Bhakti Caru Swami: Implicated in Srila Prabhupada's poisoning?

Bhakti Charu Swami: 

http://www.bhakticharuswami.com/

Implicated in Srila Prabhupada's poisoning?

BHAKTI-CHARU.pdf

BHAKTI-CHARU.docx

BHAKTI-CHARU.html

Bhakticharu Swami is a prime suspect in Srila Prabhupada’s poisoning: he was there when it happened, and he is often contradicting his own recorded statements from 1977. That constitutes lying. Why is he lying? Thus he brings great suspicion upon himself. Bhakticharu has implicated himself in the poisoning by his dishonest, tricky statements. Any intelligent person can see he has something to hide.

Why was it in 1977 that he took seriously Srila Prabhupada’s talking of being poisoned, but did nothing about it, and now, decades later, he pretends that in 1977 he did not take Srila Prabhupada seriously? And in 2001 say it was alarming to think the food he was giving Srila Prabhupada was poisoned? Too many contradictions… Flip-flopping stories. Any crime investigator would zero in on Bhakticharu as top priority for intense interrogations.

[PADA: Krishna Kanta's IRM is doing basically the same cover up work. Adridharana told me around 1997 that he was "very alarmed" at the poison complaint, which he claims to have eye-witnessed in 1977. Later on, Adridharana denied he even told me there was an "alarming" poison complaint. Then Krishna Kanta's IRM wrote a big piece on his web site, attacking PADA, saying that there was never anything to be alarmed about, and Adridharana had never said he was alarmed. Notice that Adridharana had covered up the issue for 20 years already by 1997! 

OK. They lied. 

However it is without doubt that even according to Adridharana, he KNEW about the poison complaint in 1977 -- and he covered it up. And he did not expose this issue to the authorities, or to the rank and file devotees, or to anyone else we know of. And then Adri latched onto the IRM, and he wanted to help Krishna Kanta Desai bury the issue altogether.    

Of course later on the IRM was joined by the Sanat / Mukunda / Prahlad (Paul Coats UK?) / Dayalu Nitai's HKC Jaipur team etc. -- repeating verbatim Tamal's camp by saying that PADA is "a crazy man" -- just as soon as we introduced the poison issue. Prahlad even wrote to tell me he is going to send the photos of us Prabhupadanugas to the GBC goondas to get us killed. OK wait a minute, that is what these poisoner / molester messiah goonda's folks have said to us all along? And they think eventually, we will be impressed? 

Sorry! Many people do not believe this is "PADA's crazy issue" anymore?   
And then some of these same UK folks posted their own video of Radhanath's biggest cheer leader and defender -- Bhakta das. And worse they cited a big chunk of Bhavananda's chief bucket boy -- Hari Sauri -- and his writings to "prove" we are crazy. Hee hee! Hari Sauri is an ardent defender of those implicated in the poison issue. Why are they citing these devious people as their authority? Sulochana explains this best, birds of a feather -- flop together.  

And as Sulochana ALSO says, a lot of these various Tamal boot licking people have always had sympathy for Judas from the get go. Anyway! All of this is clearly an attempt to sweep their crimes under the carpet, and keep the criminals in charge of the ISKCON society. 

Same basic group also said: we are wrong to object to a mass child molesting agenda, which is also essentially "nothing to be alarmed about." Yep, lets cover up the poison issue, book changing issue, molesting issue, and then things will be a wonderful Vaikuntha hunky dory atmosphere! OK maybe not? Anyway! All sorts of people have come out of the woodwork over the years to hide these crimes, and thus defend the poisoners, molesters and books changers, and a number of them still are trying to aid and abet this agenda. 

Of course even Narayana Maharaja was infuriated when we brought out the poison issue, because we had offended his "dear Tamal tree of Radharani, Tamal Krishna Goswami." So there are always aggressive and arrogant guys like King Kamsa, and his helpful handmaidens of other bogus friends, boot lickers, pompous foolish Kings, puffed up princes, bucket boys and assistants. And these ilk of people in our society tried to cover up the poison issue, and all these other bogus issues. 

The good news? These people are more and more failing to convince others, and their crimes are being exposed more and more all the time, and more people are accepting our version of the evidence as valid. 

Bhakti Charu swami does however deserve a lot of credit for one thing at least. He was crying outside Srila Prabhupada's room, saying he was upset that Srila Prabhupada had complained he was being poisoned. One person who witnessed that event decided to get me the poison tapes, we were the first to publish them publicly, and that is how this big giant ball of history review all started rolling along ....] 

CHAPTER 73:

BHAKTI CHARU SWAMI

INTRODUCTION

"One day an unusual, young Bengali man came to Mayapur. Named Kishore Bhattacharya, he was a Vaishnava from birth and obviously intelligent. He spoke impeccable English and was also fluent in German because he was a [chemistry] student in a German university. With simply a little coaxing, he surrendered to Srila Prabhupada and quickly got initiated, receiving the name Ksira-cora-gopinatha dasa. On several occasions he kindly translated conversations between Pisima and me. Months later, Srila Prabhupada awarded this cultured young man sannyasa, changing his name to Bhakticharu Swami.” (Mahamaya dasi, Prabhupada Is Coming!)

BHAKTICHARU WAS VERY CLOSE TO TAMAL AND BHAVANANDA

Bhakti Charu: Just the sight of Tamal Krsna Maharaja filled me with awe and reverence. He had been my hero even before I had met him. From the time he joined ISKCON in early 1977, Bhakti charu was closely associated with Tamal and Bhavananda, who were both major influences on him. His first years in ISKCON were under the direct tutelage of both Tamal and Bhavananda. 

He took over Bhavananda’s room in the Lotus Building after Bhavananda left in 1987. He would sometimes visit with Tamal in Dallas. During Srila Prabhupada’s last nine months, Tamal was Srila Prabhupada’s personal secretary, and Bhakti charu was Tamal’s assistant for the last eight months, always present by bringing meals, drinks, medicines, and so on. Bhakti charu translated the Bengali and Hindi conversations of the day for Tamal, and acted as a nurse, caretaker, servant.

So, knowing the nature of Tamal and Bhavananda, we would begin to wonder why would Bhakticharu maintain lifelong friendship these kinds of people? Birds of a feather flock together … ???

Bhakti charu Swami was trained and nurtured by Tamal as a little brother, as a protégé, as a confidant and assistant. There is no doubt Tamal had Bhakti charu, a fresh new recruit, completely in his control and had an overwhelming influence on him. 

From Bhakticharu’s 2016 book Ocean Of Mercy, pgs. 89, 101, 126, and 153:
“One morning I saw a bright-looking personality walking with Bhavananda Maharaja. There was something striking about this devotee; I just could not keep my eyes off him. Tirthapada, who was standing next to me, said that it was Tamal Krsna Goswami. ‘He is one of the most prominent leaders of our movement.’ I had heard about Tamal Krsna Maharaja; he was a hero of ISKCON. 

He had joined in San Francisco when the movement was in its infancy and almost right away assumed a leadership role. Since then, Srila Prabhupada had called on him to lead his most important projects… Just the sight of Tamal Krsna Maharaja filled me with awe and reverence. I offered my obeisances from a distance. In the afternoon, when I was with Srila Prabhupada in his room, Maharaja walked in, and Prabhupada’s face lit up with a bright smile. Right away, they began to talk intimately.”

Bhakti Charu to Tamal: I still held him in great reverence. ‘You are so brilliant’, I said, whatever you do is so perfect.“It was quite an experience to be so close to [TKG]. Although we were sharing a room, I still held him in great reverence. In fact, he commanded this kind of respect from practically everyone in ISKCON. I would bow down to him, and he would embrace me. 

He had been my hero even before I had met him, and his closeness was like a dream - one that I had never imagined would come true… Rooming with Maharaja was one of my most memorable experiences. He always treated me lovingly. In his presence I was constantly learning new and important things. Bhavananda commented with a smile, ‘You are fortunate. Tamal is known for his temper. That’s why he is called Hot Tamale. Anyway, I can see that he has accepted you as 'his man' … you are one of those fortunate souls who has won his favor.”

“…but [Tamal Krishna] Maharaja insisted that I stay with him, and I was delighted… to follow his wish.” 

“Tamal Krsna Maharaja asked Srila Prabhupada many questions - some about management and some on spiritual topics. I was amazed at how he would ask them, and I didn’t think I would ever be able to question Prabhupada in such a manner. One day I was sitting in Maharaja’s office chanting while he was editing letters that he’d typed on Prabhupada’s behalf. When he finished, he looked up and saw that I had been watching him, and he just smiled. I was already feeling deep appreciation for him, and when he smiled at me I couldn’t contain myself. 

‘You are so brilliant,’ I said. ‘Whatever you do is so perfect.’”

Bhakti charu and Tamal were together in all things. Bhakti charu is Tamal’s “made man.” When Tamal passed away in Mayapura in 2002, and as was witnessed by many devotees including Prahladananda Swami, Bhakti charu Swami was sobbing and cried again and again, “It’s all over now… It’s all over now.”

[PADA: Hee hee, yes we were also crying, tears of joy. The founder father of the molester messiah's project has departed. Now he will go where the molester messiah's program leaders will go ... hee hee!]

When Srila Prabhupada returned to Bombay from London, Tamal immediately called for Bhakti charu to come from Vrindaban to help him as one of the “trusted caretakers.” Tamal wanted those to help him that he trusted, and that was Bhakti charu. Since we have found Tamal guilty of poisoning Srila Prabhupada beyond a reasonable doubt, it is incriminating for Bhakti charu that he was recalled by Tamal on October 3, ’77.

ONE: SARVABHAVANA CONFIRMS BHAKTI CHARU SPOKE OF THE POISONING.

In 1970 Bhakti charu was a student at a university in Hamburg, Germany, studying chemistry. One of his Indian friends at this Hamburg university joined the movement before he did and was initiated as Sarvabhavana das.

