oneiskcon site teams up with the IRM's Krishna Kanta Desai
Does Srila Prabhupada Support Poisoning Theory?
Published April 3, 2013
Excerpts from “Does Srila Prabhupada Support Poisoning Theory?”
The theory that Srila Prabhupada was deliberately and fatally poisoned has been propagated mainly on the strength of the words ‘someone has poisoned me’, spoken by Srila Prabhupada during his final weeks in Vrindavan.
[PADA: Krishna Kanta Desai's article is going around in a big contradictory circle right at the start. Krishna Kanta asks, (A) "Does Srila Prabhupada support THE THEORY that he was being poisoned by someone"? Then in the next breath, (B) KK confutes himself and admits this is not a theory, rather this is a direct statement from Srila Prabhupada because, as a matter of fact, Srila Prabhupada is complaining directly that "Someone has poisoned me."
Therefore the question, "Does Srila Prabhupada support that he is being poisoned by someone" is answered by KK himself, by citing Srila Prabhupada himself: "Someone has poisoned me." Yes, this is a direct statement. Srila Prabhupada does not say "In theory, I am being poisoned by someone." The word "theory was added by speculators like KK, just like Jayadvaita swami adds words that were never there. The word theory is indeed not found in anywhere in any of this conversation. Anywhere! KK provides us with a direct statement right at the start, "someone has poisoned me."
At the same time Krishna Kant wrote me once that if I could get a (chicken tikka?) court judge in India to accept that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned, then he would accept that as a fact too. That means Krishna Kant and the bogus ISKCON GBC are basically one and the same in this regard, they BOTH think that the Hindu court system in India is their final authority. Sorry, many "Hindu" people drink wine, possibly smoke cigars and eat chickens and what not, so they are not my "final authorities," nor were the Hindu leaders Srila Prabhupada's "final authorities."
I have some very good friends who are highly placed in the Hindu community here, they are nice folks mind you, but they are not vegetarians at all, they sometimes smoke, they weekly drink alcohol and so forth. How these class of people became KK's and the GBC's authority means, they have tried to merge with the Hindu culture and hence both of them are trying to use the Hindu courts as their authority. Of course, there may be some nice and pious court judges, thats fine, but as a rule Srila Prabhupada did not trust this class, whereas KK and the GBC trust them implicitly. This is another topic of course, but it shows how deluded some of our opponents are, they want us to trust the Hindu courts like they do.
KK: So important is this alleged revelation from Srila Prabhupada that this emotive phrase has been used as the title for a book on the entire subject. To use Srila Prabhupada’s own words is a powerful and convincing approach since every devotee knows the strongest possible evidence are the words of the acharya. Such directly revealed evidence is conclusive since it is beyond the four defects. Even supposedly water-tight forensic evidence has to take second place to the words of the acharya, since so called scientific evidence will naturally fall prey to those four defects.
[PADA: Correct, since Srila Prabhupada says he is feeling mental distress because "Someone has poisoned me" that statement should not be challenged by Krishna Kanta or anyone else, since that would mean the challenger is defective. Moreover, everyone else in the room agrees that Srila Prabhupada says he is being poisoned by someone. For example, Bhakti Caru swami says "Someone gave him poison here."
Srila Prabhupada complains that he is being poisoned by someone, and everyone in the room agrees that is what he is saying, he is complaining that he is being poisoned by -- someone, and this is causing him mental distress. To deny his mental distress factor is basically saying, who cares if Srila Prabhupada is suffering? Its heartless and extremely cruel to start with. Of course Srila Prabhupada had said on November 3, 1977, "My only request is that you (leaders) do not torture me and put me to death." Krishna Kant and the GBC have no good explanation for why he had to plead with his leaders, not to torture and kill him? We know the explanation, he was being tortured (with poison) and killed. KK says this is all "myth and theory," sorry its not, he really made these statements.]
KK: Conversely if it can be shown that Srila Prabhupada did not directly confirm the fact that he was deliberately poisoned, then this will mean depending on less reliable sources such as ordinary witnesses and scientific analysis. These other less dependable sources might still validate the theory that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned, but that is not the subject of this paper.
[PADA: Why would anyone have to "re-confirm" a direct statement in normal conversation? Srila Prabhupad complains he is experiencing mental distress because someone is giving him poison: "vahi bat ye hamko poison diye." Why would he have to re-state that over and over again to "confirm" the statement? Srila Prabhupada has to jump through KK's hoops and keep repeating his statement -- to "confirm" his own statement? Where in the Vedas does it say a statement has to be constantly -- re-stated -- to be valid?
No one is expected to "re-confirm" statements even in ordinary life. If the police tells someone "Put your hands up or we will shoot," KK thinks -- one does not have to put their hands up at all, one should rather wait until the police repeat that order twenty more times to "confirm" their statement? This is not how normal conversations take place? There is also no need to "confirm" a statement from a pure devotee?
Even in ordinary life, if any person is "feeling mental distress" because he understands "someone is giving me poison," that means the person is in distress because he feels there is a plot to poison him, otherwise why would there be mental distress? KK seems to think that there is no need for mental distress since, there is nothing to feel distress over? Sorry, even in ordinary life -- "mental distress because someone is poisoning me" means, there is a plot to poison that person. Otherwise, the mental distress has no meaning? KK offers no explanation for the cause of the mental distress? And how is this connected to the statement, please do not torture me and put me to death. What is the need to even make such statements?]
KK: The purpose of this paper is to study the actual words of Srila Prabhupada only on the subject of his poisoning.
[PADA: Almost all of the other member of the IRM like Jitarati, Kamsahanta and others all quit the IRM, after they saw that KK wanted to suppress the words of the pure devotee.]
KK: Naturally, we can only rely on the actual words Srila Prabhupada spoke on this issue to determine whether he himself believed that he was deliberately poisoned.
[PADA: Srila Prabhupada says he is mentally distressed due to being poisoned by someone, the people in the room all agree he says he is feeling mental distress due to being poisoned by someone. KK is apparently trying to say the distress is an illusion, the poison is an illusion, thus -- there is no need for distress. There is no cause for feeling distressed. KK does not explain the cause for the "mental distress because someone is giving me poison." Is the distress an illusion, is the poison an illusion, what is KK trying to say, that the pure devotee is in illusion? There is no poison, there is no distress, its all a vague theory? In sum, Srila Prabhupada should not be taken seriously. Notice that later KK says the poison complaint, the distress, it is all "a myth." Satsvarupa das goswami also says he has to battle with the idea that Krishna is a myth?]
KK: Thus the views and opinions of others who were in the room with Srila Prabhupada are of no relevance to us.
