BHAGAVAD-GITA AS IT IS. An ongoing comparative, analytical study of Srila Prabhupada’s original transcript (BGAII OT) and both the 1972Macmillan edition (BGAII V 1) and current “official version” (BGAII V 2). 

Srila Prabhupada happily holding a Macmillan edition of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is.

Just as ISKCON rejected the 1972 Macmillan edition of Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is for their own reasons, we have reasons to believe that the current “official version” does not meet the mark either and ought to be rejected as still representing, strictly speaking, a betrayal and misrepresentation of its author’s, Srila Prabhupada’s, true intentions. We estimate that the accuracy rate for both versions is not more than 33%.(thirty-three). They are corrupted versions. That does not mean however that we should stop using or distributing either version to the general public, as we are still giving the best we have. Neither is blind faith study recommended at any stage. And whatever has been achieved over the last fifty years, has been achieved on the basis of both versions. But we can do more and better. As BGAII V3, 5.26 itself states, it is a matter of constantly endeavoring for improvements: “Those who are freed from all material desires and anger, who are self-realized and constantly endeavoring for such perfection are assured of their liberation in the Supreme in the very near future.”

Not only do we reject the current official version of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, but an attempt is made to propose a positive alternative. It is not very difficult and it is taking shape here:

Please find below a non-exhaustive list of a few good reasons for such leaning:

Text 2.52

When your intelligence (in Krishna consciousness) will surpass the dense forest of illusion, at that time you shall become callous to all that has been heard and all that is to be heard.

Purport.

There are many good examples in the lives of great devotees of the Lord who became callous to the rituals of the Vedas simply by devotional service to the Lord. When a person factually understands Krsna and one’s relationship with Krsna, naturally one becomes completely callous to the rituals of fruitive activities. It is said that an experienced Brahmin becomes callous to the rituals of fruitive activities. Sri Madhavendra Puri, a great devotee and Acharya in the line of the devotees says:

sandhya-vandana bhadram astu bhavato bhoh snana tubhyam namo

bho deva pitarash ca tarpana-vidhau nadham ksamah ksamyatam

yatra kvapi nisadya yadava-kulottamsasya kamsa-dvishah

smaram smaram agham harami tad alam manye kim anyena me

“O my prayers three times a day, all glories to you! O bathing, I offer my obeisances unto you! O demigods, O forefathers, please excuse me for my inability to offer you my respects! At any place where I may sit, I am now able to remember the great descendant of the Yadu dynasty, Krsna, the enemy of Kamsa and thus I can get myself freed from all sinful bondage. I think this is sufficient for me.”

The Vedic rites and rituals are imperative for the beginner in human life, comprehending all kinds of prayer three times a day, taking bath early in the morning, offering respects to the forefathers, etc. But when one is fully in Krsna consciousness and is engaged in His transcendental loving service, one becomes callous to all these regulative principles because he has already reached the perfection of life. If one can reach the platform of understanding and serving the Supreme Lord Krsna, he no longer has any obligation to execute different types of penances and sacrifices recommended in the revealed scriptures. And correlatively, if one has not understood that the purpose of the Vedas is to reach Krsna and simply engages in the rituals, etc., then he is uselessly wasting time in such engagements. Such persons in Krishna consciouness transcend the limit of shabda-brahma, ot the range of the Vedas and Upanishads.

In this verse 2.52 of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, previous editors have systematically cut out the word “callous” not less than five times and we protest strongly against such unauthorized changes and corruption, which represent a betrayal of Srila Prabhupada, the original author. This is illegal! If Srila Prabhupada takes the trouble to use five times the same word “callous” in the same verse and purport, as is the case here, and the editors remove the same word five times, then it is an open and shut case. Srila Prabhupada is right and the editors are wrong. This is flagrant cheating and abuse of authority. They cheat Srila Prabhupada. They cheat the world and they cheat themselves. Srila Prabhupada’s version, as above, ought to be restored ASAP. The word callous is used in BG 6.20-23.

In this verse 2.52, we sense Srila Prabhupada’s nuanced and carefully considered style of expression. In this verse, we sense the majesty and greatness of Srila Prabhupada literary style. The following quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson applies:” I owed a magnificent day to the Bhagavad-Gita. It was the first of books. It was as if an empire spoke to us, nothing small or unworthy, but large, serene, consistent, the voice of an old intelligence which in another age and climate pondered and thus disposed of the same questions that exercise us.” Hare Krishna.

REMARKS

The original transcript (OT) can be found here:

https://bookchanges.com/bhagavad-gita-as-it-is-manuscript/

BG 2.54 “How does he sit” is just ridiculous. Srila Prabhupada gives vebatim the question in BG2.58 P. “That is the answer to the question as to how the yogi is situated”

BG 2.42-23 It is known by now that the editors do not like Srila Prabhupada’s expression “Poor fund of knowledge” and that is their prerogative. But to have the audacity to replace it with their own “small knowledge” is illegal and an outright affront to Srila Prabhupada. It also represents an usurpation of power. These types of dealings are serious matters with dire consequences for everyone. In the verse and in the first paragraph of the purport Srila prabhupada’s perfect expresssion “poor fund of knowledge”is replaced three times out of four. We do not accept and reject such whimsical changes.

