more on changing Prabhupada's books

[stonehearted]

theist wrote: 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.

 

Yes, I think it may indicate some progress; perhaps he's becoming a little more sensitive to devotees' feelings about the changes. Ultimately, he and Dravida will probably have to account for every change. We may end up with a variorum edition of all of Srila Prabhupada's books. That should keep them busy for a while.

[stonehearted]

www.adi-vani.org

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Book Changes: A Dangerous Precedent

 

BY BHAKTISIDDHARTHA DASANUDAS

 

Hare Krsna!

 

I have been a devotee since 1967, and joined ISKCON in Miami in 1971. In 1974 I served as a proofreader for Srila Prabhupada's Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila Vol. 6, 7 & 8, and as comprehension editor on Antya-lila, Vols. 2 & 3. From 1980 to 2000 I worked as a technical editorial consultant in the IT field, writing and publishing many articles, books and websites on technical subjects. I also published many temple newsletters and fund-raising pieces at ISKCON temples from Bombay to Chicago. More recently I published my own books on spiritual subjects: Here Be Wisdom, Sri Visnusahasranama, Sri Nrsimhasahasranama, The Book of Gethsemane, and Search for the Absolute Truth. At present I am editing some of Srila Narayana Maharaja's translations of the books of the Six Gosvamis. So I do have some acquantance with literary work.

 

I find Jayadvaita's attitude inexplicable. In spiritual life, if many senior devotees and Godbrothers make critical comments about our service, we are duty-bound to accept them politely and consider them seriously, in light of the fact that we know that we are imperfect and full of flaws. Jayadvaita's arrogance is rather non-devotional. He belittles his critics and uses ad hominem arguments against them. He refuses to acknowledge that he may have any fault at all. This arrogance is not the soft-hearted, humble attitude of an advanced devotee.

 

Jayadvaita conveniently overlooks the second definition of bowdlerizing, which is extant in any fine dictionary, especially the Oxford unabridged edition, which is the standard dictionary Srila Prabhupada used in his literary work. Perhaps Jayadvaita is unaware of this fact, and referred to a less complete dictionary. Besides denoting expurgation, bowdlerizing can also refer to any unauthorized editing, especially to alter the doctrine or philosophy expressed by a work. This usage certainly applies to Jayadvaita's Gita, in which he has altered the original meaning of many passages.

 

Then he compares his editorial work with Srila Vyasadeva's division of the Vedas. Please, we all know that Vyasadeva is an incarnation of God, and all of us are neophytes. But that is no excuse for being unaware of the standards of our sampradaya. There is really no precedent in our sampradaya for posthumous, unapproved changes to an acarya's books. If a devotee needs to clarify a previous acarya's work for the understanding of his contemporaries, he writes a separate tika and appends it to the original work, leaving the previous acaryas' commentaries unchanged. This is the accepted practice in the Gaudiya-sampradaya. One wonders from Jayadvaita's attitude whether he considers himself bound by the literary conventions of the Gaudiya-sampradaya, or fancies himself an independent authority.

 

This controversy is a prime example of what can happen when we detach ourselves from regulation by superior authorities, and adopt the ascending method of attempting to attain self-realization by our own efforts. While the original edition of Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad-gita As It Is was produced under the author's careful personal guidance, Jayadvaita worked independently without the benefit of accepting the personal guidance of a self-realized pure devotee. The difference in tone and contrast in content is self-evident.

 

Just as a raging forest fire cannot be extinguished except by a downpour of mercy rain, we cannot realize Krsna consciousness except by the mercy of previous authorities, the perfectly self-realized acaryas. Although Jayadvaita has sung this hymn every morning since he joined ISKCON, it appears not to have sunk in, since he relied on his own strength instead of approaching senior Gaudiya Vaisnava authorities for advice and guidance in preparing his Gita.

 

In my experience, Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad-gita As It Is is a rich, multidimensional work, its satisfyingly substantial paragraphs resonating with poetic language and redolent with the fragrance of carefully guarded references to the adi-rasa, or Krsna's pastimes of conjugal love. There is one confidential conversation that Srila Prabhupada had with Srila Sridhar Maharaja during the period of his household life, where Srila Prabhupada reveals his realization of these veiled esoteric references in Bhagavad-gita.

