Hansadutta Writes

[Guest guest]

Just What Is Jayadvaita's Point?

 

BY HANSADUTTA DAS

 

EDITORIAL, May 15 (VNN) — Reading Jayadvaita's article really irritated me. What is his point? That Hayagriva was not qualified as an editor? That Srila Prabhupada was indifferent, stupid or lazy in copying others translations? Or, that because Hayagriva and Srila Prabhupada were not physically side by side for two years, there was some discrepancy in Hayagriva's work, or, that Srila Prabhupada was unaware of what Hayagriva was doing, and now (in Srila Prabhupada's absence) had to be corrected by Jayadvaita Swami?

 

Is this his attempt to justify his envious infintile clerk like editing of Prabhupada's Gita? What really is his point? What exactly is Jayadvaita Swami trying to say? He is an office clerk at best, but factually his meddling in the re-editing of Srila Prabhupada's works is a sinister, diabolical attempt to undermine the efforts of the Sampradaya Acharya. He is a putana attempting to usurp the pulpit of the institution in the absence of the self realized soul, Srila Prabhupada.

 

I was one BBT trustee along with Srila Prabhupada and Bali Mardan when I went to Srila Prabhupada and suggested we reprint his Original Bhagavatams for the pleasure of his devotees who liked the old Indian version... Before finishing my proposal, Srila Prabhupada admonished me saying, "no--whatever Hayagriva has done is perfect, I have full faith in him as the editor of my books." This was quite some time after the publication of Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita. He went on to say "whatever he (Hayagriva) has done is perfect, do not touch it, I have full faith in him."

 

What more can be said about this matter? ISKCON spent hundreds and thousands of dollars fighting in the court with me (Hansadutta) to support Jayadvaita's bogus position, of re-editing Srila Prabhupada's books . ISKCON was claiming Srila Prabhupada never was the proprietor of the copyrights, he was in fact a hired hand, supplied with pen paper and office space by ISKCON, and therefore the copyrights belonged to ISKCON. They claimed there never was a BBT formed by Srila Prabhupada, that Hansadutta was never a trustee of any BBT. But the court did not uphold their point of view, and subsequently ISKCON and their lying, cheating gundas and editors had to make a settlement to escape disaster.

 

Factually the copyright claimed by ISKCON or BBT-international (a bogus shadow organization of the original BBT formed by Srila Prabhupada) has been legally lost to the public domain, and anyone and everyone who likes can print Srila Prabhupada's books freely. It is being done as we speak and no one will dare to challenge anyone who chooses to print Prabhupada's books, because ISKCON knows if they go to court they cannot prevail. Fearing a legal ruling that the copyrights are in the public domain they will not prosecute anyone for copyright infringement. Besides that, they have no more money to fight in the court. Let everyone print the books of Srila Prabhupada to their hearts content, rest assured ISKCON will not take any action, because they have long ago lost their claim to legal copyright protection. I should know, I was in the eye of the hurricane.

 

Your servant,

 

Hansadutta

 

[gHari 0]

There is a perhaps pertinent comment on this article entitled "Recent VNN Article", about a dozen posts down in this linked thread.

[gHari 0]

No more copyrights? Now anyone can revise the books to put any kind of slant of them and publish them with Srila Prabhupada's name on them. We may end up with a rtvik version, a Gopi Bhava Club version, a tattvavadi version, and even a mayavadi version.

 

We saw what appeared to be the political influence of the Zonal Acaraya system on the Gita when the original Gita's one tattva-darshi became many seers of the truth.

 

I hope we can leave trite politics and our addiction to control out of it entirely; identifying that adrenalin as the shameful anartha it is, and keeping it far from the beauty of Prabhupada. The only meaningful lasting reform will be authorized and inaugurated by Caitya-Guru, not by pencils and pens and rhetoric and filibuster.

[gHari 0]

Hansadutta, I think, may have been guilty of hasty logic or political rhetoric when he concluded "What more can be said about this matter ?", for indeed the following must be said.

 

The change explanations presented on the internet webpage certainly sound reasonable to me, especially when considering the original manuscript versions. Certainly it is best to get as close to Prabhupada's original desire as possible. It is not that the Gita As It Is didn't work - it surely did. And it is no slighting of the devotees who thankfully gave their life to produce the earlier Gita versions - their glory will live forever, and I am indebted eternally to each and every one of them. But, if there is a chance to get closer to Prabhupada, then I say all glories to those who achieve it.

 

gHari

[theist 1]

Now here is a reasonable and just solution to the whole problem that would satisfy both camps.Yes?

 

Classic Manuscripts

 

BY RUPA-VILASA DASA

 

Feb 21 ; Should Srila Prabhupada's Books Be Changed?

 

The way the matter should have been handled, and could still be handled is this: Republish the editions of Srila Prabhupada's books as they were when he was on the earth and footnote any changes in a scholarly edition the way that it is generally done. In this way, additional notes, verses, rewordings and comments could be incorporated without any change or alteration to the original text.

 

Those notes, comments, verses, etc. can then be analyzed by the reader as additional information, and not a rewording of the original text.

 

This is the way scholarly editions of other classic manuscripts and spiritual books are generally approached. This could still be done, and most everyone would be satisfied with this standard.

 

Your servant,

 

Rupa-vilasa dasa

 

HARE KRSNA HARE KRSNA KRSNA KRSNA HARE HARE HARE RAMA HARE RAMA RAMA RAMA HARE

 

[stonehearted 0]

Rupa-vilasa's suggestion sounds reasonable enough. However, don't you think it's a little hopeful to assert that it "would satisfy both camps"? "Should" may be more accurate. Unfotunately, I see no indication that either party is amenable to compromise of any sort.

 

I've been asked by advocates of the "no-change" camp to write something on this issue. However, they've made it complicated enough that I need some time to consider what I might actually be able to add to the conversation. For precisely the reasons they have asked me to contribute, I would need to be very cautious.

[theist 1]

I don't align myself with each side fully. Some errors may have been found and therefore correction is justified. So in that I would support the BBT. But does that give licsense to all the changes they made? Certainly not.

 

So for me its not an either or proposition. Which is why I support the statement from Rupa Vilasa above. If it is felt that a change must be made then footnote it. Everyone *should* be satisfied. And for those that aren't, tough.

 

But as it is now it is damaging peoples faith, and it is not ever going to go away. Plus they have laid down a horrible precedent for the future. What will the editors at BBT be doing to these books in the next 50 or 100 years siting "Well Prabhupada said Jayaadvata could do it, so why can't we" These books won't even be recognizable for all the other less potent editions that scholars are want to bring out.

 

Babhru in your writing please consider a third option from the *no change* position and the *change at our desire* position.

 

This letter is a little long and I want to distance myself from the ritvik camp in general. That said there is some VERY IMPORTANT points made here.

 

 

BBT Admits Books Changed To Fit GBC Philosophy

 

 

 

 

The BBT could not allow Srila Prabhupada to teach that Jagannatha Dasa Babaji actually *initiated* Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, for that would indirectly sanction Srila Prabhupada *initiating* for many generations to come simply via his transcendental knowledge, with the 'formal initiation' administered via the Ritvik system that he set up. IRM Adridharana Dasa (05-24-02)

 

 

We highlighted previously in newsletter No. 20, how Bhakti Caru Swami's Bengali translation of the Srimad Bhagavatam had omitted a very key verse from Srila Prabhupada's original version. The omitted verse in question would itself have destroyed the GBC's position that they were duly authorised to be Diksa Gurus in ISKCON. This of course was shocking, since it showed that Srila Prabhupada's books were being 'edited' not to bring them closer to the originals as claimed, but rather doctored to prop up the GBC's bogus Guru philosophy.

 

Though we had also been aware of many other controversial changes made to Srila Prabhupada's books, the BBT had always claimed that they were made to actually correct 'errors' made by Srila Prabhupada's 'hippie' editors. Thus they were not actually changing Srila Prabhupada's books, but Hayagriva's 'incorrect version' of the books, and thereby actually RESTORING the books BACK to how Srila Prabhupada actually wanted them. However, thanks to the diligent efforts of His Grace Dhira Govinda Prabhu, the Chairman of the ISKCON Office of Child Protection, we now have evidence that the current BBT, which is controlled by GBC supporters, are making changes motivated slowly by the desire to doctor Srila Prabhupada's books so that they fit in with whatever happens to be the prevailing view instituted in ISKCON by the GBC.

 

Some time back many devotees had noticed that the new 9 Volume edition of the Caitanya Caritamrta had made a deliberate change from Srila Prabhupada's original version, not unlike the one made by Bhakti Caru Swami mentioned earlier. Srila Prabhupada's Caitanya Caritamrta states the following:

 

"Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura accepted Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji, who *initiated* Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who in turn initiated Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji"

 

(C:C, Chapter 1)

 

In the new BBT doctored 9-volume edition, the same passage reads:

 

"Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura accepted Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji, the spiritual master of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who in turn accepted Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji"

 

In other words it has been decided that contrary to what Srila Prabhupada states, Jagannatha Das Babaji did not really INITIATE Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura after all. Now the reason for the BBT changing Srila Prabhupada's teaching here is very significant since the GBC maintain that the relationship between Jagannatha Das Babaji and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura was based not on 'formal initiation' but rather only on the transmission of transcendental knowledge'. Once it is accepted that the transmission of divine transcendental knowledge ALONE constitutes INITIATION - then the objections made by the GBC to the Ritvik system of initiation crumble, since Srila Prabhupada could also *initiate* us with transcendental knowledge.

 

Thus the BBT could not allow Srila Prabhupada to teach that Jagannatha Dasa Babaji actually *initiated* Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, for that would indirectly sanction Srila Prabhupada *initiating* for many generations to come simply via his transcendental knowledge, with the 'formal initiation' administered via the Ritvik system that he set up. In any case the teaching given by Srila Prabhupada above is totally consistent with what Srila Prabhupada has taught about Diksa and initiation in the Caitanya Caritamrta itself:

 

"Diksa actually means *initiating* a disciple *with transcendental knowledge* by which he becomes freed from all material contamination." (Madhya-lila, 4:112, Purport)

 

Of course just the very fact that the BBT is deliberately changing the main legacy left by Srila Prabhupada - his teachings - is horrendous enough.

 

However the fact that it was done specifically to keep the positions of the GBC within the crumbling Guru system intact, is totally shameful.

 

But just when you though it could not get any worse, it does. For the BBT have now become so arrogant in their campaign against Srila Prabhuada's teachings, that they have even tried to JUSTIFY this change. Dravida Das, the BBT editor, upon being asked by Dhira Govinda Prabhu to justify the change, first sums up the reason for NOT changing Srila Prabhupada's teachings as follows:

 

"On the side of not changing the "initiated" phrases we have the strong bias against changing the books unless absolutely necessary and the fact that Srila Prabhupada did indeed say that Jagannatha das Babaji initiated Bhaktivinode."

 

(BBT Editor, Dravida Das)

 

Please note that Dravida clearly ADMITS that Srila Prabhupada "DID indeed say that Jagannatha das Babaji initiated Bhaktivinode".

 

To any sane person, this would be the ONLY reason required to NOT tamper with Srila Prabhupada's teachings in any manner whatsoever. But hold on.

 

Dravida Das has a reason that far outweighs a mere detail such as what Srila Prabhupada himself actually taught. Rather he states we must change Srila Prabhupada's teachings to ensure they conform with what is currently understood within ISKCON in regards to initiation:

 

"Leaving one or both "initiated"s will strongly imply that the use of the phrases "direct disciple" and even "accepted [as his disciple]" indicate formal initiation as we know it in ISKCON, which is far from the truth." (BBT Editor, Dravida Das)

 

Dravida then adds that this reason was paramount in justifying the change:

 

This last was the weightiest argument, in my view, for changing the passage.

 

(BBT Editor, Dravida Das)

 

Thus to summarise, what Dravida is saying is this: That whenever Srila Prabhupada's teachings differ from the way 'we know it in ISKCON', then they must be changed to conform with the way we DO 'know it in ISKCON'. And of course the way 'we know it in ISKCON' is dictated by whatever ridiculous philosophy the GBC happens to be preaching at the time.

