When examining thousands of changes between the 1972 and 1983 editions of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, patterns emerge. Rather than random corrections, certain types of changes recur systematically, suggesting deliberate editorial policies. Understanding these patterns helps assess the revision’s nature and intent.
Methodology for Analysis
To identify systematic changes, researchers have categorized revisions by type: grammatical, doctrinal, stylistic, additions/deletions, and translation adjustments. When specific change types cluster in certain chapters or around particular topics, this suggests systematic rather than opportunistic editing.
This analysis draws on documented comparative studies, examining both the frequency and distribution of changes across the text’s 700 verses and extensive purports (commentaries).
Pattern 1: Impersonalism Critiques
Perhaps the most discussed pattern involves intensification of anti-impersonalist language. The 1972 edition frequently criticized impersonal philosophy. The 1983 revision often sharpened these critiques, sometimes substantially.
Type of changes:
- “Impersonal” → “Impersonalist” (shifting from idea to person critique)
- Adding qualifying phrases emphasizing impersonalists’ errors
- Expanding purports discussing why impersonal understanding is insufficient
- Strengthening language from “wrong” to “misconceived” or “foolish”
Example:
1972: “This impersonal feature is difficult to understand.”
1983: “The impersonalists’ conception is always difficult for the ordinary man to understand.”
The revision adds “impersonalists’” and specifies “ordinary man,” changing a statement about the difficulty of understanding an abstract concept into a statement about people who hold certain views having difficulty explaining them to others.
Distribution: These changes appear throughout but concentrate in chapters 7-12, which discuss personal vs. impersonal understanding of the Absolute.
Possible rationale: Editors may have felt Prabhupada’s intended emphasis on personalism needed strengthening, or that his criticisms of impersonal schools should be more explicit.
Pattern 2: Gender Language Modernization (Partial)
The 1972 edition used generic “he” and “man” following mid-century English convention. The 1983 revision made selective changes toward gender-neutral language, but inconsistently.
Type of changes:
- “Man” → “one” or “person” (sometimes)
- “He” → “one” (occasionally)
- “Mankind” → “humanity” (rarely)
Distribution: Changes occur sporadically rather than systematically. Many instances of generic “he” and “man” remain unchanged, suggesting no comprehensive policy to modernize gender language.
Interpretation: Editors perhaps made changes where they seemed particularly awkward or exclusionary but didn’t undertake systematic revision. This half-measure satisfies neither those wanting complete preservation nor those seeking full modernization.
Pattern 3: Sanskrit Standardization
The 1972 edition sometimes rendered Sanskrit terms variably or used non-standard transliteration. The 1983 revision attempted greater consistency.
Type of changes:
- Standardizing diacritical marks (ś, ṣ, ṁ, etc.)
- Consistent capitalization of sacred terms
- Uniform translation of repeated Sanskrit words
- Correction of transliteration errors
Distribution: These changes appear throughout, suggesting systematic attention to Sanskrit accuracy.
Rationale: This seems uncontroversial—standardizing Sanskrit terminology improves scholarly credibility and helps readers learn correct transliteration. Few critics object to these changes.
Pattern 4: Devotional Language Intensification
Various changes heighten devotional emotion or emphasize the personal relationship with Krishna.
Type of changes:
- “God” → “the Supreme Personality of Godhead”
- “soul” → “living entity” (emphasizing individuality)
- Adding phrases like “with love and devotion”
- Expanding descriptions of Krishna’s personal characteristics
Example:
1972: “The Lord is very kind to the devotee.”
1983: “The Supreme Personality of Godhead is very kind to His surrendered devotee.”
The revision specifies “Supreme Personality of Godhead,” adds “His,” and changes “the devotee” to “His surrendered devotee,” emphasizing both Krishna’s supreme position and the intimate relationship.
Distribution: Concentrated in chapters emphasizing bhakti-yoga (chapters 9, 11, 12, 18).
Interpretation: Editors likely felt these changes better captured Prabhupada’s devotional emphasis. Critics might see this as editors imposing their devotional style over Prabhupada’s more varied expression.
Pattern 5: Grammatical Corrections
Undeniably, the 1972 edition contained grammatical errors—missing articles, subject-verb disagreement, awkward phrasings. Many revisions corrected these.
Type of changes:
- Adding missing articles (“a,” “an,” “the”)
- Fixing verb tenses and subject-verb agreement
- Correcting pronoun references
- Restructuring run-on sentences
Example:
1972: “Devotee is never disturbed in such adverse condition.”
1983: “The devotee is never disturbed in such an adverse condition.”
Adds “the” and “an” for proper grammar.
Distribution: Throughout the text, though denser in later chapters which may have received less editorial attention in the original.
Assessment: These changes seem defensible as corrections. The question becomes: did Prabhupada approve the “errors,” or would he have corrected them given opportunity?
Pattern 6: Simplification vs. Technical Language
An interesting contradictory pattern emerges: some changes simplify language while others introduce more technical terminology.
Simplification examples:
- “Renunciation” → “giving up”
- “Transcendental” → “spiritual”
- Sanskrit terms → English equivalents
Technicalization examples:
- “Duty” → “dharma”
- “Soul” → “atma”
- English description → Sanskrit technical term
Distribution: Simplifications appear more in early chapters (1-6); technical terms increase in later chapters (13-18).
Interpretation: Possibly editors aimed to make early chapters more accessible while preserving philosophical precision in later, more complex chapters. Or different editors worked on different sections with different philosophies.
Pattern 7: Verse Translation Modifications
Even the verse translations—the sacred text itself—received changes, not just the purports.
Type of changes:
- Reordering words for better English flow
- Substituting synonyms (“ancient” → “eternal”)
- Adjusting word-for-word meanings
- Changing poetic meter or rhythm
Example - Bhagavad-gita 2.13:
1972: “As the embodied soul continually passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. The self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change.”
1983: “As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.”
Changes “continually” to “continuously,” and notably changes “The self-realized soul” to “A sober person”—potentially significant philosophical shift about who achieves freedom from bewilderment.
Distribution: Modifications in roughly 15-20% of verses, with highest concentration in philosophical chapters.
Controversy: These changes are particularly contentious because they modify what many consider divinely revealed scripture, not merely commentary.
Pattern 8: Expansion of Purports
Many purports grew longer in revision, sometimes substantially.
Type of changes:
- Adding entire paragraphs of new explanation
- Expanding arguments with additional evidence
- Including more scriptural references
- Developing analogies more fully
Distribution: Additions cluster in verses discussing:
- Impersonal vs. personal understanding
- Devotional service methodology
- Criticisms of material science
- Description of the spiritual world
Question: Who authored these additions? Were they drawn from Prabhupada’s other writings, lectures, or conversations? Were they editorial compositions attempting to clarify? The additions generally aren’t attributed or sourced.
Pattern 9: Deletion of Material
Less common but significant: some original content was removed.
Examples:
- Certain analogies or examples
- Specific criticisms of other schools
- Particular details about spiritual world
- Some repetitive phrasing
Distribution: Deletions appear scattered rather than concentrated.
Rationale unclear: Why remove material Prabhupada included? Possible reasons include: perceived redundancy, potential offensiveness, or editorial judgment that material didn’t serve the point.
Pattern 10: Reference Consistency
The original sometimes referenced other Bhagavad-gita verses or scriptures inconsistently. Revisions standardized these.
Type of changes:
- Consistent format for verse citations
- Adding missing references
- Correcting inaccurate citations
- Standardizing scriptural source abbreviations
Assessment: Like Sanskrit standardization, this seems technical improvement rather than philosophical alteration.
Editorial Process Questions
These patterns raise questions about how editing occurred:
Was there an editorial philosophy? The systematic nature of some changes suggests policies, but inconsistent application suggests either multiple editors or evolving policies.
What source materials were used? Editors claimed to consult original dictations and manuscripts. How did they resolve conflicts between sources?
Who made final decisions? Were controversial changes debated, voted on, or determined by individual editors?
Why the inconsistencies? If certain changes were deemed important, why apply them incompletely?
Comparative Context
All translated texts face similar issues. Biblical translations differ systematically based on translation philosophy (formal equivalence vs. dynamic equivalence). Scholarly editions of classics attempt to reconstruct “author’s intent” versus preserving the first published version.
What may distinguish the Gita revision is that it occurred after the translator’s death without his explicit authorization for specific changes, yet claims to better represent his intent than the version he approved.
Defenders’ Perspective
BBT editors argue patterns reflect restoration of Prabhupada’s actual intent. The 1972 edition suffered from:
- Rushed transcription under time pressure
- Limitations of early editing staff
- Technical publication constraints
- Prabhupada’s acknowledgment it needed refinement
Systematic patterns reflect systematic problems in the original that required systematic correction.
Critics’ Perspective
Critics see patterns as evidence of systematic alteration rather than correction:
- Changes impose editors’ interpretations over Prabhupada’s choices
- Systematic nature proves deliberate modification, not error-correction
- Intensification of certain themes reflects editors’ priorities, not necessarily Prabhupada’s
- Verse changes exceed editorial authority, modifying sacred text itself
Conclusion
The systematic nature of many changes is undeniable. Whether these patterns reflect systematic correction or systematic alteration depends largely on assumptions about the 1972 edition’s status.
If the 1972 edition incompletely represented Prabhupada’s vision due to practical limitations, systematic revision to better capture that vision seems justified. If the 1972 edition represented his approved final product despite imperfections, systematic changes constitute unauthorized modification.
The patterns themselves cannot resolve this question—they can only describe what happened. The more fundamental question of authority and legitimacy requires judgments about textual transmission, editorial responsibility, and spiritual lineage that go beyond textual analysis.
What patterns can tell us is that the revisions weren’t random corrections but reflected deliberate editorial choices guided by principles—whether those principles legitimately served or problematically altered Prabhupada’s work remains the crux of the debate.