Bhakti charu went to the ISKCON Hamburg temple for some time. Years later Bhakticharu joined at Mayapur at the invitation of Sarvabhavana das, and they have been close friends through the years. In 2002 Sarvabhavana das was privately recorded by Sakshi Gopal das stating the following:

"He’s been telling me for the last 24 years that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned. He even told me he suspected Srila Prabhupada was being poisoned before he left this world. Now he is denying. What is my gain or loss to say this? Bhakticharu Maharaja may remember that I introduced him to Krishna Consciousness and to the lotus feet of Srila Prabhupada. Why is he saying lies? Why is he denying like this?"

This is the first person claiming that Bhakti charu Swami knew about Srila Prabhupada being poisoned. Whether Sarvabhavana das will confirm this again is dubious, as he has much at stake with definite repercussions from ISKCON leadership if he were to publicly make such a statement. But this is what he reluctantly told a former member of the private investigation committee in India around 2003.

[PADA: Bhakti Caru was crying outside of Srila Prabhupada's room, saying Srila Prabhupada complained of being poisoned. He knew for sure there was some sort of problem with this issue all along.]

TWO: BHAKTI CHARU SWAMI TOLD PURI MAHARAJA SR THAT HE KNEW?

In 2003 an ISKCON devotee from Holland reported that a close friend, initiated by the elder Puri Maharaja, had been told by the new head of that matha (organization) that some years earlier Bhakti charu Swami had approached Puri Maharaja confidentially. Supposedly Bhakti charu Swami sought counsel in distress - he knew of Srila Prabhupada’s poisoning and was unsure of what to do, now that it had become a public issue. 

This report is unsubstantiated and is technically “hearsay,” just a rumor. However, we find there is so much hearsay or indirect evidence that it all adds up to a lot of smoke, and where there’s smoke, there’s often fire, so further verification and investigation is warranted.

THREE: IN 1977 & 2001 BHAKTICHARU SWAMI ADMITS

SRILA PRABHUPADA SPOKE OF POISONING,

BUT IN 2000 BHAKTICHARU SWAMI DECLARES POISONING ALLEGATIONS TO BE "ABSURD."

Then, from Bhakti charu himself, a statement was made in Europe around 2001: “It’s just natural when you get such shocking complaints from Srila Prabhupada, who is very dear to you and he just happened to be the person you thought you were serving lovingly, then suddenly, the food you gave him might have been poisoned!” 

Here Bhakti charu Swami is acknowledging his understanding in 1977 that Srila Prabhupada was speaking to him about being poisoned, and he thought it would be through the very food that he was giving to Srila Prabhupada. He did not say it was due to bad medicine as he and the ISKCON leaders now claim.

Also, on Nov.10, 1977, when Srila Prabhupada again said that someone had poisoned him, Bhakti charu exclaimed aloud to the others in the small room: “Someone gave him poison here!” And when Tamal asked him, “Prabhupada was thinking that someone had poisoned him?” and Bhakti charu replied, “Yes.”

[PADA: Evidently, everyone in the room agreed that Srila Prabhupada was complaining of being poisoned.]

However, in 2000 Bhakticharu had decided much differently about Srila Prabhupada’s 1977 statements.“When I first heard about this allegation (poisoning) I considered it to be so absurd that I did not think it deserved any response. I could not even imagine that anyone with a rational mind would give any credence to such an allegation.” 

Would Srila Prabhupada’s 1977 allegations of poisoning be also considered absurd by Bhakticharu Swami?

Also in 1999, Bhakti charu Swami told Nityananda das that he did not take Srila Prabhupada’s statements about poisoning seriously because he though those who were poisoned turned blue…!

RECAP: 1977: poisoning acknowledged. 1999: did not take Srila Prabhupada seriously as he did not turn blue. 2000:poisoning idea is absurd. 2001: the food he gave to Srila Prabhupada may have been poisoned.

COMMENTS ON BHAKTI CHARU ONLINE STATEMENT OCTOBER 4, 1999
Below we will comment piece by piece the statement made in the GBC denial, cover-up book (2000):

“Recently one of our god-brothers, Nityananda das, wrote a book, “Someone has Poisoned Me” and alleged that the cause of Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance from this planet is arsenic poisoning, and the ones who were serving His Divine Grace at that time administered him that poison. Since I was one of Srila Prabhupada’s personal servants at that time, taking care of his food and medicines, according to that book, I am naturally a suspect.

COMMENT: Now, years later, we know that the primary poison administered was actually cadmium, and that the arsenic was somehow secondary. The cadmium levels are extremely high, much more so than the arsenic. We see that right at the start of his statement that he is more concerned about the supposed accusations against the senior men, of which he is one, than he is about whether Srila Prabhupada was really poisoned, or what Srila Prabhupada meant when he himself several times spoke of being poisoned. 

And, yes, anyone with half a head would naturally suspect those who were serving Srila Prabhupada. Or should we start by looking in the Himalayas or Africa first? Obviously the servants had a strong motive as they stood to inherit the society and guru-hood as soon as Srila Prabhupada departed. Further, it is not a book that threw suspicions upon Srila Prabhupada’s servants, it was the evidence that was contained in the book.

“When I first heard about this allegation I considered it to be so absurd that I did not think it deserved any response. I could not even imagine that anyone with a rational mind would give any credence to such an allegation. However, yesterday I received a com message from Hari Sauri, one of Srila Prabhupada’s personal servants and the author of "The Transcendental Diary," saying, "The (poison) issue must be dealt with directly… That must include direct statements from yourself (Tamal Krsna Goswami), Bhakti Caru, Bhavananda, Jayapataka et al. When the persons that were there present their experiences collectively it makes a very powerful statement. I want to repeat, it MUST be done. Therefore, I felt somewhat compelled to write this statement."

COMMENT: But in 1977 no one thought the issue that Srila Prabhupada himself had raised about how he thought he was being poisoned was absurd. Why in 2000 does Bhakti charu think it has become absurd? Why did Tamal ask Srila Prabhupada, “So who is it that has poisoned?” rather than saying, “Srila Prabhupada, you are being absurd with these statements of being poisoned!” 

Bhakti charu asked in 1977 with these words: “Who said, Srila Prabhupada?” He did not think the matter absurd then. How is it that Bhakti charu cried out on tape on Nov. 11, 1977, “Someone has poisoned him!” and then became silent until Hari-Sauri’s call-to-action 23 years later? 

[PADA: Hari Sauri is another one of Bhavananda's bucket boys, and he and others we living like Saudi Princes, eating huge feasts, while the school children were complaining they were being fed rotten oatmeal. He is simply another person who exploits others to benefit himself. He went along with the molester messiahs program because they gave him a piece of the ill-gotten Judas gold, that's all.] 

Does he deny that he confessed his concerns about Srila Prabhupada’s poisoning to Sarvabhavana Prabhu?

"Just in case you do not know me and wondering why Hari Sauri is asking me to address this issue, I will give a brief introduction about myself - I am one of the last disciples of Srila Prabhupada. I met His Divine Grace in Jan. ‘77. In March, in Mayapur, he gave me first and second initiations. He personally appointed me as his secretary for Indian affairs. […] in May, he gave me sannyas […] I had the good fortune to serve His Divine Grace’s transcendental body until his disappearance pastime from this planet.

“From Srila Prabhupada we learnt that a Vaishnava does not defend himself. Therefore I will not try to defend myself, however it is my solemn duty to defend those who are innocent, with my honest testimony. The author is accusing TKG as the main suspect. […] how well Nityananda dasa knows TKG and how closely he associated with him, but I had the opportunity to associate with him very closely and lived with him for about 7 months. During those days I saw what a deep love and respect he had for Srila Prabhupada, and I also saw what a deep confidence His Divine Grace had in him.

COMMENT: Rather than discussing the value of Srila Prabhupada’s statements about being poisoned, where the heavy metals came from that were in Srila Prabhupada’s hair, or the whispers about poisoning while he is feeding Srila Prabhupada milk, and which have been forensically verified by numerous forensic analysts to be about homicidal poisoning, Bhakti charu tries to divert us to an emotional appeal about how Tamal loved Srila Prabhupada. 

[PADA: Tamal loved Srila Prabhupada, therefore, he placed conditioned souls and deviants onto Srila Prabhupada's Vyasa seat and declared they are God's messiah successors?]

When Bhakti charu heard the kaviraja in late 1977 say, “Some demon has given him poison,” did he protest?, “No, this is impossible because everyone loves Srila Prabhupada”? Also there are questions about the “deep love” for Srila Prabhupada: “ati bhakti corera lakshana:” (CC Madhya: 17.15) Too much devotion is the sign of a thief. 

As far as defending oneself, we see that Tamal had organized many devotees to defend himself so he wouldn’t need to.

BCS: “Tamal has a very heavy side but one should not judge him only from that point of view. He has a very soft side as well. Anyone who knows him knows well how aggressive and demanding he can be and to live with him was not always easy for me. Yet I have seen his other side also and I have many sweet memories of my days with him. I have received elder brotherly affection from him that created a deep bond between us. Although we experienced our differences, our relationship remained intact. I have seen many a times some devotees carry an inaccurate image of other devotees that obscure their perception.”

COMMENT: Bhakti charu thinks that the evidence that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned should be analyzed and evaluated starting with a discussion about how Tamal was really a very devoted disciple? Naturally Bhakti charu wants to defend Tamal, because if Tamal is guilty, then the assistant is likely also guilty. As said in Judge For Yourself: “a seven month time-span for the 'elder brother' to mentally exert, psychologically subjugate, plan, execute, justify, and brainwash his subordinate sibling with promises of a higher life and eventual guru-dom.” 

Bhakti charu became an ISKCON initiating guru in 1987 as the eighth addition to the original eleven GBC-guru power elite after he had been a devotee only for 10 years. Many believe that he had been promised this position early on by his mentor Tamal. It is no wonder that he goes on record defending the big brothers who brought him into such an exalted, prestigious club. 

In his essay “Spiritual Connections” Bhakti charu confesses: “Tamal Krishna Maharaja was one of my most prominent spiritual connections to Srila Prabhupada. Under his guidance I served His Divine Grace during his final pastimes.” What this tells us is that he was simply following Tamal’s instructions. Also how “very heavy, demanding, and aggressive” was Tamal? Enough to be a poisoner behind the façade of “deep love”?

“It is quite interesting to note that although Nityananda das wrote one whole book based on some whispers and an incorrect and dubious analysis of some hairs, he was nowhere near Srila Prabhupada in those days in Vrindavan. If he was, he would have seen how absurd his suspicion and accusation is.

COMMENT: At least Nityananda das is eliminated as a suspect since he was not there in those last months. The belittling of the evidence as “some whispers” and a "dubious analysis of some hairs" at least admits more than Bir Krishna Swami did in Slovenia, saying, “There’s no evidence that Prabhupada was poisoned.” Actually the evidence is very substantial, if anyone has the time to actually look at it.

If he was present then he would have seen, what to speak of poisoning Srila Prabhupada, the devotees around Srila Prabhupada were praying to Krishna to let Srila Prabhupada stay on this planet in exchange of their lives. It is extremely unfortunate that Nityananda das is so obsessed with some whispers, but he is not listening to the exchanges that are so loud and clear. If he was present there…

COMMENT: “praying to Krishna to let Srila Prabhupada stay on the planet in exchange of their lives.” Yes, and Srila Prabhupada also said at that time the exact opposite: “You are all here praying for me to live and ‘they’ are in the next room praying for me to die.” (spoken to Panchadravida, Upendra, and Srutakirti, all as separate confirmations).

[PADA: Prithu said that Srila Prabhupada told him, "Everyone is praying for me to live, but Hansadutta is praying for me to die so he can sit in my seat." Certainly Srila Prabhupada was well aware of the ambitions of his "top men."]  

…then he would have seen that just a couple of days before Srila Prabhupada left this planet he told his very intimate God-brother, Srila Krsnadasa Babaji Maharaja, with tears rolling down from his eyes, “See, how much they love me"! 

If he (Nityananda das) was attending Srila Prabhupada in the early hours in Vrindavan, he would have heard Srila Prabhupada as soon as his Divine Grace woke up, “Where is Tamal? Ask him to come to me.” And then he would have seen a very sweet loving exchange between them. Srila Prabhupada talking to him about the affairs of the movement, his various concerns about the future of this movement and what should be done to protect this movement.

COMMENT: The first thing Bhakti charu should have done to protect Srila Prabhupada and the movement was to call the police after Srila Prabhupada told him he was being poisoned. Where was Tamal’s “deep love” then? Does “See how much they love me” change the fact Srila Prabhupada said “Someone has poisoned me”?

“If Nityananda das was present there then he would have also seen that there were hundreds of devotees whose hearts were so full with their love for Srila Prabhupada that they were prepared to do anything for him. There were personalities like Gurukripa, who used to attend Srila Prabhupada everyday from 12 midnight to 2 in the morning. If Srila Prabhupada really suspected that someone had poisoned him, then all he had to do is just tell Gurukripa. Anyone who knows Gurukripa knows what would have happened then. And it is not only Gurukripa, Srila Prabhupada had to just tell any one of the few hundred devotees that were there and one can only imagine what the reaction would have been like.

COMMENT: All the evidence is dismissed because Srila Prabhupada was pleased with his loving disciples? Nityananda das, along with most of the rest of the devotees at that time, was not told about Srila Prabhupada’s request that all his disciples come to see him. This was due to concealment of the Acharya’s wishes by top men including Tamal and Hari Sauri. Besides, there is no doubt Srila Prabhupada was surrounded by loving disciples, but does that mean a poisoning could not take place? 

Or that amongst all those loving disciples there could not be someone who was a poisoner? Whoever did it, that comes second to understanding that the crime actually occurred, a crime now proven beyond doubt, and a crime that was not prevented by all the loving disciples being present. Also, why does Bhakti charu mention what Gurukripa would do if Srila Prabhupada told him he was being poisoned, something that Srila Prabhupada told Bhakti charu, Tamal, Bhavananda, and others, all of whom did nothing?

[PADA: If there was love for Srila Prabhupada by Bhakti Charu and others, why did they go along with the coronation of conditioned souls as Srila Prabhupada's guru successors?]

“Those who are suspecting that Srila Prabhupada has been poisoned by some of his disciples, I will request them to go deep within their hearts and ask whether it is at all possible for a Vaishnava, who does not even kill an ant, to murder his spiritual master. One evening I was with Tamal in our room. A mosquito was sucking his blood sitting on his leg. It had become quite… [Suddenly] Tamal aware of that mosquito. His hand rose in a natural reflex to strike that little creature, but stopped all of a sudden, then it came down slowly and flicked the mosquito away from his leg. The person who would not even kill the mosquito that was sucking his blood, how can anyone think that he gave poison to his spiritual master?

COMMENT: The issue is not about Tamal’s mosquito attitude; it is about the evidence presented in 700 pages of this book. Bhakti charu cannot answer that evidence, so he talks about mosquitoes instead!

[PADA: Many sadhus in India put on some sort of show of love and compassion, and they are having illicit affairs and who knows what else in the back room, what does this prove?]

"Srila Prabhupada went to Vrindavan in May from Hrisikesa to leave his body. Everyone present there was aware of that. The conspiracy to eliminate him was not the reality, rather the reality was intense prayer to Krishna not to let Srila Prabhupada go away from their midst. I personally learnt a wonderful lesson from this allegation. I must have developed some pride due to my good fortune in serving Srila Prabhupada those days. 

"Now Krishna, the destroyer of pride, is mercifully taking care of that. While I, due to my false ego, was feeling proud that I served Krsna’s pure devotee, the world is seeing me as the one who gave him poison. It is indeed Krishna’s causeless mercy. “I used to feel very impressed by one statement of Srila Prabodhananda Saraswati, a very intimate associate of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, ‘If the whole world glorifies me but Krishna does not recognize me, then what is the use of that glorification. If the whole world spits at me but Krishna recognizes me, then who cares about that spitting.’ 

"Very mercifully Krishna is giving me the opportunity to apply this wonderful instruction in my own life. This allegation is making me aware about the futility of mundane adoration and importance of Krishna’s recognition. No matter what the world thinks, Krishna knows everything. Therefore what is the use of worrying about my image in this world? After all, sitting in my heart Krishna knows about all that I think and do. The conditioned souls of this material world may make mistakes in their judgement, but Krishna will never make any mistake. I have taken shelter of Him and surrendered myself unto Him, now let Him decide what I deserve.

COMMENT: OK, let’s get out the wailing violins; the heartstrings are really being pulled here. From the evidence that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned with heavy metals, Bhakti charu only extracts a “let’s feel sorry for the good guys who are being unfairly accused” storyline. Only dummies fall for this. This is a favorite device of illogic used by deceivers: defend something which is not the subject at hand.

“To this world I will declare clear and loudly, ‘It is an absolutely absurd allegation that Srila Prabhupada has been poisoned by his disciples. If anyone intentionally poisoned Srila Prabhupada, then it must be me because those days I was the only one who used to give prasad and medicine to His Divine Grace. Whatever he ate and drank went through my hand.’ If someone wants to take me to the mundane court also, he can do so. There also I will give the same testimony, ‘It is an absolutely absurd allegation that Srila Prabhupada has been poisoned by his disciples. If anyone intentionally poisoned Srila Prabhupada, then it must be me because those days I was the only one who used to give prasad and medicine to His Divine Grace. Whatever he ate and drank went through my hand.’

COMMENT: Would it be absurd to determine that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned? The hair tests confirm that he was. Now who did it? A witch on a broom who rode in from the clouds? Well, by Bhakti charu’s logic and admission, it must be him. 

Srila Prabhupada was poisoned, so therefore he did it, by his own reasoning. Instead of looking at the evidence that Srila Prabhupada was indeed poisoned, Bhakti charu would rather approach the issue this way: Since Srila Prabhupada was surrounded by loving disciples, it is impossible that he could have been poisoned. Bhakti charu should not apply to enter detective school because his logic is not suited to solve anything. The hair tests show a definite malicious poisoning, so not all that surrounded Srila Prabhupada were totally full of love. 

The devious will always try to divert the discussion to emotional secondary issues such as how unfair it is to suspect those who loved Srila Prabhupada. Bhakti charu only states that he and his friends did not do it, but does not argue against the poisoning itself. Emotions aside, let us look at the poisoning evidence to understand that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned. Then we can ask who do it.

“Let the omniscient, omnipotent Supreme Personality of Godhead judge me. If I committed such a heinous crime towards the most dear devotee of the Lord, to whom I owe everything, including my very existence, then let me suffer eternally in the darkest region of the hell. If any of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples, whose heart is steeped with his love for Srila Prabhupada, wants to take the law in his hand and judge me, I will welcome that also. I give him full freedom to judge and do whatever he wants to do with me. I can assure him that I will accept that judgement without any protest. Waiting to receive your judgement and aspiring to remain a servant of the Vaishnavas. Bhakti Caru Swami.”

COMMENT: This is a bluff. Even though asked questions many times by our private investigators, he has not been forthcoming. These empty, blustery words are only a show to impress a few gullible people. He will not agree to polygraph or voice stress tests, interviews, questions, nothing. 

The whispers, the obstinate and slippery denials, the hair tests, the motive for the crime, the history of the insane zonal acaryas, the “mercy-killing” interview, the concealment, the character of some senior men, Srila Prabhupada’s own statements about being poisoned… this is what needs to be recognized as valid evidence which implicates Tamal, Jayapataka, Bhavananda, and Bhakti charu. 

For all of the false humility and denials, we come away with six key facts that will haunt Bhakti charu and company beyond their deaths: 

(1). Even after acknowledging that Srila Prabhupada had been poisoned, Bhakti charu never reported it to the authorities, or to the mass of devotees. 

(2). He backed Tamal in their secret meeting where it was decided, despite what Srila Prabhupada had said about being poisoned, that there was no poisoning. 

(3). He was part of the conspiracy to keep the Srila Prabhupada’s poisoning revelations secret until its discovery two decades later. 

(4). He still (on and off) denies that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned, even though he acknowledged that Srila Prabhupada said he was poisoned. 

(5). He has done nothing more than hide behind the GBC produced book (NTIAP) of which his worthless statement above is a part. 

(6). He has done nothing to assist an investigation or prove his innocence, and as a suspect, he paid to publish the GBC book which was a white-wash cover-up.

Bhakti charu Swami’s statement that ”If anyone intentionally poisoned Srila Prabhupada, then it must be me.” For many homicide detectives, they would consider that to be the start of a confession, at least opening the door for continued interrogation. We believe you. Now, tell us more…

BHAKTI CHARU SWAMI MAKES ANOTHER STATEMENT LATER

Some time later, Bhakti charu Swami made another statement, this time shifting from emotions to some new and weird reasons why he did not take Srila Prabhupada’s speaking of being poisoned seriously. This is the big problem- not taking Srila Prabhupada seriously (see Ch. 57).

“During Srila Prabhupada’s last days he mentioned about poison soon after Makaradhvaja was given to him. That was about three weeks before his disappearance pastimes. At that time, I felt that the effect of that medicine may have been detrimental to his condition and therefore he spoke in that way. The next time he spoke about poison was a few days before his disappearance.

COMMENT: We have already discussed in Ch. 18 that Srila Prabhupada was NOT referring to bad medicine when he spoke of being poisoned on Nov. 10-11, 1977. He had discontinued the makaradhvaja after perhaps three doses around October 27. 

For over 10 days there was no more talk of makharadhvaja, and then we are led to believe that the Nov 10-11 “poison discussions” (see Ch. 12) were about the makharadhvaja being bad medicine? Then why did Srila Prabhupada not mention the makharadhvaja or medicines when speaking of being poisoned? Thus Bhakti charu, above, diverts attention to bad medicine to mislead people with a totally deceitful hoax of an excuse.

Bhakti Charu: I was under the impression that when someone is given poison then his body becomes blue. At that time according to the instruction of the Kaviraja from Calcutta, I was just giving Srila Prabhupada milk diluted with water and sweetened with sugar candy. The Ayurvedic doctor was gradually increasing the quantity of milk. He informed us that the milk intake would cure Srila Prabhupada. 

"Personally I did not notice any unusual bodily symptoms in Srila Prabhupada. He used to lie on the bed all the time. Sometimes he used to express some discomfort from lying on his back all the time. Therefore, he used to ask us to turn him on his side. At that time his body had become so delicate that we had to help him to turn to his side very carefully. If we were not extremely careful he would feel pain. 

"Two or 3 days before his disappearance, His Divine Grace mentioned a pain in his left thigh and he also mentioned about poison again. The day he left his body sometime during late morning or early afternoon it seemed that the pain in his left thigh became so acute that he started to writhe. By that time he had stopped speaking. The last time he spoke was the night before, at about 12 o’clock, and he told the Ayurvedic doctor from Calcutta about some discomfort he was feeling. 

"When Prabhupada started writhing in pain, making some faint moaning sound, Bhavananda Maharaja, who was sitting on the bed next to him held him tightly and from that time onwards Srila Prabhupada became very still and practically did not move at all. From time to time he only opened his mouth and I poured some Yamuna water, which he drank with great relish. Although his body became totally still, yet his tongue was constantly vibrating. Srila Krishnadasa Babaji Maharaja, a god-brother of His Divine Grace, pointed out that Srila Prabhupada was chanting the holy name incessantly. Besides this, his body did not display any unusual symptoms.

Although His Divine Grace spoke about poison, I could not take it seriously for two reasons:

1. The Ayurvedic doctor was present, and as Prabhupada displayed quite a lot of confidence in him, I felt if Srila Prabhupada was really poisoned then this doctor would have detected it.

2. I was under the impression that when someone is given poison then his body becomes blue.

[PADA: What happens if the Kaviraja or Kavirajas decided Srila Prabhupada is being poisoned, and they did not want to speak up due to fear, they are next if they protest?]

COMMENT: OK, here we have more subterfuge and twisting of things as a clear act of deception. He could not take Srila Prabhupada’s speaking of being poisoned seriously because the doctor did not detect it? This means putting more faith in what the doctor missed than what Srila Prabhupada, the pure devotee who knows past, present, and future, is actually saying? 

This sounds like a really lame excuse. Further, in the actual conversations we find that the doctor / kaviraja DID believe Srila Prabhupada, and spoke of a rakshasa or demon who had poisoned Srila Prabhupada. Yet Bhakti charu seems to have forgotten all this? No, he has not forgotten, but he is counting on us to not read the 1977 conversations so he can say nonsense. 

[PADA: Right, who are the rakshasas poisoning Srila Prabhupada?]

Also, whoever the poisoners were, they had chosen cadmium, a highly undetectable poison, so it is rather strange for Bhakti charu to say because the doctor did not detect it, he was unconcerned (even after Srila Prabhupada himself had detected or ascertained his poisoning.) Does Bhakticharu think poisoning is so easily detected even by doctors? No, poisonings are very hard to detect. 

Bhakticharu’s idea about the body turning blue is something a 7 year old would believe, not the chemistry major from a German university that he is. Who could come up with such a daffy defense? Is he playing dumb with us? So because Srila Prabhupada did not turn blue, then Bhakti charu concluded that Srila Prabhupada’s statements about being poisoned are… what? Senility?

BCS: "However, at that time Srila Prabhupada’s body became very shiny, almost golden, and he did not display any sign of pain or unusual discomfort. Apart from his usual unhealthy condition, Srila Prabhupada was quite normal. All the time he used to quietly lie on the bed very calm and composed. Sometimes he used to give advice to the senior leaders about how to manage the society; form different trusts and what to do with the funds. His consciousness was so clear that it was obvious that he was transcendentally situated. Even though he was only a few days away from leaving his body, his voice was very strong and resonant. Those of us who were present around him at that time were convinced that he was a completely spiritual personality and he was just displaying his disappearance pastime."

COMMENT: Bhakti charu saw Srila Prabhupada as a completely spiritual personality who said someone was poisoning him, a statement he could not take seriously? So why did Srila Prabhupada say that? Bhakti charu makes no sense, and that’s how a liar is trapped, by his own contradictions. The more they talk the better, as they eventually tie themselves up in their own web of lies and contradictions. Also, what does “quite normal,” “apart from his usual unhealthy condition” mean? This is bewildering.

One day, after checking his pulse, the Ayurvedic doctor, Damodara Prasad Shastri, told Prabhupada that he was completely surprised while treating him. At one moment his pulse was so weak that it seemed as if he was about to leave his body, and the next moment it was strong and healthy as that of a young man. He also told Prabhupada that he was only displaying his pastimes. From another point of view, we also saw that he was having difficulties with his kidneys. 

As a result of that, his legs and the back of his palms were swelling up. When the medicine started to work the swelling went down. He obviously had some kidney problems and the doctors gave medicines accordingly.

[Also there] was a mistake on our part, yet we could not really do anything about it. One night […] in Hrsikesa, he told me that the time had come for him to leave his body and he wanted us to make arrangements to take him to Vrindavana. I ran downstairs and woke up Tamal […] When Tamal came to His Divine Grace he repeated the same words […]the following morning we took His Divine Grace to Vrindavana. […] after he settled down in his quarters, he told me not to cook for him anymore, or force him to eat anything. I felt [he] was preparing to leave his body […] without eating and drinking anything.

[…] many leaders came to Vrindavana. When they requested him, with tears in their eyes, to continue to stay, His Divine Grace agreed. Once again I started to cook for him and he started to eat. One day he asked me to fetch an Ayurvedic doctor called Vanamali Kaviraja from Gopinath Bazaar. As a result of the treatment by that doctor, Srila Prabhupada’s condition started to improve. However, when his health improved, His Divine Grace wanted to go to the West to preach. When Vanamali Kaviraja got to know […] he requested me not to let him go. 

He told me that his medicine was working and Srila Prabhupada’s condition was improving. He said Srila Prabhupada’s condition was not completely healthy yet. He was planning to give Srila Prabhupada Makaradhvaja, during winter, which would rejuvenate him completely. He mentioned that Srila Prabhupada’s condition was not strong enough to absorb Makaradhvaja because it was a very strong medicine. He planned to give it to him in winter, by that time Srila Prabhupada’s health would become strong enough to absorb it, and the cold weather would help.

I was just a new devotee at the time and when I saw that Srila Prabhupada was so determined to go to the West I could not really make a strong enough endeavor to stop him from going. However, in London his condition deteriorated so much that he had to come back after about a week-long stay. Vanamali Kaviraja resumed his treatment but Srila Prabhupada’s condition had deteriorated so much that his medicine did not work and he stopped the treatment. 

Vanamali Kaviraja did not want to give Makaradhvaja when Srila Prabhupada’s health was so much better before he went to the West. However, it was administered to him only about three weeks before his disappearance when his condition was much worse than that time. Also, it was administered by a doctor from Delhi who never even saw him. Soon after that Srila Prabhupada started to speak about poison. Therefore it seemed to me that he was speaking about the adverse effect of Makaradhvaja. 

After Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance I often used to lament internally – why didn’t I stop him from going to the West? Why I didn’t I tell the GBC members and senior devotees present in Vrindavana at that time what Vanamali Kaviraja told me? Why didn’t I stop them from giving Srila Prabhupada Makaradhvaja that was brought from Delhi and given by a doctor who did not even see him? Now I cannot do anything about it besides lamenting about my uselessness.” (END)

Comment: Again, Bhakti charu refers to the October makharadhvaja as the poison that Srila Prabhupada was speaking of. See Ch. 18. One who reads the conversations from Nov. 10-11 when Srila Prabhupada was speaking repeatedly about being poisoned, it is clear that he is NOT referring to any medicine. And we would think Bhakticharu, out of all others, would be most familiar with these talks since he was there! His long-winded, self-serving lamentation is but a dishonest defense, for what? What is it that he cannot be honest about? It is just so obvious that he is hiding something, that he will not speak truthfully. Also his historical event sequence is jumbled and inaccurate; Bhakti charu needs to refresh by reading the conversations. And as far as the Delhi kaviraja prescribing medicine without even seeing Srila Prabhupada, that is the least of it. The real concern should be that this medicine was personally arranged by the notorious Chandra Swami (Ch. 75).

SUMMARY ON BHAKTICHARU SWAMI’S ABOVE TESTIMONY

After 22+ years, finally Bhakticharu was compelled to make some statements regarding why he and other caretakers did NOTHING when Srila Prabhupada spoke repeatedly about being poisoned on Nov 10-11, 1977. Better late than never. Hopefully Maharaja will answer the many questions that will be put to him and others as this investigation proceeds, but we are not expecting he will. There are 7 points regarding this second statement from him:

(1). That Maharaja did not see any unusual health symptoms or that Srila Prabhupada did not turn blue, and therefore there was no poisoning, means nothing: heavy metal poisoning symptoms are practically unrecognizable even to trained doctors. Of course there were kidney problems: that is what heavy metals directly exacerbate. Maharaja should consult with his toxicologist disciple in New York.

(2). Srila Prabhupada said three times that he was being poisoned, and the kaviraja said that if Srila Prabhupada said it, there must be truth to it. Why did Maharaja not take it seriously?

(3). Srila Prabhupada’s voice was definitely not strong and resonant during his last months with us. Listen to the tapes, read the health history: it was hoarse, raspy, weak. These are signs of heavy metal poisoning.

(4). Why does he not mention anything of the sudden and drastic attack of illness Srila Prabhupada experienced in Hrishikesh, which was what made Srila Prabhupada think he was about to die?

(5). That Maharaja says he thinks Srila Prabhupada’s statements about being poisoned referred to the makharadhvaja is a dishonesty and a tired, old strategy to confuse his listeners.

(6). Contrary to Bhakticharu himself, the kaviraja took Srila Prabhupada’s statements that he was being poisoned very seriously, and said it must be true. Bhakticharu’s claims are contradictory.

(7). Rather than lamenting about giving makharadhvaja when maybe it wasn’t the best idea, Bhakticharu should lament about not taking (even today!) Srila Prabhupada’s statements seriously.

(8). That Srila Prabhupada appeared “quite normal” to Bhakticharu only means that the slow poisoning was chronic, not apparent. Did he ever wonder about all the different diagnoses from the parade of doctors, and why no medicine or care program seemed to be effective?

PHONE INTERVIEW WITH BHAKTICHARU SWAMI IN 1998

From Nityananda das: “In early 1998 Bhakti charu Swami made a statement on VNN.org that Srila Prabhupada could not have been poisoned because he did not turn blue. Yet when I interviewed him by phone in North Carolina in late 1998, he said that after Srila Prabhupada said he was poisoned, no one followed up on it, although he thinks the matter should have been looked into. This reveals three contradictory positions when compared to his other testimonies.

One, that Srila Prabhupada was not poisoned (even though he said he was being poisoned) because he did not turn blue.

Two, that when Srila Prabhupada said he was being poisoned, they should have looked into it.

Three, that everything was ok after all because Srila Prabhupada said, ‘Not that I am poisoned,’ even though the next day he again said he was being poisoned.
“Does it make any sense? Actually, when we study what Bhakticharu has said and done in relation to the poison issue, we find a necklace comprised of the jewels of suspicion, complicity, contradiction, dishonesty, and duplicity. This is all being noted down and organized for judgement day.”

INSINCERE ABOUT THE POISON ISSUE

Naveen Krishna das had resigned from the GBC body in March 2000 after seeing the GBC response to the poison issue in the form of their book "Not That I Am Poisoned." A few months later, Bhakti charu came alone to visit Naveen at his home in Alachua. The conversation followed these lines:

BCHARU: Why did you resign? Why don’t you come back? You have left very important services…
NAVEEN: I left because I lost all trust in the GBC. The book they produced on the poison issue is full of lies, fraud, deception, and my conscience won’t allow me to work in an organization that refuses to recognize the serious evidence that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned. You yourself admitted in 1977 that Srila Prabhupada thought he was poisoned.

BCHARU: Well, Srila Prabhupada thought some of the medicines were acting like poison.

NAVEEN: Maharaja, that explanation does not conform to the actual conversations involving yourself, Srila Prabhupada, Tamal, the last kaviraja, and others in late 1977. For example…

(From memory, Naveen listed many of the discussions in Srila Prabhupada’s last days and how all the participants, including Bhakticharu Swami, acknowledged that Srila Prabhupada thought he had been poisoned. Tamal asked Srila Prabhupada who had done it. These transcripts are in Part Two.)

NAVEEN: So, Maharaja, you and I both know that Srila Prabhupada thought he was being poisoned. The GBC has done a great wrong by neglecting to honestly investigate this issue and the new evidence.

BCHARU: Well, do you suggest that we should re-open the investigation?

NAVEEN: Yes, definitely. A number of senior devotees believe this also, and we are prepared to form an impartial commission for that purpose. Will you please agree to be on the commission?

BCHARU: We need people like Ambarisha, Sesa, yourself, and then I could be part of it.

NAVEEN: OK, you please think it over and be sure. Let me know in a few days so we can get started.

BCHARU: Yes, I’ll let you know soon.

Naveen never heard back from Bhakti charu Swami again. This proves Bhakti charu’s insincerity about the poison issue. He is inconsistent, sometimes saying there was a poisoning (1977), and then sometimes saying it is a ludicrous idea (2000). He makes dishonest statements like, “the medicine was the poison” and “I thought someone who is poisoned would turn blue.”

Bhakti charu Swami is thus a prime suspect in Srila Prabhupada’s poisoning: he was there when it happened, and he is contradicting his own recorded statements from 1977. That constitutes lying. Why is he lying? Thus he brings great suspicion upon himself. Bhakti charu has implicated himself in the poisoning by his dishonest, tricky statements. Any intelligent person can see he has something to hide.

Why was it in 1977 that he took seriously Srila Prabhupada’s talking of being poisoned, but did nothing about it, and now, decades later, he pretends that in 1977 he did not take Srila Prabhupada seriously? And in 2001 say it was alarming to think the food he was giving Srila Prabhupada was poisoned? Too many contradictions… Flip-flopping stories. Any crime investigator would zero in on Bhakticharu as top priority for intense interrogations.

ABHINANDA DAS REMEMBERS FROM 1977

Abhinanda das remembers that on the morning on November 15, 1977, in Vrindaban, while he was working hard by digging the Samadhi pit for Srila Prabhupada, that “Bhakticharu Swami came to him in a panicky mood, crying and weeping heavily,” and asked, “Where is the kaviraja? Where is he?.” Abhinanda immediately got a very bad feeling about what was taking place. Abhinanda’s claim is contained in a letter to Naveen Krishna das on Dec. 18, 1999, shown below, wherein he also discusses the investigative efforts at that time. In 2017 Abhinanda das again confirmed this account, and he was not sure why Bhakti charu was frantically looking for the kaviraja, who had already departed back to Calcutta.

AN OPEN ANONYMOUS LETTER TO BHAKICHARU WITH SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

In a recent letter dated July 23, ’03, you said: “I am not denying that Srila Prabhupada spoke about poison.” Maharaja, allow me to draw your attention to the actualities:- What Srila Prabhupada said was that he had heard “All these friends” discussing his poisoning. You were in the room. Not a single person there, not even you, refuted the allegation. To the contrary, we hear you say very distinctly, “Someone gave him poison here!” And then, when Tamal Krishna Swami asked you if Prabhupada was thinking that someone had poisoned him, you said “Yes.” Now you say you are “not denying that Srila Prabhupada spoke ABOUT poison?” He said he thought that someone had poisoned him, and you clearly understood the fact, yet now you say he simply spoke ABOUT poison.
Why are you blatantly mitigating documented evidence?

In that same letter (July 23), and in the same paragraph, you admit: “As a matter of fact, when we heard His Divine Grace speaking in that way, we became extremely worried”. So why did “WE” become extremely worried if Srila Prabhupada was simply speaking ABOUT poison? It does not make sense. Who are the WE you refer to? Are they the same “friends” in the room, whom His Divine Grace heard discussing his poisoning? If you (all) were extremely worried, as you say, why didn’t you alert the authorities or law enforcement to a possible homicide in progress, or after the fact? You, and who else?

You then attempt (in the same letter) to push forward the lie that Srila Prabhupada said “Not that I am poisoned” as a statement in itself, even after he had openly stated, and you, along with the others admitted, that he thought he was being poisoned.

(1). Bhakticharu: Someone gave him poison here!

(2). Tamal: Srila Prabhupada, Shastriji says that there must be some truth to it if you say that. So who is it that has poisoned? (No answer)

(3). Tamal: Prabhupada was thinking that someone had poisoned him. Bhakticharu: Yes.

(4). Bhakticharu: He said that when Srila Prabhupada was saying that [He was being poisoned] there must be some truth behind it.
Bhakti Charu to circumvent documented evidence by telling us that Srila Prabhupada said he was 'not poisoned'.In spite of the transcription above, you are now (25 years later) attempting to circumvent documented evidence by telling us that Srila Prabhupada said he was ‘not poisoned’. This is what you wrote in your letter:

“Tamal asked Srila Prabhupada about it and Srila Prabhupada replied, ‘NO. These kind of symptoms are seen when a man is poisoned. He said like that, not that I am poisoned.’”

By neglecting to include what Tamal said, you have excluded the fact that His Divine Grace was informed that he was poisoned. Here it is:

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

So this tells us that Tamal knew and admits to an informant and his question tells us that Srila Prabhupada raised the matter of his poisoning (on tape). How would he have known unless Srila Prahupada told him (and you?). Which prompts the question- if Srila Prabhupada raised the subject, why would he do so only to say that he was not poisoned? Again, it doesn’t make any sense? So now we will look at Srila Prabhupada’s answer, which you claim “relieved us.”
Prabhupada: No. These kind of symptoms are seen when a man is poisoned. He said like that, not that I am poisoned.

The above statement tells us Srila Prabhupada was informed he had the symptoms, but his informant had not said directly that he was poisoned. Nonetheless, His Divine Grace did believe he had been poisoned. This is how we read it, and this is how YOU, Tamal Krishna, the Kaviraja, and everyone in the room understood it. The proof is there for all to hear, and is attested to through the following statements made by Tamal, Damodara Prasad Shastri and YOURSELF. 

Here are the statements made AFTER the so called “not that I am poisoned” statement, which you claim (in your letter) “relieved us,” but proves that you are lying because, in fact, none of you were “relieved,” ergo you should have informed the authorities and not covered up a possible homicide in progress.
Prabhupada: No these kind of symptoms are seen when a man is poisoned. He said like that, not that I am poisoned.

Tamal: Did anyone tell you that or you know it from before (know what from before…that he was not poisoned?) Prabhupada: I read something (Read what…that he was NOT POISONED?)

Tamal: Ah, I see. That’s why actually we cannot allow anyone to cook for you. (Why would Tamal want to stop “anyone” from cooking for Srila Prabhupada, is it because he said he was NOT POISONED?)

Directly after Srila Prabhupada was supposed to have admitted (according to your letter) that he was not being poisoned, here’s what the kaviraja had to say:

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

(Why didn’t the kaviraja believe Srila Prabhupada when he said “Not that I am poisoned”?)

Kaviraja: (translated) If he says [he’s been poisoned] there must be some truth to it. There’s no doubt.

So if no one present at the time believed that Srila Prabhupada had said “Not that I am poisoned” as a statement in itself, how can you, Maharaja, ask us to believe you now? Just to jog your memory, we’ll throw in your “disbelief,” spoken AFTER the not that I am poisoned quote, that you say, gave you (all) relief:

Bhakti charu: He’s saying that someone gave him poison. (And you say you were ‘relieved’?)
Tamal: Prabhupada was thinking that someone had poisoned him?
Bhakti charu: Yes. Tamal: That was the mental distress?
Bhakti charu: Yes. (And you say you were relieved because he said that he was not poisoned?)

It becomes clear from your letter that you have some apprehension about what took place in 1977. You have written: “It is still a mystery to me why Srila Prabhuapda spoke that way.” We are offering you a chance to solve the mystery and exonerate yourself in the process. If it is a mystery to which you are an innocent party, why have you not strived to clear it up already? Instead, you secretly financed the book "Not That I Am Poisoned" to further shroud the mystery with smoke and mirrors. 

We have shown in our report (Judge for Yourself) how Tamal worked behind the scenes to create a diversion from the truth (his followers even named the book- Not That I am Poisoned after his suggestion), and now we have proof that you financed that book, and since there is no mention of you in the book’s credits, we must assume that you requested your participation in its publication to be kept quiet. It appears that you quite enjoy the element of mystery and deception, just as we are sworn to exposing it.

Further you have written: “I cannot even imagine in my remotest dream that any of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples could have given him poison. That is why I do not believe that there is a cover up.” Firstly, we must ask you what experience you have in dealing with poisoners? Do you believe that devils wear horns and poison turns one blue? After all this time you cannot even tell a bhogi from a yogi, and you are in the guru business. How then can you identify a poisoner? 

The truth is, even state-of-the-art forensics must use highly specified toxic screens to identify the poison. Ergo, a full scale investigation is necessary to identify a poisoner. Nevertheless, the only possibility of temporary escape for a poisoner once discovered, is for associates to give sanctuary by muddying the facts, as is the case here. Secondly, you say “That is why I do not believe that there is a cover up.” 

Maharaja, may we remind you that the matter was covered up for two decades. The “poison issue” was NEVER revealed by you or any of your confederacy. It came to light in the last five years, and only after the tapes had been spirited away from Tamal’s control in 1977 and someone discovered their contents much later. 

[PADA: "Someone" discovered the tapes, ummm, yep, us in 1997. And we had them translated by a Bengali news person. And this was the first ever transcript ever made public, by us at PADA.]

Your letters show that you are still trying to cover up the facts, in spite of our efforts to uncover them. Yoy say: “I will be happy if you can successfully conduct an investigation to settle this issue once and for all. Please let me know how you want to go about that.” We seriously doubt your sincerity in this.
Bhakticharu: He said that when Srila Prabhupada was saying that [he is poisoned] there must be something truth behind it.

So why didn’t Bhakti charu tell the kaviraja he was thinking irrationally? with absurdity? Why didn’t he tell Srila Prabhupada that? Why did Bhakti charu himself say, “Someone gave him poison here.” Not only did Bhakticharu, Tamala, Jayapataka, and Bhavananda fail to address this greviance, they also cohorted to exclude any investigation or pathological analysis to check into it.

CHANGING STORIES IS THE HALLMARK OF A MAN WITH SOMETHING TO HIDE

So, we have a remarkable series of varying statements from Bhakticharu Swami, or what amounts to “changing stories” and contradictory statements, as one would typically get from someone who is groping at straws to deny the facts, with… well, deceit and lies. This is the hallmark of a person who has something to hide and is always a signal to investigators that such a person is: 

(A). Not telling everything, and; 

(B). He is making up stuff. Why is he doing this? Does he know something he is afraid to tell us? Look at his suspicious series of changing stories; does it look like he is being honest?

(1). “It’s just natural when you get such shocking complaints from Srila Prabhupada, who is very dear to you and he just happened to be the person you thought you were serving lovingly, then suddenly, the food you gave him might have been poisoned!” (BCS, Europe, 2001) but then in 2000 he says in the GBC book that Srila Prabhupada said that he was NOT poisoned. Which is it?

(2). Srila Prabhupada again said that someone had poisoned him, and Bhakticharu exclaimed aloud to the others in the small room: “Someone gave him poison here!” And when Tamal asked him, “Prabhupada was thinking that someone had poisoned him?” Bhakticharu replied, “Yes.” (Nov.10, 1977)

(3). “When I first heard about this allegation (poisoning) I considered it to be so absurd that I did not think it deserved any response. I could not even imagine that anyone with a rational mind would give any credence to such an allegation.” (BCS, Not That I Am Poisoned book, 2000)

(4). He says Srila Prabhupada just had to tell any one of the devotees there about the poisoning and one can imagine what the reaction would have been like. BUT Srila Prabhupada DID tell Bhakticharu and others in 1977 that he was being poisoned, and he and Tamal did nothing!

(5). Studying chemistry in a German university where one understands how poisons work, but then his silly statement in 1998 that he thought poisoning turns the body blue? Was he really that uneducated? No, he is playing dumb. This is very suspect!

(6). He said Srila Prabhupada spoke of bad medicine being “like poison” on one occasion, and on another he said “the food you gave him might have been poisoned!” These are contradicting each other. Which is it?

(7). In 1977 he acknowledged Srila Prabhupada said he was being poisoned but in 1998 he said it should have been looked into, but he did not, and also in 1999 said the idea was absurd. Triple contradiction here!

(8). He first heard about poisoning allegations in 1997? But Srila Prabhupada told him this in 1977.

(9). He never took the matter to any authority, inside or outside ISKCON yet he has been telling Sarvabhavana das since 1977 that he suspected Srila Prabhupada was poisoned.

(10). On July 23, 2003 Bhakticharu said: “It is still a mystery to me why Srila Prabhuapda spoke that way.” And he also said: “As a matter of fact, when we heard His Divine Grace speaking in that way, we became extremely worried.” This again contradicts what he has previously stated.

Are we dizzy yet with this whirlwind of contradictory statements and positions? Bhakticharu’s words are a maze of bewildering contradictions to the point that we don’t know what he thinks from one day to the next day. Changing stories are the hallmark of a liar and a guilty man.

BHAKTI CHARU FINANCES THE GBC's BOOK OF LIES AND DENIAL

While Tamal surrepticiously engaged his notorious Australian disciple "Tirtharaj das" to organize with an Australian Jayapataka Swami disciple named Gaura Deva Hari das the formation and compiling of the book titled "Not That I Am Poisoned," Bhakti charu paid US $3,000 for the publishing costs and covered all the expenses of Deva Gaura Hari. 

This was confirmed to Jitarati das by Tirtharaja das. Thus we see that Bhakti charu is an active participant in the fraudulent cover-up and blind denials of Srila Prabhupada’s poisoning. He has colluded with the other primary suspects, namely Tamal and Jayapataka, to distribute a book of lies, fraudulent claims, false propaganda… why? Because they are innocent or because they have something to hide? Any simpleton can see that something is fishy there.
Is it any wonder why Bhakticharu is considered a suspect in Srila Prabhupada’s poisoning?

ANOTHER VRINDABAN POISONING ALLEGATION AGAINST BHAKTI CHARU SWAMI

An account from a Srila Prabhupada disciple, former ISKCON member HH Krishna Balarama Swami of Vrindaban (born in a mahant family): HH Krishna Balarama swami to be poisoned by Bhakti Charu and killed by Hansadutta's disciple Chakravarti?

“For example, one time in the early eighties His Holiness Bhakti charu Swami and Sarvabhavana Das had surprisingly fed us alone and sumptuously, along with sweet rasagullas in their apartment in Calcutta, India. A few hours after eating, we felt like knives were moving around inside our stomach. We were in Calcutta to catch our flight to California. In that condition we reached Berkeley, California where we were admitted in the hospital. When we were in the hospital, even after many months and after many tests, the doctors could not find anything wrong in our body. 

"Seeing our situation, the GBC Guru of the Berkeley temple at that time, HH Hansadutta Swami, sent us to the Manila temple in the Philippines where Chakravarti das and his wife (Dinasarana dd) were living. We were very sick. Chakravarti and his wife took us to Dr. Baskara and secretly told him to put us to sleep forever. 

"Dr. Baskara, while injecting the lethal drug in us, told us to think about beautiful ocean waves and nice dancing girls on the beach, etc. Chakravarti das and his wife were both present next to our hospital bed in Dr. Baskara’s hospital in Manila and were chanting the Hare Krishna Mahamantra loudly. We cannot remember what happened next. 

"But Hansadutta Swami was in California and he phoned HH Svarupa Damodara Swami, another GBC Guru for ISKCON, and told him that Krishna Balarama Swami was dead. Later, when HH Svarupa Damodara Swami met us in Calcutta, India, he was shocked upon seeing that we were alive. He said, “Hansadutta told me that you were dead.”

http://archived.Krishna.org/MyMission/mymission11-3.php

https://www.prabhupadanugas.eu/news/?p=43289

OCEAN OF MERCY IS ACTUALLY AN OCEAN OF SUSPICIONS

In 2016 Bhakti charu Swami (BCS) released his book called Ocean of Mercy recalling his time in 1977 as one of Srila Prabhupada’s caretakers and as assistant to Tamal, who was Srila Prabhupada’s personal secretary. Upon review, we find that it definitely portrays BCS as a very intimate caretaker of Srila Prabhupada and he shares his spiritual emotions of that time very effectively and movingly. However, it has numerous historical errors and chronological problems, that, when compared with actual tape recordings and other accounts of the time, show clearly that BCS’s version of many key 1977 incidences are either wrong or twisted. 

Maybe BCS simply relied upon a faded memory of things 40 years ago without fact-checking against the other existing historical accounts, and that explains the divergences. There are accounts from Hari Sauri, Tamal, Satsvarupa, the actual tape recordings, and others; but BCS’s version stands out as a very different story that conflicts with real history. Why is this?

Also we find a pattern of re-characterization of key events in two areas of history, namely the poisoning of Srila Prabhupada and Srila Prabhupada’s directions for future initiations and gurus in ISKCON. This amounts to an attempt to rewrite history, especially those parts dealing with Srila Prabhupada’s speaking of being poisoned. This is very suspicious. Why would BCS present an account dramatically conflicting with the actual tape recordings of those days, as well as with other written portrayals? 

Is he trying to cast events in a particular way for some reason? What reason? To us, it appears BCS has made an attempt to deflect suspicions about Srila Prabhupada’s being poisoned and the events of late 1977 that he finds difficulty explaining today. We will quote from BCS’s book in Books Two and Three to comment on what we think he has tried to do with his historical rewrite. In summary, we cannot recommend his book to anyone because it is an historical rewrite, laden with deceit, fallacy, fiction, and detraction, designed to remove the existing suspicions about Srila Prabhupada’s poisoning and Bhakti charu Swami’s possible role in it.

Rather than deal honestly with the actual documented history of events and provide rational explanations for them, BCS has changed what happened so it all looks fine to readers and disciples. But this course of dishonesty actually increases suspicions of what happened in 1977, and draws more distrust of himself upon himself. It is clear he wants to deflect attention away from himself as a prime suspect in the now proven cadmium poisoning of Srila Prabhupada. He also tries to resolve the question of succession to Srila Prabhupada by claiming something that is unsubstantiated by any other real evidence. 

Altogether, the book is an ocean of questions and suspicions. He is trying to hide history with his doctored so-called recollections. His book is thus fraud and cheating by his deceitful changing of what really happened, as shown below.

CHANGES TO HISTORICAL EVENTS REGARDING THE GURU ISSUE

From BCS’s book Ocean of Mercy, we extract the following questionable sections and comment.

(1). “[Srila Prabhupada said] ‘Now that you have become a sannyasi, you are a guru. You can initiate. But as long as the spiritual master is present on the planet, one does not give initiation. That is the formality.’” (p 184)

COMMENTS: We do not believe that Srila Prabhupada said this, or anything close to it. We do not find anywhere else in Srila Prabhupada’s teachings that upon taking sannyas that one is allowed to initiate when his guru “disappears.” We think this is inserted by BCS simply to try to give further credence to his being an initiating guru, to bolster his so-called authority received from the ISKCON GBC. Amazing.

(2). “It was clear, however, that Prabhupada would not be able to stay with us forever, and there was some speculation about whom he would appoint as his successor acharya. Some thought it would be Kirtanananda Swami, others thought it would be Satsvarupa Maharaja, and others thought it would be Tamal Krishna Maharaja. When Srila Prabhupada was approached with the question, his initial treaction was, “my Guru Maharaja did not appoint any successor acharya, so how can I?”

COMMENTS: Finally someone admits how the leaders were thinking, that one of them would be named as the successor acharya. Again, amazing. And Srila Prabhupada clearly disappointed the aspiring “acharyas.” Instead, eleven ritviks or priests were named instead, and although Srila Prabhupada did not say this anywhere, the leaders then claimed after Srila Prabhupada had left that the ritviks were meant to become full gurus. But where is that evidence?

(3). “Soon thereafter he named ten leading devotees to give initiation on his behalf in different parts of the world while he was still present on this planet, and he said that they could initiate their own disciples after his departure. Hamsaduta’s name was not on that list, but when Srila Prabhupada heard about his successful preaching in Sri Lanka, he asked Tamal Krsna Maharaja to add him….” (pg. 200)

COMMENTS: Actually Srila Prabhupada named NINE ritvik representatives on July 7, not ten. Tamal said that on July 9, when he was ready to type up the July 9th letter, he asked Srila Prabhupada if there were any more names to add, and Srila Prabhupada then added Bhavananda and Hansadutta. Also, the GBC already apologized to the ISKCON society in 1990 about the false claims made by the GBC in 1978 that Srila Prabhupada had appointed eleven successor gurus. 

So Bhakticharu’s claim is contradictory to the present GBC body’s official position that there never was any appointment of gurus. Therefore, Bhakti charu’s statement: “that they could initiate their own disciples after his departure” is totally contradictory to the ISKCON GBC minutes and resolutions which state the opposite, that Srila Prabhupada only named ritviks for while he was still present. The GBC now claim no arrangement was made for after his departure, thus necessitating their making a solution by creating a vote-approved system for new initiating gurus. This erroneous claim by Bhakticharu shows either tremendous deceit or total confusion of history, or both.

(4). On p. 206, BCS describes that in late August 1977: “When it was finally time for him to go, we all watched him stride through the gate and disappear around the corner.”

COMMENTS: But Srila Prabhupada could not walk at that time. Another account describes: “…the caravan reached the Delhi airport, where Srila Prabhupada remained lying on the bed in his car with the doors open. Srila Prabhupada was finally moved by wheelchair to the plane.” (ISKCON in the 1970’s, Satsvarupa, p.308) So why the inaccuracy in BCS’s account? Stride through the gate? This gives us more doubts about his book.

(5). Conspicuously, BCS has mentioned absolutely nothing about the instructions that Srila Prabhupada gave on May 28 nor does he mention the July 9 Order. He was present for both of these very important events, so why has he chosen to simply ignore them? This omission is convenient for his concocted explanations on guru succession and future initiations.

CHANGES TO HISTORICAL EVENTS REGARDING THE POISON ISSUE

From BCS’s book Ocean of Mercy, we extract the following questionable sections and comment.

(1). “Abhiram Prabhu found an ayurvedic doctor in Delhi who prepared makharadhvaja. So he purchased it and brought it to Vrindaban.” (p. 221)

COMMENT: More serious historical errors here, which leave us wondering further about the veracity of BCS’s other claims in his book. Abhiram das left Vrindaban and Srila Prabhupada’s service at least a week earlier on October 16; it was actually Satadhanya das who brought the medicine from Delhi to Vrindaban, and it was purchased by Chandra Swami and then donated to Srila Prabhupada. BCS has the facts all mixed up. Abhiram had nothing to do with the makharadhvaja at all. What else in his book is wrong?

(2). “That evening, a Bengali devotee from another matha in Vrndavana came to ask Srila Prabhupada for a donation for a temple […]

COMMENT: Here is another big error. Srila Prabhupada discontinued the makhardhvaja on October 27 after three doses because it had caused diarrhea. Balaram Misra, who maintained the Chaitanya Mahaprabhu temple, for which he asked for a donations for renovations, came to see Srila Prabhupada on November 9. 

There are 13 days separation between these two events, yet BCS says “Prabhupada started to feel so bad that he decided not to take any more. That evening, a Bengali devotee…” and thus implies these two events were on the same day, although 13 days apart. Why does he do this? The answer is that he wants to explain Srila Prabhupada’s talk of being poisoned on Nov. 9 with some moderate but temporary ill effects of medicine last taken on Oct. 27. The Bengali Balaram Misra did NOT come that sameday, but 13 days later!.

(3). “Speaking in Bengali, Srila Prabhupada then said that he had been feeling terrible- as if he had been given poison.

COMMENT: This is a fraudulent misrepresentation of facts. The reason why BCS has put these two events together on the same day is because he wants us to believe that when Srila Prabhupada announced to Balaram Misra that he thought he was being poisoned, he was talking about the ill effects of the makharadhvaja. Many ISKCON leaders have tried to explain away Srila Prabhupada’s statements about being poisoned with this makharadhvaja theory. (see Ch. 18) 

BCS has joined the others in a deceitful explanation which is easily exposed and is their attempt to assign Srila Prabhupada’s statements to bad medicine rather than actual poisoning. But on November 10 when Srila Prabhupada last spoke of being poisoned, BCS and the other caretakers all engaged in a frenzied discussion which clearly acknowledged actual homicidal, malicious poisoning. (see Ch. 19) Even 13 days earlier when Srila Prabhupada had taken the last of the “bad” medicine (makharadhvaja), he never spoke, as BCS asserts, “as if he had been given poison.” This is concocted by BCS to make us believe there was no poisoning. However, the hair tests with cadmium prove otherwise.

(4). “Although many devotees were standing around, I was the only one who could understand the conversation. I was shocked to hear what Prabhupada had said, and told Tamal Krsna Maharaja, who shared my reaction […] After the Bengali devotee left, the devotees got together and I told them in detail what Prabhupada had said. Tamal Krsna Maharaja, followed by several senior devotees, went right to him and asked, ‘Srila Prabhupada, do you feel that you have been given poison?’ ‘No’, Srila Prabhupada replied, ‘not that I have been poisoned. I am just speaking like that.’ He had simply been trying to express how bad he had been feeling.” (pg. 222)

COMMENT: Where to start? How does Bhakti charu think he can get away with this surgery of actual events? He is digging a grave for himself the more he speaks on this issue. Silence would have been far better for his defence. These conversations were tape recorded, and this is just not the way they went, not even close. See Ch. 12 for the transcript of these talks. Bhakti charu Swami has now conspicuously projected more suspicion upon himself by proposing a history that could not have happened, according to the tapes and other accounts. 

BCS is in clear discord with actual history by trying to make up his own history. The tapes do not lie, and BCS has it all wrong. “As if” he was given poison? “I am just speaking like that”? These statements are nowhere in the actual conversations. Read them and see. Bhakticharu is trying to convince us that Srila Prabhupada was not speaking of actual poisoning, just that he felt as if poisoned. By these statements, he is creating more and more reason to suspect him as involved in Srila Prabhupada’s poisoning.

The hair tests prove there was a real poisoning, not just some “feeling” about bad medicine. This is why BCS is a prime suspect in Srila Prabhupada’s poisoning, due to repeated dishonesties. The guilty always do this in their attempt to hide what was really done.

Srila Prabhupada told Balaram Misra on Nov. 9, and Tamal asked Srila Prabhupada on the next day, Nov. 10, “So who is it that has poisoned?”… NOT… ”Do you feel that you have been given poison.” And the day before, on Nov. 9, Tamal asked Srila Prabhupada: “You said before that you… that it is said that you were poisoned?” And Srila Prabhupada replied, “No. These kind of symptoms are seen when a man is poisoned. He said like that, not that I am poisoned.” 

The “he” is the one who said there were poisoning symptoms, but “he” did not say there was poisoning. Srila Prabhupada himself said he thought he was being poisoned. In this way BCS and other ISKCON misleaders jumble the conversations to make their own versions, trying to fool people with the way things did not happen. What an outrage! Does BCS think we do not have the taped conversations as they are and that he can just rewrite them as he likes and no one will notice?

(5). “I told Damodar Prasad about what Srila Prabhupada had said about feeling like he had been poisoned, but he brushed that aside. ‘When someone feels pain or discomfort,’ he said, ‘he may say something like, “I have been poisoned.” Don’t worry about that. Srila Prabhupada is a pure devotee of Krsna…..These are all his pastimes.’ […] Damodar Prasad thought for a minute and then said, ‘Makaradhvaja is like nectar, but it is very strong. It is a tonic. Therefore, the body must be able to absorb it. 

To give the medicine without even seeing the patient’s condition was not right. Whoever gave it like that made a mistake. Besides that, it Is prepared from mercury, so if the mercury is not cured properly its effect can be quite harmful.’ I began to see what a big mistake had been made. ‘What can be done now?’ I asked. Although Damodar Prasad tried to console me, a terrible weight remained in my heart. I told Tamal Krsna Maharaja about the conversation […] but Tamal Krsna Maharaja reminded me that it was Srila Prabhupada, after his dream, who had wanted to take it.” (pg. 225-6)

COMMENT: Actually Damodar Sastri believed that Srila Prabhupada WAS poisoned, according to his own son, Dr. Ramesh K Sharma. See Ch. 82. Further, nowhere in the tape recordings do we see that Satriji believed anything other than that Srila Prabhupada’s speaking of poisoning must be true, that it was due to a rakshasa, and questioning why anyone would want to do this, etc. Review the tape transcriptions. (Ch. 12) And we have already addressed the bogus suggestion that Srila Prabhupada was talking of poison as reference to ill effects of medicines like the makharadhvaja. (See Ch. 18) Makharadhvaja was only taken thrice Oct. 26-27, then discontinued. 

So how does “Someone has poisoned me” on Nov. 10 have anything to do with something that had not been spoken of for 2 weeks? Bhakticharu is trying to mislead us that the reason he did nothing when Srila Prabhupada spoke of being poisoned is that he was only “feeling as if poisoned,” brushing aside Srila Prabhupada’s poisoning complaint as due to discomfort. Now we are convinced Bhakticharu is purposefully obscuring what really happened, and the only reason someone does that is because they actually ARE guilty of what they are being suspected of. BCS also contradicts his earlier versions of the events as listed above.

BCS BOOK OCEAN OF MERCY RE: HEALTH EXCERPTS

In reviewing Bhakti charu Swami’s book Ocean of Mercy, what was striking was the lack of any specific descriptions about Srila Prabhupada’s severe decline of health in 1977. Bhakti charu was with Srila Prabhupada’s party as early as January 10 at the Kumbha Mela, and then again in Mayapur from mid-February and on. He says nothing about the sudden and drastic health attack of February 26 which was well-known amongst all the devotees there at that time- prayers for srila Prabhupada’s health were advised by management and Srila Prabhupada lay bedridden for days, moaning in pain, and unable to give the morning class as usual. 

Why does Bhakticharu miss this major event in his book? Further, he hardly mentions Srila Prabhupada’s health while Srila Prabhupada could not eat or go on walks. On p.105 is the first mention of health, and he describes: “Srila Prabhupada’s health had been bad for months, since he had returned to India, and now it was deteriorating rapidly.”

However, the facts are that Srila Prabhupada was still able to take his daily walks, give classes, meet visitors, etc until February 26 when there was a horrible and immediate episode just days after Tamal had arrived from America. Bhakticharu makes it sound like it all started much earlier, and was a gradual decline of health. Everyone in Mayapur, including all the visiting foreign devotees who came for the annual Mayapur festival, was fully awate of Srila Prabhupada’s sudden health problems. How does Bhakticharu miss this?

The health descriptions:

(1). Pg. 116: “…despite his ill health…” (late March 1977)

(2). Pg. 119: “His health was not good and he was physically weak…” (Cross Maidan)

(3). Pg. 134: “Due to his poor health…” (April)

(4). Pg. 160: “Prabhupada told him [Tamal] the same thing. ‘Please take me to Vrindaban. The time has come for me to leave my body. I weant to leave my body in Vrindaban.’ Srila Prabhupada’s health had been poor, but none of us had imagined that his illness was so serious that he could leave his bnody. We all thought it was a temporary setback and that he would soon get better… We were all stunned by this turn of events.”

On May 8, Srila Prabhupada arrived in Hrishikesh and he ate kicharis and jalebis heartily, with daily public darshans, increasing his translation work, and even teaching the cooking of many preparations. On May 11, Tamal wrote to Radhaballabha that Srila Prabhupada’s health is slightly improving. Srila Prabhupada wrote Giriraj that “Yes, my health is improving a very little.” But late on May 15, after midnight, there was a sudden turn for the worse, as described by Satsavrupa: “…and with the storm came a drastic turn in Srila Prabhupada’s health. He said the end was near, and he asked to go immediately to Vrindaban.”

Arriving in Vrindaban on May 17, Srila Prabhupada could no longer walk and began preparations for his departure including the drafting a final will. Yet the only descriptions we get from Bhakticharu up to this point is the three ultra-brief mentions above of poor health, with no detail. If his book is supposed to be about Srila Prabhupada’s last year, why has he avoided anything about Srila Prabhupada’s health condition? He makes it sound like a vague gradual deterioration that no one understood or saw unfolding.

Actually, there were two very dramatic attacks on Srila Prabhupada’s health, February 26 and May 16, and Bhakticharu fails to describe anything about them in his book. It is as though he wants us to believe that Srila Prabhupada quietly faded away due to some unknown cause. Of course, today we know it was due to lethal cadmium poisoning, the levels of which produced very obvious and outstanding health symptoms, of which his omission is a very suspicious. He doesn’t want to talk about Srila Prabhupada’s health failure and deteriorating symptoms except in the vaguest way possible?

Then he claims Srila Prabhupada told him to stop cooking for him: “he was going to stop eating and drinking in order to give up his body…” to which Tamal replied: “What can we do when Srila Prabhupada makes such a decision and gives us such an order?” Rather, what else could Srila Prabhupada do, being poisoned? Bhakti charu then says: “And nobody could have imagined that his condition would deteriorate so quickly.” (pg. 211) No one, that is, except the poisoners who were somehow giving the cadmium to Srila Prabhupada.

And that pretty much is all the detail that Bhakti charu has in his book about Srila Prabhupada’s health conditions and health decline during all of 1977. Nothing about diagnoses, diabetes, kidneys, causes of illness, very little about all the doctors that came and went, or about medicines other than the makharadhvaja.

Bhakti charu Swami has evaded the health issue almost entirely. As the living caretaker who was giving Srila Prabhupada all the medicines and applying all the treatments prescribed by dozens of doctors and kavirajas throughout 1977, why has he not mentioned but 2% of this history? It was his specific service at the time, in conjunction with Tamal. This information is very conspicuous by its ABSENCE, and it simply casts another cloud of suspicion upon him. 

Altogether, there a lot of clouds of suspicion about Bhakti charu Swami and his knowledge of or involvement in Srila Prabhupada’s catstrophic cadmium poisoning.

Bhakticharu is also one who would have knowledge of poisoning with cadmium and its doses because he was a chemistry major in a German university. We would not mention this otherwise, but since he is so suspiciously implicated by his various conflicting “stories,” we do so. For example, on July 12, 1977 in our Health Chronicles in Someone Has Poisoned Me, it is described that Bhakti charu was taught by Bonamali kaviraja to prepare a herbal potion daily which included two salts, one being sodium nitrate. The entire story was told by Bhakticharu to Nityananda das in November 1998. It was clear that he was quite knowledgeable with chemicals, compounds, and their uses.

http://killgurubecomeguru.org/books/
—
– Nityananda das –

srigovinda@gmail.com

[PADA: GBC's scheme to defend their leaders is unraveling more each day ... ys pd

angel108b@yahoo.com]