Hansadutta Writes

[theist]

Perhaps all the back and forth between Hansadutta ,Gupta, Akrunanatha BBT and BBTI etc. are just distractions from the solution. The solution is nicely and clearly spelled out in Rupa Vilas'as letter above.

 

Why not join forces and push for that? It would put this matter to rest.

[stonehearted]

In fact, KBI has printed several books. I have Bhagavad-gita As It Is, Krishna, the Reservoir of Pleasure, and Easy Journey to Other Planets. I hear Krishna Book is out, too, although it hasn't arrived here in the mniddle of the ocean yet. I'd like to see more, of course, but to say they haven't printed any books in the last four years is just not true.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Aren't some of those "classic" books being printed by the BBT? Anyone know which books KBI has prnted and which are BBT printed?

[stonehearted]

Good question. I know the small books were produced by KBI. I haven't found my Bg yet; it's in a box somewhere. I'll check.

[Guest guest]

Why Perpetuate The Grief?

 

BY BHIMA DAS

 

EDITORIAL, May 29 (VNN) — A response to Akruranath's "Challenge to Hansadutta"

 

You were in a debate (very expensive debate), and you lost it. Or else why did BBTI spend so much money for lawyers, give away so much money in settlement, and give away a publishing license? Because they realised what a nice guy Hansadutta really is? Now you come back and say, "We should have, could have, would have won the case", BUT YOU DID NOT win the case, so what is the use of saying "in my opinion" and "undoubtedly" or "I imagine"? SHOULD'VE, COULD'VE, WOULD'VE. DIDDA, DADDA, DUTTA.

 

You were sent to the sidelines when it became clear to ISKCON and BBTI that the case was lost, and that it was costing them too much money. If the card was in your hand to win the case, why didn't you? But you led BBTI on a costly fishing expedition. You deposed Hansadutta for 6 days (video-taped) at a cost of at least $20,000-$30,000to BBTI, and one of your very expensive questions was: "Is it not true, Mr. Kary, that your favorite color is black?" His reply? "Well, Krishna is black, and so I guess it is my favorite color." It was good for a laugh, but not law. BBTI woke up to the absurdity and the enormity of the cost. One BBTI resolution dated sometime shortly after the settlement notes a decision to contest your over-the-top fees through legal arbitration.

 

Why, Akruranath, do you perpetuate your fantasy? Why are you so bent on sticking to a story, even when documented facts contradict you?

 

In 1974, Srila Prabhupada named Hansadutta as trustee for The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust in a legally binding resolution dated and worded thus:

 

---QUOTE---

 

BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST RESOLUTION

 

The written resignation of Kelly Gifford Smith (Karandhara das Adhikari) is hereby accepted by the trustees of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

 

Hans Kary (Hamsaduta das Adhikari) is hereby appointed as a Bhaktivedanta Book Trust trustee to replace Kelly Smith.

 

Resolved this 15th day of

September, 1974;

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami [signature appears on original]

William Berke (Bali Mardan das Adhikari)

 

---END QUOTE---

 

So now, Akruranath, PLEASE PRODUCE A COPY OF THE BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST RESOLUTION THAT LEGALLY REMOVED HANSADUTTA FROM HIS TRUSTEE POSITION. Or, alternatively, produce a copy of the judicial order that legally removed him. Or produce a copy of Hansadutta's resignation. NOTE: ISKCON GBC resolution, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International, Inc. resolution not acceptable, as these are separate legal entities that had no legal authority or control over the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

 

You say that he was long ago removed. But he was only ever removed from ISKCON GBC, not from BBT, not until his resignation in November 1998 upon signing the settlement agreement with ISKCON/BBTI. ISKCON GBC had no legal authority over Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Srila Prabhupada made certain of that in his written declaration of trust, a legal document named "Bhaktivedanta Book Trust Agreement", dated May 29, 1972: --

 

---QUOTE [cited, III. Purpose of Trust, Paragraph 1]---

 

This trust shall exist independently of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness and the Trustees' functions an duties stated herein shall be separate and not dependent on the Governing Body Commission of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.

