Changes to Prabhupada's Books

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

I think there needs to be a disclosure of every change that has been made in all of Prabhupada's books, as well as releasing Prabhupada's original transcriptions to the public so that the community of devotees can review all changes that have been made. As long as they hide the original transcriptions and refuse for them to be released to the public there will be doubts related to each of their actions, more so when they do things secretly, like how they planned to change Krishna's pronouns to lower case without informing the devotees.

 

Only when they release the original transcriptions can devotees analyze them and raise any mistakes they feel have been made. Just take the verse discussed further up in this thread (Bhagavad Gita 2.1). How can anyone say changing Prabhupada's chosen word, "by", to "when" has no significance in that purport. And when the editor himself writes the explanation that he rewrote it based on what he assumed Prabhupada meant, how can anyone not be alarmed?

 

Even in Jayadvaita Swami's explanation for Bhagavad Gita 2.31, I would ask why has "as ordered by higher authority" been changed to the plural? The singular, which is in Prabhupada's original transcription clearly indicates God's word. But by making it plural (for no apparent reason) it now lessens the authorities to include everyone else.

 

Jayadvaita Swami's Edited Version:

 

Discharging one’s specific duty in any field of action in accordance with the orders of higher authorities serves to elevate one to a higher status of life.

 

Srila Prabhupada's original manuscript which was personally typed by His Divine Grace:

 

To discharge one’s specific duty in any field of action and as ordered by higher authority is the opportunity for being elevated in higher status of life.

 

Again it's the same problem. Where Prabhupada was speaking about the divine instructions of Bhagavan in the form of the scriptures, the new altered edition has blurred the meaning and made it refer to vague higher authorities.

 

There are bound to be thousands of similar changes made by these editors that have altered the meanings in all sorts of ways. All information pertaining to these changes should be made public, so the devotee community can express their opinions on these changes.

 

Also let us not forget the most important aspect, and that is these changes are against Srila Prabhupada's direct instruction (from a converstaion on June 22, 1977):

 

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.

 

and later in the same conversation...

 

Prabhupada: So write them immediately that "The rascal editors, they are doing havoc, and they are being maintained by Ramesvara and party."

 

and later in the same conversation...

 

Prabhupada: So you bring this to Satsvarupa. THEY CANNOT CHANGE ANYTHING.

 

and later in the same conversation...

 

Prabhupada: So on the whole, these dangerous things are going on. How to check it?

 

and later in the same conversation...

Prabhupada: So THEY ARE DOING VERY FREELY AND DANGEROUSLY. And THIS RASCAL IS ALWAYS AFTER CHANGE, Radha-vallabha. He's a great rascal.

 

and later in the same conversation...

Prabhupada: Lokasyajanato vidvams cakre satvata... All rascals, for their knowledge the Bhagavata was written. Mudho nabhijanati, mohito nabhijanati. THE DIFFICULTY IS A RASCAL IS THINKING HIMSELF AS VERY ADVANCED IN KNOWLEDGE. That is the difficulty.

 

Prabhupada made it completely clear that he didn't want his books changes. He said they are rascals who think themselves very advanced in knowledge. He accused them of doing these things freely and dangerously, much like the present situation where one or two people have complete authority to secretly make any change they deem fit. And in conclusion, "The rascal editors, they are doing havoc." You can't put it better than how Prabhupada said it.

 

[Pankaja_Dasa]

At least we have Original BG 1972 and Bhagavatam, only a matter of time before we get CC.

[gHari]

 

From Change Explanation:

 

A double-check with the commentary of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana confirmed that my assumption was correct. So that’s what the second edition says, with proper English grammar.

I gather from this that using 'is possible by' is not proper grammar?

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

How about this change to Caitanya Caritamrita:

 

Prabhupada's Original Edition:

 

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

 

Jayadvaita Swami's Edited Version:

 

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

 

Why has Prabhupada's original word been changed from "initiated"? Simply because the editors felt the original gave strength to the Ritviks, who would cite it as evidence of initiation by a non-present guru.

