Back To Prabhupada, Issue 64, Vol 4, 2019
he previous article demonstrated that, rather than being one who is authorised to translate the Srimad-Bhagavatam, guru hoaxer HH Hridayananda Dasa Goswami ("HD") is instead one who is trying to be ‘more than Srila Prabhupada' and "kill guru". Despite this, ISKM — a group that used to be known as ISKCON Singapore — has made it a mission to defend HD at all costs, insisting he is authorised and qualified to translate the Srimad-Bhagavatam. In BTP 54, "Another Stunning PFP Case Study", we exposed their promotion of HD's Bhagavatam, which included selecting HD's translations of verses over Srila Prabhupada's translations of the same verses. This exposé led to them writing a whole paper to defend HD's Bhagavatam, which in turn was defeated in BTP 59, "Rejecting Srila Prabhupada's Authority". However, they have again tried, and failed, to defend HD. All emphases added.
The defenders of HD's Bhagavatam are faced with an intractable problem — Srila Prabhupada's final orders. On May 28th, 1977, a delegation of the GBC asked Srila Prabhupada about the publishing of translations of scriptures after his physical departure. The conclusion of Srila Prabhupada's answer was:
"Our translation must be documents. They are not ordinary... One cannot become unless one is very realized. It is not A-B-C-D translation."
(Room Conversation with GBC, 28/5/77)
1) Srila Prabhupada twice uses the word "translation": "Our translation must be documents" and "A-B-C-D translation".
2) He states that only one who is "very realized" can engage in such "translation".
ISKM's new paper titled "ISKM's Position on Usage of BBT Books after 1977" (henceforward "Usage") is forced to admit this intractable problem that exists for them. It admits in regards to the "very realized" answer from Srila Prabhupada which we just quoted, that:
"Here Srila Prabhupada states that one should be very realized in order to translate".
(Usage, page 10)
Thereby accepting that only the "very realized" can "translate". Which means HD would be ruled out because ISKM accepts that, far from being "very realized", HD is actually "envious" of Srila Prabhupada (ISKM position paper "IA77"). However, desperate to hold on to HD as a translator, ISKM gets rid of Srila Prabhupada's inconvenient — for them — answer, that only the "very realized" can "translate", by simply claiming that "translate" means "not translate"! Thus, they claim:
"the "A-B-C-D" example and the adjective "very realized" that Srila Prabhupada used are meant for one who writes purports, not translations."
(Usage, page 14)
It is claimed that the term "very realized" which follows "Our translation must be documents" applies only to writing purports and "not translations". Which would mean that the word "translation" in "Our translation must be documents" and "A-B-C-D translation" means the exact opposite — "not translations"!
1) Yet, ISKM itself admits that Srila Prabhupada used the word "translation" in this conversation to always mean translating, along with the writing of purports:
"The other thing to note here is how Srila Prabhupada is using the word "translation", to also include "purports"."
(Usage, page 11)
2) Srila Prabhupada cannot be using the word "translation" to mean "not translations" since he never uses such "opposite" language! Thus, if he had wished to refer to only purports, he would have used the word "purports"!
3) Referring to the standard required for translation, Srila Prabhupada says that "Our translation must be documents" because "They are not ordinary", and therefore one must be "very realized". This standard refers to both translations and purports, since Srila Prabhupada had stated about his full books, which contain both translations and purports, that they are also "not ordinary":
"These books I have recorded and chanted, and they are transcribed. [...] These are not ordinary books."
(Srila Prabhupada Letter, 19/10/74)
4) Therefore, by points 2 and 3, when Srila Prabhupada states that only one who is "very realized" can engage in "Our translation", it must at least involve the act of translating.
Hence, both ISKM and Srila Prabhupada contradict ISKM's claim that "translation" means "not translation". Thus, the conclusion that only the "very realized" can "translate" remains, and the attempt to save non-realised HD and his Bhagavatam has failed — yet again.
HD's books are also promoted by claiming in regards to them, that:
"Prabhupada didn't translate but he didn't say don't read."
(Sundar Gopal Dasa, ISKM leader, 20/9/19)
But Srila Prabhupada did specifically say "don't read" books which are not translated by him:
"There is no need by any of my disciples to read any books besides my books — in fact, such reading may be detrimental to their advancement in Krishna Consciousness."
(Srila Prabhupada Letter, 20/1/72)
"You say that you would read only one book if that was all that I had written, so you teach others to do like that. You have very good determination."
(Srila Prabhupada Letter, 14/11/73)
"what need is there to read Caitanya-caritamrta translated by someone else. You are right to stop such reading."
(Srila Prabhupada Letter, 20/1/72)
It is such gross ignorance of Srila Prabhupada's orders, where one again claims the exact opposite of what Srila Prabhupada taught, that underpins the promotion of HD's books.
The above is just an extract from a new paper called "The Authorised Bhagavatam", which gives *12* different proofs from Srila Prabhupada that HD was not authorised to translate the Bhagavatam, and also fully rebuts the ISKM Usage paper mentioned above.
The Authorised Bhagavatam may be read here.
Instead of undergoing multiple defeated attempts to defend HD's Bhagavatam, one should remain devoted only to Srila Prabhupada's books — just as we quoted Srila Prabhupada ordering his disciples to do, above.
Return to Hridayananda das Goswami Index
Return to Sundar Gopal (Singapore) Index
Return to IRM Homepage
