Quoting Srila Prabhupadas Approved Bhagavad-gita As It Is (1972)

Quoting the Approved Bhagavad-gita As It Is (1972)
BY: GADADHARA DAS

BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA, USA (SUN) — Regarding Dravida dasa’s ” Reply to Madhudvisa “, we thank him for bringing these verses to light. A quick look into the Vedabase will reveal that in fact, Srila Prabhupada not only read these “so called” mistakes, but quoted them many times. Here are just three examples taken from Dravida’s sarcastic little tirade: 

Bhagavad-gita 9.34:

Devotee:

• “Translation: Engage your mind always in thinking of Me. Offer obeisances and worship Me. Being completely absorbed in Me, surely you’ll come to Me.”

Prabhupada: So this is the process. Says, “Always think of Me.” (speaks Hindi to guest for some minutes) This is the translation. Read the purport. (February 25, 1973, Jakarta)

Bhagavad-gita 18.54:

Jayadvaita:

• “One who is thus transcendentally situated at once realizes the Supreme Brahman and becomes fully joyful. He never laments nor desires to have anything; he is equally disposed to every living entity. In that state he attains pure devotional service unto Me.”

Prabhupada: Equally disposed. As soon as he knows that I am not this body, I am spirit soul, then there is no distinction. Just like two American goes to India. So when they understand that “We are Americans,” immediately their interest becomes one, although they are in the foreign country. That is psychology. Similarly, as soon as we come to the spiritual platform, there is no such distinction as black, white, Hindu, Muslim, Christian. Everything finished. Samah sarvesu bhutesu. You are reading the purport? (June 17, 1976, Toronto)

Bhagavad-gita. 13.2:

Pradyumna:

• (recites the verse…)

Translation:

• “Arjuna said: O my dear Krsna, I wish to know about prakrti, nature, purusa, or the enjoyer, and the field and the knower of the field, and of knowledge and the end of knowledge. The Blessed Lord then said: This body, O son of Kunti, is called the field, and one who knows this body, who knows this body is called the knower of the field.”

Prabhupada: Ksetra-ksetra-jnam. Just like we are living in this apartment and we know that I am not this apartment, but I am living in this apartment. The people say that because the Supersoul or the soul is living within this body therefore the body is soul. This is not very good argument. That is being cleared by Krsna Himself. idam sariram kaunteya ksetram ity abhidhiyate [Bg. 13.2]. Ksetra. Ksetra means land or a place. So idam sariram kaunteya ksetram ity abhidhiyate [Bg. 13.2]. And, the next line? (Bhagavad-gita 13.1-2 — Bombay, December 29, 1972)

As for the Bhagavad-gita 13.2 Purport, Srila Prabhupada lectured on this 16 times. He even memorized the translation:

• May 11, 1977

 

• December 14, 1975

 

• September 7, 1973

 

• January 14, 1973

 

• December 8, 1974

 

• May 20, 1972

 

• October 15, 1974

 

• October 25, 1973

 

• October 20, 1973

 

• Bombay, October 11, 1973

 

• Miami, February 27, 1975

 

• Paris, August 12, 1973

 

• Melbourne, April 4, 1972

 

• Miami, February 25, 1975

 

• Bombay, September 25, 1973

 

Paris, August 10, 1973

Out of these 16 times He mentions this verse, eight times He has someone read it directly from the 1972 approved edition.

According to the rule of Arsa Prayoga, a disciple cannot criticize his spiritual master’s writings even if they are technically wrong.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati comments in His essay entitled, “The Advent of Thakur Bhaktivinode” Published in The Harmonist, December 1931, vol. XXIX No.6:

“The identical verses of the Scriptures may be recited by the devotee and the non-devotee, may be apparently misquoted by the non-devotee but the corresponding values of the two processes remain always categorically different. The devotee is right even when he apparently misquotes , the non-devotee is wrong even when he quotes correctly the very words, chapter and verse of the Scriptures.”

——-

Jayadvaita’s book changes

Hare Krishna Prabhus, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Srila Sukadeva Gosvami has answered our questions and concerns regarding the “Book Changes” debate.

First of all he specifically predicted Srila Prabhupada’s original books from India — books “meant for bringing about a revolution in a misdirected civilization..” These editions were full of “irregularitues in composition” due to Srila Prabhupada’s letting a sincere devotee yet unqualified editor edit his proofs in New Delhi. But Srila Sukadeva Gosvami predicted that these books would be “heard, sung, and accepted by purified men who are thoroughly honest.” (SB 1.5.11). In fact, these editions were all we had in the early days when the genuine Krishna consciousness movement was spreading like wild fire. Sincere devotees relish these unique editions even today, never complaining about the “irregularities”.

Srila Prabhupada approved minor changes to correct obvious mistakes in the original editions brought from India, however, these corrections were completed way before Prabhupada’s disappareance day in 1977. Also He may have approved some minor changes in the 1972 unabridged Gita. But why go on making changes after 1977, claiming to be returning to a more original manuscript version? This is a bogus argument. And it is wrong to say Srila Prabhupada’s approved editions are full of mistakes. I am a trained English editor who has been carefully reading Prabhupada’s approved editions for decades, and I have a hard time finding any errors, although I can easily find several on every other page of Time Magazine, a university textbook, or the latest best seller.

More importantly, where is the written instruction from Srila Prabhupada saying He wanted His books further edited after 1977? Rather, the opposite instruction is there.

What all this shows, by Srila Sukadeva Gosvami’s divine grace, is that the gbc is controlled by those who are not “thoroughly honest.” They do not accept Srila Prabhupada or His books as perfect. Rather, as Srila Prabhupadfa specifically warned, they think, “Now I am so advanced that I can kill my guru and I become guru.” (Conversation, August 16, 1976, Bombay.) This mentality might be the reason they will ignore all good advice and spend decades continuously changing Srila Prabhupada books, as is convenient for adding their latest twists on the siddhanta and the sadhana.

One more point on this topic: Sometimes people say that Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura needed English editors because English was not their mother tongue and they were not trained as English scholars. This argument is false. If They were in any way deficient in English composition, how could they compose perfect poetry on the level of Blake, Shakespear or Whitman? Persons familiar with the English language understand that quality English poetry is very difficult to compose properly, whereas English prose is relatively easy.

The conclusion is that They let some devotees do some very specific services as editors under Their direction due to Their causeless mercy.

your servant,
Narasimha das

————-

“Errors” in Srila Prabhupada’s books?

To: Jayadvaita Maharaja
From: Anuttama dd.

Maharaja,

Here is the quote of why the BBT has decided to fix the many “errors” in Srila Prabhupada’s books:

“Question: If you change now, you’re opening the door to changes later. You’re setting a precedent.

This is a sensible argument. The BBT editors and trustees have carefully considered it. But in a book where mistakes are so plentiful, the reverse is equally possible: If the BBT’s present editors didn’t fix them, someone later would have.

The BBT trustees could pass a law: “Absolutely no changes.” But trustees who come in the future could just as easily overturn it.

Therefore the BBT editors and editors have chosen a different course, the course followed by publishing houses that set the highest standards for professionalism and integrity: We strive to publish books in editions that fix errors, restore lost material, and thereby stick as closely and faithfully as possible to the letter, spirit, and intention of what the author originally gave.”

Here I’m assuming that the “mistakes” being referred to her are more than just typos and punctuation. So an example of a “mistake” is this verse from the Bhagavad-Gita: Original: “Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth.” And with the “mistakes” fixed: “Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self- realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth.”

I’m not an editor and don’t have a degree in English, but to me the original appears correct and the edited version wrong. In the original version the first part of the verse agrees with the second part: “a spiritual master….he has seen the truth.” In the edited version: “a spiritual master….they have seen the truth.” A cynical person might even think that the philosophy was being subtly changed to make it seem like self-realized souls are quite plentiful and a person seeking the truth could have a great selection to choose from.

Setting a strong precedent such as “absolutely no changes beyond correcting typos, punctuation and misspelled words” is like building a building on a solid, level and strong foundation. Saying that there is no need for a strong level foundation because future builders will be building crooked walls anyway is a flimsy argument. The above example from the Bhagavad-Gita proves that the editing can change the philosophy.

Maharaja, have you asked Srila Prabhupada if he wants you to change his books? If so, were you open to the answer? When I was a book distributor, I was big into doing change-ups. My authorities taught it to us and encouraged its use. I assumed that because doing change- ups allowed me to distribute lots more books (and collect lots more laxmi) that it was pleasing to Srila Prabhupada and Krsna. In fact, when I look back on it now, I can see that Krsna was constantly giving me hints that He didn’t like change-up tricks. It is obviously devious and unbefitting a vaisnava to do such things. And if I’m truthful with myself, I wanted to distribute lots of books, not for Srila Prabhupada, but rather for my own glory as a “big book distributor”. Now that I’m a little more spiritually back on track, I can see that the most valuable thing in my life is when Krsna allows me to be conscious of Him. But that consciousness is a gift given by Krsna and the spiritual master. Using the example above from the Bhagavad-Gita, we can see that the changes you are making are changing the philosophy, and so there is no way that Srila Prabhupada is pleased with this. If our goal in life is to become conscious of Krsna and if that goal can only be achieved by the mercy of the spiritual master, you should really ask Srila Prabhupada if he is pleased and then listen for the answer.

I’m sorry if this seems disrespectful to an elder and superior, but sometimes the truth can come from an unqualified person.

Wishing you the best,
Mother Anuttama

—

I was wondering if HH Jayadvaita Maharaja would be kind enough to comment on the following:

The following is from an e-mail exchange……..
“We were discussing this verse in the BG.

“O son of Prtha, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth-women, vaisyas [merchants], as well as sudras [workers] – can approach the supreme destination.” (McMillan 1972 Bg 9.32)

It says above “lower birth-women…..” However HH Jayadvaita Maharaja who revised the BG as it is because he wanted to correct mistakes. Simply perpetuates this mistake …

“O son of Prtha, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth – women, vaisyas [merchants] and sudras [workers] – can attain the supreme destination.” (Revised Bg 9.32)

However the Collier edition gives the correct translation, as is verified by Prabhupada’s lectures on this verse….

32: O son of Prtha, anyone who will take shelter in Me, whether a woman, or a merchant, or born in a low family, can yet approach the Supreme Destination.”

—