Participants: Brahma Muhurta Dasa, Dravida Dasa, Garuda Dasa, Kalachandji Dasa, Naresvara Dasa, Nrsimhananda Dasa, Radhika Ramana Dasa, Urmila Devi Dasi
Facilitators: Brahma Tirtha Dasa, Vraja Vihari Dasa
Srila Prabhupada wrote to Malati Devi Dasi on January 7, 1974: “I have already written to [name] and [name] about their difference of opinion. We have so much work to do, we cannot lose our solidarity. Do not cause a crack there with any fighting spirit or competition. Whenever I hear complaints or disturbances in our centers my mind becomes too much disturbed and I cannot properly translate my books. So please spare me from such disturbance by cooperating all together Godbrothers and Godsisters.”
In the mood of the above letter, members of the BBT along with a group of concerned devotees, including those with expertise in the subject of editing, convened in Washington, DC, for an extended discussion on the contentious issue of post-samadhi editing of Srila Prabhupada’s books.
The group agreed with the standing resolution of the Global BBT that the BBT and GBC should discuss a BBT Textual Revision Review Board (TRRB) at the mid-term GBC meeting in Tirupati, in October 2019. We also agreed that the Sabha (a devotee assembly that advises the GBC), and a subcommittee composed of others, such as Garuda Dasa and Brahma Muhurta Dasa, will also suggest additions to the pool of devotees who could serve on the proposed TRRB.
We hope and expect that the BBT and GBC will jointly decide on the final make-up of this TRRB, drawing from that pool, at the scheduled Tirupati meeting in October 2019.
We propose the following process for Global BBT approval:
The meeting in Washington, DC, expertly facilitated by Vraja Vihari Dasa and Brahma Tirtha Dasa, was held in a collegial, respectful, and collaborative mood, and resulted in mutual understanding and appreciation.
We express our appreciation to the devotees of ISKCON Washington, DC, for hosting the meeting.
Vraja Vihari Dasa says: “The devotees participated with a wonderful willingness to hear all points of view while expressing their realizations with clarity. It is amazing what can happen when sincere devotees come together in a mood to please Srila Prabhupada.”
Dear Devotees,We hope you are well and progressing in your spiritual journey. We areexcited to…
Dear devotees, Namonamaha. Jaya Srila Prabhupada! Gopal Krishna Maharaj ki jaya! The ISKCON India Governing…
IISB members Basu Ghosh Das (ACBSP) and Krishna Kirti Das (Convenor, IISB) discuss Srila Prabhupada’s…
The proof of how dishonest the Poison allegations are is those who endorse this horrible…
Abstract In Kṛṣṇa’s Vedic civilization, upanayana — the investiture with the sacred thread and brahma-gāyatrī…
View Comments
Srila Prabhupada didn't have his books produced with professional publishing standards in mind. Authors don't tell their editors to expedite their books into print, and then later correct mistakes for reprints of the books like Prabhupada did. Prabhupada knew his time was limited to produce a great amount of literature. Therefore, the attempt to introduce publishing standards to Prabhupada's books in effect dishonors Prabhupada, rather than honoring him and the system he used for producing his books. If any analysis of the editing of second edition books occurs, it should be on the grounds of whether the editing was accurate to Prabhupada's intent. On this basis BBT editors have proven themselves as faithful followers of Srila Prabhupada and their work should be left intact.
I'm referring to how the 72 edition was taken out of circulation when the 83 edition came out. So if a third edition comes out, it should be presented as an optional edition, and not as one to replace the other two, nor as the primary edition to represent ISKCON. Many devotees won't accept a third edition that way. I know I won't. There are no clearly refutable changes in the second edition regarding the text. The only substantial complaint is about the art work being changed.
The arguments regarding posthumous editing ignore the facts of how Prabhupada had his books produced. Prabhupada was practical with the limited time he had to produce so much literature. His motto was get the books out, and whatever discrepancies that were later found in them should be fixed for reprints of the books. Therefore the additional arguments about book publishing standards to protect the interests of the author are also bogus. The editors served Prabhupada's interest to correct mistakes in his books. He didn't put a timeline on that. No example stands out of a deviation from Prabhupada in the 83 edition. Some devotees just quibble about phrases being adjusted, as if the previous editors also didn't adjust how Prabhupada said things.
> The force fed system failed when the second edition came out.
Afaik, JAS first sent out the proposed edits to the GBC etc. and got no feedback at all. But when the 2nd edition came out, all criticism broke loose. JAS became, quite naturally, disappointed with this...
Unless there is outstanding discrepancies in the second edition of Bhagavad gita, as there is with the first edition, will it be likely that a society of devotees can be impressed to accept a third edition which pools from edits of the first two? Just because the GBC puts a stamp on something doesn't mean it will be adhered to by a society which has witnessed it's fair share of internal upheavals. The force fed system failed when the second edition came out. So what percentage of devotees will give up allegiance to the edition they have already committed themselves to, in favor of yet another interpreted edition? Devotees around the world haven't been campaigning for some compromised solution to resolve this issue. It's a polarizing issue.
Srila Prabhupada didn't have his books produced with professional publishing standards in mind. Authors don't tell their editors to expedite their books into print, and then later correct mistakes for reprints of the books like Prabhupada did. Prabhupada knew his time was limited to produce a great amount of literature. Therefore, the attempt to introduce publishing standards to Prabhupada's books in effect dishonors Prabhupada, rather than honoring him and the system he used for producing his books. If any analysis of the editing of second edition books occurs, it should be on the grounds of whether the editing was accurate to Prabhupada's intent. On this basis BBT editors have proven themselves as faithful followers of Srila Prabhupada and their work should be left intact.
I'm referring to how the 72 edition was taken out of circulation when the 83 edition came out. So if a third edition comes out, it should be presented as an optional edition, and not as one to replace the other two, nor as the primary edition to represent ISKCON. Many devotees won't accept a third edition that way. I know I won't. There are no clearly refutable changes in the second edition regarding the text. The only substantial complaint is about the art work being changed.
The arguments regarding posthumous editing ignore the facts of how Prabhupada had his books produced. Prabhupada was practical with the limited time he had to produce so much literature. His motto was get the books out, and whatever discrepancies that were later found in them should be fixed for reprints of the books. Therefore the additional arguments about book publishing standards to protect the interests of the author are also bogus. The editors served Prabhupada's interest to correct mistakes in his books. He didn't put a timeline on that. No example stands out of a deviation from Prabhupada in the 83 edition. Some devotees just quibble about phrases being adjusted, as if the previous editors also didn't adjust how Prabhupada said things.
> The force fed system failed when the second edition came out.
Afaik, JAS first sent out the proposed edits to the GBC etc. and got no feedback at all. But when the 2nd edition came out, all criticism broke loose. JAS became, quite naturally, disappointed with this...
Unless there is outstanding discrepancies in the second edition of Bhagavad gita, as there is with the first edition, will it be likely that a society of devotees can be impressed to accept a third edition which pools from edits of the first two? Just because the GBC puts a stamp on something doesn't mean it will be adhered to by a society which has witnessed it's fair share of internal upheavals. The force fed system failed when the second edition came out. So what percentage of devotees will give up allegiance to the edition they have already committed themselves to, in favor of yet another interpreted edition? Devotees around the world haven't been campaigning for some compromised solution to resolve this issue. It's a polarizing issue.