Author: Vyswambhara Das

Source:http://adi-vani.org/articles.php?articleId=105

The
BBT deserves applause for its recent rejection of a proposal to change
the standard of capitalizing personal pronouns that represent Lord
Krsna. Admittedly, the stir over personal pronouns hardly rates as a
footnote to the more significant and fractious debate about posthumous
changes to Srila Prabhuapada’s books. Nevertheless, it demonstrates
that the BBT is not an entrenched autocratic institution oblivious of
the lament of ordinary devotees. As well, the results of a poll
conducted by the Sampradya Sun showed that an overwhelming majority of
its readers is keenly protective of Srila Prabhupada’s literary legacy.
These are hopeful signs that the debate over posthumous editing may
have a resolution.

Srila
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati once expressed gratitude as follows: “Lord
Gauransundara has appeared as teacher to the world. He conveyed His
teachings in eight stanzas. The Mahanta-Guru and the Vaisnavas who are
submissively attached to the Mahanta-Guru instruct me in every way in
those teachings of Sri Gaurasundara. The Vaisnavas who are submissively
attached to the Mahanta-Guru save me from all dangers. All who instruct
me in Krsna consciousness are the reflected forms of my spiritual
master in different receptacles.”

Changing the books: The Premises of a Debate

Arguments
in favor of posthumous editing include: the revision of editions extant
during Srila Prabhupada presence by a return to the original
manuscripts; the accreditation and competence of the editors;
considerations regarding the evolution of language, readability and
acceptance by the scholarly class of men.

Jayadvaita Svami defends a return to the original manuscripts as a basis for making changes in a recent article entitled Try to Discredit the Manuscripts.

The competence and authorization of Jayadvaita Svami and Dravida Prabhu as editors is addressed in Dravida das’ “Editing: Whom Did Srila Prabhupada Trust? ”
In the article, Dravida Prabhu argues that Srila Prabhupada put his
trust in Jayadvaita Svami and, by proxy therefore, he himself has
quality.

A
proponent of the ‘scholarly’ and readability line of argument has
summarized it as follows: “Presentation is very important, which
includes proper syntax, grammar, and vocabulary. Srila Prabhupada's
writing style, with the assistance of editors, is a vast departure from
Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's style, and reflects a later 20th-century
American English. Similarly, the last twenty years have seen tremendous
changes in the English language, largely due to cultural, political and
technological influences. Graduates today are accustomed to the modern
rules of grammar. Students who ignore recent amendments will find
corrections on their writing submissions, as I have experienced
firsthand. Writers who use outdated vocabulary and grammar may not be
taken seriously, and their publications will be considered badly
written.”

The
other side of the debate is represented by those who question the
validity of specific changes to the books and others who reject the
idea of posthumous change as such-in the context, the Webster
Dictionary defines ‘posthumous’ as, “published after the death of its
author.” The concentration on the merits of specific changes, it may be
argued, serves only to perpetuate the debate since it is largely based
on subjective opinion and perception. A strong case can be made,
however, for considering posthumous change-apart from the odd
grammatical or orthographical correction-as an unacceptable and
unnecessary policy.

The Editors

Jayadvaita
Svami and Dravida Prabhu are skilled editors and over the years have
demonstrated exemplary dedication in the service of Srila Prabhupada’s
BBT and ISKCON mission. It should also be kept in mind that editorial
change does not de facto, as some have suggested, entail loss of
spiritual integrity. Srila Prabhupada says as much: “After all, it
[Krsna consciousness] is a technical science of spiritual values, and
thus we are concerned with the techniques and not with the language. If
the techniques of this great literature are understood by the people of
the world, there will be success.”(SB. 1.5.11, purport). The revised
editions of Bhagavad-gita as it is and Sri Caitanya-caritamrta are not irrevocably impaired preaching tools; but they are changed, and that is where the shoe pinches.

The
BBT and the GBC have not come forward in defense of their decision to
allow posthumous change. Except for a small group of supporters, the
editors have had to defend the policy on their own. Their efforts have
focused mostly on explaining the reasoning in support of certain
changes. The devotees at large are expected to assume that were he
present, His Divine Grace would approve of the policy of change, as
well as consider the changes as more representative of his original
intention. That there seems to be no sastric evidence or Vaisnava
precedent to support posthumous change has not raised flags of caution
in the minds of the BBT trustees or the GBC members. Nor has it
dampened the editors’ enthusiasm for their work of adjusting Srila
Prabhupada’s books.

The
Vaisnava creed is that a pure devotee’s creation, no matter how it may
appear to conditioned eyes, is a production that emanates from the
spiritual realm, beyond the manifestation of the three modes of nature
and its four defects. To posthumously change such a creation is to
imply that it is tainted. The suggestion that the founder-acarya
of ISKCON was prone to error when he authorized the publication of his
books is too controversial to entertain and offends a majority of his
followers.

As
respected as the BBT editors are, as ‘authorized’ as they may feel,
they face a battle of Sisyphean proportion if they wish to convince the
ISKCON community that posthumous change constitutes an acceptable
practice. Neither the BBT nor the GBC has ex cathedra authority to
sanction such practice. The idea of posthumous change has no sastric
support. Relying on good intention only, the practice is gratuitous.

Transcendental Literature

The
works of an acarya are what Srila Prabhupada called his “emotional
ecstasies”; they are accepted by self-realized souls as timeless and
eternal. Would any Gaudiya Vaisnava, regardless of erudition or
intention, pretend to have quality to adjust the Sanskrit of the
Srimad-Bhagavatam or the Bengali of Sri Caitanya-caritamrta?
Yet those languages have also evolved and scholars can be found who
question the language and presentation of these classics of the
Madhva-Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya.

Srimad-Bhagawatam
states unequivocally: “On the other hand, that literature which is full
of descriptions of the transcendental glories, forms, pastimes, etc.,
of the unlimited Supreme Lord is a different creation, full of
transcendental words directed toward bringing a revolution in the
impious lives of this world’s misdirected civilization. Such
literatures, even though imperfectly composed, are heard, sung, and
accepted by purified men who are thoroughly honest.” (SB., 1.5.11)

In the introduction to the BBT publication of Sri Brahma-samhita
one reads the following: “As per Srila Prabhupada’s instructions
regarding the publication of this volume, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati’s
somewhat technical and sometimes difficult prose has been left intact
and virtually untouched. Fearing that any editorial (grammatical and
stylistic) tampering with Bhaktisiddhanta’s text might result in
inadvertent changes in meaning, Prabhupada asked that it be left as is,
and the editors of this volume have complied with his wishes.”

It
would augur well for the followers of His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada
to show him the same deference he offered his own spiritual master.

The use of language is an inscrutable affair, as is the method of preaching of an acarya.
All sorts of mundane arguments can be offered as to why some changes to
Srila Prabhupada’s books might improve them. There is no way to prove
or disprove that His Divine Grace might be pleased or displeased with
any such change. But it is generally recognized that, absent the input
of an author, editorial change is a speculative science, subjective by
nature.

To
say that one has gone back to the original manuscripts to effectuate an
editorial change is not helpful; it implies disregard for an author’s
approval of a previous change. The claim that one who was an authorized
representative of the acarya during his physical presence
remains so after his disappearance is philosophically unsound and in
contradiction of statements found in Sri Caitanya-caritamrta as
well as the historical record of the Sankirtana movement that both show
that ‘authorized’ agents have repeatedly strayed from the path soon
after the disappearance of an acarya.

Scholarship

No
reputable Academic institution endorses posthumous change. Colleges and
universities require students to read the classics in the original.
Students of the English language are asked to struggle with The
Canterbury Tales as is, deal with the idiosyncrasies of Shakespearean
English, and generally familiarize themselves with the dialects of any
number of other classics. Language evolves as a function of the culture
it represents, but literary works are fixed in time, as it should be.

The
literary tradition of Lord Caitanya’s movement is by no means frozen in
time. Devotees all over the world are and will continue to elaborate on
the Vaisnava philosophy. If someone feels that changing trends and the
evolution of language requires an improved presentation of Srila
Prabhupada’s books, let him present his ideas in separate annotated
editions under his own recognizance, as scholars are wont to do in
other fields of studies. Such editions however should not be presented
as “intended originals”. Nor should the bulk of BBT resources be
employed to print and propagate the resultant works to the detriment of
the originals.

Change: A Crack in the Foundation

As the ISKCON movement debates the advisability of editorial changes to the works of its founder-acarya,
other societies (governments and religious groups) go to great lengths
to protect their foundational documents against change of any kind.
Their documents are cast on a stable element to prevent erosion. The
proofs are then hidden within the caves of mountains, securely locked
inside vaults equipped with sophisticated temperature and humidity
controls. These entities are determined to forestall any alteration to
their documents, be it from human tampering or from cataclysmic events
provoked by men or the forces of nature.

Granted,
the electronic revolution in communications may render such measures
obsolete. In fact, the BBT has been careful to preserve the original
editions of Srila Prabhupada’s books. But, unless the originals are
regularly printed and distributed to the public, they stand to fall
into disuse, and, much like the original books of the Bible, be
relegated as the exclusive field of study of determined but obscure
scholars.

Without
any editing, Srila Prabhupada’s books changed the spiritual landscape
of the entire world and powered the greatest spiritual revolution of
modern times. Where is the need to tamper with a weapon that has served
the Krsna consciousness movement so well against the forces of evil and
transformed the hearts of men so effectively? By definition the BBT
trustees and ISKCON leadership are the guardians of this most precious
asset of the Krsna consciousness movement. There is something
irreverent and almost sacrilegious in allowing anyone to change these
books, keep them stored in archives while the founder-acarya’s
considerable resources in monies and good will are harnessed to print,
promote and distribute so-called “improved and enlarged” editions
claiming greater authenticity than the originals. It seems only decent
to beg of the ISKCON leadership that they either present a strong sastric
and philosophical defense of its defense or rescind its support of
posthumous changing of the books. We are after all talking about books
that, if we are to believe His Divine Grace himself, are destined to be
the law books of humanity for thousands of years.

Reasons
for change there will always be. The debate over the BBT book changes
has been a persistent one and often fraught with much hyperbolic, even
hurtful language. Both sides have claimed the high ground of Srila
Prabhupada’s interest in the matter, yet no resolution is forthcoming.
Valmiki Muni says that Lord Ramacandra, the greatest ruler of all
times, was aware that “an unbiased opinion arises from the conflict of
opposing views." Having heard all opposing views of a particular
affair, the Lord would then pronounce his decision. Debate is not meant
to perpetuate itself without conclusion. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura
urged: “There are certain individuals who want to refute whatever
explanation they hear, without judging its merit and demerit. This
absolutely prohibited to the devotees.” Who is there to read into minds
and hearts and determine whether the decision to change the books
springs from concerned devotion or disingenuous hubris? The matter
cannot be settled by a mutual exchange of insults, nor can the truth be
ascertained subjectively; the Vaisnava tradition is to understand
things on the basis of guru-sastra-sadhu.

In
an overview, that which militates most against posthumous change, no
matter how apparently innocuous, is the dynamics and incremental nature
of change itself. One may watch a tree grow for days on end and see
little change, but were he to come back years later he would be amazed
by the transformation of that tree. Similarly, an apparently
insignificant change to a book can in time morph into a dramatic
misrepresentation. Editorial prerogative beyond the demise of an author
and its corollary by ‘proxy’ are particularly deleterious in the
context since it implies a self-perpetuating authorization for change.
.

As founder-acarya
of ISKCON Srila Prabhupada has in his books defined the standard for
the universal acceptance of Krsna consciousness. In Sanskrit this is
called the vicara-dhara of the acarya and, for his
followers, it supersedes previous and current expositions of the
Vaisnava philosophy. The evidence is strongly in favor of printing
Srila Prabhupada’s books as he authorized them. When a foundation
shifts ever so slightly, the soundness of a building is compromised.
For the sake of cooperation among the devotees and the future of
ISKCON, let us pray at the lotus feet of Sri Sri Gaura-Nitai that
ISKCON leaders will see fit to reconsider the policy on posthumous
change. Accepting that all parties to the discussion are sincere, why
let yet another fraternal war fester in the body of the Society? What
harm to anyone to let Srila Prabhupada have the final word in the
matter: “...we have to see that in our book there is no spelling or
grammatical mistake. We do not mind for any good style, our style is
Hare Krsna, but still we should not present a shabby thing. Although
Krsna literatures are so nice that even if they are presented in broken
and irregular ways, such literatures are welcomed, read and respected
by bona fide devotees.” (SPL 01.09.70)