Just What Is Jayadvaita's Point?
Hansadutta Writes
05/16/03
Just What Is Jayadvaita's
Point?
BY HANSADUTTA DAS
EDITORIAL, May 15 (VNN) - Reading Jayadvaita's article
really irritated me. What is his point? That Hayagriva was
not qualified as an editor? That Srila Prabhupada was indifferent, stupid or lazy
in copying others translations? Or, that because Hayagriva and Srila Prabhupada
were not physically side by side for two years, there was some discrepancy in
Hayagriva's work, or, that Srila Prabhupada was unaware of what Hayagriva was
doing, and now (in Srila Prabhupada's absence) had to be corrected by Jayadvaita
Swami?
Is this his attempt to justify his envious infintile clerk like editing of
Prabhupada's Gita? What really is his point? What exactly is Jayadvaita Swami
trying to say? He is an office clerk at best, but factually his meddling in the
re-editing of Srila Prabhupada's works is a sinister, diabolical attempt to undermine
the efforts of the Sampradaya Acharya. He is a putana attempting to usurp the
pulpit of the institution in the absence of the self realized soul, Srila Prabhupada.
I was one BBT trustee along with Srila Prabhupada and Bali Mardan when I went
to Srila Prabhupada and suggested we reprint his Original Bhagavatams for the
pleasure of his devotees who liked the old Indian version... Before finishing
my proposal, Srila Prabhupada admonished me saying, "no--whatever Hayagriva has
done is perfect, I have full faith in him as the editor of my books." This was
quite some time after the publication of Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita. He
went on to say "whatever he (Hayagriva) has done is perfect, do not touch it,
I have full faith in him."
What more can be said about this matter? ISKCON spent hundreds and thousands of
dollars fighting in the court with me (Hansadutta) to support Jayadvaita's bogus
position, of re-editing Srila Prabhupada's books . ISKCON was claiming Srila Prabhupada
never was the proprietor of the copyrights, he was in fact a hired hand, supplied
with pen paper and office space by ISKCON, and therefore the copyrights belonged
to ISKCON. They claimed there never was a BBT formed by Srila Prabhupada, that
Hansadutta was never a trustee of any BBT. But the court did not uphold their
point of view, and subsequently ISKCON and their lying, cheating gundas and editors
had to make a settlement to escape disaster.
Factually the copyright claimed by ISKCON or BBT-international (a bogus shadow
organization of the original BBT formed by Srila Prabhupada) has been legally
lost to the public domain, and anyone and everyone who likes can print Srila Prabhupada's
books freely. It is being done as we speak and no one will dare to challenge anyone
who chooses to print Prabhupada's books, because ISKCON knows if they go to court
they cannot prevail. Fearing a legal ruling that the copyrights are in the public
domain they will not prosecute anyone for copyright infringement. Besides that,
they have no more money to fight in the court. Let everyone print the books of
Srila Prabhupada to their hearts content, rest assured ISKCON will not take any
action, because they have long ago lost their claim to legal copyright protection.
I should know, I was in the eye of the hurricane.
Your servant,
Hansadutta
BBT Admits Books Changed To Fit GBC Philosophy
IRM Adridharana Dasa (05-24-02)
We highlighted previously in newsletter No. 20, how Bhakti Caru Swami's Bengali
translation of the Srimad Bhagavatam had omitted a very key verse from Srila Prabhupada's
original version. The omitted verse in question would itself have destroyed the
GBC's position that they were duly authorised to be Diksa Gurus in ISKCON. This
of course was shocking, since it showed that Srila Prabhupada's books were being
'edited' not to bring them closer to the originals as claimed, but rather doctored
to prop up the GBC's bogus Guru philosophy.
We highlighted previously in newsletter No. 20, how Bhakti Caru Swami's Bengali translation of the Srimad Bhagavatam had omitted a very key verse from Srila Prabhupada's original version. The omitted verse in question would itself have destroyed the GBC's position that they were duly authorised to be Diksa Gurus in ISKCON. This of course was shocking, since it showed that Srila Prabhupada's books were being 'edited' not to bring them closer to the originals as claimed, but rather doctored to prop up the GBC's bogus Guru philosophy.
Though we had also been aware of many other controversial changes made to Srila Prabhupada's books, the BBT had always claimed that they were made to actually correct 'errors' made by Srila Prabhupada's 'hippie' editors. Thus they were not actually changing Srila Prabhupada's books, but Hayagriva's 'incorrect version' of the books, and thereby actually RESTORING the books BACK to how Srila Prabhupada actually wanted them. However, thanks to the diligent efforts of His Grace Dhira Govinda Prabhu, the Chairman of the ISKCON Office of Child Protection, we now have evidence that the current BBT, which is controlled by GBC supporters, are making changes motivated slowly by the desire to doctor Srila Prabhupada's books so that they fit in with whatever happens to be the prevailing view instituted in ISKCON by the GBC.
Akruranath: "If Hansadutta really believes that the edited versions
of Srila Prabhupada's books distorts or "tampers" with their original meaning,
let him cite some examples, as Jayadvaita Maharaja has done, and explain why he
believes the earlier versions more accurately expressed Srila Prabhupada's views.
At least that way, the controversy would encourage deeper study of Srila Prabhupada's
Books."
Some time back many devotees had noticed that the new 9 Volume edition of the
Caitanya Caritamrta had made a deliberate change from Srila Prabhupada's original
version, not unlike the one made by Bhakti Caru Swami mentioned earlier. Srila
Prabhupada's Caitanya Caritamrta states the following:
"Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura accepted Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji, who *initiated* Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who in turn initiated Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji"
(C:C, Chapter 1)
In the new BBT doctored 9-volume edition, the same passage reads:
"Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura accepted Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji, the spiritual master of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who in turn accepted Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji"
In other words it has been decided that contrary to what Srila Prabhupada states, Jagannatha Das Babaji did not really INITIATE Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura after all. Now the reason for the BBT changing Srila Prabhupada's teaching here is very significant since the GBC maintain that the relationship between Jagannatha Das Babaji and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura was based not on 'formal initiation' but rather only on the transmission of transcendental knowledge'. Once it is accepted that the transmission of divine transcendental knowledge ALONE constitutes INITIATION - then the objections made by the GBC to the Ritvik system of initiation crumble, since Srila Prabhupada could also *initiate* us with transcendental knowledge.
Thus the BBT could not allow Srila Prabhupada to teach that Jagannatha Dasa Babaji actually *initiated* Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, for that would indirectly sanction Srila Prabhupada *initiating* for many generations to come simply via his transcendental knowledge, with the 'formal initiation' administered via the Ritvik system that he set up. In any case the teaching given by Srila Prabhupada above is totally consistent with what Srila Prabhupada has taught about Diksa and initiation in the Caitanya Caritamrta itself:
"Diksa actually means *initiating* a disciple *with transcendental knowledge* by which he becomes freed from all material contamination." (Madhya-lila, 4:112, Purport)
Of course just the very fact that the BBT is deliberately changing the main legacy left by Srila Prabhupada - his teachings - is horrendous enough.
However the fact that it was done specifically to keep the positions of the GBC within the crumbling Guru system intact, is totally shameful.
But just when you though it could not get any worse, it does. For the BBT have now become so arrogant in their campaign against Srila Prabhuada's teachings, that they have even tried to JUSTIFY this change. Dravida Das, the BBT editor, upon being asked by Dhira Govinda Prabhu to justify the change, first sums up the reason for NOT changing Srila Prabhupada's teachings as follows:
"On the side of not changing the "initiated" phrases we have the strong bias against changing the books unless absolutely necessary and the fact that Srila Prabhupada did indeed say that Jagannatha das Babaji initiated Bhaktivinode."
(BBT Editor, Dravida Das)
Please note that Dravida clearly ADMITS that Srila Prabhupada "DID indeed say that Jagannatha das Babaji initiated Bhaktivinode".
To any sane person, this would be the ONLY reason required to NOT tamper with Srila Prabhupada's teachings in any manner whatsoever. But hold on.
Dravida Das has a reason that far outweighs a mere detail such as what Srila Prabhupada himself actually taught. Rather he states we must change Srila Prabhupada's teachings to ensure they conform with what is currently understood within ISKCON in regards to initiation:
"Leaving one or both "initiated"s will strongly imply that the use of the phrases "direct disciple" and even "accepted [as his disciple]" indicate formal initiation as we know it in ISKCON, which is far from the truth." (BBT Editor, Dravida Das)
Dravida then adds that this reason was paramount in justifying the change:
This last was the weightiest argument, in my view, for changing the passage.
(BBT Editor, Dravida Das)
Thus to summarise, what Dravida is saying is this: That whenever Srila Prabhupada's teachings differ from the way 'we know it in ISKCON', then they must be changed to conform with the way we DO 'know it in ISKCON'. And of course the way 'we know it in ISKCON' is dictated by whatever ridiculous philosophy the GBC happens to be preaching at the time.
So the fact that we have had a bogus Guru system imposed on us in ISKCON by the GBC means that even though we may find that Srila Prabhupada teaches something else, we must modify Srila Prabhupada's teachings to agree with the way things are understood in ISKCON. Instead of changing the practices and understanding of ISKCON to conform with Srila Prabhupada's teachings - which of course is what a spiritual society based on following Srila Prabhupada would do. Not only is it bad enough that ISKCON is NOT run according to Srila Prabhupada's teachings, but now Srila Prabhupada's teachings must also be changed to fit in with the way we happen to be doing things in ISKCON.
What makes this shocking state of affairs even more ludicrous is that the way things are 'known in ISKCON' are themselves constantly changing anyway.
1) Thus from 1978-onwards, in ISKCON we 'knew' one thing in regards to the process of initiation - that you could ONLY take it from 11 people, and then ONLY whichever of the 11 people 'owned' your geographical area.
2) Then from 1986 we 'knew' something else about initiation - that you could take it from many others providing they had received the necessary number of votes.
3) Now we 'know' something else - that whoever you get initiated from, do not forget that you must not worship him too much and that Srila Prabhupada is also doing some important things, and indeed maybe even more important than the person who does initiate us.
4) And what's the betting that this 'understanding' will also change in the next year or so?
5) And just because we happen to 'know' at the moment that initiation must mean the 'formal ceremony', therefore any teaching in Srila Prabhupada's books that imply otherwise must be doctored.
And this is a very sinister development for yet another reason. For this justification is laying the ground for making ANY further change to Srila Prabhupada's teachings that the GBC deems fit. Thus in the future if it is 'known in ISKCON' that 'women are as intelligent as men' say, then we will be able to alter all of Srila Prabhupada's statements where he says that women are less intelligent, since then it would not conform with the way things are 'known in ISKCON'. Or if in the future we begin to 'know in ISKCON' that Lord Siva is just as worshipable as Krishna say, then whenever we encounter the word 'Demi-God' in Srila Prabhupada's books, then all those instances must be changed. And so on.
Of course someone may argue that the philosophy as 'we know it in ISKCON' will never change and will always be faithful to Srila Prabhupada's teachings, and the above fear is unfounded. (Of course Pigs May Also Fly).
If the last 23 years is anything to go by, the only thing we can say with certainty is that the GBC will ALWAYS be deviating from Srila Prabhupada's teachings, and the ONLY SAFEGUARD WE HAVE IS SRILA PRABHUPADA'S TEACHINGS.
And once we change Srila Prabhupada's teachings to fit in with whatever nonsense we happen to believe, then all will be lost - as seems to be happening now.
How much longer must we put up this with this madness that is leading to the destruction of Srila Prabhupada's movement. No wonder devotees, life members and members of the public, are turning to support the IRM in their droves.
Personal qualifications/ knowledge
The problem as stated is simply that no one has the personal qualifications to edit Prabhupada's books. However, if empowered, even an inferior jiva can accomplish miracles. Therefore, Hayagriva, being approved by Prabhupada, is beyond reproach. Prabhupada said it was perfect, therefore it was and nothing he did was to be changed. Being aware of this sensibility, it was foolhardy of Jayadvaita to go barging in and making changes because in his judgment Hayagriva did not do an adequate job.
One who does not share the absolutist point of view might argue, as Jayadvaita Maharaj does, that Hayagriva Prabhu's knowledge of Sanskrit, of Indian culture, of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, etc., etc., was limited. There would be many things in Prabhupada's speech, references, locutions, pronunciation, quotes, etc., that would have passed such an editor by--what to speak of inherent ingrained cultural biases that would have influenced the final result.
It is not only Jayadvaita Maharaj's right to point out these things, but it is something that is to be desired ardently by any serious student of Srila Prabhupada's thought. Similarly, Ekkehard Lorenz's study of the materials Srila Prabhupada used to translate the Bhagavatam is an invaluable service to the studyo f Srila Prabhupada's teachings.
However since the books were approved by Prabhupada therefore They are authorized.
Srila Prabhupada used these books in His lectures, classes etc etc. These very
same books were distributed in the 1000's to 1000's of people many of which became
devotees. So where is the problem?
Srila Prabhupada: "Therefore we are presenting Bhagavad Gita as it
is. No change. Other they are interpreting in their own way. That is not Bhagavad-Gita.
That is something else. In the words of God there is no question of changing.
You cannot change. As soon as you make a change, immediately it is material; it
has nothing to do with spiritual world." - Srila Prabhupada Room Conversation
on August 5, 1976.
"If you concoct, 'I am more intelligent than my Guru,' 'I can make additions and alterations,' then you are finished." -- Srila Prabhupada lecture on July 12, 1975 in Philadelphia Pa.
February 11, 2003 VNN7802 Related VNN Stories
A Time For Substance, Not Fluff
BY GUPTA DAS
EDITORIAL, Feb 11 (VNN) — The recent public relations piece, A Response to an Unfortunate Article, fails to address the substantive spiritual issues underlying the post-disappearance rewrite of the 1972 Bhagavad-Gita As It Is, as described in Should Srila Prabhupada's Books Be Changed?
By sidestepping the pivotal issue of the lack of authority to make post-disappearance changes to the books of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the spiritual myopia which has severely eclipsed the presentation of Srila Prabhupada's vani for many years has only become all the more evident.
Certainly the burden of proof rests with the editors to show unequivocal evidence of spiritual authority to make even the smallest post-disappearance editorial change to the published works of His Divine Grace. And it should come as no surprise that such a weighty burden cannot rationally be met by merely presenting glowing references from other paycheck editors. Nor can that burden be met by noting the confidence which Srila Prabhupada expressed about a particular editor prior to the time that the same editor began his post disappearance word surgery on Srila Prabhupada's already published works.
Moreover, while the editors would like to convince the world that a necessary and pure editorial revision of a defective 1972 Gita has taken place, it has not escaped notice that, in fact, the 1983 Gita was actually a complete rewrite of the 1972 edition based on unauthenticated transcriptions mixed with editorial notes (the so-called manuscript), but only when available (many were reportedly lost). Yet, one version had already been used by Hayagriva to accomplish the original editing of the 1972 edition of the Gita which Srila Prabhupada approved and published.
In other words, the 1983 edition represents Jayadvaita Swami's priggish rendition of the Gita in the same way that the 1972 edition represents Hayagriva's flowing, poetic style; the critical difference being that Hayagriva was commissioned to edit pursuant to the explicit spiritual authority and under the direct, almost daily, supervision of Srila Prabhupada -- whereas Jayadvaita Swami's post-disappearance rewrite suffers from both a lack of explicit authority as well as an absence of direct supervision by the original author.
Plainly said: Srila Prabhupada chose Hayagriva to edit, Jayadvaita chose himself.
While it is not generally known, for two years Srila Prabhupada sat with Hayagriva and patiently transformed His intimate realizations into a level of refined expression onto which He then comfortably placed His name. The resulting literary expression was the wondrous 1972 Bhagavad-Gita As It Is. And it was this very same book that Srila Prabhupada personally approved as his authorized edition, which he read from in private and in public for over half a decade while correcting only three words. This very same book was distributed far and wide around the globe to the tune of millions of copies while the author received accolades from scholars all over the world as he reached out through his vani to make literally thousands of devotees and tens of thousands of admirers and followers! Why would anyone risk making even the smallest change to this wondrous transcendental book?
Faced with these facts, the editors traditionally trot out a few dozen verses in order to skew opinion. Sure we all want the right purport printed under the right translation. And no one should have to read "planet of the trees" when we know it's something else. But, with the most serious deception, it's not what is said, it's what is not said that is the defining event. And what is not being admitted by the editors is that literally hundreds if not thousands of wholly unnecessary stylistic and substantive changes were made. Word by word, line by line, sentence by sentence, purport by purport; the cumulative result of which is that the mood and style of Srila Prabhupada's 1972 approved book has been morphed, so to speak, into an entirely different book which Srila Prabhupada never approved.
Muddling the matter even further, the editorial camp has now web posted typed transcriptions of numerous Gita verses, yet refuses to make the actual documents available. And here's why: on the actual documents one will find (in addition to typed, transcribed words), copious editorial notes which were hand written by various editors. And, confusing the issue even more, there is no documentation available to either authenticate who made those editorial notes, or to verify exactly when those notes were made. How anyone could base a rewrite of Srila Prabhupada's authorized, approved and published 1972 Bhagavad-Gita As It Is on such a flimsy (and in some instances, non existent) paper trail is as absurd as it is painful.
Thus, regardless of the version of the editor's notes used to produce the 1983 rewrite, there remains to this day a 'For Their Eyes Only' document which is privately held by the same editor who apparently now expects the entire Vaishnava community to blindly accept his personal interpretation of these selectively disclosed words and hidden editorial notes! Need I say, this is the same editor who for many years just as vehemently denied the legal existence of Srila Prabhupada's heart, the BBT, until it was expensively proven otherwise.
In any event, whether the transcription and notes are available or not, the 1983 rewrite of the Gita was neither authorized nor supervised by the author. Comparing the 1972 Gita to questionable transcriptions and editorial notes should never lead to a post disappearance rewrite, regardless of how brilliant or expert an editor may appear to be.
In what should be the final analysis, the 1972 Bhagavad-Gita As It Is was, and is, Srila Prabhupada's authorized final edition. Historical tradition, spiritual etiquette and common ethics demands that post-disappearance notes by commentators and adjustments by editors to an acarya's published works be placed in an appendix or a separate tika, leaving the original, published, authorized and approved work unchanged. This process preserves the spiritual integrity of the authorized, approved and published work.
The conclusion is therefore quite clear: it is the unsanctioned tampering with the authorized, approved and published adi-vani of His Divine Grace -- not the fact that many have pointed it out -- which is unfortunate.
With regards,
Gupta das
Joseph Fedorowsky
Classic Manuscripts
BY RUPA-VILASA DASA
Feb 21 ; Should Srila Prabhupada's Books Be Changed?
The way the matter should have been handled, and could still be handled is this: Republish the (original) editions of Srila Prabhupada's books as they were when he was on the earth and footnote any changes in a scholarly edition the way that it is generally done. In this way, additional notes, verses, rewordings and comments could be incorporated without any change or alteration to the original text.
Those notes, comments, verses, etc. can then be analyzed by the reader as additional information, and not a rewording of the original text.
This is the way scholarly editions of other classic manuscripts and spiritual books are generally approached. This could still be done, and most everyone would be satisfied with this standard.
Your servant,
Rupa-vilasa dasa
HARE
KRSNA HARE KRSNA KRSNA KRSNA HARE
HARE HARE RAMA HARE RAMA RAMA RAMA HARE