Суд над Бхагавад-гитой / Attempt to ban Bhagavad-gita

http://www.vnn.org/ivc/audioclips/index.html

Summary of Audio Clips

If you have installed a recent version of either Netscape or Explorer you should be able to listen to the sound files without problems. If your browser cannot play the sound files download one of these sound utilities: Macintosh: SoundMachine / Windows 95: Goldwave or go to shareware.com and download any of the sound utilities there. To listen to sound files more often click on the sound file link, hold down mouse button, and choose "Save As" from the pop-up menu and save the file to your harddisk.


VNN Story Sound Clips

12/12/97-1346
Investigators Find Another "Poison" Reference
Kaviraja: (Hindi)

Newly discovered text:
(While kaviraja speaks hindi, yet unidentified whispers can be heard, and then:)

Tamala Krsna: Put poison in different containers.
Unknown person: That's all right.

Audio Clip in WAV Format (2.4 MB)

12/05/97-1321
More Audio Clips "The poison is going down (giggle) the poison is going down"

Audio Clip in WAV Format (650 kb)


"Is the poison in the milk umm humm"

Audio Clip in WAV Format (1 MB)


"Poison Ishvarya Rasa

Me! or In Me!

Take it easy .. get ready to go

going under Srila Prabhupada

Going under"

- devotees offering last..."

Audio Clip in WAV Format (2.6 MB)


11/29/97-1295
"Poison Has Been Given"
Srila Prabhupada: koi bolta hai koi poison diya hai - some one is saying some poison has been given.

Kaviraja: kisko - to whom?

Srila Prabhupada: mujko - to me.

Sound Clip in WAV Format (150 kb


11/24/97-1278
"Poison Ishvara Rasa"
"Poison Ishvara Rasa"

Sound Clip in WAV Sound File (501 kb)


11/18/97-1237
Audio Clip Of 2nd Whisper And Updates Srila Prabhupada: "Hmm"
About 7 seconds into the clip there is a whisper which is currently being analyzed: ".... is going down" (that is what we hear)
Person: Giggles
Jayapataka: (speaks about kaviraja)
Srila Prabhupada: "I drink milk?"
Towards the end of this clip is the controversial "poison" whisper.

Two Whisper Sound WAV file (142 seconds - 3MB)

Maha Buddhi prabhu's report explains what follows: "Also, listening later on in the tape shortly after "Poison in the Milk" part, actually Bhakti Caru Maharaja asks Srila Prabhupada in Bengali if he would like milk? Srila Prabhupada agrees, he drinks, and Bhakti Caru asks if it is too hot and Srila Prabhupada answers no it is extremely sweet!"

11/17/97-1230
"Whisper" Sound Clip in WAV Format and Updates (The whisper starts about 60 seconds after Srila Prabhupada asks for milk)

Sound Clip in WAV Sound File (390 kb)

11/15/97-1214
Preliminary Enhanced Version Of Audio Clip
"Let's put poison in the milk... Hmm"

Sound Clip in WAV Sound File (390 kb)

Sound Clip in Quicktime Sound File (423 kb)

11/12/97-1197
GBC To Call Emergency Meeting
"Put the poison in" or
"Put the poison in the milk" or
"Put the poison in the cup".

or

"Is the poison in the milk?... Hmm..."

This passage is shortly after Srila Prabhupada mentions "milk" and a loud "click" can be heard on the tape as in a poorly done editing cut.

Above section in WAV Sound File (2.4 MB)

Above section in Quicktime Sound File (2.4 MB)

11/11/97-1196
Incriminating Whisper Found On "Poison Tapes"
1. "Lets not poison him and go" or
2. "Lets now poison him and go."

Sound Clip in WAV Sound File (390 kb)

Sound Clip in Quicktime Sound File (325 kb)

11/04/97-1159
20th Anniversary of Srila Prabhupada's Disappearance Day Overshadowed By "Poison Tapes"
Room Conversation, Vrindavan 10/31/77

Prabhupada: Huh. No more, no more trial. Adri-dharana?
Adri-dharana: Yes, Srila Prabhupada.
Prabhupada: What do you think?
Adri-dharana: About this man?
Prabhupada: Yes. Follow strictly.
Tamala Krsna: Do you agree that we should follow strictly his advice?
Adri-dharana: From my experience I think he's a very good man. He's a Vaisnava.
Tamala Krsna: We certainly have... We might as well try. We've tried everyone else.
Prabhupada: Hm.
Tamala Krsna: So let us try.
Bhavananda: He did agree with your own diagnosis, Prabhupada. He said makaradhvaja at this point would be poison and today you said that it was poison.
Prabhupada: Yes.
Bhavananda: So that was...
Prabhupada: Mm. Mm?
Tamala Krsna: Satadhanya asks whether he looks like the man you saw in the dream.
Prabhupada: He has tilaka?
Tamala Krsna: Yes, he has nice tilaka.
Prabhupada: (indistinct). The other man, he has nice tilaka?
Tamala Krsna: Govardhanaji has tilaka?
Adri-dharana: No.
Tamala Krsna: No.
Prabhupada: That's all right.
Adri-dharana: Also Govardhanaji was not very, extremely helpful. He said he would not come to Vrndavana. He said he would not...
Tamala Krsna: Now this man said in fifteen days Prabhupada would be better.
Adri-dharana: He said there will be improvement, in a few days, two or three days there will be improvement.

Above section in Quicktime Sound File (2.6 MB)



Room Conversation Vrindavan 10/77

Prabhupada: So... Kaviraja he might ...
Tamala Krsna: What Srila Prabhupada?
Prabhupada: That Kaviraja .. some how another it does not happen.
Tamala Krsna: I don't feel this is conclusively not happened.
Prabhupada: Simply, one after another.
Tamala Krsna: Yeah.. First we had that Madva.. not Madva - Ramanuji from Sri Rangaji temple he seemed to be a cheater... then this one we got this medicine from that Shakti...Shakta Kaviraja and that medicine turned out to be poison.
Prabhupada: Hmm...
Tamala Krsna: And now this Kaviraja, who is supposed to be coming from Calcutta has become a mystery where he is. The temple was called they said had left...
Devotee: Twice...
Tamala Krsna: ...they called twice to Calcutta...they said they left and yet he is not here.
I don't know what to make of it. A very puzzling situation.
I think if by tomorrow noon they have not arrived, then Satadanya can go to Calcutta.

Above section in Quicktime Sound File (2.8 MB)



Room Conversation, Vrindavan 11/8/77

Prabhupada: Sa eva go-kharah. (pause)
Tamala Krsna: Srila Prabhupada? You said before that you..., that it is said that you were poisoned?
Prabhupada: No. These kind of symptoms are seen when a man is poisoned. He said like that, not that I am poisoned.
Tamala Krsna: Did anyone tell you that, or you just know it from before?
Prabhupada: I read something.
Tamala Krsna: Ah, I see. That's why actually we cannot allow anyone else to cook for you.
Prabhupada: That is good.
Tamala Krsna: Jayapataka Maharaja was telling that one acarya, Sankaracarya, of the Sankaracarya line--this was a while ago--he was poisoned to death. Since that time, none of the acaryas or the gurus of the Sankaracarya line will ever take any food cooked except by their own men.
Prabhupada: My Guru Maharaja also.
Tamala Krsna: Oh. You, of course, have been so merciful that sometimes you would take prasada cooked by so many different people.
Prabhupada: That should be stopped. (pause)

Above section in Quicktime Sound File (3.1 MB)



Room Conversation, Vrindavan 11/9-10/77

Devotee: What did Prabhupada just say?
Unknown (Indian accent): Prabhupad just said that this morning his condition was bad.
Bhavananda: SP was complaining about mental distress this morning.
Kaviraja: (Hindi)... mental distress?
Prabhupada: (Hindi)... poison.
Kaviraja: (Hindi)
Devotee: Some one gave him poison.
Kaviraja: (Hindi)
Tamal Krishna: Prabhupada was thinking that someone was poisoning him. That was the mental disturbance.
Kaviraja: (Hindi)
Tamal Krishna: What did Kaviraja say?
Unknown (Indian accent): He said that when Srila Prabhupada is saying that there must be some truth behind it.
Devotee: What is ....?
Devotee: That someone gave him some poison - powdered (many voices - hindi)
Tamal Krishna: Srila Prabhupada, Shastraji says that there must be some truth to it if you said that. So who is it that has poisoned?
Pause......
Kaviraja: (Hindi - asking SP)
(Hindi conversation)
Devotee: What did he say?
Unknown (Indian accent): He said that it is quiet possible that Mercury is a kind of poison.
Kaviraja: Very poison...
Bhavananda: What medicine was he taking before that.
Unknown (Indian accent): He is referring to a big case husband poisoning the wife.
Tamal Krishna: No poison is strong enough to stop the harinam.

Above section in Quicktime Sound File (2.1 MB)



Room Conversation, Vrindavan 11/10/77

Jagadisa: Srila Prabhupada, can you tell us why you want to go on the parikrama?
Bhakti-caru: (Bengali) (break)
Prabhupada: ...good paddy.
Tamala Krsna: This seems like suicide, Srila Prabhupada, this program. It seems to some of us like it's suicidal.
Prabhupada: And this is also suicidal.
Tamala Krsna: Hm. Prabhupada said, "And this is also suicide." Now you have to choose which suicide.
Prabhupada: The Ravana will kill and Rama will kill. Better to be killed by Rama. Eh? That Marica--if he does not go to mislead Sita, he'll be killed by Ravana; and if he goes to be killed by Rama, then it is better.
Tamala Krsna: Who is this Prabhupada's talking about?
Devotees: Marica.
Tamala Krsna: Srila Prabhupada? I mean, just judging the symptoms, which is all that we can do, certain symptoms have certainly picked up. For instance, you're passing more urine, stool is coming naturally, and you're able to drink milk without getting any cough. These things were never there before.
Prabhupada: Hm. That will continue.

Above section in Quicktime Sound File (2.6 MB)

http://www.prabhupada.org.uk/articles1/irm_deviant.htm

Srila Prabhupada's Silence Confirms His Poisoning and the IRM Deviation.


The IRM have written various papers in which they infiltrate materially concocted ideas into Srila Prabhupada's clear statements about someone poisoning him. The goal of this paper is defend the transcendental words of His Divine Grace from such offensive interpretations, expose this deviant IRM cult and thus help any unfortunate souls who are a member of it.

Let us start by looking at Srila Prabhupada's clear words then the IRM's deviant interpretations of them.



Bhavananda: Prabhupada was complaining of mental distress this morning also.

Bhakti-caru: Srila Prabhupada?

Prabhupada: Hm?

Bhakti-caru: Srila Prabhupada?

Prabhupada: Hm?

Bhakti-caru: What was that all about mental distress?

Prabhupada: Hm, hm.

Kaviraja [Doctor]: Say it. Say it.

Prabhupada: That same thing … that someone has poisoned me.

Kaviraja: Look, this is the thing, that maybe some rakshasa (demon) gave him poison…

Devotee: Someone gave him poison here.

Kaviraja: Caru Swami, some rakshasa might have given it, maybe so. It's not impossible. Someone gave poison to Sankaracharya for six months before he started to suffer. [The poisoner] ground glass, you know, bottle glass, and mixed it with his food. So what happened to him [the poisoner] as a result was that after twelve months, his entire body was covered with leprosy. So, you have to suffer the results of your actions. But whatever medicine I have given will, if it has an effect the poison will not be able to stay. That is guaranteed. Whatever it has affected, it will not be able to stay. But we cannot now catch the fellow who gave the poison. No matter what reason his kidneys are bad, whether from disease, planets or poison, my medicine will counteract it."

Tamala Krsna: Prabhupada was thinking that someone had poisoned him.

Adri-dharana: Yes.

Tamala Krsna: That was the mental distress.

Adri-dharana: Yes.

Kaviraja: If he says that, they must definitely be some truth to it

Tamala Krsna: What did Kaviraja just say?

Bhakti-caru: He said that when Srila Prabhupada was saying that, there must be some truth behind it.

Tamala Krsna: Tssh. (People all speaking at once)

Tamala Krsna: Srila Prabhupada, Sastriji says that there must be some truth to it if you say that. So who is it that has poisoned?

[13 second pause, Srila Prabhupada remains silent and does not answer]

[ S.P.Room Conversation November 10, 1977, Vrndavana



I.R.M. CONCOCTION: Thus when Srila Prabhupada states 'someone has poisoned me', he is simply identifying the discussion which has led to the 'mental distress'. The talk on the previous day, as we have seen, was indeed in reference to 'someone has poisoned me'. Thus the phrase, 'someone has poisoned me', because it is prefaced with 'that same discussion', is used simply to refer back to the previous discussions in question. A previous discussion in which someone else had spoken of Srila Prabhupada being poisoned, or more accurately, displaying the symptoms of someone being poisoned.

In other words:

1. Srila Prabhupada is asked a question - 'what was that all about, mental distress'?

2. Srila Prabhupada answers initially - 'that same discussion'.

3. He then clarifies which discussion he is referring to by adding - 'that someone has poisoned me'.

Thus though Srila Prabhupada does speak the words - 'someone has poisoned me' - he only states them to identify the series of talks, which were to do with Srila Prabhupada being poisoned - but in which Srila Prabhupada himself never states that someone has poisoned him.

Note: Tamal Krsna asks Srila Prabhupada a very clear question "So who is it that has poisoned?" He doesn't ask "Have you being poisoned ?" because that is already cleared by Srila Prabhupada's statement "That same thing … that someone has poisoned me" The question now is who has poisoned.

Therefore Srila Prabhupada's silence means he's accepting what Tamal says.

If we remain silent, then whatever he says, that means we are accepting.

[S.P. Discussion about Guru Maharaji August 13, 1973, Paris]

Note: If Srila Prabhupada's statement "That same thing … that someone has poisoned me" was misunderstood by the devotees at that time and Srila Prabhupada was only referring to a previous discussion as the bogus I.R.M. have materially concocted, then when Srila Prabhupada was asked a very pointed question by Tamal namely "So who is it that has poisoned?" why did he not say "No not that i am poisoned, i was only referring to the previous discussion in which i said it was possible" ???

Srila Prabhupada was silent because he agreed with what they had understood, as one devotee immediately stated "Someone gave him poison here."

Therefore, SRILA PRABHUPADA CONFIRMS AGAIN "SOMEONE HAS POISONED ME" BY REMAINING SILENT AND NOT ANSWERING TAMAL.

If we theoretically accept that Srila Prabhupada was identifying the previous discussion in which he said: "Someone says that I've been poisoned. It is possible" this would mean (if we accept the I.R.M's reasoning on why Srila Prabhupada uses the words "Someone has poisoned me") that Srila Prabhupada wasn't intelligent enough to use the correct words.

Visitor: Christians take this commandment to be applicable to human beings, not to animals.
Srila Prabhupada: That would mean that Christ was not intelligent enough to use the right word: murder. There is killing, and there is murder. Murder refers to human beings. Do you think Jesus was not intelligent enough to use the right word--murder--instead of the word killing? Killing means any kind of killing, and especially animal killing. If Jesus had meant simply the killing of humans, he would have used the word murder.

[SSR Chapter Four Understanding Krsna and Christ :Krsna, Christos, Christ]

Note: Do the IRM think that Srila Prabhupada wasn't intelligent enough to use the right words?

Srila Prabhupada uses the word HAS poisoned me. If the issue of Srila Prabhupada's poisoning was still only a possibility, His Divine Grace would have said something like " That same thing … that someone says I've been poisoned" or " That same thing … the talk of someone poisoning me"

Therefore even accepting the I.R.M. concoction that Srila Prabhupada is identifying the previous discussion, he is now clearing the doubts by saying "Someone HAS poisoned me". When Tamal clearly understanding this truth asks Prabhupada "So who is it that has poisoned?" Prabhupada's silence not only confirms he is in agreement with what they have understood [Someone has poisoned Prabhupada... that's clear, so the next question is WHO HAS POISONED???] but simultaneously reveals the poison giver. The following quote will clarify this:

Guest (6): Swamiji, you have seen Krsna?
Prabhupada: What do you think? We are all rascals, blindly following? Do you think like that? Then why I have not seen? Why do you ask this? If we are acting for Krsna, do you mean to say that we are following blindly? Do you think like that? What is your opinion? If we have not seen Krsna, then how we are acting for Krsna? Hm? What is your idea? We are all fools, that without seeing the master we are acting? Do you think like that? Why don't you answer? This is foolish question. How one can serve a master without seeing the master? Is it a fact that without seeing the master one is serving?

[S.P. Morning Walk December 5, 1976, Hyderabad]


So we can answer poison giver Tamal by using the above:

"What do you think Tamal ?..... Why do you ask this? .....What is your opinion?..... What is your idea? .......Why don't you answer? This is foolish question because the answer is OBVIOUS !!!



THE RAVANA WILL KILL AND THE RAMA WILL KILL.

BETTER TO BE KILLED BY RAMA. EH?

In the next quote we find the final and irrefutable evidence from Prabhupada's mouth confirming his killing by his Judas disciples [Ravana followers] Even the IRM haven't tried to mess with this because IT'S JUST TOO STRONG AND CLEAR CUT.



Jagadisa: Srila Prabhupada, can you tell us why you want to go on the parikrama? [Visisting holy places]
Bhakti-caru: (Bengali) (break)
Prabhupada: ...good paddy.
Tamala Krsna: This seems like suicide, Srila Prabhupada, this program. It seems to some of us like it's suicidal.
Prabhupada: And this is also suicidal.
Tamala Krsna: Hm. Prabhupada said, "And this is also suicide." Now you have to choose which suicide.
Prabhupada: The Ravana will kill and Rama will kill. Better to be killed by Rama. Eh? That Marica--if he does not go to mislead Sita, he'll be killed by Ravana; and if he goes to be killed by Rama, then it is better.

[S.P.Room Conversation November 10, 1977, Vrndavana]



Now, those who, those who are present here, those who have knowledge of logic, analogy... Analogy is possible when the two things are... When there are greatest number of similarities of two things, then there can be analogy. Otherwise there is no question of ana..., analogy. Just like if I say, "Oh, this lady's face is just like moon," now there must be some similarity in this face and the moon. As the moon is bright and a very beautiful looker, therefore this face must be very beautiful and very bright. But if the face is ugly, how can I compare with this moon? So whenever we make some analogy, there must be points, greater number of points of similarity.

[Bhagavad-gita Lecture, 2.13, New York, March 11, 1966]

Note: When there are greatest number of similarities of two things, then there can be analogy. Otherwise there is no question of ana..., analogy. Just like Srila Prabhupada says, "And this is also suicidal...The Ravana will kill and Rama will kill. Better to be killed by Rama. Eh? That Marica--if he does not go to mislead Sita, he'll be killed by Ravana; and if he goes to be killed by Rama, then it is better." now there must be some similarity between Srila Prabhupada and Marica. As Marica would be killed by the demon Ravana or the Supreme Lord Rama, therefore Srila Prabhupada [at least externally] must be in the same position of being killed by a demon(s) or by the Supreme Lord. But if Srila Prabhupada by staying in the room was being cared for nicely by sincere disciples how could he compare himself to Marica being killed by the demon Ravana? So whenever we make some analogy, there must be points, greater number of points of similarity



But not directly, "demons are poisoning me to death.

Better to be amongst my real disciples on Parikrama

and die there " but you can say in a gentlemanly way,

"The Ravana will kill and Rama will kill. Better

to be killed by Rama. Eh? " You see?



So asocyan anvasocas tvam prajna-vadams ca bhasase. But nanusocanti panditah: "One who is actually learned, he does not take very much care of these things." That means "You are a fool." That means "You are a fool." It is called parenthesis, or... That "A pandita, a learned man, does not do like this." It is called... What is the English? I do not remember now. That if I speak that "Sometimes, from my home, this thing was stolen, and the man who stole, he looked like you." But not directly, "You are the man who had stolen my property," but you can say in a gentlemanly way, "He looked like you." You see?

[Srimad-Bhagavatam lecture, 1.16.17, Los Angeles, January 12, 1974]



One should select a spiritual master in that way and as soon as the spiritual master is selected, one should remain always a fool, although he may not be a fool, but the better position is like that. So Arjuna, instead of remaining on the same level as friend and friend, voluntarily accepting to remain a fool before Krsna. And Krsna is accepting that "You are a fool. You're talking just like a learned man, but you are a fool because you are lamenting on a matter which no learned man laments." That means "A fool laments," that "You are a fool. Therefore you are a fool." It is in a round about way... Just like, what is called in logic? Parenthesis? Or something like that, called. Yes. That if I say that "You look like that person who stole my watch," that means "You look like a thief." Similarly, (chuckles) Krsna, in a round about way, says that "My dear Arjuna, you are talking just like learned man, but you are lamenting on a subject matter which no learned man laments."

