Yasodananda’s distortion concerning the book changes, and his attack on the 10 vol. SB Set.
Yasodananda is cheating and lying to the devotees concerning the book changes and Srila Prabhupada’s statement about “going back to the original” (original what ????)
Yasodanandan is telling every one, they have been reading from the 76 first canto SB in “the rascal editors” conversation, when in fact they have been reading from the 72 first canto SB.
Email: Thursday, July 29, 2021 –
From: Jitarati to Yasodanandan
Yasoda wrote in his article of Aug 2018 the following lies.
“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 criticised and disapproved it as of June 22, 1977.”
They were reading from the 72, so at least your first sentence is correct, that Prabhupada did not approve of that version.
You had to lie and mislead people to believe that they were reading from the 76. If the basis is a lie, why should anyone believe what you say?
He (Yasodanandan) also had the same mistaken and confused idea on June 22,1977 when he stated:
“Yaśodā-nandana: Also in the Bhāgavatam, where Prabhupāda was talking about Lord Buddha… You mentioned that if the followers of Lord Buddha do not close the slaughterhouse, there is no meaning to such a caricature. That word was very nice. But in new book that word is not there any more. They have pulled the word. The meaning of the word is not… So many times.”
So he (Yasodananda) thinks this change is only in the 76, but actually it is in the 72 also. He was directly giving Prabhupada false information.
Yasoda, please, for the sake of your own sanity and reputation, stop misleading people and admit your mistake. Be a man, then we can move forward. You have to give up this totally insane idea that Prabhupada was not authorising any editing of his books after the first editions. It’s just not true. After his departure, then it is true.
Looks like Yasodanandana Prabhu cut out from the devotees and posted another irrelevant and mostly untrue document without any reference to, or answering any of the comments and questions covered in this thread and not copying anyone on this thread except Laksman and Devaki. What the heck is he afraid of? The truth? Maybe there were too many questions so let’s just stick with one.
I am not posting that article here as we should just move forward one point at a time until each point is resolved. Jumping, jumping, like a monkey with no understanding. What is the point?
ys Jitarati das
——————–
Email: Friday, 30 July 2021 –
Answer from Yasodanandan:
Dear Prabhus et al – Please accept my respectful obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Kindly note that I am not overly concerned about my sanity and reputation. Srila Prabhupada and Krishna and reasonable Vaisnavas will deal with that.
Personal attacks aside, first let us deal with where this whole controversy came from. The following is from a posting by Jayadvaita Swami trying to justify his changes to the first and second cantos in 1976.
jayadvaita swami: PS: The portion of Srimad-Bhagavatam Govinda Dasi saw Hayagriva Prabhu reviewing with Srila Prabhupada in 1968 would have been from the first canto or, at most, the second.
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. The revisions I made for the translations of the first two chapters are all available for you to see at Srimad Bhagavatam Revisions Examined | BBTedit.com.
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.
And so, ironically, the history Govinda Dasi brings forward as evidence that I defied Srila Prabhupada’s authority by editing the work he had already carefully gone over with Hayagriva Prabhu turns out, on closer inspection, to be an example of how, when I revised such work, Srila Prabhupada gave his full and unconditional approval. The Sampradaya Sun – Independent Vaisnava News – Editorial Stories – August 2010
—————–
Email: Friday, July 30, 2021 –
From: Jitarati to Yasodanandan
Dear Yashodanandana Prabhu, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!
There is no personal attack. I am trying to help you. I quoted your lies. I didn’t make them up.
You need to come clean for your own good, and all those who believe in you.
Bringing Jayadvaita’s faulty memory into this, and finding fault with that, is not the issue here.
The issue is your lies as opposed to Srila Prabhupada’s clear authorisation of the first and second cantos, an editorial process that went on for almost a year with Prabhupada monitoring the whole thing. I will send the evidence again for everyone to view carefully and decide on whether you want to accept Srila Prabhupada’s written and spoken acceptance and auhorisation or reject it , based on a complete misunderstanding of the June 22, 1977 conversation.
A written order cannot be rejected by someones faulty understanding of a later conversation.
You know that principle very well, so that is the very reason you had to make it appear that they were reading from the 76. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
I have no idea who you are talking about in LA or what it might have to do with the issue at hand. Please stay on point until it is resolved.
Hare Krishna,
ys Jitarati das
————–
COMMENT BY DEVAKI DD
Thank you Jitarati prabhu, I am glad you brought that point up that they were reading from the 1972 in that conversation which displeased Srila Prabhupada. Yasodanandana Can you tell me why you think they were reading from the 1976? Even during the conversation they were going to the index and said there is no index which means obviously 1972. 1976 had index. Can you kindly tell us why you think they were reading from 1976? As there is proof to the contrary. Not a battle for who’s right or wrong but the actual facts. We all work together to get to the truth… Not discover who is right or wrong. sincerely trying to serve, all glories to His Divine Grace AC Bhaktivedanta Srila Prabhupada ki jay!!
Devaki dd
—————
THE RASCAL EDITORS CONVERSATION
Email: Saturday, July 24, 2021 –
From: Jitarati das
Dear Prabhus, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!
So, who authorised them to do this editing work? Nowhere does Prabhupada authorise this editing after his departure.
He authorised editing on the 76 and monitored that editing. Now these people know better than Prabhupada, and want to edit Prabhupada’s authorised editing? Sowing confusion and undermining the authority of Prabhupada is their only business. Let them point out one thing in my Bhagavatam set that is not authorised.
Let them point out from the 21,000 which ones are authorised and which ones are not. They cannot do it, because they don’t even know the difference. The harm they are doing is unfathomable.
Need proof? Look at their list comparisons for Canto 1.2.5, the mistake in the very verse which upset Srila Prabhupada in the rascal editors conversation. In their list, the 72 has the mistake and the 76 has been corrected, but the 76 is being touted as the bad unauthorised version. This is not being compiled by intelligent people. Yashodanandana Prabhu, in an article in 2018 stressed 3 times that they were reading from the 76 on June 22 1977 in Vrindavana. Anyone who has heard or read the rascal editors conversation, know that they were reading from the 72, but to this day he will not admit his mistake.
The 3 quotes below taken from their presentation, also below, make it easy to understand the misdirected foolishness.
In future you don’t do any changes without asking me first.
[Letter: Bhargava, May 29,1976]
Do not try to change anything without my permission.
[Letter to Radhavallabha, Aug 26, 1976]
The next printing should be again to the original way.
[SrilaPrabhupada Conversation, “Rascal Editors,”June 22, 1977, Vrndavana]
The first two represent exactly what Radhavallabha Prabhu did when writing to Srila Prabhupada asking for permission to edit and correct the 72 first canto. He included a manuscript of the corrections and his own list of corrections of some synonyms. Prabhupada replied and authorised all of it. To keep it short I will not include these letters here. I have sent them out previously but no one in this group are interested in what Prabhupada says or authorises.
The last quote above represents exactly what was done in the 76 First Canto, putting it back much closer to the original way in the Delhi SB that Prabhupada came to America with.
No honest person can escape these facts.
Hare Krishna,
Your servant,
Jitarati das
————-
Email: Wednesday, December 8
From: Yasodanandan
Subject: Re: The unseen destruction of Srila Prabhupada’s first edition Srimad Bhagavatam (4th canto)
Exposing the offensive changes in the so-called original Srimad Bhagavatam: The Red “not-original” Srimad Bhagavatam has so many pages, lines and verses cut off from the second and fourth cantos.
The so-called Srimad Bhagavatam is not even 100% pre 1978. Lots of revised editions, especially some of those from 1st to 4th cantos have been published in 1978. This was already exposed in the previous email that showed all publication years of first and second editions.
————-
REPLY TO YASODANANDAN
Email: Friday, December 10 –
By Jitarati Das
Why jump to the 4th canto when they haven’t understood even the 1st canto. Their basis for the “everything back to the first editions” is based on a lie and a distortion of the facts. Had they been reading from the 76 first canto in the rascal editors conversation they would have found the verse Prabhupada wanted in the proper index immediately, and no mistake would have been found and the reading of the first canto would have gone on nicely.
Instead, because they were reading from the 72 edition; it had no index, and the mistake found when they started reading, triggered a whole conversation on rascal editors who change the meaning of what Prabhupada said.
When that conversation ended, they went on with the reading of the 72, but note that Prabhupada did not allow any reading of the translations or purports after that first requested verse. They read the Sanskrit transliterations only for the following verses and Prabhupada gave his comments on that only. Wonder why?
So they (Yasodanandan) have to lie and say that they were reading from the 76 and then invent the new idea that everything should go back to the “original” (first) edition (1972) with the mistakes in it. Please do not fall for this lie (of Yasodanandan), based on a lie, that Prabhupada did not authorize the editing of his books. If intelligent people just consider this one poignant example they would not fall into the trap of lies and deceit presented by questionable people with dubious agendas.
Ys,
Jitarati das
“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.”
Therefore,who edited the purports and where is the proof that Srila Prabhupada approved of it ?.
Respected Devotee of Srila Prabhupada Shriman Jitarati das Prabhu, you are a great protector and promotor of Srila Prabhupada’s Original unedited BOOKS and so is Shriman Yasodananadana Prabhu and so many others Prabhupadanugas world wide who are not certainly so well known as you are.
It certainly hurts to read throwing unnecessarily muds on each other when the facts of the matter regarding Book Changes are before us.
Where this type of mud throwing taking us all when well known Srila Prabhupada’s senior devotee like your goodself are finger pointing at each other unnecessarily knowing very well the facts of the book changes are before us as per simple one example given above ? Who can deny it ?
I beg from all the devotees kindly let us stay focus on the TRUTH to protect and promote Srila Prabhupada’s Original VANI As It Is.
Hope it meets all the devotees satisfactory.
OM TAT SAT.
Hare Krishna. All Glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Yes, I agee that that small change should not have happenned but it is nothing compared to the change of meaning that I have already pointed out but you seem to have missed in SB 1.17.22. It is a very serious mistake in the 72 version but you seem to want to overlook it. What many devotees are unaware of is that the editing of the first four cantos was going on underPrabhupada’s direction and approval. General indexes were expanded by 3 or four times and put in every volume, synonyms were corrected, changed meanings were put back to what Prabhupada actually said and added transliterations and verse translations which were never put in by Prabhupada, were removed, because they were redundant and seriously affected the perfect explanations that Prabhupada had already put in the purports completely in context with the verses. So again below please read carefully the complete change of meaning in the 72 SB 1.17.22:
I will leave you with a very relevant and poignant verse from the SB to illustrate who is changing Prabhupada’s translations and who is correcting them to the original way and how so important the original way is for all of us in this important verse.
SB 1/17/22 – 1972 version:
TRANSLATION: The King said: O you, who are in the form of a bull! You know the truth of religion, and – you are speaking on the principles that if one knows the location of irreligious acts, one will know the perpetrator. You are no other than the personality of religion.
1976 version:
TRANSLATION: “The King said: O you, who are in the form of a bull! You know the truth of religion, and you are speaking according to the principle that the destination intended for the perpetrator of irreligious acts is also intended for one who identifies the perpetrator. You are no other than the personality of religion.”
Delhi version:
TRANSLATION: “The king said, oh you are one who knows the truth of religiosity in the form of a bull, you are speaking just on the principle that the place which is fixed up for the person engaged in acts of irreligiosity, is also the place for the identifier. You are no other than the personality of religiosity.”
So it is easy to see that the 72 version has a completely different meaning.
Your servant,
Jitarati das
Jitarati das Prabhu says ; ” Yes, I agee that that small change should not have happenned but it is nothing compared to the change of meaning that I have already pointed out but you seem to have missed in SB 1.17.22. It is a very serious mistake in the 72 version but you seem to want to overlook it. What many devotees are unaware of is that the editing of the first four cantos was going on underPrabhupada’s direction and approval. …………… ”
First of all Jitarati Prabhu, I highly commend your dedication and appreciate very much your services for the mission of our Jagat Guru His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada.
As you agree with a small change which I spotted out and brought out in my comments to make a point that the changes were taken place in the first Four Cantos either small or large. There were no Original any more. The Power and Potency of the Originality of Srila Prabhupada’s speech of flowing words from His Lotus Mouth in writing was changed due to the addition and/or deletion of Srila Prabhupada potency of speech in His Books, small or big. So, this type of change matters to which Srila Prabhupada never approved of it.
You can not build a building if your foundation is wrong. The building will be collapsed sooner or later regardless how small or large mistake is there in its foundation.
Thus due to these changes small or large, Srila Prabhupada’s House of VANI which He built upon for His world wide followers are getting torn apart slowly but surely. Those of us, including yourgoodself Prabhu, as one of the Senior devotee, Protector and Promotor of Original Srila Prabhupada’s VANI, throwing mud on each other, does not become good, and serve no purpose at all rather it hurts the Readers, neophyte followers and devotees, like myself, when I/we read this type of offensive and defensive blame game are being played right before the eyes. It is very discouraging and unhealthy for the Spirit of the Sadhakas – Practitioners of Krishna Consciousness.
Our Jagat Guru Srila Prabhupada always instructs and encourages us, His Followers to settle the differences in the form of an Isthaghosti by discussing what we have learned from His VANI.
So, under the circumstances, Jitarati Prabhu, I beg to suggest that simply to follow suit Srila Prabhupada’s Instructions to settle the differences instead of throwing the MUD in the form of playing Blame Game.
At the end, Jitarati Prabhu, I must admit that I am very insignificant neophyte follower who have much inadequate knowledge of Srila Prabhupada’s VANI let alone the Politics being played by the so called authority of the Book Changers and others gbc. controllers, gurus of all kinds in the present Fiskcon.
By the grace of Sincere and Serious Senior Devotee, Srila Prabhupada’s Original VANI is preserved which will be carried forward for the 9500 years more to come.
So let us continue to protect and promote such Original VANI of Srila Prabhupada.
OM TAT SAT.
Hare Krishna. All Glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Jitarati Prabhu, PAMHO.
May I invite your kind attention towards 1972 Version and 1976 Version which are not the same at all.
Please read few examples below for your ready reference ;
From the 1972 version: “The younger brothers of the King, Nakula and Sahadeva and also Satyaki and Arjuna, the Personality of Godhead Lord Sri Krsna, son of Devaki, and the ladies and others all unanimously agreed with the King.”
1976 version edited and changed reads ; “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.”
So, the BBTi transcript is changed and does not follow the original recording.
7th of October, 1976 (Srimad Bhagavatam 1.7.49-50)
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Pradyumna is reading from the 1972 version:
“Suta Gosvami said: Despite being instructed in his duty and encouraged to kill the son of Dronacarya, Arjuna, a great soul, did not like the idea of killing him, although he was a heinous murderer of his family members.”
1st of October, 1976 (Srimad Bhagavatam 1.7.40) 1976 version The BBTi transcript states the following:
Pradyumna: “Suta Gosvami said: Although Krsna, who was examining Arjuna in religion, encouraged Arjuna to kill the son of Dronacarya, Arjuna, a great soul, did not like the idea of killing him, although Asvatthama was a heinous murderer of Arjuna’s family members.”
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Therefore, the changes are there. No body can deny it. Rest is the history as you and I know it, Prabhu.
That is why I request humbly let us stay focus on the Original Srila Prabhupada’s VANI As It Is to make not only our lives sublime but by distributing the Original Books of Srila Prabhupada As It Is to all others also without any personal ambition simply for the service of Srila Prabhupada’s Mission.
OM TAT SAT.
Hare Krishna. All Glories to Srila Prabhupada.
ys…… amar puri.
Dear Amar Puri prabhu,
Pamho
AGTSP
As you pointed out, we should not be interested in offending any devotee here, but should be interested in truth : a genuine devotee will not be offended by the truth, rather his ears will welcome the genuine truth like the inhabitants of Dvaraka welcomed Lord Krsna; indeed the highest truth is reality distinguished from illusion for the welfare of all (SB 1.1.2).
Jitarati ‘s prabhus main point in his article is that in the 1977 rascal editors conversation, Srila Prabhupada referring to the mistaken translation of” munayah “in the word for word of SB 1.2.5, was criticizing the 1972 version of Srimad Bhagavatam ( without index), not the 1976 version of Srimad Bhagavatam, as falsely pointed out by Yasodananda pr..
Actually the 1976 version of SB has the correct translation ( “o sages”), as opposed to the mistake in the 1972 version ( “of the sages”), pointed out by Srila Prabhupada.
Prabhu, you mentioned in your comment that the purport to 1.11.9 (actually 1.11.10) is an example of a book change in the 1976 version ( the living entity can see Krsna FACE TO FACE), as opposed to the “original “1972 version ( the living entity can see Krsna EYE to EYE).
You also asked : where is the proof that Prabhupada approved such a change?
If we look at the purport to 1.11.10 in the original Delhi Bhagavatam ( 1964)
(http://prabhupadabooks.com/pdf/SB-Delhi-Vol-2s.pdf ),
Srila Prabhupada clearly writes :
” the living entity can see Lord FACE to FACE”
So you are actually pointing out to a correct editing in 1976 SB ( “face to face”)as opposed to a mistake or change in the 1972 edition ( “eye to eye”).
So clearly by your example, the 1972 version had made an unnecessary change while the 1976 version had corrected that mistake to come back to the original words of Srila Prabhupada.
your servant,
Mahatma das
Dear Prabhus,
My humble obeisances to all the devotees trying to see the truth. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!
If we sincerely want to resolve this issue our best chance is to understand the differences between the 1st canto, Delhi, 72 and 76, before we even try to understand corrections in the other cantos. The reason is that we have the Delhi version which is untouched by anybody, as a basis to make the comparison. With the other cantos we can only point out changes without a reference which is absolute. If we can honestly and inteligently compare the change of meaning inserted into the 72 version compared to the original edition by Prabhupada in Delhi and the corrections in the 76 to bring it back to the original way, we will have a sound basis for a truthful analysis of the corrections done in the other cantos.
The problem is that the lie of saying that they were reading from the 76 in Vrindavan on June 22/77 has to be corrected before any meaningful discussion can go on. Without admitting to that, then there is no basis for an honest dialogue.
If any honest person will look at the complete change of meaning in the 72 1.17.22 as a stark example of what I am talking about, that will be another basis for an honest dialogue. This must come first before we can move on together in a cooperative mood.
Regarding the “face to face”, eye to eye, everyone has to look at that more thoroughly.
The change is in 1.11.8 not 9 or 10. In the Delhi and the 72 both face to face and eye to eye are there but in the 76 it was changed to face to face twice. So it should not have been done, but to highlight this small mistake and ignore the complete change of meaning in the 72, 1.17.22.s like pointing out the spots on the moon and ignoring the complete covering of the moon by Rahu during an eclipse. It is illogical and no sane person will think like this.
ys
Jitarati das
Jitarati Prabhu, Please read the reply at the following link ;
https://www.prabhupadanugas.eu/news/?p=53427#comment-71038
Hare Krishna. All Glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Mahatma das Prabhu,
Hare Krishna. AGTSP. PAMHO.
Please see the following link ;
https://www.prabhupadanugas.eu/news/?p=53427#comment-71038
Dear devotees; My respects to your service, All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
My personal experience here in India, distributing over 60 sets of these beautiful
10 volume sets of Srimad Bhagavatam
(Jitarati personally paid for and had printed in India),
has been a very positive life changing experience.
The potency of these books are there, I know, always kept a set in my place of residence in case someone needs a set (which is requested often by word of mouth) my sadhana increased and my dedication to Srila Prabhupada instructions increase, try it, put a set in your house and see what happens.
The reviews I get after someone puts them in their house and reads them are the same, very positive and life changing.
These same sets had the demons scared, one big Iskcon demon guru stopped us with a court order, we couldn’t take them out of the printers warehouse in Delhi
.
After a year and half, the India courts worked in Jitarati das favor, we now had the books back to distribute in India and the rest were shipped throughout the world.
Another 5,000 sets were printed and today in India also distributed by BBT, thanks to Jitarati das financial support and our devotee community support.
My point is: If you didn’t even have a set of these 10 volume sets of Srimad Bhagavatam in your hands or house, feeling the potency or help us distribute these books or help in the cost of printing, don’t stop us or criticized us by fanatically saying were going to hell.
Besides, if that is the case, I’ve no problem going to hell as long as I can distribute the books of Srila Prabhupada that were printed and approved by Srila Prabhupada before 1977.
I’ll not ever touch, or consider distributing any books after 1977, same with many of our customers.
Appreciate your time in this urgent matter to work together to print and distribute books by Srila Prabhupada.
In service to Srila Prabhupada
Your lowly servant
Rathayatra dasa
Karuna Farm, Kodiakanal, Tamil Nadu, South India.
Rathayatra dasa says ;
“My personal experience here in India, distributing over 60 sets of these beautiful
10 volume sets of Srimad Bhagavatam
(Jitarati personally paid for and had printed in India),
has been a very positive life changing experience. ”
Dear Learned Readers,
As it appears that Shriman Jitarati Prabhu paid for these SB. Red Set. It means that he has a vested interest in the investment not in the Original Srila Prabhupada’s VANI.
Why he did not invest his money in the Orginal Srila Prabhupada’s VANI – Orginal Set of SB. – Orginal BOOKS which were also available ?
Why some body with the right mind has to invest money in the questionable changed SB. Red Books?
More later.
Hare Krishna. All Glories to Srila Prabhupada.
[webmaster: comments on this article are closed]