Dhira Govinda Dasa: BBT's Unauthorized Book Changes

Cyril Wohrer wrote-

“Question:

We keep hearing about the book changes in the Bhagavad Gita. I am curious whether we have the same problems with the other books of Srila Prabhupada, especially the purports to Srimad Bhagavatam. Is that an unexplored can of worms? ”

Reading the above, I felt moved to share the posting below, which I first posted in this group on May 4, 2020. Hare Krishna.
…

May 4, 2020- posted on the BBT Edit Review fbook site by Dhira Govinda dasa-

One morning late in 1999, after conducting an istha-gosthi with the New Raman-reti community, in my capacity as chairman of the Board of Directors of ISKCON of Alachua, I was sitting in the back of the temple room, reading Sri-Caitanya-caritamrta (CC). Since I came to Srila Prabhupada’s movement in the early 1980s, in my personal study I had several times cycled through all of Srila Prabhupada’s books, and I was now again beginning CC.

…On page 1 of CC, there in Srila Prabhupada’s Introduction to the First Chapter of Adi-lila, I had a sense that something was different than other times I had read the book. Upon returning home I checked the first volume of Adi-lila that I had, and I confirmed that something was indeed different.

…In the edition in my home, Srila Prabhupada uses the word “initiated” twice, to describe the relationships between Jagannatha dasa Babaji and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, and between Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura and Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji. In the edition in the New Raman-reti temple room, on the first page of Adi-lila, the word “initiated” does not appear.

…At the time, in 1999, I served in many positions in the ISKCON organization, internationally (eg., director of the ISKCON Central Office of Child Protection) and locally, and I was aware that in the 1980s the BBT published an updated version of Bhagavad-gita As It Is. I used that updated version, assuming that it was the version that Srila Prabhupada would prefer, in that, I assumed, it corrected spelling errors and blatant errors of grammar. I had no sense of any issue around “book changes”.

…It was on this day in 1999 that I realized that earlier in the 90s the BBT had issued an updated version of Sri-Caitanya-caritamrta. And I assumed that this updated version would also be the preferred version, for me and practically anyone who felt inspiration to read Srila Prabhupada’s books.

…It was with that mentality that I wrote to Jayadvaita Swami in December, 1999. He referred me to Dravida Prabhu, and we exchanged correspondence. My letter to Jayadvaita Swami, later copied to Dravida, includes, “I'm curious about the reason for the change. Did the original editors make a mistake- e.g., not properly hearing Srila Prabhupada's voice on tape? Or is it assumed that Srila Prabhupada made a historical mistake when he stated that Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji initiated Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, and the 9-volume editors corrected this mistake? Or for some other reason?”

…In Dravida’s reply, he expressed, “Thank you for your inquiry concerning the Caitanya-caritamrta changes. I agonized over this one for some time, consulting several senior devotees before making this change. Here was my thinking: First of all, there is no tape of this passage. Rather, it derives from an excerpt of the CC Srila Prabhupada published in March of 1960 in the BTG……On the side of not changing the ‘initiated’ phrases we have the strong bias against changing the books unless absolutely necessary and the fact that Srila Prabhupada did indeed say that Jagannatha das Babaji initiated Bhaktivinode….On the side of changing we have this: How the parampara is listed and perceived is very significant for all devotees. Many devotees know, and soon all devotees will know, that Jagannatha das Babaji did not initiate Bhaktivinode Thakur in any way that is normally understood from Srila Prabhupada's books, other statements, or practice….Leaving one or both ‘initiated’s will strongly imply that the use of the phrases ‘direct disciple’ and even ‘accepted [as his disciple]’ indicate formal initiation as we know it in ISKCON, which is far from the truth…………This last was the weightiest argument, in my view, for changing the passage…….So, after weighing these arguments carefully and consulting with several learned Godbrothers (who came out in favor of change, but not unanimously) and agonizing for several days, I decided to remove the ‘initiated’s.” [[[The full correspondence is available upon request, made to davidbwolf@satvatove.com.]]]

…I very much appreciated the prompt, straightforward replies from Jayadvaita Swami and Dravida Prabhu. And, I will say, that over the past 20+ years I have several times initiated communication with them regarding various points related to differences between the pre-1978 and post-1978 versions of Srila Prabhupada’s books. These two Vaisnavas have consistently been responsive, thorough and candid in their replies.

…Sometimes I have been satisfied with the content of their replies, and sometimes not. This instance regarding the first page of CC is definitely an instance where I was not convinced by what they wrote to me. Rather, for me, this represented a clear example of making a change- I’ll even say, an adulteration- that results in a philosophical interpolation. Of course, everyone has a right to write about their philosophies, and publish it in a book. But, to change Srila Prabhupada’s words in a way that changes his philosophy, and then to publish it with Srila Prabhupada’s name on it- well, this, from my perspective, is ethically and spiritually extremely risky territory.

…So, I wrote some articles and sent them to various websites. These articles included Chaitanya-charitamrta- Page 1, and Conflict Resolution in ISKCON, and The Weightiest Argument (for the full articles, I welcome you to write to

(davidbwolf@satvatove.com). 

In The Weightiest Argument, published in 2006, I write, “In May, 2005 I fortuitously encountered Jayadvaita Maharaja at a Sunday feast program in Alachua, and he shared with me about recent, somewhat extended deliberations, and conclusions, of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (BBT) directors concerning the revision on the first page of Sri-Chaitanya –caritamrta…”

…The focus of The Weightiest Argument is, “…an apparent knowledge filter that is active in decisions regarding revisions to Srila Prabhupada's books. From what I am able to discern, the psychology underlying the emendation under discussion embraces a priori assumptions regarding which roads may be traversed. Rather than impartially presenting Srila Prabhupada's words with an eagerness to discover which roads open, there seems to be an attitude, albeit subconscious, of pre-determining which paths are permissible for visitation, and accordingly adjusting Srila Prabhupada’s writings. While recognizing the attempts of the BBT representatives to transparently represent Srila Prabhupada, it seems that in this instance Srila Prabhupada’s clear intentions are obscured for the reader due to a filter composed of presuppositions. These assumptions perhaps have not been closely examined, or at least are not readily apparent to many current and future readers of Srila Prabhupada’s books.”

…In The Weightiest Argument I quote Bala dasa Prabhu, who writes, “This is a very troubling development for yet another reason. For this justification is laying the ground for making ANY further change to Srila Prabhupada's teachings that the GBC deems fit." And in the article I continue, “Notwithstanding the distinction between the GBC and BBT, Bala dasa’s essential point seems to be a caution regarding the peril implied by application over time of this ‘weightiest argument’ to revising Srila Prabhupada’s books. Apart from future considerations of damage caused by this gatekeeper mentality, I believe it relevant to contemplate present effects… I suggest that sober reflection on the substance of this one change, to CC page 1, and the paradigm of thought that engendered this change, would tremendously impact the philosophical, political, economic, social and spiritual culture of persons and groups that are influenced by the consciousness and determinations of the BBT and GBC… Such a strategy seems to be dedicated to institutional preservation more than to authentically representing Srila Prabhupada. I assert that we may trust that authentic representation of Srila Prabhupada is the strongest assurance of protection, integrity and healthy expansion that an organization may enjoy.”

…The BBT Directors (or, BBTI- I’m not keeping track of such things….) did decide, in future editions of Sri-Caitanya-caritamrta, to partially restore the first page of Adi-lila to the pre-1978 edition, by including the word “initiated” in one of the two instances where it appeared on that page in the pre-1978 edition. This to me shows sincerity and openness on the part of Jayadvaita Swami, Dravida Prabhu, and the BBT directors, to receive thoughtfully presented feedback and consider it carefully. And, simultaneously, the consciousness that allows changes to be made to Srila Prabhupada’s books because Srila Prabhupada’s use of terminology doesn’t align with the organizational understanding at a particular juncture in time, is frightening. Hare Krsna. Sincerely, Dhira Govinda dasa (David B. Wolf)