Book Changes Discussion (Update)

Jayadvaita swami:

WE NEED TO CHANGE -- EVERYTHING!

 

Govinda Dasi: Dear Yashoda Dulal Prabhu,

Pamho. Yes, the bbt always gives that one worn-out example of cattle, and of course the other one, planet of the trees. Yes, those are typos, mistakes. They fail to mention the other four thousand and nine hundred and ninety eight changes they made!

And had these two errors been corrected, along with any misspelled words, etc. there would have been no cause for alarm–or for a million dollar lawsuit with… bbt defending the edited version–one which they lost in the courts. That court case is the only reason that now the world has an option to read Prabhupada’s original words. But the 5000 changes that were made, and changing the “writer’s voice” was unwarranted and factually criminal.

In a meeting at Honolulu temple some years back, Jayadvaita M. actually stated, “Oh, those (original) books were horrible!” Those “horrible” original books, filled with Srila Prabhupada’s divine mercy, made thousands of devotees in the ’70s. More books were distributed then than now.

It seems you believe the propaganda that Hayagriva was never around Prabhupada much, and there were many editors etc. What can I say? This is simply not true. I knew Hayagriva from the time I joined Prabhupada in San Francisco, January of 1967. 

Hayagriva was there, and was already editing the Gita, and spending hours every day with Srila Prabhupada going over every verse! And later, just before the first Gita was printed, in late 1968, Hayagriva LIVED with us in Los Angeles. (I was Prabhupada’s secretary for the whole year of 1968 and part of 1969) Daily they would spend hours in Prabhupada’s room, going over every inch of the final edits. I am an eye witness to this.

At this time, I even did the cover drawing for the first MacMillan Gita (the purple one) with Prabhupada guiding me, literally over my shoulder, watching the drawing develop. The purple Gita cut out a lot of that meticulous work done by Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva; Macmillan wanted to make it smaller. So they greatly edited Prabhupada’s manuscript, and he was unhappy with it, but accepted it as “a blind uncle.”

But as soon as he could, he printed his manuscript in total, the Original Gita, the one with Jadurany’s reddish battlefield picture on the cover. Srila Prabhupada was extremely happy with that Gita–he finally got his carefully nurtured manuscript into print! He was overjoyed!

The “Edited Edition”, with the blue battlefield cover, done by Parikshit das, with Krishna carrying a whip rather than his Panchajanya (conch) as directed by Srila Prabhupada, was done AFTER Srila Prabhupada’s departure from this world. Both the editing and the cover were done after his departure, yet they inserted his preface and signature of 1971–as if, with 5000 changes, it was the same book! How unethical!

Most of Prabhupada’s disciples did not even know this editing mischief was going on; they were grieving the loss of Srila Prabhupada from this world. Only later, when the dust had settled, did many of us learn of this travesty. So I really do know what happened in those days. I even met with MacMillan in New York prior to the printing.

Jayadvaita M. had not even become a devotee in early 1967, so how would he know?? He says many things that are not in keeping with what really happened, since he was not there; perhaps he is relying on hearsay, I don’t know. Neither was Jayadvaita M. in Los Angeles in late 1968 when Hayagriva lived with us for weeks on end, completing the editing work. 

Most of what the bbt says in this regard is based on fairy tales, hearsay, and perhaps some personal ambition as well. I do not know how they can skew things in this way and still sleep at night. But what I do know is that Srila Prabhupada wanted NO FURTHER CHANGES TO HIS BOOKS. HE EXPRESSED THIS ON MANY OCCASIONS. A little research can easily prove this point.

Now, you may enjoy reading many various literatures that are perhaps well written, even better written, and that is fine. But if you want to read Srila Prabhupada’s original words, gone over with a fine tooth comb by Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva, then I suggest you read his original books. If you want to compare them, that’s fine too. But his original books must be available to the people who will come in the future of this Kali Yuga. And the changes must stop lest the original teachings be obliterated in the course of time.

Generally I avoid these political issues, as I feel most are fairly unimportant and always changing. However, this book issue is very very important. So important that Srila Prabhupada himself came to me in a darshan a few years back and told me to defend his original books. Frankly, I did not want to take this task, as it means stepping on people’s toes, but he insisted. He ordered me to speak out, so I must, in spite of being labeled and criticized.

Srila Prabhupada wants it known all over the world, and especially for future generations, that his original books are just as he intended them to be. They have his full shakti, full mercy, and are for all of mankind. If the changes continue, there will always be another editor who thinks he can improve this or that, and eventually the original meanings will be lost.

You may appreciate the editing work, but Srila Prabhupada doesn’t. He didn’t appreciate the changes then, and he doesn’t appreciate it now. Our duty is to please our Guru, not our own sense of what sounds good or doesn’t sound good.
He made this clear so many times, yet they have chosen to ignore everything he said. Please understand, I don’t blame any one person, not even Jayadvaita M. It is the nature of the Kali Yuga to try to destroy that which is sacred and meant for the upliftment of mankind. That is how Maya works.

Srila Prabhupada often said “Krishna has written these books.” So tell me, how can a conditioned soul improve on what Krishna has said or written??

Your servant and sister,
Govinda devi dasi.

==========================

DMW shared a post.

Today a wonderful thing happened. I came across a post made by Garuda Prabhu in May of 2020 (link attached at the end) and was somewhat dismayed at the change cited in the Sri Caitanya-caritamrta. So I did a quick search for references in support of Srila Prabhupada’s original edition’s sentence (which I knew was perfectly good). 

I thought I would find something in the transcripts of his recorded audio. … I did (and pasted it in the comments section), but couldn’t immediately find any other verification, and was a tad disappointed.

Then, in the evening, as I JUST HAPPENED to be reading a particular passage of the CC, I was given the following irrefutable confirmation in the form of two verses and purports. Actually, they were the very first verses I resumed my reading at: CC, adi. 7. 51-52. You can read them here:

https://prabhupada.io/books/cc/adi/7/51

https://prabhupada.io/books/cc/adi/7/52

Based on the information from these purports, I will make the following syllogistic logic to demonstrate that the original sentence from the Madhya-lila 15.106 makes perfect sense, and should never have been tinkered with:

1. A pure devotee may also be a kanistha-adhikari.

2. Lord Caitanya’s associates Tapana Misra and Candrasekhara have both been classified by Srila Prabhupada as kanistha-adhikaris.

3. Tapana Misra and Candrasekhara have also been described by Srila Prabhupada as “pure devotees” of Lord Caitanya.

4. These pure devotees of Lord Caitanya at the time of the described pastime in Benares were also kanistha-adhikaris.

5. Therefore it is possible that a pure devotee can also be a kanistha-adhikari.

In support of this conclusion, here is something Srila Prabhupada said on 4th November 1972 in Vrndavana:

“Yes, pure devotee is anyone who has no other motive except to serve Kṛṣṇa. It doesn't matter he's first class, second class or third. Anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyam [Brs. 1.1.11]. If he has got some motive, then he's not pure devotee. He may be not advanced, but if he has not motive, then he's pure devotee. If he wants to utilize Kṛṣṇa for his personal benefit, then he's not pure devotee. He's impure. So first of all he has to become pure devotee.”

https://prabhupadavani.org/transcriptions/721104ndvrn

…It appears to me that the person or persons responsible for the change to the sentence in Madhya 15.106 has/have made a great blunder. I have less and less faith in any unauthorisedly edited versions of Srila Prabhupada’s books and it is my hope that leading persons in the BBTi perform some type of shared penance to have Srila Prabhupada’s desire and verdict on the continued publication of his books to be collectively and unequivocally revealed. 

This is Garuda Prabhu’s post from May 2020:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/680327212716252/permalink/695713677844272/

BBT EDIT REVIEW

DRAVIDA'S "REASONING" CORRECTS ŚRĪLA PRABHUPĀDA . . . SYMBOLIC OF THE WHOLE PROBLEM!

