Oct 11, 2015 — LOS ANGELES, CA (SUN) — This article is in regards to a philosophical debate going on in Facebook, in the group "Srila Prabhupada's Disciples, My Godbrothers & Godsisters", regarding Bhakta Torben's recent Sampradaya Sun Article: "Enjoyment Edit".
This is an ongoing debate in the group, based on Gauragopala dasa's article originally de
"Actually there were many mistakes in the 1972 edition of "Bhagavad gita As It Is" made by the then editors (Hayagriva dasa and the BBT Press), and all Jayadvaita Swami has done is correct them, according to the statements of the BBTedit website, in this accompanying video by Hari Sauri, who has made a Youtube video explaining this."
Maybe someone can explain the reason for this change to the 1972 edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, and explain why it was considered to be a mistake which needed changing? If you study this, you will see what appears to be someone's personal interpretation, which is not found either in the original manuscript ,which Jayadvaita Swami claims brings the work "closer to Srila Prabhupada"; it is not found in the word-for-word translations; it's not in the 1968 edition, and it's not in the 1972 edition.
This is the problem then -- that many devotees who have visited BBTedit don't realize that many edits have been based on nothing more than Jayadvaita Swami's own personal opinion or whims, in order to make changes just for the sake of making changes, which is in direct violation of the theme, Bhagavad-gita As It Is. It's not supposed to be a book of one's personal opinions, which is the reason for the title "As It Is"."
Akruranath dasa wrote:
"I do not think anyone reasonably can say that the Second Edition of the "Bhagavad-gita As It Is", by Jayadvaita Swami, is a book of anyone's personal opinions. The manuscript Srila Prabhupada typed for verse 4.38 is:
"In this world there is nothing so sublime and pure as transcendental knowledge. Such knowledge is mature fruit of all kinds mysticism. And one who has achieved such stage does enjoy in himself in due course of time."
The 1972 edition says:
"In this world, there is nothing so sublime and pure as transcendental knowledge. Such knowledge is the mature fruit of all mysticism. And one who has achieved this enjoys the self within himself in due course of time."
The 1983 Second Edition says:
"In this world, there is nothing so sublime and pure as transcendental knowledge. Such knowledge is the mature fruit of all mysticism. And one who has become accomplished in the practice of devotional service enjoys this knowledge within himself in due course of time."
I have never asked Jayadvaita Swami to explain this change, but I think that should be the starting point of any discussion. (The attitude of Bhakta Torben and Ajit Krishna seems very accusatory).
I would say that the manuscript as Srila Prabhupada typed it is ambiguous.
The two different editions say two slightly different things (only the last sentence is different). The 1972 edition takes "transcendental knowledge" as that which is achieved. One who achieves that enjoys "the self" within himself.
The 1983 Second Edition takes accomplishment in devotional service as that which is achieved. One who has achieved that enjoys "this {transcendental] knowledge" within himself. I honestly do not know which one is closer to Srila Prabhupada's intention. Srila Prabhupada wrote "achieved such stage". Does "such stage" mean the stage of knowledge, or the stage of maturity in mysticism, of which knowledge is the fruit that is enjoyed?
I would ask Jayadvaita Swami in a polite and humble mood and wait for his answer. In my experience he has no interest in advancing his own personal philosophy, and has only ever been motivated to present exactly what he understood Srila Prabhupada to mean.
Now, it is true that Srila Prabhupada lectured on this verse in the 1972 edition and did not stop the class and say, "Wait a minute. This is wrong. It should not say 'enjoys the self within the self'. It should say enjoys 'knowledge'."
However, that does not mean Srila Prabhupada endorsed the editing as perfect. It was not his style to interrupt the lecture to nit-pick about editor's errors, even though errors were certainly there.
The question, really, is whether Jayadvaita Swami can persuasively explain that what Srila Prabhupada meant when he typed "one who has achieved such stage does enjoy in himself in due course of time" means that one who has reached the stage of maturity in mysticism/devotional service enjoys transcendental knowledge in himself in due course of time.
Or, alternatively, whether the 1972 editors were right when they read the manuscript to mean that one who has reached the stage of knowledge enjoys "the self" within himself in due course of time.
The thing is, though, that Bhakta Torben is an advocate, starting with the assumption that Jayadvaita Swami is guilty and looking only for examples to "expose". It makes me wonder how many other changes -- ones that were clearly corrections of editors' mistakes that Jayadvaita Swami corrected to make the book more accurately reflect Srila Prabhupada's intention -- Bhakta Torben went through to just cherry pick the ones he thought he could make the strangest anti-Jayadvata Swami case from."
The problem with the BBTedit website, and ardent supporters such as Akruranatha prabhu, is that the only examples they provide are ones that are in agreement with their stated agenda, "closer to Srila Prabhupada", as justification for editing the text. As Gauragopala dasa originally said above, the reason for editing the 1972 edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is was only to correct all the "errors" made by previous editors. They only show examples though that are based on the original rough draft, which Jayadvaita and his followers refer to as the "manuscript", and they discard the editing work of BBT Press editors as flawed and in need of correction. However, they ignore all the incidents that are not closer to Srila Prabhupada, and which as Bhakta Torben is pointing out, have no connection whatsoever to the original manuscript, are not found in the word-for-word translations, are not found in either the 1968 or 1972 editions - in other words where Jayadvaita simply decided on his own to make up a new meaning, based on his own personal opinion. Whenever this is pointed out, they cry foul and state that this should not be considered dishonesty on their part.
The problem with the BBTedit site and supporters such as Akruranatha dasa, as well, is that they themselves "cherry pick" only the examples where their own agenda can be upheld and proven as closer to Srila Prabhupada's original rough draft. However, they conveniently dismiss all incidents where the editing work does not correlate in any way with any previous reference material, including the original rough draft, the earlier editions, or the word-for-word translations. And when this is pointed out, that it is dishonest on their part, they dismiss it all, and can't see that they are attempting to enforce a "double standard".
Akruranath dasa wrote:
"Maybe Gaura Keshava or another Sanskrt scholar can shed some light.
As a layman, it seems to me that "tat svayam" ("that itself", i.e. "that very thing"), "yoga-samsiddhim" ("upon achieving perfection in yoga") kalena ("in the course of time") "atmani" ("in himself") "vindati" ("enjoys") fits better with Jayadvaita Swami's interpretation of Srila Prabhupada's ambiguous manuscript.
"tat svayam" (that itself) refers to jnana, not to the yogi's "self".
It is not that the mature yogi enjoyes "himself" within himself, but rather that he enjoys jnana within himself.
That reading is perfectly in line with what Srila Prabhupada actually typed: "And one who has achieved such stage does enjoy in himself in due course of time."
The idea that what the yogi enjoys within himself *is* himself seems to be an extraneous meaning that the 1972 editor (or rather the 1968 editor before him) interposed, which really was not there in Srila Prabhupada's manuscript."
Aja dasa wrote:
"The topic of the verse is "Self" realization, thus the realized yogi DOES enjoy the "Self" within himself in due course."
Another problem is that Srila Prabhupada himself does not refer to his original rough draft as the manuscript. Only Jayadvaita Swami and his supporters label it this way. Jayadvaita, by his own admission, was never instructed by Srila Prabhupada to return back to the rough draft or base his text upon it. Srila Prabhupada refers to his 1972 edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is as his manuscript, and there are no instructions from Srila Prabhupada stating that 5,000 changes were needed, that there were 5,000 errors, or that Jayadvaita was to make up altogether new interpretations and opinions which differed from Srila Prabhupada's own writings. There is no ambiguity as some are claiming, and only dishonesty.
The real reasons behind all these changes, as many suspect, is instead of correcting errors, rather there is a desire to seize power and do as one likes with one's spiritual master's writings and books, because one can, all in the name of making them more "authoritative". I am very saddened then to hear Akruranath dasa say that Srila Prabhupada's writings are ambiguous, and feel this is a poor choice of words on his part, towards his own guru.
Another problem is that there is no room for enjoyment, in Jayadvaita's personal interpretation of the bhakti-yoga science. Why would anyone wish to give up their material enjoyment if they can't experience a higher sense of enjoyment, in return for their renunciation? Who will honestly be willing to restrict their material sense enjoyment, so that all one can achieve is knowledge? We distribute a book entitled Higher Taste. Is there actually a higher taste, or is it just a come-on, because all you're going to really get is knowledge? As a layman then myself, I would say that one's enjoying oneself, within oneself, is not actually incorrect, and that stating instead that all you get is knowledge is the incorrect interpretation.
There are different classifications of the 'self' as well. The mind and body are sometimes referred to as the self, the spirit soul is often referred to as the self, and finally Paramatma is also referred to as the self. Therefore, to state that one enjoys the self within oneself is not actually an ambiguous statement, as Akruranath dasa is misinterpreting. My suspicion then is that when Gauragopala states that there are many mistakes and errors, which needed to be corrected, and when Akruranath states that Srila Prabhupada's writing is ambiguous as well, that this means they believe that not only were Hayagriva and the early BBT Press editors ordinary conditioned souls, and subject to mistakes, but that Srila Prabhupada was such a person as well?
