Changes to Prabhupada's Books

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Now if they can just get to releasing the scans of the other 699 Gita verses. I really don't see a reason why they aren't doing it. Everything is already scanned and stored in the archives. They could have these online in a matter of hours if they really wanted to.

[theist]

Even if 99% of the changes made can be justified in some way the sporadic releasing of one or two examples at a time, on various devotee web sites is nothing but a tactic to obscure the absolutely shameful and unexcusable politically motivated change shown in the smoking gun example below.

 

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]

I think that's the most important point. 99% of the changes may be good, but if even one change is done for political reasons, then all the changes should be avoided. The risk is too great.

[theist]

I noticed Sun had posted this example yesterday. I believe it's important to stay concentrated to get the point across and widely understood. The BBT obviously has the opposite in mind which is diffuse and confuse the issue by bringing out an example here and there of their choosing.

 

I would like to hear Dravida das and Jayadvaita Swami explain this specific change in CC to the devotee community.

 

My feeling is that if they can do this, and which they have, then they can do anything.

[gHari]

The infamous Nitai was among those cited as rascal editors. The quote given on this thread was only a tiny part of that conversation. Thus it misled our impression of how Srila Prabhupada and senior devotees felt about Jayadvaita Swami, certainly no rascal. To have any honest opinion, one must read the many references to him below in that full conversation. We have cheated ourselves:

 

PrabhupAda: Where are others?

TamAla KRSNa: Shall I get other people? Satadhanya MahArAja? (long pause)

PrabhupAda: That... Find this verse, munayaH sAdhu pRSTo 'ham... [sB 1.2.5].

TamAla KRSNa: There's no index. It's not a new BhAgavatam. There's no index in this BhAgavatam. MunayaH sAdhu...? "The Effects of Kali-yuga" chapter? Is that the verse, about the effects of Kali-yuga? No. (background talking, looking for verse)

munayaH sAdhu pRSTo 'haM

bhavadbhir loka-maGgalam

yat kRtaH kRSNa-samprazno

yenAtmA suprasIdati

[sB 1.2.5]

"munayaH--of the sages; sAdhu--this is relevant; pRSTaH--questioned; aham..."

PrabhupAda: No? What is that? SAdhu? What is that? MunayaH?

TamAla KRSNa: Says, "sAdhu--this is relevant."

PrabhupAda: Relevant?

TamAla KRSNa: That's what it's translated as, "this is relevant." May be a mistake.

Devotee (1): It's a mistake.

PrabhupAda: MunayaH?

TamAla KRSNa: "MunayaH--of the sages; sAdhu--this is relevant..."

PrabhupAda: The nonsense, they are... They are correcting my trans... Rascal. Who has done this? MunayaH is addressing all these munis.

TamAla KRSNa: It's addressing the munis?

PrabhupAda: Yes.

TamAla KRSNa: SAdhus, great sages.

PrabhupAda: Yes. SAdhu means they are very pure. What can be done if it goes there and these rascals becomes Sanskrit scholar and do everything nonsense? One Sanskrit scholar strayed, that rascal... He take... What is his...? SacI-suta? SacI-sandana?

TamAla KRSNa: Jaya-zacInandana?

PrabhupAda: And they are maintaining them. Different meaning.

TamAla KRSNa: "BhavadbhiH--by all of you; loka--the world; maGgalam-- welfare; yat--because; kRtaH--made; kRSNa--the Personality of Godhead; sampraznaH--relevant question; yena--by which; AtmA-- self; suprasIdati--completely pleased." Translation: "O sages..."

PrabhupAda: Now here is "O sages," and the word meaning is "of the munis." Just see. Such a rascal Sanskrit scholar. Here it is addressed, sambodhana, and they touch(?) it--"munayaH--of the munis." It is very risky to give to them for editorial direction. Little learning is dangerous. However proper Sanskrit scholar, little learning, dangerous. Immediately they become very big scholars, high salaried, and write all nonsense. Who they are? (pause) Then?

TamAla KRSNa: "O sages, I have been..."

PrabhupAda: No, they cannot be reliable. They can do more harm. Just see here the fun(?).

TamAla KRSNa: Yeah. We're finding out in the Fifth Canto that there're words that are so off, the meaning is completely changed, completely changed. I mean, in the three chapters that we read, Bhakti-prema MahArAja made at least half a dozen corrections of serious corrections. They had changed the meaning.

SvarUpa DAmodara: Some of the mistakes in the numbers, the figures.

TamAla KRSNa: Oh, yeah, they're all...

PrabhupAda: So how they can be reliable, so-called, this way...? (background whispering) Hm?

YazodA-nandana: In the Gurukula we were teaching IzopaniSad class to the children. So we took... [break] ...PrabhupAda and the words which the recent edition of the Press is wrong. Many changes were brought. They were trying to make better English, but sometimes, to make better English, I think they were making philosophical mistakes also. There is no so much need of making so much better English. Your English is sufficient. It is very clear, very simple. We have caught over 125 changes. They're changing so many things. We are wondering if this is necessary. I will show you today. I have kept the book.

PrabhupAda: I know that these rascals are doing. What can be done? How they can be relied on?

SvarUpa DAmodara: It's not the responsibility of the BBT trustee, to see these things don't change without PrabhupAda's sanction?

PrabhupAda: And RAmezvara is indulging this. The great rascal is that JagannAtha? He's there in Los Angeles.

TamAla KRSNa: JagannAtha dAsa?

PrabhupAda: Maybe.

Indian devotee (2): JagannAtha-suta.

PrabhupAda: JagannAtha-suta.

TamAla KRSNa: No...

PrabhupAda: And the one rascal is gone.

TamAla KRSNa: NitAi.

PrabhupAda: It is starting. What can I do? These cannot... These rascals cannot be educated. Dangerous. Little learning, dangerous. So how to correct? The leader of these dangerous--RAdhA-vallabha.

TamAla KRSNa: RAdhA-vallabha?

PrabhupAda: Hm. He's a dangerous, who maintains these rascal with this work. He'll always have questions and alteration. That is his business. That is American business. They take that always. What can I do? Ultimate, it goes for editorial. They make changes, such changes.

TamAla KRSNa: Your original work that you're doing now, that is edited by JayAdvaita. That's the first editing.

<h3>PrabhupAda: He is good.</h3>

TamAla KRSNa: He is good. But then, after they print the books, they're going over. So when they reprint...

PrabhupAda: So how to check this? How to stop this?

TamAla KRSNa: They should not make any changes without consulting JayAdvaita.

PrabhupAda: But they are doing without any authority.

SvarUpa DAmodara: I think we should make whole survey, all books already printed, before printing the next batch and check any mistakes so that it should be all corrected. Otherwise, if the scholars find out that there are so many mistakes in the books, then the quality and the appreciation will be reduced.

GirirAja(?): (indistinct)

SvarUpa DAmodara: Yes. We find so far that they are appreciating so much within the scholarly circle, and we want to maintain that actually.

PrabhupAda: Very serious feature. It is not possible for me to check, and they are doing all nonsense, freedom. (pause)

YazodA-nandana: Jaya SrIla PrabhupAda.

PrabhupAda: What to do?

TamAla KRSNa: I think SvarUpa DAmodara's point, that all the books should now be checked before they're reprinted again... And they have to be checked not by some so-called learned Sanskrit man but by a learned devotee. Just like you always favored JayAdvaita because his KRSNa consciousness...

<h3>PrabhupAda: JayAdvaita, SatsvarUpa...</h3>

YazodA-nandana: Bhakti-prema, SatsvarUpa is there.

TamAla KRSNa: So Bhakti-prema... That's a good solution.

PrabhupAda: Yes.

TamAla KRSNa: You know, the real point is that the Sanskrit is often not translated properly in the translation, what NitAi and others have done.

PrabhupAda: He's a rascal. That's... He's finding out guru and job for filling the belly. That is the latest news.

TamAla KRSNa: What is he doing?

PrabhupAda: To find out some job to fill up the belly. Otherwise he'll starve if he doesn't get any job. And he's finding out guru. Job-guru. Now do the needful. Otherwise everything will be spoiled. These rascal editorial... That Easy Journey, original, this (indistinct) HayagrIva has changed so many things.

TamAla KRSNa: He actually took out the whole part about their going to the moon being childish. He deleted the whole section.

YazodA-nandana: Also in the BhAgavatam, where PrabhupAda was talking about Lord Buddha... You mentioned that if the followers of Lord Buddha do not close the slaughterhouse, there is no meaning to such a caricature. That word was very nice. But in new book that word is not there any more. They have pulled the word. The meaning of the word is not... So many times.

PrabhupAda: It is very serious situation. RAmezvara is in direct...

SvarUpa DAmodara: I think they're working too independently without consulting properly.

YazodA-nandana: Sometimes they appeal that "We can make better English," so they change like that, just like in the case of IzopaniSad. 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.

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

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.

TamAla KRSNa: They should have a board of SatsvarUpa and JayAdvaita.

PrabhupAda: Hm.

TamAla KRSNa: Those two men are both in Los Angeles now.

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

TamAla KRSNa: Sometimes there's a fear that some word will be unpopular, and on account of desire to gain popularity or acceptance, they lessen the strength of the word. They change the word. They choose a word which is more so-called acceptable.

SvarUpa DAmodara: Same thing is with the Back to Godhead. Just publish some photo, try to change so many things in order to make it popularized. They have been doing that even with the philosophy. (pause)

Satadhanya: I remember when RAmezvara was here, he had mentioned that in one article you had denounced the Christians strongly, so he said he left one part out because he was afraid there would be a bad reaction from the Christians in America.

PrabhupAda: That is possible. That is possible. He should be careful. Then?

TamAla KRSNa: I think in addition to SatsvarUpa and JayAdvaita checking the English, that Bhakti-prema MahArAja has to check all the Sanskrit of all of the books... He's translating now, so as he's translating, he can check. He's going, starting from the First Canto.

SvarUpa DAmodara: I think this is very appropriate, because checking English doesn't have any meaning without checking the Sanskrit, the original.

TamAla KRSNa: There was one verse in the Fifth Canto. From the way that they translated it, there was no way that anyone could possibly have understood what the verse meant. I mean, it was made unintelligible by the translation. So we were reading. Finally Bhakti-prema says, "Wait a minute. This translation is wrong. They have edited an extra statement here that is not there, and it makes it completely not understandable." Then suddenly, when he corrected the Sanskrit, it was easy to understand. It was very clear.

PrabhupAda: So what to do?

