Jayadvaita's gita is authorized

[Guest guest]

On 27 Mar 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote:

 

> Talk about the mental platform...whew! I don't care about the meaning of the

> changes. Changes weren't necessary - that's the aparadha if there is any.

 

I'll try once more...

 

That's not the question. The question for you is whether Krsna accepted his

service. Krsna does not need anything; everything is UNNECESSARY as far as He

is concerned, but he accepts the service of His devotees and bewilders those

who act without devotion.

 

> > If Krsna has accepted his service,

>

> IF is a pretty big word.

>

For some it's a big word, for some it's small, and for some it's nonexistent.

 

>

> > If Prabhupada was here physically, would you criticize Jayadvaita Swami

> > without Prabhupada's approval?

>

> Wouldn't need to because Srila Prabhupada would do it himself just as he did

> when Ramesvara and his gang were making unauthorized changes. I'm taking

Srila

> Prabhupada's side in this battle. They are his books and we do not have the

> right to change them without his approval. It's simple respect and honor.

 

This is speculation. I suppose you have some "July 8th" letter that states

that "No more changes in my books" or witnessed such a statement standing 3

feet away from him and this overrides all other evidence.

 

But you fail to understand that in some cases Srila Prabhupada ACCEPTED

changes that people proposed and in some cases he REJECTED them. So you do

not know which case this situation belongs to. Your criterion for

acceptance/rejection is not the same as Krsna's and Srila Prabhupada's as

pointed out below.

 

> And this still doesn't answer the simple questions that you guys keep

> avoiding:

>

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

> publish them WITHOUT his approval? And if not, why wouldn't they publish

them

> without his approval? (I know it's obvious to some of us but I'm still

curious

> to hear the answer).

>

It was answered but you fail to see it. Let's be more explicit:

 

"If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, a fruit, or water,

I will accept it." For Srila Prabhupada to accept something means Krsna also

accepts it and vice versa; Krsna only accepts things done with devotion or in

devotional service. So my point stands- unless you can show that Krsna would

not accept the revised Gita, you are speculating and risking Vaisnava aparadha

with your criticism. Best to first KNOW whether Krsna accepted it or not and

then argue.

 

Sincerely,

 

Virender

http://www.krishnasoft.com

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 99-04-02 22:00:13 EST, you write:

 

<< *Note* there is no mention of "infidels" >>

 

My mention of infidels was rather tongue in cheek as that is the way we

looked at the situation as neophytes. Who wasn't a neophyte at that stage in

ISKCON? I was definitely not making a comment as to MacMillan's position in

the great scheme of things. They did publish the Gita and it is still my

favorite copy.

 

As for Virendr's assertion that Krsna has accepted the service of editing the

Gita and perhaps we all should be satisfied with that ....... at what point

did Iskcon in general understand that Krsna was no longer accepting the

service of Bhagavan, Bhavananda, JayaTirtha, and all the rest? That the new

Gita be recognized as revised is not such an outlandish request, neither is

the request that changes be made only if there was a mistake in the

transcription or there is some other evidence that Srila Prabhupada noted a

change was necessary. yhs kanti dd