Akruranath’s Challenge to Hansadutta
May 29, 2003 by hansadutta-dasa
Filed under Books, Letters
Even in the material world, if you tamper with the works of an author, musician, artist or kitchen chef you will find yourself the target of intense verbal, physical or legal reaction. How anyone could think himself qualified, or entitiled to tamper with the works of Srila Prabhupada is incomprehesible to me.
Dear Prabhus
Obeisances, all glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Even in the material world, if you tamper with the works of an author, musician, artist or kitchen chef you will find yourself the target of intense verbal, physical or legal reaction. How anyone could think himself qualified, or entitiled to tamper with the works of Srila Prabhupada is incomprehesible to me. Therefore let the world wide Vaishnava community give their opinion, and supporting Vedic evidences in this highly contraversial issue.
Simply respond with a yes in favor of editing Srila Prabhupada’s books, or a No , opposed to editing Srila Prabhupada’s books, PREFERABLY backed with reference to vedic authority. No opinions, or speculations, everything based on quotations from shastras.
From my side I have already referred to what Srila prabhupada said to me when I , As a BBT trustee, suggested that we revert back to his original Indian publication of Srimad Bhagavatam ” No, whatever Hayagriva has done is perfect, I have full faith in him as the editor of my books ” This is all I need to Know, who is a greater authority than Srila Prabhupada, about the books of Srila Prabhupoada ? Jayadvaita?, Akruranath?, or anyone else ?
Instead of an insignificant like myself taking up the challenge of Akruranath, I will defer to the Vaishnava community for a interactive world wide decision.
Your Humble servant,
Hansadutta das
Dear Hansadutta das babaji maharaj:
I appreciate your remarks on this subject. For my part, I favor only correcting gross errors obvious to any intelligent reader of the original versions.
As for Jayadvaita Swamis position that he is also correcting the English texts (SP purports) for errors in grammar, I challenge him to consider the fact that the old rules of grammer once thought sacrsanct are now thought of as arcane and not appropriate to modern usage of the American language as it is spoken, written and commonly understood by intelligent readers. This point is well acknowledged by leading academically qualified teachers of the English language in America. Many of the changes made by JS actually weaken the readability of the message communicated in SP’s purports. I’d be glad to explain this further if anyone cares to ask me about any specific book change.
YS, Saranga Thakur das