With permission, I'm able to present to all of you Dravida's response to Madana Mohana's objection to a major re-writing of (thus correcting) Śrīla Prabhupāda's original words in the CC. Here are the steps in the dialogue between them (apologies for the garbled diacritic marks/letters):

1. Srila Prabhupada originally wrote in CC Madhya 15.106 purp. “The pure devotee whose faith advances becomes a madhyama-adhikari and uttama-adhikari."

2. This was recently changed to: “Therefore it is on the basis of faith and attachment to Krsna that one can judge who is a madhyama-adhikari or an uttama-adhikari.”

3. The rationale given for the change by Dravida Prabhu is, basically, that “pure devotee” must mean uttama-adhikari and therefore makes no sense in the context.

4. My response is the Srila Prabhupada explicitly and repeatedly used “pure devotees” to denote a kanistha-adhikari throughout the same purport, and elsewhere, and therefore the sentence should have been left as is.

5. I then cite a few examples of Srila Prabhupada’s usage of “pure devotee” for kanistha-adhikari in his letters, lectures and books.

The following is what Dravida wrote to Madana Mohana justifying his corrective editing of Śrīla Prabhupāda's words (and be sure to read my quick comments below!):

Dear Madan-mohan Prabhu,

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

Thanks for the query. This one was a puzzle. Let me explain.

The original ms read as follows for the last sentence of the quote explaining the quoted Bengali (which is CC Madhya 15.64, 69, 71 [not 70]).

"So a pure devotee only on the standard of advanced faith becomes madhyam-adhikari and uttama-adhikari." This became, in the 1975 printing,

"The pure devotee whose faith advances becomes a madhyama-adhikäré and uttama-adhikäré."

So why change it?

My reasoning was that Prabhupada had quoted rati-prema-täratamye bhakta-taratama from Madhya 22.71, and so why not bring in the essential idea from that verse, while retaining the part about faith being a measure of advancement? Plus, you already had a clear statement of how a neophyte advances by deepening faith while following the regulative principles of bhakti. We needed to introduce (from Prabhupada's translation) the idea that attraction for Krsna is also a measure of advancement. Thus the last sentence now reads:

"Therefore it is on the basis of faith and attachment to Krsna that one can judge who is a madhyama-adhikari or an uttama-adhikari."

That was my reasoning for the change.

Your servant,

Dravida dasa

MY (Garuḍa Dāsa's) QUICK THOUGHTS:

I have seen many instances where Dravida and Jayadvaita "reason" in their own editorial isolation that something should be changed in Śrīla Prabhupāda's purports.

It is infuriating to me that we're relying on or trusting of Dravida's account of what's in the "original ms" to which none of us, anywhere, have even the slightest access whatsoever (see my previously posted formal request and BBTI rejection to obtain access). They have locked all of us out. I am a highly trained textual scholar. Perhaps they are afraid of what I might find? Is that possible?

In most instances of which I am apprised or aware, Dravida and Jayadvaita do not change their mistaken correction back to Śrīla Prabhupāda's words; they stubbornly stick to their own ideas and wording, not Śrīla Prabhupāda's.

I ask all of you here, Why are all of us FORCED to read Śrīla Prabhupāda's books through the limited and imperfect and uneducated eyes of the likes of Dravida or Jayadvaita? Let my ignorant mind or enlightened mind, whatever the case, encounter the Spiritual Master's words AS THEY ARE. And when I ever wish to accept śikṣa guidance from either of them, I can do this independently of any manipulations of Śrīla Prabhupāda's vāni and according to my own sweet free will.

Finally, I ask all of you: What goes on in the mind and heart of a disciple who feels he or she can correct the Spiritual Master with his or her own "reasoning"? Only respond to this with tentative ideas and not accusatory statements condemning either editor! Thank you.

VC Dasa: ARSHA PRAYOGA! All this nonsense happens cuz Westerners have no ability to follow this basic precept found all over the East. (definitely China and Japan too).