Editing Srila Prabhupada's books

[Guest guest]

Dear Mother Hare Krsna dasi,

 

PAMHO. agtSP.

 

Thank you for joining the discussion.

 

To begin the discussion, I would like to ask you the following questions.

 

1. At what instance did you come to the realization that Srila PRabhupada's

books should be

footnoted? Is it your own realization, a sharing of ideas with others or what?

Do you think Srila Prabhupada's writings have been tainted by some sort of

conditioning and are therefore imperfect (if so, please elaborate)? Have you

researched Srila Prabhupada's opinion on editing his books?

 

2. Obviously, there must be some issue(s) which has sparked your/or others'

idea of footnoting. Could you inform us of what such issue(s) should be

footnoted? I think this would be important since we can understand the scope of

the exercise. Are others allowed to suggest topics in Prabhupada's books that

can be footnoted? How do you foresee the process of footnoting? Do we give

Jayadvaita Swami a list of topics to footnote, will there be a committee to

suggest topics and review revisions?

 

3. Could you be more specific in regards to which writing(s) of previous

acaryas has been footnoted? It is certainly a hallowed vaisnava tradition to

refer to authorities but your suggestion seems novel.

 

4. You have mentioned Jayadvaita Swami as being qualified to footnote Srila

Prabhupada's books. Has he been contacted or in fact is he the person behind

this whole editing effort? Frankly, I would be suprised to hear that knowing

the Maharaja somewhat. If he declines, is there a shortlist of other respected

vaisnavas who would want to footnote Srila Prabhupada's books. To continue this

thought, what do you feel are the qualifications of a "footnoter" to be. If you

could give me some direction perhaps I could suggest someone. Please forgive me

for not thinking that you and Mataji Madhusudani Radha are not qualified. I may

be wrong in this assumption and could likely identify my error when you inform

me of the proper qualifications and etiquette of footnoting the acarya's

writing are.

 

Looking forward to your response.

 

Respecfully,

 

Vyapaka dasa

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 29 May 1999, Robert Cope wrote:

 

> [Text 2357865 from COM]

>

> Dear Mother Hare Krsna dasi,

>

> PAMHO. agtSP.

>

> Thank you for joining the discussion.

 

When you bring up the topic of footnoting or editting Srila Prabhupada's

books, you are discussing something which is not near and dear to my

heart. I am not prepared to spend any more time discussing the topic.

 

Jayadvaita Maharaja is already posting notes on COM which explain the

editing of individual verses in a satisfactory way. There is nothing for

me to campaign for because it is already happening.

 

Furthermore, I continue to feel personally indebted to you for four or

five years of hard work which you spent working with me and serving the

devotees by helping put out Hare Krsna Rural Life. It is disturbing to me

to be put into a position of having to combat someone who I feel such

gratitude to.

 

I cannot afford to spend any more time discussing this topic. I cannot

afford to kill my time.

 

Why are you wasting your time with a discussion like this when you have

such a wealth of farming knowledge you could share on this conference with

devotees around the world who would be so grateful to get your informed

and practical advice on many agricultural topics? These devotees care

nothing at all about my views on footnoting, but they would be most

interested to hear sound advice about farming, and you are qualified to

give it to them.

 

yours in Srila Prabhupada's service,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 29 May 1999, Robert Cope wrote:

 

> [Text 2357865 from COM]

>

> Dear Mother Hare Krsna dasi,

>

> PAMHO. agtSP.

>

> Thank you for joining the discussion.

 

When you bring up the topic of footnoting or editting Srila Prabhupada's

books, you are discussing something which is not near and dear to my

heart. I am not prepared to spend any more time discussing the topic.

 

Jayadvaita Maharaja is already posting notes on COM which explain the

editing of individual verses in a satisfactory way. There is nothing for

me to campaign for because it is already happening.

 

Furthermore, I continue to feel personally indebted to you for four or

five years of hard work which you spent working with me and serving the

devotees by helping put out Hare Krsna Rural Life. It is disturbing to me

to be put into a position of having to combat someone who I feel such

gratitude to.

 

I cannot afford to spend any more time discussing this topic. I cannot

afford to kill my time.

 

Why are you wasting your time with a discussion like this when you have

such a wealth of farming knowledge you could share on this conference with

devotees around the world who would be so grateful to get your informed

and practical advice on many agricultural topics? These devotees care

nothing at all about my views on footnoting, but they would be most

interested to hear sound advice about farming, and you are qualified to

give it to them.

 

yours in Srila Prabhupada's service,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

[Guest guest]

Hare Krsna dasi:

>When you bring up the topic of footnoting or editting Srila Prabhupada's

>books, you are discussing something which is not near and dear to my

>heart. I am not prepared to spend any more time discussing the topic.

 

Then why did you and Dr. M. Radha bring it up in the first place? Your last

posting sported a much more enthusiastic tone than this one and therefore it

was my hope that you would present your ideas but obviously not. Not one

response to any of my questions! Is that due to time restriction or to not

having any legitimate answers?

>

>Jayadvaita Maharaja is already posting notes on COM which explain the

>editing of individual verses in a satisfactory way. There is nothing for

>me to campaign for because it is already happening.

 

I have just corresponded with Jayadvaita Mja and he says he has no plan to

join the footnoting team. My understanding is that J. Mja is correcting

misquotes such as cattle raising instead of cattle protection but never in

any instance is he footnoting Srila Prabhupada's books. Certainly not along

the VAST ideas which he also agreed were offensive (i.e. that Srila

Prabhupada's writings were influenced by his conditioning at Scottish

Churches College). Your suggestion that the work under way on the Gita is

footnoting is inaccurate and subjective. To characterize Srila Prabhupada's

writings as footnotes to previous acaryas follows in a similar vein. These

books must not be changed and that includes footnotes.

 

'So if you read Bhagavad-gita as it is, that is mad-äçrayaù. But if you

interpret Bhagavad-gita according to your rascal imagination, that is not

Bhagavad-gita. Therefore it is called mad-äçrayaù, “under My protection, as

I am tea...” We are therefore presenting Bhagavad-gita as it is. We do not

change. Why should you change? What right you have got to change? If

Bhagavad-gita is a book of authority, and if I make my own interpretation,

then where is the authority? Can you change the lawbook according to your

interpretation? Then what is the meaning of that lawbook? That is not

lawbook. You cannot change. Similarly, if you accept Bhagavad-gita as the

book of authority, you cannot change the meaning. That is not allowed. What

right? If you have got some opinion, if you have got some philosophy, you

can write in your own book. Why you are, I mean to say, killing others and

yourself by interpreting Bhagavad-gita? You give your own thesis in a

different way. But these people, they take advantage of the popularity of

Bhagavad-gita and interpret in a different way according to their own whims.

Therefore people do not understand what is Krsna. That is the difficulty.

And the purpose of Bhagavad-gita is to understand Krsna. And all the

so-called scholars’ and politicians’ commentary is to banish Krsna or to

kill Krsna—the Kamsa’s policy. The Kamsa was always thinking of Krsna, how

to kill Him. This is called demonic endeavor. So that will not help you.'

(Bhagavad-gita 7.1-- Hyderabad, April 27, 1974; 740427BG.HYD)

 

>

>Furthermore, I continue to feel personally indebted to you for four or

>five years of hard work which you spent working with me and serving the

>devotees by helping put out Hare Krsna Rural Life. It is disturbing to me

>to be put into a position of having to combat someone who I feel such

>gratitude to.

 

It brings me no pleasure either to interact with you in this manner.

However, the sanctity of Srila Prabhupada's books is something that I feel I

must stand up for. I have never seen such a challenge to Prabhupada's books

in the 25 years that I have been his disciple. You say that footnoting is a

legitimate exercise; however, Srila Prabhupada's opinion differs from yours.

 

Prabhupäda: Yes. No, you can accept a suitable situation according to your

convenience. There is brahmacäré, gåhastha, vänaprastha, sannyäsa. Four

orders are there. Whichever is suitable for you, accept. But don’t forget

the problem and the aim of life. And we don’t want men giving some quotation

from a book just like these so-called scholars do. He has not gone through

the book, but take some suitable passage and note, and then he advertises

himself that he has studied so many book. “Bibliography.” Is it not?

So-called scholar?

Satsvarüpa: Footnotes, bibliography.

Prabhupäda: Footnote scholar they are now.

(Evening Conversation, January 25, 1977, Puri, 770125rc.puri)

>

>I cannot afford to spend any more time discussing this topic. I cannot

>afford to kill my time.

 

Srila Prabhupada agrees with you re. the wasting of time on footnoting:

 

Devotee: “One has therefore to learn from Krsna directly or from a pure

devotee of Krsna and not from a nondevotee upstart, puffed up with academic

education.”

Prabhupäda: Yes. If somebody says, “Oh, I am very good scholar in Sanskrit

and English and this language, that language. I can explain. I have read so

many books, and I can comment. I can give footnote and waste your time,”

then “Oh, he is very nice.” Simply for wasting time and energy, everyone is

ready. (Bhagavad-gita 7.1--Los Angeles, March 12, 1970; 700312BG.LA)

 

Now doesn't that sound like an accurate portrayal of the VAST conference

discussion!

 

>

>Why are you wasting your time with a discussion like this when you have

>such a wealth of farming knowledge you could share on this conference with

>devotees around the world who would be so grateful to get your informed

>and practical advice on many agricultural topics? These devotees care

>nothing at all about my views on footnoting, but they would be most

>interested to hear sound advice about farming, and you are qualified to

>give it to them.

How can you possibly suggest that the topic of changing the books of Srila

Prabhupada to be a waste of time. It is certainly more important than

farming katha and it obvious that you want to change the focus from your

short-sighted view in regards to footnoting. What is worrisome is that it is

not just your view but the view as stated by Dr. Madhusudani Radha and some

participants in the VAST connference that causes alarm. You have not been

very straightforward by reneging on my question of where these ideas have

started. And why do all of you have the same opinion re. footnoting

Prabhupada's books at the same time? Dr. Radha's defence that it was only a

suggestion in a brainstorming session does not hold water.

 

I do hope that we don't hear any more of this footnoting nonsense. If you

don't agree with Srila Prabhupada then write your own books and let your

ideas stand on their own merit. If you do so (I am not specifically

addressing Mother H.K. dasi with this point), I promise I won't call them a

footnote to Srila Prabhupada's books.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krsna dasi:

>When you bring up the topic of footnoting or editting Srila Prabhupada's

>books, you are discussing something which is not near and dear to my

>heart. I am not prepared to spend any more time discussing the topic.

 

Then why did you and Dr. M. Radha bring it up in the first place? Your last

posting sported a much more enthusiastic tone than this one and therefore it

was my hope that you would present your ideas but obviously not. Not one

response to any of my questions! Is that due to time restriction or to not

having any legitimate answers?

>

>Jayadvaita Maharaja is already posting notes on COM which explain the

>editing of individual verses in a satisfactory way. There is nothing for

>me to campaign for because it is already happening.

 

I have just corresponded with Jayadvaita Mja and he says he has no plan to

join the footnoting team. My understanding is that J. Mja is correcting

misquotes such as cattle raising instead of cattle protection but never in

any instance is he footnoting Srila Prabhupada's books. Certainly not along

the VAST ideas which he also agreed were offensive (i.e. that Srila

Prabhupada's writings were influenced by his conditioning at Scottish

Churches College). Your suggestion that the work under way on the Gita is

footnoting is inaccurate and subjective. To characterize Srila Prabhupada's

writings as footnotes to previous acaryas follows in a similar vein. These

books must not be changed and that includes footnotes.

 

'So if you read Bhagavad-gita as it is, that is mad-äçrayaù. But if you

interpret Bhagavad-gita according to your rascal imagination, that is not

Bhagavad-gita. Therefore it is called mad-äçrayaù, “under My protection, as

I am tea...” We are therefore presenting Bhagavad-gita as it is. We do not

change. Why should you change? What right you have got to change? If

Bhagavad-gita is a book of authority, and if I make my own interpretation,

then where is the authority? Can you change the lawbook according to your

interpretation? Then what is the meaning of that lawbook? That is not

lawbook. You cannot change. Similarly, if you accept Bhagavad-gita as the

book of authority, you cannot change the meaning. That is not allowed. What

right? If you have got some opinion, if you have got some philosophy, you

can write in your own book. Why you are, I mean to say, killing others and

yourself by interpreting Bhagavad-gita? You give your own thesis in a

different way. But these people, they take advantage of the popularity of

Bhagavad-gita and interpret in a different way according to their own whims.

Therefore people do not understand what is Krsna. That is the difficulty.

And the purpose of Bhagavad-gita is to understand Krsna. And all the

so-called scholars’ and politicians’ commentary is to banish Krsna or to

kill Krsna—the Kamsa’s policy. The Kamsa was always thinking of Krsna, how

to kill Him. This is called demonic endeavor. So that will not help you.'

(Bhagavad-gita 7.1-- Hyderabad, April 27, 1974; 740427BG.HYD)

 

>

>Furthermore, I continue to feel personally indebted to you for four or

>five years of hard work which you spent working with me and serving the

>devotees by helping put out Hare Krsna Rural Life. It is disturbing to me

>to be put into a position of having to combat someone who I feel such

>gratitude to.

 

It brings me no pleasure either to interact with you in this manner.

However, the sanctity of Srila Prabhupada's books is something that I feel I

must stand up for. I have never seen such a challenge to Prabhupada's books

in the 25 years that I have been his disciple. You say that footnoting is a

legitimate exercise; however, Srila Prabhupada's opinion differs from yours.

 

Prabhupäda: Yes. No, you can accept a suitable situation according to your

convenience. There is brahmacäré, gåhastha, vänaprastha, sannyäsa. Four

orders are there. Whichever is suitable for you, accept. But don’t forget

the problem and the aim of life. And we don’t want men giving some quotation

from a book just like these so-called scholars do. He has not gone through

the book, but take some suitable passage and note, and then he advertises

himself that he has studied so many book. “Bibliography.” Is it not?

So-called scholar?

Satsvarüpa: Footnotes, bibliography.

Prabhupäda: Footnote scholar they are now.

(Evening Conversation, January 25, 1977, Puri, 770125rc.puri)

>

>I cannot afford to spend any more time discussing this topic. I cannot

>afford to kill my time.

 

Srila Prabhupada agrees with you re. the wasting of time on footnoting:

 

Devotee: “One has therefore to learn from Krsna directly or from a pure

devotee of Krsna and not from a nondevotee upstart, puffed up with academic

education.”

Prabhupäda: Yes. If somebody says, “Oh, I am very good scholar in Sanskrit

and English and this language, that language. I can explain. I have read so

many books, and I can comment. I can give footnote and waste your time,”

then “Oh, he is very nice.” Simply for wasting time and energy, everyone is

ready. (Bhagavad-gita 7.1--Los Angeles, March 12, 1970; 700312BG.LA)

 

Now doesn't that sound like an accurate portrayal of the VAST conference

discussion!

 

>

>Why are you wasting your time with a discussion like this when you have

>such a wealth of farming knowledge you could share on this conference with

>devotees around the world who would be so grateful to get your informed

>and practical advice on many agricultural topics? These devotees care

>nothing at all about my views on footnoting, but they would be most

>interested to hear sound advice about farming, and you are qualified to

>give it to them.

How can you possibly suggest that the topic of changing the books of Srila

Prabhupada to be a waste of time. It is certainly more important than

farming katha and it obvious that you want to change the focus from your

short-sighted view in regards to footnoting. What is worrisome is that it is

not just your view but the view as stated by Dr. Madhusudani Radha and some

participants in the VAST connference that causes alarm. You have not been

very straightforward by reneging on my question of where these ideas have

started. And why do all of you have the same opinion re. footnoting

Prabhupada's books at the same time? Dr. Radha's defence that it was only a

suggestion in a brainstorming session does not hold water.

 

I do hope that we don't hear any more of this footnoting nonsense. If you

don't agree with Srila Prabhupada then write your own books and let your

ideas stand on their own merit. If you do so (I am not specifically

addressing Mother H.K. dasi with this point), I promise I won't call them a

footnote to Srila Prabhupada's books.

[Guest guest]

At 18:38 -0800 5/31/99, Robert Cope wrote:

>

>Then why did you and Dr. M. Radha bring it up in the first place?

 

I don't know why you are not reading my mail. Here it goes one last time:

 

1) I participated in a VAST brainstorm in February 1998, which ended with

the participants pretty much deciding *against* suggesting any changes and

that it would be better just to have disciples write their own books for

academe, whenever professional publishing criteria prevent us from using

Prabhupada's books. You keep saying that scientists may object as much to

some of Prabhupada's ideas as his noe-outdated language, but you miss the

whole point of academe which is *exchange of ideas*. The ideas are fine to

present,even the radical ones. It's just that many, many professional

organizations *now* - -not 20 years ago - have publications standards that

do not allow e.g. referring to all human beings as "he". But since you

probably didn't read *all* the VAST texts, only the ones fed to you by JM

et al, I guess you wouldn't know that.

 

2) I have not been pushing this idea. I only discussed it again when

attacked for having participated in the brainstorm *15+ months ago. I have

never written a letter to the GBC or to the BBT asking anyone to change or

footnote anything.

 

>I have just corresponded with Jayadvaita Mja and he says he has no plan to

>join the footnoting team.

 

There is a "footnoting team"?????? Are you sure? Who is on it? It's the

first I've ever heard of one.

 

>Certainly not along

>the VAST ideas which he also agreed were offensive

 

There was no VAST footnoting proposal. Only a brainstorm between

academics, who had all encountered a block to their academic preaching

service, and who together brainstormed all possible ways in which this

might be resolved. No one there wrote a proposal to the BBT or to the GBC

re. footnotes as far as I know. The whole thing ended with the

acknowledgement that several disciples and granddsciples were writing their

own books about KC and that there actually was a precedent for this

(Satsvarup Maharaja's Vedic reader).

 

>What is worrisome is that it is

>not just your view but the view as stated by Dr. Madhusudani Radha and some

>participants in the VAST connference that causes alarm. You have not been

>very straightforward by reneging on my question of where these ideas have

>started. And why do all of you have the same opinion re. footnoting

>Prabhupada's books at the same time?

 

Because a couple of people on the conference had run into the same problem

when trying to use Prabhupada's books in academe. Academics react

unfavorably to what is known as gender stereotypic speech. We are not

allowed to use it these days and people thought it was too bad if outdated

language (note, this kind of speech *used to be* acceptable) would prevent

Prabhupada's books from being used in university settings. So everyone

*brainstormed* all kinds of possible ways in which this obstacle could be

dealt with. That's why everyone talked about it at the same time. It was a

discussion - a brainstorm. However, the conclusion was *against* making any

changes.

 

 

>Dr. Radha's defence that it was only a

>suggestion in a brainstorming session does not hold water.

 

I can't believe you're still saying this after I have explained to you

numerous times that this is exactly what it was. If you and the GHQ-ers

didn't keep bringing up the issue and asking us to explain what we were

discussing 15 months ago, the discussion would have been over; dead and

buried a long time ago and no one that I know would have been bringing up

the topis - at all. You're the one keeping it alive, even though both hare

Krsna Prabhu and I keep telling you we don't care about the issue. We both

have other topics that are near and dear to our hearts (e.g. domestic

violence, cow abuse, child abuse). However, whether or not Prabhupada's

books are footnoted does not affect either of our service.

 

And my name is either Madhusudani Radha dasi or Dr. Ekstrand. Don't know

who Dr. Radha is.

 

>

>I do hope that we don't hear any more of this footnoting nonsense.

 

Me too. That is most likely to happen if you stop bringing it up.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

At 18:38 -0800 5/31/99, Robert Cope wrote:

>

>Then why did you and Dr. M. Radha bring it up in the first place?

 

I don't know why you are not reading my mail. Here it goes one last time:

 

1) I participated in a VAST brainstorm in February 1998, which ended with

the participants pretty much deciding *against* suggesting any changes and

that it would be better just to have disciples write their own books for

academe, whenever professional publishing criteria prevent us from using

Prabhupada's books. You keep saying that scientists may object as much to

some of Prabhupada's ideas as his noe-outdated language, but you miss the

whole point of academe which is *exchange of ideas*. The ideas are fine to

present,even the radical ones. It's just that many, many professional

organizations *now* - -not 20 years ago - have publications standards that

do not allow e.g. referring to all human beings as "he". But since you

probably didn't read *all* the VAST texts, only the ones fed to you by JM

et al, I guess you wouldn't know that.

 

2) I have not been pushing this idea. I only discussed it again when

attacked for having participated in the brainstorm *15+ months ago. I have

never written a letter to the GBC or to the BBT asking anyone to change or

footnote anything.

 

>I have just corresponded with Jayadvaita Mja and he says he has no plan to

>join the footnoting team.

 

There is a "footnoting team"?????? Are you sure? Who is on it? It's the

first I've ever heard of one.

 

>Certainly not along

>the VAST ideas which he also agreed were offensive

 

There was no VAST footnoting proposal. Only a brainstorm between

academics, who had all encountered a block to their academic preaching

service, and who together brainstormed all possible ways in which this

might be resolved. No one there wrote a proposal to the BBT or to the GBC

re. footnotes as far as I know. The whole thing ended with the

acknowledgement that several disciples and granddsciples were writing their

own books about KC and that there actually was a precedent for this

(Satsvarup Maharaja's Vedic reader).

 

>What is worrisome is that it is

>not just your view but the view as stated by Dr. Madhusudani Radha and some

>participants in the VAST connference that causes alarm. You have not been

>very straightforward by reneging on my question of where these ideas have

>started. And why do all of you have the same opinion re. footnoting

>Prabhupada's books at the same time?

 

Because a couple of people on the conference had run into the same problem

when trying to use Prabhupada's books in academe. Academics react

unfavorably to what is known as gender stereotypic speech. We are not

allowed to use it these days and people thought it was too bad if outdated

language (note, this kind of speech *used to be* acceptable) would prevent

Prabhupada's books from being used in university settings. So everyone

*brainstormed* all kinds of possible ways in which this obstacle could be

dealt with. That's why everyone talked about it at the same time. It was a

discussion - a brainstorm. However, the conclusion was *against* making any

changes.

 

 

>Dr. Radha's defence that it was only a

>suggestion in a brainstorming session does not hold water.

 

I can't believe you're still saying this after I have explained to you

numerous times that this is exactly what it was. If you and the GHQ-ers

didn't keep bringing up the issue and asking us to explain what we were

discussing 15 months ago, the discussion would have been over; dead and

buried a long time ago and no one that I know would have been bringing up

the topis - at all. You're the one keeping it alive, even though both hare

Krsna Prabhu and I keep telling you we don't care about the issue. We both

have other topics that are near and dear to our hearts (e.g. domestic

violence, cow abuse, child abuse). However, whether or not Prabhupada's

books are footnoted does not affect either of our service.

 

And my name is either Madhusudani Radha dasi or Dr. Ekstrand. Don't know

who Dr. Radha is.

 

>

>I do hope that we don't hear any more of this footnoting nonsense.

 

Me too. That is most likely to happen if you stop bringing it up.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

> Why are you wasting your time with a discussion like this when you have

> such a wealth of farming knowledge you could share on this conference with

> devotees around the world who would be so grateful to get your informed

> and practical advice on many agricultural topics? These devotees care

> nothing at all about my views on footnoting, but they would be most

> interested to hear sound advice about farming, and you are qualified to

> give it to them.

 

I second that one.

 

Please Vyapaka Prabhu, help us out with some of your knowledge.

 

Do you know anything about companion planting? Can you give us examples of

plants that work well in a symbiosis with other plants?

 

I also need to find out about pest controling herbs, how they are applied

(as far as I know, some plants are good just growing, wheras others need

some kind of preparation).

 

Some people reccomend bringing in natural predator pests (what is this type

of control called?). But I have heard that this can be dangerous, and cause

an inmbalance in certain ecosystems.

 

I hoe I am not being presumtious in asking these questions.

 

Thanks Prabhu.

 

YS Samba das

[Guest guest]

> Why are you wasting your time with a discussion like this when you have

> such a wealth of farming knowledge you could share on this conference with

> devotees around the world who would be so grateful to get your informed

> and practical advice on many agricultural topics? These devotees care

> nothing at all about my views on footnoting, but they would be most

> interested to hear sound advice about farming, and you are qualified to

> give it to them.

 

I second that one.

 

Please Vyapaka Prabhu, help us out with some of your knowledge.

 

Do you know anything about companion planting? Can you give us examples of

plants that work well in a symbiosis with other plants?

 

I also need to find out about pest controling herbs, how they are applied

(as far as I know, some plants are good just growing, wheras others need

some kind of preparation).

 

Some people reccomend bringing in natural predator pests (what is this type

of control called?). But I have heard that this can be dangerous, and cause

an inmbalance in certain ecosystems.

 

I hoe I am not being presumtious in asking these questions.

 

Thanks Prabhu.

 

YS Samba das

[Guest guest]

> >When you bring up the topic of footnoting or editting Srila Prabhupada's

> >books, you are discussing something which is not near and dear to my

> >heart. I am not prepared to spend any more time discussing the topic.

>

> Then why did you and Dr. M. Radha bring it up in the first place? Your

> last posting sported a much more enthusiastic tone than this one and

> therefore it was my hope that you would present your ideas but obviously

> not. Not one response to any of my questions!

 

I may well understand the disinterest of the "other party" for

discussing the "footnoting" here and with you -- you yourself

are not interested in discussing it either. It was you who brought

the "issue" here, not to discuss it really, but to tell us how

your intention was to protect Srila Prabhupada's books and

mission from Madhusudani dd and Hare Krsna dd, the two "blatantly

misguided devotees".

 

Then, when none agreed on your passed judgment, as you would want

to, then you took the decision to prove it to us, through some

investigation/persecution method of "discussion". As you wrote

previously to them: "How can you have the audacity to even suggest

that you could, or anyone could, footnote Srila Prabhupada's books."

So how can anyone expect or believe that you are interested

in *discussing* footnoting. You have, at the moment, simply

put aside the garb of a judge and took the one of a persecutor

(and I took the one of a lawyer, looks like). So, yes, why they

should waste their time in "discussing" with you that what is for

you out of the question to even start suggesting it, and what you

have already sentenced them for.

 

It is rather the question of situation where you took the task

upon yourself to prove how MRdd and HKdd are the persons to protect

Prabhupada's books and mission from, and the mentioned judged/accused

devotees thus got to defend themselves and prove how the books and

the mission are not endangered by them. If they feel not that much

need for such self-defence, then why are you so eager to force them?

 

 

> Not one response to any of my questions! Is that due to time

> restriction or to not having any legitimate answers?

 

Have you, by some chance, ever got the professional training

in some of LA police stations?

 

 

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

 

Speaking about footnoting, and having on mind the quote you

provided to us (where Prabhupada is strongly objecting

interpretations and changing the meanings), I can't help but

say that I know for at least one place where a footnote should

be placed at the first occasion. The footnote could go something

like this:

 

"The reader should not, in his sane mind, think that Srila

Prabhupada means here that whoever can't substantiate his/her

statement by Srila Prabhupada's quote, that he/she is ..... [you

know what, already]"

 

 

What do you think? Would it be such an offence to Prabhupada

and the mission to do something like that? Would it be of any

use to have such a footnote anyaway?

 

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

 

 

ys mnd

 

 

PS.

If you don't mind me tell you, but be some kind of a gentleman

and start finally addressing Madhusudani Radha dd by her

actual name, as she repeatedly requested you to do so. It is

so annoying to see you insisting in misspelling and calling her

by some other concocted names (like "Dr. Radha"). It is a kind

of an intended abuse from your side, indeed. The old pattern

of provocating and intimidating women by the side of a "senior

ISCKON man".

 

..

[Guest guest]

> >When you bring up the topic of footnoting or editting Srila Prabhupada's

> >books, you are discussing something which is not near and dear to my

> >heart. I am not prepared to spend any more time discussing the topic.

>

> Then why did you and Dr. M. Radha bring it up in the first place? Your

> last posting sported a much more enthusiastic tone than this one and

> therefore it was my hope that you would present your ideas but obviously

> not. Not one response to any of my questions!

 

I may well understand the disinterest of the "other party" for

discussing the "footnoting" here and with you -- you yourself

are not interested in discussing it either. It was you who brought

the "issue" here, not to discuss it really, but to tell us how

your intention was to protect Srila Prabhupada's books and

mission from Madhusudani dd and Hare Krsna dd, the two "blatantly

misguided devotees".

 

Then, when none agreed on your passed judgment, as you would want

to, then you took the decision to prove it to us, through some

investigation/persecution method of "discussion". As you wrote

previously to them: "How can you have the audacity to even suggest

that you could, or anyone could, footnote Srila Prabhupada's books."

So how can anyone expect or believe that you are interested

in *discussing* footnoting. You have, at the moment, simply

put aside the garb of a judge and took the one of a persecutor

(and I took the one of a lawyer, looks like). So, yes, why they

should waste their time in "discussing" with you that what is for

you out of the question to even start suggesting it, and what you

have already sentenced them for.

 

It is rather the question of situation where you took the task

upon yourself to prove how MRdd and HKdd are the persons to protect

Prabhupada's books and mission from, and the mentioned judged/accused

devotees thus got to defend themselves and prove how the books and

the mission are not endangered by them. If they feel not that much

need for such self-defence, then why are you so eager to force them?

 

 

> Not one response to any of my questions! Is that due to time

> restriction or to not having any legitimate answers?

 

Have you, by some chance, ever got the professional training

in some of LA police stations?

 

 

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

 

Speaking about footnoting, and having on mind the quote you

provided to us (where Prabhupada is strongly objecting

interpretations and changing the meanings), I can't help but

say that I know for at least one place where a footnote should

be placed at the first occasion. The footnote could go something

like this:

 

"The reader should not, in his sane mind, think that Srila

Prabhupada means here that whoever can't substantiate his/her

statement by Srila Prabhupada's quote, that he/she is ..... [you

know what, already]"

 

 

What do you think? Would it be such an offence to Prabhupada

and the mission to do something like that? Would it be of any

use to have such a footnote anyaway?

 

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

 

 

ys mnd

 

 

PS.

If you don't mind me tell you, but be some kind of a gentleman

and start finally addressing Madhusudani Radha dd by her

actual name, as she repeatedly requested you to do so. It is

so annoying to see you insisting in misspelling and calling her

by some other concocted names (like "Dr. Radha"). It is a kind

of an intended abuse from your side, indeed. The old pattern

of provocating and intimidating women by the side of a "senior

ISCKON man".

 

..

[Guest guest]

On 31 May 1999, Robert Cope wrote:

 

 

> >Jayadvaita Maharaja is already posting notes on COM which explain the

> >editing of individual verses in a satisfactory way. There is nothing for

> >me to campaign for because it is already happening.

>

 

> I have just corresponded with Jayadvaita Mja and he says he has no plan to

> join the footnoting team. My understanding is that J. Mja is correcting

> misquotes such as cattle raising instead of cattle protection but never in

> any instance is he footnoting Srila Prabhupada's books.

 

 

 

 

Would you please ask Jayadvaita Maharaja about the other 5000 edits he has

made to the Bhagavad-gita? If it was limited to changing "cattle raising" to

cow protection and maybe 10 or 20 other "typos" it would be a little easier to

swallow. But thousands of changes? They may not be V.A.S.T. changes but they

are "vast" nonetheless.

 

Please let us know if you hear back from JM to explain the 5000+ changes to

Srila Prabhupada's books.

 

 

Further, in defense of Hare Krsna dd's footnote idea (I do not agree with the

changes, but she is not alone in this idea) there is the following from

Hridayananda M.:

 

USA (VNN) - Hridayananda Maharaja's

Solution to the Book Changes Problem Sat,

07 Mar 1998

 

" Dear Madhudvisa Prabhu,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories

to Srila Prabhupada. Thank you for your letter. I

appreciate your intelligent arguments, and your

absolute dedication to Srila Prabhupada. I think

you have made many good points, and I am not

against your viewpoint. My only hesitation is when

it becomes clear that Srila Prabhupada's original

dictation has been changed. One solution might be

to keep Prabhupada's books exactly as they were

published when he was present, but then to put in

footnotes explaining what the editors think was

really meant. In that way, everyone could be

satisfied. What do you think of this? Hoping you

are well, Your servant,

 

Hridayananda dasa Goswami "

 

 

 

ys,

Jd

[Guest guest]

On 31 May 1999, Robert Cope wrote:

 

 

> >Jayadvaita Maharaja is already posting notes on COM which explain the

> >editing of individual verses in a satisfactory way. There is nothing for

> >me to campaign for because it is already happening.

>

 

> I have just corresponded with Jayadvaita Mja and he says he has no plan to

> join the footnoting team. My understanding is that J. Mja is correcting

> misquotes such as cattle raising instead of cattle protection but never in

> any instance is he footnoting Srila Prabhupada's books.

 

 

 

 

Would you please ask Jayadvaita Maharaja about the other 5000 edits he has

made to the Bhagavad-gita? If it was limited to changing "cattle raising" to

cow protection and maybe 10 or 20 other "typos" it would be a little easier to

swallow. But thousands of changes? They may not be V.A.S.T. changes but they

are "vast" nonetheless.

 

Please let us know if you hear back from JM to explain the 5000+ changes to

Srila Prabhupada's books.

 

 

Further, in defense of Hare Krsna dd's footnote idea (I do not agree with the

changes, but she is not alone in this idea) there is the following from

Hridayananda M.:

 

USA (VNN) - Hridayananda Maharaja's

Solution to the Book Changes Problem Sat,

07 Mar 1998

 

" Dear Madhudvisa Prabhu,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories

to Srila Prabhupada. Thank you for your letter. I

appreciate your intelligent arguments, and your

absolute dedication to Srila Prabhupada. I think

you have made many good points, and I am not

against your viewpoint. My only hesitation is when

it becomes clear that Srila Prabhupada's original

dictation has been changed. One solution might be

to keep Prabhupada's books exactly as they were

published when he was present, but then to put in

footnotes explaining what the editors think was

really meant. In that way, everyone could be

satisfied. What do you think of this? Hoping you

are well, Your servant,

 

Hridayananda dasa Goswami "

 

 

 

ys,

Jd

[Guest guest]

>

>

> >

> >I do hope that we don't hear any more of this footnoting nonsense.

>

> Me too. That is most likely to happen if you stop bringing it up.

>

> Ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

 

The amazing thing is even if you agree with him, he attacks anyway. I agreed

with him that women shouldn't take sannyasa, and he went ballistic on me. You

agree with him there should be no footnoting, and still he is attacking.

 

Imagine how nasty it could get if anyone actually disagrees with him!

[Guest guest]

>

>

> >

> >I do hope that we don't hear any more of this footnoting nonsense.

>

> Me too. That is most likely to happen if you stop bringing it up.

>

> Ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

 

The amazing thing is even if you agree with him, he attacks anyway. I agreed

with him that women shouldn't take sannyasa, and he went ballistic on me. You

agree with him there should be no footnoting, and still he is attacking.

 

Imagine how nasty it could get if anyone actually disagrees with him!

[Guest guest]

Sometimes the spiritual master exhibits some kind of apparent disability or

inability to do different tasks. Thus he provides an excuse for different

disciples to serve him in different ways, according to their own expertise.

 

In Srila Prabhupada's case, of course the most obvious case to most of us is in

his last years with us, when due to apparent physical handicap, he allowed his

disciples to perform many personal services to him.

 

But, also you will see Srila Prabhupada exhibiting a similar spirit when you

read

volume 1 of Satsvarupa Maharaja's Prabhupada Lilamrta, and read about Srila

Prabhupada's early days on the Lower East Side of New York, before Satsvarupa

Maharaja, or Kirtanananda or Hayagriva were even initiated.

 

Hayagriva (Howard, in the book) was a professor of English. And, once he

offered

to help Srila Prabhupada by editing his manuscript, Srila Prabhupada graciously

agreed, and told him that he should do whatever was best to make the manuscript

readable. We want seem to be in complete denial about this. We want to

pretend

that the MacMillan version of the Bhagavad-gita was Srila Prabhupada's direct

words. Somehow it is fine to admit that devotees carried Prabhupada up and

down

from the temple roof in 1977, exhibiting an apparent material handicap. But,

it

is inadmissable to say that the words to the original Bhagavad-gita had been

editted by someone else -- even though lack of fluency in English is simply

another kind of material handicap -- it can in no way be considered a spiritual

handicap, nor, in the case of a person who was brought up in a country where

English is not the only language spoken, can it even be considered a sympton of

an

intellectual handicap. Srila Prabhupada openly and enthusiastically engaged

Hayagriva as editor.

 

Evidently Srila Prabhupada did not have the opportunity to thoroughly proofread

the text, and a number of errors made it into print. As far as I am concerned,

the most serious error that Hayagriva made was to substitute the term "cattle

raising" for "cow protection" in the 18:44 Bhagavad-gita verse. And, in the

conversations, Srila Prabhupada comments on this error frequently, requesting

the

devotees to change it in the future edition. This is a fairly serious mistake.

And if someone wanted to, they might even say that this is just one more reason

why cow protection has been so minimized in ISKCON. Nevertheless, Srila

Prabhupada did not say to recall the old Bhagavad-gitas. He simply insisted

that

the correction be made in the next edition. Evidentally, Srila Prabhupada did

not

think anyone would be barred from going back home, back to Godhead, because of

that mistake or b ecause they believed that the ancestors lived on a "planet of

trees," but he did want appropriate corrections made for the next edition.

 

I gather two impressions from this behavior by Srila Prabhupada. 1) In spite

of

the fairly serious mistake that Hayagriva had made in his editing, Srila

Prabhupada still felt that the MacMillan version of the Bhagavad-gita was

potent

enough to help devotees on the path of Krsna consciousness -- he knew it

contained

errors, yet he did not recall it, as he certainly could have if he had wanted

to.

And, 2) Srila Prabhupada fully intended that there should be a newly revised

edition in the future.

 

As it turns out, he later wrote a letter authorizing Jayadvaita Maharaja to do

the

future editing.

 

The question Janesvara raises is, were there really hundreds or thousands of

errors? My senses are imperfect. Therefore I have not seen the original

manuscript to compare it with Hagriva's edited version. I personally do not

know.

 

But, I do regularly read Jayadvaita Maharaja's (almost daily) postings on

corrections to individual verses, and I think that they do make a lot of sense.

I

must say that reading these annotations gives me a lot more confidence in the

revisions that have been made.

 

I think that anyone who wants to criticize Maharaja's editing job, must at

least

read these posts before he makes up his mind. It is possible, that he will

still

disagree with Maharaja even after reading the posts (and yes, he even points

out

some mistakes of his own), but if we criticize without even reading them, it

seems

to me that we are just engaging in ignorant ranting.

 

There are two unfortunate views that some devotees seem to take: 1) Only the

1st

edition of the Bhagavad-gita is accurate. How dare anyone presume to change

Srila

Prabhuapda's words (even though they are actually Hayagriva's words)? or 2)

Only the 2nd edition of the Bhagavad-gita is usable -- Hayagriva fell down,

therefore his service is to be rejected. It seems to me that both viewpoints

are

fanatical. It seems to me that Srila Prabhupada accepted the service of both

Hayagriva (he did not recall the Hayagriva Gitas) and Jayadwaita Maharaja (he

authorized him to edit the future edition).

 

My own feeling is that if there were some way to publish the original

manuscript

parallel with the other two versions, then people's fears that they were

loosing

something in the newer version would be allayed. Failing that, Jayadwaita

Maharaja's notes on the translation of individual verses and comparing them to

the

original manuscript is probably the next best thing. Personally, I'm saving

all

his posts and intend to punch holes in them and put them in a notebook for my

future reference. I recommend anyone else who is seriously interested in this

topic do the same. But if anyone is not even willing to listen to Jayadwaita

Maharaja's public postings, then how can they claim to be fair in their

assessment

of which version is more authentic?

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

 

 

"WWW: Janesvara (Dasa) ACBSP (Syracuse - USA)" wrote:

 

> [Text 2364636 from COM]

>

> On 31 May 1999, Robert Cope wrote:

>

>

> > >Jayadvaita Maharaja is already posting notes on COM which explain the

> > >editing of individual verses in a satisfactory way. There is nothing for

> > >me to campaign for because it is already happening.

> >

>

> > I have just corresponded with Jayadvaita Mja and he says he has no plan to

> > join the footnoting team. My understanding is that J. Mja is correcting

> > misquotes such as cattle raising instead of cattle protection but never in

> > any instance is he footnoting Srila Prabhupada's books.

>

> Would you please ask Jayadvaita Maharaja about the other 5000 edits he has

> made to the Bhagavad-gita? If it was limited to changing "cattle raising" to

> cow protection and maybe 10 or 20 other "typos" it would be a little easier

to

> swallow. But thousands of changes? They may not be V.A.S.T. changes but they

> are "vast" nonetheless.

>

> Please let us know if you hear back from JM to explain the 5000+ changes to

> Srila Prabhupada's books.

>

> Further, in defense of Hare Krsna dd's footnote idea (I do not agree with the

> changes, but she is not alone in this idea) there is the following from

> Hridayananda M.:

>

> USA (VNN) - Hridayananda Maharaja's

> Solution to the Book Changes Problem Sat,

> 07 Mar 1998

>

> " Dear Madhudvisa Prabhu,

>

> Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories

> to Srila Prabhupada. Thank you for your letter. I

> appreciate your intelligent arguments, and your

> absolute dedication to Srila Prabhupada. I think

> you have made many good points, and I am not

> against your viewpoint. My only hesitation is when

> it becomes clear that Srila Prabhupada's original

> dictation has been changed. One solution might be

> to keep Prabhupada's books exactly as they were

> published when he was present, but then to put in

> footnotes explaining what the editors think was

> really meant. In that way, everyone could be

> satisfied. What do you think of this? Hoping you

> are well, Your servant,

>

> Hridayananda dasa Goswami "

>

> ys,

> Jd

[Guest guest]

Sometimes the spiritual master exhibits some kind of apparent disability or

inability to do different tasks. Thus he provides an excuse for different

disciples to serve him in different ways, according to their own expertise.

 

In Srila Prabhupada's case, of course the most obvious case to most of us is in

his last years with us, when due to apparent physical handicap, he allowed his

disciples to perform many personal services to him.

 

But, also you will see Srila Prabhupada exhibiting a similar spirit when you

read

volume 1 of Satsvarupa Maharaja's Prabhupada Lilamrta, and read about Srila

Prabhupada's early days on the Lower East Side of New York, before Satsvarupa

Maharaja, or Kirtanananda or Hayagriva were even initiated.

 

Hayagriva (Howard, in the book) was a professor of English. And, once he

offered

to help Srila Prabhupada by editing his manuscript, Srila Prabhupada graciously

agreed, and told him that he should do whatever was best to make the manuscript

readable. We want seem to be in complete denial about this. We want to

pretend

that the MacMillan version of the Bhagavad-gita was Srila Prabhupada's direct

words. Somehow it is fine to admit that devotees carried Prabhupada up and

down

from the temple roof in 1977, exhibiting an apparent material handicap. But,

it

is inadmissable to say that the words to the original Bhagavad-gita had been

editted by someone else -- even though lack of fluency in English is simply

another kind of material handicap -- it can in no way be considered a spiritual

handicap, nor, in the case of a person who was brought up in a country where

English is not the only language spoken, can it even be considered a sympton of

an

intellectual handicap. Srila Prabhupada openly and enthusiastically engaged

Hayagriva as editor.

 

Evidently Srila Prabhupada did not have the opportunity to thoroughly proofread

the text, and a number of errors made it into print. As far as I am concerned,

the most serious error that Hayagriva made was to substitute the term "cattle

raising" for "cow protection" in the 18:44 Bhagavad-gita verse. And, in the

conversations, Srila Prabhupada comments on this error frequently, requesting

the

devotees to change it in the future edition. This is a fairly serious mistake.

And if someone wanted to, they might even say that this is just one more reason

why cow protection has been so minimized in ISKCON. Nevertheless, Srila

Prabhupada did not say to recall the old Bhagavad-gitas. He simply insisted

that

the correction be made in the next edition. Evidentally, Srila Prabhupada did

not

think anyone would be barred from going back home, back to Godhead, because of

that mistake or b ecause they believed that the ancestors lived on a "planet of

trees," but he did want appropriate corrections made for the next edition.

 

I gather two impressions from this behavior by Srila Prabhupada. 1) In spite

of

the fairly serious mistake that Hayagriva had made in his editing, Srila

Prabhupada still felt that the MacMillan version of the Bhagavad-gita was

potent

enough to help devotees on the path of Krsna consciousness -- he knew it

contained

errors, yet he did not recall it, as he certainly could have if he had wanted

to.

