Senior Opositor audio 1#
Good morning. I find this topic to be one that has been discussed millions of times and exhausted. I am very familiar with the accusation that the two versions lead to different paths, which is absurd, not to mention stupid. It seems to me that the people who talk like this have their own selfish personal motives. I know the people who have strongly protested about this. I’ve seen the different versions. I worked for many years in the BBT; Prabhupada trusted me to produce his books. If you can give me a practical, solid example of a change like that stupid robot says in the recording you sent me—that the two versions lead to different spiritual paths, really?—give me a practical example of that, and if it has merit, I’ll accept it.
But as I said, I know very well the people who shouted the loudest about this, and I know their selfish motives. Even I am conservative. I believe it shouldn’t have been rewritten; it wasn’t a new interpretation, it was a new draft that was poorly thought out. They shouldn’t have done it, but we can’t go to the other extreme either.
Stolen Words response 1#
A Practical Example of Doctrinal Transformation
A significant change in spiritual understanding by comparing the two versions of the Bhagavad-gītā, specifically in verse 2.13.
Key Textual Change:
Original Version (1972): “Forgotten soul.”
Revised Version (1983): “Forgetful soul.”
Spiritual Impact:
The change of a single word (“forgotten” to “forgetful”) redefines spiritual understanding:
- Forgotten Soul: Suggests the soul is lost due to factors beyond its control, generating humility and dependence on divine grace for rescue.
- Forgetful Soul: Implies personal negligence that can be corrected with personal effort and discipline, promoting a view of self-management and improvement.
Psychological Consequences:
- Forgotten Soul: Activates receptivity and dependence, emotionally linking the reader with the need to be rescued. It generates a trajectory based on supplication and surrender.
- Forgetful Soul: Stimulates control and personal effort, promoting management techniques and self-reflection. It fosters a trajectory of progress based on effort.
Spiritual Perceptions and Paths:
A therapist, unaware of the context, commented: “The concept of ‘forgotten soul’ inspires prayer and asking for help, while ‘forgetful soul’ motivates to make more effort.” This results in two divergent paths: one centered around grace and the other around effort and knowledge.
Other Examples of Divergence:
Divine Relationship:
- Original: Krishna called “The Blessed Lord,” favors an intimate and devotional relationship.
- Revised: Uses “The Supreme Personality of Godhead,” which formalizes and institutionalizes the relationship.
Universality of Grace:
- Original (4.11): “As all surrender unto Me, I reward them…” implies divine inclusivity.
- Revised: Changes “all” to “them,” suggesting exclusivity in access to grace.
These changes affect how readers perceive their spiritual journey towards devotion or personal effort.
Senior Opositor audio 2#
Hare Krishna, thank you, exactly what I was expecting, a very weak argument. For example, divine relationship, original, the Blessed Lord. Of course, there is a change of tone or something like that. But the truth is that Prabhupada used “The Supreme Personality of Godhead” thousands of times, thousands of times, and “the Blessed Lord” is not intimate.
In Gaudiya Vaishnavism, when speaking of intimacy, it refers to a rasa (relationship) with Krishna, like a gopi, the cowherd boys, the parents—that’s intimate. Of course, I understand it’s different. I didn’t want it to be changed either, but saying it changes philosophy is a stupid thing, because the fact is that if you read Prabhupada’s books, you will probably reach the same conclusion. And as I said, Prabhupada uses “The Supreme Personality of Godhead” thousands of times. Thousands of times. And “the Blessed Lord” is not super intimate. There’s a difference, but not so much as to say it changes the philosophy.
Universality of Grace: As all surrender to me, I reward them. The edited version changes to “them.” The fact is that in the Bhagavad Gita, the Sanskrit says “them.” In the Bhagavad Gita, it says “them.” Again, I am not for these changes, but “them” is closer to what Krishna says.
And well, “these changes affect how readers perceive and their journey.” Oh my God, do you really think a practicing devotee changes their whole life for a word in a verse? It’s absurd.
If one reads Prabhupada’s books, everything is communicated. “A practical example of doctrinal transformation,” I want to see that… “A significant change, original version forgotten soul, revised version forgetful soul.”
The fact is that Krishna never forgets the soul. So saying forgetful soul is the soul that forgets itself. So, philosophically, it says the soul is forgotten, but by whom? Krishna never forgets the soul. The great souls never forget. Prabhupada never forgot. So who forgets? By themselves. So a soul forgets itself, is a forgetful soul. It’s the same. These things are so honestly childish.
“Psychological consequences”… How is that? Psychological consequences? “Activates receptivity and independence.” But it’s false. It’s not our philosophy that Krishna forgets the soul. Who forgets? Only the soul forgets itself. A therapist. Oh my god, please forgive me. Don’t come to me with this nonsense.
What seems to me is that the author is a person determined to criticize, insult, and exaggerate. Yes, I am a person, in favor of not changing the original. It’s not that I want to change. But to exaggerate that it changes everything and that we lose the relationship with Krishna, please, that’s not for adults.
Stolen Words response 2#
You claim to know well the criticism that says different versions lead to different paths but you don’t realize that it had never been studied from a scientific point of view before.
You criticize those who speak about it, saying they do it for selfish reasons, with bad intentions; that’s attacking the person, which is not useful for debate. And although you say you know those who protested strongly, you don’t see that this time we’re talking about someone different, not “the same people.”
You say you have seen the different versions, that you worked for many years in the BBT, and that Prabhupada trusted you to make his books. That’s what they call an appeal to authority fallacy. Having experience doesn’t automatically make your arguments true.
If you think all this is a farce or a childish matter, you have the right to that opinion, but that’s not a serious argument. Saying the criticisms are “absurd” or “farces” simplifies the problem, committing what’s called a straw man fallacy.
You ask for clear evidence and examples, and there are many, well documented. You are conservative, believing that things shouldn’t have been changed, but “we can’t just throw everything overboard either.”
If we accept that the changes aren’t right, why not closely examine to what extent these changes show a different vision?
Changing one or two words might not change the core of the Bhagavad-gītā significantly, but altering many certainly changes the meaning. Every word was chosen by Srila Prabhupada with care, to convey a message with strength, emotion, and heart, not just to be technically exact. For example, saying “The Blessed Lord” was not random, it was to show a special relationship with the divine that hits straight at the hearts of his followers.
Saying that “The Blessed Lord” and “The Supreme Personality of God” are the same is an error. Although they speak of the same person, they generate different feelings and the brain receives them differently. Intimate language touches the heart, while formal simply explains to the head.
And the use of a word thousands of times doesn’t automatically make it the right one for every situation or interchangeable.
Saying that “The Blessed Lord” is not something intimate for Vaishnava philosophy, that intimacy would only be like that of the gopis, ignores that there are degrees of closeness. “The Supreme Personality of Godhead” is less intimate, “The Blessed Lord” is more, and the gopis even closer. It’s not about having or not having intimacy; it’s a continuum.
When you say that in that Sanskrit verse “them” is more accurate than “all,” you don’t see that Prabhupada preferred spiritual impact over textual accuracy. Saying that the change does not affect devotees is not understanding that certain teachings have specific practical consequences.
In the case of “forgotten souls” versus “forgetful souls,” you argue that Krishna never forgets the soul, so it’s the soul that forgets itself, making it “forgetful.” But this prioritizes technical accuracy over the audience’s experience. Prabhupada used “forgotten” from the perspective of the conditioned soul, who is forgotten by Krishna and lost in the material world. This choice resonates with the reader’s existential experience, feeling disconnected and distant from the divine, evoking compassion and Krishna’s mercy.
On the other hand, “forgetful” sounds like an accusation directed at the soul, as if it’s its own fault or an inherent negative trait. Prabhupada wrote to touch hearts, not to do philosophical dissection. This is another example of how changing terms for academic accuracy sacrifices the transforming power of language.
Maintaining the words Srila Prabhupada chose isn’t just a matter of semantics but about preserving the power of his message and the legacy reaching millions.
Senior Opositor audio 3#
I never said that. I never based my argument on critiques. I gave objective arguments and alongside I told you that I find something very poor. That was not the basis of my argument to call names or say “this is bad” or “the other is bad.” So, to say it’s not an argument, seriously, you’re going to do that to me? You’re going to do that to me?
I have half a century of experience in debates, in formal arguments. Since you are a spiritual brother, I explained to you what I think, and that’s what I think. But I never saw that as an argument; it’s absurd.
No, I, I, I’m not going to explain it again. Yes, it’s not just blah blah blah. The fact is that the devotees have no evidence; if he wants to be objective, there is no evidence that the devotees… first, I don’t even support those changes.
I am not in favor of those changes, but I am not, how do you say, a radical theory that is destroying everything so that no one will understand Prabhupada. That is absurd.
My position is in the middle, in the middle. I don’t support the changes, even. I give different authorities the opinion that they should publish the original books, without those changes.
That is my position. But at the same time, I don’t give criticism that is so comically radical about the consequences. I took the middle.
And as I said, my opinion about those people is not the basis of my argument. It is simply alongside, a viewpoint.