Jayadvaita's Unauthorized Bootleg gita

[Guest guest]

On 27 Mar 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote:

 

> On 27 Mar 1999, Jayadvaita Swami wrote:

>

> > 2ND EDITION: 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.

>

> > MANUSCRIPT: To discharge one's specific duty in any field of action

> > and AS ORDERED BY HIGHER AUTHORITY is the opportunity for being

> > elevated in higher status of life.

>

> > COMMENT: This revision seems to have become a topic in the "Varnasrama

> > Development" conference on COM, under the subject heading "Editing

> > varnasrama-dharma out of the books?"

>

>

> > As you can see, the answer is

> > "No. Restoring what Srila Prabhupada said."

>

>

> Aside from a distinct feeling of implied condescension, there is also an

 

Since it's only a feeling, no matter how distinct, why attribute arrogance?

And if a person happens to be an elevated personaltiy, then it's his special

mercy to condescend.

 

 

> underlying arrogance which is supposed to be accepted without question it

> seems.

>

 

Since you don't know for a fact, why do you attribute such a quality to him?

Is that not arrogance also?

 

 

 

> It is NOT what Srila Prabhupada said. If it was, the revision would be

exactly

> what was stated in the manuscript. Therefore Jayadwaita Prabhu has clearly

> interpreted what he thinks Srila Prabhupada "should" have said instead of

what

> he actually said. (Personally, I think "serves to elevate one" in his 2nd

> edition can be interpreted quite differently from the manuscript's "is the

> opportunity for".) That is besides the point.

 

 

 

 

"Personally, I think . . ." JS thinks differently. Since there already is an

"original" Gita, and since you think everyone in a position of authority has

some evil agenda, and since you seem to know SP's books so well, I think the

only way to settle it is to duke it out with JS in hand-to-hand combat, which

you would easily win, since he only weighs about 102 lbs.

 

 

 

> The main point is SOMEONE changed the manuscript's words to read

> VARNASRAMA-DHARMA and Srila Prabhupada NEVER said to change it. For

 

 

 

 

SOMEONE also used the words "cattle-raising" and a lot of others that weren't

even included from the original manuscript or translated properly from

Sanskrit. There weren't enough hours in the day for Prabhupada to fix

everything that need fixing. That's why he made disciples and created a GBC.

When SP complained about getting so many letters from devotees, asking, "Why

don't they ask their GBC?" he was told, "Because the GBC don't always know the

answer." SP said, "they know everything by now, and what they don't know is in

my books." If it was true that they knew everything then, then for those who

have remained faithful to SP's instructions, how much more true is it now?

 

 

years and

> years the words had been read by Srila Prabhupada without question.

 

The> editors of the time substituted the words VARNASRAMA-DHARMA and

presumably

 

 

 

Why presume? Maybe SP didn't approve those edits. Who is in a better position

to determine that? You, or JS?

 

 

> Srila Prabhupada approved those edits. Do we have evidence to the contrary?

 

 

 

 

Why do you assume he didn't or wouldn't have? Why do you assume that JS is

thwarting Srila Prabhupada? Is the essential nature of KC undermined in this

verse? Is the fact that SP wanted VAD implemented thwarted in any way by JS's

substitution with words that were from SP's original manuscript? Varnasrama is

not being held up by Jayadvaita Swami's editing or revising. If you want VAD,

then do it yourself.

 

 

> Solid evidence? Or are we just supposed to accept without question the

"higher

> authorities" interpretation? Sorry, I did that with Bali Mardan and had to

> suffer the shame of Srila Prabhupada calling me a fool for doing so.

Never

> again (I hope!).

>

 

I wish I could have suffered the "shame" of being called a fool by Srila

Prabhupada, or by my own diksa guru. What you are not mentioning, however, is

that while SP chastised devotees for not using their brains, he also praised

them for not giving up their service under those deviant authorities. He never

authorized abandonment of one's service to his movement, i.e. "leaving

ISKCON".

 

 

> You would think after all the "pure devotees" like Ramesvara, Kirtanananda,

> Bhagavan, Harikesha, etc., etc. ad nauseum, have come and gone, they would

> realize that things need to be dealt with on a more democratic platform

> amongst Godbrothers. We are all in this together. Don't we all have a say in

> such grave matters before some few individuals just go ahead and change

> things? Who gave them the authority?

 

 

Who created the GBC? If you and ten thousand other devotees say that

unregulated sex is OK, does that make it OK? There are devotees arguing this

now.

 

 

Is it in writing that Jayadvaita could

> make edits to the books AFTER Srila Prabhupada left the planet?

>

 

 

 

You're being legalistic here. What did SP create a GBC for? To manage, to make

decisions. The fact that some, not all leaders have shown themselves to be

fallen, does not obviate the need for leadership. What's the alternative, to

let all devotees, following or not, make the decisions en masse? That's

time-consuming and inefficient. What if the majority are wrong? Do the rest of

us have to follow some bogus deviation because the democratic majority desire

it?

 

 

> The HUGE thing that the editors back then had, which Jayadwaita Prabhu will

> NEVER have, was Srila Prabhupada's personal presence to approve of changes

to

> HIS own books. The "gurus" are always stressing "personal bodily presence of

> the guru" for their own guru worship support but I guess it does not apply

> here when it comes to changing the words of the Guru Maharaja?

>

> Jayadvaita Prabhu himself stated, after the Bhagavad-gita As It Is was

> published, that Srila Prabhupada never said that the book should be

re-edited.

> Certainly no "unnecessary changes" should be made. Jayadvaita Prabhu has

made

> more than 4000 changes since his statement. Are none of these "unnecessary"?

 

 

 

Who is qualified to judge? Are you? I know Jayadvaita Swami. I know him well

enough that if I ever had to be stranded with someone on a desert island or in

a mountain cabin in the middle of a blizzard, not break my vows, and maintain

a high level of Krsna consciousness, he's the one I'd choose, although I don't

think he'd be very happy about it. A person's character and personal behavior

mean everything in taking on a project of this kind. It's NOT just a matter of

knowing the words.

 

 

>

> I heard Srila Prabhupada recite/read, directly, many of the exact same

verses

> and purports from his Bhagavad-gita As It Is which have now been changed by

> Jayadvaita. Why didn't Srila Prabhupada make a note and tell the editors to

> change them after he read them and gave a lengthy perfect lecture about

them?

>

> It is another good example of bad leadership. Changes to the MOST important

> asset of this movement, the Books, without the benefit of Srila Prabhupada's

> approval of the same, should have FIRST been presented to the general

> population of devotee citizens for their consensus approval. If I was a

leader

> of ISKCON, I would want to be completely in tune with "my" citizens. What

are

> they thinking? What would they do? How do they feel about this or that?

 

 

ISKCON is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a democracy. We are a society

meant to be run by leaders who are sadhus, and if we have some bad eggs, we

keep looking for good ones. We look to those whose standards are higher than

ours for inspiration and guidance, but most important, we have to FOLLOW the

process ourselves. It's pointless to rag on assumed faults in others when

there are so many glaringly obvious ones in ourselves. And it's not enough to

"confess" that we're fallen. We can say that we are just being "honest" by

doing that, but it's frequently an excuse to go on with our nonsense. The real

honesty comes in rectification, not in confessing our own faults as if we're

helpless to do anything about them, while demanding that others clean up their

act immediately.

 

 

 

 

Our

> two (2) greatest examples of leaders, King Prithu and King Rama, always

> consulted with their public citizens about their legislative and governing

> issues. If the public was at odds the Kings would alter their decisions,

even

> if they themselves disagreed with the public. Lord Rama KNEW that Sita devi

> was chaste and pure but because the general public was doubtful and critical

> of the relationship, He made other arrangements for Her in order to appease

> the citizens.

> He set aside His unquestionable authority for the greater good of the

> citizens. That is leadership and courage and intelligence.

>

 

 

> Thousands of Srila Prabhupada's disciples are at odds over this Book edit

 

 

Thousands are at issue over sex, chocolate, and rtvik. I'm not going to accept

majority rule on that.

 

 

> issue and yet no concerted effort has ever been made to ask FIRST before

> making the changes.

>

> They should at least call their book by its rightful name ( which even

common

> publishing pirates use): Jayadvaita's Bhagavad-gita As It Isn't - The

> Unauthorized Bootleg. Get it now while its HOT!

 

 

Is this really necessary? What motives are you attributing to JS? As far as I

know, he's austere and humble as hell. He's got holes in his clothes and his

body is nothing but a bag of bones. He is very kind, yet honest and

plain-spoken, almost painfully so, especially if one is cherishing some

stubborn illusion. He also has excellent sadhana and he's very chaste. At last

count he has three disciples. I trust him with editiing Prabhupada's books

because he's living them, not just talking them. Since Hamsadutta Prabhu now

has control of the "original", why not just promote his mission? I'll take my

chances with JS.

 

 

 

>

>

> P.S. The questions that they (the editors) have not answered yet still

remain:

> If Srila Prabhupada were here (bodily), would they make edits/changes and

> publish them WITHOUT his approval? (The answer BETTER be NO. Otherwise we've

> got bigger problems.)

>

 

There are a lot of things Prabhupada is not here to answer; we just have to

read his books, use our heads and consult with both our peers (if they're

worth taking advice from) and higher authorities (actual authorities, i.e.,

devotees who are following the regs, chanting sixteen, and know their sastra.

There are some of those left. Why not look some of them up?)

 

 

If you can't disagree with JS like a gentleman, without resorting to innuendo

and promoting the assumption that he's corrupt, power-hungry, and in defiance

of Prabhupada's teachings, you're commiting a very grave offense against a

devotee.

 

 

I spent a long time writing this and looked it over several times, but if

I've offended anyone, I humbly apologize.

 

 

Hare Krsna.

 

Ys,

Tulasi-priya dasi