Bhakti Vikas Swami Attacks the Writings of Srila Prabhupada (Again)

Bhakti Vikas Swami Countered on Book Change BY: BHAKTA TORBEN 

[PADA: Bhakti Vikas swami thinks "having once been" is not correct because we jeeva souls are supposedly beginningless. Except -- he does not know how, if, or when our jeeva souls either began or did not begin. He is speculating. 

If Krishna at one time "created" the jeevas to serve Him, then there may have been a time we were brought into our jeeva soul's existence, we really have no means of investigating this one way or the other. At the same time, this is really splitting hairs on a miniscule point that can never be either proven or disproven. We simply have no idea how and when Krishna created anything, including us jeevas. Its speculating. 

So the real goal is for Bhakti Vikas swami to create doubts about the validity of Srila Prabhupada's works.

I am still having a hard time figuring out Torben's position. He agrees with Bhakti Vikas swami, we cannot worship a pure devotee because that is the bogus Christian idea. OK fine! Then -- they cannot tell us who else to worship instead? 

If people do not even know the basic points of "who or whom" to offer the bhogha and disciples to, they really have not got a basic grasp of the siddhanta. At least the "bogus ritviks" know, we have to offer the bhogha and the disciples to the pure devotee, that is the process from time immemorial. Worship of the pure devotee is the bogus Christian idea, ummm, where is this stated? 

Of course that makes the Christians bogus -- because they say grace to Jesus, and make Jesus their guru. How bogus is that, they will only worship a pure devotee! Very bogus indeed! 

Anyway! Did this "time immemorial" have a starting point where us jeevas came into being, its really not relevant is it? And its certainly not provable one way or other? God created everything -- including the jeevas. "When" was this all created? No one can say for certain, its beyond our capacity to figure out, and its an exercise in futility to speculate on this issue. BVKS is simply saying this to DISCREDIT -- and have people lose faith in -- THE ORIGINAL BOOKS of the acharya. 

Anyway, give credit to Torben here, he is right. Their living gurus are speculators and persons trying to change the words of pure devotees, and discredit the books. And lets not forget! Trying to discredit the shastra. Agreed! 

Worse, Bhakti Vikas swami is one of the favorites of Hanuman Croatia. Yep, anyone who tries to invalidate the books of the acharyas is a person they want to promote. Then they wonder why we are not in support of their process? You came into being because Krishna created your being. "When" did this happen? Not relevant, its just BVKS creating a tempest in a tea cup so he can attack the books of the acharya. 

ys pd 

angel108b@yahoo.com]  

  
In a new Youtube spot Bhakti Vikasa Swami addresses the "ISKCON" change to Bhagavad-gita As It Is 2.20. He thinks it may be all right to change it. 

The response to this careless change is already given in a 2015 'Blazing Edit' segment, reprised below: "Having Once Been is Correct"  BY: BHAKTA TORBEN Dec 26, 2015

Bhagavad.gita As It Is, 2.20: Original, authorized 1972 edition: "For the soul there is never birth nor death. Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain." 

Original, authorized 1968 edition: "For the soul there is never birth or death. Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying, and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain." 

Srimad Bhagavatam 7.7.18 purport: "For the soul there is never birth nor death. Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain."  

Caitanya-caritamrita Madhya-lila 19.138 purport: "For the soul there is never birth nor death. Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain." 

Visnujana reading aloud to Srila Prabhupada, Seattle 1968: "For the soul there is never birth or death. Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying, and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain." 

Devotee reads aloud to Srila Prabhupada, 1973 London: "For the soul there is never birth nor death. Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain." 

Pusta-krishna reads aloud to Srila Prabhupada, Paris 1974: "Translation: For the soul there is never birth nor death. Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain." 

Draft / so-called manuscript: "For the soul there is no birth, nor death either, at any time. Neither does he come into being, nor will he cease to be. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, and never dies, not even after the annihilation of body." 

'JAS It Is': "For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain." 

It is argued by highly respected senior devotees that the sentence 'having once been' indicates a beginning of the soul and therefore, since the soul is eternal and beginningless, this is a mistake and can therefore rightly be edited out. 

Is that true? Well, it certainly seems so. On the 'logical' surface. But there is another dimension to it. Please take a look here: Chandogya Upanisad 6.2.1: "Sa eva suameyedam agra asid ekam evadvityam tad aikshata bahu syam prajaeya." 

"O gentle one, in the beginning was the Supreme, who was one without a second. 

He thought: Let me become many. Let me become the father of many." In 1966 in New York Srila Prabhupada spoke these words in a lecture to his students: "So we have, we have been created in that way. Eko bahu syama. God has become many. This is also version of the Vedas that many, all these many, we are also God. 

Just like the fire diffuses its sparks. The sparks coming out of the fire, it is the..., they are also part and parcel of the fire. Similarly we, we are all parts and parcels of the Supreme. Now, He wanted to become many. He wanted to become many, so He has become many, and we are that many." 

"We are not different from God, but because He wanted to become many, so we have become many. Now, thing is, when God wanted to become many, there must be some purpose behind this. Otherwise, why did He like to become many? 

"He was one, one without second. That's all right. But why did He become many?" I think you get the point. You can find more evidence here for the fact that an eternal individual soul can have a beginning here. 

So apparently there is a 'start' to the individual soul, the amsa, the part and parcel. We are of course in the realm of Acintya-sakti, the very difficult to understand - realm. But nonetheless, these are words of Srila Prabhupada and sastra. Scholars more learned than me can purport and elaborate on this subject. But even as a neophyte and layman I think I can safely conclude that Srila Prabhupada's use of the words, 'Having once been' in verse 2.20 is completely BONA FIDE. 

And informative. A hint now rubbed out by the present day ISKCON edition of the Acarya's most important book. It is wrong to take out these words. And it collides with cross-references in Srimad Bhagavatam and Caitanya-caritamrita. And historic lectures. 

The so-called manuscript which His Grace Hari Sauri prabhu refers to in the above video is but a draft, a working paper. It has NO authority over the 1972 edition. How can something be beginningless and STILL have a beginning? Well, isn't that our philosophy? Acintya bheda abheda tattva. Oneness and difference at the same time. Mysterious. But according to Guru, Sadhu and Sastra.