BBT Admits Books Changed To Fit GBC Philosophy
by Adridharana dasa (IRM)

[From IRM Newsletter No. 26]

We highlighted previously in newsletter No. 20, how Bhakti Caru Swami's Bengali translation of the Srimad Bhagavatam had omitted a very key verse from Srila Prabhupada's original version. The omitted verse in question would itself have destroyed the GBC's position that they were duly authorised to be Diksa Gurus in ISKCON. This of course was shocking, since it showed that Srila Prabhupada's books were being 'edited' not to bring them closer to the originals as claimed, but rather doctored to prop up the GBC's bogus Guru philosophy.

Though we had also been aware of many other controversial changes made to Srila Prabhupada's books, the BBT had always claimed that they were made to actually correct 'errors' made by Srila Prabhupada's 'hippie' editors. Thus they were not actually changing Srila Prabhupada's books, but Hayagriva's 'incorrect version' of the books, and thereby actually RESTORING the books BACK to how Srila Prabhupada actually wanted them. However, thanks to the diligent efforts of His Grace Dhira Govinda Prabhu, the Chairman of the ISKCON Office of Child Protection, we now have evidence that the current BBT, which is controlled by GBC supporters, are making changes motivated slowly by the desire to doctor Srila Prabhupada's books so that they fit in with whatever happens to be the prevailing view instituted in ISKCON by the GBC.

Some time back many devotees had noticed that the new 9 Volume edition of the Caitanya Caritamrta had made a deliberate change from Srila Prabhupada's original version, not unlike the one made by Bhakti Caru Swami mentioned earlier. Srila Prabhupada's Caitanya Caritamrta states the following:

"Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura accepted Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji, who *initiated* Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who in turn initiated Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji"
(C:C, Chapter 1)

In the new BBT doctored 9-volume edition, the same passage reads:

"Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura accepted Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji, the spiritual master of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who in turn accepted Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji"

In other words it has been decided that contrary to what Srila Prabhupada states, Jagannatha Das Babaji did not really INITIATE Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura after all. Now the reason for the BBT changing Srila Prabhupada's teaching here is very significant since the GBC maintain that the relationship between Jagannatha Das Babaji and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura was based not on 'formal initiation' but rather only on the transmission of transcendental knowledge'. Once it is accepted that the transmission of divine transcendental knowledge ALONE constitutes INITIATION - then the objections made by the GBC to the Ritvik system of initiation crumble, since Srila Prabhupada could also *initiate* us with transcendental knowledge. Thus the BBT could not allow Srila Prabhupada to teach that Jagannatha Dasa Babaji actually *initiated* Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, for that would indirectly sanction Srila Prabhupada *initiating* for many generations to come simply via his transcendental knowledge, with the 'formal initiation' administered via the Ritvik system that he set up. In any case the teaching given by Srila Prabhupada above is totally consistent with what Srila Prabhupada has taught about Diksa and initiation in the Caitanya Caritamrta itself:

"Diksa actually means *initiating* a disciple *with transcendental knowledge* by which he becomes freed from all material contamination."
(Madhya-lila, 4:112, Purport)

Of course just the very fact that the BBT is deliberately changing the main legacy left by Srila Prabhupada - his teachings - is horrendous enough. However the fact that it was done specifically to keep the positions of the GBC within the crumbling Guru system intact, is totally shameful.

But just when you though it could not get any worse, it does. For the BBT have now become so arrogant in their campaign against Srila Prabhuada's teachings, that they have even tried to JUSTIFY this change. Dravida Das, the BBT editor, upon being asked by Dhira Govinda Prabhu to justify the change, first sums up the reason for NOT changing Srila Prabhupada's teachings as follows:

"On the side of not changing the "initiated" phrases we have the strong bias against changing the books unless absolutely necessary and the fact that Srila Prabhupada did indeed say that Jagannatha das Babaji initiated Bhaktivinode."
(BBT Editor, Dravida Das)

Please note that Dravida clearly ADMITS that Srila Prabhupada "DID indeed say that Jagannatha das Babaji initiated Bhaktivinode".

To any sane person, this would be the ONLY reason required to NOT tamper with Srila Prabhupada's teachings in any manner whatsoever. But hold on. Dravida Das has a reason that far outweighs a mere detail such as what Srila Prabhupada himself actually taught. Rather he states we must change Srila Prabhupada's teachings to ensure they conform with what is currently understood within ISKCON in regards to initiation:

"Leaving one or both "initiated"s will strongly imply that the use of the phrases "direct disciple" and even "accepted [as his disciple]" indicate formal initiation as we know it in ISKCON, which is far from the truth."
(BBT Editor, Dravida Das)

Dravida then adds that this reason was paramount in justifying the change:

This last was the weightiest argument, in my view, for changing the passage.
(BBT Editor, Dravida Das)

Thus to summarise, what Dravida is saying is this:
That whenever Srila Prabhupada's teachings differ from the way 'we know it in ISKCON', then they must be changed to conform with the way we DO 'know it in ISKCON'. And of course the way 'we know it in ISKCON' is dictated by whatever ridiculous philosophy the GBC happens to be preaching at the time. So the fact that we have had a bogus Guru system imposed on us in ISKCON by the GBC means that even though we may find that Srila Prabhupada teaches something else, we must modify Srila Prabhupada's teachings to agree with the way things are understood in ISKCON. Instead of changing the practices and understanding of ISKCON to conform with Srila Prabhupada's teachings - which of course is what a spiritual society based on following Srila Prabhupada would do. Not only is it bad enough that ISKCON is NOT run according to Srila Prabhupada's teachings, but now Srila Prabhupada's teachings must also be changed to fit in with the way we happen to be doing things in ISKCON.

What makes this shocking state of affairs even more ludicrous is that the way things are 'known in ISKCON' are themselves constantly changing anyway.
1) Thus from 1978-onwards, in ISKCON we 'knew' one thing in regards to the process of initiation - that you could ONLY take it from 11 people, and then ONLY whichever of the 11 people 'owned' your geographical area.
2) Then from 1986 we 'knew' something else about initiation - that you could take it from many others providing they had received the necessary number of votes.
3) Now we 'know' something else - that whoever you get initiated from, do not forget that you must not worship him too much and that Srila Prabhupada is also doing some important things, and indeed maybe even more important than the person who does initiate us.
4) And what's the betting that this 'understanding' will also change in the next year or so?
5) And just because we happen to 'know' at the moment that initiation must mean the 'formal ceremony', therefore any teaching in Srila Prabhupada's books that imply otherwise must be doctored.

And this is a very sinister development for yet another reason. For this justification is laying the ground for making ANY further change to Srila Prabhupada's teachings that the GBC deems fit. Thus in the future if it is 'known in ISKCON' that 'women are as intelligent as men' say, then we will be able to alter all of Srila Prabhupada's statements where he says that women are less intelligent, since then it would not conform with the way things are 'known in ISKCON'. Or if in the future we begin to 'know in ISKCON' that Lord Siva is just as worshipable as Krishna say, then whenever we encounter the word 'Demi-God' in Srila Prabhupada's books, then all those instances must be changed. And so on. Of course someone may argue that the philosophy as 'we know it in ISKCON' will never change and will always be faithful to Srila Prabhupada's teachings, and the above fear is unfounded. (Of course Pigs May Also Fly).

If the last 23 years is anything to go by, the only thing we can say with certainty is that the GBC will ALWAYS be deviating from Srila Prabhupada's teachings, and the ONLY SAFEGUARD WE HAVE IS SRILA PRABHUPADA'S TEACHINGS. And once we change Srila Prabhupada's teachings to fit in with whatever nonsense we happen to believe, then all will be lost - as seems to be happening now.
How much longer must we put up this with this madness that is leading to the destruction of Srila Prabhupada's movement. No wonder devotees, life members and members of the public, are turning to support the IRM in their droves. pada himself. What necessity is there for a revision?

[From IRM Newsletter No. 29]

We had reported earlier in newsletter no.26, how Dravida of the BBT had admitted changing Srila Prabhupada's Caitanya Caritamrta to fit the current Guru Tattva touted by the GBC. (In summary, Dravida has changed a passage from the CC wherein it states that Jaganntha Das Babaji *initiated* Bhaktivinoda Thakura, to omit the word *initiated*, even though he *admits* Srila Prabhupada wrote it that way.) The whole issue had been sparked by a letter to Dravida from Dhira Govinda prabhu, the chairman of the CPO (Child Protection Office). We had explained in our earlier newsletter the inherent danger in such changes, justified as they are by ISKCON's subjective understandings at any one point in time. Now in a reply to the article by Dhira Govunda prabhu, Dravida prabhu has elaborated on the justification that he gave for making these changes to Srila Prabhupada's books. Dravida prabhu states:

"Having read that Jagannatha dasa Babaji initiated Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, the reader would naturally assume that Jagannatha dasa Babaji is Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura's initiating spiritual master. But we know that Bhaktivinoda already had one--Vipina Vihari Goswami--and so that impression would be false because "acceptance of more than one [initiating spiritual master] is always forbidden."

Dravida quite confidently asserts that 'we know' that Bhaktivinoda already had an initiating spiritual master by the name of Vipina Vihari Goswami. However *how* do we know this? We definitely do *not* know this from Srila Prabhupada, since this individual is not even *mentioned* in the entire canon of Srila Prabhuada's teachings. We can only assume that Dravida has picked up this information either from the books of the Gaudiya Matha, or through some other source not translated by Srila Prabhupada. It is interesting to note that specifically in regard to Bhaktivinoda Thakura, which is what we are dealing with here, Srila Prabhupada does quite emphatically state:

"Whatever is to be learned of the teachings of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura can be learned from our books. There is no need whatsoever for any outside instruction."
(Letter to Guru-Kripa, Yasodanandana, 25/12/73)

Now it is one thing to argue that it is fine to read books other than those directly written and translated by Srila Prabhupada, however it is a completely different matter to try and use these outside teachings to *supersede* that which has been given by Srila Prabhupada. How can it be bona fide to *change* Srila Prabhupada's books based on what is contained in *other* books? Even if it *was* permissible to read other books, this should only be done to *supplement* our knowledge of Srila Prabhupada's teachings, not to *supplant* it. How can the *supplementary* teaching be used to *replace* the *primary* teaching? We have the ludicrous situation whereby the BBT, the supposed guardians of Srila Prabhupada's legacy, are proposing that they be allowed to *change* Srila Prabhupada's books based on information contained in *other books*. Books which themselves may or may not be bona fide, rendered into English via translations which may or may not be bona-fide.

As well as being shocking, this state of affairs is also hypocritical since even Dravida and others are *against* trying to use information contained in these same outside books to supersede Srila Prabhupada's books when it suits them. When devotees began presenting evidence from *outside* Srila Prabhupada's books which differed from Srila Prabhupada's teaching on the 'origin of the soul', they were forced hastily to pass the following GBC resolution:

"In resolving philosophical controversies, the teachings, instructions, and personal example of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada shall be the first and primary resource for ISKCON devotees. We should understand Vedic literature, the writings of previous acaryas, and the teachings of current bona fide acaryas outside ISKCON through the teachings of Srila Prabhupada. Where we perceive apparent differences, we may attribute them to our own lack of understanding or (more rarely) to "differences among acaryas." When acaryas apparently differ, we shall defer to what is taught by His Divine Grace, our Founder-Acarya."
(Resolution No. 79, GBC Meetings, 1995)

The GBC also emphatically stated that:

"...we must see the previous acaryas through Prabhupada. We cannot jump over Prabhupada and then look back at him through the eyes of previous acaryas."
(Our Original Position, p. 163, GBC Press)

However they seem more than happy to toss their own guidelines aside when they want to justify changing Srila Prabhupada's words in regards to the thorny issue of *initiation*. Then we are told that we *must* jump over Srila Prabhupada and see his words through the words of others. And worse that we must then change Srila Prabhupada's words to fit in with these outside teachings. And the reason for this outrageous double standard is so that there is not the slightest chance that Srila Prabhupada could emerge as the Diksa Guru in ISKCON. Dravida has admitted that this is his motivation in rejecting the sastrically supported explanations of Dhira Govinda prabhu:

"Aside from the passage itself, I can easily see the following syllogism flowing from your notes on diksa: Diksa is really the imparting of transcendental knowledge. Srila Prabhupada is the pre-eminent imparter of transcendental knowledge for all generations of Iskcon devotees, now and in the future. So Srila Prabhupada is giving diksa to all who take knowledge from his books, tapes, and other media. He who gives diksa is the diksa-guru. One is enjoined to have only one diksa-guru because the acceptance of more than one is strictly forbidden in the sastra. Therefore Srila Prabhupada is the only diksa-guru for all Iskcon devotees for the next ten thousand years. I don't think I want to go down that road."
(Dravida's reply to Dhira Govinda)

Thus in summary we have the following state of affairs:

1) The BBT has changed Srila Prabhupada's books.
2) It has admitted that the change has been made to words that Srila Prabhupada actually wrote.
3) The change is justified to fit in with what happens to be the GBC's current understanding of 'initiation'.
4) The change is justified to fit in with what is written in sources *outside* of Srila Prabhupada's books.
5) These are the same outside sources which the GBC say we *cannot* use to supplant what Srila Prabhupada has given.
Regardless of what one's view is on the Guru issue, surely the above state of affairs must be something the whole movement is concerned about. We have a clear choice before us:

Do we want Srila Prabhupada to be allowed to speak for himself;
OR
Do we want Srila Prabhupada's books to be doctored to fit in with what Dravida has 'learned' by consulting the books of the Gaudiya Matha and others?

Please act to protect the words of Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada's books are his legacy to us. 

Lose this and we lose everything.

Back