Jayadvaita – Change “Hare Krishna” to “hare krishna”…

Dear jayadvaita swami,

Hare Krsna—or should I write “hare krsna”? I just received your letter recommending more changes. You write:

“Strong reasons can be advanced, however, for leaving aside our present standard in favor of extending “down style’ to all pronouns.

The editors of Chicago “urge a spare, down style” in the field of religion, as in others. Specifically, they say that pronouns referring to God (or Christ) “are today preferably not capitalized.”

Does the use of lower case signify an impious lack of regard for the Deity? The King James Bible, that great work of awe and reverence, affords God a lower-case he. (For that matter, so does the Book of Mormon.)….”

1) First point you make in your letter above (which,in its entirety, follows this letter of mine) is your reference to some magazine called Chicago.

Seems nobody I know has ever heard of this one and besides that why are you getting “spiritual advice” from them instead of your own spiritual master???

What bona fide disciple of Srila Prabhupada cares if the man on the moon uses caps or lower case letters to describe the Supreme Person Krsna ??

Have you lost your senses ? Our ONLY authority is Srila Prabhupada in case you have forgotten that most basic Krsna conscious fact. Disciple means to follow the discipline of the master-your master, who told you to use Caps when referring to God , Christ, Buddha, etc.

Furthermore these people you refer to, want to refer to the Lord in lower case as if they are in a position to dictate to GOD–Oh,Yes God, I have declared that You are no longer to be seen as the Primordial Person, the Supreme Controller, the Ultimate Refuge, but now we the editors of Chicago, along with Jayadvaita swami think the world is now ready for YOU as a lower case person.

And YES ,for your information,by the way, the lower case DOES signify disrespect for a Deity of God. This shows you have Not much respect for God-because even a village idiot could understand this-but apparantly not you.

Furthermore, why are “strong reasons” as you say for this new change coming from a magazine called Chicago, the Mormons and the King James bible folks?? Since when did bona fide vaisnavas care for village katha? Or the ramblings of mundane so called scholars?

None of the above people or groups even come close to following vaisnava dharma, know of its presence or if they do, care to follow it. They are all dull headed materialists and you are now taking THEIR advice?? Why are you NOT taking the advice of your God brothers who know the difference? Again, what has happened to you brain??

2) Next you write……….

….” For example, Nanda Maharaja says to Krsna:

My boy, You must be tired from so much wandering in the forest. Go home with Your elder brother and take Your bath. I will look after the cows. Please don’t delay any longer or Your mother will be unhappy and scold me. Please cooperate and go right now.

Here the pronoun with which Nanda addresses Krsna bears an honorific capital though Nanda’s mood towards Krsna is decidedly ‘lower case.’

Again, These books are written for READERS–NOT Nanda Maharaj!!! The READERS should KNOW WHO it is they are reading about–GOD. Nandas relationship with Krsna is besides the point. The point is that God or His expansions should ALWAYS have Upper case letters-otherwise how will the readers know this is GOD?

By lowering the letter case, you have made something which is clear to millions, now UNCLEAR!!!

All over the world everyone knows that when you refer to GOD in writing, He is ALWAYS spelled with upper case letters……..-this is first grade stuff…………..Did you not pass first grade english??

3) And now another one…. from you…..

…..”Similarly, ,Sisupala hurls at Krsna scurrilous insults, with a piously reverent capital: “I think Krsna to be no better than a crow — how can He be fit to accept the first worship in this great sacrifice?”…”

So you think that the Vedas were written by Srila Vyasadev for Sisupals benefit so that he would know that it was GOD that was going to kill him? No, these vedas were written for us the readers so that WE would know that sisupala was to be killed by God.

It seems your point of reference in these cases is the demons side and not the pious souls who will read and get benefit.

4) you write more……

….”And yet again, sometimes the capital not only clashes with a speaker’s mood but even gives away the story line. For example, when an unknown boy rings milk, Madhavendra Puri asks:

Who are You? Where do You reside? And how did You know that I was fasting?

All such anomalies would be remedied by the consistent use of pronouns in lower case. This is the style that Dravida and I both favor….”

So, practically speaking, the whole world accepts that the name of God should be written in the upper case, but you and Dravida alone, think otherwise. There is so much mystery, intrigue, deception, etc, in the vedas, and it has been that way for billions of years.

But now you and Dravida think that people will not be able to perceive this mystery in a story line because the words depicting God will be giving away the story by showing Him in capital letters??

What has happened to your brains??

Devotees read and re read the Srimad Bhagavatam over and over again knowing fully well who Krsna is, yet that doesnt remove the mystery,suspense, and attraction they have for Him-even if His name was in lower case.

But by putting His name in lower case, YOU remove Him from THIS position from those who do not know who He is.

YOU are now doing what Prabhupada has warned us about- so called scholars who want to KILL Krsna by their demoniac changing of the words of sastra.

First kill the guru…….. then kill Krsna.

Now it has taken place….just see….

Hare Krsna — reply if you dare…

Damaghosa das

————————————————————

–H.H. JAYADVAITA SWAMI’S PROPOSAL TO THE BTG & BBT RE. A CHANGE IN POLICY TOWARDS THE USE OF “DIVINE PRONOUNS”

BBT Style: Regarding lower case for “divine pronouns”

Since the beginning, the BBT style for capitalizing pronouns has been this:

The pronoun He is capitalized for Krsnaa and His Visnu-tattva expansions,

and She for Srimate Radharani. For two or more of these together, They is

capitalized; but when anyone else is included, they becomes lower case.

Hence Balarama is He, but Subhadra is she; and Krsna and Arjuna, and the

Jagannatha deities, and the Panca-tattva are all they. We, Him, Her, She,

and possessives are treated in a similar fashion.

Strong reasons can be advanced, however, for leaving aside our present

standard in favor of extending “down style’ to all pronouns.

The editors of Chicago “urge a spare, down style” in the field of religion,

as in others. Specifically, they say that pronouns referring to God (or

Christ) “are today preferably not capitalized.”

Does the use of lower case signify an impious lack of regard for the Deity?

The King James Bible, that great work of awe and reverence, affords God a

lower-case he. (For that matter, so does the Book of Mormon.)

In BBT publications, the style of pronouns in the plural can be puzzling.

Why are the Jagannatha deities or the Panca-tattva they?

More disturbing still is the use of a capitalized pronoun that belies the

context in which it appears — as it often does. For example, Nanda Maharaja

says to Krsna:

My boy, You must be tired from so much wandering in the forest. Go home with

Your elder brother and take Your bath. I will look after the cows. Please

don’t delay any longer or Your mother will be unhappy and scold me. Please

cooperate and go right now.

Here the pronoun with which Nanda addresses Krsna bears an honorific capital

though Nanda’s mood towards Krsna is decidedly ‘lower case.’

Similarly, ,Sisupala hurls at Krsna scurrilous insults, with a piously

reverent capital: “I think Krsna to be no better than a crow — how can He

be fit to accept the first worship in this great sacrifice?”

And yet again, sometimes the capital not only clashes with a speaker’s mood

but even gives away the story line. For example, when an unknown boy brings

milk, Madhavendra Puri asks:

Who are You? Where do You reside? And how did You know that I was fasting?

All such anomalies would be remedied by the consistent use of pronouns in

lower case. This is the style that Dravida and I both favor.

Though scholars and general readers may find lower case entirely natural, we

need to take into account that many ISKCON devotees are likely to see it as

a shocking sign that the BBT (probably influenced by demonic scholars) has

slid into treating Krsna “like an ordinary human being.”

Some would no doubt point out that ,Srila Prabhupada, in his original

Bhagavatam, used upper-case pronouns. And in a talk with his editors on

December 4, 1969, he again endorsed upper-case pronouns.

Of course, in that original Bhagavatam ,Srila Prabhupada also sometimes used

upper-case Who. And in that 1969 conversation his general attitude was “the

fewer capitals the better.”

And so, although we naturally defer to Srila Prabhupada’s example in so many

areas, we need to ask ourselves whether typographic conventions should be

one of them. And since the 1969 exchange about pronouns was brief, we need

to ask ourselves whether to regard it as a definitive instruction or a

circumstantial comment.

In proposing lower case, one option open to us is to first try a lower-case

policy in BTG, where we can gauge feedback and revert to upper case should

we choose.

In any event, we propose the lower-case standard only for new books, not for

Srila Prabhupada’s already published titles.

Hare Krsna.

————————————————————

Conversation with Srila Prabhupada on Capitalisation

Satsvarupa: Prabhupada, in editing, there are two different policies about using capitals. One is to use as few capitals as possible or to use many capitals, in grammar capitalized, or to use few. So sometimes your Nectar of Devotion has got very few capitals. When Balarama is referred to as “he,” there is no capital. But the other policy is to always put… Krsna’s Hands, capital H, Krsna’s Feet, capital F, Krsna Who, capital W. Which is…

Prabhupada: No, no, no. Don’t follow that policy. That will not be very… Then…

Satsvarupa: The less capitals, the better?

Prabhupada: Yes. I think. What do you think?

Hayagriva: Well, I think, when referring to Krsna, we should always have a capital “H.” [His, Him, etc]

Prabhupada: Especially. Yes. Especially for Krsna, you can.

Hayagriva: And if we want to, for Radha, capital “S.” [She]

Prabhupada: But Balarama is not different from Krsna.

Satsvarupa: So He is capital “H.”

Hayagriva: So He is capital “H.” But then here we go. (laughter)

Prabhupada: No, no. You limit to these three. That will do.

Hayagriva: Limit to those three.

Prabhupada: Or Visnu. Yes. Visnu.

Hayagriva: What about avataras, in reference to Christ or Buddha?

Prabhupada: Buddha is capital used. Jesus Christ is capital used.

Satsvarupa: Yes. But he… Like “He.” He means Buddha, “Who.”

Hayagriva: No, “He.”

Prabhupada: No. That you can use…

Satsvarupa: Small.

Prabhupada: Yes.

Satsvarupa: Then words like Krsna’s “pastimes,” “entourage,” His “will.”

Prabhupada: No, small.

Satsvarupa: Small.

Prabhupada: Yes.

Hayagriva: The possessions of Krsna, small.

Prabhupada: Small.

Satsvarupa: His hands and feet, small.

Brahmananda: Lotus feet?

Prabhupada: Yes.

Satsvarupa: Lotus flower?

Prabhupada: Yes. All small. Simply name. Stick to name.

Hayagriva: The pronoun, Krsna, “who.” The pronoun “who,” that’s not…

Prabhupada: No, no. Use small.

Hayagriva: Thank you. There’s so many… That causes a headache for everyone.

Prabhupada: No. It is better to make everything sound but slow. We want to create this position of Back to Godhead as very authorized representation of the science of God. In future people may refer to it, so we should very cautiously and very nicely do it. It is very important thing, Back to Godhead. If our movement is going to be recognized as scientific, God consciousness movement, then this Back to Godhead will be referred as authorized scripture. So therefore we have to prepare in such a way, nothing non-conclusive can be introduced in this. That should be our policy. And actually it is the position of Back to Godhead.

[Conversation with Srila Prabhupada Dec. 24, 1969]