We cannot change anything

To this letter Srila Prabhupada wrote a response a few days later:

 

"There is no need for corrections for the First and Second Cantos. Whatever is there is all right. Once Pradyumna comes to join me here from India, then there will be no need for Nitai das or Jagannatha das

to edit the Srimad-Bhagavatam."

(Letter of 5-4-76)

 

We also see a note made by a blue marker on the side of Radhavallabha's letter.

"Yes. No need of corrections. Whatever is there is alright. No need of reediting by Pradyumna, Nitai+ Jag.(Jay.?)"

 

This means that Srila Prabhupada's letter has been received and well understood. For the planned 1976 reprint of the First and Second Cantos Srila Prabhupada instructed to print the original 1972 versions

without reediting. This constitutes the most direct order in this regard. It is obvious that Srila Prabhupada authorizes the first printings and further editing is not needed.

 

 

2) This version has been used for Srila Prabhupada's lectures

It was the 1972 version read regularly in the temples. Srila Prabhupada gave classes from this version and it was this version which recieved favorable reviews by scholars etc.

 

 

3) Prabhupada's personal guidance in the editing process

 

The editing of the 1972 version has been a result of close cooperation between Srila Prabhupada and the editor Hayagriva Dasas as is clear from the following quotes.

 

Recently, Hayagriva came from Columbus, and he remained with me for more than a fortnight. He was assisting me in editing Srimad-Bhagavatam.

 

Letter to: Rupanuga

--

Los Angeles

15 January, 1969

69-01-15

 

I am very pleased to learn that the entire first canto should be completely edited by March 8th, and I am also glad to hear that your Lord Caitanya play is at last completed.

 

Letter to: Hayagriva

--

Los Angeles

31 January, 1969

69-01-31

 

My Dear Hayagriva,

Please accept my blessings. And I hope by this time you have reached your headquarters, at Wheeling, and I hope you are feeling well. And you have taken the dictaphone. Now immediate task is that you revise the 1st, 2nd, 3rd volumes of Srimad-Bhagavatam. As soon as they are revised, we shall immediately print in one volume. Just we are going to print, volume one means canto one. So then you take up the second part, second canto, and keep along with you Pradyumna; he will help you in marking diacritic signs on the original verses, and be always in correspondence with me. And be seriously engaged in this task, and it will be a great service to Krishna.

 

Letter to: Hayagriva

--

San Francisco

9 September, 1968

68-09-09

 

Regarding Srimad-Bhagavatam, please send me the chapters which you have already revised. I want to see it, how it is being done. I am glad that you are not omitting anything, but just making grammatical correction, and phrasing for force and clarity, and adding Pradyumna's transliteration, that is very nice.

Yes, henceforward, as I have already told you, that Srimad-Bhagavatam will be ultimately seen by you, before being printed. That will keep consistency, I quite agree with you. My present plan is to stay in Los Angeles, perhaps at least for more than a month, which will cover Christmas holidays. And so, during that time, if you come here, it will be very nice.

 

 

Letter to: Hayagriva

--

Los Angeles

 

18 November, 1968

68-11-18

 

Regarding Srimad-Bhagavatam, First Canto, I am glad that manuscript is also being composed. Srimad-Bhagavatam, Second Canto, improper title pages being rectified is good news. Please keep me informed about the progress of those manuscripts.

 

Los Angeles

31 July, 1970

70-07-31

 

 

Please accept my blessings. I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 6th July, 1970, and noted the contents.

Regarding the missing translation, it is as follows:

First Canto, Chapter 3, verse 6, Translation

``So in the beginning of the creation, first of all there were the four unmarried sons of Brahma (Kumaras) and they underwent severe austerities being situated in avowed celibacy for realization of the Absolute Truth.''

Regarding your second point, all incarnations should be proper nouns and therefore capitalized. It does not matter whether they are Visnutattva or jivatattva, saktyavesa-avatara. or plenary expansion. The incarnations listed however may be classified as follows: Visnutattva: Kapila, Nara Narayana, Rama, Balarama, Krsna, the Purusas, the Boar, Yajna, Rsabha, Matsya, Kurma, Dhanvantari, Mohini and Kalki. Jivatattva (empowered): Narada, Vyasa, Buddha, Kumaras, Dattatreya, Prthu and Bhrgupati.

 

Letter to: Jayadvaita

--

Los Angeles

12 July, 1970

70-07-12

 

 

 

4) EVEN THERE IS SOME MISTAKE, THAT DOESN'T MATTER

 

It is true that there have been mistakes made in the 1972 version because in a letter to Radhavallabha dated 5th of January 1976 Srila Prabhupada states that :"reprinting the volumes will have to wait until the mistakes are corrected and approved by me." However, when Radhavallabha writes to Prabhupada that he had not received any corrections for the First and Second Canto from Nitai(Sanskrit editor for BBT), Srila Prabhupada responds in a following letter dated 4th of May 1976: "There is no need for corrections for the First and Second Cantos. Whatever is there is all right. " This means that although Srila Prabhupada knew that mistakes have been done in the 1972, he still authorizes its reprint. This is most likely to ensure that the books are not altered more than they already are. It is significant for us to know that these mistakes were not serious enough for Prabhupada to stop the printing. How such books can be still transmitting the transcendental message is inconcievable to our mundane senses, but Srila Prabhupada explains this phenomenon in the following instances.

 

Regarding transcribing, I have written to Detroit if they can do it. In the meantime, I have engaged Devananda transcribing the tape and a primary editing also, and the copy can be sent to you for final editing and then printing. We have to do things now very dexterously, simply we have to see that in our book there is no spelling or grammatical mistake. We do not mind for any good style, our style is Hare Krishna, but, still, we should not present a shabby thing. Although Krishna literatures are so nice that, even if they are presented in broken and irregular ways, such literatures are welcomed, read and respected by bona fide devotees.

 

Letter to: Satsvarupa

--

Los Angeles

9 January, 1970

70-01-09

 

Prabhupäda: The system is: whatever authority has done, even there is mistake, it should be accepted.

Rädhä-vallabha: Oh.

Prabhupäda: Asa-präya(?) That is ha... He should not become more learned than the authority. That is very bad habit.

Rädhä-vallabha: He was always wondering how he should think. So I'll tell him that. He thinks, "If I think I see a mistake, what should I think?" I'll tell him what you just said.

Prabhupäda: He cannot see mistake. He is mistake. (laughter)

 

Room Conversation of 2-27-77, Mayapura

 

 

Prabhupäda: He could not finish any one?

Hamsadüta: No, not even the magazine was finished. The magazine before this recent one, I put it together myself from old magazines.

Prabhupäda: There are so many German students. They cannot do?

Hamsadüta: They can do, but the thing is that you have said that he is the chief and unless it goes through him, it can't be printed.

Prabhupäda: No. No, no. No, no. No, no.

Hamsadüta: Everything is bottle-necked around him.

Prabhupäda: Now, the important subject, he may do slowly, but...

Hamsadüta: Like Bhagavad-gitä or Srimad-Bhägavatam.

Prabhupäda: Yes. Others may be done by others. You print it. Even there is some mistake, that doesn't matter.

 

 

Room Conversation

--

August 21, 1971, London

 

The last quote applies to our contraversy. Should the 1972 version be printed although there are mistakes in it? Yes, you print it. Even there is some mistake, that doesn't matter.

 

And idea was raised to correct Srila Prabhupada's books for the next printing in the authorized way. Although it might seem justified especially when Srila Prabhupada himself specifies these.

(of the sages would be changed to O sages in the First Canto) However, there are a few points to consider.

 

1/The new version would have to be shown and approved by Srila Prabhupada himself.

 

Nitai may correct whatever mistakes are there, but the corrected material must be sent to me for final approval.

Letter to: Radhavallabha

--

Nellore

5 January, 1976

76-01-05

 

2/Prabhupada established a no change policy to check further deterioration of the text.

 

So everything is explained in Srimad-Bhägavatam. And then these unfortunate rascals, they are distorting. What can I do? How to stop it?

 

June 22, 1977, Vrndävana

 

Rädhä-vallabha: Well, now that this system of no corrections anywhere, that makes it very simple. Then he can't do anything. I don't think he wants to, either. It makes it more simple for him. It makes him very uncomfortable.

Prabhupäda: No corrections. He can write that synonym, that's all, according to the translation. Who is writing the synonym?

Rädhä-vallabha: Jagannätha.

Prabhupäda: That's all right. According to the translation. Not that he becomes a greater scholar than my Guru Mahäräja.

 

Room Conversation of 2-27-77, Mayapura

 

Prabhupäda: So you bring this to Satsvarüpa. They cannot change anything.

 

Conversation June 22, 1977, Vrndävana

 

 

3/The next printing should be again to the original way

 

 

Yasodä-nandana: Sometimes they appeal that "We can make better English," so they change like that, just like in the case of Isopaniñad. There are over a hundred changes. So where is the need? Your words are sufficient. The potency is there. When they change, it is something else.

Svarüpa Dämodara: That's actually a very dangerous mentality.

Yasodä-nandana: What is it going to be in five years? It's going to be a different book.

Prabhupäda: So you... What you are going... It is very serious situation. You write one letter that "Why you have made so many changes?" And whom to write? Who will care? All rascals are there. Write to Satsvarüpa that "This is the position. They are doing anything and everything at their whim." The next printing should be again to the original way.

 

Conversation June 22, 1977, Vrndävana

 

Note: In this quote Yasoda Nandana is raising a valid point. If the unauthorized reediting continues, the text in books will complately deteriorate and the original meaning will be lost. To this Srila Prabhupada is giving the solution. "The next printing should be again to the original way." and later on in the same conversation "They cannot change anything." remain to be the last instructions up to date from Srila Prabhupada on the matter of his books. The key words in this connection are "again" and "check". When Tamal explains that the editors reedit books which were already printed, Prabhupada wants to check this, stop this and next printing should be again to the original way means that the printing original way already happened in the past(first printing). If "to the original way" meant that the next printing should have be something even better than the first printing, Prabhupada would not have said how to stop the reediting how to check the reediting. Please note that Srila Prabhupada expressed his desire to stop this practise of unauthorized editing many times during the conversation...

 

So everything is explained in Srimad-Bhägavatam. And then these unfortunate rascals, they are distorting. What can I do? How to stop it?

 

Conversation June 22, 1977, Vrndävana

 

 

Prabhupäda: Very serious feature. It is not possible for me to check, and they are doing all nonsense, freedom.

 

Conversation June 22, 1977, Vrndävana

 

...and warns about consequences if such policy continues.

 

Now do the needful. Otherwise everything will be spoiled.

 

Conversation June 22, 1977, Vrndävana

 

 

 

7/other devotees in favor

 

Many devotees, who are well aquainted with the contraversy over the changed books are in favor of reprinting the 1972 first edition. These are quotes I've gathered over the years. Hansadutta Das in Just What is Jayadwaita's point? article retells a personal story:

 

"I was one BBT trustee along with Srila Prabhupada and Bali Mardan when I went to Srila Prabhupada and suggested we reprint his Original Bhagavatams for the pleasure of his devotees who liked the old Indian version... Before finishing my proposal, Srila Prabhupada admonished me saying, "no--whatever Hayagriva has done is perfect, I have full faith in him as the editor of my books." This was quite some time after the publication of Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita. He went on to say "whatever he (Hayagriva) has done is perfect, do not touch it, I have full faith in him."

 

 

Veda Guya Prabhu, the person who has been printing original books under KBI licence for a few years and has been responsible for a major contribution of original books to the today's society at times when there's so few people commited to Srila Prabhupada's real desire has confessed on a mass email in his response to "Are you on the blacklist?":

 

"Until some magnanimous devotee comes forward (anywhere from $200,000 to $300,000) and is willing to finance this printing we have to console ourselves with only supplying the set printed by the BBT.

These are from the pre-1978 printings, although the early Cantos were edited during the mid-1970's."

 

Another devotee in favor of reprinting the 1972 version is Madhudvisa Prabhu, who stands behind a very successful internet shop and has been enlightening devotees about changes in the Bhagavadgita As It Is, etc. He also works with KBI. In 2006, after we have published our article " Distinguishing the original books from the changed ones" he wrote us on email:

 

"I agree with your point that we should print the original editions and your article is very good to illustrate this point."

 

 

or 1976 version?

 

We would like to point out that while writing this article, unfortunately we are not in possesion of the 1976 version. Nonetheless, according to the BBTi editor, the 1976 version is identical with all the subsequent printings(i.e 1978 onwards).Assuming this is the truth, there are several points in favor of the proclaimed 1976 version. They are: the letter to Jayadvaita where Srila Prabhupada expresses that whatever Jayadvaita does is alright, the inclusion of the missing indexes and the correction of the "of the sages" mistake

 

CONCERNING THE EDITING OF JAYADVAITA PRABHU

 

On 7 September 1976, Srila Prabhupada sent Radhavallabha Dasa a letter which was stating:

"Concerning the editing of Jayadvaita Prabhu, whatever he does is approved by me. I have confidence in him. Your changes which I have seen of the sanskrit synonyms is also approved by me. Tanmayataya refers to the fact that the trees and the father were absorbed in the same feelings."

 

OBJECTIONS:

 

1/ It is argued that the 1976 version of both First and Second Cantos is bona fide, because Srila Prabhupada approved of Jayadvaita's editing in this letter. However, it is not clear what the context of the exchange between Srila Prabhupada and Radhavallabha really was. It might as well refer to Jayadvaita's editing of the later Cantos, which were being prepared for printing at the same time. Surely Prabhupada is not saying that Jayadvaita can do anything he likes. Suppose Jayadvaita became a Mayavadi, would Srila Prabhupada still approve of him editing his books? That is very unlikely. So, this instruction is meant for a particular circumstance. From the previous research we do not find a single instance where Srila Prabhupada allows his disciples to reedit his already printed books without him seeing the changes and approving them , why would Prabhupada change his policy in this instance?

Unless we see a letter from Radhavallabha to Prabhupada with the original question to which Srila Prabhupada responds to in this letter we cannot accept this as a clear evidence that Prabhupada approved of Jayadvaita's 1976 editing. We have asked the Bhaktivedanta Archives for these namely letters from Radhavallabha dated August 25 and 31 1976, but they have not been found unfortunately.

 

2/ Another point to consider:

 

Tamala Krsna: Your original work that you're doing now, that is edited by Jayädvaita. That's the first editing.

Prabhupäda: He is good.

Tamala Krsna: He is good. But then, after they print the books, they're going over. So when they reprint...

Prabhupäda: So how to check this? How to stop this?

Tamala Krsna: They should not make any changes without consulting Jayadvaita.

Prabhupäda: But they are doing without any authority.

 

and then later on:

 

So everything is explained in Srimad-Bhägavatam. And then these unfortunate rascals, they are distorting. What can I do? How to stop it?

 

Conversation June 22, 1977, Vrndävana

 

In this conversation Tamal is complaining about editors reediting after the books are printed to which Srila Prabhupada expresses his desire to stop such a policy. However, this is exactly what Jayadvaita has done with the 1972 version. He went over the 1972 version and reedited it after it has been printed, distributed and after Prabhupada gave numerous classes from it. We have a difficulty accepting that Srila Prabhupada is saying that Jayadvaita is good because he has reedited the 1972 version as this is precisely what Srila Prabhupada wants to stop in the next sentence -reediting without any authority.

 

 

3/ Regarding your proposed program of editing, the Bhagavatam First Canto is already edited, so when making final typing, you shall simply see it for proofreading.

 

Letter to: Rayarama

--

Columbus, Ohio

15 May, 1969

69-05-15

 

This particular letter shows that Prabhupada did not like the 1972 version to be reedited.Unless we're shown a direct evidence we do not find any letter, conversation, or any other instruction from Srila Prabhupada authorizing the opposite. The editor of the 1976 version himself admits that he was acting on his own accord and that Srila Prabhupada never asked for the 1976 version to be made.

 

"For both books[First and Second Cantos], Srila Prabhupada never asked for a second edition. Both books were revised by the BBT's lowly editor Jayadvaita Swami. "

 

Jayadvaita on the BBTi website

 

 

JAYADVAITA SPEAKS OUT

 

" In 1972, when the first American edition of Srimad-Bhagavatam, First Canto, was in preparation and the first volume nearly ready for printing, Satsvarupa brought to Srila Prabhupada's attention that in numerous instances the edited version seemed to have low fidelity to Srila Prabhupada's original work. Srila Prabhupada responded, in essence: ‘Don't lose time. Just print it'. In 1976, however, on my own initiative, I did extensive revisions for this canto, especially for the translations in the first two chapters."

 

(Jayadvaita Swami : Editing of the Unchangeable Truth)

 

Jayadvaita then offers a testimony on the BBTi website where he says that he showed this reedited 1976 version to Prabhupada before it was printed:

 

" I then prepared a list showing these revised translations, with a cover letter explaining what I had done, and when Srila Prabhupada visited ISKCON New York in July of 1976 I brought the package to his room.

I had expected merely to drop it off with his secretary. But to my surprise I found Srila Prabhupada right there before me, asking to know why I had come. I told him, and he instructed me to read to him the revised translations, right there on the spot. So I began, Srila Prabhupada listening attentively, and after I had read a few verses he interrupted: ‘So, what you have done?'

‘I've revised the translations to make them closer to what Your Divine Grace originally said.'

‘What I have said?'

‘Yes, Srila Prabhupada.'

Srila Prabhupada then made a characteristic dismissive gesture and said: ‘Then it is all right'.

And that was that.

 

OBJECTIONS

 

But as it was shown before in the article Distinguishing the original books from the changed ones, the 1976 differs from the 1972 version in purports as well. For example in the purport of 1.11.9 the inhabitants of Dwaraka can see Krsna eye to eye in the 1972 version, whereas in the 1976 version Krsna can be seen by them face to face only. So naturally we are to ask: who edited the purports and where is the proof that Srila Prabhupada approved of it?

 

 

I will have to see personally what are the mistakes in the synonyms and also how you intend to correct them. I was not satisfied with the corrections that were made before. I saw some changes which I did no approve. Nitai may correct whatever mistakes are there, but the corrected material must be sent to me for final approval. So reprinting the volumes will have to wait until the mistakes are corrected and approved by me.

 

Letter to: Radhavallabha

--

Nellore

5 January, 1976

76-01-05

 

The above mentioned letter refers to the upcoming 1976 version of the Srimad Bhagavatam(most likely the First and Second Cantos). Note how emphatic is Srila Prabhupada about bringing corrected material to him for approval. And here the discussion is about corrections in the synonyms what to speak of purports and translations? We find it highly unlikely that Srila Prabhupada would authorize reediting of the 1972 version without even checking what the editing was. Where is the proof that this meeting ever took place and that Prabhupada ever authorized Jayadvaita to reedit the First Canto?

 

 

O SAGES AND OTHER CORRECTIONS

 

Srila Prabhupada in the "Rascal editors" conversation complained about a change in the 1972 version. Namely, the editors have changed the word "oh the sages"(found in the Delhi editon of the First Canto) and replaced it with "of the sages" in the word meaning section. We should note that this was done by the Sanskrit editors who worked on the 1972 edition with Hayagriva and not Haayagriva. The current version of the First Canto on the Vedabse 4.11 says "O sages" in the word meaning, which means that this error has been corrected as Srila Prabhupada instructed. There have been more corrections submitted by Radhavallabha which Srila Prabhupada approved of.(letter to RV 7 Sep 1976)

 

OBJECTIONS

(also see even if there's some mistake, that doesn't matter.)

 

The letter from the 7th of September 1976 states:

"Concerning the editing of Jayadvaita Prabhu, whatever he does is approved by me. I have confidence in him. Your changes which I have seen of the sanskrit synonyms is also approved by me."

It is clear that these were corrections of the sanskrit synonyms and they have nothing to do with Jayadvaita's editing, which is addressed in the first sentence.

 

Due to the missing letter addressed to Prabhupada by Radhavallabha however we are not able to specify which corrections they were. The 1976 version most likely contains them.

 

 

 

INDEX

 

In a letter from the 9th of February 1975 to Radhavallabha Srila Prabhupada writes:

 

"Every volume of Srimad-Bhagavatam as well as Caitanya Caritamrta must be fully complete with an index, list of references, glossary, Sanskrit pronunciation guide,

and index of Sanskrit (or Bengali) verses. This will be best."

 

I have received one copy of Srimad-Bhagavatam, Canto 4, Volume 4, and Krsna Consciousness: the Matchless Gift. Thank you very much for these books. One thing is that every volume of Srimad-Bhagavatam, Caitanya Caritamrta and any other big volumes, must have a full index. It is not a very prestigious presentation without the index. All volumes in the future must have the index.

 

Letter to: Radhavallabha

--

Bombay

19 January, 1975

75-01-19

 

In the first four cantos, several volumes are missing index. In the 1976 version this is corrected. As the inclusion of the index in the first four cantos does not seem to jeopardize the content of the book and this problem is of a technical character, we do not find any objection to the 1976 version in this regard.

 

 

 

PRABHUPADA GAVE CLASSES FROM IT

 

According to the Vedabase 4.11 Srila Prabhupada gave classes from verses which differ in the two versions in three instances in the case of the First Canto.

 

 

OBJECTIONS

 

If Srila Prabhupada was indeed giving class from the 1976 version it would have to be in these three. We have carefully examined them. They are as follows:

 

 

6th of September 1976 (SB 1.7.7)

 

 

The audio is cut where the relevant passage is read.

 

We're left with the BBTi transcript. It quotes the 1976 version. But this is impossible, because the volume has not been printed yet.

Srila Prabhupada clearly stated in a letter to Radhavallabha on the 5th of January that "reprinting the volumes will have to wait until the mistakes are corrected and approved by me.". On the 7th of Septemeber 1976(a day after this class took place) Srila Prabhupada is approving of the sanskrit corrections and continues: Tanmayataya refers to the fact that the trees and the father were absorbed in the same feelings.", which is a reference to 2.2 verse.of the First Canto. This means that the preparation for printing the 1976 version was still going on. So how could Srila Prabhupada give a class from it one day before?

1st of October 1976 (SB 1.7.40)

 

The BBTi transcript states the following:

 

Pradyumna: "Süta Gosvämi said: Although Krsna, who was examining Arjuna in religion, encouraged Arjuna to kill the son of Dronäcärya, Arjuna, a great soul, did not like the idea of killing him, although Asvatthämä was a heinous murderer of Arjuna's family members."

 

This is the 1976 version But when we listen to the audio Pradyumna is reading from the 1972 version:

 

Süta Gosvãmï said: Despite being instructed in his duty and encouraged to kill the son of Dronãcãrya, Arjuna, a great soul, did not like the idea of killing him, although he was a heinous murderer of his family members.

 

So the BBTi trascript is changed and does nor follow the original recording !!!

 

 

 

7th of October 1976 (SB 1.7.49-50)

 

The BBTi transcript states the following:

 

Nakula and Sahadeva (the younger brothers of the King) and also Sätyaki and Arjuna, the Personality of Godhead Lord Sri Krsna, son of Devaki, and the ladies and others all unanimously agreed with the King."

 

But when we listen to the audio Pradyumna is reading from the 1972 version:

 

The younger brothers of the King, Nakula and Sahadeva and also Sätyaki and Arjuna, the Personality of Godhead Lord Sri Krsna, son of Devaké, and the ladies and others all unanimously agreed with the King

 

 

 

 

Second Canto

 

HISTORY

 

Dravida Das, another editor from BBTi admited in a personal email when asked about printing dates for different books:

 

"For Second Canto I have 1970-1972. The first chapters were printed individually; that's where the 1970 comes in. It appears that a slightly revised version was printed in 1976 also."

 

(Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 10:17 AM email to B.Charles)

 

Jayadvaita fills in:

 

"Sometime in 1972 or 1973 I made extensive revisions to the Second Canto. The revised version, though never marked "Second Edition," was used in all printings after the first."

 

 

Because the 1970 serialized chapter by chapter version is as far as we're concerned identical with the 2 volume edition printed in 1972 we can understand that reediting done by Jayadvaita was published for the first time in 1976 and many changes have been documented between the two versions. (for examples see Distinguishing the original books from the changed ones). However, we cannot find any instruction from Srila Prabhupada authorizing the reediting. Note the following changes:

 

This material world is a manifestation of the three modes goodness, passion and ignorance, and the Supreme Lord, for the creation, maintenance and destruction of the material world, accepts three predominating forms as Brahmä, Visnu and Sankara (Siva).

(SB 2.4.12 purport 1976 version)

 

 

This material world is a manifestation of the three modes goodness, passion and ignorance, and the Supreme Lord, for the creation, maintenance and destruction of the material world, accepts three predominating forms of Brahmä, Visnu and Sankara (Siva).

(SB 2.4.12 purport 1970-2 version)

 

 

Süta Gosvämi said: When Sukadeva Gosvämi was thus requested by the King to describe the creative energy of the Personality of Godhead, he then systematically remembered the master of the senses [Sri Krsna], and to reply properly he spoke thus.

(SB 2.4.11 1976 version)

 

Süta Gosvämi said: When Sukadeva Gosvämi was thus requested by the King to describe the creative energy of the Personality of Godhead, the former then systematically remembered the master of the senses [Sri Krsna], and to reply properly he spoke thus.

 

(SB 2.4.11 1970-2 version)

 

 

This is from the 4th chapter which was personally checked by Prabhupada himself:

 

 

 

I beg to acknowledge your letter dated 20th July, 1970, along with the blueprint for chapter 4 Second Canto Srimad-Bhagavatam. I have gone through the blueprint and I am also sending the necessary Sanskrit corrections to Pradyumna. So when these corrections are made then you can print immediately.

 

 

Letter to: Uddhava

--

Los Angeles

 

24 July, 1970

70-07-24

 

 

 

 

Another letter confirms Srila Prabhupada's great satisfaction with the 1970-2 version of the Second Canto

 

My Dear Uddhava,

Please accept my blessings. I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 15th June, 1970, along with a copy of Srimad-Bhagavatam, 2nd Canto.

I think this style is very nice following the tradition of my other Bhagavatam publications. So please continue this process, chapter after chapter, and it will give me complete satisfaction. Thank you very much.

I am also in due receipt of one letter from Pradyumna regarding Sanskrit editing. I will study this letter scrutinizingly and then I shall reply. But on the whole, the Sanskrit editing has been done very nicely and the style is completely satisfactory. Answers to the questions will follow in the next mail.

 

 

Letter to: Uddhava

--

Los Angeles

18 June, 1970

70-06-18

 

More quotes in regards to the Second Canto's first editing:

 

I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 12th July, 1970, along with the blueprint for the third chapter of Srimad-Bhagavatam Second Canto, entitled ``Pure Devotional Service: the Change in Heart.''

I have looked over the blueprint and noted a few points to be corrected, so I am sending back the blueprint to you for seeing the necessary changes as they are in the text.

I have also corrected the points sent by Pradyumna and the sheet is also sent back herewith.

 

Letter to: Uddhava

--

Los Angeles

14 July, 1970

70-07-14

 

Regarding Srimad-Bhagavatam, First Canto, I am glad that manuscript is also being composed. Srimad-Bhagavatam, Second Canto, improper title pages being rectified is good news. Please keep me informed about the progress of those manuscripts.

 

Los Angeles

31 July, 1970

70-07-31

 

So then you take up the second part, second canto, and keep along with you Pradyumna; he will help you in marking diacritic signs on the original verses, and be always in correspondence with me. And be seriously engaged in this task, and it will be a great service to Krishna.

 

Letter to: Hayagriva

--

San Francisco

9 September, 1968

68-09-09

 

OBJECTIONS:

 

If Prabhupada himself went through the blueprint of these chapters himself, corrected errors and approved of it, why did Jayadvaita change them in the second printing?

 

Another point in favor of the 1972 version is the already mentioned letter to Radhavallabha:

 

"There is no need for corrections for the First and Second Cantos. Whatever is there is all right. Once Pradyumna comes to join me here from India, then there will be no need for Nitai das or Jagannatha das

to edit the Srimad-Bhagavatam."

(Letter of 5-4-76)

 

 

According to the historical records, Prabhupada gave only one class from a verse which differs in the two versions. It is the 2.3.20 recorded on the 24th iof March 1977. Just as with the First Canto, the Vedabase transcript confuses one into thinking that Prabhupada gave a class from the 1976 version. But when we examined the audio we discovered that Prabhupada is giving class from the 1972 version.

 

BBTi transcript:

 

"One who has not listened to the messages about the prowess and marvelous acts of the Personality of Godhead and has not sung or chanted loudly the worthy songs about the Lord is to be considered to possess earholes like the holes of snakes and a tongue like the tongue of a frog."

 

The actual audio of this class:

 

"One who has not listened to the messages about the prowess and marvelous acts of the Personality of Godhead and has not sung or chanted loudly the worthy songs about the Lord is to be considered to possess earholes like that of the snakes and a tongue like that of the frogs."

 

Therefore no evidence so far has been shown to prove that Srila Prabhupada ever gave classes from the 1976 version. In fact, there's no evidence whatsoever that Srila Prabhupada authorized the 1976 verison of the Second Canto. This is confirmed by the editor himself:

 

 

"For both books[First and Second Cantos], Srila Prabhupada never asked for a second edition. Both books were revised by the BBT's lowly editor Jayadvaita Swami. "

 

(Jayadvaita on the BBTi website)

 

 

 

 

The Third and Fourth Canto

 

Dravida Das, in a personal email states that besides the First and Second Cantos no other cantos have been revised. And Jayadvaita claims in his article Editing the Unchangeable Truth that

the Srimad-Bhagavatam from the Second Canto onwards continues to be published only in its original BBT edition. The truth is that there are many changes made. Judge for yourself:

 

 

Sometimes it is questioned how the living entity falls down from the spiritual world to the material world

 

1974 (SB.3.25.29 purport)

 

Sometimes it is asked how the living entity falls down from the spiritual world to the material world.

 

1978(SB.3.25.29 purport)

 

 

 

Thus the raga-marga, or Bhagavata-marga,friendship exists on a higher platform with Krsna, namely the platform of vipralambha friendship. Paternal friendship, conjugal paternal service, as well as conjugal service, are visible in the Vrndavana raga-marga relationships.

 

1974 SB 4.24-45-46

 

 

Thus the raga-marga, or bhagavata-marga, friendship exists on a higher platform with Krsna, namely the platform of vipralambha friendship. Paternal friendship, paternal service and conjugal service are visible in the Vrndavana raga-marga relationships.

 

1978 SB 4.24-45-46

 

 

Svayambhuva Manu is the son of Brahma.

 

(SB.4.1.1 purport) original edition

 

Svayambhuva Manu was the son of Brahma.

 

(SB.4.1.1 purport) current edition

 

 

According to the Bhaktivedanta Archives the 1978 printings are the second printings of the volumes where these examples can be found. In other words, there have been no printings in between. The changes as we see them were printed after Srila Prabhupada's physical departure (Note the printing dates of different books in the attachment).

 

Rest of the Cantos

 

The comparisons have not been done yet.

 

CONCLUSION

 

History:

 

early 60's Prabhupada prints Delhi Bhagavatam

1968 9th of Septemeber Prabhupada expresses desire to have the First Canto reedited by Hayagriva

1970 The Second Canto is printed in a serialized version chapter by chapter

1972-73 The 1972 version of the First and Second Canto are printed. The first volume of the Fourth Canto is printed

Jayadvaita reedits the Second Canto

1976: January the 5th

 

Prabhupada writes to Radhavallabha: "Nitai may correct whatever mistakes are there, but the corrected material must be sent to me for final approval. "

 

April 22nd

 

Radhavallabha Das from the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust sent Srila Prabhupada a letter, which besides other issues mentions the following:

"Nitai hasn't sent me any corrections for the reprints of First ad Second Cantos, so I want to reprint them as they are. "

 

May 4th

Prabhupada answers:"There is no need for corrections for the First and Second Cantos. Whatever is there is all right"

 

July

Jayadvaita supposedly meets Prabhupada and gest approval for his correcting translations on the First Canto

 

August 25th and 31st

Radhavallabha submits sanskrit corrections for the upcoming 1976 print of the Cantos

 

September the 7th

Prabhupada writes a letter to Radhavallabha("Concerning the editing of Jayadvaita Prabhu, whatever he does is approved by me. I have confidence in him")

and approves of the corrections sent by Radhavallabha

1976 version is printed

 

1977 June 22nd Prabhupada instructs in a conversation: "The next printing should be again to the original way"

Novemeber 14th Prabhupada's disappearance

 

1978 The Third Canto and Fourth Canto are printed in a reedited version

 

 

 

 

 

 

QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED ABOUT THE CURRENT BBTi SRIMAD BHAGAVATAM SET

 

The question at stake is not whether the first ISKCON printings of the first four Canto was authorized, because it was(for example :"There is no need for corrections for the First and Second Cantos. Whatever is there is all right"). We only have a problem with the reedited versions of the first four Cantos and whoever advocates for these has to answer the following:

 

1)Where is the letter of Radhavallabha addressed to Prabhupada upon which Srila Prabhupada responds with "Concerning the editing of Jayadvaita Prabhu, whatever he does is approved by me."? What is the context of this exchange? Where is the evidence that Srila Prabhupada refers in this letter to Jayadvaita's reediting Hayagriva's 1972 version?

 

2) Assuming the 1976 version of the First Canto is identical with the subsequent printings we are wondering why has the BBTi Vedabse falsified the transcript of Srila Prabhupada's classes on the first and second Cantos and replaced the passage of the original 1972 version with the reedited 1976 version in the following four instances :6th of September 1976 (SB 1.7.7) and 1st of October 1976 (SB 1.7.40) 7th October 1976 (SB 1.7.49-50) 24th March 1977 (SB 2.3.20) ?

 

3) Where is the evidence that Prabhupada ever gave anyone permission to reedit his books without consulting him?

 

4) Why did Jayadvaita reedited the Second Canto's third and fourth chapters after Srila Prabhupada made corrections in them, approved them and instructed to print them?

 

5) Where is the evidence that Srila Prabhupada met with Jayadvaita in July 1976 and approved of his reediting the First Canto?

 

6) In concluson the provided quotes show that the 1976-78 versions of Srimad Bhagavatam (First four Cantos)

 

1/ were not asked for by Prabhupada

2/ its editing was done without consulting Prabhupada as confirmed by the editor himself

3/ there is no evidence of Srila Prabhupada ever approving, correcting, checking over the corrections or reading/hearing from these books

4/ were printed after Srila Prabhupada's physical departure (i.e. some of the volumes of the Third and Fourth Cantos)

 

There's another book in which case we can say the same -the highly contraversial 1983 Bhagavadgita As It Is. This version of the book has similarly

1/not been asked for by Prabhupada

2/ its editing was done without consulting Prabhupada

3/ there is no evidence of Srila Prabhupada ever approving or reading/hearing from it

4/ been printed after Srila Prabhupada's physical departure

 

Furthermore, the editor justifies this work by the very same letter from September the 7th to Radhavallabha("Concerning the editing of Jayadvaita Prabhu, whatever he does i

s approved by me. I have confidence in him") On the BBTi website he also states that the same editorial policy has been followed in case of the 1976 First Canto as with the 1983 Gita:

 

"Of the revisions done in 1976, those for the translations in the first and second chapters were the most extensive. Those revisions are shown below.Examining these revisions can help us better understand the revisions later done for Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Though the revisions for the Gita were done after Srila Prabhupada's physical departure, they followed the same principles and had the same purpose as the Bhagavatam revisions shown here."

 

(Jayadvaita on the BBTi website)

 

 

If we're accepting the second versions of the first four Cantos, then why do we have a problem with the 1983 Gita?

 

 

We apologize if any of the historical evidence herein is misinterpreted or excluded. It was not our intention. In the spirit of reestablishing the printing of Srila Prabhupada's original books, we will appreciate your feedback.

 

Hare Krsna!

 

 

REFERENCES:

 

His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada: Srimad Bhagavatam First Canto 1972 version

His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada: Srimad Bhagavatam Second Canto 1972 version

His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada: Srimad Bhagavatam Third Canto first printing

His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada: Srimad Bhagavatam Fourth Canto first printing

The Vedabase 4.11

Hansadutta Dasa: Just What is Jayadwaita's point?

Bhakta Charles: Are you on the blacklist?

Jayadvaita Swami: Editing the unchangeable truth

The Prabhupadanugas: Distinguishing the original books from the changed ones

BBTi website

BBTi Srila Prabhupada MP3 Audio Library -MP3 set of audio recordings by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada