This
is the third installment of an essay exploring JAS’s editing of Srila Prabhupada’s
books. Please refer to the other sections published on this website.
This third section discusses in greater detail that the many edits have not
been reported to either the BBT, GBC or Iskcon leaders and edits made to
the books which contradict Srila Prabhupada’s usage.
5000 CHANGES IN THE REVISED AND ENLARGED EDITION COMPARED TO THE 1972 MACMILLAN
VERSION. A FULL INVENTORY OF THE EDITS HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED TO THE BBT TRUSTEES,
GBC MEMBERS AND ISKCON LEADERS AS PER CLAIM
In an April 14/06 email response from JAS, the following information became available.
Vd:“>13) Have all the changes to both purports and translations been
>reported publicly?
JAS: Answer:
No.
And I'm [JAS] not inspired enough to invest my time and energy in such a
task.”
But that seems to diffes from previous claims.
“1982: GBC review
The GBC appointed a board of devotees to review the final revisions to the
translations. The board included Satsvarupa Dasa Goswami, Hari Sauri Dasa,
and other leaders. The board met for several days in Detroit and refined
or approved changes.
1982: Consultation with ISKCON leaders
Jayadvaita Swami widely distributed to ISKCON leaders a full list of the
proposed changes to the translations, along with a letter asking for comments.”
(A Brief History of the Second Edition of Bhagavad Gita As It Is)
Today, nearly 25 years after the publishing of JAS’s expanded Gita, the list
of publicized changes rests around 200 (please refer to http://www.krishna.com/main.php?id=288).
However, according to Madhudvisa dasa, the edits total approximately 5000
in the revised Gita, a number which differs greatly from those previously
advertised. Therefore, many revisions seem not to have been presented to
the authorities and devotional community as promised. This is possibly due
to JAS’s confessed lack of interest in the matter.
Much debate has passed on how many edits were performed to accomplish JAS’s
Revised and Enlarged Gita. Madhudvisa dasa is the one who has claimed that
5,000 edits were performed. We contacted him to ask how he came to this number
and his reply follows::
“The 5000 is an estimate of the number of changes. It is not an exact number.
I have not counted them. Just estimated. I did not find the changes with
a computer program. We did not have a computer version of Srila Prabhupada's
original Gita so I was creating that and I took JAS's revised edition and
read the original edition to tape and would listen to the tape of the original
book and change JAS's version on the computer back to the original. That
way I saw all the changes myself and it was a great shock.
“There are 711 verses in the Gita so 5000 changes is 7 changes per verse
on average. That would include small changes like punctuation. But small
changes are important also. There is a list of Gita changes you may find
interesting at: http://krishna.org/ISKCON/BookChanges/bgcs.html” (5/21/06 email from Madhudvisa dasa)
The devotional community owes Madhudvisa dasa a thank you for undertaking
such a Herculean effort to verify the quantity and nature of changes even
though the number of edits is approximated. It aids us greatly in understanding
the gravity of the changes to Srila Prabhupada’s BGAII.
Certainly many of these changes would be minor but should one editor, no
matter how respected and capable, be allowed the freedom to singlehandedly,
and clandestinely, alter the literary and philosophical foundation of the
Hare Krsna movement? Our responsibility to Srila Prabhupada and the parampara
cannot allow such a misunderstanding of the editor’s role to fester. If allowed,
it will establish a precedent that could be mimicked and abused for the remainder
of Kali Yuga.
The question begs to be asked why the BBT Trustees showed so little interest
in providing oversight and transparency to the editing procedures. One would
think that would be a prime responsibility and commitment to Srila Prabhupada
and commissioning essentially one man to the work seems illogical and irresponsible.
This decision must be revisited before every special interest group demands
their tarnishing turn at the editor’s desk. According to JAS, this has already
begun and he claims that he has stymied their efforts. But what does the
future hold? And could JAS’s impression of his efforts be inaccurate?
The example of changing the word “initiated” in the Caitanya Caritamrta comes
to mind as a specimen of a change to Srila Prabhupada’s teachings by outside
forces. In this instance, JAS defended the change even after returning it
to its original form.
Is it plausible to believe that the thousands of changes to Srila Prabhupada’s
Gita are limited solely to spelling, editor bloops, etc., or could many of
these changes focus on style?
JAS claims: “Comparing each verse in the book with the text of the manuscript,
I made only those changes that to me seemed worthwhile. I tried to be conservative
and not make needless changes. At the same time, I kept in mind that whatever
changes we are to make we should make now, so that the book will never need
to be revised again.” (Appendix B, Consultation with ISKCON leaders)
However, in an Internet forum, Madhudvisa dasa reveals that: Of course the
old editions are no longer available and the BBT are now busy making a "Third
Edition" of the "Bhagavad-gita As It Is" to "correct some of Jayadvaita's
errors from the second edition" [according to the Australian BBT]. (http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET9907/ET02-4207.html)
This may or may not be accurate, but in any case JAS has disclosed that some
of the errors corrected in the1972 MacMillan edition were in fact made by
himself. “I worked on both the first edition and the second (many of the
first-edition blunders corrected in the second edition were my own), and
I don't claim to be more than a fallen conditioned soul.” (http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0301/ET31-7766.html)
We have no doubt that JAS is being humble in this account but his confession
that he made mistakes in the first edition cannot be overlooked. He didn’t
make those original mistakes consciously or purposely, so can we have firm
faith that his latest efforts do not share similar shortcomings?
So where is the assurance that this is not going to be a never-ending story?
I cannot see how His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada would be pleased with
the situation. Considering the details so far presented, the editing of the
BGAII seems poorly thought out and improperly conducted.
An important question needing answering is that since JAS did NOT present
all the changes to the GBC and ISKCON leadership as claimed, can his proclamation
of being authorized by these same authorities be considered legitimate?
May we suggest that the devotees reading this paper, and curious to
see just what was presented to the GBC and ISKCON leadership, email the Maharaja
and ask him to provide the list of changes provided to authorities. Perhaps
he could post the original communication on the Sampradaya Sun.
SOME EXAMPLES OF EDITS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO SRILA PRABHUPADA’S DAILY USAGE
Different examples can be cited but for the sake of brevity the following
are comparisons of the original and revised slokas from the BGAII which were
found on the Internet. The important point is that Srila Prabhupada personally
approved of the original translation by his use as noted below.
“Bg 2.30 ORIGINAL TRANSLATION:
O descendant of Bharata, he who dwells in the body is eternal and
can never be slain. Therefore you need not grieve for any creature.
“Bg 2.30 REVISED & ENLARGED TRANSLATION:
O descendant of Bharata, he who dwells in the body can never be slain.
Therefore you need not grieve for any living being.
(4) If one removes "is eternal" [perhaps by studying the original Sanskrit
to "correct" Srila Prabhupada's translation] it is NOT the same thing as
the book Srila Prabhupada personally read from daily and gave all his classes
from. Is it? Why didn't Jayadvaita Swami listen to Srila Prabhupada's classes?
"O descendant of Bharata, he who dwells in the body is eternal and
can never be slain. Therefore you need not grieve for any creature."
Prabhupada: Dehi nityam avadhyo 'yam dehe sarvasya bharata. Dehe, dehe means
body, within the body. This topic began, dehino 'smin yatha dehe kaumaram yauvanam
jara. Deha, dehi. Dehi means one who possesses the body... (730831BG.LON)
“Bg 2.48 ORIGINAL TRANSLATION:
Be steadfast in yoga, O Arjuna. Perform your duty and abandon all
attachment to success or failure. Such evenness of mind is called yoga.
“Bg 2.48 REVISED & ENLARGED TRANSLATION:
Perform your duty equipoised, O Arjuna, abandoning all attachment to success or failure. Such equanimity is called yoga.
“(7) Just see! We get absolutely no hint at all from Jayadvaita Swami's translation
that a devotee is "steadfast in yoga" or a devotee has any "evenness of mind."
However, when Tamala Krsna read the verse to Srila Prabhupada in 1968 (681216BG.LA)
Prabhupada had this to say:
Tamala Krsna: "Be steadfast in your duty, O Arjuna, and abandon all attachment to
success or failure. Such evenness of mind is called yoga."
Prabhupada: This is the explanation of yoga, evenness of mind.
Yoga-samatvam ucyate. If you work for Krsna, then there is no cause
of lamentation or jubilation. Jubilation is there because you are working
for Krsna, but there is no cause of lamentation. Yoga-sthah
kuru karmani, yogah karmasu kausalam. That is the secret of activities,
how you can very diligently work at the same time you are not entangled
with the actions. That is the secret.
Go on.” (http://krishna.org/ISKCON/BookChanges/108changes1.html)
These examples are telling. How can verses be altered after Srila Prabhupada’s
explicit approval? These are not cases of correcting an editor’s goof back
to what is found in an original manuscript; nor of two verses being reversed;
nor paragraphs being deleted due to misunderstanding. No spelling errors
found here. They are a deliberate out-and-out style changes which our devotional
community must be aware of and ultimately protest. These books are Srila
Prabhupada’s writings and demand greater respect.
In a recent class, JAS offered an opinion that what Srila Prabhupada read publicly doesn’t denote his acceptance of the text.
“Jayadvaita Swami: ...There was a quotation from Sruta-kirti where he made
the observation that Prabhupada didn't read like an editor because as an
editor you read it a certain way, but when you are relishing or teaching,
you are reading a different way. So the assumption would have to be whatever
was printed Prabhupada approved of as God said in the Bible, "Yes, it was
good." It's
not that Prabhupada scrutinized it and approved it.”
If forced to choose between Srila Prabhupada’s reading and that of the editor,
I’ll choose the former. I find this argument both weak and disturbing, though
who the author of the conclusion, JAS or Sruta-kirti, is unclear. However,
since JAS repeats it, we’ll accept that he is in full agreement with the
inference. So we are to believe that even though Srila Prabhupada reads and
lectures from his books that he does not approve of the presentation or is
unaware of the verse/purport’s shortcomings. Again, just whose books are
these? It seems that the editors are running amok thinking they know more
than the spiritual master. No argument that Srila Prabhupada’s first language
wasn’t English, but to rationalize that he didn’t read it properly is extreme.
Further proof regarding JAS’s interest in style change is found in his attempt to change “Back to
Godhead” policy regarding changing “divine pronouns” from upper to lower case (http://harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/03-06/editorials232.htm)
contrary to EXPLICIT instructions given by Srila Prabhupada. This was a deliberate
attempt to change the style of Krsna conscious literatures to one allegedly
accepted by literary authorities at the Chicago Manual of Style. Sadly, after
a little investigation, it was uncovered that his proposed policy did not
even reflect that of his preferred mundane authority. (http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/cmosfaq.html)
Such a drastic change to BTG & BBT policy was never, to my knowledge,
reported publicly and only came to light when the readership began to protest.
The policy change was finally reverted, but all-in-all, it was handled in
a non-forthright manner reminiscent of the handling of the BGAII edits.
The editor’s role is to primarily polish grammar, Sanskrit and spelling.
How can an editor publicly convey that Srila Prabhupada’s public reading
and teaching from his books be non-definitive regarding philosophy and presentation?
This is further proof that editors mustn’t be given unfettered authority
in making changes to Srila Prabhupada’s books. I am not attacking their sincerity
but rather the tendency to make mistakes, a quality which we are all unfortunately
encumbered with being conditioned souls.
However, the impact of an editor’s mistake while working on Srila Prabhupada’s
books can have an incredible impact in comparison to the run-of-the-mill
mortal. The role of an editor is to edit. But to support their efforts by
negating Srila Prabhupada’s daily usage is unacceptable.
Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare
This marks the end of the third installment. The fourth and final section
will be published shortly and will offer various quotes from Srila Prabhupada
encouraging no change and finally our conclusion accompanied by a suggestion
on how to remedy this situation.