 

Dravida Das, the BBT editor explained this change as follows:

 

"On the side of not changing the 'initiated' phrases we have the strong bias against changing the books unless absolutely necessary and the fact that Srila Prabhupada did indeed say that Jagannatha das Babaji initiated Bhaktivinode. Leaving one or both 'initiated's will strongly imply that the use of the phrases 'direct disciple' and even 'accepted [as his disciple]' indicate formal initiation as we know it in ISKCON, which is far from the truth." (BBT Editor, Dravida Das)

 

So what does everyone think of that justification? They admit Prabhupada said "initiated" but they changed it anyway because it didn't fit in with the present definition of initiation as given by the GBC. This is clearly altering Prabhupada's books to inject their own political propaganda.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

At least we have Original BG 1972 and Bhagavatam, only a matter of time before we get CC.

From a letter by Jayadvaita Swami:

 

"This NEW Gita (along with its translations in other languages) WILL BE THE MAIN BOOK OUR MOVEMENT WILL BE PREACHING FROM for whatever time we have left in this yuga."

 

You may have the old Gita, but according to him, his edited book will be the main book for the entire worldwide preaching until the end of Kali yuga.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

In another old discussion one devotee offered this opinion:

 

 

Jayadvaita puts great store on the validity of his "original manuscript," however the editing of the Gita went on for many years and there were many, many manuscripts. Who knows which one Jayadvaita has? Srila Prabhupada himself may have made many changes and corrections by writing on later versions of the manuscript [which Jayadvaita does not have] or by giving personal directions to the original editors and answering their questions. Jayadvaita may well be removing many of Srila Prabhupada's personal corrections by "making it closer to the original manuscript."

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

Here are a few more nice quotes:

There are many editions of the Bhagavad-gita, and most of them have been edited to push forward the editor’s own philosophical views. [TQE, Ch. 4, Putting Krishna in the Center and BG 7.1-3 Lecture, 08/10/73 ]

You have to understand our philosophy perfectly, follow the regulative principles, and then in fact you can edit our books and papers. [Letter, 22/10/71]

Let us see Srila Prabhupada's personal mood on this translating:

It is to be admitted that whatever translation work I have done is through the inspiration of my spiritual master, because personally I am most insignificant and incompetent to do this materially impossible work.

I do not think myself a very learned scholar, but I have full faith in the service of my spiritual master, His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura.

If there is any credit to my activities of translating, it is all due to His Divine Grace.

Certainly if His Divine Grace were physically present at this time, it would have been a great occasion for jubilation, but even though he is not physically present, I am confident that he is very much pleased by this work of translation.

He was very fond of seeing many books published to spread the Krsna consciousness movement. Therefore our society, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, has been formed to execute the order of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura.

It is my wish that devotees of Lord Caitanya all over the world enjoy this translation, and I am glad to express my gratitude to the learned men in the Western countries who are so pleased with my work that they are ordering in advance all my books that will be published in the future.

On this occasion, therefore, I request my disciples who are determined to help me in this work to continue their cooperation fully, so that philosophers, scholars, religionists and people in general all over the world will benefit by reading our transcendental literatures, such as Srimad-Bhagavatam and Sri Caitanya-caritamrta. [CC Antya, 20, Concluding Words]

Not that I'm saying that Jayadvaita is outside of Srila Prabhupada - I just think that his mood is not advancing in the same direction as it once did.

As we can see - Srila Prabhupada was speaking of an as of yet incomplete task of presenting the Vedic literatures - now that task is complete.

It would seem that the already complete books have been edited to push forward the editor’s own philosophical views.

He remains with me and he helps me in editing the Sanskrit portion of my books. [Lecture, 10/16/72]

So I will surmise that he wasn't letting them edit his purports?

Of course I shall not give up on ISKCON - as Srila Prabhupada has said:

Prabhupada: Yes. Not dualism. How many isms, nobody knows. But... What is called? Faction. Faction. Everyone is divided from the other.

Madhudvisa: Yeah.

Prabhupada: So we should not bring that attitude in our society. That is my request. [Conversation 03/10/76]

Prabhupada: If you create faction amongst yourselves, then what will come? Problems. Why? [Conversation 06/30/77]

So we'll all work together as far as possible and we shall not let Prabhupada's ISKCON faction out-of-exisitence.

Amongst ourselves one should respect others as Prabhu, master, one another. As soon as we distinguish here is a pure devotee, here is a non-pure devotee, that means I am a nonsense. [Letter, 12/14/72]

...Lord Siva, however, not only finds no faults with others’ qualities, but if someone has a little good quality, he magnifies it greatly.... [sB 4.4.12]

Every endeavor is covered by some sort of fault, just as fire is covered by smoke. Therefore one should not give up the work which is born of his nature, O son of Kunti, even if such work is full of fault. [bG 18.48]

YS,

BDM

[gHari]

Just to keep this discussion balanced we should remember Srila Prabhupada's frustration that no one would change the 'cattle raising' expression in a recently published book. And of course, there is the planet of the trees which evolved when a transcriber couldn't understand the dictated words.

 

We should also balance the quotes about editing rascalry aimed at other editors with the following letter:

 

 

Vrindaban

7 September, 1976

 

Los Angeles

 

My Dear Radhavallabha das,

 

Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your letters dated August 25 and 31 and have noted the contents.

 

<b>Concerning the editing of Jayadvaita Prabhu, whatever he does is approved by me. I have confidence in him.</b> Your changes which I have seen of the sanskrit synonyms is also approved by me. Tanmayataya refers to the fact that the trees and the father were absorbed in the same feelings.

 

Titling of the Ninth Canto as Liberation is good, and the Tenth Canto should be called ``The Summum Bonum''. As far as the 11th and 12th Cantos are concerned they shall be named when they are presented. The title which you have given to the Eighth Canto was a little hard to understand at first but if it refers to pralaya, then it is alright. You must consult with me on such matters. Do not manufacture anything.

 

All of the sketches which you have sent to me while I am in India are approved. The picture of the Mohini Murti capturing the demons should take place outside on grass, there is no floor or walls. Prahlada Maharaja does not have a beard. Always avoid beards. it is not true that there are no shoes in Krsna lila, rather there are shoes except for the Vrndavana pastimes. But the shoes are of another quality, they are beautiful with jewels etc. On the battlefield they must wear shoes. The severed head of Rahu should look like the head of a demon, not round like a planet.

 

By controlling sex desire one becomes the most perfect sober person, kandutivan manasajivam visaheta dhirah. I hope this meets you in good health.

 

Your ever well-wisher,

 

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

 

ACBS/hs

 

Of course this letter does not apply to an eternity of revisions, but it does show that Jayadvaita Swami was afforded the respect from Srila Prabhupada that any of us would die to have had. We should be very humble if we are to presume to second guess his judgement, especially without all the facts at our disposal. Perhaps humble like that blade of grass lower than the straw in the street thing and all.

[ng dasa]

Thanks for the reminder that there is need for balance. It is surely a big responsibilty Jayadwaita has been given.

Today I did a reading of Prabhupada's purport to SB 1.5.11.

He also had a huge task of translating all these scriptures in english. Some of his mood is expressed in this purport. It is definately worth a re-read if anyone has not read it in a while.

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

One last thought on this issue:

Reporter (1): Swamiji, you write originally in English or these books are being translated from some other language into English...

 

Prabhupada: No, translated, but I give my purport. That is.... They like very much. Present the purport in such a way they can understand it. The original verse is there, but they are explained by me.<o></o>

 

Reporter (6): Does it ever happen, Swamiji, that some disciples of yours may disagree with you in spiritual matters?

 

Pusta Krsna: No.

 

Prabhupada: Unless he is a fool. (laughter) Unless he’s damn fool, they do not. (laughter) If he’s sane and sober, open-hearted, then he will agree. [03/25/76]

YS,

 

BDM

[gHari]

 

SB 1.5.11p

 

[...] We are sure, therefore, that everyone in human society will welcome Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, even though it is now presented with so many faults, for it is recommended by Śrī Nārada, who has very kindly appeared in this chapter.

The profound humility and gratitude and reverence of such a saint is truly beyond words. May we all one day come to know how fortunate we are.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

I am sure Jayadvaita Swami is making some useful corrections, but the place for those corrections is in a footnote. And the fact that they have admitted to altering Prabhupada's original words to suit their political viewpoints makes me feel they shouldn't touch anything at all. I am satisfied with Prabhupada's originals, with mistakes and all. There is a reason Prabhupada mentioned in his Srimad Bhagavatam introduction that though imperfectly composed, devotees will relish these writings.

[ng dasa]

"I am sure Jayadvaita Swami is making some useful corrections, but the place for those corrections is in a footnote."

 

Yes it would be so nice if the corrections could be in footnote form.

Even on a different level than having access to the real nectar, as you express you prefer the originals; it would also have many other benefits if footnotes were implemented.

 

Eg. an oppurtunity to study the books more, appeal to scholars who may not be vaisnava's, and I am sure there may be many other reasons beneficial for preaching.

 

I was thinking yesterday that Iskcon scholars oneday could even write seperate books with purports based on BG as it is. Just as Prabhupada based his Gita from the previous acarya's. What a wonderful way that would be to glorify Srila Prabhupada.

[theist]

 

How about this change to Caitanya Caritamrita:

Prabhupada's Original Edition:

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

Jayadvaita Swami's Edited Version:

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

Why has Prabhupada's original word been changed from "initiated"? Simply because the editors felt the original gave strength to the Ritviks, who would cite it as evidence of initiation by a non-present guru.

Dravida Das, the BBT editor explained this change as follows:

"On the side of not changing the 'initiated' phrases we have the strong bias against changing the books unless absolutely necessary and the fact that Srila Prabhupada did indeed say that Jagannatha das Babaji initiated Bhaktivinode. Leaving one or both 'initiated's will strongly imply that the use of the phrases 'direct disciple' and even 'accepted [as his disciple]' indicate formal initiation as we know it in ISKCON, which is far from the truth." (BBT Editor, Dravida Das)

So what does everyone think of that justification? They admit Prabhupada said "initiated" but they changed it anyway because it didn't fit in with the present definition of initiation as given by the GBC. This is clearly altering Prabhupada's books to inject their own political propaganda.

THIS IS IT! The smoking gun. Where else have they done this? We don't know and are left in doubt.

Post #29 should not just fade back in the list it should be printed out and distributed widely. The BBT should be challenged on this point over and over.

with eyes on the krsna-bhakti prize,

y/s

[vijay]

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

 

Changes like these should be highlighted, may by writing to every gbc member might get the point across as im not sure even most GBC's know about this. I think the ritviks try to highlight this sort of stuff but because they are usually offensive most people ignore it.

[Airicky]

Petitions are good but legal action is not out of the realm of possibility

http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/03-06/editorials241.htm

[Kulapavana]

Devotees who think SP books do not need editing should try to read his Indian edition of Srimad Bhagavatam and then speak on the matter...

 

I translated SP books for years. You can't translate unless you understand the text. It is similar with editing. You cant properly edit unless you understand the text (and context). And when author is no longer there to proof the editing (which SP rarely did) you have to trust the editor, or better yet, a TEAM of editors.

 

Can Jayadvaita Swami's editing be biased? Certainly. But that is unavoidable. Still, you have to look at the CONTEXT, similar texts SP has written, and the teachings of the previous acharyas to judge the edited text.

 

The problem with a lot of SP disciples is that they see SP books as separate and independent of the writings of other GV acharyas like Srila Bhaktisiddhanta or Srila Bhaktivinoda, what to speak of others...

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Devotees who think SP books do not need editing should try to read his Indian edition of Srimad Bhagavatam and then speak on the matter...

I don't think Srila Prabhupada's books need further editing. His books have already been edited, and he approved of it, he authorized their printing, and he ordered that they should not be changed any more - and that "they should again be printed as before".

 

I have already shown one instance where Jayadvaita Swami has changed Prabhupada's personal recorded words and replaced them with his own for political purposes. Such types of editing go beyond dangerous.

 

There may be mistakes in Prabhupada's printed books, but Prabhupada wrote in the introduction to Srimad Bhagavatam that though imperfectly composed, still devotees will relish them and be purified. The perfection of the book is not in how perfectly it follows modern grammar and punctuation, it's in the purity of the speaker. Prabhupada's lectures were also spoken in pretty bad english, but they contain the highest knowledge known to mankind. Perfection is not based on how the grammar flows, but on the essence that is conveyed.

 

I think what really bothers some devotees is the fact that they tried editing the books while Prabhupada was living and he stopped them and demanded that they not touch the books again. Despite his direct instruction, they are now again going against his wishes since he is no longer present to defend himself. Prabhupada knew there were imperfections in the grammar at that time, but still he refused them permission to edit it and he called them rascals who "thought they had become advanced with knowledge". It's the same situation all over again.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Devotees who think SP books do not need editing should try to read his Indian edition of Srimad Bhagavatam and then speak on the matter...

That is irrelevant. No one said Prabhupada's Indian edition of Bhagavatam didn't need editing. Prabhupada himself instructed that it be edited, and when Hansaduta asked if they could again print his Indian addition Prabhupada replied, "No. I have full faith in Hayagriva's editing."

 

The fact that Prabhupada's Indian edition of Bhagavatam needed editing in no way says anything about whether the final edited Bhagavatam authorized by Prabhupada needs further editing. I really fail to see any connection with these two points.

 

I translated SP books for years. You can't translate unless you understand the text.

And if someone doesn't understand the text then 1) he should'nt be the one translating it, and 2) he should find someone to explain the meaning to him. It doesn't mean that because a translator doesn't understand something that all of Prabhupada's books should again be rewritten on the whims to two or three individuals.

 

 

It is similar with editing. You cant properly edit unless you understand the text (and context). And when author is no longer there to proof the editing (which SP rarely did) you have to trust the editor, or better yet, a TEAM of editors.

It has been pointed out by Naranarayana that practically no respectable book has ever been re-edited after the author has passed away without his consent.

 

Can Jayadvaita Swami's editing be biased? Certainly. But that is unavoidable.

And since bias (a defect of frail humanity) is unavoidable, the entire unauthorized editing process must be avoided.

 

 

Still, you have to look at the CONTEXT, similar texts SP has written, and the teachings of the previous acharyas to judge the edited text.

That's the job of a purport, a study guide, a reference work. It isn't anyone's right to read previous acharya's books and then decide "Oh, Prabhupada must have actually meant this because Baladeva Vidyabhushana said this over here." Baladeva Vidyabhushana and Vishvanatha Chakravarthi disagree with each other on the meanings of several verses in the Bhagavad Gita - they actually each take opposite meanings. So simply because a previous acharya has said something does not mean that Prabhupada must therefore have meant what that personality had said, and we should therefore edit it in that line.

 

The problem with a lot of SP disciples is that they see SP books as separate and independent of the writings of other GV acharyas like Srila Bhaktisiddhanta or Srila Bhaktivinoda, what to speak of others...

 

Srila Prabhupada's books are independent from Bhaktisiddhanta's books and Bhaktivinoda's books. Just because Bhaktivinoda says Shiva was a tribal god from nagaland does not mean that Prabhupada's writings should be edited to say the same thing. Each person was an individual and they all spoke indidivually while presenting the same supreme truth.

[Kulapavana]

I do not support wanton editing of SP books, but I have seen quite a few parts that could use some going over by a good team of editors. If you want SP books to be read by wide public, such editing is valuable. Perhaps you can keep one edition for devotees insisting on "as close to the original as possible" and another one for mass distribution.

 

As to reference to the works of other Acharyas when in doubt as to the intended meaning, it most certainly is a valuable tool. After all SP did not start his own sampradaya. In many, many places he used the tikas or commentaries of the previous acharyas, and many Gita verses actually come from other translations by other authors.

 

And the concept that SP carefully reviewed all editing work is more of a myth than reality. That is not what people involved with these projects say.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

You failed to address the fact that they tried to re-edit while Srila Prabhupada was still alive and he called them rascals and said not to touch the books. This was 1977 just before he entered samadhi, thus making it his final instruction on editing.

[Kulapavana]

 

You failed to address the fact that they tried to re-edit while Srila Prabhupada was still alive and he called them rascals and said not to touch the books. This was 1977 just before he entered samadhi, thus making it his final instruction on editing.

the easy way to see this instruction is to say "no more editing, period".

another way is to look at the particular type of editing to which he responded with that instruction to understand WHAT CAUSED HIM TO GIVE THIS INSTRUCTION and make sure that such errors are not made again, EVER. that is perhaps more risky, but he certainly wanted his disciples to edit his writings for the benefit of the general public. I see THAT as his ORIGINAL instruction, and the ESSENCE of the good editing process.

just like with some other projects, especially the gurukula system, changes are needed to fulfill the original intent of Srila Prabhupada.

[ng dasa]

"another way is to look at the particular type of editing to which he responded with that instruction to understand WHAT CAUSED HIM TO GIVE THIS INSTRUCTION and make sure that such errors are not made again, EVER"quote as above post.

 

I am very unqualified to comment, please bear with me.

The point you have brought forward here is an important one. It is very important that these final instructions are taken in context. When instructions are not taken in context so much confusion can be the result.

[Beggar]

A big question: What is the meaning of, "these books will be law books for the next ten thousand years"? Did Srila Prabhupada mean`only the Gaudiya Vaisnava sastras that he translated and purported or did He mean the Gaudiya Vaisnava sastras in general? Is only His edition of Caitanya Caritamrta a law book for the Golden Age of Kali? Amongst those asserting themselves as Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada's followers there is definitely a dichotomy on this point. We can certainly take this through its logical steps. If only the published editions that were "blessed" during Srila Prabhupada's manifest lila are the "law books" then clearly the books translated into other languages besides English after His manifest lila are by definition, not the "law books". If they are not then what is the position of those who read and rely on them for their spiritual life? Gaudiya Vaisnavism unlike purely dualistic Western religions has never been so black and white on these types of issues. This is certainly due to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's conception of acintya-bheda-abheda tattva. And this is not to say that there isn't something very precious and sacred about Srila Prabhupada's books that were published during his time. Although Srila Prabhupada used the term, "law books" is this context, He as the representative of Sri Sri Gaura Nitai is the manifestion of Their Mercy. As Kali Yuga persons of this advanced stage of this degraded yuga our only hope is this Mercy. Acharya's in the line of Rupa-Raghunatha such as Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur have written, "yogyata-vicare, kichu nahi paya/ Tomara karuna sara. If I look closely at myself I won't find any good qualities, Your Mercy is my only hope." Srila Sridhar Maharaja told (paraphrasing), "How is it that we want Mercy for ourselves but not for others? We don't want to be judged for our faults and our present deplorable condition yet we want to judge others." The Supreme Law of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhus' Sankirtan Movement is that Mercy and Beauty are superior to law and judgement. This is the very jist of the "law books for the next ten thousand years".

[gHari]

The originals:

 

http://chakra.org/discussions/BMMar16_06.html