Myths

Fueled by misinformation (and a bit of politics), many myths about BBT editing have entered ISKCON lore. Here are some of the most prominent.

The myth that after an ācārya departs his works are never to be edited

Historical evidence from the Gauḍīya-sampradāya showing that posthumous editing of an ācārya's works has precedent, including examples from Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī.

The myth that Śrīla Prabhupāda liked the phrase “the Blessed Lord.”

Evidence shows Śrīla Prabhupāda rarely used 'the Blessed Lord' in his works, strongly preferring 'Supreme Personality of Godhead.' He explicitly criticized using alternative terms for Kṛṣṇa.

The myth of the ultra-close vote

The claim that the GBC approved the second edition of Bhagavad-gītā by only one vote is historically inaccurate. The BBT never sought formal GBC approval, though members were informed and given opportunity to comment.

The myth that you need to have footnotes

While scholarly editions often include detailed footnotes for textual changes, Śrīla Prabhupāda's books are meant for the general public. The BBT documents editorial history separately to maintain readability while ensuring transparency.

The myth that Hayagriva and Śrīla Prabhupāda worked extensively, side by side, on Bhagavad-gītā As It Is

Historical records and eyewitness accounts show that Hayagrīva Prabhu and Śrīla Prabhupāda were together in the same city for less than five months during the Gītā's editing, with Hayagrīva mainly working independently.

The myth that Śrīla Prabhupāda's disciple Madhudviṣa Dāsa strongly opposes the changes

A case of mistaken identity: The Madhudviṣa who criticizes BBT's editorial work online is not Śrīla Prabhupāda's disciple of the same name, but a different person entirely.

The myth of "no consultation"

Evidence showing that the GBC members and ISKCON community were fully informed and consulted about the changes to the Bhagavad-gita second edition.

The myth that Śrīla Prabhupāda ordered, “Not a word of my books should be changed.”

Examining the claim that Śrīla Prabhupāda prohibited any changes to his books, and why there is no reliable evidence for such an order.

The myth that posthumous editing is something scholars deplore

Evidence showing that posthumous editing is actually a respected scholarly practice, with examples from renowned publishers and classic literary works.

The myth of the "rules and protocols for second editions" (the editor's name must be on the cover)

Examining claims about Chicago Manual of Style requirements for second editions, and showing that no such rules exist about displaying editor names on book covers.

The myth about “softening” Śrīla Prabhupāda’s message

Addressing claims that revised editions of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s works have been softened, and showing how they actually restore his original words and intent.

The myth that Śrīla Prabhupāda and Hayagrīva together carefully reviewed the completed text of Bhagavad-gītā As It Is

A detailed timeline showing that Hayagrīva and Śrīla Prabhupāda's supposed review of Bhagavad-gītā As It Is in Los Angeles (1968) never occurred, as Hayagrīva was actually editing Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam at that time.

The myth of the "unedited books"

Addressing the misconception that there are "unedited editions" of Śrīla Prabhupāda's books, when in fact all his books published during his lifetime were extensively edited.