Guest guest Posted March 29, 1999 Report Share Posted March 29, 1999 In text 2195417 Hare Krsna dasi wrote: > Or, were we also required to substantially change the wording of the content, > so that it was essentially a different book, and no longer the same book that > MacMillan held the rights to? > And, further, was one objective to create hundreds of insubstantial revisions > that would allow us to publish a new book -- but at the same time avoid > copywrite infringement with MacMillan? I assume that there is no difference whatsoever between the MacMillan and the BBT unabridged Gitas. This is the Gita that Srila Prabhupada liked and used until his dissapearance, and as far as I remember from my days at the BBT there was no need to change it in the future in any way to avoid conflicts with MacMillan. When we were working on the new Spanish Gita in the early Eighties we knew that this was a "better" Gita promoted by the Trustees, and Bhagavan was pressuring us to have it for his more "sophisticated" Spanish speaking zone. It was a "new " and "better" Gita that would help herald the advent of the "new" and "better" Divine Acaryas. I keep thinking that it was in such environment that the reedited Gita was born. YS RK Mex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 1999 Report Share Posted March 29, 1999 Let me just add one more factor to be taken into consideration. Perhaps Jayadwaita Maharaja could comment on this. The so-called "first edition" is the MacMillan-Collier Press version (actually, I always think of the lavendar-covered issue with intro's by Allen Ginsberg, Denise Levertov, and Edward Dimock as the "first edition" but that was the abridged version published before the MacMillan company's unabridged version of Bhagavad-gita As It Is). ISKCON's original publisher was called "ISKCON Press." The first volume of Krsna Book (large format) was published by ISKCON press. (This was in the early 1970's.) Then either ISKCON Press changed its name to Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, or a slightly different entity was created, named "Bhaktivedanta Book Trust." This was by mid-1970. Anyway, as I understand it, we wanted MacMillan to reprint Bhagavad-gita As It Is, but they did not think there was a big enough market for it, They did not want to reprint it. But, obviously, we printed it ourselves, under the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust imprint. So, the question that arises is: What was the legal negotiation which allowed us to reprint Bhagavad-gita As It Is? Did we simply pay MacMillan some fee for the rights? Or, were we also required to substantially change the wording of the content, so that it was essentially a different book, and no longer the same book that MacMillan held the rights to? And, further, was one objective to create hundreds of insubstantial revisions that would allow us to publish a new book -- but at the same time avoid copywrite infringement with MacMillan? Or were the revisions made with no consideration at all to the copyright on the MacMillan version? This is yet another question which arises, and could possibly be addressed along with the other questions mentioned. your servant, Hare Krsna dasi COM: Radha-Krishna (das) ACBSP (Mexico City) wrote: > [Text 2193114 from COM] > > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 1999 Report Share Posted March 30, 1999 > > > Anyway, as I understand it, we wanted MacMillan to reprint Bhagavad-gita As It > Is, but they did not think there was a big enough market for it, They did not > want to reprint it. As I remember it, the contract with MacMillan was they either had to keep reprinting or lose the rights to reprint. It had nothing to do with revisions. They originally printed the abridged lavendar version more as a test version. The devotees ordered a bunch, so they felt it justified to print the unabridged. When ISKCON decided they wanted to be able to print the Gita themselves, the problem was to get the rights back from MacMillan. Since the only major orderer of the books for distribution was ISKCON itself, ISKCON stockpiled and then stopped ordering. After not ordering for a while, MacMillan didn't reprint and after a whatever specified period of time without reprinting, their rights lapsed. I remember because there was a period where Gita's actually got scarce for a while. Once the time lapsed, the rights reverted. It had nothing to do with revisions. At least that is the way I remember it, or more specifically, that is what I remember is the explanation given as to why the Gitas were scarce. > > > So, the question that arises is: What was the legal negotiation which allowed > us to reprint Bhagavad-gita As It Is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 1999 Report Share Posted March 30, 1999 Oh, a nice hot topic to get the keyboards a tapping again! Couple of points. Let's not forget that just like now Jayadvaita is editing a version of the Gita, the Gita editing while Srila Prabhupada was around was done substantially by Hayagriva, I believe. Let's not forget that English is Srila Prabhupada's second language. The original Bhagavatam that Srila Prabhupada brought from India in his own voice is certainly charming for the disciples, but a little muddy for the average mono languaged American. It was Hayagriva's talented editing that helped make it very readable. Although many versed may be different than Srila Prabhupada's manuscripts, it was Hayagriva's aesthetic renderings that helped make them more poetic and readable. Srila Prabhupada liked Hayagriva's editing somuch, that even after it was obvious Hayagriva was no pure devotee, Srila Prabhupada continued to engage him. What gives the Gita potency of course, is not editing, but the touch of a pure devotee, Srila Prabhupada. TRANSLATION On the other hand, that literature which is full of descriptions 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. SB 1.5.11 Even if the original Gita was flawed, it's potency came from the touch of Srila Prabhupada, not the correctness of it's composition. I agree with the call for an annotated Gita. I also agree with Janesvara in his point that if Jayadvaita's edition is printed, it should at least say something like by Srila Prabhupada as edited by Jayadvaita. We know that the original version was authorised and used by Srila Prabhupada and undoubtedly had potency. While Jayadvaita's version may be academically more correct, that is a consideration of the intellect. Hayagriva's version has more appeal to me simply on the basis of being more poetic, which touches a different part of the subtle body, and I personally eel is more conducive to first time readers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 1999 Report Share Posted March 30, 1999 COM: Radha-Krishna (das) ACBSP (Mexico City) wrote: > [Text 2195592 from COM] > > In text 2195417 Hare Krsna dasi wrote: > > > Or, were we also required to substantially change the wording of the > content, > > so that it was essentially a different book, and no longer the same book > that > > MacMillan held the rights to? > > > And, further, was one objective to create hundreds of insubstantial > revisions > > that would allow us to publish a new book -- but at the same time avoid > > copywrite infringement with MacMillan? > > I assume that there is no difference whatsoever between the MacMillan and > the BBT unabridged Gitas. This is the Gita that Srila Prabhupada liked and > used until his dissapearance, and as far as I remember from my days at the > BBT there was no need to change it in the future in any way to avoid > conflicts with MacMillan. > YS RK Mex "I assume that there is not difference whatsoever between the MacMillan and the BBT unabridged Gitas." Hmmm... Maybe I am mixed up. I thought this was exactly where the difficulty lay. To my understanding what we call "first edition" is the MacMillan version (unabridged). And what we call "second edition" is the BBT version (unabridged). Can anyone clarify this? your servant, Hare Krsna dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 1999 Report Share Posted March 30, 1999 There are good arguments to be made for Jayadvaita Maharaja's editing; but if you take the extreme stand which implies that anyone who questions Jayadvaita Maharaja's editing considers Prabhupada an ordinary person, and that such a questioner should be regarded as an athiest, you completely undermine any rational points you might be able to make. Please remember that devotees have been through an incredible amount of abuse by never questioning what is done by an authority. Therefore, they tend to be skeptical. In the Bhagavad-gita, even Srila Prabhupada states that "Nothing should be accepted blindly. Everything should be accepted with care and caution." Some people who criticize any editing of the Gita may go overboard in their objections, but at least we should recognize the pain that contributes to such skepticism and treat the questioners with as much civility as possible. Otherwise, we simply create a situation in which more devotees have to be drummed out of ISKCON. That's not really what we want. your servant, Hare Krsna dasi WWW: Virender Dayal (New York NY - USA) wrote: > [Text 2197652 from COM] > > On 28 Mar 1999, Radha-Krishna das wrote: > > > 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 > .. > > Your entire message is a speculative analysis of the material circumstances > surrounding the event. This ASSUMES A PRIORI that Jayadvaita Swami's service > is rejected by Prabhupada and therefore let's find the material reasoning > behind the issue. > > Funny, this is what the atheists do to explain away events that are in > actuality carried out by divine intervention. Even some people tell me that > Prabhupada was successful because of the good situations he found himself in > and not because of his endeavors or Krsna's mercy. "Chance", "Chaos", etc. > It all depends on how you treat Prabhupada a priori- as a devotee or an > ordinary person. > > Sincerely, > > Virender > http://www.krishnasoft.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 1999 Report Share Posted March 31, 1999 On 30 Mar 1999, Hare Krsna dasi wrote: > There are good arguments to be made for Jayadvaita Maharaja's editing; but if > you > take the extreme stand which implies that anyone who questions Jayadvaita > Maharaja's editing considers Prabhupada an ordinary person... This is definitely not what I said. I said if you assume a priori that the person is ordinary and not a devotee, you will ONLY find a material explanation. I gave the example of Srila Prabhupada being treated in this way by some people. If the questioner gives no chance for Jayadvaita's text to be bona-fide and ONLY looks for material explanations for the revisions, he is offending Jayadvaita Swami. I am arguing rationally not blindly-- what rational or sastric statements are there for assuming that Krsna has not accepted his revisions and we should only find material evidence to expose his work? To do this is one-sided (biased) analysis and this is all I am trying to point out. > Some people who criticize any editing of the Gita may go overboard in their > objections, but at least we should recognize the pain that contributes to such > skepticism and treat the questioners with as much civility as possible. > Otherwise, we simply create a situation in which more devotees have to be > drummed > out of ISKCON. That's not really what we want. Okay, this is a good point. I am sorry if I am offending anyone and have no intentions of labeling people as atheists. Sincerely, Virender http://www.krishnasoft.