Minimization of Book Changes is Harmful
BY: ROCANA DASA
Mar 8, CANADA (SUN) — I wish to thank Ananda dasa for the comments made in his recent Chakra article entitled "Book Controversy Considered Harmful". Both Chakra and the Sampradaya Sun have recently published numerous articles on the changes to Srila Prabhupada's books. Ananda dasa optimistically states in his editorial:
"Fortunately, the once-active propaganda campaign against correcting Srila Prabhupada's first editions is winding down."
The very fact that we're engaged in this dialogue today is evidence that the book changes issue is not winding down. In fact, this is an issue that we can expect to see carried forward in the community of Srila Prabhupada's followers long into the future.
Ananda dasa has challenged the comparative book change example cited by Mahesh Raja as being insignificant, saying:
"some people may draw the wrong conclusion that the 1996 corrections are in some way an interpolation or innovation. Nothing could be further from the truth."
He then takes the liberty to expound with great authority upon ISKCON history during the period of Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON lila period, when He was "rushing" his amateur-ish publishing staff to get the 17 volumes of Caitanya-caritamrta into print in two months. The now famous phrase, "impossible is a word in a fool's dictionary", came into our lexicon during this era. The so-called historical facts of this era have been repeatedly presented as excuses by the book change editors, who Ananda dasa kindly describes as" sincere, thoughtful and scholarly devotees like Dravida das and Jayadvaita Swami".
On the other hand, Ananda dasa describes the book change critics as those "thirsty for any spiritual justification for rejecting ISKCON". Assuming we are correct in understanding that this Ananda dasa is the Chakra editor from western Canada, we note that over the last thirty years, he himself spent the majority of that time outside of ISKCON. We would be interested to know the specifics of Ananda dasa's service history during the period Jayadvaita Swami and staff were actually making the book changes, as it appears that he was not working within the institution at the time.
Ananda dasa goes on to write:
"With a keen sense of mortality after his several heart attacks, Srila Prabhupada impressed early devotees with his urgency for publication."
His depiction of the circumstances, and of our Srila Prabhupada, exemplify unrealized mundane-ness. How does he presume to know what was in the mind of the pure devotee? How does this unqualified speculation -- "keen sense of mortality after his several heart attacks" -- shed any light on the serious matter under discussion? Such language simply depicts our Spiritual Master as a "mortal man", not a nitya-sidha, maha-bhagavata. The impression given is that Srila Prabhupada's pushing tactics and methodology resulted in many mistakes, which required correction 20 years later by self-appointed editors. To use his own words, "Nothing could be further from the Truth".
Ananda dasa writes in the mood of apologist and spokesman for the ISKCON party-line. This mood predictably includes a McCarthy-ism swipe at the invading evil Rtvik hordes, which reveals his real motives. He foolishly points the finger at what he perceives to be ISKCON's "lump-all critics", singling out the dreaded Rtvik enemy. Frankly, the inference is completely off base and the Rtvik bashing is irrelevant old news. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand, and is simply a tactic to distract and diffuse.
Ananda dasa goes on to minimize the devastating effects of the Zonal Acarya System, saying:
"Had there not been a small coterie of motivated persons prematurely aspiring for outward trappings of guruship before becoming qualified, and had there not been another coterie of devotees sufficiently disgusted with this system to embrace a schismatic movement, the argument about book editing would never have arisen."
Ananda dasa apparently thinks that Rtvik-ism was rooted in the rebellion against the Zonal Acarya System, which is a gross over-simplification. I have already offered my thoughts on the origins of the Rtvik movement in my paper, The Church of Rtvik, so I won't repeat them here.
Suffice to say, Ananda dasa's inference that all critics of the book changes are defacto Rtvik exponents is ludicrous and irresponsible, as is the notion that all true-blue ISKCON supporters are obliged to be supporters of the book changes. He writes:
"People who embraced the word-jugglery of the ritvik breakaway group were all too ready to believe the worst of sincere, thoughtful and scholarly devotees like Dravida das and Jayadwaita Swami."
This skewed logic and over-simplification is hard to take. It indicates that the writer is either completely out of touch with reality or he has chosen to take a very complicated situation and make it simple in his mind in order to make some sense of it. The average reader can only shake their head in disbelief.
Ananda dasa presents the ridiculous notion that if it had not been for the Zonal Acarya gurus and the "coterie" of devotees disgusted with their Zonal take-over, "the argument about book editing would never have arisen." We can only assume that this blatant over-simplification as an attempt to distract and minimize a most serious issue.
We understand that Ananda dasa has functioned as a professional editor in the mundane world. Naturally, he can be expected to have a propensity towards supporting this kind of editorial activity. His linguistic analysis of the Caitanya-caritamrta text changes, however, leaves a great deal to be desired. His logic is faulty and his assumptions are entirely unsupported by archival editing proof.
While Ananda dasa presents a seemingly scholarly analysis of the editorial process involved, it all amounts to speculation on his part given that he wasn't actually present when the editing was going on. Everything in the material world is open to interpretation. We can all speculate as to the state of mind and methodology of the editors, but that is not sufficient evidence to make the book changes acceptable. The writing of bonafide scripture is left to the absolute pure devotees, and all others are disqualified from this particular type of devotional service. Changing the pure devotee's writings is clearly not an insignificant matter that should be judged by speculative appraisal, as Ananda dasa presumes to do.
In my opinion, editing scripture in the manner that these devotees have done is dangerous for their personal devotional lives. From here on in, these books will be known as the "edited versions", and not the authentic, true original versions. Regardless of what kind of word jugglery and justification for changes anyone comes up with, this will always be the case in the minds of a great many devotees, what to speak of future generations of devotees, historians and philosophers.
Those who are concerned with the book changes have, for the most part, studied Jayadvaita's and Dravida's justifications, which Ananda dasa tries to encapsulate in his article. We remain totally unconvinced. In the end, the fact is that they have set a precedent by making changes to the books of the pure devotee after his departure. Even if, as Ananda says, some of them are "insignificant" changes, the editors have opened the door to further editing in the future, from everyone and anyone. They did this editing without Srila Prabhupada's authorization or supervision. They foolishly did not document their changes by annotating or footnoting them in the books. The BBT has not decreed that as long as they have power, no one else will be permitted to further re-edit the books. In fact, additional edits are ongoing.
Ananda dasa writes:
"Srila Prabhupada dictated his books into a tape recorder, and eager devotees did their best to make out what he said and to type it out as best they could. The typists, however, knew no Sanskrit and made guesses as to what they heard, and the Sanskrit editor, Pradyumna prabhu, was so busy doing the transliterations and word-for-word dictionary translations that a LOT of stuff fell through the cracks."
And this:
"Working carefully from the original tapes that Prabhupada dictated, Dravida and Jayadwaita compared the typewritten manuscripts with the published first edition to uncover and correct the numerous errors that had crept into those first books."
Where are these original tape recordings? Why are the original typed manuscripts not being made easily accessible to the devotees? Why are we not given access to see what editorial changes were offered by staff on galley sheets, and accepted or rejected by Srila Prabhupada? Why have these critically important archival evidences not been digitized and made available by the BBT? In the end, we just have to accept their word that the edits are closer to what Srila Prabhupada wanted than the published original editions. Regardless of Ananda dasa's hope-against-hope claim that the "propaganda campaign against correcting Srila Prabhupada's first editions is winding down", it is an issue that cannot and will not go away.
In a recent correspondence I had with Jayadvaita Swami, my closing words were that given his decisions to edit the books, he had best live an exemplary life for the remainder of his days. Should he or Dravida dasa ever be so unfortunate as to fall down, the changes they made to Srila Prabhupada's books would create an absolutely calamitous situation for ISKCON and the BBT.
