Bhagavad-gita Revisions Explained - Part 3

In citing the verse from the Seventh Chapter, the old edition makes a compound error. First, it connects that verse with the wrong sentence: the previous one instead of the next one. Second, it cites the wrong verse.

Bhagavad-gita 7.20, cited in the old edition, reads as follows: “Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures.” If this “explains” how we experience the fruits of mature sins “as distress and pain,” I leave it to the critics of the second edition to explain how.

The correct verse is 7.28, for which the next line of the purport is an exact translation: “A person who has completely ended the reactions of all sinful activities and who is fully engaged in pious activities, being freed from the duality of this material world, becomes engaged in devotional service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna.”

I believe, also, that Srila Prabhupada’s quotation from the Padma Purana was worth restoring.

The purport goes on to tell the story.

At the end of the passage, the old edition picks up the word prakasah (literally, “manifest”) from the quotation from the Vedanta-sutra. But the right word is pratyaksa (literally, “directly perceived”), from this verse of Bhagavad-gita. This is the word illustrated by the story of Narada.

The verse under discussion—Bhagavad-gita 9.2—says, pratyaksavagamam dharmyam su-sukham kartum avyayam. As already mentioned, the second edition restores the word pratyaksa. Now here it restores dharmyam and susukham.

“After being liberated, . . . one’s devotional service begins.” You may have noticed that in the second edition this dangling modifier, a grammatical misdemeanor, has been corrected.

Srila Prabhupada here alludes to Bhagavad-gita 8.21: avyakto ’ksara ity uktas tam ahuh paramam gatim. (In the original transcription, “or Kara” = aksara, and “Karaman kanteen” = paramam gatim.)

No comment needed.

Hare Krsna.

Valuable text has been restored—more, in fact, than this; I have shown only the main restorations.

Hare Krsna.

The first edition speaks of the realized soul’s “identity with Brahman.” Srila Prabhupada’s original manuscript—and the second edition—make clear that the soul is one with Brahman in quality, not in all respects.

Hare Krsna.

The way the first edition reads, those in goodness develop knowledge (good), but they become conditioned by happiness (bad).

(Interestingly, the original Macmillan abridged edition said “. . . and they become conditioned”—and rather than but.)

Now, let’s look at Srila Prabhupada’s purport:

“The difficulty here is that when a living entity is situated in the mode of goodness he becomes conditioned to feel that he is advanced in knowledge and is better than others. In this way he becomes conditioned.”

Srila Prabhuapda illustrates the point:

“The best examples are the scientist and the philosopher. Each is very proud of his knowledge, and because they generally improve their living conditions, they feel a sort of material happiness. This sense of advanced happiness in conditioned life makes them bound by the mode of goodness of material nature.”

So according to Srila Prabhupada, those in goodness become conditioned by a feeling of superior knowledge (bad) and material happiness (also bad).

What Srila Prabhupada says here is consistent with the Sanskrit for the verse.

As mentioned in the “Note About the Second Edition” that appears in the book, “The word-for-word Sanskrit-English equivalents now follow more closely the standard of Srila Prabhupada’s other books and are therefore more clear and precise.”

In particular, nouns in Sanskrit are inflected. That is, they have case endings (nominative, accusative, instrumental, and so on) that show what role the word plays in the sentence. With Srila Prabhupada’s approval, for his other books his Sanskrit editors made sure that the English equivalents do the same thing. That is, the equivalents not only give the basic meaning of the word but also show its grammatical role: not just “Krsna,” for example, but “by Krsna,” “to Krsna,” “from Krsna,” and so on. The second edition of the Gita follows this same standard.

Also, as in Srila Prabhupada’s other books, now you can make out the Sanskrit compound words. (So, for example, jnana-sangena is not just “knowledge” and “association.” It’s a compound that means “by association with knowledge.”)

As a result, from the word-for-word for this verse we can clearly see what the Sanskrit says: The mode of goodness conditions the living being by association with happiness and by association with knowledge. Just as the purport says.

Bottom line: That pesky little but set the translation off course. Again, the second edition is more consistent both with the Sanskrit and with Srila Prabhupada’s purport.

Also worth noting: In the second edition (as in the manuscript, and the purport, and the original Macmillan abridged), those in goodness become conditioned by “a sense of happiness” rather than “the concept of happiness.” Why concept? If you’ll pardon my saying so, that doesn’t make sense.

Hare Krsna.

CRITIC:

This is interesting. Another little “correction.” But Srila Prabhupada heard the original verse many times and never requested that it be “corrected...”

MY COMMENT:

Performing one’s prescribed duty is better than not working. But action is not always better than inaction. (For instance: Better inaction than acting viciously or foolishly.)

Once again, the second edition comes closer to what Srila Prabhupada originally said.

Hare Krsna.

A critic complains:

“Here the principle of being without attachment is completely removed from Jayadvaita’s translation. Of course he may say he has some secret manuscript he has got this information from or he may have studied the Sanskrit and by his great learning in the Sanskrit language decided there was no attachment in the original Sanskrit. But where did he get the authority from to retranslate this verse?”

My response:

I’ll answer all the critic’s points. But let’s go step by step.

First: As a reader, when I look at a verse carefully I want to see how Srila Prabhupada derives his translation from the Sanskrit. And my key for this is the word-for-word meanings he provides. But with this verse—as with many others—in the first edition the translations and word meanings don’t match. Why not? Because Srila Prabhupada’s original translation has been largely discarded.

Let’s look more closely.

The translation in the first edition apparently renders the word abhinandati as rejoices—a valid meaning for the word, but not the one Srila Prabhupada chose.

In the word-for-word meaning for abhinandati, the first edition has prays. But that’s a simple error. As the Sanskrit dictionary confirms, it should be praises. As Srila Prabhupada said in a lecture on texts 2.55-58 (April 15, 1966, New York), “Now, na—na abhinandati. Now, suppose one has done very marvelous work. So we should not be very much enthusiastic to praise for such work.”

The second edition sets this right.

Again, in the first edition the word dvesti becomes laments. But as far as I know, that’s not what the word means, nor what Srila Prabhupada says it means. The word comes from the root dvish, which according to the Monier-Williams Sanskrit Dictionary means “to hate, show hatred against, be hostile or unfriendly, to be a rival or a match for.”

Srila Prabhupada, in this verse and elsewhere, gives the meaning envies. Does that seem strange to you? I’ve had many devotees ask me about his use of that word. Here’s my explanation.

Srila Prabhupada, it seems, uses the word envy in an older sense, a sense which matches the Sanskrit dictionary’s definition for dvesti. That sense is recorded by the Oxford English Dictionary (though marked as obsolete): “To feel a grudge against (a person); to regard (a person or an action) with dislike or disapproval.” Roughly: to hate.

Here again, therefore, the second edition, which says despises rather than laments, is closer to Srila Prabhupada.

Now we come to the point brought up by the critic: “Here the principle of being without attachment is completely removed. . .”

In Srila Prabhupada’s original manuscript for this verse, “the principle of being without attachment” never appears.

Yet in the first edition, there it is—”without attachment.” And it appears to stand on its own, as if mentioned as a separate quality: “the principle of being without attachment.”

What’s going on?

The word in question here is anabhisneha. In Srila Prabhupada’s original, and in the Sanskrit, it’s clear that anabhisneha doesn’t stand alone. It goes with the words tat tat prapya subhasubham (the good and evil one obtains). So if “without attachment” are the words to be used, we should see something like “without attachment to the good and evil one obtains.” Which we don’t. (And which, anyway, when it comes to evil, would sound mighty strange. "Attachment to the evil one obtains"?) Instead, in the first edition, we see—wrongly—what the critic objects to having removed: “the principle of being without attachment.”

Now, what does the word anabhisneha actually mean? It’s the opposite of abhi-sneha, which the Monier-Williams Dictionary defines as “affection, desire.” (The root is sneha—“tenderness, love, attachment to, fondness or affection for,” and so on.)

Commenting on this verse of the Gita (in the same lecture quoted above), Srila Prabhupada speaks of affection:

“Now, our affection between ourself is due to this body. . . . One who does not identify with this body, therefore his bodily affection also diminishes.”

Well, the word attachment isn’t far off. But can we get closer to what Srila Prabhupada said?

Why not another form of the same word he used himself—affection? The word affected can mean “moved, influenced, or touched in the feelings; usually to sympathy, sorrow, or sadness.” So unaffected means “not affected or influenced in mind or feeling; untouched, unmoved.” And since the verse speaks of both good and evil, unaffected works reasonably well. A Krsna conscious person is “unaffected by whatever good or evil he may obtain.”

In the beginning of the purport, when Srila Prabhupada originally spoke of one who is “with out any affection for the good or evil,” Hayagriva Prabhu chose the same solution: “who is unaffected by good and evil.”

And later in the purport Srila Prabhupada himself says, “one who is fixed in Krsna consciousness is not affected by good and evil.”

So now you know what happened to “the principle of being without attachment.” It’s not that I have “great learning in the Sanskrit language” (though I do know how to use the dictionary). Yes, it was my fidelity to the original words of Srila Prabhupada, as found in that not-so-secret manuscript, the one typed by Srila Prabhupada himself.

And where did I get “the authority to retranslate this verse”? That question I’ve answered elsewhere: Srila Prabhupada personally told me, “Closer to what I have said? Then it is all right.”

My apologies for the length of this text. The critic raised more questions than he knew.

Hare Krsna.

“Renunciation”? Both in Srila Prabhupada’s word-for-word meanings and in the text of the previous verse, the word “Sankhya” is defined not as “renunciation” but as “analytical study.” In both editions. This of course fits the standard dictionary definition of the word.

And “the path of works”? Again, both the word-for-word meanings and the previous verse (in both editions) say “devotional service” and “action in devotion.”

Hare Krsna.

Srila Prabhupada says in his purport, “Real Sankhya philosophy is described by Lord Kapila in the Srimad-Bhagavatam, but even that Sankhya has nothing to do with the current topics. Here, Sankhya means analytical description of the body and the soul.”

Hare Krsna.

In the first edition (but, curiously, not the already edited manuscript) a full line of Sanskrit has been left out, untranslated. In the old Macmillan abridged edition it was there. And in the complete second edition you’ll find it restored.

Apart from that: In the original manuscript, in the word-for-word section, what’s going on with the word asayat? The transcription said, “from the result.” and an editor crossed it out and replaced it with what appears in the first edition—“from the flower.” (And in the translation the manuscript says, “from the river.”)

Clearly, this was all scrambled. The Monier-Williams Dictionary defines asaya as “resting-place, bed; seat, place; an asylum, abode or retreat,” and so on. Therefore, when the second edition says “from their source”—a definition Srila Prabhupada uses elsewhere for the same word (Bhagavatam 3.29.20)—the second edition has it right.

Commenting in Srimad-Bhagavatam on this verse from Bhagavad-gita, Srila Prabhupada says, “If the wind passes over a garden of roses, it will carry the aroma of roses, and if it passes over a filthy place, it will carry the stench of obnoxious things.” (Bhagavatam 4.28.20, purport) Obviously, life isn’t all flowers.

Hare Krsna.

In the second edition Srila Prabhupada’s final comment has been restored.

Hare Krsna.

A CRITIC SAYS:

So it is not difficult to see here that the editing has COMPLETELY changed the meaning and the original point has been COMPLETY [sic] lost. The original, approved by Srila Prabhupada, says void philosophy causes frustration whereas Jayadvaita’s says void philosophy “arises from frustration”.

MY COMMENTS:

The critic’s right about one thing, of course: The meaning has changed. Saying that the philosophy of voidness “arises from frustration” is different—in fact, opposite—from saying that it “underlies frustration.”

Both statements, of course, are justifiable. But which one did Srila Prabhupada intend? The philosophy of voidness brings one to frustration? Or frustration brings one to the philosophy of voidness?

Looking at the original manuscript doesn’t really answer the question:

“One has to get rid of all these three stages of attachment to the material world, fear of personal identity, and voidness under frustration of life.”

Still not clear.

Then let’s take a step back. When we read the purport, we see that Srila Prabhupada is describing attachment (raga), fear (bhaya), and anger (krodha).

Now, to answer our question we need only read a little earlier in the purport. Describing the persons affected by krodha (anger), Srila Prabhupada writes:

“Being embarassed by so many theories and by contradictions of various types of philosophical speculation, they become disgusted or angry and foolishly conclude that there is no supreme cause and that everything is ultimately void.”

There it is: Being disgusted or angry—frustrated by contradictory theories—they conclude that everything is void.

In other words: From frustration comes the philosophy of voidness. The philosophy arises from frustration.

Srila Prabhupada answers the question. The second edition is correct.

As a doublecheck:

In this purport, Srila Prabhupada closely follows the purport given to this verse by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura. There—at exactly the same point in the discussion—Srila Bhaktivinoda says, krodha vistha citte sunya o nirvana kei parama tattva boliya sthir koren: “Being angry in mind, they say that voidness and impersonalism are the supreme truth.”

Confirmed. The conception of void arises from frustration in life.

Hare Krsna.

Concerned about the integrity and fidelity of this translation? Is “self-realized souls”—in the plural—a deviation?

You might be interested to see how Srila Prabhupada paraphrased this verse in an essay entitled “Interpretations of Bhagavad-gita.” The essay appears in the VedaBase, where it is dated “circa 1948.” Unlike every published edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, the essay is unedited.

Here’s that paraphrase:

“It is therefore stated in the Bhagavad-gita that one who actually wants to have an access to the essence of Bhagavad-gita must himself engage in the service of a bona fide spiritual master by full surrender. In that position only, one can make bona fide enquiries regarding the Bhagavad-gita, and in that posture only, the self-realized spiritual masters impregnate the submissive disciple with the knowledge of Gita, because they have already seen the Truth of it.”

“Self-realized spiritual masters.” Plural.

For a further examination of this verse, please see Gita Revisions Explained, Part 2.

Hare Krsna.

Some recent correspondence I had with a respected godsister sheds light on how and why the translation for this verse was revised. The correspondence also, perhaps, offers some insights into how we think about such revisions.

Dear . . . .

Regarding the text of the book [Teachings of Lord Caitanya], you write,

“I would be even more happy to hear that Srila Prabhupada’s original words would be put back into the TLC. . .”

In this regard: Though the edition the BBT currently publishes is not the original one, this second edition was edited by Hayagriva Prabhu during Srila Prabhupada’s physical presence and published with Srila Prabhupada’s explicit approval. The editing was done in perhaps 1972 or 1973, and this edition was first published in, I believe, 1974. The BBT has not revised it since.

Does that change your thoughts about it?

Apart from that, you write,

“I would be. . . happy to hear that Srila Prabhupada’s original words would be put back into. . . all the other books he wrote while on this planet.”

With all due respect, I would humbly ask that you deeply and honestly ask yourself whether this is truly your position.

For example, consider Bhagavad-gita As It Is, Chapter 6, Text 28.

Here, from the original manuscript of that chapter—typed by Srila Prabhupada himself—are Srila Prabhupada’s original words, his factual “adi-vani”:

Thus the self-controlled Yogin, after becoming freed from all material contamination, achieves the highest perfectional stage of happiness in Krsna Consciousness, and thus being situated in transcendental loving service enjoys transcendental pleasure. This is the stage of devotional life.

Now, is what you want to see in his book a translation that closely approaches those words? Such as this:

Thus the self-controlled yogi, constantly engaged in yoga practice, becomes free from all material contamination and achieves the highest stage of perfect happiness in transcendental loving service to the Lord.

Is that really what you want? Or do the words you want to see for that verse read like this:

Steady in the Self, being freed from all material contamination, the yogi achieves the highest perfectional stage of happiness in touch with the Supreme Consciousness.

If that’s what you want, ok. But then can you honestly claim that what you want is “Srila Prabhupada’s original words”?

Mataji, it seems to me you have to make a choice here. Either you want “Srila Prabhupada’s original words put back”—words like “the self-controlled yogi” and “transcendental loving service”—

or you want what those words were changed to and published as during his lifetime: words like “steady in the Self” and “in touch with the Supreme Consciousness.”

Much as you might wish the facts to be otherwise, the two are not the same.

You write:

“His words, style, and presentation are all impeccable in the eyes of his disciples; and any change causes pain to their hearts. That is the real issue; and it cannot be avoided. It will not go away. And truly, until this correction is made, that is, the reversion to the original vani of Srila Prabhupada, I do not think peace will come. Those who, by God’s grace, have been placed in a position to make these corrections and do not do so will never be peaceful or find pleasure in their spiritual connection because everything in our spiritual life depends on the grace-filled glance of Srila Prabhupada.”

I wholeheartedly agree.

That’s why a person “placed in a position to make these corrections” changed “in touch with the Supreme Consciousness” back to what Srila Prabhupada originally said: “in transcendental loving service.”

So, again, I think you need to ask yourself, deeply and honestly: Is what you truly want the position you so eloquently speak for? Or is your real position “What I want is the books as published during Srila Prabhupada’s lifetime, whether they’re closer to Srila Prabhupada’s original words or not.”

“We may be sincere, but we make mistakes because we are fallen. . . . We should never forget how great Srila Prabhupada is and how small we are—then everything will be rectified.”

Yes. I agree.

Hare Krsna.

Hoping this finds you in good health,

Your affectionate servant,
Jayadvaita Swami

PS: By the way, you might also be pleased to know that, despite the recent blitz of bunkum for the “pre-1978 Bhagavatams,” as with TLC the edition of Srimad-Bhagavatam the BBT is now publishing, and has been all along, is the same edition published during Srila Prabhupada’s physical presence.

Hare Krsna.

A critic complains: “ ‘A controlled mind...’ In the original we can clearly see there’s no possibility of peace and happiness without a controlled mind, but in Jayadvaita’s translation the mind control has become a ‘steady mind?’ He has also made it very confusing. The meaning is no where near as clear as the original. Who said Jayadvaita was making ‘better English?’ He’s making bewildering English!”

But if you look in the “original original”—the second-chapter manuscript personally typed by Srila Prabhupada—you’ll see that there was no “controlled mind.” But there was “transcendental intelligence,” and there was “Krsna consciousness”—both now restored—and there was a “fixed” mind, for which I retained the word “steady” from the first edition.

Like Srila Prabhupada’s original translation, the Sanskrit says nothing about “mind control.”

Still, a controlled mind is a good thing to have—especially when we feel an unhealthy urge to criticize.

Hare Krsna.

The new edition has the right number of elements (the old edition has it obviously wrong) and restores text previously omitted.

The new edition restores Srila Prabhupada’s Sanskrit quotation, previously omitted, and in the process corrects an obvious error: the correct verse is eleven, not ten.

The new edition identifies and restores Srila Prabhupada’s Sanskrit quotation, and restores his translation of it. And in regard to accepting a spiritual master, again the new edition corrects an obvious error: the correct verse is eight, not seven.

Perhaps in some Sanskrit editions the verses might be numbered differently, but the number mentioned here ought to match what the reader sees before him. And in the second edition it does.

A critic condemns this last restoration—concerning humility—as an example of “the changes that appear to have been produced out of the minds of the BBT editors only.”

As you can see, the changes were produced from the adi-vani—the original words—of the author, Srila Prabhupada, as found in the original transcription.

What’s “clearly stated” (by Krsna in text 12) is not that knowledge without humility is harmful but that it’s ignorance (ajnanam yad ato ’nyatha). So I tried to stick closer to Krsna and Srila Prabhupada, neither of whom said anything here about harm.

And the point that amanitva (humility) is the beginning of knowledge is a restoration—it’s what Srila Prabhupada said.

Here we can see yet again the spirit that seems to animate much of the criticism hurled against the second edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is. The critic seizes upon a revision, wrongly assumes it must have sprung from a mental concoction of the editors, and indignantly broadcasts his discovery to the world. Meanwhile, of course, he ignores (and why?) the several other revisions and restorations in the same purport, all obviously valuable and correct. And by his hasty—and nasty—personal criticism he announces to the world that he has missed the very essence of the text: For what Srila Prabhupada is talking about, we might gently remind him, is humility.

Hare Krsna.

Aren’t brahmacaris austere and simple?, the critic wants to know. Yes, they are. But here Srila Prabhupada—following the commentaries of the acaryas—links these and the other qualities in texts 1 through 3 to particular varnasrama orders.

Jnana-yoga-vyavasthitih he has already linked to sannyasa. Dana, dama, and yajna he has already linked to householder life. He will link tapas (austerity) to vanaprastha life. And arjavam (simplicity), he says later in the purport, applies to all the orders.

So for the brahmacari that leaves svadhyaya, Vedic study—the only item Srila Prabhupada’s purport explains in relation to brahmacarya.

The revised version, therefore, sorts things out properly, in accordance with what Srila Prabhupada says elsewhere in the purport (which in turns accords with the commentaries of the previous acaryas).

When we come to “simplicity,” I have taken the liberty to insert that it’s a “brahminical principle.” Why? Because Srila Prabhupada, having finished describing the qualities from Text 1 in terms of asrama, now begins describing those from Texts 2 and 3 in terms of varna. But unless this is signaled to the reader, the reader won’t know it. Because the first signal—the one to say “Now here are the qualities for the brahmana”—is missing, he’ll sail right past the brahminical qualities, for which no varna is identified, and then suddenly find himself reading about the ksatriya, vaisya, and sudra. So I’ve supplied that missing signal. Have I thus offended Srila Prabhupada? You decide.

And what does “simplicity” actually mean? Aren’t devotees supposed to live simply?, the critic asks. Yes, they are. But arjavam doesn’t mean simplicity in the sense of spare, rustic living—the opposite of “extravagance.” Rather, it means simplicity in the sense of “straightforwardness”—the opposite of “duplicity.”

In fact, if you look at the word-for-word meanings for Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.11.8, you’ll find “arjavam—simplicity (freedom from mental duplicity).” And again in 8.20.19—same story. And in a lecture in Hyderabad, speaking on this very verse of Bhagavad-gita, Srila Prabhupada says: “Arjavam, very frank and no duplicity.”

The Monier-Williams Dictionary defines arjavam as “rectitude, propriety of act or observance; honesty, frankness, sincerity” and traces it to the root rju, which means (literally and figuratively) “straight” (the opposite of “crooked”).

The word arjavam has already come up in Bhagavad-gita 13.8, and there Srila Prabhupada has defined it this way: “Simplicity means that without diplomacy one should be so straightforward that he can disclose the real truth even to an enemy.”

I can offer more such references, but this should be enough, no?

By the way, speaking of brahminical qualities, in 16.2 there’s another one worth noting: apaisunam—“aversion to fault-finding.”

Thank you. Hare Krsna.

Highlighting the words Supreme Personality of Godhead (replacing Blessed Lord), it (replacing Him) and the final word service (replacing work), here again a critic has protested “Jayadvaita Swami’s little ‘corrections.’ ” The words he objects to, of course, are Srila Prabhupada’s own.

All right, I confess: The second time around, I elided the words “are inclined to know it”—words the reader’s mind will unmistakably supply.

Hare Krsna.

“He is not anxious for fruitive rewards” or “he has no anxiety over the results of his work”? When applied to a Krsna conscious person, both are true. But which meaning did Srila Prabhupada intend?

To answer this question, one need only look at the next sentence. That sentence translates or paraphrases a text from Srimad-Bhagavatam (11.2.37), bhayam dvitiyabhinivesatah syat, meaning that fear (or anxiety) arises when one is in duality, absorbed in something other than the Lord. As Srila Prabhupada puts it, in his original dictation, “the cause of anxiety for the result of some activity is due to the understanding in duality without any knowledge of the Absolute Truth.”

The original editor understood—properly—that when Srila Prabhupada said “anxiety for the result” he meant “anxiety over the result.”

What the editor missed was that in the previous sentence, when Srila Prabhupada said “anxiety for any result” it meant the same thing—“anxiety over any result.”

The second edition, therefore, has it right.

This is another one of those revisions that hardly deserves mention, except that some critic brought it up.

Hare Krsna.

Not much to talk about here. Some critic noted this small revision, which as you can see brings the second edition closer to Srila Prabhupada’s original words. (A tad closer to the Sanskrit too, since udbhava means generation, not generator.)

Revisions and restorations for the rest of this verse and purport have already been discussed in “Gita Revisions Explained, Part 1.”

Hare Krsna.

The critic comments, “Om emanates from Krsna?” And well he might ask. Does om “emanate” from Krsna, or is it identical with Krsna?

In the Introduction to Srimad-Bhagavatam, Srila Prabhupada quotes Lord Caitanya as saying, “Pranava [om], or the omkara in the Vedas, is the primeval hymn. This transcendental sound is identical with the form of the Lord.”

And again in the Second Canto (2.1.17, purport): “As we have explained before, the Lord’s holy name is identical with the Lord Himself. So also is omkara.”

Srila Prabhupada discusses this elaborately in the puport to Cc Adi 7.128.

Anyway, what’s here in Bhagavad-gita As It Is—in the second edition—emanates from the original manuscript.

Hare Krsna.

The point that a living entity “cannot create matter out of nothing” seems to have been created—well, out of nothing; it’s not in the original manuscript. And the point that was in the manuscript—that though the living being may create something big, only the Lord can create something cosmically big—was lost.

Oddly, it’s a critic who supplied the heading for this item. Souls are created? The version which says that is the one the critic favors. In the words of the wise, “Go figure.”

Hare Krsna.

What appears in the second edition, though perhaps less elegant, is indisputably closer to Srila Prabhupada’s original words.

The first edition leaves untranslated the crucial word avyaktam. Krsna, the Mayavadis say, has “assumed a personality.” But what do the Mayavadis think was His former status? Srila Prabhupada’s translation for avyaktam makes it clear—“I was impersonal before.” In this way, Srila Prabhupada homes in on the essence of the Mayavada philosophy.

In the word-for-word meanings, by the way, I’ve changed the translation for bhava—from “state of being” to “existence.” No big deal. Same meaning. Then why the change? Answer: The original transcription says “distance”—obviously a mishearing for “existence.” So we’ve gone back to Srila Prabhupada’s original word.

And why has “changeless” been changed to “imperishable”? Again, to match Srila Prabhupada’s original word-for-word meaning.

Hare Krsna.

“The soft line for Ksatriyas,” scoffs a hasty critic, who lists this among “ISKCON’s changes to Srila Prabhupada’s books.”

After the word tejah in text 16.3, the next word is ksama (“forgiveness”). And Srila Prabhupada’s explanation for it, deciphered and restored here in the second edition, is what the critic would rather see left out.

But I suppose we might as well take a soft line on silly critics.

Hare Krsna.

This is one of many instances in which the original editors, not understanding what Srila Prabhupada said, did the best they could: they supplied something which, even though not what he said, was reasonable and true.

Had I been in their shoes, I might likely have done the same thing.

The revised version is also reasonable and true—and has the added virtue of being what Srila Prabhupada clearly intended.

In the original manuscript, “as become” should have been “has become.” Once you recognize that, the editorial problem solves itself.

This revision, hardly worth mentioning, I bring up only because it has been discovered and published on the web by a critic who cites it as an example of my trying to make the text “more palitable [his spelling] for the public.”

The change is slight—an inversion of two small words—but the difference is significant.

“By all the Vedas am I to be known”—with its poetic inversion of the usual word order—has a grander sound to it. But what does it mean? This: “How am I to be known? By the Vedas.”

And, in contrast, the second edition: “By all the Vedas, I am to be known.” Meaning: “What is to be known by the Vedas? Me—Krsna.”

As Srila Prabhupada says in his purport, “The purpose of the Vedas is to understand Krsna.”

This latter point is the one Srila Prabhupada nearly always makes when citing this line of the verse.

For example:

“Vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyah. The Lord says that the purpose of the Vedas is to understand Him.” (BGAII 3.10, purport)

Many similar examples could be cited.

How that poetic inversion in the old Macmillan translation subtly shifts the meaning came to my attention first in 1970, when Srila Prabhupada had us publish his correspondence with Dr. J.F. Staal. (It now appears in The Science of Self-Realization.)

In one letter of that correspondence, Srila Prabhupada gave several quotations and then wrote, “Similarly, in the Bhagavad-gita (15.15) the Lord says, vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyah.” He then summed up his argument: “In this way we find all the scriptures aiming at the Supreme Person.”

And when we published that correspondence, in 1970, how (in brackets) did we translate that Gita verse? There was only one way that fit: “By all the Vedas, I am to be known.”

That, by the way, is how the verse appeared in the abridged Bhagavad-gita As It Is—the 1968 Macmillan edition.

That’s how it appeared in the purport to Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.8.18, as far back as the original edition Srila Prabhupada published himself in India in 1964.

It’s also the way we published it in Srila Prabhupada’s other books—books that came out during his physical presence. (For example, see the purports to Bhagavatam 4.31.11 and Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 7.41 and Madhya 6.139.)

That, in short, is “as it is.”

Now, let’s look at that first edition again:

“Sometimes the mode of passion becomes prominent, defeating the mode of goodness, O son of Bharata. [Doesn’t it also defeat the mode of ignorance?] And sometimes the mode of goodness defeats passion [Again, not ignorance too?], and at other times the mode of ignorance defeats goodness and passion [Right!]. . . .”

In the old version, goodness and passion duke it out—but ignorance seems to stand on the sidelines, unmentioned. Ignorance shows up only when it defeats the other two.

But—clearly—that’s not how the Sanskrit has it.

As Srila Prabhupada says in his purport:

“When the mode of passion is prominent, the modes of goodness and ignorance are defeated. When the mode of goodness is prominent, passion and ignorance are defeated. And when the mode of ignorance is prominent, passion and goodness are defeated. This competition is always going on.”

Exactly.

All right, boys and girls, what’s the word Parasara Muni explains to mean “one who is full in six opulences”? Raise your hands!

Paramam was obviously an error in transcription.