Places where books need to be corrected?

[Kulapavana 0]

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.9.41

muni-gaṇa-nṛpa-varya-sańkule 'ntaḥ-

sadasi yudhiṣṭhira-rājasūya eṣām

arhaṇam upapeda īkṣaṇīyo

mama dṛśi-gocara eṣa āvir ātmā

SYNONYMS

muni-gaṇa — the great learned sages; nṛpa-varya — the great ruling kings; sańkule — in the great assembly of; antaḥ-sadasi — conference; yudhiṣṭhira — of Emperor Yudhiṣṭhira; rāja-sūye — a royal performance of sacrifice; eṣām — of all the great elites; arhaṇam — respectful worship; upapeda — received; īkṣaṇīyaḥ — the object of attraction; mama — my; dṛśi — sight; gocaraḥ — within the view of; eṣaḥ āviḥ — personally present; ātmā — the soul.

TRANSLATION

At the Rājasūya-yajña [sacrifice] performed by Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira, there was the greatest assembly of all the elite men of the world, the royal and learned orders, and in that great assembly Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa was worshiped by one and all as the most exalted Personality of Godhead. This happened during my presence, and I remembered the incident in order to keep my mind upon the Lord.

PURPORT

After gaining victory in the Battle of Kurukṣetra, MahārājaYudhiṣṭhira, the Emperor of the world, performed the Rājasūya sacrificial ceremony...

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

 

There was no Rajasuya-yajna AFTER the battle of Kuruksetra.

 

Comments?

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

are you sure p?

 

After battle was won, Maharaja Yudisthara became the king.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

are you sure p?

 

After battle was won, Maharaja Yudisthara became the king.

 

He was the king earlier too, before they lost everything.

 

There was no Rajasuya sacrifice after the battle of Kurukshetra. there is no such record in the Mahabharata, and the Bhagavatam verse above clearly speaks of the Rajasuya ceremony we all know about, where Duryodhana felt insulted because people were laughing at him in the Pandava's wonderous palace.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

Maybe Mahabharata doesn't mention it.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Maybe Mahabharata doesn't mention it.

 

there is no mention of a rajasuya sacrifice after the battle of Kurukshetra anywhere in the Vedic literature. Btw. this is a verse spoken by Bhisma on his deathbed and it clearly refers to the rajasuya that happened before the war.

 

this is either an editing error by the BBT team or Srila Prabhupada misspoke. in either case I think it should be corrected.

[Dwayne 0]

Maharaja Yudhisthira preforms a sacrifice after the battle : SB1.12.32-35 ?

[Guest guest]

 

Maharaja Yudhisthira preforms a sacrifice after the battle : SB1.2.32-35 ?

 

The section of Bhagavatam you have quoted has no reference to Maharaj Yudhisthira.

[Dwayne 0]

corrected, I missed a 1.

 

1.12.32-35.

[Avinash 0]

In the purport it is written that Yudhisthira performed Rajsuya sacrifice after the kurukshetra war. It is also written that Bhisma remembered all that happened in that sacrifice. but, how is it possible? Bhisma was slain in the war.

[vrajavasi 0]

Radhe Krishna,

 

Vyasacharya has written shrimad bhagawatham as he was the witness to the events and svayam an avatara of lord vishnu.

 

vyasaya vishnu roopaya vyasa roopaaya vishnave

 

Finding fault with vyasa vakya - i do not find it in a good taste

 

Then why anyone recite shrimad bhagawatham

 

"Shrimad Bhagawatham puranam amalam yadvaishnavaanam priyam

yasmin paaramahamsyam ekam amalam gnyanam param geeyathe

 

thahra gnyana viraaga bhakthi sahitham naishkarmyamaavishkrutham

thath shrunvan vipatan vichaaranaparo bhakthya vimuchyennaraha"

 

This is for the purpose of attaining bhakthi, gnyana , vairagya.

 

I have seen in this and many threads people making a big hue and cry over change of a few words in the books penned by Shri Prabhupada ( this is not a complaint and I in fact appreciate their aacharya bhakthi in this regard - although i am not a member of ISKCON). If change of words penned by prabhupad is that offensive, imagine change of words by Vyasaacharya who is an avataara of lord vishnu.

 

Yes, if you have a mindset of research - rather than changing vyasa vakya - try find materials in support of that. that would be rather easier and meaningful.

 

Radhe Krishna

[Kulapavana 0]

 

corrected, I missed a 1.

 

1.12.32-35.

 

These were horse sacrifices (asvamedha-yajnas), not a rajasuya sacrifice. This Bhagavatam verse clearly speaks about the rajasuya-yajna.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

I have seen in this and many threads people making a big hue and cry over change of a few words in the books penned by Shri Prabhupada ( this is not a complaint and I in fact appreciate their aacharya bhakthi in this regard - although i am not a member of ISKCON). If change of words penned by prabhupad is that offensive, imagine change of words by Vyasaacharya who is an avataara of lord vishnu.

 

 

the reason for this thread is precisely that: to make sure that our books properly reflect the version of events from the past as presented by Srila Vyasadeva. At the very least, if some apparent differences are discovered, they need to be discussed in a proper spirit of respect for both sadhu, and shastra.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

This is the danger of changing Prabhupada's books to fit what we think is right. There are those who aren't aware that Krishna lila in the Mahabharata and Srimad Bhagavatam are narrations from different kalpas, and as such there are many major differences between the two texts in this regards. Those who want to correct Prabhupada based on what they think the Mahabharata says are really just foolish people. First spend a few years in traditional study of shastra, before thinking to correct the guru's "mistakes".

[Kulapavana 0]

 

This is the danger of changing Prabhupada's books to fit what we think is right.

 

can you show us a quote from any other Vaishnava acharya supporting the notion that Rajasuya sacrifice happened after the battle of Kurukshetra? even Srimad Bhagavatam does not say that.

[theist 1]

We should let the verses stand as they are with no mucking around. Write your own commentary explaining what you think is wrong. Where does it end?

 

This is why I have taken the approach that I don't care a fig about errors (even if they are there) in the Bhagavatam. Dates, cosmology etc. etc. all meaningless to me. It's the spiritual side I need to be concerned with, starting with aham bramasmi.

 

If we stopped insisting people take every little thing literally and that they concentrate on the essence then things would just go smoothly.

 

Not this "How far away is the moon" or "How many suns in the universe" *rap.

 

Just leave the books alone!!!

[mahak 0]

Haribol. Srila Prabhupada sits on the vyasasana, the chair of Vyasadeva. Everything that comes from an authorized occupant of the Vyasasana is understood to have come from from Vyasadeva Himself. There are no errors at all from Srila Prabhupada. Becayuse Vyasadeva Himself is also a disciple of a disciple, he has heard from the disciple of Lord Brahma, Srila Narada Muni, the guru maharaja of Lord Vyasadeva. Srila Narada Muni explains the potential for mistakes from a pure source, as follows, and must be understood by all Vaisnava commentators of works of pure and authorized occupants of the Vyasasana: (NOTE: I am adding purport, because it is so nectarian and humbly descriptive, please read entire citation, thanx.)

 

Srimad Bhagavatam 1.5.11

 

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

 

PURPORT

It is a qualification of the great thinkers to pick up the best even from the worst. It is said that the intelligent man should pick up nectar from a stock of poison, should accept gold even from a filthy place, should accept a good and qualified wife even from an obscure family and should accept a good lesson even from a man or from a teacher who comes from the untouchables. These are some of the ethical instructions for everyone in every place without exception. But a saint is far above the level of an ordinary man. He is always absorbed in glorifying the Supreme Lord because by broadcasting the holy name and fame of the Supreme Lord, the polluted atmosphere of the world will change, and as a result of propagating the transcendental literatures like Srimad-Bhagavatam, people will become sane in their transactions. While preparing this commentation on this particular stanza of Srimad-Bhagavatam we have a crisis before us. Our neighboring friend China has attacked the border of India with a militaristic spirit. We have practically no business in the political field, yet we see that previously there were both China and India, and they both lived peacefully for centuries without ill feeling. The reason is that they lived those days in an atmosphere of God consciousness, and every country, over the surface of the world, was God-fearing, pure-hearted and simple, and there was no question of political diplomacy. There is no cause of quarrel between the two countries China and India over land which is not very suitable for habitation, and certainly there is no cause for fighting on this issue. But due to the age of quarrel, Kali, which we have discussed, there is always a chance of quarrel on slight provocation. This is due not to the issue in question, but to the polluted atmosphere of this age: systematically there is propaganda by a section of people to stop glorification of the name and fame of the Supreme Lord. Therefore, there is a great need for disseminating the message of Srimad-Bhagavatam all over the world. It is the duty of every responsible Indian to broadcast the transcendental message of Srimad-Bhagavatam throughout the world to do all the supermost good as well as to bring about the desired peace in the world. Because India has failed in her duty by neglecting this responsible work, there is so much quarrel and trouble all over the world. We are confident that if the transcendental message of Srimad-Bhagavatam is received only by the leading men of the world, certainly there will be a change of heart, and naturally the people in general will follow them. The mass of people in general are tools in the hands of the modern politicians and leaders of the people. If there is a change of heart of the leaders only, certainly there will be a radical change in the atmosphere of the world. We know that our honest attempt to present this great literature conveying transcendental messages for reviving the God consciousness of the people in general and respiritualizing the world atmosphere is fraught with many difficulties. Our presenting this matter in adequate language, especially a foreign language, will certainly fail, and there will be so many literary discrepancies despite our honest attempt to present it in the proper way. But we are sure that with all our faults in this connection the seriousness of the subject matter will be taken into consideration, and the leaders of society will still accept this due to its being an honest attempt to glorify the Almighty God. When there is fire in a house, the inmates of the house go out to get help from the neighbors who may be foreigners, and yet without knowing the language the victims of the fire express themselves, and the neighbors understand the need, even though not expressed in the same language. The same spirit of cooperation is needed to broadcast this transcendental message of the Srimad-Bhagavatam throughout the polluted atmosphere of the world. After all, it is a technical science of spiritual values, and thus we are concerned with the techniques and not with the language. If the techniques of this great literature are understood by the people of the world, there will be success.

When there are too many materialistic activities by the people in general all over the world, there is no wonder that a person or a nation attacks another person or nation on slight provocation. That is the rule of this age of Kali or quarrel. The atmosphere is already polluted with corruption of all description, and everyone knows it well. There are so many unwanted literatures full of materialistic ideas of sense gratification. In many countries there are bodies appointed by the state to detect and censor obscene literature. This means that neither the government nor the responsible leaders of the public want such literature, yet it is in the marketplace because the people want it for sense gratification. The people in general want to read (that is a natural instinct), but because their minds are polluted they want such literatures. Under the circumstances, transcendental literature like Srimad-Bhagavatam will not only diminish the activities of the corrupt mind of the people in general, but also it will supply food for their hankering after reading some interesting literature. In the beginning they may not like it because one suffering from jaundice is reluctant to take sugar candy, but we should know that sugar candy is the only remedy for jaundice. Similarly, let there be systematic propaganda for popularizing reading of the Bhagavad-gita and the Srimad-Bhagavatam, which will act like sugar candy for the jaundicelike condition of sense gratification. When men have a taste for this literature, the other literatures, which are catering poison to society, will then automatically cease.

We are sure, therefore, that everyone in human society will welcome Srimad-Bhagavatam, even though it is now presented with so many faults, for it is recommended by Sri Narada, who has very kindly appeared in this chapter.

 

 

mahaksadasa:

So, I am not criticizing the originator of this topic, because I see the possible imperfect composition. However, if we are purified and thoroughly honest, we hear, sing, and ACCEPT, ACCEPT, ACCEPT such transcendental literature. This is the difference in the sanskrit and english scholars and the personality of Srimad Bhagavatam, srila Prabhupada. If they would only read the very first chapter of Srimad Bhagavatam, they would understand that Srila Prabhupada possibly had little interest in making perfect composition. His desire is this: TO describe the transcendental glories of the name, fame, forms, pastimes, etc., of the unlimited Supreme Lord. This is a different creation, (not just a perfect combination of words, grammer, and even chronology), full of transcendental words directed toward bringing about a revolution in the impious lives of this world's misdirected civilization.

 

In fact, if one understandas rasa at all, they also understand that the description of the Rajasuya sacrifice above is spoken by Arjuna to Yudhisthira, while arjuna was trying to remain alive long enough having just experianced the disappearance of Lord Krsna. Maybe arjuna got it wrong, or maybe the whole world was choked up and mortified.

 

Leave the books alone. Srila Prabhupadas mistakes are the source of transcendental bliss for his devotees. Just as he spoke to Govinda dasi, concerning all the sketches in the original Teachings of Lord Chaitanya that were drawn by her and Goursundara das. He was upset that the new editions had these drawings removed, but he clearly stated that these drawings had bhakti yoga in them and were very potent for all the world to see.

 

I dont have any use for perfectly composed literature, but I am dead without Srila Prabhupadas transcendental vision and version.

 

hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[bija 0]

 

We are sure, therefore, that everyone in human society will welcome Srimad-Bhagavatam, even though it is now presented with so many faults, for it is recommended by Sri Narada, who has very kindly appeared in this chapter. quote Srila Prabhupada

 

Leave the books alone. Srila Prabhupadas mistakes are the source of transcendental bliss for his devotees. quote Mahaksadasa

Had to copy and paste this. I just love this purport by Srila Prabhupada.

[vrajavasi 0]

Radhe Krishna,

 

I very strongly feel that to change even a single alphabet in any literature is offensive. These great granthas were penned by great souls. Vyasacharya was svayam vishnu. If a person can find fault with what is composed by Bhagawan vishnu himself, what could be said.

 

Radhe Krishna

[Avinash 0]

 

I very strongly feel that to change even a single alphabet in any literature is offensive. These great granthas were penned by great souls. Vyasacharya was svayam vishnu. If a person can find fault with what is composed by Bhagawan vishnu himself, what could be said.

 

What do you think about making changes in what Prabhupada wrote (e.g. changes in his translation or purport)?

[vrajavasi 0]

Radhe Krishna,

 

First of all I do not belong to ISKCON.

 

I pay my obeisances to the services rendered by shri prabhupada for krishna bhakthi movement and bhagawan nama prachaara he rendered all through his life although I do not share his views on many matters.

 

But, yes I know, in this thread and in many other threads heated exchanges are going on inbetween ISKCONites whether changes can be made in the writings of Shri Prabhupada. So many people have written for and against these changes. It would be dishonest on my part to poke my nose unnecessarily in this issue.

 

But I am totally against making any changes in any of the literature for that matter.

 

Afterall a person who composed the literature is far far at a higher platform than a person who wishes to make change in it.

 

If you do not agree with any of the things as a vidyarthi, I do not view that badly if you discuss it. But making a change in the literature itself, my dear friend, that is offensive. If you wish to make one change, there are hundreds of thousands of people who wish to make lakhs of changes - some on the basis of history some on the basis of likes dislikes some on the basis of philosophy - the list is endless.

 

By this way any literature would end up like a kichri.

 

In south India, the krithis by Thiagaraaja, Shyama shasthri and Muthuswamy Deekshidar are sung as swara saahithya. Apart from the lyric, importance is also given to the raaga in which the krithis are composed because that exhibits the bhava in which composer intended to present the krithi.

 

The vyakyana kartha is given freedom to express the literature.

 

Janmaadyasya yathon vayath

 

for this starting phrase of Bhagwatham, vyakyaana krathas have given vyakyaanam pages together. Similarly if you so want you can debate a shloka or an alphabet from shrimad bhagawatha in pages together.

 

But no no no no to change

 

Radhe Krishna

[Kulapavana 0]

the example in question seems a very simple case of error that any editor of any book would catch and present to the author for correction and comment. that is a function of an editor. alas, that did not happen, and people will keep wondering about it, and some folks will even invent creative ways to "prove" the rajasuya sacrifice indeed happened after the battle of Kurukshetra.

 

I wonder what is worse: the "inventions" of misguided disciples changing the shastra, or the "offense" of editing SP books to which he agreed on principle.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

You are of the opinion that it is a mistake. Perhaps it may be a mistake, or it may be that it has occurred as Prabhupada wrote, or it may be that Prabhupada considered the ashwamedha yajna as a rajasuya yajna since they both involve the offering of a horse. Perhaps Prabhupada knew more details about the sacrifice than us, since he was in direct contact with the Paramatma.

 

You may feel you are qualified to point out the errors in Prabhupada's writings, but I can clearly see that you are not, and neither are editors like Jayadvaita Swami. The example I gave was that you mistakenly tried citing the Mahabharata to establish the chronology of the Bhagavatam's account, but anyone who has studied the Mahabharata knows it does not tally with the Bhagavatam, since they are two seperate descriptions of different events.

 

The Bhagavatam says after hearing of the brahmana's curse, Parikshit went to the banks of the Ganges to pass his last days. The Mahabharata says he was filled with fear and hid himself in a giant tower in Hastinapur, protected on all sides, so that Takshaka could not attack him.

 

These are two completely different narations and two completely different Parikshits. There are many other differences, and if you ask someone like Hridayananda Maharaja he can give you a list of such contradictions.

 

Thus in this particular case, you have made a suggestion to "correct" Prabhupada's mistake in Bhagavatam by citing the Mahabharata's chronology; something which has no bearing on the Bhagavatam's chronology. This is an obvious mistake, and a sign that you are not fit to correct Prabhupada's words. But neither am I, nor Jayadvaita Swami. It isn't meant to be a personal criticism against you, just an example of how conditioned souls shouldn't try to be more intelligent than a liberated soul (Srila Prabhupada).

 

Dravida and Jayadvaita Swami made a similar mistake when they took a teaching not found in Prabhupada's books (that Bipin Bihari Goswami was the actual guru of Bhaktivinoda Thakur) and used that to change Prabhupada's own words (removing the word "initiated"). It was a clear mistake on their part that shows they are not fit to mess around with Prabhupada's words.

 

Perhaps Prabhupada was mistaken. Only he can really know. But what we can see is whether our editors are beyond mistakes, and it is obvious that they are not.

[Avinash 0]

As I understand from Kulpavana's posts, he is saying that if somebody had pointed out to Prabhupada, he would himself have immediately accpeted it as a mistake and, therefore, it should be corrected.

 

If it is true that Prabhupada himself would have accepted it as mistake, then I agree that it should be corrected. But the problem with this approach is that we may do lots of editing and produce a version, which is significantly different from what Prabhupada wanted. After all, how can we say what Prabhupada would have wanted to have changed and what he would not have?

 

Therefore, I do not recommend making changes. But let me tell something on your statement that stories in Mahabharata and Bhagavatam are from different kalpas.

 

Since they are from different kalpas, let us not validate one on the basis of another. Let us concentrate only on Bhagavatam. I was reading the Prabhupada's translations of the verses in SB 1.9. It is written that Bhisma is talking as he is lying on the bed of arrows. Bhisma is talking about Rajsuya sacrifice. This means that Bhisma was talking about some sacrifice that happened before Kurukshetra war. But the purport to verse 1.9.41 talks about Rajsuya sacrifice after Kurukshetra war. How do we explain this contradiction?

[Kulapavana 0]

 

You may feel you are qualified to point out the errors in Prabhupada's writings, but I can clearly see that you are not, and neither are editors like Jayadvaita Swami. The example I gave was that you mistakenly tried citing the Mahabharata to establish the chronology of the Bhagavatam's account, but anyone who has studied the Mahabharata knows it does not tally with the Bhagavatam, since they are two seperate descriptions of different events.

 

I completely agree that I'm not qualified to establish such issues as errors, and hence the discussion. But pretending it is not there is foolish too, as the shastra must be discussed to be understood. Mahabharata and Bhagavatam mostly agree on the timing of events, and Rajasuya is no exception.

 

However, the apparent differences between Bhagavatam and Mahabharata, or Bhagavatam and other Puranas, can be explained in several ways. While it is true that shastra sometimes describes similar events from different Kalpas, other explanations are accepted by Vaishnava acharyas as well. The Bhagavatam account has been validated by Lord Caitanya and therefore we accept it as more authoritative. Very few people (let alone scholars) actually think Mahabharata describes events from a different kalpa when it comes to the story of Pandavas.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Let us take this particular case one step further, by asking a question. Does anyone really know anything about what a Rajasuya Yajna is and what an Ashvamedha Yajna is beyond the words themselves? What is one composed of as compared to the other? What are the rituals involved in each, and what is the purpose of each. Are they mutually exclusive?

 

I would suggest that these calls for making "corrections" are being done without even having basic knowledge of what is being talked about by Prabhupada, and as such are really meaningless.

 

Rajasuya yajna contains ashvamedha yajna, and all ashvamedha yajnas involve sending the horse to establish supremacy and acceptance of tax collection. Prabhupada's decision to use the word Rajasuya is because he knows more than us, not because he is a foolish person.

 

My only point is that Prabhupada's books should not be changed based on whims. People can study Mahabharata for their entire life and still not have the scriptural knowledge that Prabhupada had. Thus we should think 1000 times before assuming Prabhupada was mistaken in his choice of words.