In this interview he is giving a completely honest account of Srila Prabhupada’s instructions to him in regard to not changing his books and on many other points also.

This is perhaps the most important document that has come to light in ISKCON since 1977.

I request you to please read the whole 300+ pages of the interview transcript. You will find it uplifting, encouraging, inspiring and also very informative.

In today’s ISKCON almost everything has been changed and so many of Srila Prabhupada’s orders have been disobeyed. This document is truly a wake up call for the BBT and ISKCON, coming perhaps just at the right moment.

You can download and read the PDF file of the interview by clicking on:

Ramesvara-interview-1979

Please read it…

A few short quotes from the interview (these are about book changes but the interview covers a very broad spectrum of interesting topics so please read the transcript for yourself):

“Prabhupada got involved in many of the facets related to his books. In 1974, for example, we had proposed to put a new picture on the cover of Isopanisad, Krsna playing the flute on the rock. We mailed a copy of the picture to Prabhupada and told him, “We’re planning to do this.” Prabhupada fired back a letter, “Don’t you dare change the picture on my book! I have deliberately chosen the picture of Visnu because I want this book to be attracting the Mayavadis and impersonalists.”

Prabhupada just explained how everyone’s a rascal for daring to touch anything in his books. The greatest anxiety he has is that after he’s gone we will add things to his books that are bogus, we will take things out that are bona fide, we will make changes in his books and the whole work for 10,000 years, his plan Prabhupada was working on, it will all be spoiled by us because of our tendency to change. And Prabhupada gave an example that the disease to do things differently is so inherent in the Americans that for the sake of doing things differently we would walk on our hands rather than our feet.”

“The artists were always writing letters to Prabhupada asking him to explain how he wants the transcendental lilas painted. How to paint the spirit soul, how to paint Krsna, how to paint the spiritual world, what it looks like, what the atmosphere is, what the ground should look like, all kinds of detailed questions. And Prabhupada would write hundreds of letters to his artists explaining to them the answers. Even though these questions bothered him sometimes, they were like teasing him, but still he took the time to always answer. He once had said that ISKCON Press is the heart of ISKCON and the art department is the heart of the Press. So to Prabhupada these paintings were windows to the spiritual sky.”

“Prabhupada actually wanted 50 paintings in every volume. That was Prabhupada’s vision. Genius! No philosopher ever thought of such a thing. And therefore their books never sell. These art paintings were the basis of all the book distribution. Of course, it was our sincerity and our drive and our desire to please Prabhupada. But the technique was showing people the paintings, attracting their senses, getting them curious and interested and attracted by the art. The more beautiful the art the more you could tell people that this describes the most beautiful, peaceful way of life, the most beautiful spiritual thing. You’d show the paintings and you’d say things like, “This explains how to experience the highest happiness. Just look at this painting. Wouldn’t you like to be there?” The paintings were the basis for the book selling. And Prabhupada is the genius who thought that up.”

“By 1974, Radhahallabha and I and the artists were talking about reprinting the Krsna Book, “Let’s update the paintings.” These paintings were done in 1969, 1968. The artists have gotten much better. Their expertise was much better. So the decision was made by myself and Radhaballabha, we were going to upgrade all the paintings. The artists would get together with Radhaballabha and pick out which ones they wanted and then we would work it out together which ones to take out and which ones to put in. So Prabhupada and Bali came to Los Angeles and I had a meeting with Prabhupada upstairs in his room and I started showing him all of the paintings that were corning out, page by page, and all the paintings that were going in. This was one of the most astonishing meetings I ever had with Prabhupada in my life.

Just before we started going over the Krsna Book paintings, we went  over these drawings that Pariksit had done for the Teachings of Lord Caitanya. He had worked for one year on about 24 or so black and white drawings which would be going on the title page for each chapter of the Teachings of Lord Caitanya. This was his first major work at the BBT art department. And they had sent them to me so I could show them to Prabhupada because we were getting ready to print the TLC in Dai Nippon. So we went through drawing after drawing after drawing and Prabhupada was becoming angrier and angrier and more and more livid, and it was becoming a frightening experience. He was condemning them, he was throwing them out, he was rejecting them, he was blasting them, he was describing how they were going to ruin his book, they’re off, they’re misrepresentative, they’re not clear, they’re bogus, and “If you put anything bogus in my book, this is my greatest fear that you will ruin my book and the whole book will be ruined because of you!” And on and on, it was devastating! And I wrote a letter to the artists with the description of Prabhupada’s comments like a blow by; blow because it was so impressed in my mind. As soon as I got out of the room I ran downstairs and typed out this letter, remembering all of the things Prabhupada said. So I’ll be able to find that letter and you can refer to it and you’ll see exactly how Prabhupada analyzed the drawings in relation to what they were supposed to be illustrating very carefully and rejected them and just with devastating critique. Prabhupada was so expert. So then after going through that scene, then I took out the Krsna Book and said “Now, these are the paintings they want to take out and these are the ones they want to put in, Srila Prabhupada.” And we started again going page by page, color plate by color plate. And Prabhupada was becoming more and more livid, and more and more angry. And it was just the most terrifying experience that I have ever gone through. He was screaming, “They’re ruining my books! They have no brain! They are hippies! They are rascals!” Screaming, pounding his fist on the desk. At one point they wanted to take out the old Putana, the dead Putana with Krsna sucking the breast of Putana or playing on her lap, whatever it was, and in the background you have the Vrndavana village. And they wanted to put the new one in from the 2.2 which Prabhupada considered to be an inferior painting because it did not show as much. “An ugly black lump,” he said. But the worst was when we came to the rasa-lila, this was one of Prabhupada’s favorite paintings, the original Devahuti painting of the rasa-lila which we’ve made the poster of, which is now in the Krsna Book and so on. They wanted to take it out and  they wanted to put this painting of Krsna dancing with the gopis from the first printing of the Third Canto, Volume 2. Now in the reprinting of the Third Canto, Volume 2 this rasa-lila has been taken out and the original Krsna Book rasa-lila has been put in. Because the rasa-lila that they wanted to put in the Krsna Book was the final straw. Prabhupada just turned white! He looked into his bedroom at the original painting which was hanging on his wall. From his sitting room in Los Angeles he could look into his bedroom. He turned white. He looked at that painting. Then he looked down at the painting that they were proposing was better. Krsna’s hair was wild and long, Radharani’s head was uncovered, the gopis‘ hair was uncovered. It was like a, Prabhupada said, “hippie dance, sex dance. Hippie seeds, hippie contamination, hippie mentality, hippie, hippie, dirty! Rascals!” On and on. Prabhupada was screaming, banging his fist on the desk. There was nothing you could say, it was just an explosion that “They’re ruining my books.”

With the BBT, the size of the books, the type of art in the books and so on, on principle Prabhupada would not allow changes even if the change was an improvement. Just to teach that principle of don’t change. When the Dallas Gurukula was collapsing, I begged Prabhupada, “Let us send money from the BBT.” He said, “No. It is not the business of the BBT to support children, it is the business of parents.” The parents didn’t have any money, how could they support the children? But on this principle, Prabhupada wouldn’t let the BBT bail out the Dallas Gurukula and it closed. I was ready to bail them out. I proposed it, I wanted to bail it out, but it just didn’t happen.

You can download and read the PDF file of the interview by clicking on:

Ramesvara-interview-1979

Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

Madhudvisa dasa

So many times, Prabhupada said, referring to his books, “NO Changes!” “Don’t change anything!” but this instruction, given repeatedly, has been glossed over by so many elaborate, and often untruthful, explanations and excuses.

The very real danger is that his books could be lost in time, as some changes lead to more changes, and “tinkering” with editing is the disease of the American nature. Prabhupada complained of this “Westerner disease” often, and there is ample evidence that he did not want his books changed after he left this world.

Posthumous editing is not respected by the scholarly community (see Dr. John Trimble, famous for his Writing with Style) nor is it respected or approved of by the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. The opinions of such famous Western scholars as Dr. Trimble, and the opinions of famous Gaudiya scholars, have not been included in this BBT-edit website — because they are NOT favorable. So the reasoning for doing this massive edit is flawed, i.e. “to make the books more acceptable to scholars…”

So long as Srila Prabhupada was present, he had the artists and the editors working under him, and he oversaw everything. I personally met Srila Prabhupada in early January of 1967, in San Francisco, and at that time Hayagriva was in San Francisco working daily with Srila Prabhupada editing his Bhagavad-gita As It Is. He had come from New York to the budding San Francisco temple, to continue his editing work with Prabhupada there.

Later, in 1968, Hayagriva lived with us in Los Angeles. Srila Prabhupada was in Los Angeles at that time, and daily he and Srila Prabhupada hashed out final details of editing. The Gita was being readied for printing before I went to Hawaii in January of 1969.

Earlier in 1968, while living in Srila Prabhupada’s apartment, I did the cover for the first MacMillan edition, the purple one, under his direct guidance and supervision. This was the drawing of Lord Vishnu, and was originally supposed to be the Universal Form. MacMillan removed the extra arms of the Universal Form, making it into Lord Vishnu, and they also condensed Srila Prabhupada’s Gita manuscript down to a much smaller edited version.

Srila Prabhupada was not at all happy with MacMillan’s edit–their severe condensation; he was quite satisfied with his complete work at that time — the manuscript that he and Hayagriva had polished and readied, and he wanted the whole thing printed. His entire Bhagavad-gita As It Is was thus print-ready for publication then — in late 1968.

However, Macmillan objected to so much repetition in the Gita. Srila Prabhupada told us he wanted the repetition, and that it was necessary for proper instruction to his students. MacMillian simply wanted to save money. So since there was no certainty that the book would sell, MacMillan cut it to the bone. Srila Prabhupada’s lengthy Bhagavad-gita manuscript was cut down to small paperback size for MacMillan’s economical reasons.

But Prabhupada still wanted his full unedited manuscript printed at that time–even in late 1968. It simply could not be done due to finances. Later, when money came, and the book proved itself to be a sales success, Srila Prabhupada’s entire Bhagavad-gita manuscript was published. That was in 1972. Srila Prabhupada was very, very happy with it — so happy that he used to sit in his room and read it every day, exclaiming in amazement that “Krishna has written these books!”

Yes, he read his books daily, and he spoke from that original Bhagavad-gita for over 10 years! He gave lectures on nearly every verse in that original Gita, and he requested only a couple of corrections, such as “the planet of the trees,” (to be changed to “the pitris”), and a couple of other small corrections. Had only those few changes been made, perhaps this controversy would never have occurred.

However, the problem is this: BBT did not simply edit Srila Prabhupada’s books and make simple Sanskrit corrections; rather, they edited Srila Prabhupada’s books and made sweeping changes, over 5,000 of them in the Gita alone, and thus changed the “writer’s voice” that had been so artistically created by Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva working together.

Srila Prabhupada often exclaimed that Hayagriva had been “sent by Krishna to make my books nice.”

Hayagriva was, after all, a college professor of English literature since 1964, specializing in the poetic works of the Western transcendentalists–Blake, Merton, Thoreau, Emerson, Whitman, and so on. He had also studied Buddhist sutras, Plato, Saint Augustine, and Hindu books on theology.

In 1965, Hayagriva, then Professor Howard Wheeler, went to India in search of a guru, having been inspired by some of his Indian college professor friends. He went seeking a guru, being attracted by India’s sacred legacy.

He found no guru on his India pilgrimage, but only a few months later, he met Srila Prabhupada on a street corner in New York, and immediately became his student! Srila Prabhupada, then known simply as “Swamiji”, engaged Hayagriva in editing and typing his Srimad Bhagavatam, and Bhagavad-gita, only days after meeting him. (Does this sound maybe a little like a special-made-to-order gift from Krishna? An editor who already is well-educated and well-versed in English literature, especially poetic transcendental literature?)

Hayagriva helped Srila Prabhupada, using his writing talent, to craft a beautifully flowing Bhagavad-gita in the English language. Certainly, a few Sanskrit translation errors needed to be corrected, but that’s not what we’re talking about. Rather, the entire Gita’s “poetic writer’s voice” has been lost in the edited edition, and often translations have been clumsily re-edited, losing the poetic ring of the “original version.”

But the real danger is: where does it stop? BBT editors are continuing to edit and re-edit Srila Prabhupada’s books even now. How many editions will exist in 150 years, all bearing the same original 1971 signature of Srila Prabhupada?

Jayadvaita Swami joined in the late 60′s or early 70′s, whereas Hayagriva had already been working with Srila Prabhupada closely on the editing since sometime in 1966. Srila Prabhupada gave Hayagriva the service of editing his work at a time when devotees had extensive daily access to Srila Prabhupada. We would spend hours in his room, and he would talk with us about Krishna consciousness, and almost anything and everything.

If you will look at Hayagriva’s book, The Hare Krishna Explosion, written from diaries recorded long before the “book editing issue” surfaced (and long before Jayadaita or Dravida became devotees, and even before BBT was formed) you will see that Hayagriva was spending time daily with Srila Prabhupada doing this editing work. It is an undisputed fact, clearly written in Hayagriva’s diaries from 1966 and 1967.

Jayadvaita Swami, for some reason, ignores this and claims that Hayagriva spent little time with Srila Prabhupada editing his books. This is simply not true.

The fact is that Jayadvaita Swami wasn’t there yet. I was. I am an eyewitness to the elaborate editing conversations that took place in 1967 and 1968. My husband, Gaursundar, and I even met with MacMillan in New York to discuss the cover, since my drawing was to be used. We were very involved with the whole process. That first Gita, the purple one, was printed only a few months after I went to Hawaii in January of 1969.

In late 1968, just prior to my departure for Hawaii, Hayagriva was in Los Angeles, staying with us for several weeks in Prabhupada’s apartment, and working daily on the final polishing of the manuscript for the MacMillan Gita, as well as other books. It was at that time that Prabhupada married Hayagriva to Shama dasi.

For over a year, from late 1967 to early 1969, I was Srila Prabhupada’s secretary and cook, while my husband Gaursundar, gave massages to Srila Prabhupada daily, and also took him for morning walks. I usually stayed at home to clean Srila Prabhupada’s room and in order to have his breakfast ready when he returned. During that amazing year, we traveled with Srila Prabhupada from city to city, assisting him in his publications, and helping to arrange a comfortable home situation for him.

Aside from taking dictation from Srila Prabhupada for letter writing and correspondence, my job at that time was also transcribing the tapes for Nectar of Devotion and Caitanya-caritamrita. Srila Prabhupada would rise in the wee hours of the morning, around 2:00 am, and spend hours speaking his books into his dictaphone. Later in the morning, he would hand me a tape to type–even sometimes two tapes!

Gaursundar was a Sanskrit and Bengali scholar, so he was transliterating Caitanya-caritamrita, and discussing the forthcoming production of Caitanya-caritamrita with Srila Prabhupada at every opportunity. That was his service.

Earlier in 1968, the year the final edit of the Gita was done, Srila Prabhupada supervised my drawings for the cover of the forthcoming MacMillan Gita, as well as the drawings for the forthcoming Teachings of Lord Chaitanya. I would work at my drafting table in my art room, and Srila Prabhupada would come shuffling down the hall into my art studio (the houseshoes I gave him made shuffling sounds so I could always hear him coming down the hall.)

Srila Prabhupada would come into my artroom and stand over my shoulder and watch me work. In this way, he oversaw the drawing for the cover of the Gita, as well as the five drawings for Teachings of Lord Chaitanya (drawings which BBT later removed, for whatever reason, another “improvement” perhaps. This was one of the early changes Prabhupada later complained about. He was very explicit about NOT removing ANY of the drawings and paintings from his books.)

Prabhupada oversaw the editing work just as carefully as he supervised the artwork. For example, I had never been to India, and certainly not to Jagannath Puri. Yet Srila Prabhupada described the inside of Lord Jagannath’s temple so that I could draw the scene of the altar. He supervised everything. Srila Prabhupada was very involved with every part of his book production process, from the conception of paintings to the final choice of size and color.

There is some erroneous idea promoted by BBT-edit that Prabhupada spent very little time with Hayagriva and that he did not closely watch over the work of the editors and artists. I did not perceive this to be true.

Srila Prabhupada watched us from the outside and from the INSIDE as well. He knew everything that was going on in our hearts and minds, and clearly indicated this many times. He also guided our hands in our artwork. He guided our writing work and our editing work. His mystic opulences were not promoted, nor even discussed or understood, but trust me, he was fully in charge of our activities. At one time, he even wrote to me from India, “I know your mind.”

Now, so many years have passed. Jayadvaita Swami seems to think this book issue is a “political controversy.” BBT finances him to travel around from temple to temple, all over the world, with his neatly packaged presentations on why Srila Prabhupada’s books have been edited and changed so drastically.

I have no personal dislike or antagonism for Jayadvaita Swami, or for Dravida Prabhu. We were always friends. But this issue is one that we cannot agree upon, because it is clearly a disregard for Srila Prabhupada’s platform as Acharya. And it threatens to dismantle the entire mechanism that Srila Prabhupada set in motion.

The Bhagavad-gita As It Is has been changed so drastically that it no longer even sounds like the same book. Now, I am not saying it is useless; I think every devotee should get both copies and compare them.

But please understand, the original unedited Bhagavad-gita As It Is is the one that Srila Prabhupada sat and read daily in his room, the one he gave public lectures from, and quoted from on many, many occasions — for over 10 years!

Are we to also edit his spoken lectures? Or are we to appreciate that his transcendental voice is coming from a realm far beyond our minds, far beyond this universe?

Aside from this, perhaps I may reveal my mind further in this matter….I am uncertain whether this should be revealed, yet at some point, I guess it is inevitable:

When Jayadvaita Swami came here to Hawaii about ten years ago, I had a darshan (one of the very few that I have had since Srila Prabhupada’s departure…) of Srila Prabhupada in my temple room. In that brief darshan, Srila Prabhupada ordered me, “I want you to speak!”, indicating he wanted me to speak out about the book changes, and to address Jayadvaita Swami.

My first response was “I don’t wanna…” (who wants to go before a firing squad?) Srila Prabhupada’s response was commanding: “You have to, that is my order…they will listen to you!” At that point I agreed, what else could I do?

I then educated myself more thoroughly on the whole issue. Subsequently, several discussions were held at the Honolulu temple, with Jayadvaita Swami, where a number of other senior disciples came to voice their grievances and opinions as well. Those discussions were taped and later transcribed and can be found on www.Adi-vani.org. And now on another website known as www.BookChanges.com, and perhaps other places as well.

Since then, I have studied the lawsuit that cost the BBT over a million dollars to defend the edited book changes– a lawsuit that was lost, and that BBT is careful not to discuss or mention. Or if they do mention it, it is done so in a very misleading manner.

Let me add here, that in the BBT lawyers’ arguments, BBT labeled Srila Prabhupada as a “writer for hire” and therefore his books belonged to BBT and could be edited however they pleased. This argument, albeit only a legal agenda, is clearly great aparadha.

BBT lost the case anyway, in spite of hiring a very prestigious copyright law firm. Only because BBT lost this case defending Jayadvaita’s edited versions, the original books are back in print. They were out of print for over twenty years! (Does anyone believe in the “blade of grass theory” — not a blade of grass moves without the will of the Lord?)

AND it is unlikely they would EVER have been back in print, without this costly million dollar court case. We know this, because one senior Prabhupada disciple had the money, and asked to print a small run of the original Bhagavad-gita As It Is for the Prabhupada Centennial. Her requests were ignored by the BBT.

I have personally discussed this matter with Dr. John Trimble, a noted scholar and editor, and perhaps one of America’s leading English and writing educators at the University of Texas at Austin. He explained that posthumous editing is frowned upon in the scholarly community, and even has a name: “bowdlerizing”, which has the connotation of bastardizing an author’s works. (Are Steinbeck’s and Hemmingway’s novels posthumously edited–even though they often have words in them that are no longer considered socially or politically appropriate? NO.)

And if for some reason, a writer’s works ARE posthumously edited, it is a rule in the publishing industry that the work is no longer considered to be only the author’s work, but an edited version of it. And thus it is required that the editor’s name is on the cover as well–not just Srila Prabhupada’s name, as has been done by the BBT. The rule is that the public must know up-front that the book has been edited and/or abridged by so-and-so.

That means, the edited Bhagavad-gita As It Is should have on the front cover, ‘edited posthumously by Jayadvaita Swami, and/or Dravida das’. Why do BBT consider they are above such accepted industry protocol, and thus present an edited version, done posthumously, with Srila Prabhupada’s 1971 signature — as if he were here to authorize the edits? In educated circles, this is not only considered unscholarly, it is considered unethical.

I also researched whether such posthumous editing was done in our Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. To find out whether this is acceptable in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, I approached HH B. V. Narayana Maharaja with questions about this matter. He told me clearly that this was not to be done to the writings of an Acharya. His exact words were, “they have lost Swamiji’s voice” in this posthumously edited Bhagavad-gita. I have not approached other scholars and/or religious leaders, but I intend to do so.

Srila Prabhupada is concerned about the loss of his gift to the world — his books. It is not that they are completely lost now, with this one edit. But they will continue to edit, and change, and change again, and again. The editors that come after Jayadvaita Swami and Dravida Prabhu are gone will surely have new and different ideas, and in due course of time, the pure teachings will be lost. Just like the instructions Krishna gave to the Sun God.

