A devotee has pointed out a recent change in Srila Prabhupada's Sri Caitanya-caritamrta (change marked in bolded text):

CC.Adi Chapter 1 Intro.

Version before 1990:

    "The direct disciple of Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami was Srila
Narottama dasa Thakura, who accepted Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti as his
servitor. Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura accepted Srila Jagannatha dasa
Babaji, who initiated Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who in turn initiated
Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji, the spiritual master of Om Visnupada Srila
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Maharaja, the divine master of our humble
self."

Recent version:

    "The direct disciple of Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami was Srila Narottama
dasa Thakura, who accepted Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti as his servitor.
Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura accepted Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji,
the spiritual master of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who in turn accepted
Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji, the spiritual master of Om Visnupada Srila
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Maharaja, the divine master of our humble
self."

Just one word changed, and the consequences are enormous.

To begin with, this very passage had historically been quite a stickler in the ritvik debates. Ritvikists have used it to prove their doctrine of posthumous initiation. They say that use of the word "initiate" and the 100 year gap between Srila Narottama Das Thakura and Srila Vishvanatha Chakravarti Thakura together prove that posthumous diksha can take place. If it cannot be demonstrated that "accept" and not "initiate" is the specific word that Srila Prabhupada selected, then it is likely that someone consciously made this change to defend ISKCON against ritvikism. Even if it is the case that it was just another editorial decision, it would be very difficult to dismiss this accusation. Hence, the credibility of the updated work necessarily acquires a stigma of being tainted by editorial ambition, which necessarily hurts the credibility of the work itself.

Unless it can be shown that there had been some mistake made in the editorial chain -- from transcription, through editing, through proofreading, through typsetting and, perhaps, printing, such that the word chosen by the editor is clearly the word the author had selected, then the editorial change is morally wrong.

Such a change goes beyond the mandate of editing (which is to as far as possible preserve the author's own way of presenting his own ideas) and becomes a kind of authorship in its own right. If SP used the word "initiate", then some other word used in its place without the permission of the author is an improper change. Why? Because whatever SP meant by it, this is the way SP chose to express it. Changing the way an author expresses his ideas without the author's permission necessarily means the editor is choosing to express an idea in some different way. In such a case, the editor breaks free of one of the constraints that makes an editor an editor--a duty to preserve the author's voice. Whenever that happens, the editor is no longer an editor. He has become an author.

http://www.petitiononline.com/34SIRAMA/petition.html

Be sure to read Sitapati Prabhu's thoughts and analysis of the BBTI's response to the GBC's resolution 311. One statement of his struck me as particularly comment-worthy:

The GBC just let everyone down, supporters and opponents of Resolution 311 alike. As the saying has it: "I lost my caste, and I'm still hungry." The GBC alienated half of the society and effectively did it for nothing for the other half.

Yes, this seems to be an accurate assessment, and suitable metaphor. Speaking for ISKCON conservatives, the GBC had already alienated us, but up until now conservatives haven't had a real conservative cause cellebré they could rally around. Eventually, this proposal was bound to happen. It's been mooted for the last decade within the GBC. It's just that it happened sooner than even us conservatives expected. For us this was a kind of "blessing in disguise."

I think one of the reasons this came out so quickly is that the GBC lost touch with much of ISKCON. One senior devotee I know, who himself is not especially conservative, has been trying to systematically contact his godbrothers on the GBC and discuss resolution 311 with them. He has mostly been ignored or told in so many ways to mind his own business. A few have been willing to discuss with him, but they have been the exceptions, not the rule. That degree of homogeneous condescension in the ruling group has to eventually be repaid, in interest. The bill is past due, and the collector is at the GBC's front door.

Another result of being so out of touch with the rest of ISKCON is that the GBC counted on the support of a more liberal constituency that didn't go along with it. From my vantage point, I would say that this indicates that ISKCON liberals, like conservatives, are themselves a variegated group. Just as there are traditionalist and non-traditionalist conservatives, there seems to be similar kinds of divisions among ISKCON liberals. Although there are some liberal traditionalists, ISKCON liberals seem to be divided along the lines of classical liberals and leftists. The difference between them being that the classical liberals tend towards individualism whereas the leftists tend to be anti-individualists to some degree. The GBC appeard to veer to the far left, which could explain why they just assumed that their liberal constituency would go along with them. But the variegatedness of ISKCON liberals could explain why some not only didn't go along with the GBC but to some extent openly rebelled.

The way forward? We're still trying to figure that one out. It would be nice if the GBC would talk to the conservatives, for once. It would make it easier for us to give the GBC the benefit of the doubt. Their resolution 311, however, tells us that being polyannish about the GBC's intentions is not an option.

In any case, I think ISKCON liberals and conservatives have unwittingly discovered some common ideological ground for building stronger relationships and community. The GBC is invited to participate, if it likes.

The BBTI (Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International) released their public response to the GBC's resolution 311, which requested the BBTI to publish versions of Srila Prabhupada's books with explanatory endnotes and appendices.

The BBTI document responded to the two reasons the GBC cited for having them. To the first reason, that some people may find some statements offensive, the BBTI document frankly admitted that this may be the case, yet they felt that doing so would be "disastrous"--especially if the purpose for doing so were to soften what Srila Prabhupada said, or not just to explain but "explain away" what he said.

To the second reason, that some devotees may have used these statements out of context to offend women, the BBTI responded that while this has happened, this is a disciplinary matter that is the responsibility of the GBC and other ISKCON leaders, not the BBT or its editors.

The entire document can be found here: http://www.jswami.info/bbt/editing/no_notes

What is significant about this case is that, for the first time, we see two core institutions of greater ISKCON disagreeing with each other. What remains to be seen is how the GBC responds to the BBTI's refusal. The GBC may agree with it, but they may also see it as an unwise rebuke and further harden their stance on the issue.

If the GBC were to acquiesce to the BBTI's verdict, that would effectively make the GBC subordinate to the BBTI. At the very least, it would mean that the GBC even officially no longer has the last word on spiritual matters. That would necessarily weaken the authority of the GBC.

The stakes in this are very high, and it is doubtful that the GBC will let this issue quietly fade away. ISKCON's history has, of late, become very interesting.

This was in a private email:

You know, the ritviks in all this are coming out looking really good now,
because if anyone is determined not to change SP's books themselves, it's
the ritviks. As much as I'm against them, I have to give them credit for
that.

Signature 428 on the Resolution 311 petition reads:

Name: Wascally Wascal
Address: Ivory Tower
Guru: My mind
Comment: I'm collecting all of the names on this petition and placing everyone here on a blacklist. See if any of you do-gooders will ever make it on the GBC after this!!!! HA!!!

I think the blacklist part is probably true.

The "Siromani dd" (now elided as the author name) quoted in an article I posted recently ("How will 311 Be Resolved?") is not the Siromani dd who wrote the paper "Sacred Territory" and has as her guru-initials "RVSD". It is some other, or someone else who used that as his/her screen name to make that comment.

And voice your protest of annotated versions of Srila Prabhupada's books.

Please sign this petition, and your life will be sublime: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/GBCre311/

As many of my readers know, I'm working on a better researched paper that investigates the history and controversies over annotation in the areas of literature and religion. Although in terms of source material, there is much available that can make a strong case for not using annotation, every way I look at this issue so far tells me that the best evidence and best arguments against it will not be enough to sway those determined to have annotated editions of Srila Prabhupada's books.

Why? Because the desire to have them is not fundamentally based on a rational proposition. Even though it can be shown that just a small amount of annotation in relation to its source text being commented on can stand a text on its head, that is, in fact, what some advocates of annotation truly want.

In a comment on a website, on an equally controversial article, a devotee lady expresses what I believe eloquently describes the shortcoming of rational argument as regards to this issue:

Srila Prabhupad came in a material body and had flaws that come with a material body. Although very compassionate to women in his personal relationships, he was bound by his time, place and circumstance and revealed himself to be a bigoted man who preached a misogynist attitude to women publicly. This was not the attitude of all men of his time in India - I have known many vaisnavas (and other) men of Srila Praphupad’s generation in India who were extremely respectful of women, always spoke of women and viewed women with utter respect, and even elevated women as naturally superior to men in intelligence, in managerial ability and as mother and ‘griha-laxmi’.
I am ever grateful that Srila Phabhupad brought me to Krishna, and I respect and love him for his immense compassion in bringing the BG, SG, Nectar of Devtion, Sri Isopanisad to the world outside India. To take as absolute truth Srila Prabhupad’s views on science or women is extremely foolish and ignorant-minded. Lord Sri Krishna is not limited by either Srila Prabhupad’s views nor by ISKCON’S dictates. I am a devotee of little merit and no importance, but unless ISKCON GBC comes forward dynamically to reject and negate the mysogyny that is floating in ISKCON society, I for one, am outta here!

("Comment", 12 Jun. 2008, Hare Krishna Women, 13 Jun 2008 <http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com/2008/06/09/prabhupada/>)

What does it mean to be "ever grateful" to someone else for having given you the most wonderful thing, and then to turn around and scorn your savior? For one thing, it presupposes that one knows better than the other, but then what can we make of the supposed gratitude? Perhaps what was not criticized, or praised, was not really felt to be so great after all.

And this, I believe is a visceral reflection of the thinking behind those who wish to annotate Srila Prabhupada's books. In their criticism of some of Srila Prabhupada's statements, they end up, eventually, showing contempt for the rest of Srila Prabhupada's statements--or at least those statements which, according to other criteria, are not found to be objectionable according to present social fads and fashions. If you criticize the part, you end up criticizing the whole.

What this suggests is that the evaluators (the pro-annotators) have at some point subordinated their reverence to Srila Prabhupada's authority (and the tradition, parampara, he represents) to some other, "higher" authority. To say outright that one accepts some other authority (e.g. outsider academics, mainstream feminism, Marxism, etc.) as superior to our traditional sources of authority is still considered tantamount to atheism, or apostasy. Thus hardly anyone sympathetic to the enterprise of annotation will admit their sympathies. Yet since this issue is reducible to the question of what authority one accepts, rational arguments really aren't effective. For if the argument starts from an authority that one does not accept, and never will, the argument will never be convincing.

This is why I don't see light at the end of the tunnel on this one, and why I believe my own present work (and that of a good many others for or against this issue) will in the long run be for naught.

I think that thought leaders and managerial leaders of ISKCON may have to start thinking seriously about partitioning, if not splitting ISKCON, into at least two factions--a more traditional faction (which we can call the orthodox faction) and a more progressive faction (which we can call the reform faction).

(See this article for more information: http://siddhanta.com/index.php?q=node/7)