Jayadvaita's explanation

[Guest guest]

Hare Krsna dasi

 

Again, the only solution seems to be to publish an annotated version of the

Bhagavad-gita, which would contain footnotes explaining all changes, and also a

photocopied version of the manuscript as an appendix to the volume. I still

think

many of the changes are legitimate, especially when they bring us closer to

what

Prabhupada actually said. (However, like Janesvara prabhu, in this instance, I

prefer Srila Prabhupada's wording to the 2nd edition, which I feel loses

important nuances, although it does remove the over-ambitious "good intentions"

of

the 1st edition.)

 

Lay all the cards on the table, and let the reader be the judge. But at least

the

Bhagavad-gita forum is a step in the right direction. Also, it may take time

to

convince a publisher that an annotated Bhagavad-gita is marketable. They may

feel

it is too academic to pay for itself. But, I suspect that in fact, every

devotee

would want to have one. It would probably pay for itself quickly. Nevertheless,

something like this usually takes time to produce.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

 

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

 

> [Text 2190468 from COM]

>

> On 27 Mar 1999, Jayadvaita Swami wrote:

>

> > 2ND EDITION: 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.

>

> > MANUSCRIPT: To discharge one's specific duty in any field of action

> > and AS ORDERED BY HIGHER AUTHORITY is the opportunity for being

> > elevated in higher status of life.

>

> > COMMENT: This revision seems to have become a topic in the "Varnasrama

> > Development" conference on COM, under the subject heading "Editing

> > varnasrama-dharma out of the books?"

>

> > As you can see, the answer is

> > "No. Restoring what Srila Prabhupada said."

>

> Aside from a distinct feeling of implied condescension, there is also an

> underlying arrogance which is supposed to be accepted without question it

> seems.

>

> It is NOT what Srila Prabhupada said. If it was, the revision would be

exactly

> what was stated in the manuscript. Therefore Jayadwaita Prabhu has clearly

> interpreted what he thinks Srila Prabhupada "should" have said instead of

what

> he actually said. (Personally, I think "serves to elevate one" in his 2nd

> edition can be interpreted quite differently from the manuscript's "is the

> opportunity for".) That is besides the point.

>

> The main point is SOMEONE changed the manuscript's words to read

> VARNASRAMA-DHARMA and Srila Prabhupada NEVER said to change it. For years and

> years the words had been read by Srila Prabhupada without question. The

> editors of the time substituted the words VARNASRAMA-DHARMA and presumably

> Srila Prabhupada approved those edits. Do we have evidence to the contrary?

> Solid evidence? Or are we just supposed to accept without question the

"higher

> authorities" interpretation? Sorry, I did that with Bali Mardan and had to

> suffer the shame of Srila Prabhupada calling me a fool for doing so. Never

> again (I hope!).

>

> You would think after all the "pure devotees" like Ramesvara, Kirtanananda,

> Bhagavan, Harikesha, etc., etc. ad nauseum, have come and gone, they would

> realize that things need to be dealt with on a more democratic platform

> amongst Godbrothers. We are all in this together. Don't we all have a say in

> such grave matters before some few individuals just go ahead and change

> things? Who gave them the authority? Is it in writing that Jayadvaita could

> make edits to the books AFTER Srila Prabhupada left the planet?

>

> The HUGE thing that the editors back then had, which Jayadwaita Prabhu will

> NEVER have, was Srila Prabhupada's personal presence to approve of changes to

> HIS own books. The "gurus" are always stressing "personal bodily presence of

> the guru" for their own guru worship support but I guess it does not apply

> here when it comes to changing the words of the Guru Maharaja?

>

> Jayadvaita Prabhu himself stated, after the Bhagavad-gita As It Is was

> published, that Srila Prabhupada never said that the book should be

re-edited.

> Certainly no "unnecessary changes" should be made. Jayadvaita Prabhu has made

> more than 4000 changes since his statement. Are none of these "unnecessary"?

>

> I heard Srila Prabhupada recite/read, directly, many of the exact same verses

> and purports from his Bhagavad-gita As It Is which have now been changed by

> Jayadvaita. Why didn't Srila Prabhupada make a note and tell the editors to

> change them after he read them and gave a lengthy perfect lecture about them?

>

> It is another good example of bad leadership. Changes to the MOST important

> asset of this movement, the Books, without the benefit of Srila Prabhupada's

> approval of the same, should have FIRST been presented to the general

> population of devotee citizens for their consensus approval. If I was a

leader

> of ISKCON, I would want to be completely in tune with "my" citizens. What are

> they thinking? What would they do? How do they feel about this or that? Our

> two (2) greatest examples of leaders, King Prithu and King Rama, always

> consulted with their public citizens about their legislative and governing

> issues. If the public was at odds the Kings would alter their decisions, even

> if they themselves disagreed with the public. Lord Rama KNEW that Sita devi

> was chaste and pure but because the general public was doubtful and critical

> of the relationship, He made other arrangements for Her in order to appease

> the citizens.