Just as Krishna says in the Gita that “I gave this knowledge to the Sungod, but it was lost in the course of time,” the same thing will happen to Srila Prabhupada’s books if we allow this book change issue to go unchecked. There is no end to it.

Srila Prabhupada’s communication to me is that this is the single most important issue. And that every one of his faithful disciples should speak out on this issue, whether we are criticized or not.

It really isn’t about Jayadvaita Swami or any particular person. Anybody can make a mistake; we are all conditioned souls. Rather, it is about keeping Srila Prabhupada’s teachings intact for the future welfare of mankind. Two hundred years from now, when scholars are researching this great movement, and they find thirty editions of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is, all bearing Srila Prabhupada’s 1971 signature, how will they even know which edition is the original and authentic one?

They will know only by the statements that we, Prabhupada’s disciples, leave behind. Therefore, it is our duty, to be faithful to our Guru, to speak out to defend his books, even if it makes us unpopular.

Amazingly, some respected ISKCON leaders have been known to criticize the original books, calling them “Ritvik books!” Yet those same leaders became devotees from reading those original books!

This BBT propaganda is not coming from Jayadvaita Swami or the BBT; it is coming from the Kali Chela, who are working diligently to infiltrate this great movement launched by Srila Prabhupada — a movement launched with a handful of sincere American teenagers who loved their “Swamiji”, and continue to love him, more than life itself.

Dear Devotees, please don’t take all this for face value; do your own research, offer your own prayers to Srila Prabhupada, and then decide what is right. Don’t simply parrot the propaganda that BBT is spreading to try to make it all sound all right. As a disciple, you and I and every one of us has a duty to Srila Prabhupada, to his legacy, to safeguard his valuable teachings for the generations of devotees to come. That is our most important duty.

I have always tried to somehow, whether playing music or driving a taxi in Washington DC, get Srila Prabhupada’s books into someone’s hand. What’s so disturbing as I travel around the country, always listening to the pulse of Srila Prabhupada’s ISKCON book distribution program, is that it’s going on, but not to the degree I remember from the past. Now because of a court case which most of us had nothing to do with, and honestly could care less about, even if we did have something to do with the case directly, it would still have nothing to do with the transcendental sound vibration emanating from these great literatures. The verse ahaituky apratihata — no material condition can check the transcendental sound.

The change disease has gotten to the point where devotees are being demonized for wanting or distributing these same books we grew up with and happily distributed, because we knew it pleased Srila Prabhupada so much. The same books we were proudly arrested for distributing, the same books we heard Srila Prabhupada give numerous lectures from, the same books we have witnessed Him so proudly give to guests and dignitaries throughout the world — and because of a court case, which is a material condition, just the mere concept or thought process of any sort connected with these books in a “negative way, un-bonafide, bogus, not politically correct enough” is simply a great offense and totally unacceptable.

To stand aside and keep quiet is also unacceptable. How can we allow this madness to continue like this? The influence of Kali-yuga is definitely involved in this case, no doubt, and this disease will continue. But let us continue to pray, hope and do all we can so at least some may not be affected by this disease.

All Glories to Srila Prabhupada! His great literatures to save this world and His endless continued preaching mission serving Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami Prabhupada and Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu!!

Unfortunately Jayadvaita disregarded this direct order from Srila Prabhupada and with full knowledge that Srila Prabhupada specifically ordered him not to change the verse or the purport he went ahead and changed it anyway.

One devotee noticed Jayadvaita Swami’s direct disregard for this personal instruction and questioned him as to why he went against the clear and direct order of his spiritual master. (Jayadvaita’s reply is also included at the end of this article for your reference.)

In Jayadvaita’s letter he says that Srila Prabhupada’s words “makes no sense” and are “obviously erroneous” but if this is the case then he must also change the multitude of other places where Srila Prabhupada used this so-called “erroneous” phrase that “makes no sense” to him.

I am no scholar, nor have I been trained in the ever changing materialistic and mundane laws of grammar. But I have a very strong fidelity to Srila Prabhupada. So out of curiosity I looked up how many times Srila Prabhupada used the (according to Jayadvaita – “obviously erroneous “regulated principles” — a term that makes no sense — must be forever preserved, and not revised to the usual and sensible “regulative principles,”) phrase “regulated principals” and it turns out that Prabhupada used this “obviously erroneous” term on a regular basis. In his books, classes, letters and conversations, a multitude of times.

I will now list below for your reference just a very few of the many places where Srila Prabhupada very SENSIBLY used the words “regulated principals”:

One who can control his senses by practicing the regulated principles of freedom can obtain the complete mercy of the Lord and thus become free from all attachment and aversion. (Bg 2.64)

My dear Arjuna, O winner of wealth, if you cannot fix your mind upon Me without deviation, then follow the regulated principles of bhakti-yoga In this way you will develop a desire to attain to Me. (Bg 12.9)

As mentioned in the previous verses, there are two kinds of devotional service: the way of regulated principles, and the way of full attachment in love to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. (Bg 12.12)

Because a bona fide spiritual master is a representative of Krsna, if he bestows any blessings upon his disciple, that will make the disciple immediately advanced without the disciple’s following the regulated principles. Or, the regulated principles will be easier for one who has served the spiritual master without reservation. (Bg 13-12)

Injunctions of the scriptures are meant not to encourage the eaters of animals, but to restrict them by regulated principles. (SB 1.13.47)

The process of Krsna consciousness is the process of training these senses through regulated principles. (Raja-Vidya chapter 4 Knowledge by Way of the Mahatmas, Great Souls)

It is stated in Bhagavad-gita that if one executes the regulated principles of Krsna consciousness carefully, it is certain that he will reach the supreme destination in his next life. (Krsna Consciousness, The Matchless Gift Chapter 2 Getting Out the Material Mire)

Regarding Pyari Mohan, Ramacarya, and Nanda devi dasi taking second initiation, if you recommend, that’s alright. But now they must keep very clean and never break the regulated principles. (Letter to: Trai – India 4 March, 1973)

Now they must always follow the regulated principles, such as 16 rounds at least each day, attending Mangala Arati, etc. and gradually they will come to the stage of spontaneously loving Krsna.

You also have my permission for the second initiation of Sikhandi dasi and you can obtain an initiation tape and instructions from Karandhar in Los Angeles. Now, keeping very clean, she must never break the regulated principles. (Letter to: Sukadeva – Calcutta 4 March, 1973)

Now you can be an ideal householder and one of our Society’s leaders, so kindly follow the regulated principles strictly. (Letter to: Turya – Calcutta March 8, 1973)

Devotees there or visiting must follow our regulated principles under your direction or they need not stay. (Letter to: Tejiyas – Calcutta 15 March, 1973)

Therefore we have the four regulated principles at the very beginning of practicing devotional life. (Letter to: Sarvamangala – Bombay 6 November, 1974)

Anyone who is unwilling to follow our regulated principles, you should not live or associate closely with such a person. [Since Jayadavita states (in the letter referenced below) "I respectfully disagree" to the "regulated principals" that Prabhupada wanted in his Bhagavad-gita I wonder if that means we are not supposed to "live or associate closely with such a person"]. (Letter to: Kusa – Honolulu 3 February, 1975)

Make sure that everyone is pure by following the four regulated principles and chanting at least 16 rounds daily. Without these things, there is no spiritual life.  (Letter to: Sri Govinda – Honolulu 6 February, 1975)

This instance of Jayadvaita Swami changing the word “regulated” to “regulative” is a really good example of a completely unnecessary change which is, in this case, directly against the orders of Srila Prabhupada.

Srila Prabhupada gave a direct order “So far changing the working of verse or purport of 12:12 discussed before, it may remain as it is.” Again Srila Prabhupada chooses these words AS IT IS, the exact same title he chose to place on his presentation of the Bhagavad-gita “AS IT IS”. So now with the hundreds upon hundreds of changes Jayadvaita has made to Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita can we still say that it is AS IT IS? This is a question we must all ask our self…

When Jayadvaita Swami says: “the obviously erroneous “regulated principles” — a term that makes no sense” we must know that this is his opinion only, and it differs with Srila Prabhupada’s. It is a major problem that every time something doesn’t make sense to Jayadvaita Swami he must change it till he can understand it. This is not the behavior of a disciple. “”One can become perfectly successful in the mission of his life if he acts exactly according to the words he hears from the mouth of his spiritual master.” This acceptance of the words of the spiritual master is called srauta-vakya, which indicates that the disciple must carry out the spiritual master’s instructions without deviation. Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura remarks in this connection that a disciple must accept the words of his spiritual master as his life and soul.”(Adi 7.72)

But then he gets particularly obnoxious by saying sarcastically “lest we stand in defiance of Srila Prabhupada’s sacred order.”

In other words, Prabhupada told him not to change anything in the verse or the purport, but rather than stay on the safe side, he ridicules Prabhupada’s choice of words and even the notion that Prabhupada’s orders are something other than sacred.

This disregard to his guru’s direct personal instruction is simply an offensive attitude that completely disqualifies him from any ability or empowerment to do the editing work that he was once trusted by Srila Prabhupada to do.

Now let us read further into the purport and examine things more. Did he stop there, or did he continue to change that which he was specifically instructed not to? The second thing we will find is a small change (but still a disregard for the clear order of his guru): A comma was moved, and then farther along we will see the word “ksatriyas” was added, an “a” was changed to “the” and “later” was changed to “last” some words were moved around and the word “state” was changed to “stage”.

So one may claim that these are all small changes and are not drastically changing the philosophy. Okay, fine. Then why change it???

What if we feel that every word Srila Prabhupada has said that doesn’t make sense to our conditioned imperfect mundane mind and senses should be changed? What if we find something Srila Prabhupada said, or is in his books, that may not make sense to the materialistic naradhama’s who are less then sudra’s and are impersonalistic demons and so-called scholars and philosophers of Kali yuga? Then should those words be changed also? But what if we feel that the words of Srila Prabhupada are sacred and not to be simply deleted and replaced with the ever changing whims and mental speculations based on the changing mundane laws and intellect of a conditioned soul and their society (or as I call it “suiciety”)?

