Social: are book changes OK?

I think that the person who wrote that article is/was a ritvik.

Please read http://jswami.info/writings/about_editing and attachment. I vouch for the 'changed' books as they are a return to SP's manuscripts which I personally worked with.

Original...The body itself is unimportant. Arjuna was advised to fight and to sacrifice the material body for the cause of religion.
Revised...The body itself is unimportant. Arjuna was advised to fight and not sacrifice the cause of religion for material, bodily considerations.
****************
It is said that the soul is invisible, inconceivable, immutable and unchangeable. Knowing this, you should not grieve for the body.
It is said that the soul is invisible, inconceivable and immutable. Knowing this, you should not grieve for the body.
***************
O descendant of Bharata, he who dwells in the body is eternal and can never be slain. Therefore you need not grieve for any creature.
O descendant of Bharata, he who dwells in the body can never be slain. Therefore you need not grieve for any living being.
***************
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?
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?
*****************
...Discharging one's specific duty in any field of action in accordance with varnasrama-dharma serves to elevate one to a higher status of life.
...Discharging one's specific duty in any field of action in accordance with the orders of higher authorities serves to elevate one to a higher status of life.

on and on.

I am not on any faction, just that the changes really startle me. I use the original edition just to be in the safe side.

how do you know how to "bring the meaning closer to Srila Prabhupada's intention" besides obvious sintax flaws?

I think this is what happened on some occasions: Devotees didnt understand prabhupada's accent when they heard the tapes and just wrote what they understood. Then it got published and we treat it now as as the absolute truth coming from Krsna himself. Some years later JAS comes to fix the obvious error after going through the originals and we want to burn him because of changing "prabhupada's sacred words".

How about an example of an error in Prabhupada's books that Prabhupada pointed out and wanted fixed, but is now stubbornly reprinted by demand of some "reformers." The following is a conversation with Srila Prabhupada on July 4th, 1975, in Chicago:

Tamal Krsna:
"krsi-gorakshya-vanijyam
vaishya-karma svabhava-jam
paricaryatmakam karma
shudrasyapi svabhava jam
[Bg 18.44]
"Farming, cattle raising and business are the qualities..."
Prabhupada: They are not cattle raising, that was...
Tamal Krsna: Cow protection.
Prabhupada: Cow protection. It has to be corrected. It is go-rakshya, go. They take it cattle-raising. I think Hayagriva has translated like this.


These so-called "Back to Prabhupada" people, they don't listen to Prabhupada even when he says to correct something, They know Prabhupada's intentions better than Prabhupada. That is the problem.

By the way, the revised edition is corrected, and reads like this:

"Farming, cow protection and business are the natural work for the vaishyas, and for the shudras there is labor and service to others."

Srila Prabhupada expressed full confidence in his editor Jayadvaita Swami. As before mentioned, you can scrutinize the revisions elsewhere on the Web. Due to mistakes in early editions, revisions were necessary. The question is, do we want to cling to the earliest edition, full of mistakes, or do we want to read the edition that most closely presents the author's intentions?

~ Pancha Tattva dasa
ISKCON Saint Louis

so the changes are good then.

I guess the only way to really know is to study Srila Prabhupada's books both versions side by side. And still who really knows what Hayagriva did change on his own?

My point here is that its a misconception to think that the version of Bhagavad-gita that was printed by the BBT in the 70's was 'Srila Prabhupada's unadulterated words'. That version was also edited by a fallible entity who had some experience with the English language so Srila Prabhupada gave him that responsibility.

The revised edition was also edited by a fallible person so take your pick. Personally I read the revised edition because it seems to me that the changes seem to bring the meaning closer to the original manuscripts.

Read this if you are interested in the history:

http://www.jswami.info/editing/hayagriva

some comments that were heading to a personal confrontation were deleted. Please put generic questions to help better understand issues. Allusions to spiritual masters either over glorifying or denigrating are to be deleted.

Kes, did you read any of the above sources? If yes, why you cannot understand the explanation of Hayagriva's unauthorized changes of what Prabhupada said and JAS's restoration of the same?

I see your prejudice but it's just that - against facts. Prabhupada pointed out many problems in the books. Attached is his famous 'rascal editors' speech, blasting unauthorized changes, and my compilation of what he said about editing. This answers your theoretical and undeserved(!) comparison of our Admin to Hayagriva. Hope this sets things straight.

However the point is: it was broken so it's been fixed. This I call a common sense.

VEDA:However the point is: it was broken so it's been fixed. This I call a common sense.

Please explain what "it" is.

I read JAS explanations. In a nutshell, he says Hayagriva and others did a terrible job from the original transcriptions, and he fixed it.
Now, were are the original transcriptions for everybody to peruse. Are they available to the public?
Not that I doubt in principle, but you know, better to go to the end of the issue, not simply "believe".

Mishra: Tapes and OT's (original transcripts) are kept by the BBT. They are not available to public but if they were they could prevent all this debate about books, imho. I've been working with BG OT's. But as I said in the spbooks.htm link above most of them didn't survive.

Hari Bhakta: He pointed out the mistakes during his lectures and his personal reading, to his secretaries and other leading devotees. See examples in above attached files.

My view is that he was concerned about translating and publishing as many books as possible during his prakata lila and thus fixing already printed books was of secondary importance, given the lack of qualified BBT devotees (BBT is still looking for qualified devotees, btw) busy with producing new books in a fast pace.

Most of these fixes were made after 1977 but some before and Prabhupada knew what this fixing means and had a full confidence in JAS (see letter to Radhavallabha, Sept 7, 1976). 'Responsible Publishing' has more info.

sveILnista: If you are satisfied with whatever is available or is given to you, it is your choice, but there are many devotees that want to know the truth and facts about Srila Prabhupada's books versions and that is perfectly legitimate.

So, seems that the debate is created (and not resolved) by the same thing: Non disclosure policy of the BBT.

We wonder why BBT does not find qualified editors.
Maybe intelligent men are not attracted to certain policies like the one herein.

Macmillan edition was the full Gita at that time. Today everyone can choose between Hayagriva's and JAS's edited versions.
'No changes' are answered above.