This
is the second installment of an essay exploring JAS’s editing of Srila Prabhupada’s
books. This section explores the lack of authority to edit, negation of previous
editing work through the use of earlier manuscripts, etc. Part One can be found by following this link.
JAS’S AUTHORITY TO EDIT
In an email to Jayadvaita Swami (JAS) I (Vyapaka dasa) asked:
>>1) Do you have explicit instructions from Srila Prabhupada authorizing you to make post-samadhi changes to his books?
> Answer:
>
> No.
> I was authorized--in fact, requested--to take up the work by the BBT
> trustees (of whom at the time I was not one).
And in a 1986 letter to an Amogha Lila Prabhu (The Revision of Bhagavad-gita As It Is:
Answers to a Courteous Inquiry), JAS declares:
"First: To my knowledge, Srila Prabhupada never asked us to re-edit the book (my emphasis). As you know, and as we kept in mind while doing the work, Srila Prabhupada staunchly opposed needless changes. (my emphasis)”
So through these statements of JAS, there can be no doubt that Srila Prabhupada
ever gave an instruction to post-samadhi editing. In another email exchange
with a devotee friend regarding precedent, JAS offered the posthumous editing
of the writings of Plato allowing the return of his description of “homoerotic
love” and “Aristophanes’ bathroom humor” as precedents of posthumous change.
No matter how eloquently titillating Plato may be, he has no relevance to
the discussion and I suggest that the example of Aristophanes be left in
the bathroom along with his humor.
Mundane precedent or not, let us remain chaste to Srila Prabhupada and our
vaisnava tradition. The Plato and Aristophanes’ examples have as much relevance
to the sampradaya as JAS’s misguided affiliation with the Chicago Manual
of Style’s policy towards capitalization of “divine pronouns.”
Therefore, the only authority that might be utilized in the defense of posthumous
editing is that of the sanction of the BBT Trustees.
AUTHORITY OF THE BBT TRUSTEES
In a recently published email from JAS to myself, he states that his authorization
stems from the BBT Trustees. So, it needs to be asked when and where were
the BBT trustees entrusted with such authority? There is no mention of it
in the BBT Founding Document (LD2 Founding Document for the BBT, USA). Their
responsibilities include printing and reprinting of books and purchase of
properties, etc. and it seems unbelievable that the unprecedented right of
posthumously editing Srila Prabhupada’s literary works was ever provided
to the BBT Trustees by Srila Prabhupada.
It is inarguable that the BBT editors play a vital function in the preparation
of Srila Prabhupada’s books and we owe them our thanks and respect for their
years of hard work. But it cannot be ignored that, by their own admission,
no mandate from His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada was given to edit the Bhagavad
Gita As It Is (BGAII) after his entrance into samadhi; and that today’s controversy
to posthumously edit is based upon the need to correct the errors of the
editors. We, therefore, now have editors correcting editor’s mistakes, including
their own, with little to no oversight over their efforts.
Examples will be provided that show JAS has edited translations that were
explicitly approved by Srila Prabhupada through daily usage. Therefore, the
rationalization to return verses back to a rough draft is puzzling and stretches
way, way beyond repairing editing blunders.
Everyone agrees that the copyrights to the writings of Srila Prabhupada
were placed with the BBT, but the question of just whose books they are needs
to be revisited? Are they not Srila Prabhupada’s writings and his effort
to present bonafide knowledge from the parampara to guide humanity for future
generations? Does control over copyrights provide the right to alter the
teachings and preferred presentation of the author himself? These are questions
that cannot be neglected by our community. The answers seems obvious. They
are Srila Prabhupada’s writings and their sanctify must be protected.
It will also be demonstrated that Srila Prabhupada was personally involved
with last minute edits which are ignored by JAS’s employment of earlier manuscripts
as the primary source..
Even if we accept JAS’s claim that the Trustees are legally entitled to
alter Srila Prabhupada’s published teachings, later, in the section entitled
“5000 Changes in the Revised and Enlarged Version...” it will be shown that
the full list of edits were revealed to neither the GBC or ISKCON leadership
which goes counter to JAS’s claim that he has been authorized by the Trustees.
How can their sanction be legitimately claimed when a comprehensive catalog
of all changes was neither compiled or presented?
The GBC discussed and voted on editing the 1972 BGAII as reported by Balavanta
Prabhu, a GBC member at the time the presentation to the GBC was made, who
penned the following letter published on the Internet:
“When the GBC originally took up this issue, many of us opposed allowing
the BBT to re-edit Srila Prabhupada's books. The vote was close but the majority
agreed to allow some editing although I don't believe anyone knew the extent
to which it would be taken. The idea was that only minor corrections to more
closely conform to the tapes and gramatical [sic] corrections would be made.
“However, in reading the edited versions, I see that much more was done than the GBC discussed and meant to authorize.
“Under the circumstances, the spiritual solution is to return to the original
books used in the physical presence of Srila Prabhupada. This solution is
manifestly obvious, and I just can't understand why there is so much resistance
from the current GBC.
“Your servant,
“Balavanta das” (http://www.adi-vani.org/articles.php?articleId=35)
Based upon this information, a cloud of uncertainty in respect to JAS’s
authorization descends. If these claims prove true, can our vaisnava community
have sufficient trust that these altered books be considered approved by
the movement’s leadership?
At this point, there seems to be no precedent by a previous acarya(s) nor
complete sanction by the GBC or BBT Trustees due to the inaccurate catalogue
of changes. In JAS’s 1982 covering letter describing the book changes, he
states that only changes to translations are listed, yet we know that changes
to the books were more far more reaching than solely to translations.
JAS recently admitted in an email that he will not document his edits, so
the only reasonable conclusion is that not all changes were presented to
the GBC et al.; otherwise, he could simply reproduce a copy of his 1982 communication
to Iskcon leaders to prove his case.
If this is inaccurate, hopefully, JAS will respond by publishing on The
Sampradaya Sun and/or elsewhere his correspondence to Iskcon leaders revealing
the changes he presented. But this is unlikely to occur since JAS has already
admitted that he didn’t keep track of the full scope of his edits. If he
doesn’t have them now, why should we think he had them then.
MANUSCRIPTS
On March 6/06, JAS sent an email to myself and the Sampradaya Sun advocating
that his revised versions of B.G. 2.31 and C.C. Madhya 19.157 were done to
bring them closer to the original manuscripts. The Bhaktivedanta Archives
reciprocated by posting a scan of the original documents. What was striking
is that the BGAII manuscript had zero editing corrections while the C.C.
manuscript was flush with amendments. (http://harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/03-06/editorials251.htm)
Different manuscripts are described as being employed in the editing of
the BGAII. JAS writes in his “Responsible Publishing, Appendix B, Consultation
with the leaders of ISKCON: “I went through every page of the oldest
manuscript we have. (For the first five or six chapters these are Srila Prabhupada’s
original typed pages, for the middle chapters they're the original transcripts
of his tapes, and for the last chapters they're the old retyped manuscripts
from which the present book was edited.).” [JAS’s words are unclear re. the
last chapters since the term “old retyped manuscripts” is open to interpretation.
Obviously though, they differ from the original writings and transcriptions
of Srila Prabhupada or they would not have been mentioned. They likely are
manuscripts which had been edited and retyped.]
In addition, the Abridged 1968 MacMillan BGAII was employed as a reference.
Considering these statements, the claim that editing efforts focused on
returning the BGAII back to Srila Prabhupada’s original manuscript seems
inaccurate. The latter stages of the BGAII employ what seems to be already
edited manuscripts; therefore, full faith in their accuracy cannot be assured,
if we are to follow JAS’s editing logic.
Using the original manuscript invalidates all editorial changes made by
Srila Prabhupada, Hayagriva dasa and others. Edits which were directly approved
by Srila Prabhupada to his own books have been changed. Can the BBT and its
editors morally claim such a right and then republish the work again under
Srila Prabhupada’s name? Just what type of precedent is being established
here?
In addition, Srila Prabhupada personally made corrections to Galley proofs
and was directly involved in the editing process. This is corroborated in
the following statements:
“Brahmananda: I came up to show Prabhupada the galley proofs for both Teachings
of Lord Caitanya and Bhagavad-gita As It Is. I just happened to have both
galley proofs that had arrived. So it was a wonderful thing to bring these
galley proofs to Prabhupada for checking. I was there only for a few days,
maybe a weekend or so. Prabhupada personally read through the entire galleys and made notations in his own hand. He did the proofreading of the galleys [my emphasis].” (Prabhupada Lilamrta, A Summer in Montreal, 1968; Satsvarupa dasa Goswami)
Since this was undertaken in 1968, it is likely that Srila Prabhupada was
working on the Abridged, 1968 version but this substantiates his effort and
commitment to the publishing of his books.
“For editing the Sanskrit words you can send me a list of the words, and
I shall send you the correct diacritic marks. You write that you shall send
me your changes for the Krsna manuscript pages here with me, and upon receipt
of them I shall do the needful. Please also send carbon copies of the tapes
you have edited in the past few months.” (Letter to: Satsvarupa, London,
3 November, 1969)
For those fortunate enough to have a copy of the Vedabase, please refer
to the 19 June, 1970 letter to Brahmananda dasa. It certainly will dispel
any thought that Srila Prabhupada wasn’t directly involved in changes to
his books. A small excerpt is: “Please accept my blessings. I beg to
acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 14th June, 1970, as well as the
blueprints by Dai Nippon and pictures. The pictures are very nicely printed.
However, can the color printing be improved on the two pictures titled 1)
"Returning home, Krsna and Balarama were received by Their affectionate mothers''
and 2) "The joyous vibration at Krsna's birth ceremony could be heard in
all the
pasturing grounds and houses.'' If not, that is alright. There is an error
in the second caption, i.e. "pastruing'' should be "pasturing.'' There is
also a correction in the Dedication, line 3, "In my boyhood ages He instructed
me'': this "he'' should be small "h''. And at the end you may add these words:
(my spiritual master) ,the eternal father...” (Letter to: Brahmananda, Los
Angeles, 19 June, 1970)
A first hand account of Srila Prabhupada’s supervision of the editing work
can be found in another article published on the Sampradaya Sun as follows:
Govinda dasi: “Before Jayadvaita joined the movement in May
of 1968, Hayagriva had already been working with Srila Prabhupada on the
Bhagavad-gita for two years already. I lived with Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva
in Los Angeles. They worked for hours every day. This is before Jayadvaita
joined the movement.” (http://harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/06-06/editorials393.htm)
JAS counters: “Without boring you with the details (available on request),
during the period when Bhagavad-gita As It Is was being edited the total
time that Hayagriva and Srila Prabhupada were even together in the same city,
what to speak of sitting together working, was -- two years? Forget it. At
the most, less than five months.” (http://www.jswami.info/editing/hayagriva) Please read the full account by following the link.
Let us not doubt JAS’s word and agree that it was approximately five months
and the exact time Srila Prabhupada spent with Hayagriva and the nature of
his oversight is not precisely known. However, it seems inarguable that Srila
Prabhupada did spend time supervising Hayagriva Prabhu. Govinda dasi was
present at the time and JAS wasn’t, so her claims cannot be dismissed out-of-hand.
She observed Hayagriva and Srila Prabhupada’s interaction first hand even
if her recall of the time period is faulty. That is the crux of the
matter.
In addition, the above-mentioned letters prove beyond doubt that Srila
Prabhupada was involved in the editing process. This point cannot be emphasized
enough.
So by returning to the original manuscript(s), it is evident that some of
Srila Prabhupada’s direct involvement in editing his books has been lost
with the 1982 revised BGAII. Is this the traditional role of a disciple towards
the spiritual master and his teachings? This is by no means
proper.
For those who write, how often would you reread and change your manuscript?
Would you prefer that your earliest efforts be sanctioned as the deciding
authority on the published form? That certainly wouldn’t be my case and I
doubt if it is any different with Srila Prabhupada. Otherwise, why would
he have bothered to edit and have editors scrutinize his earliest writings
at all? It would make no sense.
In this case, Srila Prabhupada writes and works with editors to compose
the BGAII. We all agree that some faults on the part of the editors were
not sifted from the final publication. Later, when the author enters samadhi,
an editor, who admits no authorization from the author, returns to earlier
manuscripts preceding all editing work and performs widespread changes with
little to no oversight. No cataloguing of the changes is kept. The book is
then republished under the same title and authorship. Doesn’t something seem
wrong here?
Ranjit Prabhu, a director of the Bhaktivedanta Archives was contacted requesting
a copy of the BGAII manuscripts utilized by JAS in his re-editing work. He
informed me that to do so, I would need the permission of the BBT Trustees
and in particular that of JAS.
JAS was contacted and no reply has yet been received. Ranjit Prabhu wrote,
“The plan is to release everything - in the end - but to do so in the proper
manner showing the editing trail with explanation”(6/22/2006 email from Ranjit
Prabhu). No definition of the time limit was given and it seems we must continue
being patient since 24 years has already passed since the edits were completed
and the Jayadvaita Swami Bhagavad Gita published.
We readily acknowledge that errors were made by the editors due to the difficult
circumstances revealed by JAS recently contributed essay entitled “Editing
the Unchangeable Truth;” (http://harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/06-06/editorials427.htm) however, to annul all previous editing stretches the notion of propriety beyond recognition.
Srila Prabhupada cannot be pleased by the total negation of his and Hayagriva
Prabhu’s edits. The vaisnava community should voice their displeasure
over JAS’s roughshod handling of the matter. It is both irresponsible and
shortsighted to allow this situation to stand as is.
Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare
This marks the end of the second installment of the essay on book changes.
The balance of the essay can be found at these links:
