The Sampradaya Sun - Independent Vaisnava News - Editorials

Mar 8, CANADA (SUN) — Dear Nagaraja Prabhu, Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thank you as well for your timely reply especially since you are on the road.

I agree that there should be a public discussion re. this issue of capitalization before the proposed changes by Jayadvaita Swami are implemented (the full proposal is to be found later in this email). The Maharaja's suggestion is to have all "divine pronouns" (He, She, Me) which refer to Lord Krsna, Balarama, Srimate Radharani in lower case for BTG and BBT publications. As a result, I am posting this letter publicly in an attempt to increase awareness and discussion.

You have been consulted only after my observing these changes in the BTG. Is this policy change not being offered for discussion to the devotee community-at-large? If not, then why not? Every devotee identifies personally with the BTG and BBT publications and deserve a say in the proposed changes.

In my opinion, the policy of the magazine "Chicago" and the "King James Bible, the great work of awe and reverance" holds little consequence for our movement and their policy does not provide sufficient reason to change a long-standing tradition within our vaisnava literature.

I have searched the Internet for the magazine "Chicago" (http://www.chicagomag.com/ME2/Default.asp) and came up with a mundane fashion and entertainment rag. Is this the one being refered to? If so, I can't see them as being an authority re. capitalization of divine pronouns. If this publication is not the correct one, please inform me of which magazine is being referred to.

Srila Prabhupada states quite clearly, in the 1969 conversation you provided, that the pronouns referring to Krsna, Balarama and Radharani are to be capitalized. So where is the need for discussion re. the capitalization of divine pronouns? How can we change to a style explicity against that suggested by His Divine Grace based upon a fashion magazine (if indeed this is the correct publication being refered to)?

As well, in the same forwarded conversation Srila Prabhupada states: "Prabhupada: No. It is better to make everything sound but slow. We want to create this position of Back to Godhead as very authorized representation of the science of God. In future people may refer to it, so we should very cautiously and very nicely do it. It is very important thing, Back to Godhead. If our movement is going to be recognized as scientific, God consciousness movement, then this Back to Godhead will be referred as authorized scripture. So therefore we have to prepare in such a way, nothing non-conclusive can be introduced in this. That should be our policy. And actually it is the position of Back to Godhead."

With this in mind, I have difficulty understanding how putting pronouns in lower case against Srila Prabhupada's wishes, will help establish the BTG as an authorized scripture. In my experience the way BTG has recently applied this will seriously undermine Srila Prabhupada's desire to have the magazine referred to as an authorized scripture with nothing non-conclusive being introduced.

In the end, it seems counterproductive to Srila Prabhupada's declared aim of making BTG regarded as an authorized scripture which doesn't introduce anything non-conclusive. You mention that Srila Prabhupada is the Founder of BTG but this new policy does not reflect his ideas and policy on the matter. Therefore, I'd suggest the change is ill-conveived.

Jayadvaita Swami writes in his proposal to change the BTG/BBT capitalization policy (the full proposal is included in the following letter from Nagaraja Prabhu):

In BBT publications, the style of pronouns in the plural can be puzzling.
Why are the Jagannatha deities or the Pancha-tattva they?

More disturbing still is the use of a capitalized pronoun that belies the
context in which it appears -- as it often does. For example, Nanda Maharaja
says to Krsna:

My boy, You must be tired from so much wandering in the forest. Go home with
Your elder brother and take Your bath. I will look after the cows. Please
don't delay any longer or Your mother will be unhappy and scold me. Please
cooperate and go right now.

Here the pronoun with which Nanda addresses Krsna bears an honorific capital
though Nanda's mood towards Krsna is decidedly "lower case."

Similarly, Sisupala hurls at Krsna scurrilous insults, with a piously
reverent capital: "I think Krsna to be no better than a crow -- how can He
be fit to accept the first worship in this great sacrifice?"

And yet again, sometimes the capital not only clashes with a speaker's mood
but even gives away the story line. For example, when an unknown boy brings
milk, Madhavendra Puri asks:

Who are You? Where do You reside? And how did You know that I was fasting?

All such anomalies would be remedied by the consistent use of pronouns in
lower case. This is the style that Dravida and I both favor. [end quote]

Since the Panca Tattva includes an individual who is jiva-tattva, I see no conflict with employing lower case when referring to this transcendental grouping.

Isn't the offence that Sisupala is exhibiting towards Lord Krsna accentuated by knowing that Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead? And that the conclusion of
the story is given away in Madhavendra Puri's pastime has little consequence. The loss of suspense seems negligible to the thousands of incidents where the
capitalization plays a vital role in showing proper respect to the Lord. Is Jayadvaita Mja aware of examples where individuals have been dissuaded from or confused about devotional service or the Supreme Lord as a result of these examples of capitalization? It seems to be change for the sake of change.

Re. the capitalization of Supreme in the BTG, I see no discussion about the reaction of readers who see Supreme capitalized and not the pronoun it refers to? What happens if those reading the BTG and Srila Prabhupada's books are not Mormons, regular subscribers to "Chicago" or don't read the King James version of the Bible? In "Theology Today," Hugh T. Kerr in "Wash your Language" states: "When traditional language patterns change in significant ways, we can be sure that equally
significant changes are taking place in culture and society."

My question is what significant change is taking place for us to assume that Srila Prabhupada's conventions are not worthy of following. If so, then why did Jayadvaita Maharaja bother writing Srila Prabhupada asking his advice in the first place. The same goes with Satsvarupa and Hayagriva Prabhus who attended the 1969 conversation. Why do they bother asking if there is no desire to follow? As the Acarya of the Hare Krsna movement, Srila Prabhupada sets the tone and standard for our movement
and there seems little reason to follow mundane literary format when it transgresses Srila Prabhupada's expressed intentions. This is compounded when Srila Prabhupada's specifications are congruent with the capitalization format found in a wide variety of religious literatures. Unfortunately, these writing were neglected to be mentioned in the Maharaja's proposal.

Jayadvaita Maharaja comments that "...although we naturally defer to Srila Prabhupada's example in so many areas, we need to ask ourselves whether typographic conventions should be one of them. And since the 1969 exchange about pronouns was brief, we need to ask ourselves whether to regard it as a definitive instruction or a circumstantial comment." I find this statement by Jayadvaita Swami troubling. Srila Prabhupada was quite clear on which pronouns to capitalize and to suggest anything different is inaccurate. It needs to be asked where does Jayadvaita Maharaja's logic end? Do we throw out or ignore other instructions that occur in His Divine Grace's conversations, because they also disagree with tenets posed in popular literature? Perhaps it is easier to just edit them out as evidenced by the recent change in the Chaitanya Charitamrita re. initiations which is reported to be returning to the original version. This is a dangerous path to follow. Certainly some conversations can be taken out of context but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Jayadvaita Swami writes in his proposal: "Though scholars and general readers may find lower case entirely natural, we need to take into account that many ISKCON devotees are likely to see it as a shocking sign that the BBT (probably influenced by demonic scholars) has slid into treating Krsna "like an ordinary human being." Frankly, only the Maharaja could best answer the question if he has been influenced by demonic scholars. But devotees will question his writing style considering he finds his typographic precedents in fashion magazines and the great work of awe and reverance, the King Davids Bible, while neglecting Srila Prabhupada's explicit instructions on the matter. In addition, these instructions were sought out by prominent editors in the Hare Krsna movement, so why waste our time on a matter which is producing little controversy except in the minds of a couple or few editors. Let us hope that following Srila Prabhupada's instructions by "leaders" in ISKCON has not fallen out of vogue.

In conclusion, I do hope that the BTG will reconsider its decision re. capitalization of "divine pronouns" and that the BBT will follow suit.

Respectfully,

Vyapaka dasa

INITIAL EMAIL TO NAGARAJA PRABHU FROM VYAPAKA DASA INQUIRING RE. THE CHANGES TO CAPITALIZATION OF "DIVINE PRONOUNS"

On Mar 4, 2006, at 9:51 AM, Vyapaka dasa wrote:

> Dear Nagaraja Prabhu,
>
> Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
>
> My wife and I have been subsribers to BTG for many years but have
> recently noticed some changes in your editorial policy.
>
> I haven't throughly checked many issues but have referred to the
> March/April 2005 and January/February 2006 issues and found a change
> in how you refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Sri
> Krsna. When Lord Krsna refers to Himself in the 2005 issue in various
> slokas, you have capitalized the He or Me. However, I have noticed
> this has changed in 2006. No longer do you capitalize these words yet
> at the same time capitalize the word Supreme. Examples of this can be
> found on page 46 of the 2006 issue mentioned: "...turn what you do
> into a sacrafice for the Supreme." Later in the same article, you have
> Krsna referring to Himself as "I'll teach it to you myself," and later
> on the same page: "On the other hand, if you simply learn to serve me
> with love, at death you'll come to me and leave this horrible world."
>
> These examples are found in an article entitled "The Gita Condensed."
> Since The Bhagavad Gita is "The Song of God," it is difficult to
> understand how the subjective and objective pronouns referring to
> Krsna are not capitalized. Perhaps there is some obscure rules of
> grammar supporting your efforts but common understanding and
> historical BTG editorial policy is that these letters be capitalized.
> Couldn't many deduce that Krsna is not the Supreme because the
> pronouns referring to Him are in lower case? Doesn't that defeat the
> whole purpose of the BTG and the Hare Krsna movement?
>
> A second question, which could be caused by my faulty memory, is that
> the title of Srila Prabhupada's lecture has been changed from "The
> Founder/Acarya's Lecture" to the "Founder's Lecture." Is this my poor
> memory or has there a change been made here over time? If so, could
> you explain the logic behind it? I do thankfully note that the
> "Founder-Acarya" title is included under His Divine Grace's name.
>
> On page 42 of the same 2006 issue, in Srila Prabhupada's lecture
> transcript, it is said:
> "Out of many thousands among men one may endevor for perfection,
> and of those who have achieved perfection, hardly one knows me in
> truth." To understand Krsna is not so easy, but if you follow the
> mahajanas, the great souls, if you try to understand the philosophy
> through the parampara system, then you'll realize Krsna and your life
> will be successful.
> Thank you very much."
>
> Both the original Collier-MacMillan Bhagavad Gita As It Is and a BBT
> 1984 version, with its latest reprinting in 1996, do not follow your
> policy. So it doesn't seem that you are instep with either the
> original or edited versions of Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita As It
> Is. Srila Prabhupada encourages us to follow closely in the footsteps
> of the mahajans but I see no evidence that you are doing so with your
> policy of placing pronouns direclty referring to Lord Krsna in lower
> case.
>
> If you you could shed some light on these matters, it would be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Vyapaka dasa