FAKE AND COUNTERFEIT NUMBER ONE

FAKE AND COUNTERFEIT NUMBER TWO.

Bhagavad Gita As It Is NOT by editor Hayagriva and Bhagavad Gita As It Is NOT by editor Jayadvaita are both fake and counterfeited.

BGAII 1.37-38, verse and purport are a good case in point.

In the Original Transcript (OT), available here: https://bookchanges.com/bhagavad-gita-as-it-is-manuscript/, Srila Prabhupada’s message is as follows:

TRANSLATION. O Janardhana, although these men, their hearts overtaken by greed, see no fault in killing the family, quarrelling with friends and similar (other?) acts, why should we engage ourselves in these acts of sin, despite of our knowledge of the crime which lies in destroying the family.

PURPORT. A ksatriya is not supposed to deny a battle or gamble when he is so invited by a rival party. Under such obligation, Arjuna could not deny to fight because he was so invited by the party of Duryodhana. In response, Arjuna considered that the other party may be blind to the effects of such a fratricidal fight, whereas he could see the future ending of such a fight and how then could he accept such a false challenge? Obligation is actually binding when the effect is good. But when the effect is otherwise, nobody can be bound by such false obligation. Considering all these pros and cons of the challenge Arjuna decided not to fight with them.”

Hayagriva makes it:

TRANSLATION. O Janardana, although these men, overtaken by greed, see no fault in killing one’s family or quarreling with friends, why should we, with knowledge of the sin, engage in these acts?

Hayagriva’s PURPORT is but for one or two words identical to Jayadvaita’s found below. 

Jayadvaita makes it:

TRANSLATION. O Janardana, although these men, their hearts overtaken by greed, see no fault in killing one’s family or quarreling with friends, why should we, who can see the crime in destroying a family, engage in these acts of sin?

PURPORT. A ksatriya is not supposed to refuse to battle or gamble when he is so invited by some rival party. Under such an obligation, Arjuna could not refuse to fight, because he had been challenged by the party of Duryodhana. In this connection, Arjuna considered that the other party might be blind to the effects of such a challenge. Arjuna, however, could see the evil consequences and could not accept the challenge. Obligation is actually binding when the effect is good, but when the effect is otherwise, then no one can be bound. Considering all these pros and cons, Arjuna decided not to fight.

ANALYSIS of the verse.

Jayadvaita substantially improves the poor rendition of the verse by Hayagriva but still does not get close enough. He reintroduces the concept of “the crime in destroying the family” which Hayagriva neglected completely and is to be found in Srila Prabhupada’s original rendition.

He also reintroduces the concept “heart over taken by greed” present in Srila Prabhupada’s original presentation of the verse.

But he still ignores Srila Prabhupada’s “and similar (other?) acts” and unnecessarily changes Srila Prabhupada’s better formulation “knowledge of the crime” to “see the crime”.

ANALYSIS of the purport.

Jayadvaita’s and Hayagriva’s purports are basically identical but differ substantially from Srila Prabhupada’s purport.

“Challenge” replaces the original “fratricidal fight”

The word “false”, which is taboo to these false and traitor editors, is dropped twice. This is how these FALSE and TRAITOR EDITORS drop BGAII standards from Srila Prabhupada’s coherent and truth telling philosophical treatise to becomes a Vaishya manual where there exists no falsity in making money and where all moves are allowed. 

For good facade only, the editors introduce a hypocritical moral notion of ” evil consequences ” but factually drop Srila Prabhupada’s expressions “false challenge” and “false obligation”. To these Vaishya editors, supporters and followers there cannot be any falsity as the sole and overriding reality is moneymaking and not truthfulness as is originally intended by Srila Prabhupada and Shri Krishna. 

Let the Vaishyas (mercantile class) mind their own business of “agriculture, trade, cow protection and banking” and not meddle in the Ksatriya’s and Brahmin’s business.

Full Prabhupada quote:”This means as stated in the Bhagavad-gita there are different symptoms of different classes of men — just like a Brahmana is truthful, clean, self-controlled, equipoised, tolerant, simple, full of knowledge, theist, and so on. Similarly a Ksatriya has symptoms — a tendency for ruling over others, martial spirited, charitable, does not flee away from the battlefield and so on. Similarly, the symptoms of a Vaisya is his tendency to agriculture, trade, cow protection and banking. And the Sudra’s tendency is to some way or other work anywhere and get some wages. Letter to: Janardana — Los Angeles 16 January, 1970

The Challenge BGAII 3.35 advises: “It is far better to discharge one’s own prescribed duties even though they are faulty, than another’s prescribed duties. If one is destroyed in the course of discharging one’s duty, that is also better than being engaged in other duties.”

Additionally in BGAII 1.15, purport, we find THE APOGEE OF SEXISM. Srila Prabhupada wisely types Goddess of Fortune with capital letters but the boor editors know better and will not allow it, thus disrespecting the Goddess of Fortune, the apogee of foolishness! These things will not go unnoticed. Repeated again in BGAII 1.20, purport, and in BGAII 1.36, both verse and twice in the purport. Due to dogmatism, these boors are slighting the Goddess of Fortune and the Goddess of Fortune will surely pay them back in due course!

This reminds us of Apple Corporation. If you spend AU$ 1500 or so you will get a miserly and sometimes dangerous for the equilibrium of your phone, 96 cm cord and if you spend AU$ 4000 you will get a generous 197 cm cord for your device.

In some cases Hayagriva just added a paragraph of his own fabrication and Jayadvaita rubber-stamps. as in BGAII purport 7.23:

The following is not Srila Prabhupada:

“However, worshipers of the demigods are less intelligent because they don’t know to what part of the body food must be supplied. Some of them are so foolish that they claim that there are many parts and many ways to supply food. This isn’t very sanguine. Can anyone supply food to the body through the ears or eyes?”

Ultimately it is Srila Prabhupada but out of proper context. Srila Prabhupada does not use. the word “sanguine” though.

Correspondence to tkco16108@gmail.com, please

Thank you for considering this matter of importance! Hare Krishna. May 2025.