It really doesn’t matter what we feel in this regard, if you agree or disagree, or what other devotees think. It is all irrelevant. The fact is that Srila Prabhupada never said that his books should be edited after his disappearance, for any reason. On the contrary Srila Prabhupada said:

Prabhupada: The system is: whatever authority has done, even there is mistake, it should be accepted.
Radha-vallabha: Oh.
Prabhupada: Arsha prayoga [Arsha-prayoga is a Sanskrit word meaning complete acceptance of what is left by the authorities, as it is, without any change at all] That is ha… He should not become more learned than the authority. That is very bad habit…. 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)

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 Arsha-prayoga. It should remain as it is.  (Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.5.23-24 – Vrndavana, March 31, 1976)

I know that these rascals are doing. What can be done? How they can be relied on?…It is starting. What can I do? These cannot… These rascals cannot be educated. Dangerous. Little learning, dangerous….alteration. That is his business. That is American business. They take that always. What can I do?… So how to check this? How to stop this?…Very serious feature. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO CHECK, and they are doing all nonsense, freedom. (pause) What to do?…It is very serious situation….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… They are doing anything and everything at their whim.” THE NEXT PRINTING SHOULD BE AGAIN TO THE ORIGINAL WAY….So write them immediately that “The rascal editors, they are doing havoc…So what to do?…THEY CANNOT CHANGE ANYTHING….So on the whole, these dangerous things are going on. How to check it?…So they are doing very freely and dangerously. (June 22, 1977, Vrndavana)

When Jayadvaita swami was questioned by Govinda dasi (on January, 19 2003) on whether or not he ever even once got the order from Srila Prabhupada that he should edit Prabhupada’s books after his disappearance Jayadvaita confessed: “I never got an explicit word from Srila Prabhupada to do this work at an explicit time.”

What is important is what Prabhupada wants, what Prabhupada orders and he orders “No corrections” and “they cannot change anything” and there is no one anywhere, even Jayadvaita, who can dispute this. But he has made thousands of completely needless changes. And he will continue to do this because that is his disease.

The changing of the words that Srila Prabhupada approved of is only one side of the story. The other side is the mood that the act of changing the acharya’s works creates. And as far as I can tell this has an equally damaging effect at the roots of our once great society we call ISKCON. This damage is going on on a more subtle level, so many devotee’s may not catch it. For it is not a change to any thing one may see, like words in books, but to something that Srila Prabhupada, our acharyas and the goswamis worked so hard to establish. It is a change to the mood and basic philosophical understanding of how Krishna Consciousness works and was given to us faithful followers of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada. it is a lack of respect and fidelity to our acharya:

“One should have complete faith in the guru, who helps the disciple make progress in spiritual life. As soon as the disciple thinks independently, not caring for the instructions of the spiritual master, he is a failure (yasyaprasadan na gatih kuto ‘pi).”(SB 8.17.1) So weather we deviate one millimeter or one mile the result is the same – deviation!

“There is a proverb, hira and khira. Hira means diamond and khira means cucumber. It has no value, a few cents. And diamond is very valuable. But if some, somebody steals khira, he’s also criminal, and one steals hira, he’s also criminal. The punishment is equal. If he says: “I have stolen one khira. What is the value of it?” But by law, he’s criminal. Never mind.” (Morning Walk – April 26, 1973, Los Angeles)

So by Jayadvaita Swami’s saying “Lest we stand in defiance of Srila Prabhupada’s sacred order. This is a point of view with which I respectfully disagree.” Clearly reveals his attitude and lack of respect for Srila Prabhupada, for everything Srila Prabhupada says is sacred! It is not for the disciple to choose what the guru says is sacred and what is not! This is a slap in the face of Srila Prabhupada.

“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.” (SB 3.4.26)

So this is a very very very important point that we sometimes forget about in our society due to trying to preach in the westernized world. But without this mood of intense respect and focus on Srila Prabhupada what is the substance to our preaching? What is the substance of our society? On what basis do we even have any connection to Lord Caitanya or Krishna?

In 1977 when everyone knew that Srila Prabhupada was going to disappear from our mundane vision he instructed us “I am great. Don’t Make me small.” So if we disconnect our self from Srila Prabhupada by disrespecting him and making him small by changing his words because our conditioned imperfect minds and senses do not like them, then what is our hope? Everything is based on if we keep Srila Prabhupada in the center or not! If we cannot have as much respect for Srila Prabhupada (in the form of his books, or personal instructions) as vimudhas, naradhamas and karmies do for their mundane heroes and books of knowledge then we must seriously consider what is our position?

So this is a disease in our movement.

Let us examine this point and look at a mundane document, like take for example the U.S. constitution. No one would dare even move one comma in that mundane document, no one would ever even think of it. Let us look at another example, say the writings of Shakespeare. Would anyone dare to grammatically ‘correct’ his writings? Would any respectable gentleman dare to make them more according to the modern laws of grammar?

So why do we, the faithful followers of Srila Prabhupada not afford the same respect or better for our spiritual master?

Jayadvaita’s claim is that he is making things “closer to Srila Prabhupada” but this is a bald face lie, for if we take the changes mentioned in this article and compare them to the original drafts (what Jayadvaita calls manuscripts) of verse 12.12 we will find that the word used there is “regulated” NOT the word Jayadvaita added “regulative”. If we look at the other changes we will find that quite often Jayadvaita Swami is making them farther away from the drafts and closer to his own understandings, whatever that may be. So no, this is NOT closer to Srila Prabhupada it is closer to Jayadvaita.

At one point Srila Prabhupada apparently trusted Jayadvaita and may have even wanted him to be trusted by the devotees. But everyone can change.

We all have our free will and our position to use as we like.

Srila Prabhupada would give his blessings to his disciples on a regular basis. We find in almost every letter Srila Prabhupada begins it by saying “My dear__________ please accept my blessings” and Prabhupada would sign it “Your ever well wisher”

But it is up to the individual soul to accept or reject these blessings. At one point Srila Prabhupada extended his blessings to Nitai (one of the earlier editors of Srila Prabhupada’s books) and even immortalized Nitai’s name by personally thanking him in the concluding words of Srila Prabhupada’s Caitanya-caritamrta. But later on Srila Prabhupada kicked that same Nitai out of ISKCON and called him a black snake.

So does this mean that if someone is once designated as an authorized person and to be trusted, then he must always be authorized and trusted, no matter what he does after that point of being authorized? Could it be possible that someone can go from being authorized and trusted to being unauthorized and untrustworthy?

Let us take a moment to look at the history of those disciples of Srila Prabhupada who he establish as leaders, and asked his junior disciples to follow. Many of which (even those who during the time they occupied the position of Gurus) later became child molesters, LSD mongers, murderers, gun smugglers, money launderers, etc etc. So one may argue that Srila Prabhupada gave the direct instruction for us to totally surrender and follow a particular devotee with our life and soul, and at one time Srila Prabhupada had trusted that devotee. But now that devotee is a child molester or druggie or whatever. So does that mean that we should continue to blindly follow that once authorized devotee that is now deviating from Srila Prabhupada’s orders?

We must consider these points.

Jayadvaita forcefully demands that everyone, all the followers of Srila Prabhupada, accept his changed books as good or better then Srila Prabhupada’s books. Let us examine a few examples of this situation:

He is averse to the sale, distribution, publishing, or even stocking of all Srila Prabhupada’s approved authorized books at ISKCON temples. In fact many devotees have been forbidden from distributing original books (the books Srila Prabhupada authorized and personally himself distributed) on ISKCON property or at ISKCON functions. So if we forbid the authorized books of Srila Prabhupada at our preaching functions then we must very seriously consider what the following statement by Srila Prabhupada implies?

“The success of your preaching will be substantiated by how many books are sold.” (30 September, 1972)

Jayadavita has an extensive campaign of constantly traveling all over the world at an exorbitant expense to our society simply to brainwash the innocent mass of devotees that the books Srila Prabhupada personally approved of and he himself distributed are now obsolete and inferior to Jayadvaitas edited books. As a result of this, presently, if one is seen reading from the original books in public at an ISKCON temple one is immediately looked upon as some type of an insurgent, maverick, deviant, ritvik or just someone dogmatically and irrationally attached to a disused and inferior relic, due them being the pre-Jayadavita books and unapproved and unchanged by him.

What’s next? In another 40 years maybe those that chant Hare Krishna will be ostracized from ISKCON

He has removed Srila Prabhupada’s authorized original books from the Vedabase/folio so devotees are not able to even access them. There is a whole new and revised Srimad-Bhagvatam in the Vedabase/folio and now Dravida (Jayadavita’s editing partner) is going through the folio and actually changing the words of Prabhupada because he does not think Prabhupada selected the correct words.

In a recent meeting a devotee informed Jayadvaita Swami that this summer at the New York Rathyatra 5000 original books were distributed. Upon hearing this Jayadvaita blew his top. Infuriated, he began to yell at this devotee “thats 5000 offenses to Srila Prabhupada” and demanded him to not distribute the original books of Prabhupada. For half an hour Jayadvaita lectured this devotee how his distributing of Srila Prabhupada’s original books is offensive and he should only distribute the revised Jayadvaita versions. When I heard this I could not believe that he had the audacity to make such an insane statement that Srila Prabhupada’s books being unchanged and unauthorized by him are taboo and forbidden and this devotee should not execute his free will but only distribute the Jayadvaita books. Let us take a moment to consider Jayadavita’s viewpoint… According to him During Srila Prabhupada’s personal presence and guidance of this movement, Srila Prabhupada was offensive because Jayadvaita’s changed books had not manifested their divine appearance yet and we poor bewildered souls only had Srila Prabhupada’s inferior books at that time. So according to this premisses, all those books that Srila Prabhupada personally pushed his disciples to distribute, Prabhupada personally read from, gave classes from, and Srila Prabhupada also personally distributed, are all offensive because they were not changed by Jayadavita so are now contraband, forbidden and inferior to Jayadvaita’s versions.

Recently another interesting instance of Jayadvaita’s dictatorship had taken place with an official ISKCON initiating guru. Jayadvaita took a very senior devotee in a private room and impertinently lectured him for two hours because he (being a very influential person in ISKCON) would not keep his mouth shut about his faith in Prabhupada’s original books and his disagreement with all the thousands of changes Jayadvaita has made. This ISKCON guru and GBC member humbly tolerated Jayadvaita’s rantings and did not changed his standpoint. All glories to him! A real disciple of Srila Prabhupada and a shining example for the rest of us to follow!

Having learned from the unfortunate plight the BBT is currently in, Bhakti Vikas Swami, Just to prevent persons like Jayadvaita Swami from unauthorizedly changing his books after he has departed from this world, has established his own Book Trust for all his books. He has made very specific rules for this Book Trust that no one, no matter who they may be, at any time, is ever permitted to change anything whatsoever throughout all his books.

NOTE: The specific changes to the purport of Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is 12.12 that this article focuses on may be small but there are many that are not small, they are major. The specific change this article focuses on does not make it closer to the Bhagavad-gita drafts, as Jayadvata claims, “closer to Srila Prabhupada”, it makes it closer to Jayadvaita and Dravida, that’s all. There are thousands upon thousands of changes to Srila Prabhupada’s once pure and transcendental books. If one wishes to make a thorough study of both the small and big changes of Srila Prabhupada’s books please refer to the website bookchanges.com. There one may find many unbiased and in-depth articles on this matter.

Hare Krishna!

Letter to Jayadvaita from Srila Prabhupada to not change verse 12:12 or purport:

—

Bombay
17 March, 1971

My Dear Jayadvaita,

Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your letter dated 21st February, 1971 and noted the contents carefully. I do not know what may have happened to the letter dated 9th January, 1971, but I have not received it.

Regarding your questions:

12:12: The ultimate point is to come to the stage of loving Krsna and all other indirect processes are subsidiary. We are concerned here with approaching Krsna by the direct process of devotional service. Independent of Krsna consciousness, the cultivation of knowledge, work, meditation and renunciation are of no value or the proud achievements of the atheist or less intelligent class of men. In this connection, the term “knowledge” is mental speculative theorizing up to the stage of brahmajnana or impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth. Especially such knowledge as it is concerned with various views of the causal and effective material phenomena is of no importance in the matter of spiritual realization or God-consciousness which is transcendental to the realm of sensual, mental and intellectual activities. So the order of supercession of these various indirect processes for approaching the Absolute Truth is not as much important as fixed understanding of the exalted position of devotional service rendered directly to Krsna.

14:27: Impersonal Brahman is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness because without coming to the brahma-bhutah platform and remaining engaged in the activities of brahman nobody can be joyful. To realize that aham brahmasmi is the first step of transcendental life. After one is in full knowledge that he is not this body, but is spiritual soul, he can effectually engage himself in the transcendental service of the Lord. It is not that one develops any other identity, but the soul in its liberated existence is Brahman or pure spirit always. You know that each of the successive realizations of the Supreme Personality of Godhead includes the earlier realizations in the order of Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan. If you want to go into the sun planet, you have first to go into the sunshine; then you remain in the sunlight. It is not that when you reach the sun planet you will no longer be in the sunlight. 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. Hope this will meet you in good health.

Your ever well-wisher,

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

Letter from Jayadvaita Swami trying to justify his direct disobedience to his spiritual masters personal order and direct instruction:

—

“The story on 12:12:

I asked Srila Prabhupada whether the sequence of items mentioned in the verse (which to me seemed inconsistent with the Sanskrit) should be changed. He said no. Respecting his order, I left the verse as is.

Srila Prabhupada gave a very specific answer to a very specific question.

Someone now wants to extend Srila Prabhupada’s specific answer to make it a general order to the effect that not a word of the purport should be changed. And so the obviously erroneous “regulated principles” — a term that makes no sense — must be forever preserved, and not revised to the usual and sensible “regulative principles,” lest we stand in defiance of Srila Prabhupada’s sacred order.

This is a point of view with which I respectfully disagree.”

(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”)

I have just read this article about changes in the KRSNA Book. Although I am rarely surprised by anything anymore, still I was surprised by the article’s description about the volume of changes to the literature of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. I have heard all the many excuses over the years for making changes, which from the external perspective may seem logical, but these delusions cannot replace the desire of Srila Prabhupada in this connection.

With specific regards to the KRSNA book, during his physical presence, Srila Prabhupada would not even allow so much as a picture to be changed. Why then, when our mundane eyes can no longer perceive him, are so many changes going on?

For many years, I was in close contact with Radhaballabha dasa, who was the production manager for producing Srila Prabhupada’s books. A couple of years after Srila Prabhupada’s departure, around 1980, Radhaballabha Prabhu related to me an experience he had with Srila Prabhupada regarding book changes.

Soon after the intense marathon for completing the publication of Caitanya Caritamrita, Radhaballabha prabhu approached Srila Prabhupada and mentioned that the artists are now completing the paintings in preparation for the second printing. To this, Srila Prabhupada replied “No changes”. A further attempt was made to explain, stating that there were to be no actual changes, but that the same painting would simply be completed because there was insufficient time during the marathon, and that the paintings were actually published in an unfinished state. Srila Prabhupada replied to him again, “NO changes”.

Confused by Srila Prabhupada’s previous responses, Radhaballabha again tried to explain the situation. The short time frame of the publication marathon had prevented the paintings from being completed. They were now to be finished by the artists, re-photographed and in the next printing, the same picture, same size, everything the same except for the finishing touches, would be placed in the exact same spot in the book. Srila Prabhupada now appeared angered and replied again, but this time more forcefully, “NO CHANGES!!!”.

humbly,
Mithiladhisa dasa

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

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

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

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

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

“Although one may be well versed in transcendental science, one should be careful about the offense of

maryada-vyatikrama

, impertinently surpassing a greater personality.”

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

2009 Hardback

2010 Paperback

“Originally I wrote Bhagavad-gita As It Is in the form in which it is presented now. When this book was first published, the original manuscript was, unfortunately, cut short to less than 400 pages, without illustrations and without explanations for most of the original verses of the Srimad Bhagavad-gita. In all of my other books-Srimad Bhagavatam, Sri Isopanisad, etc.-the system is that I give the original verse, its English transliteration, word-for-word Sanskrit-English equivalents, translations and purports. This makes the book very authentic and scholarly and makes the meaning self-evident. I was not very happy, therefore, when I had to minimize my original manuscript. But later on, when the demand for Bhagavad-gita As It Is considerably increased, I was requested by many scholars and devotees to present the book in its original form, and Messrs. Macmillan and Co. agreed to publish the complete edition. Thus the present attempt is to offer the original manuscript of this great book of knowledge with full parampara explanation in order to establish the Krsna consciousness movement more soundly and progressively.” (Bg-1972: Preface)

This is what happens when a conditioned soul meddles in the perfect transcendental writings of a nitya-siddha pure devotee of Lord Shri Krishna! Above Srila Prabhupada himself clearly says three times that his 1972 Macmillan published book is the manuscript. A previous draft is just that, a draft. To revert an author’s work posthumously without his blessings is simply a big gamble and definitely unauthorized! Srila Prabhupada clearly says that it is the “complete edition” in this above quoted paragraph.

Also in the very front of the book (next to the publishers page) under the title of the book, in all caps and boldface letters it is stated “COMPLETE EDITION“. Thus absolutely establishing this point and making it clear that the book is finished/complete! To change the book now would imply that it is actually not complete and that the person changing it must feel themselves to know better than the author.

Unfortunately the staff at the BBTI have completely removed the words “COMPLETE EDITION” and replaced it with “REVISED AND ENLARGED”.

Calling the draft a manuscript is simply word jugglery and disobeying and contradicting Srila Prabhupada’s words printed directly in the book itself.

This is a very sly move that directly opens the door for unlimited changing of the text of Srila Prabhupada’s perfect transcendental books! It creates a mentality that Prabhupada’s books are imperfect and thus not transcendental. Naturally the effect of this is that it creates the impression that if the books are not complete and perfect (they need a conditioned soul to constantly edit them to keep them relevant and/or remove all the “mistakes”) then they are also not to be followed with one’s life and soul. It also takes the validity away from Srila Prabhupada’s finalized and approved books thus further directly paving the way for more unlimited changes by the imperfect minds and senses of conditioned souls now and in the future.

Over just the last 20 or so years there has been over 5000 changes to Prabhupada’s Gita. Just imagine in the future maybe 30 or 100 years from now, at the rate we are going, our children or our grandchildren may pick up a book with Srila Prabhupada’s name on it and it will be a whole different book. A book full of words and changes from the mental speculations of a conditioned, imperfect soul full of anarthas. So naturally when one opens their heart and soul to those words, changes, mental speculations and anarthas that are now present within the pages of Srila Prabhupada’s once holy and pure transcendental book, what benefit will there be?

It seems simple to me. Jayadvaita Swami was not there when Hayagriva and Srila Prabhupada were creating his Bhagavad-Gita. Why would I want to read the version of a conditioned soul who wasn’t even there when Prabhupada was manifesting his book through the literary gifts of Hayagriva? Hayagriva was the conditioned soul that Prabhupada specifically chose, empowered and gave specific instructions to for that seva. These instructions may have never been recorded anywhere – if one wants to benefit from them one must simply read Prabhupada’s original books. So why second guess Srila Prabhupada, step over his head and read some other conditioned soul’s unauthorized, revised editions? It just makes no sense to me.

Srila Prabhupada never designated Jayadvaita Swami to revise the Gita after Srila Prabhupada’s departure, and Jayadvaita Swami admits it. So it seems to come down to this: who do you want to trust? The person Srila Prabhupada chose, designated and empowered to finish and complete the book, or someone else that unauthorizedly changes that finished complete edition, without his approval and after his departure?

The 1972 Macmillan edition was good enough for Srila Prabhupada, so it’s good enough for me.

Just because Srila Prabhupada at one point said someone was a good man, does that mean that they are one now? Srila Prabhupada liked many devotees at one point and at that point put them in positions of power and authority and praised them, but later on down the road he changed his opinion about them and/or they went astray or deviated to one degree or another. So although at one point Prabhupada approved of someone and complimented them, that does not mean that from that point on they are bona-fide no matter what they do. Here are a few examples to further examine this point.

One Prabhupada disciple did HUGE service for Prabhupada, pushing on the book distribution mission (probably) more than any other Prabhupada disciple in ISKCON’s history, and was pretty much running ISKCON at one point. But later he changed the basic rules of the four regulative principles to three. Does that mean because he had so many thousands of disciples, and at one point was so dear to Srila Prabhupada that Prabhupada even commented on how he was so intelligent and empowered, that now we should all only have three regulative principles instead of four and continue to follow this devotee?

There were so many big, big devotees that Srila Prabhupada personally gave sannyasa to but later on Srila Prabhupada became so fed up with their deviations that he said that they should give up those positions as sannyasi! Srila Prabhupada even said “This should be strictly outlawed, no more sannyasis….there will be no sannyasi anymore.”

(Room Conversation — January 7, 1977, Bombay)

Srila Prabhupada established the GBC as the ultimate managing authority for all ISKCON. But at one point Srila Prabhupada totally disbanded the whole of the GBC within ISKCON due to their deviations! So simply because at one point in time Srila Prabhupada appointed them to power and trusted them, does that give them permanent power? No! At any time anyone can lose their position and power and deviate or go astray and at that point one is no longer authorized and empowered.

I feel the most relevant example is from the concluding words of the Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, dated November 10, 1974

“Now, by the grace of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and his Divine Grace Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, it is finished. In this connection I have to thank my American disciples, especially Sriman Pradyumna dasa Adhikari, Sriman Nitai dasa Adhikari, Sriman Jayadvaita dasa Brahmacari and many other boys and girls who are sincerely helping me in writing, editing and publishing all these literatures.”

But then on February 27, 1977 in Mayapura India Srila Prabhupada says “Nitai, he’s a rascal.”

Unfortunately there are so many examples I could mention, but in order to not depress/and embarrass all of us unnecessarily in this article I will stop here.

I guess it just takes a bit of intelligence to figure all this out. But for those that look at the world through extremes and feel that a rubber-stamp carries more weight than common sense does, what can be said to persons like that?

Even great sages have fallen from their exalted positions. Even after getting blessings to be in positions. It’s nothing new, it’s in the Srimad-Bhagavatam many times.

This is why we conditioned souls have to be really careful in messing with Srila Prabhupada’s perfect transcendental books. On that same note, we should be even more careful of those devotees that feel they can mess with them.

Jayadvaita Swami agrees that Srila Prabhupada did not ask him or anyone else to “revise and enlarge” his Bhagavad-gita As It Is. So how did it happen? Where did the authority come from for ISKCON’s current “Revised and Enlarged” edition? It seems just after Srila Prabhupada left our material vision, Jayadvaita thought it was a good idea to revise and enlarge Prabhupada’s Gita, so he did it.

“Comparing each verse in the book with the text of the manuscript, I made only those changes that to me seemed worthwhile. I tried to be conservative and not make needless changes.”
(Jayadvaita’s letter to senior devotees, October 25, 1982)

And what is his “authority” for this you may ask? As he said in the letter to senior devotees, “the text of the manuscript.” “I have made it closer to the original manuscript.”

And what is this so-called “original manuscript”? You can see it here.

This is not a manuscript at all. It is the first draft of the book. No author intends that the first draft of his book be published. He appoints an editor and together they work on the book to produce the manuscript which will ultimately be submitted to the publishers. In this case,  Prabhupada wrote the first draft and then worked with Hayagriva and other editors to prepare the manuscript for his Bhagavad-gita As It Is, which was ultimately presented to Macmillan & Co. for printing.

Imagine you write the first draft of a book and appoint an editor. You work with your editor on a daily basis for months until together you produce a manuscript you are happy with and your book is published. Your book becomes a worldwide best seller and you are very happy with it. It is a spiritual book and by reading it many of the readers have life-changing experiences. They also become very attached to your book. Your book is praised by scholars worldwide with rave reviews. Then many years later, after you have left your body, somebody finds the first draft of your book and decides to “correct” your published book based on your first draft. Of course you were never intending to publish this first draft. That is why you spent so much time and energy working with your editor on that first draft to transform it into a manuscript you actually wanted to present to the publishers. How angry would you be with this fool who wants to undo your work and your editors’ work by going back to the first draft?

Jayadvaita Swami, by going back to the first draft, is eliminating so many corrections and so much work that Srila Prabhupada personally did on his book with Hayagriva and his other editors. This is a great disservice to Srila Prabhupada.

The Swami is insisting that his version of the history of the editing of Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is is correct. And what is his version of the history? He has turned to “smoke and mirrors” to try and bewilder the devotees into believing a false history. In the “history according to Jayadvaita’s imagination”, Srila Prabhupada only typed and dictated the first draft of his Bhagavad-gita As It Is and handed it over to his editors and did not work with his editors on the book. In this way he claims the first draft that he has is authoritative and he is justified in changing the printed book if he can find something different in the first draft.

On his website he debunks “The myth that Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva together carefully reviewed the completed text of Bhagavad-gita As It Is“. He does this by debunking a statement by Govinda dasi, who saw Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva working together on editing Prabhupada’s books in 1968 in Los Angeles. Prabhupada and Hayagriva were actually working together on editing Srimad-Bhagavatam at that time. And according to Jayadvaita, that “proves” that Prabhupada and Hayagriva did not work together on editing the Gita. Strange logic, but we are expected to believe the Swami anyhow.

In a recent blog post [ "Book Changes: History Really Does Back the BBT"] Jayadvaita continues to try and distort and change the history:

“And so the image of Srila Prabhupada sitting with Hayagriva in December of 1968 carefully going over every verse of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, seeing to the finishing touches, is a persistent image of something that never took place. That’s the truth. Here’s the timeline. See for yourself.” (Jayadvaita Swami)

Then he goes on to present many quotes from Srila Prabhupada that are supposed to prove that Srila Prabhupada did not work with his editors on the Bhagavad-gita As It Is at all. However, Krishna slipped one quote into his article that completely blows his cover:

December 14, 1967: Srila Prabhupada writes Rayarama, “I have already sent you the purports of each and every sloka that you sent me for correction. . . . As soon as you finish the Gitopanisad business and the matter is handed over to the Macmillan Co. we begin on the Bhagavatam work without delay.”

Here Jayadvaita is letting us know that Rayarama, while he was editing Bhagavad-gita, was in constant contact with Srila Prabhupada and was asking many questions about the editing, which Srila Prabhupada was answering. “I have already sent you the purports of each and every sloka that you sent me for correction.” So even with Rayarama’s editing he was asking Prabhupada many questions and Prabhupada was sending him many corrections to his “first draft”. None of these corrections by Srila Prabhupada are present in what Jayadvaita refers to as “the original manuscript.” This alone completely destroys any justification for using this document as any sort of authority, as it does not include the many corrections that Srila Prabhupada made to it while Rayarama was working on editing his Bhagavad-gita.

The real world is quite different from Jayadvaita’s imaginary world. Even though the Swami constantly says, “It’s not true!” Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva did work together for almost three months in 1967 editing Bhagavad-gita As It Is, during this period Hayagriva Prabhu was consulting Srila Prabhupada daily on almost every verse in the Bhagavad-gita As It Is. It’s not a myth, it’s history, and this history completely destroys any justification at all for changing Prabhupada’s Gita based on Prabhupada’s first draft of the book (or the “original manuscript”, as the Swami calls it).

If you ask Jayadvaita about this he will lie and tell you: “It could not have happened. Prabhupada and Hayagriva were never living together. It’s an Internet myth…” All lies and deception, unfortunately. It is frightening to think that such a deceptive, dishonest character has been given full authority to change anything at all he wants to change in Prabhupada’s books without any system of checks and balances at all. He can change anything, print the changed books without even disclosing what he has changed. And he smiles and says, “You just have to accept it…”

The proof that Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva worked together daily editing Bhagavad-gita for almost three months in 1967 can be found in Hayagriva Prabhu’s wonderful book, “The Hare Krishna Explosion”:

January 17, 1967: Prabhupada arrives in San Francisco from New York. Hayagriva Prabhu is there to meet him. Prabhupada is still translating Bhagavad-gita and Hayagriva is there with him:

“Swamiji continues translating Bhagavad-gita. He is so eager to print it that we begin negotiations with a local printer. Prices are very high. In New York, Brahmananda continues his pursuit of publishers.”

So Hayagriva is negotiating on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf with a local printer to print Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Finishing his translation of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, working with Hayagriva Prabhu to edit it and getting it printed are clearly the most important projects on Srila Prabhupada’s agenda at this time.

Hayagriva is still in San Francisco on January 29th, two weeks later, for the big concert featuring the Grateful Dead.

Hayagriva is still with Srila Prabhupada in San Francisco in February:

“The days of February are beautiful with perfect temperatures in the seventies, fog rolling off early, skies very blue and clear, sun falling bright and sharp on the lush foliage of Golden Gate Park. The park encloses the largest variety of plant and tree life to be found in any one spot on earth. We are at a loss to identify plants for Swamiji.”

Hayagriva has settled down in the ISKCON San Francisco temple (a storefront near Golden Gate Park) and he is working there:

“I rent an electric typewriter, set it up in the back temple room, and continue typing up stencils for Back To Godhead, writing and editing [Bhagavad-gita] while Harsharani sends people after food, and cooks noon prasadam.”

Hayagriva is the only devotee living in the San Francisco temple and is the “Temple Commander”:

“Being the only person living in the temple proper, and one of the senior devotees besides, I’m naturally looked to as the temple commander, a role I often find myself regretting.”

All this time Hayagriva is living with Srila Prabhupada and his main service is editing Bhagavad-gita:

“Apart from kirtans, I find myself spending many sunny hours in the park, walking past the tennis courts to large, quiet bowers surrounded with hybiscus and eucalyptus. And at times I sit in the shade beneath the white and pink rhododendrons and edit Bhagavad-gita. After editing, I sometimes visit the museum and stroll through the replica eighteenth century gardens, chanting my daily rounds while perusing the curlicues of rococo art.”

Hayagriva is still in San Francisco together with Srila Prabhupada on February 27th. This is now six weeks in the personal association of Srila Prabhupada, working with him editing his Bhagavad-gita As It Is.

He is still there with Srila Prabhupada in March:

“Golden Gate Park is redolent with March flowers. The morning fog disperses early, and the days are cloudless and blue. Thousands continue to flock to San Francisco from the midwest and east, and our Sunday kirtans attract big crowds… On Tuesday evenings, we go to the beach with Swamiji and hold unforgettable Pacific Ocean sunset kirtans. Sitting on the sand, we watch the tide roll in, or chant and wait for the sun to dip below the horizon. After chanting, we roast potatoes and smear them with melted butter. Swamiji eats with us, sitting on a big log. And after potatoes, we roast marshmallows, and red apples stuffed with raisins and brown sugar.”

All throughout this time (now over two months) Hayagriva is working editing Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is, consulting Srila Prabhupada on almost every verse:

“Although I write on the Lord Chaitanya play through the spring days, my primary service is helping Swamiji with Bhagavad-gita. He continues translating, hurrying to complete the manuscript but still annotating each verse thoroughly in his purports. Daily, I consult him to make certain that the translation of each verse precisely coincides with the meaning he wants to relate. “Edit for force and clarity,” he tells me. “By Krishna’s grace, you are a qualified English professor. You know how grammatical mistakes will discredit us with scholars. I want them to appreciate this Bhagavad-gita as the definitive edition. All the others try to take credit away from Krishna.”

“I am swamped with editing. Since much of the text is equivocal due to grammar, I find myself consulting Swamiji on nearly every verse. It seems that in Sanskrit, Hindi, and Bengali, phrase is tacked onto phrase until the original subject is lost.”

March 21: Hayagriva is still in San Francisco working daily with Srila Prabhupada on editing Bhagavad-gita As It Is… So far this is almost nine weeks constantly with Srila Prabhupada…

April 9:

“Swamiji leaves for the airport. Before entering the car, he stops, cane in hand, and gives a long look at the little storefront temple. It is a look that says a great deal. Gurudas snaps a photo at that very instant. ‘That’s a farewell look,’ I think to myself.”

So Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva worked together on editing the Bhagavad-gita daily during the almost three months while Hayagriva Prabhu was living with him in the San Francisco temple, from Janurary 17, 1967 until April 9, 1967.

Jayadvaita Swami [desperately]: “IT JUST DID NOT HAPPEN!!!”

The history is the history. Srila Prabhupada worked on the first draft of Bhagavad-gita As It Is extensively with both Hayagriva Prabhu and Rayarama Prabhu. In the three months Hayagriva went through practically every verse with Srila Prabhupada and Prabhupada also sent many corrections to Rayarama Prabhu later on.

At that time Macmillan were only able to print 400 pages, so Rayarama abridged Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Prabhupada was not happy with this and wanted to publish the complete edition. Hayagriva was again called on by Srila Prabhupada for producing the manuscript, which was submitted to Macmillan for the publication of the complete 1,000 page edition in 1972. At this time there were at least exchanges of letters between Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva and Prabhupada was still giving him many instructions related to the editing and answering the questions he had in regard to the editing.

So Jayadvaita’s “history” that Srila Prabhupada did not work with his disciples on editing Bhagavad-gita is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. It is a dishonest attempt to mislead the devotees and cover-up the real history.

The authoritative edition of Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is is the final published 1972 “Complete Edition.” Not the first draft that Jayadvaita calls the “manuscript.” Srila Prabhupada spent considerable time, energy and effort working with his editors Hayagriva Prabhu and Rayarama Prabhu to take his first draft to the real manuscript — the manuscript which was submitted for publishing to MacMillan.

Changes to the final published book cannot be justified by referring to the first draft. This is a great mistake.

People are not so foolish. The truth is the truth. Eventually Jayadvaita’s smoke and mirrors will stop working and the blind followers will wake up and see the truth.

Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

Your servant,
Madhudvisa dasa

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

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

man·u·script [man-yuh-skript] –noun

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

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

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

draft [draft, drahft] –noun

1. a drawing, sketch, or design.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seemed that he couldn’t keep his hands off of Srila Prabhupada’s books! Earlier he had already pulled out his wallet once or twice and it appeared that he really, really wanted books, but something was stopping him. I went ahead doing other things at the table and let him examine the books, go back and forth with his wallet, and vacillating.

After a while he finally asked me, “I’m sorry if this is controversial, but don’t you worry about the fact that the books from this author have been edited after 1978, after his…?” I was surprised to hear this question and cut him off, assuring that he had no reason to worry because these are the original editions, pre-1978. He loosened up in relief and continued to express his concern about the matter – it didn’t make any sense to him why such editing and changing should happen, “posthumously”. He wanted the real thing. Now that his doubts were removed, he gladly gave a donation and took a full set of Bhagavad-gita, KRSNA book and Sri Isopanisad.

All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I asked him, “How did you know about the editing of these books”? He said, “A while ago there were some other people here passing out some books and I looked in the front and it said ‘REVISED’ in it and so I handed it back to them. I told them I don’t want an edited version, I want the original thing!” So he very happily gave a nice donation and took Srila Prabhupada’s original books.

I stopped one Indian man and presented him Srila Prabhupada’s books. He immediately smiled, stood very erect and said in a bit of a know-it-all way: “Oh, Prabhupada, he is a great scholar”. I got a serious expression on my face and firmly replied, “NO, he is much more than just a scholar. He is realized, he is a practitioner, he is a devotee, so his translations are not just scholarly or academic. They are realized, and will reveal to you realizations in your own heart, it’s all about experience.”

As I said this, his facial expressions went from jolly and a bit arrogant to serious and he said: “You know, I am physicist, and I have this book, and I know your Prabhupada”. Then he stopped talking for a moment and then he said in a whole other tone of voice, “I was just walking here one second ago before you stopped me and I was thinking about particles and atoms, and that it’s all useless knowledge unless you experience it. You have to experience it, realize it, and now you’re here telling me the same thing that I was just thinking about!”

He gave a nice donation and took all the books I had and asked if I had any other books by “Swami Prabhupada”, but unfortunately that day I only had three titles with me, so he only took those. Then he just started, on his own accord, glorifying Srila Prabhupada to me, saying he is such a great realized master and how wonderful Srila Prabhupada is, and he thanked me very much for distributing these books and being out there.

Being the last day of final exams, not too many students were around and the pickings were slim. So I approached the only person I saw. Judging by his clothing, demeanor, gait and haircut he looked as straight as a nail and like some type of a military kid. I presented the books to him. He, like many students who are away from home for the first time and burned out by the end of the year from too much partying and studying, was not too present or attentive when I was talking to him. So after I had explained what the books are about, the guy said, “So what is it about?” Obviously he was not listening to me at all the first time I explained it. So again I explained it to him, this time in slow motion. Now he looked up at me and said clearly and matter-of-factly, “Yeah, I have been looking for something like this, thank you so much! Is fifteen dollars ok?” Then, while looking me right in the eyes, he just kept on saying to me again and again, “Thank you so much, thank you so much, this is awesome!”

I was a little surprised at his level of appreciation and how he said he has been looking for something like this, so I asked him, “What is it about this that you’ve been looking for?” He replied that when he grew up he was religious, but he got out of it, came to college and got into partying and drinking. But the scene got old really quick. He wanted to quit drinking and get his life together and do something with himself because, in his words, he really just lost himself. So he found the books important and special and was grateful. He assured me he would read them. Thanking me a few more times, he walked away with the greatest gift one human being can give to another – Srila Prabhupada’s books.

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

]]> http://bookchanges.com/the-last-days-of-school/feed/ 2 http://bookchanges.com/srila-prabhupada%e2%80%99s-free-press/ http://bookchanges.com/srila-prabhupada%e2%80%99s-free-press/#comments Thu, 27 May 2010 05:05:47 +0000 Rupanuga dasa http://bookchanges.com/?p=55 May 27, 2010 — JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, USA — An intelligent person who wants to learn what Srila Prabhupada has to say in his Bhagavad-gita As It Is will immediately note the sub-heading, “Enlarged and Revised”, which appears in the 1983 version. That phrase, “enlarged and revised”, usually rings a bell in the mind of a thoughtful inquirer: “Revised? What, exactly? When? Let’s see what the author himself has to say about his reasons for the revisions.” With a little luck, such an inquirer would discover in the section entitled “The Author” that actually, the author had passed away six years before the book was revised – posthumously – under his name, as if it were the author’s improvement upon his original work!

At this point, the so-called second edition might well provoke our curious investigator to browse the Internet a bit, as he is inclined to do, where he would find out that “revised” also means “omitted”. For example, the Forward, by a distinguished professor, as well as thirty color plates were omitted!

“Hm… apparently the second edition is not as complete as the first. That’s interesting… and look at this: there’s some articles here that demonstrate how the second edition has also been interpolated, reinterpreted. Hm… very interesting.” Etc.

This scenario is not far-fetched. There are a lot of intelligent people out there, especially those with some education, who approach their reading material in a discerning way. For example, in his article, “The Last Days of School“, Bhakta Philip, a champion book distributor, tells how, when he approached a student the student asked, “Are these the edited ones?”

The student explained, “A while ago there were some other people here passing out some books and I looked in the front and it said ‘REVISED’ in it and so I handed it back to them. I told them I don’t want an edited version, I want the original thing!” Bhakta Philip happily explained how all the titles he carried were original editions, and the student took one of each and made a nice donation.

Yes! All power to Sriman Bhakta Philip, as well as Mahajana das, Murti das, Brahmabhuta das, Raghava Caitanya das, Madhudvisa das and others around the world committed to distributing the real thing from Srila Prabhupada’s free press, Krishna Books, Inc.

Srila Prabhupada included the heading “Complete Edition” on the face page of his Gita. The so-called 2nd edition replaces that statement with the words, “2nd Edition, Revised and Enlarged.” “Complete Edition” certainly means definitive. Let the so-called second edition, which bears scant resemblance to the first, keep the self-incriminating phrase “revised and enlarged.” Very good! It helps to distinguish between the real thing and the other thing.

Please accept my humble obeisances, and kindly forgive my offences.

vande ham sri-guroh
sri-yuta-pada-kamalam
sri-gurun vaisnavams ca

“I offer my respectful obeisances unto the lotus feet of my spiritual master and unto the feet of all Vaisnavas.”

I am writing to you Srila Prabhupada, because letters addressed to your Divine Grace must by necessity, be truthful. You can read the mind of your disciples, therefore submissive, honest inquiry, is required. Also I write to you because in our ISKCON society today, being truthful, is often viewed as being offensive.

Today in this letter I wish to address some of the controversy that is taking place amongst the devotees over the changes to your books. Some devotees feel that your original writing, prior to your departure from our material vision, has more potency than the changed books that are being printed today by the BBTI. Some devotees, such as myself, feel strongly about only reading and distributing your original books. That the changes made to your books were unnecessary and unfounded. And furthermore, were not authorized by you.

Ever since I was a new bhakta, and a book distributor, the one thing I heard repeatedly from my senior god brothers, was how potent and powerful your books were. That if we simply put one of your books in the hands of a conditioned soul, if he simply saw it or touched it, took one home, or gave some laxmi; his life would be forever changed. Everything we needed to know, in order to become fully Krsna conscious, and return back home, were contained in your approved original writings.

64 million were distributed before your departure, and I was told they were like transcendental time-bombs! You stressed the importance of distributing these transcendental literatures, so much. And now, in retrospect, I can understand why. You could undoubtedly foresee the changes that would occur after you left our vision. And therefore, stressed the importance of distributing them while you were with us.

Parampara-praptam

Some time back I was reading from the Forth Chapter of your Bhagavad-gita “As it is”, text 2.

“This Supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in the course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost.”

I was struck dumb, how was it lost? I should know this? So I read with great interest from your purport to this verse:

“Certainly Bhagavad-gita was never meant for the demonic persons, who could dissipate its value for no one’s benefit and would devise all types of interpretations according to personal whims. As soon as the original purpose was scattered by the motives of the unscrupulous commentators, there arose the need to reestablish the disciplic succession. Five thousand years ago it was detected by the Lord Himself that the disciplic succession was broken, and therefore He declared that the purpose of the Gita appeared to be lost. In the same way, at the present moment also there are so many editions of the Gita (especially in English), but almost all of them are not according to authorized disciplic succession.”

The Bhagavad-gita must be accepted without mundane interpretation. Are we in danger of again losing this link with the disciplic succession by the changes that are currently being made to your books?

In the Srimad-Bhagavatam, Canto 1, Ch. 15, Text 27 you state in your purport to this verse;

“The merciful Lord left behind Him the great teachings of the Bhagavad-gita so that one can take the instructions of the Lord even when He is not visible to material eyesight”

In much the same way you yourself, left us with these great teachings so one could be consulted in all critical times, even when you are not visible to our material eyesight.

I think one of the mistakes that your GBC have made since your departure, was not opposing the changing of your books, despite your repeated warnings not to change anything.

I also believe that to retain the true potency of the Hare Krishna Movement, we all need to be reading and distributing the same Bhagavad-gita, and offer obeisances to the same spiritual master, just as we all chant the same Mahamantra and worship the same Supreme Personality of Godhead.

In closing I am reminded of two of my favorite verses;

“Only unto those great souls who have implicit faith in both the Lord and the Spiritual Master, are all the imports of Vedic knowledge, automatically revealed”

“O Krsna, I totally accept as truth all that you have told me. Neither the Gods nor Demons, O Lord, know thy personality”

I am certainly not a great soul or learned scholar, but I have implicit faith in your instructions, and accept as truth all that you have told me. And I remain chaste to the original books you have given us.

Begging to remain forever in your Divine service

Your insignificant servant

Vyasasan das

Srila Prabhupada had been closely monitoring both the preparation of the manuscript and the contract with Macmillan. On February 9, 1972 he had written: “I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 9, 1972, along with the two copies of the Macmillan Co. contract. As per your instructions I have initialed same wherever your own initials have appeared. I noticed that in the carbon copy contract, you neglected to initial the last clause (b) of section XX Special Provisions, although you had done so on the original copy. In addition I have the phrase to XII Competative Material as follows, “as well as the 48 pages of illustrations for which the Author reserves the right to publish for any purpose he may determine…” (Letter to Rupanuga, February 22, 1972).

This letter illustrates Srila Prabhupada’s supervision of details. Another example, regarding the purposes in the 1972 manuscript being prepared for Macmillan: “So far changing the wording in the verse or purport of 12:12 as described before, it may remain as it is.” (Letter to Jayadvaita, March, 1972) Interestingly, three words in that purport to 12:12, last, regulated and state, were changed against these instructions – after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance – during the revision process.

Srila Prabhupada commented in Vrndavan (June 27, 1977), “What can I do? Ultimate, it goes for editorial. They make changes, such changes.” Obviously, Srila Prabhupada is referring here to unnecessary changes out of his control, not all changes. Editing means to make changes, but everyone makes mistakes particular to their service, and the particular mistake that editors tend to commit is the unnecessary changes or hyper-editing of content. And in this case – the 1983 Gita revisions – without the author’s option to review any changes while he was present.

Therefore, notwithstanding the sworn Internet testimonials of various ISKCON officials or reviewers, the technique of rummaging previous drafts or tapes to justify all the changes in a printed book appears dubious – in the absence of a clear directive for such a procedure from the author, Srila Prabhupada.

Be that as it may, in Srila Prabhupada’s absence a side-by-side comparison of purports from the two editions can be made by the light of his clear instructions: “Our editing is to correct grammar and spelling errors only, without interpolation of philosophy or style.” (Letter to Rupanuga, 1970) Also, Srila Prabhupada had warned the original editor of his 1972 manuscript, Hayagriva das, that he should be careful not to make needless changes in Srila Prabhupada’s purports, his “personal ecstasies.”

Random House’s authoritative Webster’s College Dictionary (2005 ed.) defines interpolation: ‘to introduce (something additional or extraneous) between other things or parts; interject; interpose; to alter (a text) by the insertion of new matter, esp. deceptively or without authorization to insert (new, or spurious matter) in this manner.”

The following two columns of excerpts are from purports only, example arranged in a way to make a simple comparison between the two editions. It’s up to the reader to judge by the result whether Srila Prabhupada’s instructions are followed in these revisions of his “personal ecstasies.” ‘Personal ecstasies’ mean that Srila Prabhupada is giving vijnana or realized knowledge. As he said, “My purports are liked by people because it is presented as practical experience.” (May 23, 1977, Vrindavan)

(An analysis of examples of interpolations will follow in Part II)

[NOTE: My appreciations to Sriman Praghosa das, the renowned book distributor, for these purport excerpts from his email to Madhuvisa das on 3/12/98. Thank you very much.]

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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. (Letter to Jayadvaita Mar 17, 1971) [This order from Srila Prabhupada was ignored and the purport was changed]

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tamala Krsna: Jagannatha dasa?

Prabhupada: Maybe.

Indian devotee (2): Jagannatha-suta.

Prabhupada: Jagannatha-suta.

Tamala Krsna: No…

Prabhupada: And the one rascal is gone.

Tamala Krsna: Nitai.

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

Tamala Krsna: Radha-vallabha?

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

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

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

Prabhupada: He is good.

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

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

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

Prabhupada: But they are doing without any authority.

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

Giriraja(?): (indistinct)

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

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

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

Yasoda-nandana: Jaya Srila Prabhupada.

Prabhupada: What to do?

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

Prabhupada: Jayadvaita, Satsvarupa…

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

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

Prabhupada: Yes.

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

….

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

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

…

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

…

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aspiring to become your worthy and humble servant,

Ameyatma das

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

Be that as it may, Srila Prabhupada never instructed anyone to use a procedure of re-visiting and researching old manuscripts or dictations to revise future printings of his first editions. On the other hand, recordings made from 1972 until 1977, six years, demonstrate how Srila Prabhupada often personally read excerpts from the Gita in classes, room conversations, engagements, etc. Many times he also instructed devotees present to read aloud as he listened. There is no evidence indicating that he ordered extensive revisions for the next printing. As the current chief editor wrote; “To my knowledge, Srila Prabhupada never asked us to re-edit the book.” ( letter to Amogha Lila, July, 1986 ) .

Interestingly enough, none of the scholars, educators, professors and other reviewers of the Gita called for it either. From 1972 until 1983 we don’t find requests from professionals for a revision to a higher standard. Nor do we hear any demand from devotees in general for such a thorough revision. In fact, the editors state in “A Note About the Second Edition” found in the BBT revised editions: “Yet their effort to publish Srila Prabhupada’s work was a success, and the Bhagavad-gita As It Is has become the standard edition for scholars and devotees around the world.” Still, after eleven years of documented success, the Gita was extensively re-worked. Why? What is the reason?

The editors continue their explanation: “For this second edition, however, Srila Prabhupada’s disciples had the benefit of having worked with his books for the last fifteen years. The English editors were familiar with his philosophy and language, and the Sanskrit editors were by now accomplished scholars. And now they were able to see their way through perplexities in the manuscript by consulting the same Sanskrit commentaries Srila Prabhupada consulted when writing Bhagavad-gita As It Is. The result is a work of even greater richness and authenticity… In places the translations, though already correct, have been revised to come closer to the original Sanskrit and Srila Prabhupada’s original dictations…”

The editors are claiming the benefit of 15 years work, which would mean 1968 until 1983, the year of the revision. However, the value of those benefits is uncertain, because in June, 1977 Srila Prabhupada severely chastised the editors for changes to his Isopanisad and Bhagavatam. He described the editors as rascals (a term he usually reserved for atheists, material scientists and politicians), and called them “dangerous” at least six times in ten minutes of discussion. Just five months before his disappearance, Srila Prabhupada made this a major issue for the Society.

The same basic issue came up in 1983 and has continued more or less for the last 25 years. But for us, now, who will decide who is right and who is wrong? One side says “responsible editing,” the other says “irresponsible, unauthorized, etc.” But who is right and who is wrong? Who will decide?

So now we must come to the point of reason. Is it reasonable to conclude that just five or six years after deserving that 1977 chastisement, editors could have emerged as “accomplished scholars” –by 1983? One editor escaped chastisement. Still, isn’t six years a short time for everyone to turn up as “accomplished scholars?” But even if all the editors had been studying Sanskrit for 30 years by 1983, is it plausible that such editors could be able to dive into the superexcellent depths of Sanskrit revelation, and come up with an understanding of it’s complexities—the same complexities—understood by previous acaryas? Was this the prerogative of such disciples, that they could be “able to see their way through perplexities in the manuscript by consulting the same Sanskrit commentaries Srila Prabhupada consulted when writing the Bhagavad-gita As It Is? Is it possible?

And further, “In places the translations, though already correct, have been revised to come closer to the original Sanskrit…” Here the implication is that the editors in 1983, whoever they were, thought they could interpret the original Sanskrit texts comparatively as well as Srila Prabhupada himself, or at least well enough to put their new realizations in his book under his name. And, that they could understand the same complexities understood by previous acaryas (presumably Sridhar Swami et. al.) simply by using the same Sanskrit commentaries Srila Prabhupada used. Is this credible? Is it reasonable to conclude that such editors were capable of producing “a work of even greater richness and authenticity?” Or that translations “already correct” could have been revised to even more correctness by them? Was all this perfection really possible by 1983?

May be, if they had received authorizations and blessings from Srila Prabhupada in 1977 before he disappeared, but that didn’t happen. It is known from that recorded conversation of June, 1977, that when Tamal Krsna suggested to Srila Prabhupada Jayadwaita check any changes before reprinting, Srila Prabhupada countered: “But they are doing without any authority!” In other words, no need for Jayadwaita to become an inspector of changes because nobody was authorized to make such changes in the first place! Tamal had already said to Srila Prabhupada: “Your original work that you’re doing now, that is edited by Jayadwaita. That’s the first editing.” Srila Prabhupada had answered, “He is good.

So Srila Prabhupada, in the midst of all the turmoil, made it clear that he was satisfied with Jayadwaita’s work. Yet a “first editing” is entirely different from re-editing an already finished or printed work, which is what the others were doing. Srila Prabhupada never authorized anyone, including Jayawaita or Pradyumna to do that with the Bhagavad-gita then or in the future.

The extent of Srila Prabhupada’s disappointment in this matter can not be underestimated. He said, after being informed of the changes in the Isopanisad, “I know what these rascals are doing. What can be done? How they can be relied on?” And later, “It is starting. What can I do? These cannot…These rascals cannot be educated. Dangerous. Little learning, dangerous…What can I do? Ultimate it goes for editorial…”

In the 3^rd Canto (3.4.26), Srila Prabhupada writes, “Although one may be well versed in 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. To be well versed in the transcendental science necessitates awareness of the techniques of spiritual science.”

At this point the significant question emerges: Has maryada-vyatikrama, impertinently surpassing a greater personality, occurred in the process of editing and reprinting Srila Prabhupada’s books? It certainly had by 1977, according to the momentous June 22^nd, 1977 room conversation about changes to the Isopanisad and Srimad Bhadavatam. Six years later, considering the exaggerated claims in the “Note About the Second Edition” and the extreme content-editing of the text, it appears to have occurred again in the 1983 “Revised and Enlarged” version of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is.

Vaisnava etiquette demands that Srila Prabhupad’s disciples, grand-disciples, et. al. always think themselves fools in front of Srila Prabhupada. But, unfortunately, sometimes some of them forget that, and dare to rush in where angels fear to tread.

* “Our editing is to correct grammar and spelling errors only, without interpolation of style or philosophy.” ( Srila Prabhupada, 02/17/70 )

x

Two Editions of TLC Compared

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

Method of Counting Deleted Words

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

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

1974: (Bhag. 10.9.12)

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

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

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

Results for TLC

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

Analysis of the Content of Deleted and Inserted Words

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

Examples of deleted information include:

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

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

Examples of deleted standards include:

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

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

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

Examples of deleted philosophy include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Examples of deleted logic and reasoning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Black and white illustrations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Prabhupāda: Huh?

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

Prabhupāda: Purports?

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

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