Plagiarism/Lack Of Acknowledgement - Reports

We had some extended discussion of Narayan Maharaj's use of books coming from non-Gaudiya Math sources and not acknowledging them.

This kind of transgression appears to be rather more widespread than Narayan Maharaj. Mahanidhi Swami is publishing a number of works, apparently digging up texts wherever he can find them and then publishing them anonymously, with barely any effort at editing or making other kinds of changes. The offense is twofold:

(1) Mahanidhi Swami has published Vishwanath Chakravarti's "Sankalpa-kalpa-druma." I ordered this book when working on a particular project and was suprised and distressed to see that he had taken, almost word for word, the translation done by my godbrother Gadadhar Pran Das. There was no acknowledgement, and little wonder, since Gadadhar is someone who is vilified regularly by Iskcon Mayapur.

(2) Our Madhavananda Das recently kindly supplied me with a copy of the Madhava Mahotsava translated by Bhanu Swami. Neither the translator nor publisher of this book have acknowledged their sources. Now I happen to have the Madhava Mahotsava critical edition by Puri Das, but I know that as it stands I would not dare translate it directly from the Sanskrit. Haridas Das did a Sanskrit commentary and Bengali translation in the 1940's--a rare book that I haven't been able to get my hands on. I am sure that Bhanu must have used Haridas Das's edition. Why then has he not acknowledged his debt to Haridas Das?

I am deeply offended by this kind of behavior. The first example falls into the category of kRtaghna, the second is guror avajJA. I won't speculate as to the motives, though my guess is that silence is a way to avoid controversy. But I say the same thing that I said about Narayan Maharaj: It is incumbent on the pious to recognize their debts.

I would ask anyone who has dealings with Mahanidhi Swami to ask him to rectify this in the future.

Now that you mention the Madhava Mahotsava issue, it makes me wonder whether they translated Kavi Karnapura's Ananda Vrindavan Campu from a scratch either. Translation credits are given to Bhanu and Subhag Swamis, and there's a long list of other credits too down to the proofreader, the layout man and the donors, but nothing about the source text used for the translation.

To put a positive spin on the issue, at least the books are making it into circulation in some form...However a more realistic view might involve questioning whether they are really read or understood, especially given that they have manifest from some will o' the wisp type environment. The lack of acknowledgement to those who have labored to preserve and share, bespeaks much.

I once heard a person I respect as a sadhu speak about the welfare mentality. He argued that if a person received welfare without deserving it, his lack of labor, of struggle, of devotion, would result in the money so received not being offered back to Krsna. The psychic effect of receiving money, especially tainted money, without labor was that it would be misused.

I think his point is valid here also: usurping the labor of others, without even acknowledging their existence, is not only lacking in class, it must doom one to lick the outside of the bottle. It is the ascending path, the path of fruitless mantras, of taking things too easily....

There are two Ananda Vrindavana Campus: One by Manindranath Guha (Bengali), the other by Vanamali Shastri (Hindi). Here is another case where even Visvanatha's Sanskrit tika will only take one so far. Without Mani Babu and Vanamali Shastri, I don't care how great Sanskrit scholars Bhanu and Subhaga Maharajas are, I bet they would not be able to translate a single paragraph meaningfully. I have little doubt about this.

While we're at it, let me mention another good example.

Caitanya Bhagavata - I believe it was Sarvabhavana who translated the thing, at least there was a draft of the text put together that was circulated since several years among the devotees. Then, Bhakti Vaibhava Puri and his folks got hold of the text and published it, sticking huge pictures of BV Puri both on the back cover and inside the book, and pasting the text "Caitanya Bhagavat - Sri Sri Sri BV Puri Maharaj" all over the cover. Somewhere it said, "Edited by BV Puri", which basically means that he changed the spelling of all Sanskrit words to this goofy Bengali style that is irritating to read. I recall hearing that Sarvabhavana - who has now come out with his own, since then much edited edition - was "very happy" about this.

Another interesting case: A bit over a year back I put together a compilation of quotes on Harinama, and there was a passage from Ananta Das Pandit's Nama-tattva-vijnana translated by Advaitadas included, and on top of the document my name was included as the compiler. I handed this over to one ISKCON Swami. A month or so later I received the same document from a friend who had received the same from the Swami -- the difference being that my name was conveniently snipped out along with that section from ADP's text. What's the point in doing this? If we cannot respect the work someone has done enough to mention his name, we would be better off not using it at all.

Does that mean it is not okay to steal for Krishna. They used to say when you take things from the hands of materialists to use for Krishnas service it was called something like "liberating laxmi" or liberating whatever object you liberate.
I am not saying I agree or condone this and even in Iskcon for the most part they have put down this old rationalizaton but isn't it still a point of argument that if you are a pure devotee or something than you probably really know that Krishna wants it for use in his service so it is justified. Because if that is the case, than obviously, Iskconers who plagarize probably think they are doing the world a favor by putting out other peoples books in Iskcon's name.

I doubt a real pure devotee would have need of anything from others, let alone taking it without the consent of the proprietor. He would see how everything is used for Krishna anyway. He would not see so much differene: Oh, I am so Krishna-conscious, while these rascals are not.

By the way ACBS himself plagiarized texts from the Gita Press Bhagavatam not only without acknowledging, but at the same time vilifying implicitly the very sources texts were stolen from as being non-authorized. Maybe he did not do it personally, since he did not care that much about verse-translations; maybe BBT editors did it, but he signed it with his name. Same seems to be true with Gita-verse-translations, as mentioned somewhere else. ( Jaiadvaita Swami contra Hayagrivadas)

Bhakti Caru heard extensively shiksha from B.R. Sridhar, then left without returning and started teaching that shiksha without reference to the source, presenting himself as a great insightful person without publicly acknowledging his debt. When it is politically incorrect to mention a certain source, the behaviour seems understandable, even though still regrettable. Too unfortunate we have these things in our tradition that teaches respect for everyone, all fellow-beings, and is about love and divine beauty.

What does Krsna need? And what does his devotee need that Krsna will not supply? Stealing indicates a lack of faith.

FWIW, the GBC did make a resolution banning the offering of stolen articles.

From memory, the person who made the point I quoted earlier used a comment of Visvanatha Cakravartipad to back up the point, something about how the bhakta goes to the market to purchase bhoga, cooks the bhoga, offers it--at each point there is a labor of love and no shortcuts (such as stealing a frozen microwave dinner). The shortcut mentality is one of results rather than the process, events rather than spirit.

And think how Mother Yasoda feels to hear that Krsna needs to steal.

A pure devotee (and there is only the real kind) is destitute. He is always in need and sometimes, out of desperation, might steal.



Not necessarily. The gopis steal Krsna's flute out of necessity.

Can you give an example, Anand, of a destitute pure devottee who out of desperation had to steal?

You have, Betal nut, too many questions and few answers for a Guru Ma. How about you come up with an example of yur own?

I can't think of any example. Can you please contribute one?

Send me a private message and I'll see what I can do.

Anyone who thinks it is acceptable to cheat and steal from non devotees, or devotees in the name of preaching, ect. is a morally deficiant fellow. Such people should be rejected as refuse.

So devotees are not innocent? They must be guilty then.

In Brazil there is a saying:
"A thief who steals from a thief
gets one hundred years of relief."

As far as I know, ACBS did not "plagiarize texts" from the Gita Press edition. This is obvious since everyone knows he used to stay up all night translating and commentating. I have reason to believe that the Gita Press edition was used solely to "copy" the devanagari script, since the books ACBS was using were in Bengali. I do not believe that is plagiarization per se. If it was so, then who did Gita Press "plagiarize" from, all the way upto Vyasa's written edition?

I have no idea how the Bhagavad-gita edition is similar. The controversy tends to revolve around the superiority of Jayadvaita's editing versus Hayagriva's.

If I am incorrect on any of these points, please feel free to correct me.

http://www.chakra.org/discussions/BMJan31_03.html



By Ekkehard Lorentz (-ek). Perhaps he would care to comment further on this?

Anand
I edited my post. Thanks.

Very interesting, I stand corrected.

This reminds me of the incident when Bhaktivedanta Swami told Hayagriva to copy the translations from Radhakrishnan's edition of BG. When Hayagriva told him it would be plagiarism, Bhaktivedanta Swami questioned that and said that it is the purports that are more important; "Everyone writes 'away' from Krishna, I write 'to' Krishna." Something like that.

Here are some details. I can only tell from memory, though, I have neither edition with me where I am staying at the moment. In the teachings of Kapiladev to his mother there is a chapter on the functioning of the mind; I think it's chapter 20 or near there. When I wrote a paper I quoted from there, from the BBT edition, a particular sloka in a very sharp language, but something was wrong, the statement did not clearly make sense, was inconclusive. A few years later, when I found the Gita-Press-Bhagavatam and read it, when I came accross that passage, that verse suddenly caught my attention again, because here it was in that same sharp language typical for the Gita-Press edition (but out of place in the BBT edition), and it was conclusive, here the translation made sense. Then I went back to look at the BBT edition and it became clear: the translator had taken the verse from the Gita-Press edition and just changed one or two words, but he changed in such a way that the meaning was messed up. There are several other verses following that verse, that are also taken from Gita-Press with just a minute change or none at all. I did not look for any further places where slokas might have been taken. Too tedious. What I had found was by coincidence. I did not want to be a "fault-finder" on purpose.
Once I read the Gita-Press Bhagavatam, I did not find the other edition attractive anymore.



With the Gita, there was a statement by Hayagriva das that ACBS told him to take any existing translation, and take the verse translations from there. The pragmatist was speaking, apparently before witnesses. He stressed how the purports were much more important than the verse-translations. As far as I know Hayagriva das has published this fact in a book of his.

The following quote is from:

http://www.chakra.org/discussions/BMMay08_03.html

"Hayagriva tells in some detail of a time he worked closely with Srila Prabhupada. That was also in 1967, for a week or so in July. Srila Prabhupada had retired to Paridisio, an estate in Stinson Beach, California, to try to recuperate from a major stroke, and Hayagriva would go there from San Francisco, with the first five chapters of Bhagavad-gita in hand. He was especially concerned about the translations.

The translations, of course, are the most conspicuously literary part of the book. And here's Hayagriva's own account of how they were done:

"After the Rathayatra festival [in San Francisco on July 9, 1967], Swamiji tells me that I should live at Paridisio and work full time on the final manuscript of Bhagavad-gita. . . .

"'It must be well stated in the English language,' Swamiji insists. 'If there are any questions about the translations, you may ask me. Remember, edit for force and clarity.'

"Daily, I try to clarify and strengthen the sentences without changing the style or meddling with the meaning, and, needless to say, this is very difficult. I soon find myself consulting Swamiji on every other verse, and occasionaly he dictates an entirely different translation. The verse translations themselves are most problematical because they often differ from the word by word Sanskrit-English meanings accompanying them. What to do?

"'Quit bothering him,' Kirtanananda tells me. 'Whenever anyone's in his room, he talks to the point of exhaustion.'

"True. He talks sitting up. Then he leans back and talks. Then rests on one elbow. Then lies on his side, still talking, still clarifying, still praising Krishna."

* * *

"Swamiji finally tires of my consulting him about Bhagavad-gita verses.

"'Just copy the verses from some other translation,' he tells me, discarding the whole matter with a wave of his hand. 'The verses aren't important. There are so many translations, more or less accurate, and the Sanskrit is always there. It's my purports that are important. Concentrate on the purports. There are so many nonsense purports like Dr. Radhakrishnan's, and Gandhi's, and Nikhilananda's. What is lacking are these Vaishnava purports in the preaching line of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. That is what is lacking in English. That is what is lacking in the world.'

"'I can't just copy others,' I say.

"'There is no harm.'

"'But that's plagiarism.'

"'How's that? They are Krishna's words. Krishna's words are clear, like the sun. Just these rascal commentators have diverted the meaning by saying, 'Not to Krishna.' So my purports are saying, 'To Krishna.' That is the only difference.'"

The refined literary expressions in the wondrous 1972 Gita were the result of--two years of Srila Prabhupada intimately sitting with Hayagriva? Pure mythology. They were mainly the result of Hayagriva working with the manuscript on his own--and, for the translations, borrowing from other editions. "

End of the quote

I personally know of some prominent ISKCON leaders who have many of Adwaita's translated works of Goswami literature with commentaries of Ananta Das Pandit and Ananda Gopal Goswami. They at times have used some of the information of those commentaries in the writings, seminars (which they charge a fee) and lectures. One of them was asked by an innocent bhakta if he knew who was Ananta Das Pandit. He lied and said no. He went further and said that all of these babajis have not yet attained the stage of anartha nivrtti.

A report out from Emory University offers some physical evidence regarding the different responses from getting versus working for money:



Brain Prefers Working for Cash

I noticed last night that the BBT's Brhad-Bhagavatamrta clearly states its sources (Puridasa Mahasaya, Caitanya Math and Sauri Prapannasrama), with proper bibiliographic information and variant readings.

That's good news.

That notwithstanding, I feel that a "pure devotee" should be on a platform of understanding and calibre, to acknowledge with grateful thanks the work of others. Of course it is difficult for me to comment on the work of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami, being my param-guru, but as a general rule, I think so-called "authors" ought to have the "non-discrimination" of an uttama-adhikari to accept any and every help in service of Krsna, without false pride.

Oh, and haribol, Jagadananda and Minaketana Ramadas. This forum was a nice find...

Ys., Rama Kesava das

Welcome, Rama Kesava Ji.

I did not know you were unaware of this site. I thought I had mentioned a few times on Madhusudani's Yahoo groups forum.

The topic of plagiarism is one that is often comes up here. Here is what I found on Istagosthi about SDG and plagiarism in a post by a former disciple: