Changing Srila Prabhupada's Books, by Srila Prabhupada

[Welcome]

Priya Jaharia : English and Sanskrit in the Books Must Be Correct:

Prabhupada: Those who have got books, there should be one correction. It is written “how.” It should be “now,” n-o-w, not “how.” (Srimd-Bhagavatam Lecture, Oct 19, 1974)

I have just received the blueprint copy of KRSNA, the Reservoir of Pleasure and I have begun to read it through. But I notice that there are some points you should correct before the final printing. I have already noted you the injunction that you should change the pretipadika artha to first case ending instead. Sannyasin should be printed Sannyasi, etc. So please correct these.

Another point is that there are some errors in the English also. On page 2 it should read “. . . decided to kill his sister, Devaki.” but it has become sisters, plural. Then, what does it mean? “The Lord’s compromise was that He had Vasudeva propose . . .” This does not seem to be very clear or at least it is very awkward expression. So please see that the editors make a very careful final proofreading before printing the final copies. (Letter to Pradyumna, Apr 28, 1970)

Regarding publishing the Life from Life in English it should be grammatically correct because it is written book. Yes, it will be very good if you publish a book of lectures. (Letter to Hamsaduta, Nov 14, 1974)

Concerning the Bhagavat darsana cover;

This Hindi on the back is not good. Who is translating this? Also, the address on the back of our Vrindaban Temple is not correctly spelled. It has been spelled Chattakara Road; But it should be Chattikara Road. Who is proof-reading? (Letter: Bhargava, May 29, 1976)

Hayagriva Did Not Change the Meaning of the Philosophy:

I don’t think that Hayagriva is at fault. He has not changed the meaning or the philosophy in any way. But if you like to use the original manuscript, then if it is possible, you can use it. (Letter to Hamsaduta, Jun 8, 1975)

BBT Editors Were Making Unapproved Changes:

I will have to see personally what are the mistakes in the synonyms and also how you intend to correct them. I was not satisfied with the corrections that were made before. I saw some changes which I did no approve. Nitai may correct whatever mistakes are there, but the corrected material must be sent to me for final approval. So reprinting the volumes will have to wait until the mistakes are corrected and approved by me. In the meantime you can supply the standing orders whatever new volumes are published. (Letter to Radhavallabha, Jan 5, 1976)

Prabhupada: The nonsense, they are… They are correcting my trans… Rascal. Who has done this? Munayah is addressing all these munis.
Tamala Krsna: It’s addressing the munis?
Prabhupada: Yes.
Tamala Krsna: Sadhus, great sages.
Prabhupada: Yes. Sadhu means they are very pure. What can be done if it goes there and these rascals becomes Sanskrit scholar and do everything nonsense? One Sanskrit scholar strayed, that rascal… He take… What is his…? Saci-suta? Saci-sandana?
Tamala Krsna: Jaya-sacinandana?
Prabhupada: And they are maintaining them. Different meaning.
Tamala Krsna: “Bhavadbhih – by all of you; loka – the world; mangalam – welfare; yat – because; krtah – made; krsna – the Personality of Godhead; samprasnah – relevant question; yena – by which; atma – self; suprasidati – completely pleased.” Translation: “O sages…”
Prabhupada: Now here is “O sages,” and the word meaning is “of the munis.” Just see. Such a rascal Sanskrit scholar. Here it is addressed, sambodhana, and they touch it — “munayah – of the munis.” It is very risky to give to them for editorial direction. Little learning is dangerous. However proper Sanskrit scholar, little learning, dangerous. Immediately they become very big scholars, high salaried, and write all nonsense. Who they are? (pause) Then?
Tamala Krsna: “O sages, I have been…”
Prabhupada: No, they cannot be reliable. They can do more harm. Just see here the fun(?).
(Conversation, “Rascal Editors” — June 22, 1977, Vrndavana)

Delete Comment

Books Can Not Be “Simplified”:

Our literature is not sentimental stories. It is meant to be understood by the intelligent class of men. Children and those with child-like mentalities will do better to chant “Hare Krishna” and take prasadam. We cannot water down the philosophy to make it more palatable. Our books must remain as they are. Do not waste your time anymore with such attempts. We are not going to publish it. Whatever books we have got, let them try to understand, and if they cannot then let them chant “Hare Krishna” and take prasadam. (Letter to Lilavati, Mar 31, 1977)

Even if there are Some Discrepancies, They Are Accepted:

Transcendental literature that strictly follows the Vedic principles and the conclusion of the Puranas and pancaratrika-vidhi can be written only by a pure devotee. It is not possible for a common man to write books on bhakti, for his writings will not be effective. He may be a very great scholar and may be expert in presenting literature in flowery language, but this is not at all helpful in understanding transcendental literature.

Even if transcendental literature is written in faulty language, it is acceptable if it is written by a devotee, whereas so-called transcendental literature written by a mundane scholar, even if it is a very highly polished literary presentation, cannot be accepted. The secret in a devotee’s writing is that when he writes about the pastimes of the Lord, the Lord helps him; he does not write alone.

Regarding publishing the Life from Life in English it should be grammatically correct because it is written book. Yes, it will be very good if you publish a book of lectures. (Letter to Hamsaduta, Nov 14, 1974)

Concerning the Bhagavat darsana cover;

This Hindi on the back is not good. Who is translating this? Also, the address on the back of our Vrindaban Temple is not correctly spelled. It has been spelled Chattakara Road; But it should be Chattikara Road. Who is proof-reading? (Letter: Bhargava, May 29, 1976)

Hayagriva Did Not Change the Meaning of the Philosophy:

I don’t think that Hayagriva is at fault. He has not changed the meaning or the philosophy in any way. But if you like to use the original manuscript, then if it is possible, you can use it. (Letter to Hamsaduta, Jun 8, 1975)

BBT Editors Were Making Unapproved Changes:

I will have to see personally what are the mistakes in the synonyms and also how you intend to correct them. I was not satisfied with the corrections that were made before. I saw some changes which I did no approve. Nitai may correct whatever mistakes are there, but the corrected material must be sent to me for final approval. So reprinting the volumes will have to wait until the mistakes are corrected and approved by me. In the meantime you can supply the standing orders whatever new volumes are published. (Letter to Radhavallabha, Jan 5, 1976)

Prabhupada: The nonsense, they are… They are correcting my trans… Rascal. Who has done this? Munayah is addressing all these munis.
Tamala Krsna: It’s addressing the munis?
Prabhupada: Yes.
Tamala Krsna: Sadhus, great sages.
Prabhupada: Yes. Sadhu means they are very pure. What can be done if it goes there and these rascals becomes Sanskrit scholar and do everything nonsense? One Sanskrit scholar strayed, that rascal… He take… What is his…? Saci-suta? Saci-sandana?
Tamala Krsna: Jaya-sacinandana?
Prabhupada: And they are maintaining them. Different meaning.
Tamala Krsna: “Bhavadbhih – by all of you; loka – the world; mangalam – welfare; yat – because; krtah – made; krsna – the Personality of Godhead; samprasnah – relevant question; yena – by which; atma – self; suprasidati – completely pleased.” Translation: “O sages…”
Prabhupada: Now here is “O sages,” and the word meaning is “of the munis.” Just see. Such a rascal Sanskrit scholar. Here it is addressed, sambodhana, and they touch it — “munayah – of the munis.” It is very risky to give to them for editorial direction. Little learning is dangerous. However proper Sanskrit scholar, little learning, dangerous. Immediately they become very big scholars, high salaried, and write all nonsense. Who they are? (pause) Then?
Tamala Krsna: “O sages, I have been…”
Prabhupada: No, they cannot be reliable. They can do more harm. Just see here the fun(?).
(Conversation, “Rascal Editors” — June 22, 1977, Vrndavana)

Delete Comment

Books Can Not Be “Simplified”:

Our literature is not sentimental stories. It is meant to be understood by the intelligent class of men. Children and those with child-like mentalities will do better to chant “Hare Krishna” and take prasadam. We cannot water down the philosophy to make it more palatable. Our books must remain as they are. Do not waste your time anymore with such attempts. We are not going to publish it. Whatever books we have got, let them try to understand, and if they cannot then let them chant “Hare Krishna” and take prasadam. (Letter to Lilavati, Mar 31, 1977)

Even if there are Some Discrepancies, They Are Accepted:

Transcendental literature that strictly follows the Vedic principles and the conclusion of the Puranas and pancaratrika-vidhi can be written only by a pure devotee. It is not possible for a common man to write books on bhakti, for his writings will not be effective. He may be a very great scholar and may be expert in presenting literature in flowery language, but this is not at all helpful in understanding transcendental literature.

Even if transcendental literature is written in faulty language, it is acceptable if it is written by a devotee, whereas so-called transcendental literature written by a mundane scholar, even if it is a very highly polished literary presentation, cannot be accepted. The secret in a devotee’s writing is that when he writes about the pastimes of the Lord, the Lord helps him; he does not write alone.

[2b9qaei4rylzg]

jay Prabhupada!