The latest topic amongst those in ISKCON addicted to debating is the annotation of Prabhupada’s books. For those of you not familiar with the specifics, I will not provide links because a.) I am too lazy to find and include them and b.) why disturb your mind about it when you were having a perfectly fine day without worrying about it already.
I stipulate I haven’t read the GBC resolution and don’t know their specific reasons for deciding to annotate Prabhupada’s books. I am speaking only from my own perspective on the topic and neither approve nor disapprove of their method of arriving at their decision.
My first impression on reading some of the feedback is that I think that half the opposing commentators or more don’t know what annotation is, ergo I include this definition:
Main Entry: an·no·ta·tion
Function:noun
Date:15th century
1 a note added by way of comment or explanation 2: the act of annotating.
One example would be like Srimad Bhagvatam class where after reading the verse and purport, the person giving class gives a critical analysis of what has been read. An oral annotation in other words.
My premise is that the only way that Srila Prabhupada’s books can be retained in their original version is through the use of annotations. Think of Shakespeare.
He wrote hundreds of years ago and since then the English language, being very fluid, has shifted. In order to understand not only what the now archaic words meant but the cultural context and nuance of how those words were used, one would need to do an extensive study of the culture of that time.
Fortunately, qualified scholars have already done this for us so when we get stuck we can read the annotations and continue to enjoy Shakespeare as he originally wrote it.
Annotations don’t change books, they clarify points in them. Shakespeare comes in both annotated and unannotated versions. Just because an annotated version of a book exists, doesn’t mean an unannotated version can’t also exist, so there is no need to worry an annotated version of SP’s books will replace the current ones.
As language morphs, the need to annotate will become greater if the desire is there to retain Prabhupada’s books in original versions. That may seem academic now, but will be a greater need as decades slip by.
Consider the word “gay” and how its meaning has drastically changed:
- Main Entry:1gay
- Function:adjective
- Date:14th century
1 a: happily excited : merry <in a gay mood> b: keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits <a bird’s gay spring song>2 a: bright, lively <gay sunny meadows> b: brilliant in color3: given to social pleasures; also : licentious4 a: homosexual <gay men> b: of, relating to, or used by homosexuals <the gay rights movement> <a gay bar>
Most would agree that the 4th meaning should now be put as the first, at least in America. If it were, the old Christmas carol “Deck the Halls Boughs of Holly” would need to be annotated in scholarly quarters so it was clear that the refrain “don we now our gay apparel” wasn’t understood to be an exhortation to dress in drag.
Consider this quote from Srila Prabhupada’s original Bhagvatam:
“The Lord was then married with great pomp and gay and began to preach the Congregational chanting of the Holy Name of the Lord at Nabadwipa.”
SB 1-1962: Introduction
Do we think that SP was saying Lord Chaitanya was a homosexual? Of course not, but an annotation would be in order to clarify it.
So I personally have no problems with the concept of annotating SP’s books IF it is done by devotees who have an understanding of the principles of Vaisnava philosophy.
May 9, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Prabhu, are you being naive or disingenious?
The purpose of these annotations is not to clear up the meaning of words that have changed their meaning. The rape example in the proposal, like your “pomp and gay” one, is a misdirection to make the proposal, which gives sweeping powers to annotate, passable.
“Women are less intelligent” needs no such clarification of individual word meaning. And that’s the kind of thing that these annotations are meant to address.
Why give a “straw man” example like the pomp and gay one – that is not at all it. It’s about “clarifying” socially unacceptable statements, not just changed word meanings. Have a look at Praghosa prabhu’s comments on Dandavats.
May 9, 2008 at 6:21 pm
I’m happy for people to write commentary around statements like that – either Madhusudhana Radha devi dasi or His Holiness Bhakti Vikasa Maharaja, whatever. Just not in the book itself.
Although on the other hand – maybe to keep it balanced Bhakti Vikasa Maharaja and Amara das could take it in turns to alternate annotations. :-P
May 10, 2008 at 7:31 am
In order to understand words one needs to understand the culture.
Again, I didn’t follow their logic or reasoning, but clearly the example “Women are less intelligent” DOES need some cultural context if one is serious about spreading Krishna consciousness in the industrialized world.
Annotations by nature are included with the original text and would need to be in the book.
If you are content with preaching to tens or hundreds of people then don’t bother with annotations. Many devotees are because if the movement stays small they can be big fish in it.
Of course, one can always retreat to cultures where women are still repressed on tthe basis of bodily designations and apparently thrive, but as the whole world is becoming industrialized, that is just avoiding the inevitable issues there also.
May 10, 2008 at 8:18 am
“Why give a “straw man” example like the pomp and gay one – that is not at all it. It’s about “clarifying” socially unacceptable statements, not just changed word meanings. Have a look at Praghosa prabhu’s comments on Dandavats.”
I wasn’t addressing those issues specifically, ergo it wasn’t a strawman argument. My scope was limited.
May 14, 2008 at 3:02 am
Gosh, I love you man, but I can’t believe that Praghosa published this on Dandavats after writing that “further commentary is closed because the arguments for both sides had been presented”.
I mean, as the preramble to this you admit that you haven’t even read the resolution, and that you won’t give people specifics because you’re too lazy.
It’s insanity. Critics should immediately point this out (<- hint hint ;-). Of course, maybe the mass of people are too lazy, and are happy to hear anything that sounds kinda truthy…
Anyway, thanks for the Vedabase copy without diacritics tip.
Sheesh… an authoritative statement, where he admits that he has no familiarity with the actual
subject. That’s the brahminical support for the proposal?
May 14, 2008 at 7:43 am
:-)
I have never claimed to be brahminical.
I suspect he allowed it because I wasn’t commenting on the specific proposal, I was commenting on annotations in general and how they might apply to SP’s books.
I didn’t refer to the specifics of the discussion on the GBC resolution because I wasn’t commenting on it.
As for the critics, didn’t you watch “8 Mile” about Eminem where at the big showdown he knew that his opponents would be going after his weaknesses so he pre-empted them by listing them himself?
As someone who sometimes uses rap music allusions, i would have thought this seminal moment in rap history and the technique used would be well known to you. :-)
May 14, 2008 at 12:10 pm
“clearly the example “Women are less intelligent” DOES need some cultural context if one is serious about spreading Krishna consciousness in the industrialized world.”
What word is not understood? “Women” means the material body of a female. “Are” describes the present condition of doing or being. “Less” is a comparison opposite of “more.” Those are simple words based on dictionary definitions. “Intelligent” is a philosophical point and is defined in Bhagvad-gita and abundantly in Srila Prabhupada’s writings as the ability to distinguish between matter and spirit or other related concepts. This is abundantly clear in Srila Prabhupada’s writing in Bhagavad-gita.
Either you accept Srila Prabhupada’s teachings on these subjects, or you don’t. One cannot change his words to suit popular culture, on the premise of preaching to the masses, and still rightly claim to be representing the parampara. If popularity is the measure of truth, then we should all become Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, or whatever. Their movements have so many followers, and they are driving the world to hell. Most people these days have never even heard of Srila Prabhupada. Do you take that as a measurement of his quality as a guru? He said he wanted one moon, that many stars were not very important. We should try to become that moon, not to falsely play as acarya and say that Srila Prabhupada must be understood in a way that does not disturb the minds of materialists. What you are promoting by minimizing Srila Prabhupada’s words is that many false followers should join ISKCON.
Also, saying you were not commenting on the GBC proposal is very disingenuous. As if it was just a coincidence. Also, saying one was not claiming to be brahminical is deceptive. Is it your idea that commenting in a Vaishnava forum on how the guru’s words should be carried through time is not a brahmnincal activity? If not, then how would you characterize it?
May 14, 2008 at 1:01 pm
I accept SP’s teachings on this subject. It appears I don’t accept your interpretation of what those teachings mean.
It is not a coincidence and I never claimed it to be, but it isn’t about their proposal. I realize that might be too subtle a distinction for many, but it exists none the less.
Clearly you aren’t looking for common ground and seem eager to have a fight over this. I am not so eager.
I expressed my opinion even realizing in advance that the chilling effect of broadside negative criticism is a fact of life when practicing free speech in ISKCON related matters.
It seems you are rigidly set in your opinion so I won’t spend time trying to explain my points. Either you get them or you don’t, either you accept them or you don’t — take your competitive urge out on someone else please.