 

Jayadvaita's work not only completely misses, and in fact obscures this recodnite point, but also his edition of the Gita reads very flat, as if it were a technical work on philosophy instead of a disciple's sensitive rendition of an ecstatic devotional poem. While there is everything to be said for clear phrasing and standardized terminology in an analytical work, Jayadvaita's Gita is far the less for his editorializing. No matter how acceptible it may be to scholars and the general public, bhakti covered by jnana or karma is not accepted as pure devotional service by authorities in our line.

 

In the final analysis, we must judge by the results. Srila Prabhupada left us an expanding preaching field with booming book distribution. Twenty-five years after his apparent disappearance, book distribution is devastated. After so many scandals, the general public regards even the words 'Hare Krsna' with disdain. Srila Prabhupada presided over a dynamic, expansive worldwide association. But now ISKCON has shrunk to the point where there are more deities than devotees at many centers, and recently the North American temples declared bankruptcy. How would Srila Prabhupada respond to this news?

 

The original edition of Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad-gita As It Is convinced many people, myself included, that ISKCON was a serious, spiritually-empowered movement with a philosophy that is at once ecstatic and profound. During the time that Jayadvaita's edition of the Gita has been distributed around the world, we have seen a dramatic deflation of everything Srila Prabhupada worked for and achieved. I think this is sufficient evidence to convince any clear-thinking persion that the general trend in ISKCON, of which Jayadvaita's Gita happens to be a prime example, has been against the thrust of Srila Prabhupada's original intention.

 

Fortunately, by the arrangement of Krsna, Srila Prabhupada's original Bhagavad-gita As It Is is again in print. We will see how well Jayadvaita's changed edition fares in the open marketplace against the original empowered, authorized and approved work. It would be far more honest if Jayadvaita would just publish his editorial work under his own name. He is a fine editor; he's just not a pure devotee on the level of Srila Prabhupada. His edition reflects this fact clearly, but from his comments and attitude, one wonders if he realizes this fact.

 

All glories to Sri Guru and Gauranga,

 

your servant,

 

Bhaktisiddhartha Dasanudas

[theist]

These are the type of changes that I find worrisome.From an article by Adridhana Dasa located here:

 

http://krishna.org/Articles/2000/07/00028.html

 

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

 

 

Some time back many devotees had noticed that the new 9 Volume edition of the Caitanya Caritamrta had made a deliberate change from Srila Prabhupada's original version, not unlike the one made by Bhakti Caru Swami mentioned earlier. Srila Prabhupada's Caitanya Caritamrta states the following:

 

"Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura accepted Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji, who *initiated* Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who in turn initiated Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji"

 

(C:C, Chapter 1)

 

In the new BBT doctored 9-volume edition, the same passage reads:

 

"Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura accepted Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji, the spiritual master of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who in turn accepted Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji"

 

In other words it has been decided that contrary to what Srila Prabhupada states, Jagannatha Das Babaji did not really INITIATE Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura after all. Now the reason for the BBT changing Srila Prabhupada's teaching here is very significant since the GBC maintain that the relationship between Jagannatha Das Babaji and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura was based not on 'formal initiation' but rather only on the transmission of transcendental knowledge'. Once it is accepted that the transmission of divine transcendental knowledge ALONE constitutes INITIATION - then the objections made by the GBC to the Ritvik system of initiation crumble, since Srila Prabhupada could also *initiate* us with transcendental knowledge.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

A Time For Substance, Not Fluff

 

BY GUPTA DAS

 

The recent public relations piece, A Response to an Unfortunate Article, fails to address the substantive spiritual issues underlying the post-disappearance rewrite of the 1972 Bhagavad-Gita As It Is, as described in Should Srila Prabhupada's Books Be Changed?

 

By sidestepping the pivotal issue of the lack of authority to make post-disappearance changes to the books of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the spiritual myopia which has severely eclipsed the presentation of Srila Prabhupada's vani for many years has only become all the more evident.

 

Certainly the burden of proof rests with the editors to show unequivocal evidence of spiritual authority to make even the smallest post-disappearance editorial change to the published works of His Divine Grace. And it should come as no surprise that such a weighty burden cannot rationally be met by merely presenting glowing references from other paycheck editors. Nor can that burden be met by noting the confidence which Srila Prabhupada expressed about a particular editor prior to the time that the same editor began his post disappearance word surgery on Srila Prabhupada's already published works.

 

Moreover, while the editors would like to convince the world that a necessary and pure editorial revision of a defective 1972 Gita has taken place, it has not escaped notice that, in fact, the 1983 Gita was actually a complete rewrite of the 1972 edition based on unauthenticated transcriptions mixed with editorial notes (the so-called manuscript), but only when available (many were reportedly lost). Yet, one version had already been used by Hayagriva to accomplish the original editing of the 1972 edition of the Gita which Srila Prabhupada approved and published.

 

In other words, the 1983 edition represents Jayadvaita Swami's priggish rendition of the Gita in the same way that the 1972 edition represents Hayagriva's flowing, poetic style; the critical difference being that Hayagriva was commissioned to edit pursuant to the explicit spiritual authority and under the direct, almost daily, supervision of Srila Prabhupada -- whereas Jayadvaita Swami's post-disappearance rewrite suffers from both a lack of explicit authority as well as an absence of direct supervision by the original author.

 

Plainly said: Srila Prabhupada chose Hayagriva to edit, Jayadvaita chose himself.

 

While it is not generally known, for two years Srila Prabhupada sat with Hayagriva and patiently transformed His intimate realizations into a level of refined expression onto which He then comfortably placed His name. The resulting literary expression was the wondrous 1972 Bhagavad-Gita As It Is. And it was this very same book that Srila Prabhupada personally approved as his authorized edition, which he read from in private and in public for over half a decade while correcting only three words. This very same book was distributed far and wide around the globe to the tune of millions of copies while the author received accolades from scholars all over the world as he reached out through his vani to make literally thousands of devotees and tens of thousands of admirers and followers! Why would anyone risk making even the smallest change to this wondrous transcendental book?

 

Faced with these facts, the editors traditionally trot out a few dozen verses in order to skew opinion. Sure we all want the right purport printed under the right translation. And no one should have to read "planet of the trees" when we know it's something else. But, with the most serious deception, it's not what is said, it's what is not said that is the defining event. And what is not being admitted by the editors is that literally hundreds if not thousands of wholly unnecessary stylistic and substantive changes were made. Word by word, line by line, sentence by sentence, purport by purport; the cumulative result of which is that the mood and style of Srila Prabhupada's 1972 approved book has been morphed, so to speak, into an entirely different book which Srila Prabhupada never approved.

 

Muddling the matter even further, the editorial camp has now web posted typed transcriptions of numerous Gita verses, yet refuses to make the actual documents available. And here's why: on the actual documents one will find (in addition to typed, transcribed words), copious editorial notes which were hand written by various editors. And, confusing the issue even more, there is no documentation available to either authenticate who made those editorial notes, or to verify exactly when those notes were made. How anyone could base a rewrite of Srila Prabhupada's authorized, approved and published 1972 Bhagavad-Gita As It Is on such a flimsy (and in some instances, non existent) paper trail is as absurd as it is painful.

 

Thus, regardless of the version of the editor's notes used to produce the 1983 rewrite, there remains to this day a 'For Their Eyes Only' document which is privately held by the same editor who apparently now expects the entire Vaishnava community to blindly accept his personal interpretation of these selectively disclosed words and hidden editorial notes! Need I say, this is the same editor who for many years just as vehemently denied the legal existence of Srila Prabhupada's heart, the BBT, until it was expensively proven otherwise.

 

In any event, whether the transcription and notes are available or not, the 1983 rewrite of the Gita was neither authorized nor supervised by the author. Comparing the 1972 Gita to questionable transcriptions and editorial notes should never lead to a post disappearance rewrite, regardless of how brilliant or expert an editor may appear to be.

 

In what should be the final analysis, the 1972 Bhagavad-Gita As It Is was, and is, Srila Prabhupada's authorized final edition. Historical tradition, spiritual etiquette and common ethics demands that post-disappearance notes by commentators and adjustments by editors to an acarya's published works be placed in an appendix or a separate tika, leaving the original, published, authorized and approved work unchanged. This process preserves the spiritual integrity of the authorized, approved and published work.

 

The conclusion is therefore quite clear: it is the unsanctioned tampering with the authorized, approved and published adi-vani of His Divine Grace -- not the fact that many have pointed it out -- which is unfortunate.

 

With regards,

 

Gupta das

Joseph Fedorowsky

lawyer@oxfordlaw.com

gupta@krishnabooks.org

 

________________

 

"Therefore we are presenting Bhagavad Gita as it is. No change. Other they are interpreting in their own way. That is not Bhagavad-Gita. That is something else. In the words of God there is no question of changing. You cannot change. As soon as you make a change, immediately it is material; it has nothing to do with spiritual world." - Srila Prabhupada Room Conversation on August 5, 1976.

 

"If you concoct, 'I am more intelligent than my Guru,' 'I can make additions and alterations,' then you are finished." -- Srila Prabhupada lecture on July 12, 1975 in Philadelphia Pa.

[Gupta]

Posted to www.adi-vani.org

February 12, 2003

========================

The Early Days

by Govinda dasi

 

A number of devotees attended the recent (January 2003) series of meetings in Hawaii on the book changes. Jayadvaita Maharaja attended the first two meetings, and Nischintya Prabhu attended the third one (Jayadvaita Maharaja was out of town). I attended all three meetings and believe that much was accomplished. Many valuable points were gleaned from these sessions—both inspiring as well as grueling. These meetings are being transcribed, and are available on adi-vani.org for those who are interested.

 

We held the meetings in Srila Prabhupada’s room at New Navadvipa Dham, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada Memorial Tirtha (the Honolulu ISKCON temple), where Srila Prabhupada lived, worked and translated his books. His presence is very strong at our Hawaii temple. We all prayed for Srila Prabhupada’s divine presence at these meetings, and humbly requested that he inspire us to reach understandings based on his transcendental viewpoints, rather than our own limited ones. In my heart, I feel that Srila Prabhupada has urged me to speak out on this issue. I usually do not get involved in controversial matters unless the issue is of great importance. And the issue of Srila Prabhupada’s books, in my opinion, is of paramount importance. I have had many realizations and wish to share them here.

 

First, it seems that Jayadvaita Maharaja takes this matter too personally. This is not about his writing or editing talents. He should understand that we are not challenging his writing or editing abilities. He is a good writer and editor, and can write and edit any number of books that will be both useful and beneficial to the world.

 

Nevertheless, he should not take the liberty of changing what Srila Prabhupada has already written, approved, signed off on, published and spoken from. This is inappropriate by any standard. Call it arsa-prayoga, bowdlerizing or common sense; we just don’t change the words or writings of our guru. It is a spiritual issue, not a mundane one. We cannot ‘improve’our guru’s words, and if we think we can, it’s ‘mundane vision.’

 

This is not an issue for mere scholarly debate; this is a sacred issue, the very heart of our Guru Maharaja. His books are his heart, his gift to the world; they should not be criticized, decimated, undervalued or above all,

changed to suit the tastes of scholars or revisionists. To even consider doing so betrays the consciousness of ‘I am on the same level as my guru; I can improve his work, and I can even do better.’ This is a dangerous position.

 

Srila Prabhupada worked closely with his editor Hayagriva on Bhagavad-gita As It Is from 1966 through 1968. Hayagriva worked with Srila Prabhupada in New York in 1966. He came from New York to San Francisco in late 1966 or early 1967 to continue working with Srila Prabhupada at the San Francisco temple. Hayagriva was already at the San Francisco temple when I first met Srila Prabhupada in early 1967.

 

A year later, in early 1968 my husband and I were living in Los Angeles with Srila Prabhupada. His Gita was soon to be published by Macmillan. I worked on the cover picture for the Gita, which originally was a detailed drawing of the virat-rupa (universal form) of the Lord, with many arms and Arjuna kneeling beside Him. This is what Srila Prabhupada wanted. In spring 1968, we flew to New York with Srila Prabhupada. We met with the publishers and editors at the Macmillan office to discuss the cover art and submit the cover picture. Cover art is a late step in the production of a book. This means that the unabridged Bhagavad-gita was already complete and ready to go to press in late 1967 or early 1968.

 

We were in negotiations with Macmillan about the size and content of the book. During the negotiations, Macmillan explained that they felt there was too much repetition in the book, and they wanted to cut down the purports. Macmillan was paying the cost of publishing, so they had the final say. Srila Prabhupada was not happy with this proposal, but he wanted to get his book in print, so he agreed to it. He hoped to get the complete book in print later. The fact that the abridged edition sold well demonstrated a viable market for the book. Thus in 1972, Macmillan printed Srila Prabhupada’s full, unabridged edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is.

 

Therefore, it was not Hayagriva, but Macmillan who was responsible for cutting down the size of the book. They also changed the cover art to a solitary four-armed form of Visnu. Macmillan, not Hayagriva, edited the abridged edition from the original complete edition. This all took place by mid-1968.

 

So actually, Srila Prabhupada’s unabridged Bhagavad-gita As It Is—later published in 1972—was already complete by early 1968. If Macmillan had agreed to publish it then, the unabridged edition would have gone to press in early 1968—before Jayadvaita Maharaja became a devotee around mid-1968. My point is that all the editorial decisions for Bhagavad-gita As It Is must have been made before Jayadvaita Maharaja even joined ISKCON. Therefore, Jayadvaita Maharaja cannot possibly know the extent of Srila Prabhupada’s and Hayagriva’s collaboration on Bhagavad-gita As It Is. For example, how can we think that, as Jayadvaita Maharaja asserts, Hayagriva chose the phrase ‘the Blessed Lord said’ independently from Srila Prabhupada’s instructions?

 

In the early days of the movement, we were like a close family. We personally discussed everything with our spiritual master, Srila Prabhupada. Every detail of every book was personally directed and overseen by Srila

Prabhupada. As some devotees know, I was Srila Prabhupada’s secretary and servant from late 1967 to early 1969. My husband and I lived and traveled with Srila Prabhupada extensively during that time. While with Srila Prabhupada in early 1968, I did the cover drawing for the first Macmillan Gita, the small blue-violet edition. We were living in a large apartment in LA, and Srila Prabhupada would come shuffling down the hall in his house slippers and into my art room, look over my shoulder at the work in progress, and offer many suggestions. He oversaw my drawings for Teachings of Lord Caitanya at that time also. He described in detail, for example, how the interior of Jagannath Puri temple looked, how the priest was sitting on the edge of the altar receiving the garlands to offer to the Lord, how the lighting inside the temple room looked, etc. Srila Prabhupada personally described and watched over the development of each drawing. He conceived of each work in all its details, and we simply carried them out according to his instructions.

 

Srila Prabhupada worked very closely with his editors and artists on his books. In late 1968 we were living in Los Angeles in the Hayworth Street apartment with Srila Prabhupada. I was transcribing Nectar of Devotion and Caitanya-caritamrta. Hayagriva came to visit from the East Coast, stayed with us for several weeks and spent many hours working with Srila Prabhupada in his room. Srila Prabhupada certainly discussed every single facet and aspect of the editorial work with Hayagriva. I have many old notebooks filled with notes from my daily letter writing and editing sessions with Srila Prabhupada. It is likely that Hayagriva also filled notebooks during his editing sessions as well, and later incorporated these notes in editing Srila Prabhupada’s books.

 

In those early days, there was no worldwide movement, no BBT, no sannyasis, no GBC, no money and no politics. There was simply lots and lots of spiritual love for Srila Prabhupada. He taught us that love is the basis, not ambition, achievement and accomplishment. It’s not what you do for Krsna, but how you do it—with what consciousness. There was just Srila Prabhupada and his family of devotees, and we worked on the books together. Srila Prabhupada certainly oversaw the specific details of the artwork, and he had plenty of time to oversee the writing and editing as well.

 

My point here is that we are assuming a lot if we think that Srila Prabhupada didn’t know what was going on with his books. He was directly involved with supervising every aspect of book production, both externally and internally. There is an esoteric spiritual side of this—he was working through us willing disciples, empowering us with his ‘Midas touch.’ His bhakti infused everything he touched, and we willing servants were simply vehicles for his mercy to shine through. We were not the doers; we were only Srila Prabhupada’s instruments. Our only qualification was our sincerity, and our simple desire to serve: not to become great ourselves, but to put forth the greatness of our guru. That was our driving desire.

 

Jayadvaita Maharaja says that he changed the Bhagavad-gita to be more in keeping with the ‘original manuscript.’ I question which manuscript, since nearly two years of editing by Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva had already taken place before Jayadvaita even joined the movement. There certainly were many working drafts and manuscripts in various stages of editing, since Srila Prabhupada spent many hours, weeks and months going over every detail of every single verse of the Gita with Hayagriva. Jayadvaita Maharaja confirmed this in the second Hawaii . meeting: there is no one ‘original manuscript.’

 

A writer usually prepares several working drafts before the final draft is polished and sent to press. For example, I made several drafts of this letter, correcting spelling, grammar and style. The first drafts are in my trash bin. I am signing this, the final draft, for publication. If someone took an earlier draft out of my trash bin and published it, I would be greatly annoyed. Similarly, Srila Prabhupada’s signature is on the final draft of the complete Bhagavad-gita As It Is (completed in 1968 but not published until 1972), not on any so-called ‘original manuscripts’ Jayadvaita Maharaja may possess. To assume that Srila Prabhupada was not watching over and scrutinizing this whole process is absurd. His books were most important to him. He knew both internally and externally what was going into his books, and he signed and sealed the work when it was completed to his satisfaction and ready to go to press.

 

And how is it that Krsna sent Hayagriva—a poetry professor—to Srila Prabhupada? Srila Prabhupada chose Hayagriva to edit the Bhagavad-gita, a poetic work, the ‘Song of God.’ Hayagriva just happened to be a college professor of English literature specializing in the early transcendental poets like Thoreau, Emerson and Yeats. Is this all just ‘chance?’

 

Books go through several stages of editing on their way from first draft to being ready to go to press. Usually, different editors with appropriate backgrounds, qualifications and skill levels perform these different stages of editorial work. The ‘original manuscripts’ excerpted on Jayadvaita Maharaja’s website defending his changes to Bhagavad-gita As It Is clearly have received spelling and grammatical edits. It is obvious to the trained

eye of an experienced editor that they are ready for the next stage, the style edit. Srila Prabhupada engaged Hayagriva, a highly trained and qualified English writer, poet and editor, as a comprehension and style editor to give Bhagavad-gita As It Is a poetic, flowing, readable style acceptable to the widest audience as well as the most highly educated class of intelligent readers.

 

Srila Prabhupada came from Krsna-loka to “write some books.” He was happy with those books; he read and re-read them from cover to cover. His books were always kept within his reach in any room in which he stayed. When he received a new book from the press, he would sit and read it for hours, and when someone would enter the room, he would lift his eyes from the text, smile broadly and exclaim, “How wonderful these books are!”

 

Certainly, the few typos that slipped through needed Srila Prabhupada’s correction, but the scope of alterations in Jayadvaita Maharaja’s edited version is far broader. Jayadvaita Maharaja’s version of Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita doesn’t just correct typos; it also succeeds in changing Srila Prabhupada’s mood, style and often, his meaning. Indeed, after Srila Prabhupada’s departure, the original Bhagavad-gita was rewritten to suit the taste of the editors, on the plea that it is closer to—in Jayadvaita Maharaja’s opinion—the 'original manuscript.’ But Jayadvaita Maharaja stated in the second book changes meeting in Hawaii that there were many ‘original manuscripts’ of varying quality and content. There is no one ‘original manuscript.’

 

In this case, any changes are really unreasonable, when you consider that Srila Prabhupada had the original manuscripts in hand, but chose to sign off on the edited version. Why didn’t he just choose to print one of those manuscripts? Why did he, instead, spend hundreds of hours with Hayagriva, editing his manuscript to flow beautifully in the English language?

 

Moreover, why would Srila Prabhupada sign it and gift it to the world, if he intended that future editors would dig up some so-called ‘original manuscripts’ and try to change it back to the ‘original.’ It is unreasonable to consider that Srila Prabhupada would intend to give up the results of two years of editing the book with Hayagriva and go backwards to the ‘original manuscripts.’

 

Srila Prabhupada’s books were transcendental when he wrote, edited and approved them, and they became the foundation of his International Society for Krishna Consciousness. So how can anyone say that they aren’t transcendental now? He spoke from the original 1972 edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is for over half a decade, giving hundreds of classes on nearly every verse and chapter. Srila Prabhupada infused his books with his pure bhakti. ‘Errors’ or no errors, they are, and continue to be, transcendental portals to the spiritual world. That is, unless someone views them with ‘mundane vision.’

 

When Jayadvaita Maharaja presents his rationale for editing Srila Prabhupada ’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is to the public, he quotes a few passages from Bhagavad-gita As It Is that are obviously confusing, and claims, “these need to be changed.” For example, he cites “planet of the trees” [bg. 1972 edition 10.24 P] and “cattle raising” [bg. 1972 edition 18.44 T]. He uses these isolated examples to justify his wholesale rewriting of the entire Gita. Perhaps no one would object if Jayadvaita Maharaja had noted those few changes authorized by Srila Prabhupada in footnotes or an addendum, instead of making sweeping, unauthorized editorial changes to virtually the entire book. If he feels there are confusing aspects, or as he himself is fond of putting it, “goofs” in Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is, then these portions can be selected and clarified in a published addendum or series of footnotes without changing the meaning of any other part of the book.

 

Krsna sent Srila Prabhupada an army—perhaps it was an army of monkeys and bears, but each and every one was sent to Srila Prabhupada for a specific task or purpose. Hayagriva’s task was editing Bhagavad-gita and other books. He began work in 1966 and worked closely with Srila Prabhupada through 1968. My tasks were different. I was in my fourth year of college when I met Srila Prabhupada, so perhaps I was materially qualified to edit Srila Prabhupada’s books, but that was not the job given to me. Srila Prabhupada had already chosen his Bhagavad-gita editor: Hayagriva. I was given other tasks, to illustrate the cover of the first Macmillan Gita, the early Back to Godhead magazines and Teachings of Lord Caitanya. In 1968 and 1969, I served Srila Prabhupada by transcribing Nectar of Devotion and Caitanya-caritamrta. I also served by taking daily dictation for his numerous letters during my time of being Srila Prabhupada’s servant and secretary from late 1967 to early 1969. It was not necessarily a question of mundane qualification. We were the army Krsna sent to Srila Prabhupada, and he, our General, used us according to his divine vision.

 

Jayadvaita Maharaja was later engaged as a BBT editor, along with others, and Srila Prabhupada much appreciated his editing work. But this fact does not give him blanket authority or license to rewrite Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is after his departure. Srila Prabhupada trusted me to transcribe and edit his letters daily, but I vertainly don’t assume now that I have any right to go in and edit or change his letters!

 

Therefore, once Srila Prabhupada was satisfied, he signed the letter or book, and at that point it must be seen as a finished work. No one should touch it. You may ask, “Shall we leave the typos?” but that’s not the issue. Jayadvaita Maharaja has rewritten the whole book according to some manuscripts that he believes to be the original—and which Srila Prabhupada did not choose to print. Rather, in both 1968 and 1972 Srila Prabhupada chose to print the edited version, not a manuscript.

 

The overriding fact is that Srila Prabhupada never told Jayadvaita Maharaja or anyone else to edit his books after he left. I repeat, Srila Prabhupada never gave Jayadvaita Maharaja or anybody authority to edit or change his books after his departure. Instead, he said, “Print the books the original way.” By late 1976, he was acutely aware of the 'American disease’ of compulsively changing things, so he chose the safest route to protect his books: “NO CHANGES.”

 

Not only was Jayadvaita Maharaja not given authority to edit Srila Prabhupada’s books, he also did not obtain the blessings of Srila Prabhupada ’s disciples. Yes, the GBC did resolve by a one-vote margin to approve Jayadvaita Maharaja’s proposal to edit Bhagavad-gita As It Is. But what about the opinion of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples? The great majority of them either left or were pushed out of ISKCON in the years following Srila Prabhupada’s departure. Were they consulted? And when they discovered the massive changes to Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is, many complained, but their voices were not heard or acknowledged.

 

After Srila Prabhupada left in 1977, a decade of confusion ensued. Many mistakes were made and many wrongs committed. For all practical purposes, Srila Prabhupada was pushed aside. His books were then edited in this post-disappearance era, when the mood in ISKCON was, “We can do better than Srila Prabhupada.” Time has proven otherwise.

 

How will history view this era? They will likely see it as the ‘Dark Ages’ of ISKCON. Fifty years from now, all the players and characters will be dead and forgotten, even the ‘big, important leaders.’ But Srila Prabhupada and his original books will remain as a beacon to light the path of human society for the next 10,000 years.

 

Our duty as disciples of Srila Prabhupada is to see that his original words, his adi-vani, are not lost to time and to repeated changes by editors, as was the Bible. We must speak out—while we are still present in this world. For the future welfare of the world we must leave a wide mark so that historians will know for certain which of the editions of Bhagavad-gita As It Is was actually authorized by Srila Prabhupada.

 

If one unauthorized edition can reach such a wide audience, how many future versions can we expect to be printed bearing Srila Prabhupada’s signature? Surely in a few years, someone will want to improve on Jayadvaita Maharaja’s edition, and so on and on. Once we open the door to post-disappearance changes, the flood of changes will occur and reoccur indefinitely. There will be no end to it. We must close this door now—in our lifetime.

 

We who are inspired by Srila Prabhupada’s original books must speak out, so people in the future can clearly see what happened. Our greatest responsibility as disciples of Srila Prabhupada is to protect his original, authorized and approved books and ensure that they will be there to guide Humanity in this Kali Age. Either we correct this mess now, or history will correct it for us—with the loss of Srila Prabhupada’s original words, his adi-vani—forever. We have a duty to speak out for Srila Prabhupada’s books, for our guru. Like in the Battle of Kuruksetra, there are no neutral positions. This is no time for silence. Our silence indicates agreement. How can we, as disciples of Srila Prabhupada, agree with changing the very words that are Srila Prabhupada’s lasting presence on this earth? We must speak out, and we must be heard.

 

Yours in the service of Srila Prabhupada,

 

Govinda dasi

[Guest guest]

Srila Prabhupada Uvaca by Srutakirti Dasa

 

 

Entering Srila Prabhupada's quarters was always an enlightening experience. Sometimes Srila Prabhupada sat and read His books. Whenever He read it seemed as if someone else had written His books because He didn't read with the mind of an author who might be looking for editing mistakes or grammatical errors. He read them with the relish of a pure devotee reading the pastimes of the Supreme Lord to whom He was completely attached.

 

One day in Los Angeles I went into His room to perform my duties and He was sitting and reading "Bhagavad Gita As It Is". After I offered obeisances He looked at me and said, "If you just read this one book and understand, you will become Krishna Conscious in this very life."

 

A few months later when I went into His room, He was reading "Nectar of Devotion". He looked at me and said, "This book is so nice. Just by reading this one book you can become Krishna Conscious."

 

Srila Prabhupada teaches us by example. He does everything He asks us to do. He requests us to read His book and He does, too.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

"We cannot water down the philosophy to make it more palatable. Our books must remain as they are."

 

Srila Prabhupada letter to Lilavati devi dasi March 31, 1977.