BBT to change all pronouns (He) refering to Krishna to lower case

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Please read the following linked article and post your opinions.

 

---

 

BBT to change all pronouns ("He") refering to Krishna to lower case:

 

http://harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/03-06/editorials232.htm

 

---

 

Prabhupada's instruction:

 

Hayagriva dasa: Well, I think, when referring to Krishna, we should have a capital H.

 

Srila Prabhupada: Especially for Krishna, you can capitalize.

 

[stonehearted 0]

Just to correct Vypaka prabhu's mistaken assumption, the Chicago style being referred to is that given by The Chicago Manual of Style, published by the University of Chicago Press, which is perhaps the most important style guide used by the US publishing industry, not some fashion-and-entertainment magazine. His remark in this regard certainly doesn't help his credibility here. Please note: That's not intended as a comment on Vyapaka's position on pronouns referring to divinity. Although I personally like capitalizing those pronouns, I'll always follow the style guides used by publishers for whom I edit.

[Guest guest]

Svarüpa Dämodara: "That’s actually a very dangerous mentality."

Yasodä-nandana: "What is it going to be in five years? It’s going to be a different book."

Prabhupada: "So you... What you are going... It is very serious situation. You write one letter that “Why you have made so many changes?” And whom to write? Who will care? All rascals are there. Write to Satsvarupa that “This is the position. They are doing anything and everything at their whim.” The next printing should be again to the original way."

Conversation with Srila Prabhupada June 22,1977, Vrndavana

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

Well I like the upper case pronoun for Krishna - it defines that:

1. rules don't apply to Him and - 2. that He is above 'all others' - He is the Absolute in Everything - including grammar...

I wish they would cease and desist from editing Prabhupada's Books - it just ain't right to do that!

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

For me it's not really about what I personally like, but is more centered around changing what Prabhupada had established during his physical presence. Also I don't like the secrecy surrounding it, without consultation of the devotee community or without any announcement of any kind.

 

Next they will decide that we should use "s/he" in Prabhupada's books instead of "he" (gender nuetral pronouns). Oh wait, that has already been suggested a few years ago. It really becomes ridiculous when the power to change Prabhupada's books is the whim of a few devotees, and the entire community of thousands of devotees can have no voice in the matter.

 

They want to keep modifying Prabhupada's books to suit an ever changing standard of grammar and punctuation. But the fact is they can never get the grammar up to modern standards without rewriting Prabhupada's books altogether - and there really isn't any gain by trying. It is a different writing style altogether.

 

The real danger is in disobeying the instructions of Srila Prabhupada and changing his teachings. Everything has a subtle impact on the mind, and those capital 'H's subtly instruct as that the supreme is a person, Krishna. But then comes along the Chicago writing standards and they want us to understand that it's grammatically wrong to stress Krishna's personality by capitalizing the 'H'. And they want us to understand that it's more important to "fit in" with the other writers of the world, than it is to follow the instructions of the spiritual master.

 

Previously I didn't think too much about the book changes, but the more I see the more I don't like it. Its becoming clearer that it isn't about correcting "obvious mistakes", but it's more about putting institutional views into Prabhupada's writing. Add to that the secrecy under which it's done, and it certainly doesn't smell right.

[vee 0]

i am outraged that the bbt has taken this decision... who cares about the chicago writing standards ... who are these rascals anyway ...???

i agree with you jn das ... what is coming next ... ???? what other changes are the bbt going to make ?

as devotees and disciples of srila prabhupada we already stand apart from the rest of society ... and isn't that the point anyway ... we are tryining not to be like everybody else ...

who cares for their sense gratification grammer and subject matter ??? prabhupada didnt ... and neither should we ....

i think we should run a petition and get some kind of consenus from the greater devotee family ... this is not a small thing we are talking about here ... its akin to treason ... spiritual treason ... and the consequenses for iskcon are immense ...

shame on you bbt ... and again, i am outraged !

[gHari 0]

Ontology

There is only one 'Him', and that is Sri Krsna. That is His unique position. I would not write krsna, so I will never write him.

 

Proper Example

The more respect we can offer Him the better. Especially for the common man, the effort to ensure that pronouns that refer to God are capitalized is very beneficial. I find I feel extra respect during that process.

 

Clarity

As pointed out, so many times capitalization clarifies the meaning of complex sentences.

 

Vishnu-tattva

I am so tired of hearing fools deride Krsna when He descends in the human form. We NEED capitals - especially to show that Rama and Nrsimha are actually that very same God, that very same Sri Krsna. So ontologically speaking, it will help teach the lazy Christian theologians the true nature of the non-polytheistic Vedas.

 

Mayavada

But then perhaps we are all god? Is that what we would convey? If everyone is god, then no one is God; He doesn't exist.

 

Capitals Forever

No, God exists. I will never ever knowingly use lower case pronouns to refer to Him. And I will continue to experience shame and embarrassment every time I mistakenly don't capitalize.

[Guest guest]

I agree that it was a mistake but not at all central to the point made. I went through many pages of a search of the word Chicago and the manual never came up. Perhaps Jayadvaita Maharaja could also have included the full title in such an important proposal.

 

However, be it Chicago magazine or Chicago Manual of Style; both are mundane standards and need not be referred to in the case where they are directly in opposition to Srila Prabhupada's direct instructions. Personally, I think Srila Prabhupada has the full right to set standards for his own books. That doesn't seem unreasonable.

 

Frankly, when push comes to shove, nothing can help my credibility. I am in a very hopeless situation in that regard. And I thank you for pointing it out.

 

BTW, I do not visit this forum and have only done so after a devotee friend pointed it out. So it is unlikely that I will be posting again. Frankly, I have said everything I want to about the topic here and in the original email anyway.

 

 

Just to correct Vypaka prabhu's mistaken assumption, the Chicago style being referred to is that given by The Chicago Manual of Style, published by the University of Chicago Press, which is perhaps the most important style guide used by the US publishing industry, not some fashion-and-entertainment magazine. His remark in this regard certainly doesn't help his credibility here. Please note: That's not intended as a comment on Vyapaka's position on pronouns referring to divinity. Although I personally like capitalizing those pronouns, I'll always follow the style guides used by publishers for whom I edit.

[Guest guest]

For those on here you know little or nothing about sanskrit.....there are NO capital letters in sanskrit. As followers of Sanskrit sastra, we should be following the sanskrit example....

 

Capital letters for the word He is a Christian idea, but then again many devotees like to dilute Gaudiya Vaisnavaism with Christian ideas...so there's nothing new here!

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Your reply is foolish. When a sanskrit text is translated into English, English sentence structure and punctuation must be followed. By your logic we should not capitalize the first word of a sentence since there are no capital letters in sanskrit, and likewise we shouldn't put commas and periods because they also don't exist in the same form in sanskrit.

 

In English, proper names are capitalized; that's for everyone including you and me. Adding a capital 'H' for God to show Him respect is something that has a tradition in the English language (whether or not it is a majority tradition is a different topic).

 

Your idea to reject everything simply because sanskrit punctuation and writing are different is about as foolish a thing one could do. You will end up with unreadable run-on sentences that make no sense what so ever, add to that there will be no punctuation, and then no capitals anywhere. Then you really don't have a translation, do you? That's just word for word meanings. Translation means to perfectly convey the meaning and message in another language, utilizing and following the rules and customs of that language.

 

I think you probably wandered here from the other forum. Maybe you should go back and join the thread about "who is greater, Hindus or Muslims".

[Kulapavana 0]

well... to bring another extreme here...some ritviks and PL devotees capitalize references to Srila Prabhupada in their writings (He, His, etc).

 

most theological or religious texts capitalize references to God. BBT (Jayadvaita) position is absurd...

[stonehearted 0]

First, I want to apologize if something in the tone of my earlier post denigrated Vyapaka in any way. I intended simply to point out that "Chicago" refers to one of the gold standards in publishing style, not some fashion "rag." That may be something of a insider insight, and I hope there was no whiff of elitism there. I agree with Vyapaka that Srila Prabhupada has the right to set the standard for his books.

 

jndas wrote that "those capital 'H's subtly instruct as that the supreme is a person, Krishna." Actually, the use of the personal pronouns instruct that the Supreme is a person. The capital H indicates that this person is the Supreme.

 

As far as the remark about Sanskrit not capitalizing anything, I'm solidly with jndas. When we translate proper names from Sanskrit (or any language) to English, we always capitalize them. We do the same when a Sanskrit term begiins a sentence. (We also capitalize the subjective first-person personal pronoun--"I"--because it's an English convention, one of which I often like to make fun. I think it tells a lot about how we see the world, with ourselves as the "first" person, and everyone else revolving around us.) Srila Prabhupada followed that convention, as he did all of which he was aware. vee is simply mistaken to assert that Srila Prabhupada cared nothing for such matters. And that brings me to what I think is an (not the) important point to consider in this discussion.

 

Srila Prabhupada keenly desired that his publications adhere to the conventions of the English-language publishing industry so they would be taken seriously. Therefore, the old Delhi Bhagavatams were re-edited. Many of us, especially older devotees for whom the morning Bhagavatam class, as well as our personal reading, was focused on those books, find the language charming. It takes us back to when our faith was simple, our society small, and our vision unlimited. But it can be hard to read, as we've seen in our home recently. My wife reads Bhagavatam aloud in the morning, often while I'm doing puja. When she got to the third volume, she took out our old Delhi volume and read from that. It was striking the number of places where she stumbled and had to go back to work out the syntax of a sentence. We like to have those books around, and we like to read them, but that's not what Srila Prabhupada wanted widely distributed once we had facility for "cleaner" editing (don't start).

 

The conventions have changed, as they always do. Some examples: About 250 years ago, English spelling began to become more standardized; spelling and punctuation in England and Commonwealth nations is different from in the US; split infinitives have begun to lose their undeserved stigma, etc. Among those shifts is, apparently a shift away from mandatory capitalization of personal pronouns referring to God. As far as I remember, the Chicago style doesn't prohibit this capitalization, but allows for lower-case pronouns where many of us are used to caps. I haven't researched the history of this change and the reasons behind it, and I'm not going to go nuts speculating about it until I have. (I also can't stop those of you who are inclined to go nuts speculating without any real research.) Neither am I privy to the discussions that led up to this decision by the BBT editors. In fact, this thread is the first I've heard of it. But I know both Jayadvaita Swami and Dravida well enough to doubt that they'd make this decision whimsically. In fact, I know Dravida well enough to know that he wouldn't do so without a lot of careful thought. I know of other devotee preachers who have also adopted this standard because it may make our ideas more accessible to those who aren't devotees, or who may even not be religious. I think we ought to be broad minded enough to consider whether this might not be a reasonable motive.

 

Anyone who actually wants to understand this issue, or to influence it, might want to consider writing Maharaja or Dravida to sound off or, perhaps just as important, ask about the background of this decision, if it has indeed been made. That would probably be more productive than running around the 'net ascribing ill motives and asserting ourselves to be more pious than those who are deeply engaged in responsible service.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

Anyone who actually wants to understand this issue, or to influence it, might want to consider writing Maharaja or Dravida

Could I have Jayadwaita Swami e-mail address?

[mahak 0]

Interesting, I wrote this many years ago, an excerpt from:

http://www.geocities.com/mahaksadasa/gtva.html

"Grammar! What a concept. When Srila Prabhupada uses a pronoun to describe Srimati Radharani or Srimati Sitadevi, the pronoun is always capitalized. I, however, may be offending my Guru Maharaja by not capitalizing pronouns used in substitution of his name. My reason is a personal one, as follows, and I ask the scholars who read here to correct this ignorance, if they would be so kind.

When Srila Prabhupada began his mission in the Western World, he came at the same time as hundreds of self advertized gods, such as Mehar Baba, Ramm Dass, Muktinanda, Yogananda, Yuktisvara, too many to name, yet they were all very willing to have their disciples capitalize their pronouns, even demanding. Srila Prabhupada was totally different, he declared his position as dasa dasa anudasa, and went on to thoroughly defeat all the false gods. He was very strong on this, and in my way in serving this held respect for Srila Prabhupada, the lower case I use to describe him is a double-capital, a garland placed at his feet."

The book changes are all demoniac and offensive. A disciple "correcting" the spiritual master is a great offense, and one should consider such offense even when handling the books so changed.

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[mahak 0]

JSwami@pronto.bbt.se

[Guest guest]

Srila Prabhupada often capitalized "He" when referring to his Spiritual Master, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada. Below is but one example, but I've come across this many times. Why not? It's a sign of utmost respect. BTW, I think it's wonderful that so many devotees are having discussion on this matter. Everyone can contribute something. United we stand, divided we fall. Thanks very much. Jaya Prabhupada!

 

"I thank you very much for your nice letter of appreciation. The kindly words that you have used in this connection are very much pleasing, but all the credit goes to my Guru Maharaj. He asked me to take up this job as soon as I met Him in 1922; unfortunately I was so worthless that I delayed the matter until 1965, but He is so kind that by force He engaged me in His service; and because I am very much worthless, therefore He has sent me so many of His nice representatives -- the beautiful American boys and girls like you. I am so much obliged to you that you are all helping me in the discharge of my duties towards my Spiritual Master, although I was so much reluctant to execute it. After all, we are the eternal servants of Krsna, and by the Divine Will of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur we are combined together, although originally we are born in different parts of the world, unknown to each other."

 

(Srila Prabhupada letter, 12th March, 1970)

...

 

 

well... to bring another extreme here...some ritviks and PL devotees capitalize references to Srila Prabhupada in their writings (He, His, etc).

most theological or religious texts capitalize references to God. BBT (Jayadvaita) position is absurd...

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

The e-mail returns a mailer d. It's not working. I wrote an e-mail. But it didn't go through alas! Oh well nothing to do with me since 'I am not in Iskcon'.

[Guest guest]

I just don't understand why this is still an issue!! Aren't there other books to be written, isn't there other preaching to be done? Why keep on wittling away at Srila Prabhupada's books? I agree that there were a few grammatical errors some years back, and it's nice that they were corrected, as some people would notice these things.

But seriously, the changes seem to be getting more and more political! Remember that 'surrendered soul' verse in the Gita that was changed to 'surrendered souls'? It sparked so much argument between ISKCON / ritviks etc, was it worth it?

And now this, in a few years the books will be unrecognisable.

Now I understand why several senior devotees I know show a marked preference for old editions of SP's books. Buy 'em while you can.

 

well I for one think it's nice that we capitalise Krishna's Name. And I'll keep doing it.

 

So there.

[Guest guest]

Oh and someone PLEASE tell me, who was suggesting the s/he in Prabhupada's books????

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Try this:

 

jayadvaita.swami@pamho.net

[stonehearted 0]

Oh and someone PLEASE tell me, who was suggesting the s/he in Prabhupada's books????

I think jndas was using this to shock us in to seeing how ridiculous over-editing can be. That's such an awkward construction, and it simply takes a little thought to find other ways around the problem, that I doubt that any of the BBT editors have even suggested this. I used to see it used in academic writing, and I've seen undergraduates play with it, but I don't think anyone really considers it a reasonable option these days.

[vee 0]

to stonehearted ...

 

"who cares for their sense gratification grammer and subject matter ??? prabhupada didnt ... and neither should we ...."

 

if you read correctly you will see what i really meant was srila prabhupada didnt care for non-devotee subject matter or rules or grammer ... he wanted Krsna's name capitalised ... thats all i was saying !

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

I think jndas was using this to shock us in to seeing how ridiculous over-editing can be. That's such an awkward construction, and it simply takes a little thought to find other ways around the problem, that I doubt that any of the BBT editors have even suggested this. I used to see it used in academic writing, and I've seen undergraduates play with it, but I don't think anyone really considers it a reasonable option these days.

No BBT editor has suggested this, but people have actually suggested it, for example one of the editors of Chakra. She also has suggested removing a number of statements she finds derogatory to women. We can be happy that no one has taken her serious yet.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

That e-mail works. I doubt anything I said will make any sence, I said Swamiji could write his own Books. I can see he has potency but Uttama-adikari? Prabhupada says in Preface to Bhagavad-gita As It Is:

We hope, therefore, that people will derive the greatest benefit by studying Bhagavad-gita As It Is as we have presented it here, and if even one man becomes a pure devotee of the Lord we shall consider our attempt a success.

__

People say that this means something else, Prabhupada was being humble. But when you actually hear about what it means to be pure UTTAMA, then nobody is qualified to change Prabhupada Books. .. except Prabhupada HIMSELF.

Then you can present quotes where Prabhupada said it was okay to do it. And change and modify. Prabhupada said once in this life you can go back to Godhead. Did He means Goloka in the Spiritual Sky? Or Goloka in the material world to further our training!. Pure devotee is NOT SO CHEAP.

[stonehearted 0]

 

to stonehearted ...

"who cares for their sense gratification grammer and subject matter ??? prabhupada didnt ... and neither should we ...."

if you read correctly you will see what i really meant was srila prabhupada didnt care for non-devotee subject matter or rules or grammer ... he wanted Krsna's name capitalised ... thats all i was saying !

Well, dear, we can see that you don't care for their grammar. But the plain fact is that Srila Prabhupada wants his books presented professionally. Otherwise, he would have had the First Canto published just as it was in Delhi

 

Anyway, I'll let all you pandits argue this until you find something else to criticise. I'm an ignorant man with no influence, and I have things to do.