Jahnava Nitai Das

All threads focussing on Hindu/Muslim anything will be closed and no further threads will be allowed on these topics for the present time. There are so many positive things to speak about Hinduism and the Vedic teachings. These Hindu/Muslim discussions just clutter the forums and obscure the valuable and informative posts.

P.S. This is only applicable to the "Spiritual Discussions" forum. None of the other forums will be linked to the email group at this time.

The spiritual discussions forum has now been linked to the IndiaDivine . When you post a message here, it will automatically be sent by email to the 7,000 members of the Indiadivine at (pending moderation and approval of each message). When any of the 7,000 members reply to the message, it will automatically be posted back here in this forum. All messages being sent to the will first be screened and require approval before they are sent by email to the members. The messages will still appear instantly on this forum, only the email receivers will not receive them till they are approved. This is to stop people sending spam and offensive posts. Likewise, all return messages from the email users will not be posted to this forum till they are screened and approved for posting. In summary, everything is exactly the same as it was before, but now there will be 7,000 extra people receiving your posts via email; and those 7,000 people will have the option of participating in the discussions through email. We will be a lot stricter in what gets sent to the email members. Posts where people argue back and forth, and which offer nothing of substance won't make it to the list. Positive, and constructive posts on spiritual topics will always make it to the list.

test1test2test3test4

If your using your home computer, click the "Remember Me" check box when you log in so you will always be logged in.

I find it odd that a westerner who didn't know Hindi would be able to tell some brahmana pandits that he planned to drown himself in the Ganga, that they should help him, and that they should chant mantras while he did it. No one would go along with that. Even today, with English much more prominent in India, I believe this would likely be impossible.

Also the thousands of workers had their hands cut off after completion of the monument. Very generous of the King.

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.

I don't see this thread going anywhere positive, and am considering to close it. If you really want it kept open let me know.

I believe it is the zh letter of Tamil, sometimes written as an L.

Very interesting.

naham prakasah sarvasya yoga-maya-samavrtah mudho ’yam nabhijanati loko mam ajam avyayam "I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am covered by My internal potency, and therefore they do not know that I am unborn and infallible." Krishna says "I do not manifest for the unintelligent, for them I am covered from view by my yoga-maya." Yoga-maya is the Lord's spiritual potency. Nowhere does Krishna say he is covered by trigunatmika maya. Rather he says the opposite: daivi hy esha guna-mayi mama maya duratyaya mam eva ye prapadyante mayam etam taranti te "This divine maya of Mine, consisting of the three modes of material nature, is difficult to overcome. But those who have surrendered unto Me can easily cross beyond it." The Shvetashvatara Upanishad (4.10) states: mayam tu prakritim vidyan mayinam tu maheshvaram The supreme controller is the magician behind maya.

In another old discussion one devotee offered this opinion:

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.

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.

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.

You can now select a stretched screen version of the forums for those with 1024 x 768 screen resolution and above. At the bottom left of the page you will see a style selector box. Switch it to "Audarya Widescreen" to have the forums fill the width of your screen.

In the original transcription it was an adjective of "result", i.e. "fruitive result". But in the first edition it became a noun "the fruitive" by leaving out the word result. Original: this realisation is possible by working with fruitive result being situ ated on fixed up conclusion of the real self. Regardless, even if the word result was re-inserted, the meaning remains identical: This realization is made possible by working with the fruitive result, being situated in the fixed conception of the real self. Again the meaning remains crystal clear without the need to assume which words Prabhupada had intended to speak.

The discussions about book changes have been moved to a seperate thread, as they obscured this thread's focus on the pronouns.

I used to think the same way, but now I doubt whether anyone can define the correct pronunciation of Bhagavan's names - we can only define the more popular pronunciation. Krishna is pronounced as Krushna, Krishta, Krishtan, KrishnA, Krishno and Kreeshna deepending on which area of India you are in. Rama is pronounce as Ram, Ramo. Hare is also pronounced as Hade. Sita Rama is also pronounced as Siya Rama in North India. There are so many variations, and the Lord hears them all, so I won't be the one to decide which is the correct pronunciation. You can say which pronunciations are Sanskrit, which are Bengali, etc., but who can say which are correct and which are wrong. Our songs and prayers are not only sanskrit, they are also bengali, oriya, brajaboli, etc. And we don't have an absolute ponunciation standard, like I showed for Gauranga. One minute we are saying we should pronounce as sanskrit, then next we are following Hindi influence, then next Bengali influence. Over all I prefer sanskrit ponunciation because in my mind it is more ancient and authoritative. But that's just my mental conception based on mundane time. These names are eternal, even the Bengali pronunciations. As far as switching the pronunciation while singing and talking (rama/ramo), I can understand the point but there are other factors. Perhaps the bhava created while singing, or the tune that is being sung (raga), or the spacing (chandas) or any number of reasons. I don't think it is such a serious offense if there is any offense at all. Usually South Indians ask why devotees sometimes change krishna to krishnaa while singing mahamantra. When singing some syllables automatically become long.

I am also willing to accept that it is possible there was a word left out in the original transcript. There could have even been 10 words left out in the original transcript. The point is who is qualified to guess at what words were left out. If the present version can be logically explained and it remains consistant with gaudiya siddhanta, then why should someone start guessing at what might have been said and not written in the transcript. Jayadvaita Swami asserted that the sentence "made no damn sense at all" and I showed that not only did it make sense, but it was in line with Gaudiya siddhanta. So what to do in such a situation? You can leave it as is, or you can start guessing and assuming as to what Prabhupada really meant, and guessing as to what words were left out of the original transcription. The guessing path is extremely dangerous and it offends so many devotees who hold Prabhupada's original words dear. As many have suggested, if any change needs to be pointed out, add a footnote below saying "the editors feel Prabhupada meant the following". I believe if they would make available to the public 1) the original transcriptions of Prabhupada's Gita, and 2) a complete list of all changes made, then it would go half way to removing doubts because it would put their actions under the view of the worldwide devotee community. I am sure there are a number of changes which are actually correcting genuine mistakes such as things in the original transcription that were cut out. But there are also a lot of suspect changes, and unless they make everything public there will be doubt in the minds of devotees.

He specifically speaks against Maharishi for selling his mantra to people to make money. For those who are not aware, you need to buy your way up the initiation ladder in TM. This doesn't mean that Maharishi doesn't have anything useful, but his system of selling sacred mantras for money is against the Vedic principles.

I just spent around one minute on Jayadvaita Swami's gita revisions explained website, and in that short amount of time I already found quite an obvious mistake in the very first example I read. Bhagavad Gita 2.1 In summary, Jayadvaita Swami assumes a sentence in this purport is an editing mistake and completely changes the meaning by inserting new words and deleting the old sentence. If he had just added a comma into the sentence, the context would have been self evident and he would realize there was no editing error. Prabhupada was speaking of yukta-vairagya (engaging everything in Krishna's service), whereas Jayadvaita Swami has changed the subject to nishkama-karma (renouncing attachment to fruitive results). These are two different subjects altogether. Please see this example. (I have added a red coma for reference to show that the context flows perfectly when broken as "fruitive, being" instead of "fruitive being" (a single noun): Original: This realization is made possible by working with the fruitive, being situated in the fixed conception of the real self. Jayadvaita Swami Edited Version: This realization is possible when one works without attachment to fruitive results and is situated in the fixed conception of the real self. Prabhupada's original transcription: this realisation is possible by working with fruitive result being situ ated on fixed up conclusion of the real self. Jayadvaita Swami's explanation: Jayadvaita swami decides to assume it's an editing mistake (without any evidence of this) and then goes further to assume what Prabhupada really meant. What is in Prabhupada's original transcription is crystal clear, he is speaking about utilizing the fruits of one's actions in service to Krishna - yukta vairagya. There doesn't need to be any editing done to it at all, what to speak of assuming it's an editing error. Prabhupada's original version is clear to all who are familiar with Prabhupada's teachings: Working with fruitive results + fixed up conclusion of real self = karma yoga, offering the fruits of one's actions to Krishna. Jayadvaita Swami's addition of the following words "This realization is possible by working without fruitive result" may not be wrong, but it isn't what Prabhupada said. We are now receiving a commentary of Jayadvaita Swami instead of Prabhupada's original purport. Again, look at the original, (with the comma inserted to show the sentence context): Original: "This realization is made possible by working with the fruitive, being situated in the fixed conception of the real self." In other words, "this realization is made possible by engaging in fruitive action while being fixed in conception of the real self", classic karma-yoga. There is no need to add the extra words and divert from Prabhupada's original statement. Prabhupada was speaking about working for Krishna, but what the new edition has is an extended purport on that topic given by Jayadvaita Swami. And why did he add it? By his own admission it was because he assumed it was an editing mistake. If any change needed to be made at all, it would simply be inserting a coma into the sentence. Rather than changing Prabhupada's original words, and assuming they are editing mistakes we should leave them as is and let Prabhupada's words speak for themselves. Actually what Jayadvaita Swami has done is completely change the meaning of the sentence. Prabhupada is speaking about utilizing fruitive results, whereas Jayadvaita Swami is speaking about developing nonattachment. They are two completely different subjects. "Working with the fruitive," (positively engaging results in Krishna's service) is yukta-vairagya, whereas Jayadvaita Swami is speaking about working without attachement which is nishkama-karma. Jayadvaita Swami assumes it's an editing mistake, erases what Prabhupada said, and then replaces it with his own assumption of what Prabhupada meant. Someone who can't catch the subtle difference between yukta-vairagya and nishkama-karma shouldn't be making changes to Srila Prabhupada's books. Please also note a second change that subtly alters the meaning: Original: This realization is made possible by working with the fruitive, being situated in the fixed conception of the real self. Jayadvaita Swami Edited Version: This realization is possible when one works without attachment to fruitive results and is situated in the fixed conception of the real self. The words "by working" in the original indicate it is the very process by which the realization is achieved (abhideya). Whereas Jayadvaita Swami's version has changed it to "it is possible when one works without attachment" indicating that it is a possibility to occur (perhaps by some other activity). In other words, the edited version tells us "At that time it is possible to achieve this realization", but how it will be achieved is not necessarily stated. Thus the changing of a single word from "by" to "when" completely alters the meaning and stress of the sentence. Again, I would like to point out that this was the very first example I read on his website which I just randomly chose. If the rest of his changes are as bad as this, then Prabhupada's original teachings may already have been completely altered. When dealing with transcendental literature, simply knowing English grammar is not enough. Every syllable in Prabhupada's writings contain vast philosophical import, and the slightest alteration can obscure these gems from our view.

Well if we want to be pickey, then gauranga is being mispronounced by every single person in ISKCON (including me). It is correctly gaurAnga, made up of gaura and anga, creating a long vowel in the middle. If someone wants to use the excuse that it is Bengali, then it should be gaurango (the 'o' that everyone seems to so much dislike). The conclusion is the pronunciation is Hindi influenced - so there is no consistancy how words are pronounced (i.e. sticking with either Sanskrit, Bengali or Hindi). Why I bring this up is because we really can't be pickey. There are so many imperfections in all of our pronunciations that we should just be happy that they are chanting. There are gurus in iskcon who still recite "om ajnana timirandhasya jananjana shalakaya" instead of gyananjana. So what? As long as everyone is trying and chanting Krishna's name we should just be happy.