|
|
|
VOLTAR PARA A PÁGINA ANTERIOR - VOLTAR A PÁGINA PRINCIPAL
DENUNCIA DE ALTERAÇÃO DOS LIVROS DE SRILA PRABHUPADA
108 Changes To Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita As It Is
http://krishna.org/ISKCON/BookChanges/108changes1.html
Resposta Oficial da "BBT"
Como obter os Livros Originais -
Para obter as mesmas versões Gratuitamente
Informe das Alterações - fonte http://krishna.org/ISKCON/BookChanges/bgcs.html
ALTERAÇÕES
"Too much editing is not required. If Satsvarupa has already edited it, there is no need of further editing." (Letter to Rayarama 21-Dec-67)
"Consequently, Srila Vyasadeva is a guru. He does not misinterpret the words of Krsna, but transmits them exactly as they were spoken. If we send a telegram, the person who delivers the telegram does not have to correct it, edit it, or add to it. He simply presents it. That is the guru's business." (Science of Self Realization Chap. 2)
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 Rayrama 15-May-69)
REPOSTA OFICIAL SOBRE A DENUNCIA DE ALTERAÇÃO DOS LIVROS DE SRILA PRABHUPADA
Resposta e Justificativa Oficiais das Alterações do Livro de Srila Prabhupada
ALL GLORIES TO SRI GURU AND GAURANGA
His Grace Sriman Amogha Lila Dasa, 188 New Chetty Street, Colombo 13, Sri Lanka
ISKCON Padayatra Sankirtan Bhavan P.O. Jhusi Allahabad 221 506, U.P. India
[July 1986]
Dear Amogha Lila Prabhu, Please accept my most humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
I am in due receipt of your letter, dispatched June 21, and have noted the contents carefully.
You’ve heard strongly expressed objections to the second edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, and you’ve written to me because you want to investigate the matter more fully.
I’ve been silent about this, so as not to overindulge in the animalistic propensity of defending. But since you’ve raised good questions, it’s my duty to answer.
First: To my knowledge, Srila Prabhupada never asked us to re- edit the book.
As you know, and as we kept in mind while doing the work, Srila Prabhupada staunchly opposed needless changes.
You write that Kirtanananda Maharaja told you I regretted having done the editing and that if I’d known of his feelings or read his paper commenting on the work I wouldn’t have done it at all.
This is a misunderstanding. What I regret is that I didn’t have the benefit of Kirtanananda Maharaja’s comments while the work was still going on, long before the book was published.
In fact, a full year before the book went to press, I sent Kirtanananda Maharaja a letter telling exactly what I was doing and why. I included a copy of every change I had made in the translations. And I earnestly asked for any comments, questions, or suggestions he might have. To save us from exactly the kind of controversy he has now raised, the letter pleaded that doubts be voiced then, while time was ample and the work was still on our desks.
I sent the same letter not only to Kirtanananda Maharaja but also to every other member of the GBC, most English-speaking ISKCON sannyasis, various other senior ISKCON devotees, and every ISKCON temple president in the English-speaking world.
What I regret, therefore, is that those who now speak out were silent when their wisdom was sought.
I do *not,* however, regret undertaking the task of revision, and now I shall tell you why.
As mentioned in the “Note about the Second Edition” that appears in the book, the editors of the first edition are to be praised. They did a fine job of making a tough manuscript ready to print.
They also, however, made lots of omissions, goofs, and blunders, which I see no need to immortalize in print.
I suppose that what disturbs some devotees most is the changes in the translations. As you know, Srila Prabhupada considered the translations less important, and so do I. For me the more important revisions, therefore, are the ones in the purports. Of these there are easily several hundred.
To answer your letter, I spent an hour or so going through the book to pull out some samples for you. To examine them you should have before you a copy of both editions ¾ the old one and the new. To look at the samples carefully may take you a couple of hours. But it’s the best way I know to answer your questions, and I’m sure you’ll find your time well spent.
Here goes.
There are different categories of corrections.
1. SIMPLE BOO-BOO’S
For example, simple obvious spelling errors. Who would be willing to insist that the reference to the province of “Behar” (old edition, page 185) should not be changed to “Bihar”?
Chapter 16, verses 1-3, purport. Read the first line of the last paragraph in the old edition. Despite what the purport says, the transcendental qualities add up to 26, not 16. Someone typed a “1” instead of a “2,” so the count is off by 10.
2. MISSING EVIDENCE
Here’s something more serious. In the old edition, dozens and dozens of Srila Prabhupada’s Sanskrit quotations ¾ Vedic evidence, sastra-pramana ¾ have simply been edited out.
In the Introduction of the new edition, for example, here are some of the quotations you’ll find restored:
pg. 8: mayadhyaksena prakrti, etc.
pg. 12: muktir hitva anyatha rupam, etc.
pg. 14: parasya saktir vividhaiva sruyate
pg. 17: yad gatva na nivartante, etc.
pg. 26: visnu-sakti para prokta, etc.
pg. 28: kirtaniyah sada harih
pg. 30: tad vijnanartham, etc.
These are Srila Prabhupada’s words. The Introduction is still available on tape, and you can hear them for yourself.
And if you want something bigger, how about this: The old edition, on page 27, adds a verse Srila Prabhupada didn’t speak (nehabhikrama-naso ‘sti) and then leaves out every one of the renowned verses from the Gita-mahatmya with which Srila Prabhupada’s original Introduction concludes.
I’m not even slightly sorry that these verses have now been restored.
Throughout the new edition the editors have restored dozens and dozens of Sanskrit quotations, large and small, the old edition simply scratched out.
For a few more examples, you can look at the purports to the following verses: 2.43, 2.56 (two quotations), 2.63, 9.4, 9.6 (three quotations), 9.7, 9.9, 9.11 (new edition, pg. 469 ¾ three quotations), 9.12, 10.15, 11.43 (three quotations). In 11.54, no fewer than eight quotations have been restored.
And there are dozens and dozens more. The verses you now see are not editorial speculations, guesses, helpful additions or any other such nonsense. They are the very words of our acarya, jumbled by typists and scratched out by editors in the 1960’s, now restored to their place in Srila Prabhupada’s book.
3. POINTS WITHOUT PINS
Here’s another, related sort of omission. Sometimes when Srila Prabhupada comments on a Sanskrit word, the editors have kept the comments but edited out the word .For example see the references to avasam (9.8) and udasina-vat (9.9). Or, at the end of the purport to 13.12: “The beginning of knowledge, therefore, is amanitva, humility.” To me, these references add immensely to the value of Srila Prabhupada’s purports. With these references, we can clearly see how Srila Prabhupada’s comments directly illuminate specific words of the verse. And, again, these are not editorial whimsies ¾ they’re Srila Prabhupada’s original words.
4. GLOSSES TOTALLY LOST
Sometimes Srila Prabhupada’s comments on a word are *entirely* left out. For example, see his comments on the word na (11.54) and tad-arthiyam (17.27). And these are but examples ¾ there are more.
5. SANSKRIT SLIPS
Sometimes the Sanskrit editors just goofed.
Example: In 7.18, the Sanskrit quoted in the purport doesn’t match the English translation that follows it. Why? Because the Sanskrit editor supplied the wrong Sanskrit verse. (If you check in Ninth Canto, you’ll see for yourself.) The new edition has it right.
7.25. A tired typist or sleepy English editor may have helped screw this one up. The prayer the old edition attributes to Queen Kunti was never spoken by Kunti at all. It’s from the Isopanisad! The new edition follows the original manuscript and sets things right.
9.29. The Sanskrit editor guessed which verse to put in ¾ and guessed wrong. The correction is obvious.
10.4-5. Is bhayam (old edition, pg. 498) really the word for “fearlessness”?
13.15. Sarvatah pani-padam is not from the Svetasvatara Upanisad at all. It’s from the previous verse of the Gita. When the mistake is corrected, you get the brilliant Bhaktivedanta purport of the famous, often misused verse apani-pado javano grahita.
6. MANGLED MEANINGS
Sometimes the inexperienced editors just misunderstood the meaning of a Sanskrit verse.
Example (a small one). 5.2. Aside from being a pretty tough sentence to read, the old editing of Srila Rupa Gosvami’s verse scrambles the meaning. The verse doesn’t mean that things related to Krsna, “though they are material,” should not be renounced. The point is that because they’re related to Krsna, they’re not material at all. *That’s* why giving them up, as the Mayavadis do, is dry renunciation.
7. GENERAL BLUNDERS
Then there’s what you might call good old-fashioned screw-ups.
2.1. Have you ever had to explain the last sentence of this purport? “This realization is made possible by working with the fruitive being situated in the fixed conception of the self.” It’s just an editorial mistake, and it doesn’t make a damn bit of sense.
2.43. In the last paragraph, what are the “four monthly penances”? It should be “four-month penances” (caturmasya).
3.35. In the old edition, look at the second sentence of the purport. How often we’ve heard devotees insist that their prescribed duties must “complement their psychophysical condition.” That may be a good idea. But look in the new book and see what Srila Prabhupada actually said.
7.15. The old purport (bottom of page 383) talks about “the swine who eat the soil.” I always thought that strange. Do hogs really eat soil? What the original text says is “the hogs who eat the *night* soil.” But some editor put a question mark next to “night,” and out it went. What in the world is “night soil”? Srila Prabhupada knew ¾ it’s a polite name for that good old stuff we all know hogs love to eat.
7.15. Two sentences later, a typist has left out a line. If you want to find out what Srila Prabhupada said the foolish worker will untiringly continue to hear of, you have to look in the new edition.
10.27. They once took a “sea journey.” Hardly. Our old friend Neal the typist, the college kid who walked into 26 Second Avenue and volunteered to type, simply heard things wrong. It was “sea churning.” But back in the old days in the storefront, no one knew the real story.
10.29. A “planet of trees”? Fa-aar out! But if the Swami says so, it must be right. Sorry, boys. Srila Prabhupada never said so. It’s Neal the typist again. It’s a planet of ancestors (pitas), or pitrs (pronounced “pi-trees”).
10.35. Where has the Lord “already explained” that the Sama-veda is “rich with beautiful songs”? Ask Neal the typist. Or else look in the new book and read things right.
13.2. In the old edition (page 621) you’ll read “Sometimes we understand that I am happy, I am mad, I am a woman, I am a dog, I am a cat; these are the knowers.” This is straight-out nonsense. It’s not right, it’s not sacred, and it’s not the words of my spiritual master.
15.2. Is the old second paragraph of this purport supposed to stay screwed up and incomprehensible forever?
18.31-32. Back in the 60’s, the editors somehow changed the word “ignorance” to “passion” and put the purport in the wrong place. Should it stay there?
8. TOO HELPFUL
It’s the job of the editor to try to help the reader. But sometimes an editor can be too helpful.
Example: 5.28. In the old second paragraph you’ll find a reference to the pratyahara (breathing) process.” On the manuscript you can clearly see that the editor, for the benefit of readers new to yoga, has penned in the parenthetical word “breathing.” But pratyahara is not the breathing process at all ¾ it’s the process of withdrawing the senses from their objects. The breathing process is pranayama. Should this goof be granted sanctity merely for its presence on the page?
15.2. “The Gandharvas (fairies).” The editor is being helpful again. But is Narada Muni really a “fairy”?
9. THE RED-PENNED PURPORT
When our editors back in the 60’s came to a passage too hard for them to figure out, they did what was expedient ¾ crossed it out and kept going. Sometimes it was just a few words, sometimes a sentence or a few sentences, sometimes a whole paragraph.
Sometimes, while trying to prune a paragraph, they cut off valuable fruits and flowers. Sometimes they seem to have thought that Srila Prabhupada was being too heavy. Or sometimes a passage just got inadvertently left out.
Examples:
8.11. The old edition loses the first two sentences of the purport.
8.6, 8.13, 8.14, 8.19. When Srila Prabhupada spoke the whole mahamantra, the typist often just typed some shortcut, like “HK etc.” The new edition restores the full mantra: Hare Krsna, Hare Krsna, Krsna Krsna, Hare Hare/ Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare. Just see how in this chapter ¾ “Attaining the Supreme” ¾ Srila Prabhupada repeatedly emphasizes the chanting of these 16 holy names.
8.28. In the new edition, start reading on page 445, from “The words idam viditva. . .” and go on till the purport ends. Just see all that has been restored. And appreciate, especially, Srila Prabhupada’s beautiful exposition of how Krsna consciousness grows, from sraddha up to prema.
9.26. The first edition loses the whole first paragraph.
11.52. In the new edition, page 599, on the last few lines of the page, the fool who offers respect only to the impersonal “something” within Krsna finally gets what he deserves ¾ Srila Prabhupada’s boot in his face.
13.5. Srila Prabhupada’s gloss on chandobhih has returned to the page, the next paragraph now makes proper sense, and the last paragraph has been recovered.
13.19. Two whole paragraphs lost! For me, Srila Prabhupada’s summary of verses 6 through 18 opened up a new understanding of a chapter that had long perplexed me.
16.7. The history of religious editing is not without its humor. Srila Prabhupada’s manuscript clearly says, “One should always be careful to keep his body clean by bathing, brushing teeth, shaving, changing clothes, etc.”
But back in the 60’s, we kept our beards ¾ and trimmed off the word shaving.
You’ve now had a glimpse of the hundreds of omissions and mistakes in the first edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is.
Should what was lost have stayed permanently lost? Should what was screwed up in the 1960’s have stayed screwed up forever? I leave it to you to decide.
One final point. The first edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is not only preserved errors and omissions but actually *multiplied* them when the book was translated into other languages. What does a translator do with something like “the fruitive being situated in the fixed conception of the self”? A translator faced with a passage that seems wrong or doesn’t make sense does just what the English editors did in the 1960’s ¾ he leaves it contradictory or confusing, he guesses and speculates, or he scratches it out.
If you’d like any more information about the second edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, please feel free to ask.
I’m grateful you’ve taken the care to inquire.
Since both Sridhara Maharaja in Bombay and Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu have asked me for similar information, I’m sending copies of this letter to them.
Mail can reach me here at Jhusi up to September 25. Then I’ll go to Bombay to renew my visa. Padayatra will be starting by then, and our mailing address will be c/o ISKCON Delhi.
Hoping this finds you in good health and a joyful mood,
Your servant, Jayadvaita Swami
Resposta
Dear Wolfgang, Hare Krishna. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
I was saddened to see your letter about the changes in the Bhagavad-gita As It Is. You are rightly concerned that the sanctity of Prabhupada’s books be preserved by not changing anything in them frivolously. I’m sure you’ll be relieved to learn that the changes you pointed out in the purport to 4.34, for instance, are wholly based on Prabhupada’s original transcript. The changes are not “deviations” or “concoctions” but rather restorations.
Concerning your protest against the statement in the new Gita that “independent study of books of knowledge can [not help one] progress in spiritual life,” this is an idea expressed repeatedly by Prabhupada. Check Bhagavatam 2.1.8, par. 1; CC Adi 16.11, par 1; and the explanation of srutayo vibhinnah in a lecture on Sept 8, 1971, in London: “Tarko ‘pratistha srutayo vibhinnah. Scripture. There are different scriptures. If you simply... Scripture means Vedic, Vedas. There are four Vedas and many other also, corollaries. So by studying at home these books, that is also not possible to understand.”
Of course, this injunction doesn’t pertain to Prabhupada’s books. Anyone who reads Prabhupada’s books, whether independently or not, will progress in spiritual life. So, you may say, why should we add something in the purport that might be misunderstood to mean that even by studying the very Gita that the reader is holding in his hand he will make no progress unless he is under the guidance of a spiritual master? Well, Prabhupada said “Nor by independent study of books of knowledge can one progress in spiritual life.” Would you have us print “Nor by independent study of books of knowledge [except the books of Srila Prabhupada] can one progress in spiritual life.”? *That*, in my view, would be unwarranted tampering with the text.
The reality is that there are many such statements that need to be understood in context with other sections of Srila Prabhupada’s books. Then it becomes clear to all intelligent readers what is meant.
The following is a letter Jayadvaita Maharaja, the editor of the new Gita, wrote 10 years ago to explain his work in revising the MacMillan edition. I hope it resolves your concerns. Hoping this meets you well, I remain Yours in Lord Krishna’s service,
Dravida das Senior Editor, the BBT
AS TRÊS GRANDES ONDAS DE SRI CAITANYA MAHAPRABHU NO BRASIL
(História do Movimento Hare Krsna no Brasil - por Vyasa Dasa)
Relato Histórico do Inicio do Vaisnavismo no Brasil em 1973, com A.C. Bhktivendanta Swami Prabhupada, e os demais momentos importantes que se seguiram com a continuidade evolutiva do Estabelecimento de Grandes Acaryas Vaisnavas, sendo Srila Sridhara Maharaja a partir de 1.980 e atualmente Srila Narayana Maharaja.
