This article is long and so there could be many points to counter which would take an invariably long time. I will just address here the misconception the article upholds that Srila Prabhupada had to purview all edits to his books before they could be sanctioned. Since I have had conversations with devotees on Facebook on this topic I will use those very same comments with the supporting evidence included.
My first comment: Prabhu, the way you envision Prabhupada as the chief editor of his books is as though he had nothing else to do but sit back and sip lassis while his editors brought their work to him for final approval. That is not how it was done so your idea of Prabhupada having to check every single edit is mistaken. Prabhupada only took time to do this on spot occasions. Read the following letter, and notice that Prabhupada’s corrections bounce around by page number indicating he didn’t go through every page. Then pay attention to the last paragraph which confirms this:
22 April, 1970
“My Dear Brahmananda,
Please accept my blessings.
Regarding the Topmost Yoga, in the blueprint there are many mistakes. I am pointing out some of them as follows:
Page 2 “. . . decided to kill his sister.” not sisters, because only Devaki was there. “The Lord’s compromise was that He had Vasudeva propose to the brother-in-law . . .” This sentence is obscure. The actual fact is Vasudeva made a compromise and said to his brother-in-law, “such and such”. Then everywhere there is yogins, gosvamins, sannyasins, etc. in many places. The “n” is not requiredâthat I have already informed Pradyumna.
On page 17 there is a word “enfuriated”; this is a spelling mistake, it should be “infuriated”.
Then on page 48: “on the bank of the Ganges near Didbee”. This is not “Didbee”, it is “Delhi”.
On page 49 there are so many “gosvamins,” but there should be no “n.”
In this way I have read the book SPORADICALLY, NOT VERY MINUTELY. I think it should be gone through once more very carefully and all the mistakes that are still existing there should be corrected. If the books are printed with spelling mistakes and other mistakes, that will be a discredit for our publication. So please see that editorial work is done very nicely.”
So your claim that the edit supporters disassociate Prabhupada from the editing is simply not the case. Prabhupada disassociated himself from the editing by not giving it much if any of his time.
My second comment: Here Jayadvaita Swami tells the story of edits to the First Canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam. This information shows Prabhupada was not involving himself much or at all in the editing:
“In 1972, when the first American edition of Srimad-Bhagavatam, First Canto, was in preparation and the first volume nearly ready for printing, Satsvarupa brought to Srila Prabhupadaâs attention that in numerous instances the edited version seemed to have low fidelity to Srila Prabhupadaâs original work. Srila Prabhupada responded, in essence: âDonât lose time. Just print itâ.”
See here Prabhupada didn’t even take time to observe the editing even for something questionable.
Jayadvaita Swami continues: “In 1976, however, on my own initiative, I did extensive revisions for this canto, especially for the translations in the first two chapters. I then prepared a list showing these revised translations, with a cover letter explaining what I had done, and when Srila Prabhupada visited ISKCON New York in July of 1976 I brought the package to his room.I had expected merely to drop it off with his secretary. But to my surprise I found Srila Prabhupada right there before me, asking to know why I had come. I told him, and he instructed me to read to him the revised translations, right there on the spot. So I began, Srila Prabhupada listening attentively, and after I had read a few verses he interrupted: âSo, what you have done?â
âIâve revised the translations to make them closer to what Your Divine Grace originally said.â
âWhat I have said?â
âYes, Srila Prabhupada.â
Srila Prabhupada then made a characteristic dismissive gesture and said: âThen it is all rightâ.
And that was that.”
My third comment: And from the Rascal Editor Conversation:
Prabhupäda: It is starting. What can I do? These cannot … These rascals cannot be educated. Dangerous. Little learning, dangerous. So how to correct? The leader of these dangerous â Rädhä-val-labha.
Tamäl Krishna: Rädhä-vallabha?
Prabhupäda: Hm. Heâs a dangerous, who maintains these rascal with this work. Heâll always have questions and alteration. That is his business. That is American business. They take that always.What can I do? Ultimate, it goes for editorial. They make changes, such changes.
Tamäl Krishna: Your original work that youâre doing now, that is edited by Jayädvaita. Thatâs the first editing.
Prabhupäda: He is good.
Tamäl Krishna: He is good. But then, after they print the books, theyâre going over. So when they reprint …
Prabhupäda: So how to check this? How to stop this?
Tamäl Krishna: They should not make any changes without consulting Jayädvaita.
Prabhupäda: But they are doing without any authority (meaning they don’t consult with Jayadvaita as the authority Prabhupada has delegated to oversee the editing of his books).
Svarßpa Dämodara: I think we should make whole survey, all books already printed, before printing the next batch, and check any mistakes so that it should be all corrected. Otherwise, if the scholars find out that there are so many mistakes in the books, then the quality and the appreciation will be reduced.
Giriräja(?): (indistinct)
Svarßpa Dämodara: Yes. We find so far that they are appreciating so much within the scholarly circle, and we want to maintain that, actually.
Prabhupäda: Very serious feature. It is not possible for me to check, and they are doing all nonsense, freedom. (Here Prabhupada clearly says it is NOT possible for him to check the editing.)
Yasodä-nandana: Jaya Srila Prabhupäda.
Prabhupäda: What to do?
Tamäl Krishna: I think SvarĂźpa Dämodaraâs point â that all the books should now be checked before theyâre reprinted again … And they have to be checked not by some so-called learned Sanskrit man but by a learned devotee. Just like you always favored Jayädvaita because of his Krishna consciousness …
Prabhupäda: Jayädvaita, SatsvarĂźpa …
Yaçodä-nandana: Bhakti-prema, Satsvarßpa is there.
Tamäl Krishna: So Bhakti-prema … Thatâs a good solution?
Prabhupäda: Yes.
So in conclusion we find two things: 1)Prabhupada does not oversee the editing but he approves of certain devotee editors he has faith in to take SOLE responsibility to properly re-edit and edit his books. And 2) This was in June of 1977 and Prabhupada didn’t have much time left on this planet. He is ordering the re-editing of his books with no time table involved. That means no sanction was in demand from Prabhupada for posthumous editing or re-editing. It was a given that this work would continue in his absents.
I will address some of the points brought up by Ajit Krishna das which indicate he commits the short comings he accused Lalitanatha prabhu of. Those were: selective evidence, arguments in which the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises, and taking quotes out of context.
The first one erred in all three departments. Ajit Krishna uses the omission of a quote by Lalitanatha as proof Lalitanatha missed the most important point of “evidence”. This quote from Tamal Krishna Goswami in letter form to Ramesvara: “As we are working on this Fifth Canto planetary system, whatever corrections are required to be made, we will get approved by His Divine Grace and then send them on to you so that the new edition will be free from any of these discrepancies.” But this is not evidence. It is only a plan of thought by Tamal Krishna Goswami. To be evidence it has to be declared as an instruction from Srila Prabhupada, which it was not. So Ajit Krishna invented selective evidence as coming from Prabhupada which it didn’t. Secondly, the premise of the conversation was to reach the conclusion of correcting mistakes in the books. The names of the devotees assigned to the task were mentioned. But Ajit Krishna falsely used the above quote to indicate that Prabhupada was the final editorial authority on all editorial changes, which Prabhupada was factually far removed from. Thirdly, this is clearly a case of taking a quote out of context to achieve a conclusion which is not evident in the script.
Next Ajit Krishna speculates in such a way to make it appear Srila Prabhupada was ignorant of what was going on. He states: “The letter was signed by Srila Prabhupada, but was written by Tamal Krishna Goswami. So we cannot know for certain how Srila Prabhupada understood and interpreted the words “in the future”. We cannot even be sure he took special notice of the words.” So by this logic Ajit Krishna attempts to claim because Prabhupada didn’t specify “how far” in the future an instruction should be carried out, then such instructions expire. And because Prabhupada did not address the topic of posthumous editing, then any posthumous editing is a deviation. Then we should also consider that any service or instruction Prabhupada gave which he did not specifically state should continue after his departure has now become null and void. And so Ajit Krishna sums up this point thus: “Nothing seems to suggest that the instructions on book editing given by Srila Prabhupada in the “Rascal Editors” conversation and in the exchange between Ramesvara Das and Tamal Krishna Goswami can be extrapolated into a context where Srila Prabhupada is no longer around. So by insisting on this unjustified extrapolation the author is effectively invalidating his own argument.” So under Ajit Krishna’s guidance we should not extrapolate that any of Prabhupada’s instructions should be followed anymore. Save for those instructions Prabhupada gave in which he specifically stated should be carried out after his departure. That would invalidate many of Prabhupada’s instructions. But why should Prabhupada’s instructions for cow protection for example remain so vital, while instructions he gave to his editors be neglected, doubted, and even rejected?
Next, a classic case of taking things and quotes out of context comes from the false charge of arsa-prayoga. Ajit Krishna provides misleading examples which literally indicate no editing at all should ever have taken place with Srila Prabhupada’s books. He quotes a conversation between Srila Prabhupada and Radha Vallabha in which Prabhupada says no correcting at all should be done. But what Ajit Krishna does not include was this conversation was in regard to the Brahma-Samhita, which was translated and commented on by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Goswami, Prabhupada’s guru. And the etiquette is that no corrections can be made to the work of a previous acharya or grand spiritual master. The BBT editors comment on this in the introduction to the Brahma-Samhita:
“As per Srila Prabhupadaâs instructions regarding the publication of this volume, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvatiâs somewhat technical and sometimes difficult prose has been left intact and virtually untouched. Fearing that any editorial (grammatical and stylistic) tampering with Bhaktisiddhantaâs text might result in inadvertent changes in meaning, Prahhupada asked that it be left as is, and the editors of this volume have complied with his wishes. Only typographical errors have been corrected, capitalization has been standardized, Sanskrit terms in devanagari script appearing within the English text have been transliterated, and already transliterated terms have been adjusted to international standards.”
We are familiar with Srila Prabhupada quoting the verse from Srimad-Bhagavatam regarding his frailties of writing literature in a second language. And we well know Prabhupada engaged editors to make his books acceptable at the highest standards of literary work. So the flimsy, accusative use of “arsa-prayoga” toward BBT editors, whose aim is to present Prabhupada as authentically as possible is quite offensive.
Closing things up Ajit Krishna claims the BBT has not sufficiently investigated changes made to the 72 Bhagavad-gita, and that Jayadvaita Swami did this more or less on his own, which is not true. There is sufficient information and evidence made available by the BBT for those willing to do the research, such as on bbtedit.com. But as can be seen by Ajit Krishna’s example, studying the information from an accusative viewpoint will draw erroneous conclusions. No subject can be learned properly with a slanted mindset.
Thanks for your reply! But we are really interested in an official answer from Jayadvaita Swami, Dravida Prabhu, BBTI, GBC or the author of the article I am responding to).
Or, if they will accept your answer as representing their views on the subject under discussion, then I shall be happy to respond.
But if not, then I will refrain, because otherwise I might get caught up in answering 10-20-30 replies to my text, and even if my all arguments were successful, then nothing will be changed, because neither you nor any other individual rank and file devotee has any power to change the situation.
I highly appreciate that you took the time to answer, but I hope you understand that we really need and an official answer, or at least an answer from the author of “No More Cattle Raising on the Planet of the Trees”.
After reading the ‘Book Change Rebuttal’ article where the author tries to counter Lalitanatha Prabhu’s “No more Cattle Raising on the Planet of the Trees”, I would like to add the following points to the discussion.
It seems quite obvious that the author is assuming that it is Jayadvaita Swami and the editing crew of the BBT who have to justify the editing of Srila Prabhupada’s books. His assumption is also that it is a completely different situation whether Srila Prabhupada is present or not.
The problem is that he never gives any substantial proof for this assumption, and does not get into proving that there are any instructions by Srila Prabhupada to the effect that the devotees, that he evidently authorized to edit his books, had to stop that service before it was completed in case that he would leave this planet.
Using the rascal editor conversation and the mail correspondence between Ramesvara Das and Tamal Krishna Goswami to reach that conclusion is only possible when parts are taken out of context and extrapolated with unsubstantiated assumptions.
Thus the author leaves out of the equation the part of Srila Prabhupada’s instructions conveyed to Ramesvara through Tamal Krishna Goswami that “Your suggestion that in the future any mistakes which are found can be reported to Satsvarupa Maharaja, Jayadvaita Prabhu, Radha Ballabha Prabhu, or yourself, and after sufficient investigation and confirmation these mistakes can be rectified, is accepted,” even though it is the direct instruction in regard to whom will be the authority.
