archives

Krishna-kirti has some interesting commentary on the recent GBC resolution to recommend that the BBT annotate Srila Prabhupada's books.

I spent three years working in the BBT in South America. During that time I had to explain to ISKCON managers on a number of occasions that the BBT is organizationally separate from ISKCON, and that Srila Prabhupada specifically created it that way. He did this for a number of reasons, and this may well be one of them.

First of all let me say that this is not some kind of official position statement. This is just my gut reaction as another voice in the crowd. I'm interested to hear further discussion on this matter. Having said that...

I do not think that we should annotate Srila Prabhupada's books. They are historical documents.

I have no problem with writing commentary about Srila Prabhupada's books, writing articles, and even further books to explain the contents of Srila Prabhupada's books to contemporary audiences. This is a great service that can be done by followers of Srila Prabhupada.

However, modifying the actual books themselves in response to a particular historical cultural setting? I don't think this is a good idea. We can argue about the consequences of this, but we don't know what the outcome would, or could be in the long term. More than this, I don't think it's appropriate.

As Krishna-kirti prabhu points out, devotees can explain the contents of Srila Prabhupada's books. That is the approach I have always taken. It's personal, and a service to Srila Prabhupada and his legacy.

If we are to admit annotations to the books, whose annotation gets to become canonical? Who is appointed to be the officially anointed spokesperson and who gets to appoint them?

At the moment Srila Prabhupada's books are the books that people who follow Srila Prabhupada accept. We already have a schism between followers of pre- and post-1978 Prabhupada's books. Once you start annotating them you further fragment ISKCON into those who accept Prabhupada's books pre-78, those who accept Prabhupada's books post-78, and those who accept Prabhupada+. It's very fractious.

Besides this, in explaining the books to people you take into account their relative situation, and you speak from your relative realization. Not everyone is satisfied with the same explanation. Over time people's concerns change, and your own realization changes. What would happen in the future - would the annotations be changed, or expanded to address more issues that become problematic?

Where will the line be drawn on what should be annotated and what should not? Who gets to make these decisions? Even if everyone could agree that the present annotations and annotators were "bonafide", what checks and balances are in place to make sure that the precedent set is not abused in the future? I might agree with annotations added today (for what that's worth, and what about the people who don't agree - they just got shut out), but what happens later? Is there some reason to introduce such a risk?

It is a slippery road that requires serious consideration to be stepped onto. I can see a solid argument that no circumstantial situation should cause us to do away with the principle that Srila Prabhupada's books should not be tampered with.

I have no problem with additional publications addressing contemporary concerns and shedding new light on the Bhaktivedanta purports, "Srila Prabhupada's ecstasies". I even submitted one on the role of women in ISKCON to a new BBT website on controversial topics in Srila Prabhupada's books. However, I do not think that stepping over the line and annotating the book is appropriate or prudent. Introducing relativity in that domain is not wanted. It is an historical document, and should not be tampered with.

I believe that we should be orthodox at the core, innovative at the edge. If our concern is with public perception, then we should write additional material to reach out to the public, just as we create additional centers, such as Atma Yoga to reach out and bring people in. In that framework I'd be happy to see updated covers on the books, with the contents remaining as they are. I am not comfortable seeing changes at the core in response to public opinion.

Otherwise, if this is an issue with the actual content, rather than public perception, then just leave it alone. You may not agree with it, but it is a historical document and should be left as it is, to speak for itself.

A quote from a recent Prabhupada letter springs to mind:

Spiritual knowledge is to take the authoritative statements of the great spiritual masters in disciplic succession. Other's opinions are not important.

- May 3, 1974