 

So the fact that we have had a bogus Guru system imposed on us in ISKCON by the GBC means that even though we may find that Srila Prabhupada teaches something else, we must modify Srila Prabhupada's teachings to agree with the way things are understood in ISKCON. Instead of changing the practices and understanding of ISKCON to conform with Srila Prabhupada's teachings - which of course is what a spiritual society based on following Srila Prabhupada would do. Not only is it bad enough that ISKCON is NOT run according to Srila Prabhupada's teachings, but now Srila Prabhupada's teachings must also be changed to fit in with the way we happen to be doing things in ISKCON.

 

What makes this shocking state of affairs even more ludicrous is that the way things are 'known in ISKCON' are themselves constantly changing anyway.

 

1) Thus from 1978-onwards, in ISKCON we 'knew' one thing in regards to the process of initiation - that you could ONLY take it from 11 people, and then ONLY whichever of the 11 people 'owned' your geographical area.

 

2) Then from 1986 we 'knew' something else about initiation - that you could take it from many others providing they had received the necessary number of votes.

 

3) Now we 'know' something else - that whoever you get initiated from, do not forget that you must not worship him too much and that Srila Prabhupada is also doing some important things, and indeed maybe even more important than the person who does initiate us.

 

4) And what's the betting that this 'understanding' will also change in the next year or so?

 

5) And just because we happen to 'know' at the moment that initiation must mean the 'formal ceremony', therefore any teaching in Srila Prabhupada's books that imply otherwise must be doctored.

 

And this is a very sinister development for yet another reason. For this justification is laying the ground for making ANY further change to Srila Prabhupada's teachings that the GBC deems fit. Thus in the future if it is 'known in ISKCON' that 'women are as intelligent as men' say, then we will be able to alter all of Srila Prabhupada's statements where he says that women are less intelligent, since then it would not conform with the way things are 'known in ISKCON'. Or if in the future we begin to 'know in ISKCON' that Lord Siva is just as worshipable as Krishna say, then whenever we encounter the word 'Demi-God' in Srila Prabhupada's books, then all those instances must be changed. And so on.

 

Of course someone may argue that the philosophy as 'we know it in ISKCON' will never change and will always be faithful to Srila Prabhupada's teachings, and the above fear is unfounded. (Of course Pigs May Also Fly).

 

If the last 23 years is anything to go by, the only thing we can say with certainty is that the GBC will ALWAYS be deviating from Srila Prabhupada's teachings, and the ONLY SAFEGUARD WE HAVE IS SRILA PRABHUPADA'S TEACHINGS.

 

And once we change Srila Prabhupada's teachings to fit in with whatever nonsense we happen to believe, then all will be lost - as seems to be happening now.

 

How much longer must we put up this with this madness that is leading to the destruction of Srila Prabhupada's movement. No wonder devotees, life members and members of the public, are turning to support the IRM in their droves.

 

Adridharana Dasa, Temple President ISKCON Calcutta

 

 

 

 

 

[stonehearted 0]

I've spoken on many occasions with Dravida. for many years we lived across the street from each other and would speak at his apartment or at the temple. I know the rationales for many, many of the changes. I don't agree with a good many of them, some I see as good editing, in a mundane sense, others as very good editing because they correct what are apparently mistranscriptions by inexperienced devotees, some are best left alone. I have three fundamental questions about changes: 1) Are they necessary (and why?)? 2) Are they authorized (and in what way)? and 3) What effect do they have on the general body of devotees? I think an annotated/variorum edition such as has been suggested by Rupa-vilas and many ohters, may be a useful approach. What we see with the BBTI editions, though, is that they have deeply disturbed large numbers of faithful devotees, which must be taken seriously. One thing I do like about the newer NOD and Bg are the extensive indexes, compiled by my od friend Akshobhya.

 

It's not just ritviks and poison-vadis who are campaigning to rescind the changes (although they are pretty universally in favor of that); I see many devotees from many sectors who greet with delight the chance to buy what I call classic editions of Srila Prabhupada's books. I for one look forward to the classic Krishna book.

[livingentity 0]

is available along with several other reprints of orginals.

 

Original reprints

 

I have always been particular fond of the pictures in the classic Krsna book.

[livingentity 0]

I noted on the book page that the Krsna book is a two book set but I remember have a three book set in this same format.

 

Also, I had a pink cover Nectar of Devotion - which is older the white or pink cover?

[stonehearted 0]

Krishna book was in two volumes. Vol. 1 came out in the late summer of 1970 (at least that's when we got the first ones in Honolulu), and the second volume cane out a little later (still 1970, I believe). What's the printing date on yours?

 

The first NOD was paperback, larger format, with a white cover. The author was on the cover and title page as A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami--no His Divine Grace or Prabhupada. Prabhupada was angered by that and by the lousy quality of the glue in the binding. That also came out in 1970. A second printing had Prabhupada's name the way he he instructed. Cover was still white.

[stonehearted 0]

is available along with several other reprints of orginals.

 

I know they're out, but we don't have any yet on the island. I think Jagaddhatri said she was ordering a case or something.

[livingentity 0]

I do not have them now - loaned them to a friend and never was returned. But the date was in the early 70's.

 

I am considering ordering these reprints.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

There were two versions of the silver print done, one in two volumes and one in three volumes.

 

[Jagat 1]

I fully agree with Rupa Vilasa's idea. It was a great misjudgment on Jayadvaita's part to try to make his version the "official" one. He has now had to spend years defending his decision, which seems to have largely been motivated by contempt for Hayagriva. Hayagriva may have been less than exemplary as a devotee, but he was in my opinion a superior writer to Jayadvaita.

 

The kind of work Jayadvaita did, however, is invaluable and necessary in the struggle for Krishna consciousness to reach maturity. There are so many academic issues of text criticism at issue here that devotees generally avoid.

 

Statement of problem: Prabhupada spoke the absolute truth. An editor made changes. Then Prabhupada said that these changes are perfect. An educated observer compares the editorial changes to Prabhupada's original statements and discovers that the editor has deviated from Prabhupada's original intent, language, spirit or whatever. Out of respect for Prabhupada's absolute authority, he feels it necessary to replicate Prabhupada's original intent. So which manifestation of Prabhupada's absolute authority is more authoritative? The contradiction seems to lie in Prabhupada's "absolute authority" itself.

 

This, of course, does not take into consideration questions of Prabhupada vs. the original Gita, the commentaries of previous acharyas, etc. Are there differences/changes here?

 

Tamal Krishna (God rest his soul) seemed to think that a scholarly approach to Prabhupada's writing was possible and that this would contribute to the evolution of Krishna consciousness and the maturing of its adherents.

 

Differing versions of a text force us to compare and analyze, to deepen our understanding of the essential questions, in other words to engage our intelligence in the service of Krishna--jnana-yajnena tenaham isto'smi.

 

[Jagat 1]

By the way, I also find Hamsadutta's post distasteful for his personal attack on Jayadvaita. Who is Hamsadutta to call anyone names, much less Jayadvaita?

[stonehearted 0]

jndas: There were two versions of the silver print done, one in two volumes and one in three volumes.

 

Yep, and the original was in two volumes, as I remember. The devotees thought a trilogy would be cool, remembering the popularity of the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

[stonehearted 0]

Jagat: Differing versions of a text force us to compare and analyze, to deepen our understanding of the essential questions, in other words to engage our intelligence in the service of Krishna--jnana-yajnena tenaham isto'smi.

 

 

Dittoes to that! I know several devotees (including myself) whose study of Bhagavad-gita includes reading several presntations by Gaudiya devotees. It's a great workout.

 

I also agree with Jagat's response to Hansaduta's article. As soon as I saw it, I felt repulsed by the name-calling. The only people who can be pleased by his post are "adi-vani" true believers.

[Guest guest]

can anyone show an example where the original meaning

has been changed, not just grammer and such,

but actual meaning ?

[theist 1]

shiva read my post above with a letter from Adhridhana. Especially the part on the word intiation.

[Jagat 1]

Much as I dread entering a discussion on initiation, I would like to make the following comment on the above critique of changes to CC.

 

I don't know what Srila Prabhupada said before transcription, etc. But I do know what the original Bengali of Siddhanta Saraswati said, and I wrote this in articles years and years ago.

 

Prabhupada's exact text in the original edition is as follows:<blockquote>Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is none other than the combined form of Sri Radha and Krsna. He is the life of those devotees who strictly follow in the footsteps of Srila Rupa Gosvami. Srila Rupa Gosvami and Srila Sanatana Gosvami are the two principal followers of Srila Svarupa Damodara Gosvami, who acted as the most confidential servitor of Lord Sri Krsna Caitanya Mahaprabhu, known as Visvambhara in His early life. A direct disciple of Srila Rupa Gosvami was Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvami. The author of Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami, stands as the direct disciple of Srila Rupa Gosvami and Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvami.

 

The direct disciple of Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami was Srila Narottama dasa Thakura, who accepted Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti as his servitor. Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura accepted Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji, who initiated Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who in turn initiated Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji, the spiritual master of Om Visnupada Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Maharaja, the divine master of our humble self.</blockquote>

If we read Siddhanta Sarasawati's original, however, there are a large number of differing relations stated.

 

(1) Svarupa "loving servant" to Mahaprabhu (priyankar)

(2) Rupa and Sanata are Svarupa's "friends" (mitra)

(3) Raghunatha was "dear" to Rupa.

(4) Krishnadas was "dear" to Raghunath.

(5) "Most dear" (priya-vara) to Krishnadas was Narottam.

(6) Visvanath "aspired" to Narottam's feet.

(7) Jagannath had faith (sraddha) in Visvanath.

(8) Bhaktivinoda was dear (priya) to Jagannath.

(9) no relation betwee Gaur Kishor and Bhaktivinoda is stipulated.

(10) Siddhanta Saraswati desires the remnants of Gaur Kishor.

 

It is indeed a significant matter of interpretation: Can any of these terms be held to mean "initiation"? Was Saraswati Thakur's intention to equate them to initation?

 

I don't intend to pursue this issue, as I have already said my piece, which is of interest to only a few...

 

Jagat

[Guest guest]

A vaisnava,pure devotee ,self realized soul is an absolute necessity in order to purely interpret/traslate/comment/give purports etc... Otherwise Prabhupada's books will inevitably be filled with the 4 defects of conditioned souls,i.e.,cheating propensities,mistakes,illusions and imperfect senses.

[gHari 0]

Previously in this thread I wrote:<blockquote>We saw what appeared to be the political influence of the Zonal Acaraya system on the Gita when the original Gita's one tattva-darshi became many seers of the truth.</blockquote>

 

I now seem to have a gnawing fear that I somehow remember learning later that this was one of the changes that was actually made to coincide with Srila Prabhupada's original words. That is why it is so difficult and dangerous to criticize changes to the books. Very often we are actually ridiculing Prabhupada in doing so.

 

I apologize for writing that; my only defence meaningless as it is would be that bad association over the years has scrambled my memory of some important details encountered over time.

 

gHari

 

[gHari 0]

Someone has to say this.

 

The BBT Archives have spent long hours preserving Prabhupada's legacy. A group of individuals have stolen the results of their efforts and are selling a CD with all of Prabhupada's stolen works dirt cheap. They are in effect undermining the hard work and funding of the Archives. I think this is unconscionable. Buying their stolen CD is also a blow to Prabhupada. There will be undoubtedly many archiving activities that can no longer happen because of their cheating.

 

I see no difference than if I were to sell burned CD copies of Microsoft XP. My only cost is the blank CD while Microsoft has invested man-years. All the people at Microsoft will get nothing for their time, while I will make a few bucks on every CD for nothing. The starving Microsoft employees will suffer as the company goes bankrupt.

 

I do not respect the people behind this theft.

 

gHari

[theist 1]

Well one difference is the devotees shouldn't be into it for their bodily maintence unlike the employees at Microsoft. I have no idea of the structure of the BBT archives. Are they paid now etc.? At $600 per vedabase I think there is much room for improvement. How about $50? A lot of devotees that spent their early lifes on streetcorners selling those books can't even afford a vedabase. That is criminal in my view.

 

I do remember reading a letter where Srila Prabhupada was saying he wanted the books done in a low cost manner to facilitate mass distribution.

 

I also support devotees efforts in placing Prabhupada's books on the web for free, download or direct reading. Prabhupada did want *Christian Science type of reading rooms to facilitate people coming in and reading his books and this seems like the same spirit.

 

 

*for those not familiar, there is a Christian metaphysical society that have opened storefront reading rooms all over America (and who knows where else) in major cities. Anyone can come in off the street and find all their books along with a table and a comfortable, clean and quiet atmosphere for studying their philosophy.