Instead the author chooses to extrapolate on the next part of the letter which states, “As we are working on this Fifth Canto planetary system, whatever corrections are required to be made, we will get approved by His Divine Grace and then send them onto you so that the new edition will be free from any of these discrepancies.” This part is about specific details on how to deal with the editing that was going on at that time, but he uses this to try to make an argument that this means that editing was only supposed to proceed while Srila Prabhupada was physically present, even though such a conclusion is in no way obvious from the text. Thus it is merely a postulate which is not backed up by the letter.
The author is basically trying to bluff the readers to accept his assumptions by the use of fancy terms of logic to make it look as if he has a substantial argument whereas Lalitanatha has not. Still it is only his assumptions, and he fails to rebut Lalitanatha’s arguments in that regard.
The author’s argument regarding the word âhenceforwardâ is another example of an attempt to convince the reader to accept his argument as logically sound even though it is just another postulate. He again fails to show any evidence that Srila Prabhupada ever instructed those devotees that he empowered to edit his books, should stop doing so when he left this planet.
The author is also trying to show that Jayadvaita Swami and the BBT editors have changed Srila Prabhupada’s books. Again he fails to show any substantial evidence and only refers to another writing of his, âNo reply from BBTIâ. After reading parts of it I had to conclude that he fails to show one single example where the editing done by the BBT has changed the meaning of the text from what Srila Prabhupada himself gave us. All the editing I have seen falls into the parameters of Srila Prabhupada’s instructions regarding the matter. The author’s attempt to substantiate his arguments by showing how Srila Prabhupada dealt with the transcendental âmistakesâ of the previous Acharyas is irrelevant, as Srila Prabhupada already authorized Jayadvaita Swami and the rest of the BBT editing crew to perform the kind of editing that they are doing.
Therefore I must conclude that Lalitanatha’s arguments to the effect that Jayadvaita Swami and the BBT are authorized to edit Srila prabhupada’s books still stand, as proved by the ârascal editorâ discussion, by the reply to Ramesvara and by Srila Prabhupada’s letter to Radha-Vallabha , September 7, 1976: âConcerning the editing of Jayadvaita Prabhu, whatever he does is approved by me. I have confidence in him.â
We might have our opinion regarding the editing of Srila Prabhupada’s books, but to think that we know better how to deal with the issue than those that Srila Prabhupada personally trained and empowered to do so is a great mistake.
Any devotee who has responded to me (or intend to do so) can send his/her text to Jayadvaita Swami, Dravida Prabhu, BBTI, GBC or the author of the article I am responding to and ask if his/her arguments (one, more or all) represent their views on the subject under discussion.
If the arguments are not accepted as such by Jayadvaita Swami, Dravida Prabhu, BBTI, GBC or the author of the article I am responding to it is most likely because they agree with me that the arguments are not good enough.
And if that is the case there is no need for me/us to answer, since I am/we interested in an exchange with the above mentioned esteemed devotees.
I found most of the premises unsound, in Maha Karuna Nitai prabhuâs (MKN) reply to the rebuttal, since they where already defeated in the rebuttal it self. The following is my verification:
MKN writes: âIt seems quite obvious that the author is assuming that it is Jayadvaita Swami and the editing crew of the BBT who have to justify the editing of Srila Prabhupadaâs books. His assumption is also that it is a completely different situation whether Srila Prabhupada is present or not.â
Yes the author is assuming that, and for good reasons. There are many evidences, here we will give a few:
“According to the current Chicago Manual of Style, if 20% of a first edition has been revised, it becomes a second edition — not just a second printing — requiring the date and names of the editors. Additionally, to quote from the Modern Language Association’s Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing: “The publisher when planning a new edition of the work, may obtain revisions from a third party expert if the author refuses to make them or disagrees about their necessity… the contract… should provide that the original author and the revising author be given separate credits.” Of course the BBT editors assert that they were not new authors of the book, but merely bringing it closer to the original author’s words as referenced in available fragmental recordings or transcripts. The predominating difference is, obviously, that Srila Prabhupada was not present to consult with or agree or disagree. Nevertheless, whatever lends more weight to a closure or sealing of the book from further editing is in order.”..Rupanuga das.
âIf one is too big, there is no mistake. Arsa-prayoga means there may be discrepancies but it is all right. Just like Shakespeare, sometimes there are odd usages of language, but he is accepted as authority. I have explained all these things in my Preface to First Canto. (Letter to Mandali Bhadra, Jaipur 20 January, 1972)â
âSo unless one is self-realized, there is practically no use writing about Krsna. This transcendental writing does not depend on material education. It depends on the spiritual realization. Youâll find, therefore, in the comments of Bhagavatam by different acaryas, even there are some discrepancies, they are accepted as arsa-prayoga. It should remain as it is.â¨(Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.5.23-24 â Vrndavana, March 31, 1976)â
Prabhupada: This of should be strictly forbidden.â¨Radha-vallabha: So no corrections. That makes it simple.â¨Prabhupada: They can divide the synonyms. Thatâs all.â¨Radha-vallabha: Synonyms. So evenâŚâ¨Prabhupada: That is his tendency, to correct. Thatâs very bad. He should not do that.â¨Radha-vallabha: So Iâll just forget this, then.â¨Prabhupada: The system is: whatever authority has done, even there is mistake, it should be accepted.â¨Radha-vallabha: Oh.â¨Prabhupada: Arsa-prayoga. That is ha⌠He should not become more learned than the authority. That is very bad habitâŚ.â¨Prabhupada: Why finish it? Whatever is done is done. No moreâŚ.â¨Radha-vallabha: Well, now that this system of no corrections anywhere, that makes it very simple. Then he canât do anything. I donât think he wants to, either. It makes it more simple for him. It makes him very uncomfortable.â¨Prabhupada: No corrections.â¨(Room Conversation 27 february, 1977)
(bold added for emphasis):
âIshvara Puri also met Gadadhar Pandit and was pleased when he saw the depth of his renunciation. He started to affectionately give him lessons from Sri-Krsna-lilamrta, a book of his own composition. Nimai would also come daily to Gopinath Acharyaâs house to visit Ishvara Puri while he was teaching Gadadhar and offer him His obeisances. One day, Ishvara Puripada asked Nimai to correct any mistakes that were in his book. Nimai answered:
Anyone who finds any fault with a devoteeâs description of Krishna is a sinner. If a devotee writes a poem, no matter how poorly he does it, it will certainly contain his love for Krishna. A fool says âvisnayaâ while a scholar knows the correct form is âvisnaveâ, but Krishna accepts the sentiment in either case. If anyone sees a fault in this, the fault is his, for Krishna is pleased with anything the pure devotee says. You too describe the Lord with words of love, so what arrogant person would dare criticize anything that you have written? (Chaitanya Bhagavata 1.11.105-110)â
We should note carefully that even if mistakes that normally only fools make are in such works, they should not be corrected. If one sees any fault in such so called mistakes, the fault is his.
 The following is a excerpt from the Ramesvara interview in 1979:Â
âSo it was either â76 or â77 we wanted to print Brahma-samhita. Prabhupada approved it and he wrote a very heavy letter to Radhaballabha. Because we were asking Prabhupada about editing changes. (…) âYou cannot make any changes in my spiritual masterâs book.â âWhat about the incorrect grammar?â Prabhupadaâs reply, âYou cannot change one comma, not even a comma, not even a punctuation mark, that is the etiquette.â
âSo that was just another one of those super heavy instructions that the etiquette in dealing with a great acaryaâs books is that whatever he has done itâs eternal and it can never be changed. And I believe that all of this was part of Prabhupadaâs training us. He wanted to train people who would be entrusted with his books. And who would in turn train the next generation of BBT men, managers and production managers in this fanatical, literally fanatical transcendental phobia about changes. Prabhupada went out of his way to train us. Some of the instructions were so extreme that one might say theyâre exaggerated. But theyâre not exaggerated. This is exactly what Prabhupada wanted.â
This Ramesvara-interview ought to be studied thoroughly, by all with an interest in the topic. Interestingly, it was hidden in the achieves of the BBTI since 1979. By good fortune, and Krsnaâs arrangement, it was leaked by a devotee in 2013.
From the above evidences, it makes it clear as daylight to me, that the author of the rebuttal is right, when he concludes: âThe burden of proof is on the devotee who states that we can project, extend or expand the instructions given by Srila Prabhupada on book editing from one context (when he was around) into a completely different context (when he is no longer around). In connection with the book changes no one has been able to lift this burden of proof successfully, and the authorâs attempt also failsâ Â
MKN further suggest the following flaw in the authors rebuttal:
âUsing the rascal editor conversation and the mail correspondence between Ramesvara Das and Tamal Krishna Goswami to reach that conclusion is only possible when parts are taken out of context and extrapolated with unsubstantiated assumptions.â¨Thus the author leaves out of the equation the part of Srila Prabhupadaâs instructions conveyed to Ramesvara through Tamal Krishna Goswami that âYour suggestion that in the future any mistakes which are found can be reported to Satsvarupa Maharaja, Jayadvaita Prabhu, Radha Ballabha Prabhu, or yourself, and after sufficient investigation and confirmation these mistakes can be rectified, is accepted,â even though it is the direct instruction in regard to whom will be the authority.ââ¨Â
Again we will humble ask you, MKN, to please read the rebuttal thoroughly, and you will see, that it is actually you, who are wrong in your assumption about the author.
The author do comment, on the section you mentions, and further ask the relevant question: âWHO will ultimately confirm and authorize the editing?â
And MKN continues:
âThe author is also trying to show that Jayadvaita Swami and the BBT editors have changed Srila Prabhupadaâs books. Again he fails to show any substantial evidence and only refers to another writing of his, âNo reply from BBTIâ. After reading parts of it I had to conclude that he fails to show one single example where the editing done by the BBT has changed the meaning of the text from what Srila Prabhupada himself gave usâ
You say, that you read part of âno reply from BBTIâ. I will humbly petition you to read it all. You will then naturally deduce, that it is not the purpose of the E-book to designate meaning-alterations (even though there are some.) The meaning of the E-book, as the author also substantiates in his rebuttal, is to verify that BBTI is not truthful, when they postulate the following:Â
We are changing Srila Prabhupadaâs books back to what he actually said in his original manuscript.Â
We are making the book âCloser to Prabhupadaâ.Â
We are only correcting grammar, commas, capitalization etc.Â
We are only correcting the mistakes of previous editors.Â
No unnecessary changes have been made.Â
But the BBTI violates all the above. The BBTI have changed most of the covers og the books, even though Srila Prabhupada liked them as they were:
âAnd the covers, if possible, should always be the same for each respective book regardless of what language it may be printed in.â (Letter to Jadurani, Bombay, January 3, 1975)
Even though Jaiadvaita Swami knew this perfectly well, he still changed them:
âAs you know, and as we kept in mind while doing the work, Srila Prabhupada staunchly opposed needless changes.â (Jayadvaita Swami, Letter to Amogha Lila, 1986)
BBTI removed most of the pictures of the books, Srila Prabhupada wanted minimum fifty âwindows into the spiritual worldâ in each big book, today there is a few left.
BBTI edited 22 pages out of âperfect questions perfect answersâ
Conclusion: We could go on and on giving examples as the ones above, but we will end here with a plea: All of you, who like me are afraid, that Srila Prabhupadaâs books and his legacy, becomes altered and diluted, as it has happened to most other religious traditions, please study this most important issue. Srila Prabhupadaâs books is the only hope, for this and future generations, If we allow them to be changed now, think about what can happen as Kali-yuga proceed.
Your servant in the service of Srila Prabhupada,
Caitanya Candra Dasa
Did any of you write to Jayadvaita Swami, BBTI or Lalitanath Prabhu to hear if they fully embrace your arguments and see them as representing their own views on the subject under discussion?
As I said, if you can get them to say that they fully embrace your arguments, then I shall be happy to respond to your texts.
Ajit Krishna prabhu I have not inquired from BBT representatives whether they endorse my presentations given here, but what I have presented has largely been gathered from their bbtedit.com website. So basically I am parroting what they present themselves. I am aware that while BBT representatives are open to discussions regarding the editing, they are not interested in arguing with unreasonable people, nor with people whose sole objective is to challenge the editing. Thus I have not sought their approval for a discussion subject to endless debate.
Amazing! I never thought I’d live to see the day Dandavats would actually publish a rebuttal such as this. Thank you.
This article is long and so there could be many points to counter which would take an invariably long time. I will just address here the misconception the article upholds that Srila Prabhupada had to purview all edits to his books before they could be sanctioned. Since I have had conversations with devotees on Facebook on this topic I will use those very same comments with the supporting evidence included.
My first comment: Prabhu, the way you envision Prabhupada as the chief editor of his books is as though he had nothing else to do but sit back and sip lassis while his editors brought their work to him for final approval. That is not how it was done so your idea of Prabhupada having to check every single edit is mistaken. Prabhupada only took time to do this on spot occasions. Read the following letter, and notice that Prabhupada’s corrections bounce around by page number indicating he didn’t go through every page. Then pay attention to the last paragraph which confirms this:
22 April, 1970
“My Dear Brahmananda,
Please accept my blessings.
Regarding the Topmost Yoga, in the blueprint there are many mistakes. I am pointing out some of them as follows:
Page 2 “. . . decided to kill his sister.” not sisters, because only Devaki was there. “The Lord’s compromise was that He had Vasudeva propose to the brother-in-law . . .” This sentence is obscure. The actual fact is Vasudeva made a compromise and said to his brother-in-law, “such and such”. Then everywhere there is yogins, gosvamins, sannyasins, etc. in many places. The “n” is not requiredâthat I have already informed Pradyumna.
On page 17 there is a word “enfuriated”; this is a spelling mistake, it should be “infuriated”.
Then on page 48: “on the bank of the Ganges near Didbee”. This is not “Didbee”, it is “Delhi”.
On page 49 there are so many “gosvamins,” but there should be no “n.”
In this way I have read the book SPORADICALLY, NOT VERY MINUTELY. I think it should be gone through once more very carefully and all the mistakes that are still existing there should be corrected. If the books are printed with spelling mistakes and other mistakes, that will be a discredit for our publication. So please see that editorial work is done very nicely.”
So your claim that the edit supporters disassociate Prabhupada from the editing is simply not the case. Prabhupada disassociated himself from the editing by not giving it much if any of his time.
My second comment: Here Jayadvaita Swami tells the story of edits to the First Canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam. This information shows Prabhupada was not involving himself much or at all in the editing:
“In 1972, when the first American edition of Srimad-Bhagavatam, First Canto, was in preparation and the first volume nearly ready for printing, Satsvarupa brought to Srila Prabhupadaâs attention that in numerous instances the edited version seemed to have low fidelity to Srila Prabhupadaâs original work. Srila Prabhupada responded, in essence: âDonât lose time. Just print itâ.”
See here Prabhupada didn’t even take time to observe the editing even for something questionable.
Jayadvaita Swami continues: “In 1976, however, on my own initiative, I did extensive revisions for this canto, especially for the translations in the first two chapters. I then prepared a list showing these revised translations, with a cover letter explaining what I had done, and when Srila Prabhupada visited ISKCON New York in July of 1976 I brought the package to his room.I had expected merely to drop it off with his secretary. But to my surprise I found Srila Prabhupada right there before me, asking to know why I had come. I told him, and he instructed me to read to him the revised translations, right there on the spot. So I began, Srila Prabhupada listening attentively, and after I had read a few verses he interrupted: âSo, what you have done?â
âIâve revised the translations to make them closer to what Your Divine Grace originally said.â
âWhat I have said?â
âYes, Srila Prabhupada.â
Srila Prabhupada then made a characteristic dismissive gesture and said: âThen it is all rightâ.
And that was that.”
My third comment: And from the Rascal Editor Conversation:
Prabhupäda: It is starting. What can I do? These cannot … These rascals cannot be educated. Dangerous. Little learning, dangerous. So how to correct? The leader of these dangerous â Rädhä-val-labha.
Tamäl Krishna: Rädhä-vallabha?
Prabhupäda: Hm. Heâs a dangerous, who maintains these rascal with this work. Heâll always have questions and alteration. That is his business. That is American business. They take that always.What can I do? Ultimate, it goes for editorial. They make changes, such changes.
Tamäl Krishna: Your original work that youâre doing now, that is edited by Jayädvaita. Thatâs the first editing.
Prabhupäda: He is good.
Tamäl Krishna: He is good. But then, after they print the books, theyâre going over. So when they reprint …
Prabhupäda: So how to check this? How to stop this?
Tamäl Krishna: They should not make any changes without consulting Jayädvaita.
Prabhupäda: But they are doing without any authority (meaning they don’t consult with Jayadvaita as the authority Prabhupada has delegated to oversee the editing of his books).
Svarßpa Dämodara: I think we should make whole survey, all books already printed, before printing the next batch, and check any mistakes so that it should be all corrected. Otherwise, if the scholars find out that there are so many mistakes in the books, then the quality and the appreciation will be reduced.
Giriräja(?): (indistinct)
Svarßpa Dämodara: Yes. We find so far that they are appreciating so much within the scholarly circle, and we want to maintain that, actually.
Prabhupäda: Very serious feature. It is not possible for me to check, and they are doing all nonsense, freedom. (Here Prabhupada clearly says it is NOT possible for him to check the editing.)
Yasodä-nandana: Jaya Srila Prabhupäda.
Prabhupäda: What to do?
Tamäl Krishna: I think SvarĂźpa Dämodaraâs point â that all the books should now be checked before theyâre reprinted again … And they have to be checked not by some so-called learned Sanskrit man but by a learned devotee. Just like you always favored Jayädvaita because of his Krishna consciousness …
Prabhupäda: Jayädvaita, SatsvarĂźpa …
Yaçodä-nandana: Bhakti-prema, Satsvarßpa is there.
Tamäl Krishna: So Bhakti-prema … Thatâs a good solution?
Prabhupäda: Yes.
So in conclusion we find two things: 1)Prabhupada does not oversee the editing but he approves of certain devotee editors he has faith in to take SOLE responsibility to properly re-edit and edit his books. And 2) This was in June of 1977 and Prabhupada didn’t have much time left on this planet. He is ordering the re-editing of his books with no time table involved. That means no sanction was in demand from Prabhupada for posthumous editing or re-editing. It was a given that this work would continue in his absents.
Thank you so much prabhu for this enlightening message.
I will address some of the points brought up by Ajit Krishna das which indicate he commits the short comings he accused Lalitanatha prabhu of. Those were: selective evidence, arguments in which the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises, and taking quotes out of context.
The first one erred in all three departments. Ajit Krishna uses the omission of a quote by Lalitanatha as proof Lalitanatha missed the most important point of “evidence”. This quote from Tamal Krishna Goswami in letter form to Ramesvara: “As we are working on this Fifth Canto planetary system, whatever corrections are required to be made, we will get approved by His Divine Grace and then send them on to you so that the new edition will be free from any of these discrepancies.” But this is not evidence. It is only a plan of thought by Tamal Krishna Goswami. To be evidence it has to be declared as an instruction from Srila Prabhupada, which it was not. So Ajit Krishna invented selective evidence as coming from Prabhupada which it didn’t. Secondly, the premise of the conversation was to reach the conclusion of correcting mistakes in the books. The names of the devotees assigned to the task were mentioned. But Ajit Krishna falsely used the above quote to indicate that Prabhupada was the final editorial authority on all editorial changes, which Prabhupada was factually far removed from. Thirdly, this is clearly a case of taking a quote out of context to achieve a conclusion which is not evident in the script.
Next Ajit Krishna speculates in such a way to make it appear Srila Prabhupada was ignorant of what was going on. He states: “The letter was signed by Srila Prabhupada, but was written by Tamal Krishna Goswami. So we cannot know for certain how Srila Prabhupada understood and interpreted the words “in the future”. We cannot even be sure he took special notice of the words.” So by this logic Ajit Krishna attempts to claim because Prabhupada didn’t specify “how far” in the future an instruction should be carried out, then such instructions expire. And because Prabhupada did not address the topic of posthumous editing, then any posthumous editing is a deviation. Then we should also consider that any service or instruction Prabhupada gave which he did not specifically state should continue after his departure has now become null and void. And so Ajit Krishna sums up this point thus: “Nothing seems to suggest that the instructions on book editing given by Srila Prabhupada in the “Rascal Editors” conversation and in the exchange between Ramesvara Das and Tamal Krishna Goswami can be extrapolated into a context where Srila Prabhupada is no longer around. So by insisting on this unjustified extrapolation the author is effectively invalidating his own argument.” So under Ajit Krishna’s guidance we should not extrapolate that any of Prabhupada’s instructions should be followed anymore. Save for those instructions Prabhupada gave in which he specifically stated should be carried out after his departure. That would invalidate many of Prabhupada’s instructions. But why should Prabhupada’s instructions for cow protection for example remain so vital, while instructions he gave to his editors be neglected, doubted, and even rejected?
Next, a classic case of taking things and quotes out of context comes from the false charge of arsa-prayoga. Ajit Krishna provides misleading examples which literally indicate no editing at all should ever have taken place with Srila Prabhupada’s books. He quotes a conversation between Srila Prabhupada and Radha Vallabha in which Prabhupada says no correcting at all should be done. But what Ajit Krishna does not include was this conversation was in regard to the Brahma-Samhita, which was translated and commented on by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Goswami, Prabhupada’s guru. And the etiquette is that no corrections can be made to the work of a previous acharya or grand spiritual master. The BBT editors comment on this in the introduction to the Brahma-Samhita:
“As per Srila Prabhupadaâs instructions regarding the publication of this volume, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvatiâs somewhat technical and sometimes difficult prose has been left intact and virtually untouched. Fearing that any editorial (grammatical and stylistic) tampering with Bhaktisiddhantaâs text might result in inadvertent changes in meaning, Prahhupada asked that it be left as is, and the editors of this volume have complied with his wishes. Only typographical errors have been corrected, capitalization has been standardized, Sanskrit terms in devanagari script appearing within the English text have been transliterated, and already transliterated terms have been adjusted to international standards.”
We are familiar with Srila Prabhupada quoting the verse from Srimad-Bhagavatam regarding his frailties of writing literature in a second language. And we well know Prabhupada engaged editors to make his books acceptable at the highest standards of literary work. So the flimsy, accusative use of “arsa-prayoga” toward BBT editors, whose aim is to present Prabhupada as authentically as possible is quite offensive.
Closing things up Ajit Krishna claims the BBT has not sufficiently investigated changes made to the 72 Bhagavad-gita, and that Jayadvaita Swami did this more or less on his own, which is not true. There is sufficient information and evidence made available by the BBT for those willing to do the research, such as on bbtedit.com. But as can be seen by Ajit Krishna’s example, studying the information from an accusative viewpoint will draw erroneous conclusions. No subject can be learned properly with a slanted mindset.
Dear Sankarsan Prabhu! Dandavat pranam! Jaya Srila Prabhupada!
Thanks for your reply! But we are really interested in an official answer from Jayadvaita Swami, Dravida Prabhu, BBTI, GBC or the author of the article I am responding to).
Or, if they will accept your answer as representing their views on the subject under discussion, then I shall be happy to respond.
But if not, then I will refrain, because otherwise I might get caught up in answering 10-20-30 replies to my text, and even if my all arguments were successful, then nothing will be changed, because neither you nor any other individual rank and file devotee has any power to change the situation.
I highly appreciate that you took the time to answer, but I hope you understand that we really need and an official answer, or at least an answer from the author of “No More Cattle Raising on the Planet of the Trees”.
Hare Krishna,
Your servant,
Ajit Krishna Dasa
After reading the ‘Book Change Rebuttal’ article where the author tries to counter Lalitanatha Prabhu’s “No more Cattle Raising on the Planet of the Trees”, I would like to add the following points to the discussion.
It seems quite obvious that the author is assuming that it is Jayadvaita Swami and the editing crew of the BBT who have to justify the editing of Srila Prabhupada’s books. His assumption is also that it is a completely different situation whether Srila Prabhupada is present or not.
The problem is that he never gives any substantial proof for this assumption, and does not get into proving that there are any instructions by Srila Prabhupada to the effect that the devotees, that he evidently authorized to edit his books, had to stop that service before it was completed in case that he would leave this planet.
Using the rascal editor conversation and the mail correspondence between Ramesvara Das and Tamal Krishna Goswami to reach that conclusion is only possible when parts are taken out of context and extrapolated with unsubstantiated assumptions.
Thus the author leaves out of the equation the part of Srila Prabhupada’s instructions conveyed to Ramesvara through Tamal Krishna Goswami that “Your suggestion that in the future any mistakes which are found can be reported to Satsvarupa Maharaja, Jayadvaita Prabhu, Radha Ballabha Prabhu, or yourself, and after sufficient investigation and confirmation these mistakes can be rectified, is accepted,” even though it is the direct instruction in regard to whom will be the authority.
Instead the author chooses to extrapolate on the next part of the letter which states, “As we are working on this Fifth Canto planetary system, whatever corrections are required to be made, we will get approved by His Divine Grace and then send them onto you so that the new edition will be free from any of these discrepancies.” This part is about specific details on how to deal with the editing that was going on at that time, but he uses this to try to make an argument that this means that editing was only supposed to proceed while Srila Prabhupada was physically present, even though such a conclusion is in no way obvious from the text. Thus it is merely a postulate which is not backed up by the letter.
The author is basically trying to bluff the readers to accept his assumptions by the use of fancy terms of logic to make it look as if he has a substantial argument whereas Lalitanatha has not. Still it is only his assumptions, and he fails to rebut Lalitanatha’s arguments in that regard.
The author’s argument regarding the word âhenceforwardâ is another example of an attempt to convince the reader to accept his argument as logically sound even though it is just another postulate. He again fails to show any evidence that Srila Prabhupada ever instructed those devotees that he empowered to edit his books, should stop doing so when he left this planet.
The author is also trying to show that Jayadvaita Swami and the BBT editors have changed Srila Prabhupada’s books. Again he fails to show any substantial evidence and only refers to another writing of his, âNo reply from BBTIâ. After reading parts of it I had to conclude that he fails to show one single example where the editing done by the BBT has changed the meaning of the text from what Srila Prabhupada himself gave us. All the editing I have seen falls into the parameters of Srila Prabhupada’s instructions regarding the matter. The author’s attempt to substantiate his arguments by showing how Srila Prabhupada dealt with the transcendental âmistakesâ of the previous Acharyas is irrelevant, as Srila Prabhupada already authorized Jayadvaita Swami and the rest of the BBT editing crew to perform the kind of editing that they are doing.
Therefore I must conclude that Lalitanatha’s arguments to the effect that Jayadvaita Swami and the BBT are authorized to edit Srila prabhupada’s books still stand, as proved by the ârascal editorâ discussion, by the reply to Ramesvara and by Srila Prabhupada’s letter to Radha-Vallabha , September 7, 1976: âConcerning the editing of Jayadvaita Prabhu, whatever he does is approved by me. I have confidence in him.â
We might have our opinion regarding the editing of Srila Prabhupada’s books, but to think that we know better how to deal with the issue than those that Srila Prabhupada personally trained and empowered to do so is a great mistake.
Your servant
Mahakaruna Nitai das
A clarification:
Any devotee who has responded to me (or intend to do so) can send his/her text to Jayadvaita Swami, Dravida Prabhu, BBTI, GBC or the author of the article I am responding to and ask if his/her arguments (one, more or all) represent their views on the subject under discussion.
If the arguments are not accepted as such by Jayadvaita Swami, Dravida Prabhu, BBTI, GBC or the author of the article I am responding to it is most likely because they agree with me that the arguments are not good enough.
And if that is the case there is no need for me/us to answer, since I am/we interested in an exchange with the above mentioned esteemed devotees.
Thanks for understanding!
Your aspiring servant,
Ajit Krishna Dasa
I found most of the premises unsound, in Maha Karuna Nitai prabhuâs (MKN) reply to the rebuttal, since they where already defeated in the rebuttal it self. The following is my verification:
MKN writes: âIt seems quite obvious that the author is assuming that it is Jayadvaita Swami and the editing crew of the BBT who have to justify the editing of Srila Prabhupadaâs books. His assumption is also that it is a completely different situation whether Srila Prabhupada is present or not.â
Yes the author is assuming that, and for good reasons. There are many evidences, here we will give a few:
“According to the current Chicago Manual of Style, if 20% of a first edition has been revised, it becomes a second edition — not just a second printing — requiring the date and names of the editors. Additionally, to quote from the Modern Language Association’s Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing: “The publisher when planning a new edition of the work, may obtain revisions from a third party expert if the author refuses to make them or disagrees about their necessity… the contract… should provide that the original author and the revising author be given separate credits.” Of course the BBT editors assert that they were not new authors of the book, but merely bringing it closer to the original author’s words as referenced in available fragmental recordings or transcripts. The predominating difference is, obviously, that Srila Prabhupada was not present to consult with or agree or disagree. Nevertheless, whatever lends more weight to a closure or sealing of the book from further editing is in order.”..Rupanuga das.
âIf one is too big, there is no mistake. Arsa-prayoga means there may be discrepancies but it is all right. Just like Shakespeare, sometimes there are odd usages of language, but he is accepted as authority. I have explained all these things in my Preface to First Canto. (Letter to Mandali Bhadra, Jaipur 20 January, 1972)â
âSo unless one is self-realized, there is practically no use writing about Krsna. This transcendental writing does not depend on material education. It depends on the spiritual realization. Youâll find, therefore, in the comments of Bhagavatam by different acaryas, even there are some discrepancies, they are accepted as arsa-prayoga. It should remain as it is.â¨(Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.5.23-24 â Vrndavana, March 31, 1976)â
Prabhupada: This of should be strictly forbidden.â¨Radha-vallabha: So no corrections. That makes it simple.â¨Prabhupada: They can divide the synonyms. Thatâs all.â¨Radha-vallabha: Synonyms. So evenâŚâ¨Prabhupada: That is his tendency, to correct. Thatâs very bad. He should not do that.â¨Radha-vallabha: So Iâll just forget this, then.â¨Prabhupada: The system is: whatever authority has done, even there is mistake, it should be accepted.â¨Radha-vallabha: Oh.â¨Prabhupada: Arsa-prayoga. That is ha⌠He should not become more learned than the authority. That is very bad habitâŚ.â¨Prabhupada: Why finish it? Whatever is done is done. No moreâŚ.â¨Radha-vallabha: Well, now that this system of no corrections anywhere, that makes it very simple. Then he canât do anything. I donât think he wants to, either. It makes it more simple for him. It makes him very uncomfortable.â¨Prabhupada: No corrections.â¨(Room Conversation 27 february, 1977)
(bold added for emphasis):
âIshvara Puri also met Gadadhar Pandit and was pleased when he saw the depth of his renunciation. He started to affectionately give him lessons from Sri-Krsna-lilamrta, a book of his own composition. Nimai would also come daily to Gopinath Acharyaâs house to visit Ishvara Puri while he was teaching Gadadhar and offer him His obeisances. One day, Ishvara Puripada asked Nimai to correct any mistakes that were in his book. Nimai answered:
Anyone who finds any fault with a devoteeâs description of Krishna is a sinner. If a devotee writes a poem, no matter how poorly he does it, it will certainly contain his love for Krishna. A fool says âvisnayaâ while a scholar knows the correct form is âvisnaveâ, but Krishna accepts the sentiment in either case. If anyone sees a fault in this, the fault is his, for Krishna is pleased with anything the pure devotee says. You too describe the Lord with words of love, so what arrogant person would dare criticize anything that you have written? (Chaitanya Bhagavata 1.11.105-110)â
We should note carefully that even if mistakes that normally only fools make are in such works, they should not be corrected. If one sees any fault in such so called mistakes, the fault is his.
 The following is a excerpt from the Ramesvara interview in 1979:Â
âSo it was either â76 or â77 we wanted to print Brahma-samhita. Prabhupada approved it and he wrote a very heavy letter to Radhaballabha. Because we were asking Prabhupada about editing changes. (…) âYou cannot make any changes in my spiritual masterâs book.â âWhat about the incorrect grammar?â Prabhupadaâs reply, âYou cannot change one comma, not even a comma, not even a punctuation mark, that is the etiquette.â
âSo that was just another one of those super heavy instructions that the etiquette in dealing with a great acaryaâs books is that whatever he has done itâs eternal and it can never be changed. And I believe that all of this was part of Prabhupadaâs training us. He wanted to train people who would be entrusted with his books. And who would in turn train the next generation of BBT men, managers and production managers in this fanatical, literally fanatical transcendental phobia about changes. Prabhupada went out of his way to train us. Some of the instructions were so extreme that one might say theyâre exaggerated. But theyâre not exaggerated. This is exactly what Prabhupada wanted.â
This Ramesvara-interview ought to be studied thoroughly, by all with an interest in the topic. Interestingly, it was hidden in the achieves of the BBTI since 1979. By good fortune, and Krsnaâs arrangement, it was leaked by a devotee in 2013.
From the above evidences, it makes it clear as daylight to me, that the author of the rebuttal is right, when he concludes: âThe burden of proof is on the devotee who states that we can project, extend or expand the instructions given by Srila Prabhupada on book editing from one context (when he was around) into a completely different context (when he is no longer around). In connection with the book changes no one has been able to lift this burden of proof successfully, and the authorâs attempt also failsâ Â
MKN further suggest the following flaw in the authors rebuttal:
âUsing the rascal editor conversation and the mail correspondence between Ramesvara Das and Tamal Krishna Goswami to reach that conclusion is only possible when parts are taken out of context and extrapolated with unsubstantiated assumptions.â¨Thus the author leaves out of the equation the part of Srila Prabhupadaâs instructions conveyed to Ramesvara through Tamal Krishna Goswami that âYour suggestion that in the future any mistakes which are found can be reported to Satsvarupa Maharaja, Jayadvaita Prabhu, Radha Ballabha Prabhu, or yourself, and after sufficient investigation and confirmation these mistakes can be rectified, is accepted,â even though it is the direct instruction in regard to whom will be the authority.ââ¨Â
Again we will humble ask you, MKN, to please read the rebuttal thoroughly, and you will see, that it is actually you, who are wrong in your assumption about the author.
The author do comment, on the section you mentions, and further ask the relevant question: âWHO will ultimately confirm and authorize the editing?â
And MKN continues:
âThe author is also trying to show that Jayadvaita Swami and the BBT editors have changed Srila Prabhupadaâs books. Again he fails to show any substantial evidence and only refers to another writing of his, âNo reply from BBTIâ. After reading parts of it I had to conclude that he fails to show one single example where the editing done by the BBT has changed the meaning of the text from what Srila Prabhupada himself gave usâ
You say, that you read part of âno reply from BBTIâ. I will humbly petition you to read it all. You will then naturally deduce, that it is not the purpose of the E-book to designate meaning-alterations (even though there are some.) The meaning of the E-book, as the author also substantiates in his rebuttal, is to verify that BBTI is not truthful, when they postulate the following:Â
We are changing Srila Prabhupadaâs books back to what he actually said in his original manuscript.Â
We are making the book âCloser to Prabhupadaâ.Â
We are only correcting grammar, commas, capitalization etc.Â
We are only correcting the mistakes of previous editors.Â
No unnecessary changes have been made.Â
But the BBTI violates all the above. The BBTI have changed most of the covers og the books, even though Srila Prabhupada liked them as they were:
âAnd the covers, if possible, should always be the same for each respective book regardless of what language it may be printed in.â (Letter to Jadurani, Bombay, January 3, 1975)
Even though Jaiadvaita Swami knew this perfectly well, he still changed them:
âAs you know, and as we kept in mind while doing the work, Srila Prabhupada staunchly opposed needless changes.â (Jayadvaita Swami, Letter to Amogha Lila, 1986)
BBTI removed most of the pictures of the books, Srila Prabhupada wanted minimum fifty âwindows into the spiritual worldâ in each big book, today there is a few left.
BBTI edited 22 pages out of âperfect questions perfect answersâ
Conclusion: We could go on and on giving examples as the ones above, but we will end here with a plea: All of you, who like me are afraid, that Srila Prabhupadaâs books and his legacy, becomes altered and diluted, as it has happened to most other religious traditions, please study this most important issue. Srila Prabhupadaâs books is the only hope, for this and future generations, If we allow them to be changed now, think about what can happen as Kali-yuga proceed.
Your servant in the service of Srila Prabhupada,
Caitanya Candra Dasa
Dear Sankarsan and Mahakaruna Nitai Prabhus! Dandavat pranam! Jaya Srila Prabhupada!
Did any of you write to Jayadvaita Swami, BBTI or Lalitanath Prabhu to hear if they fully embrace your arguments and see them as representing their own views on the subject under discussion?
As I said, if you can get them to say that they fully embrace your arguments, then I shall be happy to respond to your texts.
I am simply waiting for an answer.
Your servant,
Ajit Krishna Dasa
Ajit Krishna prabhu I have not inquired from BBT representatives whether they endorse my presentations given here, but what I have presented has largely been gathered from their bbtedit.com website. So basically I am parroting what they present themselves. I am aware that while BBT representatives are open to discussions regarding the editing, they are not interested in arguing with unreasonable people, nor with people whose sole objective is to challenge the editing. Thus I have not sought their approval for a discussion subject to endless debate.