[PADA: The people in the room who spoke Hindi and Bengali, like Bhakti Caru, translated these statements from Srila Prabhupada right away "someone gave him poison here." Why aren't the words of the eye witnesses important? KK is not going to listen to the eye-witnesses like Bhakti Caru and the Kaviraja who can speak Hindi? Why would that be? How can we isolate the statements of Srila Prabhupada out of the context of the entire conversation?
This is never done even in ordinary grammar analysis of a conversation? The comments of the other part of the conversation have to be included? How can we make any sense of any conversation if we eliminate the other parts of the conversation? Worse, Krishna Kant says that other parts of a conversation "are of no relevance." We could just lift Srila Prabhupada's answering "yes" or "no" out of an entire conversation, and just print the yes and no answers, and leave all the rest out, and this is the way to understand what he says? KK is not making any sense even in the ordinary analysis of any conversation?]
KK: Neither do we need to consider other subjects Srila Prabhupada discussed that were not directly to do with the issue of his poisoning.
[PADA: We are not going to study the context of the conversation? This is never done in any rational analysis of any conversation?]
KK: 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. Thus we shall carefully look at what Srila Prabhupada himself said, rather than what feelings or suspicions his words might invoke in devotees minds and hearts.
[PADA: OK, except the title of KK's paper is that Srila Prabhupada's feeling mental distress from someone giving him poison is only a theory, -- there may not be any poison -- there may not be any mental distress, he may not have heard anyone discussing this issue as he says he did, the whole thing is an illusion? How does KK know that? KK never explains exactly where Srila Prabhupada says, he is feeling mental distress from being poisoned by someone, only in theory? Srila Prabhupada does not even use the word theory at all? His mental distress is factual because the poison is factual. Srila Prabhupada also has a pharmaceutical background, he knows what are the effects of poison.]
KK: Please note, there are in fact only 4 separate exchanges where Srila Prabhupada himself discusses the subject of his poisoning. The first 3 of these take place at different points in the same conversation, on the 9th of November, and the last exchange takes place the next day on the 10th November.
[Note: The above chronology is taken from the book ‘Someone Has Poisoned Me’. The folio actually has all 4 exchanges taking place in the same conversation on the 8th November.] 3 out of the 4 exchanges involve Srila Prabhupada speaking in Hindi and Bengali. For the relevant Hindi and Bengali translations we will use those supplied by His Grace Naveen Krishna prabhu in the book ‘Someone Has Poisoned Me’ . We will refer to each of these exchanges as Exchange 1, 2 etc., with the appropriate translation from the book given directly underneath the transliteration in Hindi or Bengali.
Srila Prabhupada: Keu bole je keu poison kore diyeche. Hoy to tai.
Translation: Someone says that I’ve been poisoned. It’s possible.
[PADA: Correct, "someone" (a clique of the leaders) are whispering about poisoning him, and this has been verified by three separate audio forensic labs. Srila Prabhupada says -- someone is saying I am being poisoned, and he is absolutely correct. The people in the room are IN FACT whispering about poison and he is hearing them. We know that he was not making this up, someone is IN FACT talking about poisoning him.
Or does KK think Srila Prabhupada is hearing non-existing sounds, from non-existing people, about non-existing poison, because he is in illusion? KK gives no explanation, since Srila Prabhupada says "someone says that I have been poisoned." Who is the "someone," -- other than the people in the room who have been verified as talking about poisoning him? And lets assume for the benefit of KK's doubt its not the people in the room but its Krishna telling him someone is poisoning him, either way, someone is telling him he is being poisoned and KK does not explain -- why he thinks that is an illusion and / or a minor league theory? Why is it not a fact, KK does not explain at all.]
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 someone has given poison." That is pretty clear, its means he is being intentionally poisoned, hence, the mental distress. Someone has given me poison, that means a person with intent. Notice also the conversation does not say, in theory someone has given poison, no, someone has given me poison, its a fact. And we know who these "someone" are, the poison clique leaders who are whispering about poisoning him, as has been verified by three separate AUDIO FORENSIC labs enhancing the whispers going on around him. In any case, KK does not have any explanation who this someone is? Is it an illusion, or what?]
Kaviraja: Kisko?
Translation: To whom?
Srila Prabhupada: Mujhko.
Translation: To me.
[PADA: And who is being poisoned? "Me," not someone else, not some theory, not some myth, I am the person who is being poisoned. This is another direct statement, the person being poisoned is -- me.]
Kaviraja: Kaun bolta hai?
Translation: Who said?
Srila Prabhupada: Ye sab friends.
Translation: These all friends.
[PADA: The people who said I am being poisoned are ye sab friends, i.e. the deviant leaders of ISKCON, the people in the room around him. They are whispering and he is hearing them. Or does KK think this is all a hallucination? Yeh sab friends, the poison clique. Or is this a figment of his imagination?]
Bhakticharu: Ke boleche, Srila Prabhupada?
Translation: Who said, Srila Prabhupada?
Srila Prabhupada: Ke boleche.
Translation: They all say.
[PADA: "They (my bogus leaders) all say," correct, the leaders of the poison clique. KK thinks this is all some theory of hallucination voices. No, they all say, he knows who is saying he is being poisoned, he is hearing them direct, and we can hear them too if we listen to the enhanced whispers.]
Tamal Krishna: Krishna das?
Kaviraja: Ao ko kaun poison dega? Kis liye dega?
Translation: Who would give you poison? Why would anyone do that?
Tamal Krishna: Who said that, Srila Prabhupada?
Srila Prabhupada: I do not know, but it is said.
[PADA: "It is said," OK -- its a fact. Another direct statement, it is said. Its a fact. KK offers no explanation, it is said, its a fact, KK says, no, its a dry theory? "Who" would give you poison, that means it is clear, there is a person or group of persons that is being discussed as the poisoners here.]
KK: Conclusion: Srila Prabhupada refers to others stating that he has been given poison.
[PADA: Correct, the people around him are talking about poisoning him. Or is KK saying this is an illusion, there is no one actually saying that? "Who is giving the poison," its is clear that a person or persons are being targeted as the givers of poison.]
KK: Srila Prabhupada does not himself confirm this, only adding that ‘It’s possible.’
[PADA: Except that at the start of the article, KK says "someone has poisoned me," which is a direct statement that confirms he said he is being poisoned? The yeh sab friends are discussing it, he has the symptoms, he is hearing someone saying I am being given poison, therefore -- its possible. And then he says, someone has poisoned me, which confirms all of the above. Srila Prabhupada is having mental distress because someone is poisoning him, this is not merely possible, its factual. The mental distress is a phantasm?]
KK: At no point does Srila Prabhupada himself state that he has been given poison – he only reports the words of someone else.
[PADA: No, at the start of the article KK says someone has poisoned me, a direct statement.]
KK: Thus exchange 1 does not yield any evidence from the lotus mouth of the acharya himself agreeing that he has been poisoned.
