Author: Vyapaka dasa

 

"When A Man Is So Sure He's Right" Part One

Recently,
a discussion between His Holiness Jayadvaita Swami (JAS) and myself
(Vyapaka dasa) regarding precedents and authority for posthumous change
to Srila Prabhupada's books was undertaken via email.

JAS's last email never received a reply and this essay addresses
points found in that and other correspondence. The reply is lengthy and
will be published in four parts.

The first subject to be discussed is as follows.

SRILA JIVA GOSWAMI AS A PRECEDENT FOR POSTHUMOUS EDITING

JAS writes in an April 28, 2006 email to myself (Vd) regarding an alleged precedent of posthumous change to an acarya's work:

"> Okay. The fourteenth chapter of the Bhakti-ratnakara contains a letter
> from Sri Jiva Gosvami to Srinivasa Acarya in which Srila Jiva mentions
> he was editing Srila Rupa Gosvami's Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu. The letter
> was written after Srila Rupa Gosvami's physical departure from the
> world.
     
"(Vd in a previous email) >>Do you have examples where the writings of great vaisnava acaryas
>>on Srila Prabhupada's level has been edited posthumously?
JAS: I provided you an excellent example and asked
> Is that good enough for you?
You (Vd) replied:
>No. Definitely not. You are comparing your actions to those of Srila
>Jiva Goswami?
I see.
"To
satisfy you, what I need to find is an example in which the writings of
a great acarya were posthumously edited by an idiot whose editing was
approved by great souls.
"That's why I asked earlier whether, if the
answer to your previous question were yes, your thinking would change
or I would just be wasting my time.
"You have answered my question.
"And you have persuaded me that going further with our correspondence would be pointless.
'When a man is so sure he's right that no evidence would be enough to change his mind, there's no use of further discussion.
'That appears to be where you stand. And so I beg your leave.
"I wish you well in your devotional service to His Divine Grace.
Hare Krsna. Goodbye."

We apologize to JAS for wasting his time but unfortunately we remain unconvinced by his argument and logic.

His evidence regarding precedent within our tradition for posthumous
change amounts to one letter by Jiva Goswami. Rationally, one would
expect that additional examples would be cited if available. We will
base our arguments on JAS's presentation that no other examples exist.

Therefore, Jiva Goswami had no precedent for posthumous change. So,
if no previous authority posthumously edited an acarya's work, then the
only reasonable deduction, for this to be a precedent for JAS, is that
Jiva Goswami acted upon his own initiative to edit Srila Rupa Goswami's
writings, after receiving no order to do so.

This is necessary because JAS admits that no instruction was given
by Srila Prabhupada to posthumously edit his books. So an order by the
spiritual master (in this instance to Srila Jiva Goswami) must be
lacking in order to qualify as a precedent for JAS.

Similarly, if Jiva Goswami was instructed to edit by Rupa Goswami
before his departure, or that he never edited the
Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu but offered a commentary, then Jiva Goswami's
editing or writing also cannot be claimed as a precedent by JAS.

Queries have been made to different scholars of the Goswamis and one
has opined that Jiva Goswami likely edited his spiritual masters' work,
Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu. However, he emphasized that the editing was
limited to adjusting Sanskrit meter, etc.

Jiva Goswami was the most prolific and scholarly of all the Six
Goswamis. As will be seen, he edited and commented on a wide variety of
spiritual literature.

Srila Prabhupada informs us in a Caitanya Caritamrta (C.C.) purport:

"...This is described in the Bhakti-ratnakara. As far as our
information goes, Srila Jiva Goswami composed and edited at least
twenty-five books. They are all very much celebrated, and they are
listed as follows: (1) Hari-namamrta-vyakarana, .... (12) a commentary
on the Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, [my emphasis].... After the
disappearance of Srila Rupa Goswami and Sanatana Gosvami in Vrindavana,
Srila Jiva Gosvami became the acarya of all the Vaisnavas in Bengal,
Orissa and the rest of the world, and it is he who used to guide them
in their devotional service."(C.C., Adi-lila 10.85, purport)

In the same purport it continues:
"Srila Jiva Gosvami strictly followed his predecessor gurus [my emphasis...]" (C.C., Adi-lila 10.85, purport)

That a direct reference to this situation is found in a Srila
Prabhupada purport is important. If indeed, Jiva Goswami polished the
Sanskrit, Srila Prabhupada seems not to see it as noteworthy and thus
highlighted his commentary.

JAS states in the Vedabase that: "At the highest level of authority
we can place Srila Prabhupada's books. These are the works in which
Srila Prabhupada formally presented for the world the message of the
scriptures and the previous acaryas. It is these books that form the
very basis of the Krsna consciousness movement."  (The Bhaktivedanta
Vedabase: What to Make of What You Find by Jayadvaita Swami)

We agree with JAS that the information contained in Srila
Prabhupada's books is our highest level of authority. So we must
conclude that Srila Jiva Goswami, based upon information provided in
Srila Prabhupada's purports, did not edit the substance of
Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, but simply offered a commentary.

To our knowledge, Srila Prabhupada did not translate JAS's edition
of the Bhakti-ratnakara so we defer to Srila Prabhupada's conclusion as
stated in the Caitanya Caritamrta. It is notable that both Srila
Prabhupada and JAS refer to the Bhakti-ratnakara yet with differing
conclusions. Until further clarification is offered, accepting Srila
Prabhupada's conclusion seems the wisest course.

It is telling that JAS reveals further research regarding his
judgment. This appears unscholarly. Further inquiry should have been
taken to understand the nature of Jiva Goswami's alleged edits and
their relevance to JAS's venture towards the Bhagavad Gita As It Is
(BGAII), before brazenly offering it as a precedent.

 Srila Jiva Goswami's spiritual position is very exalted as he is
understood to be an incarnation of the gopi known as Vilasmanjari (The
Six Goswami of Vrindavana by Satyaraja dasa). It is difficult to
believe that a devotee of Srila Jiva Goswami's stature would enter into
our sampradaya the precedent of posthumous change to a former acarya's
work lacking any instruction to do so.

The risk of a lesser mortal emulating Srila Jiva Goswami's action
places the parampara at obvious risk. Another illustration of Jiva
Goswami's desire to protect vaisnava siddhanta is revealed in his
support for svakiya-rasa in fear that future sahajiyas would exploit
the parakiya-rasa as is the current fashion (C.C. Adi 10.85).

Therefore, it is difficult to accept JAS's conclusion that Jiva
Goswami would step outside vaisnava tradition. Considering Srila
Prabhupada's statement that Jiva Goswami was the acarya of all the
devotees and strictly followed his predecessors gurus, JAS must provide
stronger evidence than this one citation of the Bhakti-ratnakara to
support posthumous editing.

Even if we were to accept JAS' assumption that Srila Jiva Goswami
was authorized to edit the Bhakti-rasamrta sindhu, it cannot be
employed as a precedent for JAS's posthumous editing of Srila
Prabhupada's books. Jiva Goswami and Rupa Goswami were contemporaries
and in essence spiritual equals as revealed by Srinivasa Acarya.

nana-sastra-vicaranaika-nipunau sad-dharma-samsthapakau
 lokanam hita-karinau tri-bhuvane manyau saranyakarau
radha-krsna-padaravinda-bhajananandena mattalikau
 vande rupa-sanatanau raghu-yugau sri-jiva-gopalakau

That is, they are "...very expert in scrutinizingly studying all the
revealed scriptures with the aim of establishing eternal religious
principles for the benefit of all human beings..."

His Holiness JAS cannot claim a similar relationship in regards to
Srila Prabhupada as Jiva Goswami does with Rupa Goswami. So Jiva
Goswami's alleged editing cannot be used as a precedent for his effort
towards Srila Prabhupada's books, due to JAS's inferior spiritual
status.

In the Caitanya Caritamrta it is further stated that: "Sanatana
Goswami gave his Vaisnava-toshani commentary to Srila Jiva Goswami for
editing and Srila Jiva Goswami edited this under the name of
Laghu-tosani." (CC. Madhya 1.35 Purport)

This was completed while both devotees were present on the planet
and offers Jiva Goswami a ripe opportunity to edit Srila Sanatana
Goswami's writings and publish it under Sanatana Goswami's authorship.
However, he re-titled the work as noted above.

This does not support the claim that Jiva Goswami edited the
Bhakti-rasmrita-sindhu and later published the edited version as the
work of Srila Rupa Goswami. Such inconsistency does not seem befitting
a devotee of Jiva Goswami's stature.

The most likely conclusion would be that the editing work by Jiva
Goswami would have been previously ordered by his spiritual master,
Srila Rupa Goswami; or Srila Jiva Goswami simply offered a commentary.
Independent, unauthorized editing does not seem in character with the
likes of Srila Jiva Goswami. This attitude is supported in another
writing of his.

In the Sri Madhava Mahotsava compiled in 1555 A.D. while Srila Rupa Goswami was still on the planet, he wrote:
"By
the mercy and order of my famous master [my emphasis], the
self-satisfied Sri Rupa Goswami who is worshipable by the whole world,
I have begun to write this poem."
"A great wealth of courage to
fulfill the order of Sri Rupa Goswami [my emphasis] has made this
insignificant creature begin poetic work with excessive boldness. By
the mercy of Srila Rupa Goswami may the great devotees experienced in
bhakti rasa derive satisfaction from this work.
"This work,
ordered by my guru [my emphasis], Sri Rupa Goswami, and partially
described in his work entitled "Dana-keli-kaumudi" (1549 A.D.) has now
been completed.
"I eternally serve beautiful Krishna and His
servant, Srila Rupa Goswami, who have made my present and future life
auspicious, whose precious lotus feet are most worthy of service, and
who, as personification of magnanimity, have bestowed their own prema
bhakti on me in a shower of mercy.
"In 1555 A.D. one jiva [Srila Jiva Goswami] living in Vrindavana completed this new poetic work by his own desire."
JAS
and the BBT Trustees admittedly did not receive any instruction to edit
Srila Prabhupada's books upon his passing. The above passage reveals
that Jiva Goswami received direct instruction and encouragement from
Srila Rupa Goswami to undertake his writing service. For JAS and the
BBT to claim legitimacy using Srila Jiva Goswami example is
unsubstantiated and further proof is required before acceptance is
given.

JAS remarked about the comment re. his alleged Jiva Goswami precedent as follows:
"When a man is so sure he's right that no evidence would be enough to change his mind, there's no use of further discussion.
That appears to be where you stand.".

Actually, with due respect, this appears to be JAS's position.

It seems the Maharaja could be a bit more open to opposing
viewpoints in action as opposed to theory. In a recent class given by
JAS at New Vrindavana, he publicly labeled those opposing unauthorized
posthumous change as stupid and raving fanatics. He included me in that
group when referring to my non-acceptance of his alleged Jiva Goswami
precedent. However, stupid is, is stupid does, and I'd conjecture that
JAS's interpretation of Jiva Goswami, after viewing the evidence at
hand, does not portray His Holiness in the best of light.

That the massive posthumous re-editing of the works of an acarya of
Srila Prabhupada's stature is rationalized using such a frail and
pallid historical example is as frightening as revealing.

All glories to Srila Jiva Goswami and Srila Prabhupada.

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare.

 

"When A Man Is So Sure He's Right" – Part Two

This is the second installment of an essay exploring JAS's editing of Srila Prabhupada's books.

This section explores the lack of authority to edit, negation of
previous editing work through the use of earlier manuscripts, etc.

JAS'S AUTHORITY TO EDIT

In an email to Jayadvaita Swami (JAS) I asked:

>>1) Do you have explicit instructions from Srila Prabhupada authorizing you to make post-samadhi changes to his books?

> Answer:
>
> No.

> I was authorized--in fact, requested--to take up the work by the BBT
> trustees (of whom at the time I was not one).
     
And in a 1986 letter to an Amogha Lila Prabhu (The Revision of Bhagavad-gita As It Is:
Answers to a Courteous Inquiry), JAS declares:

"First: To my knowledge, Srila Prabhupada never asked us to re-edit
the book (my emphasis). As you know, and as we kept in mind while doing
the work, Srila Prabhupada staunchly opposed needless changes. (my
emphasis)"

So through these statements of JAS, there can be no doubt that Srila
Prabhupada ever gave an instruction to post-samadhi editing. In another
email exchange with a devotee friend regarding precedent, JAS offered
the posthumous editing of the writings of Plato allowing the return of
his description of "homoerotic love" and "Aristophanes' bathroom humor"
as precedents of posthumous change. No matter how eloquently
titillating Plato may be, he has no relevance to the discussion and I
suggest that the example of Aristophanes be left in the bathroom along
with his humor.

Mundane precedent or not, let us remain chaste to Srila Prabhupada
and our vaisnava tradition. The Plato and Aristophanes' examples have
as much relevance to the sampradaya as JAS's misguided affiliation with
the Chicago Manual of Style's policy towards capitalization of "divine
pronouns."

Therefore, the only authority that might be utilized in the defense
of posthumous editing is that of the sanction of the BBT Trustees.
     
AUTHORITY OF THE BBT TRUSTEES
In
a recently published email from JAS to myself, he states that his
authorization stems from the BBT Trustees. So, it needs to be asked
when and where were the BBT trustees entrusted with such authority?
There is no mention of it in the BBT Founding Document (LD2 Founding
Document for the BBT, USA). Their responsibilities include printing and
reprinting of books and purchase of properties, etc. and it seems
unbelievable that the unprecedented right of posthumously editing Srila
Prabhupada's literary works was ever provided to the BBT Trustees by
Srila Prabhupada. 

It is inarguable that the BBT editors play a vital function in the
preparation of Srila Prabhupada's books and we owe them our thanks and
respect for their years of hard work. But it cannot be ignored that, by
their own admission, no mandate from His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada
was given to edit the Bhagavad Gita As It Is (BGAII) after his entrance
into samadhi; and that today's controversy to posthumously edit is
based upon the need to correct the errors of the editors. We,
therefore, now have editors correcting editor's mistakes, including
their own, with little to no oversight over their efforts.

Examples will be provided that show JAS has edited translations that
were explicitly approved by Srila Prabhupada through daily usage.
Therefore, the rationalization to return verses back to a rough draft
is puzzling and stretches way, way beyond repairing editing blunders.

Everyone agrees that the copyrights to the writings of Srila
Prabhupada were placed with the BBT, but the question of just whose
books they are needs to be revisited? Are they not Srila Prabhupada's
writings and his effort to present bonafide knowledge from the
parampara to guide humanity for future generations? Does control over
copyrights provide the right to alter the teachings and preferred
presentation of the author himself? These are questions that cannot be
neglected by our community. The answers seems obvious. They are Srila
Prabhupada's writings and their sanctify must be protected.

It will also be demonstrated that Srila Prabhupada was personally
involved with last minute edits which are ignored by JAS's employment
of earlier manuscripts as the primary source..

Even if we accept JAS's claim that the Trustees are legally entitled
to alter Srila Prabhupada's published teachings, later, in the section
entitled "5000 Changes in the Revised and Enlarged Version..." it will
be shown that the full list of edits were revealed to neither the GBC
or ISKCON leadership which goes counter to JAS's claim that he has been
authorized by the Trustees. How can their sanction be legitimately
claimed when a comprehensive catalog of all changes was neither
compiled or presented?

The GBC discussed and voted on editing the 1972 BGAII as reported by
Balavanta Prabhu, a GBC member at the time the presentation to the GBC
was made, who penned the following letter published on the Internet:

"When the GBC originally took up this issue, many of us opposed
allowing the BBT to re-edit Srila Prabhupada's books. The vote was
close but the majority agreed to allow some editing although I don't
believe anyone knew the extent to which it would be taken. The idea was
that only minor corrections to more closely conform to the tapes and
gramatical [sic] corrections would be made.
"However, in reading the edited versions, I see that much more was done than the GBC discussed and meant to authorize.
"Under
the circumstances, the spiritual solution is to return to the original
books used in the physical presence of Srila Prabhupada. This solution
is manifestly obvious, and I just can't understand why there is so much
resistance from the current GBC.
"Your servant,
"Balavanta das"  (http://www.adi-vani.org/articles.php?articleId=35)

Based upon this information, a cloud of uncertainty in respect to
JAS's authorization descends. If these claims prove true, can our
vaisnava community have sufficient trust that these altered books be
considered approved by the movement's leadership?

At this point, there seems to be no precedent by a previous
acarya(s) nor complete sanction by the GBC or BBT Trustees due to the
inaccurate catalogue of changes. In JAS's 1982 covering letter
describing the book changes, he states that only changes to
translations are listed, yet we know that changes to the books were
more far more reaching than solely to translations.

JAS recently admitted in an email that he will not document his
edits, so the only reasonable conclusion is that not all changes were
presented to the GBC et al.; otherwise, he could simply reproduce a
copy of his 1982 communication to Iskcon leaders to prove his case. 

If this is inaccurate, hopefully, JAS will respond by publishing on
The Sampradaya Sun and/or elsewhere his correspondence to Iskcon
leaders revealing the changes he presented. But this is unlikely to
occur since JAS has already admitted that he didn't keep track of the
full scope of his edits. If he doesn't have them now, why should we
think he had them then.

MANUSCRIPTS

On March 6/06, JAS sent an email to myself and the Sampradaya Sun
advocating that his revised versions of B.G. 2.31 and C.C. Madhya
19.157 were done to bring them closer to the original manuscripts. The
Bhaktivedanta Archives reciprocated by posting a scan of the original
documents. What was striking is that the BGAII manuscript had zero
editing corrections while the C.C. manuscript was flush with
amendments.   http://harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/03-06/editorials251.htm

Different manuscripts are described as being employed in the editing
of the BGAII. JAS writes in his "Responsible Publishing, Appendix B,
Consultation with the leaders of ISKCON:
 "I went through every page
of the oldest manuscript we have. (For the first five or six chapters
these are Srila Prabhupada's original typed pages, for the middle
chapters they're the original transcripts of his tapes, and for the
last chapters they're the old retyped manuscripts from which the
present book was edited.)." [JAS's words are unclear re. the last
chapters since the term "old retyped manuscripts" is open to
interpretation. Obviously though, they differ from the original
writings and transcriptions of Srila Prabhupada or they would not have
been mentioned. They likely are manuscripts which had been edited and
retyped.]

In addition, the Abridged 1968 MacMillan BGAII was employed as a reference.

Considering these statements, the claim that editing efforts focused
on returning the BGAII back to Srila Prabhupada's original manuscript
seems inaccurate. The latter stages of the BGAII employ what seems to
be already edited manuscripts; therefore, full faith in their accuracy
cannot be assured, if we are to follow JAS's editing logic.

Using the original manuscript invalidates all editorial changes made
by Srila Prabhupada, Hayagriva dasa and others. Edits which were
directly approved by Srila Prabhupada to his own books have been
changed. Can the BBT and its editors morally claim such a right and
then republish the work again under Srila Prabhupada's name? Just what
type of precedent is being established here?

In addition, Srila Prabhupada personally made corrections to Galley
proofs and was directly involved in the editing process. This is
corroborated in the following statements:

"Brahmananda: I came up to show Prabhupada the galley proofs for
both Teachings of Lord Caitanya and Bhagavad-gita As It Is. I just
happened to have both galley proofs that had arrived. So it was a
wonderful thing to bring these galley proofs to Prabhupada for
checking. I was there only for a few days, maybe a weekend or so.
Prabhupada personally read through the entire galleys and made
notations in his own hand. He did the proofreading of the galleys [my
emphasis]." (Prabhupada Lilamrta, A Summer in Montreal, 1968;
Satsvarupa dasa Goswami)

Since this was undertaken in 1968, it is likely that Srila
Prabhupada was working on the Abridged, 1968 version but this
substantiates his effort and commitment to the publishing of his books.

"For editing the Sanskrit words you can send me a list of the words,
and I shall send you the correct diacritic marks. You write that you
shall send me your changes for the Krsna manuscript pages here with me,
and upon receipt of them I shall do the needful. Please also send
carbon copies of the tapes you have edited in the past few months."
(Letter to: Satsvarupa, London, 3 November, 1969)

For those fortunate enough to have a copy of the Vedabase, please
refer to the 19 June, 1970 letter to Brahmananda dasa. It certainly
will dispel any thought that Srila Prabhupada wasn't directly involved
in changes to his books. A small excerpt is:
"Please accept my
blessings. I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 14th June,
1970, as well as the blueprints by Dai Nippon and pictures.
The
pictures are very nicely printed. However, can the color printing be
improved on the two pictures titled 1) "Returning home, Krsna and
Balarama were received by Their affectionate mothers'' and 2) "The
joyous vibration at Krsna's birth ceremony could be heard in all the
pasturing grounds and houses.'' If not, that is alright. There is an
error in the second caption, i.e. "pastruing'' should be "pasturing.''
There is also a correction in the Dedication, line 3, "In my boyhood
ages He instructed me'': this "he'' should be small "h''. And at the
end you may add these words: (my spiritual master) ,the eternal
father..." (Letter to: Brahmananda, Los Angeles,
19 June, 1970)

A first hand account of Srila Prabhupada's supervision of the
editing work can be found in another article published on the
Sampradaya Sun as follows:

Govinda dasi: "Before Jayadvaita joined the movement in May of 1968,
Hayagriva had already been working with Srila Prabhupada on the
Bhagavad-gita for two years already. I lived with Srila Prabhupada and
Hayagriva in Los Angeles. They worked for hours every day. This is
before Jayadvaita joined the movement."
http://harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/06-06/editorials393.htm

JAS counters: "Without boring you with the details (available on
request), during the period when Bhagavad-gita As It Is was being
edited the total time that Hayagriva and Srila Prabhupada were even
together in the same city, what to speak of sitting together working,
was -- two years? Forget it. At the most, less than five months." (http://www.jswami.info/editing/hayagriva) Please read the full account by following the link.

Let us not doubt JAS's word and agree that it was approximately five
months and the exact time Srila Prabhupada spent with Hayagriva and the
nature of his oversight is not precisely known. However, it seems
inarguable that Srila Prabhupada did spend time supervising Hayagriva
Prabhu. Govinda dasi was present at the time and JAS wasn't, so her
claims cannot be dismissed out-of-hand. She observed Hayagriva and
Srila Prabhupada's interaction first hand even if her recall of the
time period is  faulty. That is the crux of the matter.

In addition, the above-mentioned letters prove beyond doubt that
Srila Prabhupada was involved in the editing process. This point cannot
be emphasized enough.

So by returning to the original manuscript(s), it is evident that
some of Srila Prabhupada's direct involvement in editing his books has
been lost with the 1982 revised BGAII. Is this the traditional role of
a disciple towards the spiritual master and his teachings? This is by
no means proper.

For those who write, how often would you reread and change your
manuscript? Would you prefer that your earliest efforts be sanctioned
as the deciding authority on the published form? That certainly
wouldn't be my case and I doubt if it is any different with Srila
Prabhupada. Otherwise, why would he have bothered to edit and have
editors scrutinize his earliest writings at all? It would make no sense.

In this case, Srila Prabhupada writes and works with editors to
compose the BGAII. We all agree that some faults on the part of the
editors were not sifted from the final publication. Later, when the
author enters samadhi, an editor, who admits no authorization from the
author, returns to earlier manuscripts preceding all editing work and
performs widespread changes with little to no oversight. No cataloguing
of the changes is kept. The book is then republished under the same
title and authorship. Doesn't something seem wrong here?

Ranjit Prabhu, a director of the Bhaktivedanta Archives was
contacted requesting a copy of the BGAII manuscripts utilized by JAS in
his re-editing work. He informed me that to do so, I would need the
permission of the BBT Trustees and in particular that of JAS.

JAS was contacted and no reply has yet been received. Ranjit Prabhu
wrote, "The plan is to release everything - in the end - but to do so
in the proper manner showing the editing trail with
explanation"(6/22/2006 email from Ranjit Prabhu). No definition of the
time limit was given and it seems we must continue being patient since
24 years has already passed since the edits were completed and the
Jayadvaita Swami Bhagavad Gita published.

We readily acknowledge that errors were made by the editors due to
the difficult circumstances revealed by JAS recently contributed essay
entitled "Editing the Unchangeable Truth;"
( http://harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/06-06/editorials427.htm ) however, to annul all previous editing stretches the notion of propriety beyond recognition.

Srila Prabhupada cannot be pleased by the total negation of his and
Hayagriva Prabhu's edits. The vaisnava community should voice  their
displeasure over JAS's roughshod handling of the matter. It is both
irresponsible and shortsighted to allow this situation to stand as is. 

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare

 

 

"When A Man Is So Sure He's Right" Part Three

This is the third installment of an essay exploring JAS's editing of Srila Prabhupada's books.

This third section discusses in greater detail that the many edits
have not been reported to either the BBT, GBC or Iskcon leaders and
edits made to the books which contradict Srila Prabhupada's usage.

5000 CHANGES IN THE REVISED AND ENLARGED EDITION COMPARED TO THE
1972 MACMILLAN VERSION. A FULL INVENTORY OF THE EDITS HAS NOT BEEN
REPORTED TO THE BBT TRUSTEES, GBC MEMBERS AND ISKCON LEADERS AS PER
CLAIM

In an April 14/06 email response from JAS, the following information became available.
Vd:">13) Have all the changes to both purports and translations been
>reported publicly?
JAS: Answer:
No.
And I'm [JAS] not inspired enough to invest my time and energy in such a
task."
But that seems to diffes from previous claims.
                       "1982: GBC review
The
GBC appointed a board of devotees to review the final revisions to the
translations. The board included Satsvarupa Dasa Goswami, Hari Sauri
Dasa, and other leaders. The board met for several days in Detroit and
refined or approved changes.
             1982: Consultation with ISKCON leaders
Jayadvaita
Swami widely distributed to ISKCON leaders a full list of the proposed
changes to the translations, along with a letter asking for comments."
(A Brief History of the Second Edition of Bhagavad Gita As It Is)

Today, nearly 25 years after the publishing of JAS's expanded Gita,
the list of publicized changes rests around 200 (please refer to http://www.krishna.com/main.php?id=288).
However, according to Madhudvisa dasa, the edits total approximately
5000 in the revised Gita, a number which differs greatly from those
previously advertised. Therefore, many revisions seem not to have been
presented to the authorities and devotional community as promised. This
is possibly due to JAS's confessed lack of interest in the matter.

Much debate has passed on how many edits were performed to
accomplish JAS's Revised and Enlarged Gita. Madhudvisa dasa is the one
who has claimed that 5,000 edits were performed. We contacted him to
ask how he came to this number and his reply follows:

"The 5000 is an estimate of the number of changes. It is not an
exact number. I have not counted them. Just estimated. I did not find
the changes with a computer program. We did not have a computer version
of Srila Prabhupada's original Gita so I was creating that and I took
JAS's revised edition and read the original edition to tape and would
listen to the tape of the
original book and change JAS's version on
the computer back to the original. That way I saw all the changes
myself and it was a great shock.

"There are 711 verses in the Gita so 5000 changes is 7 changes per
verse on average. That would include small changes like punctuation.
But small changes are important also. There is a list of Gita changes
you may find interesting at: http://krishna.org/ISKCON/BookChanges/bgcs.html"
(5/21/06 email from Madhudvisa dasa)

The devotional community owes Madhudvisa dasa a thank you for
undertaking such a Herculean effort to verify the quantity and nature
of changes even though the number of edits is approximated. It aids us
greatly in understanding the gravity of the changes to Srila
Prabhupada's BGAII.

Certainly many of these changes would be minor but should one
editor, no matter how respected and capable, be allowed the freedom to
singlehandedly, and clandestinely, alter the literary and philosophical
foundation of the Hare Krsna movement? Our responsibility to Srila
Prabhupada and the parampara cannot allow such a misunderstanding of
the editor's role to fester. If allowed, it will establish a precedent
that could be mimicked and abused for the remainder of Kali Yuga.

The question begs to be asked why the BBT Trustees showed so little
interest in providing oversight and transparency to the editing
procedures. One would think that would be a prime responsibility and
commitment to Srila Prabhupada and commissioning essentially one man to
the work seems illogical and irresponsible.

This decision must be revisited before every special interest group
demands their tarnishing turn at the editor's desk. According to JAS,
this has already begun and he claims that he has stymied their efforts.
But what does the future hold? And could JAS's impression of his
efforts be inaccurate?

The example of changing the word "initiated" in the Caitanya
Caritamrta comes to mind as a specimen of a change to Srila
Prabhupada's teachings by outside forces. In this instance, JAS
defended the change even after returning it to its original form.

Is it plausible to believe that the thousands of changes to Srila
Prabhupada's Gita are limited solely to spelling, editor bloops, etc.,
or could many of these changes focus on style?

JAS claims: "Comparing each verse in the book with the text of the
manuscript, I made only those changes that to me seemed worthwhile. I
tried to be conservative and not make needless changes. At the same
time, I kept in mind that whatever changes we are to make we should
make now, so that the book will never need to be revised again."
(Appendix B, Consultation with ISKCON leaders)

However, in an Internet forum, Madhudvisa dasa reveals that: Of
course the old editions are no longer available and the BBT are now
busy making a "Third Edition" of the "Bhagavad-gita As It Is" to
"correct some of Jayadvaita's errors from the second edition"
[according to the Australian BBT]. (http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET9907/ET02-4207.html)

This may or may not be accurate, but in any case JAS has disclosed
that some of the errors corrected in the1972 MacMillan edition were in
fact made by himself. "I worked on both the first edition and the
second (many of the first-edition blunders corrected in the second
edition were my own), and I don't claim to be more than a fallen
conditioned soul." (http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0301/ET31-7766.html)

We have no doubt that JAS is being humble in this account but his
confession that he made mistakes in the first edition cannot be
overlooked. He didn't make those original mistakes consciously or
purposely, so can we have firm faith that his latest efforts do not
share similar shortcomings?

So where is the assurance that this is not going to be a
never-ending story? I cannot see how His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada
would be pleased with the situation. Considering the details so far
presented, the editing of the BGAII seems poorly thought out and
improperly conducted.

An important question needing answering is that since JAS did NOT
present all the changes to the GBC and ISKCON leadership as claimed,
can his proclamation of being authorized by these same authorities be
considered legitimate?
May we suggest that  the devotees reading
this paper, and curious to see just what was presented to the GBC and
ISKCON leadership, email the Maharaja and ask him to provide the list
of changes provided to authorities. Perhaps he could post the original
communication on the Sampradaya Sun.

SOME EXAMPLES OF EDITS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO SRILA PRABHUPADA'S DAILY USAGE

Different examples can be cited but for the sake of brevity the
following are comparisons of the original and revised slokas from the
BGAII which were found on the Internet. The important point is that
Srila Prabhupada personally approved of the original translation by his
use as noted below.

"Bg 2.30 ORIGINAL TRANSLATION:
  O descendant of Bharata, he who
dwells in the body is eternal and can never be slain.   Therefore you
need not grieve for any creature.

"Bg 2.30 REVISED & ENLARGED TRANSLATION:
  O descendant of Bharata, he who dwells in the body can never be slain. Therefore you   need not grieve for any living being.

(4) If one removes "is eternal" [perhaps by studying the original
Sanskrit to "correct" Srila Prabhupada's translation] it is NOT the
same thing as the book Srila Prabhupada personally read from daily and
gave all his classes from. Is it? Why didn't Jayadvaita Swami listen to
Srila Prabhupada's classes?

  "O descendant of Bharata, he who dwells in the body is eternal and
can never be slain.   Therefore you need not grieve for any creature."

  Prabhupada: Dehi nityam avadhyo 'yam dehe sarvasya bharata. Dehe,
dehe means   body, within the body. This topic began, dehino 'smin
yatha dehe kaumaram yauvanam   jara. Deha, dehi. Dehi means one who
possesses the body... (730831BG.LON)
"Bg 2.48 ORIGINAL TRANSLATION:

  Be steadfast in yoga, O Arjuna. Perform your duty and abandon all
attachment to success   or failure. Such evenness of mind is called
yoga.

"Bg 2.48 REVISED & ENLARGED TRANSLATION:

  Perform your duty equipoised, O Arjuna, abandoning all attachment to success or failure.   Such equanimity is called yoga.

"(7) Just see! We get absolutely no hint at all from Jayadvaita
Swami's translation that a devotee is "steadfast in yoga" or a devotee
has any "evenness of mind." However, when Tamala Krsna read the verse
to Srila Prabhupada in 1968 (681216BG.LA) Prabhupada had this to say:
 Tamala
Krsna: "Be steadfast in your duty, O Arjuna, and abandon all attachment
to  success or failure. Such evenness of mind is called yoga."
 Prabhupada:
This is the explanation of yoga, evenness of mind. Yoga-samatvam
ucyate.  If you work for Krsna, then there is no cause of lamentation
or jubilation. Jubilation is  there because you are working for Krsna,
but there is no cause of lamentation. Yoga-sthah  kuru karmani, yogah
karmasu kausalam. That is the secret of activities, how you can very 
diligently work at the same time you are not entangled with the
actions. That is the secret.  Go on." ( http://krishna.org/ISKCON/BookChanges/108changes1.html )

These examples are telling. How can verses be altered after Srila
Prabhupada's explicit approval? These are not cases of correcting an
editor's goof back to what is found in an original manuscript; nor of
two verses being reversed; nor paragraphs being deleted due to
misunderstanding. No spelling errors found here. They are a deliberate
out-and-out style changes which our devotional community must be aware
of and ultimately protest. These books are Srila Prabhupada's writings
and demand greater respect.

In a recent class, JAS offered an opinion that what Srila Prabhupada read publicly doesn't denote his acceptance of the text.
"Jayadvaita
Swami: ...There was a quotation from Sruta-kirti where he made the
observation that Prabhupada didn't read like an editor because as an
editor you read it a certain way, but when you are relishing or
teaching, you are reading a different way. So the assumption would have
to be whatever was printed Prabhupada approved of as God said in the
Bible, "Yes, it was good." It's not that Prabhupada scrutinized it and
approved it."

If forced to choose between Srila Prabhupada's reading and that of
the editor, I'll choose the former. I find this argument both weak and
disturbing, though who the author of the conclusion, JAS or
Sruta-kirti,  is unclear.
However, since JAS repeats it, we'll
accept that he is in full agreement with the inference. So we are to
believe that even though Srila Prabhupada reads and lectures from his
books that he does not approve of the presentation or is unaware of the
verse/purport's shortcomings. Again, just whose books are these? It
seems that the editors are running amok thinking they know more than
the spiritual master. No argument that Srila Prabhupada's first
language wasn't English, but to rationalize that he didn't read it
properly is extreme.

Further proof regarding JAS's interest in style change is found in
his attempt to change "Back to Godhead" policy regarding changing
"divine pronouns" from upper to lower case (http://harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/03-06/editorials232.htm)
contrary to EXPLICIT instructions given by Srila Prabhupada. This was a
deliberate attempt to change the style of Krsna conscious literatures
to one allegedly accepted by literary authorities at the Chicago Manual
of Style. Sadly, after a little investigation, it was uncovered that
his proposed policy did not even reflect that of his preferred mundane
authority.
(http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/cmosfaq.html )

Such a drastic change to BTG & BBT policy was never, to my
knowledge, reported publicly and only came to light when the readership
began to protest. The policy change was finally reverted, but
all-in-all, it was handled in a non-forthright manner reminiscent of
the handling of the BGAII edits.

The editor's role is to primarily polish grammar, Sanskrit and
spelling. How can an editor publicly convey that Srila Prabhupada's
public reading and teaching from his books be non-definitive regarding
philosophy and presentation? This is further proof that editors mustn't
be given unfettered authority in making changes to Srila Prabhupada's
books. I am not attacking their sincerity but rather the tendency to
make mistakes, a quality which we are all unfortunately encumbered with
being conditioned souls.

However, the impact of an editor's mistake while working on Srila
Prabhupada's books can have an incredible impact in comparison to the
run-of-the-mill mortal. The role of an editor is to edit. But to
support their efforts by negating Srila Prabhupada's daily usage is
unacceptable.

      Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
            Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare

 

 

"When A Man Is So Sure He's Right" – Part Four

This is the fourth and final installment of an essay exploring JAS's editing of Srila
Prabhupada's books.

DO NOT CHANGE WITHOUT PERMISSION

There are many instructions from Srila Prabhupada that illustrate
his fear of editors making needless and unbonafide changes. A few
excerpts follow.

Do not try to change anything without my permission

You may title this book, Teachings of Lord Kapila, but it must be
subtitled, "The Son of Devahuti''. That will remain, do not try to
change it. The Americans may like it or not like it, but we must make
the distinction between devahuti putra kapila, and the atheistic
Kapila. Do not try to change anything without my permission. (Letter
to: Radhavallabha, 26 August, 1976)

Re. Bhaktivedanta Institute BTG article:

Svarupa Damodara: One time I had a strong talk with Ramesvara
Maharaja about our article for printing in the Back to Godhead. I
didn't want them to be printed in Back to Godhead because they made so
many changes...
Prabhupada: Oh, he has dared to change yours also? [Please note Srila Prabhupada's humility]
Svarupa
Damodara: Oh, yes. They change so many things in our article. And it
was on the telephone. I was speaking to him in Atlanta from Los
Angeles. And I told him that "This article should not be printed
because they have made so many changes." And I didn't like that. Then
they answered that "It has already been offset, and BBT policy is
always to be rushing. It's always BBT policy." Then I told him that "If
you sacrifice quality on the strength of rushing, then it is your
business, but that's not my way, so please don't print it." But in any
case, they have printed
anyway that article. And we all had a bad reaction.
Prabhupada: So you bring this to Satsvarupa. They cannot change anything.
(Conversation, "Rascal Editors,"and Morning Talk, June 22, 1977, Vrindavana)

Re. Sri Isopanisad:
Prabhupada: So you... What you are going...
It is very serious situation. You write one letter that "Why you have
made so many changes?" And whom to write? Who will care? All rascals
are there. Write to Satsvarupa that "This is the position. They are
doing anything and everything at their whim." The next printing should
be again to the original way.  (Conversation, "Rascal Editors,"and
Morning Talk, June 22, 1977, Vrindavana)

It's not the responsibility of the BBT trustee, to see these things
don't change without Prabhupada's sanction? (Bhakti Svarupa Damodara
Swami)
Yasoda-nandana: In the Gurukula we were teaching
Isopanisadclass to the children. So we took... [break] ...Prabhupada
and the words which the recent edition of the Press is wrong. Many
changes were brought. They were trying to make better English, but
sometimes, to make better English, I think they were making
philosophical mistakes also. There is no so much need of making so much
better English. Your English is sufficient. It is very clear, very
simple. We have
caught over 125 changes. They're changing so many
things. We are wondering if this is necessary. I will show you today. I
have kept the book.

Prabhupada: I know that these rascals are doing. What can be done? How they can be relied on?
Svarupa Damodara: It's not the responsibility of the BBT trustee, to see these things don't change
without Prabhupada's sanction?
(Conversation, "Rascal Editors,"and Morning Talk, June 22, 1977, Vrindavana)

Svarupa Damodara: No, if they consult us, even with changing, that's
all right. But they just edit here and there and cut it out, certain
things. They're changing the whole meaning. And that makes sometimes
nonsense instead of making sense.
Prabhupada: So on the whole, these
dangerous things are going on. How to check it? (Conversation, "Rascal
Editors,"and Morning Talk, June 22, 1977, Vrindavana)

Corrected material must be sent to me for final approval: "I will
have to see personally what are the mistakes in the synonyms and also
how you intend to
correct them. I was not satisfied with the
corrections that were made before. I saw some changes which I did not
approve. Nitai may correct whatever mistakes are there, but the
corrected material must be sent to me for final approval." (Letter to
Radha-vallabha dasa dated 1-5-76)

Everything is done nice: In the present Krsna book everything is
done nice, but there are many mistakes, but on the whole the work is
nice. So if our books are regularly printed and the magazines are
regularly distributed, and occasionally you visit the centers, that
will be very nice program. (Letter to: Brahmananda, Los Angeles, 2
June, 1970, 70-06-02)

"EVEN IF THEY ARE PRESENTED IN BROKEN AND IRREGULAR WAYS, SUCH
LITERATURES ARE WELCOMED, READ AND RESPECTED BY BONA FIDE DEVOTEES"

The following remark by Srila Prabhupada is often utilized by BBT editors as being supportive for change.

"We have to do things now very dexterously, simply 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." (9
January 1970 Letter to Satsvarupa dasa)

The BBT editors focus on the part of the statement "we should not
present a shabby thing." I do not think anyone is suggesting or
desiring that Srila Prabhupada's books be presented shabbily.
Unfortunately, the term "shabby" is a term open to interpretation. But
when does the effort to eliminate shabbiness override Srila
Prabhupada's staunch opposition to needless changes, as JAS
points
out? Editing warts and all, the large MacMillan BGAII, was a great
success. In this regard His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada remarked:

"The preaching of Bhagavad Gita has been going on in India and
abroad, but almost all of them on the speculative platform without any
knowledge of devotional service to the Lord. Many Swamis before me came
in the Western countries, and they say that nobody could act so
wonderfully as I am doing. Perhaps it is right. But I do not know how
such things are happening. The only reason it can be adduced is that I
am presenting Bhagavad Gita as it is." (Srila Prabhupada letter, 13th
March, 1970)

In 1968, Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita was published in an
abridged format. However, since the Sanskrit and transliterations were
eliminated with some purports shortened, Srila Prabhupada was most
pleased in 1972 when the full edition was finally printed. He commented
on this matter in the Preface of the original MacMillan printing (Page
xi, BGAII, 1972 MacMillan version).
By 1974, the 1972  edition had
been reprinted at least five times. I have been informed that the price
of the MacMillan BGAII was increasing so the orders to the publishers
were stopped in an effort to acquire the copyrights.

In 1977, one million copies of the 1968 abridged Gita were reprinted.
During
this time Srila Prabhupada did not issue any instructions to re-edit.
This seems significant considering that in the five years between the
first and last printings, Srila Prabhupada never voiced any concern
over its quality as admitted by JAS.

As a result, it is difficult to see any validation for such a
stringent edit in Srila Prabhupada's printing efforts. He seemed
genuinely pleased by the quality of the BGAII. An estimated 5,000 edits
of the BGAII does not seem to be at all in tandem with Srila
Prabhupada's perspective. Indeed just the opposite.

So many changes seem to reflect an unbridled and unsupervised
editing effort with an over-emphasis on improving style. In addition,
JAS's recent push towards changing capitalization policy re. divine
pronouns continues to highlight his predilection. (http://harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/03-06/editorials232.htm).

No Needless Changes

Much discussion has been undertaken about the differences between
the 1972 MacMillan BGAII and the 1983 Revised and Enlarged edition. In
many instances meanings do seem to have changed. JAS defends the
revisions as a return to the original manuscript. This has been dealt
with already but I'd like to add a new twist. Even if these changes are
a throwback to the original manuscript, we need to ask are they truly
required. A case in point follows.

                       Original Version                               
                               
"The
Blessed Lord said: O mighty-armed son of Kunti, it is undoubtedly very
difficult to curb the restless mind, but it is possible by constant
practice and by detachment."                              
                                
                  Revised & Enlarged Version
                                                             
"Lord
Sri Krsna said: O mighty-armed son of Kunti, it is undoubtedly very
difficult to curb the restless mind, but it is possible by suitable
practice and by detachment."
                               
Is
the change from "The Blessed Lord" to "Lord Sri Krsna" truly necessary,
even if it is a return to the original, pre-edited manuscript? Are
there any new revelations here, new nuances in philosophy? Those in
favor of editing may argue that there are no new revelations, etc. so
where is the problem in making the change? But doesn't Srila
Prabhupada's absence of a directive to change the BGAII and the
directive of avoiding needless changes have relevance here? Remember it
is JAS who revealed: "... Srila Prabhupada staunchly opposed needless
changes."

Many more examples can be given but we will limit our self to just
one change. Please do your own research if you have both the original
MacMillan edition and the Jayadvaita Swami Enlarged and Revised version.
                                
                     A Breakdown in Dialogue

>From my experience, as illustrated in the recently published
emails between myself and H.H. JAS, discussion with him has proven
difficult and fruitless. He wrote:  "That's why I asked earlier
whether, if the answer to your previous question were yes,
your thinking would change or I would just be wasting my time.
     "You have answered my question." (JAS Email, 4/28/2006)
Again,
the comment was in relation to his use of Jiva Goswami as precedent for
posthumous editing. In my opinion, there is no support for his claimed
example of Jiva Goswami after consulting Srila Prabhupada's purports.

So are we to fight back and forth with JAS on every detail? If there
is authorization for editing the BGAII, then debate is required over
needless changes. But if no authorization exists, then why bother
fighting over details when a man is so sure he's right that no evidence
would be enough to change his mind. To solve this difficulty, the
movement must return to step one re. the decision to authorize such
unprecedented action.

There are reasons to erode our faith in JAS's perspective. It is
distasteful to be so critical of a senior devotee but his efforts
demand special analysis due to his potential effect on our sampradaya.
These reasons include:

1.   JAS has not revealed, or seems to be even aware of, all of his
edits and has not properly presented them to either the GBC, BBT
Trustees or ISKCON leaders. Therefore, he cannot claim any authority on
their part for his changes until an in-depth inspection and discussion
of his edits occur.
2.   Balavanta dasa's letter further weakens JAS's claim of GBC authorization.
3.  
The mandate given from the Trustees is questionable since it is far
from certain their authority described in the BBT Founding Document
extends to posthumous amendments.
4.   Changes to verses have been
made which were read by Srila Prabhupada during conversations and
classes. Srila Prabhupada's usage is explicit approval of the
published version found in the MacMillan 1972 version of BGAII.
5.   JAS's alterations reneges on the efforts of Hayagriva dasa and others who were directly supervised by Srila Prabhupada.
6.  
Faith in JAS's inability to understand Srila Prabhupada's meanings and
instructions has been highlighted by the following actions:
          a. His faulty interpretation of a direct instruction from Srila Prabhupada as a
"circumstantial comment" re. the capitalization of "divine pronouns."
         
b. His faulty defense of the change to the phrase that Bhaktivinoda
Thakura was initiated by Jagannatha das Babaji in the Caitanya
Caritamrta. It is an explicit
change and challenge to Srila Prabhupada's writings based upon external teachings.
         
c. His precedent of Srila Jiva Goswami does not bear up to the scrutiny
of Srila Prabhupada's teachings. How can such flimsy evidence be
presented to support posthumous change to the spiritual master's
writings? This will cause havoc to the sampradaya's ability of
disseminating bonafide knowledge of the Supreme
  Personality of Godhead, Lord Sri Krsna to future generations.
         
d. His not having received any instruction from Srila Prabhupada to
undertake such heavy editing of the BGAII as illustrated by so many
needless changes.
                                
"...When a man is so sure he's right that no evidence would be enough to change his mind, there's no use of further discussion."
                                
                                
Only
time will tell if JAS and the BBT Trustees will re-examine their
controversial decision to edit Srila Prabhupada's books, but I see no
purpose in wasting time while they deliberate. To quote a contemporary
sage: "After all when a man is so sure he's right that no evidence
would be enough to change his mind, there's no use of further
discussion" (4/28/2006 email from JAS).

So what are we to do? If the above points seem to hold any
legitimacy, should the distribution of JAS's heavily edited BGAII
continue. Curtailing book distribution is not an option, especially of
our movement's seminal sastra, The Bhagavad Gita As It Is. But what is
the alternative?

It will be welcome news to all that the original MacMillan BGAII has
been reprinted and is now available from the following sources at
competitive prices. It is my understanding that this edition has
actually been reprinted by the BBT, so its purchase will by no means
detract from your support of Srila Prabhupada's publishing house.

This, and other original versions of Srila Prabhupada's books, are
available at various locations in the U.S.A. Please choose the location
nearest to you.
                                
                   1. Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
                            P.O. Box 34074
                      Los Angeles, CA 90034, USA
                        Phone: +1-800-927-4152
                         Fax: +1-310-837-1056
                      E-mail: bbt.usa@krishna.com
                                
                       2. Festival Of India
                           Madhuha dasa
                          P.O. Box 100,
                     Sandy Ridge, N.C. 27046
                        Ph: (336) 593-8108
                       Fax: (336) 593-8106
                                
                    3. Radha Damodar TSKP Inc
                        18127 NW 112 Blvd.
                        Alachua, FL 32615
                           386 418 1251
                       dougyes@peoplepc.com
                                
        4. Hare Krishna Store:    http://www.krishna.tv? 
                For wholesale orders please go to
          http://krishna.tv/books-wholesale-c-21_37.html

Please encourage these devotees through your purchases and let us
re-invigorate Srila Prabhupada's book distribution with a treatise that
we know he had faith in. Let us have the same confidence as he did in
his own books. Let us send a strong message to the editors and the BBT
Trustees that these books do not belong to them but rather to Srila
Prabhupada and the vaisnava community as a whole. Unauthorized and
needless changes to our spiritual master's books need not be tolerated.
The whole editing issue must be re-opened for more discussion. Until
then, let us distribute far and wide the 1972 edition of the Bhagavad
Gita As It Is, authorized by Iskcon's Founder/Acarya, A.C.
Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada ki jaya! Books are the
basis.
                                
       Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
             Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare