Jayadvaita's Unauthorized Bootleg gita

[Guest guest]

I don't know if I should get involved in this issue but, as in the case of

many devotees, I feel that most of the changes implemented in Srila

Prabhupada's books we unnecesary an done without sensibility. I have read

the explanations presented by Jayadvaita Swami to support these changes but

they are the explanations expected from the person who made those changes.

I would rather hear from the GBC and the Trustees a detailed analysis of

how the changes came about and the forces behind them at the time.

 

We know that the period of the reediting coincides with some of the most

somber days in the history of ISKCON after Srila Prabhupada departed. Many

"acaryas," BBT Trustees, etc, thought of themselves as divine gods with the

right to do things as they understood them even if this contradicted Srila

Prabhupada's most elementary instructions. Well, those are the days of

misdirection that brought the changes in Srila Prabhupada's books. The same

days of misdirection that modified the original BBT Trust, challenged

successfully in recent months.

 

For the BBT the whole thing came down crashing in the summer of 1986 when

two of its strongest trustees abandoned ISKCON (Ramesvara and Bhagavan),

then three more were asked to resign in March of 1987, and a surviving one

(Harikesa) had a lot of surprises in store for us. It is obvious that

Jayadvaita Swami did the reediting of the books with the blessings of the

BBT Trustees of those days. Maybe some of them even gave pointers and

directions on how to do things better than Srila Prabhupada--because that

was the mentality those days. The reediting of the books has such feeling

and that is why many devotees question the changes. The GBC has recently

acknowledged serious deviations in the implementation of the parampara

within our Founder-Acarya's ISKCON, so they should also look again into

this matter with utmost sensibility and figure out how to rectify it.

 

Your servant

Radha Krsna dasa

Mexico City

[Guest guest]

On 27 Mar 1999, Radha-Krishna das wrote:

 

> I don't know if I should get involved in this issue but, as in the case of

> many devotees, I feel that most of the changes implemented in Srila

> Prabhupada's books were unnecesary and done without sensibility. I have read

 

> the explanations presented by Jayadvaita Swami to support these changes but

> they are the explanations expected from the person who made those changes.

 

 

Thanks Radha-Krsna Prabhu for your comments on the issue. And it seems you

were able to say it with much less *attitude* than me!

[Guest guest]

On text 2192327 Janesvara dasa wrote:

 

> Thanks Radha-Krsna Prabhu for your comments on the issue. And it seems

you

> were able to say it with much less *attitude* than me!

 

The reediting of the Gita has always been, for me, an issue shrouded in

mistery. We have already heard the explanations for the changes and I will

assume that these were made with an attitude of service to Srila

Prabhupada. Nonetheless, there is a possibility that such attitude of

service may have been subjective and possibly mistaken. No one would have

questioned the little obvious correction here and there during reprints,

particularly those pointed out by Srila Prabhupada himself. But a "new"

Gita like the one unveiled by the BBT in the 1980's is another thing.

 

The crux here is not WHAT changes were made but WHY the changes. Was Srila

Prabhupada's Gita so bad that it needed all that help? Did the changes

produce, let say in America, a tenfold increase in the influx of devotees?

Or did the opposite actually happen? Is there a relation between the

mentality that changed the Bhagavad-gita and the one that has brought

stagnation to ISKCON?

 

It is difficult to accept that so shortly after Srila Prabhupada's

departure some of his works, particularly the Gita, underwent the revisions

that we saw. Many think that his Gita deserved more respect, mainly if we

wanted to establish Srila Prabhupada as everyone's siksa guru. Or did we?

Again, WHY the changes? No one that I have spoken to thinks that this issue

was so innocent. It was the result of a mentalty that, among other things,

termed Srila Prabhupada an author for hire.

 

This is not the only instance in which the Trustees changed Srila

Prabhupada's works in spite of opposite specific instructions. Remember

Srila Prabhupada's Dialect Spiritualism? The Trustees thought the

manuscripts weren't good enough and approved extensive reediting and

rewriting. The project was cancelled only after New Vrndavana published the

original version and even used Srila Prabhupada's order to publish it as a

marketing promo. Is there a difference between a published work (the Gita)

and an unpublished one (Dialectic Spiritualism) when it comes to obeying or

disobeying the Founder-Acarya? None. Thus, the Dialectic Spiritualism case

is an example of the capacity of the Trustees to disobey and misunderstand

Srila Prabhupada. And this can happen more than once.

 

Having used the term "Trustees" I want to exonerate Jayadvaita Swami from

all the responsibility with the Gita. He was not a Trustee at that time. He

simply was handy. Maybe some Trustees wanted a more polished Gita for a

Great Classics of India befitting the Great Acaryas of ISKCON, and

recruited his help. Maybe even if he had some ideas of his own it is still

the final responsibility of the Trustees to make the right decisions at the

end. So the focus should be shifted from Jayadvaita Swami to the context in

which the Trustees allowed such changes. Thus, WHY the changes? Getting a

little Aristotelian, lets find the final cause of the thing.

 

I have a few questions that would help somehow clear the mistery:

1. In what year the idea of reediting the Gita came up?

2. Did the original proposal involve such extensive changes as the final

work?

3. Who made the original proposal and whose idea was this?

4. How was the proposal approved?

5. What were the main arguments to promote the editing?

6. Was there enough or any discussion concerning the implications of these

changes?

7. Were Srila Prabhupada's instructions and concerns in this regard

anlyzed?

8. Was a panel established to review and give the final authorization for

each of the proposed changes?

9. If the changes were reviewed, what explanations were given for the

changes that are now considered unnecesary and even mistaken?

10. Were there any alternatives contemplated and were they discussed amply?

For example, adding footnotes to clarify some of Srila Prabhupada's

statements without having to change them.

11. Was there any considerable discussion, or any discussion at all,

regarding the advantages or disadvantages of waiting 5 or 10 years before

actually making the extensive changes?

 

Maybe if some are interested it would be a good idea to have a conference

to help investigate this whole issue. Jayadvaita Swami has his own

"changes" conference with rules that no one with a little self-respect will

accept. So it would have to be a different one.

Your servant

Radha Krsna dasa

Mexico City

[Guest guest]

>

> We know that the period of the reediting coincides with some of the most

somber days in the history of ISKCON after Srila Prabhupada departed. Many

"acaryas," BBT Trustees, etc, thought of themselves as divine gods with the

right to do things as they understood them even if this contradicted Srila

Prabhupada's most elementary instructions. Well, those are the days of

misdirection that brought the changes in Srila Prabhupada's books. The same

days of misdirection that modified the original BBT Trust, challenged

successfully in recent months.

>

>

 

 

 

To make the case that the edits were approved by the GBC circa 1985 appears to

be an embarrassingly weak argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

>

>

> 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.

>

 

 

There is certainly truth to the idea that bhakti yoga is not meant to cater to

the lowest common denominator. At the same time, our leaders should try to

avoid being criticized for living in ivory towers aloof from the concerns of

the more ordinary devotees.

 

One important significance of Srila Prabhupada's books is that the majority of

his followers feel that reading them is a way to intimately associate with our

founder/acarya. To change the words, no matter how well intentioned, is not a

light affair. To dismiss criticism of one's service as something resulting

from the misguided sentiments of others only seems to excaberate the

situation.