Jayadvaita's Unauthorized Bootleg gita

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and an unpublished one (Dialectic Spiritualism) when it comes to obeying or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

On 27 Mar 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote:

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

 

You may as well ask how many teeth a crow has; the question is irrelevant

since Srila Prabhupada is not here (bodily), nor will that situation

change in the foreseeable future. Thus, the answer, whatever it may

be, is of no consequence. A question with no consequential answer

possible is an irrelevant question, just like a question about the

number of teeth on a crow.

 

Yours,

 

Vijay

 

PS: Now for a question with a possibly relevant answer, perhaps you

could explain why you have sent the COM discussions in this thread to

the ritviks? I know that the answer is obvious to some of us, but

I'd still like to hear the answer.