Plea for Annotated Prabhupada

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, COM: Jatukarnya (das) HKS (Cintamani Intl, Oslo - N)

wrote:

 

> [Text 2011457 from COM]

>

> > Do you think Prabhupada was referring

> > to spiritual intelligence, material intelligence or some third kind of

> > intelligence not yet identified? If it's number 2, the books are clear as

> > they are, but if it's number 1 or 3, they simply are not and that needs to

> > be communicated.

>

> I did not follow the discussion on VAST and thus may have missed something,

> but to me it seems undefendable to change Srila Prabhupada's books, even if

> it appears as if he made some mistakes in them. They are his books, not

> ours, isn't it? If he wanted to write something in his books, who are we to

> change them after his departure? Unless of course it was a translation

> mistake, but that does not seem to be the case here.

>

> If one has a problem with agreeing with something Prabhupada says in some of

> his books, then that must be "allowed". Noone can force anyone to believe

> anything, and even if one "disagrees" with Prabhupada on a "material" point,

> does not necessarily mean that one rejects the spiritual philosophy or his

> teachings.

>

> Regarding the places where he says that women are less intelligent, I agree

> that it may cause some reactions which theoretically could be avoided. I

> remember that I also reacted on it when I read the Bhagavad Gita for the

> first time. But I still cannot defend changing his words, be it in his books

> or anywhere.

>

> Ys

> Jkd

 

 

The topic of changing Srila Prabhupada's books is always highly

controversial. I personally believe that there are at least some

instances where Srila Prabhupada's books can be legitimately changed --

but we could avoid controversy if we annotated those changes, so the

readers could decide for themselves whether the change is warrented or

not. This is a very standard practice in academic editions of different

texts, and I don't see why it should not be done with Srila Prabhupada's

books also. In addition to annotations, wherever possible, original

manuscripts and Prabhupada's audio tapes should be made available to lay

to rest all doubts. This way the information is presented in a way so

that the reader can make an informed decision about how accurately the

information represents Srila Prabhupada's actual intent.

 

One particular change which I do agree with is in 18.45 of the

Bhagavad-gita, where the phrase "cattle raising" has been changed to "cow

protection."

 

If you research the folio, you will find that Srila Prabhupada definitely

wanted this change made:

 

************************8

 

Room Conversation Chicago, July 4, 1975 750704RC.CHI

krsi-goraksya-vanijyam

vaisya-karma svabhava-jam

paricaryatmakam karma

sudrasyapi svabhava-jam

 

"Farming, cattle raising and business are the qualities..."

Prabhupada: They are not cattle raising, that was...

Tamala Krsna: Cow protection.

Prabhupada: Cow protection. It has to be corrected. It is go-raksya, go.

They take it cattle-raising. I think Hayagriva has translated like this.

Tamala Krsna: Hayagriva.

Prabhupada: No, it is especially mentioned go-raksya.

Krsi-go-raksya-vanijyam vaisya-karma svabhava-jam.

 

 

Interview Chicago, July 9, 1975 750709IV.CHI

krsi-go-raksya-vanijyam

vaisya-karma svabhava-jam

paricaryatmakam karma

sudrasyapi svabhava-jam

 

Prabhupada: That is fourth-class. First of all, third-class.

Nitai: Third-class: "Farming, cattle raising and business are the

qualities of work for the vaisyas,..."

Prabhupada: Not cattle raising, cow protection.

Nitai: Cow protection.

Prabhupada: Yes. Farming and cow protection and trade, this is meant for

the third-class division.

 

 

Morning Walk Melbourne, April 21, 1976 760421MW.MEL

 

Prabhupada: One thing immediately inform Ramesvara. In the Bhagavad-gita

yesterday they have edited "cattle-raising." But not cattle-raising.

Cattle-raising means to grow and killing. That is the.... Means the

rascals, they have edited.

 

Pusta Krsna: Yeah, and we're.... (interference)

Prabhupada: And "protection of cows," clearly.

Guru-krpa: Chapter Eighteen, Bhagavad-gita, that the vaisyas work...

Pusta Krsna: Oh, krsi-go-raksya.

Prabhupada: Ah, krsi-go-raksya. Immediately inform them.

 

 

Morning Walk Melbourne, April 21, 1976 760421MW.MEL

 

Prabhupada: Hayagriva edited. He thought, "cattle-raising." Not

"cattle-raising," but the word.... There.... It is mistranslation. It is

go-raksya, "giving protection to the cows." Especially mentioned,

go-raksya, not otherwise. The animal-eaters may take other animals, but

not cow. They can take the pig, goats, lambs, rabbits, so many others, if

they at all want to eat meat, birds, these so many. There is no such

mention that "Animals should be protected," no. "Cows should be

protected." That is Krsna's order. (break) They have decided to kill the

cow. They have decided, "No brain. Eat." And our prayer is

go-brahmana-hitaya ca, "to do good to the brahmanas and the cows."

Actually it is revolutionary to the modern age. But how it is possible we

say otherwise?

 

***********************************

 

So I believe there are parts of Prabhupada's books which should be

revised. How did Hayagriva's mis-editing escape Prabhupada's attention in

the earlier edition? Perhaps he was too busy to notice it at that time

and only noticed it after the book was actually published. So, it is

certainly correct to make the change. Prabhupada wanted the change. But

why not add a footnote or annotation, "In the original edition the term

'cattle raising' has been used, but Srila Prabhupada objected to that in

conversations of July 4, 1975; April 21, 1976." Then the reader can

decide whether the change is justified or not.

 

*********

 

Then again, there are parts of Prabhupada's writings which should be left

as is, but a footnote could inform the reader of how changing grammar

usage might obscure Srila Prabhupada's intent. For example, in the 1960s

and 1970s, according to proper and popularly accepted grammar, the pronoun

"he" could refer to either a man or a woman. Prabhupada's use of "he" in

certain places is not meant to imply an exclusion of women. It is in

keeping with the proper and popularly accepted use of grammar at the time.

Consider the following excerpt to the purport to B.G. 18.61:

 

"If one refuses to act under the direction of the Supreme Lord, then he is

compelled to act by the modes in which he is situated."

 

Prabhupada does not mean that this applies to men only. He also means

that it applies to women also, since that is the popular (and proper)

understanding of grammar at the time when the book was written.

Prabhupada is not trying to imply that if a woman refuses to act under the

direction of the Supreme Lord, that she will not be compelled to act by

the mode in which she is situated.

 

So in this case, the wording should stay the same, but a footnote (or

more likely a note in the preface of the book) should be added to clarify

Prabhupada's meaning.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi