End of Jayadvaita Swami’s Tenure as BBT Editor in Chief

The Bhagavatam says: dharmam hi saksad-bhagavat-pranitam — the path of religion is directly enunciated by the Lord.

BY: DAS DEVI DASI

Changes going on at the BBT

Here’s a piece of news we’ve been waiting to hear. Jayadvaita Swami has written:

“To my knowledge, Srila Prabhupada never asked us to re-edit the book. As you know, and as we kept in mind while doing the work, Srila Prabhupada staunchly opposed needless changes.”

“Dear Devotees, I am truly mortified at the extensive changes I have made to Srila Prabhupada’s books, and I hereby tender my resignation as chief editor and dismantle the team of editors working under me with immediate effect.”

Okay, so he didn’t write the 2nd paragraph. (He did write the first, in a letter to Amogha Lila, 1986.) But seeing how he has so liberally added and subtracted from Prabhupada’s original books – in many instances fearlessly altering the meaning of the purports, I felt inspired to do the same to his own writing.

And the headline is not a lie; it’s an urgent demand and necessity.

Here below are just three examples (from Bhagavad-gita As It Is) wherein Jayadvaita’s revision renders the meaning rather differently from the original:

Original 1972 MacMillan ed:
Bg 2.40, purport

If someone gives up self-gratificatory pursuits and works in Krsna consciousness and then falls down on account of not completing his work, what loss is there on his part? And, what can one gain if one performs his material activities perfectly?” (Bhag. 1.5.17) Or, as the Christians say, “What profiteth a man if he gain the whole world yet suffers the loss of his eternal soul?”

Revised:

If someone gives up his occupational duties and works in Krsna consciousness and then falls down on account of not completing his work, what loss is there on his part? And what can one gain if one performs his material activities perfectly?” Or, as the Christians say, “What profiteth a man if he gain the whole world yet suffers the loss of his eternal soul?”

What was wrong with the original? Prabhupada emphasized fruitive activities, “self-gratificatory pursuits”. Jayadvaita has put it to occupational duties. Has Jayadvaita missed the difference between karma and dharma?

Original 1972 MacMillan ed:
Bg 2.64, text

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.

Revised:

But a person free from all attachment and aversion and able to control his senses through regulative principles of freedom can obtain the complete mercy of the Lord.

As I understand Prabhupada’s purport, it is by the “mercy of the Lord” that one becomes “free from all attachment and aversion”, whereas Jayadvaita puts it that one who has already somehow or other (by his own strength???) become “free from all attachment and aversion … can obtain the complete mercy of the Lord.”

Original 1972 MacMillan:
Bg 4.34, text and purport

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.

PURPORT
The path of spiritual realization is undoubtedly difficult. The Lord therefore advises us to approach a bona fide spiritual master in the line of disciplic succession from the Lord Himself. No one can be a bona fide spiritual master without following this principle of disciplic succession. The Lord is the original spiritual master, and a person in the disciplic succession can convey the message of the Lord as it is to his disciple. No one can be spiritually realized by manufacturing his own process, as is the fashion of the foolish pretenders.

The Bhagavatam says: dharmam hi saksad-bhagavat-pranitam — the path of religion is directly enunciated by the Lord. Therefore, mental speculation or dry arguments cannot help one progress in spiritual life. One has to approach a bona fide spiritual master to receive the knowledge. Such a spiritual master should be accepted in full surrender, and one should serve the spiritual master like a menial servant, without false prestige. Satisfaction of the self-realized spiritual master is the secret of advancement in spiritual life. Inquiries and submission constitute the proper combination for spiritual understanding.

Unless there is submission and service, inquiries from the learned spiritual master will not be effective. One must be able to pass the test of the spiritual master, and when he sees the genuine desire of the disciple, he automatically blesses the disciple with genuine spiritual understanding. In this verse, both blind following and absurd inquiries are condemned. One should not only hear submissively from the spiritual master; but one must also get a clear understanding from him, in submission and service and inquiries. A bona fide spiritual master is by nature very kind toward the disciple. Therefore when the student is submissive and is always ready to render service, the reciprocation of knowledge and inquiries becomes perfect.

Revised:

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.

PURPORT
The path of spiritual realization is undoubtedly difficult. The Lord therefore advises us to approach a bona fide spiritual master in the line of disciplic succession from the Lord Himself. No one can be a bona fide spiritual master without following this principle of disciplic succession. The Lord is the original spiritual master, and a person in the disciplic succession can convey the message of the Lord as it is to his disciple. No one can be spiritually realized by manufacturing his own process, as is the fashion of the foolish pretenders.

The Bhagavatam (6.3.19) says, dharmam tu saksad bhagavat-pranitam: the path of religion is directly enunciated by the Lord. Therefore, mental speculation or dry arguments cannot help lead one to the right path. Nor by independent study of books of knowledge can one progress in spiritual life. One has to approach a bona fide spiritual master to receive the knowledge. Such a spiritual master should be accepted in full surrender, and one should serve the spiritual master like a menial servant, without false prestige. Satisfaction of the self-realized spiritual master is the secret of advancement in spiritual life.