> He set aside His unquestionable authority for the greater good of the

> citizens. That is leadership and courage and intelligence.

>

> Thousands of Srila Prabhupada's disciples are at odds over this Book edit

> issue and yet no concerted effort has ever been made to ask FIRST before

> making the changes.

>

> They should at least call their book by its rightful name ( which even common

> publishing pirates use): Jayadvaita's Bhagavad-gita As It Isn't - The

> Unauthorized Bootleg. Get it now while its HOT!

>

> P.S. The questions that they (the editors) have not answered yet still

remain:

> If Srila Prabhupada were here (bodily), would they make edits/changes and

> publish them WITHOUT his approval? (The answer BETTER be NO. Otherwise we've

> got bigger problems.)

>

> And if not, why wouldn't they publish them without his approval? (I know it's

> obvious to some of us but I'm still curious to hear the answer).

[Guest guest]

I hope that members of the varnasrama conference will simply let Virender

Prabhu

have the last say on this, as it appears to be an argument in which the two

most

opposed parties will not be able to agree.

 

I don't think further discussion will contribute to moving toward setting up a

varnasrama society as desired by Srila Prabhupada.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

 

WWW: Virender Dayal (New York NY - USA) wrote:

 

> [Text 2198541 from COM]

>

> On 30 Mar 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote:

>

> > Normally I would blast this as blatant party-line blind following...

>

> It's not blind. You have to find out whether Krsna accepted it somehow or

> other before attacking people's service. If you don't accept the GBC and you

> don't know if Krsna accepted it, then you are relying on your mental

> speculation.

>

> > Srila Prabhupada was present to approve/disapprove of any changes...

>

> Krsna is still present. Krsna is still present. Krsna is still present. He

> is all merciful and the well-wisher of his devotees. I offer my respectful

> obeisances unto Him, the son of Vasudeva who plays in the courtyard of Nanda

> Maharaja and is the joy of the inhabitants of Vrndavana.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> Virender

> http://www.krishnasoft.com

[Guest guest]

> I hope that members of the varnasrama conference will simply let Virender

> Prabhu have the last say on this, as it appears to be an argument in which

> the two most opposed parties will not be able to agree.

>

> I don't think further discussion will contribute to moving toward setting

> up a varnasrama society as desired by Srila Prabhupada.

 

I agree that this is not becoming a very fruitful discussion, so I guess I

agree that Virender may have the last word if he wishes. For me, he has

anyway said enough.

 

Last time Virender and I was discussing, that was in regards to the child

abuse case and the New York Times article, we also ended up having quite

incompatible opinions and understanding.

 

It is ok for me that we see things differently, but I find it very hard to

discuss constructively with someone who has few opinions of his own (and who

is quoting like a parrot from sastra and the latest GBC conclusions,

seemingly without understanding it in any depth), and who demands the same

type of behaviour from others.

 

Ys

Jkd

[Guest guest]

On 31 Mar 1999, Jatukarnya das wrote:

 

> I agree that this is not becoming a very fruitful discussion, so I guess I

> agree that Virender may have the last word if he wishes. For me, he has

> anyway said enough.

 

Thank you very much for granting this last opportunity to speak on this

subject in this conference. I hope I have not offended anyone.

 

...

(and who

> is quoting like a parrot from sastra and the latest GBC conclusions

> seemingly without understanding it in any depth), and who demands the same

> type of behaviour from others.

 

I'll take this as a very nice compliment and hope I can continue to remain a

parrot in regard to quoting sastra and GBC and that others follow the same

course. My last PARROT quote is enclosed below.

 

ys,

 

Virender

http://www.krishnasoft.com

 

Letter to: Radhavallabha, Vrindaban, 7 September, 1976

 

Los Angeles

 

My Dear Radhavallabha das,

Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your letters

dated August 25 and 31 and have noted the contents.

CONCERNING THE EDITING OF JAYADVAITA PRABHU, WHATEVER HE DOES IS APPROVED

BY ME. I HAVE CONFIDENCE IN HIM. Your changes which I have

seen of the sanskrit synonyms is also approved by me. Tanmayataya

refers to the fact that the trees and the father were absorbed in the

same feelings.

Titling of the Ninth Canto as Liberation is good, and the Tenth

Canto should be called "The Summum Bonum". As far as the 11th and 12th

Cantos are concerned they shall be named when they are presented. The

title which you have given to the Eighth Canto was a little hard to

understand at first but if it refers to pralaya, then it is alright.

You must consult with me on such matters. Do not manufacture anything.

All of the sketches which you have sent to me while I am in India

are approved. The picture of the Mohini Murti capturing the demons

should take place outside on grass, there is no floor or walls.

Prahlada Maharaja does not have a beard. Always avoid beards. it is not

true that there are no shoes in Krsna lila, rather there are shoes

except for the Vrndavana pastimes. But the shoes are of another

quality, they are beautiful with jewels etc. On the battlefield they

must wear shoes. The severed head of Rahu should look like the head of

a demon, not round like a planet.

By controlling sex desire one becomes the most perfect sober person,

kandutivan manasajivam visaheta dhirah. I hope this meets you in good

health.

 

Your ever well-wisher,

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

[Guest guest]

On 29 Mar 1999, Hare Krsna dasi wrote:

> Again, the only solution seems to be to publish an annotated version of the

Bhagavad-gita, which would contain footnotes explaining all changes, and also

a photocopied version of the manuscript as an appendix to the volume. I still

think many of the changes are legitimate, especially when they bring us closer

to what Prabhupada actually said. (However, like Janesvara prabhu, in this

instance, I prefer Srila Prabhupada's wording to the 2nd edition, which I feel

loses important nuances, although it does remove the over-ambitious "good

intentions"

> of the 1st edition.)

 

Like HKdd I fall somewhere in between the two extremes voiced on this issue.

There were undoubtedly serious outstanding errors and boo-boos from the first

Macmillan edition, and Prabhupada himself was aware of some of them and

disturbed. For instance, in the 18th Chapter text about the qualities of the

vaisyas, go-raksya was translated as "cattle-raising" instead of

"cow-protection." I would suggest that how we translate this text bears

tremendous significance for varnasram. Would anyone care to disagree?.

 

Now what say you, Janesvara Prabhu, about changing this boo-boo? Should we

keep this anomaly in print forever?

 

Or the misplaced purport about action in the mode of passion? Or the "planet

of the trees (10th Chapt) which should read "pitrs" (ancestors)? What say you,

that all these mistakes, which are solely the first editorial bumbling, should

be preserved for posterity in Prabhupada's Bhagavad-gita As it Is? It would be

more accurate to call the Macmillan version, "Bhagavad-gita As We First

Published It."

 

You criticize blind following, but it seems you are advocating an equally

fanatical agenda: NO CHANGES. This kind of extremism, as opposed to its

counterpart, "JAS's Gita is Perfect" (where anything JAS does to change

Prabhupada's words now becomes divinely inspired) also verges on foolishness.

I hope that you are not so inflexible in your thinking that you cannot

consider changes in the Gita as they are warranted. But how to decide what

changes are warranted and which are unnecessary, that is the question.

 

As far as Virender is concerned, his new-born enthusiasm to idolize JAS needs

to be tempered with an increased cognizance of the issues and a greater

respect for all parties involved. This exchange is not just a matter of "two

equally valid opinions" battling it out (ie, "each to his own"). As a junior

devotee, Virender's bold judgments seem impertinent and reveal his own naivete

on sensitive points. He would do better to listen to more senior devotees and

broaden his overly dogmatic mindset, since he is clearly not conversant with

the history nor experienced in the nuances of the issues at stake.

 

In one sense, discussions can be vitally important for the conservation of

living traditions. If we aspire to play a leading role in the

respiritualization of society - and not be part of the problem -- we all

require to constantly broaden our understanding of basic issues and refine the

process of how we learn to discern the truth. Otherwise, we are not teachers

but cheaters. Blind followers of any sort make poor guides for others. Nor is

this a progressive approach for anyone concerned. Devotees must be

thoughtful.

 

On the other hand, unresolved polemical diatribes will not help us engender a

cohesive, dynamic society of interconnected souls. Rather, constant

argumentation (seeking one-upmanship instead of compromise and cooperation)

creates disparate bunches of factionalized and embittered individuals.

 

Who will want to participate in such a back-biting and antagonistic atmosphere

where every issue becomes cause for further innuendo and interminable debate ?

What kind of culture are we propounding? Certainly not varnasrama.

 

By such supercilious nit-picking, we have hardly proved our understanding of

even the first verses of the Gita, regardless of which translation we might

prefer.

 

Srila dasa

[Guest guest]

> On the other hand, unresolved polemical diatribes will not help us

> engender a cohesive, dynamic society of interconnected souls. Rather,

> constant argumentation (seeking one-upmanship instead of compromise and

> cooperation) creates disparate bunches of factionalized and embittered

> individuals.

>

> Who will want to participate in such a back-biting and antagonistic

> atmosphere where every issue becomes cause for further innuendo and

> interminable debate ? What kind of culture are we propounding? Certainly

> not varnasrama.

>

> By such supercilious nit-picking, we have hardly proved our understanding

> of even the first verses of the Gita, regardless of which translation we

> might prefer.

 

Thank you, Srila, for a very nice and balanced text.

 

I am sorry that I got carried away engaging in nit-picking and back-biting

activities.

 

Sincerely,

Jkd

[Guest guest]

On 01 Apr 1999, Srila Dasa wrote:

 

> Like HKdd I fall somewhere in between the two extremes voiced on this

issue...

 

Thank you for your valuable input. I try to avoid being arrogant about the

issue.

 

> As far as Virender is concerned, his new-born enthusiasm to idolize JAS

needs

> to be tempered with an increased cognizance...

 

My faith is that the *RE-EDITED* version of the Gita is *PERFECTLY* acceptable

for Lord Krsna and Srila Prabhupada. I don't believe there is a blank check

for anyone to do any changes he wants to Prabhupada's words. I am just

talking about this case.

 

> on sensitive points. He would do better to listen to more senior devotees

and

> broaden his overly dogmatic mindset, since he is clearly not conversant

with...

 

Please enlighten me on this point: When someone makes an offering to the

Deities of various foodstuffs on the plate, the possibilities are that (1)

Krsna accepts it or (2) Krsna rejects it. So either Srila Prabhupada has

accepted the new version or he has not, right?

 

I can see your point that some things seem okay and some things don't seem

okay, but this raises the question for which I seek the answer from the senior

devotees: Is it possible for Krsna to accept part of an offering and reject

another part of the same offering??? This is a sincere question since it does

not seem to make sense according to BG 9.26. Please give some precedence

where Lord Krsna accepted someone's offering partially. As far as I

understand, either one takes Janesvara's side or Jayadvaita's side.

 

An annotated version can also be questioned whether Prabhupada would approve

such a thing which has NO precendence and would be a newly concocted service.

 

your servant,

 

Virender

http://www.krishnasoft.com

[Guest guest]

On 01 Apr 1999, Srila Dasa wrote:

 

> For instance, in the 18th Chapter text about the qualities of the

> vaisyas, go-raksya was translated as "cattle-raising" instead of

> "cow-protection." I would suggest that how we translate this text bears

> tremendous significance for varnasram. Would anyone care to disagree?.

 

 

After reading practically the whole Bg before coming to this particular text

in the last chapter of the book I really had no misconception as to the

intended meaning of cattle-raising. I certainly did not mistake it to mean cow

slaughter and I really do not think anyone else would either. It's certainly

nothing that couldn't be simply explained to anyone with a misunderstanding.

Don't make a mountain out of a molehill.

 

If we knew/know factually that Srila Prabhupada wanted it changed - change it.

Did he say something specifically about this verse?

 

 

> Or the misplaced purport about action in the mode of passion? Or the

"planet

> of the trees (10th Chapt) which should read "pitrs" (ancestors)? What say

you,

> that all these mistakes, which are solely the first editorial bumbling,

should

> be preserved for posterity in Prabhupada's Bhagavad-gita As it Is? It would

be

> more accurate to call the Macmillan version, "Bhagavad-gita As We First

> Published It."

 

 

I can remember so well our flaunting this book in front of hundreds of college

professors and scholars when it first came out and we were so proud to get

back testimonials from them praising the work. We quoted them constantly. And

Srila PRabhupada was like a proud father. It was fully accepted by many, many

scholars and professors and NONE of them complained about a few minor

publishing errors. The essence of the book was perfectly preserved by Krsna

for His pure devotee. Thousand of people became Krsna conscious from it.

 

>

> You criticize blind following, but it seems you are advocating an equally

> fanatical agenda: NO CHANGES.

 

 

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Americans always want to change things. Its

unnecessary.

 

There are a lot more important things to do.

 

 

> I hope that you are not so inflexible in your thinking that you cannot

> consider changes in the Gita as they are warranted.

 

I believe I stated clearly that I thought things should be done in a more

democratic manner as Lord Rama and Lord Prithu did with their citizens. I'll

go along with a majority of Srila Prabhupada's disciples on this matter.

 

> But how to decide what

> changes are warranted and which are unnecessary, that is the question.

 

Indeed! Now do you really think Srila Prabhupada would agree that he should

have caught more than 4000 "boo-boos" when he was reading his own books

everyday?

 

 

> On the other hand, unresolved polemical diatribes will not help us engender

a

> cohesive, dynamic society of interconnected souls.

 

 

Now there's a Srila mouthful!

 

 

> Who will want to participate in such a back-biting and antagonistic

atmosphere

> where every issue becomes cause for further innuendo and interminable debate

?

 

 

If we any leaders with a backbone this wouldn't occur. Srila Prabhupada

smashed the "changers" when he was here. Ask Ramesvara and Radhabalabha. Oh,

sorry, you can't.... cuz there "gone".

 

 

> By such supercilious nit-picking, we have hardly proved our understanding of

> even the first verses of the Gita, regardless of which translation we might

> prefer.

 

 

Personally I do not find defending the spiritual masters personal publications

as "nit-picking". And quite frankly I find the first few verses of the gita to

be quite fitting to the situation - fighting for what is right (leaving the

gurus books alone without his permission) and what is wrong ( not doing the

aforesaid).

[Guest guest]

On 01 Apr 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote:

 

> If we knew/know factually that Srila Prabhupada wanted it changed - change

it.

> Did he say something specifically about this verse?

 

7/4/75:

Tamala Krsna:"Farming, cattle raising and business are the qualities..."

Prabhupada: They are not cattle raising, that was...

Tamla Krsna: Cow protection.

Prabhupada: Cow protection. It has to be corrected. It is go-raksya,

go. They take it cattle-raising. I think Hayagr†va has translated like

this.

Tamla Krsna: Hayagriva.

Prabhupada: No, it is especially mentioned go-raksya.

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

7/9/75:

Prabhupada: That is fourth-class. First of all, third-class.

Nitai: Third-class: "Farming, cattle raising and business are the

qualities of work for the vaisyas,..."

Prabhupada: Not cattle raising, cow protection.

Nitai: Cow protection.

Prabhupada: Yes. Farming and cow protection and trade, this is meant

for the third-class division. And worker, fourth-class. These divisions

must be there. Then the society will go on very nicely. Exactly the

same example, that if the different parts of the body--the brain, the

arms, the belly and the legs--all are in order, the bodily function

will go on very nicely. This is natural.

--------

4/21/76:

Prabhupada: Ah, krsi-go-raksya. IMMEDIATELY INFORM THEM.

Puspa Krsna: Okay. I noticed that also. I thought it was strange, some

time back. (break)

Prabhupada: Hayagriva edited. He thought, "cattle-raising." Not

"cattle-raising," but the word.... There.... IT IS MISTRANSLATION. It is

go-raksya, "giving

protection to the cows." Especially mentioned,

go-raksya, not otherwise. The animal-eaters may take other animals, but

not cow. They can take the pig, goats, lambs, rabbits, so many others,

if they at all want to eat meat, birds, these so many. There is no such

mention that "Animals should be protected," no. "Cows should be

protected." That is Krsna's order. (break) They have decided to kill

the cow. They have decided, "No brain. Eat." And our prayer is

go-brahmana-hitaya ca, "to do good to the brahmanas and the cows."

----

It is possible to fix things in Prabhupada's books and have it accepted by

Lord Krsna:

 

Letter to: Jayagovinda, Los Angeles, 3 February, 1970

Hamburg

 

My Dear Jaya Govinda,

..

Yes. We must have close cooperation between America and Germany for

the successful publication of our BTG regularly in French, German and

English languages. So now you are collecting a staff of translators in

Hamburg and they are all very qualified to do the work. Please organize

everything nicely so that the French and German editions may be

prepared for printing at the same time as the English edition. BUT YOU MUST

SEE THAT ALL WORK IS THOROUGHLY CORRECT BY MUTUAL CHECKING SO THAT ERRORS OF

SPELLING AND GRAMMAR will not appear in the printing. I do

not know the technical details, but I think your idea on standardized

columns is very nice.

------

Jayapur, 20 January, 1972

 

My Dear Mandali Bhadra,

Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your letter dated

December 28, 1971, and with pleasure I have noted that your translation

work is going on. This I want, that you shall from now on be the Head

of the translating department in German language for all ISKCON

literatures. You translate yourself as it is comfortable, but all other

tanslations in German language by other translators must be checked by

you, edited, and corrected very strictly for grammar and proper use of

German language. IT IS NOT OUR PHILOSOPHY TO PRINT ERRORS. Of course,

our spiritual subject matter is transcendental and therefore it remains

potent despite mistakes in grammar, spelling, etc. BUT THIS TYPE OF

TRANSLATION MAY ONLY BE ALLOWED IF THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO CORRECT IT,

then it is all right. BUT IF YOU KNOW THE CORRECT ORDER, THEN YOU MUST MAKE IT

PERFECT. That is our philosophy: everything perfect for

Krishna.

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

 

> Indeed! Now do you really think Srila Prabhupada would agree that he should

> have caught more than 4000 "boo-boos" when he was reading his own books

> everyday?

 

But the question is whether he would accept Jayadvaita's service of having

caught the 4000 "boo-boos" although Hayagriva's Gita was acceptable for

publication WITH its "boo-boos".

 

> If we any leaders with a backbone this wouldn't occur. Srila Prabhupada

> smashed the "changers" when he was here. Ask Ramesvara and Radhabalabha. Oh,

> sorry, you can't.... cuz there "gone".

 

One-sided analysis. He accepted changes and he rejected changes so this is

not evidence for your side.

 

Sincerely,

 

Virender

http://www.krishnasoft.com

[Guest guest]

On 02 Apr 1999, Virender Dayal wrote:

 

> On 01 Apr 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote:

>

> > If we knew/know factually that Srila Prabhupada wanted it changed - change

> it.

> > Did he say something specifically about this verse?

>

> 7/4/75:

> Tamala Krsna:"Farming, cattle raising and business are the qualities..."

> Prabhupada: They are not cattle raising, that was...

> Tamla Krsna: Cow protection.

> Prabhupada: Cow protection. It has to be corrected.

 

 

So, change it. We KNOW that Srila Prabhupada said to change it.

 

 

 

> But the question is whether he would accept Jayadvaita's service of having

> caught the 4000 "boo-boos" although Hayagriva's Gita was acceptable for

> publication WITH its "boo-boos".

 

 

We will NEVER know if he would accept the changes made by Jayadvaita. He

didn't accept many, many other more minor changes when he was present.

 

We do know that he approved of the publishing of his Bhagavad-gita As It Is.

 

 

 

> One-sided analysis. He accepted changes and he rejected changes so this is

> not evidence for your side.

 

 

It's like talking to a wall! He accepted changes and rejected changes WHEN HE

WAS PRESENT! He will not do that now.

[Guest guest]

On 02 Apr 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote:

 

> We will NEVER know if he would accept the changes made by Jayadvaita. He

> didn't accept many, many other more minor changes when he was present.

>

> We do know that he approved of the publishing of his Bhagavad-gita As It Is.

 

This is our ESSENTIAL point of disagreement. *WE* will never know or *YOU*???

Krsna is still around along with His devotees and is STILL accepting the

service of His devotees. Even simple bhaktas get indications from the Supreme

Lord about who to approach for guidance for their spiritual lives. Of course,

you think neither the GBC, Jayadvaita, or any other devotees COULD possible

have any indication from the Supreme Lord that He has accepted their service

because *YOU* don't have any indication. I have not seen God so NO ONE has

seen God! Great job Janesvara with your induction!

 

I'll just point out to you that once a service has been performed by a

devotee, the result is prasad or rejected bhoga. And if you treat it as

bhoga when it is actually prasad, you become an offender. So be careful

before you decide on another version of the Gita.

 

> It's like talking to a wall! He accepted changes and rejected changes WHEN

HE

> WAS PRESENT! He will not do that now.

 

AND HE ACCEPTED ON BEHALF OF KRSNA DID HE NOT???

 

DOES KRSNA STILL ACCEPT A DEVOTEES' OFFERINGS????

 

It is like talking to a wall.

 

YS,

 

Virender

http://www.krishnasoft.com

[Guest guest]

On 02 Apr 1999, Virender Dayal wrote:

 

 

> >

> > We do know that he approved of the publishing of his Bhagavad-gita As It

Is.

>

> This is our ESSENTIAL point of disagreement. *WE* will never know

or *YOU*??? Krsna is still around along with His devotees and is STILL

accepting the service of His devotees. Even simple bhaktas get indications

from the Suprem Lord about who to approach for guidance for their spiritual

lives.

>

 

 

 

I am very please to hear that Krsna has personally assured Virendra Prabhu

that the Gita is okay. Based on that, it would seem the problem is now solved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

On 03 Apr 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

 

> I am very please to hear that Krsna has personally assured Virendra Prabhu

> that the Gita is okay. Based on that, it would seem the problem is now

solved.

>

The general point is doubting the sincerity of other devotees and spreading

false rumors. "Because I think your service is unacceptable for Lord Krsna, I

am going to tell everyone and SAVE ISKCON." But as soon as one does that,

that person himself becomes engaged in something which is NOT his prescribed

devotional service and becomes part of the problem. It's a simple point.

 

The End.

 

Sincerely,

 

Virender

http://www.krishnasoft.com

[Guest guest]

On 03 Apr 1999, Virender Dayal wrote:

 

> It's a simple point.

>

> The End.

>

>

 

 

Then there's a point of discretion -- no matter how well intentioned we may

feel we may be, sometimes our sincerity can potentially create more doubts

than it was originally intended to alleviate.

 

The Dead End.

[Guest guest]

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

 

> [Text 2203734 from COM]

>

> On 01 Apr 1999, Srila Dasa wrote:

>

> > For instance, in the 18th Chapter text about the qualities of the

> > vaisyas, go-raksya was translated as "cattle-raising" instead of

> > "cow-protection." I would suggest that how we translate this text bears

> > tremendous significance for varnasram. Would anyone care to disagree?.

>

> After reading practically the whole Bg before coming to this particular text

> in the last chapter of the book I really had no misconception as to the

> intended meaning of cattle-raising. I certainly did not mistake it to mean

cow

> slaughter and I really do not think anyone else would either. It's certainly

> nothing that couldn't be simply explained to anyone with a misunderstanding.

> Don't make a mountain out of a molehill.

>

> If we knew/know factually that Srila Prabhupada wanted it changed - change

it.

> Did he say something specifically about this verse?

>

 

Yes. If you look through the Conversations, you can find 3 or 4 times in which

this verse comes up and Srila Prabhupada specifically goes out of his way

commenting something like, "Hayagriva has changed to 'cattle raising.' It is

not

'cattle raising' but 'cow protection.' Just see, he has thought this was

better,

but it is wrong. It must be changed."

 

Sorry, I don't have the VedaBase at this computer, but I'm sure someone else

can

look it up.

 

=====================

 

Actually, we are fortunate now that we do have the VedaBase, something that

previous editors have not had the luxury of using, for matter of checking

whether

or not Prabhupada approved of or disapproved of various pieces editing that

Hayagriva has done.

 

Perhaps in the future an edition of Bhagavad-gita could be published which

retains

all the First edition version of verses and purports in instances where it can

be

demonstrated that Srila Prabhupada used them repeatedly without citing any

objections.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

[Guest guest]

> The general point is doubting the sincerity of other devotees and

> spreading false rumors.

 

Which you are not guilty of doing?

 

> "Because I think your service is unacceptable for

> Lord Krsna, I am going to tell everyone and SAVE ISKCON." But as soon as

> one does that, that person himself becomes engaged in something which is

> NOT his prescribed devotional service and becomes part of the problem.

> It's a simple point.

 

Even if I disagree with you that Janesvara is guilty of what you here accuse

him of, I must say that you do yourself exactly the same towards him. It is

definately not your prescribed devotional service to correct Janesvara, and

to tell everyone how useless he is because he disagrees with you...

 

Janesvara is presenting his doubts about what Jayadvaita is doing. I would

say that he would be guilty of doing something wrong if he would NOT speak

up about that, especially since it is a very important subject, which should

be openly discussed. Prabhupada's books are not the property of any single

Prabhupada disciple, not even of the entire GBC or the entire ISKCON.

 

Why should Janesvara, who has been around long enough to know that his

godbrothers don't always know 100 % what they are doing, not voice his

doubts when he feels like the GBC are violating what he (maybe) considers

the most valuable thing in the universe, namely his spiritual master's

books? I would say he would be commiting an offense by keeping quiet!

 

Whether Janesvara is right or not, I will not try to judge, but at least he

must be allowed to voice his opinion without having to be rediculed by you,

whom he never accepted as his authority in any way.

 

Jkd

[Guest guest]

On 5 Apr 1999, Jatukarnya das wrote:

 

> Who can say what service Krishna accepts and does not accept? How can YOU

> know if Krishna accepts Jayadvaita's service or not? (I don't say that he

> does NOT accept Jayadvaita's service, I just know that I am not qualified to

judge that, and I wonder how did you become qualified to judge?)

 

There are many ways. Just take a few new Gita books and go on sankirtan and

let BG10.10 do the rest (that's what I did). There's other ways also to know

Krsna's indications.

 

> Even simple bhaktas get

> > indications from the Supreme Lord about who to approach for guidance for

> > their spiritual lives.

>

> Yep. I did, for example. I was 100 % sure that Krishna guided me to my

> spiritual master (who is not around any longer).

 

He lives forever by the bona-fide instructions he gave you and you should be

indebted to him for this. Krsna DID fulfill His promise and took you to a

person who gave you spiritual guidance.

 

...

> uncovered related to ISKCON leaders, and that one has to use a certain

> decency while discussing with the people who have thus been burned-out. If

> you choose to ignore the past of ISKCON, fine, but I would suggest that you

> go somewhere else and empty out your accusations and judgements. If there is

> an attempt from ISKCON-leaders to try to clean up in the problems of the

> past, they are not assisted by persons like you.

>

I am familiar with the ENTIRE history of ISKCON and the entire world:

"Everything is acting and moving by the Supreme desire of Lord Krsna."

 

ys,

 

Virender

http://www.krishnasoft.com

[Guest guest]

On 5 Apr 1999, Jatukarnya das wrote:

 

> > The general point is doubting the sincerity of other devotees and

> > spreading false rumors.

>

> Which you are not guilty of doing?

 

There are two statements:

 

Rumor: "Because I *think* your service is unacceptable for Lord Krsna, I am

going to tell everyone."

 

Fact: "Because I *know* your service is unacceptable for Lord Krsna, I am

going to tell everyone."

 

Even the fact is inapplicable in many cases depending on the audience. I am

assuming sincere people in my postings.

 

>It is

> definately not your prescribed devotional service to correct Janesvara, and

> to tell everyone how useless he is because he disagrees with you...

 

I am not correcting Janesvara; I am speaking out against blasphemy of a

bona-fide book which is part of my prescribed devotional service of book

distribution.

 

> the most valuable thing in the universe, namely his spiritual master's

> books? I would say he would be commiting an offense by keeping quiet!

 

No, he's voicing his *OPINION* without knowing whether Krsna accepted the book

or not. If I think you are a theif, do I have the right to publicize you as a

theif or do I first have to KNOW it as a fact?

 

ys,

 

Virender

http://www.krishnasoft.com

[Guest guest]

At 8:54 -0800 4/5/99, WWW: Virender Dayal (New York NY - USA) wrote:

 

>He lives forever by the bona-fide instructions he gave you and you should be

>indebted to him for this. Krsna DID fulfill His promise and took you to a

>person who gave you spiritual guidance.

 

Uh-oh. I have this instinctive negative reaction in my gut whenever I hear

one human being telling another one how he or she *should* feel.

 

>I am familiar with the ENTIRE history of ISKCON and the entire world:

>"Everything is acting and moving by the Supreme desire of Lord Krsna."

 

Oh. Now I understand. Well, since you're familiar with the entire

history of ISKCON and the entire world, I guess there is nothing anyone can

teach you. Makes me wonder why you're even bothering to be on these

forums.

 

ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

On 05 Apr 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

 

> Oh. Now I understand. Well, since you're familiar with the entire

> history of ISKCON and the entire world, I guess there is nothing anyone can

> teach you. Makes me wonder why you're even bothering to be on these

> forums.

 

Service of stopping blasphemy of Srila Prabhupada's Gita AS IT IS. [You can

teach me more but that also would be Krsna's arrangement.]

 

ys,

 

Virender

http://www.krishnasoft.com

[Guest guest]

On 05 Apr 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

 

> At 8:54 -0800 4/5/99, WWW: Virender Dayal (New York NY - USA) wrote:

>

>

> >I am familiar with the ENTIRE history of ISKCON and the entire world:

> >"Everything is acting and moving by the Supreme desire of Lord Krsna."

>

> Oh. Now I understand. Well, since you're familiar with the entire

> history of ISKCON and the entire world, I guess there is nothing anyone can

teach you. Makes me wonder why you're even bothering to be on these

> forums.

>

> ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

>

>

 

 

 

Because Krsna told Bhakta Virendra to preach to the fallen souls. He's simply

an instrument of a greater mission.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

> Because Krsna told Bhakta Virendra to preach to the fallen souls. He's

> simply

> an instrument of a greater mission.

>

> .

 

Along with the well known devotee condition of guru disease (where the

uncontrollable urge to tell others what to do takes over) there is also

the frequently diagnosed condition of pure devotee syndrome. PDS can

occur at any time in a devotional journey, but most typically shows up

in a devotee who has been around for 3-5 years, still there after the

others of his bhakta class are gone, and now quite conversant with

scripture and rituals of Vaisnavism. Usually followed in another 3-5

years by slow onset dysfunctional creeperism (also known as blooping).

 

Symptoms of PDS include thinking one knows more than almost every one,

and feelings of elation brought on by knowledge of being one of the

chosen few. Also characterized by feelings of condescension,

psuedointellectuality, and disdain for those not in agreement with

one's own opinions, which are usually considered to be of divine

origin. Very commonly associated with the adulation of a person

considered spiritually superior, and the self percieved ability to

discern that superiority where others don't is a self reinforcing aspect

of the PDS.

 

Diagnosis is often made difficult by a verneer of carefully cultivated

humility. Being humble is one of the PDS's highest achievements,

although he is capable of setting it aside to defend blasphemy of his

views, or those of his circle.

 

Although no systematic study of PDS has yet been published, the

potential for such a study is great, and the supply of subjects

abundant, and ever renewing. Although the faces change, the PDS seems

to be here to say.

[Guest guest]

> >He lives forever by the bona-fide instructions he gave you and you should

> >be indebted to him for this. Krsna DID fulfill His promise and took you

> >to a person who gave you spiritual guidance.

>

> Uh-oh. I have this instinctive negative reaction in my gut whenever I

> hear one human being telling another one how he or she *should* feel.

 

I guess it is not so easy for him, since he obviously has no idea how it is

to lose one's spiritual master. Maybe he thinks there are no feelings

involved?

 

But it is correct that I did get some spiritual guidance, but I am not

convinced that everything was correct, since the "bona-fide" instructions

obviously came from a conditioned soul. Actually, I take the liberty to

doubt whatever does not make sense to me of what I have previously learned

from my ex-spiritual master.

 

I accept the whole thing as Krishna's arrangement, but I also take the hint

that I have to be responsible for my own life and actions, and that I cannot

just lean on someone else to drag me back to Godhead.

 

> >I am familiar with the ENTIRE history of ISKCON and the entire world:

> >"Everything is acting and moving by the Supreme desire of Lord Krsna."

>

> Oh. Now I understand. Well, since you're familiar with the entire

> history of ISKCON and the entire world, I guess there is nothing anyone

> can teach you. Makes me wonder why you're even bothering to be on these

> forums.

 

The thought has occured to me too. Is Prsnigarbha still organizing this

conferance? I find it difficult to go on with a meaningful dialogue under

these circumstances.

 

I think Madhava Gosh's PDS text was pretty appropriate.

[Guest guest]

At 4:24 -0800 4/6/99, COM: Jatukarnya (das) CI (Cintamani Intl, Oslo - N)

wrote:

 

>The thought has occured to me too. Is Prsnigarbha still organizing this

>conferance? I find it difficult to go on with a meaningful dialogue under

>these circumstances.

 

Yes, according to the conference's COM status Prsni is still the organizer.

 

>

>I think Madhava Gosh's PDS text was pretty appropriate.

 

And very funny. :-)

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

On 06 Apr 1999, Jatukarnya das wrote:

 

> Blasphemy? How glorious you are, fighting in your great mission against the

> blasphemers!

 

I just KNOW that this case is blasphemy.

 

> Maybe you should ask Jayadvaita Swami whether he wants you to continue

> representing him? ...

 

Everyone should try to stop blasphemy when he KNOWs it's blasphemy. You don't

have to be a pure devotee to do that (as some others are thinking). I would

have responded whether it was Jayadvaita's editing or anyone else's.

 

Take care,

 

Virender

http://www.krishnasoft.com