[PADA: Why would he say -- someone told him he is being poisoned, at all then? KK does not explain why he is bringing this up at all? And the whispers confirm that people were saying he was being given poison. KK does not explain that either?]
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: Maharaj, how did you say this, that someone has said that someone has poisoned you? Have you felt something?
Srila Prabhupada: Nahin, aise koi bola je… debe-sa hi ja hota hai. Shayad koi kitab men likha hai.
Translation: No, not said, but when one is given poison, it happens like this. It’s written in a book.
[PADA: Right, he is hearing people talking about poisoning him, he feels that he has the symptoms of a person being poisoned, he is feeling mental distress because someone is giving him poison, this is all a confirmation one after another.]
Exchange 3 – English Only (9/11/77)
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.
[PADA: Well he is not going to confide in the people who he thinks are giving him poison?]
Conclusion: We have put these exchanges together because Srila Prabhupada simply repeats to Tamala Krishna in English what he has just told the Kaviraja in Hindi. Here Srila Prabhupada clarifies the fact that the statement by others regarding his poisoning was not even a direct statement that he has been poisoned; but only that he showed the symptoms of poisoning, and that that this was something which is written in a book, and that Srila Prabhupada had himself read such things.
[PADA: Krishna Kanta Desai forgets what he wrote at the start of the article, "someone has poisoned me." That is a direct statement.]
KK: Thus this exchange, as well as yielding no evidence from the mouth of the acharya himself agreeing that he has been poisoned, states that the other sources are not even themselves stating that Srila Prabhupada himself has been directly poisoned. Summary of the Conversation These 3 exchanges all take place on the same day. Srila Prabhupada himself never refers to himself being poisoned.
[PADA: Someone has poisoned me? Srila Prabhupada says poison is being given to mujkho, which means "to me." How can we say "me" does not refer to himself? The KK fellow has no idea of even grade school grammar, "me" refers to oneself, even a kindergarten child knows that? In his haste to protect the poisoners, KK has lost the ability of kindergarten class level of grammar.]
KK: Srila Prabhupada brings up the issue of ‘someone’ having ‘poisoned’ him as having being put forward by someone else, and continues to refer to it simply as someone else’s idea – an idea he only stated is ‘possible’.
[PADA: KK forgot how he started this article, someone has poisoned me. That is a direct statement.]
KK: He further clarifies that this 3rd party is only saying that symptoms of poisoning are being displayed – not even that he was poisoned. Srila Prabhupada further confirms that he himself has read this.
Thus we still have no evidence from the acharya himself, where he states that someone has given him poison.
[PADA: Correct, the third parties are the people whispering about poisoning him, ye sab friends. Or is KK saying this is all hallucination, no one is saying anything? KK offers no explanation whatsoever.]
KK: Please note therefore that there has been a discussion and talk on the topic of Srila Prabhupada being poisoned by someone:
“Someone says that I’ve been poisoned. It’s possible. [...] Someone says that someone has given poison.” (Srila Prabhupada, Exchange 1)
These were the phrases that started the whole discussion off – Srila Prabhupada is stating that someone else is saying that effectively ‘someone has poisoned me’.
[PADA: And someone else is talking about poisoning him, of does KK think this is all a hallucination? KK does not explain why Srila Prabhupada says ye sab friends are talking about poisoning him? KK simply offers no explanation at all, implying that its a hallucination.]
This is the context to the final exchange that takes place the next day.
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.)
[PADA: Correct, he is hearing people talking about poisoning (because he heard something), he has the symptoms of a person being poisoned, he is feeling mental distress because someone is giving him poison, these all confirm each other.]
Wrong Translation: We have left the translation of the first phrase blank because in the book ‘Someone Has Poisoned Me’ it is mis-translated; a fact admitted by Naveen Krishna prabhu – the translator himself, who has stated that the translation used is not his final translation but was only a very first rough draft. The book translates the phrase: “Vahi bat” as “The same thing, I said.” As any Hindi speaker will confirm, the phrase ’vahi bat’ means only ‘that same discussion / talk’, and that is all.
[PADA: Same discussions as before. Correct, do not torture me and put me to death. And the yeh sab friends are talking about poisoning me, and he heard their talks (bat). So its the same thing, same discussions, the ye sab friends are saying they are poisoning me, therefore I am being poisoned. Makes perfect sense. Someone says I am being given poison, its the yeh sab friends (my leaders) and that is the discussion I am now talking about which I discussed before.]
KK: ‘Vahi’ means ‘that same’, and ‘bat’ means ‘discussion’ or ‘talk/subject’.
[PADA: Right, the ye sab friends are discussing poisoning him, and they are, we had their whispers enhanced.]
KK: Further it can be noted that: The ‘I said’ part can easily be shown to be wrong. The words ‘I’ and ‘said’ are used nowhere in the Hindi.
[PADA: Well Srila Prabhupada is the one who said it, he said the yeh sab friends are talking about poisoning me? Who else said that then? KK does not tell us?]
KK: They have been added.
[PADA: Because Srila Prabhupada is the person who said the yeh sab friends are discussing poison, he is the speaker in that conversation. KK does not identify any other speaker?]
KK: 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: OK, well he told Tamal he was not poisoned because he was the main suspect.]
KK: Correct Translation: 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” Thus the correct translation, both from the literal meanings of the words used, and from the context of the discussion is - ‘That same discussion’. 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: The same discussion, right, the poison clique are whispering about poisoning him, he mentioned this previously to the kaviraja that someone told him he was being poisoned, so he refers to "this same discussion." This confirms that he was saying he was being poisoned and he heard someone, the "ye sab friends" talking about it, and he did, we had the whispers enhanced, the ye sab friends were discussing poisoning him. He refers to their discussion about poisoning him.]
KK: 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: Correct, he said that the friends are discussing poisoning him, and they are.]
KK: 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.
[PADA: No in the previous discussion he says his friends are discussing poison, and he heard them discussing? He also says he has the symptoms, that confirms what he heard.]
KK: In other words: Srila Prabhupada is asked a question - ‘what was that all about, mental distress’?
Srila Prabhupada answers initially - ‘that same discussion’. He then clarifies which discussion he is referring to by adding - ‘that someone has poisoned me’.
[PADA: Correct, so if he was not thinking he was being poisoned by someone, the mental distress has no basis. The mental distress is because he believes he is being intentionally poisoned.]
KK: Conclusion Thus this exchange does not yield any evidence from Srila Prabhupada agreeing that he had been poisoned.
[PADA: So he was feeling mental distress for no reason, he was hallucinating a cause for distress?]
KK: He merely confirms that the previous discussions, which themselves do not yield this evidence either, were the cause of his ‘mental distress’. (We put the phrase ‘mental distress’ in inverted commas, because the term was not used by Srila Prabhupada himself). To conclude anymore than this – such as the fact that Srila Prabhupada had ‘mental distress’ proves that he must have thought he was poisoned – is speculation of the highest order since it involves trying to directly understand the mind of the Acharya. We may have grounds to investigate further, but that is all – we do not have any evidence that Srila Prabhupada agreed he was being poisoned.
[PADA: So Srila Prabhupada was feeling mental distress from someone poisoning him, for no apparent reason, he was in illusion, this is what the bogus GBC is basically saying.]
KK: Further Evidence: One final nail in the coffin of the idea that Srila Prabhupada is himself revealing that he is being poisoned is found in the following.
[PADA: Srila Prabhupada is saying he heard them talking about poison, he is in distress from someone giving him poison, he has the symptoms, and this is the "nail in the coffin" which proves -- he was in illusion because -- he was not being poisoned?]
KK: After the last exchange Adri Dharan das, who was present at the discussion, asked the Kaviraja, whom Srila Prabhupada was supposedly revealing all this to, what Srila Prabhupada had been referring to when he spoke of poison.
[PADA: Adridhara dasa told me in 1997 that everyone in the room was upset because they all agreed that Srila Prabhupada was thinking he was being poisoned intentionally. He was there.]
KK: Even though in the previous conversation the Kaviraja immediately jumps to the conclusion that Srila Prabhupada was speaking of some malicious poisoning, he later reveals to Adri Dharan that Srila Prabhupada was actually only referring to the effects of poison having been administered via bad medicine.
This testimony would be consistent with a conversation that was held just 12 days before the above exchanges. In this Bhakti Caru Swami gives the following diagnosis from the doctors: Bhakti-caru: Pressure is good. When Dr. Ghosh came, that other Dr. Ghosh came… (Hindi) …pressure, 180 and 80. (Hindi) He’s saying that in this condition, Prabhupada can’t take makara-dhvaja. That any medicine that contains mercury and arsenic is poison to him. (Room Conversation, 28/10/77)
[PADA: That is not what Srila Prabhupada was saying, that he thought there was a mistake in the medicine, if so he would have asked for a change in the medicine, he was having distress because he thought he was being poisoned on purpose, not by accident. The ye sab friends are talking about poison, not medicine.]
KK: It seems from this that: Srila Prabhupada had been taking arsenic, either via the Makara-dhvaja or other medicine; and that the doctors stated this arsenic administered via medicine was acting as poison. This may explain why 12 days later Srila Prabhupada reported how a 3rd party had noticed that Srila Prabhupada was showing the symptoms of someone who had been poisoned.
[PADA: Except one of the kavirajas said he was convinced Prabhupada was being poisoned and he was afraid to say so at the time, because they would kill him or his family members. "Someone" is also not medicine, Srila Prabhupada says someone is giving me poison, not that the medicine is. The ye sab friends discussed poison, not medicine.]
KK: However without further solid evidence we cannot reach a conclusion, and therefore we would strongly urge the investigators to translate the Hindi conversations in the above conversation, to see if they provide extra clarification. Other Poison Myths.
[PADA: Where did Srila Prabhupada say he is having distress due to myths and theories? This is an insult to say Srila Prabhupada was in distress over nothing at all, a myth, a theory, etc.]
KK: Also from the above analysis of Srila Prabhupada’s actual words, we have disproved two other notions that have been erroneously propagated. That Srila Prabhupada was hesitant to reveal the truth because he was afraid of his disciples, or that he only revealed the truth in Hindi or Bengali. Analysis of the exchanges has shown that:
[PADA: Why does he not reveal who the ye sab friends are? KK has no explanation.]
KK: Srila Prabhupada states the same points in English to Tamal Krishna, as he does in Hindi to the Kaviraja.
[PADA: Tamal is the main suspect? Why would he reveal direct to Tamal?]
KK: Srila Prabhupada also spoke everything to the Kaviraja always in the presence of Bhakti Caru Swami, who could understand every word spoken in Hindi and Bengali, and who has now admitted that any poison could only have been adminstered via him, since all food and drink passed through his hands only. And Bhakti Caru Swami could easily have revealed every word Srila Prabhupada spoke to the Kaviraja, to Tamal Krishna in any case.
[PADA: Bhakti Caru was outside the room crying saying that Srila Prabhupada was saying he was being poisoned by someone (intentionally).]
KK: It is very significant to note that yet again we have a mis-leading transcript. In the book ‘Someone Has Poisoned Me’, Tamala is actually shown as saying ‘That’s why actually we cannot allow anyone to cook for you’ -i.e. the word ‘else’ is missing. By leaving out the word ‘else’, the book ‘someone has poisoned me’ has completely changed the true meaning – which is that only others outside of the disciples who were already cooking for Srila Prabhupada should be prevented from cooking for Srila Prabhupada - to everyone should be prevented from cooking for Srila Prabhupada. Anyone who listens to the tape in question will clearly hear the word ’else’ being spoken by Tamala Krishna Maharaja, and indeed “anybody else” is the transcript given by the Bhaktivedanta Archives on the Srila Prabhupada Veda Base (folio).
[PADA: The discussions were also about broken glass being fed to gurus to kill them, the GBC was discussing that, and they admit to that on the tape. Why are they discussing killing gurus with toxic materials, at all?]
KK: Other Evidence: As stated at the outset of this paper, Srila Prabhupada’s words have currently been used as the main evidence to push the poisoning theory. Other evidence such as the presence of arsenic in Srila Prabhupada’s hair, witnesses etc., has been mooted, but not yet produced. Until it is we have no actual evidence on which to comment. The so called ‘whispers’ can only be used as supporting evidence once poisoning has itself been proven.
[PADA: Wrong, there are many cases where circumstantial evidence proves a crime. The FBI in Gainseville heard the whispers and said this would be a homicide case if it happened in the USA.]
KK: 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).
[PADA: But KK has done no forensic tests on anything, he told me that if I can convince a chicken eating judge then he will accept that too, because he only accepts the authority of the chicken eating judges. I do not.]
KK: Final Conclusion On the currently available evidence:
Srila Prabhupada never himself confirmed that he was being poisoned. Srila Prabhupada only stated that ’someone else’ had stated that he was showing the symptoms of someone who had been poisoned.
Therefore, there is no evidence from the infallible source of the acarya that he was being deliberately poisoned. Thus the answer to the title of this paper has to be ‘no’.
[PADA: We played the poison tapes to some Brijabasis and they immediately starting crying buckets of tears saying that Srila Prabhupada is saying he is poisoned, the problem with KK is that he has no bhakti for the pure devotee. That is why others understand in one second, he cannot understand ever. ys pd]
Does Srila Prabhupada Support Poisoning Theory?
Published April 3, 2013
Excerpts from “Does Srila Prabhupada Support Poisoning Theory?”
The theory that Srila Prabhupada was deliberately and fatally poisoned has been propagated mainly on the strength of the words ‘someone has poisoned me’, spoken by Srila Prabhupada during his final weeks in Vrindavan.
[PADA: Krishna Kanta Desai's article is going around in a big contradictory circle right at the start. Krishna Kanta asks, (A) "Does Srila Prabhupada support THE THEORY that he was being poisoned by someone"? Then in the next breath, (B) KK confutes himself and admits this is not a theory, rather this is a direct statement from Srila Prabhupada because, as a matter of fact, Srila Prabhupada is complaining directly that "Someone has poisoned me."
Therefore the question, "Does Srila Prabhupada support that he is being poisoned by someone" is answered by KK himself, by citing Srila Prabhupada himself: "Someone has poisoned me." Yes, this is a direct statement. Srila Prabhupada does not say "In theory, I am being poisoned by someone." The word "theory was added by speculators like KK, just like Jayadvaita swami adds words that were never there. The word theory is indeed not found in anywhere in any of this conversation. Anywhere! KK provides us with a direct statement right at the start, "someone has poisoned me."
At the same time Krishna Kant wrote me once that if I could get a (chicken tikka?) court judge in India to accept that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned, then he would accept that as a fact too. That means Krishna Kant and the bogus ISKCON GBC are basically one and the same in this regard, they BOTH think that the Hindu court system in India is their final authority. Sorry, many "Hindu" people drink wine, possibly smoke cigars and eat chickens and what not, so they are not my "final authorities," nor were the Hindu leaders Srila Prabhupada's "final authorities."
I have some very good friends who are highly placed in the Hindu community here, they are nice folks mind you, but they are not vegetarians at all, they sometimes smoke, they weekly drink alcohol and so forth. How these class of people became KK's and the GBC's authority means, they have tried to merge with the Hindu culture and hence both of them are trying to use the Hindu courts as their authority. Of course, there may be some nice and pious court judges, thats fine, but as a rule Srila Prabhupada did not trust this class, whereas KK and the GBC trust them implicitly. This is another topic of course, but it shows how deluded some of our opponents are, they want us to trust the Hindu courts like they do.
KK: So important is this alleged revelation from Srila Prabhupada that this emotive phrase has been used as the title for a book on the entire subject. To use Srila Prabhupada’s own words is a powerful and convincing approach since every devotee knows the strongest possible evidence are the words of the acharya. Such directly revealed evidence is conclusive since it is beyond the four defects. Even supposedly water-tight forensic evidence has to take second place to the words of the acharya, since so called scientific evidence will naturally fall prey to those four defects.
[PADA: Correct, since Srila Prabhupada says he is feeling mental distress because "Someone has poisoned me" that statement should not be challenged by Krishna Kanta or anyone else, since that would mean the challenger is defective. Moreover, everyone else in the room agrees that Srila Prabhupada says he is being poisoned by someone. For example, Bhakti Caru swami says "Someone gave him poison here."
Srila Prabhupada complains that he is being poisoned by someone, and everyone in the room agrees that is what he is saying, he is complaining that he is being poisoned by -- someone, and this is causing him mental distress. To deny his mental distress factor is basically saying, who cares if Srila Prabhupada is suffering? Its heartless and extremely cruel to start with. Of course Srila Prabhupada had said on November 3, 1977, "My only request is that you (leaders) do not torture me and put me to death." Krishna Kant and the GBC have no good explanation for why he had to plead with his leaders, not to torture and kill him? We know the explanation, he was being tortured (with poison) and killed. KK says this is all "myth and theory," sorry its not, he really made these statements.]
KK: Conversely if it can be shown that Srila Prabhupada did not directly confirm the fact that he was deliberately poisoned, then this will mean depending on less reliable sources such as ordinary witnesses and scientific analysis. These other less dependable sources might still validate the theory that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned, but that is not the subject of this paper.
[PADA: Why would anyone have to "re-confirm" a direct statement in normal conversation? Srila Prabhupad complains he is experiencing mental distress because someone is giving him poison: "vahi bat ye hamko poison diye." Why would he have to re-state that over and over again to "confirm" the statement? Srila Prabhupada has to jump through KK's hoops and keep repeating his statement -- to "confirm" his own statement? Where in the Vedas does it say a statement has to be constantly -- re-stated -- to be valid?
No one is expected to "re-confirm" statements even in ordinary life. If the police tells someone "Put your hands up or we will shoot," KK thinks -- one does not have to put their hands up at all, one should rather wait until the police repeat that order twenty more times to "confirm" their statement? This is not how normal conversations take place? There is also no need to "confirm" a statement from a pure devotee?
Even in ordinary life, if any person is "feeling mental distress" because he understands "someone is giving me poison," that means the person is in distress because he feels there is a plot to poison him, otherwise why would there be mental distress? KK seems to think that there is no need for mental distress since, there is nothing to feel distress over? Sorry, even in ordinary life -- "mental distress because someone is poisoning me" means, there is a plot to poison that person. Otherwise, the mental distress has no meaning? KK offers no explanation for the cause of the mental distress? And how is this connected to the statement, please do not torture me and put me to death. What is the need to even make such statements?]
KK: The purpose of this paper is to study the actual words of Srila Prabhupada only on the subject of his poisoning.
[PADA: Almost all of the other member of the IRM like Jitarati, Kamsahanta and others all quit the IRM, after they saw that KK wanted to suppress the words of the pure devotee.]
KK: Naturally, we can only rely on the actual words Srila Prabhupada spoke on this issue to determine whether he himself believed that he was deliberately poisoned.
[PADA: Srila Prabhupada says he is mentally distressed due to being poisoned by someone, the people in the room all agree he says he is feeling mental distress due to being poisoned by someone. KK is apparently trying to say the distress is an illusion, the poison is an illusion, thus -- there is no need for distress. There is no cause for feeling distressed. KK does not explain the cause for the "mental distress because someone is giving me poison." Is the distress an illusion, is the poison an illusion, what is KK trying to say, that the pure devotee is in illusion? There is no poison, there is no distress, its all a vague theory? In sum, Srila Prabhupada should not be taken seriously. Notice that later KK says the poison complaint, the distress, it is all "a myth." Satsvarupa das goswami also says he has to battle with the idea that Krishna is a myth?]
KK: Thus the views and opinions of others who were in the room with Srila Prabhupada are of no relevance to us.
[PADA: The people in the room who spoke Hindi and Bengali, like Bhakti Caru, translated these statements from Srila Prabhupada right away "someone gave him poison here." Why aren't the words of the eye witnesses important? KK is not going to listen to the eye-witnesses like Bhakti Caru and the Kaviraja who can speak Hindi? Why would that be? How can we isolate the statements of Srila Prabhupada out of the context of the entire conversation?
This is never done even in ordinary grammar analysis of a conversation? The comments of the other part of the conversation have to be included? How can we make any sense of any conversation if we eliminate the other parts of the conversation? Worse, Krishna Kant says that other parts of a conversation "are of no relevance." We could just lift Srila Prabhupada's answering "yes" or "no" out of an entire conversation, and just print the yes and no answers, and leave all the rest out, and this is the way to understand what he says? KK is not making any sense even in the ordinary analysis of any conversation?]
KK: Neither do we need to consider other subjects Srila Prabhupada discussed that were not directly to do with the issue of his poisoning.
[PADA: We are not going to study the context of the conversation? This is never done in any rational analysis of any conversation?]
KK: 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. Thus we shall carefully look at what Srila Prabhupada himself said, rather than what feelings or suspicions his words might invoke in devotees minds and hearts.
[PADA: OK, except the title of KK's paper is that Srila Prabhupada's feeling mental distress from someone giving him poison is only a theory, -- there may not be any poison -- there may not be any mental distress, he may not have heard anyone discussing this issue as he says he did, the whole thing is an illusion? How does KK know that? KK never explains exactly where Srila Prabhupada says, he is feeling mental distress from being poisoned by someone, only in theory? Srila Prabhupada does not even use the word theory at all? His mental distress is factual because the poison is factual. Srila Prabhupada also has a pharmaceutical background, he knows what are the effects of poison.]
KK: Please note, there are in fact only 4 separate exchanges where Srila Prabhupada himself discusses the subject of his poisoning. The first 3 of these take place at different points in the same conversation, on the 9th of November, and the last exchange takes place the next day on the 10th November.
[Note: The above chronology is taken from the book ‘Someone Has Poisoned Me’. The folio actually has all 4 exchanges taking place in the same conversation on the 8th November.] 3 out of the 4 exchanges involve Srila Prabhupada speaking in Hindi and Bengali. For the relevant Hindi and Bengali translations we will use those supplied by His Grace Naveen Krishna prabhu in the book ‘Someone Has Poisoned Me’ . We will refer to each of these exchanges as Exchange 1, 2 etc., with the appropriate translation from the book given directly underneath the transliteration in Hindi or Bengali.
Srila Prabhupada: Keu bole je keu poison kore diyeche. Hoy to tai.
Translation: Someone says that I’ve been poisoned. It’s possible.
[PADA: Correct, "someone" (a clique of the leaders) are whispering about poisoning him, and this has been verified by three separate audio forensic labs. Srila Prabhupada says -- someone is saying I am being poisoned, and he is absolutely correct. The people in the room are IN FACT whispering about poison and he is hearing them. We know that he was not making this up, someone is IN FACT talking about poisoning him.
Or does KK think Srila Prabhupada is hearing non-existing sounds, from non-existing people, about non-existing poison, because he is in illusion? KK gives no explanation, since Srila Prabhupada says "someone says that I have been poisoned." Who is the "someone," -- other than the people in the room who have been verified as talking about poisoning him? And lets assume for the benefit of KK's doubt its not the people in the room but its Krishna telling him someone is poisoning him, either way, someone is telling him he is being poisoned and KK does not explain -- why he thinks that is an illusion and / or a minor league theory? Why is it not a fact, KK does not explain at all.]
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 someone has given poison." That is pretty clear, its means he is being intentionally poisoned, hence, the mental distress. Someone has given me poison, that means a person with intent. Notice also the conversation does not say, in theory someone has given poison, no, someone has given me poison, its a fact. And we know who these "someone" are, the poison clique leaders who are whispering about poisoning him, as has been verified by three separate AUDIO FORENSIC labs enhancing the whispers going on around him. In any case, KK does not have any explanation who this someone is? Is it an illusion, or what?]
Kaviraja: Kisko?
Translation: To whom?
Srila Prabhupada: Mujhko.
Translation: To me.
[PADA: And who is being poisoned? "Me," not someone else, not some theory, not some myth, I am the person who is being poisoned. This is another direct statement, the person being poisoned is -- me.]
Kaviraja: Kaun bolta hai?
Translation: Who said?
Srila Prabhupada: Ye sab friends.
Translation: These all friends.
[PADA: The people who said I am being poisoned are ye sab friends, i.e. the deviant leaders of ISKCON, the people in the room around him. They are whispering and he is hearing them. Or does KK think this is all a hallucination? Yeh sab friends, the poison clique. Or is this a figment of his imagination?]
Bhakticharu: Ke boleche, Srila Prabhupada?
Translation: Who said, Srila Prabhupada?
Srila Prabhupada: Ke boleche.
Translation: They all say.
[PADA: "They (my bogus leaders) all say," correct, the leaders of the poison clique. KK thinks this is all some theory of hallucination voices. No, they all say, he knows who is saying he is being poisoned, he is hearing them direct, and we can hear them too if we listen to the enhanced whispers.]
Tamal Krishna: Krishna das?
Kaviraja: Ao ko kaun poison dega? Kis liye dega?
Translation: Who would give you poison? Why would anyone do that?
Tamal Krishna: Who said that, Srila Prabhupada?
Srila Prabhupada: I do not know, but it is said.
[PADA: "It is said," OK -- its a fact. Another direct statement, it is said. Its a fact. KK offers no explanation, it is said, its a fact, KK says, no, its a dry theory? "Who" would give you poison, that means it is clear, there is a person or group of persons that is being discussed as the poisoners here.]
KK: Conclusion: Srila Prabhupada refers to others stating that he has been given poison.
[PADA: Correct, the people around him are talking about poisoning him. Or is KK saying this is an illusion, there is no one actually saying that? "Who is giving the poison," its is clear that a person or persons are being targeted as the givers of poison.]
KK: Srila Prabhupada does not himself confirm this, only adding that ‘It’s possible.’
[PADA: Except that at the start of the article, KK says "someone has poisoned me," which is a direct statement that confirms he said he is being poisoned? The yeh sab friends are discussing it, he has the symptoms, he is hearing someone saying I am being given poison, therefore -- its possible. And then he says, someone has poisoned me, which confirms all of the above. Srila Prabhupada is having mental distress because someone is poisoning him, this is not merely possible, its factual. The mental distress is a phantasm?]
KK: At no point does Srila Prabhupada himself state that he has been given poison – he only reports the words of someone else.
[PADA: No, at the start of the article KK says someone has poisoned me, a direct statement.]
KK: Thus exchange 1 does not yield any evidence from the lotus mouth of the acharya himself agreeing that he has been poisoned.
[PADA: Why would he say -- someone told him he is being poisoned, at all then? KK does not explain why he is bringing this up at all? And the whispers confirm that people were saying he was being given poison. KK does not explain that either?]
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: Maharaj, how did you say this, that someone has said that someone has poisoned you? Have you felt something?