[Bhagavad-gita Lecture, 2.8-12, Los Angeles, November 27, 1968]



Note: In a gentlemanly way Srila Prabhupada says "The Ravana will kill and Rama will kill. Better to be killed by Rama." That means he is saying it is better to be amongst his real disciples on Parikrama (good paddy - where he will regain his health or as his Divine Grace clearly said "But i think i shall be cured") and die there than stay with demons and be poisoned to death.

In other words with this RAMA RAVANA statement alone Srila Prabhupada is saying he is been killed by demons.

Only other similar heartless demons with no love for Srila Prabhupada cannot hear him saying this!!!



But not directly, "demons are poisoning me to death. "

but you can say in a gentlemanly way, "These kind of

symptoms are seen when a man is poisoned." You see?



Tamala Krsna: Srila Prabhupada? You said before that you..., that it is said that you were poisoned?
Prabhupada: No. These kind of symptoms are seen when a man is poisoned. He said like that, not that I am poisoned.
Tamala Krsna: Did anyone tell you that, or you just know it from before?
Prabhupada: I read something.
Tamala Krsna: Ah, I see. That's why actually we cannot allow anyone else to cook for you.
Prabhupada: That is good.
Tamala Krsna: Jayapataka Maharaja was telling that one acarya, Sankaracarya, of the Sankaracarya line--this was a while ago--he was poisoned to death. Since that time, none of the acaryas or the gurus of the Sankaracarya line will ever take any food cooked except by their own men.
Prabhupada: My Guru Maharaja also.
Tamala Krsna: Oh. You, of course, have been so merciful that sometimes you would take prasada cooked by so many different people.
Prabhupada: That should be stopped.

[S.P. Room Conversation, November 8, 1977, Vrndavana]



Note: The killers from the APA ISKCON cult have written a book to defend themselves named "Not that i am poisoned". This statement by Srila Prabhupada is from his answer to Tamal's question "You said before that you..., that it is said that you were poisoned?"

Srila Prabhupada corrects this misunderstanding of Tamal by saying "No. These kind of symptoms are seen when a man is poisoned. He said like that, not that I am poisoned." So the person said Srila Prabhupada had the symptoms of a poisoned man, but he didn't say Srila Prabhupada was poisoned. "He said like that, not that I am poisoned." Yes he said like that in a gentlemanly way, not that he said directly Srila Prabhupada was poisoned.

Therefore the demons attempt to keep their followers in ignorance of their crime is simply cheating.



THAT IS THE WAY OF FALSEHOOD

Prabhupada: That is the way of falsehood. If once you speak something false, then to protect that falsehood you have to take to so many other falsehoods. This is the way of falsehood.
Paramahamsa: One lie leads to another. [S.P. Morning Walk, June 2, 1975, Honolulu]

Note: So the I.R.M. have taken to the falsehood of preaching this mundane interpretation to Srila Prabhupada's clear transcendental words. "Someone has poisoned me" to protect the original falsehood, that of associating with and reforming an apa-sampradaya.

In the parampara system, the instructions taken from the bona fide spiritual master must also be based on revealed Vedic scriptures. One who is in the line of disciplic succession cannot manufacture his own way of behavior. There are many so-called followers of the Vaisnava cult in the line of Caitanya Mahaprabhu who do not scrupulously follow the conclusions of the sastras, and therefore they are considered to be apa-sampradaya, which means "outside of the sampradaya." Some of these groups are known as aula, baula, kartabhaja, neda, daravesa, sani sahajiya, sakhibheki, smarta, jata-gosani, ativadi, cudadhari and gauranga-nagari. In order to follow strictly the disciplic succession of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, one should not associate with these apa-sampradaya communities.

( C.C. Adi 7.48)

Note: Srila Prabhupada instructs us not associate with apa-sampradaya communities such as tamal's APA-ISKCON. A community which he described as a sinister movement, full of rogues who are the most dangerous elements in human society. (see S.P. Letter to Hansaduta and Sri Isopanisad Mantra12)

Srila Prabhupada says avoid - I.R.M says associate with and reform. The Original opinion different from the spiritual master's!!!



"Any opinion different from the opinion of the spiritual master

is useless. One cannot infiltrate materially concocted

ideas into spiritual advancement. That is deviation."



TRANSLATION: Some of the disciples strictly accepted the orders of the acarya, and others deviated, independently concocting their own opinions under the spell of daivi-maya.



PURPORT: This verse describes the beginning of a schism. When disciples do not stick to the principle of accepting the order of their spiritual master, immediately there are two opinions. Any opinion different from the opinion of the spiritual master is useless. One cannot infiltrate materially concocted ideas into spiritual advancement. That is deviation. There is no scope for adjusting spiritual advancement to material ideas.



TRANSLATION: The order of the spiritual master is the active principle in spiritual life. Anyone who disobeys the order of the spiritual master immediately becomes useless.



PURPORT: Here is the opinion of Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami. Persons who strictly follow the orders of the spiritual master are useful in executing the will of the Supreme, whereas persons who deviate from the strict order of the spiritual master are useless. [C.C. Adi Lila 12.9-10]

Note: So the opinion of Srila Prabhupada is "In order to follow strictly the disciplic succession of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, one should not associate with these apa-sampradaya communities." and the Bogus I.R.M. have an opinion different from the opinion of Srila Prabhupada - That is useless. I.R.M. cannot infiltrate materially concocted ideas into spiritual advancement. That is their first deviation.

So the opinion of Srila Prabhupada is "Someone has poisoned me" and the Bogus I.R.M. have an opinion different from the opinion of Srila Prabhupada - That is useless. I.R.M. cannot infiltrate materially concocted ideas into spiritual advancement. That is their second deviation to hide the first as no sane human being is going to accept that you can reform a society of Srila Prabhupada killers!!!

Even if the sinister movement is "reformed" and accepts the ritvik system does this acceptance of a formal system of management change the heart of souls who have being worshipping, following and supporting Srila Prabhupada's killers (the most severe offenders) ???

Such souls have being given a cheater guru by the Lord in the heart because they are not at all sincere. So even if these souls are told that Prabhupada is their Guru because he implemented a ritvik system does this make them immediately sincere and qualified to accept Prabhupada as guru?????

All the genuine devotees have long left APA-ISKCON and are now safety talking direct shelter of Srila Prabhupada and avoiding the apa - sampradaya community as His Divine Grace instructed. The I.R.M.'s policy is to bring back the sincere souls to the association of the members of the sinister movement. This is their clear deviation and offense to Srila Prabhupada.

Neophyte devotees cannot discriminate between a pseudo devotee (Kali chela) and a sincere soul seeking Srila Prabhupada's shelter. But by Divine arrangement and mercy, such vision for the neopyte is made easy. Those who accept a bogus guru in APA-ISKCON are pseudo devotees and those who accept Prabhupada are a little sincere.

So the I.R.M. is merely tamal's movement in another form, trying to bring the stray sheep (those souls who are struggling to realize that it is the Lord's kindness that such a cheating society based on envy of Srila Prabhupada was taken away from them.) back to the sinister movement. These sheep being attached to such cheating from time immemorial and unable appreciate the nectar of real association of Srila Prabhupada through his vani, are called back by Maya to the path of hell with her sweet I.R.M. call. "Soon everything will be fine in APA-ISKCON. They will reform and accept the ritvik system and then you can enjoy your friendship, society and love - mutual praising society again"



CONCLUSION


I.R.M. FIRST FALSEHOOD = ASSOCIATE WITH AND REFORM THE PRABHUPADA KILLERS (APA - SAMPRADAYA)



I.R.M. SECOND FALSEHOOD TO COVER THE FIRST = WRITE A PAPER TO SAY THAT SRILA PRABHUPADA NEVER MADE A DIRECT STATEMENT THAT HE WAS POISONED

http://www.iskconirm.com/docs/webpages/pada_attack.html

Refutation of PADA's Attack
on the IRM Position




1. Introduction

In our original paper on the poison issue, we had actually made it very clear from the opening of the paper, what it was that we were setting out to do:
"The purpose of this paper is to study the actual words of Srila Prabhupada only on the subject of his poisoning. [...] We must stress that this paper does not prove, nor even attempt to prove, that Srila Prabhupada was not poisoned. Nor are we saying that the issue should not be investigated."
(IRM Paper on 'Poison' Issue - 'Does Srila Prabhupada Support Poisoning' )


So its very clear that we are only addressing one specific issue - what Srila Prabhupada actually said - that's all. And we also make it very clear that we are not in any way addressing whether or not Srila Prabhupada was poisoned. We are simply clearing up some erroneous conclusions that have been promoted on the basis of what Srila Prabhupada is said to have claimed, due to false translations been given.

We will now see that PADA does not in any way challenge the central point presented in our paper. Rather being unable to answer what we actually say PADA resorts to the tried and trusted technique employed by the GBC whenever they try to reply to a paper by ourselves:
PADA simply 'makes up' statements, attributes them to us, and then attacks that - the very things we do not say - this is known as a 'straw man' argument. Most of PADA's paper is full of such arguments.
Also when someone is unable to answer the actual arguments that are presented - they instead will attack a person, to try and deflect from the fact that they are not actually answering the arguments presented, and to try and make the reader think that such a personal attack compensates for the inability to actually answer the argument presented. This is known as an 'argumentum ad hominem'.
Also for good measure PADA adds in the following techniques that are also a common feature of GBC replies:
Fabricates evidence
Omits evidence that does not support his case.
Contradicts himself.

Tries to prove what Srila Prabhupada must have said and meant by using the words of his disciples. (Please note the GBC's Guru hoax practically rests on this cheating technique).

Presents his own speculation as evidence.
Presents 'evidence' that he is unable to substantiate.

Indeed in all the years of answering GBC papers, we have yet to see one that is as blatant in its mis-representation of our arguments as the latest issue of PADA.

We will now demonstrate from start to finish how PADA is full of only the above deceitful techniques, and does not refute a single point that we made in our paper. All the quotes from PADA shall be in quotation marks thus " ", and our reply shall follow underneath.

2. PADA Makes Up What We Say


For starters, Adri says that we can only accept that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned if he made a direct statement to that effect."


I never make such a statement. On the contrary, as I quoted in the introduction, we do not even discuss whether or not Srila Prabhupada was poisoned, only what he actually himself said on the subject:
'The purpose of this paper is to study the actual words of Srila Prabhupada only on the subject of his poisoning. [...] We must stress that this paper does not prove, nor even attempt to prove, that Srila Prabhupada was not poisoned. Nor are we saying that the issue should not be investigated.'

(IRM Paper on 'Poison' Issue - 'Does Srila Prabhupada Support Poisoning Theory')


"Adri says that unless Srila Prabhupada says "I am saying I am being poisoned," we cannot accept his statements."


Adri never says this. Adri only argues that we must accept whatever the statements actually say, and not pretend they say something else.
"What amazes us most of all is that he discounts so many other instances surrounding the whole case."


Since the paper makes it clear that we are only discussing one issue, we can not be accused of 'discounting' something that is not relevant to that which we are discussing - which is what exactly did Srila Prabhupada say.
"Prabhupada's line of statements are just like someone saying: "(1) Someone says I've been shot with a .38 bullet, (2) I also have the symptoms, (3) Therefore: it is quite possible that I have been shot." How can Adri say this means: I have not been shot? "


Simple - Adri does not say that Srila Prabhupada has 'not been shot'. In fact Adri makes it clear that this is the one thing that his paper does not say - that Srila Prabhupada was not poisoned.
"Would Srila Prabhupada then be expected to complain if he knew he was being poisoned, as Adri insists he would have had to? No."


I never state this. Yet another 'straw man' argument. PADA confuses what Srila Prabhupada does say, which is all our paper deals with, - to what he would have to say to prove he was poisoned - a totally different subject that we make clear our paper does not even address.
"Adri also says that we should wait for the final results of the Balavanta investigation, but in the meantime, he says that whatever the investigation concludes, there was no poisoning unless it meets his criterion?"


I never say this. Another fabrication from the fertile imagination of PADA. As already pointed out, I make no statement on whether or not there was any poisoning - only on what Srila Prabhupada directly says on the subject.
"He says this is all a mysterious enigma like the "appointment tape." No, the tape is very clear and that is why it was not distributed"


I never say the 'appt tape' was a 'mysterious enigma'. Only that the poison theorists should not mis-interpret the words of Srila Prabhupada, just as the GBC do with the 'appt tape'. On the contrary obviously we must think that the 'appt tape' is 'clear' since we have given a very detailed 'line by line' explanations of it in the 'Final Order' and many other papers - something which incidentally PADA has never attempted.
"Adri's arguments are therefore contradictory, "Srila Prabhupada said someone is poisoning him clearly, and that is what the eye-witnesses confirmed, but that is not what he meant to say."


I never say this. The paper in fact never deals with what Srila Prabhupada 'meant' to say - only what he does say.
"Adri says, "We are only going to listen to Srila Prabhupada's words (and discount the context)"? [...] yet Adri says we can only take his words --and not the context?"


In never say this. On the contrary I say that the words 'someone has poisoned me' need to be understood in the context of the other words spoken before them.
" very mysteriously, Adri does not even mention the poison whisper conversations, [...] Adri does not even mention that these background whisper conversations about poisoning are going on? [...] mysteriously, they are not mentioned as valid evidence in Adri's analysis?"


T he only thing which is 'mysterious' here is PADA's inability to read, for the 'whispers' are mentioned, as we shall now show by quoting from the paper:

'The so called 'whispers' can only be used as supporting evidence once poisoning has itself been proven. Thus they have no role to play yet. (It is also worth noting that in any case the poison proponents themselves admit that the forensic tests on the whispers have a margin of error of up to 20%. Please note that in standard scientific tests that can be put forward as any sort of proof, such as DNA testing, the margin of error is usually as low as 0.0001%, or one chance in a million).'

('Does Srila Prabhupada Support Poisoning Theory', IRM position paper on 'poison' issue)

As well as clearly 'mentioning' the 'whispers' we also point out the obvious fact that the 'whispers' themselves are not valid evidence to determine whether poisoning itself took place. They also have no relevance to what Srila Prabhupada himself actually spoke - the subject of this paper (since Srila Prabhupada did not utter the so-called 'whispers').
"OK, "that same discussion," or "that same thing (discussed earlier),"who cares? "Someone has poisoned me" is the key text we are interested in, and that is confirmed here by Adri as a valid statement."


I never challenged that Srila Prabhupada spoke these words - on the contrary we make it clear that Srila Prabhupada did say these words - so why is PADA trying to point out that I am 'confirming' something which I had never doubted?
"Adri also says we have to refer to the conversation where "someone says I look like I was poisoned," but he fails to provide this alleged conversation or tell us who said this? How can he point us back to a conversation which he is not even sure ever occurred?"


Above we quote PADA's analysis of our comments on the first exchange - which took place on November 9th - where Srila Prabhupada first mentions about the poisoning. (There are 4 exchanges in all). Unfortunately PADA's whole analysis of this exchange which goes on at some length (below we will only given the key phrases) is all based around a faulty supposition - that I say this exchange refers back to a 'previous conversation'. This a complete fabrication. I never say this:
"Whereas Adri cannot provide his alleged conversation, we can provide solid proof of the background whispers that are evidence of our case. Adri says that we have to refer to the previous conversations. Where else was this discussed previously? Adri does not even know for sure?[...] "Someone says poison is given," and then "to me," yet Adri tries to diffuse this by saying this refers to a "previous conversation." Maybe, but what about this conversation right here? No wonder it slipped past him. Anyway, what previous conversations is Adri talking about? Nor has he shown us that he knows about ALL of the previous conversations, or even, that ALL of the tapes are all here. [...] "All these friends" (i.e. some GBC) say I am being poisoned. Or else, who is being referred to here? Adri does not say? He says that there are some clear previous conversations that point to the current statements. What then does the conversation above refer back to? [...] Also, this was at the time a current revelation, so who cares if it could be verified by previous conversations anyway?"


The only time I mention a 'previous' conversation is when analysing the last exchange - the 4th one - which occurred on November 10th - and which contains the key phrase 'someone has poisoned me'. So PADA has written a whole rebuttal regarding the 1st exchange, based on what I said about a completely different exchange!

W e apologise for the length of this section, but we had to detail the sheer extent of PADA's lies and mis-representation. Such misrepresentation is simple proof that PADA could not answer what we actually do say, otherwise he would not need to devote such a large portion of his paper attacking what I don't say. We are all prone to the odd mistake. But we can see that PADA has systematically misrepresented my arguments continuously throughout his whole article. And the use of quotation marks and the phrase 'Adri says' emphasises that this was no accidental mistake. Misrepresentation on such a large scale as this can only happen if one is deliberately cheating, or one is totally incompetent and has problems with basic reading. We will let the reader decide which. In either case, it is clear that PADA does not have clue what it is talking about.
3. PADA Hides Evidence That Refutes Its Case

In its reply PADA also does something very underhand and deceitful. In the original IRM paper we reproduced the 4 exchanges, in chronological order, where Srila Prabhupada speaks on this issue, and we label them 'Exchange 1 to 4'. I n his reply PADA reproduces and attempts to analyse all these exchanges, except exchange no 3. PADA even re-labels our 'exchange 4' as 'exchange 3' to cover up this cheating, giving the impression that 'Exchange 3' has not been missed out.

The following is the 'Exchange 3' that PADA misses out, and tries to cover-up that it has been missed out:
Tamal Krishna:
Srila Prabhupada? You said before that you... that it is said that you were poisoned?:

Srila Prabhupada:
No. These kind of symptoms are seen when a man is poisoned. He said like that, not that I am poisoned.

Tamal Krishna:
Did anyone tell you that, or you just know it from before?

Srila Prabhupada:
I read something.


We will now show why this exchange has been left out - because it would directly change the meaning of many points made by PADA:
"For example Tamal. He asks, "Who is it who poisoned you Srila Prabhupada," and Srila Prabhupada does not say, "Oh that is not what I am saying." No, that is what he is saying, "Someone is poisoning me," and this was understood by those present."


Look at the above exchange. Here Tamala also asks about Srila Prabhupada having been poisoned. And Srila Prabhupada does say - "not that I am poisoned". And the second time Tamala asks, which is what Puranjana refers to here, Srila Prabhupada does not say "someone is poisoning me". Srila Prabhupada simply does not answer. So the above statement by Puranjana gives an incomplete picture, which is aided and abetted by him having left out the above exchange.
"Prabhupada's line of statements are just like someone saying: "(1) Someone says I've been shot with a .38 bullet, (2) I also have the symptoms, (3) Therefore: it is quite possible that I have been shot." How can Adri say this means: I have not been shot?


Again the statements from Srila Prabhupada that PADA has omitted would again destroy what PADA is saying here, because after step (2) of the analogy, PADA would have to add the following clarification from Srila Prabhupada: "He said that I have the symptoms, not that I have been shot (poisoned) - (because Srila Prabhupada also says - 'not that I have been poisoned'. This totally takes the punch out of PADA's 'analogy'.
"OK, Srila Prabhupada now says that he is exhibiting the physical symptoms of a person who is being given poison. Read: Not only does someone say that I am being poisoned, I am exhibiting the symptoms of a person who is being poisoned."


This point is also destroyed by the 'missing' exchange since now that 'someone' also says - 'not that I am being poisoned', which again smashes PADA's argument here.
"One cannot say, "I have been shot with a gun" is on the same level as: "I have the symptoms of a person who has been shot with a gun." Of course, in either event, it looks bad for Adri's case."


By the omitted exchange, the above statement by PADA becomes a death certificate for its own case, because if the 'symptoms' are not on the same level as being 'shot', then the statement - "These kind of symptoms are seen when a man is poisoned. He said like that, not that I am poisoned" - means that by PADA's own words Srila Prabhupada is saying he is not shot.

T hus we can see that in a desperate attempt to prop up his false arguments PADA resorts to cheating by 'hiding' a key statement by Srila Prabhupada on this subject, even going so far as to give the label of this exchange to another exchange. However this cheating has been caught.

4. Contradictions

In common with the GBC, PADA also insists on contradicting itself, revealing either a very confused mind, or the mind of someone who is willing to say any nonsense as long as it serves his purposes:
Contradiction No.1


When our paper first came out, PADA sent us a very short analysis of our paper on 15/11/99. In this it says:
"It also seems that there was no one saying he was being poisoned, he just said that I have the symptoms of poison, but who was saying that?"
(Puranjana Das, 15/11/99)


Please notice how this statement contradicts the statements which we quoted in the last section where we showed how PADA had ignored that 'there was no one saying he was being poisoned'. To cover up this contradiction is another reason why he has also had to 'hide' the exchange where this statement was made. I t is interesting to note how when he first read our paper, he was honest enough to admit that 'there was no one saying he was being poisoned'. But as soon as he was called upon to refute our paper, he deliberately 'forgets' this point that he has just conceded, and also for good measure 'hides' the conversation where it is made! Contradiction No 2.


Firstly PADA admits that we encourage people to look to the 'Balavanta report':
"Adri also says that we should wait for the final results of the Balavanta investigation, but in the meantime, he says that whatever the investigation concludes, there was no poisoning unless it meets his criterion?"


Then he says that we are trying to avoid the report:
"We frankly think this is because Adri and others see the writing on the wall, for example the "Balavanta report" and other indications are closing in on this issue. They are trying to avoid the reality of what has occurred."


How can we be trying to avoid the reality, when PADA admits we are asking everyone to look to the very thing which PADA claims is 'closing in on this issue'! Contradiction No.3



"It is said" means, "it is a fact." Who said it? Some GBC were saying it, therefore "it is said." In sum, IT IS A FACT, that I am being poisoned by SOMEONE. Srila Prabhupada said this a thousand times, "It is said (in shastra) that this is true, it is said that that is true," that means: he is saying he accepts the words of "what is being said"?


Here PADA equates the words of the GBC with the words of sastra. He says that Srila Prabhupada referred to sastra many times by saying "it is said". And that therefore whenever he said this, it must be a fact. But he admits here that the "it is said" refers to the statements of the GBC 'poison killers'. How can then he argue that in this case the "it is said" must be equal to "it is a fact", when he admits that the source is the GBC. "It is said" - yes - but by the GBC - not sastra - so why must what is "said" by the GBC have to be a "fact"? Surely the key is WHO Srila Prabhupada is quoting - but PADA is arguing that here this is irrelevant and that the GBC are just as an infallible source as sastra - but he has always argued the opposite - that the GBC are not infallible. By Puranjana's logic, anything that Srila Prabhupada quotes from any source - must be true - i.e. the phrase "it is said" will always refer to "facts" whether it is referring to sastra or some GBC 'killers'. This is absurd and merely reveals just how desperate PADA is to make an argument.
Contradiction No.4


Originally in his first report on our paper, PADA thought that the 'friends' who were telling Srila Prabhupada about the possibility of his poisoning was actually 'Krishna'.
"It also seems that there was no one saying he was being poisoned, he just said that I have the symptoms of poison, but who was saying that? This "friend" who told him that may have been Krishna."
(Puranjana Das, 15/11/99)


However 3 days later PADA thinks that actually the friends were the GBC 'whisperers' who were supposed to have murdered him!:
"Who else are the "they"? Adri does not say? Is Srila Prabhupada hearing things? No, he knows what they are whispering about, these "all friends.""


From the Supreme Personality of Godhead to the GBC 'poison killers' in 3 days - that's an amazing about turn even for PADA!

Also why Srila Prabhupada would refer to the persons who were murdering him as 'friends' is a mystery. Especially when PADA also claims that the same 'friends' are referred to as 'Ravana' later on by Srila Prabhupada in relation the conversation to do with going on parikrama:

"The Ravana will kill and Rama will kill. Better to be killed by Rama."
(Conversation, 11/11/99)

In other words according to PADA, the word 'friends' could mean either Rama (Krishna) or the GBC poisoners (Ravana). So when Srila Prabhupada says above that: "The Ravana will kill and Rama will kill" Srila Prabhupada could in theory refer to both of them in the same way, since the word 'friends' is equally applicable to both Ravana and Rama! This again demonstrates the absurd lengths to which PADA will go to make an argument.
Contradiction No. 5


Initially to support his case, PADA argues that we must take into account all the tapes that are hidden, and therefore for me to reach a conclusion that Srila Prabhupada was referring to the known previous day's conversations without taking these missing tapes into account is 'wrong':

(Referring to my analysis that 'someone has poisoned me' refers to the previous days' conversations)
"This is wrong. Bhavananda was seen hiding tapes. How does Adri know for certain that there were not other conversations? He does not."


Later on when it suits him to only take the known conversations before us, he insists we must ignore any 'missing' tapes (something with which incidentally we agree):
"And there are many discussions in whispers going on about poisoning, and maybe even open discussions where the tapes were hidden. You cannot say you know all of them, therefore we have to make do with what we do know, "someone is giving me poison." That is clear. [...] Nor has he shown us that he knows about ALL of the previous conversations, or even, that ALL of the tapes are all here. So let us stick with these known passages. [...] Maybe you have all of the tapes from 1977? You definitely do not. At least I doubt it severely, since you only became aware of some of them due to our bringing some of them out. Lets stick with the known quantity, what is clear, someone is poisoning him."
(Emphasis Added)


So after having tried to discount our analysis by saying that we have to take into account the missing tapes, he then tells us 3 times that for the purpose of his analysis we need not worry about these missing tapes when reaching a conclusion!

5. PADA Denies Context By Fabricating Translation

As those of you who have read our paper will know (from the above it is clear that Puranjana has not read our paper), our one and only point was a simple one. On November the 10th Srila Prabhupada is asked a simple question - 'What is the cause of your mental distress'? With the following correct translation, the answer is a simple one:

"That same discussion .... That someone has poisoned me"

The answer given is -'That same discussion' - and t he phrase 'that someone has poisoned me' is clearly linked, as indicated by the word 'that', to this 'same discussion'. The second phrase 'that someone has poisoned me' is therefore just an elaboration on the first phrase -'That same discussion' - and is used simply to identify 'that same discussion'. Please note that it does not even matter if as Puranjana argues that we cannot be sure which conversation is being referred to - because the fact still remains that the words someone has poisoned me are being used to identify some conversation - which is our key point - they are not a statement in of themselves from Srila Prabhupada, as is being claimed.

We saw that previously this clear meaning was distorted because of a mis-translation that was originally there - whereby the words 'I said' had erroneously been added.

PADA being now unable to refute this straight-forward meaning of the phrase 'That someone has poisoned me' has resorted to the same technique of mis-translation which was there originally. For PADA translates the above phrase as:
"Translation: That same discussion & that someone has poisoned me."


W e can see that he has added an 'and' to separate the 2 phrases. This is no mistake since PADA is supposed to be reproducing verbatim the translations that were in our original paper. Thus this 'and' has been deliberately added. Indeed this word 'and' is not even in the original bogus translation given in the book 'someone has poisoned me'. What makes this cheating even more deceitful is that since PADA is supposed to be presenting the translations from the original paper, unless the reader checked back with the original paper, they would not even have noticed this rogue addition of the word 'and'. However this one word makes all the difference, since now by separating the 2 phrases PADA can attempt to make the phrase - 'that someone has poisoned me' - as being an 'answer' to the question asked. Thus PADA then attempts to peddle the following incorrect explanation by building on this bogus translation:
"So Srila Prabhupada says he is feeling mental distress because someone is poisoning him. This is very clear. Who cares if there was or was not a previous conversation about this topic? Prabhupada is feeling that someone is poisoning him and this is causing him distress, that is the significant point. Adri tries to deflect this by saying we have to study the previous conversations, well what about the current statement? Is it not an atom bomb."


A s we can see the only 'atom bomb' here is the trickery of PADA in adding a bogus word to change the meaning. Then it can attempt to say that the 'mental distress' is caused by the fact 'that someone has poisoned me' - since it has decoupled this phrase from the real answer to this question - 'That same discussion' - and therefore made it appear that 'someone has poisoned me' is also the answer to the question asked. In this way the phrase 'someone has poisoned me' again gets turned into a direct statement from Srila Prabhupada, as it was under the previous bogus translation. However by keeping the translation correctly in line with how the phrases appear on the tape, where they are separated by a pause only, the 'that someone has poisoned me' phrase remains linked only to 'that same discussion' phrase just as we originally presented it.

This proves conclusively that PADA is unable to refute the one and only claim of our paper - that Srila Prabhupada does not directly state that he has been poisoned - since it has had to resort to the trickery of adding a bogus word to try and make its case, just as was done originally with the bogus addition of the words 'I said'.

Please note the similarity between this trickery and that used by the GBC when explaining the 'appt tape' for they also attempt to make the phrase 'disciple of my disciple' appear as the answer to the opening question about how initiations will be conducted in the future, 'particularly when you are no longer with us'. The GBC attempt to bypass the real immediate answer - 'officiating acarya - ritvik' - and instead say that 'disciple of my disciple' is the real answer to the opening question, even though it is spoken last on the tape. PADA has done the same here by pretending that the phrase 'that someone has poisoned me' is the answer to the question asked, instead of the phrase 'that same discussion', to which it is linked . A nd similarly this is achieved by the addition of the bogus word 'and', just as the GBC change - 'His grand-disciple' - to - 'He is Grand-disciple' - even though only one word is clearly spoken on the 'appt tape'.

6. Our Translation Remains Unchallenged

PADA also tries to throw doubt on our translation, by claiming that:
"First of all, several Hindi/ Bengali/ and sanskrit speakers wrote to pada right away about Adri's "maybe Srila Prabhupada was not poisoned" letter saying that they do not agree with him. Rather, they see that Srila Prabhupada is clearly saying he is being poisoned. We have played the tape to over 100 Hindi speaking natives and some Bengalis, and they have all agreed that Srila Prabhupada is saying that he is being poisoned."


Though significantly PADA is not able to produce even one of these several Hindi etc. speakers who disagree with our scholarly translation, nor can it say where and how our translation is wrong and what the correct translation is. These would surely be the very things one would have thought PADA would have produced. Instead as we have shown it has produced pages and pages of rubbish, but not found any space to even once give the 'correct' translation - which is the key issue.

Rather it goes on to make what is probably the most bizarre claim ever made:
Adri has made no clear case to defeat these people."


Has it ever occurred to PADA just how I am supposed to make a case to defeat all these non-existent Hindi speakers, with their non-existent translations! By this logic PADA could defeat anyone:
"There are lots of people who disagree with you. Therefore you are wrong!"


In desperation PADA even tries the following:
"Indeed Navayogendra swami and others also agree that Srila Prabhupada is saying he is being poisoned, and they are members within the IRG itself."


Well at a recent meeting in London, Navayogendra Maharaja in front of witnesses agreed with us on our explanation of the poison issue in relation to what Srila Prabhupada actually says. Further he also admitted that he has carried on initiating and was caught at a program preaching the same philosophy on initiation as the GBC - so I guess he is not a member of the IRG either.

In sum PADA merely succeeds in offering no argument, but plenty of bluff.

7. PADA Makes Personal Attack

PADA also makes many statements to do with my character. Again this is all irrelevant to the issue at hand. Whether I am naive, or 'in denial' etc. etc., it makes no difference to the arguments. I can be the biggest rascal in the world - but that does not change the fact that the arguments presented are still correct. Making so many statements about me is again a nasty technique designed to discredit what is being said, since the actual arguments themselves cannot be faulted. This technique is one that the GBC have perfected. They will undermine someone to try and discredit what is being said, since they cannot answer what is actually being said. Such personal statements have no place in a discussion over the merits of what Srila Prabhupada actually said. They have been used many times against Puranjana himself, where instead of replying to his points, they will instead remind everyone that he was in the 'Gopi Bhava club' etc. etc. Thus we are surprised to see Puranjana engaging in such behaviour. No matter what my failings are, they cannot change the validity of the arguments presented. Thus the following statements by PADA are all in vain, for they have zero relevance to the actual arguments presented by us, and thus should not have been made in the first place:
"I think that Adri is sincere, however as regards to the poison issue he may still hold sympathy for the corrupt inner core or simply not be able to believe that they were capable of such a vicious activity."

"So Adri shows considerable naive attitude here towards GBC corruption levels."

"Of course, some of the IRG members told me two years ago that in six months the GBC would all be ritvik. That is because they were thinking that the GBC are sincere men and when they hear the truth they will adopt it."

"Adri has not understood the levels of corruption going on here."

"We think that he made a mistake in 1977 by not catching on to the poison problem."

"Adri was apparently unaware of what was going on, or he was obviously unaware." (emphasis added)

"Even when he knows who the "someone" is, he is in denial still, just like he is here in 1977."

"Prabhupada is perhaps making an intentionally oblique statement to test the waters. And Adri and his pals failed the test. Perhaps Prabhupada was seeing, who could he trust here? And he found that he could not trust any of these people. In sum, "I think there is SOMEONE making a plot against me," oh, you are an old man talking about bad medicine. They failed him. And Adri confirmed this with the Kaviraja, who was probably thinking how he could slip out of this mess as soon as possible, instead of asking Srila Prabhupada or demanding a private darshan to clarify this?"

"If Adri had doubts, he should have tried other means to clarify them. Why not grab a plate of Srila Prabhupada's food and have it tested, and so on?"

"He is trusting Tamal and we all know that Tamal's party hid tapes."

"To say there was no previous talks means YOU AND HAMSADUTTA STILL TRUST tape-master TAMAL."


Please note that all these remarks were completely unnecessary to the discussion at hand, which was - what exactly did Srila Prabhupada say? However by putting them mainly at the beginning of the paper before any discussion of the issue begins, Puranjana is trying to 'soften up' the audience so that they will all take what he has to say more seriously. Further he tries to imply that our paper may have only been written because 'I failed the test', and therefore am in some way responsible for the supposed poisoning of Srila Prabhupada. These techniques would be worthy of the GBC, but they still do not change the fact that PADA is not able to refute a single statement made in the IRM paper.

8. Context Created by Srila Prabhupada's Words Ignored

We saw earlier how PADA attempted to refute our claim that Srila Prabhupada does not directly say he is being poisoned by resorting to the trickery of mis-translation. In other places throughout its article it just simply point-blank ignores the context created by the words - "That same discussion - that" - in front of the phrase 'someone has poisoned me'. These prefacing words clearly create the context that renders the words 'someone has poisoned me' as simply referring to the 'same discussion' in question. PADA however just pretends they are not there and just continues to repeat the false claim that Srila Prabhupada has directly stated that someone has poisoned him:
"What is also most significant is that Srila Prabhupada says he is being poisoned, never mind if we can find evidence of a previous discussion or not? OK, so "someone has poisoned me," we all agree that is what he said.
That is the evidence you are looking for Adri, these are your own words. That is the significant point, he says he is being poisoned."

"Yes, he is mentally distressed because he is being poisoned. How can we say he is "merely" or "simply" saying anything, since this is a bomb-blast. And Adri is still not able to see the significance? I say I am being killed here, and you say: merely this, merely only that?"


etc. etc.

Just as the GBC have continued repeating 'disciple of my disciple' for the last 20 years, and just ignored the prefacing words of 'when I order'. we can see that PADA is trying to do the same. It just keeps repeating 'someone has poisoned me' and ignores the prefacing words of 'that same discussion - that' hoping no one will notice. How long does it think it can keep up this bluff?

9. PADA Bases Context on Authority of Tamala Krishna

As well as just ignoring the real context which is created by the words of Srila Prabhupada, like the GBC, PADA also tries to substitute this real context based on Srila Prabhupada's words with the context which is created by the words of his disciples.

For years the GBC have tried to prove their understanding of the 'appt tape' - that Srila Prabhupada appointed Gurus - by taking the context that is created by the statements made by the disciples rather than the context created by the statements made by Srila Prabhupada. Thus the IRM argues that Srila Prabhupada said the words 'when I order' before the phrase 'disciple of my disciple', and that is all that matters - the context created by the words of Srila Prabhupada - since you can only determine what Srila Prabhupada said and meant by reference to his words only - not the words of Tamala etc. (Quite obvious when you think about it). However the GBC argue that we must understand what Srila Prabhupada said and meant by the replies given by Satsvarupa and Tamala - the context created by the statements of the disciples -which confirm that Srila Prabhupada was speaking of Gurus for the future, not ritviks. Of course this analysis is absurd, because if one wants to understand what Srila Prabhupada says, one has to arrive at that by analysing his words, not the words of his disciples or others in the room , for they may or may not have understood and repeated correctly what Srila Prabhupada said and meant. However the GBC refuse to do that because then they are left with troublesome phrases such as 'ritvik, yes', and 'when I order'. In fact so desperate are the GBC to advance the context provided by the statements of the disciples rather than the context created by the statements of Srila Prabhupada that they have even quoted an academic theory to justify it. In the paper 'The Minutes of Timeless Order' by Hari Sauri Das, they use an English Professor (who also happens to be a disciple of HH Hrdyananda Swami) to put forward the following analysis of the 'appt tape': "If Srila Prabhupada had been writing for publication, it would be a different matter. The authority in this case, according to Speech Act Theory, would be Tamal Krishna Goswami [to whom Prabhupada was speaking]. Srila Prabhupada meant what those in the room say he meant. Period. This is, by the way, Philosophy, not Grammar."

(Sriman Bharatasrestha dasa, (William G. Wall, Professor of Vaisnava Literature and Theology, Ph.D in English)


Thus rather than take the context created directly by Srila Prabhupada's words, which supports the appt of ritviks only, they have invented a reason to take the context created by the words of the disciples, which supports the appt of Gurus.

Similarly in this instance we have taken the meaning of the words Srila Prabhupada speaks directly from the context created by his own words:

"That same discussion ... That someone has poisoned me."

PADA however has ignored the context created by the words of Srila Prabhupada, and instead like the GBC's, argued that we must understand what Srila Prabhupada said from the authority of the words of his disciples like Tamala:
"For starters, Srila Prabhupada's poison complaint is confirmed by the eye-witnesses present in 1977. For example Tamal. He asks, "Who is it who poisoned you Srila Prabhupada," and Srila Prabhupada does not say, "Oh that is not what I am saying." No, that is what he is saying, "Someone is poisoning me," and this was understood by those present."

"It is also clear from the following statements by Tamal Krishna and the Kaviraja, (made after Srila Prabhupada said someone has poisoned me) that they understood that Srila Prabhupada was now clearly stating what had been previously discussed as a possibility."

"Why would Tamal just blurt out with: "Who is it that is poisoning you Srila Prabhupada," if this was not what Prabhupada had JUST explained?: That someone is giving him poison?"

"Bhakticaru also says very clearly, "Someone gave him poison here (in English)." The doctor confirms this and says, "If he says he is being poisoned it must be true," and then the doctor talks about other devotees being murdered or attempted to be murdered and so on. There is a talk about a lawyer murdering his wife with poison and so on. Adri does not explain why these statements were made or what they actually mean? They certainly sound like contextual confirmations of a poisoning complaint. And they are."

"Plus they are talking about murder by poison, killing gurus with broken glass, and not medicine, and so on and so forth, none of which is countered by Adri."

"Another confirmation. "Who" would give you poison? This is a confirmation that it was understood Prabhupada is saying he is being poisoned by someone, and that there is a "who" or "whom" behind it. This is not a talk about a bad kidney as the GBC said it was."

Please note how Tamal is now a star 'eye-witness' as well as a one of the suspected murderers! Maybe this is the missing witness they have were looking for. It looks as if PADA has found the eye-witness for us!


Please note the argument that one can conclude what Srila Prabhupada must have said based on what Tamal said, is exactly what the GBC claim when interpreting the 'appt tape' - for they say that the statements of Tamala and Satsvarupa 'confirm' that Srila Prabhupada must have been speaking of 'Gurus'.

Please note that all of the above are the words of everyone except Srila Prabhupada. And therefore PADA simply again proves our case - that the poison theorists are unable to substantiate their case by using the words of Srila Prabhupada. If they could then PADA could have produced them instead of quoting masses of words from everyone except Srila Prabhupada .

If you want to prove that Srila Prabhupada said something there is only one way to prove it - quote Srila Prabhupada saying it! Its really quite obvious and simple. The words of Tamala prove nothing except that that is what he actually said - not what Srila Prabhupada said. For that you need to examine the words of Srila Prabhupada (again quite obvious). We have done that and he only says:

"That Same discussion ... that someone has poisoned me"
In any case, the exchanges themselves prove that those in the room did not understand what Srila Prabhupada was actually saying and meaning, for 2 out of the 4 poison conversations are simply Srila Prabhuipada correcting the understanding of those in the room:


Kaviraja:
Maharaj, how did you say this, that someone has said that someone has poisoned you? Have you felt something?

Srila Prabhupada:
No, not said, but when one is given poison, it happens like this. It's written in a book.

Tamal Krishna:
Srila Prabhupada? You said before that you... that it is said that you were poisoned?:

Srila Prabhupada:
No. These kind of symptoms are seen when a man is poisoned. He said like that, not that I am poisoned.


(Exchanges 2 & 3, November 9th)

The irony of all this is that as we showed earlier it is PADA who falsely claimed that I was trusting Tamala :


"He is trusting Tamal and we all know that Tamal's party hid tapes." [...] To say there was no previous talks means YOU AND HAMSADUTTA STILL TRUST tape-master TAMAL."


When in reality we can see it is PADA who is trusting the words of Tamala over and above the words of Srila Prabhupada - so much so that it even needs to mis-translate what Srila Prabhupada said in order to make it match what Tamala is saying, and it even omits a whole exchange from Srila Prabhupada where amongst other things he says:

"Not that I have been poisoned"

Thus no one is denying the need to examine the whole context. However one needs to examine the context created by the words of Srila Prabhupada - not the context created by the words of Tamala and the others.

10. Building a Case on Bluff

Also any arguments that PADA does give are never substantiated with documented proof for its claims:
"However, the son of the kaviraja recently told an ex-gurukuli in Mayapura that his father thought that Srila Prabhupada had been poisoned."

"Plus we have an eye-witness who heard the GBC talking about poison and he saw Bhavananda putting liquid on Prabhupada's food."


Well where are the documented affidavits? And if they are 'coming', then all the more reason for us to wait for the official report where all evidence is actually documented. By simply quoting evidence that it can not produce, PADA has merely confirmed what we are saying - that no documented evidence has currently been produced, and that we should wait till it is produced. PADA had an opportunity to defeat this assertion - but instead it merely confirms it by continually referring to 'evidence' that it never actually produces. Also it re-enforces this bluff by speaking about evidence 'piling' up, but then simply quotes the unsubstantiated evidence that has already been mentioned:
"Anyway the evidence is piling up such as: an eye witness who heard some GBC talking about poisoning Srila Prabhupada."

"A little odd, since the evidence for the poisoning has grown substantially in recent times."


It seems the only thing which is 'piling up' are the unsubstantiated claims of PADA. It simply 'claims' that the evidence has 'grown' but never produces any!

We would be happy to see actual documented evidence, and that is why we are advising our members to wait until it is produced. But in going round drawing conclusions on the basis of evidence that has yet to be produced, PADA is actually doing the greatest disservice to his own cause.

11. Building a Case On Speculation

Many times PADA simply makes statements that are just its own speculations:
"Perhaps since the kaviraja has a family too, he is thinking for their welfare, "why should I speak up here"?

"Prabhupada is perhaps making an intentionally oblique statement to test the waters."

"Perhaps Prabhupada was seeing, who could he trust here?"


'P erhaps' this or 'perhaps' that. Who knows? Its clear PADA definitely doesn't. As mentioned before the most ludicrous example of this speculation comes when PADA is trying to guess who the 'someone' who mentioned the 'poisoning' to Srila Prabhupada is. PADA speculates on one of at least 3 possibilities:

Srila Prabhupada Himself
"Srila Prabhupada may have simply said, "Someone says that I have been poisoned" as a means of introducing the idea."


The GBC 'whisperers'
"Therefore the "someone" who says I am being poisoned is very possibly: the GBC's whispers?"


Krishna or any of the above
"Either that or Krishna told him, or Srila Prabhupada knows it himself and this is a rhetorical reply"

"Maybe he heard his "friends" Tamal and co. talking about poison because he complained in early November, what is this "phish, phish," --whispers? Therefore we take the conversation as it is at face value, someone is giving me poison and this is confirmed by many friends, either rhetorically: the GBC, or even Krishna reveals these things."


It seems the only thing we can be sure of is the fact that PADA is not sure of anything.

Please note that this speculative approach is completely absent from our paper which only deals with facts - all the words that Srila Prabhupada spoke, which are on tape and which no one disputes - and as we have seen PADA has only been able to dispute this by inventing things that Srila Prabhupada never said.

12. Case For 'Whispers' Built on 5 Layers of Speculation

PADA knows that the 'whispers' on their own mean nothing and that is why it has tried to introduce them as providing a context to what Srila Prabhupada says:
"Plus, whatever Srila Prabhupada said has to be taken in context, and we now know that the context is that the people in the room ARE saying they ARE poisoning him, as is confirmed by audio forensics experts. Adri fails to defeat this evidence."


However this claim is simply a multi-layered speculation, in keeping with everything else PADA has said so far:
As we have seen PADA is himself unsure if Srila Prabhupada is referring to these 'whispers' as being the 'someone' who tells him that he is being poisoned. He speculates that these 'friends' referred to by Srila Prabhupada is either the supposed GBC 'whisperers', or Krishna or Srila Prabhupada is saying it to bring up the poison issue in a rhetorical way. Thus by PADA's own speculation we only have a 1 in 3 chance that it is the 'whisperers' that Srila Prabhupada refers to, or a zero chance if PADA's speculation is not correct.


We would also have to accept that Srila Prabhupada would refer to those who are murdering him as his 'friends' - a term which according to Puranjana is equally applicable to Krishna.

Then we have to speculate that Srila Prabhupada even heard these faint whispers, what to speak of what he heard. Whispers which currently require state of the art amplification to even hear anything, and even then we all hear different things. Plus these whispers were being spoken faintly at a distance, whereas even things spoken in a normal voice right next to Srila Prabhupada, he would sometimes ask to be repeated.

Then in the conversation which Puranjana 'hides', Srila Prabhupada says:

"He said like that, not that I am poisoned."

This proves that either:

a) It was not the GBC 'whisperers' that Srila Prabhupada is referring to, for why would they speak about Srila Prabhupada not being poisoned, if they were trying to poison him.

b) Or the GBC 'whisperers' were not trying to poison Srila Prabhupada, for they are speaking about him not being poisoned.

Either way PADA's case collapses. We see here yet another reason why PADA hid this evidence.
As already pointed out if Nityananda's reporting of the forensic tests are to be taken as accurate, then even he admits that the tests have a margin of error of 20%, not that much less than the margin of accuracy that Puranjan's '1 in 3' speculation about Srila Prabhupada having heard the 'whispers'.

But the biggest problem with the forensic tests on the 'whispers' is that we have to rely on Nityananda's word that he has reported the results accurately. W e say this because everything else in his book which has been scrutinised thus far appears to have proven to either been doctored, incomplete or inaccurate:

a) The translation used for the passage where Srila Prabhupada says 'someone has poisoned me' was wrong.

(Please see our original paper - 'Does Srila Prabhupada Support Poisoning Theory')

b) His reproduction of another passage had a key word missing, that completely changed the meaning.

(Please see our original paper - 'Does Srila Prabhupada Support Poisoning Theory')

c) His claim that the level of arsenic in Srila Prabhupada's hair was abnormal.

(Please go here )

d) His claim that Srila Prabhupada's medical symptoms could not be due to diabetes.

(Please go here )

e) His claim that Srila Prabhupada displayed symptoms of arsenic poisoning.

(Please go here )

f) Other symptoms of Arsenic Poisoning From Srila Prabhupada's Health Biography.

(Please go here )

The above has not been responded to by Nityananda Das and until it is we can only assume he has no answer to this apparent expose ofmost of the claims for 'evidence' made in his book. Indeed as mentioned everything which has been examined in detail has apparently been found to be faulty - and we have not seen a single response from either Puranjana or Nityananda. With such a 100% track record of failure, we would definitely ask that any 'evidence' that is reported in Nityananda's book is independently verified before it is accepted.

Just to give a flavour of the challenge which has been made to Nitynanda's book, the article on the 'arsenic in the hair' claim quotes the following: "The standard reference work 'Comprehensive Review in Toxicology for Emergency Clinicians', explains that arsenic concentration of hair varies with nutritional, environmental and physiological factors. N ityananda Das listed this book as one of his reference materials, and in it he would have read, (if he did read it) that the upper limit of NORMAL arsenic concentration with 99% confidence in people NOT exposed to arsenic is 5 ppm." (Srila Prabhupada is reported to have an arsenic concentration of 2.6ppm).

13. Conclusion

We have demonstrated conclusively that from start to finish PADA's paper offers only:

False statements that I never make.

Fabricated evidence

The hiding of evidence

Bluff

Speculation

The authority of Tamala Krishna

The ignoring of evidence which actually exists and all this embellished with self-contradiction and a personal attack on me.

All the above makes PADA's paper a joke since it was supposed to be refuting our charge that there is no direct evidence for the poison theory. Instead by offering up the above it simply confirms that the poison theory currently has no direct evidence to support it.



Please chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare,
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare. And be Happy!

http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/05-11/editorials7252.htm

The Poison Issue, Revisited
BY: ROCANA DASA


May 05, 2011 — CANADA (SUN) — Of late we have been reading in the Sampradaya Sun articles written by astrologers, who have reminded us of the controversy concerning Srila Prabhupada's departure and the suspicion that it was an untimely departure because he had been poisoned. This circumstance was a hot topic some years ago, and it resurfaces periodically.


At one point in time I was involved in an effort to try and get to the bottom of these very serious accusations. I became involved in various committees, and journeyed to Alachua to a conference that Naveen Krishna prabhu held in order to give the devotees an opportunity to discuss the matter at length.


For all the effort that was dedicated to this issue, it has never come close to being resolved. Several devotees have sacrificed their careers in ISKCON due to their conviction that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned. Naveen Krishna even gave up his GBC status.


Each time the poisoning issue resurfaces, we get requests from our readers for more information. Newer readers are often not aware of what was going on during the final days of Srila Prabhupada's manifest lila, or years later, when the poison issue first arose. They want to educate themselves, and begin searching for information. Having again received such requests, we are now making available some of the content on the poison issue that had been archived in the HareKrsna.com website for a number of years, but was eventually taken offline along with volumes of other content from the Vada section. I have reviewed it, and I feel that it's appropriate to again make it available for those who want to understand some of the issues surrounding the allegations of poisoning, and the opinions of various personalities in ISKCON.


The original collection of files entitled 'Allegations of Poisoning' from the Vada archives can now be accessed here. While nearly all the files are available, please note that the linkage has changed significantly over the years. All the in-page links are working, but the section links at the bottom of each page are not functioning, for the most part. Therefore, the easiest way to navigate this material is to click and read, then use your 'Back' key to return to the previous page.


Over the years, I've discussed this poison issue with many other godbrothers/sisters and sincere followers of Srila Prabhupada, and I've been surprised by how many devotees still strongly believe that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned. At the same time, for a variety of reasons, the issue is not something they are discussing or actively pushing to the forefront in the society.


Of course, the unsavory aspects of the issue are one of the obvious reasons it is avoided. For many, it is still too painful to confront for more than brief moments. Many devotees who feel strongly on this issue have made a tremendous effort to expose it, but have eventually surrendered to the fact that Krsna, ultimately, will take this issue where it needs to go. And for now, it appears that Krsna is not going to facilitate or orchestrate making this an issue beyond where it's already gone.


From the legal point of view, I believe there's still some sort of legal action ongoing in India, although I'm not sure of the particulars. Forensic evidence was presented, which consisted mainly of samples of Srila Prabhupada's hair, which was analyzed for the presence of arsenic. That, and the forensic analysis of audio tapes were the catalyst for this whole issue becoming public in the first place. When the tapes surfaced, those who listened to them felt they were hearing suspicious whispers wherein caregivers were using the term "poison". In addition, there are the statements by Srila Prabhupada, in Bengali, wherein he stated that he was being poisoned. This is one of the most convincing arguments for those who believe that the Acarya's words should be taken very seriously and literally, and not just conveniently interpreted to dispel the accusation.


My personal position is that Srila Prabhupada could well have been poisoned. This is not based solely on forensic evidence, or even on Srila Prabhupada's statements. Like many, I simply have an unprovable suspicion that the poisoning may have taken place because of the individuals who were closely involved in Srila Prabhupada's caretaking. I am one of many who believes that Tamal Krishna Goswami and Bhavananda had a character or nature that could very well have caused them to do such a thing. What happened right after Srila Prabhupada departed helps to fortify this suspicion – the Zonal Acarya strategy had already taken root in the hearts and minds of certain leaders, in particular Tamal Krishna, and that certainly could have been a motivating force.


There are a number of very suspect circumstances that come to my mind in this regard. I've mentioned them all in previous articles, submitted either to VNN or on my own website many years ago. I never got a satisfactory clarification as to why certain situations were orchestrated in the way they were. Of course, Srila Prabhupada was surrounded by certain individuals who insulated him from his other disciples. The character of these senior devotees has led me to suspect that they purposely arranged situations to be what they were.


One of the circumstances that has never been satisfactorily explained has to do with the fact that Tamal Krishna had surrounded himself with certain unlikely personalities. In light of history, and the accusations that this group poisoned Srila Prabhupada, we look back and wonder in hindsight at how and why some of these devotees came to be so close to Tamal and the circle of power during Srila Prabhupada's final days.


I also find it very interesting that Hari Sauri dasa is presently quite famous in ISKCON. Aside from the fact that he has published his Transcendental Diary memoir books, he has found for himself a surprisingly prestigious niche in ISKCON, despite the fact that he took sannyasa, fell down, and was involved in many activities over the course of leaving Srila Prabhupada's personal service that to me, are reprehensible. Yet he's still renowned for his service history and enjoys the benefits of being a senior member of ISKCON management.


The most questionable situation surrounding Hari Sauri dasa is the fact that at the time Srila Prabhupada became ill, Hari Sauri mysteriously and I think suspiciously resigned his service with Srila Prabhupada, and this service was turned over to Abhirama. Now, Abhirama's devotional career prior to this had been somewhat spotty, and there was some scandal following him. Although he's expert at portraying himself today as the handsome, debonair businessman-devotee, at the time he didn't seem at all qualified to assume the all-important service of being Srila Prabhupada's caretaker and nurse.


Why was it that Tamal Krishna and Bhavananda orchestrated that Hari Sauri should be given another assignment. As memory serves me, I believe he was sent to Australia, where Bhavananda became the Zonal Acarya right after Srila Prabhupada's departure. I believe he took sannyasa after leaving Srila Prabhupada's service and taking on this other service in Australia, which was his nemesis: he fell down from sannyasa and from his position as a GBC during that time.


So this set of circumstances, although not considered to be a significant factor by most devotees studying the poisoning allegations, have always seemed to me to be very suspect. In order for this poisoning to have taken place the way so many devotees feel it did, there had to have been a closely knit team of personalities who very much trusted each other, and who could be counted upon to keep the utmost secrecy. Naturally, one would assume that the surviving members of that group are still supporting one another in the current ISKCON power structure.


Of course, Tamal Krishna is no longer with us and cannot be asked directly about these things. As I recall, Hari Sauri dasa offered a very perfunctory response to these questions some years ago, and his answer was very unconvincing. The likelihood that anyone else involved, most likely Bhavananda, will make a deathbed confession to shed light on this situation is very unlikely, so it will continue to be one of the great mysteries.


The only other personality who might shed some light – and I don't expect he had anything personally to do with it -- was Bhakti Caru Swami. An unlikely member of the inner circle team, he wasn't a swami at the time, and was a newcomer, unknown to most everyone back then. He was involved with Srila Prabhupada's care at the time, we were told, because they needed a Bengali translator on the scene. Today, of course, he's a great Zonal Acarya, a big man in ISKCON, and his skyrocketing up to the higher echelons of ISKCON can certainly be attributed to Tamal Krishna's influence.


So that is the primary team. If you suspect Srila Prabhupada's been poisoned, you can't consider that it was done by just one person. It's not simply the fact of Srila Prabhupada's illness this is at issue – it's also the set of circumstances surrounding the fact that no attempt was made to bring in a highly qualified medical personality, either on staff or even to visit. The excuse, of course, has been that Srila Prabhupada made it clear that he didn't want Western medicine types involved. The alternative was the Ayurvedic persons who were brought into the mix, and the somewhat dubious Ayurvedic medicinal cures that were introduced.


Regardless of the fact that Srila Prabhupada requested such a scenario – or at least, we were told by the leaders that he had insisted on such a scenario -- I think it's quite suspect that no personality was brought into the mix who could really have done an expert analysis of Srila Prabhupada's medical condition. Today we see the other Zonal Acaryas who were part of the scene with Srila Prabhupada, and they've gone to great extremes to get medical attention for themselves. Jayapataka Swami is spending millions of dollars on his cures. Bhakti Tirtha Swami spent enormous sums of money on his cures. We see that whenever highly placed personalities become seriously ill, they generally spend a great deal of money seeking a cure. We recently had the example of B.V. Narayana Swami, who as a traditional Indian guru/sannyasi nevertheless spent a lot of time and money looking for a cure for his cancer.


Srila Prabhupada was given no access to expert medical facility, even though money was no object. And although Srila Prabhupada's desire was to avoid being put into hospitals or subjected to the mundane medical system, in the past he had agreed to accept some minor western medicine procedures, e.g., getting inoculated so he could get Visas, getting analyzed in New York for his medical condition, and being admitted to hospital in Watford, where accepted hospital care.


In the context of this discussion, we must also remember that Srila Prabhupada strongly desired to be taken on parikrama, and ordered his disciples to do so. A certain contingency of local authorities felt that this desire should be fulfilled, but Tamal Krishna refused to follow that order of Srila Prabhupada, stating that it would kill him. It didn't make any difference in the end, one way or the other, from a medical standpoint -- it was simply an order.


So we are expected to believe that on Srila Prabhupada's order, he was not given any expert medical attention from western authorities or Indian medical professionals, although it might have extended his life – yet another of his final orders, to be taken on parikrama, was flatly denied based on the contrary opinion of Tamal Krishna and his team.


Of course, if there had been a medical examination done by a professional, then forensic evidence would also be available. They would have taken samples of whatever they needed to determine whether Srila Prabhupada was being poisoned at the time. But these people were excluded from the scenario.


I can also relate what I personally experienced when I visited Srila Prabhupada just prior to his leaving, which was the fact that this group of leaders, the team we're referring to, was extremely protective of their position. Under the excuse of protecting Srila Prabhupada, they would not let anyone else onto the team, would not allow anyone else to participate in Srila Prabhupada's care except their few hand-picked men. There seemed to be practical reasons for this, but at the same time, there was no oversight by the GBC, no committee, no other authority watching over the situation other than the supreme authority of Tamal Krishna, who essentially took full responsibility. How was it that Tamal Krishna had absolute authority over that whole situation? He arranged to have a certain team put in place, and now we have the hindsight perspective of history to judge that circumstance from.


So the whole situation does lend one to say, in hindsight, that it is definitely within reason to suspect that something was going on. But again, I don't think we'll ever find out unless there's a deathbed confession, which is very unlikely.


Some of my godbrothers feel very strongly that it's not good for the movement, for Srila Prabhupada's image to cast a shadow over his departure by discussing the allegations of poisoning. They see it as a blemish on Srila Prabhupada's reputation. It does appear that Sri Krsna doesn't want any more focus being put on this, or else He could have arranged for more conclusive evidence to surface that would lead to exposure of the persons involved. Then again, neither has Krsna arranged to expose information that could put these suspicions to rest.


From my perspective, we are left with the fact that in the hearts and minds of far more devotees than I could have imagined, there remains a nagging doubt that Srila Prabhupada may have been poisoned. Some feel more strongly than others, but prefer to put it out of their minds. For whatever reasons, they have decided not to pursue it. But it remains as one of the many dilemmas forced upon the followers of Srila Prabhupada. Each devotee must decide for themselves -- do you believe that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned, or don't you?


Of course, the ISKCON authorities of today are still a shadow of the ring of power that was in place at that time. They're still entrenched in ISKCON, and there's a very protective attitude built up around them. They've re-written history to make the surviving leaders all look very honorable and sincere, and for that reason alone, I think it's important that this information remain available to those who wish to study it. Consequently, we'll again open our files to the public, via the link provided above. There are various books that have been written on the subject, including one by ISKCON, Not That I Have Been Poisoned, which is another statement Srila Prabhupada made.


Ultimately, the reader must judge for themselves. No criminal court is going to decide this matter. It's left to the court of public opinion.