Interpretation

[ethos 0]

Anyone trying to represent the Vedic authorities must be very careful in his approach––not my opinion. In the view of Prabhupada's works being changed and individual efforts of many persons writing on their own (including myself), I thought this following excerpt most profound. Indeed, it could be a lifelong meditation.

 

Please do not consider this a subtle reference to anything anyone said on this board. I present it as pure philosophy.

 

Hayagriva dasa: Aquinas seems to have encouraged individual interpretation. He writes: “It belongs to the dignity of divining scripture to contain many meanings in one text, so that it may be appropriate to the various understandings of each man to marvel at the fact that he can find the truth he has conceived in his own mind expressed in divine scripture.”

Srila Prabhupada: No. If one’s mind is perfect, he may give a meaning, but, according to our conviction, if one is perfect, why should he try to change the word of God? And if one is imperfect, what is the value of his change?

Hayagriva dasa: Aquinas doesn’t say “change.”

Srila Prabhupada: Interpretation means change. If man is imperfect, how can he change the words of God? If the words can be changed, they are not perfect. So there will be doubt whether the words are spoken by God or by an imperfect person.

Hayagriva dasa: The many different Protestant faiths resulted from such individual interpretation. It’s surprising to find this viewpoint in Aquinas.

Srila Prabhupada: As soon as you interpret or change the scripture, the scripture loses its authority. Then another man will come and interpret things in his own way. Another will come and then another, and in this way the original purport of the scripture is lost.

[Guest guest]

Haribol, ethos, interesting topic.

 

I have had a recent change on the subject of Srila Prabhupada's books. After reading Sriman Jayadwaita Swami's explanation about his endeavors as editor of Srila Prabhupada's books, I have come to the conclusion that he has acted in good faith.

 

While I have a stated opposition against changing Srila Prabhupada's books, I recognize that those books were handled my a staff of many of his disciples who were commissioned to edit. Hayagriva and other scholarly types were given this duty, and I was fortunate to have known one such senior disciple. In the course of their honest work in His service, mistakes were made. Srila Prabhupada himself commented about some of these errors, like the binding of TLC, the placement (or lack thereof) of His title as "founder acarya", etc. There are also errors in the contents of his books, not of import, but of grammatical and structural nature.

 

These errors are not at all an indication of "imperfection" of an advanced being of Srila Prabhupada, rather, an indication of human error and mechanical error of those who took on the tasks under the guidance of their professor. If errors of "apprentices" are rigidly criticized, then the purpose of master-disciple relationship is defeated. Disciples must give Guru something to criticize, for this is guru's job.

 

Jayadwaita Swami has stated clearly, and demonstrated to a dgree that his editorial work is to try to weed out publication errors in favor of having Srila Prabhupada's intended message delivered. He has used the original manuscript against the data obtained from the original editors.

 

Although I still have reservations as one of the most vocal opponants against changing his books, Jayadwaita has cooled this fire quite well, and I thank him for that. Interpretation is absent from his works (as he clearly promises), and thus, the "AS IT IS" trademark can still be applied. I have not done an extensive search by placing my original books against the new ones, but from what I have seen, there seems to be a presentation that does not "interpret" indiscriminately.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[theist 1]

I suspect main corrections are valid but that does not mean all.

 

I have come to the realization that if I'm to ever proper understand any scripture, Paramatma will have to spoon fed it to me directly.

 

Even if the every word in the books is absolutely correct still it has to make it through my subtle body intact. That doesn't appear likely so for me its down to personal revelation or nothing.

[Guest guest]

Great point. Interpretation also takes place in the ear, which is proven scientifically by the human propensity to gossip. From ones lips to anothers ears, then from that point to anothers ears, this changes everything ebverytime the message is repeatewd.

 

And shastra is all of the necessity to hear with assistance from one who knows and lives shastra. The criteria is not guru or sadhu or shastra, all three make up the necessity.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahak

[ethos 0]

Mahak, I'm gonna break my promise not to interject my opinion here because this issue is a critical point in our devotional lives. To hell with my honor. I certainly didn't expect this dialogue. I thought it was self-evident.

 

Concerning the staff commissioned to edit in Prabhupada's presence, of course this needed to be done.

 

"There are also errors in the contents of his books, not of import, but of grammatical and structural nature. These errors are not at all an indication of "imperfection" of an advanced being of Srila Prabhupada, rather, an indication of human error and mechanical error of those who took on the tasks under the guidance of their professor. If errors of "apprentices" are rigidly criticized, then the purpose of master-disciple relationship is defeated."

 

If Prabhupada approved of the copy directly then it is perfect. And so is the editing service rendered by others. He had done this with the Gita and Bhagavatam and all his books. They were completed to his specifications. It would not have been possible for him to produce the volumous literatures he created without the sincere efforts of many individuals.

 

"Disciples must give Guru something to criticize, for this is guru's job."

This is funny.

 

"Jayadwaita Swami has stated clearly, and demonstrated to a dgree that his editorial work is to try to weed out publication errors in favor of having Srila Prabhupada's intended message delivered. He has used the original manuscript against the data obtained from the original editors."

 

I don't know the background history well enough to understand your explanations clearly. I don't know if you are talking past or present. I do know that "to a degree" and "try" are not indicative of perfect knowledge as applied to the activity of editing the guru in his absence.

 

The warning issued in this orignal post above is simply the contention––shared with many disciples––that the many completed works Prabhupada left behind should never have been altered. Many of us feel that is a grave error. Such changes do in fact contain different meanings and content. They may still be representative of Vaisnava philosophy, but they are sometimes departing from Prabhupada's original meanings. It also looks foolish to discriminating minds to find different interpretations of the same text by the same institution––especially where there are subtle changes in meaning.

 

"Although I still have reservations as one of the most vocal opponants against changing his books, Jayadwaita has cooled this fire quite well, and I thank him for that. Interpretation is absent from his works (as he clearly promises), and thus, the "AS IT IS" trademark can still be applied. I have not done an extensive search by placing my original books against the new ones, but from what I have seen, there seems to be a presentation that does not "interpret" indiscriminately."

 

These claims are not evident to many of us. In fact, just the opposite. As explained above in this original posting by Prabhupada himself, changing words of authorities is interpreting!

 

Our best efforts cannot match Prabhupada's in my opinion. To change perfect statements from self-realized beings I think is quite presumptuous. I think this is true even of one qualified person changing another similarly qualified persons' words––in any field. But the disciple changing the guru's words? I see the changing of words as nothing short of cheating and misrepresentation.

 

Why do you think I can't edit your messages on this board?

 

Still, Prabhupada left alot of material that can be condensed into books as was done with Dialectic Spiritualism. But here too, some Gita and Bhagavatam verses don't match the Vedabase which they had already changed. We're already into subsequent changes!?

 

I think modifying Prabhupada's words for a new presentation such as Dialectic Spiritualism is great as long as it is representative of the Parampara. We are certainly in need of more literature and there is alot of untapped Prabhupada. In such efforts, editors naturally have leeway to purport their own meanings by arrangement or explanation––it can't be avoided.

 

What I and many people have issue with is direct substitution and interpretation of existing material as well as deviations as was sometimes found in the fallen gurus. You cannot justify that to many devotees with sophisticated explanations. They just see it as symptomatic of no common sense.

[theist 1]

Changes were being made to Srila Prabhupada's Sri Isopanishad while he was still walking on earth. He indicated that the changes should be deleted back and the original restored. I wonder if that happened?

[AncientMariner 0]

 

 

 

Look at what Buddhism has become because of too many unauthorized commentaries. Now people think Buddhism advocates there is no God and there is no self which is completely false if you actually read the Buddha's teachings.

[theist 1]

...the Buddha's teachings. Is it true that they weren't even written down until 400 yrs. after he passed.

 

Lord in the heart is the ultimate guide.

[Guest guest]

 

 

I don't know but I know this person who is a complete expert on Buddhism. He has translated all the suttas and he travels around challenging modern Buddhists teachers who proclaim the Buddha taught there is no God and no self. Apparently in the suttas or whatever they are called The Buddha makes multiple refences to the existence of the soul but for whatever reason most modern Buddhists think spiritual liberation is self annihilation. In all fairness I don't know that much about Buddhism (who needs it when you have Srila Prabhupada) but this guys knowledge on Buddhism is astounding.

[ethos 0]

So do you have contact with this Buddist expert? This information is worth pursuing. Can you contact him and give him the board address or ask him permission to give his email or something so we can hear more about this?

[Guest guest]

 

 

I used to talk to him in the buddhist chat room but I haven't seen him in a long time. His Buddhist name is Shakya Aryanatta and he has 2 book on amazon named "The Authentic Dhammapada of the Buddha" and "Buddhisms Highest Revelation" but there are very few of them in print as far as I know which is a shame because the guy is like a Buddhist version of Srila Prabhupa as far as knowledge goes.

[AncientMariner 0]

 

 

 

I am sorry I forgot to login again in the above post.

[ethos 0]

Great! Thanks!

[mahak 0]

Haribol, ethos, your intrerjection is greatly appreciated. You see, I am still concerned with the changes issue and have problems with all of it. I play devil's advocate here to spur discussion, and you have helped greatly.

 

The original editors of Srila Prabhupada's books were, indeed, under direct scrutiny, while the latter day, self-appointed editors are not. So the idea of "interpretation" cannot be ignored, because we all know that just a single change of punctuation changes "meaning" of entire volumes.

 

My main protest is that the ones who decided that "improvements" must be done obviously had severe lack of engagement in other matters. So, the whole book changes project is a waste of time and resources. It is better to have a little mistake in grammer than a project done with a possible motive that authority can be secured through such an editorial project.

 

The explanations of Jayadwaita are reasonable as I had read it, but I have noted, in my original post, that good faith is shown on the surface. Motives of such a project are unknown, and any offences are between the person doing the editorial project and the Guru who is being edited.

 

What are some of the changes that concern you? Like I mention, I read original works, and have no copies of abridged issues. The abridged Bhagavad Gita seems to be a lot thinner than just the elimination of sanskrit, transliteration, and word for word definition. Give me some ammo, and Ill gladly change my position to again vigorously oppose any tampering whatsoever. I can be edited at any time.

 

Hope you are well, ys, mahaksadasa

[theist 1]

http://www.krishna.org/ISKCON/BookChanges/index.html

 

Here is some thoughts on the matter. Yeah, just why aren't there footnotes showing the reason for the changes in the new volumes?