Guest guest Posted March 11, 1999 Report Share Posted March 11, 1999 > Maybe I'm just a fanatic about VAD, but changes to Srila Prabhupada's > books like the following give me little hope that ISKCON is really > interested in moving toward fulfilling Srila Prabhupada's orders to > implement varnasrama-dharma. Personally, I would be scared to death to > make such changes without Srila Prabhupada's personal review and approval. > Of course, I'm not a pure devotee like..... > > Bg 2.31 P ORIGINAL: > ..Discharging one's specific duty in any field of action in accordance > with varnasrama-dharma serves to elevate one to a higher status of life. > > > Bg 2.31 P REVISED & ENLARGED: > ..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. What !!?? Who authorized that one??? Must be one of the "higher authorities"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 1999 Report Share Posted March 11, 1999 > > Bg 2.31 P ORIGINAL: > > ..Discharging one's specific duty in any field of action in accordance > > with varnasrama-dharma serves to elevate one to a higher status of life. > > > > Bg 2.31 P REVISED & ENLARGED: > > ..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. > > That is a pretty dramatic change. I would be interesting in hearing the > rationale behind it. I forwarded this to Jayadvaita Swami, who recently started a conference called Gita Revisions, on which he explains these things. Please join the conference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 1999 Report Share Posted March 11, 1999 On 11 Mar 1999, Tattvavit das wrote: > I forwarded this to Jayadvaita Swami, who recently started a conference > called Gita Revisions, on which he explains these things. Please join the > conference. I am afraid to "join" such a conference. To try to justify such changes can only be a very unnecessary entanglement in mental speculation. The books were fine as they were when Srila Prabhupada was present. IF there were additional changes that Srila Prabhupada MAY have approved before he left but Jayadvaita did not get a chance to get them approved by Srila Prabhupada personally, well that's tough luck. We have to accept Krsna's plan that He directed Srila Prabhupada to make the necessary changes to the books while he was present and after that we accept what he gave us as "perfect" enough for us and everyone else for the next 10,000 years. It can only be impertinence to think that they are making changes assuming Srila Prabhupada would have approved of them when they know he disapproved of many changes they previously thought were proper changes. Are they speaking to Srila Prabhupada secretly without our knowledge? The only discussion should be an apology to Srila Prabhupada and stopping all changes and recalling all changed books. They are Srila Prabhupada's books - leave his things alone! If they don't like the way they were on the day Srila Prabhupada left the planet, too bad. I like them just fine as they are. If they want to write their own Bhagavad-gita and other books that's fine. Leave it to the general public and devotees to choose which books they will read. But to change someone elses books without their personal permission and approval is downright rude and obnoxious. Jayadvaita should be knocked on the head with his own danda. Maybe he will wake up from this nightmare. After these changes, the Bhagavad-gita "As It Is" by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami is no longer "As It Is". I am not saying that Jayadvaita and Dravida have nothing of value to say or that they are not learned in philosophy. They may be able to write very nice Krsna conscious books of their own. I've known them for 25 years and I always liked both of them very much. But if they want to make changes they HAVE to write their own books and put their name on them - not A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's. This cannot be allowed. There is simply no honor in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 1999 Report Share Posted March 11, 1999 Janesvara Prabhu's reply (at the very bottom) is a long sermon, but he is unwilling to admit any ignorance. Thoreau said: "How can we remember our ignorance, which our growth requires, when we are using our knowledge all the time?" Tattvavit wrote: > Jayadvaita Swami started a conference called Gita Revisions, on which he explains the changes. Please join the conference.< Janesvara replied: > I am afraid to "join" such a conference. To try to justify such changes can only be a very unnecessary entanglement in mental speculation . . .< etc. etc. etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 1999 Report Share Posted March 11, 1999 At 5:47 -0800 3/11/99, WWW: Janesvara (Dasa) ACBSP (Syracuse - USA) wrote: >After these changes, the Bhagavad-gita "As It Is" by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami >is no longer "As It Is". I am not saying that Jayadvaita and Dravida have >nothing of value to say or that they are not learned in philosophy. They may >be able to write very nice Krsna conscious books of their own. I've known them >for 25 years and I always liked both of them very much. But if they want to >make changes they HAVE to write their own books and put their name on them - >not A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's. This cannot be allowed. There is simply no >honor in it. I agree that the changes you just posted seem drastic and I'm really curious to hear what Jayadvaita Swami will say to explain why they were made. Until then, I reserve judgment. However, there are other changes I've read about, which made perfect sense to me, e.g. when the original eidtion contained errors by the transcriptionist that were discovered. In those cases, Prabhupada's words were actually *restored*. So it's not a question of Jayadvaita Swami or Dravida Prabhu writing their own books in Prabhupada's name. Can't we make a distinction between changes that are purely technical (e.g. due to mishearings of tapes, transcription errors ...) and changes that involved subjective judgments and actually changing Prabhupada's words? I'd like to know what proportion are of each variety. I have absolutely no problem with the former kind, but would be much more concerned about the latter one. Prabhupada wanted his books to be the law books for humanity for a very long time. It seems like a nice service to make them as authentic and technically correct as possible. I don't think the fact that Prabhupada didn't complain about all the errors while he was here is a valid argument for keeping them. Thinking about the enormous volume of books he produced in a very short time (what to speak of all of the other things he did), some errors were bound to slip through. I don't see why that means they have to remain for all times though. Ys, Madhusudani dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 1999 Report Share Posted March 11, 1999 On 11 Mar 1999, Tattvavit das wrote: > Janesvara Prabhu's reply (at the very bottom) is a long sermon, but > he is unwilling to admit any ignorance. I'll admit to all the ignorance you want me to. I am not very intelligent. I struggle to remember Krsna throughout the day. But I am trying! I could not make any edits or changes to Srila Prabhupada's books except maybe some spelling errors which I have seen in them over the years. I am not an English major or anything. Srila Prabhupada accepted Jayadvaita's service in editing the books which I fully accept and this is a nice service just like the pot washers in the temple or any other good bhakta service. It's all preaching. I simply do not see what this has to do with the subject. Could you please answer me the one simple question: If Srila Prabhupada disallowed certain changes that the editors proposed before he left the planet, and they were thinking that those changes were perfectly acceptable based on their level of knowledge, how can they make changes now which cannot be proposed to Srila Prabhupada for his approval? And, how can they know that Srila Prabhupada would accept those changes??? It is clearly impossible!! I have no problem with Jayadvaita writing his own Bhagavad-gita. Why is this not an agreeable alternative? He can include every change that he wants in his own version - Bhagavad-gita As It Is According to Jayadvaita Swami. It could be helpful to certain Scholars and others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 1999 Report Share Posted March 11, 1999 On 11 Mar 1999, Tattvavit das wrote: > Janesvara Prabhu's reply (at the very bottom) is a long sermon, but he is unwilling to admit any ignorance. Thoreau said: "How can we remember our ignorance, which our growth requires, when we are using our knowledge all the time?" > > Tattvavit wrote: > Jayadvaita Swami started a conference called Gita Revisions, on which he explains the changes. Please join the conference. I recently suggested to Jayadvaita Swami that the BBT seriously consider printing a book that outlines the text as published during Srila Prabhupada's physical presence presented side by side with the editted version currently in use. Then there could be an explanation by the BBT outlining the rational behind the edit. Srila Prabhapada did something similar when offering word for word explanations on practically every Sanskrit and Bengali verse he translated. He took the effort to present such things to his readers in an easily accessable academically transparent manner. Possibly the Gita revisions conference is an attempt in that direction. In my opinion, without such a book (which, by the way, could be used as a tool for training future editors), we too easily resort to name calling over who is the real upholder of the correct vision of what Srila Prabhupada actually meant to say, with whoever appears to have administrative control of the BBTI declaring himself the winner. Thus we invite another excuse for present and future conflicts. ISKCON finds itself needing to spend way too much energy defending something which could simply be the outgrowth of an incomplete presentation of this important service. Appearing aloof from this ongoing problem has not made it disappear, and I am sure the editors wish to feel the devotees are satisfied by their service. ys, Sthita-dhi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 1999 Report Share Posted March 11, 1999 >> Bg 2.31 P ORIGINAL: >> ..Discharging one's specific duty in any field of action in accordance >> with varnasrama-dharma serves to elevate one to a higher status of life. >> >> >> Bg 2.31 P REVISED & ENLARGED: >> ..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. > >What !!?? Who authorized that one??? Must be one of the "higher >authorities"! How familiar it seems to me.. Bible was also changed this way so many times. Anyway, this little change will not be an obstacle for varnasrama implementation. It could be much worse, if the whole BG would be changed into something like this: BG As I Said 2.31 "Considering your specific duty as an administrator, you should know that there is no better service opportunity for you than following the orders of higher authorities; and so there is no need for space out." PURPORT: Out of several orders of social administration, one of them, for the matter of good administration, is called manager. Manager is not based on word 'manger', it's based on the word 'man'. Man means male. So no woman is allowed to be a manager. One, who showed his masculine nature and defeated the sin in form of woman is called manager. Managers are trained for killing in office. A manager would go in office and chastice a bhakta face to face and fire the bhakta with foul words. When the bhakta was kicked out, it would be a good idea to produce a nice report to higher authorities. This system is being followed even up to the present day by the managers of several ISKCON temples. The managers are specially trained for chastisement and kicking because religious violence is any times a necessary factor. Therefore, managers are never meant for peaceful behaviour towards their subordinates, however they should be always meek and humble in front of higher authorities, "renounced". In the temple law books its is stated: "In the the battlefield of temple activities, a manager or administrator, while he do whatever he wants with his subordinates, is eligible for achieving higher position after his removal, if he is still humble and submissive toward "renounced", or the Great Big Censors." Therefore, chastisement and squeezing of subordinates for the higher purpose are not at all considered to be acts of violence, because everyone is benefitted by the religious principles involved. The bhakta, which was kicked, immediately gets a honor to become a temple janitor or potwasher without undergoing the gradual evaluating process from one service to another, and the managers if they smart enough get a good financial position, as well as "renounced". There are many kinds of specific duties. As long as one is not "renounced", one has to perform the duties of that particular position in accordance with higher authorities in order to archieve "renounced" stage. When one is "renounced", one's specific duties become spiritual and are not in the material bodily concept, so don't even think about it now, anyway it's above mundane understanding. In ordinary life there are specific duties for the managers and subordinates, and such duties are unavoidable. This duties are ordained by higher authorities, and this will be clarified somewhere else. Specific duties, which are based on the orders of higher authorities are th only steepingstone for spiritual understanding. Human civilization begins from the stage of orders of higher authorities, or specific duties in terms of specific modes of nature of the position obtained. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 1999 Report Share Posted March 11, 1999 > > > I have no problem with Jayadvaita writing his own Bhagavad-gita. Why is this > not an agreeable alternative? He can include every change that he wants in his > own version - Bhagavad-gita As It Is According to Jayadvaita Swami. It could > be helpful to certain Scholars and others. It would be nice to be able to see an annotated version, wherein every change would be footnoted with the original text and the reason for the changes. Even if it wasn't feasible to publish this in hard copy right away, it wouldn't be that hard to put it out on CD. The other issue is style. Bhagavad Gita was originally in verse. A different part of the brain is used to assimilate verse than prose (except for hopelessly overthinking intellectuals who could analysis anything to death). Hayagriva's version may be less technically correct than Jayadvaita's, but it is certainly more poetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 1999 Report Share Posted March 12, 1999 It could be much worse, if the whole BG would be changed > into something like this: > > BG As I Said 2.31 > "Considering your specific duty as an administrator, you should know that there is no better service opportunity for you than following the orders of higher authorities; and so there is no need for space out." > > PURPORT: Out of several orders of social administration..... Practical application is the highest! .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 1999 Report Share Posted March 12, 1999 This reply sounds a little fanatical to me. I have read in at least 4 different conversations statements where Prabhupada severely criticized Hayagriva's version that the vaisyas should be engaged in "cattle raising" (rather than "cow protection" which is what Srila Prabhupada had wanted. We may agree or disagree with various changes, but if we don't even take the trouble to listen to the editor when he is offering an explanation for various changes, then I can't see how we can credibly make a blanket criticism of everything. For myself, I am certain beyond any doubt that Srila Prabhupada wanted this particular change made. If he wanted this change made, why not others? And what about other instances where Hayagriva did not follow Prabhupada's original manuscript. Again, I believe that ultimately the only real resolution to this will be to present a scholarly edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, which includes annotations which explain the changes in various editions. Marx's followers have such an advantage with his works. Is Srila Prabhupada less important than Marx? But in the meantime, I don't see how we can be credible if we just condemn all changes without listening to the editors' explanations. your servant, Hare Krsna dasi WWW: Janesvara (Dasa) ACBSP (Syracuse - USA) wrote: > [Text 2151597 from COM] > > On 11 Mar 1999, Tattvavit das wrote: > > > > I forwarded this to Jayadvaita Swami, who recently started a conference > > called Gita Revisions, on which he explains these things. Please join the > > conference. > > I am afraid to "join" such a conference. To try to justify such changes can > only be a very unnecessary entanglement in mental speculation. The books were > fine as they were when Srila Prabhupada was present. IF there were additional > changes that Srila Prabhupada MAY have approved before he left but Jayadvaita > did not get a chance to get them approved by Srila Prabhupada personally, well > that's tough luck. We have to accept Krsna's plan that He directed Srila > Prabhupada to make the necessary changes to the books while he was present and > after that we accept what he gave us as "perfect" enough for us and everyone > else for the next 10,000 years. It can only be impertinence to think that they > are making changes assuming Srila Prabhupada would have approved of them when > they know he disapproved of many changes they previously thought were proper > changes. Are they speaking to Srila Prabhupada secretly without our knowledge? > > The only discussion should be an apology to Srila Prabhupada and stopping all > changes and recalling all changed books. They are Srila Prabhupada's books - > leave his things alone! If they don't like the way they were on the day Srila > Prabhupada left the planet, too bad. I like them just fine as they are. > > If they want to write their own Bhagavad-gita and other books that's fine. > Leave it to the general public and devotees to choose which books they will > read. But to change someone elses books without their personal permission and > approval is downright rude and obnoxious. Jayadvaita should be knocked on the > head with his own danda. Maybe he will wake up from this nightmare. > > After these changes, the Bhagavad-gita "As It Is" by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami > is no longer "As It Is". I am not saying that Jayadvaita and Dravida have > nothing of value to say or that they are not learned in philosophy. They may > be able to write very nice Krsna conscious books of their own. I've known them > for 25 years and I always liked both of them very much. But if they want to > make changes they HAVE to write their own books and put their name on them - > not A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's. This cannot be allowed. There is simply no > honor in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 1999 Report Share Posted March 12, 1999 This still sounds fanatical to me. I am certain that there are at least some corrections that Srila Prabhupada very much wanted made. What is your objection to an annotated edition, which would give the editors a chance to reveal Srila Prabhupada's original intent? What is your objection to Stitha-dhi Muni's suggestion of parallel texts presented side by side? If everything is presented openly and it is left to the reader to decide the merit of each change, I cannot understand how you can still object. To object to all and any changes of Hayagriva's Bhagavad-gita As It Is still sounds fanatical to me. your servant, Hare Krsna dasy WWW: Janesvara (Dasa) ACBSP (Syracuse - USA) wrote: > [Text 2152291 from COM] > > On 11 Mar 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote: > > > > I agree that the changes you just posted seem drastic and I'm really > > curious to hear what Jayadvaita Swami will say to explain why they were > > made. Until then, I reserve judgment. > > Oh sure, be patient and nice and make me look like a putz!! ;-) > > > However, there are other changes > > I've read about, which made perfect sense to me, e.g. when the original > > eidtion contained errors by the transcriptionist that were discovered. In > > those cases, Prabhupada's words were actually *restored*. So it's not a > > question of Jayadvaita Swami or Dravida Prabhu writing their own books in > > Prabhupada's name. > > Maybe it's just my simpleton mind, but the whole thing just seems to deny the > true and exact "picture" of how Krsna wanted Srila Prabhupada's books to be. > Srila Prabhupada's transcendental "karma" or pastimes created the books in a > certain way that have been read by thousands, millions?, of people with > incredible results. I don't believe Harvard's Professor Cox ever mentioned > that they are nice books but should be cleaned up a little. > > There are so many quotes from Srila Prabhupada about not changing a thing in > HIS books UNLESS he approves of the changes. He simply cannot make those > approvals now and that was Krsna's choice of taking him from here and leaving > his books as they were - even full of little "errors". I think Krsna in His > divine wisdom could have kept Srila Prabhupada here a little longer if He > really felt it necessary to make additional changes to the books. > > If Srila Prabhupada were present right now would the editors make changes to > the books and publish them without Srila Prabhupada's approval? > > > > > Can't we make a distinction between changes that are purely technical (e.g. > > due to mishearings of tapes, transcription errors ...) and changes that > > involved subjective judgments and actually changing Prabhupada's words? I'd > > like to know what proportion are of each variety. I have absolutely no > > problem with the former kind, but would be much more concerned about the > > latter one. > > The problem is that those who have assumed this role of editing, > post-Prabhupada's-right-to-approval, have made some of these "latter" kind of > changes which, with all due respect, creates some suspicions as to their > intentions or, maybe more acurately, their level of realization. > It is not that they are not devotees/disciples but everyone must admit we are > talking about very, very holy ground here - The Books! > > > > > Prabhupada wanted his books to be the law books for humanity for a very > > long time. It seems like a nice service to make them as authentic and > > technically correct as possible. > > When he left the planet did he say to finish/continue editing his books? No. > The only thing he said was "unfinished" was his desire to implement > varnasrama-dharma. Let's stop wasting time on anything else and try to spend > the majority of our time trying to fulfill this advice. The books have > certainly "worked" fine for thousands of disciples just As They Are. > > >I don't think the fact that Prabhupada > > didn't complain about all the errors while he was here is a valid argument > > for keeping them. Thinking about the enormous volume of books he produced > > in a very short time (what to speak of all of the other things he did), > > some errors were bound to slip through. I don't see why that means they > > have to remain for all times though. > > Fine. But let them write their OWN versions of Bhagavad-gita and the other > books and they can tell everyone what changes they made and why. This is the > only honorable thing to do when Srila Prabhupada cannot be here to defend > himself from things that he had to stop previously. > > If you asked Srila Prabhupada if he is worried about what "people" will think > of him and his movement with his books left the way they were before any > unauthorized changes were made, what do you think he would say? Honestly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 1999 Report Share Posted March 13, 1999 On 12 Mar 1999, Hare Krsna dasi wrote: > This still sounds fanatical to me. I am certain that there are at least some > corrections that Srila Prabhupada very much wanted made. But he has the right to approve them personally. They are HIS books. What is wrong with his books exactly the way they are? Can someone NOT become Krsna conscious reading them due to some "imperfections" according to the English language (which leaves much to be desired as a language, especially for spiritual realization). "On the other hand, that literature which is full of descriptions of the pastimes of the transcendental glories of the name, fame, forms, pastimes, etc. of the unlimited Supreme Lord is a different creation, full of transcendental words directed toward bringing about a revolution in the impious lives of this world's misdirected civilization. Such transcendental literatures, even though imperfectly composed, are heard, sung and accepted by purified men who are thoroughly honest." (Srimad-Bhagavatam Introduction) > What is your > objection > to an annotated edition, which would give the editors a chance to reveal Srila > Prabhupada's original intent? What is your objection to Stitha-dhi Muni's > suggestion of parallel texts presented side by side? > > If everything is presented openly and it is left to the reader to decide the > merit of each change, I cannot understand how you can still object. I do not remember ever objecting to such a publication. But I will never agree that it can be published in A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's name. Let them put it in their own name and explain it however they want. I have no objection to this. > > To object to all and any changes of Hayagriva's Bhagavad-gita As It Is still > sounds fanatical to me. Personally, I think Lord Krsna had a lot more to do with the way the Books turned out than Hayagriva. But then, I'm a fanatic. The editor of these changes stated himself some time ago: "To my knowledge, SRILA PRABHUPADA NEVER ASKED US TO RE-EDIT THE BOOK. "As you know, and as we kept in mind while doing the work, SRILA PRABHUPADA STAUNCHLY OPPOSED NEEDLESS CHANGES." (Jayadvaita Swami's Letter to Amogha Lila 1986) While I'm being fanatical I'll provide some other info about the evil ;-) changes: SP76-01-05 Letter: To Radhavallabha "I will have to see personally what are the mistakes in the synonyms and also how you intend to correct them. I was not satisfied with the corrections that were made before. I saw some changes which I did no approve. Nitai may correct whatever mistakes are there, but the corrected material must be sent to me for final approval. So reprinting the volumes will have to wait until the mistakes are corrected and approved by me. In the meantime you can supply the standing orders whatever new volumes are published." SP76-08-26 Letter: To Radhavallabha "You may title this book, Teachings of Lord Kapila, but it must be subtitled, "The Son of Devahuti". That will remain, do not try to change it. The Americans may like it or not like it, but we must make the distinction between devahuti putra kapila, and the atheistic Kapila. Do not try to change anything without my permission." >From Mithiladhisa dasa "Soon after the intense marathon for completing the publication of Caitanya Caritamrita, Radhaballabha prabhu approached Srila Prabhupada and mentioned that the artists are now completing the paintings in preparation for the second printing. To this, Srila Prabhupada replied "No changes". A further attempt was made to explain, stating that there were to be no actual changes, but that the same painting would simply be completed because there was insufficient time during the marathon, and that the paintings were actually published in an unfinished state. Srila Prabhupada replied to him again, "NO changes". Confused by Srila Prabhupada's previous responses, Radhaballabha again tried to explain the situation. The short time frame of the publication marathon had prevented the paintings from being completed. They were now to be finished by the artists, re-photographed and in the next printing, the same picture, same size, everything the same except for the finishing touches, would be placed in the exact same spot in the book. Srila Prabhupada now appeared angered and replied again, but this time more forcefully, "NO CHANGES!!!". Yasoda-nandana: Sometimes they appeal that "We can make better English," so they change like that, just like in the case of Isopanisad. There are over a hundred changes. So where is the need? Your words are sufficient. The potency is there. When they change, it is something else. Svarupa Damodara: That's actually a very dangerous mentality. Yasoda-nandana: What is it going to be in five years? It's going to be a different book. Prabhupada: So you... What you are going... It is very serious situation. 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 Satsvarupa that "This is the position. They are doing anything and everything at their whim." THE NEXT PRINTING SHOULD BE AGAIN TO THE ORIGINAL WAY... Prabhupada: So write them immediately that "THE RASCAL EDITORS, THEY ARE DOING HAVOC, and they are being maintained by Ramesvara and party..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 1999 Report Share Posted March 13, 1999 It seems quite clear from the quotations that Janesvara Prabhu has posted here that Srila Prabhupada was quite vehement about not permiting changes, no matter how much he was pursuaded to the contrary, even when the person had no alterior motive. Was Srila Prabhupada, in his pedantic refusal to allow the completed paintings to be published in CC, telling us something for the future? What could be the harm in allowing the finished paintings to be published? It seems to me that Srila Prabhupada was making a point. Even he makes the point about 'imperfectly composed' in that Srimad Bhagavatam Introduction. What more do we need? Seeing as his own disciples were intent on making changes he considered unnecesary in his presence, surely he perceived what they would do in his absence, and therefore he added this to the introduction. Over the years the Bible has been degraded in this way. Surely if such a precedent is set to change the books, it opens the way for more changes by later descendants concerned about the evolution of language in their day. Surely it is better to leave the books the way they were. Look how we now have a huge group of devotees convinced of the need for a Ritvik system, even though Srila Prabhupada gave practicaly no written indication for the need for such a change. Seeing as he is not here, and seeing as he was so much AGAINST any changes, as evidenced by these quotes, it should be enough for us. Surely this startling trend should be brought to a larger ISKCON audience. The change of the word 'Varnashrama' to 'Higher Authorities' is highly disturbing. It smacks of Soviet style editing. Even if it was done in all innocence, it would appear to lessen Srila Prabhupadas whole idea of the importance of varnashrama. > "On the other hand, that literature which is full of descriptions of the > pastimes of the transcendental glories of the name, fame, forms, pastimes, > etc. of the unlimited Supreme Lord is a different creation, full of > transcendental words directed toward bringing about a revolution in the > impious lives of this world's misdirected civilization. Such > transcendental literatures, even though imperfectly composed, are heard, > sung and accepted by purified men who are thoroughly honest." > (Srimad-Bhagavatam Introduction) > > > What is your > > objection > > to an annotated edition, which would give the editors a chance to reveal > Srila > > Prabhupada's original intent? What is your objection to Stitha-dhi > > Muni's suggestion of parallel texts presented side by side? > > > > If everything is presented openly and it is left to the reader to decide > > the merit of each change, I cannot understand how you can still object. > > > I do not remember ever objecting to such a publication. But I will never > agree that it can be published in A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's name. Let > them put it in their own name and explain it however they want. I have no > objection to this. > > > > > > To object to all and any changes of Hayagriva's Bhagavad-gita As It Is > > still sounds fanatical to me. > > > Personally, I think Lord Krsna had a lot more to do with the way the Books > turned out than Hayagriva. But then, I'm a fanatic. > > > The editor of these changes stated himself some time ago: > > "To my knowledge, SRILA PRABHUPADA NEVER ASKED US TO RE-EDIT THE BOOK. "As > you know, and as we kept in mind while doing the work, SRILA PRABHUPADA > STAUNCHLY OPPOSED NEEDLESS CHANGES." (Jayadvaita Swami's Letter to Amogha > Lila 1986) > > While I'm being fanatical I'll provide some other info about the evil ;-) > changes: > > SP76-01-05 Letter: To Radhavallabha > "I will have to see personally what are the mistakes in the synonyms and > also how you intend to correct them. I was not satisfied with the > corrections that were made before. I saw some changes which I did no > approve. Nitai may correct whatever mistakes are there, but the corrected > material must be sent to me for final approval. So reprinting the volumes > will have to wait until the mistakes are corrected and approved by me. In > the meantime you can supply the standing orders whatever new volumes are > published." > > SP76-08-26 Letter: To Radhavallabha > "You may title this book, Teachings of Lord Kapila, but it must be > subtitled, "The Son of Devahuti". That will remain, do not try to change > it. The Americans may like it or not like it, but we must make the > distinction between devahuti putra kapila, and the atheistic Kapila. Do > not try to change anything without my permission." > > > From Mithiladhisa dasa > > "Soon after the intense marathon for completing the publication of > Caitanya Caritamrita, Radhaballabha prabhu approached Srila Prabhupada and > mentioned that the artists are now completing the paintings in preparation > for the second printing. To this, Srila Prabhupada replied "No changes". A > further attempt was made to explain, stating that there were to be no > actual changes, but that the same painting would simply be completed > because there was insufficient time during the marathon, and that the > paintings were actually published in an unfinished state. Srila Prabhupada > replied to him again, "NO changes". > > Confused by Srila Prabhupada's previous responses, Radhaballabha again > tried to explain the situation. The short time frame of the publication > marathon had prevented the paintings from being completed. They were now > to be finished by the artists, re-photographed and in the next printing, > the same picture, same size, everything the same except for the finishing > touches, would be placed in the exact same spot in the book. Srila > Prabhupada now appeared angered and replied again, but this time more > forcefully, "NO CHANGES!!!". > > > > > Yasoda-nandana: Sometimes they appeal that "We can make better English," > so they change like that, just like in the case of Isopanisad. There are > over a hundred changes. So where is the need? Your words are sufficient. > The potency is there. When they change, it is something else. > Svarupa Damodara: That's actually a very dangerous mentality. > > Yasoda-nandana: What is it going to be in five years? It's going to be a > different book. > > Prabhupada: So you... What you are going... It is very serious situation. > > 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 Satsvarupa that > "This is the position. They are doing anything and everything at their > whim." THE NEXT PRINTING SHOULD BE AGAIN TO THE ORIGINAL WAY... > > Prabhupada: So write them immediately that "THE RASCAL EDITORS, THEY ARE > DOING HAVOC, and they are being maintained by Ramesvara and party..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 1999 Report Share Posted March 13, 1999 > What could be the harm in allowing the finished paintings to > be published? For one thing, the expense of having the separtaions done again and having the changes made with the publisher. Also, there may have been some underlying issues that aren't fully gone into. I'm saying this, not because I'm trying to read something into what Srila Prabhupada was saying that isn't there, but you might need to look at the larger context of exchanges before predicating policy on a few specific letters. Just a generic point. Overall, I liked the old books better. I agree that newer versions should clearly indicate that they are different than the originals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 1999 Report Share Posted March 13, 1999 > If Srila Prabhupada disallowed certain changes that the editors proposed > before he left the planet, and they were thinking that those changes were > perfectly acceptable based on their level of knowledge, how can they make > changes now which cannot be proposed to Srila Prabhupada for his approval? What I suggest is that you get a copy of the recently printed brochure called "Responsible Publishing" and see what they're actually doing. Then you will have a better standpoint from which to comment on their work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 1999 Report Share Posted March 13, 1999 Thank you for the suggestion. Prabhu. I will try to get a copy of the publication you mentioned. I am sorry to be so sensitive about this issue. yfs, Jd COM: Tattvavit (das) ACBSP (NE-BBT) <Tattvavit.ACBSP (AT) com (DOT) bbt.se> COM: Dravida (das) ACBSP (San Diego - USA) <Dravida.ACBSP (AT) com (DOT) bbt.se>; WWW: Janesvara (Dasa) ACBSP (Syracuse - USA) <jdf1 (AT) stsi (DOT) net>; COM: Varnasrama development <Varnasrama.development (AT) com (DOT) bbt.se> Saturday, March 13, 1999 11:42 AM Re: Editing Varnasrama-dharma out of the books >[Text 2157242 from COM] > >> If Srila Prabhupada disallowed certain changes that the editors proposed >> before he left the planet, and they were thinking that those changes were >> perfectly acceptable based on their level of knowledge, how can they make >> changes now which cannot be proposed to Srila Prabhupada for his approval? > >What I suggest is that you get a copy of the recently printed brochure >called "Responsible Publishing" and see what they're actually doing. Then >you will have a better standpoint from which to comment on their work. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 1999 Report Share Posted March 13, 1999 > > Over the years the Bible has been degraded in this way. Surely if such a precedent is set to change the books, it opens the way for more changes by later descendants concerned about the evolution of language in their day. > > While my inclination is to believe the edits where of a high quality and can be seen as an improvement, it kind of amazes me that concerns such as these appear to be written off as sentiment that does not apply to ISKCON policy, I guess because we consider ourselves devotees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 1999 Report Share Posted March 13, 1999 > > Over the years the Bible has been degraded in this way. Surely if such a precedent is set to change the books, it opens the way for more changes by later descendants concerned about the evolution of language in their day. > > While my inclination is to believe the edits are of a high quality and can be seen as an improvement, it kind of amazes me that concerns such as these sometimes appear to be written off as sentiment that does not apply to ISKCON policy. That's why I like the idea of an official BBT book that outlines and details edits made since our founder/acarya's departure (coincidentally an idea proposed by yours truly), because it puts a burden of sastric proof on the editorial staff in plane view of all of Srila Prabhupada's followers. Even those who are in disagreement will feel some satisfaction getting to study the original version and having the facility to come to their own conclusion. Thus no one can make the claim Srila Prabhupada's BBT attempted to snowball the devotees. I see no reason why the BBT should feel a lack of confidence in the quality of their sincere service. If we did pursue a book project that offers original version side by side with the edited version along with some editorial commentary, we could even consider putting small footnotes in our BBT publications that could be used as an aid to cross reference the editorial book explaining the evolution of all the changes made. You can never satisfy all your critics, but sometimes there are things we can do to improve the quality of our audience's reception. ys, Sthita- "when was the last time I read the Gita anyway?" dhi-muni dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.