The Book Changes – A Defense

BY: DRAVIDA DASA

Jan 12, 2014 — SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA (SUN) — On January 8, D. das in Vancouver wrote an article entitled "Book Changes -- the Inherent Danger in Them". This is my response.

In paragraph 3, D. das Prabhu writes:

    "[T]here also is no available proof, to my knowledge, regarding their [the editors] authoritativeness for the task."

The fact is that Jayadvaita Swami, the editor who revised the Bhagavad-gita As It Is in 1983 and thus made the change that D. das focuses on, was Srila Prabhupada's most trusted editor. Even Hayagriva Prabhu, who was Prabhupada's first editor, didn't get the kind of stamp of approval that Prabhupada gave Jayadvaita [then] dasa in 1976: "Concerning the editing of Jayadvaita Prabhu, whatever he does is approved by me. I have confidence in him." A more detailed explanation of his authoritativeness is given here.

In paragraph 4, D. das Prabhu writes:

    "Even though the sastric principles themselves cannot be changed, being eternal and transcendental, the obvious danger is that these unauthorized changes to the books so eloquently presented from the full transcendental platform by Srila Prabhupada, a bona fide acarya, will inevitably result in covering his original presentation by slowly replacing it with mental concepts (of not fully bona fide editors) and perhaps even spiritual misconceptions, turning his teaching into merely another one of the earthly religions he came to correct."

D. das Prabhu's warning is very cogent. We should all be vigilant that Prabhupada's teachings in his books never get obscured or distorted, but surely the threat is dependent on the editorial revisions' being unauthorized and the editors' being not fully bona fide. D. das is concerned that Prabhupada's original presentation will be covered by the changes, but how about if his original presentation is *uncovered* by the changes? That this is indeed the case, and that the changes are therefore authorized, is shown here and here. That the editors are fully bona fide is, once again, shown here.

Part of the reason why the revisions to Prabhupada's books have caused so much consternation is that devotees are unaware of how much the books were edited in the first place. Below is an example of editing from the first purport in chapter five of the Gita. There was no revision to this passage -- the original editing was fine. Yet though the original editor was (assumedly) not on the "full transcendental platform" that Srila Prabhupada is on, his editing was necessary to bring out the meaning Prabhupada intended to convey, and was a real service to him.

Original transcript of Prabhupada's dictation of the middle of the first paragraph to the purport to BG 5.1:

    "And in the fourth chapter the Lord said to Arjuna all kinds of sacrificial work culminate in knowledge, but in the end of the fourth chapter the Lord said that Arjuna should wake up and fight, being situated in perfect knowledge. Therefore sometimes stressing work and sometime stressing on cessation of work in knowledge has perplexed Arjuna's determination."

Gita as it is today and in 1972 (Macmillan):

    "And, in the Fourth Chapter, the Lord told Arjuna that all kinds of sacrificial work culminate in knowledge. However, at the end of the Fourth Chapter, the Lord advised Arjuna to wake up and fight, being situated in perfect knowledge. Therefore, by simultaneously stressing the importance of both work in devotion and inaction in knowledge, Krsna has perplexed Arjuna and confused his determination."

Not much to look at until the last sentence. The addition of "simultaneously" allows for a more concise construction than "sometimes x and sometimes y", and also emphasizes the speed with which Krsna is presenting His instructions on the battlefield. He's not saying one thing at one time and another at another time, but both at virtually the same time. Consider text 4.20, where Krsna says, more or less, that the enlightened soul acts but doesn't act, or the famous "action in inaction and inaction in action" of 4.18.

Next we have the change of Prabhupada's simple "work" in "sometimes stressing work" to "work in devotion." This is a good change, since obviously Krsna isn't stressing just any old work but work in devotion, as he makes explicit in the next verse, 5.2.

Then we have the change of "cessation of work in knowledge" to "inaction in knowledge." Surely Krsna doesn't want Arjuna to stop working in knowledge, does He? Of course not; He wants him to work in knowledge. What Prabhupada had in mind, of course, is cessation-of-work in knowledge, but the best way to say this is "inaction in knowledge." Good change.

And finally we have the change from "[Krsna] has perplexed Arjuna's determination" to "Krsna has perplexed Arjuna and confused his determination." This could have been left as is, but the change follows the one instruction that we unequivocally know Prabhupada imparted to Hayagriva concerning his editing: "Edit for force and clarity." Here I would agree with Hayagriva Prabhu that the latter is clearer and more forceful than the former.

So this is the kind of good work that Hayagriva Prabhu did throughout the Gita and the other books he edited. But sometimes he dropped the ball, and one of the times he did that was in the last sentence of the purport to BG 2.18 -- the example D. das Prabhu chooses to illustrate "the inherent danger in the book changes." Lets see what Hayagriva Prabhu did here, and how Jayadvaita Swami fixed it.

Original manuscript, typed by Prabhupada, of the last 2 sentences of the purport to BG 2.18:

    "Body is therefore immaterial and thus Arjuna was advised to fight without consideration of the material body and sacrificing the cause of religiosity."

Macmillan version:

    "The body itself is unimportant. Arjuna was advised to fight and sacrifice the material body for the cause of religion."

Revised version:

    "The body itself is unimportant. Arjuna was advised to fight and not sacrifice the cause of religion for material, bodily considerations."

From the original ms. it's clear that Arjuna was advised not to sacrifice the cause of religion, not that he was advised to sacrifice the material body. Perhaps it's clearer if we read Prabhupada's statement as "Arjuna was advised to fight without consideration of the material body and [without] sacrificing the cause of religiosity." That "without" is definitely carried over.

Another point is that Krsna didn't need to convince Arjuna to sacrifice *his own body* for the sake of religion. But that's how one would read "Arjuna was advised to fight and sacrifice the material body for the cause of religion." And indeed that is how D. das Prabhu read it and then went into a whole philosophical and psychological explanation of how this essential instruction has been lost by the revision. But don't forget that Arjuna is a ksatriya -- one could say the leading ksatriya on the planet -- and thus fear for his own life is the last thing on his mind. Any ksatriya worth the name, not to speak of Arjuna, is ready to sacrifice his own life on the battlefield. Rather, Arjuna is paralyzed because he doesn't want to see his beloved guru and grandfather and countless other dear ones slain, and he especially doesn't want to slay them himself or be responsible for their deaths. So when Prabhupada writes "Arjuna was advised to fight without consideration of the material body," what he's referring to are all the arguments Arjuna gave in chapter 1 and beginning of 2, concerning the bodies of his dear ones. In other words, "bodily considerations." At this point in the Gita Krsna is advising Arjuna to get off the bodily platform and realize the eternality of the self and to thus fight for the sake of fighting, for what is right, for dharma, for religion (see 2.31-33), and not to be swayed by his emotional attachments to the bodies of his revered elders and beloved relatives. In other words, "Arjuna was advised to fight and not sacrifice the cause of religion for material, bodily considerations." This is Prabhupada's intended meaning, which has been uncovered by the revision.

In conclusion, I would humbly request D. das and all other devotees concerned about the revisions of Srila Prabhupada's books to investigate what was actually done and why. Again, such investigation is as easy as clicking here and here.


Homepage


| The Sun | News | Editorials | Features | Sun Blogs | Classifieds | Events | Recipes | PodCasts |

| About | Submit an Article | Contact Us | Advertise | HareKrsna.com |

Copyright 2005, 2014, HareKrsna.com. All rights reserved.