TamAla KRSNa: So I think we just have to be slow but sure. We have to go over all of the books and make sure that they're perfect before they're printed again. Not be in such a rush, print, print, and print all nonsense.

SvarUpa DAmodara: One time I had a strong talk with RAmezvara MahArAja about our article for printing in the Back to Godhead. I didn't want them to be printed in Back to Godhead because they made so many changes...

PrabhupAda: Oh, he has dared to change yours also?

SvarUpa DAmodara: Oh, yes. They change so many things in our article. And it was on the telephone. I was speaking to him in Atlanta from Los Angeles. And I told him that "This article should not be printed because they have made so many changes." And I didn't like that. Then they answered that "It has already been offset, and BBT policy is always to be rushing. It's always BBT policy." Then I told him that "If you sacrifice quality on the strength of rushing, then it is your business, but that's not my way, so please don't print it." But in any case, they have printed anyway that article. And we all had a bad reaction.

PrabhupAda: So you bring this to SatsvarUpa. They cannot change anything.

TamAla KRSNa: (indistinct)

SvarUpa DAmodara: So we stopped writing article for Back to Godhead since then because...

TamAla KRSNa: Now, I think, with SatsvarUpa there, you won't have that problem of changing like that. He wrote a letter saying that one of his first things is that he will not change what is given there unless... He will not make changes.

SvarUpa DAmodara: No, if they consult us, even with changing, that's all right. But they just edit here and there and cut it out, certain things. They're changing the whole meaning. And that makes sometimes nonsense instead of making sense.

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

TamAla KRSNa: There has to be strong philosophical leaders who can check this, like SatsvarUpa and JayAdvaita.

PrabhupAda: Hm.

TamAla KRSNa: They have to also be included in the decisions of the BBT. It can't simply be that managers make decisions.

PrabhupAda: Yes. Without their sanction, there will be... Let them... These all rascals...

SvarUpa DAmodara: One time in that article they made a change. Saying that, the whole VaiSNava philosophy became MAyAvAdI in that scientific article. So I told them that "You are better than..., a better (indistinct)." It all become MAyAvAdI, so it became all mad. That is why I strongly told them that "This shouldn't be the way. If you want to change, you have to consult with those who are writers."

PrabhupAda: So they are doing very freely and dangerously. And this rascal is always after change, RAdhA-vallabha. He's a great rascal. (pause) Read.

TamAla KRSNa: Translation: Previously all the great sages rendered service unto the Personality of Godhead due to His existence above the three modes of material nature. They worshiped Him to become free from material conditions and thus derive the ultimate benefit. Whoever follows such great authorities is also eligible for liberation from the material world.

Purport: The purpose of performing religion is neither to profit by material gain nor to get the simple knowledge of discerning matter from spirit. The ultimate aim of religious performances is to release oneself from material bondage and regain the life of freedom in the transcendental world, where the Personality of Godhead is the Supreme Person. Laws of religion, therefore, are directly enacted by the Personality of Godhead, and except for the mahAjanas, or the authorized agents of the Lord, no one knows the purpose of religion. There are twelve particular agents of the Lord who know the purpose of religion, and all of them render transcendental service unto Him. Persons who desire their own good may follow these mahAjanas and thus attain the supreme benefit.

PrabhupAda: Read.

TamAla KRSNa: Next verse?

PrabhupAda: No. Yes. Here is... So this is the aim, that one should know KRSNa. And the human life is meant for that purpose. That is the distinction between animal life and human life. Therefore the next verse is yato bhaktir adhokSaje. Find out.

TamAla KRSNa:

sa vai puMsAM paro dharmo

yato bhaktir adhokSaje

ahaituky apratihatA

yayAtmA suprasIdati

[sB 1.2.6]

PrabhupAda: So life is divided into two, that body and the soul. Actually the soul requires satisfaction. So unless the soul approaches AdhokSaja--adhokSaja means beyond the sense perception of bodily understanding--there is no possibility. So we can start later this chapter. Next verse?

TamAla KRSNa: Translation?

SvarUpa DAmodara: Next verse.

TamAla KRSNa: Translation.

PrabhupAda: No, no, no. Next verse.

TamAla KRSNa:

vAsudeve bhagavati

bhakti-yogaH prayojitaH

janayaty Azu vairAgyaM

jJAnaM ca yad ahaitukam

[sB 1.2.7]

PrabhupAda: So this perfection can be achieved by direct devotional service to VAsudeva. Next verse?

TamAla KRSNa:

dharmaH svanuSThitaH puMsAM

viSvaksena-kathAsu yaH

notpAdayed yadi ratiM

zrama eva hi kevalam

[sB 1.2.8]

PrabhupAda: So unless one comes to this position, to understand VAsudeva, whatever he is doing or occupational duty, that is waste of time. It is waste of time in this way, that the body will change, so whatever he has done in this life, body will change. So it is waste of time. After the change of the body, everything is finished. Srama eva hi kevalam.

TamAla KRSNa: Next verse?

PrabhupAda: Hm.