BG 2.41. The editors banned twice the very central expression “Krishna consciousness.” Another lowering of standards.

BG 6.47 Big mistake. The preposition makes the difference. In OT, Srila Prabhupada uses abiding BY Me. That means “obey” is meant and not “dwelling.” Besides that “abide in” is archaic according to the following dictionary quote:

abide | əˈbʌɪd | verb1 [no object] (abide by) accept or act in accordance with (a rule, decision, or recommendation): I said I would abide by their decision. 2 [with object] (can/could not abide) informal be unable to tolerate (someone or something): if there is one thing I cannot abide it is a lack of discipline. 3 [no object] (of a feeling or memory) continue without fading or being lost: at least one memory will abide. • archaic live; dwell: many unskilful Men do abide in our City of London

BG 6.42 What is the need for replacing “eulogise” with “praise?” Repeated again in 6.46 purport. This certainly represents a literary loss in style. Rather than “praise, “eulogise” will please the more educated.

BG 6.34 By suppressing Srila Prabhupada’s parenthesis (by the yoga practice you describe) both editors transform a relative statement into an absolute statement about the difficulties in controlling the mind. This is a serious misrepresentation in intensity. The intensity is maximized and therefore exagerated.

In BG 6.20-23 Jayadvaita’s whimsical rascaldom is clearly exposed when he capitalises “Self.” First of all we do not know whether by capitalising he means the individual self or the Supreme Self. This would have to be established. Srila Prabhupada does not capitalise “self,” nor does Hayagriva and the meaning is very clear. Self refers to the individual self. But Jayadvaita unhesitantly capitalizes “Self,” as if a matter of course. He knows much better than Guru! So we may infer that “Self” with a capital refers to the Supreme Self or Supersoul. So what is Jayadvaita? A monist who identifies the Supreme Self with the individual self or simply a whimsical and nasty fellow intend on confusing people and wasting our time. He is generally very strongly averse to using capitals. They usually quote a conversation with Srila Prabhupada against capital use. This instance again disqualifies his rendition of BGAII and disqualifies Jayadvaita as an editor as well. Another trusted man who lets down / fails Srila Prabhupada, as we have seen so often in the past.

BG 6.17 Why Prabhupada’s plural becomes a singular???

BG 6.11-12 Is it Brihad or Brihan-Naradia?

BG 6.10 Bogus suppression of “Krishna consciousness” and “subversive.”

BG 6.8 purport: two deviations here: “perfect knowledge” becomes “transcendental knowledge” and more importantly “aimless mental speculation” becomes just “mental speculation.” Also it would appear that the verse quoted is originally in the Padma Purana as per OT and reproduced in BRS 1.2.234.

BG 2.31 Here again a complete betrayal and watering down of Srila Prabhupada’s message. OT says: ” The ksatriyas are specially trained for such challenge and killing art, because religious violence is a necessary factor for the upkeep of the society.” Whereas both current versions say: “The ksatriyas are specially trained for challenging and killing because religious violence is sometimes a necessary factor.” Which proves again that none of the two Bhagavad-gitas available really qualify to be called Bhagavad-gita As It Is by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. These two presentations are mere travesti.

BG 2.30 Why massacre the second sentence of the purport? “Beginning from “asocyan anvasocas tvam” up to “dehi nityam avadhyo’yam”, He has described the immortal soul in various ways, and at every step He has tried to establish that the soul is immortal, but that the body is temporary.”Hayagriva initiates and Jayadvaita rubber stamps. What disdain, carelessness and affront toward Guru, Srila Prabhupada!

BG 2.27 P Why drop “according to logicians?”

BG 2.23 Why drop “as it is contemplated by persons with a poor fund of knowledge” in “Arjuna became liberated by the knowledge received from Krsna, but he never became one with Krsna, as it is contemplated by persons with a poor fund of knowledge?” This is not acceptable!

Why change BGAIIOT’s 2.18 “immaterial” to “unimportant”? Why? Any good reason? This is whimsical. Change for the sake of it is to be rejected. So is this foolish arrogance to know better than Guru. “Immaterial” is a very nice word for the context. It has got an extra dimension over “unimportant.” The proof is that Srila Prabhupada choose it. So hands off please! This is Hayagriva’s initial responsibility and Jayadvaita’s secondary responsibility for rubber stamping it.

These editors are so foolish that they even dare to disrespect the Goddess of Fortune by dropping Srila Prabhupada’s capitals for the Goddess of Fortune. This is the apogee of thoughtlessness and the Goddess of Fortune will certainly reciprocate accordingly! BGAII 1.14 P

Jayadvaita wants all householders to dwell in hell, BGAII 1.43. He twisted the meaning. That’s again an expression of his seething envy at work. What an embarrassement he represents for the Sannyasa Ashram!

BGAII 2.13 Why would Hayagriva replace “the Supreme Personality of Godhead” with “the Supreme Lord.” His personal aversion for this typically Prabhupada expression is revealed as he replaces it with “the Blessed Lord” throughout Prabhupada’s Gita. But this is very, very, very wrong, because Srila Prabhupada’s purpose in repeating the expression “the Supreme Personality of Godhead” is to establish exactly that Krishna is “the Supreme Personality of Godhead” and not Lord Braham or Lord Shiva or anyone else. That means Hayagriva betrays and renders a disservice to Srila Prabhupada by weakening His message.

By examining the initiatives and actions of these two editors on Srila Prabhupada’s BGAII-vani, we conclude that foolishness and arrogance go together. They are intertwined. Foolishness produces arrogance. Just like foolishness produces rascaldom. A fool is always a rascal and it is wiser to avoid his company. He is an irresponsible rascal, because he does not know what he is doing. But a rascal is not necessarily a fool. There are very many intelligent rascals and are alluded to in BGAII 7.15:” Being over taken by their atheistic nature, the miscreant, the grossly foolish, the lowest of mankind and those whose knowledge is nullified, do not surrender unto Me.”

Another typical instance of cheating and falsification is the introduction of “self” with a capital letter in BG 3.17, 6.20-23, 6.25, 6.26 in the current edition, BGAII V2. This is monism or advaita-vada, a non-Vaishnava philosophy. The self and the Superself are equal in quality- and even that statement is not one hundred percent true- and the self and the Superself are vastly different in quantity. The Superself is infinite and the individual self is infinitesimal. Therefore the convention is that the ordinary living entity’s “self” is spelled with a small “s”. Please beware, we are being confused and misled by Jayadvaita Swami, the second editor. His secret agenda is clouding things and confusing people. In other words he is a champion time waister. The suggested rendition for BG 3.17 is: “One who is, however, taking pleasure in the self on account of his self-realization of human life and is satisfied in the matter of the self only, fully satiated, for him, there is no duty.” Jayadvaita goes as far as falsifying the word for word rendition to justify his actions. The Macmillan edition did not have these flaws. The current BGAII version 2 that was supposed to be more advanced is actually setting us back in these respects. In BG OT 4.5, purport, we note Srila Prabhupada’s appropriate use of “Self” with a capital letter in “And because the Lord is identical with His body and Self…” because in this context it refers to the Superself, Krishna. But for the ordinary living entity “self’ in lower case ought to be used. As his name jaya-advaita indicates, he is the champion of monism or advaita-vada, a black sheep.

Bhagavad-gita As It Is is not just some kind of a powerful shout-about in the ether of well articulated slogans. It is a lot more than that. It is a philosophical treatise of the highest order, therefore, every detail originally inserted by the author is important and ought to be handled and respected as such. In particular Srila Prabhupada’s parentheses ought to be taken into consideration and reprinted as is the case above and for verses 3.1 and 3.13.

Some of Srila Prabhupada’s well-placed keywords in the text, such as engineer (4.13), logician (2.27), time serving mentality (7.16 p.), imaginative brain (7.15), transcendental performances (7.19p), “modes” in “modes of devotional service” (9.14), ” LAZY’ in BGAII 10.7, purport, subversive (6.10) and “industrialists” 10.36 have unceremoniously been censored for no legitimate reason. This is in fact corruption! Another typical Prabhupada expression that the editors have almost systematically expunged is “persons with a poor fund of knowledge.” In BG 3.29 the expression can still be found in the word for word: akritsna-vidah – persons with a poor fund of knowledge. But it has been dropped from the verse. (BG 9.4,p.) In 6.10, the exact formulation of the part omitted is “without being attracted by subversive things like feelings of possessiveness.” I personally feel that my life would have been very differently positive if this message would have reached me before April 2019.

THESE INSTANCES OF ERASURE CERTAINLY REPRESENT ELEMENTS OF WILLFUL AND PERHAPS CRIMINAL CORRUPTION OF SRILA PRABHUPADA’S INTENDED MESSAGE–whether it is criminal is for the law experts to decide. STRICTLY SPEAKING, THESE TYPES OF DISHONESTIES ALONE WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO DISQUALIFY BOTH EDITIONS FROM BEING CALLED: Bhagavad-gita As It Is by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada never ever practiced dishonesty and never ever encouraged it, either before the 1965 onwards ISKCON era or during the ISKCON era. Srila Prabhupada is clean.

“Regarding dishonest means being used I have never advised or taught anyone like that. That is not my idea. This record distribution has caused havoc. It should be stopped immediately. I have also asked Hansadutta to stop it. Book distribution is our real business. If we give them a record, they simply hear some magical sounds and take it for sense gratification, but if they receive one of our books and read even one page, they get eternally benefited. Therefore I am stressing this book distribution, not other things. Stop record selling completely. This is my order.”

Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Ajita — Bombay 6 January, 1975

“Regarding the controversy about book distribution techniques, you are right. Our occupation must be honest. Everyone should adore our members as honest. If we do something which is deteriorating to the popular sentiments of the public in favor of our movement, that is not good. Somehow or other we should not become unpopular in the public eye. These dishonest methods must be stopped. It is hampering our reputation all over the world. Money collected for feeding people in India should be collected under the name ISKCON Food Relief. Not any other name. And every farthing of that money must be sent to India, or better yet, buy food grains there and ship them here and we will distribute. But every farthing collected for that purpose must be used for that purpose. I have already sent one letter to Ramesvara explaining these points.”

Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Rupanuga — Bombay 9 January, 1975

“Please accept my blessings. I have received your invitation to the opening of Prasadam Distributing International Inc., and I found it nicely presented. Krsna will give you intelligence how to engage in honest, brilliant, glorious work on His behalf. There is no need to engage in anything dishonest. Krsna has given enough money, now earn by honest means.”

Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Alex, Bob, Drdhavrata, Gupta, Rsabhadeva, Stan — Bhuvanesvara 24 January, 1977

Other words have simply been added whimsically, without authority whatsoever:

The word “bestial” of Bg 6.40, purport, cannot be found anywhere in the original transcript (OT). It is an editor’s speculation and unauthorised addition. Please kick it out.

In Bg 4.1 the word “son” is suppressed twice. This may represent an expression of the anti-family sentiments and “callous” policies of ISKCON’s immature renunciates leaders (Sannyasis). Here is what Srila Prabhupada intended: “The Personality of Godhead, Lord Sri Krishna, said: I instructed this imperishable science of the relationship with the Supreme to the sun-god of the name Vivasvan and Vivasvan instructed the same to his son Manu, the father of mankind, and Manu in his turn instructed the same to his son Iksvaku.” Again, this ought to be corrected ASAP. 

In BG 7.15, purport, both versions decline to credit the ashram bhavam asrita class of an “imaginative brain”, as Srila Prabhupada does in the OT. Another misrepresentation of Srila Prabhupada! In OT 7.19 there is no mention of death (after many, many births ) and here again the editors seems to falsify the word for word to suit their purposes. Plain cheating!

Srila Prabhupada always uses “Brahmin” not “Brahmana.” “Brahmin” sounds much better because of the presence of two different vowels “a” and “i” and is accepted by the dictionary as a variant spelling of “Brahman”. No problem there. Because these words and expressions are Srila Prabhupada’s very own, by making such unauthorized alterations, we are actually pushing Prabhupada out of His own rendition of Bhagavad-gita. This is an offensive form of “nirvisesa-vada” or impersonalism and must be avoided at all costs. We must be able to accept and present to the world Srila Prabhupada in full, as He is. Just like Sri Krishna Himself, Srila Prabhupada As He Is is most attractive!

The editors often paraphrase Srila Prabhupada where is it not at all required and a strict verbatim reproduction of Srila Prabhupada’s transcendental message, with some minor composition adjustments, is thoroughly possible and enjoyable. We find this attitude positively offensive to Srila Prabhupada as it implies that the student thinks that he has now become much better than the master and does not hesitate to display his so-called superiority with ostentation. In the Vedic context, this is a suicidal mentality. In an attitude of submission to her husband, Dhritarashtra, Gandhari blindfolded herself because her husband was blind and thus amassed mystic powers that, by Krishna’s trick, failed to protect her wicked son Duryodhana from having his spine broken by the club of Bhimasena on the battlefield of Kurukshetra. Srila Prabhupada is a true mover and shaker and what have the editors accomplished in comparison? Therefore we don’t care for the editor’s language. We care for Srila Prabhupada’s language. Here is a telling example. In BGAII 8.9, purport, Srila Prabhupada speaks “This is a very troublesome job.” This is a perfect Prabhupada sentence. But the editors with a typical offensive mentality felt the need to” better” the expression to “That is very difficult.” Two words only out of six have been conserved! We may therefore say that both versions of BGAII have a 33.33  (thirty-three point thirty-three) percent accuracy when a hundred percent or very close can be achieved. In this way, the editors have the audacity to usurp Srila Prabhupada’s position of world Acharya! Down with them! Srila Prabhupada is a most towering Acharya or teacher in the history of the world. So let us, therefore, stick to Him. Let us, therefore, stick to the Prabhupada mood and be successful in our attempts.

Here is an example of the literary diplomacy and lack of truthfulness of both editors in banning Srila Prabhupada’s use of the word “LAZY”!

BGAII OT 10.7 purport: “These are some of the opulences of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. And when one is firmly convinced of these instructions, he accepts such instructions with great faith and without any doubt and certainly he becomes engaged in devotional service. All this particular knowledge is required for increasing one’s interest in the loving devotional service of the Lord. Therefore in the   ???  it is said ???. One should no be lazy in understanding fully how great Krishna is, for by knowing the greatness of Krishna, one will be able to be fixed in sincere devotional service of the Lord.”

and BGAII V2 10.7 purport:”These are some of the opulences of the Supreme Lord. When one is firmly convinced of them, he accepts Krsna with great faith and without any doubt, and he engages in devotional service. All this particular knowledge is required in order to increase one’s interest in the loving devotional service of the Lord. One should not neglect to understand fully how great Krsna is, for by knowing the greatness of Krsna one will be able to be fixed in sincere devotional service.” The expression “the Supreme Personality of Godhead” was also dropped by Hayagriva, who does not like this expression anyway as he has demonstrated by inventing “the Blessed Lord” instead. And Jayadvaita has rubber stamped the change.

             

Here is another example of unnecessary paraphrasing Srila Prabhupada. In my view, this type of activity represents high treason and an outright slap into Srila Prabhupada’s face. Good luck to you folks! You think you are sprinting to the goal, but the goal, Krishna, will remain ever unobtainable for individuals with such disrespectful mentality towards Guru. In her attempt to bind Krishna, even mother Yasoda found that her rope was always two inches too short, even though she was not at all disrespectful, but full of transcendental motherly love for her adopted son Krishna. The point being, despite our passionate and ignorant endeavors, Krishna only accepts to be bound when He is pleased with our endeavors and when He is pleased to do so. Krishna is not cheap. He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead

BGAII OT, 8.24: “When fire and light are mentioned herewith, it is to be understood that the presiding deity over fire and light is mentioned. Similarly, when day is mentioned, the presiding deity of the day is to be understood. When the fortnight of the moon is mentioned, it is to be understood that the deity of the moon is indicated.”

BGAII V 2, 8.24: “When fire, light, day and the fortnight of the moon are mentioned, it is to be understood that over all of them there are various presiding deities who make arrangements for the passage of the soul.”

BGAII V 1, 8.24: “When fire, light, day moon are mentioned, it is to be understood that over all of them there are various presiding deities who make arrangements for the passage of the soul.”

Here in BGAII 9.2 purport, the editors expose their half-hearted commitment to the path of bhakti-yoga or Krishna consciousness.

In the original transcript, Srila Prabhupada speaks as follows (BGAII OT 9.2 p.): “The method itself is so nice and pure that by simply engaging in the process one becomes more and more pure.”

With their magic sorcerers’ wand the editors make it (BGAII V 2, 9.2 p.) “The method itself is so pure that by simply engaging in it one becomes pure.” By cutting out the word and expression “nice” and “more and more pure” both editors tone down and decrease Srila Prabhupada’s first-class presentation and preaching impact. It appears that they are acting as maya’s agents to subvert Srila Prabhupada’s preaching. Let us remember that they censored Srila Prabhupada’s use of “subversive” in 6.10. Let us also remember that they sometimes espouse not only nirvisesa-vada (impersonalism) but also advaita-vada (monism) as previously demonstrated.

Moreover, in the Original Transcript (OT), Srila Prabhupada repeats the expression “Krishna Consciousness” over and over again. But in many cases, such as 2.52, 2.53, 2.68, 3.31, 4.10, 4.15, 4.22, 4.23, 4.41, 5.7 (2X), 5.11, 5,12 (2X), 5.18, 5.29 (2X), 6.10, 6.28, 6.29 (2X), 7.1, 7.30 and 3.18 purport, to give a few only, the editors have simply and shamelessly suppressed this wonderful expression. Krishna consciousness represents, in fact, the object of our samadhi, the basis of our lives, the very stuff everyone of us is made of, and not the least the name of The International Society for Krishna Consciousness or ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada has gloriously created on the 13th of July 1996, in New York City. Why is this so ??? This is both an affront to Srila Prabhupada and a great disservice to all those souls who are seriously interested in self-realization. I had previously noticed this anomaly and on March 25, 2018, had alreday written the article titled KRISHNA MISSING. ONE MILLION DOLLARS REWARD, which can be seen by scrolling down the home page. In OT 5.29 the expression “the person in Krishna consciousness” was obliterated with one single penstroke. I wonder if Krishna’s body bled on the occasion, as in the story. It is done so manifestly that one can sense some envy here, envy of Krishna and envy of His bona fide representative, Srila Prabhupada.

