Editing Varnasrama-dharma out of the books

[Guest guest]

> Maybe I'm just a fanatic about VAD, but changes to Srila Prabhupada's

> books like the following give me little hope that ISKCON is really

> interested in moving toward fulfilling Srila Prabhupada's orders to

> implement varnasrama-dharma. Personally, I would be scared to death to

> make such changes without Srila Prabhupada's personal review and approval.

> Of course, I'm not a pure devotee like.....

>

> Bg 2.31 P ORIGINAL:

> ..Discharging one's specific duty in any field of action in accordance

> with varnasrama-dharma serves to elevate one to a higher status of life.

>

>

> Bg 2.31 P REVISED & ENLARGED:

> ..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.

 

What !!?? Who authorized that one??? Must be one of the "higher

authorities"!

[Guest guest]

> > Bg 2.31 P ORIGINAL:

> > ..Discharging one's specific duty in any field of action in accordance

> > with varnasrama-dharma serves to elevate one to a higher status of life.

> >

> > Bg 2.31 P REVISED & ENLARGED:

> > ..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.

>

> That is a pretty dramatic change. I would be interesting in hearing the

> rationale behind it.

 

I forwarded this to Jayadvaita Swami, who recently started a conference

called Gita Revisions, on which he explains these things. Please join the

conference.

[Guest guest]

On 11 Mar 1999, Tattvavit das wrote:

 

 

> I forwarded this to Jayadvaita Swami, who recently started a conference

> called Gita Revisions, on which he explains these things. Please join the

> conference.

 

 

I am afraid to "join" such a conference. To try to justify such changes can

only be a very unnecessary entanglement in mental speculation. The books were

fine as they were when Srila Prabhupada was present. IF there were additional

changes that Srila Prabhupada MAY have approved before he left but Jayadvaita

did not get a chance to get them approved by Srila Prabhupada personally, well

that's tough luck. We have to accept Krsna's plan that He directed Srila

Prabhupada to make the necessary changes to the books while he was present and

after that we accept what he gave us as "perfect" enough for us and everyone

else for the next 10,000 years. It can only be impertinence to think that they

are making changes assuming Srila Prabhupada would have approved of them when

they know he disapproved of many changes they previously thought were proper

changes. Are they speaking to Srila Prabhupada secretly without our knowledge?

 

The only discussion should be an apology to Srila Prabhupada and stopping all

changes and recalling all changed books. They are Srila Prabhupada's books -

leave his things alone! If they don't like the way they were on the day Srila

Prabhupada left the planet, too bad. I like them just fine as they are.

 

If they want to write their own Bhagavad-gita and other books that's fine.

Leave it to the general public and devotees to choose which books they will

read. But to change someone elses books without their personal permission and

approval is downright rude and obnoxious. Jayadvaita should be knocked on the

head with his own danda. Maybe he will wake up from this nightmare.

 

After these changes, the Bhagavad-gita "As It Is" by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

is no longer "As It Is". I am not saying that Jayadvaita and Dravida have

nothing of value to say or that they are not learned in philosophy. They may

be able to write very nice Krsna conscious books of their own. I've known them

for 25 years and I always liked both of them very much. But if they want to

make changes they HAVE to write their own books and put their name on them -

not A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's. This cannot be allowed. There is simply no

honor in it.

[Guest guest]

Janesvara Prabhu's reply (at the very bottom) is a long sermon, but

he is unwilling to admit any ignorance. Thoreau said: "How can we remember

our ignorance, which our growth requires, when we are using our knowledge

all the time?"

 

Tattvavit wrote: > Jayadvaita Swami started a conference called Gita

Revisions, on which he explains the changes. Please join the conference.<

 

Janesvara replied: > I am afraid to "join" such a conference. To try

to justify such changes can only be a very unnecessary entanglement in

mental speculation . . .< etc. etc. etc.

[Guest guest]

At 5:47 -0800 3/11/99, WWW: Janesvara (Dasa) ACBSP (Syracuse - USA) wrote:

 

>After these changes, the Bhagavad-gita "As It Is" by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

>is no longer "As It Is". I am not saying that Jayadvaita and Dravida have

>nothing of value to say or that they are not learned in philosophy. They may

>be able to write very nice Krsna conscious books of their own. I've known them

>for 25 years and I always liked both of them very much. But if they want to

>make changes they HAVE to write their own books and put their name on them -

>not A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's. This cannot be allowed. There is simply no

>honor in it.

 

I agree that the changes you just posted seem drastic and I'm really

curious to hear what Jayadvaita Swami will say to explain why they were

made. Until then, I reserve judgment. However, there are other changes

I've read about, which made perfect sense to me, e.g. when the original

eidtion contained errors by the transcriptionist that were discovered. In

those cases, Prabhupada's words were actually *restored*. So it's not a

question of Jayadvaita Swami or Dravida Prabhu writing their own books in

Prabhupada's name.

 

Can't we make a distinction between changes that are purely technical (e.g.

due to mishearings of tapes, transcription errors ...) and changes that

involved subjective judgments and actually changing Prabhupada's words? I'd

like to know what proportion are of each variety. I have absolutely no

problem with the former kind, but would be much more concerned about the

latter one.

 

Prabhupada wanted his books to be the law books for humanity for a very

long time. It seems like a nice service to make them as authentic and

technically correct as possible. I don't think the fact that Prabhupada

didn't complain about all the errors while he was here is a valid argument

for keeping them. Thinking about the enormous volume of books he produced

in a very short time (what to speak of all of the other things he did),

some errors were bound to slip through. I don't see why that means they

have to remain for all times though.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

On 11 Mar 1999, Tattvavit das wrote:

 

> Janesvara Prabhu's reply (at the very bottom) is a long sermon, but

> he is unwilling to admit any ignorance.

 

 

I'll admit to all the ignorance you want me to. I am not very intelligent. I

struggle to remember Krsna throughout the day. But I am trying! I could not

make any edits or changes to Srila Prabhupada's books except maybe some

spelling errors which I have seen in them over the years. I am not an English

major or anything. Srila Prabhupada accepted Jayadvaita's service in editing

the books which I fully accept and this is a nice service just like the pot

washers in the temple or any other good bhakta service. It's all preaching.

 

I simply do not see what this has to do with the subject. Could you please

answer me the one simple question:

 

If Srila Prabhupada disallowed certain changes that the editors proposed

before he left the planet, and they were thinking that those changes were

perfectly acceptable based on their level of knowledge, how can they make

changes now which cannot be proposed to Srila Prabhupada for his approval?

 

And, how can they know that Srila Prabhupada would accept those changes???

 

It is clearly impossible!!

 

I have no problem with Jayadvaita writing his own Bhagavad-gita. Why is this

not an agreeable alternative? He can include every change that he wants in his

own version - Bhagavad-gita As It Is According to Jayadvaita Swami. It could

be helpful to certain Scholars and others.

[Guest guest]

On 11 Mar 1999, Tattvavit das wrote:

 

> Janesvara Prabhu's reply (at the very bottom) is a long sermon, but he

is unwilling to admit any ignorance. Thoreau said: "How can we remember our

ignorance, which our growth requires, when we are using our knowledge all the

time?"

>

> Tattvavit wrote: > Jayadvaita Swami started a conference called Gita

Revisions, on which he explains the changes. Please join the conference.

 

 

 

 

 

I recently suggested to Jayadvaita Swami that the BBT seriously consider

printing a book that outlines the text as published during Srila Prabhupada's

physical presence presented side by side with the editted version currently in

use. Then there could be an explanation by the BBT outlining the rational

behind the edit. Srila Prabhapada did something similar when offering word for

word explanations on practically every Sanskrit and Bengali verse he

translated. He took the effort to present such things to his readers in an

easily accessable academically transparent manner. Possibly the Gita revisions

conference is an attempt in that direction.

 

In my opinion, without such a book (which, by the way, could be used as a tool

for training future editors), we too easily resort to name calling over who is

the real upholder of the correct vision of what Srila Prabhupada actually

meant to say, with whoever appears to have administrative control of the BBTI

declaring himself the winner. Thus we invite another excuse for present and

future conflicts. ISKCON finds itself needing to spend way too much energy

defending something which could simply be the outgrowth of an incomplete

presentation of this important service. Appearing aloof from this ongoing

problem has not made it disappear, and I am sure the editors wish to feel the

devotees are satisfied by their service.

