Places where books need to be corrected?

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

I did not say that the child inherits mother's caste.

 

On another site this is what you said:

 

"And as to Drona and Bhishma, they were both kshatriyas maintained by the royal court. While Drona is a brahmana only by a birth from brahmana Bharadwaja (his mother was an Apsara - certainly not a brahmani woman, and the varna of a child comes from the mother"

 

It is a fact that caste comes from the father. When two people of equal category caste have a child, the child takes the caste and gotra of the father - with no connection to the past caste, sub-caste or gotra of the mother. When two people of incompatible castes have a child, the child is known as mixed caste, or in the words of Krishna "varna-sankara" (literally "mixed caste", or as Prabhupada translates it "unwanted progeny"). As a result of being born from an impure line, the child's caste is considered polluted, and thus he is given a title such as Suta, etc.

 

 

I said that in determining the child's caste mother's caste is of primary concern.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. Coming from someone who often proclaims that "he is a real Kshatriya", and who likes to speak about Varnashrama makes it a joke. You don't have a clue about the very basics of what a varna, jati and gotra are, but you run around pointing out "flaws" in Prabhupada's books based on your self perceived Vedic cultural knowledge.

 

 

these statements are contradicted by the shastra - they may be customary where you live at the present time, but they are not based on Vedic culture.

Exactly what experience do you have with Vedic culture besides having read a Mahabharata translation and having lived in an ISKCON temple? And exactly how do you feel it makes you qualified to point out mistakes you see in Prabhupada's writings?

 

anyway, that has nothing to do with the issue on hand. Vicitravirya was dead before Dhritarastra was conceived, and that is a fact.

Vicitravirya is the factual father of Dhritarashtra, and Prabhupada was perfectly correct in stating so. Dhritarashtra is referred to as a "Kuru" throughout the Mahabharata, which is a lineage traced through his father Vicitravirya. It is impossible to be a Kuru through Vyasa.

 

Dhritarashtra was considered a pure Kshatriya, not a mixed caste, and was therefore considered fit for sitting on the throne. This is due to the fact that his father has always been considered as Vicitravirya. Had his father been a brahmana (Vyasa) he couldn't have ruled the kingdom.

 

We have a similar example in the case of the Pandavas. Arjuna is always addressed as a Pandava (son of Pandu), even though Pandu did not conceive him. Only a fool would try to argue that Prabhupada was also mistaken in calling Arjuna a son of Pandu.

 

When a queen conceives a child through a Deva or a Rishi, the father is considered the husband of the queen, not just the one who conceived the child, and caste is determined based on the kings lineage.

 

Another relevant example is Satyavati (a fisherwoman), who is the father of Vyasa. Vyasa is considered a brahmana by virtue of his father Parashara. Satyavati is also the mother of Vichitravirya (with Maharaja Shantanu). Despite her being a fisherwoman, the sons were Kshatriyas by virtue of their father. So here we have the exact same woman giving birth to two children from two different men, and the children both receive the castes of their father.

 

You can keep reading Prabhupada's books like a crow, looking for some imagined mistakes, but intelligent people don't waste their time doing such things.

[Guest guest]

Satyavati being a woman, how is it possible that she was the father of Vyasa as you state below?

 

 

Another relevant example is Satyavati (a fisherwoman), who is the father of Vyasa. Vyasa is considered a brahmana by virtue of his father Parashara.

[Kulapavana]

 

When two people of incompatible castes have a child, the child is known as mixed caste, or in the words of Krishna "varna-sankara" (literally "mixed caste", or as Prabhupada translates it "unwanted progeny"). As a result of being born from an impure line, the child's caste is considered polluted, and thus he is given a title such as Suta, etc.

 

 

based on this definition, was Vidura a varna-sankara? and was every suta a varna-sankara? how about Lomaharsana suta? IMO you do not understand the term varna-sankara.

 

 

You don't have a clue about the very basics of what a varna, jati and gotra are, but you run around pointing out "flaws" in Prabhupada's books based on your self perceived Vedic cultural knowledge.

 

 

I'm not learning much from you because I see no shastric basis to what you say. And you are free to believe that Vicitravirya died when Dhritarasra was a child, but most people will not agree with that view. Nor will they consider him the father of Dhritarastra.

 

 

Vicitravirya is the factual father of Dhritarashtra, and Prabhupada was perfectly correct in stating so. Dhritarashtra is referred to as a "Kuru" throughout the Mahabharata, which is a lineage traced through his father Vicitravirya. It is impossible to be a Kuru through Vyasa.

 

 

Actually, this only proves my point. He was a Kuru because he was born to a wife of a Kuru king and lived in that royal house.

 

btw: your definition of the word "factual" here is completely alien to most people.

 

 

Dhritarashtra was considered a pure Kshatriya, not a mixed caste, and was therefore considered fit for sitting on the throne. This is due to the fact that his father has always been considered as Vicitravirya. Had his father been a brahmana (Vyasa) he couldn't have ruled the kingdom.

 

 

Dhritarastra was actually considered unfit to rule because he was blind. He was a kshatriya through his kshatriya mother and through his qualities.

 

 

We have a similar example in the case of the Pandavas. Arjuna is always addressed as a Pandava (son of Pandu), even though Pandu did not conceive him.

 

Arjuna is a Pandava through his mother and the royal house, just like Dhritarastra is a Kuru.

 

5000 years ago the breakdown of the original varnashrama system was already in place. Krsna established just 4 varnas, based on guna and karma, not based on gotra and janma. Even what we know as Manu Samhita reflects that breakdown, as the current version of MS clearly shows much later editing, reflecting the social views of the time.

[Kulapavana]

 

You can keep reading Prabhupada's books like a crow, looking for some imagined mistakes, but intelligent people don't waste their time doing such things.

 

this sort of attitude makes any reasonable discussion impossible.

 

I spend a lot of my time presenting Prabhupada's books and explaining their content to others. Inadequate or inept editing of these books by BBT only makes such tasks harder, just like the above referenced attitute expressed by you and many other devotees makes it harder. Anybody understands that small mistakes can be made, especially when we consider the sheer magnitude of the work Prabhupada produced. What people dont understand is why there is a need to turn everything upside down to prove that "there is no mistake whatsoever".

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Satyavati being a woman, how is it possible that she was the father of Vyasa as you state below?

Obviously I meant mother, but miswrote father as I was in a hurry:

 

"Another relevant example is Satyavati (a fisherwoman), who is the father of Vyasa. Vyasa is considered a brahmana by virtue of his father Parashara."

 

Vyasa's father is Parashara and mother is Satyavati.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Arjuna is a Pandava through his mother and the royal house, just like Dhritarastra is a Kuru.

Pandava literally means son of Pandu. By your logic, Vyasa should correct his mistake of referring to Arjuna as a son of Pandu. This is the exact same thing Prabhupada has done referring to Dhritarashtra as son of Vichitravirya.

 

Anybody understands that small mistakes can be made

No one has said there are no editorial mistakes in Prabhupada's books. But what you think are mistakes, just aren't mistakes. And if someone like you were free to edit Prabhupada's books, huge mistakes would be put into his books as is evident in this thread. Unfortunately someone like you (Jayadvaita) is free to edit Prabhupada's books, and he isn't any brighter either.

 

Inadequate or inept editing of these books by BBT only makes such tasks harder...

And your solution: further inept editing. No thanks for that solution.

 

What people dont understand is why there is a need to turn everything upside down to prove that "there is no mistake whatsoever".

No one is saying there are no mistakes, but what you claim to be a mistake (Vichitravirya being called the father of Pandu) is not a mistake at all. Uneducated people trying to edit Prabhupada's books is the real danger we need to be watching for.

 

 

And you are free to believe that Vicitravirya died when Dhritarasra was a child, but most people will not agree with that view. Nor will they consider him the father of Dhritarastra.

Again a strawman argument that no one has raised. You can't comprehend how Vicitravirya could have passed away and still be considered the father of Dhritarashtra, nor how Arjuna can be called son of Pandu, yet not have been conceived of by Pandu.

 

Of course you failed to address the fact that Satyavati, a fisherwoman, was the mother of both Vyasa and Vichitravirya. Vyasa was considered a brahmana, but Vichitravirya was considered a Kshatriya - both because of their father's caste. Neither was considered a fisherman, which was the mother's caste.

 

 

Krsna established just 4 varnas

You are really out of touch with reality. I think there is no point continuing, as you obviously think you know everything about Vedic culture without having studied any of it.

 

The problem with ISKCON is there are so many people who learned everything by reading the Cliff Notes version of Mahabharata, yet want to correct Prabhupada for things they perceive as mistakes. First spend some time actually studying under traditional Vedic teachers or scholars and learn this culture.

[Kulapavana]

 

Of course you failed to address the fact that Satyavati, a fisherwoman, was the mother of both Vyasa and Vichitravirya. Vyasa was considered a brahmana, but Vichitravirya was considered a Kshatriya - both because of their father's caste. Neither was considered a fisherman, which was the mother's caste.

 

 

Vyasa was such a special individual that his mother's varna is hardly relevant. As to Vichitravirya, based on Mahabharata, he was not much of a kshatriya, but he was raised in a royal household.

 

It is hard to make your case using isolated examples and exceptions. Would you say that it is ok for a wife to have five husbands based on Draupadi's example? Not really. Too bad it seems a habit for some people to base their theories on such special cases.

[Kulapavana]

 

No one has said there are no editorial mistakes in Prabhupada's books. But what you think are mistakes, just aren't mistakes. And if someone like you were free to edit Prabhupada's books, huge mistakes would be put into his books as is evident in this thread. Unfortunately someone like you (Jayadvaita) is free to edit Prabhupada's books, and he isn't any brighter either.

 

That is why I proposed earlier in this thread that editing needs to be done by a qualified TEAM of devotees.

 

and btw: for me, Jayadvaita Swami is still a better choice than Hayagriva when it comes to editing SP's books.

 

 

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>And you are free to believe that Vicitravirya died when Dhritarasra was a child, but most people will not agree with that view. Nor will they consider him the father of Dhritarastra. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Again a strawman argument that no one has raised.

 

read the quote from the Purport again. that is precisely what it says.

[theist]

 

how is correcting a factual error (like Vicitravirya being around when Dhritarastra was born) changing the philosophy? Leaving such errors in the text simply leads to some disciples trying to change the existing vedic record in order to prove that "Prabhupada was always right", sometimes by concocting a totally bogus philosophy - we have seen it done even in this thread.

Yes that is your example which is being challenged by Jahnava Nitai das. So there you are. You have created a useless controversery and nothing more. The world is dying for want of transcendental knowledge and you want to challenge, "was it really a rajasuya?" Let's not waste time on such silly things.

 

If book editors want to say something then they should add footnotes and not change the authors version. This thread refers to changing THE books. That is an impersonal conception. Those are SRILA PRABHUPADA"S books. See the difference? In the later case Srila Prabhupada is present and acknowledged, in the former that is not the case.

[Guest guest]

vedabase.net/sb/3/4/29/en

 

śrī-śukaḥ uvāca — Śrī Śukadeva Gosvāmī said; brahma-śāpa — cursing by the brāhmaṇas; apadeśena — on the plea, by such a show; kālena — by the eternal time; amogha — unfailing; vāñchitaḥ — one who so desires; saḿhṛtya — closing; sva-kulam — own family; sphītam — excessively numerous; tyakṣyan — after giving up; deham — the universal form; acintayat — thought to Himself.

 

 

TRANSLATION

 

Śukadeva Gosvāmī replied: My dear King, the cursing of the brāhmaṇas was only a plea, but the actual fact was the supreme desire of the Lord. He wanted to disappear from the face of the earth after dispatching His excessively numerous family members. He thought to Himself as follows.

 

PURPORT EXCERT

 

"Here in this verse the word sphītam is also used, which indicates that He left His gigantic universal form called the virāṭ-rūpa, not His primeval, eternal form, because there is hardly any possibility of His changing His form of sac-cid-ānanda."

 

 

This appears to be a mistake, it should read deham. Probably an error when transcribing from tape.

[Guest guest]

 

5000 years ago the breakdown of the original varnashrama system was already in place. Krsna established just 4 varnas, based on guna and karma, not based on gotra and janma. Even what we know as Manu Samhita reflects that breakdown, as the current version of MS clearly shows much later editing, reflecting the social views of the time.

Hari OM:

 

4 Varnas were established by Vedas, which are anadi-apuryesam and not 5000 years ago by some body.

 

And even though you may not like, the Varna is established by Birth not guna and Karma, since that is the only practical way possible

 

All children until 5 years of age have almost the same Guna and Karma--- sleep, eat and play , so how do you know the Varna of the child?

 

And unless you the Varna how do you train it in some particular duty (war, studying vedas, business or work) and unless you train him how can he perfect it and try to achieve spiritual progression post perfection in material life?

 

So even though your argument of Varna should be decided by Guna and Karma sounds very nice to ear, it is not practically possible,--- When Who and How will you determine Varna?

 

And MS, BG or other books are not edited by some scholars inbetween , rather it is your type of people who want to edit it to suit the current time.

 

As an example, we only hear terms like Raghu Kula, Yadu Kula, Kuru Kula, Bharta Kula etc., i could not remember any Kula named after a woman. So a child and a wife obviously gets the Man's Kula, even though it is generally called the "son of women" like Yashoda Nandan, Prutha's Nandan, Devaki Nandan etc.,

 

This practice is (still) almost universal, even child in the western countries get the Surname of their fathers which was inturn the surname of their fathers and so on.

 

However since there rules are being changed that it should be both fathers and mothers surname or preferably only mothers surname you want to apply the same changes for Vedic texts and for that process you have no qualm in branding our rishis and seers as bigots, liars or ignorant stupids.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

This appears to be a mistake, it should read deham. Probably an error when transcribing from tape.

It is likely a commentator has considered sphitam to be an adjective of deham (sphitam deham), making it "vast, gigantic form" which indicates Virat Rupa (Universal form).

 

Multiple commentators may have attributed sphitam to different words, making it refer to either Krishna's vast family network, or Krishna's vast universal form. It isn't possible to include both interpretations in the word for word, but in the purport it is possible to present multiple explanations.

 

 

"Here in this verse the word sphītam is also used, which indicates that He left His gigantic universal form called the virāṭ-rūpa, not His primeval, eternal form, because there is hardly any possibility of His changing His form of sac-cid-ānanda."

 

If we had just taken the word deham alone, it doesn't indicate that the form being referred to is the Virat Rupa. It could conceivably refer to Bhagavan leaving his sac-cid-ananda rupa as well (an impossible thing, but for Bhagavan who can say something is logically impossible). The addition of the word sphitam would point more towards the Virat Rupa, as opposed to the Svayam Rupa of Bhagavan.

 

But from a logical perspective there are three possibilities:

 

1) sphitam refers simultaneously to deham and kulam

2) sphitam refers only to deham and word for word is wrong

3) sphitam refers only to kulam and the purport is wrong

 

If one looks in the 10 collected commentaries it should answer if sphitam has been used as an adjective to deham by anyone. And if there are recordings of Prabhupada's transcriptions left they can be referred, to see if its a transcription error.

 

Without having time to go through the above two steps, I would suggest the likely answer is 1 and it is correct.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

based on this definition, was Vidura a varna-sankara? and was every suta a varna-sankara? how about Lomaharsana suta? IMO you do not understand the term varna-sankara.

Let us see what the Bhagavatam says.

 

Balarama points out Romaharshana Suta's low caste:

 

yasmad asav iman vipran

adhyaste pratiloma-jah

dharma-palams tathaivasman

vadham arhati durmatih

 

yasmat—because; asau—he; iman—than these; vipran—brahmanas; adhyaste—is sitting higher; pratiloma-jah—born from an improperly mixed marriage; dharma—of the principles of religion; palan—the protector; tatha eva—also; asman—Myself; vadham—death; arhati—he deserves; durmatih—foolish.

 

"[Lord Balarama said:] Because this fool born from an improperly mixed marriage sits above all these brahmanas and even above Me, the protector of religion, he deserves to die."

 

Suta Goswami (son of Romaharshana) refers to his own low caste:

 

suta uvaca

aho vayam janma-bhrito 'dya hasma

vriddhanuvrittyapi viloma-jatah

daushkulyam adhim vidhunoti sighram

mahattamanam abhidhana-yogah

 

sutah uvaca—Suta Gosvami said; aho—how; vayam—we; janma-bhritah—promoted in birth; adya—today; ha—clearly; asma—have become; vriddha-anuvrittya—by serving those who are advanced in knowledge; api—although; viloma-jatah—born in a mixed caste; daushkulyam—disqualification of birth; adhim—sufferings; vidhunoti—purifies; sighram—very soon; mahat-tamanam—of those who are great; abhidhana—conversation; yogah—connection.

 

"Sri Suta Gosvami said: O God, although we are born in a mixed caste, we are still promoted in birthright simply by serving and following the great who are advanced in knowledge. Even by conversing with such great souls, one can without delay cleanse oneself of all disqualifications resulting from lower births."

 

By birth they were Suta caste, but by associating with saints they became pure and considered brahmanas.

 

Prabhupada states:

 

“This man, Romaharshana, is so impudent that he has accepted a higher seat than that of all the respectable brahmanas present here, although he was born in a degraded pratiloma family.”

 

Elsewhere Prabhupada states:

 

"Romaharsana Suta had been given a chance to become a perfect brahmana, but because of his ill behavior in his relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, his low birth was immediately remembered. Romaharsana Suta had been given the position of a brahmana, but he had not been born in the family of a brahmana; he had been born in a pratiloma family. According to the Vedic concept, there are two kinds of mixed family heritage. They are called anuloma and pratiloma. When a male is united with a female of a lower caste, the offspring is called anuloma; but when a male unites with a woman of a higher caste, the offspring is called pratiloma. Romaharsana Suta belonged to the pratiloma family because his father was a ksatriya and his mother a brahmana."

 

 

As to Vichitravirya, based on Mahabharata, he was not much of a kshatriya, but he was raised in a royal household.

The name Vicitra-virya literally means "amazingly heroic". But I suppose your whims of determining who was a real kshatriya and who wasn't are more substantial.

[Kulapavana]

 

By birth they were Suta caste, but by associating with saints they became pure and considered brahmanas.

 

are you saying that lower birth (pratiloma) is the same as varna sankara?

 

 

 

The name Vicitra-virya literally means "amazingly heroic". But I suppose your whims of determining who was a real kshatriya and who wasn't are more substantial.

 

he was so amazingly heroic that Bishma had to get him a wife.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

are you saying that lower birth (pratiloma) is the same as varna sankara?

Both words have the same literal meaning. Sankara means mixing. When the castes are improperly mixed it is known as varna-sankara.

 

Interestingly enough, even BBT books state the same thing (Hridayananda Goswami's commentary on 11.20.2 of Srimad Bhagavatam):

 

"Pratiloma indicates the combination of a superior woman with an inferior man. For example, the vaidehaka community consists of those born of a sudra father and brahmana mother, whereas the sutas are those born from a kshatriya father and a brahmana mother or from a sudra father and kshatriya mother. ... That such mixing of castes is not very much appreciated in the Vedic culture is demonstrated in the first chapter of Bhagavad-gita. Arjuna was very worried that the death of so many kshatriyas on the battlefield would lead to the mixing of superior women with inferior men, and on those grounds he objected to fighting."

 

This is directly in reference to Arjuna's use of the word varna-sankara. If you check where Hridayananda Goswami got this concept, you will find it is from other commentaries. It is not his own creation.

 

Srila Prabhupada's use of "unwanted progeny" for varna-sankara is another example of his genius. Srila Prabhupada was presenting the spiritual essence of the Gita in his Bhagavad Gita As It Is. If he translated it literally as "mixed caste", then 1000 questions would rise that needed to be answered before the reader could move on to the next verse. What is wrong with intercaste marriage... is caste based on birth... if caste is not based on birth then why would the mixed caste marriage be wrong... how does mixed caste marriage destroy society and lead to the degradation of religion, etc. Such questions would just divert the reader's mind from the essential spiritual message that needed to be conveyed by Srila Prabhupada.

 

Srila Prabhupada's purpose while writing the first chapter of Bhagavad Gita was not to minutely explain the Vedic caste clasifications and marriage customs. Rather than deal with all these external topics, he brushed them all aside by translating the word as "unwanted progeny", a concept that every westerner could immediately understand. Srila Prabhupada has done the same thing in his stating that Vichitravirya passed away while Dhritarashtra was still young. Rather than explain how Dhritarashtra's father could have passed away prior to his conception (a concept impossible in western thought), he translated the concept into an understandable form that perfectly conveyed the spiritual essence of the verse. What you see as Srila Prabhupada's mistake is actually his genius.

[Kulapavana]

 

Both words have the same literal meaning.

 

Interesting, thanks for the references. There are various ways these issues are addressed in the literature. If we look at all 4 verses in the Gita dealing with this subject (BG 1.39-42) it would seem that it clearly refers to children born outside a wedlock. Pratiloma marriages were both not common and not recommended, yet they were very much legal according to the Manu Samhita.

 

The word varna essentially means "group" or "population" and is even used in the Vedic algebra (aneka-varna). sankara is quite an obscure term. thus that combination can have all kinds of meanings.

[Guest guest]

 

What do you think about making changes in what Prabhupada wrote (e.g. changes in his translation or purport)?

 

Noone in their right mind should even change what that saintly person wrote unless he gave written & vocal permission. Unless, u can contact him. It has nothing to with him but it is immoral and it will not help his disciples enough. That person is not going to get too far with Vishnu present in the universe. Just publish a new book even on the same subject not with his name.

Advanced Vaisnavas' scholars can do much better on the subject; b/c there seems/are to be many flaws in his books but not his immense love for the Lord Krsna. He was never in illusion but always was & is a real devotee. Also, I am reading on the Web people started tampering with his works b/c probably they were not up their standards on the subject.

I don't know how anyone can go preaching around the world under God's mission like that and be false. If something bad is going on in some organization it is evidence that someone is behind/or not behind it and it was/is very likely not their fault.

Also, Christians have more devotion centers than all the religions combined. I don't know what is going on here. But that is not proof of anything other than that a false religion is very popular. Popularity is not proof of anything on regards to amt. of God work one did. Pretty much, we are going to be completely shocked in this area in regards to who did the MOST God work.

[Laulyam]

<CENTER>TEXT 86

 

</CENTER><CENTER>

bhrama, pramada, vipralipsa, karanapatava

arsa-vijna-vakye nahi dosa ei saba

</CENTER><CENTER>SYNONYMS

 

</CENTER>bhrama--mistakes; pramada--illusion; vipralipsa--cheating; karana-apatava--imperfectness of the senses; arsa--of the authoritative sages; vijna-vakye--in the wise speech; nahi--not; dosa--faults; ei--these; saba--all.

<CENTER>TRANSLATION

 

</CENTER>"Mistakes, illusions, cheating and defective perception do not occur in the sayings of the authoritative sages."

<CENTER>PURPORT

 

</CENTER>Srimad-Bhagavatam has listed the avataras, the plenary expansions of the purusa, and Lord Krsna appears among them. But the Bhagavatam further explains Lord Krsna's specific position as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Since Lord Krsna is the original Personality of Godhead, reason and argument establish that His position is always supreme.

Had Krsna been a plenary expansion of Narayana, the original verse would have been differently composed; indeed, its order would have been reversed. But there cannot be mistakes, illusion, cheating or imperfect perception in the words of liberated sages. Therefore there is no mistake in this statement that Lord Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Sanskrit statements of Srimad-Bhagavatam are all transcendental sounds. Srila Vyasadeva revealed these statements after perfect realization, and therefore they are perfect, for liberated sages like Vyasadeva never commit errors in their rhetorical arrangements. Unless one accepts this fact, there is no use in trying to obtain help from the revealed scriptures.

Bhrama refers to false knowledge or mistakes, such as accepting a rope as a snake or an oyster shell as gold. Pramada refers to inattention or misunderstanding of reality, and vipralipsa is the cheating propensity. Karanapatava refers to imperfectness of the material senses. There are many examples of such imperfection. The eyes cannot see that which is very distant or very small. One cannot even see his own eyelid, which is the closest thing to his eye, and if one is disturbed by a disease like jaundice, he sees everything to be yellow. Similarly, the ears cannot hear distant sounds. Since the Personality of Godhead and His plenary portions and self-realized devotees are all transcendentally situated, they cannot be misled by such deficiencies.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

In the interest of giving credit where credit is due, I believe the below passage has been modified from an essay by Mark Twain.

 

Of course, in the adaptation lies the adaptor's brilliance!!

 

 

Having chosen English as the preferred language in the worldwide community of devotees, the BBT editorial board commissioned a secret feasibility study on ways of improving Srila Prabhupada’’s books. This plan can now be revealed.

 

Linguists around the world have often pointed out that English spelling is unnecessarily difficult -- for example, cough, plough, rough, through and thorough. The BBT editors have determined that what is clearly needed is a phased programme of changes to iron out these anomalies. The programme would, of course, be administered by a committee staffed at the top level by career editors such as Jayadvaita Swami and Dravida Prabhu.

 

In the first year, for example, the committee would suggest using 's' instead of the soft 'c'. Sertainly, shange-vadis in all sities would resieve this news with joy. Then the hard 'c' could be replaced by 'k' since both letters are pronounsed alike. Not only would this klear up konfusion in the minds of BBT site workers, but keyboards kould be made with one less letter.

 

There would be growing enthusiasm when in the sekond year, it kould be annoused that the troublesome 'ph' would henseforth be written 'f'. This would make words like 'filosophy' twenty per sent shorter in print, which translates into big savings for the BBT publishers.

 

In the third year, akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reash the stage where more komplikated shanges are possible. The editors would enkourage the removal of double letters which have always been a deterent to akurate speling. And, we would al agre with the editors that the horible mes of silent 'e's in the language is disgrasful. Therefor we kould drop thes and kontinu to read and writ as though nothing had hapend.

 

By this tim it would be four years sins the skem began and peopl would be reseptiv to steps sutsh as replsing 'th' by 'z'. Perhaps zen ze funktion of 'w' kould be taken on by 'v', vitsh is, after al, half a 'w'. Shortly after zis, ze unesesary 'o' kould be dropd from words kontaining 'ou'. Similar arguments vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.

 

Kontinuing zis proses yer after yer, ve vud eventuli hav a reli sensibl riten styl. After tventi yers zer vud be no mor trubls or difikultis, and evrivun vud fin it ezi tu understand ech ozer.

 

Zen, ze drems of ze BT editrz vud finali hav kum tru!

[Laulyam]

Sri Krsna-samhita Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur

Chapter 8 Text 20

 

dhenukah sthula-buddhih syad

garddabhas tala-rodhakah

astame laksyate dosah

sampradaye satam mahan

 

Subtle discrimination is extremely important for Vaisnavas. Those who invent social distinctions and preach the unbreakable principles of Vaisnavism while breaking them to suit their needs are said to possess gross discrimination.This gross discrimination takes the form of the ass Dhenuka.The ass cannot eat the sweet palm tree fruits, and he opposes others' attemps to eat them.The purport is that the previous acaryas of the authorized sampradayas have written many spiritual literatures, which people with gross discrimination neither understand nor allow others to see. Asslike devotees who are simply interested in the regulative principles and under the control of gross discrimination are unable to attain a higher platform. Vaisnava principles are so unlimitedly exalted that those who simply remain entangled in the regulative process without endeavoring to understand the science of attachment are comparable to ordinary fruitive workers. Therefore, until the ass Dhenukasura is killed, one cannot advance in the science of Vaisnavism:smash: