===
JD: OH man, Indradyumna is reading his Vyasa puja to Mukunda Maharaja. It really is a bunch of old farts glorifying each other ... for ruining and bankrupting ISKCON. And making it a ghost town! They are not finished making it a ghost town yet? There are still a few left over remnants there!
Including hired Bengalis, still in the ghost town temples. They have to get rid of those remaining, so the last person leaving can turn the lights out. The children are all gone, because these gurus are the pied pipers who took all the children away from ISKCON. Will never return!
And they are glorifying each other for making these ghost towns! You did a wonderful job Mukunda swami, but you forgot to clean up a few leftovers, there are still a few ghosts left in your ghost town, you need to clean ALL of them out too! We need to make the Hindu meat eating people the new owners of ISKCON, and you are behind schedule!
===
KAILASA WAS WRITING FOR THE GBC'S 1990 POSITION PAPERS, CRICULATED AT THE 1990 GBC MEETING BY RAVINDRA SWARUPA AND TRIVRIKRAMA SWAMI.
KAILASH JOINS HKC Jaipur's DAYALU NITAI vs PADA
PADA: Oh oh folks. Has anyone -- apart from Berkeley police -- not noticed? As soon as PADA, Sulochana or other similar critics say there is a mass child abuse problem, or other problems, all sorts of nay sayers and doubters come out of the ISKCON wood work to challenge us? Even the Berkeley police said to me, the people challenging you guys are enabling the criminal gurus (and the child abuse).
OK that includes: -- The GBC guys, Kirtanananda guys, Kailasa guys, Hansadutta Berkeley temple guys, Krishna Kanta IRM guys, HKC Jaipur guys, Mathura Pati guys, all of them are on the same page, PADA and Sulochana are drunken sahajiyas who "do not follow." And recently, Sulochana is a sinful man for taking money from a San Francisco Taxi driver (PADA editor) to buy his groceries!
Kailasa Chandra's folks (Bhakta Ernest) are now officially joining the nay sayer group, citing the Kirtanananda folks and HKC Jaipur folks that PADA is a liar. Yep, we have been saying children are being starved, beaten, molested and committing suicide and it is all "PADA's lies." Who knew!
These are the same GROUPIES of each another who are upset we had to take shelter of the police, courts, media and FEDS to keep ourselves from being six feet under due to their process! Forsooth, he is still alive! The FEDS saved PADA from -- us! Hee hee! And so they cite each other to prove that PADA is wrong.
NOTICE that none of these groupies ever forwarded the BIG issues the way PADA and Sulochana have done -- not just "the bogus guru appointment" but the whole embezzling / homosexual and pedophile guru / mass child molesting / book changing / guru poisoning / devotee murdering / criminal operation.
We went much deeper into these issues than merely scratching the surface that these gurus are not qualified. That is a soft ball, soft pedal issue really, since even a lot of GBC guys now admit their gurus are not qualified -- or were not authorized. To say these GBC gurus are unqualified or false is not even big news nowadays.
The real issue is: this is a criminal operation of banning, beating, molesting, suing, book changing, poisoning and killing Vaishnavas. Yes, Srila Prabhupada complains of poison. But none of these groupies ever even asked me about important things like for example, the contents of the poison tapes and etc. They don't seem to come down on the core criminal process at the root of all this. They don't seem to even be interested in the core issues. Worse, people like Krishna Kant and HKC Jaipur guy Kamsahanta told me DO NOT release the poison tapes. Save Judas!
Kailasa's folks already joined Kirtanananda's people and said in 1986 that me and Sulochana are drunks and sahajiyas, to discredit our complaints about the child abuse etc. OK Bhakti-pedo-pada is sitting in a giant Golden Vyasa seat covered with the hands of dozens of boys, but that is not the REAL problem! No sir! The REAL problem is -- PADA and Sulochana are complaining about this process, and they are drunks and sahajiyas!
Did we forget to mention various victims have told PADA that there are probably over 2,000 child victims? I am not sure how we could have lied and "made all this up"? Did we forget to mention Sulochan said these GBC / Kailsasa / HKC Jaipur ilk folks discrediting us as drunks, sahajiyas and "liars" -- is DEMONIZING us and making us targets for assassination? And we were targets, and some of us maybe still are.
And the reason there are so many child victims? These ilk guys chopped the legs off our protest. Calling us whistle blowers of mass child abuse "liars" imperils not only the children, but also those of us exposing these crimes. These critics have been causing child abuse to continue, and they have been causing us exposers to be discredited -- if not assassinated, and evidently -- they are proud of their handiworks!
Meanwhile on other fronts! OK Srila Prabhupada also said we need 50 formal initiated brahmanas to care for the deities here in Berkeley. Kailasa says we no longer need any initiated brahmana poojaris. Why does Kailasa want to stop Krishna from getting any pooja? Krishna needs no more servants? Stop all Krishna pooja? Where was this ordered? OK IRM chief Krishna Kant says the same thing, halt all initiations! Starve the deity!
Srila Prabhupada says just by reading my books they are initiated, Kallasa says the books have no potency to give divyam jnanam that destroys sins (diksha). Where did Srila Prahbupada say his books are no longer potent? And how does Kailasa know our new Krishna devotee's sins are resolved or not? A person who worships a pure devotee cannot resolve their sins?
The problem for Kailasa is, we are getting thousands of people to read the books and the new readers all think, the books are potent. How does Kailasa know these new people have no connection to Krishna, or not? They are reading, chanting and singing nice kirtanas, but Krishna does not hear them? How does Kailasa know that Krishna does or does not hear them?
The Kailasa people keep saying they are part of the living guru parampara, but they never identify who this living person is. My readers keep asking me, who is this alleged living person in their living guru parampara? And i have to tell them the Kailasa people cannot name their living person because we would find out he is not authorized for various reasons, so they have to hide their guru. Why do the Kailasa people have to hide the name of the living guru in their living parampara? I think the reason is self evident, they need to hide this person for a reason.
Yes, the Krishna Kant IRM folks wanted me NOT to make the original KBI books lawsuit. Why are Kailasa folks always joining those who are against us making original books? Kailasa program is fully on board with the IRM blocking us from making books. Why does Kailasa want to join with the same people blocking our original books effort? I thought he said he was in favor of the originals, now he is not? When is Kailasa going to be with us on making originals, and not in favor of blocking our originals?
Srila Prabhupada says just by reading my books they are initiated, Kallasa says the books have no potency to give divyam jnanam that destroys sins (diksha). Where did Srila Prahbupada say his books are no longer potent? And how does Kailasa know our new Krishna devotee's sins are resolved or not? A person who worships a pure devotee cannot resolve their sins?
The problem for Kailasa is, we are getting thousands of people to read the books and the new readers all think, the books are potent. How does Kailasa know these new people have no connection to Krishna, or not? They are reading, chanting and singing nice kirtanas, but Krishna does not hear them? How does Kailasa know that Krishna does or does not hear them?
The Kailasa people keep saying they are part of the living guru parampara, but they never identify who this living person is. My readers keep asking me, who is this alleged living person in their living guru parampara? And i have to tell them the Kailasa people cannot name their living person because we would find out he is not authorized for various reasons, so they have to hide their guru. Why do the Kailasa people have to hide the name of the living guru in their living parampara? I think the reason is self evident, they need to hide this person for a reason.
Yes, the Krishna Kant IRM folks wanted me NOT to make the original KBI books lawsuit. Why are Kailasa folks always joining those who are against us making original books? Kailasa program is fully on board with the IRM blocking us from making books. Why does Kailasa want to join with the same people blocking our original books effort? I thought he said he was in favor of the originals, now he is not? When is Kailasa going to be with us on making originals, and not in favor of blocking our originals?
To sum up here, as soon as we say many children are being mistreated, then GBC folks, Bhakti-pedo-pada folks, HKC Jaipur's Prahlad, Kailasa and their assembled associates -- all collectively claim we are liars and mad men, and that is how their program produced thousands of child victims. And Kailasa is now aligning with the people who defend child mistreatment by ALSO joining the HKC Jaipur's saying we are liars and mad men for exposing their process. Does no one not know that child abuse is a crime, and blocking the people exposing it is aiding the criminals?
Kailasa folks say only mad men, drunks and sahajiyas oppose mass child mistreatment, which is what GBC folks, Kirtanananda's folks, HKC Jaipur folks also say. I don't really see how they are any different than the GBC? No original books and covering for child mistreatment. Thanks Bhakta Ernest, for admitting Kailasa program is with the changed books and child mistreatment cover ups.
Yep various GBC's gurus, the pedophiles, HKC Jaipur, and Kailasa folks all agree -- exposing mass child abuse should be countered by calling us whistle blowers liars, demonizing us, and thus helping getting us and Sulochana whacked in the process. They are all the same team. Anyway fine, if you guys want to officially join together as the un-official Bhakti-pedo-pada project defense team hand maidens, go for it!
We have more than plenty of people who believe PADA is on the right path and not our opponents. But even if only some -- or no one -- in and around ISKCON agrees, we know that factual Vedic culture does not tolerate child abuse, or child abusers, or their defense teams, and that is all there is to it. It is forbidden in Krishna's society for trillions of years and that will never change. And calling us liars if de facto defending the pedophile guru regime, and the people doing that will be held accountable as helpers and accessories to these crimes.
ys pd angel108b@yahoo.com
======
PADA: Some people like Garuda dasa, some do not. And there are many in between. I think many of his points on the changed books here are valid, and he seems to know some interesting side histories that a lot of people don't know. Anyway, I think it is worth a read.
As PADA had tried to explain before, when people like Garuda are the main people defending original books, that means the rest of the lot pretty much failed to do a better job. Same with PADA itself. Well PADA is terrible and crappy language. Yep no doubt, but who has been doing a better job? Hee hee! ys pd
CHANGED BOOKS
Who Changed Prabhupāda’s Books? Inside the Editing Controversy with Dr. Graham Schweig (Garuḍa) | Ep. 2
CHANGED BOOKS
Who Changed Prabhupāda’s Books? Inside the Editing Controversy with Dr. Graham Schweig (Garuḍa) | Ep. 2
FIRST PART
INTERVIEWER 1: Okay, thanks for understanding. So, we’re very honored to have Graham with us today. All of us go quite a ways back in terms of our friendship. So, I just wanted to give a little introduction to Graham in terms of his background. Graham is presently a professor of religion and philosophy at Christopher Newport University, in Newport News, Virginia. Scholastically, he has two master’s degrees from Harvard. Not too shabby for a guy who dropped out of the third grade, right?
INTERVIEWER 2: Sixth. I’m not sure which grade it was.
INTERVIEWER 1: And you are also Distinguished Teaching and Research Faculty at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: You forgot the PhD from Harvard.
INTERVIEWER 1: Oh, I did. I did say two master’s degrees. Oh—and the PhD from Harvard. I am sorry.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: That’s the one that really counts.
INTERVIEWER 1: That’s the one that really counts. So, yeah, we have an actual doctorate here.
INTERVIEWER 2: Wow. Impressive.
INTERVIEWER 1: It is actually very impressive. And today we’d like to discuss and unpack an issue that is complex and nuanced. It concerns the editing of the work—the “posthumous,” or “posthumous”, editing of the works of a great master. In this case, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Śrīla Prabhupāda, who is, collectively, all of our—we all have accepted him as our mentor, our spiritual mentor.
So, perhaps you could kind of give us a sense of why this is important, not only to the community of practitioners, but also of how it relates to what’s going on in the world. It’s very interesting. I just went to AI recently and asked about this, and it said:
“The changing of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books is relevant to current culture because it questions the integrity of disseminating his original teachings and highlights the ongoing tension between preserving an authoritative spiritual legacy and adapting it for modern audiences.”
So, perhaps you could take it from there and give your 40,000-foot view [expresión idiomática: una visión general y panorámica], and then we can go into the close-up view as well.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Yes. Well, first of all, thank you both for having me on this wonderful podcast. And it’s wonderful to be with old friends, so thanks.
This is a very tricky subject. When any author produces a book and then that author departs from this world, that is a different state for that book. So, in other words, when an author produces a book, that’s final. In fact, the author has the authority.
This is a very tricky subject. When any author produces a book and then that author departs from this world, that is a different state for that book. So, in other words, when an author produces a book, that’s final. In fact, the author has the authority.
Therefore, to change, correct or improve an author’s book after the author departs is really not respecting the moral rights of the author. What to speak of someone special—you know, the inaugural teacher of Kṛṣṇa-bhakti around the world—such a spiritual authority.
So, therein lies the tension. Some people feel that changing the spiritual teacher’s words is really transgressive because he’s not there to approve or disapprove of such changes or so-called improvements. Others feel that the author needs to be improved and perhaps, in some ways, even updated. So, there’s the tension. There’s the tension.
I’m very much one to respect the moral rights of an author. Being an author myself, I can’t even imagine someone coming along after I died and starting to improve my book.
INTERVIEWER 1: How many books have you written, Graham?
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Well, authored, edited and co-authored—about ten.
You know, this interest and research into Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books and writings began for me in 2017. It wasn’t something I expected to explore. It was something that occurred to me—or happened to me—when I was flown out to L.A. to give a keynote lecture at the festival in Los Angeles.
Many devotees came up to me, asking:
You know, this interest and research into Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books and writings began for me in 2017. It wasn’t something I expected to explore. It was something that occurred to me—or happened to me—when I was flown out to L.A. to give a keynote lecture at the festival in Los Angeles.
Many devotees came up to me, asking:
“Is this right? Is it correct to be, you know, changing, correcting and even needlessly moving things around from the way that Prabhupāda originally left them?”
And I said:
“Well, I mean, I know the editors. I’m sort of trusting that they would be, you know, careful and delicate in that process.”
But, as it turns out, when I looked into things, it was really a massive change to Prabhupāda’s books.
Are Prabhupāda’s new, you know, “improved” books worthless? No, they’re not worthless. But you’re not getting what he left. There’s a layer of authenticity that is missing, and people who know the difference can feel it.
So, that’s where it all began for me. It was quite shocking how much they intruded into the content of the text itself. It was a little alarming, to tell you the truth. Again, as an author, I can’t imagine having someone do that to my own works.
INTERVIEWER 2: Was that in the translations or the purports?
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Both. I think that, if they had left the translations alone in the Bhagavad-gītā, I’m not sure anyone would have noticed the changes in the commentary. But it was very audacious to change translations when they did not need to be changed.
INTERVIEWER 1: You know, I would like to give a sense of how I came to this. It was really a conversation with you—probably sometime after that, more like 2018—that changed my mind. For many years, there were friends of mine, practitioners in the Vaiṣṇava culture, the culture of bhakti-yoga, who said:
“This whole book-changes thing [expresión coloquial: «todo este asunto de los cambios en los libros»] will destroy the legacy of Śrīla Prabhupāda—the purity.”
And my opinion was:
And my opinion was:
“Yeah, it’s not that big of a deal [expresión coloquial: «no es para tanto»]. Somebody can read the edited version, the 1983 edition of the Bhagavad-gītā and all the other edited Bhāgavatams, or they can read the original ones. It’s just—what’s the big deal?”
INTERVIEWER 2: Right. I similarly shared that view for the longest time. I remember you had talked about that in some previous interviews.
INTERVIEWER 1: People were really heavy with me on this [expresión coloquial: me presionaban o insistían con mucha intensidad], like:
“No, you’ve got to get on board” [expresión coloquial: «tienes que sumarte y apoyar esta causa»].
“No, you’ve got to get on board” [expresión coloquial: «tienes que sumarte y apoyar esta causa»].
And I was like:
“It’s not that big of a deal. People are becoming inspired to practice the path of bhakti through both books.”
But then I had a conversation with you in which you revealed that, after this program you did in Los Angeles, you went across the street to the BBT offices—BBT meaning the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, the publishers of Prabhupāda’s original books, his original works.
Maybe you can explain what happened there.
INTERVIEWER 1: Because, when I saw that the editor—in this case, Draviḍa—it didn’t make sense to him what Śrīla Prabhupāda wrote regarding the marginal potency, the jīva being either in it or it [frase poco clara en la grabación]. And then you pointed out to him how it made perfect sense to you.
But the real point is: it doesn’t matter whether it makes sense to us. That’s what Prabhupāda wrote. And then you explained how it actually did make sense.
And when I realized that, oh my God, they’re inserting their view onto the illuminated, self-realized soul, Śrīla Prabhupāda. Therefore, we’re seeing things through their lens rather than receiving the pure transmission of the ācārya.
So, maybe you can explain that event and how it changed your mind.
And when I realized that, oh my God, they’re inserting their view onto the illuminated, self-realized soul, Śrīla Prabhupāda. Therefore, we’re seeing things through their lens rather than receiving the pure transmission of the ācārya.
So, maybe you can explain that event and how it changed your mind.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Oh, yeah. That was very much a turning point in my whole approach to the issue, because I got an inside experience of how they’re doing things.
What happened is that Rāmeśvara was there, and he said:
“For the sake of my being here—I’ve already discussed this with you,” he said, “Draviḍa, what about that passage where there’s no grammatical problem in the sentence? Why did you change it?”
And the sentence began with the words:
“When the jīva is in the taṭasthā-śakti…”
Draviḍa pointed out that there are four other times—or three other times; I forget how many times—in which Prabhupāda said:
“The jīva is the taṭasthā-śakti.”
So, when Draviḍa saw:
“When the jīva is in the taṭasthā-śakti…”
he said:
“That doesn’t make any sense to me. So, I changed it to be consistent with what Prabhupāda said.”
INTERVIEWER 1: Draviḍa said that he changed it?
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: I’m sorry—yeah. Draviḍa changed it to be consistent with what Prabhupāda had written earlier.
And I said:
“But if you’re going to try to make Prabhupāda consistent with everything he says, you’re going to be here for another ten lifetimes.”
Because the beauty of what Prabhupāda presented is that he gave different angles of vision, which could seem contradictory, but are paradoxical. And that’s the richness of his writing.
So, we don’t want to change things according to what would appear consistent to us. That’s not allowed. So, I said to Draviḍa:
“You changed it? Why did you change it to ‘the jīva is the taṭasthā-śakti’?”
He said: “Because it didn’t make any sense to me.”
I said: “Well, I can tell you how it makes sense to me to say, ‘When the jīva is in the taṭasthā-śakti.’”
I said: “Well, I can tell you how it makes sense to me to say, ‘When the jīva is in the taṭasthā-śakti.’”
And he said: “How?”
I said: “When you say, ‘The jīva is the taṭasthā-śakti,’ that’s an ontological assertion. And when you say, ‘When the jīva is in the taṭasthā-śakti,’ that’s an existential assertion.”
INTERVIEWER 1: Can you explain the distinction between the two—the ontological and the existential?
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Okay. So, ontology has to do with the way things are, okay? In philosophy, you’re talking about the sort of irreducible being and existence of things. The existential has to do with the way things are interacting.
So, I said this to Draviḍa, who understood what I was saying. His jaw sort of dropped [expresión coloquial: se quedó con la boca abierta, sorprendido], and he said:
So, I said this to Draviḍa, who understood what I was saying. His jaw sort of dropped [expresión coloquial: se quedó con la boca abierta, sorprendido], and he said:
“Well, I never thought of that.”
And then I said to him: “Are we supposed to be reading Prabhupāda’s books according to what you can think of—or what you can’t think of? In your editing, you know, are we reading Prabhupāda’s books through your—I’m sure—bright brain? But is it bright enough to change the author’s works without his permission?”
I said: “No, it is not.” And it totally shocked me that this was going on. And I said:
“Boy, this must be the tip of the iceberg” [expresión idiomática: apenas una pequeña parte visible de un problema mucho mayor].
And it sure was. I spent the next seven years looking into it, studying every single change that was made. It was extremely laborious and difficult to do. But I characterized the nature of every single change, the different categories of changes and the number of changes, and I saw that this was completely unnecessary.
They came close to making something like five thousand changes. Maybe one hundred—maybe twenty—would have been worthwhile. And they changed close to five thousand. Very bad.
INTERVIEWER 1: Yeah.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: And again, we don’t have Prabhupāda here to consult. They were thinking that they simply had carte blanche [expresión francesa: libertad o autorización absoluta para actuar]. And they don’t.
But they do, because the institution allowed them to do this. I’ve noticed that the institution can suddenly give devotees this extra sense of privilege and entitlement to act on behalf of the spiritual master, as if they were practically co-authors with the spiritual master.
It’s really difficult to untangle this stuff [expresión coloquial: desenredar o esclarecer todo este asunto], because there’s a level of dishonesty involved here. And it’s tied up with institutional needs, politics and so on. That has been the most difficult part for me to deal with. As a scholar, I can deal with the scholarship. This is not a problem for me.
On a professional scholarly level, what they’ve done is unacceptable, by the way. On a devotional level, it’s unacceptable. But for them, it’s acceptable. Why? Because they said it was acceptable.
INTERVIEWER 1: All right. Gary’s thoughts?
GARY: I received a book in a parking lot, probably around 1981 or so, and I started reading Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books. The first Gītā that I read was the abridged version. I don’t know if you remember—I’m sure you do—the yellow one.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: That’s right. I do, yeah.
GARY: So, that was after Macmillan?
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: It was during Macmillan. It was produced because Macmillan had a copyright that had to be sort of worn out [expresión coloquial: dejarse vencer o agotarse]. So, they produced a different Bhagavad-gītā while Prabhupāda was here, in order to end the copyright requirements for having them produce the book and then be able to transfer it over to the BBT.
They were doing something kind of clever to get out of [expresión coloquial: librarse de] the contractual obligation with Macmillan. That’s why that Gītā was done.
GARY: But those books weren’t changed at all. Because I think it came out around ’75 or ’76, something like that.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Right. It was just abridged.
GARY: It was abridged. The Sanskrit wasn’t there. And I think they had to cut out certain things to make it different enough to pass the test with Macmillan.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: So, I’m not sure. I’d have to look into that. I’d have to look into whether there were changes or not. But the main thing was that it was simply a tool to get out of the contractual arrangement with Macmillan.
GARY: I see.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Yeah.
GARY: I see. So, anyway, that was the first book I received. I read that several times.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Right.
GARY: And then I got a 1974 edition from Macmillan—
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Ah, yes.
GARY: —which, as I understand it, had a couple of changes in it that Śrīla Prabhupāda approved.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Yeah, that’s the fifth printing. There were five printings.
GARY: That’s right.
GARY: And then, when I finally joined the temple, the new edition came out, and I was sent out on book distribution, and I was selling that one.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Yeah.
GARY: So, my question is: Do you think there’s any difference in potency? You know, there are some extreme opinions among devotees that it’s worse to get that book than not to get one at all, and that the people who receive it are going to be misled, while those who distribute it are going to go to H-E-double-toothpicks [eufemismo humorístico en inglés para hell: «el infierno»].
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Right.
GARY: So, I thought I was doing a good thing, and I still feel that I was. But could you tell me—could you give me your opinion on the difference between the two? And does it really make a lot of difference when you have, like, somebody who’s just coming to the tradition of bhakti?
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Yeah. The power of divine grace is far more powerful than the misrepresentations or transgressions—editorial transgressions—that one might make with the books.
So, on one level, I think that, you know, divine grace works no matter what. On another level, there is the idea of loyalty to the author, and respect—and perhaps reverence—as disciples. I think that would be in order.
So, I think that, you know, there are different levels to this. There’s no question that Prabhupāda is still there in the second edition. There’s no question about that. I can’t sit here and say that someone can’t become a full-fledged, you know, lifetime bhakta from reading the second edition—the changed edition.
But how much more valuable it is to preserve and respect the author’s original works from when he was here on Earth. This is so much more valuable and precious. The problem with the second edition is that it has been changed. Even that has been changed, tweaked and sort of picked at [expresión coloquial: retocado o alterado repetidamente en pequeños detalles] nine times. And it has not been noted in those editions that these are the edited versions done by such-and-such—Jayādvaita Swami, et cetera—which is the academic standard.
GARY: That’s right. But later they put in the note in the back—“A Note on This Edition.” Later they added his name there.
Now, some may say—and I know this is the opinion of the editors, the BBT editors—that their intention was to bring the book back to its original purity.
Originally, it had been edited by Śrīla Prabhupāda’s master’s-degree disciple, Hayagrīva, whom Prabhupāda was thrilled to have. He was the first devotee whom Prabhupāda met, I believe, on the Lower East Side, in 1966.
Originally, it had been edited by Śrīla Prabhupāda’s master’s-degree disciple, Hayagrīva, whom Prabhupāda was thrilled to have. He was the first devotee whom Prabhupāda met, I believe, on the Lower East Side, in 1966.
As you had mentioned in some interviews, what a miracle it was that the first person Prabhupāda met was a master’s-degree, scholarly person—a semi-scholar—
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Trained.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Trained.
GARY: A trained person in English. He was in English. And Prabhupāda’s main mission was to translate, write and present this literature. Where was he a professor?
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Ohio State.
GARY: Ohio State.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Yeah, that’s right. An instructor.
GARY: Okay. So, some may say: “Okay, we wanted to edit it back according to the original manuscripts that Prabhupāda had written, as opposed to Hayagrīva’s, you know, whatever—filter.”
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Right.
GARY: So, I mean, I know how I feel about that, but I really want to hear your take on it, because that’s one of the main arguments: “Well, we wanted to return it to the original.”
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Right. Well, this is a false application of historical-critical textual studies.
Yes, there is a place for going back into different recensions and different editions of a text to try to find the Urtext—the original text. You know, this is like a little detective-mystery event, right? You try to reconstruct something as close as possible to the original text—as authentic as possible. That’s what historical-critical studies try to do.
You don’t have to do this with an author. You know the author, and he signed off on the book. It’s his book. I write a book. There’s no need to try to go and find the authentic book. My wife, for example, edits a lot of my stuff—my books. So, after I die, if someone suddenly asks her permission to get my earlier drafts of that book and they start changing my book around—even if it’s better—I will come back as a ghost and haunt the hell out of them [expresión coloquial y humorística: los atormentaré intensamente].
INTERVIEWER 1: So, in this—
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: You can’t do that.
INTERVIEWER 1: In this regard, could you bring up the contract with Macmillan, in which Prabhupāda made a very strong, decisive statement about changes?
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Yes. There was a—he—Prabhupāda went through the contract very, very carefully and meticulously, making certain amendments for which he had to initial the nine changes in the contract.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Yes. There was a—he—Prabhupāda went through the contract very, very carefully and meticulously, making certain amendments for which he had to initial the nine changes in the contract.
One of them was: “Revisions made only with the permission of the author.”
INTERVIEWER 1: Right. So, therefore—which begs the question—if permission cannot be granted because he has left this realm and is not physically present, how can that posthumous version be authorized when he wasn’t around to authorize it?
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Very simple: no.
INTERVIEWER 1: Exactly.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Very simple. However, there is a way to address issues in a text that may have some—well, there may be some conflicts in the content. There may be some things that need to be addressed.
One can do that in an annotated edition, but you don’t change the text itself. What you do is frame the text with annotations, footnotes or endnotes that suggest to the reader:
“This could have been a transcription problem.” And Prabhupāda had an annotated version of—
INTERVIEWER 1: Of his own work.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Right.
INTERVIEWER 1: But pre—what was that, in the ’50s? The Delhi Bhāgavatam?
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Right. Yeah.
INTERVIEWER 1: That’s right. Yeah. I just saw that. Fascinating.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: And I have—I’ve written about it. I have graphics of those annotations, in which Prabhupāda does qualify certain parts of the content because it would benefit the reader in appreciating what was going on in the text.
INTERVIEWER 1: Here’s a crude example from the music world, okay? So, I’m a big fan of Bob Dylan.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Oh, yeah. Bob. I know Bob.
INTERVIEWER 1: Yeah, sure. A personal friend of yours.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Well, let’s just say he was, yeah.
INTERVIEWER 1: He was? Okay.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: We parted ways [expresión coloquial: dejamos de relacionarnos o nuestros caminos se separaron].
INTERVIEWER 1: Most of his music came from his hanging out with you [expresión coloquial: pasar tiempo contigo] and getting inspiration into—
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: I wasn’t going to say that.
INTERVIEWER 1: —the mysteries of life.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: I wasn’t going to say that, but yes. Let’s just say so. It’s fine.
INTERVIEWER 1: A little-known story.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Yes, little known.
INTERVIEWER 1: Oh, so Bob Dylan—
GARY: “Who am I, and why am I here?”
INTERVIEWER 1: Yeah. So, we recorded—okay. So, Bob Dylan. Bob Dylan. Okay.
Dylan had a recording contract with Columbia Records, okay? And he decided to part with them and go with Asylum, and he made a couple of records with them. So, Columbia was none too pleased [expresión idiomática: no estaba nada complacida] about it.
Dylan had a recording contract with Columbia Records, okay? And he decided to part with them and go with Asylum, and he made a couple of records with them. So, Columbia was none too pleased [expresión idiomática: no estaba nada complacida] about it.
His last two records were New Morning and Self-Portrait. There were outtakes [tomas o grabaciones descartadas]. There were probably six covers and three traditional songs. And, kind of to get back at him [expresión coloquial: para desquitarse o vengarse de él], from what I understand, they took some of the things he was fooling around with [expresión coloquial: probando o tocando informalmente] and put out a record simply called Dylan.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Oh, wow.
INTERVIEWER 1: And he was not happy about it at all.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Wow.
INTERVIEWER 1: And so, I know it’s a crude example.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Oh, it’s a great example.
GARY: It is a good example. A great example.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Yeah. Because, in effect, those recordings were like drafts. And just don’t dig into my hard drive and start publishing things under “Graham Schweig” when I’ve not said it’s okay.
That’s what it means to be an author, composer, songwriter and so on. I think it’s a great example. And that is effectively what has happened.
What I’d like to do is just summarize—in the book that I put out on this whole subject—four simple ways of understanding the problem.
One: false assumption of authority. That’s number one. Where Prabhupāda granted only conservative, provisional authority, the BBT editors assumed unrestricted, open-ended authority. Okay? So, that’s number one. Two: editorial overreach. Where Prabhupāda requested only simple copyediting and the correction of obvious mistakes, the BBT editors took great liberties in revising, omitting and even attempting to correct the author’s content.
Three: noncompliance with scholarly standards. Where Prabhupāda requested scholarly editorial standards, the BBT editors misapplied scholarly textual methods—as I just explained—and employed arbitrary and inconsistent editing practices.
And finally, four: editorial changes without transparency. This might be the worst one. Where devotional and scholarly editorial standards compelled full transparency, the extent of the editorial changes made by the BBT editors remains undisclosed in the author’s works.
This is a nice, quick summary of the problem.
INTERVIEWER 1: And just to sum all that up, Prabhupāda wrote to Rūpānuga in 1970 that: “Our editing work is strictly for grammar and punctuation, not for interpolation of philosophy or style.”
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Right. That’s right—“or style,” which means: don’t change the voice.
INTERVIEWER 1: Exactly. Now, it’s interesting because, you know, many devotees will quote a statement that Prabhupāda made: “Whatever Jayādvaita does, I accept.”
But that’s—you know, Prabhupāda said many apparently contradictory things according to time, place and circumstance. There are four final instructions that Prabhupāda gave regarding editing in 1977. May I read them?
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Sure.
INTERVIEWER 1: So, this is from a room conversation at the end of February 1977: “The system is: whatever authority has done, even if there is a mistake, it should be accepted.”
Prabhupāda said, ārṣa-prayoga. That’s the pronunciation, right?
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Right.
INTERVIEWER 1: That is, one should not become more learned than the authority.
“That is a very bad habit.”
“That is a very bad habit.”
Prabhupāda says: “Why finish it? Whatever is done is done. No more.”
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Yeah.
INTERVIEWER 1: That’s February 28, 1977. And “no more” means no more changes.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: That’s right.
INTERVIEWER 1: Prabhupāda said, on March 31, 1977, in a letter to Līlāvatī:
“Our books must remain as they are. Do not waste your time anymore with such attempts.” And these are all from 1977. And one last one. This is from June 22, 1977. Of course, Prabhupāda left this world in November 1977. Prabhupāda said:
“Write to Satsvarūpa that this is the position. They are doing anything and everything at their whim. The next printing should be again to the original way.”
So, my sense, if you’re really looking at this, is that we’re looking at the context of the next many, many generations. As Prabhupāda said:
“Our books must remain as they are. Do not waste your time anymore with such attempts.” And these are all from 1977. And one last one. This is from June 22, 1977. Of course, Prabhupāda left this world in November 1977. Prabhupāda said:
“Write to Satsvarūpa that this is the position. They are doing anything and everything at their whim. The next printing should be again to the original way.”
So, my sense, if you’re really looking at this, is that we’re looking at the context of the next many, many generations. As Prabhupāda said:
“My books will be the law books for mankind for the next ten thousand years.”
A very heavy statement [expresión coloquial: una declaración de enorme peso e importancia].
So, the greater 40,000-foot view [expresión idiomática: la perspectiva general y panorámica] is that, just now—and I’d love you to speak about this—many devotees, many practitioners, feel pain over the changing, the messing with [expresión coloquial: la alteración o manipulación de] the sanctity and purity of these literatures, which were given—which, actually, Prabhupāda said—maybe you can speak about this—Kṛṣṇa personally dictated to him. God personally dictated to him to write these.
And therefore, if three thousand, two thousand or even one hundred years from now their purity comes into question, it will cause a great lack of faith in the people who are following the path.
So, this is something that has to be cleared up. As it said even in the AI response, the question of authority, purity and integrity has to be settled within the lifetime of Prabhupāda’s immediate disciples. Otherwise, it may never be.
So, perhaps you could speak to that.
So, perhaps you could speak to that.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Yeah. Okay. There are many points there, Vaz. I think, first of all, we can speak about the authority of Jayādvaita—the imputed authority of Jayādvaita. When Prabhupāda said: “Yes, whatever he does, I accept,”
that’s fine. That was in a particular instance concerning the editing. There was some misediting going on, and Jayādvaita, at that point, proved himself to be reliable.
that’s fine. That was in a particular instance concerning the editing. There was some misediting going on, and Jayādvaita, at that point, proved himself to be reliable.
Wonderful. Wonderful. And he did do some good work under Prabhupāda.
Big difference. Now, I’d like to speak about Jayādvaita’s apotheosis. Basically, Jayādvaita has been raised to the status of a kind of god who can pretty much—
Big difference. Now, I’d like to speak about Jayādvaita’s apotheosis. Basically, Jayādvaita has been raised to the status of a kind of god who can pretty much—
INTERVIEWER 1: Sorry, what does “apotheosis” mean?
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Okay. The elevation of a human being to divine status.
INTERVIEWER 1: It’s a cool word.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Yeah, “apotheosis.” You can’t use it without my permission, though.
INTERVIEWER 1: I’m going to write that down.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: No, you have to email me first.
INTERVIEWER 1: Okay, but I’m going to make a note to myself and send you the email.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Okay, that would be good.
INTERVIEWER 1: Talk amongst yourselves [comentario humorístico: «conversen entre ustedes mientras tanto»].
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: That’s fine. Okay, good. That’s fine. So, the apotheosis. What I mean by that is that there are practitioners who literally see Jayādvaita as a kind of living mouthpiece of Prabhupāda. I know this because I’ve interviewed them.
They feel that whatever he does—even without transparency, without permission—is as good as if Prabhupāda himself had done it.
They feel that whatever he does—even without transparency, without permission—is as good as if Prabhupāda himself had done it.
They even claim, in the back of their book—the second edition—that this is a work of “greater authenticity,” just as Vaz said: a “more complete edition.” Even though Prabhupāda put Bhagavad-gītā As It Is: Complete Edition in the title of the Macmillan edition. He already said “complete edition,” and now, somehow, this one is more complete.
INTERVIEWER 1: And he gave, what, 250 lectures from that Gītā, and he didn’t have an issue with it?
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: To be precise, I’ve actually found 173 in which Prabhupāda is literally listening to his Bhagavad-gītā being read, and he never complained about anything—except perhaps one or two things, which had been corrected in the 1974 printing.
So, when Prabhupāda said, “This has to be corrected,” well, that’s the author.
GARY: What were those two things, by the way?
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Well, there’s one: “cattle raising” in the—
INTERVIEWER 1: “Planet of the Trees” [frase poco clara en la grabación].
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: And—yeah. Well, no, I’m not sure “Planet of the Trees” was one. I think it’s “cattle raising” changed to “cow protection.”
GARY: Right.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: And then there’s one, I think, in the Thirteenth Chapter, concerning the kṣetrajña. It had to be changed, and it was changed.
GARY: “The knower of the field” or something?
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Yeah. No, it’s about the knower of the field.
And there’s something about—Prabhupāda had it changed, but then Jayādvaita changed it back to the mistaken wording. I never quite came to understand why that was done.
And there’s something about—Prabhupāda had it changed, but then Jayādvaita changed it back to the mistaken wording. I never quite came to understand why that was done.
But Jayādvaita has no problem eliminating something that has been proven to have been very purposefully written by Prabhupāda. I’ll give you an example, if you want. In the Tenth Chapter of the Bhagavad-gītā, I believe, Kṛṣṇa says:
“Of wielders of the bow, I am Rāma.”
“Of wielders of the bow, I am Rāma.”
Following that verse, there is a commentary of only four sentences. He kept the first two sentences and erased the other two sentences because the other two identified Rāma as Rāmacandra, the wielder of the bow.
INTERVIEWER 1: And in the 1972 edition?
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Yes. In the 1972 edition, Prabhupāda said that.
INTERVIEWER 1: But in the 1983 edition?
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: In the 1983 edition, they eliminated that completely.
And when Prabhupāda was on a morning walk, an Indian gentleman said:
“So, Rāmacandra is not mentioned at all in the Bhagavad-gītā?”
And when Prabhupāda was on a morning walk, an Indian gentleman said:
“So, Rāmacandra is not mentioned at all in the Bhagavad-gītā?”
And Prabhupāda said: “Oh, yes, He is.” And he quoted that verse.
INTERVIEWER 1: Wow.
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: And that was pointed out to Jayādvaita—the, you know, one who received the apotheosis—and he said: “Well, I don’t agree.”
So, there we have another Draviḍa example.
So, there we have another Draviḍa example.
INTERVIEWER 1: So, therein lies the rub [expresión idiomática: «ahí está precisamente el problema»].
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Yeah.
INTERVIEWER 1: The insertion of—
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: It’s a real hard pill to swallow [expresión idiomática: algo muy difícil de aceptar], but it’s quite self-evident. I mean, that particular passage—and Prabhupāda himself said: “No, Rāma is.”
And he took out Rāma being mentioned in Prabhupāda’s purport. It’s—I mean, it’s very clear. Again, I didn’t understand these things until I studied them. And when I began to study them, it was rather shocking.
INTERVIEWER 1: Well, I can give you more shocking ones. I mean, I’m loaded up with shocks [expresión humorística: «tengo muchos ejemplos impactantes preparados»]. Here’s one. This is from the purport to 5.16 in the first edition. Okay: “Therefore, one has to seek out a bona fide spiritual master and under him learn what Kṛṣṇa consciousness is. The spiritual master can drive away all nescience, as the sun drives away darkness.” “The spiritual master can drive away all nescience.”
In the revised edition: “Therefore, one has to seek out such a bona fide spiritual master and under him learn what Kṛṣṇa consciousness is. For Kṛṣṇa consciousness will drive away all nescience.” Prabhupāda said—Prabhupāda approved of the version: “The spiritual master will drive away—”
And in the 1980s—I mean, it’s a different meaning. They know better. I mean, these are the purports, but 77 percent of the verses of the Bhagavad-gītā have been altered.
GARY: Seventy-seven percent?
INTERVIEWER 1: That’s right. Five hundred, I think—541 or 561 verses [el número exacto no se distingue con claridad en la grabación].
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: That’s right.
INTERVIEWER 1: —have been altered. Just like—I’m just going to give you one more example. One of my favorite verses, Chapter Four, 4.39, in the original version. I used to love this verse. I used to read it and go like: “Oh, that’s so great.”
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: You used to?
INTERVIEWER 1: I used to.
GARY: Yeah, I don’t know. He still does, but he can’t find it anywhere in the book.
INTERVIEWER 1: He got me on that one [expresión coloquial: «me ganó con esa broma»]. “A faithful man who is absorbed in transcendental knowledge and who subdues his senses quickly attains the supreme spiritual peace.” It’s so simple, nice, compact, beautiful—
INTERVIEWER 1: He got me on that one [expresión coloquial: «me ganó con esa broma»]. “A faithful man who is absorbed in transcendental knowledge and who subdues his senses quickly attains the supreme spiritual peace.” It’s so simple, nice, compact, beautiful—
GRAHAM SCHWEIG: Poetic.
INTERVIEWER 1: Poetic. Yes: “A faithful man who is absorbed in transcendental knowledge and who subdues his senses quickly attains the supreme spiritual peace.” But it was changed to something that sounds rather convoluted:
“A faithful man who is dedicated to transcendental knowledge and who subdues his senses is eligible to achieve such knowledge. And having achieved it, he quickly attains spiritual peace.” I’m like [O my gosh], they took away all the poetic beauty.
“A faithful man who is dedicated to transcendental knowledge and who subdues his senses is eligible to achieve such knowledge. And having achieved it, he quickly attains spiritual peace.” I’m like [O my gosh], they took away all the poetic beauty.