Krishna consciousness is all we have and Krishna consciousness is all we are about. Srila Prabhupada wants to increase our Krishna consciousness and by removing the expression “Krishna consciousness” innumerable times, the editors automatically decrease the readers’ Krishna consciousness. This is a deliberate and impudent affront to Srila Prabhupada – at best a foolish affront – and a great disservice to all fallen souls. This is all about sense gratification and we may challenge the editors and all those who support them and ask them whose senses are they trying to please by making such omnipresent, whimsical and fake alterations? Are they trying to please the public’s senses? Are they trying to please their own senses? We know that neither Srila Prabhupada, nor Krishna will be pleased by such fake activities.

On the positive side one cannot but admire how perfectly Jayadvaita Swami has expressed verse 3.34: “There are principles to regulate attachment and aversion pertaining to the senses and their objects. One should not come under the control of such attachment and aversion, because they are stumbling blocks on the path of self-realization.” From time to time Jayadvaita really has a streak of genius! But both editors have doubts. Here is the proof. In BGAII OT 8.14, purport, Srila Prabhupada writes: “There is no impediment for a pure devotee wherever he is.” In BGAII V1 & V 2, the editors make it “There should be no impediments. He should be able to carry out his service anywhere and at any time.” These are the statements of persons who have doubts. And why do they take the liberty to introduce their personal doubts into Srila Prabhupada’s transcendental message and why is this tolerated?

In BGAII OT, 9.25, purport, Srila Prabhupada dictated: “Similarly, one can achieve the pitri planets by performing a specific yajna.” Someone crossed out “achieve” and replaced it with “attain.” This is a typical so-called improvement. What is the use of such work, one may ask? Such action is counterproductive, nonsensical, useless, futile, petty, ignorant, stupid, arrogant and a waste of time for all of us! You have no business with editorial work. Better be useful in Krishna’s service and go and clean toilets. THE MOST AMAZING THING THOUGH IS THAT IT IS NOW OFFICIAL VERSION. This happens twice, in the first and third sentence of purport 9.25 When I look up my Apple Thesaurus, the first three equivalents for “achieve” are attain, reach and arrive at. The editor may then say: “So “attain” is a perfect equivalent. The parampara answer will be: “The acarya wrote “achieve” and we have no business to meddle.” AND WHERE DOES THE ARROGANT AND INSULTINGLY DISCOURAGING FIRST PARAGRAPH OF PURPORT TO 9.26 COME FROM, MR. JAYADVAITA??? It is 24 lines long. It cannot be found in the Macmillan edition. So far I haven’t found it in the OT. Where does it come from, please??? Dravida Prabhu tells me that it comes from the 1968 abridged edition. But upon further questioning, he remains silent.

And where does the first paragraph of BGAII 9.26, purport come from? Where does it come from?

MISLEADING DISTORTIONS AND FALSE STATEMENTS.

BGAII V 2, 4.5 p., “the best Vedic scholars do NOT understand Krishna” is a false statement, according to Srila Prabhupada, Who writes in OT :” Such eternal, blissful, all knowledge forms of the Lord are usually understood by the best Vedic scholars, but they are always manifest to pure, unalloyed devotees.” The correct statement is found in the Macmillan edition. The same may apply to BG 1.43. and about who is sent to hell. And there is the false and intellectually twisted rendition of “nivrittim” in word for word of BGAII V2 16.7.

In BGAII V2, 6.2 Jayadvaita, in his fake ecstasy, trumpets that one can NEVER, NEVER, NEVER become a yogi. Hayagriva does not do so. Another setback! What a sanctimonious attitude and statement! Kick it out. Srila Prabhupada with much more humility simply says:” For without giving up the desire for sense gratification, no one becomes a yogi”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

AND THEN THERE IS SEXISM and one case of sexism in reverse. At least on a dozen of occasions, Srila Prabhupada’s use of “person” has been replaced with the word “man.” Granted Srila Prabhupada uses “man” quite a bit, that is the judgement of the Acharya. Our position is to respect it. My suggestion is that as soon as the editors replace Srila Prabhupada’s “person” with “man”, it falls under the heading of sexism. The latest find is in BGAII 7.26, purport: OT’s “millions and millions of people” becomes in both versions “millions and millions of men.” That’s sexist millions and millions of times! Don’t you think we ought to revert to Srila Prabhupada’s wisdom? From practical experience we find that Srila Prabhupada gave equal rights to men and women not only to join His movement but to stay comfortably and practice self-realization.

BG 2.55 “living entity” becomes “man”

Sexism with a big “S” here in BGAII 9.3, purport, and falsification of the statement:

BGAII OT 9.3 p. “There are three divisions of such Krishna conscious persons. The first class Krishna conscious person, the second class Krishna conscious persons and the third class Krishna conscious person. Those who have no faith………..”

BGAII V1 & 2, 9.3 p.”There are three divisions of Krsna-conscious men. In the third class are those who have no faith.”