TamAla KRSNa:

dharmasya hy Apavargyasya

nArtho 'rthAyopakalpate

nArthasya dharmaikAntasya

kAmo lAbhAya hi smRtaH

PrabhupAda: The dharma, artha, kAma, mokSa... Generally people take to religion for improving economic condition. It is going on. They go to the church: "O God, give us our daily bread." And they'll go to the temple: "O mother KAlI, give me this. O father Siva, give me this." So they take it for economic development, dharma. But that is is not the proper way. Dharmasya hy Apavargyasya. Dharma should be executed for stopping this material condition of life, apavarga. Pavarga. This material life is pavarga. Pa means parizrama, hard labor. And pha means phena, so hard labor that foams comes. Pa, pha, ba. And still it is baffled, vyartha. Bha: and always fear. And ma means death. So pa, pha, ba, bha, ma. So dharma means to stop this pa, pha, ba, bha, ma.

SvarUpa DAmodara: This is apa...?

PrabhupAda: Varga. It is pa-varga. There are five vargas, ka-varga, ca-varga, and the pa-varga. Very scientific. A-pa-varga. And that is the meaning. But these rascals, they have taken to increase the pa-varga, that zrama eva hi kevalam. The basic principle of dharma is wrong. Dharma is meant for stopping this pa-varga. And they are increasing this pa-varga. And the next word?

TamAla KRSNa:

kAmasya nendriya-prItir

lAbho jIveta yAvatA

jIvasya tattva-jijJAsA

nArtho yaz ceha karmabhiH

[sB 1.2.10]

PrabhupAda: So then question will be that "If we do not get some economic facilities, so how we can live?" And that's a fact. Therefore it is said here, dharmasya hi... No. What is that?

TamAla KRSNa: KAmasya nendriya-prItir lAbho jIveta... [sB 1.2.10].

PrabhupAda: Yes. KAmasya, sense gratification, required, but not for sense gratification's sake. It requires only for living comfortably. You try to make the economic development, that is all right. But they have taken simply for sense gratification. "I have got one car, and there must be another three cars for my children and wife." This is going on, kAma, increasing. Economic development... You require some occupational duty for earning your livelihood... That is allowed. But why more and more, more, more, more? For that, they are making scientific research how to satisfy senses. So kAmasya na indriya-prItiH. You require some sense gratification not for the senses, but because you have got a bad bargain, this body, just to maintain it, not more than. That is varNAzrama-dharma. So there are so many problems we have created. They do not understand. And this civilization are simply gratifying senses, so dangerous. And dehAntara-prAptiH. And they create a position by very, very hard labor, and the body is changed. Then zrama eva hi kevalam. What benefit you get? This life, you make a skyscraper building, three dozen cars, and next life, you become a dog. Then what is your profit? What do you gain? They do not gain anything. So that change of body is in nature's hand. KarmaNA daiva-netreNa. That is not in your hand. When the body will change, you cannot say, "No, no, I'll not change," because that is not under your dictation. So is not simply waste of time?

SvarUpa DAmodara: Yes. BhAgavata says so clearly, zrama eva hi kevalam.

PrabhupAda: These rascals, they do not understand. This is the position.

TamAla KRSNa: Next verse?

PrabhupAda: Hm.

TamAla KRSNa: Vadanti tat tattva-vidas... [sB 1.2.11].

PrabhupAda: That's all right. And therefore the civilization should be athAto brahma jijJAsA, simply to enquire about the Absolute Truth. And that is civilization. Now you can... Whatever little we have discussed, you can discuss now and close our book. How wrongly the whole civilization is carried on, how risky it is, that they do not know. Now, what the materialist has to say in this connection?

Satadhanya: They say everything is getting better.

PrabhupAda: What is that better?

YazodA-nandana: Well, a few hundred years ago there was no airplanes, no cars, no facilities...

PrabhupAda: That's all right, but when you become a dog next life, then what is your gain? You are not going to use this airplane. You have to make a rest in this car, in this seat. What you are going to do that about? DehAntara-prAptiH. KRSNa says most authoritative statement and giving the example, dehino 'smin yathA dehe kaumAram... [bg. 2.13]. So how you can check this dehAntara?

TamAla KRSNa: They argue that "We are getting people to live longer now than they used to live."

PrabhupAda: After all, you'll have to change. In a false platform, to live longer, is that very great profit?

TamAla KRSNa: Well, as we improve material life...

PrabhupAda: No, where is improved? You are going to be a dog, suppose. Where is your improvement?

SvarUpa DAmodara: It's an illusion.

PrabhupAda: They lose.

[...]

[rand0M aXiS]

---------- Forwarded message ----------

OLF/Joseph Fedorowsky <....@oxfordlaw.com>

Mar 15, 2006 10:35 PM

Submission - "Havoc and Distortion"

......com

 

 

 

 

 

</pre>

Havoc And Distortion

 

 

 

 

</pre>

By Gupta das

 

Los Angeles, CA

 

 

 

 

Take careful note because here it is for all to see, the corner stone rationale plainly admitted in an article entitled "Faithful To Srila Prabhupada's Words" posted on March 11, 2006, on chakra.org by Jayadvaita Swami, the architect and editor-in-chief of the so-called "revised and enlarged" editions: " . . . closer fidelity to Srila Prabhupada's original words." EXTREME CAUTION: DO NOT BE MISLED BY

Jayadvaita Swami's UNACCEPTABLE MISUSE AND TWISTING OF THESE

EMOTIONALLY CHARGED TRIGGER WORDS!

 

 

 

Essentially, Jayadvaita Swami's assertion is that post disappearance editing (in blatant violation of both Srila Prabhupada's direct instructions and the spiritual principle of arsa-prayoga) is IMPLICITLY AUTHORIZED because, IN JAYADVAITA SWAMI'S EYES, the 10,000 year editorial rewrite campaign he launched brings the ALREADY PUBLISHED text closer to arbitrarily selected words which appear in a so-called manuscript - EVEN THOUGH THE AUTHOR HIMSELF DID NOT WANT THE

SO-CALLED MANUSCRIPT PUBLISHED AND, IN FACT, THE AUTHOR DID NOT

PUBLISH THE SO-CALLED MANUSCRIPT!

 

 

 

Just IMAGINE the havoc which would be created were this SERIOUSLY DISTORTED RATIONALE applied to every author's ALREADY PUBLISHED WORK by some editor (slash wannabe writer) after the author's demise! No one would ever know what an author actually wanted presented as his final product. The logical extension of this SERIOUSLY DISTORTED RATIONALE would be for the BBT to RECALL EACH AND EVERY Bhagavad-Gita As It Is ever printed and then substitute the SO-CALLED MANUSCRIPT in it's place. If the BBT is not prepared to do that, then Jayadvaita

Swami and his merry band of editorial staff replicates should pen their OWN books and STOP CHANGING SRILA PRABHUPADA'S BOOKS!

 

 

 

Note also that with regard to the so-called manuscript - which in actuality is a series of tattered, typed pages and editorial notes made over different periods of time - there is no documentation available to authenticate who transcribed what, who made the editorial notes, on what basis changes were made or not made, or even to verify exactly when those notes were made. This is the flimsy evidence trail that Jayadvaita Swami attempts to use to MANUFACTURE AUTHORITY WHICH DOES NOT EXIST to change Srila Prabhupada's authorized, approved and ALREADY PUBLISHED books under the GUISE of being "faithful to Srila

Prabhupada's words."

 

 

 

Srila Prabhupada had practically every verse and purport read aloud from the AUTHORIZED, APPROVED AND PUBLISHED 1972 Bhagavad-gita As It Is during class - yet NEVER ONCE asked Jayadvaita Swami to dig up and SUBSTITUTE some draft version of variously typed pages (the so-called manuscript that Jayadvaita Swami relies on) in place and stead of the AUTHORIZED AND APPROVED PUBLISHED EDITION! It is utterly inane to continue to second guess and insult Srila Prabhupada on this point, especially considering that Srila Prabhupada's direct and unequivocal INSTRUCTION was specifically NOT to change even ONE word of his beloved Bhagavad-gita As It Is! Just what part of "AS IT IS" does Jayadvaita Swami not understand?

 

 

 

Moreover, I highly doubt that there are any actual voice recordings of Srila Prabhupada dictating the words which appear in one version or another of the so-called manuscript - nor any oral recording that correspond to these galley proofs and editorial notes. Of course, even if there were, that would not change the essential core point that Srila Prabhupada AUTHORIZED AND APPROVED THE PUBLISHED VERSION – NOT THE MANUSCRIPT, and, that there is ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY TO MAKE

POST DISAPPEARANCE CHANGES. The editorial cottage industry which Jayadvaita Swami invented and has expanded for the past three decades is based on smoke and mirrors, and has only served to creat havoc and distortion. This must stop. See, A Time For Substance, Not Fluff posted on http://www.adi-vani.org/articles.php?articleId=23.

 

 

 

I will also note that this SEVERE DISTORTION of Srila Prabhupada's unequivocal instructions NOT TO CHANGE HIS BOOKS is orchestrated by the same person, Jayadvaita Swami, who officially denied the very existence of Srila Prabhupada heart - the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust - in the 1997/1998 California trust litigation. As you may recall, that litigation resulted in revalidation of the BBT as a trust along with a license to publish the original books begrudgingly issued to Krishna

Books Inc.

 

 

 

In his unrelenting attack on Srila Prabhupada's adi-vani, Jayadvaita Swami - as a Trustee of the same BBT that he argued in 1997/1998 never existed or in the alternative was legally defunct - continues to take a position in DIRECT CONFLICT with the Settlor of the BBT, Srila Prabhupada, who SPECIFICALLY SAID NOT TO CHANGE HIS BOOKS. Clearly, Jayadvaita Swami exhibits a SERIOUS CONFLICT between his loyalties to himself as the editor-in-chief of the post-disappearance revised edition, on the one hand, and his overarching fiduciary duty as a trustee of the charitable trust formed by the original author for his

original works, on the other.

 

 

 

Should Jayadvaita Swami sincerely desire to be "FAITHFUL TO SRILA PRABHUPADA'S WORDS" as he publicly represents, then he needs to seriously study and act on THESE words:

 

 

 

"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 in a Room Conversation on August 5, 1976.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--</pre>

[gHari]

I feel cheated by that person who posted the stilted snip of that conversation about 'rascal editors'. I feel I was purposely cheated, for how could one find the snippet without reading all the contrary things around it?

 

Perhaps the cheating came from an anti-change website. Whatever the source of the cheating, I do not trust another word they say.

 

There is too much political nonsense covering our intelligence on these issues that everyone entertains themselves with. And I'm tired of it.

 

Simply tired of it all.

 

Inductive reasoning shows me that the critics are always wrong, always cheating, always stupid --- it's time to just conclude that they are all nonsense, maya, and a waste of my time.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

If you feel cheated its only because you want to feel cheated. Srila Prabhupada states throughout that conversation do not change anything, again restore the books to their original form, and that those who make unauthorized changes are rascal editors. If you have the document from Prabhupada authorizing Jayadvaita Swami or any of the BBT editors to change Prabhupada's personal recorded words for Caitantya Caritamrita from "initiated" to "accepted as his disciple" then I guess we can all be quiet. Who should feel cheated and by whom? Those devotees who try to read Prabhupada's Caitanya Caritamrita but instead get Jayadvaita Swami's and Dravida's Caitanya Caritamrita are the one's who have been cheated.

 

Unless you can explain how it is fine to remove Prabhupada's original words from the Caitanya Caritamrita verse below everything else you say is just a smoke screen to divert the focus.

 

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"

 

Go ahead and give your explanation of why they changed this verse simply for personal political reasons. As I said before, it was only because Jayadvaita Swami had a feud with the Ritviks that they changed this verse AWAY from Prabhupada's version, AWAY from the manuscripts, and AWAY from the original printing - and in it's place they just made up words from the blue sky and inserted them. Now how would you explain that in relation to the 1977 conversation where Prabhupada called his editors rascals for changing things without any authorization form him. Now we know who has a right to feel cheated.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

Simply tired of it all.

It would be good to get some quotes by any devotees or Guru's who don't like the changing. But I cannot find any. All we have is few quotes here and there. If everybody in Iskcon doesn't mind. Then who is 'REALLY' saying or going on about the changes?! I wasn't even involved in this. And like you am tired of it. I cannot find anywhere that anybody from another Matha says they are changing 'Prabhupada Books'. If there is post them. Maybe we can sort it out:eek:

[gHari]

 

[...] Srila Prabhupada states throughout that conversation do not change anything, again restore the books to their original form

I didn't get this impression at all. My impression was that all changes should be approved by Jayadvaita or Satsvarupa.

[gHari]

 

[...] Srila Prabhupada states throughout that conversation do not change anything, again restore the books to their original form

I didn't get this impression at all. My impression was that all changes should be approved by Jayadvaita or Satsvarupa.

 

Any clerk, not an advanced devotee would have been able to ensure that new releases matched word for word the original book. They were obviously accepting a need to make changes, and developing a plan to have future changes validated before publishing.

[gHari]

How many times must the critics find out that they have been arguing against Srila Prabhupada's actual dictated words before they realize that it is not Paramatma that is sponsoring their criticisms?

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

How many times must the critics find out that they have been arguing against Srila Prabhupada's actual dictated words before they realize that it is not Paramatma that is sponsoring their criticisms?

 

Why the smoke screen? Dravida has already publicly admitted that the following was changed away from Prabhupada's words to better fit the present view of guru in ISKCON:

 

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"

 

 

[gHari]

I guess I don't see a lot of difference between the two presentations. If it's not bad that "Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura accepted Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji", then I take no offense that "Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura ... accepted Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji". It seems they mean the same thing to Srila Prabhupada, accepting a disciple and initiating a disciple. And one's spiritual master is the one who initiated him. Of course the new version reads better. To me they mean the same thing.

 

If we are to try to draw differences between 'accepting' and 'initiating', then we chance offending Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

I find it literally amazing that you can,

1) read Prabhupada's many statements not to change his books and to return them to the original form,

2) see Dravida admit that they changed Prabhupada's own original words because it didn't fit in with the GBC's definition of initiation,

3) read the bogus claims that they are "bringing it closer to Prabhupada's original" by removing Prabhupada's own words,

and not see anything fishy. To you, "hey, it reads better. I've been cheated by you stupid rascals for pointing all this out."

Literally amazing.

It seems when you like someone there is no limit to how blind one can make oneself in their defense.

There is a long, long history of people blindly defending unqualified leaders for their improper actions in ISKCON, going back years and years. This is nothing new. Anyone who points out such things are rascal offenders. Keep the propaganda going.

And then to top it off you try to smoke screen the issue with deception:

 

How many times must the critics find out that they have been arguing against Srila Prabhupada's actual dictated words before they realize that it is not Paramatma that is sponsoring their criticisms?

 

Your claim above, posted directly after I asked you to explain this particular change, implies that we are arguing against Srila Prabhupada's actual dictated words, when in fact it is the opposite. Prabhupada's original version, which he himself wrote was using the word "initiated". So your relply that we are somehow "arguing against Prabhupada's actual dictated words" is just a smokescreen to divert attention when there is no logical reply.

What we have shown is the claim that they are "returning things to Prabhupada's original version" is a lie. And the claim that they are "giving us more Prabhupada" is another lie. What they are actually doing is removing Prabhupada's personal words and replacing them with their own politically motivated phrases. Your defense of this shameful act with "it reads better to me" is equally shameful. Are we now to change all of Prabhupada's books to make them "read better". Those are the rascal editors that Prabhupada was talking about. Simply changing Prabhupada's words that were personally inspired by Lord Krishna with their mundane political propaganda because it will "read better".

[Kulapavana]

If any editing is to be done, it should be done by a team of real brahmanas, not motivated by political interests, and not a single editor. Jayadvaita Swami is definitely a political player as well as a scholar, that is quite obvious from the many controversies he participated in as a player. That is why an editorial TEAM is needed, to balance the possible partialities.

[gHari]

A devotee as intelliigent as yourself should see that my comments about Paramatma fit other cases raised both here earlier and many many others found on the anti-change tirade pages.

 

Quite frankly, I don't see how the changes about 'accepting' versus 'initiated' benefit any one group. I don't think that Srila Prabhupada was intimating that Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji was not initiated when he used the word 'accepted'' instead of 'initiated'?

 

As far as Srila Prabhupada not wanting changes, one has to ask why is there so much discussion about who should validate the changes. If there are to be no changes, then there is no need for Jayadvaita and Satsvarupa to be assigned.

 

My feelings about stupidity and cheating are felt not only for the editing issue, but also for many other heated schisms that keep tearing Prabhupada's army apart. I've not found one that doesn't resort to blatant cheating begging stupidity for credence.

[nimbo pani]

 

Inductive reasoning shows me that the critics are always wrong, always cheating, always stupid

If there are to be no changes, then there is no need for Jayadvaita and Satsvarupa to be assigned.

My feelings about stupidity and cheating are felt not only for the editing issue, but also for many other heated schisms that keep tearing Prabhupada's army apart.

gHari prabhu, please don't take this that I'm trying to give you a hard time. I'm just curious about some of your above statements. In regards to Satsvarupa M., do you feel that he is still qualified to edit, given his rather long history of illness which has required psychotropics and an avoidance-behaviour pattern regarding devotees? I don't mean this as a criticism of Maharaja, I'm sure he's still a very sincere devotee, I just wonder if Srila Prabhupada's instruction was intended for the time at hand, or for the duration of Maharaja's life.

Also, in regards to critics always being wrong, which you later stated was not only for the editing issue, it should probably be mentioned that Jayadvaita Maharaja himself has been a critic. We've all been critics at one time or another. We'd still have a Zonal Acharya system were it not for Jayadvaita Swami and many of his godbrothers. I'm not suggesting that one criticize for criticism's sake. Clearly, some people overdo it. At the same time, positive change will never be realized without someone stepping forward as a critic. Maybe it's not just the critics who are "tearing Prabhupada's army apart." Perhaps the "status quo" folks, along with the critics, and the critics of the critics, are all to blame to some degree or another. It depends upon the issue or challenge at hand, I would guess.

Again, no offense intended. I normally enjoy your posts. I was simply curious as to some of your comments.

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

It is so foolish that people cannot see why the editing must stop.

Let's take this very 'crude result' example - would it cause issues for devotees if we refuse to accept these changes?

What if some of us say 'no i want the books as they are' - is that going to put us on the outs with the BBT and ISKCON leadership?

Sound like seeds of factioning?

This issue is moot - for ISKCON to be fighting like this - nearly three decades after Srila Prabhupada published these books is a very bad omen!

So it's time that people think.

It's time that we understand the power-play at work in this.

It's time that we see that these stewards of his books are - to [in part] serve the interests of outsiders - no longer serving Prabhupada's interests - in the stewardship of his writings.

This is not about offense - just because we're critical of these things - that doesn't mean that we're aparhadis - as that is what we're called - I'm sure. [oh yes - there is a history of this kind of reaction to critical questions]

Is the BBT even interested in seeing that this issue doesn't further divide ISKCON - do they even care?

When i look back over the short history of ISKCON - it is so obvious why there is such a hole in everything.

ISKCON should've been much more within this world - by 2006.

For example - here in Saskatchewan we've had to file a complaint at the human rights commission - in 2002 - and what did they tell us [?] - "We don't cover Krishna here!"

That's true - they did say that when they denied my god-brother and myself our rights! [incidentally - a similar ill marginal treatment was imposed on my god-brother - in 1996 in Alberta - at the human rights commission as well - (another time).

So let's just see 'why' a human rights commission - in a western nation - could act like this!?

We're still at odds with them over this issue and - we shall continue seeing this through right too it's proper conclusion.

So why did they say what they did?

Could a very small part of it be that after all these years there is still a wide-perception that ISKCON is a cult?

Has the 'PR department' within ISKCON failed?

Whose fault is that?

Why doesn't the world know more about Krishna and know more about His Vedic culture - without all the noted 'issues' about the cult-perception of ISKCON - within the eyes of the world in general?

Of course ISKCON is NOT a cult - but - there are [and have been] some individuals within ISKCON [including leadership] that have brought 'that mood' into our midst.

So we'll not ever help the world - all these years later - if we cannot - in the least - stop this nonsense re-writing of Srila Prabhupada's books....

BDM

[gHari]

Well, yes, that absolute statement is exaggerated of course. It's not all stupid, cheating and wrong --- but in retrospect, the exceptions seem like footprints on the moon.

 

Maybe it's just my way of moving on to Krsna. I will accept that mercy and savour the moments as they tick away, leaving the game for the youth who have more adrenalin and time to burn.

[Guest guest]

Its interesting to read what has been written so far.

I have a new query on this subject. I have asked this before on these forums and also to many of the sellers of ISKCON'S Srimad Bhagavatham. I know there is the original 30 volume version and the new 18 volume version(also contains volumes after Srilas time). Have you come across any major errors in these books? If i were to buy the SB, irrespective of price and size, which would you recommend in terms of error free content?

Thank you for your time.

Manoj

[theist]

 

Why the smoke screen? Dravida has already publicly admitted that the following was changed away from Prabhupada's words to better fit the present view of guru in ISKCON:

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"

Obviously Dravida thinks there is a difference or why change it at all. I don't need to try and analyze the change to determine if it was good or bad. It is Prabhupada's book and he wrote initiated. THAT IS THAT! Plus Dravida has given his reason, it's no secret, he thought it sounded like something the riviks could use. So instead of accepting the point he just wrote it out.

We want a specific answer from Jayadvaita about this specific change.

 

Where else have such changes been made? How many subtle changes in meaning have been orchestrated to fool the uneducated readers like myself?

 

They are killing faith in Prabhupada's books! Causing unnecessary doubt.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

As far as the Srimad Bhagavatam goes, the editors claim it has not yet been edited. There is no way for people like me to know the truth unless we sit down with a magnifying glass.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Obviously Dravida thinks there is a difference or why change it at all.

Good point. Dravid changed it specifically because he wanted a different meaning, he says so himself. He didn't care how it read or whether it "read better", he simply didn't like what Prabhupada said and felt it was not philosophically or historically correct.

 

If the words really meant the same thing, like some have claimed here, then he could have left them as is. But he specifically didn't want the same meaning, he wanted a meaning that conformed to the GBC's policy on initiation.

 

Jagannatha Das Babaji never performed any formal ceremony to "initiate" Bhaktivinoda Thakur, and Bhaktivinoda Thakur had received diksha from Bipin Bihari Goswami, a caste goswami. Thus the use of the word "initiate" by Prabhupada would indicate one can be initiated simply by accepting the siksha of the guru, something the GBC does not support. This is a concept supported by some devotees, such as the book "The Prominent Link".

 

Dravida writes:

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. (Narottama may have "accepted" Visvanatha as his servitor, but it wasn't on the physical plane, since there is a gap between their lifetimes; likewise between Visvanath and Jagannatha das.)

He says it is fine to say a non-present guru "accepted" a person, but not correct to say he "initiated". Why? Who knows better what may have occured in the transcendental realm of the devotee's nitya-lila, Dravida or Prabhupada? He rejects it because it is inline with the Ritvik doctrine, as well as inline with the doctrine that initiation is by Siksha (following the teachings and instructions of the guru) not by formal ritual.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

More explanations by Dravida:

 

Thank you for your thoughts on my changes to the passage in question. I think that to have left the two "initiated"s in place would have required a large footnote along the lines of your explanation to avoid confusion in the reader. A few pages later in the CC (at Adi 1.35) the reader encounters this passage:

 

"A devotee must have only one initiating spiritual master because in the scriptures acceptance of more than one is always forbidden. There is no limit, however, to the number of instructing spiritual masters one may accept. Generally a spiritual master who constantly instructs a disciple in spiritual science becomes his initiating spiritual master later on."

 

Having read that Jagannatha dasa Babaji initiated Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, the reader would naturally assume that Jagannatha dasa Babaji is Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura's initiating spiritual master. But we know that Bhaktivinoda already had one--Vipina Vihari Goswami--and so that impression would be false because "acceptance of more than one [initiating spiritual master] is always forbidden."

...But certainly the common meaning of the term [initiation] as understood in Iskcon comes from how Srila Prabhupada used it--either to refer to the formal process of first initiation by himself personally or by himself through his representative, with fire sacrifice, the taking of sacred vows, the change of name, etc.--or to the awarding of the sacred thread at the time of second initiation.

 

...But this creates a false distinction: in truth, Jagannatha das Babaji was an instructing spritual master of Bhaktivinoda Thakura, and the Thakur was an instructing spiritual master of Gaura-kisora das Babaji.

 

Who is to say that Jagannatha Das Babaji isn't the initiating spiritual master of Bhaktivinoda Thakur? Someone may have been initiated by a hundred false gurus, that does not stop him from receiving initiation from a bonafide guru when the chance comes. "Oh, I'm sorry Bhaktivinoda, you were already initiated by a caste Goswami, you will have to wait till next life till I initiate you." The entire change is based on their confused understanding of initiation, and their dependence on the ritual of initiation over the guru's divine will. Their arguments are:

 

1) Bipin Bihari had already performed a ritual initiation, therefore Bhaktivinoda could never again be initiated by a Vaishnava.

 

2) Initiation is only by the ritual ceremony, and Jagannatha Das Babaji never performed such a ritual for Bhaktivinoda Thakur.

 

Prabhupada chose to specifically use the word "initiate". If we cannot understand how this is possible, then we should humbly admit we are fools who have no spiritual vision to see it. We should not claim Prabhupada was mistaken simply because of our own lack of spiritual vision.

 

It should be noted that nowhere in Prabhupada's teachings (books, lectures, letters, conversations) does Prabhupada present the teaching that Bhaktivinoda Thakur was initiated by Bipin Bihari Goswami. Never once does he mention it. This is not one of Prabhupada's teachings. So these editors have found a teaching outside of Prabhupada's teachings, and with that they are changing and "correcting" Prabhupada's own words. If Prabhupada never taught that Bhaktivinoda Thakur was initiated by Bipin Bihari Goswami, and if Prabhupada never taught that Bipin Bihari Goswami was the guru of Bhaktivinoda Thakur, then why change Prabhupada's own words based on that faulty belief?! They are taking teachings from the caste Goswami's and erasing Prabhupada's beautiful words based on those outside teachings. This is why they are rascal editors.