Hansadutta Writes

[Jagat 1]

Romapada Das has responded quite appropriately to an element in Hamsadutta's article that was remarked upon above.

 

http://www.dipika.org/2003/05/16.20/19.vaisnava.etiquette.and.vnn/index.html

[livingentity 0]

From things I have seen in the past - it does not appear that they proof them.

 

I presented an article several years ago for a friend and I noted that it seemed to appear on the site very very quickly so I am not sure if they read it or not before posting it.

 

 

[theist 1]

Points well taken

I'm sure. But it is just these petty personality squabbles that obscure the real point. That is, how to deal with reaffirming that Prabhupada's message has been left untainted in his books.

 

We need to aty focused on Rupa Vilas's advice given above.

 

It's not really about Hansadutta or Jayadvaita Swami,or Hayagriva.

[livingentity 0]

left his body several years back. Easy to put someone down when they are not able to respond!

 

Regardless, I find Hayagriva's Hare Krishna Explosion very inspiring. I re-read it at least once a year.

 

No one seemed to complain about his record of the history of the movement while he was still here!

[Jagat 1]

The problem as stated by the Ritviks is simply that no one has the personal qualifications to edit Prabhupada's books. However, if empowered, even an inferior jiva can accomplish miracles. Therefore, Hayagriva, being approved by Prabhupada, is beyond reproach. Prabhupada said it was perfect, therefore it was and nothing he did was to be changed. Being aware of this sensibility, it was foolhardy of Jayadvaita to go barging in and making changes because in his judgment Hayagriva did not do an adequate job.

 

One who does not share the absolutist point of view might argue, as Jayadvaita Maharaj does, that Hayagriva Prabhu's knowledge of Sanskrit, of Indian culture, of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, etc., etc., was limited. There would be many things in Prabhupada's speech, references, locutions, pronunciation, quotes, etc., that would have passed such an editor by--what to speak of inherent ingrained cultural biases that would have influenced the final result.

 

It is not only Jayadvaita Maharaj's right to point out these things, but it is something that is to be desired ardently by any serious student of Srila Prabhupada's thought. Similarly, Ekkehard Lorenz's study of the materials Srila Prabhupada used to translate the Bhagavatam is an invaluable service to the studyo f Srila Prabhupada's teachings.

 

[livingentity 0]

As you say the books were approved by Prabhupada therefore They are authorized. Srila Prabhupada used these books in His lectures, classes etc etc. These very same books were distributed in the 1000's to 1000's of people many of which became devotees. So where is the problem?

 

There is no need for "corrections". I cringe at the thought that some want to make the books "politically correct" - I am hating that phrase so much these days.

[Jagat 1]

The question is not one of political correctness, but accuracy of transmission. The example I gave above of ACBSP's translation of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati should serve as an example.

 

Prabhupada translates "dear" as "initiated." This is pretty radical. The Ritviks are quite right to be irritated by the change of this translation, because it is an obvious manipulation. Prabhupada knows what "priya" means, just as he was aware of the historical realities of the relations between the members of the Gaudiya Math parampara, so if he translated it that way, it must be honored.

 

Of course, if there are tapes that reveal that Prabhupada did translate "priya" as "dear" and an editor revised it to "initiated" then that aggravates the problem.

 

The next question is what was Siddhanta Saraswati's intention? He deliberately used the word "priya" because he knew that there was no initiation in the classical sense, so he avoided the term. He also avoided terms like "asrita" that are used to describe the disciple/guru relationships.

 

So there is much to be understood about translations.

 

The point is that ultimately we have to use our own intelligence to derive our own conclusions. Jayadvaita Maharaj would have served that end more honestly by following Rupa Vilasa's formula.

 

Dhanurdhar Swami has published a commentary on the Nectar of Devotion, trying to tie it in to the original Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu, but has been far too conservative in his critique of the NOD, avoiding many of the hard questions, the out and out mistranslations, etc.

 

 

[livingentity 0]

 

Jayadvaita Maharaj would have served that end more honestly by following Rupa Vilasa's formula.

 

 

[gHari 0]

From purports:<blockquote>VaiSNavera kriyAmudrA vijJe nA bujhAya: no one can understand the activities of a pure devotee.

 

 

A pure devotee, having taken shelter of the Lord’s lotus feet, possesses great spiritual power, and therefore he cannot be surpassed or overwhelmed. In fact, having developed his spiritual body, he is not affected by the deteriorating actions of time. Although outwardly he is friendly and pleasing to everyone, internally his mind is fixed in the Absolute Truth, and no one can understand his actual purpose or plan. Even the most intelligent human being cannot understand the mental activities of a self-realized devotee who has given up material life based on lust and greed and taken shelter at the lotus feet of the Lord. Such a great soul can be compared to the mighty ocean. Innumerable powerful rivers plunge into the ocean, but the ocean remains calm and peaceful. Thus, a saintly person is understood to be, like the ocean, pleasing, unfathomable, grave, unsurpassable, unlimited and unshakable.

</blockquote>

[Guest guest]

May 22, 2003 VNN8080 Related VNN Stories

 

History That Could Have Been Avoided

 

BY HANSADUTTA DAS

 

EDITORIAL, May 22 (VNN) &#8212; A response to Akruranath's article "Hansadutta's Distortions"

 

Sometime in 1990, we published a Chinese Gita in Singapore when BBT refused to sell us books. In 1992, BBTI launched a copyright infringement suit against Bhima in Singapore. From the outset, Bhima responded, "First show proof that you own the copyrights." After several years of due legal process and much expenditure, at last came the moment when affidavits of "evidence in chief" were exchanged, and when BBTI learned that Bhima's defence relied on having received permission to publish from Hansadutta, a BBT trustee appointed for life by Srila Prabhupada, they withdrew the Singapore courtcase at once, and immediately filed a new complaint in Los Angeles against Hansadutta.

 

BBTI retained Akruranath, an attorney with a high-power law firm, and Akruranath led BBTI into a legal strategy that could only be described as suicidal. Akruranath based the BBTI case on a claim that Srila Prabhupada's BBT was never a legally valid trust, and never owned the copyrights to Srila Prabhupada's books.

 

Akruranath came up with the ingenious device that Srila Prabhupada never at any time owned the copyrights to his books, that the books were "WORKS FOR HIRE", meaning that Srila Prabhupada was ISKCON's hired worker. Paper, pencils and office space were supplied by ISKCON, and whatever was produced by Srila Prabhupada belonged to ISKCON. By this reasoning, Srila Prabhupada had no right to claim copyright to his works and invest them in the BBT, and moreover, the BBT did not exist, and therefore Hansadutta's claim to be a BBT trustee was meaningless.

 

ISKCON GBC and BBTI directors accepted Akruranath's legal counsel and submitted declarations that it was so. But the Judge did not see it that way, and thus BBTI made a hasty retreat to settle the case by awarding a license, and a substantial monetary award.

 

This lawsuit SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED in the first place. It could have been avoided had ISKCON and BBTI simply sold some books to the devotees, which is after all the whole purpose Srila Prabhupada intended when forming ISKCON and the BBT: Selling books--HIS books, Srila Prabhupada's books.

 

Where this law suit did not succeed, it did succeed on the other hand to uncover and highlight illegal practices that ISKCON and BBTI had been doing for so many years, namely converting the assets (Srila Prabhupada's copyrighted works) of a legally registered and funded trust, the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, into a for-profit buisness corporation (BBTI), editing the works without legal authority, and distributing them as originals--all of which were illegal activities. Because of this and other illegal practices that came to light in connection with the misuse of the BBT and its copyrighted properties, along with legal documents filed in the course of litigating this case, I feel it is next to impossible for BBTI to prevail in any attempt to enforce copyright protection on anyone, anywhere, anytime.

 

Really, they have shot themselves in the foot. As this response is being written, there are numerous entities engaged in publishing Srila Prabhupada's books and audio material. Why does the BBTI not file a copyright infringement case against them and stop them as they attempted to do with me? In Singapore we printed a small run of Chinese Bhagavad-gitas. Today there are individuals openly printing and advetising on the internet, "Macmillan" Bhagavad-gitas, CD's, and art works. Why does the BBTI not chase after them and prosecute them for copyright infringement? BBT's business should be selling books, not changing books.

 

At any rate, Akruranath has not set the record straight, but fudged the record more than it was before. By the way, Akruranath was dismissed from the case when ISKCON finally woke up to the fiasco into which he led them, at which point Amarendra das had to pick up the pieces and make a settlement.

 

Contrary to Akruranath's assertion that "This case was not about book changes", those involved know that one of the most subbornly contended points for reaching a settlement agreement was complete freedom to publish all of Srila Prabhupada's pre-1977 editions of his books, art work and music. The other directors finally overuled Jayadvaita Swami's vehement opposition, and this controversial point became the cornerstone of what we are seeing today in the way of a renaissance in the publication of Srila Prabhupada's original books.

 

What seems clear, after all is said and done, is that if BBT does not publish Srila Prabhupada's original Books, someone out there will, and there is nothing to stop them.

 

What follows are Jayadvaita's own words of apology for the lawsuit in different postings after the settlement. They were much appreciated then, and I think the readers will appreciate them today, and understand the situation more clearly. At the time of settlement, there was a very amiable and spiritually surcharged atmosphere amongst the previously warring parties. I think Jayadvaita's own words make that clear. It was nothing like Akruranath's version.

 

"From its very inception, this unfortunate case against Hansadutta was an anomaly and a travesty. Were not such court battles which pitted one devotee against another utterly an anathema to Srila Prabhupada? And especially when it would come at the cost of precious BBT funds? Can anyone doubt for a moment that Prabhupada would be extremely displeased by this manner of infighting?"

 

To Bhima he wrote:

 

"We feel that we owe apologies not only to you but also to Srila Prabhupada himself, and to his society of devotees. What ought to have been settled carefully and smartly when it was still a small dispute we allowed to turn instead into a long, acrimonious, and expensive battle, disturbing to all. We should have done whatever required to avoid this. The fault was ours."

 

An afterthought: What I cannot understand to this day is why BBTI still insists on publishing the unnecessarily edited writings of Srila Prabhupada. Why Jayadvaita doesn't get the point? Why ISKCON/BBTI, after so much money (at least a million dollars, give or take ), time and grief, they still only begrudgingly squeeze out some original unedited publications? What's wrong with Srila Prabhupada's books as they are? I really do not understand the logic behind this policy of tampering with the writings of Srila Prabhupada. Please enlighten me. I still haven't got the point.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sour Grapes Sampradaya

 

BY GUPTA DASA

 

EDITORIAL, May 24 (VNN) &#8212; While Hansadutta's recent legal pronouncement (Just What Is Jayadvaita's Point?) that the books of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada are now in the "public domain" makes for a titillating Enquirer-quality read, I for one won't be holding my breath waiting to see how fast he runs to the nearest Kinko's to print Srila Prabhupada's books using his real name and address on the inside front cover.

 

Why? Well, to start with, unless Hansadutta was recently appointed as a Judge of the U.S. District Court (the only court in which a legally definitive public domain determination can be made), he was just writing another limelight piece on behalf of the Sour Grapes Sampradaya.

 

For those who may not have been following this saga, that's the small but exclusive group led by Hansadutta who formally signed on to a Stipulated Judgment in the 1998 BBTI case which acknowledged Srila Prabhupada's legal arrangement for his trust to hold his copyrights (BBT Legal Case Ends).

 

After an unsuccessful attempt (Dismissal Of Gupta, Joseph Fedorowsky) to then install himself as lifetime controller of Krishna Books Inc (KBI), publisher of the authorized and approved pre-1978 books of His Divine Grace (Krishna Books Inc Announces Formation), Hansadutta refused to lift a finger to print a book because he was not "in charge." This led to subsequent court rulings that KBI was the official Licensee and managed by a Board of Directors (Court Affirms Krishna Books Inc As Licensee) but was not owned by the "Rittvic Representative Of The Acarya" (Hansadutta Blurs Distinctions).

 

The other reason I won't be holding my breath waiting for Hansadutta to voluntarily make himself a target by printing Srila Prabhupada's books without legal authority is the price tag to mount a public domain defense.

 

This factor lies at the core of his misleading political commentary over enforcement of the copyrights. There is nothing Hansadutta would like more than to inspire someone else to violate the copyrights ("everyone who likes can print") so that he is then in a position to safely hide while a legal challenge ensues at someone else's expense.

 

Having represented the BBT on selected copyright enforcement issues I can report with a high degree of confidence that protecting and enforcing the copyrights to Srila Prabhupada's literary legacy remains a top priority in terms of institutional determination, resource allocation and the willingness to pursue civil and criminal remedies for infringement.

 

Consequently, a challenge to the copyrights based on a public domain argument in federal court is not only legally unrealistic but such a misguided attack would be directly antithetical to Srila Prabhupada's instructions and plan for his books as well.

 

So until a wake-up button is installed in that sleepy little "eye of the hurricane" where Hansadutta apparently hangs out when penning his legal advice column, best to take it from the litigator who actually prevailed in the case (Court Guts BBTI Case) which revalidated the original BBT and secured a license to print Srila Prabhupada's authorized and approved pre-1978 books: the copyrights are right back where Srila Prabhupada originally put them, they are not going anywhere, and if need be they will be enforced by the copyright holder in spite of the fatuous legal opinion of the founder of the Sour Grapes Sampradaya.

 

P.S. Now... if Jayadvaita Swami would just acknowledge the transcendental sanctity of Srila Prabhupada's adi-vani and strictly follow his Gurudeva's instructions by only printing the authorized and approved pre-1978 editions we would see the complex events of the past 26 years finally come around full circle to a renewed start.

 

With regards,

 

Gupta dasa

Joseph Fedorowsky

lawyer@oxfordlaw.com

gupta@krishnabooks.org

 

 

Just What Is Jayadvaita's Point?

BBT Legal Case Ends

Dismissal Of Gupta, (Joseph Fedorowsky)

Krishna Books Inc Announces Formation

Court Affirms Krishna Books Inc As Licensee

Hansadutta Blurs Distinctions

Court Guts BBTI Case

 

[Guest guest]

WORLD

November 30, 1998 VNN2583 See Related VNN Stories

 

BBT Legal Case Ends

 

 

--

BY JAYADVAITA SWAMI AND GUPTA DASA

 

USA, Nov 30 (VNN) &#8212; JOINT ANNOUNCEMENT

 

BBT Legal Case Ends

 

Devotees settle their differences and pledge cooperation

 

"Now all my disciples must work combinedly and with cooperation to spread this Sankirtan Movement. If you cannot work together then my work is stopped up. Our Society is like one big family and our relationships should be based on love and trust. We must give up the fighting spirit and use our intelligence to push ahead."

 

(Letter from Srila Prabhupada to Upendra Prabhu, dated 6 August 1970)

 

Hare Krishna. All Glories to Srila Prabhupada. All Glories to Lord Nityananda and Lord Caitanya.

 

The BBTI-Hansadutta court case is over. By the grace of Krishna, the devotees involved were able to settle the matter without need of a trial. On November 13, the devotees appeared before the judge and placed their settlement on record, thus putting their legal dispute to an end.

 

In dispute had been several issues: Is the original American BBT trust, founded by Srila Prabhupada in 1972, still valid? Is it the true owner of the copyrights to Srila Prabhupada's literary works? And was Hansadutta Dasa still rightfully entitled to serve as a trustee?

 

After some eighteen months of researching, analyzing and litigating the matter as adversaries, the devotees began to see clearly that to reach a final and lasting resolution, we had to shift from adversarial positioning to spiritual cooperation. Accordingly, after several weeks of intense negotiations, we reached an agreement meant to satisfy our various concerns. It was this agreement that was then officially accepted by the court.

 

The agreement reaffirms the validity of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust formed by Srila Prabhupada on May 29, 1972. This was a legal California trust into which Srila Prabhupada conveyed the copyrights to his books. All sides agree that this trust is still legal and alive, and that it is the true owner of Srila Prabhupada's copyrights, as Srila Prabhupada desired.

 

This was an outcome upon which all the devotees, in a spirit of cooperation, submitted their willingness to agree. Now all sides are pleased to see Srila Prabhupada's copyrights secure within this original trust.

 

Hansadutta Dasa, Veda Guhya Dasa, Bhagavan Dasa, and Dasa Dasanudasa Dasa Dasi have voluntarily stepped down from any role they might have had as trustees of the 1972 trust. And all concerned have agreed that now the trustees will be four trustees from the BBT International: Brahma Muhurta Dasa, Naresvara Dasa, Svavasa Dasa, and Jayadvaita Swami.

 

All parties agree that the rightful beneficiary of the trust is the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, founded by Srila Prabhupada in 1966 and further defined by the GBC. (The "beneficiary" is the person or organization that a trust is supposed to benefit. So, for example, when the BBT allots funds for constructing temples, they are to be used for the benefit of ISKCON.)

 

With the validity of the California trust now reaffirmed, what about the BBTI? Is it redundant? Is it useful? Is it needed at all? It's too soon to say. For now, the 1972 BBT trust will serve mainly as the safe shelter for Srila Prabhupada's copyrights. And on its behalf the BBT International will continue handling the active side of BBT operations.

 

Meanwhile, devotee attorneys who opposed one another in the case will work together to study how best to take advantage of the two legal units--the BBT and the BBTI--to serve Srila Prabhupada's desires. Gupta Dasa (who served as the attorney on Hansadutta's side of the case) will work on this with Amarendra Dasa (who served on the ISKCON side).

 

Another part of the settlement is a liberal licensing arrangement that allows for cooperative publishing. Under this arrangement, Hansadutta Prabhu and the devotees working with him will form a company that can publish Srila Prabhupada's books in the editions published before 1978. These will be available for sale in markets where they won't directly compete with distribution by the BBT and by ISKCON temples.

 

The theme is "cooperation, not competition." The new company may also buy books from the BBT, or vice versa. Or the two may work together on joint projects.

 

Finally, in recognition of the strong legal claims and defenses presented by Hansadutta's side in the case (both in America and in Singapore, where the matter first started), the BBTI will reimburse Hansadutta, and the devotees who supported him, for their attorney's fees and costs.

 

Clearly, the devotees involved in this case were able to settle their differences only by treating one another respectfully, as spirit souls, servants of Srila Prabhupada. They had to focus together on strengthening and expanding--rather than weakening and limiting--the Krishna consciousness movement.

 

The resolution of this lawsuit, a case full of emotionally and spiritually charged issues, called for a great deal of personal, emotional and spiritual healing between the devotees involved. We hope that the spirit and example of this unique resolution can now become a model for resolving other controversies affecting the Hare Krsna movement and its devotees.

 

We're all servants of Srila Prabhupada and Krishna, and we're all meant to work cooperatively in their service. Case closed, with pleasure. Hare Krishna.

 

Jayadvaita Swami and Gupta Dasa

 

With the agreement of all the devotees directly involved:

 

Akruranatha Dasa, Amarendra Dasa, Bhagavan Dasa, Bhima Dasa (from Singapore), Brahma Muhurta Dasa, Dasa Dasanudasa Dasa Dasi, Gopal Krishna Goswami, Gupta Dasa, Hansadutta Dasa, Madhusevita Dasa, Naresvara Dasa, Svavasa Dasa, Veda Guhya Dasa.

[Guest guest]

March 30, 1999 VNN3459 See Related VNN Stories

 

Court Affirms Krishna Books Inc As Licensee

 

 

--

BY BHAGAVANDAS AND GUPTA DAS

 

USA, Mar 30 (VNN) &#8212; Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John P. Shook ruled yesterday that Krishna Books Inc, a California Nonprofit Religious Corporation, is the official LICENSEE which holds the License to print and publish the pre-1978 Works of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. That License was granted on November 13, 1998, by the LICENSOR, that is, the revalidated BBT, and it's agent, the BBTI, to the LICENSEE, in settlement of the underlying BBTI v Kary BC 170617 case.

 

An internal Board dispute surrounding the identity and form of the Licensee necessitated a contested Motion to Amend the Stipulated Judgment to affirm the Licensee as Krishna Books Inc. The Court's ruling today resolved that legal dispute over the identity of the LICENSEE and now paves the way for the Board of Directors of Krishna Books Inc to print and publish the original, unedited Works of His Divine Grace.

 

It should also be noted that the California Nonprofit Religious Corporation, Krishna Books Inc, has no affiliation with "Krsna Books Inc" nor any affiliation to any Internet web site other than www.krishnabooks.org, which site is presently under construction.

 

Any questions or comments concerning Krishna Books Inc may be sent via e-mail to kbi@oxfordlaw.com.

 

 

[Guest guest]

January 13, 1999 VNN2839 See Related VNN Stories

 

Hansadutta Blurs Distinctions

 

 

--

BY IRG

 

INDIA, Jan 13 (VNN) &#8212; Official Response by IRG to HG Hamsadutta Prabhu's VNN posting - 'Role of the Rittvik Representatives of the Acharya'

 

By Adridharan das (Calcutta) His Grace Hamsadutta prabhu's recent VNN posting - 'Role of the Rittvik Representatives of the Acharya'- starts off very well but then veers off around the middle into the wilderness and self-contradiction of 'soft-ritvik'. Having stated that the July 9th order allowed the ritviks, for the first time, to accept new disciples on Srila Prabhupada's behalf without consulting him, Hamsadutta then says:

 

'This was new. This in effect gave these eleven "Rittvik representative of the Acharya" all the responsibilities and authority of a GURU'

 

What sort of guru is the author referring to? Surely not diksa. The Temple Presidents recommended new disciples to the ritviks. Very often the disciples would not even meet the ritvik. Therefore what has this got to do with being a guru to these new disciples? The Temple Presidents would play more of an instructing and monitoring role to future initiates than the ritviks. That would appear to be the whole purpose, to keep an objective distance between those recommending, and those accepting disciples on Srila Prabhupada's behalf. The job of the ritvik was simply to ensure that the standards set down by Srila Prabhupada were being met in every temple. To be trusted, as an overseer of initiation standards certainly required the ritviks to be following strictly themselves; but this is so of all disciples, there is no extra guru status for a ritvik than is afforded to any vartma pradarsaka instructing siksa guru. Hamsadutta goes on to say:

 

'They were apprentices of the spiritual master'

 

Here Hamsadutta refers to the ritviks as 'apprentices'. By this he implies that at some future point the ritviks will themselves become the initiators. This is 'soft-ritvik' and is not supported by the final order, or any other generally applicable instruction from Srila Prabhupada to ISKCON. Hamsadutta elaborates by using the example of an emperor employing a viceroy:

 

'Such a viceroy would not automatically become a king upon the death of the king; rather, he would continue to act as the viceroy until the next emperor or king was installed on the throne.'

 

There is no authority for anyone to usurp Srila Prabhupada's current link status within ISKCON. No one will be installed in Srila Prabhupada's place as the sole or joint initiator within ISKCON (at least legitimately). Thus this analogy is highly inappropriate. He goes on:

 

'Although Srila Prabhupada spoke of all his disciples becoming Gurus, he never once ordered any disciple to be a Guru'

 

If Srila Prabhupada 'spoke of all his disciples becoming (diksa) guru' then what is wrong with ISKCON now? Why is Hamsadutta so critical saying it is a shambles? After all, even if they should not have done it straight away, it has now been more than twenty years since Srila Prabhupada left. Who is Hamsadutta to say none of them is qualified? How much longer must they wait? Of course there are no institutional directives ordering all Srila Prabhupada's disciples to become initiators, that is the whole point of the controversy. Srila Prabhupada only ever authorised ritviks and vartma pradasaka siksa gurus. Hamsadutta's 'soft-ritvik' is simply a time-delayed MASS (multiple acarya successor system). It is a 'guru through the back door' philosophy as transparent as it is contradictory.

 

'I have one last concern, and it is this idea I get from Krishna Kant's paper "The Final Order" that the "Rittvik representative" is nothing more than a priest who performs a ritual initiation, and afterwards is no more significant in the spiritual life of a disciple than a clerk at an army recruiting station'.

 

I have addressed this above. The ritvik must be following strictly, and be proven as a reliable and consistent follower of Srila Prabhupada's teachings, including the fact that everyone should preach. This is explained in 'The Final Order' very nicely on page 52 of the printed version. We agree that ritvik is not a fix all, but it is certainly a good first step.

 

'The equation is "Things equal to the same thing are equal to one another." This is the litmus test. If someone claims to be a Rittvik representative of the Acharya, then "things (Rittvik representative) equal to the same thing (Srila Prabhupada, the Sampradaya Acharya) are equal to one another (Rittvik representative)'.

 

No one 'claims' to be a ritvik. They must be appointed either by Srila Prabhupada or the GBC. The ritvik is not expected to be equal to Srila Prabhupada, this is nonsense. He must be strictly following, that is all. He goes on:

 

'So there must be actual love and trust amongst the Rittvik representatives and their supporters or followers'

 

Ritviks do not have followers. All followers belong to Srila Prabhupada. Ritviks train people to be followers of Srila Prabhupada, like all other ISKCON members. It is precisely this blurred understanding which led to the suspension of the ritvik system in the first place. The Temple Presidents will invariably play more of a role in the training of aspirants lives than the ritvik, and no one is suggesting that they have their own 'followers'. We are advised: 'Therefore, quarreling or fighting with those who are not in agreement with Srila Prabhupada's order to "act as Rittvik representative of the Acharya" is not the solution'.

 

This is a bit rich coming from someone who just spent months in court 'fighting' ISKCON over the books. It is perfectly legitimate to correct the GBC if they are not properly following Srila Prabhupada's instructions. He goes on:

 

'The solution is to act as Rittvik representative of the Acharya, and by demonstrating and by example, the sincere souls will naturally gravitate towards and be truly connected to Srila Prabhupada&#8230;'

 

The ritvik system has no meaning outside of ISKCON. It was a system specifically set up to operate within ISKCON. People should not be encouraged to 'gravitate' towards the ritvik, but towards Srila Prabhupada. Towards the end Hamsadutta becomes very confused indeed:

 

'&#8230;every Guru, every Acharya would technically be a Rittvik representative of the Great Acharya Srila Vyasadeva. The Vyasa-puja day is the day the representative of Vyasa is honored by the disciples, and that representative, the Guru Acharya, sits on "the seat of Vyasa." So under all circumstances, every devotee is a representative of the Acharya, and thus our line is a Rittvik line'.

 

Hamsadutta claims our line is a 'rittvik line'. Where did Srila Prabhupada ever state this? Every acharya in the disciplic succession accepts their own disciples. The whole point of a rittvik is that he does not. Certainly we must keep this distinction clear in the difficult months ahead as we seek to put ISKCON back on track. I wish no offence to Hamsadutta prabhu, but I do hope he will reflect on these points since we all hope he will contribute constructively towards ISKCON's future.

 

All Glories To Srila Prabhupada.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

USA

10/29/1998 - 2427 (See Related VNN Stories)

 

Court Guts BBTI Case

 

 

--

 

 

Los Angeles, CA (VNN) - VNN has learned that in ruling on cross motions for summary judgment on October 27, 1998, the California Superior Court Judge in the BBT-International, Inc., and ISKCON of California, Inc. vs. Hans Kary case has thrown out the Plaintiffs argument that the Court should defer to the GBC on matters regarding the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, its trustees and ownership to the copyrights to Srila Prabhupada's books.

 

In an interview with VNN Joseph Fedorowsky (Gupta das), the lawyer representing Hansadutta, Bhagavan, Veda Guhya Das and Das Das Anu Das Devi Dasi, explained:

 

VNN: How does the Court ruling affect your clients' effort to validate Srila Prabhupada's original BBT?

 

Gupta: This ruling now guarantees that the Court will apply "neutral principles of law developed for use in all property disputes" in adjudicating the trust and contract issues being litigated in this case and that the Court will not entertain any of the Plaintiffs' ecclesiastical arguments.

 

VNN: Can you elaborate?

 

Gupta: The court formally rejected the attempt by the Plaintiffs' BBT-International Inc and ISKCON of California Inc, to hide behind the skirts of the First and Fourteenth Amendments -- which, if allowed, would have prevented the Court from questioning decisions made by the GBC and ISKCON as regards the BBT, its trustees and the ownership of Srila Prabhupada's books.

 

VNN: How does that help validate the BBT?

 

Gupta: That paves the way for the Court at trial to validate the existence of the original Bhaktivedanta Book Trust formed on May 29, 1972, by applying California trust law as well as to invalidate the bogus assignment of copyrights in Srila Prabhupada's books to the BBT-International, Inc., by applying simple contract principles of law.

 

VNN: Does the Court's decision directly affect the BBT International Inc's present claim to ownership of the copyrights to Srila Prabhupada's books ?

 

Gupta: In my opinion, the Court's ruling effectively guts that claim because the documentary evidence clearly proves the formation and viability of Srila Prabhupada's original irrevocable California charitable trust referred to by devotees throughout the world as the "Bhaktivedanta Book Trust." In addition, the ruling removes the basis for Plaintiffs' smoke and mirrors assertion that the copyrights were legally "assigned" to the BBT International Inc., which is actually just a private holding corporation -- not a trust.

 

VNN: But what about the argument that the GBC has authority over the BBT and the BBT Trustees and could therefore authorize or direct the transfer of the copyrights into the BBT International Inc?

 

Gupta: That argument is now gone -- and for good reason. Srila Prabhupada set up a perfect arrangement as regards the separation between the BBT and the GBC. In the original 1970 Direction of Management, His Divine Grace stated: "I am setting up a different body of management known as the BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST. The trustees of this body are also members of the GBC, but their function is not dependent on the GBC." Then in the May 29, 1972, BBT California trust document, His Divine Grace stated: "This trust shall exist independently of ISKCON and the Trustee's function and duties stated herein shall be separate and not dependent on the Governing Body Commission of ISKCON." I don't know if anyone could have said it more clearly.

 

VNN: So where does the case go from here?

 

Gupta: Unless the Plaintiffs voluntarily accept the legal and spiritual reality of Srila Prabhupada's original BBT, which holds His copyrights, as legally separate and distinct from the publishing activities of ISKCON, a two week court trial will begin on November 30, 1998.

 

VNN: Last question - Why shouldn't the BBT International Inc and ISKCON of California Inc go to trial on these issues?

 

Gupta: The number one reason is to follow the clear instructions of Srila Prabhupada as expressed in the BBT Agreement in order to keep his copyrights safe and beyond the manipulation or control of any third party, which specifically included the GBC. The second reason is that going to trial will mean the unnecessary expenditure by the Plaintiffs of some $100,000 or more additional ISKCON dollars to contest the clearly expressed desire of His Divine Grace. And the third reason is that if at all possible, issues dealing with Srila Prabhupada's Vani should take place on a cooperative spiritual basis and not between contentious litigants in the legal arena. Perhaps when we all accept that principle a new Chapter in the history of the Hare Krishna Movement will have officially begun.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Please print pre-1978 S.P. Books for the Lord's and pure devotee's pleasure.Yes?

[Guest guest]

If everybody can get past the 'who is at fault' question and concentrate on the solution this thing could be put behind us all. Otherwise it will remain and poison the Krsna Concious movement with doubts for centuries. Literally.Now here is a reasonable and just solution to the whole problem that would satisfy both camps.Yes?

 

I believe everyone should get behind this approach. This going back and forth and trying to rehash old court cases gets nowhere.

 

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

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Reply to Sastric Advisory Committee

by Dhira Govinda das

Posted May 25, 2003

(April 16, 2003)

 

Dear Yogindra Prabhu,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

Thank you for your phone call earlier today. It has inspired me to begin to address the GBC's Sastric Advisory Committee's (SAC) paper on Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link, at least a month or three before I was planning to do so.

 

Concerning the SAC's paper, I didn't find very much there that is not clearly, and sometimes repeatedly, addressed in Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link (PL), and especially the second printing of PL, which includes the Prologue to the Second Printing of PL. I believe that if one carefully reads PL and the Prologue, as well as the accompanying articles in the second printing, then most if not all of the points in the SAC paper are solidly addressed.

 

This somewhat reminds me of when I set about to respond to the GBC's Preliminary Statement on the PL. This preliminary paper from the GBC implied, amongst other things, that PL is not supportive of the concept of serving the servant of the Vaisnavas. So, in the Prologue I pointed out that the principles of serving, honoring, and glorifying Vaisnavas, including the initiator, are presented about twenty times in the short PL essay. The Prologue states "Still, some readers perceived that this point was not sufficiently emphasized in the essay, or even that the PL model is opposed to these principles. Herein we reiterate the essentiality for devotees in Srila Prabhupada's movement to submissively and cooperatively serve other devotees, and to learn from and take shelter in senior and advanced devotees. These principles are completely consistent with accepting Srila Prabhupada as the prominent link to the disciplic succession."

 

Similarly, in many places the SAC paper implies that PL is somehow opposed to principles such as honoring and respecting the Vaisnava who conducted one's initiation. The SAC paper states that the initiator should be allowed the honor of being considered one's guru. Yes, this is stated clearly in PL. The SAC paper states that ISKCON gurus deserve "the respect of his disciples", apparently implying that PL opposes this idea. In reality, as a reader of PL can easily ascertain, PL fully supports the idea. It would be easy enough to crush the concepts in PL if PL advocated things like disrespecting our gurus and neglecting to serve the servants of Srila Prabhupada. But PL doesn't advocate such things, and thus the task is not so easy.

 

The SAC rhetorically asks "If we think Srila Prabhupada cannot empower his disciples despite their imperfections, how strong is our faith in him?"

 

Yes, Srila Prabhupada clearly is empowering his followers in many wonderful ways. So we are in agreement with the SAC. How this question relates to anything in PL is unclear to me.

 

The SAC paper states "As Krsnadas Kaviraj has indicated in his mangalacarana verse vande gurun--'I offer respect to my gurus'--a devotee can have more than one Vaisnava guru, and he can and should worship them all."

 

The above point is clearly stated in PL, and to indicate otherwise is misleading. Additionally, in my personal correspondence with the SAC I reiterated the point, as in statements such as "I, and probably each of us, have many gurus, in the sense of devotees who have inspired and guided us in Krsna consciousness. Srila Prabhupada is not my only guru, although, as described in Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link, if I had to identify one person as my main spiritual master, that would certainly be Srila Prabhupada."

 

The SAC writes "Whatever may have been the actual relationship between Srila Bhaktivinoda and his diksa-guru (and we hear different stories about this from different sources), it is known that Srila Bhaktivinoda never behaved disrespectfully toward him." This seems to imply that PL advocates disrespectful behavior towards one's diksa-guru, which it clearly does not do. In fact, it advocates the opposite, many times. Similarly, the SAC paper states "the diksa-guru takes special trouble and risk for his disciples. For disciples not to honor him for this is indecent." The PL fully encourages honoring one's diksa guru for the great trouble and risk he takes for his disciples. The great sacrifices made by these initiators are emphasized in the "Responsibility" section of PL, and to imply that PL doesn't emphasize, what to speak of even endorse, this important point, is misleading.

 

In the SAC paper it is written "There are no two kinds of diksa, one 'transcendental' and the other a mere formality. Diksa is always transcendental, except when the rituals are followed simply for show, like a marriage undergone just to acquire a visa."

 

It's encouraging to see that the SAC is in agreement with PL, which states:

 

"Does the PL model assert that the formal initiation ceremony is unimportant, or unnecessary?"

 

"The process of initiation is given to us by Sri Krsna. Thus, all components of that process contain potency and are transcendental. The most essential part of the process is the transmission of divya-jnana, transcendental knowledge. Srila Prabhupada is performing the most important part of the initiation process."

 

Thus, the SAC and PL both agree that the formal ceremony component of the initiation process is transcendental. There is no need to indicate or imply that the PL implies otherwise, because the PL is very clear on this point.

 

To repeat, I believe that a careful reading of PL and the Prologue and the other pieces in the second printing effectively address most of the contents of the SAC paper. If there is something specifically in the SAC paper that you'd like me to address, I'll be glad to do so. I humbly request that you read the second printing of PL to be clear on what it actually says, so as to avoid assuming, based on the SAC paper or other sources, that PL states things that it doesn't actually state. Below I'll address a few points that are presented by the SAC.

 

Consider the section of the SAC paper from "The author here attempts to identify the essence of initiation as the transmission of spiritual knowledge rather than..." to "...which Srila Rupa Gosvami has stipulated as one of the required elements of vaidhi sadhana-bhakti." As a general principle, we reference Srila Prabhupada to understand acaryas such as Srila Sanatana Goswami and Srila Jiva Goswami, not vice versa. In Srila Prabhupada's purports he clearly states "Diksa is the process by which one can awaken his transcendental knowledge and vanquish all reactions caused by sinful activity. A person expert in the study of the revealed scriptures knows this process as diksa" (Madhya-lila 15:108), and "Diksa actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination" (Madhya-lila, 4:111). There are many other similar quotes, as cited in PL and the Prologue to the Second Printing of PL. For me, Srila Prabhupada's meaning is clear. I suggest that the SAC's jumping over Srila Prabhupada with their linguistic analysis of the Goswami's literature contorts and distorts Srila Prabhupada's clear meaning, and also runs counter to the hermeneutic principles cited in the SAC paper itself:

 

"In his purport to Srimad-Bhagavatam (1.4.1), Srila Prabhupada gives some guidelines for one presenting conclusions to the society of devotees according to one's realization: 'The original purpose of the text must be maintained. No obscure meaning should be screwed out of it.'"

 

Apart from the SAC's attempts to screw out meanings from Srila Prabhupada's purports wherein His Divine Grace clearly defines diksa without need of SAC's linguistic analysis, is the point that whatever definition of diksa we use, including the SAC's, the principles of PL stand. This is clearly explained in the second printing of PL on page 37, in the section entitled "The Process of Initiation."

 

In the SAC paper it is stated "He is alive in his instructions, in his murti,..." I believe that we should all commend the SAC for this conclusive realization. I state this in relation to an excerpt, included below, from a member of the SAC, presented during the correspondence between the SAC and myself:

 

[From PL, quoted by the SAC member in his correspondence] "Just as Sri Krsna, Srimati Radharani, and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu are non-different from Their Deity forms, and are fully capable to act and relate in Their Deity forms, the murtis and pictures of the parampara acaryas, such as Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, can similarly act non-differently from the acaryas. Obviously this requires special empowerment from the Supreme Lord. Ordinary persons, or even aspiring Vaisnavas, are not able to reciprocate in their picture form in the way that the great acaryas do (p. 49 second printing; p. 25 first printing).

 

[From the member of the SAC]- "This is a novel theory, or at least one I am not familiar with, that the murtis and pictures of specially empowered acaryas, are equally potent to the murtis of the Supreme Lord and His internal potency, while the images of less empowered Vaisnavas are impotent. The arca murti of the Personality of Godhead is a special incarnation, nondifferent from His original self, and manifests all His potencies to those who worship the Him with love. The murti or picture of one's guru is recognized as the proper place to make offerings in worship, but as far as I know the Vaisnava Sastras do not identify the guru's image as the same kind of arca-murti.

 

"I also have to ask why this special focus on the deity form of the guru? Yes, Srila Prabhupada did instruct us to install his murtis in our temples, even in his presence, but still he considered puja to his murti not as essential as worshiping him by understanding and carrying out his instructions. Maybe here this is an unconscious intention to deify Prabhupada, to turn him into an icon to be kissed for good luck, to kick him upstairs and deemphasize the necessity of understanding what he is actually teaching us, similar to the way he was once crowned and sceptered in New Vrindavan."

 

So, to me it seems that there is some basic doubt on the part of the SAC, or at least one of its members, as to Srila Prabhupada's full presence in his murti form. This presence is a "novel theory" for the SAC member. Ultimately, perhaps by a majority vote or some other method, the SAC arrived at the conclusion that Srila Prabhupada is present in his murti form. I am glad for that, but the doubt expressed by a scholarly SAC member above is disturbing, as even many new bhaktas, or perhaps even a pious, meat-eating Catholic, would seem to possess a firmer conviction and clearer philosophical understanding about the pure devotee's presence in his murti form than does the SAC member. There are many, many other points in the SAC's correspondence with me that leave me similarly unsettled.

 

Concerning that correspondence, please understand the following history. As the GBC requested me to do, I contacted the SAC Chairman a few days after the GBC meetings in 2002. The Chairman and I had a nice, personal discussion in Vrndavana at that time. He said that the SAC would contact me when they were ready to discuss PL in detail. That took a few months, and in July, 2002, the SAC and I began email correspondence. We corresponded for over three months. One evening, after finishing the day's Vaisnava Life Skills teaching in Radhadesa (Belgium) in early November, 2002, a member of the GBC phoned me. He had heard that I was about to publish a second printing of PL. He asked whether it would be acceptable for me if I included the full correspondence between the SAC and I in that second printing. He was under the impression that the SAC would likely agree to this. I readily agreed, though I cautioned him that I was doubtful that the SAC would agree. When I returned to Alachua a few days later I received correspondence from this GBC member and the SAC Chairman, confirming that the SAC wanted to keep our correspondence confidential and did not want it available to the devotee public. Please know that I am eager for that correspondence to be made available, and for anything I've written therein to be scrutinized.

 

The SAC wrote "Since this is the formal pancaratrika method, the guru who is given the offering first is normally the pancaratrika diksa-guru. There may be exceptions; the guru-parampara given to us by Srila Prabhupada for worship in ISKCON, for example, includes Bhaktivinoda Thakura's Siksa-guru, Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji, rather than his diksa-guru. Nonetheless, offering puja first to one's diksa-guru is the norm practiced in all Vaisnava sampradayas. Whatever may have been the actual relationship between Srila Bhaktivinoda and his diksa-guru (and we hear different stories about this from different sources), it is known that Srila Bhaktivinoda never behaved disrespectfully toward him."

 

In addition to implying that PL advocates disrespectful behavior towards diksa-gurus, the SAC seems to imply that siksa links in the parampara are an exception. From my understanding, from the time of Lord Caitanya more than half of the links, as delineated by Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, are siksa links. Thus, the "standard" parampara system as put forward by the GBC's SAC is apparently not so standard, and this, I believe, is an important consideration in discussions about guru-tattva.

 

With regard to the PL section "Srila Prabhupada is Qualified to be Worshipped", in connection with the passage concerning Srila Sukadeva Goswami (p. 47 second printing, p. 22 first printing), the SAC writes: "...we do not make formal offerings to Sukadeva in our regular puja because he is not in the line of initiators of the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya. The diksa-guru of a properly initiated devotee in ISKCON, however, is the immediate link in the diksa-parampara for his disciple." The SAC seems to imply that being in the line of initiators in the diksa-parampara is the criteria for being formally worshipped in ISKCON. Clearly this is not the case, as can be concluded by the altar pictures that Srila Prabhupada gave us, which does not define a diksa-parampara. The criteria is transmission of transcendental knowledge, and not formal initiation. This is explained extensively in PL. The Sukadeva Goswami example in PL is provided to illustrate that the fact that we don't worship a particular Vaisnava does not indicate in any way that we are neglecting or disrespectful towards that Vaisnava.

 

The SAC wrote:

 

"Dhira Govinda Prabhu himself is in the position of having received his initiations after Srila Prabhupada's departure. When asked by a SAC member to identify his one diksa-guru, Dhira Govinda Prabhu said that if he were to answer according to the PL understanding, he would have to say that Srila Prabhupada was his one diksa-guru."

 

This does not represent me accurately. What I wrote to the SAC was:"If initiator is defined in terms of the conductor of the first intiation ceremony, then my initiator is Bhagavan Prabhu. If initiator is defined in terms of the conductor of the second initiation ceremony, then my initiator is Danavir Maharaja. If initiator is defined in terms of the prime giver of transcendental knowledge (as Srila Prabhupada uses the term on the first page of the Sri-Caitanya-caritamrta), then my initiator is Srila Prabhupada. Whatever definition you are comfortable with, that's okay with me (not that acceptance by me need be relevant for any of the recipients of this posting). As described on page 7 [page 37 of second printing] of PL, the assertions in the essay are not dependent on this discussion of terminology, which isn't to say that this discussion of terminology isn't important (it is important)."

 

Interestingly, as far as I can tell, and perhaps I missed something, the SAC paper doesn't address the issue of the philosophical change to Srila Prabhupada's books on the first page of Sri-Caitanya-Caritamrta. Srila Prabhupada used the word "initiated" to describe some parampara relationships where no formal initiation ceremony took place. In the new version of CC, the BBT deleted Srila Prabhupada's words "initiated". I corresponded with the BBT about this. The BBT representative wrote that the weightiest argument for changing Srila Prabhupada's books in this way was that Srila Prabhupada's use of the term "initiated" is not consistent with our current understanding of the term in ISKCON today. So, Srila Prabhupada's books are being changed, including changes with important philosophical imports, because Srila Prabhupada's words are not consistent with the GBC's current understanding. It seems that the SAC paper, which purportedly addresses the points in PL, avoids this point. There is a section in PL devoted to this book change, and if you'd like the full correspondence between the BBT and myself on this topic, I'll be glad to send you a longer article that I wrote about this issue.

 

My unhumble conviction, worthless as it may be, is that Srila Prabhupada would not only want you to continue to take a stand to facilitate his followers to participate in and benefit from Vaisnava Life Skills/Personal Transformation courses, but he would also want you to express outrage, in a gentlemanly but firm way, that his books are being changed because his words don't conform with the GBC's agenda.

 

So, Yogindra Prabhu, thank you again for inspiring me to write this. Perhaps in the months to come I'll write a more formal response to the SAC paper. Please let me know if you'd like to discuss any points. I hope you are well. Hare Krsna.

 

Your servant,

 

Dhira Govinda dasa

 

 

[Guest guest]

I submitted the Sour Grapes Sampradaya article to deflate Hansadutta's false claim that the books are in the "public domain" which is a legal determination that has never been made by any court. KBI is the licensee of the BBT (which is the licensor and owner of the copyrights to the books). The 1997-1998 BBTI litigation was about revalidating the original BBT, and invalidating the BBT International Inc (BBTI) false claim to ownership of the copyrights. The KBI license was an extraordinary additional result of the litigation, not originally expected, based on the legal leverage available to us at the time of settlement. The GBC represents ISKCON which is the beneficiary of the BBT. The GBC authorized spelling and punctuation type changes, not wholesale rewriting of the books by the editors. It's a complicated, interconnected relationship. I believe that Jayadvaita Swami has a website comparing the changes (look at his VNN articles for the URL); and both adi-vani.org and krishna.org have articles as well.

[livingentity 0]

like one of those never ending debates? Post an opinion etc and someone will always counter-post. Is there anything that anyone can actually do about it by saying the same things over and over and over on the forums? Can this time be better used on other activities and subjects?

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

My Challenge to Hansadutta

by Akruranath das

 

[A response to Hansadutta's article "A history that could have been avoided"]

 

It was never my intention enter into a debate with Hansadutta about every aspect of his litigation with the BBTI, nor will I do so now. What I wrote in Hansadutta's Distortions" was done to correct errors and lies in Hansadutta's account. I stand by everything I said on that score.

 

I feel I should point out that I have not been asked by anyone at the BBT to write any of these articles and that the views expressed are my own.

 

As for the details of all of the facts and legal theories that were presented in the lawsuit, I am not at liberty to discuss them even if I wanted to. Hansadutta and the BBTI agreed to seal the records of the case, and not to disparage each other. As BBTI's former lawyer and an officer of the Court, I am obligated to abide by the terms of that agreement. Hansadutta obviously does not care for keeping his word in that regard, which I find unfortunate.

 

Although I am therefore at a disadvantage, I believe I can and should make the following points:

 

Hansadutta's description of the "works for hire" doctrine as something that by its very nature is somehow demeaning or insulting to an author is wrong. Period. During the lawsuit Hansadutta used such propaganda in order to inflame the passions of devotees, as if Srila Prabhupada were being insulted. He has resurrected this tactic now in order to change the subject and divert attention from the facts in my article.

 

Even Hansadutta agrees that Srila Prabhupada did not want to hold the copyrights in his own name, but wanted them to be held by the BBT. Whether Srila Prabhupada accomplished this by creating the books as "works for hire" or by donating his copyrights is functionally equivalent.

 

Hansadutta's claim that I was the author of the legal theory of applying the "works for hire" doctrine to Srila Prabhupada's writings is complete speculation, and it is absolutely wrong. I categorically deny it.

 

Similarly, Hansadutta's claim to know how the judge saw the merits of the case is totally false. The judge never made any ruling as to any aspect of the merits of the case. As I said before, the Court's denial of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment merely meant that there were disputed issues of material fact that had to be resolved by a trial, rather than by pretrial motion.

 

Hansadutta's claim to be a BBT trustee in 1997 was an unfortunate lie, which, in my view, caused all the trouble. Hansadutta had long ceased to be a BBT Trustee. The Court undoubtedly would have seen through the lie if the case had gone to trial, in my opinion.

 

It was very generous of Jayadvaita Swami to apologize and seek reconciliation for the sake of Srila Prabhupada's mission and the feelings of devotees. It demonstrates Jayadvaita Swami's divine nature and saintly character as a real Vaisnava.

 

I would like to see Hansadutta show some of the same class. After all, the undisputed facts are that Hansadutta pirated books and then tried to pretend, through false affidavits, that he was actually the head of the BBT. Hansadutta has not even denied this. In my view, Hansadutta should be the one apologizing.

 

I would also like to say for the record that, throughout the litigation, Jayadvaita Swami, more than any other person in the BBTI, had kind things to say about Hansadutta and genuinely appreciated what he called the "good side" of Hansadutta.

 

The BBT International has not always sold books at temple prices to every group that wanted to purchase them, but Hansadutta's claim that the PYMA pirated the Chinese Bhagavad Gita because of such a policy does not ring true to me. At least I never saw any evidence that PYMA had tried to purchase the books through legitimate channels (and I imagine it would not have been that hard to purchase the books through back channels). Hansadutta denied that any such evidence existed, which did not surprise me, because it would have exposed the fact that Hansadutta was not really in charge.

 

My personal sense, which could be wrong, is that PYMA published the books on their own to avoid paying BBT prices. One thing is clear. Sri Rama wrote personally to Hansadutta more than once inviting him to talk about the copyright issue before the Singapore lawsuit was filed. Hansadutta never even replied.

 

The BBTI was never a for-profit business corporation, as Hansadutta claims. Hansadutta is either unable or unwilling to get his facts straight.

 

I remained counsel of record for BBTI through the time the settlement was put on the record in Court. If memory serves me, Amarendra was also counsel from the time the case was filed in around May of 1997, but he represented ISKCON of California, Inc., a separate entity. After the settlement, Amarendra was substituted as counsel for BBTI as well.

 

Please do not be fooled by Hansadutta. The case was definitely not about book changes, but about control of the copyrights. Facing almost certain defeat in court, Hansadutta finally did agree to back down when his group obtained a license to publish the books on their own. But now that Krishna Books, Inc. has expelled Hansadutta, he is attacking the copyrights, and Srila Prabhupada's desire that 50% of BBT sale proceeds should be used for ISKCON temple projects. The devotees should not be persuaded to undermine Prabhupada's wishes in this regard.

 

Although I have tried not to take sides in the editing controversy, my personal views are as follows: The earlier versions of the books were wonderful, but the newer editions are much better, and are fully approved by Srila Prabhupada. Many important and illuminating portions of Bhaktivedanta Purports have been restored that had been eradicated from the earlier books. Many mistakes have been corrected.

 

These were not Prabhupada's mistakes. They were editors' mistakes. I believe Srila Prabhupada wants his books presented nicely, without such mistakes. But both versions will be "heard, sung and accepted" by sadhus, and Srila Prabhupada's real desire is that we should direct our energies to studying and distributing the books, rather than quarreling amongst ourselves.

 

We all fondly remember the Hansadutta who pleased Srila Prabhupada by publicly debating the atheist Dr. Kavoor in Sri Lanka. I find it sad that Hansadutta has now been reduced to using his talents to fight against his godbrothers and against Prabhupada's wishes.

 

If Hansadutta really believes that the edited versions of Srila Prabhupada's books distorts or "tampers" with their original meaning, let him cite some examples, as Jayadvaita Maharaja has done, and explain why he believes the earlier versions more accurately expressed Srila Prabhupada's views. At least that way, the controversy would encourage deeper study of Srila Prabhupada's Books.

 

Unfortunately, just as Dr. Kavoor was unable to produce life in a test tube, Hansadutta cannot do it. As far as I have seen, the efforts of devotees to show how the changes have "distorted" the intended original meanings have all been totally unpersuasive, to the point of being embarrassing.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

As far as I have seen, the efforts of devotees to show how the changes have "distorted" the intended original meanings have all been totally unpersuasive, to the point of being embarrassing.

 

 

What about the change of "initiation" that Theist pointed out? Why is it that the editors will never discuss these changes, and instead like to show how they added an extra "the" where it was left out, or some other simple thing that no one will object to.

 

The worst thing is that they are not giving us a list of all the changes made. It is only by chance that people will find these changes while reading the two editions side by side, something not many people will do.

[PN Prasad 0]

I found few changes that really change the whole meaning of original text/purport of Srila Prabhupada. Following are few of them:

 

Bg 3.7 Original Version

 

"...On the other hand, he who controls the senses by the mind and engages his active organs in works of devotion, without attachment, is by far superior."

 

Revised & Enlarged Version

 

"...On the other hand, if a sincere person tries to control the active senses by the mind and begins karma-yoga [in Krsna consciousness] without attachment, he is by far superior."

 

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

 

Bg 6.35 Original Version

 

"The Blessed Lord said: O mighty-armed son of Kunti, it is undoubtedly very difficult to curb the restless mind, but it is possible by constant practice and by detachment."

 

Revised & Enlarged Version

 

" Lord Sri Krsna said: O mighty-armed son of Kunti, it is undoubtedly very difficult to curb the restless mind, but it is possible by suitable practice and by detachment."

 

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

 

Bg 4.34 Original Version

 

"...Therefore, mental speculation or dry arguments cannot help one progress in spiritual life. One has to approach a bona fide spiritual master to receive the knowledge"

 

Revised & Enlarged Version

 

"...Therefore, mental speculation or dry arguments cannot help lead one to the right path. Nor by independent study of books of knowledge can one progress in spiritual life. One has to approach a bona fide spiritual master to receive the knowledge"

 

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

 

You can find more at:

 

http://krishna.org/ISKCON/BookChanges/

 

Personally, I feel that the original books need to be published as it is, so that it will help all the devotees (both beginners and advanced).

 

[livingentity 0]

not discuss these important changes. For years, I had only read the older unedited versions of Prabhupada's books. I did not know that there were any others. I am very isolated from any of the temples/devotees and I did not have the internet until about 5 years ago. So I was extremely naive and ignorant on this controversy.

 

One day I was in a used book store and found the new edition of Bhagavad Gita As It Is. I just thought it was a new printing with a different cover so I bought it. I started reading it and almost immediatedly realized that something was not right - there seemed to be a different flavor and it was not in Prabhupada's style. So I started comparing with my old copy.

 

I found several changes and decided to write to the BBT and GBC to ask what had happened. The response I got was short and not so sweet - basically, what is the problem?

 

It was when I got on the internet that I discovered what was going on.

[Guest guest]

May 26, 2003 VNN8091 Related VNN Stories

 

Sour Grapes Or Rotten Grapes

 

BY HANSADUTTA DAS

 

EDITORIAL, May 26 (VNN) — Sour Grapes Or Rotten Grapes - There's a Difference

 

We were all so taken aback by your deep concern for Srila Prabhupada's original vani publications and your anxious anticipation of "Hansadutta not lifting a finger" to get them printed right after we learned that you embezzled $125,000 entrusted to you to invest in an arrangement for payment of your legal fees and yet another $60,000 from the 1998 settlement award.

 

 

What happened to the money? What happened to the books? No money, no books...

 

 

In hindsight, we are glad that early on in our client-attorney relationship we placed our disappointments and complaints about your professional mischief before an impartial third party, namely the California State Bar, for their investigation and final judgment. You and the readers will be happy to know that after 4 years the State Bar has concluded their long and drawn-out investigation of all the legal facts, and has fixed September 2nd, 3rd and 4th as the dates for prosecuting Joseph Fedorowsky aka Gupta das at trial. (September 3rd happens to be Srimati Radharani's appearance day, an occasion of great auspiciousness.) We will be sure to bring your "Sour Grapes" article for their review and entertainment--they'll love it.

 

Instead of throwing mud back at you, let's see what they make of your story as opposed to the facts. Readers stay tuned.

 

The following is an overview submitted as part of our complaint filed with the California State Bar, enumerating facts that we believe to be irrefutable. This is not simply a matter of disgruntled clients who are unhappy over their lawyer's bill. The joint complaint & supplementary documentation lay out a number of transgressions by Gupta, ranging from representing multiple clients without providing necessary disclosures and obtaining waivers to misappropriation of money belonging to clients not just on one occasion, but twice, and by fraud leading clients to agree to a settlement that allowed him to piggyback himself and his collaborators onto a position which ultimately gave him full control over the licensing board, and was a great financial boon to him, but to us a crushing financial loss.

 

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

QUOTE (submitted to the California State Bar on July 3, 2001)

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

Overview of Complaint

Case No. 99-0-11217

Respondent: Joseph Fedorowsky

 

This is intended to be a concise, brief overview of Mr. Fedorowsky's misconduct, which has been extensively documented in the original joint complaint, amended complaint and further in Kary's & Chan's correspondence addressed to Mr. VonFreymann dated on or about 21 January 2001, with over 98 exhibits and a Summation of Points by Mr. Lawrence E. Ornell, Atty for Mr. Kary and the Chans.

 

In May-June, 1997, Mr. Fedorowsky was engaged by Mr. Kary as defence counsel in the underlying litigation, to uphold the validity of a trust, of which Mr. Kary was trustee, and over the course of litigation, Mr. Fedorowsky advised Mr. Kary that it was in his interests to add cross-complainants. The action was concluded in November, 1998 with a settlement that included a copyright license agreement and settlement money.

 

1. As found to be true by an arbitration panel, Mr. Fedorowsky converted $125,000.00 in clients' funds belonging to Mr. Chan and Mr. Veda Guhya without their knowledge and authorisation. Although Mr. Chan was not a party to the underlying action, he had agreed to invest $100,000.00 in a trading scheme operated by Mr. Fedorowsky, so as to finance Mr. Kary's defence strictly on a voluntary basis. To date, Mr. Fedorowsky has failed to produce accounting for the investment, in spite of repeated requests.

 

Mr. Fedorowsky failed to disclose to the investor and clients his conversion of the investment principle, thus depriving them of information critical to the course of the legal action.

 

2. There was no attorney-client contract between Mr. Chan and Mr. Fedorowsky. Mr. Chan was never a party to the underlying action, and did not engage Mr. Fedorowsky to represent him. Nor did Mr. Fedorowsky ever advise Mr. Chan that he was representing him and discuss with Mr. Chan his rights and obligations. Even so, Mr. Fedorowsky afterwards issued a demand to Mr. Chan for $644,051.28 in legal fees.

 

3. Mr. Fedorowsky represented multiple clients without advising them of their rights and obligations, and without obtaining the necessary waivers.

 

4. Without providing the necessary disclosure, Mr. Fedorowsky left the role of attorney and became a business partner with clients. Mr. Fedorowsky had himself added into the Settlement Agreement as a member of the Licensee Board, and thus entered into a business relationship with clients. He did not provide any notice of conflict or advisement. After a conflict arose, and despite repeated requests, Mr. Fedorowsky has refused to end the conflict of interest by resigning from the Licensee Board.

 

5.*(See below) Mr. Fedorowsky's position that the settlement money was intended for attorney's fees was unfair to clients. He did not advise clients prior to settlement that agreement to accept cash as part of the settlement would trigger an increase in his fee rate from $50.00/hr to $200.00/hr, and that they would thus incur $84,601.25 in attorney's fees over and above what they would have been billed had there not been a cash component to the settlement.

 

The following math is based on 4327.55 total billable hours, per Mr. Fedorowsky's billing statement. Fedorowsky ("JF") total hours: 2,611.30, Wynton ("JW") total hours: 1,716.25.

 

Fees & Costs as at Settlement

Without Settlement Money Upon acceptance of Settlement Money

JF @ $50/hour = $130,565.00 @ $200/hour = $522,260.00

JW @ $25/hour = $ 42,906.25 @ $50/hour = $ 85,812.50

Plus Costs $ 35,978.78 Plus Costs $ 35,978.78

TOTAL $209,450.03 TOTAL $644,051.28

 

Mr. Fedorowsky afterwards claimed that the settlement fund constituted his attorney's fees and invoked a clause in the Attorney's Fees Contract that provided for his fees to be increased to $200 per hour, i.e.: --

$200 per hour for attorney Fedorowsky, $50 per hour for paralegal Wynton, plus costs, equals $644,051.28

Less settlement "attorney's fees" ($350,000.00)

Balance $294,051.28

 

This figure represents $84,601.25 more than the $209,450.503 fees and costs that Mr. Fedorowsky's bill would have amounted to at the rate of $50.00 per hour.

 

If there had been no cash settlement, clients should have got a refund (Mr. Fedorowsky's fees & costs @ $50.00 per hour amounted to $209,450.03, less $211,250.00 already credited to Mr. Fedorowsky = $-1799.97). Instead, Mr. Fedorowsky issued a demand for $644,051.28.

 

6. Mr. Fedorowsky charged an unconscionable fee. Whereas Mr. Fedorowsky issued a demand for $644,051.28, the arbitration panel found that he was entitled to only $300,000.00. Mr. Fedorowsky had in effect overcharged by more than 200%, amounting to more than 1/3 of a million dollars.

 

7. To date, Mr. Fedorowsky has not paid his half of the arbitration fee, so ordered by the arbitration panel and California Superior Court.

 

8. Mr. Fedorowsky represented falsely to the arbitration panel that the settlement money was sitting in a regular corporate account in the Bahamas, and that it did not belong to any trust; that the trust he had purportedly created had not been funded and was therefore never perfected. The trust was upheld by the Bahamas Supreme Court, which found that the trust had been funded with the settlement money, and ordered Mr. Fedorowsky's removal from his position as trustee and as signatory on the K.B., Inc. account.

 

9. Without his clients' knowledge and authorisation, Respondent Mr. Fedorowsky had taken $60,000.00 for his legal fees from the settlement funds that had already been designated as the trust fund. Mr. Fedorowsky's co-trustee informed the Bahamas Supreme Court of the misappropriation of trust funds, and Mr. Fedorowsky was removed from the trust for "problems with [Mr. Fedorowsky] over his charges as trustee in this trust (where he has refused to repay a second mistaken payment of 30,000 dollars)."

 

10. Mr. Fedorowsky has refused to release a copy of the file to his clients without first receiving fees.

 

-----------------End Quote---------------

 

*What all the numbers add up to is that Gupta led us unawares to a settlement in which he positioned himself to gain at our expense. No sooner did he get his name in on the board of directors of Krishna Books, then he turned about-face in blatant conflict of interest with his clients, and took steps to block our participation in Krishna Books, and when we protested and tried to stop him, he came up with a claim that the monetary award triggered a clause in the attorney fee contract that allowed him to charge $200 per hour instead of $50 per hour. At $50 per hour, his fees should have come to $209, 450.03, but instead he slammed us with a demand for $644,051.28, even though he had made certain that we had derived no material benefit. Shortly after this, Gupta went to work for ISKCON.

 

Gupta represented to a panel of arbitration lawyers that he had deposited the BBT International Inc. settlement money in an attorney-client account.

 

To date he has not complied with the arbitration panel's order and California Superior Court order to pay back the $100,000 he misappropriated from Bhima and $25,000 misappropriated from Veda Guhya. The arbitration award further directed him to pay himself $92,000 for his fees, and the balance settlement money he was to pay out to his clients. Gupta was also ordered to instruct ISKCON/BBTI to pay out from an additional $50,000 of the settlement money ISKCON had held back, but so far Gupta has not paid out anything, nor has ISKCON paid out the $50,000. Effectively, Gupta swept away all the money. He has not even paid his share of the arbitration fees.

 

On top of that, 4 years later, Gupta & Krishna Books have not printed any books in spite of all the bravado. What happened to the money? What happened to the books? No money, no books--what kind of grapes did Gupta sell us?