The Grammatical Embellishment Acarya
Jayadvaita’s Grammatical Embellishment program — Truth or Deception?
By Yasoda nandana dasa — Los Angeles, California – August 24, 2010
According to Jayadvaita Swami’s own convenient interpretation in the Sampradaya Sun on August 22, 2010:
“…In the mid 1970s I extensively revised the first Canto, especially the first two chapters. Srila Prabhupada explicitly approved of this work, and the revised version was published in 1976…… In 1976 I also lightly revised the second Canto, already edited by Hayagriva Prabhu and published. After the “Rascal Editors” conversation, Radha-vallabha Dasa, then the BBT production manager, sent Srila Prabhupada samples of my second-Canto editing, and this is what led to Srila Prabhupada’s statement, in a letter dated September 7, 1976, “Concerning the editing of Jayadvaita Prabhu, whatever he does is approved by me. I have confidence in him.” The revised second Canto was also published before Srila Prabhupada’s departure…”
Accuracy does seem to occur in his revised edited dictionary. The “rascal editors” conversation occured on June 22, 1977. But Jayadvaita claims that after this date [June 22, 1977] “Radha vallabha…sent Srila Prabhupada samples of my second-Canto editing”. Subsequent to this event the Grammatical Embelishment Acarya [JAS] now reveals that this led to the following “this is what led to Srila Prabhupada’s statement, in a letter dated September 7, 1976, “Concerning the editing of Jayadvaita Prabhu, whatever he does is approved by me. I have confidence in him.”
1) So how does the event on June 22, 1977 in Srila Prabhupada’s garden in Vrindavana, India lead to a letter from Srila Prabhupada dated September 7, 1976?
2) On June 22, 1977, Srila Prabhupada stated: Srila PrabhupÄda: So you bring this to SatsvarÅ«pa. They cannot change anything…. Srila 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 SatsvarÅ«pa that “This is the position. They are doing anything and everything at their whim.” The next printing should be again to the original way. [underline is mine].
3) So far the Grammatical Embellishment acarya [Jas] has not been able to provide any verifiable credible evidence that Srila Prabhupada has ever given an order or instruction to go back to His manuscripts and re-write and change His books. Where is the evidence for his outlandish claim that he can change Srila Prabhupada’s books?
4) Srila Prabhupada clearly says in the June 22, 1977 conversation that the “next printing should be again the original way”. Has the Grammatical Embellishment acarya followed this directive of Srila Prabhupada? Has he complied with this directive of the acarya, Srila Prabhupada? Has he made sure that the next printing of the books, which had been unauthorizedly revised during Srila Prabhupada’s manifested presence, such as Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Nectar of Devotion, Krishna Book, Isopanisad, the first four Cantos of the Srimad-Bhagavatam should be “again the original way”?
5) Not only has the Grammatical Embellishment Editor not complied with this order of Srila Prabhupada, but he now actively campaigns, harasses and threatens those who follow this directive of Srila Prabhupada and distribute the books which have been reprinted “the original way“ by KBI!
6) Jayadvaita’s claim: “In the mid 1970s I extensively revised the first Canto, especially the first two chapters. Srila Prabhupada explicitly approved of this work, and the revised version was published in 1976.”
7) Now let us follow Jayadvaita’s ruse and claim that his 1976 edition of the First Canto of the Srimad-Bhagavatam had been approved by Srila Prabhupada. The “rascal editors” conversation states”
Srila Prabhupada: That… Find this verse, munayah sadhu prsto ‘ham… [SB 1.2.5].
Tamala Krishna: There’s no index. It’s not a new Bhagavatam. There’s no index in this Bhagavatam. Munayah sadhu…? “The Effects of Kali-yuga” chapter? Is that the verse, about the effects of Kali-yuga? No. (background talking, looking for verse)
munayah sadhu prsto ‘ham
yat krtah krsna-samprasno
munayah—of the sages; sadhu—this is relevant; prstah—questioned; aham…”
Srila Prabhupada: No? What is that? Sadhu? What is that? Munayah
Tamal Krishna: Says, “sadhu—this is relevant.”
Srila Prabhupada: Relevant?
Tamal Krishna: That’s what it’s translated as, “this is relevant.” May be a mistake
Devotee: It’s a mistake.
Srila Prabhupada: Munayah
Tamala Krishna: “Munayaá¸¥—of the sages; sadhu—this is relevant.
Srila Prabhupada: The nonsense, they are… They are correcting my trans… Rascal. Who has done this? Munayaá¸¥ is addressing all these munis.
8) Now in Jayadvaita’s revised embellished Bhagavatam edition, as shown on his BBTI website as of August 24, 2010, we find the following:
Munayah — O sages; sadhu — this is relevant; prstahÌ£ — questioned; aham — myself; bhavadbhihÌ£ — by all of you; loka — the world; mangalam — welfare; yat — because; krtah — made; krsna — the Personality of Godhead; samprasnahÌ£ — relevant question; yena — by which; atma — self; suprasidati — completely pleased. (SB 1.2.5)
Here we find the same mistake which Srila Prabhupada had criticized and disapproved of on June 22, 1977, wherein the word sadhu was translated as “this is relevant”. This shows that Srila Prabhupada did not approve of that version of the first Canto which Jayadvaita claims he had just edited and sent to Srila Prabhupada for his approval. Srila Prabhupada did not approve that version which was being read in his garden. He requested that the books, including that 1976 unauthorized revised edition, be returned the original way, i. e., the first edition.
Srila Prabhupada specifically disapproved of the 1976 Srimad-Bhagavatam edition and its unauthorized changes which had just been read in His presence. He criticized and disapproved it as of June 22, 1977.
Unless the Grammatical Embellishment acarya can provide verifiable credible evidence from Srila Prabhupada, specifically after June 22, 1977, which would clearly show that Srila Prabhupada specifically and directly instructed him and /or any editor to go to His original manuscripts and revise and change His books, then the revisions and so-called “revised and improved” editions remain unauthorized? Where is his evidence from Srila Prabhupada and his authority to change the acharya’s original books?
Srila Prabhupada on additions and alterations
“…Guru-mukha-padma-vakya, cittete koriya aikya . Everyone should do that. But if he makes addition, alteration, then he is finished. No addition, alteration. You have to approach guru—guru means the faithful servant of God, Krishna—and take his word how to serve Him. Then you are successful. If you concoct, “I am very intelligent than my guru, and I can make addition or alteration,” then you are finished. So that is the only. And now, sing further…” Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures, Canto 6: Lectures : SB 6.1: Lectures : Srimad-Bhagavatam 6.1.26-27 – Philadelphia, July 12, 1975
The result of alterations and additions: finished
“… Therefore we present Bhagavad-Gita As it is, no addition, no alteration. The same thing, AS SOON AS THERE IS ADDITION, ALTERATION, IT IS GONE, FINISHED…”
Srila Prabhupada’s lecture, July 2, 1974, Melbourne, Australia
“… It is not our business to amend the words of the Supreme Personality of Godhead or make additions and alterations. as it has now become a custom for many so-called scholars and Swamis who comment on the words of Bhagavad-Gita…”
Srila Prabhupada’s lecture July 2, 1974, Melbourne, Australia
Srila Prabhupada on changing
“…The process of disciplic succession: from Krishna, Brahma, from Brahma, Narada, from Narada, Vyasa; from Vyasa, Madhva; from Madhva, Madhavendra Puri; Isvara Puri; from Isvara Puri; Lord Caitanya. Sa evam parampara. So in the parampara system, in that disciplic succession, you will find no change. The original word is there. That is the thing.
They are not foolish to manufacture something new. What new? People are after something new manufactured by this tiny brain. What new can you manufacture? That is all nonsense. If you want real thing, then you have to take the old, the oldest. You cannot change anything…”
Srila Prabhupada’s lecture- December 1, 1966, New York, NY, USA
Dr. Patel: “…and now we are to define who is a rascal.”
Srila Prabhupada: “No, rascal is meant, who has no authority. They are changing every day. They are changing. We don’t change. These rascals are changing. We… Over five thousand years ago Sukadeva Goswarni said that, As I have heard it I am explaining.’ That means time immemorial, the thing is, same thing is coming. There is no change, not that after a few days, , No, no. It was wrong. This is now right. ‘Again somebody comes
Dr. Patel: “They are explaining the truth in their own way. That is the change of theory. But the truth is always the same.”
Srila Prabhupada: “That is the truth of rascaldom, as soon as you change your position.”
Conversation with Srila Prabhupada November 17, 1975 Bombay, India