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 1999 Report Share Posted March 31, 1999 --------- > > Some people who criticize any editing of the Gita may go overboard in their> objections, but at least we should recognize the pain that contributes to such> skepticism and treat the questioners with as much civility as possible.> Otherwise, we simply create a situation in which more devotees have to be> drummed> out of ISKCON. That's not really what we want. > Hare Krsna dasi > ----------- Dear devotees, I agree that we should be sensitive to others' pain from the early days which I personally did not witness or do not understand well. It seems like the lack of trust in authority is a major issue in the changes controversy. Personally,judging from "Madhudhvisa?"'s website and Maharaja's forum the changes comparing the old and the new, and I almost always felt the changes were better. I can not understand over what solid philosophical issue the devotees are complaining about. Even when there are changes in meaning, they are still consistent with Srila Prabhupada's teachings. If one follows Srila Prabhupada's instruction to read the book under the guidance of an authorized devotee, then all those "changes" are not so significant. It seems that people want to study the books without reference to a senior devotee (like Jayadvaita Swami). In terms of an annotated edition, I would be among the first to purchase it were it available. However, I am not sure if Srila Prabhupada wanted devotees in general to be so scrutinizing of someone he trusted. Such a publication just encourages old devotees, new devotees, scholars to try to look over Jayadvaita Maharaj's shoulder even more. I realize many senior devotees have made mistakes, abused others, and fallen, and the tendency is to look at him with suspicion too. But does a decent devotee like him deserve this critical eye? What did he do wrong? I personally feel that such an annotated edition is generally appropriate material for certain senior devotees who are highly proficient in Bhagavad-gita philosophy. Or the edition could be available at the office of the local temple president or GBC so that one can consult it in association with a devotee in good standing. ys Gerald Surya Forgive me if I am being naive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 1999 Report Share Posted March 31, 1999 On 30 Mar 1999, Virender Dayal wrote: > I am arguing rationally not blindly-- what rational or sastric statements are > there for assuming that Krsna has not accepted his revisions Once upon a time one of Srila Prabhupada's books were ready to go to the printer for final publishing. It had gone to the printer with some plates of unfinished paintings. They were ready to be printed as they were. In the mean time, the paintings were finished properly and one of the editors wanted the book recalled so that the finished paintings could be inserted instead of the unfinished paintings. But one stubborn devotee said, "No! Let them be published as they are. No changes! The editor tried again to convince this devotee but the devotee stood firm and said again, "No changes!" What would you say to such a "stubborn" devotee? Why would he be so stubborn about such a minor change which seemed perfectly acceptable and proper to the editor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 1999 Report Share Posted March 31, 1999 On 30 Mar 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote: > Once upon a time one of Srila Prabhupada's books were ready to go to the... > What would you say to such a "stubborn" devotee? Why would he be so stubborn > about such a minor change which seemed perfectly acceptable and proper to the > editor? I already answered this. Srila Prabhupada did not accept his work as devotional (BG 9.26). But if you think you can judge Jayadvaita Swami the same way, then you are imitating an acarya. Take care, Virender http://www.krishnasoft.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 1999 Report Share Posted March 31, 1999 On 31 Mar 1999, Virender Dayal wrote: > On 30 Mar 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote: > > > Once upon a time one of Srila Prabhupada's books were ready to go to the... > > What would you say to such a "stubborn" devotee? Why would he be so stubborn > > about such a minor change which seemed perfectly acceptable and proper to > the > > editor? > > I already answered this. Srila Prabhupada did not accept his work as > devotional (BG 9.26). But if you think you can judge Jayadvaita Swami the > same way, then you are imitating an acarya. So, is there ANY instruction, order or example of Srila Prabhupada's that we can follow without "imitating an acarya"? (BTW, in case you didn't know, Srila Prabhupada was the "stubborn" devotee who wouldn't allow the minor changes.) 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.