Reply To Purujit And Bliss Re. Going Back To The Manuscript

BY: VIDURA MAHATMA DAS

JUNE 18, 2018

 

 

Image: Purujit’s edited e-book version of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is

 

Recently a devotee named Purujit das has appeared in a video interview defending his new undertaking to edit some of Srila Prabhupada’s books. The interview, which reads on their website “Purujit Prabhu Smashes PADA´s Book Editing Objections”, is a 45-minute response to PADA, who challenged this maverick editing venture of Purujit’s. In this article, key excerpts of Purujit’s reply to PADA are addressed in connection with the legitimacy behind making further edits to Srila Prabhupada’s books.

BLISS is happy to announce on their website their editing of Srila Prabhuapda’s books, which so far includes the Bhagavad-gita As It Is, Sri Isopanisad, and Easy Journey To Other Planets. Their website reads:

 

​the e-books of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

edited by Purujit Dasa according to the original manuscripts, transcripts, lectures and articles

 

Here is an example of the changes Purujit has made to the Gita:

 

“Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized master will initiate you by knowledge because he has seen the truth.” (Purujit’s version of Bg verse 4.34)

 

Purujit has also added an awkward sentence to Srila Prabhupada’s purport to that verse:

 

“Neither by self study of the book of knowledge can help one to progress in spiritual life.” (Purujit)

 

Throughout this article, key excerpts of Purujit’s words from the video will be indented with the author’s comments interspersed.

 

Purujit: Unfortunately, devotees in general are not aware that Prabhupada’s books have been edited and this is what Prabhupada wanted. Just like Hayagriva was the first editor and Jayadvaita was also the editor in Prabhupada’s times. Prabhupada gave a raw manuscript or transcriptions or dictation tapes and this raw material was edited so these editors would add their own style, their own form of how to present what Prabhupada is saying. So it was a cooperation between Prabhupada and his editors and they’ve done a lot of changes to the original material. So the real question is which changes are wrong and which changes are OK, are fine. This is the real controversy, not whether Srila Prabhupada’s words are changed or not.

 

Jayadvaita and now Purujit like to say that they are going back to the “original manuscript” to make changes to Srila Prabhupada’s books. Not only is such a course of action completely unauthorized in itself, but the term “original manuscript” is misleading as it gives the impression that they are going back to the way Srila Prabhupada had “originally” wanted it. The “original manuscript” they use is an early version of the manuscript. The final version of the manuscript that was carefully worked on by Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva and then presented to MacMillan for printing – said to have been nearly identical to the 1972 version of the Gita we use today – may be substantially different from the “original manuscript” we have available from the BBT. For the sake of discussion, though, we will use the general term “manuscript” in this article. No matter what manuscript we are speaking of, the point stands that no where has Srila Prabhupada requested or authorized his 1972 Gita to be “revised” according to “the manuscript”.

So which changes from the manuscript are wrong and which changes are OK? This controversy can be (and has been) easily resolved: any changes made from any version of a manuscript which resulted in the printed edition of a book personally accepted or approved of by Srila Prabhupada are authorized changes.

 

Purijit: So the thing is, yes Prabhupada actually himself said that the early editors, they have done changes which he did not approve and this was recorded in the Rascal Editors conversation June 22, 1977. There Prabhupada actually confirms that he was not completely aware of the editing process. He just gave them the empowerment and he had faith that they were going to edit nicely.

 

Purujit appears to be exaggerating the scope of the Racal Editors conversation. He assumes that Srila Prabhupada was referring to changes made directly from a manuscript. However, the changes being discussed in that conversation pertained to the earlier printed editions of his books. In the Rascal Editors conversation, these printed editions themselves were being edited further, and this is what Srila Prabhupada had an issue with.

 

Prabhupāda: The nonsense, they are… They are correcting my trans… Rascal. […]

Prabhupāda: Now here is “O sages,” and the word meaning is “of the munis.” Just see.

 

In this conversation, it was not any changes made from a manuscript that Srila Prabhupada had a problem with. Rather, it was changes made to an already printed version of the Srimad Bhagavatam. Srila Prabhupada had it translated one way, and some rascal editor whimsically changed that translation. Therefore, we cannot use this as evidence that Srila Prabhupada took issue with changes made from a manuscript. That the scope of the Rascal Editors conversation pertained to changes made to already printed versions of his books is further evidenced by the following excerpt from the same conversation.

 

Yaśodā-nandana: In the Gurukula we were teaching Īśopaniṣad class to the children. So we took original, maybe first edition… [break] …Prabhupāda 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.

Prabhupāda: I know that these rascals are doing. What can be done? How they can be relied on?

 

Again we see that the issue is not with changes made from a manuscript but changes made to an already printed edition of a book, in this case, the first edition of Īśopaniṣad.

 

Prabhupāda: … 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.

 

From understanding the actual context of this conversation, we can see that by “the next printing should be again to the original way” Srila Prabhupada is referring to an actual printed edition – not to a manuscript; He considers the earlier printed editions to be the original way. Therefore, when we speak of “original” in this context we refer to the original printing/edition, just as Srila Prabhupada had.

 

Purujit: Some devotees say that Prabhupada was supervising the editing very minutely, every single word. This is false propaganda. It’s not true. That’s why Prabhupada actually approved editors, because he was just so busy preaching that he could not possibly go over it again…

 

Whether Srila Prabhupada read every single word or not does not matter. What we are concerned with is the fact that Srila Prabhupada authorized those original printings. It is not our business to question the validity of Srila Prabhupada’s approval of an edition of a book by way of speculating on whether he knew of or read each and every word in it. Srila Prabhupada approved of and blessed the books.

 

Purujit: The original Bhagavad-gita is the one with the cattle-raising, with the errors. So as soon as you change even a little thing, then you’re entering the realm of non-original or your input and so on.

 

Yes, the 1972 edition of the Gita has “cattle-raising.” But Srila Prabhupada specifically requests that to be corrected:

 

Prabhupāda: They are not cattle raising, that was…Cow protection. It has to be corrected. It is go-rakṣya, go. (Room Conversation—July 4, 1975, Chicago)

 

The issue is over unauthorized changes, not authorized changes. Srila Prabhupada’s order is for the next printing to be again in the original way – obviously save and except any specific changes requested by Srila Prabhupada such as the one above to the Gita.

 

Purujit: If you compare with the manuscript, the original manuscript, six chapters personally typed by Prabhupada himself, how can we question the authenticity of this document? Then you see that actually it is Hayagriva who has done all these changes, not Jayadvaita. Jayadvaita is bringing it just back to the manuscript.

 

But where does Srila Prabhupada order for the next printing to be done directly from a manuscript by any editor? Srila Prabhupada orders the next printing to be done in the original way in which it was printed, as has already been shown from the Rascal Editors conversation. And since in the Rascal Editors conversation Srila Prabhupada and his disciples were discussing the editing of all printed editions of his books by numerous “rascal editors”, the instruction by Srila Prabhupada “the next printing should be again to the original way” should be applied on the same scale.

 

Purujit: Why should we read something that has been changed by Hayagriva? I mean Hayagriva was approved by Prabhupada, he worked with Prabhupada, that’s fine but that doesn’t make him a pure devotee without any mistakes.

 

That is the nature of a manuscript: it gets changed. Srila Prabhupada deputed editors specifically to make changes to transcripts or manuscripts for the final printing. All this talk of Hayagriva changing things is useless because that was his specific task assigned by Srila Prabhupada. In the case of the Gita, it was the 1972 edition which he approved of, save and except any corrections he requested.

 

Purujit: I personally have nothing against Jayadvaita’s editing or his understanding or this and that. This is just propaganda. If you have a problem with Jayadvaita, let’s put it aside.

 

Yes, Purujit is using Jayadvaita’s same arguments to justify changing Srila Prabhupada’s books, and now we’ve dealt with these arguments once again on their own merit.

 

Purujit: These devotees, they say original way means to the first printing. But it just doesn’t make any sense because that’s the first thing Prabhupada is complaining about: about the first edition. So how can Prabhupada say print it back to the original way, exactly how it was changed in the first place, print the changed version? It doesn’t make any sense. …Original means it originates with Srila Prabhupada. Hayagriva or any editor is not the origin of the writings.

 

Purujit seems to have completely misunderstood the actual conversation which he is referring to. As demonstrated already in this article, in the Rascal Editors conversation, Srila Prabhupada is referring to an already printed edition, not a manuscript. Srila Prabhupada is not complaining about the first edition, he is complaining about changes made to those first editions/printings. Srila Prabhupada approved of these final works and therefore they are attributed to him as the author. This is how the publishing world works. They are the originally authorized final works of Srila Prabhupada. That is what original means.

 

Purujit: This is a challenge to all these different people. We challenge: If Prabhupada is in vani, if he is in sound, why can’t he instruct someone like myself to edit his books? What is the difficulty to accept? It means that they don’t have faith in Prabhupada.

 

Because Srila Prabhupada already gave the order for the next printings to be done in the original way. There’s no need for his books to be edited. We have such faith in Srila Prabhupada that we accept his order as is. If we didn’t have faith, we might disregard that order and attempt to make a new edition/printing.

 

Related articles and resources:

 

Purujit’s book editing project

PADA’s reply to Purujit’s book editing project

Purujit’s reply to PADA

Rascal Editors Conversation

The so-called manuscript

Jayadvaita undoes Prabhupada’s work on Gita Manuscript

Madhudvisa dasa re ISKCON original manuscript scam

Hayagriva spent hours every day with Srila Prabhupada going over every verse

BBT’s response to manuscript scam allegations

 

 

 

 

Photo: Srila Prabhupada honoring his 1972 edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is

 

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Reply To Purujit And Bliss Re. Going Back To The Manuscript

  1. Makhancora dasa

    Hare Krsna, dear devotees, please accept my humble obeisances at your feet. All Glories to Srila Prabhupada!
    I would like to address the points Vidura Mahatma Prabhu raised regarding the editing of Srila Prabhupada´s books by Purujit Prabhu.

    Vidura Mahatma Prabhu: Here is an example of the changes Purujit has made to the Gita:

    “Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized master will initiate you by knowledge because he has seen the truth.” (Purujit’s version of Bg verse 4.34)

    Reply: this is not a „change“, but it is the way how Purujit Prabhu edited and rendered the translation according to what Srila Prabhupada wrote himself. In his hand-typed manuscript Srila Prabhupada states:

    tat – knowledge of different sacrifices, biddhi – try to understand, pranipatena – by approaching spiritual master, pariprasnena – by submissive enquiries, sevaya – by rendering of service, upadeksanti – INITIATES, te – unto you, jnanam – knowledge, jnaninas – the self-realised, tatva – truth, darsinah – the seers.

    TRANSLATION: Just try to know the truth of all these by approaching self-realised spiritual master with all submission enquiries and rendering service unto him. Such learned self-realised spiritual master INITIATES knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth.

    Here Vidura Mahatma Prabhuji is directly claiming that Purujit has changed the word written by Srila Prabhupada, when actually the opposite is the truth. The problem with Vidura Mahatma Prabhu and some other well-intentioned senior Prabhus is that they are most foolishly giving preference to the edited version done by Hayagriva Prabhu than to the words of their spiritual master. Furthermore “initiation by knowledge” is not a made up concept, but a Vedic principle and a core of the rtvik understanding of the initiation as instructed by Srila Prabhupada. If someone thinks that this a secret agenda of Purujit Prabhu to hide the fact that Srila Prabhupada is the direct spiritual master of the Hare Krsna movement, he must be clearly insane. Srila Prabhupada directly writes in his authentic and unedited manuscript: “initiates knowledge unto you” and this matches the translation in the word for word, but Hayagriva thought it awkward just as Vidura Mahatma Prabhu and therefore replaced it by “impart knowledge unto you”, where this extra information (namely that initiation is by knowledge not by physical presence of the acarya or his representarives) is left out. Actually the“ritvik”devotees should rejoice upon this editing by Purujit Prabhu, because he has brought up a meaning which was lost in all the other editions and that is, that the initiation from the spiritual master is by knowledge in the process of surrender, inquiry and service and not by throwing bananas in the fire or by some kind of mystical emanantion from the so-called senior rtvik devotee. Srila Prabhupada confirms this concept of initiation many times, here are some references:

    And, I have advise your husband to initiate you by tape record hearing for your second initiation.
    Letter to: Taittiriya — Vrindaban 15 September, 1974

    Some way or other, if somebody comes in contact with Krsna, then his life becomes successful. So this krsna-yoga, bhakti-yoga, can be practiced even by a child without interfering with his natural propensities. A child naturally wants to play, so he can play with Krsna Deity. We had the opportunity of doing that. My father was worshiping Krsna Deity. So I wanted to imitate him, and he gave me small Deity. That Deity is still worshiped. My sister and myself, whatever we were eating, we were offering exactly the same arcana. And father used to encourage. This Ratha-yatra and Radha-Go.(?) Krsna temple which we are propagating, it was, from the very beginning of our life, was initiated by our parents. So anyone can initiate his child to this Krsna consciousness understanding from the very beginning.
    Srimad-Bhagavatam 2.3.15 — Los Angeles, June 1, 1972

    We invite every one to our feast and Kirtana but when one comes into the confidence we initiate him in the process and request him to observe four principles of restrictions based on philosophy and morality.
    Letter to: Mukunda, Janaki — New York 21 May, 1967

    On the whole, you may know that he is not a liberated person, and therefore, he cannot initiate any person to Krishna Consciousness.
    Letter to: Janardana — New York 26 April, 1968

    (q) To initiate members in the rules of the Goswamins above mentioned by controlling over (i) illegitimate connections with woman (ii) intoxicating habit (iii) diets regulated with vegetable dishes (iv) gambling, unnecessary sporting or recreation enterprises.
    LD 7: The League of Devotees Prospectus, May 16, 1953

    The Vedanta philosophy is the subject matter for study of the spiritual graduates and only the post graduate spiritual student can enter into the spiritual or devotional service of the Lord. It is a great science and the great professor is the Lord Himself in the Form Lord Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and persons who are empowered by Him can initiate other persons in the transcendental loving service of the Lord.
    SB 1.4.25

    In order to initiate people in general for the lotus feet of Lord Sri Krishna, He himself in the incarnation of Vyasadeva putting forward the transcendental pastimes of the Lord.
    SB 1.5.21

    The spiritual master is called Acharya or the transcendental professor. Such professors of spiritual science initiate the disciple in the studies of spiritual science and the ceremony observed in this connection is called Upanayan or to bring one nearer the spiritual master.
    BTGPY20a: Identity of Lord Chaitanya

    As recommended by Sanatana Gosvami, by the process of initiation and authorized training, any man can become twice-born. The first birth is made possible by the parents, and the second birth is made possible by the spiritual father and Vedic knowledge.
    SB 4.12.48

    Initiation means to begin spiritual life. According to Vedic culture, there are two births. One birth is from the grhastha parents, father and mother, and the other birth is between the spiritual master and Vedas. The Vedic knowledge is considered mother, and the spiritual master is considered the father. And by the help of the spiritual master, when one gets into transcendental knowledge, that is called second birth
    Initiation of Hrsikesa Dasa and Marriage of Satsvarupa and Jadurani — New York, September 5, 1968

    So when you enter into the Krsna science you get so much volumes of transcendental knowledge, and we are trying to present before you this knowledge in so many ways, by cleansing your heart from this material contamination. And this initiation is the beginning of cleaning the contamination.
    Lecture at Initiation Fire Sacrifice — Los Angeles, July 16, 1969

    Those who are initiated this evening, I have several times explained what is the meaning of initiation. Initiation means beginning of receiving transcendental knowledge. In the Vedas it is enjoined that in order to understand the transcendental science, tad-vijnanartham sa gurum eva abhigacchet [MU 1.2.12]. The human form of life is meant for understanding transcendental knowledge.
    Initiation Talk Excerpt — Vrndavana, April 4, 1976

    Diksa. Diksa, initiation, diksa, this Sanskrit word, diksa, means divya-jnanam ksipayati. To ask from spiritual master with service and surrender the transcendental knowledge. The more you ask, you become a man of knowledge.
    Morning Walk — June 11, 1974, Paris

    Interviewer: What is the procedure of the movement? Do you initiate yourself all the disciples or do your other disciples also do that?
    Prabhupäda: Well, initiation or no initiation, first thing is knowledge. [break] …knowledge. Initiation is formality. Just like you go to a school for knowledge, and admission is formality. That is not very important thing.
    Press Interview — October 16, 1976, Chandigarh

    Lord Krsna says that in course of time, this yoga system has been lost because the parampara system became broken. Therefore, Krsna said to Arjuna that “I am initiating you to begin that parampara system again because it is now, the link is broken. So I want to begin that system through you.”
    Lecture — Visakhapatnam, February 18, 1972

    The editorial change by Purujit Prabhu is therefore authorized on the basis of manuscript, word for word translation and many other quotes as mentioned above. Why is then Vidura Mahatma accusing Purujit of changing Srila Prabhupada’s words and holds unbreakable attachment to the obvious change done by Hayagriva Prabhu? For this reason, he should be given the name Hayagrivanuga.

    VMd: Purujit has also added an awkward sentence to Srila Prabhupada’s purport to that verse:
    “Neither by self study of the book of knowledge can help one to progress in spiritual life.” (Purujit)

    Reply: Again, here we see that Hayagrivanuga becomes disturbed when Purujit Prabhu brings back a sentence removed by his “spiritual master “ Hayagriva Prabhu, whom he holds in so much reverence. It almost looks like he cannot tolerate that Purujit “jumps over “ to the previous spiritual master Srila Prabhupada without going through the current link Hayagriva Prabhu. Serious disciples of Srila Prabhupada however applaud again: well done, well done.

    Therefore mental speculation or dry arguments cannot lead one to the right path.Neither by self study of the book of knowledge can help one progress in spiritual life.One has to approach therefore a bonafide spiritual master for receiving the knowledge

    (Manuscript handtyped by Srila Prabhupada)

    Therefore, mental speculation or dry arguments cannot help one progress in spiritual life. One has to approach a bona fide spiritual master to receive the knowledge.

    (1972 version edited by Hayagriva)

    “Neither by self study of the book of knowledge can help one to progress in spiritual life.” (Purujit’s edition)

    VMd: “The BBT and Jayadvaita like to say that they are going back to the“original manuscript”to make changes to Srila Prabhupadaˇs books. Not only is such a course of action completely unauthorized, but the “original manuscript“ they claim to be using may not even be the final manuscript that was worked on by Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva, and then presented to MacMillan for printing.”

    Reply: Obviously such course of action is completely unauthorized by the Hayagrivanugas, because for them one can only understand Srila Prabhupada through the via medium of Hayagriva Prabhu or other so-called senior rtvik devotees. They have completely forgot that Srila Prabhupada is fullypresent in his vani and therefore does not need any of such so-called via mediums to be understood by men who are thoroughly honest.

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

    To say that Srila Prabhupada’s handwritten manuscript is a “draft” or “not final” etc. is an offense to Srila Prabhupada as Srila Prabhupada is non-different from his writing and is the current link to the disciplic succession. Srila Prabhupada does not draft or brainstorm. Is he a conditioned soul that he has to speculate to write his books? So many times Srila Prabhupada mentioned that his books are dictated by Krsna. Do you think Krsna drafts something and only after consulting with Hayagriva it can be published?

    “These Mayavadi sannyasis were fortunate enough to meet the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the form of a devotee, and certainly they were greatly influenced by the Lord. They knew that since a perfectly advanced spiritualist never says anything false, all his words are reasonable and agree with the Vedic version. A highly realized person never says anything that has no meaning.”
    CC Adi 7.105

    Even if the manuscript is unfinished or later on changed by Srila Prabhupada himself, it is still authorized. Whatever Prabhupada writes is holy, divine and authorized. How can anyone claim otherwise? Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati instructed his editors, “Whatever Abhaya Babu writes, even if it is scribbling, you publish it.” (Vyasa Puja 1982 Introduction by Acyutananda Swami)

    However, Hayagrivanuga will persist that the version edited by his spiritual master Hayagriva Prabhu is the only authorized and bona fide version despite the fact that Hayagriva inserted some of his own writing into the edition:

    The modern material scientist and materialist philosophers also think similarly. According to them, the body is a combination of physical elements, and at a certain stage the life symptoms develop by interaction of the physical and chemical elements. The science of anthropology is based on this philosophy. CURRENTLY, MANY PSEUDO-RELIGIONS – NOW BECOMING FASHIONABLE IN AMERICA – ARE ALSO ADHERING TO THIS PHILOSOPHY, AS WELL AS TO THE NIHILISTIC NONDEVOTIONAL BUDDHIST SECTS. (Bg 2.26 purp.)

    – the portion in capitals comes from Hayagriva´s article “Krishna the Chariot driver” published in BTG No.24, 1969). Please see the undeniable resemblence:

    „Currently, many pseudo-religions, manufactured by drug-taking messiahs, have become fashionable in America, and they adhere to this philosophy. It is not surprising that they often find themselves sharing much common ground with certain nihilistic non-devotional Buddhist sects (such as Zen) that also deny an Ultimate Controller. Of course, their assertions are directly opposed to Lord Krishna’s instructions in the Gita…“

    Another example of a change to what Srila Prabhupada said:

    “The modern scientists, they are trying for years and years together for reaching the moon planet, and they have no approach as yet. But here in the Bhagavad-gita, here is a suggestion. Suppose a man lives for another fifty years and he… So nobody tries to elevate himself in the spiritual ideas for fifty years.”
    (Introduction to Gitopanisad (Earliest Recording of of Srila Prabhupada in the Bhaktivedanta Archives)

    In the 1972 version it goes:

    “Modern man has struggled very hard to reach the moon, but he has not tried very hard to elevate himself spiritually. If one has fifty years of life ahead of him, he should engage that brief time in cultivating this practice of remembering the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This practice is the devotional process of: …” (Bg-1972: introduction)

    The idea that they didn’t go to the moon is completely kicked out by Hayagriva. Why?

    So, Prabhupada authorizes Hayagriva to put his own thoughts into his books? Or to omit Srila Prabhupada objections to the so-called moon-landing? These are just a few examples of very obvious differences from the original manuscripts or in this case dictation tapes in Hayagriva’s edition. How are these particular changes authorized by Srila Prabhupada? Should we pretend that the words added by Hayagriva from his own article are Srila Prabhupada’s? Although the Hayagrivanugas will proudly claim that Hayagriva’s editing is absolutely divine due to the fact that he had a good fortune of physical association with Srila Prabhupada, they fail to prove in any way how are these particular instances of Hayagriva’s changes to the meaning of Srila Prabhupada’s words authorized by Srila Prabhupada. And the reason for this is that there is not a single proof. Nowhere Srila Prabhupada ever authorized changes to his words. How can one possibly claim such nonsense especially after we see how Srila Prabhupada actually heavily criticized Hayagriva for the same.

    Prabhupada: Arsa-prayoga That is ha… He should not become more learned than the authority. That is very bad habit.
    Radha-vallabha: He was always wondering how he should think. So I’ll tell him that. He thinks, “If I think I see a mistake, what should I think?” I’ll tell him what you just said.
    Prabhupada: He cannot see mistake. He is mistake. (laughter) He should… That is being done by this rascal. I don’t want. And the Hayagriva has…, the Easy Journey, he has changed so many things. That… He is now bad character. You should not maintain him.
    Radha-vallabha: We should stop maintaining him.
    Prabhupada: No. He has no responsibility even on his family.
    Radha-vallabha: His wife just came to meet him in L.A.
    Prabhupada: What she said?
    Radha-vallabha: Well, she was asking me whether he would want to live with her. I told her that I didn’t think so.
    Prabhupada: Why? Why did you advise?
    Radha-vallabha: He’s not very responsible.
    Prabhupada: Responsible or not responsible, they should live together.
    Radha-vallabha: Yes, I know. So I’ve…
    Prabhupada: But actually he’s bad. He has gone out.
    Radha-vallabha: So after he finishes the philosophy book, no more.
    Prabhupada: Hm?
    Radha-vallabha: He is still working on the philosophy book. So when he finishes that, that will be the last.
    Prabhupada: Why finish it? Whatever is done is done. No more.
    Room Conversation — February 27, 1977, Mayapura

    Prabhupada: He’s a rascal. That’s… He’s finding out guru and job for filling the belly. That is the latest news.
    Tamala Krsna: What is he doing?
    Prabhupada: To find out some job to fill up the belly. Otherwise he’ll starve if he doesn’t get any job. And he’s finding out guru. Job-guru. Now do the needful. Otherwise everything will be spoiled. These rascal editorial… That Easy Journey, original, this (indistinct) Hayagriva has changed so many things.
    Tamala Krsna: He actually took out the whole part about their going to the moon being childish. He deleted the whole section.
    Yasoda-nandana: Also in the Bhagavatam, where Prabhupada was talking about Lord Buddha… You mentioned that if the followers of Lord Buddha do not close the slaughterhouse, there is no meaning to such a caricature. That word was very nice. But in new book that word is not there any more. They have pulled the word. The meaning of the word is not… So many times.
    Prabhupada: It is very serious situation.

    (Conversation, “Rascal Editors,” and Morning Talk — June 22, 1977, Vrndavana)

    One thing that needs to be clearly understood here is that the B.L.I.S.S. devotees DO NOT say that MacMillan edition is bogus or unauthorized or that the devotees who read this version will be misled. Neither we claim our edition to be the only one perfect. BUT the manuscript has a value and if we do an alternative edition just for the purpose of our BLISS society, what is the actual offense? I do not understand. Anyone can read what he likes: the manuscript, 1968, Hayagriva, Jayadvaita, Purujit… We have simply pointed out that there are differences and made our edition. Anyone who likes he can read it, but I doubt that Vidura Prabhu did so. We are not telling people to burn their 1972 Gitas or not to read them. We just made our edition. Is it a big crime? We are not ISKCON that we have the burden to represent ISKCON as Srila Prabhupada set it up. We have an alternative society with an alternative editions of Srila Prabhupada’s books and a completely new set of challenges in our preaching work. Perhaps if you also started your preaching mission instead of just chewing the same old chewed rtvik arguments for the disgruntled ISKCON audience, you could relate to our situation more. Are we bogus just because we have done the exact same thing as Hayagriva, namely we have taken Srila Prabhupada’s manuscripts and edited them into proper English as we think they are the best. If you accept that Srila Prabhupada still lives in sound, shouldn’t you at least give us a benefit of a doubt that we might actually be guided by Srila Prabhupada himself through his vani and through the process of sadhana? Are are we completely doomed as we have not approached the so-called senior rtvik authorities(in other words living gurus) to guide us to Srila Prabhupada’s lotus feet?

    My point is that even if somebody does not go in one line with the rest of the godbrothers, he can remain separately, but it does not mean that he may disobey the principles that I have laid down. So long as one follows the principles, he continues to be my disciple.

    Letter to: Madhudvisa: — Bombay 7 November, 1975

    VMd: So which changes from the manuscript are wrong and which changes are OK? This controversy can be (and has been) easily resolved: any changes made from any version of a manuscript which resulted in the printed edition of a book personally accepted or approved of by Srila Prabhupada are authorized changes.

    Reply: If this is true, then why Prabhupada objects to Haygriva changing cattle-raising or the knower of the field as one who identifies with the body? And why not revert to the 1968 version of the Gita? According to the logic of Vidura Prabhuji we should not accept the 1972 Gita because compared to 1968 it contains changes like this one for example:

    „Those in the modes of passion and ignorance deride the scriptures, deride the holy men, and deride the proper understanding of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. They disobey the instructions of the spiritual master, and they do not care for the regulations of the scriptures. One should understand what is duty and what is not duty, by the regulations of the scriptures. And, knowing such rules and regulations, one should act so that he may gradually be elevated.“ (Bg.16.24 – 1968)

    Those in the modes of passion and ignorance deride the scriptures, deride the holy man, and deride the proper understanding OF THE SPIRITUAL MASTER, and they do not care for the regulations of the scriptures. In spite of hearing the glories of devotional service, they are not attracted. Thus they manufacture their own way of elevation. These are some of the defects of human society, which lead to the demoniac status of life. (Bg 16.24 – 1972)

    VMd: It is not our business to question the validity of Srila Prabhupada´s approval of an edition of a book by way of speculating on whether he knew of or read each and every word in it. Srila Prabhupada approved of and blessed the books.

    Reply: He blessed HIS books, not the changes.

    VMd: Yes, the 1972 edition of the Gita has “cattle-raising.” But Srila Prabhupada specifically requests that to be corrected:

    Prabhupāda: They are not cattle raising, that was…Cow protection. It has to be corrected. It is go-rakṣya, go. (Room Conversation—July 4, 1975, Chicago)

    The issue here is over unauthorized changes, not authorized changes. Srila Prabhupada´s order is for the next printing to be again in the original way – obviously save and except any specific changes requested by Srila Prabhupada such as the one above to the Gita.

    Reply: Then why Yasoda mentions that the word “caricrature” has been pulled from the SB in the Rascal editors conversation? Srila Prabhupada did not complain about it, why is Yasoda suggesting to fix it back to the manuscript/delhi edition? There are many other such changes, the revered reader can go through this sample and make his own conclusions. You take out one grain of rice from the pot and understand the state of cooking of the whole batch:

    “As such the Perfect Personality is addressed in the Srimad Bhagwatam as Vasudeva or One who lives everywhere in full consciousness and in full capacity of His complete energy.” (SB Introduction, Delhi edition)

    “Consequently the perfect personality is addressed in the Srimad-Bhagavatam as Vasudeva, or one who lives everywhere in full consciousness and in full possession of His complete energy.”
    (SB Introduction 1970,1972)

    “His merciful short sketch life and precepts are also inserted herewith for specific understanding of the Srimad Bhagwatam. This will help the reader perfectly to understand the real merit of Srimad Bhagwatam.” (SB Introduction, Delhi edition)

    “Therefore a short sketch of His life and precepts is inserted herein to help the reader understand the real merit of Srimad-Bhagavatam.” (SB Introduction 1970, 1972)

    “Lord Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu exhibited His transcendental activities for full forty eight years and then He disappeared from this mortal world in the year 1455 Shakabda at Puri.”
    (SB Introduction, Delhi edition)

    “Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu exhibited His transcendental activities for forty-eight years and then disappeared in the year 1455 Sakabda at Puri.” (SB Introduction 1970, 1972)

    “In the modern age Lord Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu preached the cult of Srimad Bhagwatam by practical demonstration.” (SB Introduction, Delhi edition)

    “In the modern age Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu preached the Srimad-Bhagavatam by practical demonstration.” (SB Introduction 1970, 1972)

    *the word “cult” has been omitted in several other instances as well.

    “He wanted it and ordered His followers that the cult of the Srimad Bagwatam shall be preached in every nook and corner of the world by every one who happens to take his birth in India.”
    (SB Introduction, Delhi edition)

    “It was His wish that the Srimad-Bhagavatam be preached in every nook and corner of the world by those who happened to take their birth in India.” (SB Introduction 1970, 1972)

    “LORD SRI CHAITANYA MAHAPRABHU, the Great Apostle of love of God and the Father of introducing congregational chanting of the holy name of the Lord, advented Himself at Sridham Mayapur…” (SB Introduction, Delhi edition)

    “Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, the great apostle of love of God and the father of the congregational chanting of the holy name of the Lord, advented Himself at Sridhama Mayapura…”
    (SB Introduction 1970, 1972)

    *Lord Caitanya didn´t father the chanting of Hare Krsna Maha-mantra, but he introduced it as the process of self-realization for Kali-yuga:

    “Therefore Lord Caitanya, five hundred years ago, He appeared in Bengal and He introduced this movement, sankirtana movement — not whimsically, but according to the tenets of Vedic literature, where it is stated that krte yad dhyayato visnum [SB 12.3.52]. In the Golden Age it was possible to realize God by meditation, when people were all cent percent pure. Then tretayam yajato makhaih: “And in next age, God-realization was by offering great sacrifices.” And dvapare paricaryayam: “And in next age, by temple worship or church worship or mosque worship. Now, at this present age,” kalau tad dhari-kirtanat, “in this age, simply by chanting the glories of the holy name of God.” This was introduced by Lord Caitanya.” (Lecture Engagement and Prasada Distribution — Boston, April 26, 1969)

    “So it is not difficult. You haven’t got to manufacture a religion. Because you cannot manufacture religion. That is not possible. Dharmam tu saksad bhagavat-pranitam [SB 6.3.19]. Just like the state can give you law; you cannot manufacture law. Similarly, any ordinary man, he cannot manufacture religion. Religion means the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That is religion. So this religion, sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja [Bg. 18.66], directly spoken by the Supreme Lord. Aham tvam sarva-papebhyo moksayisyami ma sucah. So Caitanya Mahaprabhu recommends this. Caitanya Mahaprabhu also does not give any manufactured religion. This Caitanya cult is not a manufactured religion. It is also following. This is the process of religion. Evam parampara-praptam imam rajarsayo viduh [Bg. 4.2]. We have to get the religious principle by the disciplic succession, not that I become an authority automatically and I manufacture religion. That is not religion.” ( Pandal Lecture — November 14, 1971, Delhi)

    “So Caitanya Mahaprabhu pointed out this verse from Brhad-naradiya Purana. The, the verse was already in the Brhad-naradiya Purana.

    harer nama harer nama harer nama iva kevalam
    kalau nasty eva nasty eva nasty eva gatir anyatha
    [Cc. Adi 17.21]

    This verse was already there in the Brhad-naradiya Purana, the indication of our activities in the age of Kali. Caitanya Mahaprabhu, He pointed out. Although He is Krsna Himself — He could manufacture so many things — but He did not do so. That is acarya. Acarya will not manufacture any new type of religion, a new type of phrase of Hare Krsna mantra. That is not potent. The… Just like Hare Krsna, Hare Krsna, Krsna Krsna, Hare Hare/ Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare. This is in the sastra. So that is potential. Now if we add and subtract something from these sixteen words, that is my manufacture. That will have not the potency. They do not understand it. They are thinking if they can manufacture some new line, adding with Hare Krsna, then he becomes particularly noted. But he spoils the whole thing. That is the… He does not make any new thing. The new thing he does, he spoils the whole thing. So Caitanya Mahaprabhu never did so, although He’s Krsna Himself. He stuck to the point of sastra. Krsna, He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He also indicates: yah sastra-vidhim utsrjya vartate kama-karatah na siddhim savapnoti [Bg. 16.23]. He indicates that nobody can give up the injunction of the sastra. Brahma-sutra-padais caiva hetumadbhir viniscitaih [Bg. 13.5]. Krsna says. He can give. Whatever He says, that is sastra, that is Veda. But still, He gives reference to the sastra.”
    (The Nectar of Devotion — Vrndavana, November 5, 1972)

    “Therefore Caitanya Mahaprabhu has introduced according to sastra, according to the indication of the sastras, just like in the Srimad-Bhagavatam and in other Puranas, and other Vedic scriptures this is recommended. In Kali-santarana Upanisad, in Brahmanda Purana, in Vayu Purana, this chanting of Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna Hare Hare, Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare is recommended. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu simply introduced it as a great propaganda. That is. Otherwise, this is recommended in every age. There are many devotees, they were chanting. But the process of meditation is not possible. Therefore simply on the basis of this process one can attain the highest perfectional stage.” (Bhagavad-gita 4.7 — Montreal, June 13, 1968)

    Next example:

    “When He was five years old He was initiated for learning and He showed Himself a naughty boy. And When He was a mere baby crawling on the yard, one day it so happened that a snake appeared before the baby and the Lord began to play with it.” (SB Introduction, Delhi edition)

    “When He was a mere baby crawling in the yard, one day a snake appeared before Him, and the Lord began to play with it.” (SB Introduction 1970, 1972)

    “He is therefore fully conscious of everything past, present and future…”
    (SB Introduction, Delhi edition)

    “He is therefore conscious of everything past, present and future,…” (SB Introduction 1970, 1972)

    “The idea is that nobody can apply his imperfect reason on the authority of the Vedas.”
    (SB Introduction, Delhi edition)

    “The idea is that one cannot set his imperfect reason above the authority of the Vedas.”
    (SB Introduction 1970)

    “If some body argues that cowdung is the stool of a living creature and therefore the stool of a learned Brahmin will be still more pure, that sort of argument will not be accepted. The cowdung will be accepted and the stool of a highly posted Brahmin will be rejected with equal abhorrence.” (SB Introduction, Delhi edition)

    “If one argues that since cow dung is pure, the stool of a learned brahmana is still more pure, his argument will not be accepted. Cow dung is accepted, and the stool of a highly posted brahmana is rejected.” (SB Introduction 1970)

    “Ultimately the Supreme Brahman realisation is the realisation of the Personality of Godhead. Lord Sri Krishna is that Supreme Personality of Godhead according to all evidences of the revealed scriptures. He is the ultimate source of Vishnu Tatwas”. (SB Introduction, Delhi edition)

    “Ultimately the Supreme Brahman realization is the realization of the Personality of Godhead according to all evidence of the revealed scriptures. He is the ultimate source of visnu-tattvas.” (1970)

    Kupito – being enraged (1.3.20 Delhi edition)
    Kupitah – being engaged (1.3.20 – 1970, 1972)*

    In the sixteenth order of the incarnation of Godhead (Bhrigupati) the Lord for twenty one times made completely negation of the administrative class of men being angry on them on account of their rebellion against the order of the Brahmins (the intelligent class of men). (1.3.20 Delhi edition)

    As Bhrgupati, the sixteenth incarnation of the Godhead, the Lord annihilated the administrativve class (ksatriyas) twenty-one times, being angry with them because of their rebellion against the brahmanas (the intelligent class) (1.3.20 1970, 1972)

    * tam — towards Dhruva Maharaja; abhyadhavan — rushed; kupitah — being angry; udayudhah — with upraised weapons; (SB 4.11.4)

    anga — my dear Vidura; sepuh — they cursed; kupitah — being angry; vak-vajrah — whose words are as strong as a thunderbolt; (SB 4.13.19, SB 4.13.20, SB 4.13.19-20)

    nvadhavat — he chased; tat — then; vainyah — the son of King Vena; kupitah — being very much angry; ati-aruna — very red; iksanah — his eyes; (SB 4.17.15)

    indra-satruh — Vrtrasura; kupitah — being angry; bhrsam — very much; (SB 6.11.10)

    next:

    “The original purpose of the text must be maintained. No interesting meaning shall be screwed out of it and yet it may be presented in an appreciable manner for the understanding of the audience.”
    (1.4.1 purp. Delhi edition)

    “No obscure meaning should be screwed out of it, yet it should be presented in an interesting manner for the understanding of the audience.” (1.4.1 purp 1970, 1972)

    “That should be the standard of recitation of Bhagwatam so that the real purpose can be served and Lord Sri Krishna can be realised without any difficulty.” (1.4.1 purp. Delhi edition)

    “That should be the standard of recitation of Bhagavatam, so that the real purpose can be served without difficulty.” (1.4.1 purp. 1970, 1972)

    “Unless this situation is created, Bhagwat recitation for ulterior purposes will be useless labour both for the speaker and the audience.” (1.4.1 purp. Delhi edition)

    “Unless this situation is created, Bhagavatam recitation for extraneous purposes is useless labor both for the speaker and for the audience.” (1.4.1 purp. 1970, 1972)

    *”ulterior”and “extraneous” are not synonymous…

    Next:

    “Generally the so called Bhagwat recitors are either professional traders in Bhagwat or they are so called leaned impersonalists who cannot enter into the transcendental personal activities of the Supreme Person.” (1.4.2 purp. Delhi edition)

    “Generally the so-called Bhagavatam reciters are either professional readers or so-called learned impersonalists who cannot enter into the transcendental personal activities of the Supreme Person.” (1.4.2 purp. 1970, 1972)

    “In the beginning Sri Arjuna the great fighter declined to fight for his own sense satisfaction but when he was convinced by the Lord that the fighting was necessary by His great will, Sri Arjuna changed his decision and fought for His cause.” (1.5.32 purp. Delhi edition)

    “In the beginning, Sri Arjuna, the great fighter, declined to fight, but when he was convinced by the Lord that the fighting was necessary, Sri Arjuna changed his decision and fought for His cause.”
    (SB 1.5.32 purp. 1970, 1972)

    “While performing duties in pursuance of the order of Sri Krishna the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the performer certainly repeatedly takes into the mind the qualities, names of Him and constantly remembers Him.” (1.5.36 Delhi edition)

    “While performing duties according to the order of Sri Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, one constantly remembers Him, His names and His qualities.” (SB 1.5.36 – 1970,1972)

    “In the Bhagwat Geeta the Lord has declared Himself as the Supreme Enjoyer of everything as the Supreme proprietor of every planet and the supreme friend of all beings. Except Lord Sri Krishna no one else can claim to be the proprietor of anything within His creation.”
    (1.5.36 purp. Delhi edition)

    “In the Bhagavad-gita the Lord has declared Himself to be the supreme enjoyer of everything, the supreme proprietor of every planet and the supreme friend of all beings. Except Lord Sri Krsna no one else can claim to be the proprietor of everything within His creation.” (SB 1.5.36 1970, 1972)

    “Anything which is beyond the scope of experience by our imperfect senses can be realised fully simply by the sound representation.” (1.5.38 purp. Delhi edition)

    “Anything which is beyond the scope of experience by our imperfect senses can be realized fully by the sound representation.” (SB 1.5.38 purp. 1970,1972)

    “Lord reveals His identity gradually to one who has unflicnching devotional mode both upon the spiritual master as well as the Lord. “(1.5.39 purp. Delhi edition)

    “The Lord reveals His identity gradually to one who has unflinching faith, both in the spiritual master and in the Lord.” (SB 1.5.39 purp. 1970, 1972)

    “Vyasdeva himself was the disciple of Naradaji and therefore it is natural to be anxious to hear from him what did he do after initiation from the spiritual masters.” (1.6.2 purp. Delhi edition)

    “Vyasadeva himself was the disciple of Naradaji, and therefore it was natural to be anxious to hear what Narada did after initiation from the spiritual master.” (SB 1.6.2 purp. 1970, 1972)

    *Narada Muni was initiated in his previous life by hearing from the Bhaktivedantas and serving them. His spiritual masters were many, before he became Narada Muni to hear from one spiritual master – Brahma.

    “The Bhaktivedantas as above mentioned were pure devotee and the boy became infected with their qualities of purity by their association and by eating once the remnants of the foodstuff taken by them.” (SB 1.5.25 Delhi edition)

    “One can attain to the highest perfection of life simply by attentive hearing of the transcendental pastimes of the Lord from the right sources, as Sri Narada heard it from the pure devotees Bhaktivedantas in His previous life.” (SB 1.5.26 1970,1972)

    “I desired to see again that transcendental Form of the Lord but inspite of my attempting to concentrate the mind upon the heart with eagerness of reviewing the Form, I could not see any more and thus without being satisfied, I was like one very much agrieved.”
    (1.6.19 purp. Delhi edition)

    “I desired to see again that transcendental form of the Lord, but despite my attempts to concentrate upon the heart with eagerness to renew the form again, I could not see Him any more, and thus dissatisfied, I was very much aggrieved.” (SB 1.6.19 – 1970, 1972)

    “Oh Narada I regret very much that during this span of life you shall no more be able to see Me. Those who are incomplete in service and is still immature in being freed from all material dirts hardly can see Me.” (1.6.21 purp. Delhi edition)

    “O Narada [the Lord spoke], I regret that during this lifetime you will not be able to see Me any more. Those who are incomplete in service and who are not completely free from all material taints can hardly see Me.” (SB 1.6.21 – 1970, 1972)

    “The remedial measure to cure a patient by medical treatment is useless if it is not sanctioned by the Lord. To cross the river or the ocean by suitable boat is no remedial measure if it is not sanctioned by the Lord. The parents cannot protect their children if it is not sanctioned by the Lord. We should know it certainly that the Lord is the ultimate sanctioning officer and we must therefore dedicate our attempts to the mercy of the Lord for ultimate success or to get rid of the obstacles on the path of success.”
    (SB 1.5.32 Delhi edition)

    “The remedial measure to cure a patient by medical treatment is useless if it is not sanctioned by the Lord. To cross the river or the ocean by a suitable boat is no remedial measure if it is not sanctioned by the Lord. We should know for certain that the Lord is the ultimate sanctioning officer…”
    (SB 1.5.32 1970 ISKCON PRESS edition & 1972 – 1st BBT printing – “original”)

    *Where did the whole sentence about parents unable to protect their children if not sanctioned by the Lord go? Like in the case of the Lord´s being five years old and initiated for learning and showing Himself a naughty boy?

    Now, what is the original? Is it that which Prabhupada typed himself or which the editors have created (about which Prabhupada complained so vehemently)? In the “Rascal Editors” conversation Srila Prabhupada picked one letter changed – “OH the sages” changed to “OF the sages”… he got angry. “Rascals!” he said. In these purports and slokas the whole sentences are missing… and this is only a small sample. It doesn´t stop here, rest assured…

    Yasoda-nandana: Also in the Bhagavatam, where Prabhupada was talking about Lord Buddha… You mentioned that if the followers of Lord Buddha do not close the slaughterhouse, there is no meaning to such a caricature. That word was very nice. But in new book that word is not there anymore. They have pulled the word. The meaning of the word is not… So many times.
    Prabhupada: It is very serious situation. Ramesvara is in direct…
    (Conversation, “Rascal Editors,” and Morning Talk — June 22, 1977, Vrndavana)

    VMd: Purujit appears to be exaggerating the scope of the Racal Editors conversation. He assumes that Srila Prabhupada was referring to changes made directly from a manuscript. However, the changes being discussed in that conversation pertained to the earlier printed editions of his books. In the Rascal Editors conversation, these printed editions themselves were being edited further, and this is what Srila Prabhupada had an issue with.

    Prabhupāda: The nonsense, they are… They are correcting my trans… Rascal. […]
    Prabhupāda: Now here is “O sages,” and the word meaning is “of the munis.” Just see.

    In this conversation, it was not any changes made from a manuscript that Srila Prabhupada had a problem with. Rather, it was changes made to an already printed version of the Srimad Bhagavatam. Srila Prabhupada had it translated one way, and some rascal editor whimsically changed that translation. Therefore, we cannot use this as evidence that Srila Prabhupada took issue with changes made from a manuscript. That the scope of the Rascal Editors conversation pertained to changes made to already printed versions of his books is further evidenced by the following excerpt from the same conversation.

    Reply: This simply is not true. The point here is that the “Rascal Editors” conversation unfolds after READING FROM THE FIRST EDITION OF THE BHAGAVATAM, either 1970 by ISKCON PRESS or the 1972 BBT version. ANYONE WHO IS NOT A COMPLETE SHEEP AND A FOOL CAN SEE A SCAN MADE OF THE 1972 BHAGAVATAM WHETHER IT SAYS “OH THE SAGES” OR “OF THE SAGES”! Only a complete moron will not verify this and make it clear for himself once and for all. As Tamal points out “this is not a new Bhagavatam”. Before these printings there was only the Delhi edition with the correct translation: “Oh the sages” – adressing the munis. The 1970 as well as the 192 Bhagavatams both have “OF the sages” in them. So when Prabhupada says “the next printing should be again to the original way”, again, does he ask them to print the “original books” for example the 1972 Bhagavatam with this rascal change in them? This is PURE NONSENSE AND THOSE WHO SAY THAT PRABHUPADA WANTS THE SAME TO BE REPRINTED AS “THE ORIGINAL WAY” ARE SIMPLY FOOLS AND RASCALS. The “original way” is his Delhi edition which, according to your logic, can be seen as a draft, because it was not edited by anyone else then Prabhupada. Original is that which comes from Prabhupada, not from Hayagriva or Jayadvaita or anyone. From one point of view, we can call the Delhi Bhagavatam the manuscript for the Bhagavatam edited and printed in the West.

    VMd: But where does Srila Prabhupada order for the next printing to be done directly from a manuscript by any editor?

    Prabhupada instructed Rayarama and Hayagriva to edit from manuscript, so why can’t we do like that? What is the great sin there??? So far the Bhagavad-gita is concerned, they both made different versions of the same book. The 1968 is not bogus just because it’s different from the 1972. The important is the meaning. The words can be slightly changed as confirmed by you also. This is called editing. There can be multitude of Gitas all bona fide if the meaning is preserved. We accept all of Srila Prabhupada’s instructions as pertinent to us as he would be physcially present. Why are we denying a spiritual guidance of Srila Prabhupada through vani in the matter of editing his books? Why this partiality?

    Actually every single translation to a different language is a different edition of the same Gita made by Prabhupada, because when one translates, he can´t translate word by word. This is my personal experience while translating Srila Prabhupada’s books into Slovak language. You have to capture the meaning. Here is an interesting memory from an actual translator of Srila Prabhupada’s books which I would like to submit here simply for reference:

    „Sarvabhavana: Regarding translating, Prabhupada gave me some wonderful instructions that I treasure and try to follow. He told me there are two ways of translating. One is literal and the other is bhavartha — to capture the spirit, to convey the deep spiritual and devotional mood of the acharya who wrote the original work. Prabhupada said, “I prefer bhavartha, to translate the spirit and mood of these writings rather than to translate literally. I want you to read the original Bengali or Sanskrit or Hindi, understand it, formulate it in your own words and write it.” Once in Vrindavan when Satsvarupa Maharaj was there, Prabhupada told him, “You should edit Renunciation Through Wisdom, it is a very important book.” And it truly is an incredible book — it’s a gradual unfolding of the philosophy and purport of Bhagavad-gita in which, in the original Bengali writing, Prabhupada excelled himself. In English Prabhupada wrote simply but his Bengali writing was scholarly and erudite. To translate this work was quite challenging and every single day Prabhupada asked me to read the English translation to him while he read the Bengali. He liked my work and that made me blissful.
    (Ref. VedaBase => Sarvabhavana)

    The text has to be accommodated to the language it is translated into. Srila Prabhupada’s vani should be translated never mind he is physcially present or not. Similarly, his books can be edited, or translated from Prabhupada’s specific and unique English to more understandable commonly used English for the people on the streets. There is no one to check the new translations of his books, neither was Srila Prabhupada checking a approving every single translation during his manifested lila. Why are we insisting that he should be here physically present to approve our alternative edition? First find a flaw in it, then we can talk about authorized non-authorized. But your conclusion from the very beginning is that we must be bogus, no matter how hard we try. You are biased!