And, 2) Srila Prabhupada fully intended that there should be a newly revised

edition in the future.

 

As it turns out, he later wrote a letter authorizing Jayadvaita Maharaja to do

the

future editing.

 

The question Janesvara raises is, were there really hundreds or thousands of

errors? My senses are imperfect. Therefore I have not seen the original

manuscript to compare it with Hagriva's edited version. I personally do not

know.

 

But, I do regularly read Jayadvaita Maharaja's (almost daily) postings on

corrections to individual verses, and I think that they do make a lot of sense.

I

must say that reading these annotations gives me a lot more confidence in the

revisions that have been made.

 

I think that anyone who wants to criticize Maharaja's editing job, must at

least

read these posts before he makes up his mind. It is possible, that he will

still

disagree with Maharaja even after reading the posts (and yes, he even points

out

some mistakes of his own), but if we criticize without even reading them, it

seems

to me that we are just engaging in ignorant ranting.

 

There are two unfortunate views that some devotees seem to take: 1) Only the

1st

edition of the Bhagavad-gita is accurate. How dare anyone presume to change

Srila

Prabhuapda's words (even though they are actually Hayagriva's words)? or 2)

Only the 2nd edition of the Bhagavad-gita is usable -- Hayagriva fell down,

therefore his service is to be rejected. It seems to me that both viewpoints

are

fanatical. It seems to me that Srila Prabhupada accepted the service of both

Hayagriva (he did not recall the Hayagriva Gitas) and Jayadwaita Maharaja (he

authorized him to edit the future edition).

 

My own feeling is that if there were some way to publish the original

manuscript

parallel with the other two versions, then people's fears that they were

loosing

something in the newer version would be allayed. Failing that, Jayadwaita

Maharaja's notes on the translation of individual verses and comparing them to

the

original manuscript is probably the next best thing. Personally, I'm saving

all

his posts and intend to punch holes in them and put them in a notebook for my

future reference. I recommend anyone else who is seriously interested in this

topic do the same. But if anyone is not even willing to listen to Jayadwaita

Maharaja's public postings, then how can they claim to be fair in their

assessment

of which version is more authentic?

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

 

 

"WWW: Janesvara (Dasa) ACBSP (Syracuse - USA)" wrote:

 

> [Text 2364636 from COM]

>

> On 31 May 1999, Robert Cope wrote:

>

>

> > >Jayadvaita Maharaja is already posting notes on COM which explain the

> > >editing of individual verses in a satisfactory way. There is nothing for

> > >me to campaign for because it is already happening.

> >

>

> > I have just corresponded with Jayadvaita Mja and he says he has no plan to

> > join the footnoting team. My understanding is that J. Mja is correcting

> > misquotes such as cattle raising instead of cattle protection but never in

> > any instance is he footnoting Srila Prabhupada's books.

>

> Would you please ask Jayadvaita Maharaja about the other 5000 edits he has

> made to the Bhagavad-gita? If it was limited to changing "cattle raising" to

> cow protection and maybe 10 or 20 other "typos" it would be a little easier

to

> swallow. But thousands of changes? They may not be V.A.S.T. changes but they

> are "vast" nonetheless.

>

> Please let us know if you hear back from JM to explain the 5000+ changes to

> Srila Prabhupada's books.

>

> Further, in defense of Hare Krsna dd's footnote idea (I do not agree with the

> changes, but she is not alone in this idea) there is the following from

> Hridayananda M.:

>

> USA (VNN) - Hridayananda Maharaja's

> Solution to the Book Changes Problem Sat,

> 07 Mar 1998

>

> " Dear Madhudvisa Prabhu,

>

> Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories

> to Srila Prabhupada. Thank you for your letter. I

> appreciate your intelligent arguments, and your

> absolute dedication to Srila Prabhupada. I think

> you have made many good points, and I am not

> against your viewpoint. My only hesitation is when

> it becomes clear that Srila Prabhupada's original

> dictation has been changed. One solution might be

> to keep Prabhupada's books exactly as they were

> published when he was present, but then to put in

> footnotes explaining what the editors think was

> really meant. In that way, everyone could be

> satisfied. What do you think of this? Hoping you

> are well, Your servant,

>

> Hridayananda dasa Goswami "

>

> ys,

> Jd

[Guest guest]

On 01 Jun 1999, Hare Krsna dasi wrote:

 

> We want seem to be in complete denial about this. We want to

> pretend

> that the MacMillan version of the Bhagavad-gita was Srila Prabhupada's

direct

> words.

 

 

Shall we deny any possibility of a transcendental relationship between Srila

Prabhupada and Paramatma in the heart of Hayagriva dasa?

 

Do we now look at everything from the base material platform?

 

I would think if we asked Srila Prabhupada about this he MIGHT say something

along the lines of, "What is wrong with my Bhagavad-gita As It Is? Is no one

becoming Krsna conscious from reading it?"

 

Better Jayadvaita Maharaja spend his time implementing the instructions he was

given by Srila Prabhupada 25 years ago in Vrindavana when he was on the

varnasrama-dharma morning walks and asked Srila Prabhupada questions about it.

 

10 or 20 typos shouldn't take more than a few hours.

 

 

One would naturally wonder how Jayadvaita Maharaja became purified enough to

edit the books. Didn't he read "Hayagriva's gita" too?

[Guest guest]

On 01 Jun 1999, Hare Krsna dasi wrote:

 

> We want seem to be in complete denial about this. We want to

> pretend

> that the MacMillan version of the Bhagavad-gita was Srila Prabhupada's

direct

> words.

 

 

Shall we deny any possibility of a transcendental relationship between Srila

Prabhupada and Paramatma in the heart of Hayagriva dasa?

 

Do we now look at everything from the base material platform?

 

I would think if we asked Srila Prabhupada about this he MIGHT say something

along the lines of, "What is wrong with my Bhagavad-gita As It Is? Is no one

becoming Krsna conscious from reading it?"

 

Better Jayadvaita Maharaja spend his time implementing the instructions he was

given by Srila Prabhupada 25 years ago in Vrindavana when he was on the

varnasrama-dharma morning walks and asked Srila Prabhupada questions about it.

 

10 or 20 typos shouldn't take more than a few hours.

 

 

One would naturally wonder how Jayadvaita Maharaja became purified enough to

edit the books. Didn't he read "Hayagriva's gita" too?

[Guest guest]

> But if anyone is not even willing to listen to Jayadwaita

> Maharaja's public postings, then how can they claim to be fair in their

> assessment of which version is more authentic?

>

> your servant,

>

> Hare Krsna dasi

 

 

Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna prabhu

 

You´re leading on points.

 

ys

[Guest guest]

> But if anyone is not even willing to listen to Jayadwaita

> Maharaja's public postings, then how can they claim to be fair in their

> assessment of which version is more authentic?

>

> your servant,

>

> Hare Krsna dasi

 

 

Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna prabhu

 

You´re leading on points.

 

ys

[Guest guest]

H.K. dasi:

>> Why are you wasting your time with a discussion like this when you have

>> such a wealth of farming knowledge you could share on this conference

with

>> devotees around the world who would be so grateful to get your informed

>> and practical advice on many agricultural topics? These devotees care

>> nothing at all about my views on footnoting, but they would be most

>> interested to hear sound advice about farming, and you are qualified to

>> give it to them.

>

Samba dasa:

>I second that one.

 

Well, you may not care about her views Samba Prabhu but I do. There seems to

be a lot of discussion in regards to footnoting the books according to a

particular agenda and I think this is will be extremely detrimental to the

long term spiritual health of our movement. In fact, my opinion is that it

is spiritual suicide.

>

>Please Vyapaka Prabhu, help us out with some of your knowledge.

 

Knowledge is something I have little of and even fewer realizations. As

well, I have on my desk over 100 farm inspections with 25 to 50 more on

their way all across the province of Ontario and possibly all the way to

Japan. On top of this I am trying to plant a 100 acre farm and a large

garden as well as construct a workshop and run a small craft business. Time

is in short supply and I presently have little time to research topic for

different individuals.

>

>Do you know anything about companion planting? Can you give us examples of

>plants that work well in a symbiosis with other plants?

 

For the garden, I think the book that was referred on this conference

already is a good one, i.e Carrots Love Tomatoes by Louise Riotte published

by Storey Communications INc. of Pownal, Vermont 05261. There is another

book out by the same author as well I think in regards to companion planting

and this should be available from the above publisher as well. The copy I

have is the 31st printing and it was printed in 1990 so it must be working

from someone. I haven't really referred to it yet having just purchased it.

However, a lot of these remedies do not work universally so don't consider

planting something to have the same efficacy as a pesticide. Bugs are a

bilogical entity and therefore have a mind of their own. The exact

ecological system of your garden may differ from where the remedy worked

fine. Best to experiment and gain experience. Sharpen you observation skills

and read, read, read. But beware of footnoted books!

 

Adding diversity to your garden or farm generally works well. Nature pushes

to diversity in the form of weeds (unwanted plants) and if you can tap into

the succession it should work for you. Masanobu Fukuoka's books deal with

this matter but there are many others.

>

>I also need to find out about pest controling herbs, how they are applied

>(as far as I know, some plants are good just growing, wheras others need

>some kind of preparation).

I don't understand your point about growing and preparation so cannot

comment. Check out Carrots....

>

>Some people reccomend bringing in natural predator pests (what is this type

>of control called?). But I have heard that this can be dangerous, and cause

>an inmbalance in certain ecosystems.

 

I am sure this can be done but only have come across it mainly in greenhouse

situations. If you are doing it outside you also much provide habitat for

the beneficials. There was one outside garden that was experimenting with

habitat and beneficial introduction and if I get the application again this

year I will check into it and get back to you.

 

Finally, I don't think this is the proper conference for such discussions.

The agriculture conference may be better though I do not have access to it

since my access is solely from Murari's website and it isn't offered here to

my knowledge. My long term goal is to teach using an actual self-sufficient,

or at least self-reliant, homestead as a back drop. If I am ever successful,

who knows. If so, it will only be by Prabhupada's grace.

[Guest guest]

H.K. dasi:

>> Why are you wasting your time with a discussion like this when you have

>> such a wealth of farming knowledge you could share on this conference

with

>> devotees around the world who would be so grateful to get your informed

>> and practical advice on many agricultural topics? These devotees care

>> nothing at all about my views on footnoting, but they would be most

>> interested to hear sound advice about farming, and you are qualified to

>> give it to them.

>

Samba dasa:

>I second that one.

 

Well, you may not care about her views Samba Prabhu but I do. There seems to

be a lot of discussion in regards to footnoting the books according to a

particular agenda and I think this is will be extremely detrimental to the

long term spiritual health of our movement. In fact, my opinion is that it

is spiritual suicide.

>

>Please Vyapaka Prabhu, help us out with some of your knowledge.

 

Knowledge is something I have little of and even fewer realizations. As

well, I have on my desk over 100 farm inspections with 25 to 50 more on

their way all across the province of Ontario and possibly all the way to

Japan. On top of this I am trying to plant a 100 acre farm and a large

garden as well as construct a workshop and run a small craft business. Time

is in short supply and I presently have little time to research topic for

different individuals.

>

>Do you know anything about companion planting? Can you give us examples of

>plants that work well in a symbiosis with other plants?

 

For the garden, I think the book that was referred on this conference

already is a good one, i.e Carrots Love Tomatoes by Louise Riotte published

by Storey Communications INc. of Pownal, Vermont 05261. There is another

book out by the same author as well I think in regards to companion planting

and this should be available from the above publisher as well. The copy I

have is the 31st printing and it was printed in 1990 so it must be working

from someone. I haven't really referred to it yet having just purchased it.

However, a lot of these remedies do not work universally so don't consider

planting something to have the same efficacy as a pesticide. Bugs are a

bilogical entity and therefore have a mind of their own. The exact

ecological system of your garden may differ from where the remedy worked

fine. Best to experiment and gain experience. Sharpen you observation skills

and read, read, read. But beware of footnoted books!

 

Adding diversity to your garden or farm generally works well. Nature pushes

to diversity in the form of weeds (unwanted plants) and if you can tap into

the succession it should work for you. Masanobu Fukuoka's books deal with

this matter but there are many others.

>

>I also need to find out about pest controling herbs, how they are applied

>(as far as I know, some plants are good just growing, wheras others need

>some kind of preparation).

I don't understand your point about growing and preparation so cannot

comment. Check out Carrots....

>

>Some people reccomend bringing in natural predator pests (what is this type

>of control called?). But I have heard that this can be dangerous, and cause

>an inmbalance in certain ecosystems.

 

I am sure this can be done but only have come across it mainly in greenhouse

situations. If you are doing it outside you also much provide habitat for

the beneficials. There was one outside garden that was experimenting with

habitat and beneficial introduction and if I get the application again this

year I will check into it and get back to you.

 

Finally, I don't think this is the proper conference for such discussions.

The agriculture conference may be better though I do not have access to it

since my access is solely from Murari's website and it isn't offered here to

my knowledge. My long term goal is to teach using an actual self-sufficient,

or at least self-reliant, homestead as a back drop. If I am ever successful,

who knows. If so, it will only be by Prabhupada's grace.

[Guest guest]

>Would you please ask Jayadvaita Maharaja about the other 5000 edits he has

>made to the Bhagavad-gita? If it was limited to changing "cattle raising"

to

>cow protection and maybe 10 or 20 other "typos" it would be a little easier

to

>swallow. But thousands of changes? They may not be V.A.S.T. changes but

they

>are "vast" nonetheless.

>

>Please let us know if you hear back from JM to explain the 5000+ changes to

>Srila Prabhupada's books.

 

I think if you want to discuss the matter with the Maharaja that you email

him personally. I am rather busy right now. You can find his email address

under users.

>

>

>Further, in defense of Hare Krsna dd's footnote idea (I do not agree with

the

>changes, but she is not alone in this idea) there is the following from

>Hridayananda M.:

I know she is not alone in her ideas and that is what is a bit scary.

 

In regards to the quote from Hridayananda Mja. it is difficult to comment

because his reply does not specify what points he is responding to so why

speculate?

[Guest guest]

>Would you please ask Jayadvaita Maharaja about the other 5000 edits he has

>made to the Bhagavad-gita? If it was limited to changing "cattle raising"

to

>cow protection and maybe 10 or 20 other "typos" it would be a little easier

to

>swallow. But thousands of changes? They may not be V.A.S.T. changes but

they

>are "vast" nonetheless.

>

>Please let us know if you hear back from JM to explain the 5000+ changes to

>Srila Prabhupada's books.

 

I think if you want to discuss the matter with the Maharaja that you email

him personally. I am rather busy right now. You can find his email address

under users.

>

>

>Further, in defense of Hare Krsna dd's footnote idea (I do not agree with

the

>changes, but she is not alone in this idea) there is the following from

>Hridayananda M.:

I know she is not alone in her ideas and that is what is a bit scary.

 

In regards to the quote from Hridayananda Mja. it is difficult to comment

because his reply does not specify what points he is responding to so why

speculate?