Srila Prabhupada: Nahin, aise koi bola je… debe-sa hi ja hota hai. Shayad koi kitab men likha hai.
Translation: No, not said, but when one is given poison, it happens like this. It’s written in a book.
[PADA: Right, he is hearing people talking about poisoning him, he feels that he has the symptoms of a person being poisoned, he is feeling mental distress because someone is giving him poison, this is all a confirmation one after another.]
Exchange 3 – English Only (9/11/77)
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.
[PADA: Well he is not going to confide in the people who he thinks are giving him poison?]
Conclusion: We have put these exchanges together because Srila Prabhupada simply repeats to Tamala Krishna in English what he has just told the Kaviraja in Hindi. Here Srila Prabhupada clarifies the fact that the statement by others regarding his poisoning was not even a direct statement that he has been poisoned; but only that he showed the symptoms of poisoning, and that that this was something which is written in a book, and that Srila Prabhupada had himself read such things.
[PADA: Krishna Kanta Desai forgets what he wrote at the start of the article, "someone has poisoned me." That is a direct statement.]
KK: Thus this exchange, as well as yielding no evidence from the mouth of the acharya himself agreeing that he has been poisoned, states that the other sources are not even themselves stating that Srila Prabhupada himself has been directly poisoned. Summary of the Conversation These 3 exchanges all take place on the same day. Srila Prabhupada himself never refers to himself being poisoned.
[PADA: Someone has poisoned me? Srila Prabhupada says poison is being given to mujkho, which means "to me." How can we say "me" does not refer to himself? The KK fellow has no idea of even grade school grammar, "me" refers to oneself, even a kindergarten child knows that? In his haste to protect the poisoners, KK has lost the ability of kindergarten class level of grammar.]
KK: Srila Prabhupada brings up the issue of ‘someone’ having ‘poisoned’ him as having being put forward by someone else, and continues to refer to it simply as someone else’s idea – an idea he only stated is ‘possible’.
[PADA: KK forgot how he started this article, someone has poisoned me. That is a direct statement.]
KK: He further clarifies that this 3rd party is only saying that symptoms of poisoning are being displayed – not even that he was poisoned. Srila Prabhupada further confirms that he himself has read this.
Thus we still have no evidence from the acharya himself, where he states that someone has given him poison.
[PADA: Correct, the third parties are the people whispering about poisoning him, ye sab friends. Or is KK saying this is all hallucination, no one is saying anything? KK offers no explanation whatsoever.]
KK: Please note therefore that there has been a discussion and talk on the topic of Srila Prabhupada being poisoned by someone:
“Someone says that I’ve been poisoned. It’s possible. [...] Someone says that someone has given poison.” (Srila Prabhupada, Exchange 1)
These were the phrases that started the whole discussion off – Srila Prabhupada is stating that someone else is saying that effectively ‘someone has poisoned me’.
[PADA: And someone else is talking about poisoning him, of does KK think this is all a hallucination? KK does not explain why Srila Prabhupada says ye sab friends are talking about poisoning him? KK simply offers no explanation at all, implying that its a hallucination.]
This is the context to the final exchange that takes place the next day.
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.)
[PADA: Correct, he is hearing people talking about poisoning (because he heard something), he has the symptoms of a person being poisoned, he is feeling mental distress because someone is giving him poison, these all confirm each other.]
Wrong Translation: We have left the translation of the first phrase blank because in the book ‘Someone Has Poisoned Me’ it is mis-translated; a fact admitted by Naveen Krishna prabhu – the translator himself, who has stated that the translation used is not his final translation but was only a very first rough draft. The book translates the phrase: “Vahi bat” as “The same thing, I said.” As any Hindi speaker will confirm, the phrase ’vahi bat’ means only ‘that same discussion / talk’, and that is all.
[PADA: Same discussions as before. Correct, do not torture me and put me to death. And the yeh sab friends are talking about poisoning me, and he heard their talks (bat). So its the same thing, same discussions, the ye sab friends are saying they are poisoning me, therefore I am being poisoned. Makes perfect sense. Someone says I am being given poison, its the yeh sab friends (my leaders) and that is the discussion I am now talking about which I discussed before.]
KK: ‘Vahi’ means ‘that same’, and ‘bat’ means ‘discussion’ or ‘talk/subject’.
[PADA: Right, the ye sab friends are discussing poisoning him, and they are, we had their whispers enhanced.]
KK: Further it can be noted that: The ‘I said’ part can easily be shown to be wrong. The words ‘I’ and ‘said’ are used nowhere in the Hindi.
[PADA: Well Srila Prabhupada is the one who said it, he said the yeh sab friends are talking about poisoning me? Who else said that then? KK does not tell us?]
KK: They have been added.
[PADA: Because Srila Prabhupada is the person who said the yeh sab friends are discussing poison, he is the speaker in that conversation. KK does not identify any other speaker?]
KK: 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: OK, well he told Tamal he was not poisoned because he was the main suspect.]
KK: Correct Translation: 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” Thus the correct translation, both from the literal meanings of the words used, and from the context of the discussion is - ‘That same discussion’. 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: The same discussion, right, the poison clique are whispering about poisoning him, he mentioned this previously to the kaviraja that someone told him he was being poisoned, so he refers to "this same discussion." This confirms that he was saying he was being poisoned and he heard someone, the "ye sab friends" talking about it, and he did, we had the whispers enhanced, the ye sab friends were discussing poisoning him. He refers to their discussion about poisoning him.]
KK: 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: Correct, he said that the friends are discussing poisoning him, and they are.]
KK: 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.
[PADA: No in the previous discussion he says his friends are discussing poison, and he heard them discussing? He also says he has the symptoms, that confirms what he heard.]
KK: In other words: Srila Prabhupada is asked a question - ‘what was that all about, mental distress’?
Srila Prabhupada answers initially - ‘that same discussion’. He then clarifies which discussion he is referring to by adding - ‘that someone has poisoned me’.
[PADA: Correct, so if he was not thinking he was being poisoned by someone, the mental distress has no basis. The mental distress is because he believes he is being intentionally poisoned.]
KK: Conclusion Thus this exchange does not yield any evidence from Srila Prabhupada agreeing that he had been poisoned.
[PADA: So he was feeling mental distress for no reason, he was hallucinating a cause for distress?]
KK: He merely confirms that the previous discussions, which themselves do not yield this evidence either, were the cause of his ‘mental distress’. (We put the phrase ‘mental distress’ in inverted commas, because the term was not used by Srila Prabhupada himself). To conclude anymore than this – such as the fact that Srila Prabhupada had ‘mental distress’ proves that he must have thought he was poisoned – is speculation of the highest order since it involves trying to directly understand the mind of the Acharya. We may have grounds to investigate further, but that is all – we do not have any evidence that Srila Prabhupada agreed he was being poisoned.
[PADA: So Srila Prabhupada was feeling mental distress from someone poisoning him, for no apparent reason, he was in illusion, this is what the bogus GBC is basically saying.]
KK: Further Evidence: One final nail in the coffin of the idea that Srila Prabhupada is himself revealing that he is being poisoned is found in the following.
[PADA: Srila Prabhupada is saying he heard them talking about poison, he is in distress from someone giving him poison, he has the symptoms, and this is the "nail in the coffin" which proves -- he was in illusion because -- he was not being poisoned?]
KK: After the last exchange Adri Dharan das, who was present at the discussion, asked the Kaviraja, whom Srila Prabhupada was supposedly revealing all this to, what Srila Prabhupada had been referring to when he spoke of poison.
[PADA: Adridhara dasa told me in 1997 that everyone in the room was upset because they all agreed that Srila Prabhupada was thinking he was being poisoned intentionally. He was there.]
KK: Even though in the previous conversation the Kaviraja immediately jumps to the conclusion that Srila Prabhupada was speaking of some malicious poisoning, he later reveals to Adri Dharan that Srila Prabhupada was actually only referring to the effects of poison having been administered via bad medicine.
This testimony would be consistent with a conversation that was held just 12 days before the above exchanges. In this Bhakti Caru Swami gives the following diagnosis from the doctors: Bhakti-caru: Pressure is good. When Dr. Ghosh came, that other Dr. Ghosh came… (Hindi) …pressure, 180 and 80. (Hindi) He’s saying that in this condition, Prabhupada can’t take makara-dhvaja. That any medicine that contains mercury and arsenic is poison to him. (Room Conversation, 28/10/77)
[PADA: That is not what Srila Prabhupada was saying, that he thought there was a mistake in the medicine, if so he would have asked for a change in the medicine, he was having distress because he thought he was being poisoned on purpose, not by accident. The ye sab friends are talking about poison, not medicine.]
KK: It seems from this that: Srila Prabhupada had been taking arsenic, either via the Makara-dhvaja or other medicine; and that the doctors stated this arsenic administered via medicine was acting as poison. This may explain why 12 days later Srila Prabhupada reported how a 3rd party had noticed that Srila Prabhupada was showing the symptoms of someone who had been poisoned.
[PADA: Except one of the kavirajas said he was convinced Prabhupada was being poisoned and he was afraid to say so at the time, because they would kill him or his family members. "Someone" is also not medicine, Srila Prabhupada says someone is giving me poison, not that the medicine is. The ye sab friends discussed poison, not medicine.]
KK: However without further solid evidence we cannot reach a conclusion, and therefore we would strongly urge the investigators to translate the Hindi conversations in the above conversation, to see if they provide extra clarification. Other Poison Myths.
[PADA: Where did Srila Prabhupada say he is having distress due to myths and theories? This is an insult to say Srila Prabhupada was in distress over nothing at all, a myth, a theory, etc.]
KK: Also from the above analysis of Srila Prabhupada’s actual words, we have disproved two other notions that have been erroneously propagated. That Srila Prabhupada was hesitant to reveal the truth because he was afraid of his disciples, or that he only revealed the truth in Hindi or Bengali. Analysis of the exchanges has shown that:
[PADA: Why does he not reveal who the ye sab friends are? KK has no explanation.]
KK: Srila Prabhupada states the same points in English to Tamal Krishna, as he does in Hindi to the Kaviraja.
[PADA: Tamal is the main suspect? Why would he reveal direct to Tamal?]
KK: Srila Prabhupada also spoke everything to the Kaviraja always in the presence of Bhakti Caru Swami, who could understand every word spoken in Hindi and Bengali, and who has now admitted that any poison could only have been adminstered via him, since all food and drink passed through his hands only. And Bhakti Caru Swami could easily have revealed every word Srila Prabhupada spoke to the Kaviraja, to Tamal Krishna in any case.
[PADA: Bhakti Caru was outside the room crying saying that Srila Prabhupada was saying he was being poisoned by someone (intentionally).]
KK: It is very significant to note that yet again we have a mis-leading transcript. In the book ‘Someone Has Poisoned Me’, Tamala is actually shown as saying ‘That’s why actually we cannot allow anyone to cook for you’ -i.e. the word ‘else’ is missing. By leaving out the word ‘else’, the book ‘someone has poisoned me’ has completely changed the true meaning – which is that only others outside of the disciples who were already cooking for Srila Prabhupada should be prevented from cooking for Srila Prabhupada - to everyone should be prevented from cooking for Srila Prabhupada. Anyone who listens to the tape in question will clearly hear the word ’else’ being spoken by Tamala Krishna Maharaja, and indeed “anybody else” is the transcript given by the Bhaktivedanta Archives on the Srila Prabhupada Veda Base (folio).
[PADA: The discussions were also about broken glass being fed to gurus to kill them, the GBC was discussing that, and they admit to that on the tape. Why are they discussing killing gurus with toxic materials, at all?]
KK: Other Evidence: As stated at the outset of this paper, Srila Prabhupada’s words have currently been used as the main evidence to push the poisoning theory. Other evidence such as the presence of arsenic in Srila Prabhupada’s hair, witnesses etc., has been mooted, but not yet produced. Until it is we have no actual evidence on which to comment. The so called ‘whispers’ can only be used as supporting evidence once poisoning has itself been proven.
[PADA: Wrong, there are many cases where circumstantial evidence proves a crime. The FBI in Gainseville heard the whispers and said this would be a homicide case if it happened in the USA.]
KK: 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).
[PADA: But KK has done no forensic tests on anything, he told me that if I can convince a chicken eating judge then he will accept that too, because he only accepts the authority of the chicken eating judges. I do not.]
KK: Final Conclusion On the currently available evidence:
Srila Prabhupada never himself confirmed that he was being poisoned. Srila Prabhupada only stated that ’someone else’ had stated that he was showing the symptoms of someone who had been poisoned.
Therefore, there is no evidence from the infallible source of the acarya that he was being deliberately poisoned. Thus the answer to the title of this paper has to be ‘no’.
[PADA: We played the poison tapes to some Brijabasis and they immediately starting crying buckets of tears saying that Srila Prabhupada is saying he is poisoned, the problem with KK is that he has no bhakti for the pure devotee. That is why others understand in one second, he cannot understand ever. ys pd]
Nice try for a cover-up. We have to give him that. But, only foolish blind followers would buy such a gimmick. The truth of a well orchestrated crime, however, will always remain hidden within the circle of the perpetrators, for, the interests at stake, are by far more relevant than the simple admission of it. May Srila Prabhupada be merciful to all of us, regardless of our particular shortcomings in the struggle to serve his mission. My humble obeisances to all. Hare Krsna!
ReplyDelete