening. Therefore, the vision of the author comprehends past, present and future. Such liberated persons as Vyasadeva are perfect not only by the power of vision and wisdom, but also in aural reception, in thinking, feeling and all other sense activities.A liberated person possesses perfect senses, and with perfect senses only can one serve the sense-proprietor, Hrsikesa, Sri Krsna the Personality of Godhead. Srimad-Bhagavatam, therefore, is the perfect description of the all-perfect Personality of Godhead by the all-perfect personality Srila Vyasadeva, the compiler of the Vedas. (SB 1.5.13)

The secret of success is to receive the sound from the right source of a bona fide spiritual master. Mundane manufactured sound has no potency, and as such, seemingly transcendental sound received from an unauthorized person also has no potency.One should be qualified enough to discern such transcendental potency, and either by discriminating or by fortunate chance if one is able to receive the transcendental sound from the bona fide spiritual master, his path of liberation is guaranteed. (SB 2.9.8)

Among Prabhupada’s Disciples Not Many Can Translate Properly:

If somebody has translated properly, it can be published. But amongst our disciples, I don’t think there are many who can translate properly….A realized soul, must be. Otherwise, simply by imitating A-B-C-D will not help. My purports are liked by people because it is presented as practical experience….Our translation must be documents. They are not ordinary… One cannot become unless one is very realized. It is not A-B-C-D translation. (GBC Meets with Srila Prabhupada — May 28, 1977, Vrndavana)

Unqualified Authors are Condemned:

The brahmana poet from Bengal was an offender in the estimation of Svarupa Damodara Gosvami, for although the poet had no knowledge of the Absolute Truth, he had nevertheless tried to describe it. (Cc. Antya 5.120)

You will attain a hellish destination. You do not know how to describe the Absolute Truth, but nevertheless you have tried to do so. Therefore you must be condemned. (Antya 5.120)

Must Always Remain a Servant of the Acharya:

These so-called scholars and politicians, they have no acarya. Instead of being amanitvam, they’re mani… “I have become a leader, so whatever I shall say, it will be accepted.” This is going on. Very bad. It is clearly said, as soon as you give up the acarya system it is rotten.Sa kaleneha yogo nastah parantapa. So things which is rotten, what you’ll get benefit? That is going on. Therefore in spite of so many Gita commentators, big, big leaders, scholars, not a single person is converted into a devotee. Not a single person amongst their followers. It’s useless talking. Therefore it is forbidden.Avaisnava-mukhodgirnam putam… Because they are not Vaisnava, politicians and — reject them immediately. Immediately. That is the injunction. (Room Conversation — December 31, 1976, Bombay)

Not By Research Work:

At the end of every chapter, the author admits the value of the disciplic succession. He never claims to have written this transcendental literature by carrying out research work… This is the way of writing transcendental books, which are never meant for so-called scholars and research workers… In this way the message is transmitted in the bona fide spiritual disciplic succession from bona fide spiritual master to bona fide student… Thus he is able to set forth this transcendental scripture. (Cc. Madhya 8.312)

Must Not Consider the Opinions of Mundane Scholars or General Public:

The simplest thing for human beings is to follow their predecessors. Judgment according to mundane senses is not a very easy process. Whatever is awakened by attachment to one’s predecessor is the way of devotional service as indicated by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. The author says, however, that he cannot consider the opinions of those who become attracted or repelled by such things, because one cannot write impartially in that way. In other words, the author is stating that he did not inject personal opinion in the Caitanya-caritamrta. He has simply described his spontaneous understanding from superiors. If he had been carried away by someone’s likes and dislikes, he could not have written of such a sublime subject matter in such an easy way.The actual facts are understandable to real devotees. When these facts are recorded, they are very congenial to the devotees, but one who is not a devotee cannot understand. Such is the subject matter for realization. Mundane scholarship and its concomitant attachments and detachments cannot arouse spontaneous love of Godhead. Such love cannot be described by a mundane scholar.(Cc. Madhya 2.87)

One of the not very well thought through arguments that inexperienced devotees give for unlimitedly changing Prabhupada’s books is that they will be more acceptable by mundane scholars. This argument is not based on any facts whatsoever because scholars prefer Prabhupada’s original books and do not respect changes to great personalities literary works. Also if we look at the bulk of reviews of Prabhupada’s books we will find that those reviews are reviews of Srila Prabhupada’s original pre-1978 editions, not the edited editions. Considering this fact, it is bazar that the editors of the BBT/BBTI claim they are making Srila Prabhupada’s books more acceptable to the likes and dislikes of mundane scholars and their ever changing standards of grammar and rhetoric. Please read on to see What our Acharya Srila Prabhupada has to say about this practice of catering to the constantly changing likes and dislikes of academia and rules of grammar.

Srila Kaviraja Gosvami and one who follows in his footsteps do not have to cater to the public. Their business is simply to satisfy the previous acaryas and describe the pastimes of the Lord. One who is able to understand can relish this exalted transcendental literature, which is actually not meant for ordinary persons like scholars and literary men. Generally, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s pastimes recorded in Caitanya-caritamrta are studied in universities and scholastic circles from a literary and historical point of view, but actually Caitanya-caritamrta is not a subject matter forresearch workers or literary scholars. It is simply meant for those devotees who have dedicated their lives to the service of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. (Cc. Madhya 2.85)

So the conclusion is that only an advanced pure devotee of Krishna (such as Srila Prabhupada, Krishna das Kaviraj, or the the goswamis of Vrindavan etc) can write transcendental literature and unqualified authors, editors, or grammarians who attempt to write, comment or edit transcendental literature are condemned. Although these books may be intellectually stimulating, entertaining, thoughtful or contain extensive research, whatever literature they write is contaminated and devoid of any Spiritual potency as Prabhupada says “seemingly transcendental sound received from an unauthorized person also has no potency“(SB 2.9.8). Furthermore “Such literature is mundane, and therefore, as warned by Sri Sanatana Gosvami, one should not touch it.” (Antya 1.212)

Please accept my humble obeiscances. Srila Prabhupada jayatah.

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

Brahmananada had just come from Boston:

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

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

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

Your servant

Rasananda das

There is no change. Therefore sastra means it is for all the time, not that sastra was meant in the past for something else, and now something else. That is not the fact. That is, means, sastra, that it does not change. The time, place and atmosphere, according to that, everything is the same. (Bhagavad-gita Class Feb 7, 1975)

That is the trouble with you westerners, always changing. No changes should be made without first consulting with my GBC representative. So, the children should immediately be allowed to chant on their japa beads. (Letter to Yadunandana, May 14, 1975)

So Bhagavad-gita, the lessons of Bhagavad-gita, cannot be changed by the whims of rascals. This is not possible. Aham avyayam. Imam vivasvate yogam proktavan aham avyayam. Avyayam. This yoga is avyayam, not that with the change of time, the meaning would be changed. That is not possible. The meaning would remain the same thing. The millions of years ago Krsna said, man-mana bhava mad-bhakto mad-yaji mam namaskuru. That does not mean that the meaning has changed. “Because it has become old, now I can change.”  (Srimad-Bhagavatam class Jan 9, 1975)

First the student must be able to repeat exactly the words of the guru and then after some time he may be qualified to apply the principles he has learned word-for-word to personal situations. It is not that we are a dry philosophy of dogmas and slogans. No. The language of Krishna Consciousness is ever-fresh and we can explain everything by it, just like my Guru Maharaja once lectured for three months on one verse from Srimad-Bhagavatam. But every precaution must be taken to preserve our basic guiding principles as they are and not change them because we want to hear something new. (Letter to Bhakta dasa, Nov 20, 1971)

I am not much fond of the idea of changing things to accommodate the public–better to change the public to accommodate us. Therefore I suggest wherever there is Sanskrit used there should also be English spelling in brackets. In this way, the public will become accustomed to Sanskrit language so that in future we may use only Sanskrit and they will understand. (Letter to  Bali-mardana Dec 28, 1971)

It is not that we should change to accommodate the public, but that we shoud change the public to accommodate us. (Letter to Yogesvara Dec 28, 1971)

You mentioned in your letter that you had read many other Bhagavad-gitas before you read mine and that none of them revealed as much to you as Bhagavad-gita As It Is. The reason is because we do not change the actual meaning of the gita at all. Many other commentators due to poor fund of knowledge tamper with the lines of Bhagavad-gita and twist the meaning for their personal motives, but we do not do like that. We present it exactly as it is; without any additions or subtractions. That is perfect in every way and therefore it is actually having a tremendous effect all over the world. The original words of Lord Krishna have unrivalled potency and anyone who is fortunate enough to hear those words and tries to apply them to his life becomes perfect. (Letter to Mr. Dennany, Mar 14, 1975)

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)

Prabhupāda: Huh?

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

Prabhupāda: Purports?

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

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

Srila Prabhupada was very upset about the changes in his books. I never saw him get so angry any other time.

When Srila Prabhupada was asked by Revatinandan Prabhu if we could read Srila Bhaktisidhanta Sarasvati’s books; Srila Prabhupada said not the ones that were edited by his disciples. Srila Prabhupada also told him that we really couldn’t understand Bhaktisidhanta’s books. He said not even his Godbrothers could understand them. Then Srila Prabhupada said, ” actually, he wrote those books for me.” (Memories of Srila Prabhupada)

Srila Prabhupada translated the spiritual law books for the next 10,000 years, day and night, until his dying day. He translated constantly despite his busy preaching schedule. He did this to live on in the books. He said before he left the planet that he had given us everything in his books. He said the books were the manifestations of his ecstasy. He said if we read his books and cooperated together, every thing would go on nicely. To edit his books without his sanction is risky business. We should try to be absorbed in the ecstasy of the spiritual master and not try to alter it, thinking we can ‘improve upon’ his ecstasy.

Some of the reasons given to justify the modern day editing are that the new edition is closer to what Srila Prabhupada said on the original tapes. Srila Prabhupada lectured on many verses many times and never said to change them. He authorized about three changes, not the 800+- we have in the new Bhagavad Gita. We need Bhagavad Gita As It Was! There is a nicer vibration to the original Srila Prabhupada approved version. I’m sure more devotees would be inspired to distribute the original. It would be nice if we could at least have both versions available. To each his own!

When a new book came out Srila Prabhupada would be in total bliss. I remember when he was so sick he could hardly sit up. When he heard that the new Srimad Bhagavatam had arrived and he asked to be propped up on his bed. He asked for his glasses and more light. As he marveled over the quality of the book and the excellent artwork tears came to his eyes. This gave him life.

Another time when Srila Prabhupada asked a devotee to read in the garden the devotee asked him why he liked to hear his own books so much. Srila Prabhupada said, “I did not write these books. Krishna wrote these books!”

When Srila Prabhupada came into the room and caught me reading the Srimad Bhagavatam, he smiled nicer than ever and told his secretary, “He’s reading in his spare time; this is very good!” I was surprised to see how happy Srila Prabhupada was because I was reading. Srila Prabhupada put everything into his books and we would be better off to accept them as is/was. They made so many devotees in the past and will in the future. They are tried and true!

Another important publication is the ‘Back To Godhead’ magazine. Srila Prabhupada said the BTG and Hari Nama Sankirtan are ‘the backbone of our movement.’ We need a mass distribution BTG. So many of us became devotees by getting a BTG one way or another. It should be cost effective say 25 to 50 cents so we can distribute it for a dollar or so. The old BTG’s are great. We could update the calendar and presto, the all-attractive ‘Back To Godhead!’

Srila Prabhupada said the disease of the Americans is that we want to change everything. Let’s get rid of this disease and maintain what Srila Prabhupada has worked so hard to give us; without adulteration or change.