BGAII 10.27. Sexist Hayagriva and sexist Jayadvaita. Srila Prabhupada’s “human beings” becomes “men.” Does the king rule over men only? Are women automatically outlawed? What nonsense!

BGAII 10.37 p. TWICE 1)”Arjuna is the best among all human beings” becomes in both versions ” Arjuna is the best of men” What kind of men? The hairy chest beating Neanderthal men indeed, a reflection of the editors! But Arjuna certainly does not belong to that class of men. He is the best of Aryans. 2) Srila Pabhupada associates “muni” and “person.” Both editors associate “muni” and “men.” Perhaps both editors are correct after all because the two words start with the same letter “m.”(sacarstic mode)

BGAII 1.40 Srila Prabhupada respectfully uses the expression “ladies of the family.” Both editors write “the women of the family.” That’s a drop of some grades of respect toward women and sounds a little vulgar in the context. Let us not trend towards “asat Sabhaya.”

BG 2.52 “When a person factually understands Krsna and one’s relationship with Krsna, naturally one becomes completely callous to the rituals of fruitive activities.” becomes “When a person factually understands Krsna and his relationship with Krsna, he naturally becomes completely indifferent to the rituals of fruitive activities,”

Sexism in reverse. BGAII 10.38. In the verse Srila Prabhupada dictates: “…and of all wise men I am knowledge itself.” Both editors give instead: ” and of the wise I am wisdom.” The “men” word has disappeared.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

At last some FUNNY ANECDOTES to relax the atmosphere:

In purport of OT 6.17, the transcriber typed : Thakur Haridas would not even accept prasadam, and would not even sleep for a moment without finishing his daily routine work of chanting with his beads three hundred thousand rounds.” Fortunately someone who was a bit of a lesser chantoholic crossed out “rounds” and added in handwriting the correct “names.”  Param vijayate Sri Krishna sankirtanam!

NOTE THIS: another memorable ERROR OF the transcriber at BG 9.30: “Devotional service is more or less a declaration of love with the illusory energy.” Instead of “Devotional service is more or less a declaration of war against the illusory energy.”

Attention all artistic persons, please beware of Krishna. Here in 10.18, the transcriber addresses Krishna as “the killer of the artistic person.” Actually, I just realized this is meant to be “atheistic.”(16.12.2021)

OT 10.26 “Brilliant tree” or banyan tree? What is it? Perhaps the “Indian tree.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

MEMORABLE GAFFES BY HAYAGRIVA.

BGAII 10.27, purport, first sentence: ” The devotee demigods and the demons (asuras) once took a sea journey. On the journey, nectar and poison were produced…..” Did they book their journey with Flight Centre perhaps? And did they produce nectar and poison out of their lunch bags?

BGAII 10.34, purport. Poor elementary mathematics. Six equals seven.

In BGAII 10.35, purport, both versions blunder by dropping “transcendental.” “Brahma is the initiator of this Gayatri mantra and it is transcendentally coming down in disciple succession.” Hayagriva introduces the blunder and Jayadvaita rubber stamps the blunder. We get the impression that Jayadvaita in his haste to slam the job didn’t really care a dam. On innumerable occasions, we also get the distinct impression that Jayadvaita needs to compact the text at all costs. Here is part of the purport 10.37:”Of all cheating processes, gambling is the best cheating process and therefore on accountof its supremacy among all cheating, gambling is also a representation of Krishna. This means that those who are deceitful, Krishna will be more deceitful to them. If Krishna should want to deceive any person, nobody can surpass Him in His greatness. Greatness is not one-sided, it must be all-sided.” Jayadvaita write: “Of all cheating processes, gambling stands supreme and therefore represents Krsna. As the Supreme, Krsna can be more deceitful than any mere man. The unfortunate commentator who wants to cheat Krsna and the public by saying that there is something greater than Krsna is cheated by Krsna, and the commentator cannot understand Krsna after any length of time. If Krsna chooses to deceive a person, no one can surpass Him in His deceit. His greatness is not simply one-sided-it is all-sided.” he freely adds a comments about the cheating commentator, which is nowhere to be found in the OT. We can only conclude that Jayavaita addresses himself as the “cheating commentator.”

Ref. VedaBase => Bg 10.36

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From BGAII 9.16 onwards Srila Prabhupada reminds us of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Who is His grammar school used to explain everything in terms of Krishna, Krishna, Krishna to the point where his student left the school. Or later when he would simply roam around and mutter Krishna, Krishna, Krishna in His transcendental ecstasy. There is more to be said about this, but it requires some preparatory research in the Caitanya Caritamrita. This can also been seen in the wonderful, Indian made movies in two parts: Nimai of Nadia and Nilacala Mahaprabhu approved by Srila Prabhupada.

Srila Prabhupada, when I read Your Original Transcript of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, I am appreciating Your personality and its different multiple facets more and more and I am falling more and more in love with You. Here is the example of BGAII OT 9.18 purport. You write: “Therefore without Krishna’s shelter, there is no existential platform.” I just know that this is a phrase that only a true philosopher of the greatest classical tradition would write. So now from the 5 th day of November 2021 at 20 hours, I have irrefutable proof that You belong to that greatest and most illustrious philosophical tradition: Plato, Socrates, Sankaracarya, Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre to name a few only.  What an immense satisfaction to have a master of such caliber and if we were to restore these things in the official presentation of Your Bhagavad-gita As It Is, its success would increase exponentially. There is no doubt about it. In Your greatness and kindness, You have been so tolerant with your disciples’ literary clumsiness. But that can come to an end now and Your true glories can be revealed to the entire world to their full extend.

Not only are these two editors trying to throw out Srila Prabhupada, the philosopher from his own Bhagavad-gita but they are as well attempting to throw out Prabhupada, the scientist: “Jñānaṁ vijñāna-sahitam. Jñāna, this knowledge, most confidential knowledge, it is not sentiment. Vijñāna-sahitam. It is science. Just like in scientific knowledge you must know theoretically and practically. Not only that, you simply know that so much oxygen, so much hydrogen produces water by mixing… That is theoretical. You have to make water by mixing these two chemicals—that is practical. So in the B.A.C. examination they take examination, test, theoretical and practical.” 750417BG.Vrnd

In the two last sentences of 7.28, purport, two important half-sentences (and the greatest condition of sinful activity. Forgetfulness of one’s constitutional position is the greatest violation of law) have been dropped, which cheapens things very much. OT 7.28 “The impersonalists do not know that to forget one’s constitutional position as subordinate to the Supreme Lord is the greatest violation of God’s law and the greatest condition of sinful activity. Forgetfulness of one’s constitutional position is the greatest violation of law and unless one is reinstated in his own constitutional position, it is not possible to understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead or fully engage in His transcendental loving service with determination.” 

BGAII 8.11 is misrepresented in both versions. Here is Srila Prabhupada’s OT: “Learned persons who utter Omkara and great sages in the renounced order enter into Brahman. Desiring such perfection of life, one practices the life of celibacy. I shall explain to you this process as the means for attaining salvation.”

For BGAII 9.11 Jayadvaita miserably departs from Hayagriva’s perfect OT rendition:

“Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature and My supreme dominion over all that be.”

This example alone seals his fate as as untrustworthy speculators unfit to walk the path of the parampara system.

The mood of the current edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is lacks deference and consistency. It lack respect because many capital letters used by Srila Prabhupada in the original transcript have been banned. Under the guise of using Sanskrit words, the editors avoid capitals. For example, Srila Prabhupada personally always capitalizes “Yajna” and the pronoun”who”, when it refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The same applies to the word “Acharya”, or teacher.

It lacks consistency because Jayadvaita Svami made it a point to introduced a capital letter for “self” in 3.17. Why then is there no capital for “self” in 4.41 and elsewhere? We are talking about the same individual self. This again really looks like a cheap, farcical expedient on his part. Or is it that his secret and mischievous purpose and mission is the play with the readers’ mind and confuse and mislead them? This is a dangerous game indeed.

Concisely and conclusively, Bhagavad-gita As It Is is NOT a first class presentation to Srila Prabhupada, who is very fond of first class work. We are being manipulated by imperfect editors. To be appointed as the custodian of Srila Prabhupada’s literary legacy, does not grant one the right to alter whimsically the transcendental message. Doing so represents a breach of trust and is an indictable offense. We propose to re-baptize both versions as Bhagavad-gita As It Is NOT by Hayagriva, and Bhagavad-gita As It Is NOT by Jayadvaita

It is essential that both the message and the style of writing appeals to the widest possible audience, and because out of millions and billions, Srila Prabhupada was especially deputed by Sri Krishna to deliver His message, we postulate that the most universally appealing style of writing for this purpose will be Srila Prabhupada’s own. Srila Prabhupada is a true mover and shaker and what have both editors accomplished in comparison? Therefore we don’t care for the editors’ language. We care for Srila Prabhupada’s language. In this way, the editors have the audacity to usurp Srila Prabhupada’s position! Down with them! Srila Prabhupada is a most towering Acharya or teacher in the history of the world. So let us, therefore, stick to Him. Let us, therefore, stick to the Prabhupada mood and be successful in our attemps. Om tat sat.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to BHAGAVAD-GITA AS IT IS. An ongoing comparative, analytical study of Srila Prabhupada’s original transcript (BGAII OT) and both the 1972Macmillan edition (BGAII V 1) and current “official version” (BGAII V 2). 

  1. Pingback: LAZY, LAZY, LAZY! | –The Australian Society for Krishna Culture, operation start 1984 — ABN 65 231 425 870.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s