more on changing Prabhupada's books

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Should Editorial Mistakes Be Held Sacred?

 

BY JAYADVAITA SWAMI

 

EDITORIAL, Jan 31 (VNN) — Should restoring Srila Prabhupada's words be condemned?

 

We're sorry to see yet another internet diatribe against the books published by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

 

According to the most recent assault, "we would be hard pressed to find anyone, anywhere, who would entertain the idea that, once published, an author's work may later be edited posthumously."

 

Hard pressed? To find out that this is baloney, one need only browse to, for example, the following web page.

 

There you'll find out why a very respected American publisher has indeed published "the corrected text"--corrected posthumously--of works by the great American novelist William Faulkner. The editors are scholars with integrity, and their editions of Faulkner's works aim (like the second edition of "Bhagavad-gita As It Is") at being more faithful to what the author originally wrote and intended. Quite likely, you'll find the sensible and reasonable notes by these scholars more enlightening than the sensationalistic and uninformed bashing of the second edition of "Bhagavad-gita As It Is."

 

By a fortunate coincidence, you'll find that those same scholarly notes point out an example of "bowdlerization" that helps us understand what the term properly means. To "bowdlerize" is not merely to edit but "to expurgate (a play, novel, or other written work) by removing or changing passages one considers vulgar or objectionable."

 

It is ironic, then, to find this word so viciously hurled against the edition that restores several words and passages bowdlerized out of the first edition of "Bhagavad-gita As It Is."

 

For example:

 

1.40: In his original manuscript, Srila Prabhupada said, "the women of the family become polluted." In the first edition, Srila Prabhupada's strong word "polluted" (vulgar? objectionable?) was tamed down to "corrupt." In the second edition, his original vivid word has been restored.

 

10.21: In his original dictation, Srila Prabhupada had something definite to say about the relationship between the moon and the stars. But perhaps it was considered scientifically objectionable. In the first edition, it was expurgated--entirely taken out. In the second edition, you'll find it restored.

 

10.42: In his original dictation, Srila Prabhupada (at the beginning of the second paragraph of his purport) pointed his transcendental finger at a well-known Indian mission: "There is a regular proponent of mission to advertise that one can worship any form of demigods and that will lead one to the Supreme Personality of Godhead or the Supreme Goal." In the first edition--expurgated. Second edition--restored.

 

11.52: In his original dictation, Srila Prabhupada ends the first paragraph of his purport by blasting the "foolish person" who offers respect not to Krsna but to the impersonal "something" within Krsna. But in the first edition, that blast (too strong?) has been deleted. In the second edition, restored.

 

16.7: Here's one that deserves a kindly chuckle. In the original text of the first paragraph, where Srila Prabhupada talks about cleanliness, he mentioned not only bathing, brushing teeth, and changing clothes but also "shaving." But in the first edition the reference to shaving (offensive to our then bearded editors?) was expurgated--shaved off. In the second edition-- restored.

 

Restoring such expurgated words from our founder-acarya is what is now vilified as "bastardization." You decide.

 

By the way, any modern edition of Shakespeare you might pick up (and you won't be hard pressed to find one) is edited. Thomas Bowdler's Shakespeare-aparadha was not that he edited but that he expurgated.

 

(Also by the way: If we're looking for an example in the Eastern tradition of an editor who worked after the departure of his authors, shall we start with Vyasadeva?)

 

The authors of diatribes would like us to believe that the principle of "arsa-prayog" enjoins that the mistakes of an acarya's editors should be held sacred. We find that assertion, well, weird.

 

Why?

 

For example, in the first edition (at the very end of the purport to 2.1) we find:

 

"This realization is made possible by working with the fruitive being situated in the fixed conception of the real self."

 

Ever had to explain that? The diatribe tells us that these are "the sacred, memorialized realizations of an exalted Acarya." But go ahead--try to make sense of it.

 

When we look in Srila Prabhupada's manuscript, we find that here's what he intended:

 

"This realization is possible when one works without attachment to fruitive results and is situated in the fixed conception of the real self."

 

Sensible, no? But supposedly "arsa-prayog" obliges us to glorify the acarya by preserving the goofs of his editors as if they were his own.

 

For numerous other examples, with the published editions and the original manuscripts side by side, please see

http://www.krishna.com/newsite/GitaRevsExplained.html.

 

The BBT, the Gita-bashing tells us, claims that the revisions and restorations in the second edition "are authorized merely because certain editors were permitted" to edit during Srila Prabhupada's lifetime "and because, at that time, Srila Prabhupada expressed a certain degree of confidence in their editorial ability."

 

"A certain degree," eh? How coy! The cagey wording surely reflects a knowledge of what Srila Prabhupada actually said:

 

"Concerning the editing of Jayadvaita Prabhu, whatever he does is approved by me. I have confidence in him."

(Letter to Radhavallabha, 7 September 76)

 

Like it or not, no "certain degree" is expressed. Rather, the endorsement is full-hearted and unreserved. (It's not my fault. His Divine Grace said what he said.) And editing, of course, is not something Srila Prabhupada merely "permitted," it's what he told us he wanted.

 

Our critic tells us, "What really strikes me is how unfortunate it is that there is need for this discussion at all."

 

And here we agree. The first edition of "Bhagavad-gita As It Is" is an excellent book. For those who prefer it, it's available. We publish it. And we would hope that those who prefer it would spend their valuable time reading it, rather than fomenting internet flame wars.

 

Srila Prabhupada used to say, "These books are not just for distributing, they're for reading." Perhaps in these days he might say, "These books are not just for criticizing. . . ."

 

If you're with a group that has a license to publish the first edition--if you're their lawyer, or whatever--publicize how great it is. Fine with us. But bashing the second edition (especially when you're someone who has promised us you won't) is--well, better I not say.

 

When we think about "sensitivity or knowledge of spiritual etiquette" regarding how to honor our acarya's sacred instructions, we'd be hard pressed to find evidence that what he'd want us doing is bickering in the public media. Did he ever say, "The lawyers should criticize the editors?"

 

The instruction I remember is "Your love for me will be tested by how you cooperate." And that's why, before publishing the second edition, we first consulted senior devotees and the GBC. Srila Prabhupada personally taught me what to do as his editor; he kindly expressed his confidence in me; and his personal secretary, writing on his behalf less than four months before Srila Prabhupada left, reconfirmed Srila Prabhupada's desire that "in the future any mistakes which are found" should be "rectified." Yet spiritual etiquette (and whatever spiritual sensitivity I had) told me I should take humble consultation from senior devotees around the movement, including the temple presidents, the sannyasis, and the members of the GBC.

 

I worked on both the first edition and the second (many of the first-edition blunders corrected in the second edition were my own), and I don't claim to be more than a fallen conditioned soul. But my small request would be this:

 

Whichever books you prefer, in a spirit of loving cooperation let us read Srila Prabhupada's books, live Srila Prabhupada's books, and distribute Srila Prabhupada's books, for our own benefit and the benefit of others.

 

Thank you. Hare Krsna.

 

Hoping this finds you in good health,

 

Your servant,

Jayadvaita Swami

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

My view is correct any obvious distortion or mistake by comparing it to the original manuscript. But don't try to make Srila Prabhupada's words clearer, don't try to explain things better, etc. Just keep it as close to the original as possible.

 

[livingentity]

I agree that the books should just be reverted back to Srila Prabhupada's original words. A lot of people came to Krishna Consciousness through Prabhupada's orginal works so where is the need to "correct". It is foolishness to think that you know how to say something better than the spiritual master.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

The problem with the debate is that each side presents only one side of the changes. There are two types of changins going on.

 

1) Corrections of editing mistakes, which can be verified against Prabhupada's original manuscript.

 

2) Improvements to grammar and language based on the editor's opinion.

 

Jayadvaita only presents the first point (avoiding discussing the second), as that is his strongest argument. The other side only attacks the second point, as that is an obvious weak point for Jayadvaita and avoids the first point (as most people will favour correcting past editing mistakes in favour of Srila Prabhupada's original dictation transcripts).

 

I am in favour of number one and against number two. But each side is saying all or none.

 

 

[livingentity]

I do not even see how anyone can consider number 2 at all. It is a gross offense to think that you are better than the spiritual master! Don't they even read what they are editing!!

[paul108]

 

Krishna attracted me to Srila Prabhupada's movement by showing me how his presentation of Bhagavad-gita is spiritually perfect. This was the 1983 edition. I am confident that the first edition is also of this same quality. Materially this 1983 edition also has errors, for instance I have found inconsistencies between the Devanagari and Roman with diacriticals, but our purpose is not to find material perfection (which is an oxymoron) but to find spiritual perfection. The fact that both editions can be transcendental although materially different increases my appreciation of Srila Prabhupada and the devotees who humbly serve him as editors.

 

Hare Krishna

[theist]

I agree Jndas, there are different kinds of changes happening and people have taken all or nothing positions and only presenting evidence supportive of their positions.

 

There is however a third dangerous type of change that is being proposed and I can only hope not brought into play (yet). The political correct crowd that proposes in essence that Prabhupada was a dear sweet old man that held on to old outdated concepts concerning woman's rights, homosexuality, racial attitudes etc.are becoming more vocal. They want to 'correct' Prabhupada's views for him and on his behalf.

 

People that take this position should be opposed vigorously at every turn. No compromise.

 

I believe the number two that Jndas listed has opened the door for this type of thought to creep in.

 

Jayadvaita Swami should make EVERY change, large or small, available to the reader. He has no right, no does anyone else, to expect blind faith from us in this regard.

 

Not understanding such protocol as to how that should be properly handled I can only say that it should be done. As it is now I'm not sure if I am reading Prabhupada or not. Jayadvaita can give up his defensive position and just publish all the changes. That is the only thing that will cause this to go away and silence his critics. An occasional article like the one above simply is not enough.

 

In the off chance that the Swami reads this I address this to him.

 

Jayadvaita Swami Maharaja, All Glories to Srila Prabhupada. Please accept my respects at your feet. I wish to thank you for all the service you have rendered to Srila Prabhupada all these decades. I have been the fortunate recipient of the incredible preaching efforts so many in ISKCON have rendered through these past years. A debt I can't repay. You as a leader have been especially prominent in this good fortune having come my way, undeserved by me.

 

This mercy has come in various forms, one form being Prabhupad's books which is like the maha-mantra to me in importance. When I first began reading Srimad-bhagavatam the only version available were those brought by His Divine Grace with him from India. His English was difficult for me to comprehend. Later editions were much improved in this regard due to the efforts of His trusted and competent disciples such as your goodself. Thank you.

 

But now with His Divine Grace no longer here to supervise any other changes(rather justified or not) I find that I am uncomfortable with the later editions. Changes that may be well motivated could change subtle meanings.Even just one misplaced word. You are highly educated and know this more than I. Yet as you have pointed out some changes are necessary. How though can we, in the general lay community, be expected to just accept these changes blindly? From our somewhat distant position how can we be sure? Srila Prabhupada condemned blind following.

 

I propose, as I'm sure others already have, that you simply publish ALL the changes that have occured and if possible with the rational behind the decision to make such changes. If the latter is too impractical then at least offer the original version juxtaopposed with the changes so that we may see for ourselves.

 

Is this asking too much? Was Thomas, the disciple of Christ asking too much, when he asked the resurrected Christ for proof? Perhaps, but Christ nonetheless showed the marks of the crucifixation and put the mind of Thomas to rest.

 

We ask for similar peace in this most important matter.

 

Please know that I am not challenging you with some arrogant

'gripes against ISKCON past' ghost guiding my hand. I met and spoke with you once at some length some ten years ago at a San Francisco raha-yatra and from that one meeting I still carry a feeling of great respect for you. I certinly don't expect you to remember that as indeed I am only a fig before you. I mention it now to explain why I feel that I can approach you, in my somewhat clumsy way, and express my honest feelings on the matter, as you gave me time then perhaps you will listen now.

 

Hare Krsna

Respectfully

y/s theist

 

[stonehearted]

theist, I don't think Jayadvata Swami is on these forums. I suggest that you submit your letter to him to VNN, Dipika and CHAKRA. He's more likely to see it if it appears on one of those forums, and I'm sure he would appreciate requests more reasonable than that he just go straight to Hell.

[Guest guest]

Some quotes by Prabhupada:

 

Yasodanandan: 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.

Yasodanandan: What is it going to be in five years? It's going to be a different book.

Srila 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. (Srila Prabhupada conversation, June 22, 1977, Vrindaban)

Srila Prabhupada: ... So you bring this to Satsvarupada. They cannot change anything. (Srila Prabhupada conversation, June 22, 1977, Vrindaban

 

 

Jayadvaita Swami seems to pass over these very direct statements by Prabhupada. Does he ever addess such comments?

 

Srila 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. (Srila Prabhupada conversation, June 22, 1977, Vrindaban)

[Guest guest]

from Jayadvaita Swami:

 

"There you'll find out why a very respected American publisher has indeed published "the corrected text"--corrected posthumously--of works by the great American novelist William Faulkner........"

 

 

It seems like a strange example, that it is ok to correct Prabhupada's books, because even respected authors like Faulkner get their books corrected after their death.

[Guest guest]

http://www.krishna.org/ISKCON/BookChanges/

 

[paul108]

After taking a brief look at the http://www.krishna.com/newsite/GitaRevsExplained.html page, I can't help but wish that I could read a complete bhagavad-gita transcript, as dictated by Srila Prabhupada. For instance, the page says that some of Srila Prabhupada's original words in the Introduction were, "There is one scriptures only," and "And there is one God for the whole world-Sri Krsna." Yet in both editions of Bhagavad-gita, it says "Let there be" in place of "There is." It seems like a big difference to me. "There is" is bold, authoritative; "Let there be" is like a plea, admitting that it is not yet true but would hopefully be in the future.

 

 

Hare Krishna

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

"There you'll find out why a very respected American publisher has indeed published "the corrected text"--corrected posthumously--of works by the great American novelist William Faulkner........"

 

 

It brings to mind some old classics by Mark Twain, which are grammatically full of thousands of errors. No one would dare touch them because those grammatical errors are part of the uniqueness of the book.

[stonehearted]

Guest:t seems like a strange example, that it is ok to correct Prabhupada's books, because even respected authors like Faulkner get their books corrected after their death.

 

stone: JS made this point because Gupta and others have asserted that it's not acceptable publishing practice to touch an author's work after he passes away. The NAL editing was done by a respected Faulkner scholar with the aim of bringing the texts closer to what Faulkner intended. Much of the editing done during his life he accepted (or went back and rewrote himself) so the work would get published. JS is analogizing that with the work he and Dravida have done. That's his point.

 

As far as anyone being bold enough to assert that they know more about English grammar (or other issues dealt with in editing) than their guru, that's actually a red herring. Srila Prabhupada specifically asked his disciples to serve him by using their expertise in English to improve the presentation of his books. To do so is submission, not hubris. That said, I'd point out that they did this (sometimes more than once) while Srila Prabhupada was present to supervise the work. What he approved should be good enough for us. (BTW, I'm still working out my position on this. My old dear friend Govinda dasi is into the campaign against JS and Dravida's work, and she has asked me to make my opinion public. I'll do so when I feel I've worked it out carefully. I think that, since I'm an old-time disciple who is an English professor and editor, to take a position prematurely would be asking for trouble.)

 

Overall, I think my position is pretty close to Jahnava-Nitai's. As someone who teaches writing and who has done prfessional editing, I think the editing that corrects earlier editing mistakes and brings the text closer to Srila Prabhupada's intentions, to the extent we can discern them, is probably fine. The other work is probably not necessary. I think we should honor all versions of Srila Prabhupada's books (including the Delhi Bhagavatams). All these books have the potency to turn us from sense gratification to considering surrendering to Krishna. My life was changed by the REAL original MacMillan Gita (the small abridged 1968 version) and the Delhi Bhagavatams. Those and TLC were all we had when I joined at the end of '69, beginning of '70. Ishopanishad came out (or at least came to Hawaii) shortly after I moved in, then paperback, chapter-at-a-time versions of SB 2nd Canto, NOD that summer, and Vol. 1 of Krishna at the end of the summer. But what turned my life around were those Delhi SBs and the abridged Gita. And have you tried reading the Delhi Bhagavatams aloud? My wife has been reading from our Vol. 3 in the mornings, and, frankly, she stumbles over the diction and syntax rather frequently.

[Guest guest]

from stonehearted:

 

As far as anyone being bold enough to assert that they know more about English grammar (or other issues dealt with in editing) than their guru, that's actually a red herring. Srila Prabhupada specifically asked his disciples to serve him by using their expertise in English to improve the presentation of his books.

 

my question:

 

Those who oppose changing or editing, or re editing(in the future) Prabhupada's books always have specific written statements from Prabhupada. Are there any letters or other writings by Prabhupada stating that certain diciples should edit or make changes "to improve the presentations of his books"?

 

Jayadvaita Swami passes over them, and you did not mention them in your reply, but how would you address such statements by Prabhupada as:

 

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. So you bring this to Satsvarupada. They cannot change anything. (Srila Prabhupada conversation, June 22, 1977, Vrindaban

[stonehearted]

"Concerning the editing of Jayadvaita Prabhu, whatever he does is approved by me. I have confidence in him."

(Letter to Radhavallabha, 7 September 76)

 

I've seen other references over the years. If I have time, I'll see if I can dig up more.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

"Concerning the editing of Jayadvaita Prabhu, whatever he does is approved by me. I have confidence in him."(Letter to Radhavallabha, 7 September 76)

 

 

We should note that the quote instructing his disciples not to change anything and to restore the original books came after this quote praising Jayadvaita Swami. Thus it holds precedence for the future and overturns any statements that may have authorized changes to take place.

 

To use this single quote as justification for changing Prabhupada's books 30 years after he has departed would be very bad. It seemed to be the only quote Jayadvaita Swami offered in support of his actions. In addition to this he did not explain the other quotes in a compatible way. Prabhupada's last editing decision was that the books should be restored.

[stonehearted]

jndas wrote: We should note that the quote instructing his disciples not to change anything and to restore the original books came after this quote praising Jayadvaita Swami. Thus it holds precedence for the future and overturns any statements that may have authorized changes to take place.

 

Babhru: It's not necessarily the case that a later instruction overturns all given previously. The ritvik party uses this assertion as part of their argument that a couple of things Srila Prabhupada said in 1977 supercede and cancel everything he said and wrote for years--and everything given by guru, sadhu, and shastra for centuries--that disciples are meant to become fit to act as guru. Ameyatma and some of the GHQ club who like polygamy say that a comment Prabhupada made that seemed to support this practice, if it was made later than all his implicit instructions that we not practice polygamy, cancels them all out. Their conclusion is that we can only satisfy Srila Prabhupada by making polygamy a central part of our attempts to establish daivi-varnashram.

 

I posted that quotation because an anonymous interlocutor asked, "Are there any letters or other writings by Prabhupada stating that certain diciples should edit or make changes "to improve the presentations of his books"?" Here was an excerpt from one such letter or writing. That's all. I certainly do not offer it as definitive proof that JS is right and Gupta is a demon.

 

I would suggest instead that we need to study the body of Srila Prabhupada's instructions in this regard (back to editing) and sort them out as best we can. It may well be that, after seeing what JS and company had done, his confidence in their work was finished. But I don't think we get the entire picture by using one or two selected quotations, regardless of their dates.

 

I think one thing we need to take into account is the effect of this editing on the devotees. If the work were limited to correcting pervisou editorial mistakes and simply trying to bring the books closer to Srila Prabhupada's actual intention, as well as that can be discerned, there may be less disturbance among the devotees. What we see, however, is widespread outrage, some of which is genuine and spontaneous, and some of which is fanned by devotees with another agenda. This is something which must be discussed carefully and as dispassionately as possible. That's my real point.

[theist]

shalagram-sila das

I think one thing we need to take into account is the effect of this editing on the devotees. If the work were limited to correcting pervisou editorial mistakes and simply trying to bring the books closer to Srila Prabhupada's actual intention, as well as that can be discerned, there may be less disturbance among the devotees. What we see, however, is widespread outrage, some of which is genuine and spontaneous, and some of which is fanned by devotees with another agenda. This is something which must be discussed carefully and as dispassionately as possible. That's my real point.

 

 

This is why full disclosure MUST be there. Otherwise these will track along for centuries. Scholars in the future will be looking arguing over these same questions with no real way to resolve them. It will only get worse in time. Faith will only be weakened.

 

Just release all information to the general body and remove all doubt. Let people decide for themselves. this should have been done as the changes were made or at least as the controversy first showed itself. This would all be behind us now.

 

Its not going away otherwise.

 

[stonehearted]

theist wrote: Scholars in the future will be looking arguing over these same questions with no real way to resolve them. It will only get worse in time. Faith will only be weakened.

 

Scholars will wrangle over whatever they can get their hands on until the fat lady sings. That's what they do, how they make their reputations and their living. As long as Kali has any sway, nothing will be resolved. This is the material world, after all. (Pop quiz: Which yuga is it? Question 2: what is the only, only, only way to overcome the influence of K--i?)

 

I don't have any argument with what you say. I don't think, though, that disclosing all there may be to disclose will make the controversy go away. What I've seen over the last 34 years is that some folks will find something to raise hell about rather than absorb themselves in hearing, chanting, etc. You got yer ritviks, yer poison-walls, yer book-changers, yer anti-book changers, yer Narayan-Maharaj-is-our-salvation vadis, yer Narayan-Maharaj-is-the-devil-incarnate vadis, and the rest of 'em. Maybe we should just put them all together in a room and let them slug it out. (Except--I'm friends with folks in each of these groups) In the meantime, I'm pushing 56, I've been trying to chant since 1969, and I'm still wrestling with material desires, family responsibilities, and more, and I hear the clok on the wall ticking ever more loudly. I gotta find the company of devotees who are actually interested in making spiritual progress and who can encourage me to get the hell out and share what Srila Prabhupada has given me. So far, I've found such company pretty rare. Most would prefer that I join them in their adjuct cause, the proponents of each of asserts that only if we do things THEIR way will we then be able to preach effectively.

[theist]

what you say is true. Arguments will always be there. But considering the importance Prabhupada placed on these books I think all things should be done in the open. If nothing else it will remove suspicion in the minds of many.

 

When I mentioned scholars I was thinking of the trouble now in Christianity that many trace back to the council of Nicocea(?) in 540(?)AD where they supposedly took reincarnation out of the picture etc.

 

If we don't have open records of what goes on we will have created something similar, if not in fact then at least in the minds of others.

 

You are not alone, Time has cornered me as well. What a good teacher and motivator death can be.

[Guest guest]

 

Should Editorial Mistakes Be Held Sacred?

BY JAYADVAITA SWAMI- "Should restoring Srila Prabhupada's words be condemned?"

 

From that first sentence in the editorial, it appears that Jayadvaita Swami is saying that people are condemning him because he is trying to restore Prabhupada's words. I thought it was just the opposite. I thought one group was putting out the original unedited books, because Jayadvaita Swami (and other editors?) had made changes in the original texts and purports, and some people were complaining about that.

 

Also, since you have been around for a number of years, do you know who the "they" were in the statement by Prabhupada:

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. So you bring this to Satsvarupada. They cannot change anything. (Srila Prabhupada conversation, June 22, 1977, Vrindaban

 

Is the "they" refering to Jayadvaita Swami or maybe to others?

[stonehearted]

It was the Council of Nicea.

 

The controversies you fear will come; don't doubt it.

[stonehearted]

"guest" writes: Also, since you have been around for a number of years, do you know who the "they" were in the statement by Prabhupada:

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. So you bring this to Satsvarupada. They cannot change anything. (Srila Prabhupada conversation, June 22, 1977, Vrindaban

 

Is the "they" refering to Jayadvaita Swami or maybe to others?

 

Babhru: My guess would be whoever was was on the BBT's editorial staff at that time. I would gues that it included Jayadvaita and Dravida. However, I lived on Maui at the time. Actually, I lived almost exclusively in Hawaii from 1967-1984. As such, I was not at all privy to any inside scoops on what was going on anywhere else. We didn't have email and the Internet then, and most of us could not afford to make very amny long-distance phone calls. Although I had a desire to work with the BBT or Back to Godhead back then, the fact that I was married and was responsible for a wife and child made it unlikely that I could participate like that.

 

Sorry I can't help more. It may be more productive to ask an ISKCON insider.

[theist]

Of course we what every little change made public, but I think that may be coming. This is certainly a move in the right direction.

 

-----------------

 

 

80 New Examples Of Gita Revisions Online

 

BY JAYADVAITA SWAMI

 

EDITORIAL, Feb 5 (VNN) — What's all this hooha about the second edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is? What was done? Is it really "as it is"?

 

Now, online, you can see more than 80 newly posted examples that answer those questions. The examples show the published versions side by side with the text of the original manuscripts.

 

These new examples join the more than 70 others already on the site. (The examples posted before are now "Part 2," and the new examples are in "Part 1.")

 

This is now by the far the largest collection online--and the only one that shows you the original manuscripts.

 

The graphic format of the web makes it easy to see at a glance what the revisions are and where they're coming from.

 

Also included are a sound file of Srila Prabhupada and three images from the manuscripts. (Check out the one from Chapter 7, Text 18.)

 

It's all at this address:

 

http://www.krishna.com/newsite/GitaRevsExplained.html

 

For anyone who has concerns about the editing of "Bhagavad-gita As It Is," this is a must-see.