    Last but not least, Prabhupada DIRECTLY instructs Hansadutta to use the original Bhagavad-gita manuscript if he likes for translation to German. If the manuscript is incomplete, why would Prabhupada even give such instruction?

    My dear Hamsaduta,

    Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your letter dated May 30, 1975 and have noted the contents. I don’t think that Hayagriva is at fault. He has not changed the meaning or the philosophy in any way. But if you like to use the original manuscript, then if it is possible, you can use it.
    (Letter to: Hamsaduta — Honolulu 8 June, 1975)

    Also he instructs Ramesvara to supply manuscripts to the translators as needed:

    „In general, if any translator of my books requires the original manuscripts for his work, he should be supplied them by you.“ (Srila Prabhupada September 18, 1976, letter to Ramesvara Dasa)

    Why on earth would Prabhupada allow the translators to go to the manuscript, the „draft“, if the 1972 is perfect and complete and the ultimate and absolute truth? The fact he gives these instructions is a solid proff that the manuscripts are authorized. For God’s sake of course -THEY ARE DIRECTLY COMING FROM SRILA PRABHUPADA!!!!

    VMd: Srila Prabhupada orders the next printing to be done in the original way in which it was printed, as has already been shown from the Rascal Editors conversation.

    Reply: Where does he say? Please you show evidence!

    VMd: And since in the Rascal Editors conversation Srila Prabhupada and his disciples were discussing the editing of all printed editions of his books by numerous “rascal editors”, the instruction by Srila Prabhupada “the next printing should be again to the original way” should be applied on the same scale.

    Reply: So the question is what version of the SB you want to print? With caricatures or without them? 1972 version – the exact one Prabhupada complains about in Rascal editors, the very book that starts this whole controversy? Or you want to print raw edition of Delhi Bhagavatam without editing it? But Prabhupada wanted his books to be edited to nice English. Please you make this clear to us. What is your solution? The “rascal change” is there in the first printing. You want to print that again to satisfy Prabhupada? Please explain, Prabhu, I am thick like a brick, obviously…

    Munayah—OH the sages, Sadhu—this is just relevant, Pristo—questioned – Delhi edition
    munayah — OF the sages; sadhu — this is relevant; prstah – questioned – 1972 – the “original” (???)

    VMd: That is the nature of a manuscript: it gets changed. Srila Prabhupada deputed editors specifically to make changes to transcripts or manuscripts for the final printing. All this talk of Hayagriva changing things is useless because that was his specific task assigned by Srila Prabhupada. In the case of the Gita, it was the 1972 edition which he approved of, save and except any corrections he requested.

    Reply: There is a change of wording and there is a change of meaning. Where does Prabhupada says the editors are approved to changed meaning and we should just accept? Same can be applied to ISKCON, because Prabhupada appointed certain devotees to govern ISKCON after his departure we should follow whatever they say and it does not matter whether they are going against Prabhupada or not, we should not discuss that, because Prabhupada approved them and that’s it. What kind of philosophy is this?
    From a letter to Radha vallabha from Tamal:

    “So far as who is “authorized” and “unauthorized”, it is the same as when the GBC spoke with Srila Prabhupada about “legal” and “illegal” distribution. Srila Prabhupada’s definition of what is legal is “whatever sells my books.” In the same way, as long as the editors edit everything perfectly they are “authorized” and when they make mistakes, whatever the reason is then they become “unauthorized.” When you do everything nicely you are praised and when some mistake is there, you are a “rascal.” This is true for all of us.

    In any case His Divine Grace has not thought about this editing matter since the day of that conversation which was nearly a month ago. Please just TRY TO MAKE ALL CORRECTIONS IN THE NEW EDITIONS and everything will be alright, and of course don’t make any unnecessary changes. Please take Yasodanandan’s letter in a constructive way.”
    (From: Tamal Krishna to Radha-vallabha, July 22nd, 1977)

    VMd: Yes, Purujit is using Jayadvaita’s same arguments to justify changing Srila Prabhupada’s books, and now we’ve dealt with these arguments once again on their own merit.

    Reply: Yes we have heard this before. Purujit is like Jayadvaita. Purujit wants to be guru. Yes. That is why everything he does is bogus. Give a dog a bad name and hang it. If somehow or other you establish that Purujit has a guru desire, then you save yourself lots of work, because then you don’t have to deal with tiny little petty arguments like this. Simply say he wants to be a guru and all these disgruntled ISKCONites will understand.

    VMd: Srila Prabhupada is not complaining about the first edition, he is complaining about changes made to those first editions/printings. Srila Prabhupada approved of these final works and therefore they are attributed to him as the author. This is how the publishing world works. They are the originally authorized final works of Srila Prabhupada. That is what original means.

    Reply: Again, Prabhupada IS complaining about the first editions, Vidura Prabhu please show how did you come up with this conclusion? Also you have completely misunderstood our purpose of editing. We have never claimed that our edited version is original. That would be simply ridiculous. That is your fight -for the “original “ books, not ours.

    VMd: Because Srila Prabhupada already gave the order for the next printings to be done in the original way. There´s no need for his books to be edited.

    Reply: If this was so, why Svarupa Damodara is suggesting to go over all the books and fix all the changes? Why Prabhupada suggested Jayadvaita and Satswarupa to be the heads of editing board? If it was as Vidura says they would just take the first editions and print again without even looking at them. Xerox style. So this is obviously a speculation by Vidura Prabhu.In the Rascal editors conversation Srila Prabhupada says, “The next printing should be again to the original way.” Then he asks: “What to do?” and Tamal suggests, that they “have to go over all of the books and make sure that they’re perfect before they’re printed again.” I want to emphasize the word ALL. All the books, no exclusion. Srila Prabhupada doesn’t exclude for example the Bhagavad-gita from the list. All the books means all the books and there is a reason for this. Now, this exchange takes place in June 1977, not long before Srila Prahubpada´s final lila. As the knower of past, present and future, Prabhupada was very well aware of the upcoming course of happenings. Still, he does not protest against Tamal´s suggestion for going over all the books and re-editing them to perfection, in a “slow but sure” manner. Prabhupada might have just directly cut him by saying:
    WHAT NONSENSE STOP IT CUT IT I KICK ON YOUR FACE. TAKE THE FIRST EDITION AND XEROX DON’T FIX THE CHANGES. I AUTHORIZE THE CHANGES. “OF THE SAGES” CHANGE IS DIVINE AND I HAVE MADE AN OFFENSE TO THE EARLY EDITORS WHEN I POINTED OUT THAT THEY HAVE CHANGED MY BOOK IN THE BEGINNING OF THE CONVERSATION. PRINT THE 1972 AGAIN WITHOUT TOUCHING IT!

    That just didn’t happen. Your conclusion is completely flawed. Please be a gentleman and admit your mistake.

    Hare Krsna.

    Like

    Reply
  2. Pingback: BLISS (Purujit and Makanchora) say: “Tamal Wrote the July 9th Letter.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s