Inquiries and submission constitute the proper combination for spiritual understanding. Unless there is submission and service, inquiries from the learned spiritual master will not be effective. One must be able to pass the test of the spiritual master, and when he sees the genuine desire of the disciple, he automatically blesses the disciple with genuine spiritual understanding. In this verse, both blind following and absurd inquiries are condemned.

Not only should one hear submissively from the spiritual master, but one must also get a clear understanding from him, in submission and service and inquiries. A bona fide spiritual master is by nature very kind toward the disciple. Therefore when the student is submissive and is always ready to render service, the reciprocation of knowledge and inquiries becomes perfect.

Well, of course Jayadvaita Swami had to pluralize “the self-realized soul” in order to make room for himself and the other ISKCON gurus. Nice and neat also how he tucked in the caveat, “Nor by independent study of books of knowledge can one progress in spiritual life”. Now where did that come from? How thoughtful of him, he must have put it for those devotees who go around thinking that it might be safer to stick with Prabhupada by consulting his books rather than gambling on one of the ISKCON daily specials. Prabhupada has put it a little differently in the Bhagavatam:

Here is the remedy for eliminating all inauspicious things within the heart which are considered to be obstacles in the path of self-realization. The remedy is the association of the Bhagavatas. There are two types of Bhagavatas, namely the book Bhagavata and the devotee Bhagavata. Both the Bhagavatas are competent remedies, and both of them or either of them can be good enough to eliminate the obstacles.

A devotee Bhagavata is as good as the book Bhagavata because the devotee Bhagavata leads his life in terms of the book Bhagavata and the book Bhagavata is full of information about the Personality of Godhead and His pure devotees, who are also Bhagavatas. Bhagavata book and person are identical. [purport, Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.2.18]

Yes, it’s certainly helpful to hear the Bhagavata from a Bhagavata, so why not hear from Prabhupada? He is speaking through his books! He’s right there. And if we want to hear from anyone else, at least from someone who is faithful to Prabhupada and has not made it his life’s calling to put words in Prabhupada’s mouth that he never spoke.

There are many, many more instances where the word-for-word transliterations, translations and purports have been changed — going way beyond mere grammatical or typographical errors. Changes to the Chaitanya-charitamrita, Adi 5.78, Adi 5.80, Madhya 22.43, Madhya 19.152 and Madhya 19.157 (see Revisions to Srila Prabhupada’s Books Documented) stand out as blatant deviation and fabrication. But the changes are so many as to defy enumeration.

Govinda devi dasi has asked (Monkey Poo, or Respect of One’s Guru):

“What is the name of the Maya wherein one commits a blunder, is told by others, and even within their heart knows that he has done wrong – yet still, he insists on justifying his blunder? Can anyone of the respected Vaishnava scholars please tell me or describe to me this category of Maya’s agency? And in relation to one’s Guru, this category of aparadha?

“Is it pride, is it stubbornness, is it fear of public shame? In spite of so many hundreds of devotees who stand in opposition to the book changes, still the editors insist on their claims–their claims to the exclusive right to change Srila Prabhupada’s books however they choose!”

I would like to ask: Where is the outrage? Why are Srila Prabhupada’s loyal devotees not infuriated? Why is there no concerted action taken to put a stop to this? Enough with the pretentious gentlemenly conduct. It’s inappropriate.

If you’re employed as a caretaker, and while the owner is away, a gang of thieves break into the house and boldly ransack it, turning over furniture, pulling out drawers and emptying their contents, and generally tearing the place apart, are you going to greet them with timid words — “Respectful sirs, kindly refrain from rearranging the furniture. Please don’t take any offence from me, but you’re scratching the floor and breaking things. You’re really making a mess, and I’m not sure you’re authorized to do that. Don’t you think you should stop what you’re doing?” Or are you going to grab your 12-gauge shotgun and stop them dead in their tracks? Or at least call the Law?

If we call ourselves disciples or followers or devotees of Prabhupada, then we should take action – whatever it takes – to protect and restore Prabhupada’s books. The only thing Jayadvaita Swami and his cronies seem to understand and fear is legal consequences. Anything short of that, and he will continue his stated mission to revise all of Srila Prabhupada’s works. Is it not obvious how obstinate he is? He’s so entrenched in his position that it would need the jaws of life to cut him out from the wreckage.

Anyone prepared to take out a lawsuit? Anyone prepared to come up with financial backing? Got bricks and bats? If you (yes, YOU) and I – all of us collectively and cooperatively – don’t make a REAL effort to protect Prabhupada’s books, the integrity of his teachings, then forget about varnashram dharma and the DOM and the rise of the next generation (gurukulis).

All you wannabe kshatriyas and brahmanas and ISKCON resurrectionists, Prabhupadanugas, Kulis and friends of Kulis are a joke if you can’t save the books of the spiritual master. Fox is raiding the henhouse, and in spite of all the noise and commotion, you don’t wake up. FAIL.

Many thanks to Madhudvisa Prabhu, for making available a brilliant and invaluable tool for comparison of the original MacMillan (1972) Bhagavad-gita As It Is to Jayadvaita’s revised edition at http://bookchanges.com/bhagavad-gita-changes-complete-list/. Also for hosting Srila Prabhupada’s complete, original works at PrabhupadaBooks.com.