A response to an unfortunate editorial

[Guest guest]

======================================================================

Please feel free to post this message

======================================================================

 

 

 

Should editorial mistakes be held sacred?

Should restoring Srila Prabhupada's words be condemned?

 

-----------------------

 

by Jayadvaita Swami

 

 

We're sorry to see yet another internet diatribe against the books

published by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

 

According to the most recent assault, "we would be hard pressed to

find anyone, anywhere, who would entertain the idea that, once

published, an author's work may later be edited posthumously."

 

Hard pressed? To find out that this is baloney, one need only browse

to, for example, the following web page:

 

<http://www.libraryofamerica.org/volume.jsp?RequestID=43&section=notes

>

 

There you'll find out why a very respected American publisher has

indeed published "the corrected text"--corrected posthumously--of

works by the great American novelist William Faulkner. The editors are

scholars with integrity, and their editions of Faulkner's works aim

(like the second edition of "Bhagavad-gita As It Is") at being more

faithful to what the author originally wrote and intended. Quite

likely, you'll find the sensible and reasonable notes by these

scholars more enlightening than the sensationalistic and uninformed

bashing of the second edition of "Bhagavad-gita As It Is."

 

By a fortunate coincidence, you'll find that those same scholarly

notes point out an example of "bowdlerization" that helps us

understand what the term properly means. To "bowdlerize" is not

merely to edit but "to expurgate (a play, novel, or other written

work) by removing or changing passages one considers vulgar or

objectionable."

 

It is ironic, then, to find this word so viciously hurled against the

edition that restores several words and passages bowdlerized out of

the first edition of "Bhagavad-gita As It Is."

 

For example:

 

1.40: In his original manuscript, Srila Prabhupada

said, "the women of the family become polluted." In the

first edition, Srila Prabhupada's strong word

"polluted" (vulgar? objectionable?) was tamed down to

"corrupt." In the second edition, his original vivid

word has been restored.

 

10.21: In his original dictation, Srila Prabhupada had

something definite to say about the relationship

between the moon and the stars. But perhaps it was

considered scientifically objectionable. In the first

edition, it was expurgated--entirely taken out. In the

second edition, you'll find it restored.

 

10.42: In his original dictation, Srila Prabhupada (at

the beginning of the second paragraph of his purport)

pointed his transcendental finger at a well-known

Indian mission: "There is a regular proponent of

mission to advertise that one can worship any form of

demigods and that will lead one to the Supreme

Personality of Godhead or the Supreme Goal." In the

first edition--expurgated. Second edition--restored.

 

11.52: In his original dictation, Srila Prabhupada ends

the first paragraph of his purport by blasting the

"foolish person" who offers respect not to Krsna but to

the impersonal "something" within Krsna. But in the

first edition, that blast (too strong?) has been

deleted. In the second edition, restored.

 

16.7: Here's one that deserves a kindly chuckle. In the

original text of the first paragraph, where Srila

Prabhupada talks about cleanliness, he mentioned not

only bathing, brushing teeth, and changing clothes but

also "shaving." But in the first edition the reference

to shaving (offensive to our then bearded editors?) was

expurgated--shaved off. In the second edition--

restored.

 

Restoring such expurgated words from our founder-acarya is what is now

vilified as "bastardization." You decide.

 

By the way, any modern edition of Shakespeare you might pick up (and

you won't be hard pressed to find one) is edited. Thomas Bowdler's

Shakespeare-aparadha was not that he edited but that he expurgated.

 

(Also by the way: If we're looking for an example in the Eastern

tradition of an editor who worked after the departure of his authors,

shall we start with Vyasadeva?)

 

The authors of diatribes would like us to believe that the principle

of "arsa-prayog" enjoins that the mistakes of an acarya's editors

should be held sacred. We find that assertion, well, weird.

 

Why?

 

For example, in the first edition (at the very end of the purport to

2.1) we find:

 

"This realization is made possible by working with the

fruitive being situated in the fixed conception of the

real self."

 

Ever had to explain that? The diatribe tells us that these are "the

sacred, memorialized realizations of an exalted Acarya." But go

ahead--try to make sense of it.

 

When we look in Srila Prabhupada's manuscript, we find that here's

what he intended:

 

"This realization is possible when one works without

attachment to fruitive results and is situated in the

fixed conception of the real self."

 

Sensible, no? But supposedly "arsa-prayog" obliges us to glorify the

acarya by preserving the goofs of his editors as if they were his own.

 

For numerous other examples, with the published editions and the

original manuscripts side by side, please see

<www.krishna.com/newsite/GitaRevsExplained.html>.

 

The BBT, the Gita-bashing tells us, claims that the revisions and

restorations in the second edition "are authorized merely because

certain editors were permitted" to edit during Srila Prabhupada's

lifetime "and because, at that time, Srila Prabhupada expressed a

certain degree of confidence in their editorial ability."

 

"A certain degree," eh? How coy! The cagey wording surely reflects a

knowledge of what Srila Prabhupada actually said:

 

"Concerning the editing of Jayadvaita Prabhu, whatever

he does is approved by me. I have confidence in him."

(Letter to Radhavallabha, 7 September 76)

 

Like it or not, no "certain degree" is expressed. Rather, the

endorsement is full-hearted and unreserved. (It's not my fault. His

Divine Grace said what he said.) And editing, of course, is not

something Srila Prabhupada merely "permitted," it's what he told us he

wanted.

 

Our critic tells us, "What really strikes me is how unfortunate it is

that there is need for this discussion at all."

 

And here we agree. The first edition of "Bhagavad-gita As It Is" is an

excellent book. For those who prefer it, it's available. We publish

it. And we would hope that those who prefer it would spend their

valuable time reading it, rather than fomenting internet flame wars.

 

Srila Prabhupada used to say, "These books are not just for

distributing, they're for reading." Perhaps in these days he might

say, "These books are not just for criticizing. . . ."

 

If you're with a group that has a license to publish the first

edition--if you're their lawyer, or whatever--publicize how great it

is. Fine with us. But bashing the second edition (especially when

you're someone who has promised us you won't) is--well, better I not

say.

 

When we think about "sensitivity or knowledge of spiritual etiquette"

regarding how to honor our acarya's sacred instructions, we'd be hard

pressed to find evidence that what he'd want us doing is bickering in

the public media. Did he ever say, "The lawyers should criticize the

editors?"

 

The instruction I remember is "Your love for me will be tested by how

you cooperate." And that's why, before publishing the second edition,

we first consulted senior devotees and the GBC. Srila Prabhupada

personally taught me what to do as his editor; he kindly expressed his

confidence in me; and his personal secretary, writing on his behalf

less than four months before Srila Prabhupada left, reconfirmed Srila

Prabhupada's desire that "in the future any mistakes which are found"

should be "rectified." Yet spiritual etiquette (and whatever spiritual

sensitivity I had) told me I should take humble consultation from

senior devotees around the movement, including the temple presidents,

the sannyasis, and the members of the GBC.

 

I worked on both the first edition and the second (many of the

first-edition blunders corrected in the second edition were my own),

and I don't claim to be more than a fallen conditioned soul. But my

small request would be this:

 

Whichever books you prefer, in a spirit of loving cooperation let us

read Srila Prabhupada's books, live Srila Prabhupada's books, and

distribute Srila Prabhupada's books, for our own benefit and the

benefit of others.

 

Thank you. Hare Krsna.

 

Hoping this finds you in good health,

 

Your servant,

Jayadvaita Swami

 

 

cc: VNN

 

 

=====================================================================

SUBSCRIPTION AND COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

 

 

This is an "information-only" conference, not a discussion conference.

The only person who can post texts to it is me. (Queries and comments

may be sent to me privately.)

 

The conference is public. If you are a member of the PAMHO e-mail

system, you can join or leave it on your own--no need to send a

request to the Sysop or to me. E-mail users who are not on PAMHO can

join or leave the conference by sending me a request at

<jayadvaita.swami (AT) pamho (DOT) net>.

 

The First and Second Editions of "Bhagavad-gita As It Is" are © 1972,

1983 by The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Except where I have included

quotations from non-BBT sources, the rest of this message, and of the

conference as a whole, is © 1999-2002 by The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust

International, Inc. All rights reserved.

 

Hare Krsna.