Whence we may call version number two “the abracadabra Bhagavad-gita,” whereas the previous version, number one, is filled with mistakes that even a child in primary school will spot and correct as is the case in the purport to verse 10.34. But the real parampara version is still missing.

Srila Prabhupada is never under the modes of ignorance and passion, as we, ourselves, may be and exhibit the symptoms of the lower modes of nature. Srila Prabhupada is always transcendentally situated and as always Srila Prabhupada basically writes very carefully and cautiously in OT BG 2.28:

“All that are created were non-manifested before, and only in the middle are they manifested, and when vanquished they become non-manifested again. So what need is there for lamentation?”  

Both Hayagriva and Jayadvaita write:

“All created beings are unmanifest in their beginning, manifest in their interim state, and unmanifest again when annihilated. So what need is there for lamentation?”

First of all we ought to stick to Srila Prabhupada’s nomenclature of manifested and non-manifested.

The contradiction and absurdity lies in the proposal: “All created beings are unmanifest in their beginning, …” This is a nonsensical and foolish proposal. A soon as there is beginning there is manifestation. There cannot be non-manifestation at creation, just as water and fire are incompatible. Non-manifestation is before the creation. Neither can here be creation in the non-manifested state. Creation and manifestation take place simultaneusly. As Srila Prabhupada clearly expresses it in one single word “”All that are created were non-manifested before….”

Again my question to the editors will be : DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT SRILA PRABHUPADA IS A FOOL??? DO YOU NONSENSES REALLY THINK THAT YOU ARE MORE INTELLIGENT THAN SRILA PRABHUPADA? You have just demonstrated the opposite.

Or do you perhaps think that Srila Prabhupada is some old Indian culturally and educationally retarded guy Who needs to catch up with the great, perhaps decadent, ways of American culture? It is not a matter of adapting Srila Prabhupada to the modern world. Let the modern world be bent in the sense of Srila Prabupada’s ways.

It appears that often the editors are more concerned about quick-hitting and good-sounding formulas at the cost of actually communicating a sound philosophical content.

We also note that the editors systematically drop Srila Prabhupada’s adverb “kindly” from the verses. “Kindly” is an adverb that smoothes up communication and kindness relates deeply to the humanity of every human being. In BG 10.12-13 they have unlawfully removed the expression “my dear Krishna”, an expression of affection. In other words, Srila Prabhupada originally introduced an element of kindness into the Gita and these editors and their supporters have brutally and surgically cut it out. No kindness here!!! No wonder HH Jayapataka Maharaja writes here http://www.dandavats.com/?p=88925 that a scientific analysis has found that ISKCON rates very low on the scale of devotee care.

The editors also seem to have a visceral aversion for some English words that Srila Prabhupada is very fond of such as “nobody”, “callous”, “poor fund of knowledge”(BG 2,29 P), “kindly”, “opposite number”, “freaks” (Bg 2.8 P) and “brahmin” (BG 2.7 P & BG 2.31 ) This are Prabhupadisms the world should become acquainted with and use in everyday language. That degree of familiarity with Srila Prabhupada’s message and terminology will be a great victory for the Krishna consciousness movement! BTW my MacBook dictionary completely endorses “brahmin”. So, again, we ought to follow in Srila Prabhupada’s footsteps and use the word “brahmin”, instead of “brahmana”. Because of the combination of the two vowels “a” and “I”, “brahmin” sound much better, whereas “brahmana” offers only a hackneyed repetition of three “a”s There is also a music to literature, which is not to neglected!

In this way the editors are pushing Srila Prabhupada unceremoniously and brutaly out of His own creation to instal themselves instead. What a subtle imposture!!! My MacBook dictionary gives “having or showing a lack of courtesy; rough or abrupt” for the definition of the word “unceremonious”.

Thus we obtain two different Bhagavad-gitas. The first is Bhagavad-gita As It Is Not by Hayagriva and the second is Bhagavad-gita As It Is Not by Jayadvaita. The schism that Srila Prabhupada wanted to avoid at all costs has actually been created. We can only hope that the upcoming parampara Bhagavad-gita As It Is will mend the differences. Krishna will see to that.

Additionally one may ask: Why is the author of these anti Bhagavad-gita As It Is editors also addressing a dead person? Hayagriva has indeed passed away some years ago. The answer is that these matters do not just just concern the editors. It also concerns all those responsible guardians of Srila Prabhupada’s rich literary legacy just as well. Therefore the plural is justified and sometimes inaction is even more sinful than action as was the case for Bishma and Karna who did not protect Draupadi as an attempt was made to disrobe her in public in the assembly of non-gentlemen, (asat-sabhaya: the vicious assembly SB 1.8.24) Karna had to die on the battlefield of Kurukshetra under unfair circumstances for his inaction. He could otherwise not be vanquished by Arjuna. Being the son of the sun god, he was quasi-invincible.

In conclusion, we may say that Srila Prabhupada formulation of BG 2.28 is just perfect and complete and does not need a single iota of adjustment. Please publish it instead of the current nonsensical and consequently embarrassing presentation.

“”All that are created were non-manifested before, and only in the middle are they manifested, and when vanquished they become non-manifested again. So what need is there for lamentation?”  

All glories to Srila Prabhupada, the perfect leader and greatest tapasvi!