Personal Pronouns
BY: VYSWAMBHARA DAS
Mar 19, USA (SUN) — Controversy about the Capitalization of Personal Pronouns in BBT Publications.
I have read the details of a proposal by Jayadvaita Svami under consideration by the BBT to change the capitalization of personal pronouns representing Lord Krsna in the pages of Back to Godhead magazine and future BBT publications.
Notwithstanding his pre-emptive attempt at castigating opponents to his proposal as extreme, I am saddened that the author of “Straight Thinking, Strong Speaking” and formerly a staunch defender of Srila Prabhupada’s legacy should lower himself to favoring ‘scholars and general readers’ over the explicit instruction of his spiritual master.
Maharaja, inadvertently or otherwise, overlooks the philosophical underpinning of his proposal, preferring instead to cater to the intellectual speculations of the scholarly community. Srila Prabhupada once wrote to Hayagriva: “Rayarama may not be as qualified as you are, but his one qualification, that he is fully surrendered to Krsna and his spiritual master, is the first-class recommendation for his editing any one of our literatures, because editing of Vedic literatures does not depend on academic education” (SPL, 15.01.68)
One must object to Jayadvaita Svami’s characterization of Srila Prabhupada’s stated instruction in this matter as mere “typographical conventions” or a “circumstantial comment”. Vaisnava philosophy holds that there is nothing incidental or circumstantial in a pure devotee’s behavior or words. One of the twenty-six qualities of the devotee is gambhira, gravity. Grave means deserving of serious consideration; important; momentous; not frivolous or ‘circumstantial’; not casual or non-essential. To see the pure devotee as an ordinary man constitutes one of the ten offenses to the chanting of the holy name: “To consider the spiritual master to be material, and therefore to envy his exalted position.” The spiritual master is the external manifestation of the Supreme Lord, there is nothing “circumstantial” about his words of instruction. The pure devotee is never victimized by error or casual comments, as ordinary men are wont to be. When Hayagriva characterizes the discussion about the use of lower case and upper case for personal pronouns is a “headache”, His Divine Grace corrects him: “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.” How does Jayadvaita Svami extract any hint of “circumstantial comment ” or mere “typographical conventions” from that statement?
The proposal in question is about whether or not to capitalize personal pronouns that represent the Supreme Person, Krsna. In grammar a pronoun is a word that ‘stands for’, ‘represents’, ‘refers to’, ‘is used instead of’, ‘symbolizes, ‘makes reference to’, ‘is a substitute for’ persons or things either named, asked for, or understood in the context. A ‘personal pronoun’ is a pronoun that represents a person. By Vaisnava logic as well as by mundane logic therefore, if the name Krsna is capitalized, its personal pronoun should also be capitalized, the use of the upper case being a recognition of the divine nature of Krsna or God (the use of the honorific capitalization is grammatical form used in speaking to or about a superior). In his conclusion in the 1969 conversation with his editorial board, in his instruction to Jayadvaita Svami in 1970, as well as in his own writing, Srila Prabhupada simply reaffirms for our benefit and the benefit of his readers, the logic in support of capitalizing personal pronouns that represent the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
The scholarly drive to “down size” that which represents God should be seen as nothing more than another attempt at “down sizing” the importance of the Supreme Person Himself, thus giving society yet more room to maneuver towards an impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth. The Maharaja may make a feeble attempt at humor by suggesting that only fanatics will consider the move to ‘downsize’ as influenced by “demonic scholars”. Has the Maharaja now come to the conclusion that mundane scholars and editors are no longer “demonic”? His Divine Grace wanted the BBT publications to be acceptable to the scholarly class of men, but not at the cost of demoting the Supreme Person.
The trend to “downsize” that which relates to God is rooted in the inability of impersonalism to grasp the fundamental concept of Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s teaching that Lord Krsna is simultaneously different and non-different from everything that represents Him. Jayadvaita Svami thinks that using the lower case for personal pronouns representing Krsna is an insignificant adjustment. Other devotees also prone other ‘insignificant’ adjustments or ‘downsizing’: The liberalization of the concept of the Vedic woman; the acceptance of gays in the Society; minimizing the importance of the Vaisnava dress, shikha, tilaka markings, and the wearing of kunti mala beads (arguments are given that these are quaint anachronisms in today’s society and counter-productive to the preaching effort). How can we interpret this rush to wear down the Vaisnava standards as anything less than an offensive of maya to undermine Vaisnavism, a determined effort at establishing the ways of the material world as the reality and the Vaisnava standards as irrelevant?
The Maharaja claims: "Strong reasons can be advanced, however, for leaving aside our present standard in favor of extending "down style' to all pronouns." Is there any substance to these ‘strong reasons’?
.
1. The Svami cites his authorities as The Chicago Manual of Style, The King James Version of the Bible, and The Book of Mormons. Since when are these considered as ‘authorities’ for Vaisnavas, especially when they contradict the pure devotee’s judgment? Does any of these so-called ‘authorities’ have any inkling of the Vaisnava philosophy, a philosophy that directly emanates from the transcendental realm and proclaims Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead to be honored above all other great personalities ?
2. Jayadvaita Maharaja’s second “strong reason” is: “In BBT publications, the style of pronouns in the plural can be puzzling. Why are the Jagannatha deities or the Panca-tattva they?” We may reply that perhaps the ‘they’ in question ought to be upgraded to the upper case ‘They’, rather than suggest that all other personal pronouns representing the Supreme Person be downgraded to the lower case. Would that not be more in line with Srila Prabhupada’s instruction?
3. The Maharaja’s third “strong reason” is at best puzzling and at worse spurious. How are we to understand the statement that Maharaja Nanda’s devotion is ‘decidedly lower case’? Do not our scriptures state that in the spiritual realm there is no such conception of lower or higher? Only a devotee, certainly no ordinary reader, will generously assume that the Svami means that under the influence of Yoga Maya, Nanda Maharaja forgets that Lord Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead and considers Him only as his beloved son.
Besides, the quoted passage about Nanda Maharaja is in our opinion based on an editorial misunderstanding, one that was probably never brought to the attention of His Divine Grace in the early days of his mission, and one that may well be at the root of the perceived overuse of capitalization in the BBT literature: The nature of the possessive form. “Certain of the possessive forms, (my, our, your, her, their), while commonly listed under pronouns, are never used as such. They are more properly considered as adjectives, since they are used only to modify nouns.” (Philip Gucker, Essential English Grammar) The passage about Nanda Maharaja could accurately read, “Go home with your elder brother and take your bath. Please don't delay any longer or your mother will be unhappy and scold me.” The use of ‘your’ in these instances is as a qualifier of the noun it precedes, not as a personal pronoun that should be capitalized. This would be accepted English usage and non-offensive to the Supreme Lord.
The statement about Sisupala’s envy is also flawed. The gravity of the demon’s offense is in fact accentuated, not diminished as the Maharaja suggests, by the reader’s knowledge that Sisupala is insulting the Supreme Person Himself.
Lastly, regarding Madhavendra Puri’s pastime with Lord Krsna, the Maharaja’s argument that the story line is prematurely revealed by the use of uppercase personal pronouns is insignificant in comparison to the magnitude of his proposal to overstep his spiritual master’s instruction. Furthermore, it is not at all obvious that the reader’s appreciation for the wonderful nature of the pastime is in any way lessened by the reader’s awareness that the cowherd boy who appears to Madhavendra Puri is in fact Krsna in disguise. This kind of minutia is of negligible importance. .
In summary, the Maharaja’s so-called “strong reasons” are little more than weak arguments in favor of his editorial preference and that, in defiance of Srila Prabhupada’s stated preference.
Finally, who among His Divine Grace’s followers will not be stunned by Jayadvaita Svami’s suggestion that Srila Prabhupada, “seemed unclear about what I meant”! His Divine Grace states: "All incarnations should be proper nouns and therefore capitalized. It does not matter whether they are Visnutattva or jivatattva, saktyavesa-avatara, or plenary expansion." Who is unclear here, the Maharaja or Srila Prabhupada?
I hope these comments prove constructive in the debate over the unrelenting push to alter Srila Prabhupada’s literary legacy. His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati writes in Lord Caitanya’s Teachings: “Kirtana is not done well unless the chanter is humbler than even a blade of grass, is free from the arrogance of the sense of his own respect and is the giver of respect to others. Do not remain maddened with the thoughts that you are a great expert and very intelligent. I have tried to adopt this instruction from Sri Gaurasundara. If anyone attacks me, then I should put up with it and chant Hari-nama; I should know that God has thus given me a chance to be lower than a blade of grass; knowing this, I should be all the more encouraged to take to Hari-nama more vigorously than ever. But when somebody speaks or acts disrespectfully about a true Vaisnava, my Guru-deva, then my lowliness as that of a blade of grass should consist in at once giving him proper teaching with as much vigor as ever. In the karma-kanda section of the Vedas there is no true lowliness as that of a blade of grass, there is only insincere cringing before others in order to secure their favor." Jayadvaita Svami presents his proposal as an innocuous editorial change. However, this seemingly innocuous matter under the guise of mere ‘typographic conventions’ is yet another heedless attempt to belittle the importance of our founder-acaryaR17;s directives. Someone is oblivious of the dire consequences of guru mara vidya, biting the hand that feeds.
