Arsa Prayoga

Preserving Srila Prabhupada´s Legacy

• INDEX (click to expand)

Foreword

One of the most miserable spiritual pathologies afflicting the century which we live in is, in my view, the deliberate process of the devitalization of the words, as λóγος, that is, as depository forms of transcendent meaning whose comprehension provokes, in one way or another, a committed understanding in the listener.

Obviously, the meaning of words is not univocal and allows, even demands, a certain inherent vagueness: reeds that line the road have verticality as their own; however, wind can tip them in one way or another without altering their essential nature.

The same happens with words. Agitated by intellectual breeze, they open to a margin of interpretation which does not detract their profound sense and enables the richness of language and dialog. There is no landscape more beautiful in this world than that of two people peacefully discussing some subtle matter, making wise use of rules imposed by the amicable colloquium.

Regarding the written tradition, there are hardly differences with the earlier example: the words of the book are what they are, but their full realization occurs when those words interact with receptive readers to reach a fortunate understanding. This is the greatness of the Logos and its perfection, which is always the same and simultaneously always different from itself.

However, the great Leviathan of the times always knows that the generosity of the highest concepts can be interpreted and used for selfish benefit, and this by way of distorting words, force, relativizing, denaturing them or moving them from their natural place. When this happens (and it happens all the time) the words Justice, Love, Beauty, Truth, Freedom, Religion, Virtue and ultimately God, among others, end up meaning nothing. They become empty shells in the service of something or someone who obtains some advantage from the confusion that ensues from their misuse.

And so a similar linguistic code, i.e. essentially a corrupted linguistics of cheating verbosity, will naturally correspond to the world that has made illusory forms its grotesque scenario. If the current state of things was not built upon certain capital concepts, all of the above would be as anecdotal as the bartering dialogue between a seller and a buyer of carpets, but it is not so. The Social Contract that recollects the acme of human aspirations, our desiderata to call it somehow, rests on certain inviolable mantras: duty and right, the need to be educated, the correction of social inequalities, the empire of peace, the protection of the most disadvantaged, etc.

The function of these words is not merely poetic, aims to guide the πρᾱξις, —the activities, individually and collectively— in the direction of the common good, as the score that enables universal harmony, if we give the same interpretation to those terms. Faith in such concepts gives meaning to our actions and if our actions make sense, we can reach some plausible happiness.

Hence this book Arsa Prayoga is first a defense of the correct Word, the Word As It Is, because it WAS such, and so it should be transmitted to the future, without traps, honorably, black and white. That is honesty.

Srila Prabhupada —seen here in his role as sage and scholar— devoted his life to a colossal work: to make available around the world the traditional legacy of classical Vedic texts, of which the principal is the Bhagavad-gita. His version is an essential reference for advanced students of Theology and Comparative Religions worldwide. I would like to remind the reader of the structure that Prabhupada wanted for his work:

1. Sanskrit text in Devanagari characters.

2. Phonetic transcription of the verse.

3. Phonetic translation word by word.

4. Translation.

5. Personal commentary based on tradition.

Such philological rigor is not at all an exercise in superficial erudition. On the contrary, it responds to a sincere zeal in showing the text As It Is, so that no one can propose as real a version As It Is Not. In my opinion, there is not a conceivably greater demonstration of love for the spirit of the book (and who inspires it) than to show the book in its strict nature.

Having secured the authentic letter of the text, the reader can access the profound meaning of the words and reflect on them in a framework of interpretation that, as we said, allows for reasonable debate, but not for confusion. And even if the previous five points were not enough to answer questions that might arise, there is always the resource of a 6th point, which is to go to a legitimate authority and formulate the necessary questions.

But the textus receptus the master has given for good is and has to remain untouchable and not allow corrections, amendments or additions because any attempt to improve it is to make it considerably worse. Srila Prabhupada was very strict in this respect. A reviewer of the text proposes to change a virgule, continues recomposing a phrase of dubious interpretation and then end by evaporating the work of a lifetime. Consummatum est. Straight judgment has lost the battle against the opinion and the “Bhagavad-gita As It Is” has lost it against the “Bhagavad-gita As It Should Be.”

I cannot enter the realm of intentions —some of which seem dark to me— that have helped some persons to correct the legacy of the master. However, I do know the author of this Arsa Prayoga. I am aware of his devotion to Srila Prabhupada and Krishna consciousness, and I understand that he would have never compiled this work, if there was not a real need to protect a precious deposit, denouncing with serious arguments the attempt, conscious or unconscious, of diluting valuable knowledge on the altar of superficiality. In my view, this work is in itself an expression of Bhakti yoga. I wish and I hope it to be well received by all those who are concerned.

Sant Andreu de Llavaneres, September 1, 2015 Santiago Jubany Closas M.A. in Religious Studies, Facultat de Teologia de Catalunya
M.D., Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona valgris@gmail.com

Preface

The purpose of this book is to keep the followers and well-wishers of Srila Prabhupada informed —as well as other interested parties among scholars, academicians, librarians, reviewers, students and the general public —that his original books, recorded lectures, conversations et al. continue to be altered, changed or interpolated, with no definitive evidence or record of his explicit authorization or approval to do so.

These revised literatures of His Divine Grace (1896-1977) are being distributed worldwide with his name as the original author, although as such they cannot be trusted to present his teachings as they are.

However, although published in smaller numbers, Srila Prabhupada’s unrevised books continue to be readily available. They remain the genuine basis of the Hare Krishna movement, introduced by Srila Prabhupada, as founded in 16th century in India by Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu for the cause of universal spiritual brotherhood and the upliftment of mankind.

The teachings of Srila Prabhupada provide for millions a solace for the anxiety of daily affairs in life as well as guidance in pursuit of the highest spiritual achievements. His true legacy must be preserved for them and for the generations to come.

The contents herein represent but a fraction of the persons dedicated to doing so and mirror the opinions of many more who appreciate Srila Prabhupada’s teachings.
 
—The Publishers

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the following contributors, whose writings have formed the backbone of this humble attempt: Bahusira dasa (ACBSP), Bhagavat dasa (ACBSP), Govinda dasi (ACBSP), Hayagriva dasa (ACBSP), Hrshikesh dasa, Keli lalita dasi (ACBSP), Krishna Kripa dasi (ACBSP), Locanananda dasa (ACBSP), Madhudvisa dasa, Ramesvara dasa (ACBSP), Rasananda dasa (ACBSP) and Rupanuga Prabhu (ACBSP).

Special thanks to Ajit Krishna dasa, for his long time endeavour at arsaprayoga.com and Bhakta Torben for his extensive work on the changes to the Bhagavad-gita section.

To Ashwini Katake, who did the first proofreading and was always bursting with energy to help in whatever necessary.

My heartfelt thanks to Gopi kumari dasi for producing the beautiful covers of the book and to Dharmaputra dasa (BSDG) who proofread the book and provided valuable feedback.

My deep gratitude to the other numerous Vaishnavas whose input was used in the compilation of this book. We pray this presentation will act as a definitive fortress for Srila Prabhupada’s legacy.

Introduction

Arsa prayoga is the Sanskrit word that means “the usage of the sages” or the “license of the sages.” The word infers that the self-realized sages are above the constraints of grammar and rhetoric. Thus their words or writings should be accepted as they are, without change, alteration or interpolation.

There is no precedent in our Gaudiya Vaishnava Sampradaya for posthumous, unapproved changes to an Acarya’s books. Only one such example is given by BBTI, Jiva Goswami’s editing the Nectar of Devotion, but that was actually his own commentary to Nectar of Devotion. In any case, how can they compare Jiva Goswami with editors in the lower stages of bhakti, not yet fully situated in the perfected stages of bhava (what to speak of prema)? How can they infer that conditioned souls can retouch and change the words of a departed Sampradaya Acarya?

It should also be questioned whether these BBTI editors have reached the spiritual level to make such monumental editorial decisions. Can they create new words, eliminate existing words, change Sanskrit definitions, consult Visvanatha Chakravarti’s writings to decide which parts of the earlier drafts should be used or not used?

Srila Prabhupada had control over his books and was meticulous in the publishing process. He did everything from choosing his editors to examining the galley proofs before printing, to carefully reading his completed books, as many letters and witnesses attest.

Even when Srila Prabhupada was present in physical form, his editorial policy was clear:

“Our editing is to correct grammatical and spelling errors only, without interpolation of style or philosophy.”
(Letter to Rupanuga das, 17 February, 1970.)

BBTI has no authorization from Srila Prabhupada to do the massive changes of adding, subtracting and interpolating text, changing syntax and style, changing the Sanskrit, the plates, covers and other parts of the books such as forewords, scholarly endorsements, etc.

Moreover, they have opened this “hidden co-authors” door. This is very dangerous since no one is certain when it will be closed —not even BBTI! This opens the possibility of the books being changed repeatedly throughout future generations. Thus, we can end up with a very different book than what was originally written by Srila Prabhupada.

Srila Prabhupada sometimes said, “If you put anything bogus in my book —this is my greatest fear— that you will ruin my book and the whole book will be ruined because of you.”

Jayadvaita Swami, the “hidden co-author” of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is, even admits he had no order to do the posthumous editing of Srila Prabhupada’s books. The Bhagavad-gita As It Is, for example, was massively rewritten approximately seven years after the departure of the Founder Acharya, His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami.

Simply because Jayadvaita Swami was appreciated as an editor during the lifetime of Srila Prabhupada does not give him carte blanche to rewrite the Acharya’s books. Srila Prabhupada gave him credit for what he did in the editorial work, however, there was never any mention of posthumous editing to be done by him or by anyone else. Rather, Srila Prabhupada’s repeated instructions were, “Don’t change anything.” He feared the “American change disease” would cause problems in future, so he warned repeatedly against it.

Srila Prabhupada already worked closely with his editors during his lifetime. His books were published based on his editorial decisions. There is no need for anyone to go back to earlier drafts and rework his books. His editing was given the final approval, and if someone says, “oh, there are mistakes,” then they have not understood the spiritual concept of arsa prayoga.

In this book, we present dozens of documented examples showing the drafts, the texts published by the author and the BBTI edition side by side, proving that the supposed “going back to the drafts” argument is in reality a mixture of arbitrary and subjective editorial decisions. To re-use the drafts which already had been worked with hundreds, probably thousands of personal non-transferable editorial decisions by Srila Prabhupada along with his editors, is, at best, a disrespect to the author.

BBTI makes the faulty argument that the edited books will be more attractive to scholars and the members of academia. However, Srila Prabhupada’s original books already found great favor with scholars, and were praised by numerous scholars and clergy all around the globe. In addition, these original editions were widely distributed and thousands of people came to the path of Krishna bhakti.

To the contrary, scholars have now become quite suspicious of the BBTI due to their unprofessional editorial policies, which include posthumous edits without proper tagging. This is proven by statements from various universities, such as Harvard, Yale and Oxford.

BBTI has published several posthumously edited editions, without identifying the editors on the cover of the book. There is no mention of the editors’ names on the cover or title page, no date of edit, and no number of edition. For a posthumously edited book to be acceptable to academia, these things must be there. This is very unprofessional and causes the book to lose authenticity. Academically, the book is considered no longer authentic. Unfortunately, this is the current state of affairs so far as the later editions of books written by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

To follow the principles of arsa prayoga as well as to keep Srila Prabhupada’s books respected in the academic community, we must accept that the original editions are the true and authentic editions, approved by Srila Prabhupada, and continue to print and distribute them as he ordered. We must also make every effort to incorporate these original editions into the various foreign languages, so they ring true to his teachings.

In this way, all controversy regarding the book changes can be stopped at once. It will take much courage for the BBTI to acknowledge all this, and offer suitable apologies for their ill informed editorial policies. But I am sure that Vaishnavas all over the world will be gracious to accept such apologies and go forward with devotional service and with the arsa prayoga principles intact.
Jaya Srila Prabhupada!
 
—Jagannatha Mishra dasa

Arsa Prayoga

What is arsa prayoga?

Monier-Williams, 1872

arsa: relating or belonging to or derived from rishis (sages).prayoga: application, employment; reducing to practice, use, usage, practice, ceremonial form, course of proceeding.

Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit

arsa: relating or belonging to or derived from rishis.prayoga: use, utterance.

Glossary of Sanskrit Terms in Integral Yoga Literature

arsa prayoga: “rishi’s license.” A form of expression, sometimes violating the normal rules of grammar, peculiar to the Vedic rishis.

The principle of arsa prayoga states that we should not see mistakes in what the spiritual master has written. We should not think that what he has written can be changed to make it appear more effective or politically correct. To preserve his teachings in the originally published form is the way in which the Acarya is honoured, and to do otherwise is to dishonour him.

This is the rule of “arsa prayoga,” a principle that devoted followers of a bona fide spiritual master must adhere to without deviation.

This is confirmed in the Srimad Bhagavatam, 1.5.11:

tad-vag-visargo janatagha-viplavoyasmin prati-slokam abaddhavaty apinamany anantasya yaso ‘nkitani yatsrnvanti gayanti grnanti sadhavah

Translation:

“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.”

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and asociates celebrate sankirtana

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu

“Even in the poetic compositions of such great poets as Bhavabhuti, Jayadeva and Kalidasa there are many examples of faults. Such mistakes should be considered negligible. One should see only how such poets have displayed their poetic power.”
(Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila, 16.101-102.)

103. Smiling, Ishvara Puri said, “You are a great pandita. I have written a book about Lord Krishna’s pastimes.”
104. “Please tell me all the mistakes in it. That would make me very, very happy.”
105. Lord Caitanya replied, “Only a sinner sees faults in a devotee’s words describing Lord Krishna.”
106. “A devotee does not write poetry whimsically, according to his own personal opinion. Therefore, his poetry, presenting the conclusions of scripture, is always pleasing to Lord Krishna.”
[…]
109. The Lord said: “One who sees faults in a devotee’s words is himself at fault. Simply by describing the Lord, a devotee pleases Lord Krishna.”
110. “Who is so daring that he will find fault with your descriptions of spiritual love?”
111. As he heard the Lord’s reply, Ishvara Puri felt that his entire body was being splashed with nectar.
(Caitanya Bhagavat, Adi-khanda, Ch. 11.)

Srila Prabhupada’s definition

“So unless one is self-realized, there is practically no use writing about Krishna. This transcendental writing does not depend on material education. It depends on the spiritual realization. You’ll find, therefore, in the comments of Bhagavatam by different acaryas, even there are some discrepancies, they are accepted as arsa prayoga.”
(Srimad Bhagavatam 7.5.23-24 — Vrindavana, March 31, 1976.)

≈∞≈∞≈∞≈

“So far your telling me that some devotees consider that because there may be some grammatical discrepancies in my Srimad Bhagavatam, First Canto, then they may also be allowed to translate with errors accepted, that is just like imitating Raslila. When you do all other things like Krishna, then you can do Raslila. So if these other writers can do like me and spread Krishna consciouness all over the world by becoming big Vedic scholars, then they can do. If one is too big, there is no mistake. Arsa prayoga means there may be discrepancies but it is all right. Just like Shakespeare, sometimes there are odd usages of language, but he is accepted as authority. I have explained all these things in my Preface to First Canto.”
(Letter to: Mandali Bhadra— Jaipur 20 January, 1972.)

≈∞≈∞≈∞≈

“The thoughts and the effects of such revolutionary literature are required. Not the grammatical. The so-called rascals, they are concerned with the grammatical. But those who are actually worker, they are concerned with the thoughts.”
(Room Conversation, Including Discussion on S.B. 1.5.11 — January 19, 1972, Jaipur.)

≈∞≈∞≈∞≈

Prabhupada: The system is: whatever authority has done, even there is mistake, it should be accepted.Radhaballabha: Oh.Prabhupada: Asa-praya(?)1 That is… He should not become more learned than the authority. That is very bad habit.Prabhupada: Why finish it? Whatever is done is done. No more.
(February 28, 1977, Mayapura.)

≈∞≈∞≈∞≈

“Although one may be well versed in transcendental science, one should be careful about the offense of maryada-vyatikrama, impertinently surpassing a greater personality.”
(Srimad Bhagavatam 3.4.26, purport.)

Mayapur 29 January, 1976 76-01-29

My dear Dr. Wolf,

Please accept my blessings. I beg to acknowledge receipt of a copy of a letter sent to Sriman Vedavyasa dated January 14, 1976.

Mundane books are written by imperfect persons. Everyone has his own theory, which means he is imperfect. The Srimad Bhagavatam says if there is a real presentation of spiritual understanding, then even if it is presented in broken language, it is accepted by high, saintly persons, because it glorifies the Supreme Person.

On the other hand, if literature is highly metaphorically composed, if it does not glorify the Lord, it is compared to a place inhabited by the crows.

Actually, if some literature doesn’t carry any real knowledge, what is the use of ornamental language? We are not interested in presenting ornamental language.

In India the system is that people go to see the Jagannatha Deity. The Deity is not very beautiful from the artistic point of view, but still people attend by the thousands. That sentiment is required. Similarly with our kirtana we are only using drums and karatalas, but people come to the point of ecstasy.

It is not the ornamentation, it is the ecstasy. This ecstasy is awakened by sravanam kirtanam by devotees. I hope this makes everything clear. Hoping this meets you well.

Your ever well-wisher,

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

“You must read my books everyday!”

Srila Prabhupada had just been preaching for 30 minutes to some wealthy life members in front of me and now the gentlemen had just left the room.

“Can you quote the verse I just said?” Srila Prabhupada suddenly asked me.

Srila Prabhupada retorted, “Just see! You are not reading my books!
Everyday you have to study my books; you have to study my books and learn my books just like a lawyer learns the law books. You must know everything, chapter and verse.
If you do not know, how will you preach. How will you teach these men unless you know my books?
Do you know that everyday, even I read my own books?”
He asked, sternly, “Do you know why I read my books?”
Once again, I didn’t dare to venture any answers.
Srila Prabhupada replied himself, “I read my books everyday because even I learn something new when I read my books!”
“Do you know why I learn something new when I read my books? Because these are not my books. I do not write these books.”

When Srila Prabhupada started to speak at this moment, it was like something came over him, something so mystical.

Srila Prabhupada continued, “Every morning, when I sit here to write my books, Krishna comes personally and He dictates to me what to write. So I simply take dictation from Krishna. Therefore, when I read them, even I learn something new.”
 
—Bhagavat dasa

1. Asa-praya(?) should be transcribed as “Arsa-prayoga”, as confirmed in the original audio. ↩

Srila Prabhupada’s explicit desire

How the editing should be done

“Our editing is to correct grammatical and spelling errors only, without interpolation of style or philosophy.”
(Srila Prabhupada’s letter to Rupanuga , February 17, 1970.)

Interpolate definitions

American Heritage Dictionary
“interpolate”:
1. To insert or introduce between other elements or parts.
2. a) To insert (material) into a text. b) To insert into a conversation, parts.
3. To change or falsify (a text) by introducing new or incorrect material.

Oxford Dictionaires
interpolate -verb
1.1 Insert (words) in a book or other text. especially in order to give a false impression as to its date.
1.2 Alter or enlarge (a text) by insertion of new material.

Merriam Webster
interpolate -transitive verb
1: a) to alter or corrupt (as a text) by inserting new or foreign matter
b) to insert (words) into a text or into a conversation.
2: to insert between other things or parts, intercalate.
3: to estimate values of (data or a function) between two known values.

“Our style is Hare Krishna!”

“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 Krishna, but still, we should not present a shabby thing.
Although Krishna 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.”
(Letter to Satsvarupa dasa, dated 1-9-70.)

Srila Prabhupada’s total control of his books

Srila Prabhupada’s published letters reveal an amazing system which he organised to accelerate his writing. He controlled every aspect from beginning to end. And he trained his disciples to assist him in various ways. He dictated translations and purports which his disciples transcribed.

He corrected and edited those transcriptions which were then sent to other disciples for more editing. He edited the Sanskrit synonyms or provided them himself. He proofread manuscripts and final drafts. He gave specific instructions regarding illustrations, number of pages, size, paper, binding, covers, printing and costs.

He examined the printed books to see if they had been printed properly. He noted his satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If necessary, he ordered corrections for a subsequent printing. Amazingly, he did all this work using personal meetings and regular postal mail while traveling around the world!
 
—Krishna Kripa dasi

Srila Prabhupada’s involvement

He was involved at all stages of production

In the 2003 Honolulu conversation, Jayadvaita Swami stated:

“He [Prabhupada] wasn’t involved at any stage of the production [of the unabridged Bhagavad-gita],” “All I really wanted to do is contribute to the history of the Gita.”

Yet there appears to be a disconnect between Jayadvaita Swami’s version of history and the evidence on record. It is well known that Srila Prabhupada indicated on many occasions that he wanted to be relieved from management to concentrate on writing. However, due to various shortcomings on our part we saw him take the helm time and time again to correct the course of his mission.

We get the vivid impression from Jayadvaita Swami that Srila Prabhupada entrusted all aspects of book production and publishing to his disciples, thus perpetrating the myth that His Divine Grace was a passive author who, once the writing was done, simply handed the ball off to Jayadvaita and a few others to finish everything; that he wasn’t necessarily concerned with or even fully aware of the nuts and bolts of the process and that he didn’t always see the big picture. And that somehow Jayadvaita knew what His Divine Grace would have approved or not approved.

Govinda dasi and Jayadvaita Swami- Honolulu, Jan 19, 2003:

Jayadvaita Swami: “I could tell you that some of the verses that some of the BBTI staff questioned, Prabhupada would never have approved. I can say with confidence, Prabhupada would never have approved. Some of the very few verses that we had issues with, there’s no question in my mind that Prabhupada didn’t see them.”

Might this be a tad presumptuous? Could it be that Jayadvaita wasn’t aware of how involved Srila Prabhupada was in the production and publication of his Bhagavad-gita and that he (Jayadvaita) was not the only person Prabhupada was communicating and interacting with?

The following conversations and correspondence are just a sampling of the communications between His Divine Grace and others from 1969 through 1972 regarding the publishing of his unabridged Bhagavad-gita As It Is. For the sake of brevity, we have only used excerpts from these communications.

I encourage everyone to look at the full text in the Bhaktivedanta Vedabase to understand Srila Prabhupada’s depth of involvement in the details of publishing, and to study the complete history of events to truly appreciate the astonishing number of people, publications and issues Srila Prabhupada was dealing with.

These citations show that in addition to writing, His Divine Grace was involved in approving layouts, deciding on book binding, directing artists, corresponding with his editors, studying printing options, contacting Macmillan, reviewing contracts, fund raising and more. Again, these citations only reference his work on the unabridged Gita —Srila Prabhupada was working on several titles simultaneously. And book publishing was but one facet of his mission.

Letter to Satsvarupa- Los Angeles, June 27, 1969:
“Regarding Madan Mohan… he must continue the work of indexing very nicely the original Bhagavad-gita As It Is. As soon as this indexing is finished, I shall publish another revised and enlarged edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is at my own cost. I was not happy to publish it [abridged edition] through Macmillan as they have crippled the explanations for so many important verses.”

Discussion with BTG Staff- Boston, December 24, 1969:
Srila Prabhupada sets the wheels in motion. There are several existing drafts. He tells Jayadvaita, “So whatever is lacking, you ask me. I will supply you.”

He approves the translations edited by Macmillan:Prabhupada: One thing may appear to be very simple and to other, terse, but you do your own duty. Another thing: where is the Bhagavad-gita with my full translation and synonyms? Where is that manuscript?Hayagriva: I have… There are several existing manuscripts. I have… The manuscript I went over is in Columbus.Prabhupada: Whole?Hayagriva: The total manuscript is there.Prabhupada: So we have to prepare for next publication, revised and enlarged, giving in the same process: original verse, transliteration, synonyms, and translation, and purport…Jayadvaita: There’s another manuscript of Bhagavad-gita also in New York, the original.Prabhupada: Oh. You have got?Jayadvaita: Yes. It’s in New York except for the first two chapters. Everything else is there.Prabhupada: So first two chapters might be with Janardana. But you have got the whole thing, Hayagriva.Hayagriva: Yes. That has been… I have gone over that, the one I have. The one that is in New York, no one has gone over that.Jayadvaita: Some of it has been edited by Rayarama, but you can see around it and go to the original behind it.Prabhupada: So whatever is lacking, you ask me. I will supply you.Hayagriva: Well, I have nothing lacking. But I would like to see that version.Jayadvaita: That’s with a dictaphone. So it’s…Hayagriva: I would like to see that in going over mine. I’ll have to go over it chapter by chapter. But I will compare the version I have with that version, and… I know the translations themselves, they were somewhat changed in Bhagavad-gita As It Is as it came out in Macmillan. Did you like those translations?Prabhupada: Whichever is better, you think. That’s all. You can follow this Macmillan.Hayagriva: That was the second… They’re good. I think they’re very good.Prabhupada: Yes. You can follow that translation. Simply synonyms he can add, transliterations.Hayagriva: And we have all the purports. We can include everything. Nothing will be deleted. Everything will be in there.Prabhupada: That’s all right.

Letter to Hayagriva- January 14, 1970:
“Regarding our enlarged, revised Bhagavad-gita As It Is, if possible you can conveniently give an enlarged introduction also.”

Letter to Pradyumna- Los Angeles, February 22, 1970:
“I have read the transliteration of Bhagavad-gita verses, but I think you have to do it very carefully because there are some mistakes in some of the verses. But I am sure in your next reading they will be all corrected. So your next compositions shall be Bhagavad-gita As It Is, revised and enlarged edition. Please do it nicely.”

Letter to Syama, February 23, 1970:
“Please ask Hayagriva Prabhu to finish the Bhagavad-gita As It Is with full explanation and text, and as soon as it is finished I shall send you some new tapes which you shall work husband and wife conjointly and you will be very pleased.”

Letter to Hayagriva- Los Angeles, March 9, 1970:
“I am so glad to learn that the Gita is going on nicely. Perhaps you know that Mandali Bhadra wants to translate into German, so as you finish one chapter you may send one copy to him immediately for being translated into German.”

Letter to Hayagriva- Los Angeles, April 18, 1970:
“So what you are now doing on the Bhagavad-gita manuscript is alright, do it nicely…
Regarding the editing process, I am glad to know that they are improving and doing nicely, but finally you should see each manuscript before printing. That should be the arrangement.”

Letter to Jadurani- Los Angeles, July 11, 1970:
“Regarding the picture for the cover of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, revised and enlarged edition, yes, if the painting for the cover is similar to the picture which you sent from the Bhagavad-gita in Pictures that will be alright. Regarding further pictures for the Bhagavad-gita, if you want suggestions from me then I can give you hints with reference to important verses in the Gita.”

Letter to Macmillan Company- Los Angeles, July 18, 1970:
“Regarding my book, The Bhagavad Gita As It Is, I beg to inform you that when I had originally submitted the manuscript to Mr. James Wade he informed me that it had to be considerably shortened due to production requirements. Since the publication of the book in 1968, which I understand is now in its third printing, I desire to publish the Gita according to the original manuscript. Please inform me whether Macmillan wants to publish this expanded version of the Gita. I look forward to receiving your early reply.”

Letter to Macmillan Company- Los Angeles, August 5, 1970:
“If Macmillan does not desire to publish this expanded version, then I will have it published elsewhere immediately.”

Letter to Satsvarupa- Bombay, November 4, 1970:
“I am prepared to give up dealing with Dai Nippon if ISKCON Press can print my books. What is being done with the manuscript of the unabridged Bhagavad-gita As It Is? It should be printed as soon as possible.”

Letter to Hayagriva- Bombay, November 24, 1970:
“Regarding printing of Bhagavad-gita complete and unabridged edition, it may be printed with our ISKCON PRESS and 5,000 copies may be sent, printed and folded to Bombay because I notice in your ISKCON PRESS newsletter that Advaita has expressed his opinion that if sent by ship without folding first, it would not be possible for the books to be properly folded and printed here in India. Regarding the missing verses, I will see if it is required and will send you at a later date.”

Letter to Advaita- Surat, December 19, 1970:
“I had never considered either closing down our ISKCON Press or removing your responsibility for managing the press affairs. You may immediately resume your former activities and work the press according to your best ability because I am very eager to see our own press printing the majority of our publications. The first thing now should be the printing of the new, enlarged edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is.”

Letter to Satsvarupa- Surat, December 19, 1970:
“I have seen the layout proposal for the first pages of our new edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is and it is fully approved by me. You may inform Jadurani that the picture she has sent is alright with necessary adjustments. Krishna is of course to be pictured in the same dress in all the scenes of the Kuruksetra delivery of Bhagavad-gita because the episode took place all within about one half hour.

Some ideas are: 1) Duryodhana and Dronacarya conferring in a tent just before the battle. 2) A ratha with four horses drawn before the ranks of soldiers and akshauhini carrying Krishna and Arjuna. 3) Arjuna morose; leaving weapons aside he is almost crying. 4) A man pictured dead and also living. Krishna says to Arjuna, “the wise mourn not for the dead or the living.” 5) pictures of an individual from babyhood to youthhood, in manhood and in old age and death.

The figure of the soul in each different body remains the same indicating that the body changes, not the soul. 6) Krishna instructing the Sun-god; Vivasvan instructing Manu (his son). I will send you more ideas later if required by you.”

Letter to Satsvarupa- Surat, December 28, 1970:
“You can offer my thanks to Advaita. The dummy Bhagavad-gita sent by him is approved by me. If it is possible it may be improved further.”

Letter to Bali-mardana- Calcutta, January 6, 1971:
“Immediately I want $17,000 for printing Bhagavad-gita As It Is in new enlarged and revised edition, so try to help in this connection.”

Letter to Satsvarupa- Allahabad, January 11, 1971:
“Regarding the Preface to Bhagavad-gita I shall send that as soon as I have got some time to write one. In the meantime you can go ahead with the remainder of layout work.”

Letter to Satsvarupa- Calcutta, February 9, 1971:
“Please accept my blessings. I hope that everything is going on well there with the production of Bhagavad-gita. In this regards please make the following addition to the text: Chapter IX, The Most Confidential Knowledge, in the purport of the 34th verse you will read “Krishna is not an ordinary human being; He is the Absolute Truth, His Body, Mind and He Himself are One and Absolute.”

Immediately therefore you can add the following: In the Kurma Purana, as it is quoted by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami in his Anubhasya comments of Caitanya-caritamrta, 5th Chapter Adi lila, verses 41-48, “deha dehi bibhedo ‘yang nesvare vidyate kvacit” which means that there is no difference in Krishna, the Supreme Lord, between Himself and His body.”

Letter to Advaita- Gorakhpur, February 10, 1971:
“Please inform me immediately how you stand in the matter of the $17,000 needed to print Bhagavad-gita As It Is. I want that it should be printed by the time I return to the States at the end of March. So if there is any lack of the money, I shall immediately take steps to arrange it for you so the printing can begin at once. We are expecting to remain in Gorakhpur for about one month, so you can reply me immediately to the above address.”

Letter to Karandhara- Bombay, March 16, 1971:
“Yes, you may give the donors an honorable mention page in Bhagavad-gita.”

Letter to Advaita- Bombay, March 18, 1971:
“Regarding Bhagavad-gita As It Is, this book is very urgently required. You had previously quoted a price of $17,000. So why print in Dai Nippon for $20,000 and lose $3,000? If it is possible to print on our press, that is better, but if not then Dai Nippon may do the printing.”

Letter to Hayagriva- Bombay, March 23, 1971:
“I have already sent to you the purports for B.G. Chapter 9, verses 16-25, 27 (no 26). I will send the purport to verse 28 very soon. So far the index is concerned, speed it as far as possible; I am very anxious to print.”

Letter to Jadurani- Bombay, April 1, 1971:
“The philosophy should be illustrated, but everything must be done with clear intelligence according to the Parampara revelation of the Absolute Truth and Krishna will give you good understanding for the purpose. The picture of the upside down tree drawn by Bharadraja as a sample is good.

The roots of the trees are like pillars growing large and making the tree strong. Regarding the descriptions in Bhagavad-gita Ch XV in verse 1 the leaves are described as the Vedic hymns and in the 2nd verse, the sense objects or vishaya are compared with the twigs. The jiva in the heart of the living entity appears as a sparkling star along with Supersoul depicted as four-handed Visnu as He appears on the cover of ‘Isopanisad’ or similar.”

Letter to Rupanuga- Bombay, April 9, 1971:
“You say that Bhagavatam printing is going on, but what about Bhagavad-gita As It Is? Some San Francisco Indian friends promised to pay $20,000, for this. So somehow get this money and manage to print Bhagavad-gita as quickly as possible, without stopping. Best thing is to get Bhagavad-gita printed on our own press, some soft bound and some hard bound, regularly sewn.”

Letter to Krishnakanti- Bombay, April 11, 1971:
“Try and get Krishna Book and Bhagavad-gita As It Is recommended by the professors.”

Letter to Advaita- Bombay, April 17, 1971:
“I have written as you know to Dai Nippon regarding the printing of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, but I do not know what is the actual position of the manuscript. Neither I know whether you want to print this book with Dai Nippon or on ISKCON PRESS. In San Francisco the Indians wanted to pay $20,000 for the printing cost, so what is the position now? Are the pictures ready? the index, Sanskrit and English editing, the missing purports, layout, composition, etc.?”

Letter to Abhirama- Malaysia, May 5, 1971:
“So far as distributing the fifteen thousand dollars, I would advise you to send this money to ISKCON PRESS for printing Bhagavad-gita As It Is enlarged edition. They require about $20,000 out of which I have asked Karandhara Prabhu to send them $5,000 from the Book Fund. Similarly, if Lyndan Prabhu can contribute $15,000 then the present problem of printing this book is solved.”

Letter to Advaita- Calcutta, May 17, 1971:
“My Dear Advaita,
Please accept my blessings and offer the same to all the Press staff. I am in due receipt of your letter dated 27th April, 1971 and have noted the contents carefully. Yes, I have sent off the Preface to the enlarged edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, sent from Sydney, and you should have received it by now.

Yes, very soon I shall go there. In the meantime get busy with the printing of Bhagavad-gita and that will encourage me to come there sooner.”

On May 12, 1971, Srila Prabhupada signs his preface to the unabridged edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is

Letter to Jadurani- Bombay, June 8, 1971:
“Arjuna was not present when Krishna spoke Bhagavad-gita to the sun god. He was present on a different occasion. So the picture is all right. The painting of the chariot of the body is nice.”

Letter to Rupanuga, Bhagavan, Satsvarupa- Bombay, June 15, 1971:
“The preface to the enlarged edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is was sent to you long ago, from Australia. It was sent on May 12, 1971 and you should have received it by now. I do not know why it is missing. So I am enclosing a second copy herewith.”

Letter to Kirtanananda- London 22 August, 1971:
“I understand that during the festival Hayagriva Prabhu was not there. How is that? Where he is now? The index of Bhagavad-gita is very much delayed. Kindly ask him to send the complete index immediately for which the complete work is suffering.”

Letter to Karandhara- Mombassa, Kenya, September 19, 1971:
“Regarding the Macmillan agreement, Brahmananda says that he left everything with Rupanuga when he left N.Y. So kindly inquire from him. So far I know the agreement was made that my royalty would be paid directly to the society.

In the beginning they paid me $1,000 and later on I think I got another $600. Besides this I have never received any money from them. If they paid anything it may have been paid directly to N.Y. ISKCON. So you can inquire and do the needful.

What has happened to the Bhagavad-gita quotation? Mr. Ogata told me to wait due to the fluctuating monetary standard, but for how long? Without the quotation we cannot send the manuscript. So please inquire.”

Letter to Karandhara- Nairobi, October 3, 1971:
“I think you have already advised N.Y. to send the full manuscript for Bhagavad-gita As It Is to Dai Nippon. If not you can advise them immediately.”

Letter to Advaita- Calcutta, November 1, 1971:
“Regarding Bhagavad-gita, if the Morocco binding is as costly as the hard binding, then we will prefer hard binding.”

Letter to Bahulasva- Vrindavan, November 30, 1971:
“You may request the Prof. E. Dimac and Prof. Van Buitenin to review and write a forward for our Bhagavad-gita As It Is. That is very nice. I am very glad that you understand the importance of these books.”

Letter to Rupanuga- Vrindavan, November 30, 1971:
“As far as Bhagavad-gita is concerned, I do not know why it is delayed. For the last three years you’ve been saying Bhagavad-gita is going to be printed and the last deadline was given by Advaita that it would be printed by the 1st October, 1971.

Unfortunately, nothing has been done by now. Now it is December, 1971. If for printing one book it takes so much time I do not know how the other 60 books will be printed. I am very much depressed.”

Letter to Rupanuga- Delhi, December 5, 1971:
“…I am very glad to know that Macmillan Co. is enthusiastic to print our Bhagavad-gita As It Is, 30,000 paperback and 10,000 hardback. Now you carry out all negotiations very carefully, and reserve for us all editing rights.”

Letter to Sudama- Bombay, February 4, 1972:
“I will be very glad if you can print Bhagavad-gita As It Is in Japanese version, and that will be sufficient to convince many Japanese boys and girls to become devotees of Krishna.”

Letter to Rupanuga- Calcutta, February 22, 1972:
“I noticed that on the carbon-copy [Macmillan] contract you neglected to initial the last clause (b) of Section XX Special Provisions, although you had done so on the original copy.

In addition, I have added the phrase to XII. Competitive Material as follows: “as well as the 48 pages of illustrations for which the Author reserves the right to publish for any purpose he may determine,” as per your instructions in the letter to Syamasundara. dated February 15, 1972.”

Letter to Jayadvaita- Calcutta, March 5, 1972:
“My dear Jayadvaita, Please accept my blessings. I have also received your letter along with Bali Mardan’s. As I have informed, Pradyumna and Syamasundara will be sending you regularly completed transcriptions of my translation work by post, that will avoid the high cost of sending tapes, which besides are very expensive and may be lost easily in mail, and because I am here if they have questions I can answer and make the final proofreading, and this will expedite everything.

One thing, now you say the date for printing by Macmillan Co. is set for August 1st, but last time you said June 1st, so I am wondering how long this delaying business shall go on? Our Bhagavad-gita As It Is is so much important to the world for uplifting it from darkest condition of ignorance, but still we cannot give them it, that is our neglect. I shall appreciate if you can help to expedite the printing of BGAII as quickly as possible.”

Letter to Bali-mardana- Bombay, March 22, 1972:
“I have received your letter of March 11, 1972, along with copy of Macmillan contract. Now, first thing is don’t sign any contracts without hearing from me, I am thinking about the matter.

There is some opinion that it may not be very much advantageous for us to enter such contracts with Macmillan Company. But first I want to know the opinion of Karandhara and others like Rupanuga and Bhagavan. So far Bhagavad-gita As It Is, that is already signed, so we must continue as we have agreed.”

Letter to Jayadvaita- Los Angeles, May 28, 1972:
“My Dear Jayadvaita, Please accept my blessings. I have received your letter dated May 26th, 1972, along with the blue-print copies of Bhagavad-gita As It Is from Macmillan Company. It is very nice. So I shall be looking forward to seeing the entire manuscript and book sometime around first July, 1972.”

On May 29th 1972, the day after Srila Prabhupada approves the Bhagavad-gita blueprint, he signs the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust founding document, thus creating the BBT.

Letter to Tejiyas- Los Angeles, June 12, 1972:
“So far Mr. Isvar Puri of Atmaram Book Store, let him make a concrete contract to publish our Macmillan version of Bhagavad-gita in cheap edition. You can send one copy of the contract to me and one copy to Bali Mardan at ISKCON Press in New York. I do not know if we are covered by copyright in India or not.”

In 1973, Brahmananda Swami summarizes the publication of the Macmillan Gita in a Back to Godhead article:“The Books of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada” by Brahmananda Swami- Back to Godhead Magazine #52, 1973
“Srila Prabhupada had never been entirely satisfied with Macmillan’s edition of his Gita because they had drastically shortened it for business reasons. However, when the book was well into its fifth printing, Macmillan informed him that they would be honored to bring out the complete edition, including the Sanskrit slokas. All other published editions of the Gita were decreasing in sales, they reported, whereas Srila Prabhupada’s was steadily increasing. Therefore, in the fall of 1972, the Macmillan Company released the complete edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, containing the entire text of Srila Prabhupada’s original manuscript, fully indexed and cross-referenced, along with more than fifty color plates. Finally, this was indeed the complete and authoritative edition of Bhagavad-gita that we had hoped for.”

Conversation between Govinda dasi and Jayadvaita Swami- Honolulu, Jan 19, 2003

Jayadvaita Maharaja:…It differs in uh, [inaudible] uh, in addition to that, of course, Prabhupada did see the galley proofs in 1968 of the abridged edition. He never saw the proofs in 1972. He wasn’t involved at any stage of the production, except, um, mainly for expressing impatience at how slow it was being turned out—a slowness for which I was partly responsible. Um, but he didn’t go over, didn’t go over the manuscript.Govinda dasi: Srila Prabhupada didn’t see the galley proofs?Jayadvaita Maharaja: No, he did not. [inaudible] Prabhupada didn’t see the galley proofs of the 1972 edition. But he did see the galley proofs, and we have galley proofs with Prabhupada’s handwriting and directions, just in very few places, for the original edition. But he didn’t see the galley proofs for the 1972 one.Govinda dasi: There must be some preliminary, something that he went over, if he didn’t see the final galley proofs.Jayadvaita Maharaja: Not that I remember.Govinda dasi: Then he had to have… I mean, I…Jayadvaita Maharaja: As far as I remember, he didn’t. He was just… the main thing that he was asking was, “Where is it? I’ve been hearing, just now coming, just now coming;’ I’ve been hearing that for some time now—where is the book?” The main thing that we were hearing from Prabhupada was, “Where is it?” And, um, Prabhupada at that time was already traveling extensively, um, around the world, and, uh, there was just none of this, there was no opportunity to like send Prabhupada back and forth, like sending him the second chapter and getting it back and asking questions; it just didn’t happen.Govinda dasi: Hayagriva was living with Srila Prabhupada in ‘68, and they were going over things, and that was after this book [the abridged edition] was printed. So that must have been for the ‘72 one.Jayadvaita Maharaja: He may have, for some brief time, spent some time with Prabhupada. It’s possible. Um, but the final product was certainly not, um, something that Prabhupada, um, you know, pored over the original, he just didn’t have, couldn’t possibly have the… I could tell you that some of the verses that some of the BBTI staff questioned, Prabhupada would never have approved. I can say with confidence, Prabhupada would never have approved. Some of the very few verses that we had issues with, there’s no question in my mind that Prabhupada didn’t see them.

Later in the same conversation:

Jayadvaita Maharaja: Just all I really wanted to do is contribute to the history of the Gita and say that, um, what Prabhupada saw and signed off on, um, in 1968, was the abridged edition. And the unabridged edition he really didn’t see in its preparation for its, um, pre-publication stages, except perhaps there were some meetings at some point.
 
—Ajit Krishna dasa

Excerpts from Ramesvara dasa’s memories

(Recorded in an interview in Los Angeles, 1978)

“Prabhupada was very involved in the printing of his books & BBT loans. Actually I should regress a little bit and explain that every major printing contract, although I was making major decisions I would have them verified by Prabhupada, I would send reports to Prabhupada. And he was very much in touch with the whole printing of his books.

Before my time, when Karandhar was still handling it, there are numerous letters between Prabhupada and Karandhar where Karandhar is being given very specific instructions by Prabhupada how many to print, how much to pay for the printing, how much to sell them to the temples.

So Prabhupada was the managing trustee in a sense because he was the one who got the book printing started, not only of course in India but in Japan and he arranged for the credit line, he was setting the quotas how many he wanted distributed, how many he wanted printed, what the price should be from the printer, what the price should be for the temples. Prabhupada was very very active in organizing the publishing of his books during the period of 1970 through 1973.

In the last year Prabhupada had so much confidence in Karandhar that he delegated to Karandhar the authority to make decisions on his own. But when I came on, although from Prabhupada’s point of view he had already delegated authority, I still continued to report regularly to Prabhupada any decisions that we had made. Also the policy was that no loan could be given from the BBT to any temple unless it had Prabhupada’s approval.

The trustee at the time was Bali Mardan, I was the secretary and like the manager of the BBT. But no one had the authority to give a loan to any temple other than Prabhupada himself. So temple presidents and GBC men would write letters to Prabhupada all during the early 1970′s with proposed projects, “We want to buy this temple,” “We want to buy this farm,” “We want to buy this,” “We want to buy that.”

They would send Prabhupada financial reports, pictures of the properties involved. “We want money to do renovation.” Whatever it was they would send their reports to Prabhupada, Prabhupada would write to the BBT inquiring whether the money was available.

Sometimes he would write to the BBT ordering them to pay without even inquiring whether the money was available. Prabhupada was actually not only organizing all the publishing, but he had this vision, the worldwide vision. Wherever he was in one place, every report from all around the move­ment was being fed into him.

And so he was like a personality who was looking at the whole globe and planning out, “Now I want this to come up here, I want that to come up here,” in different countries, in different continents.”

“Don’t you dare change the picture on my book!”

So regarding the instructions that Prabhupada has given about the quality of his books. Prabhupada got involved in many of the facets related to his books. In 1974, for example, we had proposed to put a new picture on the cover of Isopanisad, Krishna playing the flute on the rock.

We mailed a copy of the picture to Prabhupada and told him, “We’re planning to do this.” Prabhupada fired back a letter, “Don’t you dare change the picture on my book! I have deliberately chosen the picture of Visnu because I want this book to be attracting the Mayavadis and impersonalists.”

So that was the first direct instruction that I had received from Prabhupada which gave me an understanding of how much he would meditate on every facet of his books.

The art, the size, the pictures, who the market was. And I began to realize Prabhupada is very much on top of his book design and publishing. So there was an incident that took place in, I believe it was 1974, at the end of 1974 when Prabhupada was in Los Angeles, whenever he was in Los Angeles.

At this time Karandhar was gone, Radhaballabha was in charge of the Press, Bali was the BBT trustee in New York and I was the manager of the BBT. And we were getting ready to reprint the Krishna Books.

Baladeva Vidyabhusana: January, ‘75?

Ramesvara: No, because by then Bali was out. So it had to be sometime in ‘74. Oh, no, wait, maybe it was January, ‘75.

Baladeva Vidyabhusana: Either that or July.

Let’s update the Krishna Book paintings …

So anyway, by 1974, Radhaballabha and I and the artists were talking about reprinting the Krishna Book, let’s update the paintings. These paintings were done in 1969, 1968. The artists have gotten much better.

Their expertise was much better. So the decision was made by myself and Radhaballabha, we were going to upgrade all the paintings. The artists would get together with Radhaballabha and pick out which ones they wanted and then we would work it out together which ones to take out and which ones to put in.

So Prabhupada and Bali came to Los Angeles and I had a meeting with Prabhupada upstairs in his room and I started showing him all of the paintings that were corning out, page by page, and all the paintings that were going in.

This was one of the most astonishing meetings I ever had with Prabhupada in my life. Just before we started going over the Krishna Book paintings, we went over these drawings that Pariksit had done for the Teachings of Lord Caitanya.

He had worked for one year on about 24 or so black and white drawings which would be going on the title page for each chapter of the Teachings of Lord Caitanya. This was his first major work at the BBT art department.

And they had sent them to me so I could show them to Prabhupada because we were getting ready to print the TLC in Dai Nippon.

So we went through drawing after drawing after drawing and Prabhupada was becoming angrier and angrier and more and more livid, and it was becoming a frightening experience. He was condemning them, he was throwing them out, he was rejecting them, he was blasting them, he was describing how they were going to ruin his book, they’re off, they’re misrepresentative, they’re not clear, they’re bogus, and “If you put anything bogus in my book, this is my greatest fear that you will ruin my book and the whole book will be ruined because of you!” And on and on, it was devastating!

And I wrote a letter to the artists with the description of Prabhupada’s comments like a blow-by blow because it was so impressed in my mind. As soon as I got out of the room I ran downstairs and typed out this letter, remembering all of the things Prabhupada said.

So I’ll be able to find that letter and you can refer to it and you’ll see exactly how Prabhupada analyzed the drawings in relation to what they were supposed to be illustrating very carefully and rejected them and just with devastating critique. Prabhupada was so expert.

“They’re ruining my books! They have no brain! They are hippies!”

So then after going through that scene, then I took out the Krishna Book and said, “Now, these are the paintings they want to take out and these are the ones they want to put in, Srila Prabhupada.” And we started again going page by page, color plate by color plate. And Prabhupada was becoming more and more livid, and more and more angry. And it was just the most terrifying experience that I have ever gone through.

He was screaming, “They’re ruining my books! They have no brain! They are hippies! They are rascals!” Screaming, pounding his fist on the desk. At one point they wanted to take out the old Putana, the dead Putana with Krishna sucking the breast of Putana or playing on her lap, whatever it was, and in the background you have the Vrindavana village.

And they wanted to put the new one in from the 2. 2 which Prabhupada considered to be an inferior painting because it did not show as much. “An ugly black lump,” he said.

But the worst was when we came to the rasa-lila. There were different reasons that Prabhupada gave why he didn’t want these paintings taken out and the new ones put in in most cases. He gave the instruction that, “If you want to replace a painting it has to be same, the exact same pastime, the exact same scene, just done technically better.

But just to take a painting out that’s already been approved and stick in a new painting to fill up the number of pages of a different pastime, this is not allowed. You can add but you cannot subtract.” He would say like that. “If you want to take something out you replace it with the exact same lila executed better. Other than that, if you want to add something, just add it. But there’s no question of removing anything.”

So by the time we got to the rasa-lila, this was one of Prabhupada’s favorite paintings, the original Devahuti painting of the rasa-lila which we’ve made the poster of, which is now in the Krishna Book and so on. They wanted to take it out and they wanted to put this painting of Krishna dancing with the gopis from the first printing of the Third Canto, Volume 2.

Now in the reprinting of the Third Canto, Volume 2 this rasa-lila has been taken out and the original Krishna Book rasa-lila has been put in. Because the rasa-lila that they wanted to put in the Krishna Book was the final straw. Prabhupada just turned white! He looked into his bedroom at the original painting which was hanging on his wall.

From his sitting room in Los Angeles he could look into his bedroom. He turned white. He looked at that painting. Then he looked down at the painting that they were proposing was better. Krishna’s hair was wild and long, Radharani’s head was uncovered, the gopi’s hair was uncovered.

It was like, Prabhupada said, “Hippie dance, sex dance. Hippie seeds, hippie contamination, hippie mentality, hippie, hippie, dirty! Rascals!” On and on. Prabhupada was screaming, banging his fist on the desk.

There was nothing you could say, it was just an explosion that “They’re ruining my books.” Hearing the screaming, Sudama, who was acting as Prabhupada’s servant ran into the room opened the door and seeing… just as he came in Prabhupada was banging and releasing a barrage.

And Sudama couldn’t even offer his obeisances. I remember looking at him, he was terrified. He lifted up his hand to his face to shield his eyes. He somehow pushed himself into the back wall and lifted up a foot like he was towering, like he was about to be attacked.

And he was just holding himself, cringing. Finally Prabhupada said, “Go get Bali Mardan.” So I ran downstairs. I found Bali. I said, “Bali, Prabhupada is so angry at the artists, Radhaballabha, me and you. You better come upstairs immediately.”

So Bali ran upstairs and Prabhupada just explained how everyone is a rascal for daring to touch anything in his books.

Prabhupada’s greatest anxiety is that we will change his books

His greatest anxiety is that when he’s gone we will add bogus things to his books and take out things which are bona fide. We will make changes to the law books meant for the next 10,000 years and in that way his legacy will be ruined and his plan destroyed by us because of our tendency to change.

And Prabhupada gave an example that the disease to do things differently is so inherent in the Americans that for the sake of doing things differently we would walk on our hands rather than our feet. He gave different examples like that. He called the artists “Rascals!”

So we promised Prabhupada that we wouldn’t change the art. And then I wrote the letter to the artists explaining to them everything. I remember Bali Mardan went downstairs to call them up and I remember watching the phone call. He called up the Press and asked for Radhaballabha, (imitating Bali’s voice), “Radhaballabha, guess what just happened?”

Prabhupada called you and all the artists rascals. He said you’re all rascals.” Dead silence on the other end. And Bali, he was enjoying this humiliation of the devotees that worked under him. So I saw that and it was the beginning of my suspecting that something’s off with Bali Mardan.

You’re never allowed to change anything in Prabhupada’s books So that was a big event, the first of many with the Isopanisad cover and these paintings. The first of many experiences I’ve had with Prabhupada literally drilling me, pounding it into my head that you’re never allowed to change anything in his books.

He trained me so intensely on this point. Even when the changes make sense he wouldn’t let me change. Just to train me. One time in early 1975 was it? When Prabhupada came to L. A.?

Baladeva Vidyabhusana: Yes, January, end of January.

Change the size of Krishna Book? No!

Ramesvara: I presented to Prabhupada that we could no longer afford to print the hardbound Krishna Book in two volumes. We already published the paperback Krishna Book in three volumes. So I had the task, the service of trying to beg Prabhupada to let us print his hardbound Krishna Book in three volumes.

The discussion went on for an hour in his room. Prabhupada was just telling me how he had planned out the Krishna Book in two volumes from the very beginning. He had planned it like that and I’m ruining the plan. And that the whole feeling was that it’s not just Prabhupada’s plan, it’s Krishna’s plan and He spoke it to Prabhupada and then Prabhupada just did it like that.

So it was so heavy and I was presenting all the arguments about the economics of it and so on. Because the oil embargo had killed the printing industry. The price had gone up 50% on everything. And I told Prabhupada, “If we don’t make this change to three volumes the book will be out of print, we can’t afford it.”

We’re already contracted with Dai Nippon to reprint the Krishna Books, they’ve already bought the paper, we have to go ahead but they’ve raised their price and there’s nothing they can do. They won’t honor the original contracts. So finally after about an hour, Prabhupada was so unhappy, so depressed about it, he finally consented to make it three volumes like the paperbacks.

Then I mentioned to Prabhupada that Dai Nippon had proposed that this book would be so much cheaper if we just print it in the same size as the Srimad Bhagavatam instead of the bigger size.

When I said that there was another one of those famous transcendental explosions! He banged his fist on his desk, he told me that he had planned it in that size and nothing will change it and he threw me out of his room. He just threw me out.

So in this way he was training me to understand how meticulous every detail of Prabhupada’s books, his translations, his purports especially are designed. The concept, the market, the cover pictures, everything Prabhupada would…whenever he was involved he was just meditating so deeply on his books and how to present them to the world.

And I never knew how much Prabhupada was involved in those decisions. So it came as a great surprise and a great… very wonderful, very wonderful to see. So then in 1975 the Mayapur festival came upon us. And it was at that time, due to my foolishness. Of course being preoccupied with Bali, in the whole year of ‘74. Bali was really in charge of the Press and I was in charge of the managing of the BBT, but he was in charge of the Press.

Prabhupada would not allow changes even if the change was an improvement

There were times when Prabhupada was confronted with a situation where being very practical came up against one of his principles.

So I’m sure there are examples of Prabhupada leaning in both ways. But I generally remembered and the way I was trained is that Prabhupada put more emphasis in his training to me on the principles even than on the practicality, even though I’m known a little bit for being very practical-minded. Just like with the BBT. The size of the books, the type of art in the books and so on, on principle Prabhupada would not allow changes even if the change was an improvement. Just to teach that principle of don’t change.

When the Dallas Gurukula was collapsing, I begged Prabhupada, “Let us send money from the BBT.” He said, “No. It is not the business of the BBT to support children, it is the business of parents.” The parents didn’t have any money, how could they support the children? But on this principle, Prabhupada wouldn’t let the BBT bail out the Dallas Gurukula and it closed.

I was ready to bail them out. I proposed it, I wanted to bail it out, but it just didn’t happen. So, I think we can stop here and tomorrow…There’s one more incident in the 1975 Mayapur which is the opening of the Krishna-Balarama temple. So I can talk about that and then we’ll go into 1975 with the Caitanya-caritamrtas and the Radha-Damodar sankirtana and the building of Bombay.

Prabhupada’s “transcendental phobia”: Don’t change my books!

Before we talk about Prabhupada’s travels in ‘76, I want to mention another important theme which was Prabhupada actually instructing about the production on his books. I’ve already mentioned the conversation that took place in ‘74 about the art paintings.

I think that you should get a copy of the letter that I wrote to the art department because practically word for word Prabhupada’s instructions were there and you can get a first hand understanding of how intense Prabhupada was and how concerned he was that in the future no one ever be allowed to make changes in his books. This was more than just a preoccupation with Prabhupada.

This was a, you could call this a transcendental phobia, that the entire movement would without any shadow of a doubt be completely wasted and all the work and effort of all the devotees that Prabhupada was directing as well as his own efforts would all be ultimately lost if his books were changed. That was his attitude.

He expressed that attitude very clearly in 1974 in that conversation and in that letter you’ll see the statements Prabhupada made about how everything will be ruined if his books are changed. Then prior to that I mentioned the incident about the Isopanisad cover where Prabhupada was revealing how much thought went into planning out his books when he was involved.

He got very furious when we wanted to put Krishna on the cover instead of Visnu.

Prabhupada made all the book production/publishing decisions

In 1975, I think I also mentioned this, that we had a very big problem with the printing of the hardbound Krishna Books. We wanted to change it from two volumes to three volumes.

And there was literally like a fight. Not even a fight, Prabhupada was just furious. And he went on for about one hour talking about the Krishna Book and how he had planned it out to be in two volumes.

And it became very clear to me that Prabhupada was training me to understand that these books are transcendental manifestations of Prabhupada’s devotion, Prabhupada’s realization of God which I consider to be perfect absolute God realization coming from Krishna Himself. And that no one is allowed to change anything.

The size, the shape, the number of pages, everything. Actually Prabhupada did make the decisions. If you read through the letters that Prabhupada wrote to me and to Radhaballabha you’ll see.

“Aim for 400 pages per book”

I got a letter from Prabhupada wherein he instructed that each book should be 400 pages. We asked Prabhupada where to draw the line, where to cut off one volume and start the next. How many pages do you want in your books?

And Prabhupada said, “Aim for 400 pages per book.” It could be a little less, a little more, but that should be the average. So Prabhupada was planning that out. Obviously Prabhupada planned out the first three Bhagavatams when he was in India.

And his meditation was that this is the way I want the books for the West, especially for the American market. But basically speaking for the western English market I want them to have cover jackets, ultimately I want them to have color plates, ultimately I want them to have a nice binding, nice cloth, nice paper, this is the size.

When you consider Prabhupada’s external poverty while he was in India, then there is no excuse for the book being that size, it could have been a lot smaller, it would have been a lot cheaper for Prabhupada.

“You cannot change, you cannot make any changes”

So obviously Prabhupada was not considering economics. Otherwise he would have made the books smaller like sometimes we see our European books are smaller physically. This was the size.

Prabhupada had to strain economically to get the book that size, to pay that much more to get the book that size. That means that’s the size he wanted. And then he would pound it into our heads that, “You cannot change, you cannot make any changes!”

We did not have any authority with the American editions of Prabhupada’s books, he was making the decisions I remember one incident in 1976, I think I already mentioned about the color board. I think I should go over this one more time just in this context. We had been preparing to reprint all the old Bhagavatams for the standing order program that was really picking up.

It started in ‘74. In ‘75 it was rolling. By the end of ‘75, early ‘76 they were finishing up America, Ghanesyam was getting 13 orders at Harvard, 135 orders in one month in New England, it was rolling. And we needed to reprint the old volumes. We wanted to standardize the lettering, the format and so on.

Every single standardization had to be approved by Prabhupada. We did not have any authority with the American editions of Prabhupada’s books to be innovative. He was making the decisions. This was his BBT, these were his books.

There can never be any more changes

So in 1976 at Mayapur we brought the color board. We had been talking about how we wanted to standardize everything for the reprints for the Library Party. Prabhupada at that time approved the new design for the Krishna Book trilogy and then he approved the standardization in terms of lettering and so on for the Bhagavatams and he approved the new color board.

That is what the 12 Cantos are going to look like. Prabhupada was very happy to see that we had made a plan. But then he got very grave and said, “Now, this is the final plan, this is the final approved standard, there can never be any more changes.” He was emphatic, he was insistent, and he pounded it into our heads. I was there with Radhaballabha I think Jagannathasuta was there, Prabhupada Kripa Maharaja was there.

Baladeva Vidyabhusana: Where was this?

This changing business is the disease that the Americans have

Ramesvara: This was right on his veranda outside his room in the back part where he was taking massage. Mayapur festival ‘76. Prabhupada Kripa remembers this vividly because he just brought it up at the recent BBT trustees meeting.

That Prabhupada was absolutely emphatic that this is the way the Bhagavatam’s going to be presented to the western English speaking people. Now there’ll be no other way that it will be presented. Later on in that Mayapur festival, I presented to Prabhupada an idea for Beyond Birth and Death reprint.

That was a very popular book at the time and a new… all kinds of new arts and very innovative and creative cover design was going on in the American paperback market. And just going to bookstores, especially in airports, I would see that these publishers, karmi publishers are putting a lot into their paperback covers.

And one of the things that had just come out was something called dye cuts. A dye cut is where you have a hole in the front cover and then the inside front pages are actually laminated or glossy paper and you have color printing.

So you have color printing that kind of comes through that hole. And it’s like a teaser. And when you see that you’re intrigued and you immediately want to open up the cover and look at the two page spread on the inside front cover and the inside page, that’s called the dye cut.

And many books, especially like thriller books, horror books, ghost books, those kind of books use this technique. So I though that Beyond Birth and Death as a title and as a book lent itself to that. So I proposed it to Prabhupada. He completely smashed the idea.

This was inside his room, myself and Radhaballabha. At this time we were showing Prabhupada the…I can’t remember what we were showing him. We were showing him something, maybe color art or something. But anyway, when we presented this idea to him he smashed it and again he gave us a lecture on changes.

He used to say, “Change, change, change, for the sake of change. This changing business is the disease that the Americans have. It’s a disease.” And he told this story, I just can’t remember it but I think it’s written in one of the letters too and Tamal Krishna will remember it.

That if an American, just to be different, instead of walking on his feet he’ll walk on his hands. Just to be different. Change without real purpose. Now in that letter that I wrote to the artists in 1974, so many specific points are made about changing. When you’re allowed to change and when you’re not.

Baladeva Vidyabhusana: You don’t have a copy of that?

“Once it’s approved, it’s eternal”

Ramesvara: I can find a copy. It’s a good thing to refer to. Especially he talked about, as I said earlier, “You can add things but you can’t delete. If you want to replace a painting you have to actually make an improvement and do the exact same subject matter. Once it’s approved it’s eternal.” That was his quote. “Once it’s approved it’s eternal.”

One of the heaviest incidences came up I think in ‘76 or ‘77, we wrote to Prabhupada about publishing his spiritual master’s book the Brahma-samhita. Because it had already been introduced to chant in the Gurukulas, we were chanting it all over ISKCON. And although Prabhupada in ‘75 said, “You cannot read the Gaudiya Math publications, you cannot approach my spiritual master or Bhaktivinoda directly. You have to learn their teachings through me, through my books, through my lectures.” This was a big incident in ‘75 because the devotees were buying Gaudiya Math publications and reading directly. And Prabhupada completely smashed it. So it was either ‘76 or ‘77 we wanted to print Brahma-samhita.

Prabhu­pada approved it and he wrote a very heavy letter to Radhaballabha. Because we were asking Prabhupada about editing changes. I’m not sure if he wrote the letter or if it’s on a tape or maybe it’s both. I think Radhaballabha had a room conversation with Prabhupada and I wasn’t present. Tamal was there. And in addition to that I think there’s a letter.

“You cannot change one comma, not even a punctuation mark”

Anyway, between the letter and the room conversation, the instruction was given that “You cannot make any changes in my spiritual master’s book.” “What about the incorrect grammar?” Prabhupada’s reply, “You cannot change one comma, not even a comma, not even a punctuation mark, that is the etiquette.”

So that was just another one of those super heavy instructions that the etiquette in dealing with a great acarya’s books is that whatever he has done it’s eternal and it can never be changed. And I believe that all of this was part of Prabhupada’s training us.

He wanted to train people who would be entrusted with his books. And who would in turn train the next generation of BBT men, managers and production managers in this fanatical, literally fanatical transcendental phobia about changes.

Prabhupada went out of his way to train us. Some of the instructions were so extreme that one might say they’re exaggerated. But they’re not exaggerated. This is exactly what Prabhupada wanted.

Baladeva Vidyabhusana: Can you give an example of that?

No one is willing to change the size, we’re all so afraid

Ramesvara: Well, just the economics of why we can’t publish the Krishna Book anymore. Because we’re not allowed to change the size.

This has been hanging up the BBT trustees for the last five years. The publishing industry has just exploded in terms of inflation. Every­thing is a 150, 200% more expensive than when Prabhupada was here. We no longer can afford to print the Krishna Book hardbounds in such large volumes. But no one is willing to change the size, we’re all so afraid. But that’s the way Prabhupada trained us.

Maybe one day it is changed for economic reasons because ultimately Prabhupada wouldn’t want the book to be out of print. But this training was ultimate to insure that the instructions in his book, the words they weren’t changed and pictures and illustrations were not added which make the book incorrect and therefore would cause a person to just dismiss the whole book. Prabhupada said, “If there’s one mistake then the whole book is useless.”

If you put these in my book the whole book is ruined

When he was rejecting Pariksit’s line drawings for the Teachings of Lord Caitanya he said, “These are mistakes, these pictures do not illustrate properly. Actually some of the illustrations here are subject to great mis-interpretation and if you put these in my book the whole book is ruined.” So this was Prabhupada’s training to us about his books.

Prabhupada decided the size and the number of pages

So, he was very involved in the designing of the book, the format. We talked to Prabhupada about the number of pages, we talked to Prabhupada about gold stamping, we talked to him about color pictures, ultimately he wanted 50 color pictures in each book.

Prabhupada was a very active publisher, not just author. He was a very active publisher. We would discuss with him as we’ve already mentioned about the Macmillan contract, about American printer versus Japanese printer, Prabhupada would give us the go ahead and we would go.

And by the momentum of his order we would become expert in international publishing. We became expert in understanding the publishing industry of different countries, the paper industry of different countries, we became expert in negotiating, but all of this was by Prabhupada’s order.

How he moved into Dai Nippon and established a credit, how he authorized us to move away from Dai Nippon. Prabhupada was an active publisher, he was not just someone who just turned it all over and didn’t know what was going on. We were sending him monthly reports. I had to send Prabhupada a monthly report during his life on the income of the BBT, on the expenses of the BBT, on all the loans of the BBT and how current they are, on the production that the BBT is engaged in and the upcoming production, on the quantity of books printed. Prabhupada was getting monthly reports and he was writing me letters indicating he was reading them.

It’s not like I was just mailing them and they weren’t read to him. He was reading them and he was writing back comments. “What about this?”, “What about that?” So Prabhupada was not just an active author, he was an active publisher.

He was involved in designing. He created the marketing strategy which involved as I mentioned this ingenious, ingenious idea of mixing philosophy and gorgeous art work. That’s a marketing strategy which enabled us to sell hundreds of thousands of the Bhagavad-gita, literally millions of copies of one philosophy book.

Prabhupada decided the size, Prabhupada decided the number of pages, he always pushed us to improve and increase the quality and so on. He wanted high quality paper in his books. This was something we talked about with Prabhupada and he insisted on high quality paper. And good binding. And in terms of our sales strategy, it was Prabhupada who gave the approval for the airports.

Krishna speaks directly to Srila Prabhupada

That evening in 1976 he wouldn’t tell us. Then another part of that visit was news reporters coming to visit Prabhupada. I remember one incident in particular. This was printed in Prabhupada Remembrances in BTG, so it can be referred to. We had this reporter who just could not believe that any human being could actually know God and speak with God.

He just didn’t believe that those things could happen, that God speaks to somebody, a person can hear God speaking. He was very doubtful and he was challenging Prabhupada in the interview about this. I spoke up at that time and I said, “Well, according to the Bhagavatam, the intelligence of the living being comes from God, knowledge, remembrance, and forgetfulness comes from God.

And intelligence is described in the Bhagavatam as the form direction of the Lord. So what’s happening is God is within the heart of the devotee as well as the nondevotee. But for the devotee, God is actually transcendentalizing, spiritualizing his intelligence.

So through his intelligence, which is the form direction of the Supersoul, the devotee knows exactly what to do and that is actually under the direction of God.” So I explained it like that. Prabhupada looked at me and frowned and said, “No. It is not like that. It is not like that at all. Why do you say like that?

God speaks to His devotee. He speaks just like I am speaking and you can hear if you are pure.” And the reporter just couldn’t believe what Prabhupada was saying. He said, “You mean God is speaking to you?” “Yes.” “You mean he tells. you what to do?” “Yes.” “You mean, when you make decisions, like if you want to appoint somebody to a particular position in your society, that is because God spoke to you and told you to do it?” “Yes.” It was very heavy.

Prabhupada was revealing something that he very rarely revealed. He was revealing what his exalted position was and he was revealing that he is always established in this consciousness, and that the decisions that he makes, not only when he was writing his books, which we knew was like that. We all knew that Prabhupada’s book writing was like that.

The books are coming from Krishna

There were two ways we knew. One is this very amazing letter that Prabhupada wrote. Let’s see if I can find it. It’s a letter that Prabhupada wrote to all Governing Body Commissioners on May 19, 1976. This is a most amazing letter: “My dear GBC disciples, please accept my blessings.
Over the past ten years I have given the framework and now we have become more than the British Empire. Even the British Empire was not as expansive as we. They had only a portion of the world and we have not completed expanding. We must expand more and more, unlimitedly. But I must now remind you that I have to complete the translation of the Srimad Bhagavatam.

This is the greatest contribution. Our books have given us a respectable position. People have no faith in this church or temple worship. Those days are gone. Of course we have to maintain the temples as it is necessary to keep our spirits high. Simply intellectualism will not do.

There must be practical purification. So I request you to relieve me of management responsibilities more and more so that I can complete the Srimad Bhagavatam translation. If I am always having to manage then I cannot do my work on the books. It is document. I have to choose each word very soberly. And if I have to think of management then I cannot do this. I cannot be like these rascals who present something mental concoction to cheat the public.”

Right there he is saying these books are not mental concoction: “I am choosing the words carefully. They are coming from Krishna. He has to be free from all other thoughts on his mind of manage­ment so that he can deeply enter into a meditative trance and hear Krishna speaking.”

So this task will not be finished without the cooperation of my appointed assistants, the GBC, temple presidents and sannyasis. I have chosen my best men to be GBC and I do not want that the GBC should be disrespectful to the temple presidents. You can naturally consult me.

But if the basic principle is weak, how will things go on? So please assist me in the management so that I can be free to finish the Srimad Bhagavatam which will be our lasting contribution to the world.”

God is speaking through Srila Prabhupada

So, from letters like this and also from the purports of the Caitanya-caritamrta describing how Vrindavana dasa was writing and how Krishna dasa was writing. Prabhupada explains transcendental literature is not written by ordinary men. It is written by men who are God realized. God speaks the book within their heart and they are simply recording the message of God in that way.

So the combination of these kinds of letters and Prabhupada’s purports, we already knew that when Prabhupada writes his books it’s just as if you were standing or sitting next to Krishna Himself and Krishna is just speaking.

It’s on that level. But here in this conversation Prabhupada revealed that he is on that plane not only when he is writing his books but even when he is arranging practical things, like the structure of ISKCON, the leadership of ISKCON, practical decisions, when to buy a building, when not to buy it.

Prabhupada revealed that even those practical things, his level of relationship with Krishna is so advanced that he is in touch with Krishna on every single matter. And that’s what he revealed in that meeting and it was just overwhelming. Not only did I feel foolish and insignificant, but that same feeling of awe that I always had for Prabhupada, that awe that this person is with God.

When he speaks, God is speaking to me through him. It was just so clear. And my whole relationship with Prabhupada was based on that understanding of Prabhupada, that whenever I see Prabhupada, the way he walks and holds himself, the way he sings and chants, the way he speaks, that is God communicating through Prabhupada, and I was always very careful and very much in a state of awe and reverence because Prabhupada was training me to see him like that. To me that was a very significant statement.
 
—Ramesvara dasa

Authorization

Every line is perfect

Prabhupada: “Sometimes I become surprised how I have written this. Although I am the writer, still sometimes I am surprised how these things have come. Such vivid description. Where is such literature throughout the whole world? It is all Krishna’s mercy. Every line is perfect.”
(Srila Prabhupada’s Conversations, Talk About Varnasrama, S.B. 2.1.1-5 —June 28, 1977, Vrindavana.)

Resistance to change

“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 Radhaballabha dasa dated 1-5-76.)

Srila Prabhupada never gave anyone carte blanche to make revisions in his books. This letter confirms that any changes to his books would require his personal approval before being printed.

A few months later, the issue of change was raised again by Radhaballabha dasa regarding the text of several volumes of the Srimad Bhagavatam which were soon to be reprinted. Srila Prabhupada advised him, “There is no need for corrections for the First and Second Cantos. Whatever is there is all right.”
(Letter of 5-4-76.)

Seeing how persistent his BBT managers were to implement change in the text and presentation of his books, His Divine Grace wrote again to Radhaballabha dasa in August, 1976, this time more firmly:

“Do not try to change anything without my permission.”

Srila Prabhupada consistently stated that he did not want anything to be changed unnecessarily. Any changes they thought would be an improvement in the text would require his written authorization.
 
—Locanananda dasa

Planet of the trees

When Jayadvaita Maharaja presents his rationale for editing Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is to the public, he quotes a few passages from Bhagavad-gita As It Is that are obviously confusing, and claims, “these need to be changed.”

For example, he cites “planet of the trees” Bg. 1972 edition 10.24 purport and “cattle raising” Bg. 1972 edition 18.44 text.

He uses these isolated examples to justify his wholesale rewriting of the entire Gita. Perhaps no one would object if Jayadvaita Maharaja had noted those few changes authorized by Srila Prabhupada in footnotes or an addendum, instead of making sweeping, unauthorized editorial changes to virtually the entire book.
 
—Govinda dasi

Cattle raising

In the following we will discuss the article “No More Cattle Raising on the Planet of the Trees” that was posted on the Dandavats website.

The author attempts to prove that Srila Prabhupada instructed his editors to make changes and corrections to his books after his disappearance. In support of his conclusions the author quotes from the “Rascal Editors” conversation and from a mail exchange between Ramesvara dasa and Tamala Krishna Goswami.

A careful analysis, however, reveals that the author’s conclusions are invalid. He is correct when he says that after the “Rascal Editors” conversation Srila Prabhupada approved that further editing could be done. This is confirmed in the mail exchange between Ramesvara dasa and Tamala Krishna Goswami. But his conclusions about how editing could be continued, and for how long it could be continued are fallacious. He specifically commits three logical fallacies that invalidate his conclusions:

1. Selective evidence/Cherry picking

2. Non sequitur

3. Taking a quote out of Context/Contextomy

In order to properly understand Srila Prabhupada’s last instructions on editing (that we know of) we have to take a closer look at the letter Tamala Krishna Goswami wrote Ramesvara dasa, because a crucial sentence has been left out of the author’s analysis (reproduced here in bold):

“Your suggestion that in the future any mistakes which are found can be reported to Satsvarupa Maharaja, Jayadvaita Prabhu, Radhaballabha Prabhu, or yourself, and after sufficient investigation and confirmation these mistakes can be rectified is accepted. As we are working on this Fifth Canto planetary system, whatever corrections are required to be made, we will get approved by His Divine Grace and then send them on to you so that the new edition will be free from any of these discrepancies.”

[…]

“Although He has certain doubts in regard to the perfectness of our service, He is quite confident that you will do the needful to make any corrections that are required. Handwritten: I explained the contents of your letter and Satsvarupa’s, and Radhaballabha and He seemed satisfied that things were not being unauthorizedly changed, while at the same time whatever corrections needed to be done were being made.” (Letter to Ramesvara from Tamala Krishna, July 22, 1977.)

From these quotes we can understand that Srila Prabhupada did not want any more editing that was not “sufficiently investigated” and “confirmed.” Nothing should be “unauthorizedly changed.” Now, the questions is:

Who will ultimately confirm and authorize the editing? We get a hint about whom by looking at the sentence that the author has left out:

“As we are working on this Fifth Canto planetary system, whatever corrections are required to be made, we will get approved by His Divine Grace…”

So it seems the four above mentioned devotees were not just changing the books themselves. They were sending their changes to Srila Prabhupada for final approval. This seems to be the procedure that Tamala Krishna Goswami is talking about. By leaving the sentence about the edits to the Fifth Canto out the author commits the fallacy of “selective evidence.”1

Some might argue that maybe the changes to the Fifth Canto were the only changes that were sent to Srila Prabhupada, and not any other changes. But “maybe” is guesswork. And we do not make changes to the books of the acaryas based on guesswork (maybe, I think, perhaps etc). A principle of caution must be observed in editing Srila Prabhupada’s books. Better safe than sorry! So contrary to what the author argues we find no evidence in the exchange between Ramesvara Prabhu and Tamala Krishna Goswami to support the conclusion that these four above mentioned devotees could edit without having Srila Prabhupada approve or disapprove all their changes.

The author’s conclusion about posthumous editing simply does not follow from it’s premises, and therefore he also commits the logical fallacy “non sequitur”2, which cover all arguments in which the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Another very important point is that neither in the “Rascal Editors” conversation nor in the exchange between Tamala Krishna Goswami and Ramesvara dasa do we find any information about posthumous editing. They were spoken/written within a context where Srila Prabhupada was around to approve or disapprove the editing work of BBT. The conversation and the letters came into existence because Srila Prabhupada and some of his disciples were dissatisfied with some of the editing work done by the BBT –not because anyone asked Srila Prabhupada about how editing should be done after his disappearance.

The burden of proof is on the devotee who states that we can project, extend or expand the instructions given by Srila Prabhupada on book editing from one context (when he was around) into a completely different context (when he is no longer around). In connection with the book changes no one has been able to lift this burden of proof successfully, and the author’s attempt also fails:

The author argues that since the letter written by Tamala Krishna Goswami states that “in the future” the editing should follow the above mentioned procedure, and since Srila Prabhupada never asked them to stop this procedure, therefore this procedure must still be followed after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance. There are several problems with this argument:

1. The letter was signed by Srila Prabhupada, but was written by Tamala Krishna Goswami. So we cannot know for certain how Srila Prabhupada understood and interpreted the words “in the future.” We cannot even be sure he took special notice of the words.

2. We humans often use “in the future we should do such and such” in a very unspecified way—and often it is implicit that there is a timeframe involved, or that if certain factors are changed then the procedure must also be changed or stopped. For example, if I tell my wife that “in the future” the procedure is that she should have my breakfast ready at 9:00 a.m., then I do not also have to state the obvious fact that if I die today, then she should stop that practice tomorrow. Similarly, based on sastra and Srila Prabhupada’s clear instructions on the arsa prayoga principle it can be argued that he did not also have to tell his editors that if he leaves his body, then they should stop the editing. At least there is no proof for the contention that the editing should continue.

3. If one states that the words “in the future” also refers to the time after Srila Prabhupada left his body, then one is clinging to the same faulty reasoning as the ritviks. Ritviks state that the word “henceforward” in the famous July 9th letter (also written by Tamala Krishna Goswami and signed by Srila Prabhupada) should be taken to mean that ritvik initiations should continue after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance. But neither the author nor any other ISKCON leader will accept that interpretation of the word “henceforward” in the July 9th letter. Thus they have a double standard – i.e. they apply a different set of principles for similar situations. Unless the author wants to fall prey to the same faulty reasoning as the ritviks, he has to admit that there is no proof that “in the future” refers to the time after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance.

Summing this point up:

Nothing seems to suggest that the instructions on book editing given by Srila Prabhupada in the “Rascal Editors” conversation and in the exchange between Ramesvara dasa and Tamala Krishna Goswami can be extrapolated into a context where Srila Prabhupada is no longer around. So by insisting on this unjustified extrapolation the author is effectively invalidating his own argument by committing the logical fallacy of quoting out of context/contextomy.3

We do not have one single instruction from Srila Prabhupada where he allows for posthumous editing of his books. However, he actually taught us how to deal with the transcendental mistakes of the acaryas.

First of all he gave philosophical instructions about the dangers of violating the arsa prayoga principle:

“If one is too big, there is no mistake. Arsa-prayoga means there may be discrepancies but it is all right. Just like Shakespeare, sometimes there are odd usages of language, but he is accepted as authority. I have explained all these things in my Preface to First Canto.”
(Letter to Mandali Bhadra, Jaipur 20 January, 1972.)

“So unless one is self-realized, there is practically no use writing about Krishna. This transcendental writing does not depend on material education. It depends on the spiritual realization. You’ll find, therefore, in the comments of Bhagavatam by different acaryas, even there are some discrepancies, they are accepted as arsa prayoga. It should remain as it is.”
(Srimad Bhagavatam 7.5.23-24, Vrindavana, March 31, 1976.)

Prabhupada: This, of course, should be strictly forbidden.Radhaballabha: So no corrections. That makes it simple.Prabhupada: They can divide the synonyms. That’s all.Radhaballabha: Synonyms. So even…Prabhupada: That is his tendency, to correct. That’s very bad. He should not do that.Radhaballabha: So I’ll just forget this, then.Prabhupada: The system is: whatever authority has done, even there is mistake, it should be accepted.Radhaballabha: Oh.Prabhupada: Arsa-prayoga. That is ha… He should not become more learned than the authority. That is very bad habit…

[…]

Prabhupada: Why finish it? Whatever is done is done. No more.Radhaballabha: Well, now that this system of no corrections anywhere, that makes it very simple. Then he can’t do anything. I don’t think he wants to, either. It makes it more simple for him. It makes him very uncomfortable.Prabhupada: No corrections.
(Room Conversation, 27 february, 1977.)

Srila Prabhupada also taught us by his own practical example. The article “Srila Prabhupada’s Instructions on editing are in his own books” (by Prahlad Nrsimha dasa) reveals how Srila Prabhupada himself dealt with the transcendental mistakes made by the previous acaryas (he did not change or touch them). Here are two examples from the article:
“In the Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila 9.358, Srila Prabhupada cites his spiritual master Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, who points out that in the seventy-fourth verse of this same chapter there is an apparent error made by Krishnadasa Kaviraja Goswami. Srila Prabhupada, just to teach us the principle of arsa prayoga, (please see quotes from Srila Prabhupada on “arsa prayoga” at the end of this article) does not touch the words of Krishnadasa Kaviraja Goswami, but leaves this apparent error as it is, out of respect for the transcendental book.

Even though Srila Prabhupada’s own spiritual master, the most pure and intimate confidential devotee and associate of Lord Krishna and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu himself, had clearly pointed out that this is an apparent error and is apparently wrong.

Furthermore in the purport to that seventy-fourth verse, mentioned above, Srila Prabhupada mentions nothing; only at the end of the chapter, after Srila Krishnadasa Kaviraja concludes his narration, does Srila Prabhupada even mention the apparent mistake.

That Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila 9. 358 purport is cited here for your reference:

“Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura points out that in the seventy-fourth verse of this chapter it is stated that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu visited the temple of Siyali-bhairavi, but actually at Siyali, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu visited the temple of Sri Bhu-varaha. Near Siyali and Cidambaram there is a temple known as Sri Musnam. In this temple there is a Deity of Sri Bhu-varaha. In the jurisdiction of Cidambaram there is a district known as southern Arcot.

The town of Siyali is in that district. There is a temple of Sri Bhu-varahadeva nearby, not Bhairavi-devi. This is Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura’s conclusion.”
This is a very good lesson to make a clear and prominent note of how Srila Prabhupada, the teacher by example, has chosen to edit (or rather not edit) the words of the spiritual masters or previous acaryas’ writings.”

[…]

We will cite another place were Srila Prabhupada left a seeming mistake as it is, even though it may be considered “wrong”:
“Ambikavana is situated somewhere in the Gujarat province. Ambikavana is said to be situated on the river Sarasvati, yet we do not find any Sarasvati River in the Gujarat province; the only river there is Savarmati. In India, all the big places of pilgrimage are situated on nice rivers like the Ganges, Yamuna, Sarasvati, Narmada, Godavari, Kaveri, etc. Ambikavana was situated on the bank of Sarasvati, and all the cowherd men and Nanda Maharaja went there.”
(Krishna Book, 1970 edition Volume 1 Chapter 33/Vidyadhara Liberated and the Demon Sankhasura Killed.)

In this quote from his original Krishna Book, Prabhupada mentions that although it says, “Ambikavana is said to be situated on the river Sarasvati, yet we do not find any Sarasvati River in the Gujarat province…” Prabhupada does not change the text to correct the seeming mistake.” (Prahlad Nrsimha dasa, Srila Prabhupada’s Instructions on editing are in his own books.)

The article has additional examples and many other interesting points in regard to the topic of book changes. Sastra also confirms that the mistakes of the acaryas should not be corrected:

“Anyone who finds any fault with a devotee’s description of Krishna is a sinner. If a devotee writes a poem, no matter how poorly he does it, it will certainly contain his love for Krishna. A fool says ‘visnaya’ while a scholar knows the correct form is ‘visnave’, but Krishna accepts the sentiment in either case. If anyone sees a fault in this, the fault is his, for Krishna is pleased with anything the pure devotee says. You too describe the Lord with words of love, so what arrogant person would dare criticize anything that you have written?”
(Caitanya Bhagavata 1.11.105-110.)

The conclusion is that there is no mention of posthumous editing in Srila Prabhupada’s teachings other than:

1. The clear statements about not changing the works of an acarya (the arsa prayoga principle).

2. Srila Prabhupada’s own example of not touching the mistakes of the previous acaryas.

3. Sastric injunctions on not to correct the mistakes of the acaryas.

As cited above Tamala Krishna Goswami writes to Ramesvara dasa:

“Your suggestion that in the future any mistakes which are found can be reported to Satsvarupa Maharaja, Jayadvaita Prabhu, Radhaballabha Prabhu, or yourself, and after sufficient investigation and confirmation these mistakes can be rectified is accepted.”
(Letter to Ramesvara from Tamala Krishna, July 22, 1977.)

Besides the obvious problem that none of the changes made post-1977 can be approved by Srila Prabhupada, there is also the problem that hardly any of the changes made to the Gita have been “sufficiently investigated.” The changes were made by Jayadvaita Swami –more or less alone. And as we see there are many discrepancies in his editing. And most of his changes are directly violating clear instructions from Srila Prabhupada. For example, Srila Prabhupada did not want any needless changes.

“As you know, and as we kept in mind while doing the work, Srila Prabhupada staunchly opposed needless changes.”
(Jayadvaita Swami, letter to Amogha lila, 1986.)

But the Gita (and other books) are filled with thousands of needless changes. Many of these are mentioned in the e-book “No Reply from BBTI” which can be easily found on the arsaprayoga.com website.
So even if we—for arguments sake—accept the conclusion that some changes could be made posthumously (for which there is no evidence), then we would still be in a situation where the BBTI has violated the instructions on how Srila Prabhupada wanted his books edited while he was still around to supervise the work.
 
—Ajit Krishna dasa

“Don’t do anything without consulting me”

“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.”

The first fact to consider is that Srila Prabhupada did not want his disciples to change his books without his authorization.

Examples of this can be seen in these quotes:

Srila Prabhupada letter to Bhargava, May 29, 1976, Honolulu:
“I am in due receipt of your letter dated May 25, 1976, along with samples of the Gitar-gan and the cover in for the Bhagavat-darsana. No, the printing of the Gitar-gan cover this fashion is not at all approved by me. You have done most nonsensically. Why change the cover?

When people look to see the Bhagavad-gita they expect to see Krishna and Arjuna, not the picture of Krishna with cow. You have done a great mistake by changing the front picture and it will hamper the sale. In future you don’t do any changes without asking me first. Simply because there is no stock of books, we can do anything whimsically? Is this logic? Gita is not spoken in Vrindavan, it is spoken on the battlefield of Kuruksetra, but this is Vrindavan picture.

That chariot drive by four horses, that is the real Kuruksetra picture. It is not that because there is no stock we can do whimsically as we like and lose the idea, that is rasa-bhasa. Because there is no bread, you take stone to eat? There is no stock of bread so you will take stone? The front picture is most important thing and you have changed it. It must remain standard, and not change. Also, the lettering is not nice on the cover.

You could have taken a color picture of Krishna and Arjuna and used it black and white (one color) on the front cover. Just as you did with the inside back cover of the Bhagavat darsana, the original picture of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu was in color but you have printed it in black and white. You could have done this on the front cover with Krishna and Arjuna on the Battlefield of Kuruksetra, but the cover must not be changed.

Concerning the Bhagavat darsana cover, this Hindi on the back is not good. Who is translating this? Also, the address on the back of our Vrindavan Temple is not correctly spelled. It has been spelled Chattakara Road; But it should be Chattikara Road. Who is proof-reading?

I am glad to see that some Hindi translating is going on but what about that other boy who was translating the Srimad Bhagavatam in Vrindavan? Do not do anything whimsically in future, and you can write me if you have questions concerning the printing.”

Srila Prabhupada letter to Radhaballabha, January 5, 1976, Nellore:
“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. So reprinting the volumes will have to wait until the mistakes are corrected and approved by me.”

Srila Prabhupada letter to Hayagriva, November 18, 1968, Los Angeles:
“Regarding Srimad Bhagavatam, please send me the chapters which you have already revised. I want to see it, how it is being done. I am glad that you are not omitting anything, but just making grammatical correction, and phrasing for force and clarity, and adding Pradyumna’s transliteration, that is very nice.

Yes, henceforward, as I have already told you, that Srimad Bhagavatam will be ultimately seen by you, before being printed. That will keep consistency, I quite agree with you. My present plan is to stay in Los Angeles, perhaps at least for more than a month, which will cover Christmas holidays. And so, during that time, if you come here, it will be very nice.”

Srila Prabhupada letter to Satsvarupa, November 14, 1969, London:
“Also, I have not received any edited versions of the tapes which I have sent you from Europe. So please send them to me as soon as possible, keeping carbon copies with you in Boston. If there are discrepancies in your editing techniques between the beginning and later chapters, please inform me what they are so we can make the corrections here.”

Srila Prabhupada letter to Karunasindhu, November 9, 1975, Bombay:
“My dear Karuna Sindhu dasa,
Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your letter dated October 24, 1975 and I have noted the contents. I am very glad to receive your letter. I can understand this cunning Purusottama dasa has taken advantage of your simplicity. So any one of my godbrothers cannot help me in this way of book writing because they are unfortunate in the matter of preaching work.

They are simply trying to infiltrate our society to so something harmful by their attempt. So please do not have any correspondence with this Purusottama or any of my godbrothers, so-called. And do not do anything without consulting me. You can inform this instruction to everyone and send back to me the sheets of corrections sent to you by Purusottama.

I was very much anxious to know how Purusottama entered in our camp. Now the matter is clear. Be careful for further dealings with such men.
I hope this finds you in good health.”

Srila Prabhupada letter to Radhaballabha, August 26, 1975, Vrindavan:
“Regarding the English editing discrepancies, that how can I know? Let them point out which part and on which page so I can see.”

Srila Prabhupada letter to Radhaballabha, November 3, 1974, India:
“Regarding the indexing for Srimad Bhagavatam, that has caused some confusion. From you letter it appears that you are printing a one volume index covering the first four Cantos, in a softcover edition. But, the indexes for the First and Second Cantos have already been published at the concluding volume of the Canto.

Why are you now changing the procedure? Since the indexes for the first two Cantos have already appeared, why not just publish indexes for the next two Cantos which have not yet appeared? And, even if you bring out indexes for all the first four Cantos, since the entire work is not yet completed, you will again have to do the work over again when the succeeding Cantos are published.

Anyway you can do it as you are doing it, but it is advisable to consult directly with Srila Prabhupada on such a matter specially if you are making some change in any of the publishing, that should be consulted with Srila Prabhupada first. Kindly do this.”

Srila Prabhupada letter to Radhaballabha, August 26, 1976, Delhi:
“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.”

From Srila Prabhupada’s letters we can also understand that keeping editors with him was preferable. Srila Prabhupada could thus oversee any changes they were making.

Srila Prabhupada letter to Dhananjaya, July 13, 1976, Philadelphia:
“Regarding Nitai, he is now travelling with me for some immediate editing work. Afterwards you can consult with Ramesvara what will be his program.”

Srila Prabhupada letter to Jayadvaita, May 15, 1971, Sydney:
“One thing, I do not regularly receive copies of books and magazines which are new, so if you will kindly send me whenever they come out sample copies of all our literatures, I shall be very thankful.

As I have informed, Pradyumna and Syamasundara will be sending you regularly completed transcriptions of my translation work by post, that will avoid the high cost of sending tapes, which besides are very expensive and may be lost easily in mail, and because I am here if they have questions I can answer and make the final proofreading, and this will expedite everything.”

No more changes to Bhagavad-gita

Conversation of December 24, 1969 with BTG and Book Production Staff in Boston:

Hayagriva: I know the translations themselves, they were somewhat changed in Bhagavad-gita As It Is as it came out in Macmillan (the abridged edition). Did you like those translations?

Srila Prabhupada: Whichever is better, you think. That’s all. You can follow this Macmillan.

Hayagriva: They’re good. I think they’re very good.

Srila Prabhupada: Yes. You can follow that translation. Simply synonyms he can add, transliterations.

Hayagriva: And we have all the purports. We can include everything. Nothing will be deleted. Everything will be in there.

Srila Prabhupada: That’s all right.

Having settled the issue, Srila Prabhupada would thereafter never recommend that the verses of the Bhagavad-gita be changed in any way. In fact, when one of the editors from ISKCON Press subsequently submitted a proposal to change the particular wording of a Bhagavad-gita verse and purport, His Divine Grace rejected the idea, stating that whatever had been printed previously should remain “as it is”:

“I have dictated the missing purports from Chapter Nine and they are sent enclosed herewith. So far changing the wording of verse or purport of 12.12 discussed before, it may remain as it is.”
(Letter to Jayadvaita dated 3-17-71.)
 
—Locanananda dasa

On BBTI credentials to edit the books

The first story takes place in Mayapur where Srila Prabhupada was talking about why he came to the material world. Srila Prabhupada said: “He, (meaning Krishna) asked me to come here and I said that I did not want to go because it was such a dirty place. He (meaning Krishna) told me, “If you go I will arrange so many nice palaces for you to live in.” I said, “But I do not want to go.” “He (meaning Krishna) said, “You just go and write these books and I will make it comfortable for you.”

So Srila Prabhupada said, “Because He asked me to write these books I came.”

So here it is quite clear that the main reason why Srila Prabhupada came to this world was to write these books by the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead Lord Sri Krishna. Is Jayadvaita Swami a nitya siddha eternal associate of the Supreme Personality of Godhead Lord Sri Krishna who was ordered to come here to edit these books? If not then he should leave the books alone!

Once in Bombay Srila Prabhupada ordered me to come to his room and listen to him preach to some life members. I sat there and listened for almost an hour. After they left he started to chastise me.

“Why are you not coming here everyday to listen to me preach. You are one of my leaders if you do not learn how to preach from me then what will happen?” Then he quoted a verse in Sanskrit from Bhagavad-gita and asked me if I knew this verse in English, where it was in the Gita, and what the meaning was. I unfortunately had no answers.

“Are you reading my books everyday?” he asked. I admitted my neglect. “If you do not read my books everyday then how will you learn? You are going out to make life members and collect big donations but you are not reading my books. You must read my books every day!”

Then he said: “Even I read my books everyday. Do you know why?” I proffered no answer and waited for the revelation. “Because every time I read these books even I learn something!” I sat in stunned silence. Then he asked, “Do you know why I learn something every time I read these books?” Now I was completely bewildered. “Because I have not written these books.” What transpired next was simply amazing. He looked me very intently making strong direct eye contact. He spoke with great authority but with a mystical mood bordering on the ecstatic as he began to describe how His books are written.

“Everyday,” he said, “when I sit down here to write these books”, he was now looking into space waving His hands in the air His voice filled with transcendental emotion. “Krishna personally comes and dictates every word.” I got the sense that Krishna was present in the room at that moment but I was too blind to see Him.

Now Srila Prabhupada returned his eyes to mine. “Therefore”, he said, “whenever I read these books even I learn something and if you read my books everyday you will also learn something every time you read them.”

So here it is quite clear that just like Baladeva Vidya Bhushana and other great Acharyas in our line Srila Prabhupada received direct dictation from Krishna when he was writing His books. Is Jayadvaita Swami receiving direct dictation from the Supreme Personality of Godhead Lord Sri Krishna when he edits the books? If not then he should leave the books alone!
 
—Bhagavat dasa

Galley proofs

Did you know that Prabhupada signed the galley proofs/the blueprint of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is, and according to Brahmananda dasa (at that time Swami) Prabhupada read the complete galley proofs before approving them to be sent to Macmillan to be used for printing what became the original and authorized 1972 edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is?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. Everything was done by Srila Prabhupada. It was a very personal kind of thing. Of course, that gave Prabhupada great pleasure because he wanted his books published, and we had started to do it. So Prabhupada took great pleasure in proofreading those galleys. And he handed them to me, and it was very wonderful.”
(SPL 7-4: A Summer in Montreal, 1968.)
 
—Ajit Krishna dasa

Whose “revised and enlarged edition”?

While planning to print the unabridged version of the Bhagavad-gita, Srila Prabhupada often referred to it as the revised and enlarged edition. When the BBTI published its unauthorized adulterated Gita years later, they would henceforward refer to the 1972 printing as the original edition while calling theirs the revised and enlarged edition. This appears to be a subtle act of deception meant to validate the irreverent practice of changing Srila Prabhupada’s books.
 
—Locananandana dasa

Gita, definitive edition

Prabhupada: No, no. Who has written foreword to my Bhagavad-gita?Harikesa: Dimock.Prabhupada: Dimock. “Here is definitive…”Hamsaduta: Version.Nitai: “Definitive edition.”Prabhupada: “Definitive edition.” That is the credit. Not “may be.” No “maybe,” Sir. That is rascaldom.
(Morning Walk — November 26, 1975, New Delhi.)

Complete Edition
When Srila Prabhupada approved the 1972 edition of the Gita he called it “The Complete Edition.”
 
—Jagannatha Mishra dasa

Arsa prayoga and BBTI

No specific instruction authorizing the editing

Vyapaka dasa: “Do you have explicit instructions from Srila Prabhupada authorizing you to make post-samadhi changes to his books?”Jayadvaita Swami: “No.”
(Published e-mail correspondence between Jayadvaita Swami and Vyapaka dasa.)

Govinda dasi: “…Jayadvaita Maharaja has said that Srila Prabhupada did not specifically give him the permission to…”Jayadvaita Swami: “I never got an explicit word from Srila Prabhupada to do this work at an explicit time.”
(Conversation between Govinda dasi and Jayadvaita Swami about the posthumous changes to Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita, Honolulu on Jan 19, 2003.)

“To my knowledge, Srila Prabhupada never asked us to re-edit the book.”
(Jayadvaita Swami’s letter to Amogha lila 1986.)

≈∞≈∞≈∞≈

Dear Yasodanandana Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

In answer to your questions, I don’t have any original tape recording of any kind of Srila Prabhupada authorizing the editorial changes in the Gita. And despite scouring the GBC resolutions from 1979-83, I found no reference to the Bhagavad-gita whatsover. It seems the assignment of Jayadvaita Swami to perform that task was unpublished–at least I couldn’t find it in the GBC resolutions made widely available.

Hoping this meets you well, I remain

Your servant,
Dravida dasa -Editor for the BBTI
(Letter from Dravida dasa to Yasodanandana dasa, Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 09:45:12 -0700.)

So, both Jayadvaita Swami and Dravida dasa, who are the leading editors for the BBT International admit there is no instruction from Srila Prabhupada to edit his Bhagavad-gita, As It Is.
 
—Ajit Krishna dasa

BBTI says arsa prayoga is not applicable to editors

Here are some important words from Jayadvaita Swami, the principal editor to Srila Prabhupada’s books after His Divine Grace’s departure. On the policy of editing:

“Arsa prayoga is a very important principle. The editor should never have the mentality that he is better than the author, that he has something more to contribute than the author does, that the author really doesn’t know what he is doing, but he knows what he is doing. That’s offensive and that ruins everything. It is an offense to the acarya. The idea however that this sort of sanctity that the author has, or that the words of the author have, somehow extends to the mistakes of the editors is weird. It is an offense to correct the mistakes of previous editors! Are they acaryas? Are they paramahamsas? Are they infallible? They are wonderful devotees, they did wonderful service, but they made mistakes. Understandable.”

BBTI states that the sanctity that Prabhupada’s texts have do not apply to the work done by Prabhupada’s editors. They seem not to appreciate the fact that this work was later approved by Prabhupada. Does Prabhupada’s approval not have sanctity?
 
—Ajit Krishna dasa

Back to the original drafts?

It is unreasonable to consider that Srila Prabhupada would intend to give up the results of two years of editing the book with Hayagriva and go backwards to the original drafts.

Jayadvaita Maharaja says that he changed the Bhagavad-gita to be more in keeping with the original manuscript. I question which draft, since nearly two years of editing by Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva had already taken place before Jayadvaita even joined the movement. There certainly were many working drafts in various stages of editing, since Srila Prabhupada spent many hours, weeks and months going over every detail of every single verse of the Gita with Hayagriva. Jayadvaita Maharaja confirmed this in the second Hawaii istagosthi meeting: there is not one original manuscript.
 
—Govinda dasi

Hayagriva’s editing approved

Srila Prabhupada worked with Hayagriva personally

“And so the image of Srila Prabhupada sitting with Hayagriva in December of 1968 carefully going over every verse of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, seeing to the finishing touches, is a persistent image of something that never took place. That’s the truth. Here’s the timeline. See for yourself.” (Jayadvaita Swami).

Now the timeline and evidence he presents is carefully crafted to avoid the facts.

Govinda dasi is a devotee of the early days of ISKCON and was initiated by Srila Prabhupada in January of 1967, shortly after he arrived in San Francisco from New York, for the first time.

She met with Jayadvaita Swami, the BBTI editor, in Honolulu, Hawaii at the New Navadwip Pancha Tattva Temple where a group meeting of devotees took place on January, 19, 2003. This is an historical meeting since Jayadvaita Swami was questioned about the book changes by his godbrothers and godsisters for the first time, and it was recorded.

Govinda dasi: “…in 1966, ‘67 and ‘68, Hayagriva spent many, many hours alone with Srila Prabhupada, discussing the different aspects of the editing work. They went over each verse extensively, and Srila Prabhupada was actually quite clear in expressing what he wanted. He, even in the case of legal matters, or something else that he might not know how things worked, he knew what he wanted. So he had an uncanny ability to see through any situation. That’s an understatement, and I’m putting that way so that people can appreciate it.”

Jayadvaita Swami claims that he was the “production manager” at the very time the 1972 Bhagavad-gita manuscript was being worked on (1969-1972), Jayadvaita says, “…he [Rayarama] was the final editor [for the 1972 edition]. [inaudible] The unabridged edition, uh, the unabridged edition, um, I was the production manager at the time…[inaudible] and, for that edition, Hayagriva had some manuscripts already with him. And, he called for whatever other manuscripts we had available at that time at ISKCON Press.”

Jayadvaita also claims that Srila Prabhupada was “not involved” in the 1972 edition except that there were “some meetings.” Then he admits that he doesn’t really know if Srila Prabhupada worked on the manuscript with Hayagriva, “He [Hayagriva] may have, for some brief time, spent some time with Prabhupada. It’s possible.” Then he repudiates that statement by saying, “he just didn’t have, couldn’t possibly.”

Above Jayadvaita has said that Hayagriva was not the final editor of the Bhagavad-gita 1972 edition and that Rayarama was the “final editor.”

Jayadvaita then leads us to believe that he edited the manuscript himself before Hayagriva edited it, yet he still refers to the manuscript as “Hayagriva’s manuscripts.”

Jayadvaita Swami: “I worked with Hayagriva’s manuscripts; I worked with manuscripts that Hayagriva had not yet edited; I worked with manuscripts that Rayarama had worked on; I retyped the entire Bhagavad-gita As It Is from, from beginning to end.”

So out of Jayadvaita Swami’s own account of the production of the 1972 edition of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is, we can gather the following points that he makes:

1. Hayagriva with Srila Prabhupada created the manuscript to the Bhagavad-gita 1972 edition, (but he is not really sure).

2. Jayadvaita Swami retyped the entire manuscript(s).

3. Rayarama was the “final editor” (we are not really sure what he means, but maybe he means Rayarama was the last person to work on it?)

Jayadvaita Swami: “…he [Srila Prabhupada] really didn’t see in its preparation for its, um, pre-publication stages, except perhaps there were some meetings at some point, you were there to…

Govinda dasi: He signed it in ‘71…

Jayadvaita Swami: I mean to say, in terms of actually going over the text, seeing what was being done, approving or disapproving the particular ways that things were edited, Prabhupada wasn’t involved. With the possible exception, you know, that there were some meetings, on some…occasional meetings. Like when the manuscript came to me, it was clear, that this was not something that Prabhupada had, um, gone over in the same kind of painstaking detail that you described for the abridged edition. Um…

The first thing to note here is that Jayadvaita Swami is trying to make us believe that the manuscript for the 1968 edition of the Bhagavad-gita is different than the manuscript of the 1972 edition of the Bhagavad-gita.

Srila Prabhupada writes in the preface to the 1972 edition of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is the following:

“Originally I wrote Bhagavad-gita As It Is in the form in which it is presented now. When this book was first published, the original manuscript was, unfortunately, cut short to less than 400 pages, without illustrations and without explanations for most of the original verses of the Srimad Bhagavad-gita. In all of my other books—Srimad Bhagavatam, Sri Isopanisad, etc.—the system is that I give the original verse, its English transliteration, word-for-word Sanskrit-English equivalents, translations and purports.

This makes the book very authentic and scholarly and makes the meaning self-evident. I was not very happy, therefore, when I had to minimize my original manuscript. But later on, when the demand for Bhagavad-gita As It Is considerably increased, I was requested by many scholars and devotees to present the book in its original form, and Messrs. Macmillan and Co. agreed to publish the complete edition. Thus the present attempt is to offer the original manuscript of this great book of knowledge with full parampara explanation in order to establish the Krishna consciousness movement more soundly and progressively.”

So we can see the history of the manuscript right there in the 1972 edition. The manuscript to the 1972 and 1968 editions were the same. The main reason the two books came out differently is that Macmillan and Co. edited the book themselves by cutting “short to less than 400 pages, without illustrations and without explanations for most of the original verses.” The other reason is that the manuscript was worked on more intensely by Hayagriva as we will show later on in this article where he says that he will double check everything and prepare for the 1972 edition.

Govinda dasi’s personal account of Srila Prabhupada working on the 1972 edition of the Bhagavad-gita manuscript:Govinda dasi: “Hayagriva was living with Srila Prabhupada in ‘68, and they were going over things, and that was after this book [the abridged edition] was printed. So that must have been for the ‘72 one [Bhagavad-gita].”

In Hayagriva’s book “The Hare Krishna Explosion”, we find further proof that he worked for three months straight extensively with Srila Prabhupada on this manuscript to the Bhagavad-gita As It Is in San Francisco:

January 17, 1967:

“Swamiji continues translating Bhagavad-gita. He is so eager to print it that we begin negotiations with a local printer. Prices are very high. In New York, Brahmananda continues his pursuit of publishers.” “The days of February are beautiful with perfect temperatures in the seventies, fog rolling off early, skies very blue and clear, sun falling bright and sharp on the lush foliage of Golden Gate Park. The park encloses the largest variety of plant and tree life to be found in any one spot on earth. We are at a loss to identify plants for Swamiji.”
“I rent an electric typewriter, set it up in the back temple room, and continue typing up stencils for Back To Godhead, writing and editing [Bhagavad-gita] while Harsharani sends people after food, and cooks noon prasadam.”
“Apart from kirtans, I find myself spending many sunny hours in the park, walking past the tennis courts to large, quiet bowers surrounded with hybiscus and eucalyptus. And at times I sit in the shade beneath the white and pink rhododendrons and edit Bhagavad-gita. After editing, I sometimes visit the museum and stroll through the replica eighteenth century gardens, chanting my daily rounds while perusing the curlicues of rococo art.”

“Although I write on the Lord Caitanya play through the spring days, my primary service is helping Swamiji with Bhagavad-gita. He continues translating, hurrying to complete the manuscript but still annotating each verse thoroughly in his purports. Daily, I consult him to make certain that the translation of each verse precisely coincides with the meaning he wants to relate. “Edit for force and clarity,” he tells me. “By Krishna’s grace, you are a qualified English professor. You know how grammatical mistakes will discredit us with scholars. I want them to appreciate this Bhagavad-gita as the definitive edition. All the others try to take credit away from Krishna.”
“I am swamped with editing. Since much of the text is equivocal due to grammar, I find myself consulting Swamiji on nearly every verse. It seems that in Sanskrit, Hindi, and Bengali, phrase is tacked onto phrase until the original subject is lost.”

April 9, 1967:

“Swamiji leaves for the airport. Before entering the car, he stops, cane in hand, and gives a long look at the little storefront temple. It is a look that says a great deal. Gurudasa snaps a photo at that very instant. ‘That’s a farewell look,’ I think to myself.”
Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva worked together on editing the Bhagavad-gita As It Is manuscript daily, almost three months, while Hayagriva Prabhu was living with him in San Francisco, from Janurary 17, 1967 until April 9, 1967.

What Jayadvaita Swami actually did on the 1972 edition?

Jayadvaita Swami: “…Some of the very few verses that we had issues with, there’s no question in my mind that Prabhupada didn’t see them.Govinda dasi: You mean there were errors?Jayadvaita Swami: Um, I mean there were, um, yes.Govinda dasi: Typos?Jayadvaita Swami: No, I don’t mean typos. I mean, um, no, I’m reluctant to talk about it, Govinda dasi. I’ve always had the policy that as a matter of professional courtesy and personal courtesy, um, I talk about all positive things, um, in the editing of the first edition. And as far as possible I’d like to keep that policy.

Jayadvaita Swami does not give us enough information to go on what exactly he did on the Bhagavad-gita As It Is 1972 edition, he admits that the BBT staff had issues with “very few verses” so we guess that he fixed them, after all he was in discussion with Srila Prabhupada about it through letters, of course after claiming that Srila Prabhupada was “not involved.”

Not only do we have evidence from Govinda dasi’s personal statement about Hayagriva and Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva’s own personal account in “The Hare Krishna Explosion” that they were working closely on the revision of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is 1972 manuscript, but we have evidence from Srila Prabhupada’s personal letters as well.

Srila Prabhupada letter to Hayagriva: San Francisco 17 March, 1968:
“I thank you very much for your letter dated March 9, 1968. I have come back to San Francisco on the 8th March, and while I was in Los Angeles for two months, I received the balance portion of Bhagavad-gita edited by you. I am expecting the foreword also, but I can understand that it was not yet dispatched.

So, when it is prepared you can send it to me here in San Francisco I am so glad to understand that you are missing the atmosphere of San Francisco which you so nicely enjoyed last year, and similarly, I am also missing your company which I enjoyed last year here. Whenever I go to the class, I remember you, how joyfully you were chanting in the Temple, and whistling the bugle so nicely. Whenever I see the cornet lying idle because nobody can play on this particular instrument, I remember Hayagriva Brahmacari immediately..”

Srila Prabhupada letter to Satsvarupa —London 5 November, 1969:
“So far as my books are concerned, I think there are materials for at least ten books which are ready for printing. Now all the manuscripts are with you. So now the editorial department is under you and Hayagriva, and you combinedly please get my books printed, one after another.”

Srila Prabhupada letter to: Brahmananda —London 7 November, 1969:
“I am writing a letter to Hayagriva that he should take care of composition of our books.”

Srila Prabhupada letter to: Pradyumna —London 27 November, 1969:
“I am also going there, so we shall sit down together and call also Hayagriva and Syama dasi to hold a nice meeting of all the editors, printers, etc. We will chalk out a nice program so that our work may go on very smoothly without any impediments, and surely Krishna will help us.”

Srila Prabhupada letter to: Mandali Bhadra, Los Angeles 3 February 1970:
“I am asking Hayagriva to send you the MS [manuscript] for Bhagavad-gita, and you can also write him directly to send a copy.”

Srila Prabhupada letter to: Syama —Los Angeles 23 February, 1970:
“Please ask Hayagriva Prabhu to finish the Bhagavad-gita As It Is with full explanation and text, and as soon as it is finished I shall send you some new tapes which you shall work husband and wife conjointly and you will be very pleased.”

According to a conversation found in the Vedabase and correspondence, Rayarama also worked on the manuscript, for a short time in 1969 from April to June, this much is true.
But it is here (below) that we find that Jayadvaita Swami is caught in a fabrication of the facts. Rayarama was not the “final editor” as Jayadvaita Swami claims he was. Not only was he “not” the final editor, but he had left the movement entirely by November 1969! This would be three years before the 1972 edition came out.

Srila Prabhupada letter to Brahmananda on 11-25-1969:
“The idea is that BTG is our backbone of Krishna consciouness propaganda, and since you have taken charge from Rayarama’s hand, certainly it has improved in so many ways. Recently I have received one letter from Rayarama which he has signed his name to as “Raymond.” That means he has drifted from our society completely and his letter is very discouraging. He has accused everyone save himself. So I do not know what can be done with him.”

And then a month later on December 24, 1969, Boston, the following conversation takes place where we learn that Hayagriva is again working on the manuscript. He even says, “I’ll have to go over it chapter by chapter.”

Conversation: December 24, 1969, Boston:Jayadvaita Swami: There’s another manuscript of Bhagavad-gita also in New York, the original.Prabhupada: Oh. You have got?Jayadvaita Swami: Yes. It’s in New York except for the first two chapters. Everything else is there.Prabhupada: So first two chapters might be with Janardana. But you have got the whole thing, Hayagriva.Hayagriva: Yes. That has been… I have gone over that, the one I have. The one that is in New York, no one has gone over that.Jayadvaita Swami: Some of it has been edited by Rayarama, but you can see around it and go to the original behind it.Prabhupada: So whatever is lacking, you ask me. I will supply you.Hayagriva: Well, I have nothing lacking. But I would like to see that version.Jayadvaita Swami: That’s with a dictaphone. So it’s…Hayagriva: I would like to see that in going over mine. I’ll have to go over it chapter by chapter. But I will compare the version I have with that version, and… I know the translations themselves, they were somewhat changed in Bhagavad-gita As It Is as it came out in Macmillan. Did you like those translations?Prabhupada: Whichever is better, you think. That’s all. You can follow this Macmillan.Hayagriva: That was the second… They’re good. I think they’re very good.Prabhupada: Yes. You can follow that translation. Simply synonyms he can add, transliterations.Hayagriva: And we have all the purports. We can include everything. Nothing will be deleted. Everything will be in there.Prabhupada: That’s all right.
Jayadvaita Swami is caught in yet another fabrication, he claims that Srila Prabhupada never saw the “Galley Proofs” of the 1972 edition. Below is a testimony from a devotee who personally gave them to Srila Prabhupada in the summer of 1968.

Brahmananda had just come from Boston, he remembers:

“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.”

“Everything was done by Srila Prabhupada. It was a very personal kind of thing. Of course, that gave Prabhupada great pleasure because he wanted his books published, and we had started to do it. So Prabhupada took great pleasure in proofreading those galleys. And he handed them to me, and it was very wonderful.”

Everyone knows that Srila Prabhupada never intended his Gita to be abridged. Macmillan did (abridged it) for their own reasons. So the Gita here being referred to is the complete work.

In this presentation we have proven that:

1. Srila Prabhupada was very involved in the creation of the manuscript to the Bhagavad-gita As It Is, both the 1968 edition and the 1972 edition.

2. Srila Prabhupada wanted and approved Hayagriva to be the editor of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is, as well as other books.

—Rasananda dasa

Hayagriva consults with Srila Prabhupada

“Daily, I try to clarify and strengthen the sentences without changing the style or meddling with the meaning, and, needless to say, this is very difficult. I soon find myself consulting Swamiji on every other verse, and occasionally he dictates an entirely different translation. The verse translations themselves are most problematical because they often differ from the word by word Sanskrit-English meanings accompanying them. What to do?”

Hayagriva, Vrindavan days

“In the long run, Hayagriva’s devotion to Srila Prabhupada and Krishna should be the all-important factor in how his legacy is remembered.”

In 1965, Hayagriva, then Professor Howard Wheeler, went to India in search of a guru, having been inspired by some of his Indian college professor friends who told him of India’s sacred legacy. He found no guru on his India pilgrimage, but only a few months later, he met Srila Prabhupada on a street corner in New York, and immediately became his student.

Srila Prabhupada, then known simply as “Swamiji,” engaged Hayagriva in editing and typing his Srimad Bhagavatam, and Bhagavad-gita, only days after meeting him, (editing and typing means creating a manuscript).

One reason given for the revision by H.H. Jayadvaita Swami is that Hayagriva changed what Srila Prabhupada had written. We know that Hayagriva spent a lot of time with Srila Prabhupada and that Srila Prabhupada checked everything that was done by Hayagriva.

Srila Prabhupada’s correspondence shows quite clearly that He was more than pleased with Hayagriva’s editing.

He wrote “As you are remembering our old meeting days on the Second Avenue, when I first started my lectures there, similarly I also remember the incidents and speak to so many friends and disciples. So our meeting was Krishna’s desire. Apparently it was accidental but actually it was Krishna’s plan. (Los Angeles 18 November, 1968.)

Hayagriva crafted a beautifully flowing Bhagavad-gita in the English language.

Jayadvaita Swami’s revision has undone much of this work. Work which was authorised and checked by the Author.

Hayagriva helped Srila Prabhupada, using his writing talent, to craft a beautifully flowing Bhagavad-gita in the English language. Jayadvaita’s revision has changed the entire Gita’s “poetic writer’s voice.”

That voice is the voice of Srila Prabhupada.

Hayagriva wrote: “Yet the true artist, the true technician, always honest with himself, never allows his perspectives to stray too far, never allows himself to be too attached to his work. Seeing himself as a man in time and space, seeing his work and the earth in their relationship to the universe, in time and space, seeing all works, even the grandest the earth itself and the entire material universe to perishable, he is not attached.

He is happy in his work mainly because of his detachment. He is like the child who happily makes sand castles so diligently on the beach yet leaves them when his father takes him home. He doesn’t care if the waves wash them away. It is a matter of always having things in perspective. This may be said not only of a man’s work or art; it may be said of a man’s entire life…” (Hayagriva dasa.)

“I have never felt that my Guru Maharaj has been absent from me for a moment,” Srila Prabhupada says. “I’m always aware that he’s present in my heart.” I sit before him on the floor, ashamed—and yet not ashamed enough. I’d broken a couple of the rules and regulations; moreover, knowing my own weaknesses, I’ll break them again.

If I were truly ashamed or repentant, I’d be so horrified that I’d rather die first. My bad habit of sinning, repenting, then sinning again is rooted in the bad-Catholic tradition. I remember high school days when I knelt in the confessional before Father O’Farrell. “Bless me, father, for I have sinned. It has been one week since my last confession. I have yielded to impure thoughts and acts…”

And Father O’Farrell, leaning his big furrowed head on one hand, and fingering his rosary on the other hand, said, “My boy, the monkeys and baboons do that sort of thing, you know.” Christ said to forgive the sinner “seven times seventy” times, but Srila Prabhupada has said, “Aren’t you ashamed to go back and say, ‘Forgive me,’ over and over?

This is simply taking advantage of the Lord’s mercy. It’s showbottle, that’s all. You sin once, I forgive. You sin twice, I forgive. You sin three times, I don’t forgive. Punishment must be there for rectification, otherwise rascals will keep on sinning.”

I look at the colour print of Lord Krishna. I’m ashamed to look directly at Srila Prabhupada. He sits cross legged, fingering his beads and chanting. I want him to speak, to tell me where to go from here. I look at Lord Krishna and pray for guidance. “What is man, that Thou art mindful of him?” Krishna sits on a rock, one lotus foot tucked behind the other ankle, His yellow dhoti drawn up above His knee. One arm is around a calf, one hand holds His flute. A garland hangs around His neck. He looks off into the distance, as if waiting for someone…

Srila Prabhupada is also wearing a garland. On his forehead is sandalwood paste…” (Hayagriva dasa.)

Hayagriva showed his true colors when he defended Prabhupada during the Great ISKCON Crisis during the New Vrindavan Janmashtami Festival of 1970. Four newly-initiated ISKCON sannyasis began spouting mayavadi philosophy and confusing the devotees, but only Hayagriva, who had done the editing for Prabhupada’s books, understood Vaishnava philosophy clearly enough to see the errors in the sannyasis’ arguments, and he courageously attempted to defeat them by scripture and logic.

One eyewitness reported: “The GBC kept meeting and discussing and trying to figure out what was going on. Because it felt really weird, really off, but nobody knew the philosophy well enough, except Hayagriva, who had done all the editing of the books. Rupanuga was baffled. Hayagriva was the only one who had them pegged. He was unequivocal.”

One point I try to make here, and this is perfectly clear from reading Prabhupada’s letters, is that although Kirtanananda left Prabhupada’s service for nearly a year during the late 1960s, Hayagriva remained in constant communication with his spiritual master, and encouraged his rebellious friend Kirtanananda to make up with and surrender to Prabhupada. Hayagriva loved Prabhupada. He never really left Prabhupada’s service, although he may have certainly been distracted at times.

Granted, Hayagriva may have had some difficulties in his devotional life, which Satsvarupa dasa Goswami briefly alludes to in the Foreword to Hayagriva’s book “The Hare Krishna Explosion”, but Hayagriva always remained devoted to Prabhupada. Satsvarupa called Hayagriva “an honest, adoring disciple.” Hayagriva’s faith in and service to Prabhupada made him a great man; worthy of our respect, despite his weaknesses.

In the long run, Hayagriva’s devotion to Srila Prabhupada and Krishna should be the all-important factor in how his legacy is remembered. From my visits with Hayagriva near the end of his life, I believe he was constantly remembering Prabhupada and Krishna, and for this inspiration he provided me, I will be forever grateful to him. I wish him well, wherever he might be, in whatever form of life, on whatever planet, but I have the feeling that wherever he is, he is continuing his progress in Krishna consciouness. I can only hope that in the future I can experience the same.

“Edit for force and clarity. Our editing is for spelling and grammar only, without interpolation.”

Our Bhagavad-gita is therefore named Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Without any interpretation. Without any addition, alteration. No, we don’t make that. If we make addition, alteration, then where is the authority of Bhagavad-gita? We don’t do that. And that is proving effective. Those who are taking according to the instruction, they’re becoming happy. Practical. Without any consideration of time, country, people. Anyone is accepting, and he’s becoming happy.
Srila Prabhupada (Room Conversation with two Buddhist Monks: London 12 July 1973.)

Hayagriva Prabhu describes the first time he saw the manuscripts. Some of it is on paper which Srila Prabhupada brought with him from India. He visits Srila Prabhupada at the tiny apartment in the Bowery:

“The next morning, when I go alone to see the Swami, he seems to be expecting me. Directly and simply, he begins to explain that he needs help in spreading Krishna consciousness around the world. Noticing that he has been typing, I offer to type for him, and he hands me the manuscript of the First Chapter, Second Canto, of Vyasadeva’s Srimad Bhagavatam. “You can type this?” “Oh yes,” I say. He is delighted. We roll a small typewriter table out of the corner, and I begin work. His manuscript is single spaced without margins on flimsy, yellowing Indian paper.

It appears that the Swami tried to squeeze every word possible onto the pages. I have to use a ruler to keep from losing my place. The first words read: “O the king.” I naturally wonder whether “O” is the king’s name, and “the king” stands in apposition. After concluding that “O King” is intended instead, I consult the Swami. “Yes,” he says. “Change it, then.”

As I retype another paragraph, I notice certain grammatical discrepancies, perhaps typical of Bengalis who learned English from British headmasters in the early 1900s. Considerable editing is required to get the text to conform with current American usage. After pointing out a few changes, I tell the Swami that if he so desired, I could make all the proper corrections. “Very good,” he says, smiling. “Do it! Put it nicely…” Thus my editorial services begin.

I type all morning in the room where he reads, translates, welcomes visitors, and “takes rest.” There is a tin footlocker, used as a desk, and a rug on which he sits and sometimes sleeps. Apart from my typewriter table, there is no other furniture. As I type, I hear him cooking in the kitchen, and can smell the butter being boiled to make ghee. I finish the chapter: twenty pages, double spaced with wide margins. The original had filled only eight pages.

“Let me know if there’s any more work,” I tell him. “I can take it back to Mott Street and type there.” “More? Yes,” he says. “There is lots more.” He opens the closet door and pulls out two large bundles tied with saffron cloth. Within, he shows me thousands of pages of single spaced, margin less manuscripts of literatures unknown in the Western world. I stand before them, astounded. “It’s a lifetime of typing,” I protest. “Oh, yes!” he smiles happily. “Many lifetimes…”

The Manuscript! Two large bundles tied with saffron cloth. Thousands of pages of single spaced, margin less manuscripts, brought across from India…

For two years (1964-65 and again in 1969) Hayagriva worked as an Associate Professor of English at Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio. During this time he established the first Columbus ISKCON Temple. In 1969 he worked at Ohio State University from Tuesday through Thursday, and worked at New Vrindavan from Friday through Monday, building cabins, repairing the old farmhouse and barn, preparing for Srila Prabhupada’s month-long visit in May 1969, and spending the money he earned in Ohio for supplies for his West Virginia spiritual home. Hayagriva was instrumental in attracting some of his students to Krishna consciouness; a few came to New Vrindavan and were initiated by Srila Prabhupada.

Prabhupada considered Hayagriva one of the leaders of his society, and appointed him as one of the twelve original members of the first GBC during July 1970. It is clear from reading Prabhupada’s letters, that Hayagriva was dearly loved by Prabhupada.

The working relationship continued. Srila Prabhupada encouraging Hayagriva to take on more editing and writing service.

“Swamiji calls me into his room. I bow and sit facing him, sensing something special.

“I am thinking it will be nice if you write a play about Lord Caitanya,” he tells me. “I will give you the whole plot complete. Then all you will have to do is execute it.”

For two days, I sit in Swamiji’s room listening to his account of the life of Lord Caitanya. At this time, Swamiji is also lecturing on the Caitanya-caritamrta. There is also a translation of Caitanya-caritamrta going about, translated by Nagendra Kumar Roy. Swamiji reads a bit of this translation and quickly finds a discrepancy. It is over one word, “rheumatism,” which has been translated incorrectly from the Bengali. Swamiji immediately brands Mr. Kumar Roy a sentimentalist. The translation is inaccurate. Throw it out.

“I will give you all you need to know,” he tells me.

I tape record the outline and interrupt only when the action isn’t clear.

On the second day, Swamiji tells of the passing of Haridasa Thakur, one of Lord Caitanya’s principal disciples. Recounting the details, Swamiji becomes strangely indrawn, as if it were all happening before him.

“When Caitanya Mahaprabhu visited Haridasa on the last day of Haridasa’s life,” Swamiji says, “the Lord asked, ‘Haridasa, what do you desire?’ They both could understand. Haridasa said, ‘It is my last day. If You would kindly stand before me…‘” Swamiji suddenly falls silent a moment and looks down at his hands. “So Caitanya Mahaprabhu stood before him,” he continues, speaking softly, his eyes filling with tears. “And Haridasa left his body.”

Then Swamiji sits there crying silently within. It is a silence I can hear above the street noises and hum of the tape recorder. I stare at the floor, then look up, embarrassed, feeling I shouldn’t be in the room. As I begin to ask a question, Swamiji again speaks.

“After his departure,” he says, “the body was taken by the Lord to the seashore, and the devotees dug his grave, which is still there, Haridasa Thakur’s samadhi. And Caitanya Mahaprabhu took up the dead body and began to dance with the body at kirtan. Thus Haridasa’s funeral ceremony was conducted by the Lord Himself.“

And Swamiji continues outlining the play as though nothing had happened, his sudden, silent weeping passing with the wind…” (The Hare Krishna Explosion, Part II: San Francisco, 1967 by Hayagriva dasa Adhikari.)

“Although I write on the Lord Caitanya play through the spring days, my primary service is helping Swamiji with Bhagavad-gita. He continues translating, hurrying to complete the manuscript but still annotating each verse thoroughly in his purports.

Daily, I consult him to make certain that the translation of each verse precisely coincides with the meaning he wants to relate. “Edit for force and clarity,” he tells me. “By Krishna’s grace, you are a qualified English professor. You know how grammatical mistakes will discredit us with scholars. I want them to appreciate this Bhagavad-gita as the definitive edition. All the others try to take credit away from Krishna.”

I am swamped with editing. Since much of the text is equivocal due to grammar, I find myself consulting Swamiji on nearly every verse. It seems that in Sanskrit, Hindi, and Bengali, phrase is tacked onto phrase until the original subject is lost.
No one has yet asked Swamiji the language in which he thinks. Bengali, I presume, but for all I know it may be Hindi or Sanskrit. He often says that Sanskrit is the language of the demigods, the original language, and that all other languages descend from it. Indeed, it was the very language used by Krishna when He spoke Bhagavad-gita millions of years ago to the sun god Vivasvan, and then five thousand years ago to Arjuna at Kurukshetra. All seven hundred verses sung in Sanskrit.
Swamiji sweeps away archeological and philological pronouncements with a disdainful sweep of his hand.

Letter to Hayagriva: “Although I am practically on the path of death, still I cannot forget about my publications. I wish that if I live or die you should take very serious care for my publications. Immediately I want to send Gitopanisad to Japan for publication. The complete fair copy of Gitopanisad has to be submitted. I hope you have completed fair copies of at least seven chapters. The balance are typed from the dictaphone, and there does not appear to be any possibility of their being edited here, so I think you have to do it.”

After sending fair copies of what you have done already you will have to edit the dictaphone copies. The original verse (Sanskrit) is to be taken from Dr. RadhaKrishnan’s edition, and the word to word English equivalent, as well as the translation and purport is to be found already on the dictaphone copies. The only thing you have to do is to place them properly and to make the complete fair copy.

I am thinking of going to San Francisco just after getting some strength, which I hope I will get by the end of the month; but in case I cannot go, you have to do it carefully, and send it to Japan. Please, therefore, let me know whether you’ll do it. If you say yes, then I will send you the dictaphone copies for doing the needful. This will give me great relief, and I am expecting a reply as soon as possible…” (New York, June 10th 1967.)
 
—Hrshikesh dasa

A very expert editor

This essay is not an attempt to defend the misbehaviour of anyone. However, we beg to remind everyone that even if a devotee does something unsavoury at some point, his previous service does not retroactively become an abomination, in need of being purged, replaced or remedied.

Would it make sense to re-do the paintings of a devotee artist who later fell into maya? Or to dismantle and re-build a temple constructed with funds collected by methods later called into question, or by devotees whose character turned out to be less than ideal? We should all thank God that our spiritual bank balance cannot be depleted and our particular bank is way too big to fail.

An excerpt from Hari sauri Prabhu’s Transcendental Diary, 14, May 1976 Honolulu:
“There was an emotional reunion this afternoon between Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva Prabhu. Although he was one of Srila Prabhupada’s first disciples, he has been away from devotional service for some years. He has come now to finish the philosophy book project and to be with Srila Prabhupada for some time. He walked slowly into Prabhupada’s room, his face flushed and his deep voice trembling. “It’s your old Hayagriva, Prabhupada,” he choked out, and fell sobbing to the floor in full lenght dandavats.

Prabhupada sat behind his desk, silent, but clearly moved by the sight of his sometimes-wayward son. When Hayagriva got up Prabhupada gave him a garland, and remarked to Radhaballabha dasa and me how Hayagriva had been sent by Krishna to help him spread Krishna consciousness all over the world. In reply, Hayagriva said that he had never forgotten Prabhupada, not even for a day. Prabhupada was deeply affected by this and said that he also had never forgotten Hayagriva.

“I was thinking, has Hayagriva gone away? I was thinking like that.” His voice broke and he was unable to speak for a few seconds. Although he tried to check his tears, still some trickled from the corners of his eyes. Then he tipped his head from side to side. ‘All right,’ he said and we all left.”

As most of us are aware, Hayagriva Prabhu had some serious failings that manifested at different times in his history with Prabhupada’s mission. In December of 1972, several months after editing of the Macmillan Gita was completed, Srila Prabhupada received reports of Hayagriva deviating from the principles, yet he gave no order, instruction, suggestion or even hint that his work on the Macmillan Gita should be re-done. Whatever opinion others may have of Hayagriva’s character or editorial work is irrelevant. The author of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is, His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, highly esteemed Hayagriva’s literary skills, authorized him to take charge of editing his book, and approved and signed off on the 1972 Macmillan edition of the Gita. The references below show Srila Prabhupada’s great regard for Hayagriva’s editing and writing ability during the period the ‘72 Gita was in prepublication, from December, 1969 through the summer of 1972. At least during this period, we know that Srila Prabhupada had categorical faith in Hayagriva as an editor.

Letter to Brahmananda December 10, 1969:
I have received also your press management report, so the only thing to be amended there is that all books especially must be twice edited, once by Satsvarupa and once by Hayagriva.

Srila Prabhupada with Hayagriva

Discussion with BTG Staff December 24, 1969:Hayagriva: Then he does the first editing. After it’s typed up off the dictaphone, Satsvarupa does the first editing. Then I go over what he has gone over and check the manuscript…Prabhupada: Yes. What you do, he goes. And what he does, you go. Then final. In this way. But the last editing should be checked twice. The dictaphone, then checked by him and then by you. Or checked by you and then by him. That’s all.Hayagriva: Yes. And Pradyumna does the Sanskrit after.Prabhupada: Yes. That’s all. That is printing department.

Letter to Hayagriva January 14, 1970:
Regarding our enlarged, revised Bhagavad-gita As It Is, if possible you can conveniently give an enlarged introduction also.

Letter to Syama February 23, 1970:
Please ask Hayagriva Prabhu to finish the Bhagavad-gita As It Is with full explanation and text.

Letter to Hayagriva February 23, 1970:
I am very glad to know that you have sent the final manuscript of Krishna Book to Brahmananda and that it now reads very well. Thank you very much…

Regarding your change of the title to “Kamsa Begins His Persecutions”, it is alright. I am enclosing herewith a preface which I have written for the Krishna book. Please edit it nicely and send one copy of the edited version back to me, and another to Brahmananda for printing.

Krishna Book Preface February 26, 1970:
And at last my ever-willing blessings are bestowed upon Sriman Syamasundara dasa Adhikari, Sriman Brahmananda dasa Brahmacari, Sriman Hayagriva dasa Adhikari, Sriman Satsvarupa dasa Adhikari, Srimati Devahuti-devi dasi, Srimati Jadurani-devi dasi, Sriman Muralidhara dasa Brahmacari, Sriman Bharadvaja dasa Adhikari and Sriman Pradyumna dasa Adhikari, etc., for their hard labor in different ways to make this publication a great success.

Letter to Hayagriva March 9, 1970:
I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 4 March, 1970, along with the edited copy of the Foreword to Krishna Book. Thank you very much. The few alterations of dates is approved by me, so it is alright… I am so glad to learn that the Gita is going on nicely. Perhaps you know that Mandali Bhadra wants to translate into German, so as you finish one chapter you may send one copy to him immediately for being translated into German.

Letter to Hayagriva March 19, 1970:
Please accept my blessings. I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 12 March, 1970, along with a poem “All glories to Sri Gurudeva… etc. This poem and your many other writings give me the impression that you are naturally thoughtful and philosophical, and thus I am very much hopeful that in future you can give to the world many nice things presented to the understanding of the thoughtful men in this age. In that way, I wanted you to live with me and be engaged in writing such things, getting ideas from me. But we will have to wait for a few days more, and then I shall ask you to leave completely from your present occupation in the university.

Letter to Hayagriva April 18, 1970:
So what you are now doing on the Bhagavad-gita manuscript is alright, do it nicely. I have got the second part of Krishna also. I want to send it to you, so when you are free let me know and I will send it. Regarding the editing process, I am glad to know that they are improving and doing nicely, but finally you should see each manuscript before printing. That should be the arrangement.

Letter to Hayagriva May 22, 1970:
Yes, I have received the tape as well as your “Chant” booklet. I am sorry they were not acknowledged earlier. I have asked Boston to send you the Krishna Book tapes for part II. They are already edited, and it is nice, still you can have a final glance over it. After your final editing is the work retyped by Syama dasi.

Letter to Hayagriva September 19, 1970:
Please accept my blessings. I am in receipt of your letter dated Sept. 5, 1970, and the essay “The Spiritual Master: Emissary of the Supreme Person” enclosed therein. I have read it, and am glad that you have understood the matter so thoroughly, and have now substantiated your conclusions with so much scriptural proof.

Letter to Hayagriva November 8, 1970:
Your essay “The Spiritual Master: Emissary of the Supreme Person” is so nice, so why not have ISKCON PRESS publish it and then all our students can study it.

Letter to Hayagriva November 24, 1970:
Regarding printing of Bhagavad-gita complete and unabridged edition, it may be printed with our ISKCON PRESS and 5,000 copies may be sent, printed and folded to Bombay…Regarding the missing verses, I will see if it is required and will send you at a later date.

Letter to Hayagriva March 23, 1971:
I have read your article, “Constitution of the Soul.” It is very nice. Such articles with scientific observation should be published in BTG.

Letter to Hayagriva January 18, 1972:
But I am very pleased that you are writing constantly, so I would recommend that you write different essays on our philosophy… You may also edit and compile my early 1966 lectures into a book. That is very nice proposal.

Letter to Hayagriva March 22, 1972:
I am so much engladdened by the news that you are producing many books, faster than they can print, so this is especially pleasing to me and I have wanted all along that you should especially do this work of writing and editing. This means that you will advance nicely because you will have to become very thoughtful and go deep into the subject matter. The titles are nice, so may you live long and always do this service.

If you have the idea to write a book based on Caitanya-caritamrta, that is nice, I approve… so we shall be sending more and more material because you say that you can edit any amount we can supply, so I take that as a challenge and I shall try to see if you can keep up with me.

Letter to Hayagriva April 27, 1972:
I wish also that you join me when I return to Los Angeles so that the editing work may go on very efficiently. With both Pradyumna and yourself at my side then the work will go on very speedily. It is my serious desire to devote the fag end of my life to translating Srimad Bhagavatam and so many other Vaishnava literatures so by assisting me in this regards you will be performing the highest service to Krishna.

Conversation with the GBC May 25, 1972:

Prabhupada: So, Hayagriva Prabhu is taking charge of pushing this movement by help in editorial work. So that is most important because we are distributing books. Our writing will be gospel.

Letter to Hayagriva July 7, 1972:
I am very much pleased to learn that you are more settled in mind and peaceful, and that you are now editing my books nicely. That is what I always wanted, that you shall simply edit books… Now you go on in this spirit independently of any other responsibilities and produce books more and more, profusely. I have read some portion of your Caitanya-caritamrta, and it is nice.

Remembrance from Bhutatma dasa:

Most evenings when he was in New Dwarka, Srila Prabhupada would hold darshan in his garden. On one such occasion, he asked for a devotee to read aloud from Krishna Book, while he sat blissfully on his dais and listened with rapt attention. Following a passage describing the Lord’s “silver-electric blue” two-armed form, Prabhupada paused the reader, taking a moment to directly express his appreciation for the editing work done by Hayagriva Prabhu.

Despite the above endorsements by Srila Prabhupada there has been a robust campaign to discredit Hayagriva and his work. But does this not also undermine Srila Prabhupada’s authority, discretion, and autonomy in the selection of his editor? Do we not believe His Divine Grace consulted his editor, oversaw and approved his work? Doesn’t such a campaign to discredit Hayagriva’s work also discredit Srila Prabhupada’s work? Although conducted with subtlety and innuendo, the effort to discredit Hayagriva has been so effective that now when Srila Prabhupada’s ‘72 edition of the Gita is mentioned in ISKCON it is often spoken of with contempt. Some devotees, including ISKCON leaders, refuse to read from the book or even touch it, labeling it with pejorative disdain as a “ritvik book.”

We beg everyone to note, as the following quotes confirm, that Jayadvaita Swami is in complete agreement with Srila Prabhupada that Hayagriva was an expert editor.

Conversation between Govinda dasi and Jayadvaita Swami, Honolulu, Jan 19, 2003:

Jayadvaita: Uh, again Hayagriva, I think is, as you said he was, expert in poetry, he was an expert editor. Uh, if I had to do the work that he did, I couldn’t have done it, and even now, I don’t think I have the same kind of skills that he had, in many arts.

Srila Prabhupada letter to Satsvarupa- January 29, 1972:
“Concerning Hayagriva, he is unquestionably a very expert editor, so you please try to help him and encourage him to perform that service. If he can remain happy in Krishna’s service then there is no measure to the value of his work.”

This is Srila Prabhupada’s own opinion and Jayadvaita Maharaja concurs. What faithful follower would disagree?

Now that we know Jayadvaita Maharaja is in agreement with Prabhupada that Hayagriva was an expert editor, and as we know Jayadvaita Maharaja to be an honorable Vaishnava, we are confident he will do the right thing by insisting that those who look up to him, curtail their criticism of the Macmillan edition of the Bhagavad-gita and Srila Prabhupada’s appointed editor, Hayagriva Prabhu.

We also call upon him to repudiate those who act with duplicity by showing appreciation for the ‘72 Gita in public while working behind the scenes to disparage the same book and hamper its success. Jayadvaita Maharaja has announced that the original version is not in demand but the BBT has always kept it in print and available to those who want it. Yet reliable BBT insiders have revealed that the Macmillan edition has not always been in print and we know from experience that it has not always been available for purchase.

We wonder how Jayadvaita Maharaja’s own BBT staff as well as numerous temple authorities have misunderstood his intentions and rather than having both editions on hand they dissuade people from buying the original by vilifying it and failing to put it on display on book tables and in temple stores. What’s more, temples and book distributors have been discouraged or prohibited from ordering and distributing it. Perhaps this is the reason the ‘72 Gita is not in demand.

We call upon Jayadvaita Maharaja, as a respectable brahmana Vaishnava and an ISKCON leader with a history of standing up for the truth, to look into this and do the needful to correct such discrepancies. Since these discrepancies have occurred on his watch, we pray he will not turn a blind eye, so that his reputation for truthfulness is not sullied by the actions of overzealous subordinates.

Srila Prabhupada lecture, Bhagavad-gita 2.32, September 2, 1973:
“A brahmana will never speak lie, at any cost. It is stated that even if his enemy inquires something confidential from him, he’ll say, “Yes, this is my position.” This is truthfulness. He’ll not even, I mean to say, guile, against his enemy. He should be truthful.”

We should also remember that Hayagriva possessed a master’s degree in English. During the period he was editing Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita he was also an English professor at Ohio State University. In addition, he edited several other books by Srila Prabhupada, wrote for BTG as well as other publications, started the Pittsburgh temple, was president of New Vrindavana and served as one of the first twelve Governing Body Commissioners appointed by His Divine Grace.

On top of all this he had a wife and small child to care for. Aside from issues of editing and writing, the volume of correspondence between Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva concerning his other responsibilities is staggering. Considering all his many important services, is it not reasonable to expect that Hayagriva would leave minor editorial details to a copy editor —which is really the job of the copy editor and is the system used by professional publishers?

Which raises another question: Were the thousands of “mistakes” that Jayadvaita Swami complains about and that have been blamed on Hayagriva, in reality, mistakes missed by the copy editor?

Although ISKCON Press at that time (BBT was not formed until May of ‘72) was certainly not as sophisticated as a large publishing house, from our best assessment of the evidence, Jayadvaita Prabhu’s service was tantamount to that of the copy editor.

While Hayagriva dasa Adhikari had numerous important services to juggle, Jayadvaita dasa Brahmacari had only one important service to perform —that of copy editor. If, back in 1972, there were as many mistakes in the book as he would have us believe, the responsibility for correcting them would have fallen on his shoulders. Is it possible Jayadvaita Swami’s editing campaign is a latent attempt to cover his own tracks?

According to Jayadvaita Swami’s personal site, jswami.info, in his article, “Who Did What”, Jayadvaita Swami lists the different devotees involved in editing Srila Prabhupada’s books through the years. Based on his own statement, he was the editor responsible for “final checking or polishing or supplying missing material” (i.e. copy editor) for the 1972 Bhagavad-gita As It Is. His article provides the following information:

In the beginning of the same article, Jayadvaita Swami states: Editors mentioned in parentheses did minor work, usually in the form of final checking or polishing or supplying missing material.
 
—The Assembled Devotees (internet article, December 13, 2014)

Defeating the arguments for revision

Who authorized the changes to Bhagavad-gita As lt Is?

Jayadvaita Swami agrees that Srila Prabhupada did not ask him or anyone else to “revise and enlarge” his Bhagavad-gita As It Is.

So how did it happen? Where did the authority come from for ISKCON’s current “Revised and Enlarged” edition? It seems just after Srila Prabhupada left our material vision, Jayadvaita thought it was a good idea to revise and enlarge Prabhupada’s Gita, so he did it.

“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.” (Jayadvaita’s letter to senior devotees, October 25, 1982.)

And what is his “authority” for this you may ask? As he said in the letter to senior devotees, “the text of the manuscript.” “I have made it closer to the original manuscript.”

And what is this so-called “original manuscript”?

This is not a manuscript at all. It is the first draft of the book. No author intends that the first draft of his book be published. He appoints an editor and together they work on the book to produce the manuscript which will ultimately be submitted to the publishers. In this case, Prabhupada wrote the first draft and then worked with Hayagriva and other editors to prepare the manuscript for his Bhagavad-gita As It Is, which was ultimately presented to Macmillan & Co. for printing.

ISKCON’s Changes To Bhagavad-gita As It Is
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 09:45:12-0700
Subject: Book revisions 1/2

Dear Yasodanandana Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

In answer to your questions, I don’t have any original tape recording of any kind of Srila Prabhupada authorising the editorial changes in the Gita. And despite scouring the GBC resolutions from 1979-83, I found no reference to the Bhagavad-gita whatsoever. It seems the assignment of Jayadvaita Swami to perform that task was unpublished, at least I couldn’t find it in the GBC resolutions made widely available.

Hoping this meets you well, I remain, your servant, Dravida dasa
 
—Madhudvisa dasa

The BBTI’s main argument disproved

“At that time, your position is different”

The common arguments from the BBTI:

“And in the conversation where Srila Prabhupada complained so strongly about ‘rascal editors’, Srila Prabhupada said about Jayadvaita, “He is good.”

Of course, regarding Jayadvaita Swami, the BBT’s chief editor, Srila Prabhupada wrote, “Concerning the editing of Jayadvaita Prabhu, whatever he does is approved by me. I have confidence in him.” (Letter to Radhaballabha, 7 September 1976).

Now, here is an example regarding this:

Prabhupada: I have given you charge of this BBT, millions of dollars you are dealing, but it is not for your misuse. As soon as you misuse, that is your responsibility.Ramesvara: Yes, but he says but still, you’ll know that I’m going to misuse it.Prabhupada: No. That Krishna knows, when something charge is given. But because you are independent, I know that “Ramesvara is very good boy; let him be in charge.” But you can misuse at any moment, because you have got independence. You can misuse at any moment. At that time, your position is different.
(Ref. VedaBase > Morning Walk —June 3, 1976, Los Angeles.)

So the conclusion must be that the above two arguments for the continued post-samadhi editing of Jayadvaita Swami & BBTI are conditional. They are not absolute green lights from Srila Prabhupada to Jayadvaita Maharaj, at all.

The argument that “Srila Prabhupada once said that Jayadvaita Swami was good. Therefore it follows that “Jayadvaita Swami is still good” is a logical fallacy both according to western logic and eastern Nyaya. “…which is adduced ‘when the time in which it might hold good does not apply’.” “This is nagna-matrka-nyaya. We change according to the circumstances. You cannot say that this must remain like this.”

BBTI has decided it is the correct policy to discard whatever substantial editing was undertaken by Hayagriva in consultation with Srila Prabhupada and to endorse the more recent editing which was done without directly consulting Srila Prabhupada. It appears he is unaware that Srila Prabhupada made sure to include in his contract with Macmillan a caveat (warning) that no changes were to be made to the Bhagavad-gita As It Is without the written approval of the author.
 
—Ajit Krishna dasa

“Then, it is alright” argument defeated

On BBT International’s website there is a video4 in which Jayadvaita Swami says:

“I went back and re-edited especially the translations in the First Canto. Especially the first perhaps three chapters where I thought their were a lot of shortcomings. And I typed up all the translations –after I finished all the work, I typed up all the translations in one manuscript and put them in an envelope, and Prabhupada was coming to New York where I was at the time.

Prabhupada came, and I put all the translations in an envelope, and I wrote a cover letter explaning what I have done, and asking him whether it was okay. And then I brought it up to Prabhupada’s quarters at 55th Street in New York–the New York temple—with the idea that I would leave them with his secretary and come back later. But Prabhupada was right there, and so he…I offered obeisances, and he had me, you know: “What do you do in here?” “What have you come for?”

Not in those words, but, you know, he inquired was I was doing. And I explained that I had come to deliver this. So Prabhupada had me start reading right in his presence. And I began, I read the first verse, the second verse, the third verse. I went through a few verses, and Prabhupada stopped me. Prabhupada was listening very carefully, he stopped me. “So what you have done?”

And I said: “Well, Srila Prabhupada, I have edited to try to bring it closer to what you originally said.” Prabhupada said: “What I have said?” I said: “Yes, Srila Prabhupada!” Then Prabhupada: “Then it is alright!”, and that was it. “Then it is alright!” “What I have said?”, “Then it is alright!”

A few points about this story:

1. Jayadvaita Swami’s story is not necessarily true or reliable, because it is based on personal accounts rather than facts or research. To use anecdotal evidence as a basis for changing the Books which Srila Prabhupada left as a guide for the next 10,000 years is not acceptable.

As Srila Prabhupada said about such stories:

“Just like in our ISKCON there are so many false things: “Prabhupada said this, Prabhupada said that.” (Srila Prabhupada letter, 7/11/1972.)

“They misunderstand me. Unless it is there from me in writing, there are so many things that “Prabhupada said.” (Srila Prabhupada letter, 2/9/1975.)

And as Jayadvaita Swami says:

“If Srila Prabhupada didn’t clearly and definitely say it, and if it first came up after 1977 whatever it is, don’t trust it. Rule of Thumb.”
(Diksa-Diksa, Where the Rtvik People are Wrong, p. 85, Jayadvaita Swami.)

Jayadvaita Swami started circulating his story after the book changing controversy started, and there is no evidence to support that it is true. Therefore, “…don’t trust it. Rule of Thumb.”

2. Jayadvaita Swami seems to conclude that since Prabhupada approved the verses that he brought him, then he also approved that he could change all his books using the same method –even after his disappearance. But this is an unwarranted extrapolation, because Jayadvaita Swami extrapolate far beyond the range of available data, namely from one single instance of editing to more or less all future instances of editing. But from his story no justification for such an extrapolation can be found. The only conclusion to be deduced (if the anecdote is at all true) is that what Jayadvaita Swami did to the very specific verses he brought Prabhupada was okay. No more, no less.

3. If Jayadvaita Swami’s anecdote is true, then Prabhupada told him that if he had made the text closer to what Prabhupada originally said, then it was okay.

I have referred to articles where it is clearly documented that he has:

• Deleted many of Prabhupada’s own chosen words and sentences (even those also found in his drafts).

• Added his own words and sentences (which means they are also not to be found in the draft).

• Changed Prabhupada’s own personally typewritten Sanskrit translations.

The section “Changes to the Bhagavad-gita” in this book demonstrate all these types of changes made to Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is.

Most devotees around the world would like to know what Jayadvaita Swami thinks Prabhupada would have said if he had told him:

”Well, Srila Prabhupada, in my editing I have deleted some of your own chosen words and sentences! And I have also invented some completely new words and sentences and put them in where I felt they would do a good job! And since we at the BBT International are now “accomplished Sanskrit scholars” we have gone through some of your own typewritten Sanskrit translations and changed them also.”

What do we, honestly, think Prabhupada would have answered? Then try to extrapolate that answer to the changes Jayadvaita Swami has made to Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is.
 
—Ajit Krishna dasa

Ramesvara dasa reveals discrepancies

Ramesvara’s leaked emails

“I have always admitted that my great failure as a trustee was not carefully reading every proposed change, and instead, relying on the endorsement of Hrdayananda and Satsvarupa- along with Jayadvaita.”

[…]

“The problem with the “Responsible Publishing” paper is that it is simply not the entire body of instruction, and it’s critics point out that it is one-sided and obviously leaves out many of Prabhupada’s cautionary instructions against unnecessary change,”

[…]

“That analysis with Dravida Prabhu left me with my deepest concern: if the changes didn’t have substantial merit but were made anyway, then regardless of the justification of “making it better” the door, the “change disease” as Srila Prabhupada called it, had been dangerously opened for anything to happen in the future after we are all long gone.”

[…]

“The Lilamrita interviews I found tell of Srila Prabhupada’s direct instructions regarding the size of the books, the artwork to be kept in the books, etc.—things that have already been changed so many times in the past 20 years, without understanding of Prabhupada’s orders, that it makes the “official” opening of this “change” door more ominous for the future, in ways we can’t even imagine.”

[…]

“…an absolute position has to be reached so that before we die, we know that within the BBT and ISKCON there could never again be one single change, for any reason, ever made to Srila Prabhupada’s books.”

[…]

“No one back then did their job or acted with full responsibility for what they were endorsing. l assure you that no one on that Committee ever even asked to see all the changes, and we would have been astounded to have learned in 1981 or 1982 that there were thousands, maybe more than 5,000 changes. I lazily assumed that the work done on manuscripts as close to the original as possible was the only thing that mattered.

I failed to consider all the other Prabhupada instructions, the ramifications for making changes if they didn’t ultimately change the meaning; the effect of changes that in some cases loses the flavor of the Gita we had been studying for 10 years, and most importantly, that breaks the etiquette of changing a Sampradaya Acarya’s books after His disappearance and opens the “change door” for possible future other changes over the decades and centuries to come. The RP paper implies that the changes were carefully reviewed and approved throughout the leadership of the BBT, GBC and ISKCON.

I am certain that by interviewing all the leaders of that time, we would find most guilty of the same mistake that I made. It is true to state that the leaders of ISKCON at the time endorsed the changes. However, it is overtly misleading to state or suggest that the leaders actually performed a careful review. And getting back to the fact that there are thousands of changes, no leader, including the BBT trustees, was ever shown every single change. No one! That is the sad historical fact…”

[…]

“I know that in talking years ago with others on that committee, that they also admitted performing only a cursory review of the proposed changes…”

Authorized by BBTI and GBC?

FW: Confidential -Responsible Publishing
To: Hare Krishna. Pamho. AGTSP!

One final thought,

The “Responsible Publishing” (RP) paper has either a significant misleading or a significant historical inaccuracy. There are sites which claim to list more than 5,000 changes. Certainly there were thousands of changes. The RP paper states that every change to the translations was reviewed and approved by the trustees, leading ISKCON devotees, the GBC, etc. Later the RP cites or implies in its endorsements that all the changes were approved. Of course, no one other than the editors ever saw back in 1981 or 1982 ALL the changes.

As for the changes to the translations, ultimately there was a five member GBC/BBT committee charged with the approval, including Satsvarupa, Hrdayananda, Bhagavan, Harikesa and myself. For myself, I have always admitted that my great failure as a trustee was not carefully reading every proposed change, and instead, relying on the endorsement of Hrdayananda and Satsvarupa —along with Jayadvaita.

I only reviewed examples of changes that seemed to be excellent-such as the paper itself includes. I know that in talking years ago with others on that committee, that they also admitted performing only a cursory review of the proposed changes, being similarly impressed with the dramatic, obvious and excellent samples of proposed changes in a summary paper that we reviewed.

No one back then did their job or acted with full responsibility for what they were endorsing. I assure you that no one on that Committee ever even asked to see all the changes, and we would have been astounded to have learned in 1981 or 1982 that there were thousands, maybe more than 5,000 changes.

I lazily assumed that the work done on manuscripts as close to the original as possible was the only thing that mattered. I failed to consider all the other Prabhupada instructions, the ramifications for making changes if they didn’t ultimately change the meaning; the effect of changes that in some cases loses the flavor of the Gita we had been studying for 10 years, and most importantly, that breaks the etiquette of changing a Sampradaya Acarya’s books after His disappearance and opens the “change door” for possible future other changes over the decades and centuries to come.

The RP paper implies that the changes were carefully reviewed and approved throughout the leadership of the BBT, GBC and ISKCON. I am certain that by interviewing all the leaders of that time, we would find most guilty of the same mistake that I made.

It is true to state that the leaders of ISKCON at the time endorsed the changes.

However, it is overtly misleading to state or suggest that the leaders actually performed a careful review. And getting back to the fact that there are thousands of changes, no leader, including the BBT trustees, was ever shown every single change. No one! That is the sad historical fact…

Your forever aspiring servant,
 
—Ramesvara dasa

Copyright and “worker for hire”

Bhagavad-gita As It Is from 1972 has it clearly printed stating on its first pages: ‘Copyright ©1972 by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada’.

But in 1995 the following registration was submitted to the Copyright Office. The lawsuit was in 1998, so this occurred three years earlier: A new and arbitrary copyright registration of Bhagavad-gita As It Is assigning authorship (not just copyright, but authorship also) was submitted, with The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust as author, stating that any contribution to the work was a “Work Made for Hire” (see item 2 highlighted in the Appendix). Author’s nationality: USA. Contribution to the work: Not anonymous, Not pseudonymous.

Where is A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada’s name anywhere in this document? Nowhere! So here is the 1995 copyright registration for Bhagavad-gita As It Is (Complete Edition & Enlarged). In other words, this version turns out to being considered a separate work, completely ignoring the actual author of the original words (which were heavily edited), while undermining completely the actual legal status of the real Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Also it was signed by an “authorized agent” of The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International. Is that legal, justifiable, or in any way bona fide by any standard of Vaishnava etiquette?

Something interesting, item 3.a, 3.b. 3.a) Year in which creation of this work was completed: 1985 3.b) Date and Nation of first publication of this particular work: March 6 1985. U.S.A. and England. This copyright submission could be canceled on the grounds of omission and false statements. You can see a scanned copy of the copyright document in the Appendix.
 
—Jagannatha Mishra dasa

Praises for Bhagavad-gita (Macmillan, 1972)

“No work in all Indian literature is more quoted, because none is better loved, in the West, than the Bhagavad-gita. Translation of such a work demands not only knowledge of Sanskrit, but an inward sympathy with the theme and a verbal artistry. For the poem is a symphony in which God is seen in all things. The Swami does a real service for students by investing the beloved Indian epic with fresh meaning. Whatever our outlook may be, we should all be grateful for the labor that has lead to this illuminating work.”-Dr. Geddes MacGregor, Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Philosophy University of Southern California

“The Gita can be seen as the main literary support for the great religious civilization of India, the oldest surviving culture in the world. The present translation and commentary is another manifestation of the permanent living importance of the Gita.”-Thomas Merton, Theologian

“I am most impressed with A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada’s scholarly and authoritative edition of Bhagavad-gita. It is a most valuable work for the scholar as well as the layman and is of great utility as a reference book as well as a textbook. I promptly recommend this edition to my students. It is a beautifully done book.”-Dr. Samuel D. Atkins, Professor of Sanskrit Princeton University

“As a successor in direct line from Caitanya, the author of Bhagavad-gita As It Is is entitled, according to Indian custom, to the majestic title of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. The great interest that his reading of the Bhagavad-gita holds for us is that it offers us an authorized interpretation according to the principles of the Caitanya tradition.”-Olivier Lacombe, Professor of Sanskrit and Indology Sorbonne University, Paris

“I have had the opportunity of examining several volumes published by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust and have found them to be of excellent quality and of great value for use in college classes on Indian religions. This is particularly true of the BBT edition and translation of the Bhagavad-gita.”-Dr. Frederick B. Underwood, Professor of Religion Columbia University

“If truth is what works, as Pierce and the pragmatists insist, there must be a kind of truth in the Bhagavad-gita As It Is, since those who follow its teachings display a joyous serenity usually missing in the bleak and strident lives of contemporary people.”-Dr. Elwin H. Powell, Professor of Sociology State University of New York, Buffalo

“There is little question that this edition is one of the best books available on the Gita and devotion. Prabhupada’s translation is an ideal blend of literal accuracy and religious insight.”-Dr. Thomas J. Hopkins, Professor of Religion Franklin and Marshall College

“The Bhagavad-gita, one of the great spiritual texts, is not as yet a common part of our cultural milieu. This is probably less because it is alien per se than because we have lacked just the kind of close interpretative commentary upon it that Swami Bhaktivedanta has here provided, a commentary written from not only a scholar’s but a practitioner’s, a dedicated lifelong devotee’s point of view.”-Manash Denise Levertov, Poet

“The increasing numbers of Western readers interested in classical Vedic thought have been done a service by Swami Bhaktivedanta. By bringing us a new and living interpretation of a text already known to many, he has increased our understanding manyfold.”-Dr. Edward C Dimock, Jr. Department of South Asian Languages and Civilization University of Chicago

“The scholarly world is again indebted to A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Although Bhagavad-gita has been translated many times, Prabhupada adds a translation of singular importance with his commentary.”-Dr. J. Stillson Judah Professor of the History of Religions and Director of Libraries Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, California

“Srila Prabhupada’s edition thus fills a sensitive gap in France, where many hope to become familiar with traditional Indian thought, beyond the commercial East-West hodgepodge that has arisen since the time Europeans first penetrated India.

Whether the reader be an adept of Indian spiritualism or not, a reading of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is will be extremely profitable. For many this will be the first contact with the true India, the ancient India, the eternal India.”-Francois Chenique, Professor of Religious Sciences Institute of Political Studies, Paris, France

“As a native of India now living in the West, it has given me much grief to see so many of my fellow countrymen coming to the West in the role of gurus and spiritual leaders. For this reason, I am very excited to see the publication of Bhagavad-gita As It Is by Sri A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. It will help to stop the terrible cheating of false and unauthorized ‘gurus’ and ‘yogis’ and will give an opportunity to all people to understand the actual meaning of Oriental culture.”-Dr. Kailash Vajpeye, Director of Indian Studies Center for Oriental Studies, The University of Mexico

“It is a deeply felt, powerfully conceived and beautifully explained work. I don’t know whether to praise more this translation of the Bhagavad-gita, its daring method of explanation, or the endless fertility of its ideas. I have never seen any other work on the Gita with such an important voice and style. It will occupy a significant place in the intellectual and ethical life of modern man for a long time to come.”-Dr. Shaligram Shukla, Professor of Linguistics Georgetown University

Conclusion

Assertion: The BBTI is authorized to make changes.Fact: There is no recorded order from Srila Prabhupada that allows the posthumous editing of his books.

Assertion: Srila Prabhupada delegated the production of his books to his disciples.Fact: He was involved in every aspect of the production of his books as testified by the numerous letters and close disciples.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy) ↩
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic) ↩
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context ↩
4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlqbnzzL_28 ↩

Proper editing procedures

Changes

Disciples speak out

Protocols

Post-samadhi editing must be done according to a specific protocol. It needs to be stated on the book that it was post-samadhi edited, by whom, what was edited, and the date. The problem with the new Gita is that it not only lacks this informations, but it also has Prabhupada’s signature as if it was his original version, even though he never asked for this new edition nor approved it.

Editing something in Prabhupada’s books can only be done if the following is verified:

1. The change must not violate the principle of arsa prayoga.
2. The change must be done
a. on the basis of a direct order or,
b. the change must be shown to be permitted, and/or
c. approved after it is done.
3. The change must not be needless (Prabhupada did not want needless changes).
4. We must be 100% sure (there must absolutely no doubt) that Prabhupada wanted this specific change (a principle of caution must be observed).

We know the proper protocol for post-samadhi editing never has been followed by BBT International. In addition to this: can anyone show me just one change in Prabhupada’s books made post-samadhi that does not violate at least of the above points?

If just one change in the 1983 edition violates just one of the above points, then that change is offensive and a sign of disloyalty to Prabhupada. I have not seen one change in the 1983 edition that was true to all the above points. I therefore consider the 1983 edition as being offensive and disloyal to Prabhupada.

Some devotees make few wrong observations. One of them is that the 1983 unauthorized edition is the first draft. That is wrong. There is a huge difference between the first drafts and the 1983 edition. Thousands of large and small differences.

Someone wrote: “Sure enough, the editor was just changing it back to the original draft, written by Srila Prabhupada.” This is also not correct. There are certainly places were BBT International have not changed back to the first drafts. For example, the word eternal has been taken out of verse 2.18, even though Prabhupada referred back to this word in his lectures in this specific verse. There are several such examples. Also, Prabhupada never asked the editors to go back to the drafts and use these to edit his Gita again.

When he approved the 1972 edition of the Gita he called it “The Complete Edition” and “The original manuscript” which shows that all previously made drafts were now discarded as material to be used in the book –at least without his instruction, permission or later approval (none of which were ever given except for two or three examples like cattle raising and cow protection).

So to change the 1972 “Complete Edition” back to the so called “original manuscripts” which are actually only drafts is to override thousands of editorial decisions and approvals made by Prabhupada. Remember that it was also Prabhupada’s editorial decision to use Hayagriva as editor. So to override Hayagriva’s decisions (many of which were made in close consultation with Prabhupada and the rest approved by Prabhupada before publishing) is also to override Prabhupada’s editorial decisions.

Shouldn’t Prabhupada be the final decision-maker on this? Did Prabhupada want his first drafts published like this (yes, no, maybe?) Did he want another book explaining all the faults in his 1972 edition? (yes, no, maybe?) Or did he prefer us to stick to the arsa prayoga principle and simply overlook the transcendental faults due to our love for Prabhupada as our eternal well-wisher and master? (yes, no, maybe?)

It’s all guesswork—and we ought not make editorial decisions based on guesswork. Why not just read the 1972 edition which Prabhupada approved, loved and lectured from for five and a half years and make progress in spiritual life without getting entangled in finding faults with the Sampradaya Acarya.
 
—Ajit Krishna dasa

When Lord Krishna garlanded Prabhupada

After Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance, Patita Pavana dasa asked if I’d like to assist Satsvarupa’s Lilamrita project by interviewing people in India who had known Srila Prabhupada. One of them was Acarya Prabhakar Mishra, Prabhupada’s first disciple. Acarya Prabhakar Mishra was clean-cut, well-behaved and articulate. His demeanor impressed me. He held a M.A. and PhD and was a very cultured Sanskrit scholar and teacher.

In Jhansi, Prabhupada had told Acarya Prabhakar. “I met you because I saw you in a dream and I knew that I was supposed to come here.” Prabhupada and he would do bhajan together. They’d hold Rathayatra festivals and they’d have programme in villages in the area.

Acarya Prabhakar said that on Sri Krishna Janmashtami in 1954, he had to go to Delhi. When he returned to Jhansi, he took a little rest, woke up at 1:00 am and heard Srila Prabhupada ecstatically playing mridanga in the temple room. Prabhupada was chanting in total bliss. Acarya Prabhakar went upstairs and saw Srila Prabhupada bouncing around the temple room performing kirtan. Prabhupada was wearing a kadamba flower garland that went all the way down to his feet. Kadamba flowers are very rare in Jhansi and when they are available they are usually the size of a golf ball. But the ones Prabhupada was wearing were big, the size of tennis balls. And he said that the atmosphere right down to the atoms in the room was not material, aprakrita.

The place was surcharged with the fragrance of the heavenly planets. Acarya Prabhakar wanted to ask Srila Prabhupada, “Where did this garland come from? It is not available from the market.” But Srila Prabhupada would not answer. His Divine Grace just kept on performing kirtan, bouncing round the room and chanting. The next morning Acarya Prabhakar asked Srila Prabhupada, “Where did you get the garland, why did it have such a rich fragrance, and why were you feeling so blissful?”

Srila Prabhupada told him, “I was chanting to Krishna and feeling some love for Him. And He appeared and gave me this garland. I went to touch His feet and He disappeared. Because of that I was dancing around the temple room.” Srila Prabhupada was crying.

Acarya Prabhakar was very believable and I felt that what he told me was valid. He also said that sometimes Srila Prabhupada’s mood was to perform kirtan intensely. He would chant on and on and on for three days straight. We hear that sometimes he wouldn’t eat for long periods, especially near the end of his manifest lila, but remarkably in Jhansi, he was doing kirtan for a long period of time without eating or sleep…

“As you are remembering our old meeting days on the Second Avenue, when I first started my lectures there, similarly I also remember the incidents and speak to so many friends and disciples. So our meeting was Krishna’s desire. Apparently it was accidental but actually it was Krishna’s plan…” (Los Angeles 18 November, 1968.)

Srila Prabhupada wrote this to Hayagriva. This was not long after they had met and Hayagriva started editing Bhagavad Gita As It Is. Editing and being able to ask the author if this was what he intended. Or listening to Srila Prabhupada speak. To listen to his words.
 
—Bahushira dasa

It’s not an accident

In a lecture in Los Angeles on the appearance day of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur, Srila Prabhupada wept openly as he told the devotees that they had all been sent here to assist him by his Guru Maharaj. It is not an accident that Srila Prabhupada’s style of writing from the early Srimad Bhagavatams was a flowery British English which is derived from the poly syllabic Mediterranean languages.

It is not an accident that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur sent Srila Prabhupada —Hayagriva who was a writer and ardent admirer of the early American transcendentalists like Emerson and Thoreau who wrote in a similar poetic style. It is not an accident that Srila Prabhupada spent hours pouring over the drafts, the paintings, etc editing and adjusting everything so it was just right. None of these things are accidents, the pastimes of the pure devotee are transcendental.

Unfortunately some people have a mundane view of the spiritual master’s activities and think that they can improve on what is already perfect even if there are some so called discrepancies. Even if the verses are imperfectly composed they are transcendentally potent nonetheless.

Does Jayadvaita Swami have any absolute evidence in writing from Srila Prabhupada that approves every single change that he makes? Unless Jayadvaita Swami was sent here personally by Sri Krishna for this purpose or is taking dictation from the Supreme Lord then his adjustments are simply speculation or personal preference.

Jayadvaita Swami was not invited into the editing process by Srila Prabhupada. One good reason could be Jayadvaita Swami’s writing style. Jayadvaita Swami favors the short choppy English form influenced by the Viking languages which is used more for business and common literature like magazines and newspapers. This was his style at BTG and that is not acceptable for poetic scripture. Jayadvaita Swami’s problem is he just doesn’t get it. The disciples of Srila Prabhupada want that he should leave the books alone!

He has taken a very slim one vote margin of the GBC to fix some typos to changing the entire meaning of the texts. Without Srila Prabhupada’s personal presence to confirm the changes he is making, from old tapes and drafts which have not been accurately cataloged, he cannot be sure that Srila Prabhupada did not already reject those versions in favor of what is already in the book. What we are absolutely sure of is that Srila Prabhupada approved of each book that was printed after extensively reviewing it.

Therefore whatever has been signed off on by Srila Prabhupada while he was here on the planet cannot be changed, period. You may add an errata or addendum in the back of the book if you have some serious concerns but the actual texts and purports themselves must not be adjusted in any way. To do so is to insult Srila Prabhupada, and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur by doubting their transcendental plan. To do so is to insult Sri Krishna as the Supreme arranger.

To do so without a mandate from Sri Guru and Gouranga is to place your own speculation above the Supreme Lord and His Divine emmisaries. Without the Nitya Siddha Pure Devotee present to confirm the changes we are allowing the mental speculation of one man to destroy the absolute nature of the most important scriptures for the next 10,000 years. Jayadvaita Swami leave the books alone!
 
—Bhagavat dasa

The unrivalled perfection of a masterful translation

Now to let us see how a purely devoted disciple of His Divine Grace approached the translating and editing process. After Srila Prabhupada’s departure there is a little known pastime, that will not remain so after this letter goes in this book, where Srila Gour Govinda Maharaj helped to reveal the unrivalled perfection of Srila Prabhupada’s masterful translation of Bhagavad-gita.

Srila Gour Govinda Maharaj was given the service by Srila Prabhupada of translating all of his books into the Oriya language. Srila Gour Govinda Maharaj was a great scholar who could write and speak in five languages, Oriya, Hindi, Bengali, English, and Sanskrit. He got his degree in English from the University with a minor in Sanskrit. I lived with Srila Gour Govinda Maharaj in the same room for nearly three years.

He translated Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita with the greatest love and devotion and attention for detail. Because of his vast command of languages He was able to notice little details that others may have overlooked. One thing that was a cause of great transcendental concern for him was the fact that when Srila Prabhupada translated a word from Sanskrit to English it would not be the same if Srila Gour Govinda Maharaj translated the Sanskrit word directly to Oriya.

In other words the English word that Srila Prabhupada used to explain the Sanskrit word had an entirely different meaning than the Oriya word that would normally be used as a translation of this same Sanskrit word. Srila Gour Govinda Maharaj was concerned that in translating the literal English into Oriya, many Pandits and scholars would complain that this was not an accurate translation.

Since Srila Gour Govinda Maharaj did not want to change one single word of his beloved Spiritual Master’s books but at the same time be able to defend the scholarships of his Guru Maharaj beyond the shadow of a doubt, He devised a plan for writing down all of the so called contradictions in a list until he completed the entire work. Srila Gour Govinda Maharaj then went to a small village to see the now retired Sanskrit professor who had taught him Sanskrit in college.

This man was considered one of the foremost authorities on the Sanskrit language in India having one of the largest personal libraries on the subject, including one of the best collections of Sanskrit to English Dictionaries. Srila Gour Govinda Maharaj knew that this Scholar’s grasp of Sanskrit to English translation would provide him with the evidence he needed to prove the authority of Srila Prabhupada’s work.

After about ten days, Srila Gour Govinda Maharaj returned to the little mud hut that we lived in with the Sanskrit professor in tow. The Sanskrit professor introduced himself (I apologize but unfortunately I cannot remember his name) and began glorifying His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada’s masterful translation work. The professor told me that he started studying Sanskrit when he was five years old, now in his late 70′s he had been studying the language for over 70 years.

He told me how on the first review of his dictionaries he could not find the translations that Srila Prabhupada had made from Sanskrit to English, but he said that Srila Gour Govinda Maharaj kept encouraging him to keep looking, assuring him that he would find the translation if he looked long and hard enough. The professor said he would have given up, if it were not for Srila Gour Govinda Maharaj’s insistence that his Guru Maharaj had been accurate and that if he looked hard enough he would find it.

Then the professor told me that he found each and every translation that Srila Prabhupada had made. The professor told me that these translations that your Guru has made are the most obscure and brilliant explanations of these words from Sanskrit to English that he had ever seen. The professor admitted that with all of his education and training he could not have thought of these obscure and brilliant meanings that so perfectly expressed the inner truths of the mysteries of the Bhagavad-gita.

The professor then said having seen this translation work of His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada he was convinced that Srila Prabhupada was the greatest Sanskrit scholar in the history of civilization and must have been directly enlightened by the Supreme Lord Krishna to accomplish this work.

There is so much to learn from this pastime. The first thing of course is that no one is qualified to edit one single word of Srila Prabhupada’s books! Unless he is on the same level as His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada and since it is pretty obvious Jayadvaita Swami is not, then he should leave the books alone!

Now some may say how do we know he is not and the answer to that is the second important lesson that we learn from this pastime. Unlike Jayadvaita Swami who has changed the words of his Spiritual master’s books in order to meet with the approval of scholars and professors. The pure devotional attitude of Srila Gour Govinda Maharaj was to elevate the professor by engaging him in devotional service and then bring him up to a spiritual platform so that he could get the mercy of Srila Prabhupada.

Instead of acting like editor and scholar Srila Gour Govinda Maharaj teaches us how to protect and defend the honor of the Spiritual Master through his pure devotional mood. Jayadvaita Swami’s erasing the words of our Divine Master Srila Prabhupada and replacing them with his mental speculations reminds me of the story when the Mayavadi scratched out the name of Krishna in the book and replaced it with the word Brahman.

Krishna eventually appears before him with scratches on His face, and the Mayavadi realizes his folly and surrenders to the Lord. Srila Prabhupada’s books are his transcendental body. How much longer are we going to sit back and let his books be abused? If Srila Prabhupada were here and some one was abusing him would we stand by idly and watch it happen? NO! Why do we continue to allow Jayadvaita Swami to abuse our Spiritual Master’s books?

Can we not stand up in the pure devotional mood of Srila Gour Govinda Maharaj and defend the Honor of our Spiritual Master? Let us all work together to restore Srila Prabhupada’s books to their pristine and uncontaminated glory. Then let us distribute those books again and preach the pure devotional service of the Lord to the innocent masses yearning to be free of the shackles of maya.

Let us enter the arena of the material world proclaiming the glories of the Lord with the absolute conviction that we can only benefit everyone we meet with the highest good. If any demoniac persons try to stop us then we should proudly proclaim like the Christians of old being attacked by the lions in the Roman coliseum that we are the servants of the Lord and our spiritual master and we are fearless.
 
—Bhagavat dasa

Editing Prabhupada’s books is the most serious issue

These books, Srila Prabhupada’s original 1972-1977 publications, are his life’s work, his labor of love, and his gift to Humanity. “The law books for the next 10,000 years,” he often said.

These original books are not, as one leader claimed, “ritvik books.”1 They are Srila Prabhupada’s most cherished service to his Guru Maharaj, books that he painstakingly translated and carefully coddled to the point of perfection, and then printed for all the world to benefit.

These books were written and published long before the word “ritvik” ever became a word in our vocabulary. There was no ritvik or non-ritvik philosophy in 1972-1977 —tearing apart his ISKCON. There was only Srila Prabhupada and his determination to give the world Krishna consciousness in the form of his glorious books.

These original books printed in the early 70’s are the same books that changed our hearts, and turned us from meat-eating karmis to aspiring devotees. And these same books made thousands upon thousands of devotees. Every senior disciple knows this. And every one of us, senior or junior, has a debt to Srila Prabhupada for this glorious gift, his legacy in the form of his writings, his lectures, his letters, his conversations, and whatever instructions came from his lotus mouth. We need to remember that whatever came from him, is purely transcendental.

In his Srimad Bhagavatam, 4.20.25, Srila Prabhupada explains:

“Although when a pure devotee speaks, the articulation of his voice may resemble the sound of this material sky, the voice is spiritually very powerful, because it touches the particles of saffron dust on the lotus feet of the Lord.”

“As soon as a sleeping living entity hears the powerful voice emanating from the mouth of a pure devotee, he immediately remembers his eternal relationship with the Lord, although up until that moment he had forgotten everything.”

Srila Prabhupada spoke his books into a dictaphone, and he often said that Krishna actually dictated them. How can we as conditioned souls be so impertinent as to think we can in any way improve upon, alter, change or correct such writings —without him present in this world to approve our so-called improvements?

These original books were lauded by scholars as well as religionists. They were praised by everyone, without any suggestions for massive editing or changes.

It is our duty as disciples and grand disciples of Srila Prabhupada to protect and secure his legacy, lest his books fall prey to future misquotes, misinterpretations, and misleading mistakes that endanger their very existence. Better they should have a few typos than result in a future change of philosophy, as with the Christian Bible, written and rewritten innumerable times.

The book editing issue is a very serious one, perhaps the most serious issue in ISKCON today. I have seen the attractive and seemingly authentic BBTI website promoting these book changes, but most of it is propaganda, and a lot of it is based on speculation of what took place in the past. It is most unfortunate that this has occurred, as it endangers everything Srila Prabhupada came to this world to do. He often said “I came from Krishna loka to write some books.”

So many times, Srila Prabhupada commanded “Don’t change anything!” But this instruction, given repeatedly by him, has been glossed over by so many elaborate, and often untruthful, explanations and excuses.

The very real danger is that his books could be lost in the course of time, as some changes lead to more changes, and “tinkering” is the disease of the Western world. Srila Prabhupada complained about this “Westerner change disease” often, and there is ample recorded evidence that he did not want his books changed after he left this world. He did not even want them changed while he was present here with us!

We cannot “tinker” with the works of great Acaryas. And Srila Prabhupada is the great Acarya of this Kali Age, the “Senapati Bhakta.” How can we dare to second-guess such a great personality?

The excuse for this massive editing (more like a rewrite of his books) is that the books will be “more correct and thus more appealing to scholars.” However, nothing could be farther from the truth.

Posthumous editing is not respected by the Western scholarly community (see Dr. John Trimble, famous for his “Writing with Style”) nor is it respected or approved of by the Gaudiya Vaishnava scholarly tradition. The opinions of such famous Western scholars such as Dr. John Trimble, and the opinions of famous Gaudiya scholars, have not been included in the BBTI website —because they are not favorable.

So the reasoning for doing this massive edit is flawed, that is: “to make the books more acceptable to scholars…” By doing such illegitimate posthumous edits, Srila Prabhupada’s books have actually lost credibility with the scholarly community. There is factual proof of this.

I have discussed this posthumous editing matter with Dr. John Trimble, a noted scholar and perhaps one of America’s leading English and writing educators at the University of Texas at Austin. He explained that posthumous editing is frowned upon in the scholarly community, and even has a name: “bowdlerizing” which has the connotation of bastardizing an author’s works.

Are Steinbeck’s and Hemingway’s novels posthumously edited —even though they often have words in them that are no longer considered socially appropriate? NO. And if an author is in fact posthumously edited, the editors’ names are clearly placed on the cover, and the title page describes the date of edit as well as the number of edition.

If for some reason an author’s works are posthumously edited, it is a rule in the publishing industry that the work is no longer considered to be only the author’s work, but an edited version of it. Thus it is required that the editor’s name be printed on the cover as well, along with information inside the book as to the date of edit and number of edition. This has not been done by BBTI.

Instead, BBTI has simply placed Srila Prabhupada’s name on the covers of posthumously edited books, as if it is entirely his work and he has signed off on it. And more outrageously, BBTI has even inserted Srila Prabhupada’s 1971 signature in books printed in 1983 and later! This is both unprofessional and unethical.

The rule is that the public must know up-front that the book has been edited and/or abridged by “John Doe.” Srila Prabhupada was very careful to follow the rules of publishing. Why does BBTI consider themselves above such accepted protocol, and thus present an edited version, done posthumously, with Srila Prabhupada’s 1971 signature —as if he were here to authorize the edits? In educated circles, this is not only considered unscholarly; it is considered criminal.

I also researched whether such posthumous editing is acceptable in our Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. To find out whether this is done in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, some years ago I approached H. H. B. V. Narayana Maharaja with questions about this matter. He told me this was never to be done. It is disrespectful to the Acarya, and shows a lack of correctly understanding the principle of “arsa-prayoga.”

“Arsa-prayoga” is the spiritual concept that whatever a saintly person has written or spoken, it is to be accepted as perfect, and is never to be challenged or changed. He also commented that the posthumously edited books “have lost Swamiji’s voice.”

According to Pradyumna Prabhu, Srila Prabhupada’s Sanskrit scholar and editor who traveled with him extensively for many years, the term “arsa-prayoga” means “the usage of the sages.” “It usually refers to irregular grammatical constructions which are normally considered to be mistakes, but because spoken or written by a sage are to be accepted as correct. Arsa is a word derived from “rsi” or “sage”. This is exactly what we are dealing with here.

Other scholars have also been approached regarding the impropriety of this method of posthumous editing. They have all been in agreement that the editors’ names should be clearly printed on the books’ covers, and the date of edit and number of edition should be written on the title page therein.

So long as Srila Prabhupada was present, he had his editors working under him, and he oversaw everything. From start to finish. Both the text as well as the art work was done under his direct supervision.”

I personally met Srila Prabhupada in early January of 1967, and at that time, Hayagriva was in San Francisco working daily with Srila Prabhupada, editing his Bhagavad-gita As It Is, as well as other books and articles. He had come from New York to the budding San Francisco temple, to continue his editing work with Prabhupada there. He had already been working closely with Srila Prabhupada, then known simply as “Swamiji,” ever since meeting him on a New York street corner in the summer of 1966. Srila Prabhupada immediately engaged Hayagriva, then Professor Howard Wheeler, in editing his writings only days after meeting him in 1966.

Hayagriva later lived with us in 1968 (Srila Prabhupada was in Los Angeles at that time) and daily he and Srila Prabhupada hashed out final details of editing. The two of them worked on Srimad Bhagavatam as well as the Bhagavad-gita. The Gita was being readied for printing in late 1968, just before I was sent to Hawaii by Srila Prabhupada in January of 1969.

In 1968, while traveling with Srila Prabhupada as his servant and secretary, I did the cover for the first Macmillan edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, the lavender paperback. On the cover of that first Gita was my drawing of Lord Vishnu, —which was originally the Universal Form, drawn under Srila Prabhupada’s direct guidance. However, Macmillan removed the extra arms and faces of the Universal Form, turning it into the four armed Form of Lord Vishnu.

Macmillan also condensed Srila Prabhupada’s already edited Gita down to a much smaller version. They insisted on this for financial reasons.

Srila Prabhupada was not happy with Macmillan’s decision to shorten his Gita to such an extreme. He was satisfied with the entire work at that time, the work that he and Hayagriva had polished and readied, and wanted the whole thing printed. However, Macmillan did not want so much repetition, as it would increased printing costs, and they were unsure of the market value of the book.

At that time, Srila Prabhupada told us that he wanted the repetition. He said it was necessary for proper instruction and understanding of the Gita, especially for newcomers to Vedic philosophy.

But MacMillian wanted to save money. Thus the small lavender Bhagavad-gita As It Is was printed. And Srila Prabhupada accepted it; it was his “foot in the door.” And he often said, “a blind uncle is better than no uncle,” a Bengali saying that means something is better than nothing.

However, Srila Prabhupada still wanted his complete Gita printed at that time —in 1968. It simply could not be done due to finances. Later on, in 1972, when his complete Bhagavad-gita As It Is was finally published, he was very happy with it —so happy that he used to sit in his room and read it every day, exclaiming with amazement that “Krishna has written these books!”

Yes, he read his own books daily, and he spoke from that original Gita for over six years. He gave lectures on nearly every verse, yet he requested only a few changes, such as the planet of the “trees,” to the planet of the “pitris,” “cattle raising” and a couple of others. We are all familiar with these since they have been held up and waved around like dead rats by BBTI editors, attempting to justify the editing of his Gita. And had only those few changes been made, perhaps this controversy would never have occurred.

However, the problem is this: BBTI did not simply edit the books and make simple typo or Sanskrit corrections; rather, they edited Srila Prabhupada’s books and made sweeping changes, over 5000 of them in the Bhagavad-gita alone, and changed the “writer’s voice” that had been so artistically created by Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva working together.

Srila Prabhupada warned his editors against “interpolation,” yet this is exactly what has been done to his divinely transmitted and divinely authorized writings.

Had BBTI made only a few simple typographical corrections, the million dollar court case defending BBTI’s posthumous versions —a court case that was lost by the BBTI —and that BBTI carefully never mentions— would probably never have happened. Just to defend these posthumously edited books, BBTI spent well over a million dollars. Does anyone really think Srila Prabhupada would have approved that expenditure?

Srila Prabhupada often exclaimed that Hayagriva had been “sent by Krishna to make my books nice.” Hayagriva was, after all, a college professor of English literature since 1964, specializing in the poetic works of the Western transcendentalists —Blake, Merton, Thoreau, Emerson, Whitman, and so on. He had also studied Buddhist sutras, Plato, Saint Augustine, and Hindu books on theology.

In 1965, Professor Wheeler traveled to India in search of a guru, having been inspired by some of his Indian college professor friends. He went seeking a spiritual teacher, being attracted by India’s sacred legacy. He returned from India disappointed, not having found his spiritual master. However, only a few months later, by the divine hand of Providence, he met Srila Prabhupada, on a street corner in New York. Professor Wheeler immediately became one of the Swami’s first students. The Swami entrusted him with editing his writings soon after meeting him.

Srila Prabhupada, then known simply as “Swamiji” engaged Hayagriva in editing and typing his Srimad Bhagavatam, and Bhagavad-gita As It Is, only days after meeting him. Does this sound a bit like a special-made-to-order gift from Krishna? An editor who is already well-educated and well-versed in English literature, especially poetic transcendental literature! Srila Prabhupada seemed to think so, as he often praised Hayagriva’s poetic talents and editing abilities.

Hayagriva helped Srila Prabhupada, using his writing talent, to craft a beautifully flowing Bhagavad-gita in the English language. Certainly, a few Sanskrit translation errors should be corrected, but that’s not what we’re talking about. Rather, the entire Bhagavad-gita’s “poetic writer’s voice” has been lost, and often translations have been clumsily re-edited, losing the poetic ring of the original version. Bhagavad-gita means “song of God.” It is intended to be poetic and flowing. Srila Prabhupada achieved that poetic flow with Hayagriva’s help.

But the real danger is: where does it stop? BBTI is continuing to edit and re-edit Prabhupada’s books even now. Already, there are at least six editions of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is, all bearing the author’s name “His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami” on their covers. How many editions will exist in 50 years, all bearing the same name on the cover, along with the 1971 signature of Srila Prabhupada? From a publishing viewpoint, this is nothing less than a nightmare.

Another important consideration is that Jayadvaita Swami, a 20 year old high school dropout, met Srila Prabhupada in the early 70’s, whereas Hayagriva, an established college professor, had already been working with Srila Prabhupada as his editor since the summer of 1966.

Srila Prabhupada gave Hayagriva the service of editing his work at a time when devotees had extensive daily access to Srila Prabhupada. Devotees were able to engage in long discussions with him on anything and everything. So there were hours, days, and years of editing interchange between Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva long before Jayadvaita Swami ever came into the picture.

If you study Hayagriva’s book, “The Hare Krishna Explosion,” written from diaries long before the “book editing issue” ever surfaced (and long before Jayadvaita Swami or Dravida became devotees —even before BBTI was formed) you will see that Hayagriva was spending hours daily with Srila Prabhupada doing his editing work, from the summer of 1966 in New York, then in San Francisco in 1967, and continuously thereafter. There is ample historical evidence of this.

Jayadvaita Swami, for some reason, ignores this and claims that Hayagriva spent little time with Prabhupada editing his books. This is simply not true. The fact is that Jayadvaita Swami wasn’t there yet. I was. I am an eyewitness to the elaborate editing conversations that took place in 1967, 1968, and 1969.

From December of 1967 to January of 1969, I was living with and traveling with Srila Prabhupada, along with my husband Goursundar, going with him from city to city. Besides typing transcriptions of Srila Prabhupada’s writings, my service was cooking, cleaning, maintaining the household and the simple Deity worship, and taking dictation of Prabhupada’s letters, typing them, and in between that, doing artwork.

In 1968, my husband, Goursundar das, and I met with Macmillan executives in New York to discuss the cover picture for Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is. We were very involved with the whole process, and that first Gita, the lavender paperback, was printed only a few months after I left for Hawaii in January of 1969.

In late 1968, just prior to my departure for Hawaii, Hayagriva visited us in Los Angeles, staying with us for several weeks, and sleeping on the living room floor of Prabhupada’s apartment. The two of them were working daily on the final polishing of the manuscript for the Macmillan Gita, as well as other publications such as the Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Srimad Bhagavatam, and also the Nectar of Devotion. I was daily transcribing Prabhupada’s tapes of Nectar of Devotion and Caitanya-caritamrta. Srila Prabhupada would speak into the dictaphone in the early morning hours, and after breakfast, would hand me the tapes to transcribe. This was my service.

Meanwhile, Hayagriva was spending whole days in Srila Prabhupada’s room, discussing the necessary edits. They often even took their meals together, as the discussions were non-stop. Hayagriva had only a limited time for his visit, as he was still teaching as a college professor at that time.

It was also during that visit that Srila Prabhupada married Hayagriva to Shama dasi.

All this took place in December of 1968, the year the final edit of the Gita was done. So it was done to Srila Prabhupada’s satisfaction at that time. Even there may have been some typos, it met with his approval. This is important for everyone to understand.

While living with Srila Prabhupada for those fourteen precious months, I also composed and drew the five line drawings for the forthcoming Teachings of Lord Caitanya. Srila Prabhupada actually designed those illustrations and literally watched over my shoulder while I drew them. He loved to watch the artists’ work.

Earlier in 1968, at our apartment in San Francisco, I was working on the cover of Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Srila Prabhupada would come shuffling down the hall. (the houseshoes I gave him made shuffling sounds so I could always hear him coming!) He enjoyed watching the artists at work and spent much time working with both artists and editors; his books were his priority. He supervised every aspect of them.

My job at that time was transcribing his tapes for Nectar of Devotion and Caitanya-caritamrta, while my husband, a Sanskrit and Bengali scholar, was transliterating Caitanya-caritamrta. Goursundar was also giving Srila Prabhupada oil massages daily, to improve his health, and going on walks with him. At home, the two of them discussed philosophy as well as the forthcoming Caitanya-caritamrta.

Srila Prabhupada read Caitanya-caritamrta daily, and sometimes commented that his Guru Maharaj also read it daily in his later years. This multi-volume set of books, Caitanya-caritamrta, so cherished by Srila Prabhupada, has also been severely edited by BBTI; many changes were made without any legitimate reason. This should not have happened.

My point is this: Srila Prabhupada directly oversaw the drawing for the cover of his Bhagavad-gita As It Is as well as the five drawings for Teachings of Lord Caitanya. These five original illustrations, designed by Srila Prabhupada himself, were later removed from his Teachings of Lord Caitanya by the editors of BBTI. The editors decided to “make improvements” by replacing the original drawings. However, Srila Prabhupada complained about this, and so the drawings have been reinstated as far as I know.

So the point here is that Srila Prabhupada oversaw every aspect of his book production. He oversaw the editing just as carefully as the artwork. There is some erroneous idea that BBTI has promoted that Prabhupada spent little time with Hayagriva and that he did not closely watch over the work of the editors or artists. I was there, and I did not perceive this to be true.

Srila Prabhupada watched us from the outside and from the inside as well. He knew everything that was going on in our hearts and minds, and clearly indicated this many times. He also guided our hands in our artwork as well as the editing work. His mystic opulences were not promoted, or even discussed or understood, but trust me, he was fully in charge of all our activities.

Now, so many years have passed. Jayadvaita Swami seems to think this book issue is a “political controversy.” And it seems to have become so. BBTI finances him to travel around the world, from temple to temple, with his presentations on why the books have been edited and changed so drastically.

I have no personal dislike or antagonism for Jayadvaita Swami, or for Dravida. We were always friends. But this issue is one that we cannot agree upon, because it is clearly a disregard for Srila Prabhupada’s platform as Acarya.

The Bhagavad-gita As It Is has been changed so drastically that it no longer even sounds like the same book. Now, I am not saying it is useless; I think every devotee should get both copies and compare them.

But everyone should also understand that the original 1972 Gita is the one that Srila Prabhupada sat in his room and read daily. The original 1972 Gita is the one that made devotees all over the world. The original 1972 Gita is also the one that Srila Prabhupada spoke from. He gave lectures and quoted from this original 1972 Gita on many many occasions —for over six years!

Are we to also edit his spoken lectures? Or are we to appreciate that his transcendental voice is coming from a realm far beyond our minds, far beyond this universe? Are we to accept Srila Prabhupada as being the “Senapati Bhakta” sent by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu Himself? Or are we to relegate him to a lesser position?

When Jayadvaita Swami came to visit Hawaii several years ago, in 2003, I had a darshan of Srila Prabhupada in my temple room. In that brief darshan, Srila Prabhupada ordered, “I want you to speak!”, indicating that he wanted me to speak out about the book changes to Jayadvaita Swami.

My first response was “I don’t wanna…” (who wants such a difficult service?) Srila Prabhupada’s response was commanding: “You have to, that is my order… they will listen to you!” At that point I agreed, what else could I do?

I then educated myself more thoroughly on the whole issue, and subsequently several discussions were held at the Honolulu temple, where a number of other senior disciples came to voice their grievances and opinions as well. Those discussions were taped and later transcribed and found on www.arsaprayoga.com. Now they are on other websites, one known as www.bookchanges.com and other places as well. These discussions give a clearer picture of the changes and the ramifications of changing the Acarya’s writings.

Since then, I have also studied the 1997-1998 lawsuit that cost the BBTI over a million dollars to defend the edited books —a lawsuit that was lost, and that BBTI is careful never to discuss or mention. It was a huge and embarrassing loss to the BBTI. Jayadvaita Swami should have resigned after that lawsuit, but strangely enough, some of his Godbrothers wanted him to stay (?)

Let me add here, that the BBTI lawyers’ defense argument labeled Srila Prabhupada as a “worker for hire” and therefore according to this legal concept, his books belonged to BBTI and could be edited however they pleased. This argument, albeit only a legal agenda, is clearly offensive, a very serious “Vaishnava aparadha.”

In spite of this spiritually distasteful argument, BBTI lost the case anyway. (The judge didn’t buy it.) The BBTI lost the case in spite of hiring the very costly and prestigious international copyright law firm, Coudert Brothers.

As a result of this court ruling, a “license to print” Srila Prabhupada’s original 1972-1977 books was given to a small group of Srila Prabhupada’s senior disciples. It is due to this “license to print” that Srila Prabhupada’s original books are now back in print. These precious books, so dear to our Spiritual Master Srila Prabhupada, were out of print for over twenty years! If not for this court case, perhaps they would have remained out of print forever!

Perhaps here we may stop to consider the “blade of grass theory” —not a blade of grass moves without the will of the Lord!

My motive is not political nor is it sentimental. I am simply following my Gurudev’s orders. He could foresee this sort of thing would happen, due to the “Westerner’s change disease.”

The important thing to consider here is Srila Prabhupada’s perspective. What would he want us to do in this situation. Srila Prabhupada was most concerned about the loss of his gift to the world —his books. Therefore he constantly cautioned against changes of any sort. It is not that the books are completely lost now, with this edit. But they will continue to be edited, and changed, and changed again, and the editors that come after Jayadvaita Swami and Dravida are gone will surely have new and different ideas. And in due course of time, the pure teachings will be lost.

Krishna tells Arjuna in the Gita that He gave this knowledge to the Sun god, but it was lost in the course of time. The same thing can happen if we allow this book editing issue to go unchecked. There is no end to it.

Srila Prabhupada’s communication to me is that this is the single most important issue. And that every one of his faithful disciples should speak out on this issue, whether it is “politically correct” or not. And whether we are criticized or not. It really isn’t about Jayadvaita Swami or any other particular person. It is about keeping Srila Prabhupada’s teachings intact for the future welfare of mankind.

Two hundred years from now, when scholars are researching this great movement, and they find thirty editions of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is, all different, yet all bearing Srila Prabhupada’s 1971 signature, how will they even know which edition is the original and authentic one?

They will know only by the statements that we, Srila Prabhupada’s disciples, leave behind. We, his disciples, are now his voice in this world.

Therefore, it is our duty, to be faithful to our Guru, to speak out to defend his books, even it it makes us unpopular or “politically incorrect.”

Amazingly, some respected ISKCON leaders have been known to criticize these original books, calling them “ritvik books.” Yet those same leaders became devotees from reading those original books! And those books existed long before the ritvik movement ever began. There is no relation whatsoever. The books stand alone, as Srila Prabhupada’s gifts to the world.

This BBTI propaganda is not actually coming from Jayadvaita Swami or the BBTI; it is the undercurrent coming from the Kali Chela, those energies that are working diligently to infiltrate and destroy this great movement launched by Srila Prabhupada. His was a movement launched with a handful of sincere American teenagers who loved their “Swamiji”, and continue to love him, more than life itself.

Dear Devotees, please don’t take all this lightly; do your own research, offer your own prayers to Srila Prabhupada, and then decide what is right. Don’t simply parrot the propaganda that BBTI is spreading to try to make it sound all right. As a disciple, you and I and every one of us has a duty to Srila Prabhupada, to his legacy, to safeguard his valuable teachings for the generations of devotees to come. This is the most serious issue facing us today. And this is our most important duty.
 
—Govinda dasi

Hidden co-authors

Misconceptions are circulating about the authorship of his Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada’s books. Is Srila Prabhupada simply an “author for hire” as designated by BBTI and did he “intend” that all his books should be revised post-samadhi?

Did Srila Prabhupada intend that BBT should claim the copyrights to his work in order to make the changes?

Is there in fact any of Srila Prabhupada’s own writing style in any of his books or were all these books written by his editors?

To establish exactly why, when and how the book changes started we need to look at more than just the BBTI Edit website and YouTube explanations. We need to look at everything that Srila Prabhupada said and wrote about his books. We need to consider whether or not we believe that Srila Prabhupada translated, wrote edited and published his books and intended them to stay as he wrote them, with corrections made only to spelling and grammar.

We also need to look at whether or not Srila Prabhupada was satisfied with the editing done by one of his first disciples, Hayagriva.

Srila Prabhupada’s many letters to Hayagriva tell us that He was in complete control and that he was in fact, impressed and happy with the editing work in progress. Please refer to the chapter “Authorization” where you find the letters in chronological order.

In contrast, the so-called editing of his books, without his knowledge and consent is really rewriting by hidden co-authors.

Srila Prabhupada is an extraordinary author unsurpassed in history because he translated, wrote, edited, published, and distributed millions of books worldwide.

He trained hundreds of disciples to assist him in this monumental work.

Srila Prabhupada created his own publishing house, the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (BBT). He created his own distribution system of temples, the Life Membership program and book distributors who developed innovative methods to distribute books. He engaged millions of people in producing, distributing and receiving his transcendental books, and thus engaged them in the pure devotional service of Lord Caitanya’s movement.

Srila Prabhupada was a published author before he reached America. In India, without help, he translated, wrote, edited, published and distributed the three volumes of Srimad Bhagavatam, First Canto, the paperback Easy Journey to Other Planets, and many issues of Back to Godhead magazine. He wrote a second manuscript for the Bhagavad-gita to replace his first one which had been stolen. He recognized the difficulty in presenting transcendental knowledge in a foreign language.

In the preface to each volume of Srimad Bhagavatam, he appealed to the readers: “I must admit my frailties in presenting Srimad Bhagavatam, but still I am hopeful of its good reception by the thinkers and leaders of society on the strength of the following statement of Srimad Bhagavatam (1.5.11): tad-vag visargo… ‘On the other hand, that literature which is full with descriptions of the transcendental glories of the name, fame, form and pastimes of the unlimited Supreme Lord is a transcendental creation meant to bring about a revolution in the impious life of a misdirected civilization. Such transcendental literatures, even though irregularly composed, are heard, sung and accepted by purified men who are thoroughly honest.’”

Once he arrived in America, he took opportunities to correct his “irregular composition.” He gave a large stack of papers, his Bhagavad-gita manuscript, to his disciple, Hayagriva dasa, who had a Masters degree in English. The two of them worked closely together to edit and prepare the manuscript for publication in the United States.

A complete system to write and publish

Srila Prabhupada’s published letters reveal an amazing system which he organised to accelerate his writing. He controlled every aspect from beginning to end. And he trained his disciples to assist him in various ways. He dictated translations and purports which his disciples transcribed.

He corrected and edited those transcriptions which were then sent to other disciples for more editing. He edited the Sanskrit synonyms or provided them himself. He proofread manuscripts and final drafts. He gave specific instructions regarding illustrations, number of pages, size, paper, binding, covers, printing and costs. He examined the printed books to see if they had been printed properly. He noted his satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If necessary, he ordered corrections for a subsequent printing. Amazingly, he did all this work using personal meetings and regular postal mail while traveling around the world!

Srila Prabhupada wrote letters to convey his instructions and answer questions. Excerpts demonstrate his direct involvement in training and correcting his disciples’ work. He wrote his books by dictating the translations and purports which were transcribed. “I have received the transcription of tape #16. You are doing very nicely and improving your editorial capability.” (Letter to Satsvarupa, July 29, 1969.)

“Pradyumna and Shyamsundar will be sending you regularly completed transcriptions of my translation work by post… and because I am here, if they have questions, I can answer and make the final proofreading, and this will expedite everything.” (Letter to Jayadvaita, May 15, 1971.)

His disciples had difficulty producing quality translations and Sanskrit synonyms even in later years, thereby forcing Srila Prabhupada to do the work himself. “The translations… I am not using. There is some fault. I am doing the translations.” (Letter to Radhaballabha, Sept. 26, 1975.)

“Yes, because no one else can do them, I shall do the Sanskrit synonyms.” (Letter to Jayadvaita, Feb. 18, 1972.)

“From yesterday night I have begun adding the synonyms as it doesn’t save very much time to have the synonyms.” (Letter to Radhaballabha, Oct. 20, 1975.)

“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 Radhaballabha, Jan. 5, 1976.)

Synonyms were missing for 25 chapters of the Srimad Bhagavatam, so he provided them. “I have begun this work and the first tape of synonyms, tape no. 6, was sent to Pradyumna today. This work will take at least one month to complete.” (Letter to Jayadvaita, Feb. 18, 1972.)

Sometimes he provided the synonyms within the Letter: “So far your question, the synonyms are as follows: sattvam – the mode of goodness; rajas – the mode of passion..” (Letter to Jayadvaita, July 3, 1971.)

Srila Prabhupada’s solution to the Sanskrit editing problems was to train his disciple, Pradyumna dasa. “I am very much glad that Pradyumna is now with me for teaching him correctly this Sanskrit editing work. After he has become well-trained that will be a great relief to me and it will benefit everyone by increasing the flow of our books and literatures.” (Letter to Jayadvaita, May 15, 1971.)

Srila Prabhupada also trained his disciples in editing the English and preparing the manuscripts for publishers, including basic proofreading. As always, he reviewed their work and made necessary corrections. “Regarding your second point, all incarnations should be proper nouns and therefore capitalized. It does not matter whether they are Visnu-tattva or jiva-tattva, saktavesh-avatar or plenary expansion.” (Letter to Jayadvaita, July 12, 1970.)

“…you have got 31 only out of 33. I think some of the brackets are not counted. So if the parentheses are removed from “intoxication” and “impotency” and they are also counted, the total of symptoms will come to 33. Simply add commas…” (Letter to Jayadvaita, Jan. 30, 1970.)

Srila Prabhupada supervised his editors; he reviewed their work, including the final manuscript.

“Regarding the corrections you have sent, this kind of changes is admissible. There is no harm.” (Letter to Radhaballabha, Sept. 21, 1975.)
“I have received your letter dated May 26, 1972, along with the blue-print copies of Bhagavad-gita As It Is from Macmillan Company. It is very nice. So I shall be looking forward to seeing the entire manuscript and book sometime around first July, 1972.” (Letter to Jayadvaita, May 28, 1972.)

Srila Prabhupada gave instructions and reviewed the art work to illustrate his books. “The sketches are all alright as they are. Please go ahead and make the paintings.” (Letter to Jadurani, Jan. 5, 1976.)

For Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, he wrote, “The art paintings are very, very good. Everyone likes them, and I know they have worked especially hard. The photographs are also wonderful. He has done nicely, the boy Bhargava.” (Letter to Radhaballabha, Sept. 26, 1975.)

Other examples include the illustrations in the Seventh Canto of Srimad Bhagavatam (1st printing, 1976) which comply with his instructions. “2. There should be no effulgence around Prahlad. Hiranyakasipu should not be shown with a pipe. He was a non-smoker. 4. To illustrate Prahlad being protected when he is thrown off the cliff, there should be a semi-visible Krishna waiting below, as if to catch.” (Letter to Radhaballabha, Feb. 3, 1976.)

Srila Prabhupada determined the layout of his books and other publishing details. He wanted high quality publications. “Regarding 6th Canto, Nitai has just yesterday sent off Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8 and next week he expects to send off Chapters 9 through 13. This will be sufficient for you to publish one volume.” (Letter to Radhaballava, Sept. 21, 1975.)

Regarding a decrease in the printing quality of Back to Godhead magazine, he wrote, “The color is not at all good. It is not attractive, and not as good as Dai Nippon. The standard quality of Dai Nippon must be maintained. On what consideration is the printer being changed? In my opinion, no one can print better than Dai Nippon. Why is the plan changed without my consent? We cannot change the quality of printing for the matter of a little change in the price. This printing is not approved by me. I am sending copies of this letter to all BBT trustees for necessary action.” (Letter to Radhaballava, Sept. 22, 1974.)

Srila Prabhupada was a prolific writer –he translated and wrote faster than his disciples could edit and publish. Although he was one person and they were many, they could not keep up with him. For example, he pressured his disciples for years to publish the eighteen volumes of Sri Caitanya-caritamrta. The manuscripts were written, but the editing, illustrations, and publication progressed slowly. The first published volume appeared in 1973. A year later, another volume was published. He overcame BBT’s lethargy in 1974 by forcing the Los Angeles temple into a marathon to prepare the books. And he personally stayed there to assist the editors. By his efforts, the entire Sri Caitanya-caritamrta was finally published in 1975.

Other books took longer. In 1972 he ordered the publication of a paperback based on recorded conversations. “I think we are just now typing up the tapes of those conversations we held in Mayapur, and we shall be publishing them as a book. It will be called Perfect Questions, Perfect Answers.” (Letter from Srila Prabhupada to Bob Cohen, June 16, 1972, reprinted in the book.)

Five years later, the small paperback was published and ready for distribution.

Srila Prabhupada’s system of book distribution relied on three integral parts –his temples, his book distributors, and the Life Membership program. The temples were the regional centers for book distribution. They organized the local distribution and provided all the needs for the book distributors and support persons (managers, pujaries, cooks, etc.), who lived in the temples. The temple activities were organized so that the book distributors could devote all their energies to distributing Srila Prabhupada’s books and preaching.

“There is no doubt about it, to distribute books is our most important activity. The temple is a place not for eating and sleeping, but as a base from which we send out our soldiers to fight with maya. Fight with maya means to drop thousands and millions of books into the lap of the conditioned souls. Just like during war time the bombs are raining from the sky like anything.” (Letter to Ramesvara, Aug. 3, 1973.)

Srila Prabhupada devised the Life Membership Program as a scheme to publish and distribute books in India, and to expand it to America and other countries. “Here in India our program is going on very nicely. Especially we are making so many life members. That program is so important that we are getting money, supporters and distributing our literature all at the same time.” (Letter to Damodara, March 5, 1971) “…on this book distribution scheme of life membership. 50% is utilized for reprinting books and 50% is utilized for increasing the number of centers. I think the same program may be vigorously introduced in your country and that will be a great success.” (Letter to Rupanuga, Feb. 19, 1971.)

Erroneous conceptions

It is clear that Srila Prabhupada was the author of his books, and the editors were his assistants. Also, he fully controlled the editing and publishing process. For his books, he determined the content, meaning, purpose, audience, style, illustrations, binding, paper, publication dates, etc. So why do some, including some BBT editors, erroneously claim that Srila Prabhupada did not really write his books? Why do they mistakenly refer to “Hayagriva’s Bhagavad-gita” instead of “Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita?” The answer is that they confuse writing with editing.

Factually, editing is not writing because editing polishes something already written. First the author writes, and then the editor edits. First, Srila Prabhupada wrote the translations and purports for Bhagavad-gita, and then Hayagriva edited them. Writing creates the content, meaning and purpose. Editing polishes that work to make it more presentable to the readers, but editing does not change the author’s meaning and purpose. Srila Prabhupada created the transcendental content of his books. He conveyed the meaning of Krishna consciousness within the Vaishnava parampara (disciplic succession). And he imbued his books with the purpose to spread Lord Caitanya’s mercy all over the world. Srila Prabhupada’s books contain his potency to transform sincere readers into pure unalloyed devotees. To assist him, Hayagriva polished the Bhagavad-gita manuscript by correcting the irregular composition without changing Srila Prabhupada’s meaning and purpose. Editing differs from writing because the editor suggests changes and consults with the author for approval. Hayagriva proofread the Bhagavad-gita manuscript. Proofreading is the process of finding and correcting errors in spelling, conjugation, capitalization, grammar, syntax, italics, etc. as well as conformity to the publisher’s format (font size, margins, indentations, footnotes, etc.)

Hayagriva also suggested other changes to the manuscript. Like a good editor, he discussed the changes and asked for Srila Prabhupada’s approval of them. Other disciples acting as editors followed the same approval process with other books. It is clear that Srila Prabhupada wrote his books and that Hayagriva and other disciples edited them.

Another misconception is that Srila Prabhupada’s books can be edited without his knowledge and consent. This is erroneous because, as explained above, editing requires discussions and approval from the author. And the author makes the final decisions about what is published. Therefore, no editing can occur especially after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance (in 1977) because he is no longer available for consultation. The only exceptions would be found in his orders for specific changes to specific books. Regarding the unfinished Srimad Bhagavatam, he personally trained and assigned only Pradyumna dasa to finish the translations and purports.

Still another misconception is that Srila Prabhupada gave orders to change his published books after his disappearance. No evidence exists to support this claim. In fact, he gave many orders not to change his books. “Yes, there is no need for corrections for the First and Second Cantos. Whatever is there is alright.” (Letter to Radhaballabha, May 4, 1976) Regarding the Bhagavad-gita manuscript prepared for the 1972 Macmillan publication, he wrote, “So far changing the working of verse or purport of 12.12 discussed before, it may remain as it is.” (Letter to Jayadvaita, March 17, 1971) Apparently Srila Prabhupada rejected Jayadvaita’s suggestions in favor of leaving the manuscript “as it is.” Yet three words in that purport were changed for the unauthorized 1983 revision.

Those familiar with Srila Prabhupada’s management understand that he would have given important orders to change his published books to the BBT trustees, the GBC members, and Pradyumna, his highly qualified translator. So why are there no orders from Srila Prabhupada to his important leaders? Why would he grant permission to rewrite his Bhagavad-gita to devotees who were not important leaders before his disappearance?

Hidden co-authors

What is so-called editing that is independent from Srila Prabhupada’s order? Factually, it is not editing, it is rewriting of his books. The so-called editors are acting like authors. They are really co-authors because they are rewriting books written by another author, i.e., Srila Prabhupada. And, they are really hidden co-authors because they rewrite his books while hiding behind the good name of his Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. The hidden co-authors present their own translations and opinions hidden within Srila Prabhupada’s books.

In contrast, honest co-authors always publish their names, and sometimes they describe their individual contributions. In any case, their readers understand that two or more authors wrote the book. A famous example of co-authoring is a book about grammar and writing, The Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White (Fourth edition, 2,000 published by Longman Publishers). In it, White explained his role as co-author and his changes to Strunk’s original book. White also claimed credit for writing the section on style.

Changes to the books

The problem of hidden co-authors even occurred during Srila Prabhupada’s physical presence. Some disciples deviated from the honest relationship between Srila Prabhupada as author and the disciples as editors. Such persons changed his manuscripts and printed books without his permission and knowledge. After discovering these unauthorized changes, Srila Prabhupada strongly chastised the persons involved and demanded the removal of the changes. For example, during a Srimad Bhagavatam class, Nitai dasa read a manuscript translation which contained unauthorized changes.

Nitai: “At the time of death, Ajamila saw three awkward persons… his small child, Narayana, was playing a little distance off, and with tearful eyes and great anxiety, he called the name of his son very loudly three times, ‘Narayana, Narayana, Narayana!’”
(S.B. 6.1.28-29.)

Srila Prabhupada: Is there “three times?”Nitai: It said in the manuscript. The manuscript said “three times.”Srila Prabhupada: Who said in the manuscript? There is no three times. Not “Narayana” three times. One time, “O Narayana,” that’s all. So did I say “three times?” No, it is not said here. You should correct it. Once, “O Narayana,” that’s all. There is no reason of calling three times. There is no mention here. Once is sufficient. (laughter) …Uccair ajuhava, very loudly, “Narayana!” Like that. That’s all. Uccair ajuhava akulendriyah. So you edited it? Not yet?Nitai: NoSrila Prabhupada: So you should keep at least what is there.
(Transcription of recorded lecture for S.B. 6.1.28-29, Philadelphia, July 13, 1975.)

Despite his continual efforts to rectify and train his editors, they continued to make unauthorized changes. By June of 1977, Srila Prabhupada expressed his doubt that his leading editors would follow his order to remove over 100 changes to the Sri Isopanisad and publish it as the original (1969) printing.

He said, “It is a 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 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 with with Srila Prabhupada and Yasoda-nandana, June 22, 1977.)

After Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance, the hidden co-authors made major changes to Bhagavad-gita As It Is (1972 edition). A major change is the language, the writing style, of the Bhagavad-gita translations. For example, Srila Prabhupada originally published (1972 edition), Chapter 7, verse 24 as “Unintelligent men, who know Me not, think that I have assumed this form and personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is changeless and supreme.” In contrast, the hidden co-authors (1983 revision) rewrote the verse as “Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme.”

The stark contrast between the two versions clearly indicates that they were written by two different authors. Srila Prabhupada wrote the original version, and the hidden co-authors wrote the later version. Other Bhagavad-gita verses in the rewritten, 1983 edition display similar changes. The hidden co-authors substituted a lower level writing style not intended for college educated readers. Therefore, the change in writing style indicates a change in audience, the intended readers. Srila Prabhupada wrote for a college-educated, more intelligent audience; whereas, the hidden co-authors wrote for a less intelligent audience. The co-authored Bhagavad-gita (1983 revision) is not suitable for college classrooms.

But Srila Prabhupada’s plan differed: “…our propaganda should be going on for drawing attention of the educational institutions to accept our books at least in the religious courses.”
(Letter to Satsvarupa, Nov. 2, 1973.)

“I am so glad to learn that you are having nice success in placing my books in the libraries and in schools and colleges. I am sure that this will revolutionize the thinking of thoughtful men of your country as well as the students and the professors and the ultimate end will be to save the world from the clutches of material illusory activities which is now causing havoc everywhere” (Letter to Karandhar, Sept. 13, 1970).

Why do the hidden co-authors claim to be better translators and commentators (purport writers) than Srila Prabhupada? What are the hidden co-authors doing when they change the philosophy and preaching plans in Srila Prabhupada’s books? What is their purpose?

The hidden co-authors usurp Srila Prabhupada’s property, his books, by making changes not authorized by him. They seize and hold his books by force without the spiritual right to do so. The hidden co-authors force changes without any order to do so. They blatantly disobey his direct order to maintain the books as originally published. They use BBT money and diplomacy to defeat opposition to their usurpation. The hidden co-authors behave like squatters who forcibly and unlawfully take over someone’s property and use it for their own purpose.

The hidden co-authors mislead the devotees and the innocent public by publishing their own opinions under Srila Prabhupada’s good name. What is their purpose? They are acting like hidden founder-acaryas because they rewrite sastra (Vedic scripture) intended for the next 9500 years. Because they reject Srila Prabhupada’s order to maintain his books as published, they freely inject their own opinions. The proper behavior of a disciple or follower is to follow the spiritual master’s order.

Srila Prabhupada explained: “Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura has stated that the order of the spiritual master is the life and soul of the disciples. As a man cannot separate his life from his body, so a disciple cannot separate the order of the spiritual master from his life. If a disciple follows the instruction of the spiritual master in that way, he is sure to become perfect.” (Srimad Bhagavatam 3.24.13, 1974, 1st printing.)

On the basis of this instruction, sincere devotees have the duty and the right to reject all co-authored changes to Srila Prabhupada’s books. We must follow Srila Prabhupada, not the hidden co-authors because he can liberate anyone who follows him.

Srila Prabhupada wrote: “Not a single person in the West became Krishna conscious before the Krishna consciousness movement was founded. But when the same Bhagavad-gita was presented as it is through the disciplic succession, the effect of spiritual realization was immediately manifested.”
(Srimad Bhagavatam, 4.22.19, 1978, 2nd printing.)

By following Srila Prabhupada, we can make spiritual progress and preach Lord Caitanya’s movement all over the world. And Srila Prabhupada, through his Prabhupada-vani – his books and teachings, can take anyone back home, back to Godhead.
 
—Krishna Kripa dasi

Arsa prayoga and Shakespeare

The question as to whether the writings of the acarya may or may not be revised by his disciples after his disappearance is answered by the rule of “arsa prayoga.”

This principle states that one should not see mistakes in what the spiritual master has written or think that his writings may be changed to make them more effective or politically correct. To preserve his teachings in their originally published form is the way by which the acarya is honored, and to do otherwise is to dishonor him. That is the rule of “arsa prayoga,” a principle that devoted followers of a bona fide spiritual master must adhere to without deviation.

The rationale for changing Srila Prabhupada’s books was based on a series of false arguments, many of which were defeated by Srila Prabhupada himself, as this article will show. To justify their actions, the BBT editors created the illusion that Srila Prabhupada’s books were defective and in need of extensive editing even though they knew His Divine Grace had never authorized anyone to revise his books after his disappearance. Subsequent to his departure, they conveniently overlooked the principle of “arsa prayoga” and proceeded to do exactly what Vaishnava tradition strictly prohibits.

It was by the distribution of transcendental literature that Srila Prabhupada hoped to introduce Krishna consciousness to people everywhere. For those who saw the movement spread from city to city and from country to country, it was clear that the original version of Srila Prabhupada’s books was full of spiritual potency and did not require to be changed in any way for his words to act upon the hearts of the conditioned souls.

Srila Prabhupada himself never doubted that his books would bring about a revolution in consciousness and induce people throughout the world to take shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. His transcendental vision was revealed in the following letters, all of which refer to the original version of his books.

“I am glad to learn that you are having nice success in placing my books in the libraries and in schools and colleges. I am sure that this will revolutionize the thinking of the thoughtful men of your country as well as the students and professors, and the ultimate end will be to save the world from the clutches of material illusory activities which is now causing havoc everywhere.” (Letter to Karandhara dated 9-13-70.)

“If we introduce these books in all of the bookstores, schools, colleges, libraries and everyone’s home, our religion will be the only religion in the world very soon.” (Letter to Krishna Bamini dated 1-4-72.)

“We have got a great mission to fulfill, and these books and magazines are the torchbearers of Truth which can save the world.” (Letter to Ksirodakasayi dated 1-3-72.)

Srila Prabhupada’s books, then, should be thought of as a permanent legacy meant to be shared and enjoyed by generations of devotees everywhere. His purpose in writing was to reestablish religious principles and, ultimately, to revive every conditioned soul’s dormant love of God. These transcendental literatures were Srila Prabhupada’s gift to the world and proof of his empowerment by Krishna.

Judging from the statements made above, His Divine Grace seemed totally convinced that the books he had published, if distributed widely enough, would deliver the entire world from the darkness of ignorance. Therefore, there was no reason to believe that, to fulfill his mission, his books would have to undergo another round of editing, what to speak of the complete overhaul concocted by the BBT editors.

Our guideline in Krishna consciousness is that the only duty of the disciple is to faithfully execute the order of the bona fide spiritual master. If a disagreement arises over how to best serve the guru, the issue can generally be resolved by following whatever course of action the spiritual master had specifically recommended in his direct instructions to his disciples. In a room conversation that took place in Paris in 1976, Srila Prabhupada elaborated on this point, and his explanation soundly defeats virtually all of the arguments presented in favor of changing his books.

Excerpt from a room conversation taking place in Paris, France on August 5, 1976:

Hari-sauri dasa: Sometimes there’s some discrepancy, two parties, that may both want to serve but they have different ways, different ideas how to execute the same order, so there may be some disagreement.

Srila Prabhupada: “Service means you must take order from the master. Otherwise, it is mental concoction. Actually the servant requests, “How can I serve you?” So when the master orders, “You serve me like this,” then you do that, that is service. And if you manufacture your service, that is not service. That is your sense gratification. Yasya prasadad bhagavat-prasadah.

You have to see how he is pleased. Now if he wants a glass of water and if you bring a nice glass of milk, you can say, “Milk is better than water. You take it.” That is not service. He wants water, you give him water. Don’t manufacture better thing.”

After Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance, and without his consent, the BBT editors took it upon themselves to re-edit his books, making thousands of unnecessary changes in an attempt to improve their wording and style. But, as Srila Prabhupada stated above, without his order, their service was a concoction. They were offering him milk when he had asked for water. He wanted them to follow the rule of “arsa prayoga”, but they decided to manufacture a better thing. So, according to the spiritual master, their editing was not service at all, but sense gratification.

Srila Prabhupada often insisted that he did not want his disciples to spend a great deal of time on editing work. He was also not very concerned with literary style. On one occasion, His Divine Grace said,

“We are not meant for presenting any literary masterpieces.”

And in the following letter, he gave further instruction to his book production staff with regard to their editorial and proofreading services:

“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 Krishna, but still, we should not present a shabby thing. Although Krishna 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.” (Letter to Satsvarupa dated 1-9-70.)

Unless the BBT trustees felt that Srila Prabhupada’s books had been shabbily presented in the past, they had no right to tamper with them. While it is not our philosophy to print errors, it should be remembered that spiritual subject matter is transcendental to all mundane considerations and remains potent despite mistakes in grammar, spelling, etc.

As soon as Srila Prabhupada was satisfied with the standard of presentation of his books, he adamantly warned the BBT staff that further changes should not be made. He said it would be considered an offense for them to even think there were mistakes in his books. When it was brought to Srila Prabhupada’s attention in 1977 that significant changes had been made to his books without his approval, he instructed the directors of the BBT that their next printing should be again to the original way.

The editors were well aware how averse Srila Prabhupada was to making changes, especially once a book had been published. How, then, could they act so boldly against his wishes, daring to change everything, and so soon after his physical departure? If Srila Prabhupada ever spoke of making improvements, he was referring to the quality of the printing only and was not suggesting that changes be made in the text of his books.

When Srila Prabhupada first examined the 1972 Macmillan Gita, for example, he said it did not meet our Vaishnava standard. He was disappointed with the quality of the paper, the binding, the color work and so on. These are the things he wanted improved. As far as the text was concerned, he said that nothing should be added or subtracted.
 
—Locanananda dasa

“There is no mistake, he is mistake”

Let me first offer my prostrated obeisances unto the lotus feet of that supreme swan-like devotee of the Lord, our spiritual master, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, by whose mercy the fallen souls of Kali Yuga may taste the sweetness of the narrations of the pastimes of the Lord and His pure devotees. As the bona fide representative of Sri Vyasadeva, he composed a mountain of transcendental literature to enlighten the entire human society, explaining even the most confidential truths regarding Vaishnava philosophy.

His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada displayed all of the symptoms of an empowered jiva soul, working tirelessly to distribute the transcendental message of love of Godhead throughout the world. It is therefore the duty of his followers to preserve the legacy and protect the honor of such a great spiritual personality whose every moment was dedicated to the spreading of Krishna consciousness.

To guarantee that his teachings would not be forgotten in the oblivion of time, Srila Prabhupada created the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust and, assisted by his disciples, he astounded the academic community with his literary output. What follows is a brief account of Srila Prabhupada’s struggle with the BBT staff to keep the final version of his books intact by resisting what he called the “American disease” of always wanting to change things. As will be seen from the letters and conversations cited in this article, Srila Prabhupada would finally insist on an “absolutely no change” policy based on the principle of “arsa prayoga”.

That unwanted changes were being made to his books came to his attention as early as 1975, and it quickly became a pressing matter. In a letter to the production manager of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, Srila Prabhupada expressed his alarm that changes he had not approved were appearing in print.

“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 Radhaballabha dasa dated 1-5-76.)

Srila Prabhupada never gave anyone carte blanche to make revisions in his books. This letter confirms that any changes to his books would require his personal approval before being printed.

A few months later, the issue of change was raised again by Radhaballabha dasa regarding the text of several volumes of the Srimad Bhagavatam which were soon to be reprinted. Srila Prabhupada advised him, “There is no need for corrections for the First and Second Cantos. Whatever is there is all right.” (Letter of 5-4-76) Seeing how persistent his BBT managers were to implement change in the text and presentation of his books, His Divine Grace wrote again to Radhaballabha dasa in August, 1976, this time more firmly:

“Do not try to change anything without my permission.”

Srila Prabhupada consistently stated that he did not want anything to be changed unnecessarily. Any changes they thought would be an improvement in the text would require his written authorization.

The most serious violation of this instruction actually came years later, after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance, when BBT personnel decided to print a new version of the Bhagavad-gita. It is a well known fact that His Divine Grace never authorized anyone to re-edit the Bhagavad-gita As It Is. If Srila Prabhupada ever intended to make changes in the Gita, the ideal opportunity for him to say so came in a room conversation that took place on February 24, 1977 in Mayapur. On that occasion, Radhaballabha dasa was describing how the upcoming printing of the Bhagavad-gita was going to require so much paper that it would take seventy-six train cars to transport it (1.5 million copies).

Srila Prabhupada absolutely did not suggest making any corrections before this largest printing ever of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is. In fact, and to the contrary, in a discussion that took place three days later, he established a definitive “no change” policy that he wanted applied henceforward to all of his books. The tendency to want to make corrections was now a very serious problem, and Srila Prabhupada dealt with it.

The transcribed conversation of February 27, 1977 presented below clearly indicates that Srila Prabhupada would never have approved of anyone changing the final edited version of his writings, even after his disappearance. In this exchange, His Divine Grace states that for a disciple to see mistakes in his production-ready finished manuscripts was a bad habit that had to be given up.

Even though the one correction his disciple Jagannatha dasa wanted to propose would not have changed the wording of the verse, Srila Prabhupada warned that to make any change whatsoever was “strictly forbidden”. As a servant of his spiritual master, Radhaballabha dasa was obliged to accept Srila Prabhupada’s instruction that the text should be left exactly as is and that making corrections should never be contemplated.

To further enlighten his disciple, Srila Prabhupada explained the rule of “arsa prayoga”, that whatever the acarya has given, it should be accepted. The tendency to think oneself sufficiently qualified to correct one’s authority is not only a breach of Vaishnava etiquette, but an offense in the service of the spiritual master.

If one continues to see mistakes that he thinks need to be corrected, Srila Prabhupada says, “He is the mistake.” Due to his incomplete understanding, Radhaballabha dasa reasoned, “So if we think there is some mistake, we should just forget about it?” Srila Prabhupada corrects him again, saying that one should not even think his authority has made a mistake.

His opinion was that since Jagannatha dasa tended to see mistakes in the writings of the acarya, he was an irresponsible man who could not be relied upon. Srila Prabhupada then made his final point, that our true purpose is not served by becoming so-called scholars able to find errors in the books of the spiritual master, but by becoming advanced in devotion to Krishna. Radhaballabha dasa finally got the point, that Srila Prabhupada was establishing the rule of “no corrections anywhere” once a book was submitted to his department for publication.

Room Conversation of 2-27-77, Mayapura:Radhaballabha dasa: Now Jagannatha had some questions on corrections in the book. In verse twenty-eight it says, “Then he worshiped Sri Krishna, the essence of all Vedas, with this hymn.”Srila Prabhupada: Where it is? Brahma-samhita?RBD: Yes.SP: What is that?RBD: So it says, “Then he worshiped Sri Krishna, the essence of all Vedas, with this hymn.”SP: Where it is?RBD: It’s verse twenty-eight, “Then he worshiped Sri Krishna.” So Jagannatha said it should be, “Then he worshiped…”SP: No, no. Jagannatha cannot correct. That bad habit he must give up.RBD: So we should just leave it exactly.SP: Oh yes. You should not be more educated.RBD: He wasn’t changing any of the words. He was just…SP: Nothing of the… This should be strictly forbidden.RBD: So no corrections. That makes it simple.SP: They can divide the synonyms. That’s all.RBD: Synonyms. So even…SP: That is his tendency, to correct. That’s very bad. He should not do that.RBD: So I’ll just forget this, then.SP: The system is: whatever authority has done, even there is mistake, it should be accepted.RBD: Oh.SP: Arsa prayoga. That is ha… He should not become more learned than the authority. That is very bad habit.RBD: 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.SP: He cannot see mistake. He is mistake (laughter). 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.

Later, in the same conversation:

SP: So Jagannatha should be strictly advised not to become very learned to correct authorities. No.RBD: I think that the instruction you gave will help him very much about even if he thinks there is some mistake, just forget about it.SP: He is mistake. He should not think his authority mistake.RBD: He didn’t know what he should do. He didn’t know…SP: So why he should be given this business. He’s such irresponsible man. He should not be given any responsible work. Our first business should see how he is advanced in devotion. We don’t want so-called scholars.RBD: Jagannatha was somewhat affected by Nitai, but he’s…SP: I know that.RBD: I think he understands what the problem was. I think he understands what his problem was, and that’s why he won’t do anything without asking you.SP: Don’t allow him to do anything.RBD: Well, now that this system of no corrections anywhere, that makes it very simple. Then he can’t do anything. I don’t think he wants to either. It makes it more simple for him. It makes him very uncomfortable.SP: No corrections.

Six weeks later, Srila Prabhupada was listening to the notes and resolutions of a meeting held by the BBT trustees. He was generally pleased with the decisions that had been made, but at one point he interrupted the reading to make a recommendation of his own. He wanted them to include in their list the following admonition:

“And every time Radhaballabha changes something, that should be stopped. He is very much inclined to change something. This practice should be stopped.”

Srila Prabhupada was assigning to the BBT trustees the duty of safeguarding his books from being changed in the slightest by anyone who had not been specifically ordered to do so.

The principle of “arsa prayoga” was again referred to on June 22, 1977 when Srila Prabhupada was in Vrindavana, India. In the middle of a reading of the Srimad Bhagavatam, Srila Prabhupada objected when he heard the synonym that was given for the word “sadhu”. The word-for-word translation said, “it is relevant,” but Srila Prabhupada said, “No. ‘Sadhu’ means ‘devotee’.” The editors had changed his translation, and he found this unacceptable. He spoke as though he had been betrayed by a dangerous element within his movement. His authority was being minimized by his own disciples to whom he had entrusted his most lasting contribution: his books. A number of devotees present voiced their objection to the production staff’s practice of deleting entire sections from certain books, and they mentioned discrepancies they had found in the Sanskrit to English translations. Literally hundreds of changes had already been made in the text of Srila Prabhupada’s books from one printing to the next and the devotees testified that the potency was not the same.

Srila Prabhupada asked for suggestions from his senior men to resolve this dilemma and they offered their advice. After hearing various proposals, Srila Prabhupada’s conclusion was that, “The next printing should be again to the original way.” He then ordered his secretary to contact the GBC man he wanted to entrust this matter to in Los Angeles where the press was located. “So you bring this to Satsvarupa. They cannot change anything.”

Drawing from these letters and conversations, we can gain some insight into Srila Prabhupada’s struggle to keep his books as they were. One should rightly conclude that he would never have approved of the wholesale changes that were made by the BBT editors after his disappearance. He would have expected the BBT trustees to resist on his behalf.

The unnecessary and unauthorized changes in the Bhagavad-gita alone number more than four thousand, so where is Srila Prabhupada’s signed approval for such changes to be made? And where are the rave reviews of the revised edition from scholars and professors praising the editors for having improved the original version of the Gita published by their spiritual master? We do not expect to see any testimonials from these mundane personalities glorifying the “revised and enlarged” edition of the Gita. After all, which scholar would approve of having his own writings altered after his physical demise?

The adulteration of Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is was the first major milestone in the BBT’s refusal to follow the rule of arsa prayoga (the unholy practice of dishonoring the acarya), a program which reached its zenith when they declared in court that Srila Prabhupada was simply a writer hired by ISKCON to compile the Vedic classics.

We do not know what kind of apology can be made by the BBT’s editors and trustees at this point, but it is our humble opinion that the best way to make amends for past transgressions would be to accept Srila Prabhupada’s instruction that “the next printing should be again to the original way.”
 
—Locanananda dasa

Editing instructions are in his own books

Srila Prabhupada gives very specific instructions to Jayadvaita Swami in a letter (referenced at the end of this article) not to change his books, specifically Bhagavad-gita 12.12.

Unfortunately Jayadvaita disregarded this direct order from Srila Prabhupada and with full knowledge that Srila Prabhupada specifically ordered him not to change the verse or the purport he went ahead and changed it anyway.

One devotee noticed Jayadvaita Swami’s direct disregard for this personal instruction and questioned him as to why he went against the clear and direct order of his spiritual master. (Jayadvaita’s reply is also included at the end of this article for your reference). In Jayadvaita’s letter he says that Srila Prabhupada’s words “make no sense” and are “obviously erroneous” but if this is the case then he must also change the multitude of other places where Srila Prabhupada used this so-called “erroneous” phrase that “makes no sense” to him.

I am no scholar, nor have I been trained in the ever changing materialistic and mundane laws of grammar. But I have a very strong fidelity to Srila Prabhupada. So out of curiosity I looked up how many times Srila Prabhupada used the (according to Jayadvaita —obviously erroneous “regulated principles” —a term that makes no sense —must be forever preserved, and not revised to the usual and sensible “regulative principles,”) phrase “regulated principles” and it turns out that Prabhupada used this “obviously erroneous” term on a regular basis. In his books, classes, letters and conversations, a multitude of times.

I will now list below for your reference just a very few of the many places where Srila Prabhupada very sensibly used the words “regulated principles”:

One who can control his senses by practicing the regulated principles of freedom can obtain the complete mercy of the Lord and thus become free from all attachment and aversion (Bg 2.64.)

My dear Arjuna, O winner of wealth, if you cannot fix your mind upon Me without deviation, then follow the regulated principles of Bhakti yoga. In this way you will develop a desire to attain to Me (Bg 12.9.)

As mentioned in the previous verses, there are two kinds of devotional service: the way of regulated principles, and the way of full attachment in love to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
(Bg 12.12.)

Because a bona fide spiritual master is a representative of Krishna, if he bestows any blessings upon his disciple, that will make the disciple immediately advanced without the disciple’s following the regulated principles. Or, the regulated principles will be easier for one who has served the spiritual master without reservation.
(Bg 13-12.)

Injunctions of the scriptures are meant not to encourage the eaters of animals, but to restrict them by regulated principles.
(S.B. 1.13.47.)

The process of Krishna consciousness is the process of training these senses through regulated principles.
(Raja-Vidya Chapter 4 Knowledge by Way of the Mahatmas, Great Souls.)

It is stated in Bhagavad-gita that if one executes the regulated principles of Krishna consciousness carefully, it is certain that he will reach the supreme destination in his next life.
(Krishna Consciousness, The Matchless Gift Chapter 2 Getting Out the Material Mire.)

Regarding Pyari Mohan, Ramacarya, and Nanda devi dasi taking second initiation, if you recommend, that’s alright. But now they must keep very clean and never break the regulated principles.
(Letter to: Trai - India 4 March, 1973.)

Now they must always follow the regulated principles, such as 16 rounds at least each day, attending Mangala Arati, etc. and gradually they will come to the stage of spontaneously loving Krishna.

You also have my permission for the second initiation of Sikhandi dasi and you can obtain an initiation tape and instructions from Karandhar in Los Angeles. Now, keeping very clean, she must never break the regulated principles.
(Letter to: Sukadeva - Calcutta 4 March, 1973.)

Now you can be an ideal householder and one of our Society’s leaders, so kindly follow the regulated principles strictly.
(Letter to: Turya - Calcutta March 8, 1973.)

Devotees there or visiting must follow our regulated principles under your direction or they need not stay.
(Letter to: Tejiyas - Calcutta 15 March, 1973.)

Therefore we have the four regulated principles at the very beginning of practicing devotional life.
(Letter to: Sarvamangala - Bombay 6 November, 1974.)

Anyone who is unwilling to follow our regulated principles, you should not live or associate closely with such a person.
(Letter to: Kusa - Honolulu 3 February, 1975.)

Make sure that everyone is pure by following the four regulated principles and chanting at least 16 rounds daily. Without these things, there is no spiritual life.
(Letter to: Sri Govinda - Honolulu 6 February, 1975.)

This instance of Jayadvaita Swami changing the word “regulated” to “regulative” is a really good example of a completely unnecessary change which is, in this case, directly against the orders of Srila Prabhupada.

Srila Prabhupada gave a direct order “So far changing the working of verse or purport of 12.12 discussed before, it may remain as it is.” Again Srila Prabhupada chooses these words As It Is, the exact same title he chose to place on his presentation of the Bhagavad-gita “As It Is”. So now with the hundreds upon hundreds of changes Jayadvaita has made to Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita can we still say that it is As It Is? This is a question we must all ask ourselves.

When Jayadvaita Swami says: “the obviously erroneous ‘regulated principles’ —a term that makes no sense”, we must know that this is his opinion only, and it differs with Srila Prabhupada’s. It is a major problem that every time something doesn’t make sense to Jayadvaita Swami he must change it till he can understand it. This is not the behavior of a disciple. “One can become perfectly successful in the mission of his life if he acts exactly according to the words he hears from the mouth of his spiritual master.” This acceptance of the words of the spiritual master is called srauta-vakya, which indicates that the disciple must carry out the spiritual master’s instructions without deviation. Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura remarks in this connection that a disciple must accept the words of his spiritual master as his life and soul.” (Cc Adi 7.72.)

But then he gets particularly obnoxious by saying sarcastically “lest we stand in defiance of Srila Prabhupada’s sacred order.”

In other words, Prabhupada told him not to change anything in the verse or the purport, but rather than stay on the safe side, he ridicules Prabhupada’s choice of words and even the notion that Prabhupada’s orders are something other than sacred.

This disregard to his guru’s direct personal instruction is simply an offensive attitude that completely disqualifies him from any ability or empowerment to do the editing work that he was once trusted by Srila Prabhupada to do.

Now let us read further into the purport and examine things more. Did he stop there, or did he continue to change that which he was specifically instructed not to? The second thing we will find is a small change (but still a disregard for the clear order of his guru): A comma was moved, and then farther along we will see the word “ksatriyas” was added, an “a” was changed to “the” and “later” was changed to “last” some words were moved around and the word “state” was changed to “stage”. So one may claim that these are all small changes and are not drastically changing the philosophy. Okay, fine. Then why change it?

What if we feel that every word Srila Prabhupada has said that doesn’t make sense to our conditioned imperfect mundane mind and senses should be changed? What if we find something Srila Prabhupada said, or is in his books, that may not make sense to the materialistic naradhama’s who are less than sudra’s and are impersonalistic demons and so-called scholars and philosophers of Kali yuga? Then should those words be changed also?

But what if we feel that the words of Srila Prabhupada are sacred and not to be simply deleted and replaced with the ever changing whims and mental speculations based on the changing mundane laws and intellect of a conditioned soul and their society (or as I call it “suiciety”)? It really doesn’t matter what we feel in this regard, if you agree or disagree, or what other devotees think. It is all irrelevant. The fact is that Srila Prabhupada never said that his books should be edited after his disappearance, for any reason.

On the contrary Srila Prabhupada said:

Prabhupada: The system is: whatever authority has done, even there is mistake, it should be accepted.Radhaballabha: Oh.Prabhupada: Arsa prayoga. Arsa prayoga is a Sanskrit word meaning complete acceptance of what is left by the authorities, as it is, without any change at all. That is ha… He should not become more learned than the authority. That is very bad habit… Why finish it? Whatever is done is done. No more…Radhaballabha: Well, now that this system of no corrections anywhere, that makes it very simple. Then he can’t do anything. I don’t think he wants to, either. It makes it more simple for him. It makes him very uncomfortable.Prabhupada: No corrections.
(February 28, 1977, Mayapura.)

So unless one is self-realized, there is practically no use writing about Krishna. This transcendental writing does not depend on material education. It depends on the spiritual realization. You’ll find, therefore, in the comments of Bhagavatam by different acaryas, even there are some discrepancies, they are accepted as Arsa prayoga. It should remain as it is.
(Srimad Bhagavatam 7.5.23-24 - Vrindavana, March 31, 1976.)

“I know that these rascals are doing. What can be done? How they can be relied on?… It is starting. What can I do? These cannot… These rascals cannot be educated. Dangerous. Little learning, dangerous… alteration. That is his business. That is American business. They take that always. What can I do?… So how this? How to stop this?… Very serious feature. It is not possible for me to check, and they are doing all nonsense, freedom. (pause) What to do?

It is very serious situation… 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… They are doing anything and everything at their whim.” The next printing should be again to the original way. So write them immediately that “The rascal editors, they are doing havoc…So what to do? They cannot change anything. So on the whole, these dangerous things are going on. How to check it?… So they are doing very freely and dangerously.”
(June 22, 1977, Vrindavana.)

When Jayadvaita Swami was questioned by Govinda dasi (on January, 19, 2003) on whether or not he ever even once got the order from Srila Prabhupada that he should edit Prabhupada’s books after his disappearance Jayadvaita confessed: “I never got an explicit word from Srila Prabhupada to do this work at an explicit time.”

What is important is what Prabhupada wants, what Prabhupada orders and he orders “No corrections” and “they cannot change anything” and there is no one anywhere, even Jayadvaita, who can dispute this. But he has made thousands of completely needless changes. And he will continue to do this because that is his disease.

The changing of the words that Srila Prabhupada approved of is only one side of the story. The other side is the mood that the act of changing the acarya’s works creates. And as far as I can tell this has an equally damaging effect at the roots of our once great society we call ISKCON. This damage is going on a more subtle level, so many devotee’s may not catch it.

For it is not a change to anything one may see, like words in books, but to something that Srila Prabhupada, our acarya’s and the goswami’s worked so hard to establish. It is a change to the mood and basic philosophical understanding of how Krishna consciouness works and was given to us faithful followers of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada. It is a lack of respect and fidelity to our acarya:

“One should have complete faith in the guru, who helps the disciple make progress in spiritual life. As soon as the disciple thinks independently, not caring for the instructions of the spiritual master, he is a failure (yasyaprasadan na gatih kuto ‘pi)” (S.B. 8.17.1). So weather we deviate one millimeter or one mile the result is the same, deviation!

“There is a proverb, hira and khira. Hira means diamond and khira means cucumber. It has no value, a few cents. And diamond is very valuable. But if some, somebody steals khira, he’s also criminal, and one steals hira, he’s also criminal. The punishment is equal. If he says: “I have stolen one khira. What is the value of it?” But by law, he’s criminal. Never mind.”
(Morning Walk - April 26, 1973, Los Angeles.)

So by Jayadvaita Swami’s saying “Lest we stand in defiance of Srila Prabhupada’s sacred order. This is a point of view with which I respectfully disagree.” Clearly reveals his attitude and lack of respect for Srila Prabhupada, for everything Srila Prabhupada says is sacred! It is not for the disciple to choose what the guru says is sacred and what is not! This is a slap in the face of Srila Prabhupada.

“Although one may be well versed in the transcendental science, one should be careful about the offense of maryada-vyatikrama, or impertinently surpassing a greater personality. According to scriptural injunction one should be very careful of transgressing the law of maryada-vyatikrama because by so doing one loses his duration of life, his opulence, fame and piety and the blessings of all the world.”
(S.B. 3.4.26.)

So does this mean that if someone is once designated as an authorized person and to be trusted, then he must always be authorized and trusted, no matter what he does after that point of being authorized? Could it be possible that someone can go from being authorized and trusted to being unauthorized and untrustworthy?
 
—Prahlad Nrsimha dasa

Where angels fear to tread

The editors of the 1983 revised Gita did not believe that they actually interpolated philosophy or style. Their idea was to improve both translations and purports by transposing and clarifying portions of old manuscripts, etc. existing prior to the one finally submitted to Macmillan in 1972. Truly, many of the grammatical, spelling, format and historical inaccuracies corrected in the revision would have been approved by Srila Prabhupada himself had he been consulted.

Be that as it may, Srila Prabhupada never instructed anyone to use a procedure of re-visiting and researching old manuscripts or dictations to revise future printings of his first editions. On the other hand, recordings made from 1972 until 1977, six years, demonstrate how Srila Prabhupada often personally read excerpts from the Gita in classes, room conversations, engagements, etc. Many times he also instructed devotees present to read aloud as he listened. There is no evidence indicating that he ordered extensive revisions for the next printing. As the current chief editor wrote; “To my knowledge, Srila Prabhupada never asked us to re-edit the book.”
(Letter to Amogha lila, July, 1986.)

Interestingly enough, none of the scholars, educators, professors and other reviewers of the Gita called for it either. From 1972 until 1983 we don’t find requests from professionals for a revision to a higher standard. Nor do we hear any demand from devotees in general for such a thorough revision. In fact, the editors state in “A Note About the Second Edition” found in the BBT revised editions: “Yet their effort to publish Srila Prabhupada’s work was a success, and the Bhagavad-gita As It Is has become the standard edition for scholars and devotees around the world.” Still, after eleven years of documented success, the Gita was extensively re-worked. Why? What is the reason?

The editors continue their explanation: “For this second edition, however, Srila Prabhupada’s disciples had the benefit of having worked with his books for the last fifteen years. The English editors were familiar with his philosophy and language, and the Sanskrit editors were by now accomplished scholars. And now they were able to see their way through perplexities in the manuscript by consulting the same Sanskrit commentaries Srila Prabhupada consulted when writing Bhagavad-gita As It Is. The result is a work of even greater richness and authenticity… In places the translations, though already correct, have been revised to come closer to the original Sanskrit and Srila Prabhupada’s original dictations…”

The editors are claiming the benefit of 15 years work, which would mean 1968 until 1983, the year of the revision. However, the value of those benefits is uncertain, because in June, 1977 Srila Prabhupada severely chastised the editors for changes to his Isopanisad and Bhagavatam. He described the editors as rascals (a term he usually reserved for atheists, material scientists and politicians), and called them “dangerous” at least six times in ten minutes of discussion. Just five months before his disappearance, Srila Prabhupada made this a major issue for the Society.

The same basic issue came up in 1983 and has continued more or less for the last 25 years. But for us, now, who will decide who is right and who is wrong? One side says “responsible editing,” the other says “irresponsible, unauthorized, etc.” But who is right and who is wrong? Who will decide?

So now we must come to the point of reason. Is it reasonable to conclude that just five or six years after deserving that 1977 chastisement, editors could have emerged as “accomplished scholars” –by 1983? One editor escaped chastisement. Still, isn’t six years a short time for everyone to turn up as “accomplished scholars?” But even if all the editors had been studying Sanskrit for 30 years by 1983, is it plausible that such editors could be able to dive into the superexcellent depths of Sanskrit revelation, and come up with an understanding of it’s complexities—the same complexities—understood by previous acaryas? Was this the prerogative of such disciples, that they could be “able to see their way through perplexities in the manuscript by consulting the same Sanskrit commentaries Srila Prabhupada consulted when writing the Bhagavad-gita As It Is.” Is it possible?

And further, “In places the translations, though already correct, have been revised to come closer to the original Sanskrit…” Here the implication is that the editors in 1983, whoever they were, thought they could interpret the original Sanskrit texts comparatively as well as Srila Prabhupada himself, or at least well enough to put their new realizations in his book under his name. And, that they could understand the same complexities understood by previous acaryas (presumably Sridhar Swami et. al.) simply by using the same Sanskrit commentaries Srila Prabhupada used. Is this credible? Is it reasonable to conclude that such editors were capable of producing “a work of even greater richness and authenticity?” Or that translations “already correct” could have been revised to even more correctness by them? Was all this perfection really possible by 1983?

Maybe, if they had received authorizations and blessings from Srila Prabhupada in 1977 before he disappeared, but that didn’t happen. It is known from that recorded conversation of June, 1977, that when Tamal Krishna suggested to Srila Prabhupada Jayadvaita check any changes before reprinting, Srila Prabhupada countered: “But they are doing without any authority!” In other words, no need for Jayadvaita to become an inspector of changes because nobody was authorized to make such changes in the first place! Tamal had already said to Srila Prabhupada: “Your original work that you’re doing now, that is edited by Jayadvaita. That’s the first editing.” Srila Prabhupada had answered, “He is good.” So Srila Prabhupada, in the midst of all the turmoil, made it clear that he was satisfied with Jayadvaita’s work. Yet a “first editing” is entirely different from re-editing an already finished or printed work, which is what the others were doing. Srila Prabhupada never authorized anyone, including Jayadvaita or Pradyumna to do that with the Bhagavad-gita then or in the future.

The extent of Srila Prabhupada’s disappointment in this matter can not be underestimated. He said, after being informed of the changes in the Isopanisad, “I know what these rascals are doing. What can be done? How they can be relied on?” And later, “It is starting. What can I do? These cannot…These rascals cannot be educated. Dangerous. Little learning, dangerous… What can I do? Ultimate it goes for editorial…”

In the 3rd Canto (3.4.26), Srila Prabhupada writes, “Although one may be well versed in transcendental science, one should be careful about the offense of maryada-vyatikrama, or impertinently surpassing a greater personality. According to scriptural injunction one should be very careful of transgressing the law of maryada-vyatikrama because by so doing one loses his duration of life, his opulence, fame and piety and the blessings of all the world. To be well versed in the transcendental science necessitates awareness of the techniques of spiritual science.”

At this point the significant question emerges: Has maryada-vyatikrama, impertinently surpassing a greater personality, occurred in the process of editing and reprinting Srila Prabhupada’s books? It certainly had by 1977, according to the momentous June 22nd room conversation about changes to the Isopanisad and Srimad Bhagavatam. Six years later, considering the exaggerated claims in the “Note About the Second Edition” and the extreme content-editing of the text, it appears to have occurred again in the 1983 “Revised and Enlarged” version of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Vaishnava etiquette demands that Srila Prabhupad’s disciples, grand-disciples, et. al. always think themselves fools in front of Srila Prabhupada. But, unfortunately, sometimes some of them forget that, and dare to rush in where angels fear to tread.
“Our editing is to correct grammar and spelling errors only, without interpolation of style or philosophy.”
(Srila Prabhupada, February, 17, 1970.)
 
—Rupanuga dasa

1. The author and contributors of this book are in no way affiliated or adhere to the ritvik posthumous diksha theory.↩

Conclusion and call for action

This book aims to make the world of devotees, scholars, et al. aware of the proven fact that Srila Prabhupada’s original books have been altered, compromised and changed in ways which he would never have approved. Therefore it is of immeasurable importance to preserve the legacy of his original teachings, for the spiritual benefit of everyone and to assure the future of the Hare Krishna movement originated by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and carried forward by Srila Prabhupada. This book presents the truth about the unauthorized editing of Srila Prabhupada’s books —carefully chronicled for future readers —to ensure his books are perpetuated as he originally gave them. Srila Prabhupada gave clear instructions for editing during his presence and for the future. When questions of choice arose, the principle of arsa prayoga was to be applied.

Everyone seriously interested in the genuine, direct presentation of Srila Prabhupada’s writings, should use copies of the original, pre-1978 published Srila Prabhupada’s works.

The revised editions should be designated as such and the editors clearly identified. Ideally, the revised editions should be allowed to go out of print, BBTI should revert to printing the pre-1978 editions of Srila Prabhupada books, and the Governing Body Commission of ISKCON should re-establish those editions as the authority for the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.

In any case, Srila Prabhupada-vani is present completely in the original editions, which remain the basis of the true Hare Krishna movement and the spearhead of the Golden Age inaugurated by Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Hare Krishna.

Srila Prabhupada lectures from his 1972 Bhagavad-gita

Appendix

Worker for hire (1995)

Contributors

Ajit Krishna dasa

Ajit Krishna dasa lives in Denmark and has been preaching on the Internet, distributing books and doing bhakta programs. He has written many articles on theism versus atheism. He runs the www.arsaprayoga.com website.

Bahusira dasa

Initiated by Srila Prabhupada in New York, January 1973.

Bhagavat dasa

Initiated by Srila Prabhupada in Gaineshville, FL, on July 1971.

Bhakta Torben

Former disciple of Harikesa Swami. Previous temple service: travelling Sankirtan Party. Initiated as Trayimaya dasa. Officially rejected his guru and initiation. Now Bhakta Torben.

Govinda dasi

Govinda dasi has been a disciple of Srila Prabhupada since 1966.
She was a senior at the University of Texas at Austin in 1966 when she and her husband went to San Francisco in search of a spiritual teacher and joined newly opened San Francisco storefront temple.

She is also the author and illustrator of numerous children’s books, including Gopal, Nimai, Jagannath, Krishna, and Damodar and resides in Hawaii and Vrindavan.

Hayagriva dasa

(Howard Wheeler, M.A. English.)

Hayagriva dasa (September 2, 1940 - August 31, 1989) author, poet, editor, English professor, and co-founder of the New Vrindavan Hare Krishna Community. He was initiated on Janmashtami (September 9) 1966 at Swamiji’s 26th Second Avenue temple. He was an Associate Professor at Ohio State University. He held a Master’s degree in English and specialised in poetry. Hayagriva became Swamiji’s principle editor, and worked on many of his publications, Back to Godhead magazine, Bhagavad-gita, The Nectar of Devotion, Srimad Bhagavatam, Caitanya-caritamrta and many others.

Hrsikesh dasa

Hrsikesh dasa is a former resident of the New Vrindavan Hare Krishna Community in Marshall County, West Virginia, where he lived from 1978 until 1994. He is currently completing a book on the history of the community. Since 1994 he has lived in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania environs working primarily as a musician.

Jagannatha Mishra dasa

Initiated in 1982 in France. Has been distributing Srila Prabhupada’s books ever since. Long time experience as temple president and sankirtan leader, he is a published author. You can reach him at www.nectarshare.com website.

Jayadvaita Swami

Jayadvaita Swami received initiation from Srila Prabhupada in 1968, at the age of nineteen.

Practically the first task assigned to him was to staple booklets. He later went on to typing manuscripts, transcribing Srila Prabhupada’s dictation for books, and then typesetting, proofreading, managing book production, and editing. He is currently a trustee of The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

Krishna Kripa dasi

(Mary E. Corens, M.A., M.Ed., James Madison Fellow.)

Krishna Kripa dasi passed away on November 30, 2008. A staunch disciple of Srila Prabhupada, she was always enthusiastic and attentive in her service. She loved to read and distribute Srila Prabhupada’s books, and was always thinking and planning about the welfare of others. She was married for nearly 29 years to Rupanuga dasa.

Locanananda dasa

Locanananda dasa, initiated by Srila Prabhupada in August 1970, was a pioneer in the Krishna consciousness movement who served Srila Prabhupada by opening new centers in major European cities like Geneva and Tel Aviv. He served as temple president in Amsterdam, Paris and in his home town of New York City. He is recognized for his forty-five years of Sankirtana experience, leading kirtana and distributing Srila Prabhupada’s books. With a Masters Degree in Accounting and Business Management, he has been working for a prestigious CPA firm since 1996.

Madhudvisa dasa

His first contact with devotees was in London in 1984. He started seriously reading Srila Prabhupada’s books in Australia in 1985 and by 1986 Srila Prabhupada had convinced him “Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead” and “we should surrender to Krishna.” He joined the devotees in Perth, Western Australia in 1986.

Ramesvara dasa

Ramesvara dasa was one of the leading disciples of A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and formerly a guru within the International Society of Krishna Consciousness. Ramesvara became an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada on April 28, 1971, receiving his initiation by mail.

Rasananda dasa

Initiated by Srila Prabhupada in Boston in June of 1970.

Rupanuga dasa

Initiated by Srila Prabhupada in October 1966 in New York, while employed as training supervisor at the NYC Dept. of Social Services. Relocated to Buffalo NY in Feb. 1968 to establish ISKCON’s first college program while employed as a social worker at the State Workers Compensation Board. BA in Psychology Feb. ‘63.