Sanskrit Error?

Dravida dasa on editing the Bhagavad Gita

Editor's note: The Madhudvisa Dasa referred to in this article is a granddisciple of Srila Prabhupada.

Since I am one of the editors who has changed Srila Prabhupada's books, I would like to respond to the recent letter by Madhudvisa dasa entitled "Sanskrit Error?"

First of all, we have this excerpt from a letter written by Srila Prabhupada to Radhavallabha dasa on 7 Sept 1976:

"Concerning the editing of Jayadvaita Prabhu, whatever he does is approved by me. I have confidence in him."

Since Srila Prabhupada had full confidence in Jayadvaita Swami's editing, why shouldn't we?

Secondly, if the example of Jayadvaita Swami's editorial crimes provided by Madhudvisa Prabhu is indicative of the rest of the changes in the Bhagavad-gita, the devotee community can breathe a sigh of relief, because the change in the purport to 7.30 is entirely justified. Madhudvisa Prabhu provided this text:

bg 7.30 Purport Original:

Persons acting in Krsna consciousness are never entirely deviated from the path of understanding the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

bg 7.30 Purport Jayadvaita's:

Persons acting in Krsna consciousness are never deviated from the path of entirely understanding the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

But here is the text from the original transcript:

"Persons acting in Krsna consciousness shall never be deviated from the path of understanding the Supreme Personality of Godhead entirely."

These are the words Srila Prabhupada spoke on the tape. Now, Madhudvisa Prabhu charges that Jayadvaita Swami's change makes no sense, but to me it makes perfect sense. Here's why:

First, grammatically speaking the word "entirely" goes with "understanding," not "deviated." If a professional karmi editor who didn't know anything about Krsna consciousness were to edit the transcript to make it completely clear what "entirely" is modifying, he or she would come up with "entirely understanding." In fact, one could almost argue for leaving "entirely" right where it is--at the end of the sentence--but "the Supreme Personality of Godhead" distances "understanding" from "entirely" enough to justify tucking "entirely" in before "understanding."

Still, proceeding along the lines Madhudvisa Prabhu has given, one could argue that "entirely deviated" is what Srila Prabhupada must have intended because "entirely understanding" makes no sense, since no one can ever know Krsna fully. The assumption would then be that the original editors, knowing this, properly perceived that "entirely" goes with "deviated" and chalked up the strange placement of "entirely" to Srila Prabhupada's sometimes imperfect English grammar.

Madhudvisa Prabhu, without access to the original transcript, undoubtedly assumed that "entirely deviated" was Srila Prabhupada's version. But we have seen that it wasn't. And in fact, "entirely understanding" makes perfect sense in context. First of all, there is nothing in the verse or purport concerning a devotee's almost completely forgetting Krsna but never being entirely deviated from Krsna consciousness. Far from talking about forgetting Krsna, the verse and purport are all about one's knowing Krsna in various ways, gradually increasing one's knowledge of Him, and remembering Him at the time of death. So on these grounds "entirely deviated" would make no sense in context.

But the clincher is that the purport is wrapping up the chapter, which begins with Krsna Himself saying that by practicing Krsna consciousness as He will now describe, one can "know Me in full"! And in the purport Srila Prabhupada echoes Krsna by saying "By concentrating one's mind upon Krsna, one is able to know the Absolute Truth completely, but not otherwise. Impersonal brahmajyoti or localized Paramatma realization is not perfect knowledge of the Absolute Truth, because it is partial. Full and scientific knowledge is Krsna, and everything is revealed to the person in Krsna consciousness... By practice of Krsna consciousness yoga, one can know everything in full--namely the Absolute Truth, the living entities, the material nature, and their manifestations with paraphernalia."

With the above in mind, I think you'll see how perfectly reasonable is "Persons acting in Krsna consciousness are never deviated from the path of entirely understanding the Supreme Personality of Godhead"--and how perfectly ridiculous is the following statement by Madhudvisa Prabhu:

"As soon as Krishna understands His qualities they expand... So how can we "entirely understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead". It is complete nonsense. Of course Jayadvaita Swami may have done it in good faith, but he has completely destroyed the original meaning and turned it into something that makes no sense at all. It is not a matter of grammar, he has changed the philosophy."

So, while Madhudvisa Prabhu may have submitted his critique in good faith, I think all reasonable devotees would agree that in this case he is dead wrong.

And like the proverbial cooked grain of rice that tells us the whole pot is cooked, this example should encourage us that Jayadvaita Swami's editing on the second edition of the Bhagavad Gita As It Is is just fine. He has not obscured or distorted Srila Prabhupada's meaning. Far from it. He has restored dozens of passages that HAD been obscured, distorted, or just plain lost in the MacMillan edition. We should all thank him for his many years of editing work, on the Gita and on most of Srila Prabhupada's other books, as well as on Back to Godhead magazine. He has done great service for Srila Prahupada and for the Vaisnava community, past, present, and future.

Remember, if Srila Prabhupada had confidence in his editing, why shouldn't we?