Date: 17. Nov. 1999
From: PSSHearing@prabhupada.freeserve.co.uk (Mukunda dasa. PSS.)
Subject: SRILA PRABHUPADA CONFIRMS POISON WHISPERS !
IRM members are not to propagate any literature or messages to the effect
that Srila Prabhupada was deliberately poisoned.
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.
The GBC themselves felt the available evidence was sufficient grounds on which
to launch a detailed investigation. We fully support such an investigation.
Our only point here is that we must deal with facts rather than feelings brought
on, quite understandably, by this highly charged subject.
Date: 16. Nov. 1999
From: PSSHearing@prabhupada.freeserve.co.uk (Mukunda dasa. PSS.)
Dear Puranjana prabhu,
please accept my humble obeisaces. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Your servant Mukunda
From: email@example.com (pada)
Subject: poison revisited
Dear Mukunda das, pammho. agtsp.
Thanks for your concerns about the poison issue and Adridharana's attempt to spread doubts about it. Perhaps now is a good time to review some of the poison issues and update them. 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.
Adri was also present in the room when one of the poison complaints was made by Srila Prabhupada. Adri said this caused him some considerable doubt and so he checked this with the doctor, the kaviraja. The kaviraja said there was no cause for alarm. However, the son of the kaviraja recently told an ex-gurukuli in Mayapura that his father thought that Srila Prabhupada had been poisoned.
Adri just does not get it here. If some powerful Western multi-millionaires have poisoned a saint, would they not also poison or kill the kaviraja or anyone who would expose them? Perhaps since the kaviraja has a family too, he is thinking for their welfare, "why should I speak up here"? That Mafia was so bold in Chicago that they could shoot a person in a crowded downtown are in front of hundreds. And when the police came? No witnesses. People were afraid.
Indeed, I know of a direct devotee of Srila Prabhupada who thought that Prabhupada had been poisoned in November and he was right there in Vrindavana, yet he was also afraid to speak up. It is one of these people who later on gave me the November tapes which started all of this.
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. No, they are corrupt and even when they hear the truth they will never adopt it. Indeed, six GBC types have recently had a dream from Srila Prabhupada where they were told DIRECTLY by him to adopt the ritvik system, and they have not done it at all. One of our associates was in the next door room when two of them were discussing this just last week. Adri has not understood the levels of corruption going on here. Anyway....
* 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.
Indeed Navayogendra swami and others also agree that Srila Prabhupada is saying he is being poisoned, and they are members within the IRG itself. In sum, since other Hindi native speakers agree with our view of the poison issue and Adri has made no clear case to defeat these people. What amazes us most of all is that he discounts so many other instances surrounding the whole case.
For starters, Adri says that we can only accept that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned if he made a direct statement to that effect. This is not a rational view since this means that we cannot accept that Jesus was crucified: unless we can find a statement where he said "I am being crucified." No one will accept this. Indeed, a saint may make no complaints whatsoever? Did Prahlad complain about anything? No. Did Haridasa thakura complain about anything? No. Would Srila Prabhupada then be expected to complain if he knew he was being poisoned, as Adri insists he would have had to? No.
For that matter, did Lord Chaitanya ever say "I am God"? No, but we accept that He is, and we could go on forever showing many examples of Adri's fallacy in logic. In short, there may be many other factors involved in establishing a fact, so how does Adri establish his own arbitrary criterion that is not always used? Or a criterion which in fact is almost never used? Adri also says that we should wait for the final results of the Balavanta investigation, but in the meantime, he says that whatever the investigastion concludes, there was no poisoning unless it meets his criterion? This is what CHAKRA is also saying by the way.
So Adri is perhaps standing on his own even in the IRG with his attempt to place doubts on this issue. A little odd, since the evidence for the poisoning has grown substantially in recent times. 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 occured. 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. We think that he made a mistake in 1977 by not catching on to the poison problem. Anyway the evidence is piling up such as: an eye witness who heard some GBC talking about poisoning Srila Prabhupada.
Adri was apparently unaware of what was going on, or he was obviously unaware. But then so were Hamsadutta and others. When we first read the 1990 printing of the conversations where it said about the November 1977 "conversation about poison in hindi" we knew there was something major wrong here. Perhaps since we were out of the influence of the GBC and their party we were able to see this in fresh light.
However Adri's views do not change the facts. 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. 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." Why not? Those present understood that he said was being poisoned and they repeated this idea clearly.
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? Adri says, "We are only going to listen to Srila Prabhupada's words (and discount the context)"? His words have to be understood in the context of what others are saying, and his words were also verified by those present. If Srila Prabhupada is replying to what is being said around him, that has to be taken into account as well, yet Adri says we can only take his words --and not the context? Very mysteriously, Adri does not even mention the poison whisper conversations, which could easily be the conversations Srila Prabhupada refers to when he says "it is said."
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 dicussed as a possibilty.
Tamala Krsna: Prabhupada was thinking that someone had poisoned
[PADA: Adri confirms herein that he understood that Srila Prabhupada is saying that "someone" is poisoning him.]
Tamala Krsna: That was the mental distress.
[PADA: Moreover, Srila Prabhupada is not happy that he is being poisoned BY SOMEONE and Adri is aware of this as well. If "someone" is poisoning you, that inidcates a malefic agent, an evil person, not merely "bad medicine," an argument Adri now retreats to, and which CHAKRA retreated to when this issue first came out. Yet the "someone" who gave poison is known to be those persons speaking the whispers, which Adri is discounting now as well? Even when he knows who the "someone" is, he is in denial still, just like he is here in 1977.]
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. (People all speaking at once)
[PADA: OK, there MUST be truth to "someone is giving me poison." Yet Adri says there is no truth to it?]
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? (pause) ( S.P.Room Conversation November 10, 1977, Vrndavana )
[PADA: "Who is it"? Not, "What bad medicine do we have here"? Adri was not paying attention then and he is not paying attention now.
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.
That does not mean that those present in the room took Srila Prabhupada's complaints very seriously, that is another issue. But those present understood the nature of the complaint, and that is very clear. Maybe they thought that Srila Prabhupada was rambling or somehow he did not know what was going on, there may be many reasons, but the complaint was not followed up. But then again, so many things that Srila Prabhupada said were not taken seriously, but that does not mean that the situation was not serious. So Adri makes some arbitrary criterion, almost the same as CHAKRA's criterion, and he says we need something that satisfies his mind to solve this. Yet this poison case was solved right from square one if people had listened properly.
Let is look at this exchange:
Srila Prabhupada: Keu bole je keu poison kore diyeche. Hoy to tai.
Translation: Someone says that I've been poisoned. It's possible.
[PADA: What else do these statements mean here? How many ways can these things be interpreted? 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?]
Balaram Mishra (?): Hmm?
Kaviraja: Kya farma rahe hain?
Translation: What is he saying?
Srila Prabhupada: Koi bolta hai je koi mujhko poison kiya gaya hai.
Translation: Someone says that someone has given poison.
[PADA: "Someone says" that I am being poisoned? It seems that no one was discussing this EXCEPT some GBC members in WHISPERS. Adri does not even mention that these background whisper conversations about poisoning are going on? These conversations have all been examined and forensically proven, yet mysteriously, they are not mentioned as valid evidence in Adri's analysis?
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 occured? Srila Prabhupada may have simply said, "Someone says that I have been poisoned" as a means of introducing the idea.
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 probalby 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? I demanded a private darsan to clarify the the Shyamsundar episode, and Prabhupada told me directly the man is a fool, while 99.99999 percent of the rest of the devotees thought he was great. 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?
Whereas Adri cannot provide his alleged conversation, we can provide solid proof of the background whispers that are evidence of our case. "Someone" says that I am being poisoned. Yes. They are giving him poison, and they are whispering about it. And there were mysterious whispers going on even in May, 1977. Therefore the "someone" who says I am being poisoned is very possibly: the GBC's whispers?
Either that or Krishna told him, or Srila Prabhupada knows it himself and this is a rhetorical reply. In either case he is clearly saying that "someone has told him" that poison IS BEING ADMINISTERED --to him. Maybe he heard his "friends" Tamal and co. talking about poison because he complained in early November, what is this "phish, phish," --whispers? Adri says that we have to refer to the previous conversations. Where else was this discussed previously? Adri does not even know for sure?]
Translation: To whom?
Srila Prabhupada: Mujhko.
Translation: To me.
[PADA: OK, so "who" is getting this poison? The kaviraja wants to make sure that Srila Prabhupada is saying that he is the one being poisoned, and the reply is "Mukhkho" i.e to me, confirming that Srila Prabhupada is saying: I am the one who is being poisoned. "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. So let us stick with these known passages!]
Kaviraja: Kaun bolta hai?
Translation: Who said?
Srila Prabhupada: Ye sab friends.
Translation: These all friends.
[PADA: "These all friends." This makes perfect sense now that we know they were whispering about poisoning him. "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? 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. Also, this was at the time a current revealation, so who cares if it could be verified by previous conversations anyway?]
Bhakticharu: Ke boleche, Srila Prabhupada?
Translation: Who said, Srila Prabhupada?
Srila Prabhupada: Ke boleche.
Translation: They all say.
[PADA: "They all say" makes perfect sense, because they were all whispering in the background about poison. And they were talking about how they were going to poison 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."]
Tamal Krishna: Krishna das?
Kaviraja: Ao ko kaun poison dega? Kis liye dega?
Translation: Who would give you poison? Why would anyone do that?
[PADA: 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.]
Tamal Krishna: Who said that, Srila Prabhupada?
Srila Prabhupada: I do not know, but it is said.
[PADA: "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. Adri says that unless Srila Prabhupada says "I am saying I am being poisoned," we cannot accept his statements. 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"! Suppose I say, "It is said that my car was hit by Mr. Jone's car," does that mean that because I did not see the accident myself, I do not accept this? No, I accept this because "it is said."]
Exchange 2 Hindi Only (9/11/77)
Kaviraja: Yah, maharaj ji, kotha ap kaise bola aj ki apko koi bola hai ki
apko poison diya hai. Ap ko kuch abhas hua hai, kya?
Translation: Maharaja, how did you say this, that someone has said
someone has poisoned you? Have you felt something?
Srila Prabhupada: Nahin, aise koi bola jei debe-sa hi ja hota hai.
koi kitab men likha hai.
Translation: No, not said, but when one is given poison, it happens
this. It's written in a book.
[PADA: 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.]
Exchange 3 - Mixture of English, Hindi and Bengali (10/11/77)
Bhavananda: Prabhupada was complaining of mental distress this morning also.
Bhakticharu: Srila Prabhupada?
Srila Prabhupada: Hm?
Bhakticharu: Ota ki byapar hoyechilo, mental distress?
Translation: What was that all about, mental distress?
Srila Prabhupada: Hm hm.
Kaviraja: Boliye, boliye.
Translation: Say it. Say it.
Srila Prabhupada: Vahi bat ... je koi hamko poison kiya.
Translation: That someone has poisoned me.
(After this point Srila Prabhupada does not speak again.)
ADRI: In any case Srila Prabhupada had not said previously that he had been poisoned, as the analysis of our previous exchanges proves he had only stated that someone else had discussed him being poisoned, and even then only showing the symptoms of poisoning, not that he had been poisoned.
[PADA: This is wrong. Bhavananda was seen hiding tapes. How does Adri know for certain that there were not other conversations? He does not. He is trusting Tamal and we all know that Tamal's party hid tapes.]
ADRI: Just to have further confirmation, we were given the following translation from Dr. M. Kapoor, the Principal of Jalan High School, who has a Phd in Hindi: "That Same Discussion ... That Someone has poisoned me."
[PADA: OK, "that same discussion," or "that same thing (discussed earler)," 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.]
ADRI: Thus the correct translation is:
Bhakticharu: Ota ki byapar hoyechilo, mental distress?
Translation: What was that all about, mental distress?
Srila Prabhupada: Hm hm.
Kaviraja: Boliye, boliye.
Translation: Say it. Say it.
Srila Prabhupada: Vahi bat... je koi hamko poison kiya.
Translation: That same discussion & that someone has poisoned me.
[PADA: 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?]
ADRI: Actual Meaning. Thus when Srila Prabhupada states "someone has poisoned me," he is simply identifying the discussion which has led to the "mental distress."
[PADA: 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?]
ADRI: The talk on the previous day, as we have seen, was indeed in reference to "someone has poisoned me."
[PADA: 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.]
ADRI: 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.
[PADA: 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.]
ADRI: A previous discussion in which someone else had spoken of Srila Prabhupada being poisoned, or more accurately, displaying the symptoms of someone being poisoned.
[PADA: This is called word jugglery. "Someone has poisoned me" refers to a person and or persons poisoning him, not merely exhibiting the symptoms. If I say I have the symptoms of an illness, that is one level, if I say that someone has given me poison that is another level. 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.]
ADRI: In other words:
1) Srila Prabhupada is asked a question "what was that all about,
2) Srila Prabhupada answers initially "that same discussion."
[PADA: What same discussion? Srila Prabhupada and Tamal were also talking about how gurus were being killed by being fed broken glass, how does Adri pretend to know which discussion(s) are being referred to? What is also most significant is that Srila Prabhupada says he is being poisoned, nevermind if we can find evidence of a previous discussion or not? Tamal's party has been hiding tapes Adri, you just don't seem to realize this?]
3) He then clarifies which discussion he is referring to by adding - "that someone has poisoned me."
[PADA: OK Adri, you have proven our case once again.]
ADRI: 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.
[PADA: You are going around in a circle Adri. Srila Prabhupada says that he is being poisoned, and you say you know which previous conversation he refers to: therefore he is only saying he has the symptoms? How can you know this? Maybe you have all of the tapes from 1977? You definately 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. That is clear whether or not we can find previous discussions or not. To say there was no previous talks means YOU AND HAMSADUTTA STILL TRUST tape-meister TAMAL! We don't. Ask Gauridasa pandit if there are not some missing tapes.]
ADRI: The removal of the words "I said" completely changes the meaning of the phrase "that someone has poisoned me":
[PADA: No it does not. Srila Prabhupada is feeling mental distress because someone is poisoning him, it does not matter if someone told him or if he knew it himself. Why would that make any difference? "Someone says I've been shot with a .38," and Adri says, sorry sir we cannot treat your bullet wound since you have not said "I was shot." Who cares? You are trying to deflect the point, and doing a very weak job of it. "Someone says I've been shot," or "I have been shot," they are saying the same essential thing. Why is he saying anything about being poisoned by someone is the real question?]
* 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.
* Plus the Bhaktivedanta Archives devotees confirmed to me directly that this tape is the authentic master and the whispers are on the original.
* Plus we have foresic proof of abnormally high levels arsenic. Some in ISKCON apparently recently said that the level was only 2.6. So what? THEY ADMIT THAT THERE ARE OVER NORMAL LEVELS OF ARSENIC. Who cares how much since this level is also way overboard. A level of 3.0 is bad for a 170 lb. person and Srila Prabhupada weighed only 80 lbs. at the end. Any excess level would be very bad.
* Plus we have an eye-witness who heard the talking about poison and he saw Bhavananda putting liguid on Prabhupada's food.
* Plus Prabhupada said, my only request is that you don't torture me and put me to death, and that he is like Marici and Ravana will kill him if he stays in the room, and so on.
* 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.
Your servant Puranjana dasa
please also read:
Adridharana's misinterpretation of the poison issue