 

---END QUOTE---

 

You deny crafting the legal ploy of declaring that Srila Prabhupada never owned the copyrights to his books and that they were "works for hire", but your name and that of your law firm appear on the legal documents that testify to it. Too bad those documents are 'under seal' so we are not at liberty to produce them here, but the declaration was widely publicised on the internet prior to settlement in discussions that took place on ISKCON.com and VNN.

 

You further say that you see nothing wrong in saying that Srila Prabhupada's books, including all artwork, glossaries and elaborate purports, were "'works for hire' created by ISKCON, Inc" and that Srila Prabhupada never owned them. Moreover, that "ISKCON, Inc. supplied the employees who worked on the books with their materials and equipment.

 

ISKCON, Inc. also supplied each of them with room and board and with a stipend for personal or family expenses." This argument directly contradicts Srila Prabhupada's own words in the trust deed re funding of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. How is it not demeaning Srila Prabhupada, to suggest that he, ISKCON's Founder-Acharya and supreme authority, pure devotee and spiritual master, was the hired worker of ISKCON, subordinate to ISKCON?

 

Do you also see nothing wrong with your plea for a court declaration that Srila Prabhupada's BBT NEVER EXISTED, WAS LEGALLY INVALID AND NEVER THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHTS to Srila Prabhupada's books? WAS NOT THIS COURTCASE A DIRECT ATTACK AGAINST THE VERY BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST CREATED BY SRILA PRABHUPADA HIMSELF? How can this not be regarded as offensive? At the very least, a grave mistake on the part of lead counsel, Adam R. Bernstein, yourself.

 

Ultimately, BBT International, Inc. and ISKCON abandoned the argument and admitted that Srila Prabhupada's Bhaktivedanta Book Trust created May 29, 1972, DID EXIST, AND DID HOLD THE LEGAL COPYRIGHTS to Srila Prabhupada's books even up to the time of the joint statement "BBT Legal Case Ends" issued by Gupta and Jayadvaita following the settlement in November 1998: --

 

---QUOTE---

 

The agreement reaffirms the validity of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust formed by Srila Prabhupada on May 29, 1972. This was a legal California trust into which Srila Prabhupada conveyed the copyrights to his books. All sides agree that this trust is still legal and alive, and that it is the true owner of Srila Prabhupada's copyrights, as Srila Prabhupada desired.

 

---END QUOTE---

 

You have never spoken to the devotees who distributed Srila Prabhupada's books in Malaysia and Singapore under the auspices of Prabhupada Yoga Meditation Centre (PYMC), so you can HONESTLY say that you DON'T KNOW what precipitated their publication of the Chinese Bhagavad-gita. If you are unwilling to accept our explanation for it, that is your fault, not ours.

 

It is widely known and since acknowledged by BBTI and ISKCON, that BBTI and ISKCON did set a policy to deliberately refuse to sell BBT books to devotees outside ISKCON. This policy was reversed almost immediately after the settlement of the BBT courtcase in 1998, and Jayadvaita's announcement appeared here on VNN. If BBTI had not taken such drastic measures to prevent us from buying books, perhaps none of this would have happened.

 

But to their shame, BBT Malaysia refused to sell to us, BBT Australia also refused to sell to us, BBT India also refused to sell to us. Niscintya did sell to us, under the table, bless his little heart, but he had no Chinese books. Moreover, ISKCON Malaysia and Singapore engaged in a vigorous campaign to shut us down. Now, it's over and done.

 

So why are you beating a dead donkey?? Is anyone going to pay you to resurrect the dead? Why do you obscure the facts with your fallible suppositions? Why do you perpetuate the grief by calling us liars? Why do you mislead devotees to believe that we started it all, and that BBTI was merely responding? Au contraire, Monsieur. It was Hansadutta who upheld the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust against attack by BBTI and ISKCON, who had long since deserted and by-passed the actual BBT by illegally converting the trust assets, Srila Prabhupada's copyrights, into a business corporation.

 

Your response to Hansadutta's article "Just What Is Jayadvaita's Point?" has missed the point altogether. Perhaps you could not come up with legitimate arguments, and so resorted to this feeble attempt to discredit Hansadutta and ourselves.

 

Right or wrong, there is a large contingent of devotees who want only Srila Prabhupada's unrevised books, and who are very unhappy with the changes and will not in good conscience distribute them. ALL JAYADVAITA'S JUSTIFICATIONS DO NOT AMOUNT TO AUTHORISATION FROM SRILA PRABHUPADA TO CHANGE EDITIONS TO WHICH SRILA PRABHUPADA HAD GIVEN HIS EXPRESS APPROVAL.

 

BBTI's failure to respond by making the original pre-1978 books available has resulted in piracy. We see that it has happened already and going on.

 

Closing the eyes doesn't make the trouble go away. Are court cases the answer? We don't believe so. Undoubtedly, BBTI should take action, but will it be the right action this time? WHAT WOULD SRILA PRABHUPADA DO?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I was laughing, not quite out loud, at this article on VNN. They are trying to support the lawsuit as being anything other than it is. Just because the courts don't recognize ISKCON authority, we had to suffer this cheating. The legal constructs were never meant to protect the books from ISKCON, but rather to protect them from the outside run-by-mundane-courts pennies and shillings world.

 

Srila Prabhupada would freak if we think that anybody can leave ISKCON, and with him take all of Prabhupada's books with him. Isn't it? Such propositions are only for the courts. No devotee is so naive to think that this was the master's desire.

 

The lawyer may have been able to dance around with the courts, but don't think for a moment that any honest man even remotely connected to ISKCON past or present or future was fooled by this truth-twisting shameful nonsense.

[Krsnanatha]

"You were wrong!"

"No, you were Wrong!"

"No I wasn't!"

"Yes you were!"

Only children don't spend countless thousands of dollars while they do it.

Meanwhile back at the Dham.... the pure devotees are chanting.........

Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna Hare Hare

Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare

[Guest guest]

EDITORIAL

June 4, 2003 VNN8110 Related VNN Stories

 

At Odds With Right And Reason

 

BY GUPTA DASA

 

EDITORIAL, Jun 4 (VNN) — Hare Krishna Hansadutta:

 

I am disappointed that you again decided to take the low road of distorted allegation (Sour Grapes or Rotten Grapes) rather than presenting an intelligible response on the merits of the 'public domain' issue you raised (Sour Grapes Sampradaya). I can only reasonably conclude that you do not actually have an intelligible response on the merits of the issue at hand or you would not have been driven to desperate ranting over money.

 

Due to the confidential terms of the Settlement Agreement that you selectively and illegally revealed in your crass diatribe, I am limited to what I can write publicly. I will, however, mention some pertinent facts.

 

(1) You personally signed the 1998 Stipulated Judgment that confirmed Srila Prabhupada's BBT holds the copyrights to his books. (2) The Court ruled that it was the "unequivocal intention" of all of the parties that the settlement monies you now whine about were for attorney's fees, as you yourself admitted in numerous public articles ("plus our lawyer's fees reimbursed" -- Hansadutta On Settlement). (3) The Court soundly rejected your covetous arguments over personal ownership and sole control of Krishna Books Inc.

 

Contrary to the misleading and one-sided allegations you presented, these are uncontroverted facts.

 

The vindictive State Bar Complaint that you and your two acolytes filed after settlement of the BBTI case is not actually about money and technicalities. You know that and I know that. Rather, your malicious attack on me is all about control and stature. In spite of the sacrifice of many devotees to revalidate the BBT and secure the legal right to print Srila Prabhupada's adi-vani, you unreasonably demanded overarching control of everything that followed -- but your machinations were completely thwarted.

 

This is what has awkwardly placed you at odds with right and reason, and now leaves you and your two followers stranded and alienated on the sidelines.

 

But what about you Hansadutta? As the candle of your life shortens will you consciously choose to take the high road to cooperation on any of these issues? Or will you remain bedeviled and in rage over lost control and stature? Do you really think that misusing State Bar proceedings to pursue a personal vendetta against me will bring you even one tiny baby step closer to soberly serving Srila Prabhupada's adi-vani with a loving heart? Is this unholy jihad all you are now left with?

 

N.B.: I have no interest in becoming your new pen pal Hansadutta, so kindly meditate on these points in lieu of trying to pass off another distorted tirade as spiritual insight.

 

Om Tat Sat,

 

Gupta dasa

Joseph Fedorowsky

lawyer@oxfordlaw.com

gupta@krishnabooks.org

 

 

[Guest guest]

Prabhus, here is an important article by Gupta Prabhu:

 

February 11, 2003 VNN7802 Related VNN Stories

 

A Time For Substance, Not Fluff

 

BY GUPTA DAS

 

EDITORIAL, Feb 11 (VNN) — 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gHari]

Cattle Raising:<blockquote>July 4, 1975

 

TamAla KRSNa:

kRSi-gorakSya-vANijyaM

vaizya-karma svabhAva-jam

paricaryAtmakaM karma

zUdrasyApi svabhAva-jam

[bg 18.44]

"Farming, cattle raising and business are the qualities..."

PrabhupAda: They are not cattle raising, that was...

TamAla KRSNa: Cow protection.

PrabhupAda: Cow protection. It has to be corrected. It is go-rakSya, go. They take it cattle-raising. I think HayagrIva has translated like this.

 

April 21. 1976

 

PrabhupAda: One thing immediately inform RAmezvara. In the Bhagavad-gItA yesterday they have edited "cattle-raising." But not cattle-raising. Cattle-raising means to grow and killing. That is the.... Means the rascals, they have edited.

PuSTa KRSNa: Yeah, and we're.... (interference)

PrabhupAda: And "protection of cows," clearly.

Guru-kRpA: Chapter Eighteen, Bhagavad-gItA, that the vaizyas work...

PuSTa KRSNa: Oh, kRSi-go-rakSya.

PrabhupAda: Ah, kRSi-go-rakSya. Immediately inform them.

PuSTa KRSNa: Okay. I noticed that also. I thought it was strange, some time back. [break]

PrabhupAda: HayagrIva edited. He thought, "cattle-raising." Not "cattle-raising," but the word.... There.... It is mistranslation. It is go-rakSya, "giving protection to the cows." Especially mentioned, go-rakSya, not otherwise.

</blockquote>

[theist]

how a tiny appearing error can project an opposite meaning.

 

This also applies to Jayadvaita's so-called infallibility status also.

 

Rupa Vilas's suggested solution is the ONLY solution at this point.

[stonehearted]

theist: Rupa Vilas's suggested solution is the ONLY solution at this point.

 

It at least seems the most reasonable. The other positions seem advocated by people more concerned with "being right" than with anything else.

[theist]

Who is right? Who has the dominant intellect? Who is the most spiritualy intune,the most surrendered?

 

I ask: Who cares?

 

Just fix the problem!

[stonehearted]

theist: Who is right? Who has the dominant intellect? Who is the most spiritualy intune,the most surrendered?

 

That's me, right? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

t: I ask: Who cares?

 

Just fix the problem!

 

B: Exactly!

[Guest guest]

theist: Rupa Vilas's suggested solution is the ONLY solution at this point.

 

... What is this suggestion. There is alot of repeated material here from other sources. Most of which I've read. What is the title here you refer to?

.............................

 

stonehearted: It at least seems the most reasonable. The other positions seem advocated by people more concerned with "being right" than with anything else.

 

... It seems to me "being right" is the position of truth. Other positions being defiant or perverted. This is just basic logic. Why minimize the position of being right?

 

Guess Guest