 

ys,

 

Sthita-dhi

[Guest guest]

>> Bg 2.31 P ORIGINAL:

>> ..Discharging one's specific duty in any field of action in accordance

>> with varnasrama-dharma serves to elevate one to a higher status of life.

>>

>>

>> Bg 2.31 P REVISED & ENLARGED:

>> ..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.

>

>What !!?? Who authorized that one??? Must be one of the "higher

>authorities"!

 

How familiar it seems to me.. Bible was also changed this way so many times.

Anyway, this little change will not be an obstacle for varnasrama

implementation. It could be much worse, if the whole BG would be changed

into something like this:

 

BG As I Said 2.31

"Considering your specific duty as an administrator, you should know that

there is no better service opportunity for you than following the orders of

higher authorities; and so there is no need for space out."

 

PURPORT: Out of several orders of social administration, one of them, for

the matter of good administration, is called manager. Manager is not based on

word 'manger', it's based on the word 'man'. Man means male. So no woman is

allowed to be a manager. One, who showed his masculine nature and defeated

the sin in form of woman is called manager. Managers are trained

for killing in office. A manager would go in office and chastice a bhakta

face to face and fire the bhakta with foul words. When the bhakta was kicked

out, it would be a good idea to produce a nice report to higher authorities.

This system is being followed even up to the present day by the managers of

several ISKCON temples. The managers are specially trained for chastisement

and kicking because religious violence is any times a necessary factor.

Therefore, managers are never meant for peaceful behaviour towards their

subordinates, however they should be always meek and humble in front of

higher authorities, "renounced". In the temple law books its is stated:

 

"In the the battlefield of temple activities, a manager or administrator,

while he do whatever he wants with his subordinates, is eligible for

achieving higher position after his removal, if he is still humble and

submissive toward "renounced", or the Great Big Censors." Therefore,

chastisement and squeezing of subordinates for the higher purpose are not at

all considered to be acts of violence, because everyone is benefitted by the

religious principles involved. The bhakta, which was kicked, immediately

gets a honor to become a temple janitor or potwasher without undergoing the

gradual evaluating process from one service to another, and the managers

if they smart enough get a good financial position, as well as "renounced".

 

There are many kinds of specific duties. As long as one is not "renounced",

one has to perform the duties of that particular position in accordance with

higher authorities in order to archieve "renounced" stage. When one is

"renounced", one's specific duties become spiritual and are not in the

material bodily concept, so don't even think about it now, anyway it's above

mundane understanding. In ordinary life there are specific duties for the

managers and subordinates, and such duties are unavoidable. This duties are

ordained by higher authorities, and this will be clarified somewhere else.

Specific duties, which are based on the orders of higher authorities are th

only steepingstone for spiritual understanding. Human civilization begins

from the stage of orders of higher authorities, or specific duties in terms

of specific modes of nature of the position obtained. 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.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> I have no problem with Jayadvaita writing his own Bhagavad-gita. Why is this

> not an agreeable alternative? He can include every change that he wants in

his

> own version - Bhagavad-gita As It Is According to Jayadvaita Swami. It could

> be helpful to certain Scholars and others.

 

It would be nice to be able to see an annotated version, wherein every change

would be footnoted with the original text and the reason for the changes. Even

if

it wasn't feasible to publish this in hard copy right away, it wouldn't be

that

hard to put it out on CD.

 

The other issue is style. Bhagavad Gita was originally in verse. A different

part of the brain is used to assimilate verse than prose (except for

hopelessly

overthinking intellectuals who could analysis anything to death). Hayagriva's

version may be less technically correct than Jayadvaita's, but it is certainly

more poetic.

[Guest guest]

It could be much worse, if the whole BG would be changed

> into something like this:

>

> BG As I Said 2.31

> "Considering your specific duty as an administrator, you should know that

there is no better service opportunity for you than following the orders of

higher authorities; and so there is no need for space out."

>

> PURPORT: Out of several orders of social administration.....

 

 

 

 

Practical application is the highest!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

This reply sounds a little fanatical to me. I have read in at least 4

different

conversations statements where Prabhupada severely criticized Hayagriva's

version

that the vaisyas should be engaged in "cattle raising" (rather than "cow

protection" which is what Srila Prabhupada had wanted.

 

We may agree or disagree with various changes, but if we don't even take the

trouble to listen to the editor when he is offering an explanation for various

changes, then I can't see how we can credibly make a blanket criticism of

everything. For myself, I am certain beyond any doubt that Srila Prabhupada

wanted this particular change made. If he wanted this change made, why not

others? And what about other instances where Hayagriva did not follow

Prabhupada's original manuscript.

 

Again, I believe that ultimately the only real resolution to this will be to

present a scholarly edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, which includes

annotations

which explain the changes in various editions. Marx's followers have such an

advantage with his works. Is Srila Prabhupada less important than Marx?

 

But in the meantime, I don't see how we can be credible if we just condemn all

changes without listening to the editors' explanations.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

 

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

 

> [Text 2151597 from COM]

>

> On 11 Mar 1999, Tattvavit das wrote:

>

>

> > I forwarded this to Jayadvaita Swami, who recently started a conference

> > called Gita Revisions, on which he explains these things. Please join the

> > conference.

>

> I am afraid to "join" such a conference. To try to justify such changes can

> only be a very unnecessary entanglement in mental speculation. The books were

> fine as they were when Srila Prabhupada was present. IF there were additional

> changes that Srila Prabhupada MAY have approved before he left but Jayadvaita

> did not get a chance to get them approved by Srila Prabhupada personally,

well

> that's tough luck. We have to accept Krsna's plan that He directed Srila

> Prabhupada to make the necessary changes to the books while he was present

and

> after that we accept what he gave us as "perfect" enough for us and everyone

> else for the next 10,000 years. It can only be impertinence to think that

they

> are making changes assuming Srila Prabhupada would have approved of them when

> they know he disapproved of many changes they previously thought were proper

> changes. Are they speaking to Srila Prabhupada secretly without our

knowledge?

>

> The only discussion should be an apology to Srila Prabhupada and stopping all

> changes and recalling all changed books. They are Srila Prabhupada's books -

> leave his things alone! If they don't like the way they were on the day Srila

> Prabhupada left the planet, too bad. I like them just fine as they are.

>

> If they want to write their own Bhagavad-gita and other books that's fine.

> Leave it to the general public and devotees to choose which books they will

> read. But to change someone elses books without their personal permission and

> approval is downright rude and obnoxious. Jayadvaita should be knocked on the

> head with his own danda. Maybe he will wake up from this nightmare.

>

> After these changes, the Bhagavad-gita "As It Is" by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

> is no longer "As It Is". I am not saying that Jayadvaita and Dravida have

> nothing of value to say or that they are not learned in philosophy. They may

> be able to write very nice Krsna conscious books of their own. I've known

them

> for 25 years and I always liked both of them very much. But if they want to

> make changes they HAVE to write their own books and put their name on them -

> not A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's. This cannot be allowed. There is simply no

> honor in it.

[Guest guest]

This still sounds fanatical to me. I am certain that there are at least some

corrections that Srila Prabhupada very much wanted made. What is your

objection

to an annotated edition, which would give the editors a chance to reveal Srila

Prabhupada's original intent? What is your objection to Stitha-dhi Muni's

suggestion of parallel texts presented side by side?

 

If everything is presented openly and it is left to the reader to decide the

merit of each change, I cannot understand how you can still object.

 

To object to all and any changes of Hayagriva's Bhagavad-gita As It Is still

sounds fanatical to me.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasy

 

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

 

> [Text 2152291 from COM]

>

> On 11 Mar 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

>

>

> > I agree that the changes you just posted seem drastic and I'm really

> > curious to hear what Jayadvaita Swami will say to explain why they were

> > made. Until then, I reserve judgment.

>

> Oh sure, be patient and nice and make me look like a putz!! ;-)

>

> > However, there are other changes

> > I've read about, which made perfect sense to me, e.g. when the original

> > eidtion contained errors by the transcriptionist that were discovered. In

> > those cases, Prabhupada's words were actually *restored*. So it's not a

> > question of Jayadvaita Swami or Dravida Prabhu writing their own books in

> > Prabhupada's name.

>

> Maybe it's just my simpleton mind, but the whole thing just seems to deny the

> true and exact "picture" of how Krsna wanted Srila Prabhupada's books to be.

> Srila Prabhupada's transcendental "karma" or pastimes created the books in a

> certain way that have been read by thousands, millions?, of people with

> incredible results. I don't believe Harvard's Professor Cox ever mentioned

> that they are nice books but should be cleaned up a little.

>

> There are so many quotes from Srila Prabhupada about not changing a thing in

> HIS books UNLESS he approves of the changes. He simply cannot make those

> approvals now and that was Krsna's choice of taking him from here and leaving

> his books as they were - even full of little "errors". I think Krsna in His

> divine wisdom could have kept Srila Prabhupada here a little longer if He

> really felt it necessary to make additional changes to the books.

>

> If Srila Prabhupada were present right now would the editors make changes to

> the books and publish them without Srila Prabhupada's approval?

>

> >

> > Can't we make a distinction between changes that are purely technical (e.g.

> > due to mishearings of tapes, transcription errors ...) and changes that

> > involved subjective judgments and actually changing Prabhupada's words? I'd

> > like to know what proportion are of each variety. I have absolutely no

> > problem with the former kind, but would be much more concerned about the

> > latter one.

>

> The problem is that those who have assumed this role of editing,

> post-Prabhupada's-right-to-approval, have made some of these "latter" kind of

> changes which, with all due respect, creates some suspicions as to their

> intentions or, maybe more acurately, their level of realization.

> It is not that they are not devotees/disciples but everyone must admit we are

> talking about very, very holy ground here - The Books!

>

> >

> > Prabhupada wanted his books to be the law books for humanity for a very

> > long time. It seems like a nice service to make them as authentic and

> > technically correct as possible.

>

> When he left the planet did he say to finish/continue editing his books? No.

> The only thing he said was "unfinished" was his desire to implement

> varnasrama-dharma. Let's stop wasting time on anything else and try to spend

> the majority of our time trying to fulfill this advice. The books have

> certainly "worked" fine for thousands of disciples just As They Are.

>

> >I don't think the fact that Prabhupada

> > didn't complain about all the errors while he was here is a valid argument

> > for keeping them. Thinking about the enormous volume of books he produced

> > in a very short time (what to speak of all of the other things he did),

> > some errors were bound to slip through. I don't see why that means they

> > have to remain for all times though.

>

> Fine. But let them write their OWN versions of Bhagavad-gita and the other

> books and they can tell everyone what changes they made and why. This is the

> only honorable thing to do when Srila Prabhupada cannot be here to defend

> himself from things that he had to stop previously.

>

> If you asked Srila Prabhupada if he is worried about what "people" will think

> of him and his movement with his books left the way they were before any

> unauthorized changes were made, what do you think he would say? Honestly.

[Guest guest]

On 12 Mar 1999, Hare Krsna dasi wrote:

 

> This still sounds fanatical to me. I am certain that there are at least

some

> corrections that Srila Prabhupada very much wanted made.

 

But he has the right to approve them personally. They are HIS books. What is

wrong with his books exactly the way they are? Can someone NOT become Krsna

conscious reading them due to some "imperfections" according to the English

language (which leaves much to be desired as a language, especially for

spiritual realization).

 

"On the other hand, that literature which is full of descriptions of the

pastimes of the transcendental glories of the name, fame, forms, pastimes,

etc. of the unlimited Supreme Lord is a different creation, full of

transcendental words directed toward bringing about a revolution in the

impious lives of this world's misdirected civilization. Such transcendental

literatures, even though imperfectly composed, are heard, sung and accepted by

purified men who are thoroughly honest." (Srimad-Bhagavatam Introduction)

 

> What is your

> objection

> to an annotated edition, which would give the editors a chance to reveal

Srila

> Prabhupada's original intent? What is your objection to Stitha-dhi Muni's

> suggestion of parallel texts presented side by side?

>

> If everything is presented openly and it is left to the reader to decide the

> merit of each change, I cannot understand how you can still object.

 

 

I do not remember ever objecting to such a publication. But I will never agree

that it can be published in A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's name. Let them put it

in their own name and explain it however they want. I have no objection to

this.

 

 

>

> To object to all and any changes of Hayagriva's Bhagavad-gita As It Is still

> sounds fanatical to me.

 

 

Personally, I think Lord Krsna had a lot more to do with the way the Books

turned out than Hayagriva. But then, I'm a fanatic.

 

 

The editor of these changes stated himself some time ago:

 

"To my knowledge, SRILA PRABHUPADA NEVER ASKED US TO RE-EDIT THE BOOK.

"As you know, and as we kept in mind while doing the work, SRILA PRABHUPADA

STAUNCHLY OPPOSED NEEDLESS CHANGES." (Jayadvaita Swami's Letter to Amogha Lila

1986)

 

While I'm being fanatical I'll provide some other info about the evil ;-)

changes:

 

SP76-01-05 Letter: To Radhavallabha

"I will have to see personally what are the mistakes in the synonyms and also

how you intend to correct them. I was not satisfied with the corrections that

were made before. I saw some changes which I did no approve. Nitai may correct

whatever mistakes are there, but the corrected material must be sent to me for

final approval. So reprinting the volumes will have to wait until the mistakes

are corrected and approved by me. In the meantime you can supply the standing

orders whatever new volumes are published."

 

SP76-08-26 Letter: To Radhavallabha

"You may title this book, Teachings of Lord Kapila, but it must be subtitled,

"The Son of Devahuti". That will remain, do not try to change it. The

Americans may like it or not like it, but we must make the distinction between

devahuti putra kapila, and the atheistic Kapila. Do not try to change anything

without my permission."

 

 

>From Mithiladhisa dasa

 

"Soon after the intense marathon for completing the publication of Caitanya

Caritamrita, Radhaballabha prabhu approached Srila Prabhupada and mentioned

that the artists are now completing the paintings in preparation for the

second printing. To this, Srila Prabhupada replied "No changes". A further

attempt was made to explain, stating that there were to be no actual changes,

but that the same painting would simply be completed because there was

insufficient time during the marathon, and that the paintings were actually

published in an unfinished state. Srila Prabhupada replied to him again, "NO

changes".

 

Confused by Srila Prabhupada's previous responses, Radhaballabha again tried

to explain the situation. The short time frame of the publication marathon had

prevented the paintings from being completed. They were now to be finished by

the artists, re-photographed and in the next printing, the same picture, same

size, everything the same except for the finishing touches, would be placed in

the exact same spot in the book. Srila Prabhupada now appeared angered and

replied again, but this time more forcefully, "NO CHANGES!!!".

 

 

 

 

Yasoda-nandana: Sometimes they appeal that "We can make better English," so

they change like that, just like in the case of Isopanisad. 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.

 

Yasoda-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...

 

Prabhupada: So write them immediately that "THE RASCAL EDITORS, THEY ARE DOING

HAVOC, and they are being maintained by Ramesvara and party..."

[Guest guest]

It seems quite clear from the quotations that Janesvara Prabhu has posted

here that Srila Prabhupada was quite vehement about not permiting changes,

no matter how much he was pursuaded to the contrary, even when the person

had no alterior motive. Was Srila Prabhupada, in his pedantic refusal to

allow the completed paintings to be published in CC, telling us something

for the future? What could be the harm in allowing the finished paintings to

be published?

 

It seems to me that Srila Prabhupada was making a point. Even he makes the

point about 'imperfectly composed' in that Srimad Bhagavatam Introduction.

What more do we need? Seeing as his own disciples were intent on making

changes he considered unnecesary in his presence, surely he perceived what

they would do in his absence, and therefore he added this to the

introduction.

 

Over the years the Bible has been degraded in this way. Surely if such a

precedent is set to change the books, it opens the way for more changes by

later descendants concerned about the evolution of language in their day.

 

Surely it is better to leave the books the way they were. Look how we now

have a huge group of devotees convinced of the need for a Ritvik system,

even though Srila Prabhupada gave practicaly no written indication for the

need for such a change.

 

Seeing as he is not here, and seeing as he was so much AGAINST any changes,

as evidenced by these quotes, it should be enough for us.

 

Surely this startling trend should be brought to a larger ISKCON audience.

The change of the word 'Varnashrama' to 'Higher Authorities' is highly

disturbing. It smacks of Soviet style editing. Even if it was done in all

innocence, it would appear to lessen Srila Prabhupadas whole idea of the

importance of varnashrama.

 

 

 

> "On the other hand, that literature which is full of descriptions of the

> pastimes of the transcendental glories of the name, fame, forms, pastimes,

> etc. of the unlimited Supreme Lord is a different creation, full of

> transcendental words directed toward bringing about a revolution in the

> impious lives of this world's misdirected civilization. Such

> transcendental literatures, even though imperfectly composed, are heard,

> sung and accepted by purified men who are thoroughly honest."

> (Srimad-Bhagavatam Introduction)

>

> > What is your

> > objection

> > to an annotated edition, which would give the editors a chance to reveal

> Srila

> > Prabhupada's original intent? What is your objection to Stitha-dhi

> > Muni's suggestion of parallel texts presented side by side?

> >

> > If everything is presented openly and it is left to the reader to decide

> > the merit of each change, I cannot understand how you can still object.

>

>

> I do not remember ever objecting to such a publication. But I will never

> agree that it can be published in A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's name. Let

> them put it in their own name and explain it however they want. I have no

> objection to this.

>

>

> >

> > To object to all and any changes of Hayagriva's Bhagavad-gita As It Is

> > still sounds fanatical to me.

>

>

> Personally, I think Lord Krsna had a lot more to do with the way the Books

> turned out than Hayagriva. But then, I'm a fanatic.

>

>

> The editor of these changes stated himself some time ago:

>

> "To my knowledge, SRILA PRABHUPADA NEVER ASKED US TO RE-EDIT THE BOOK. "As

> you know, and as we kept in mind while doing the work, SRILA PRABHUPADA

> STAUNCHLY OPPOSED NEEDLESS CHANGES." (Jayadvaita Swami's Letter to Amogha

> Lila 1986)

>

> While I'm being fanatical I'll provide some other info about the evil ;-)

> changes:

>

> SP76-01-05 Letter: To Radhavallabha

> "I will have to see personally what are the mistakes in the synonyms and

> also how you intend to correct them. I was not satisfied with the

> corrections that were made before. I saw some changes which I did no

> approve. Nitai may correct whatever mistakes are there, but the corrected

> material must be sent to me for final approval. So reprinting the volumes

> will have to wait until the mistakes are corrected and approved by me. In

> the meantime you can supply the standing orders whatever new volumes are

> published."

>

> SP76-08-26 Letter: To Radhavallabha

> "You may title this book, Teachings of Lord Kapila, but it must be

> subtitled, "The Son of Devahuti". That will remain, do not try to change

> it. The Americans may like it or not like it, but we must make the

> distinction between devahuti putra kapila, and the atheistic Kapila. Do

> not try to change anything without my permission."

>

>

> From Mithiladhisa dasa

>

> "Soon after the intense marathon for completing the publication of

> Caitanya Caritamrita, Radhaballabha prabhu approached Srila Prabhupada and

> mentioned that the artists are now completing the paintings in preparation

> for the second printing. To this, Srila Prabhupada replied "No changes". A

> further attempt was made to explain, stating that there were to be no

> actual changes, but that the same painting would simply be completed

> because there was insufficient time during the marathon, and that the

> paintings were actually published in an unfinished state. Srila Prabhupada

> replied to him again, "NO changes".

>

> Confused by Srila Prabhupada's previous responses, Radhaballabha again

> tried to explain the situation. The short time frame of the publication

> marathon had prevented the paintings from being completed. They were now

> to be finished by the artists, re-photographed and in the next printing,

> the same picture, same size, everything the same except for the finishing

> touches, would be placed in the exact same spot in the book. Srila

> Prabhupada now appeared angered and replied again, but this time more

> forcefully, "NO CHANGES!!!".

>

>

>

>

> Yasoda-nandana: Sometimes they appeal that "We can make better English,"

> so they change like that, just like in the case of Isopanisad. 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.

>

> Yasoda-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...

>

> Prabhupada: So write them immediately that "THE RASCAL EDITORS, THEY ARE

> DOING HAVOC, and they are being maintained by Ramesvara and party..."

[Guest guest]

> What could be the harm in allowing the finished paintings to

> be published?

 

For one thing, the expense of having the separtaions done again and having

the

changes made with the publisher. Also, there may have been some underlying

issues that aren't fully gone into. I'm saying this, not because I'm trying

to

read something into what Srila Prabhupada was saying that isn't there, but you

might need to look at the larger context of exchanges before predicating policy

on a few specific letters. Just a generic point.

 

Overall, I liked the old books better. I agree that newer versions should

clearly indicate that they are different than the originals.

[Guest guest]

> If Srila Prabhupada disallowed certain changes that the editors proposed

> before he left the planet, and they were thinking that those changes were

> perfectly acceptable based on their level of knowledge, how can they make

> changes now which cannot be proposed to Srila Prabhupada for his approval?

 

What I suggest is that you get a copy of the recently printed brochure

called "Responsible Publishing" and see what they're actually doing. Then

you will have a better standpoint from which to comment on their work.

[Guest guest]

Thank you for the suggestion. Prabhu. I will try to get a copy of the

publication you mentioned. I am sorry to be so sensitive about this issue.

 

yfs,

Jd

 

 

 

COM: Tattvavit (das) ACBSP (NE-BBT) <Tattvavit.ACBSP (AT) com (DOT) bbt.se>

COM: Dravida (das) ACBSP (San Diego - USA) <Dravida.ACBSP (AT) com (DOT) bbt.se>;

WWW: Janesvara (Dasa) ACBSP (Syracuse - USA) <jdf1 (AT) stsi (DOT) net>; COM:

Varnasrama development <Varnasrama.development (AT) com (DOT) bbt.se>

Saturday, March 13, 1999 11:42 AM

Re: Editing Varnasrama-dharma out of the books

 

 

>[Text 2157242 from COM]

>

>> If Srila Prabhupada disallowed certain changes that the editors proposed

>> before he left the planet, and they were thinking that those changes were

>> perfectly acceptable based on their level of knowledge, how can they make

>> changes now which cannot be proposed to Srila Prabhupada for his

approval?

>

>What I suggest is that you get a copy of the recently printed brochure

>called "Responsible Publishing" and see what they're actually doing. Then

>you will have a better standpoint from which to comment on their work.

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Over the years the Bible has been degraded in this way. Surely if such a

precedent is set to change the books, it opens the way for more changes by

later descendants concerned about the evolution of language in their day.

>

>

 

 

While my inclination is to believe the edits where of a high quality and can

be seen as an improvement, it kind of amazes me that concerns such as these

appear to be written off as sentiment that does not apply to ISKCON policy, I

guess because we consider ourselves devotees.

[Guest guest]

>

 

> Over the years the Bible has been degraded in this way. Surely if such a

precedent is set to change the books, it opens the way for more changes by

later descendants concerned about the evolution of language in their day.

 

>

 

>

 

 

 

 

 

While my inclination is to believe the edits are of a high quality and can be

seen as an improvement, it kind of amazes me that concerns such as these

sometimes appear to be written off as sentiment that does not apply to ISKCON

policy. That's why I like the idea of an official BBT book that outlines and

details edits made since our founder/acarya's departure (coincidentally an

idea proposed by yours truly), because it puts a burden of sastric proof on

the editorial staff in plane view of all of Srila Prabhupada's followers. Even

those who are in disagreement will feel some satisfaction getting to study the

original version and having the facility to come to their own conclusion. Thus

no one can make the claim Srila Prabhupada's BBT attempted to snowball the

devotees. I see no reason why the BBT should feel a lack of confidence in the

quality of their sincere service.

 

 

 

If we did pursue a book project that offers original version side by side with

the edited version along with some editorial commentary, we could even

consider putting small footnotes in our BBT publications that could be used as

an aid to cross reference the editorial book explaining the evolution of all

the changes made.

 

 

 

You can never satisfy all your critics, but sometimes there are things we can

do to improve the quality of our audience's reception.

 

 

 

ys,

 

 

 

Sthita- "when was the last time I read the Gita anyway?" dhi-muni dasa