I think it is a good idea. Annotations are common in many scientific or scholarly publications. Some statements (like the ones above) in Prabhupada's books definitely could use additional explanation. I translated his books for the BBT for several years.

I am very concerned that the annotations will spin a different view than Srila Prabhupada intended and further upset many devotees.

"In his Vedanta-sutra Srila Vyasadeva has described that everything is but a transformation of the energy of the Lord. Sankaracarya, however, has misled the world by commenting that Vyasadeva was mistaken. Thus he has raised great opposition to theism throughout the entire world." - Sri Caitanya Caritamrita Adi-lila 7.121

There is nothing wrong with anything Srila Prabhupada wrote. His writing is perfect as it is.

there is this article by Jayadvaita Swami that explains the issue:
http://www.jswami.info/rape

the comment at the bottom is useful too.

ccd:

- but that is not what he wanted and is clearly reflected by opinions that state that no comments should be made by anyone on his purports.

could you please provide exact quote for that? Any direct reference by Srila Prabhupada about not changing his purports?

Dear Kula Pavana prabhu,

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

I have but a couple of minutes right now, but I'll try to address your concern. First of all, consider what Srila Prabhupada said himself:

From Srila Prabhupada’s conversations, Morning Walk, May 11, 1975, Perth:
"Rape means without consent, sex. Otherwise there is no rape. There was a rape case in Calcutta, and the lawyer was very intelligent. He some way or other made the woman admit, "Yes, I felt happiness." So he was released. "Here is consent." And that's a fact. Because after all, sex, rape or no rape, they will feel some pleasure. So the lawyer by hook and crook made the woman agree, "Yes, I felt some pleasure." "Now, there is consent." So he was released. After all, it is an itching sensation. So either by force or by willingly, if there is itching, everyone feels relieved itching it. That's a psychology. It is not that the woman do not like rape. They like sometimes. They willingly. That is the psychology. Outwardly they show some displeasure, but inwardly they do not. This is the psychology."

So here we have a choice, to accept Srila Prabhupada's view or to concoct our own ideas based on our imperfect senses.

Although Srila Prabhupada's words seem clear enough, IMHO, I'll risk describing some of my own thoughts and observations. Feel free to disagree if you're so inclined. I would argue that a one of the traumatic effects of rape is due to the fact that there is some degree of physical pleasure, and this can create substantial internal conflict for a woman. Srila Prabhupada describes the general mentality of women in many places, but what we seem to be seeing in modern society appears something like a blending or blurring of the sexes. Men are becoming effeminate and women are becoming masculine.

It is even hard today to talk of men and women, there is so much gender confusion. A few months ago I saw an article by one "transgender" person, explaining that there are more than twenty(!) kinds of genders today. For example, in addition to normal men and women, there are gays and lesbians, hermaphrodites, genderless persons, men who take female hormones, women who take male hormones, those who surgically change sexes, and various degrees of these transgender changes. Recently I saw in the news what they said was a man who got pregnant, although actually it was a person born as a woman who got most of a sex change but without removing her female organs. I refuse to call her a pregnant man, but she looked a lot like a guy with a big beer-belly, and there is (was?) indeed a baby inside.

So a person in the body of a woman may have some of the mentality of a man, and consequently she wants to be in a dominant position. That desire is grossly violated by rape, and indeed modern academics say that rape is more about power than sex. Although the sex gives some bodily pleasure for the rape victim, as Srila Prabhupada has said, the resultant feeling is a violation of violation of one's sense of independence, a theft of personal power, plus shame and confusion due to the pleasure. Trying to assert her power, fighting against a more powerful rapist, can cause the woman to be injured by the act, increasing her misery. If we can accept these points as true, then it also makes sense that more traditional women, who are accustomed to not having independence, would tend not to be as harmed by rape, either physically or emotionally.

Of course, if some rascal takes these facts as permission to commit rape, ignoring the many, many prohibitions against illicit sex stated in Srila Prabhupada's books, then he is sure to go to hell. Our duty in relation to women is to give them protection for their own good and for the good of society, although they often don't want it. So they go out alone and sometimes get raped. Considering that they consciously put themselves at risk of rape, this can also be a reason for saying they want to get raped, in the same sense that a father sees his son run across a busy street and angrily accuses him of wanting to get hit by a car. Of course the boy doesn't actually want to get hit by a car, but still he takes the risk, which can be said to be a desire for the consequences.

A sense of relief may also be felt due to the expenditure of sinful reactions, "I have committed a terrible sin in the past, and now finally I am being punished." As Krishna says in Bhagavad-gita 10.38, "Among all means of suppressing lawlessness I am punishment...," so one may expect that there is some pleasure even in punishment.

I hope that helps, but nobody should put any of it in Srila Prabhupada's books unless he said it himself. Hare Krishna.

Sincerely, your servant,
Pandu das

I agree with you on this Mishra....if someone can provide a quote or reference where Srila Prabhupada authorised any future additions (endnotes or otherwise) to his books, then it could be considered....otherwise it seems totaly unneccessary and I feel undermining and offensive to the Founder Acarya of ISKCON.

It would be interesting to find out the source of such a recommendation to the GBC for these changes.

One a number of occasions Prabhupada would correct the person reading a purport, and say it was wrong or it was a mistake. There are volumes of corrections worked out and books are already annotated (at least in folio format) and nobody every said anything. Is there a quote from him saying that his books can not be annotated or indexed or translated - which all amounts to the same thing. What I am sure is that there should be many editions of his books, some original and some edited to suite the language. Did you know that translated books of Prabhupada by far more popular then his original English works, at least in the quantity terms/ and Prabhupada wanted books translated did he not? As long as you keep the original there is a lot you can do. Cutting out statements from books is NOT beneficial and they can be and often are misused by both 'devotees' and nondevotees.

I suggest the opposite: one can just add endnotes to emphasis the authority of Srila Prabhupada.

"Do you think Srila Prabhupada would not have done this himself if he felt it neccessary?"

I do not think its 'necessary'. But it has been done already in the Folio and in other places. Good footnotes or end notes or indexing adds value to the books not take away from it. (btw Folio footnotes are not that good) After all nobody ever objected to Academics reviews published at the end of his books.

I do not think that notes or any commentaries should be done to form an apologetic statements or justifications or even qualifications of what he has said. There are better ways to do it.

For example a good footnote would explain the use of the same word in another place in Prabhupadas books or provide a quote from another purport or in other way provide more information for the books. That is a good thing just as the index is.

I do not expect you to accept it, mainly because you have already formed you opinion and I do not think you have the flexibility to consider the obviousness of this situation, as footnotes, indexes and reviews already exist.

Prabhupada wanted his books to be as scholarly as possible thus providing extra information or indexing is not harming the message. Apologetic notes are a different matter altogether.

ys

The point of these proposed annotations seems to me to be to contradict or minimize what Srila Prabhupada wrote in his books to avoid embarrassment and other difficulties. That's my impression. Before they start "explaining" things in Srila Prabhupada's books, it would help a lot if they did more to explain what they intend to do, why, how, etc.

If they said they were only adding endnotes consisting of relevant quotes by Srila Prabhupada on those subjects, then I think I could accept that since I'm practically a nobody in this organization and can only give myself trouble by arguing, though I doubt such annotations would be helpful. If, as I fear, they are going to depute someone to 'explain' that Srila Prabhupada was wrong about those subjects and "we now know better" thanks to so much psychological research, then it'll be hard not to freak out.

I resent that that they would drop this on us without telling us more about what they're thinking. Don't they know how much trouble it's causing?

sitapati:

Prabhu, your points on academic annotations are valid. An annotated version of the Gita showing the changes between the pre and post-78 editions would be *awesome* and a great value add in so many ways.

I totally agree. I am not strictly against editing or annotating but upon reading the resolution, it struck me as strange that the GBC have sanctioned annotating/end-noting Prabhupada's commentaries, but they have not found it necessary to annotate/end-note any of the numerous major and minor editing changes to the very same commentaries.

It would be interesting if there was some breakdown of how many of the GBC body actually supported, opposed or chose not to vote for this proposal.

Remember though, at this stage the resolution only "recommends to the BBT trustees" that it be done. It appears the final decision rests with the BBT trustees.

sitapati:

However, while academic annotations are one thing, Resolution 311 is not about academia. Witness the lack of academic papers justifying, clarifying, or defending it. Resolution 311 is about using apologetic notes strategically to deal with internal cultural issues, including disengagement of the membership, and external issues, including declining recruitment and loss of prestige and influence of the organization in the host culture.

Sitapati, what are the internal cultural issues you refer to?

sitapati:

The resolution is a strategic measure by a managerial body. Not a principled one by a brahmincial body.

I am not sure about that. What brahminical solution would you propose? The punishment solution is a managerial measure. Adding explanations in footnotes is a brahminical measure. Manu Samhita advises punishing rapists with severe corporal punishment, up to and including death.

You say: "We have a real image problem in these countries due to our troubled internal history. We have a rap as chauvinistic, even criminal organization that oppresses and exploits women. To deal with this they have proposed this resolution. People think we are chauvinistic because they read the books and they encounter these statements that say things like "woman is less intelligent" etc."

This image problem is our own fault, for several reasons. We did all these bad things, and for decades we pretended that we do not need to address the criticisms of society in general "because we are right, and they are wrong". Whenever a critical article about us would appear, we were only happy for the "exposure" it gave us, and we only counted the number of times the word "Krishna" appeared in the article. Was that a brahminical solution?

Now even a mere mention of adding footnotes to the more controversial passages in Prabhupada's books incites intense emotions among devotees. Best solution is to do nothing? We even have big time child abusers like Danurdhar as "gurus" in our society, and "gurus" like Bhakti Vikasa, who persistently denigrate women using quotes from Prabhupada's writings. Our bad image is our fault.

Kula-pavana prabhu: Yes, the punishment solution is a managerial one. The problem is managerial.

If the footnoting proposed by Resolution 311 were brahminical in its nature, it would have philosophical justification around it. Instead, it has only a resolution (executive order), which has consequential justifications.

As for your rhetorical questions, I think I'm in agreement with your underlying position.

My point is that there should be more consideration and discussion of the problem and the possible solutions, rather than what appears to be a knee-jerk reaction: "Oh, we have these problems. Let's footnote the books!"

As you point out, there are several missing steps and some self-reflection that we need to do as an organization to see where we have gone wrong, and what we need to do to address that.

Our steps should be taken carefully, and with deep deliberation.

Otherwise we run the risk of yet more managerial missteps, only this time involving Srila Prabhupada's books.

[cite] It will depend on what kind of footnotes are added. IMO Resolution 311 is the best they could do under the circumstances. Nobody in GBC has the guts to address the real issue - explaining that the statements Srila Prabhupada makes in these controversial parts are relative and to a large extent flowing from a particular cultural background.

Cultural background yes, but we are talking of a spiritual culture based on vedic life that can be applied to any future situation (considering SP said his books would be law for the next 10,000 years)...the modern mind may reject these teachings but the facts presented in SP's books still remains.

Swarup Das: Well said....totally agree and feel the same way about the whole concept....look what happened to the bible!

devotees should be there to explain the concepts that escape beginners, another thing is to alter the originals.

In BG, it is said that the book should be read in the company of devotees, like that.

It is not that SP was wrong and now we have to comment and annotate to save the day...

SP books and compassionate devotees guiding in the day to day understanding is the recipe that worked to make 1000s of devotees. If things are not OK it is precisely because devotees are not preaching in that personal way. If we change the books on the plea that they are not sufficient or even negative for people, that will bring effective and powerful preaching even lesser.

This idea of annotation is all the way wrong... think if SP would like the idea of his books annotated by the same ones that implemented such things as the Zonal Acarya, etc, and have been watering down his movement the last 30 years.

Can`t you even leave the books alone as they are?

VEDA:

Then new annotations/commentary is needed refuting/overruling/expanding on the previous one. This is how the many bhasyas emerged: as annotations to the unchanged eternal sastra.

This is nonsense....over-intelligence can be a disqualification in spiritual life, the books don't need any additions full stop, end of story.

Why not consult Srila Prabhupada on this, since they're his books?

Prabhupada: Oh, yes. You have no right. Suppose I have written one book. So I have got some intention. So why should you interpret my intention with your intention? What right you have got? You have no right. If you want to speak something of yours, then you write another book. Why you are taking advantage of my book and misleading others? I want to speak to the public something, I have expressed my opinion in that way. But because it is popular, you are taking advantage of my book and expressing your views. How much cheating, how much cheater you are! Therefore he is suffering, Dr. Radhakrishnan. He has lost his brain.
>>> Ref. VedaBase => Room Conversation -- April 2, 1972, Sydney

"We're living a mere one generation after SP. If nothing else is done by his disciples, their disciples, etc., then after 100, 1000, what to speak of thousands of years SP books will be as hard to understand as old Bible commentaries."


If I thought the way you do
At night I'd take a worn out shoe
I'd beat my mind a hundred times
And the next morning with a broom
I'd do it, too

I can not understand much of 'law books' - I need barristers to tell me what some words means... Its natural and there is no contradiction. BTW the commentary on the commentary is called Tippani.

I actually would want to note that 'tika' is not exactly what Prabhupada wrote. He summarized many tikas and add his own and its called Bhaktivedanta Purports. So commenting on them will be both 'tippani' and not, since he has already crossed over the traditional boundaries and used English for commentaries (something not done before him). It is certainly not 'bhashya' since he did not use bhashya structure which is quite standard.

ccd:
there are some awful interpretations of SP books in the classes sometimes, but would not be worse to have them in print?
at least the air carries the spoken words and they are more easily forgotten or fixed.
with our record on interpreting instructions, wouldn`t be better to leave the books as they are, just to be safe :)
I am starting a question about interpretation heard in classes.. that could be fun.

"I have to agree with you if any footnotes will be of any lower then that standard it will devalue the works. "

danger danger... and all this trouble to satisfy who?

> considering SP spoke of his books as being the lawbooks for the next 10,000 years (and if he thought it would be neccessary to add annotations or any other additions of commentary etc.) then don't you think he would have instructed his disciples to do this?

rasa108: Speculations? Well, then try it out yourself. Get writings of Church Fathers and see how much you can understand after 2000 years. I presume you have no background in Christian history, language and theology, as most people.

As I said, language and cultural context changes. No book can remain eternally understandable at face value. Explanation will be always needed.

If we do only what SP instructed and nothing else, then we should e.g. stop using internet. It didn't exist (for public use) in 70', he never instructed us to use it and therefore we shouldn't.
The same goes for cell phones, etc. etc.

Imagine what such great innovator acaryas, masters of yukta vairagya, like SP, BSST or BVT would say to that.

my point is that anybody can write a book or booklet which annotates, explains, etc. That remains as a commentary, addition, explanation, but still is a separate item and preserves the original.
but to annotate the book, I see it as a child scribbling in his fathers notebook. Hopeless.

---VEDA: As I said, language and cultural context changes. No book can remain eternally understandable at face value. Explanation will be always needed. If we do only what SP instructed and nothing else, then we should e.g. stop using internet. It didn't exist (for public use) in 70', he never instructed us to use it and therefore we shouldn't.---

He DID say do not change my books.