Who Needs Authentic Books ?
by Ekkehard Lorenz
Posted January 31, 2003
Devotees who are against allowing any editorial changes in Bhaktivedanta
Swami's books often invoke what they call the "shastric principle of
arsha-prayoga." Literally the word means "rishi usage." Early Puranic
commentators would occasionally point out that a word used by Vyasadeva did
not conform to the rules of grammar, or that a verse of his did not comply
with the strictures of Sanskrit prosody. In such cases a commentator would
say "iti arsha," "It's Rishis' language." And nobody would ever dare to
'correct' Vyasa's writings. There is, however, no principle of arsha-prayoga
that protects scribal errors. In other words, if a rishi was known to have
said one thing, and a scribe or copyist wrote down another thing, that
faulty version was fully subject to corrections.
There can be no doubt that A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami saw his own writings as
divine revelations. In his experience God was the actual author of his work.
And like the ancient rishis, whose poetry conveyed the thoughts of God,
Bhaktivedanta Swami repeatedly stressed the divine origin of his writings:
"Not my books, Krishna's books (760608mw.la)." "That is not my explanation,
that is Krishna's explanation. I cannot explain now. That moment I could
explain. That means Krishna's... [...] Although it is my writing, but I know
it is not my writing. It is Krishna's writing (760904rc.vrn)." On another
occasion Bhaktivedanta Swami seems to compare himself to the law giver Manu,
when he tells his disciples that his books will be the law books for the
next ten thousand years. The late Tamal Krishna Goswami writes:
"Prabhupada's statement, 'My books will be the law books for human society
for the next ten thousand years,' was made in my and Ramesvara prabhu's
presence in 1975. I was seated in the back seat of a car with Prabhupada
(Ramesvara in the front next to the driver) and we had just arrived back at
the LA temple from a morning walk. I am not certain if the phrase 'for human
society' was included. You may cite me as a source if you wish." (Personal
communication, TKG to Ekkehard Lorenz, 02-NOV-00).
What if the authenticity of Bhaktivedanta Swami's books is being undermined
by continuous ongoing posthumous editing since 1978? The concern is
justified. What if the original message, that which was dictated by Krishna
Himself, gets lost in the editing process? How much of Bhaktivedanta Swami's
writing in the present printed BBT editions is still authentic? Is it really
so that a text published in 1972 is more authentic, and therefore more
'spiritually potent' than a later version? Regarding Bhagavad-gita As It Is,
it may be a good policy to revert to the 1972 edition. The argument that
Bhaktivedanta Swami repeatedly lectured on practically each and every verse
of that book, and that the 1972 recension should therefore be considered as
fully approved by the author, is well-taken. But what about the other books?
In the case of the Srimad-Bhagavatam, for example, "authorization through
repeated lectures by the author" does not apply. Bhaktivedanta Swami
lectured on less than 8% of the 8,923 Bhagavatam verses that he translated.
Moreover, in most of his lectures he did not read the purports. More than
90% of his Srimad-Bhagavatam cannot be seen as authorized through lectures.
The same holds for Caitanya-Caritamrita and Krishna Book.
The Krishna Book published during Bhaktivedanta Swami's presence contained a
description of Mathura city encircled by cannons - an obvious anachronism!
On the tape Bhaktivedanta Swami says Mathura was "encircled by canals." This
reading is corroborated by the relevant Bhagavatam verse. But the author did
not protest against "cannons" while he was present, nor did he authorize the
post-1977 change to "canals." Was it right to change it, then?
Another passage in the pre-1978 Krishna Book tells about "the province of
Kashi within the barricade of Varanasi." On the tape one can hear "...in the
province of Kashi, in brackets 'Varanasi'..." In these two cases, the
decision is easy. Unfortunately, tapes with original dictations are rare,
and for the major part of the books only the so-called original transcripts
(OTs) exist. For only 12% of the total content in all the books published
by Bhaktivedanta Swami there exist authentic originals in the form of tapes
or manuscripts produced by the author himself. For 4% there is no source
material whatsoever: no manuscripts, no tapes, no transcripts. The remaining
84% are based on OTs. These OTs are undated and reflect various stages of
editing. Some OTs aren't "original" at all; they have been retyped after the
editors already made some changes. Many OTs show different levels of editing
on the same sheet: various proposals in different handwritings, notes on the
margins, strikethroughs etc. In many cases the transcribers could not
understand what Bhaktivedanta Swami said on the tape. Thus the most exotic
speculations found their way into the books, and may even be celebrated as
What it all boils down to is: for the major part of Bhaktivedanta Swami's
books one cannot know with certainty whether they are factually his words.
This may sound worse than it really is. In reality, the mood and the content
of the purports match so well with his lectures and conversations, that
there is no reason to suspect any terrible deviations from the original
There is little evidence that Bhaktivedanta Swami's pre-1978 books are more
authentic (or closer to the version that Krishna revealed to him) than later
editions based on tapes, manuscripts or transcripts. Experience suggests
that Bhaktivedanta Swami would rarely ever point out mistakes in passages
from which he lectured. He did not object when, during a lecture, Pradyumna
read, "Lord Rishabhadeva's hands, feet and chest were very long."
(Srimad-Bhagavatam 5.5.31--Vrindavan, November 18, 1976) This version is
still found in the present printed BBT editions. In the OT version Lord
Rishabha's chest is delicate and His arms are very long! Elsewhere the
readers are told that humans evolved from vegetables and that Suta Gosvami
was a descendant of Sukadeva Gosvami! None of this is supported by the
If there is an interest to preserve the authentic work of Bhaktivedanta
Swami, one will not do the author any justice by declaring all editing
endeavors to be unauthorized deviations. There clearly is a need for such
editing. This said, it may turn out to be the safest thing, after all, to
put a preliminary freeze on all so-called book changes. ISKCON, the BBT, and
the Bhaktivedanta Archives will have to establish a credible and fully
accountable procedure before any further editing can take place. Many
devotees doubt whether there exist competent individuals who could be
entrusted with such editing work. Devotees need to be informed about how
exactly the books were made. What do the transcripts look like? How much
editing has taken place between the original dictation and the so-called
original book edition (like the 1972 Gita)? What information is there, in
the BBT and in the Archives, and in the memories of those who are still
present and who worked on the books? How much can be accomplished if a
diligent effort is made to establish a canonical version of Bhaktivedanta
What is required is to first establish a catalogue of the original materials
still existing. Next, the printed versions have to be compared against the
original handwritten or typed manuscripts, tapes and transcripts. In those
places where the transcripts are inconclusive (because the transcribers were
unable to properly spell out what they heard on the tape), one needs to
consult the original source texts that Bhaktivedanta Swami had used in his
Take for example the Bhaktivedanta Purport to Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.26.21. In
the second paragraph of the present BBT version we read "...one can
understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead, or the objective which is
described in the Bhagavad-gita as adbhuta." The original transcript,
however, is worded as follows: "...and the status in which one can
understand the S of G or the objective which is described in the BG as
Adibuta (?) that is also another feature of the Mahat Tatta." This is
exactly and verbatim what the OT says. We do not know whether the author
said exactly this, but it is at least what the transcriber heard; it is the
version before conscious editing was applied.
If one looks at Sridhara's (14th century) commentary, it becomes easy to
decide: the word used by him was 'adhibhuta.' It is clear that on the tape,
following Sridhara's commentary, Bhaktivedanta Swami said 'adhibhuta.' The
transcriber rendered it as 'Adibuta.' The editor, who did not know Sanskrit
and did not read the commentaries, decided that it should be 'adbhuta,' an
altogether different word.
Countless details will have to be examined before an edition can be
presented that deserves to be called 'authentic.' In order to ascertain what
exactly Bhaktivedanta Swami had said in a particular passage where
manuscripts, tapes, or OTs remain inconclusive, it is not enough to
carefully read and re-read that passage. One has to read the English, Hindi,
and Bengali verse translations that he used when working with the text.
(Bhaktivedanta Swami's translations in the Third Canto, for example, are
based on the Gita Press English edition, and he copied many of its English
verse translations verbatim). One has to consult the original Sanskrit and
Bengali commentaries that Bhaktivedanta Swami used when he worked with the
text. And one needs to study the original transcripts of the tapes from
which the BBT edition was produced. Even lectures, letters, and
conversations contain material that must be taken into consideration:
Tamala Krsna (reading): "Farming, cattle raising and business are the
Prabhupada: They are not cattle raising, that was...
Tamala Krsna: Cow protection.
Prabhupada: Cow protection. It has to be corrected. It is go-raksya, go.
They take it cattle-raising. I think Hayagriva has translated like this.
(Room Conversation with the Mayor of Evanston--July 4, 1975, Chicago)
The present BBT edition of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is reads "cow protection"
(BG 18.44). The 1972 edition had "cattle raising." Back to '72 ?