Fw: Should Srila Prabhupada's books be changed? The principle of arsa-prayoga and other considerations

[Guest guest]

- Krishna Books Inc

kbi (AT) krishnabooks (DOT) org

Monday, January 13, 2003 10:14 PM

Should Srila Prabhupada's books be changed? The principle of

arsa-prayoga and other considerations

Hare Krishna. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.Below is a copy of a letter which

was sent in support of those who arepresently speaking out in favor of

preserving Srila Prabhupada's adi-vani. Your email address is on a list of

persons interested in this issue.However, if this is not the case then REPLY

with the word REMOVE in thesubject or text, and your email address will be

deleted from this list. ==========================================January 12,

2003Hare Krishna Govinda devi. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.Yes, I

certainly share your deep concern over the ongoing editorial changesbeing made

to Srila Prabhupada's literary legacy. And here is the gist ofit: while an

author might, during his or her lifetime, re-edit and thenre-print a previously

published book, we would be hard pressed to findanyone, anywhere, who would

entertain the idea that, once published, anauthor's work may later be edited

posthumously and then presented anew in a'revised and enlarged edition' as if

it were the author's original work! And, for those who have any sensitivity or

knowledge of spiritual etiquetteregarding the proper post-disappearance handling

of an Acarya's sacredadi-vani, or original spiritual instructions, such a

disturbing editorialscenario is wholly unacceptable.In the Western tradition,

the posthumous bastardization process is referredto as "bowdlerizing" a work

(named after an English editor, Thomas Bowdler,famously involved in an

editorial scandal involving an expurgated edition ofShakespeare). In the

Eastern tradition the principle of not changing anAcarya's work

post-disappearance is enshrined in the sastric principlereferred to as

arsa-prayoga. Clearly, post-disappearance editorial changesto an Acarya's

transcendental literary work is not done and should not bedone. Sastric

authority on this point abounds.What really strikes me is how unfortunate it is

that there is need for thisdiscussion at all. Indeed, it should not have to be

pointed out thatpost-disappearance editorial revisions by conditioned jivas to

the sacred,memorialized realizations of an exalted Acarya is nothing less than

crude,insulting and offensive. Yet, this is precisely what has taken place

fortwo decades and continues to take place by those who, ironically, have

aspecial spiritual duty to preserve Srila Prabhupada's literary legacy at

allcost. Certainly those entrusted with the fiduciary duty of preserving

SrilaPrabhupada's adi-vani, or original spiritual teachings, should know this.

As regards the rationale and reasons cited for making post disappearancechanges

to Srila Prabhupada's adi-vani, His original instructions, thoseflimsy arguments

completely miss the mark. A threshold argument made is that continuing changes

are authorized merelybecause certain editors were permitted, during Srila

Prabhupada's manifestpresence, to make editorial adjustments to punctuation,

spelling andgrammar, and because, at that time, Srila Prabhupada expressed a

certaindegree of confidence in their editorial ability. That pre-1978 service

engagement was not a blank cheque, however, tocontinue the editorial process

unabated for all time. Just as you never aska barber if you need a haircut,

you cannot reasonably expect an editor tomake an objective decision whether or

not to continue editing a book! Thereis no written authority whatsoever that

Srila Prabhupada expected or wantedthe editorial process to continue post

disappearance on books that healready approved and that were already published.

In fact, the unequivocalevidence is inapposite -- Srila Prabhupada did not want

his bookscontinuously changed and edited after they were published. It is one

thing for an understudy (an apprentice) to contribute to aMaster's work, be it

artistic or literary, during that Master's lifetime andunder the Master's

supervision and approval. However, once a Master signsoff on a work (that is,

approves the work as finished), it is unheard of ineither the Western or the

Eastern tradition that the apprentice would thentake the liberty sua sponte to

change the painting or book and publish itposthumously AS IF that painting or

book had been approved by the Masterduring his lifetime! Using such logic, a

one percent per year change to theenigmatic Mona Lisa could wind up being, in a

short hundred years, a pictureof MAD Magazine's demented Alfred E. Newman!

Moreover, we should not overlook the fact that Srila Prabhupada

personallylectured on most every verse in the 1972 Bhagavad-Gita As It Is,

other thanperhaps the first chapter, and as far as I am aware, He only asked

thatthree words be changed. If those pre-1978 books were good enough for

theauthor and Founder/Acarya, they should certainly be good enough for us!

Ifthose books were considered transcendental by the author and by the

entiremovement then, why should we not continue using those books now?And, if

Srila Prabhupada had authorized continuing editorial changes, as isbeing

intimated, then why is it that permission from the GBC was sought in1983 for

the 'revised' edition? The reason, of course, is that such postdisappearance

changes were never authorized by Srila Prabhupada andtherefore institutional

approval was sought by the editors. By the way, theGBC agreed to allow the

changed book in 1983 by only one vote -- not exactlya landslide. The main

argument being asserted for changing the books is as deceptive asit is subtle.

The argument is that changes made to the 1983 edition of theBhagavad-Gita As It

Is brings the book closer to the manuscript (or galleyproofs) than was the

original 1972 edition. As noted above, however, thisargument completely fails

to take into account the absolute prohibition, inboth the Western and Eastern

tradition, against posthumous and postdisappearance changes, respectively. It

is critical to understand that the issue is NOT whether the manuscript iscloser

to the first or second edition (or perhaps in fifty years closer tothe tenth

edition). If that were the issue we could then expect who knowshow many more

editors making who knows how many more changes to SrilaPrabhupada's books under

the guise that their editorial changes were, infact, closer to what Srila

Prabhupada really meant or really said. Amisguided publishing policy which

approves post disappearance changes toSrila Prabhupada's works will only result

in an unending series of changedbooks for many more years to come. Is that what

Srila Prabhupada wanted?Certainly not! Instead, the actual issue at hand is

that once an author has personallyapproved his work and it is published, it

cannot be changed posthumously orpost-disappearance by a non author and then

presented AS IF it were theactual author's originally approved work. Doing so

runs directly afoul ofboth Western and Eastern traditions. Srila Prabhupada's

literary legacy must be preserved, frozen in time so tospeak, for posterity.

Continuing changes over the upcoming decades and evencenturies will only serve

to incrementally denigrate the potency of Hisgift. The world wants and needs

to hear Srila Prabhupada's transcendentalvoice As It Is -- not the prissy

sterility of an editorial cottage industryrun amok. Certainly, if the

authorized and approved pre-1978 books weregood enough for Srila Prabhupada

during his manifest presence, they shouldbe good enough for everyone right now!

About the only way out of this editorial and publishing morass is to

firmlyre-establish the 1972 edition of the Bhagavad-Gita As It Is which

wasapproved and authorized by its author, His Divine Grace, as the

literarystandard, and then, some time later, to publish the original manuscript

sothat scholars and spiritually-minded persons can study and comment as theysee

fit. The editors are free, of course, to print their own books and tomake a

record as they want, but not under the guise that the original authorapproved

their particular post disappearance word craft. On the other hand, to continue

along the "I know better what SrilaPrabhupada really meant" route by allowing

post disappearance editorialchanges to Srila Prabhupada's authorized and

approved pre-1978 editions canonly be seen for what it is -- an ongoing,

blatant violation of the sastricprinciple of arsa-prayoga. At bottom, it is

Srila Prabhupada's transcendental vision the world wantsand needs -- not the

conditioned viewpoint of some editor's temporal senseof grammar or correctness

that we seek. With regards, Gupta dasJoseph

Fedorowskylawyer (AT) oxfordlaw (DOT) comgupta (AT) krishnabooks (DOT) org==========================================Yasodanandan:

Sometimes they appeal that "We can make better English," sothey change like

that, just like in the case of Isopanisad. There are over ahundred changes. So

where is the need? Your words are sufficient. Thepotency is there. When they

change, it is something else. Svarupa Damodara: That's actually a very

dangerous mentality. Yasodanandan: What is it going to be in five years? It's

going to be adifferent book. Srila Prabhupada: So you... What you are going...

It is very serioussituation. 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

Satsvarupathat "This is the position. They are doing anything and everything at

theirwhim." The next printing should be again to the original way.

(SrilaPrabhupada conversation, June 22, 1977, Vrindaban)

________________________Srila Prabhupada: ... So you bring this to

Satsvarupada. They cannot changeanything. (Srila Prabhupada conversation, June

22, 1977, Vrindaban)________________________"It is not possible for a common man

to write books on bhakti, for hiswritings will not be effective. He may be a

very great scholar and expert inpresenting literature in flowery language, but

this is not at all helpful inunderstanding transcendental literature. Even if

transcendental literatureis written in faulty language, it is acceptable if it

is written by adevotee, whereas so- called transcendental literature written by

a mundanescholar, even if it is a very highly polished literary presentation,

cannotbe accepted . The secret in a devotee's writing is that when he writes

aboutthe pastimes of the Lord, the Lord helps him; he does not write himself.

Asstated in the Bhagavad-gita, dadaami buddhi-yogam tam yena maam upayaantite.

Since a devotee writes in service to the Lord, the Lord from withingives him so

much intelligence that he sits down near the Lord and goes onwriting books.

Chaitanya Charitamrita Adi 8.19_______________________"So unless one is

self-realized, there is practically no use writing aboutKrsna. This

transcendental writing does not depend on material education. Itdepends on the

spiritual realization. You'll find, therefore, in thecomments of Bhagavatam by

different acaryas, even there are somediscrepancies, they are accepted as

asat-patha. It should remain as it is."(Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.5.23-24, March 31,

1976, Vrindaban) _______________________